Talk:Schizophrenia/Archive 2

Divergent but valid colloquial definition

The current entry cites, somewhat incompletely, a clinical definition of schizophrenia. There exists a parallel, colloquial understanding of the term which cannot simply be ignored and dismissed as 'incorrect' because, quite apart from the dictionary's role of recording current usage, it has clinical validity, describing a condition of internal conflict/paradox which may be seen as having serious consequences, either for the individual in question, or those under his or her influence. Thus a lover might describe his or her partner as 'schizophrenic' when the latter's inconstancy becomes too much to bear, or a disgruntled employee may react similarly to a pattern of conflicting reports or instructions. This is not necessarily equivalent to an informal diagnosis of 'dissociative identity disorder'[1]: lay people do not have the role nor the status of diagnosticians. They are simply using the clinical term in the way which makes the most sense from their perspective, to describe a real, practical, psychological problem encountered at work or in personal relationships. It is not a clinical term, used in this way, for they are not clinicians, much as they might claim to have identified a clinical problem which diagnosticians fail to address. There thus seems to be an area here of 'para-clinical para-diagnosis.' The mentality underlying the individual thus labelled could be explained in terms of a number of psychological possibilities, ranging from bad mental habits and indecision, thru to inconstancy and outright deceit - or, on the other hand, the description could of course be unjust and undeserved - but it doesn't alter the basic validity of the term as used in this somewhat open-ended (from a clinician's perspective), inconclusive fashion. --Continueddonations 14:47, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

In an article such as this, blurring the meaning of schizophrenia is extremely dangerous; doing it this way is also fanciful, original research, and unscholarly. Continueddonations is also most likely a sockpuppet of londheart (he of the fame of physical threats supra), who was indefinitely banned from Wikipedia because of his vandalism of the Emil Kraepelin page (against yours truly, as I should point out), his excessively aggressive behavior, etc., to which he added racism, homophobia, and other attacks on members of the ArbCom and any user that disagreed with him (and whom he usually calls "Nazis").[2]Ebbinghaus 21:20, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

The point that you are responding to, here, is that there already exists a divergent but valid colloquial definition of the term. You seem to be disputing that basic assertion, even tho it is easily attested in respectable sources, e.g., [3]. You seem more involved in concerns that things don't 'become blurred,' that we all join with you in your increasingly blurry, emotional, irrational and inaccurate (as close referral to the pages concerned reveals) witch-hunt.

Tell us, why did it take an appeal to arbitration by londheart ([4] + 'history') for you to provide an ID revealing your teutonic bias? And why do you continue to recite litanies of old accusations, each of which, on the closest examination, proves unfounded? Continueddonations 22:32, 12 September 2006 (UTC)

Res ipsa loquitur, as Newyorkbrad has said about both your sockpuppetry and why you are permanently banned from Wikipedia. Contents-wise, the "colloquial" definition is not scientifically valid outside of the realm of a dictionary, which Wikipedia is not, in the Wittgensteinian sense that a meaning of a word is a kind of its use. What this is part of is your project to obscure the concept of schizophrenia as such, even after being blocked.Ebbinghaus 05:32, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

The encyclopedia entry is incomplete without disambiguation acknowledging all the common uses of the term, one of which you were dismissing earlier as 'original research' - I see no retraction of this, as any other of your misapprehensions. It is dangerous and foolhardy to promote and employ a stigmatising diagnosis heedless of the word's full range of meanings. An encyclopedia sets out to be encyclopedic, a pseudoscientific ostrich dumps his/her head in the guilted sand. Continueddonations 07:36, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Etymology and pronunciation

A separate intro on the etymology of the term (including its rather singular and unique pronunciation), as in the Mafia article, might again provide readers with a shortcut to enlightenment., as well as being needed. Continueddonations 08:01, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Deleting weblink

I suggest to remove the weblink

• New Name for Schizophrenia [5]

This is a personal blog by indefinitely blocked user londheart aka Etaonsh aka Continueddonations without any substance, but in which he refers to the discussions here on Wikipedia in racist terms. Personal involvement and problems or not, this is utterly unacceplable here, and it is also a useless link. Ebbinghaus 14:48, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

New Name for Schizophrenia [6] is not in fact a 'personal blog' but a discussion group of a higher standard than Wikipedia which, more charitably, perhaps, e.g., allows the above user to continue his hyperbolical rants long after they have been demonstrated to be without foundation. If Ebbinghaus wishes people to take his posts, edits and attempts at censorship seriously, why doesn't he, for example, retract his recent false statement here to the effect that the second definition of 'schizophrenia' recently referred to on this page is 'original reseach'?

