Talk:Stuttering/Archive 1

message: A point-of-view tag was placed above the section on anti-stuttering devices.  This section was inserted by a user who owns a company that makes anti-stuttering devices and therefore has an economic interest in promoting his devices.
End note 11 needs format correction.  Rewster 01:40, 21 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: POV tag

message: Shouldn't Stuttering Awareness Week be the week of May 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, and 27? Sorry. Couldn't resist. :) If you desire retaliation, I authorize you to post one lame 'fat joke'. For example, "The entire month of May, as well as the first three days of June, has been designated 'Fat Awareness Week'". (Ouch! My feelings!)
:The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Stuttering Awareness Week 

message: Uhm, why is this in the "Childhood psychiatric disorders" category? Simoncpu 12:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Childhood psychiatric disorder 

message: I've never heard of "dysphemia." The term isn't in the indices of "Stuttering," by Barry Guitar (the most respected textbook in the field); "Early Childhood Stuttering," by Yairi and Ambrose; "Clinical Decision Making in Fluency Disorders," by Walt Manning; or "The Child and Adolescent Stuttering Treatment and Activity Resource Guide," by Ramig and Dodge. These are all highly respected textbooks. Merriam-Webster defines "dysphemism" as the opposite of a euphemism, i.e., substituting an unpleasant or harsh term for a kinder, gentler term. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/dysphemia defines dysphemia as stuttering with an emotional or psychological basis, which is referred to in the scientific literature as "psychogenic stuttering" and is rare. http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/dictionaries defines "dysphemia" as the substitution of a derogatory or offensive word for an ordinary one. Will the sniveling little twit who said that "dysphemia" is the same as stuttering provide a reference? Whoops, I had a "dysphemia" there! :-)  --Tdkehoe 21:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: "Dysphemia"?

message: See Wikipedia:Article size. This Wikipedia article is 51KB long, the Wikipedia rule of thumb says ">50 KB – Probably should be divided" into two articles (or edited down). Now that the [[wikibook:Speech-Language Pathology/Stuttering|stuttering wikibook] is available, much of the Wikipedia stuttering article could be edited down. IMHO the "Characteristics" could be extensively trimmed; the "Treatments" section should be expanded; and the "Stuttering in Music" section should be broken out as a seperate article (it has nothing to do with stuttering as a speech disorder). The "Monster Study" is interesting historically but explains nothing about stuttering and could easily confuse readers into thinking that Johnson trained children to stutter. The "Onset and development" section is good and the sidebar is excellent, but there's some overlap between the text and the sidebar. The "Stuttering and Society" section has much good stuff but some of the historical items are of questionable value, e.g., the hyoid bone. Entire books could be written about past mistaken views about stuttering, why waste readers' time with that stuff now? Or maybe we should seperate off a new article entitled "Historical Mistaken Ideas About Stuttering." The item about the Turkish telephone company could be deleted as well. American readers would be better served by a link to the TEDPA website or the wikibooks page about states that provide anti-stuttering telephones and other devices and services to consumers with communication disorders.--Tdkehoe 21:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article too long?

message: I added a link to the stuttering wikibook at the end of the "External Links" section. Technically it's not an external link, it's an internal link within the wiki-world. Should we add links from sections of the Wikipedia article to sections of the wikibook? E.g., a link from the "genetics" section of the Wikipedia article to the "genetics" chapter of the wikibook? That might be 20 or 30 links.--18:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Links to wikibook?

message: I put together a new stuttering article, based on the stuttering wikibook. Unlike the current Wikipedia stuttering article, this has less description and more proscription. In other words, the old article was oriented more to a reader who came across a reference to stuttering, had never heard of stuttering, but wanted to know what stuttering is. The new article is oriented more to a person who stutters or a parent of a child who stutters, who wants to find out what can be done. The new article has more about treatments and less about descriptions of stuttering, ancient history of stuttering, etc.
The new article totals 38K. This is considered to be the right length for a Wikipedia article. In contrast, the current Wikipedia stuttering article is 51K, which is considered to be too long. The new article has pointers to the stuttering wikibook, so this article doesn't need to be long.
Please discuss the strong/weak points of each article. Let's set a target date of May 1, 2006 to replace the original article or merge these two articles.--Tdkehoe 04:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: New Article

message: I combined the old and new articles. My rule was that if there was clearly erroneous material in the old article, I replaced it with correct info, or deleted it; if there was material in the old article that wasn't erroneous I left it, regardless of whether I could write it more clearly or concisely or if I think it doesn't belong at all. For example, I left the "Stuttering in music" section even though IMHO it has nothing to do with stuttering and should be a separate article. The exception was the "monster study." I deleted it, and then realized that, although I don't think it belongs here, I'd decided to not the delete material solely because I don't think it belongs here. If someone misses it, heor she can put it back (I doubt anyone will miss it).
The article is now 80K. This is more than twice the suggested length for Wikipedia articles. IMHO, the article could be edited down to half the length. Some material is redundant, much is unimportant. But that's my opinion and I don't want to make anyone upset. I feel strongly about making the article correct. I'd be happy to also make it clear and concise but before editing further I'll discuss it here and wait at least a month for responses.--Tdkehoe 02:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 2006 June 11 revisions

