Wikipedia:Mediation Cabal/Cases/2006-12-01 Schizophrenia

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Wikipedia Mediation Cabal

Article: Talk:Schizophrenia Schizophrenia State: Open Requested By: Mihai cartoaje Other Parties: Vaughan, DPeterson Mediated By: Glen S Comments: mention is made of a disputed tag being the solution, I think we can just solve this instead

Contents 1 Mediation Case: schizophrenia 1.1 Request Information 1.2 Mediator response 1.3 Compromise offers 1.4 Discussion

[edit] Mediation Case: schizophrenia

[edit] Request Information

Request made by: Mihai cartoaje 20:52, 1 December 2006 (UTC)

Where is the issue taking place?

...talk:schizophrenia

Who's involved?

...user:Vaughan, user:DPeterson and me

What's going on?

...We are having a neutrality disagreement. I have been placing a pov tag on the article and they have removed it.

What would you like to change about that?

... Have a pov tag that informs readers that there is a neutrality disagreement.

Would you prefer we work discreetly? If so, how can we reach you?

...

[edit] Mediator response

To me this seems a reliable sources issue, but we'll see. I'll comment further after reading the talk page...

Please fix the case name. --Ideogram 02:43, 4 December 2006 (UTC)

Renamed as requested in line with Mediation Cabal convention. --Muchness 05:02, 6 December 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Compromise offers

[edit] Discussion

For issues related to this case, please see the following discussions:

• January 2006 discussion: Talk:Schizophrenia/Archive1#Changes
• 2006-02-12 Schizophrenia mediation and related discussion
• 2006-06-29 Schizophrenia mediation and related discussion
• October 2006 RFC
• November 2006 discussion, following the article's protection.
• Article unprotected
• November–December 2006 WP:AN/I discussion

--Muchness 00:10, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I stumbled on this dispute a short while ago. It appears that a large number of editors feel that the section on Schizophrenia and violence is acceptable. As I review it, it is adequately referenced and appears to meet the Wikipedia standard for being verifiable and presenting material in a NPOV with a number of reliable sources. The editor who requested mediation is alone in the view that the material should be deleted and is biased. He has not accepted the results of a poll or RfC and has, on several occassions blanked the page. DPeterson^talk 00:27, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

He has been warned about blanking the page on several occassions (http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mihai_cartoaje&oldid=91342889) I am willing to discuss the matter, but it really seems that he is a lone voice without a basis in Wikipedia policy or procedures. DPeterson^talk 00:30, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Okay, I've read over the disputes and comments, and I do agree with Mihai on at least one point, the section header Violence perpetrated by people with schizophrenia is very abrupt and unnecessary, and almost implies a connection where the research shows thats not the case. The word Violence says it all, we dont need to stipulate it's "perpetrated by people with schizophrenia" - I also think that perhaps it could be amalgamated into the article better rather than its own section sticking out as if to make a point.

So, I tried to smooth it all out myself. That will be my only attempt at editing personally. Thoughts?   Glen  00:51, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with your changing the section title...good point. I'm not so sure that it should be under dignosis. It seems to legitimately be a separate section...but if it must go some where, maybe it would fit better under Incidence and Prevalence or Prognosis. DPeterson^talk 01:18, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Sure, I agree actually. Please change to whichever your preference :)  Glen  02:13, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Since I am being pressured into writing something,

I don't think the balance has been restored: no other article has violence statistics.

The murder statistics are supposedly from a journal which is not available to the general public, so a high number of third-party wikipedia readers cannot verify them. --Mihai cartoaje 05:40, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

P.S.: I have read most of the text of one article, but I have not seen the table because it was not compatible with my PDF viewer. --Mihai cartoaje 05:44, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

If relevant, other articles may, or may not, have such stats...but what other articles have is not relevant to this discussion. The question of violence among the mentally ill is an important question and so has been extensively researched...mostly finding no increased risk for violence among the severely mentally ill; much to the relief of advocates for the mentally ill, such as NAMI. Professional journals are available at any University library. These are reputible sources that clearly meet the Wikipedia standard of being verifiable. DPeterson^talk 14:39, 10 December 2006 (UTC)

In doing a bit a research, I see that he has previously filed a mediation case and has an extensive history of disrupting this page: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mihai_cartoaje&oldid=81494077#Continued_deletions_from_Schizophrenia http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mihai_cartoaje&oldid=81529879

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mihai_cartoaje&direction=next&oldid=82657005

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Mihai_cartoaje&direction=next&oldid=83652089

DPeterson^talk 01:34, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Yeah I did see those.... we'll follow this right thru this time I assure you  Glen  02:14, 2 December 2006 (UTC)

Other than some recent random vandalism, I don't see any ongoing problems here. It appears that the other party has not followed through...perhaps the case can be closed now.DPeterson^talk 23:17, 9 December 2006 (UTC)