If he will not retract even when evidence is placed on the screen in front of us all, it is clear that he is accountable to no-one, and temperamentally incapable of acknowledging a mistake.

Drawing attention to ethnic bias of contributors clearly isn't racism, in fact, but the act of exposing it.

New Name for Schizophrenia [7] actually provides a forum for discussing the schizophrenia diagnosis sensibly, and without pandering to censorious and authoritarian egos. Continueddonations 16:35, 13 September 2006 (UTC)

Etaonsh = londheart "has been blocked indefinitely for unacceptably aggressive behavior." (That's from three hours ago from the RfA history.) Continueddonations was officially confirmed to be his sockuppet (Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Etaonsh) and blocked for that reason as well (User_talk:Continueddonations: "you are not welcome here. Unreformable tendentious editors tend to have a short and troubled life on Wikipedia."). His racism (against Welsh, Germans, Jews, etc. - and that in Psychiatry!) is as offensive as it is bizzare, and it is unexcusable, all the more as it is based on equating the names of user accounts, and of users, with some ethnic background, and claiming that ethnic background creates automatic bias (although his own is never mentioned or clear, and indeed, why should it be). Anyway, this has been resolved already and is a matter of history. I put this on the discussion page because this is an excellent but fickle page, and so I would like to hear other users' impression about the "discussion forum" (in fact, and undisputedly, over 90% just a blog by the administrator, who is Etaonsh) in question first, and prefer that they do something about it, if deemed necessary. Links to sites in which Wikipedia users are accused of "suppressing the truth" in a racist matter are IMHO not acceptable (there is also Wikipedia precedent for that), even if they were valuable in other respects. Ebbinghaus 18:37, 13 September 2006 (UTC) Update Ebbinghaus 00:37, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

You have failed to demonstrate 'racism (against Welsh, Germans, Jews, etc.)' and your edit is therefore libellous[8]. Your use of the word 'bizarre' (which you can't spell) is hysterical. The statement 'you are not welcome here' illustrates your chosen path of pretending to speak, undemocratically, for everyone else. As Continueddonations states on his Talk page, the term 'sockpuppetry,' as favoured by Wikipedia, is dehumanising (as is 'troll' - see relevant discussion page), but as what you refer to in this way is so easy to do, it undermines Wikipedia authority totally - all of its hierarchy could be what you like to call 'sockpuppets!' Do you really expect uninvolved editors to respond to your overt display of racist tyranny here? Returnoftheman 02:03, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Needless to say, as is clear from style, contents, and edit history, Returnoftheman is yet another sockpuppet of Etaonsh = londheart, whose racism (amongst others) is not disputed and officially certified. "you are not welcome here" is a quote from the official sockpuppet block (User_talk:Continueddonations), but it surely sums up the attitude of all wikipedians. Ebbinghaus 02:26, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Enough already. Returnoftheman 02:51, 14 September 2006 (UTC)

Link deleted. Ebbinghaus 22:57, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

POV: vandalism by possible Rupert Murdoch employee

[9] This intervention is clearly POV. Returnoftheman 07:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I can't see a problem with that contribution. It is well referenced and relevant. I may need some work by experienced editors. Be bold. Put it back. --WikiCats 08:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Ta. Returnoftheman 08:04, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

The stigma of Schizophrenia is very real and the issue should be addressed here. --WikiCats 08:06, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I agree that a stigma section is appropriate and relevant, but the section as it's currently written does not meet Wikipedia's standards of verifiability. The article cites Wikipedia as a source, which is contrary to Wikipedia guidelines, and the only external reference provided is a forum post, which does not meet Wikipedia's reliability guidelines. The last sentence in particular is a violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR – we need reliable sources to back up an allegation like "continually flaunting the diagnosis in a sensationalist manner, over and above more relevant ones/causes, when horrendous crimes are reported, in what appears to be part of a cynical effort to boost sales (caveat emptor!)." I'm shifting the section to the talk page so interested editors can bring it in line with Wikipedia's guidelines and policies. --Muchness 12:40, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