message: :I redirected "stammering" here and 'll just post the contents of the article that existed at that name in case its needed for some reason --Clngre 18:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Old stammering article

message: Has it not yet occured to anyone that this is the talk page for stuttering? Anand 15:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't get it... Phauge 00:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Irony

message: My childhood speech therapist said these are different. He said "stammering" is dropped or slured sounds [from the mouth not able to keep up with too high a rate of thought] while "stuttering" is repeating the same sound. Jon 19:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stuttering not equal to stammering

message: It's a medical disorder now?!?!? Shit.. they've even got professionals, graphs, standards and everything. I'm impressed, really.--72.38.204.116 05:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  My god... 

message: I have a co-worker with this affliction.  I want to be a helpful to him as I can - but I never know what is the best thing I can do.   When he's struggling hard to get out the last few words of a sentence that both he and I know the ending of - he's working hard to get the words out - and I know exactly what he's going to say.   Jumping in and finishing it for him would end the torture - staring at him seems like it would increase the stress, but looking away seems like I lost interest - which would be horribly disrespectful of a clearly very intelligent guy.  Whatever I do seems that it's making matters worse?  There seems to be no good answer.
In a rational world, I'd like to jump in just as soon as he's gotten the concept across to me - interrupt and say "Oh - so you mean such-and-such?" - conversations would be ten times faster - and I kinda think they would be less stressful - but the general advice is to not do that?
I'd really like to know what is the best thing to do.  I'm an Aspergers syndrome sufferer - and I guess when you get the two of us together - I have poor social skills and an inability to make natural conversation and maintain 'normal' levels of eye contact without concentrating on following guidelines that seem very artificial...well, it's a disaster waiting to happen!  I can be taught what to do - but I need rules.
The article needs something about this - the advice at the top of this Talk page isn't a whole lot of use - but such as it is, it should be in the main article - not here.  I come to an encyclopedia for the answers to questions I have - this question needs to be answered in this article - especially if sufferers are writing here. 15:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The Stuttering Wikibook has an article with Advice for Listeners. We discussed whether the Wikipedia article should include advice for stutterers about getting through job interviews, advice for listeners, etc. Wikipedia apparently has a policy against including advice (proscriptive vs. descriptive). Wikibooks has a different policy.--Tdkehoe 04:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)

text: I usually find the best way is to finish their sentances for them and laugh at them. There is no point in pretending it isn't funny and it might encourage them to stop doing it.  I'm a stutterer mmmyself. AdamButtery 19:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  How non-stutterers should react? 

message: A while back on this talk page, a rewrite/upgrade of this article was mentioned, but it's not happened.  The article is due for a featured article review, unless the deficiencies can be corrected.  Some examples only:
*Disease/disorder info box is not complete (see recent FAs at Influenza, Tuberculosis, Tourette syndrome).
*Main and See also templates in each section are not employed correctly (see WP:GTL and WP:SS).  "For more information" at the bottom of sections is not the way to go.
:* SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: *  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: * SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree with most all of those above mentioned problems and will get on them shortly. I wrote and nominated the article initially, but it has changed a lot since achieving FA-status and does need some serious work. I'll be busy for the next little while, but I'll find time soon to go through this and address all of the issues. --Clngre 23:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

text: It also needs copyediting for mistakes and tone. Christopher Connor 23:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that FAR is required.  There are MOS  issues as above, but it is also not a good summary of the state of knowledge in the field. There is a good deal of original research, (even COI) included, and important aspects are missing. --Slp1 12:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured article review needed

message: I know that something that has been really detrimental to stuttering research has been the rumors that it stems from sexual disfunction, sexual addiction, or some sex-related malady.  Providing a resource that shows that this was a bad theory from a hundred or so years ago that cannot be proven could be a valuable resource for this article. Fredsmith2 19:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sexual causes of stuttering 

message: The fair use image of Porky Pig should either be removed from this article or a fair use rationale should be provided. – Ilse@ 10:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fair use image 

message: "This article appears to contradict itself. Please see the discussion on the talk page."
"The neutrality of this article or section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page."
Excuse me? Where is the contradiction? The neutrality of what was disputed? Can someone either take off the flags or explain what the problem is? There should be a rule against flagging articles without explanation.--Tdkehoe 20:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contradictions and neutrality?