Talk:Epilepsy/Archive 2

message: This article is too long. It is a big subject and I believe the length of the article is having an effect not only on readability but is also discouraging expansion of the text. The following articles have already been spawned off:
* List of people with epilepsy
* Epilepsy in animals
* Seizure types
and they have grown in size and quality since doing so. Of course, the Seizure article is very much related too.
The next in line would be
* Epilepsy treatment
* Epilepsies and epileptic syndromes (organised around )
I hope we can have the following sections, but the current body-text is too short at present:
* History of epilepsy
* Social implications of epilepsy - Discussing stigma, legal implications, disablitiy and employment issues.
I would be interested in your comments. Colin°Talk 17:24, 4 August 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Spliting into [[Wikipedia:Summary style]] 

message: Not since aircraft flight was regulated have persons with epilepsy been allowed at the controls of airplanes. In the US, all pilots must obtain a medical certificate from a FAA Medical Examiner which demonstrates, amongst other things, that the holder has no abnormal neurological conditions. There are no exceptions. Epilepsy is specifically mentioned in the FAA medical certificate application. Similar restrictions exist in other countries.
The reference to airplane accidents being caused by epilepsy should be removed as it is
patently false. LymanSchool 13:22, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. I was never happy with that unsourced statement and a quick search showed no news articles concerning seizures causing plane crashes. There may well be some cases in history where someone has a seizure whilst flying a plane, but they certainly aren't common as the sentence implied. I've removed the car crash portion too. According to this source it isn't as big a problem as feared. I may rework this section to incorporate the research findings from that study. Colin°Talk 13:43, 5 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Flying Airplanes?

message: Hi, I just want to say I'm not that happy with the section on alternative and canine treatments. It seems very vague, not very helpful, and with no real evidence. In short, a waste of space. Are we sure this isn't just some rubbish someone's added; I've never heard that, and it sounds stupid. Overall, as a medical student, I was less than happy with this article, and will be using GP Notebook UK instead for my research. I found the whole thing too rambling and incorehant, and I'm not sure of its accuracy. - Tim (1st year medical student, Birmingham University) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 213.48.73.94 (talk) 15:39, 7 November 2006
Thanks for your feedback. I've trimmed the canine bit a little and wikified it so you can follow the link to the full article on that subject. It does not appear to be rubbish. Overall, this article is not one of our best (deemed Featured Articles) and needs more work, particularly adding references so that people can be assured of its accuracy. It would be nice if you could join Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine to help improve our medical articles. If there are other specific aspects of this article that you think are wrong, or badly worded, let us know.
GP Notebook is a fine resource, aimed at UK doctors. It would be disappointing for those involved in that site if you didn't find it useful in your medical studies. Colin°Talk 17:23, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Canine companion? 

message: A brief review of available Literature will surely yield far more instances where localized epileptics have high status (and in many cases highly functional[i.e. having integrated structure] social roles)vs. cultures in which they are percieved as a bane and ill.  It should be noted that only in industrialized, primarily, Western but also in some contemporary Eastern societies do epileptics seem to be stigmatized (especially in the U.S.).  This should not be assumed to be due to modern medical practices but rather to lack of a wholistic component in Western medicine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 70.231.127.84 (talk) 11:09, 6 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Epilepsy and Cultural Ecology

message: does anybody else see the similarity between Julius Caesar, who suffered from epilepsy, and Seizure?? Jollyjoegiant 04:35, 6 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Seizure vs. Caesar

message: It appears an IP address dropped in vaccination as a cause for epilepsy.  Their does not seem to be much real evidence to this claim and nothing was cited.  The only thing I can dig up is that the DPT_vaccine may cause neurological issues. 
Shanew2 23:18, 6 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vaccination