You 'agree that a stigma section is appropriate and relevant,' but it has been totally removed, in haste, and replaced with neither alternative nor positive suggestions in that direction. The first Wikipedia guideline you quote puzzles me, as 'Wiki links' are more or less the same thing in a different format, and are commonplace. The reliability guidelines you cite seem to effectively deride the status of internet forums (which are, in effect, nothing more or less than group prose), and I struggle to see the rationale behind that, also, altho this is no doubt 'not the place to discuss it.' 'The last sentence' is not, in fact, a 'particular violation of WP:NPOV and WP:OR' to anyone who is familiar with the phenomenon discussed (e.g., British Wikipedians familiar with tabloid treatment of 'schizophrenics' - but I am assured that the same phenomenon is found more widely in the English-speaking world) or its consequences on the patients under discussion. Returnoftheman 15:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I do not appreciate being called a vandal. I consider it to be a personal attack. In addition, I do not, and have not ever, worked for News Corporation or any of its subsidiaries, holdings or publications. I have no idea why you would even say such a thing. And I do not know what on earth Rupert Murdoch has to do with a Wikipedia article on Schizophrenia or my edits. As I noted in the edit summary, I reverted the edit primarily because Yahoo groups is not a reliable source. I also do not believe that using Wikipedia itself as a reference is appropriate or that doing so meets guidelines on referencing. I have not disputed Schizophrenia as a stigmatised illness, however, the section needs to be written and referenced appropriately. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 15:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I understand and sympathise with your complaint about the word 'vandalism' but it is the word used at Wikipedia for destructive editing (not really an issue in most internet forums such as Yahoo! Groups) in the absence of a better idea. I myself would also cite 'troll' and 'sockpuppet' as words with an online currency but a degree of offensiveness which does not really conform to normal (non-Internet) standards of etiquette (I never use these terms; note also that I didn't, in point of fact, call you 'a vandal'). The relevance of Rupert Murdoch here is that he is the world's major newspaper magnate, an Australian and the owner of the type of tabloid newspaper complicit in the continual stigmatisation of 'schizophrenics' (favoured term of the contemporary witchfinder) by association in the public mind with the perpetration of violence - perhaps unfairly, as the section on 'violence' indicates, particularly in view of this patient group's poor access to legal representation globally. Your innocence in the matter seems at variance with the degree of professional qualification and participation evinced on your homepage. If you truly feel that using Wikipedia itself as a reference is 'inappropriate' are you thereby opposed to Wiki links, as consistency seems to demand? And could you or someone else please exemplify alternative content for this section 'written and referenced appropriately'? Returnoftheman 16:19, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I know what a vandal is; I am saying that I am not one and hence do not appreciate you calling me one. Agreed, you did not directly call me a "vandal," but you certainly did by implication. I have never engaged in "destructive editing". And I still do not know what Rupert Murdoch has to do with me and my edits to this article. Are you suggesting that, because I am Australian and an accredited journalist, I must be an employee of Murdoch? That is just ludicrous. And what do you mean by "Your innocence in the matter seems at variance with the degree of professional qualification and participation evinced on your homepage"? My innocence in what matter? What "degree of professional qualification?" Participation in what exactly? No, of course I am not opposed to wikilinking. Wikilinks help the reader find other articles which are related in some way or that help define words or terms etc. But wikilinking existing words and/or phrases is completely different to using Wikipedia as a reference. To start with, using Wiki articles as a reference is extremely unreliable. Wikipedia articles are changing constantly and therefore, your "evidence" may be there one minute and gone the next. Please read WP:RS and WP:V if you don't understand what we need in sourcing. I don't even know where to begin replying to your opinion of News Corporation publications... Sarah Ewart (Talk) 17:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I tend to disagree that I 'called you a vandal' at all - to 'call someone a vandal' is to characterise them as a destructive individual, with strong realtime connotations of physical violence. What I in fact identified was destructive editing (also known, rightly or wrongly, as 'vandalism': if we decide to object to that particular Wiki terminology, let's agree to challenge it, together, in the appropriate place?), the wholesale removal a wanted item, in the very specific context of one page of Wikipedia, and on grounds which don't altogether stand up to logical analysis.

