Talk:Schizophrenia and tobacco smoking
 | A fact from Schizophrenia and tobacco smoking appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page in the Did you know column on 28 December 2009 (check views). The text of the entry was as follows:
|  |
 | This article is rated B-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||
 | This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report. The week in which this happened:
|
Other approaches
When the main page led me to this article, my immediate first question was whether schizophrenics have similarly high rates of addiction to other addictive substances, and how rates of addiction compared across classes of addictive substances. I see no such research cited here, just a direct focus on possible reasons. Does any such research exist? Is the approach of the article a limitation of the article or of the current research? - Tenebris —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.254.156.208 (talk) 12:21, 28 December 2009 (UTC)
Interesting study
Allen MH, Debanné M, Lazignac C, Adam E, Dickinson LM, Damsa C (2011). "Effect of Nicotine Replacement Therapy on Agitation in Smokers With Schizophrenia: A Double-Blind, Randomized, Placebo-Controlled Study". Am J Psychiatry. doi:10.1176/appi.ajp.2010.10040569. PMID 21245085. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:41, 5 March 2011 (UTC)
Causes, what causes?
In its current form (permalink), I believe the ==Causes== section is problematic, not least because of the highly particular way it's been structured ever since the page was created in 2009 (permalink). Surely it should follow WP:MEDRS (including WP:MEDDATE) by presenting current knowledge, rather than a long list of assorted "theories"? There also appears to be an editorial mismatch between title ("Causes") and content (posited explanations for the disproportionate smoking habits). 86.186.120.156 (talk) 17:54, 26 April 2021 (UTC)
Rather a STRIDENT claim - not sure this should be so.
This is a robust claim - but there are many academic articles that do not use such AFFIRMATIVE language. Chose to soften the language. BeingObjective (talk) 23:55, 2 November 2023 (UTC)
A case of causality - I think this article could mislead - a bunch of theories.