message: The short section (three sentences) describing the syptoms of epilepsy includes a sentence on tongue biting in epileptic seizures. This isn't a defining symptom of a seizure, although does happen - this is worth inclusion further down in the article, perhaps in a subsection on injuries, as these are commonly incurred by violent convulsions, falling and loss of consciousness. More importantly, the symptoms section should distinguish between the symptoms for different types of seizure, and the key distinction between focal (or partial) seizures and generalised seizures. The symptoms vary quite widely, sometimes including hallucinations for occipital lobe simple focal seizures, strange smells or tastes for temporal lobe simple focal seizures, and making loud cries or screams with frontal lobe complex focal seizures. These and the many other symptoms for specific epilepsies need addressing. The Epilepsy Society's site www.epilepsysociety.org.uk/epileptic-seizures#.Unlv4lOLITA is a good starting point.  Bugsysiegel71 (talk) 22:19, 18 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Symptoms

message: Could please some expert mention somewhere in the article Vitamin B12 deficiency as cause for seizures.
--Malkusch (talk) 18:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Vitamin B12 Deficiency

message: There is a standing objection in the World to "criminally induced epilepsy" by criminal implants that are made up of radio-/programmable-device of stun-gun/tazer, plus infra-red photo-voltaic energy source for  maintaining the stun-gun in order to mask a case as epilepsy? We move against them? 109.189.66.179 (talk) 12:49, 9 September 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't understand the question. Looie496 (talk) 20:13, 22 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Objection to Criminally "Induced Epilepsy" 

message: While the detail is excellent, I completely agree that there needs to be at least a simple summary, or even a second, simpler article, referencing this one. Epilepsy is a common complaint, of interest to the layman. Unfortunately, I don't have the medical qualifications to be the editor. Maybe the author(s) could revisit their work?
In particular, I don't understand the distinction between Seizure Types and Epilepsy Syndromes.Nigelrg (talk) 17:07, 16 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a major challenge even for specialists! Epilepsy syndromes are known(ish) causes of seizures, such as Lennox-Gastaut syndrome. Many people have no known cause for their seizures and so "epilepsy" can be a catch-all term. Specific "subtypes" of epilepsy often in fact refer to the type of seizure experienced, for instance "Frontal lobe epilepsy" means the patient has seizures that are thought to originate in the frontal lobes, but that doesn't necessarily tell us much else. The names of seizures are also complex, prone to debate, and hard for patients to distinguish anyway. To be honest we could do with the input of non-profits to help us with this - currently Wikipedia is a little specialist-heavy! Best wishes, --PaulWicks (talk) 08:29, 22 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There is simple English Wikipedia but it too needs a lot of help. [] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 05:50, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  General 

message: Time for an update:
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
*
Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 11:00, 28 November 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reviews 

message: I think we should stick to the ILAE definition and not confuse the reader in the lead paragraph with minor or non-authoritative or out-of-date alternative definitions. In particular:
: The cause must be neither curable or avoidable.[6] Some definitions include seizures cause by brain trauma, stroke, brain cancer, and drug and alcohol misuse among others;[7] however, these are more properly classified as seizure-related disorders
is problematic. I know of no definition of epilepsy that confirms the first sentence. Epilepsy can be cured by surgery in some cases and some forms of epilepsy only affect a period of life -- the child grows out of it. So to say it is necessarily incurable is false. The "not avoidable" and "unprovoked" aspects are highly problematic and are not part of the modern definition. Yes one need to exclude things like trauma or febrile seizures but many forms of epilepsy have seizures triggered (or made more likely) by known events and situations. 
Also "The diagnosis can sometimes be confirmed with an electroencephalogram." although true is very misleading for the lead. The diagnosis of epilepsy is always done without EEG and confirmation by EEG is very rare. The actual seizures nearly always do not occur in a hospital setting. Most people with epilepsy have seizures infrequently enough that one can't attach electrodes and wait for the seizure to occur. The best tool these days is video recording by parents/carers. An EEG is more likely if someone is considering surgery or an an infant with other neurological issues or frequent intractable seizures. Such an EEG might require several day's stay in hospital, with obviously huge cost. Colin°Talk 08:39, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Regarding "neither curable or avoidable", I agree with you that it's poor language.  Regarding the EEG, my understanding is that people with epilepsy commonly show EEG abnormalities even between seizures, so "sometimes can be confirmed" seems reasonable.  As I understand it, the first thing you do for somebody with suspected epilepsy is to get an EEG -- it's the primary diagnostic tool.  For people who have recurrent seizures, it's common for them to spend a few days in the hospital with electrodes continuously attached, waiting for a seizure so that it can be observed.  (It's been quite a number of years since I last read an EEG textbook, so I'm going from distant memory here, but this is my recollection.) Looie496 (talk) 15:53, 10 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I shall try to dig up some sources on this. The article should, after all, be based on them rather than our own recollections. I don't think what you are saying is accurate or even desirable (many people have very rare seizures and people without epilepsy may have some abnormality on eeg). I'm pretty certain it is nearly universally diagnosed clinically. -- Colin°Talk 19:57, 10 December 2013 (UTC)