Whether or not you are an actual employee of Murdoch, you appear to share with him a nationality, right of centre Australian politics, an industry, and an Antipodean machismo which leaves civilised, sensitive beings wondering just whyever you would want to make the days of the most vulnerable members of society just that little bit harder and shorter. And even if your protestations turn out to be true, the 'innocence' referred to is your apparent failure to see why anyone would make that connection, an innocence which, we are asked to believe, emanates from a practising journalist qualified in the profession at the blunt end of the mental health witch-hunt![10] I take your point about changeability undermining internal links, but I had gauged the political vandals associated with this article as being not quite as destructive as to spirit away the 'Schizophrenia and Violence' section - perhaps wrongly? I don't really want to read Wiki rules and guidelines right now because, if anything, I, like Wikipedia itself, perhaps, am beginning to sound officious enough already, and not, I assure you, by choice. I can quite understand your near silence on the subject of News Corporation publications - such feminine concision is featured almost daily on page 3 of The Sun. Returnoftheman 19:59, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Please stop trolling. This page is for discussing the article, not your grossly inaccurate assumptions and theories about me. Please, take your personal issues to a more appropriate forum. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 22:18, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

I tend to feel that subjects so simple and transparent fail to merit 'theories' as such, or indeed any further discussion, especially in appropriate forums. Returnoftheman 22:42, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Stigma

Schizophrenia is unquestionably a most stigmatising diagnosis: "Of course this labelling process is both insidious, in that it affects the quality of life of those labelled, and doubly disempowering when the victim owns the label. 'I am a schizophrenic' is unfortunately one of the ultimate forms of self invalidation." Raymond Williams [11]. Part of the particular problem with the schizophrenia stigma is that the diagnosis is not only misunderstood, but the word has a distinct, perhaps even more disabling colloquial definition [12], a matter seemingly unaddressed by the psychiatric profession. The problem is exacerbated by elements of a free press which regularly abuse this freedom by repeatedly characterising schizophrenics as violent [13], continually flaunting the diagnosis in a sensationalist manner, over and above more relevant ones/causes, when horrendous crimes are reported, in what appears to be part of a cynical effort to boost sales (caveat emptor!).

I'm sure someone will help this new editor rework this contribution. --WikiCats 13:24, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

User:Returnoftheman is the new Sockpuppet of permanently banned User:Etaonsh aka londheart, whose first sockpuppet was User:Continueddonations. "Helping" here would be the opposite of constructive work on Wikipedia, both by policy and by common sense. Ebbinghaus 14:09, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If you have any incontrovertible evidence for this accusation, please share it below with the rest of us. If you have any similar incontrovertible evidence that the self-same accusation doesn't apply to yourself, please share that also. Would also like to reiterate the dehumanising quality of Ebbinghaus's use of the term 'sockpuppet,' regardless of its validity as an offence. Ebbinghaus is a political editor with a history of deleting factual information which fails to conform to a right-wing agenda. Returnoftheman 15:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Not necessary via Wiki policy. That a sockpuppet doesn't like to be called that is as natural as it is irrelevant. See below. Ebbinghaus 23:00, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Permanently blocked User:Etaonsh~londheart~Continueddonations~Returnoftheman

As this is now the official playsite of Eatonsh= londheart= Continueddonations=Returnoftheman, and I will not accept his shenanigans here any longer, I think some general remarks are in order. This user has been found guilty of extremely offensive and aggressive behaviour unacceptable here, including physical threats, homophobia, and especially racism,[14] let alone violation of every single pillar of Wikipedia � assuming good faith, no strong opinions, NPOV � and has been banned from Wikipedia indefinitely (check the personal and discussion pages linked to above). Examples by other users and administrators who have checked the case are here.

That Londheart=Etaonsh=Continueddonations has been officially certified; that Returnoftheman is the same person is so obvious if you look at his writing style, interpunction, topics, timing, appearance, mode of reasoning, etc. that it does not need any further proof to anyone who will bother to read the links here. It is Wikipedia policy that "Obvious sock puppets may be treated as such without using checkuser." That is the case here. I will therefore treat him as a banned user � not a vandal, not a troll, but someone whose aggressive personality and POV views are detrimental to Wikipedia, and to this page. That he is "a highly troubled individual" [15]doesn't take anything away from him being a highly destructive force that must be dealt with appropriately. Other users should know that normal courtesy and normal rules do not apply to the sockpuppet of a banned user.

