Talk:Norway killer Breivik of 'sound mind', argue defence team

Problematic sentence

I don't have time right now for a full review (perhaps when Greece v. Germany finishes), but something's wrong with "He has been the subject of two, court appointed, psychiatric assessments; the first concluded he suffered from paranoid schizophrenia, but the second found him sane." IIRC, both concluded he suffers schizophrenia. Regardless of wether they did or did not, this sentence implies paranoid schizophrenics are insane by definition. This is mildly offensive; it's also patently incorrect. Schizophrenia encompasses a very broad range, and there are many who are neither criminally insane nor 'insane' by any realistic colloquial standard. Indeed, the range encompassed is so large there are proposals to either split it into multiple distinct diseases, or to merge it with its close ally, bipolar disorder, which would in my estimation require considered as a schizobipolar spectrum of sorts. Blood Red Sandman ^{(Talk) (Contribs)} 19:31, 22 June 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. According to the source the first analysis found him psychotic, suffering from paranoid schizophrenia - and that the second analysis disagreed. I updated the prose. --Errant (talk) 12:33, 23 June 2012 (UTC)

Review of revision 1537990 [Passed]

Revision 1537990 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Revision 1537990 of this article has been reviewed by Pi zero (talk · contribs) and has passed its review at 15:58, 24 June 2012 (UTC). Copyright: Passed Newsworthiness: Passed Verifiability: Passed NPOV: Passed Style: Passed Comments by reviewer: None added. The reviewed revision should automatically have been edited by removing {{Review}} and adding {{Publish}} at the bottom, and the edit sighted; if this did not happen, it may be done manually by a reviewer.

Although I'm leaving it be, because it's undesirable to rename an article after publication, I regret having not made more significant changes to this headline. As set, and as finally published, it doesn't describe the unique event that made this article newsworthy — the described argument isn't specific to the final day. Just noting, for myself and all others involved, with an eye to future headlines. --Pi zero (talk) 16:09, 24 June 2012 (UTC)