text: Harrison's 18th states "a person with a single seizure, or recurrent seizures due to correctable or avoidable circumstances, does not necessarily have epilepsy" which you are correct is slightly different. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 01:39, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: There are two purposes in getting a good definition of epilepsy (and other terms like focal seizure and generalised seizure). Firstly its use clinically: it is important to treat the patient for the right thing and to find out what is actually wrong with them and not to give drugs that are of no use and have potential downsides. A significant proportion of people diagnosed with epilepsy are misdiagnosed. The second purpose is epidemiology. This is where the "one seizure but likely to have more" situation is useful clinically but problematic for epidemiology (it isn't easy to draw the line in a way that is reproducible in studies). There are all sorts of woolly definitions of epilepsy that may be roughly in the ballpark but fail to be robust enough when examined. That's why the ILAE spend a lot of time coming up with a definition everyone can use, and even then there are voices who favour something slightly different. I don't think whatever Harrison's 18th says matters as it is too general a textbook. I'm in favour of quoting an official authoritative definition -- putting it into our own words is asking for trouble. Colin°Talk 08:51, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead 

message: In the Definitions section, the definition provided by the International League Against Epilepsy is highlighted.  Is this organization the most influential world-wide organization regarding this?  I would expect to see a definition from the WHO or some other better recognized organization, the highlighting of the definition by this organization seems WP:UNDUE unless maybe a bit about the organization's influence can be added. Zad68 14:26, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Yup most influential. Started 30 years before WHO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:36, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: They often collaborate per  Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:38, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: OK great can you maybe add a bit of context to that section stating this?  Otherwise it sticks out and looks like a bit of spam added by someone promoting the organization, you know how we get a lot of that sort of stuff in our articles.  Zad68 14:40, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly. What should I say? There website says "world's preeminent association of physicians and other health professionals working towards a world where no persons' life is limited by epilepsy"  They publish Epilepsia (journal) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:48, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: OK I'll do it. Zad68 14:51, 6 January 2014 (UTC)

text: at least to my satisfaction, a bit of context added.  Zad68 20:17, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  International League Against Epilepsy  

message: Sorry I am having trouble understanding what this means:  "Routine antiseizure medical levels in the blood are not required in adults or children."  Clarify please?  Zad68 20:15, 6 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ping  Zad68 22:02, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: One can do blood levels for many antiseizure medications. This is not routinely needed unless problems occur. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:07, 7 January 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  antiseizure medical levels 

message: the prognosis paragraph says 'Epilepsy cannot be cured,',, so is that real? Really? I'm using anticonvulsants since 2010 and recently I feel tedious of taking medicine, 500mg×2/day, so that paragraph makes me so depressed... --Yjs5497 (talk) 13:36, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Hum. You are right. Sometimes surgery can help. Sometimes it goes away on its own.Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 15:45, 30 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  i have a question 