I will therefore delete, as anyone can and should, without further comments or questions, his contributions to this page (I will leave most of the discussion page intact so that it is clear to see that this is Eatonsh), labelling it "rev changes by indefinitely blocked user Etaonsh (sockpuppet)". If there are other users who disagree with this, even after checking the evidence mentioned, they are invited to bring this up with a moderator or, better, with the ArbCom, especially with those administrators or ArbCom members who have dealt with this case already and know the person and his style: User:Fred Bauder, User:MacGyverMagic, User:Mackensen, User:JzG, User:Newyorkbrad, to name but a few. They can also, though better subsequently, file a request for checkuser to prove that it's the same guy; it was just done at Wikipedia:Requests for checkuser/Case/Etaonsh and can be repeated for the new sockpuppet as well.Ebbinghaus 22:45, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Hitler observed that telling the biggest lie was the best way to be believed - here we see his biggest fan, Witz Ebbingaus, putting his mentor's precept into effect. Returnoftheman 22:58, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Res ipsa loquitur, as has been so often said about this user. I rest my case. Ebbinghaus 23:02, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

If this user is under ArbCom sanctions, you need to take this to an Arbitrator. This page is for discussing the article, not other editors. I strongly encourage to take this to ArbCom or the Administrators noticeboard. Also, Newyorkbrad is a great guy, but he isn't an arbitrator (or an administrator). Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:26, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

He was permanently blocked during ArbCom proceedings and his request thus denied. Newyorkbrad is "just" a user; I stand corrected on that. I think this matter is germane to the content of the page and how it is moving; hence I would think this is appropriate matter here. In any case, I've notifed all the guys in question and asked them to look at that, so I'm quite hopeful this will be solved soon. Ebbinghaus 23:48, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

There is no point taking anything to arbitration with Ebbinghaus. He lies in wait with what appear to be either a) a collection of sockpuppet arbitrators who are all him/his buddies or b) very dumb arbitrators. His recent vandalism has extended to wholesale deletion of the Schizophrenia: Disambiguation page (because it went against his totalitarian politics). Wikipedia is now (morally) dead. Returnoftheman 23:34, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

That sounds like you are admitting that he is correct. The idea that ArbCom members are sock or meat puppets is absurd. I am not familiar with the other accounts he mentioned, so I don't know if he's right or not, but I do know that you've been trolling ever since you turned up here. Sarah Ewart (Talk) 23:44, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

No, not correct, just all-powerful in a medium where the idlest hand has most time to cause havoc. The idea that Wikipedia ArbCom members are sockpuppets is not absurd but eminiently reasonable, having demonstrated to my own satisfaction how straightforward it would be for someone totally idle to create multiple IDs and elect themselves onto any level of Wikipedian administration. I find you, your use of the word 'trolling,' and your various professions nothing short of vulgar, and I wouldn't continue conversation with you indefinitely for all Rupert Murdoch's billions. Returnoftheman 23:54, 15 September 2006 (UTC)

Oh, all-powerful? And perhaps identical with the members (all of them?) of the ArbCom? And what was that I just read about "having demonstrated to my own satisafaction how straightforward it would be for someone totally idle to create multiple IDs"? This is actually a very sad case (only that doesn't mean it can be permitted to go on), otherwise I would really, really be amused now. Ebbinghaus 00:00, 16 September 2006 (UTC)

Blanking of text on schizophrenia page

I have now added a notice to the Discussion page of User:Mihai cartoaje to warn that blanking the violence section is vandalism. This issue has now been through mediation twice and the blanking has just reoccurred.

- Vaughan 18:41, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

Request for Comment

Hi there,

I would assume good faith had Mihai's removal of the section not been a repeated action which has been discussed several times before [16] [17] [18].

In fact, it's been taken to mediation twice (once by his request [19], once by mine [20]) and on both occasions he has pulled out of the process at the final stages. Previous commentators on this page have agreed the section should stay (including yourself).

It is not acceptable that someone should be able to delete large suitably-referenced and agreed-upon sections of an article time after time. This is simply a tactic to remove the information off the page as on each occasion this results in a dispute process which takes several months to resolve - during which, the information is missing.

I do not see how this is anything else except vandalism after the issue has been debated and agreed upon many times.

If you know of a more suitable way of preventing these time-wasting and deletion tactics I would much appreciate it.

I would also like to add that Mihai has made some valuable contributions to the article in the past and do not wish to imply that he is a 'vandal' by nature, but simply that he is using inappropriate tactics to make his point which amount to vandalism in this specific case.

- Vaughan 20:55, 9 October 2006 (UTC)

I have cancelled one Cabal mediation I had asked for. That is all. --Mihai cartoaje 06:58, 15 October 2006 (UTC)