message: Epilepsy is characterized by a long-term risk of recurrent seizures
This statement is not entirely true and the reference to the article is a narrative review. The review as per me does not say anything about increased long term risk of recurrent seizure as being a " characteristic of seizure. (Drsoumyadeepb (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you meant "characteristic of epilepsy". This sentence makes no sense in the section signs and symptoms anyway.  Jophiel 12:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Signs and symptomes

message: Drsoumyadeepb It would be helpful you provide some comments here on the talk page when you contribute since this article is being discussed intensively at the moment.  Jophiel 12:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do Jophiel . I hope the same applies for all editors    (Drsoumyadeepb (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. If you feel discriminated here with respect to editing you should address it right away.  Jophiel 00:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead section

message: doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70171-1, pointing at SCN1A and the new PCDH7 loci for all epilepsy as well as (for generalised epilepsy) a locus at 2p16.1 suggesting either VRK2 or FANCL. Nothing much for focal epilepsy. JFW | T@lk 22:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetics meta-analysis

message: I don't dispute the edits by  but I was wondering if there was a way of turning the addition into prose. JFW | T@lk 21:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification 

message: IMO "The current conception of categorizing epilepsies focuses on the underlying causes." is a little overly strong. Especially as we have this 2013 textbook which states "An epilepsy syndrome is empirically identified and does not imply a common etiology"  
When you state "When scientific knowledge was less profound, epilepsies were categorized" implies that they are no longer categorized by clinical features. Somehow I doubt this is true and refs to support that epilepsy syndromes are no longer categorized by clinical features have not been provided that I can see.
I do agree that cause is one way they are categorized. But it does not appear to be the universally accepted or used method. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording ('when scientifc knowledge was less profound') is not good, agree. Needs improvement. The overall classification of epilepsies is more and more focusing on causes. Syndromes were traditionally identified, as you said, empirically, i.e. by clinical features. The syndrome 'classification' exists in parallel to the modern classification, and I guess, will be historic in 10 years. Jophiel 123 (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: How are epilepsy syndromes categorised

message: EEG and Imaging should be put one level higher unter "diagnostic tests". Jophiel 123 (talk) 09:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved it earlier if that is what you meant. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a section "diagnostic tests" because "eeg" (and the others tests) is not the same level of abstraction as the other topics unter "diagnosis". An electrocardiogram is not a lab test anway. Subsections EEG, Neuroimaging, Lab tests, other (as a list with bullets)Jophiel 123 (talk) 11:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure merged Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Diagnosis

message: This addition needs a ref "Attacks of the movment disorder Paroxysmal dyskinesia may be taken for epileptic seizures. The cause of a drop attack can be, among many others, an atonic seizure." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, added. Jophiel 123 (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Refs

message: This text was added in this edit
"Whilst organizing cases of epilepsy by their underlying etiology is very important, they may also be organized into epilepsy syndromes by reliably identified common clinical features. These include typical age of seizure onset, specific seizure types and EEG characteristics and others. The diagnose of an epilepsy syndrome is useful as it provides information on which underlying etiologies should be considered and which anti-seizure medication might be most useful."
source says 
"Whilst conceptualizing epilepsies by their underlying etiology is very important, epilepsies may also be organized (by reliably identified common clinical and electrical characteristics) into epilepsy syndromes. Such syndromes have a typical age of seizure onset, specific seizure types and EEG characteristics and often other features which when taken together allow the specific epilepsy syndrome diagnosis. The identification of an epilepsy syndrome is useful as it provides information on which underlying etiologies should be considered and which anti-seizure medication(s) might be most useful."
IMO this paraphrasing was a little too close. I have paraphrased it further. Additionally User:Jophiel 123 if you wrote the original text at https://www.epilepsydiagnosis.org/ all we need is acknowledgement that you own the text and give release of it under a CC BY SA license. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in discussion with the ILAE about releasing this content under an open license. As far as I am aware they have not done so yet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This week's Dispatches: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-10-01/Dispatches "Let's get serious about plagiarism" is worth reading. Few people understand that citing one's source is not sufficient to avoid plagiarism, which is not uncommon in academic papers including, ehem, nicking text from Wikipedia. Even if the source text was under e.g. CC BY-SA, we'd have to be careful how it was inserted so that the edit summary made quite clear the original authorship. Even then I'm not entirely sure that is sufficient attribution, given that the author's name wouldn't appear in the PDF generated form of this page. Someone else might know. Regardless of whether text is public domain or under a free licence, we should aim to write in our own words. Exceptions are where we use in-text attribution of some form, such as clearly repeating a definition from ILAE. -- Colin°Talk 19:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Paraphrasing

message: * From the RFC intro, I gather that the argument for including is the mechanism section that it's been there for a long time and the section is part of WP:MEDMOS. However, I'm not clear on the reasons for removing the mechanisms section. There are a whole lot of words up above there and I'm sure the reasons are in there somewhere but I'm feeling lazy so I don't want to read it all. Can someone provide the tl;dr version of the reasons why the mechanism section should be removed? Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sometimes I find it not easy to follow all the threads here, but just to get you right (including what you said in other places here): Your argument is consistent structure among different articles which results in better accessability for the reader, right? You said further, that there are "adequate sources to write a section" so you probably had a glimpse into them. May I ask you if you got an idea for yourself what the content of the section "mechanism" could roughly be (or not be)? That would be important to know, maybe we missed something.  Jophiel 22:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Discuss

message: Epilepsy is characterized by a long-term risk of recurrent seizures
This statement is not entirely true and the reference to the article is a narrative review. The review as per me does not say anything about increased long term risk of recurrent seizure as being a " characteristic of seizure. (Drsoumyadeepb (talk) 17:58, 16 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I guess you meant "characteristic of epilepsy". This sentence makes no sense in the section signs and symptoms anyway.  Jophiel 12:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Signs and symptomes

message: Drsoumyadeepb It would be helpful you provide some comments here on the talk page when you contribute since this article is being discussed intensively at the moment.  Jophiel 12:38, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Will do Jophiel . I hope the same applies for all editors    (Drsoumyadeepb (talk) 13:52, 17 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: All animals are equal, but some animals are more equal than others. If you feel discriminated here with respect to editing you should address it right away.  Jophiel 00:42, 18 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead section

message: doi:10.1016/S1474-4422(14)70171-1, pointing at SCN1A and the new PCDH7 loci for all epilepsy as well as (for generalised epilepsy) a locus at 2p16.1 suggesting either VRK2 or FANCL. Nothing much for focal epilepsy. JFW | T@lk 22:37, 19 August 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Genetics meta-analysis

message: I don't dispute the edits by  but I was wondering if there was a way of turning the addition into prose. JFW | T@lk 21:33, 20 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Agree Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 12:46, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Classification 

message: IMO "The current conception of categorizing epilepsies focuses on the underlying causes." is a little overly strong. Especially as we have this 2013 textbook which states "An epilepsy syndrome is empirically identified and does not imply a common etiology"  
When you state "When scientific knowledge was less profound, epilepsies were categorized" implies that they are no longer categorized by clinical features. Somehow I doubt this is true and refs to support that epilepsy syndromes are no longer categorized by clinical features have not been provided that I can see.
I do agree that cause is one way they are categorized. But it does not appear to be the universally accepted or used method. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 22:12, 5 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: The wording ('when scientifc knowledge was less profound') is not good, agree. Needs improvement. The overall classification of epilepsies is more and more focusing on causes. Syndromes were traditionally identified, as you said, empirically, i.e. by clinical features. The syndrome 'classification' exists in parallel to the modern classification, and I guess, will be historic in 10 years. Jophiel 123 (talk) 10:11, 6 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: How are epilepsy syndromes categorised

message: EEG and Imaging should be put one level higher unter "diagnostic tests". Jophiel 123 (talk) 09:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Moved it earlier if that is what you meant. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:34, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: We need a section "diagnostic tests" because "eeg" (and the others tests) is not the same level of abstraction as the other topics unter "diagnosis". An electrocardiogram is not a lab test anway. Subsections EEG, Neuroimaging, Lab tests, other (as a list with bullets)Jophiel 123 (talk) 11:37, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure merged Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 14:35, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Diagnosis

message: This addition needs a ref "Attacks of the movment disorder Paroxysmal dyskinesia may be taken for epileptic seizures. The cause of a drop attack can be, among many others, an atonic seizure." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 10:32, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure, added. Jophiel 123 (talk) 20:55, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Refs

message: This text was added in this edit
"Whilst organizing cases of epilepsy by their underlying etiology is very important, they may also be organized into epilepsy syndromes by reliably identified common clinical features. These include typical age of seizure onset, specific seizure types and EEG characteristics and others. The diagnose of an epilepsy syndrome is useful as it provides information on which underlying etiologies should be considered and which anti-seizure medication might be most useful."
source says 
"Whilst conceptualizing epilepsies by their underlying etiology is very important, epilepsies may also be organized (by reliably identified common clinical and electrical characteristics) into epilepsy syndromes. Such syndromes have a typical age of seizure onset, specific seizure types and EEG characteristics and often other features which when taken together allow the specific epilepsy syndrome diagnosis. The identification of an epilepsy syndrome is useful as it provides information on which underlying etiologies should be considered and which anti-seizure medication(s) might be most useful."
IMO this paraphrasing was a little too close. I have paraphrased it further. Additionally User:Jophiel 123 if you wrote the original text at https://www.epilepsydiagnosis.org/ all we need is acknowledgement that you own the text and give release of it under a CC BY SA license. Best Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:06, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: I am in discussion with the ILAE about releasing this content under an open license. As far as I am aware they have not done so yet. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:12, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: This week's Dispatches: Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2014-10-01/Dispatches "Let's get serious about plagiarism" is worth reading. Few people understand that citing one's source is not sufficient to avoid plagiarism, which is not uncommon in academic papers including, ehem, nicking text from Wikipedia. Even if the source text was under e.g. CC BY-SA, we'd have to be careful how it was inserted so that the edit summary made quite clear the original authorship. Even then I'm not entirely sure that is sufficient attribution, given that the author's name wouldn't appear in the PDF generated form of this page. Someone else might know. Regardless of whether text is public domain or under a free licence, we should aim to write in our own words. Exceptions are where we use in-text attribution of some form, such as clearly repeating a definition from ILAE. -- Colin°Talk 19:04, 7 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Paraphrasing

message: * From the RFC intro, I gather that the argument for including is the mechanism section that it's been there for a long time and the section is part of WP:MEDMOS. However, I'm not clear on the reasons for removing the mechanisms section. There are a whole lot of words up above there and I'm sure the reasons are in there somewhere but I'm feeling lazy so I don't want to read it all. Can someone provide the tl;dr version of the reasons why the mechanism section should be removed? Thanks. Ca2james (talk) 02:14, 12 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: *Sometimes I find it not easy to follow all the threads here, but just to get you right (including what you said in other places here): Your argument is consistent structure among different articles which results in better accessability for the reader, right? You said further, that there are "adequate sources to write a section" so you probably had a glimpse into them. May I ask you if you got an idea for yourself what the content of the section "mechanism" could roughly be (or not be)? That would be important to know, maybe we missed something.  Jophiel 22:51, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Discuss

message: There is this quote by Aristoteles, that one should define terms before discussing (don't remember exactly). Some agreed that this would be good to do here as well.
Let's do it (for everybody to edit).  Jophiel 15:01, 15 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Defining terminology