Talk:Tourette syndrome/Archive 4

message: July 9th, 51 KB overall, 33 KB prose  Sandy 05:49, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Size check

message: Include the collage, or not.  Some argue that nothing can be learned about Tourette syndrome from looking at a still image, that is looks unprofessional, and that it is so aspecific that it could be just as well on any other article.  Others argue that it conveys that Tourette's is a common condition among people that are young, old, male, female, of all races, and provides an alternative to the "moldy old photos of chaps in powdered wigs hundreds of years ago," and that the US Dept of Health and Human services commissioned it to help defray fear and prejudice directed at those who have Tourette's.   IMO, the best of all worlds would be for someone to find a better, contemporary depiction, but I don't see the harm in having an inoffensive image, and as pointed out by AOL anon, it does potentially do some good in conveying current info about people with TS. Sandy 19:54, 17 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Collage consensus/poll 

message: Speculation, most likely a joke, and thoroughly discussed at Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome: should be reverted whenever added here, to keep this article to encyclopedic content.  Sandy 02:57, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Dan Aykroyd]] 

message: Although the term unvoluntary is well-defined in this article and in the literature, it is frequently changed to involuntary here, perhaps by well-meaning editors who believe it is a typo, and don't read the text.
:Tics are described as semi-voluntary or "unvoluntary",Tourette Syndrome Association. Definitions and Classification of Tic Disorders. Accessed 22 Mar 2005. because they are not strictly involuntary—they may be experienced as a voluntary response to an unwanted, premonitory urge. 
Please restore it whenever it is removed, as it is the correct usage.  I will add an inline note.  Sandy (Talk) 16:39, 24 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Unvoluntary/involuntary

message: Content is often added here:  is included already, along with contemporaries, at Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome, this article discusses highly notables such as Mozart and Johnson, with others summarized in the daughter article. Sandy (Talk) 20:46, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: [[Pete Bennett]]

message: I wanted to discuss the value of adding OMIM and the Diseases database to the infobox.
On the diseases database, the information is of little value because, although the DSM-IV-TR was published six seven years ago, they still show the old DSM-IV criteria, and they contain nothing else not already covered in the article.  I'd like to delete them from the infobox, if no one disagrees.  They also claim TS increases risk for suicide:  I'd love to see that data, since I've never come across it.
OMIM is far more problematic, as it is rife with blatantly inaccurate information.  I'll list just some, starting at the top, until I give up:
*The first thing they list is "Gene map locus 13q31, 11q23".  The gene(s) implicated in TS have NOT been identified - those two have been studied, possibly implicated, but they are not even close to being conclusively considered as *the* genes.
* The next line is "... of evidence that Tourette syndrome can be caused by mutations in the SLITRK1 gene (609678) on chromosome 13q."  The question is not necessarily that Tourette syndrome is *caused* by SLITRK1, but that a very rare (less than 2% of cases studied) *mutation* (eg, tourettism) may be caused by SLITRK1.  The finding matters because this knowledge may help locate the mechanisms involved in TS, but the OMIM overstates the case.  It is an advance in research, but it is not one of *the* genes to *cause* TS.
*To make it three out of three for their first three statements, next we find: "Tourette syndrome is a neurologic disorder manifested particularly by motor and vocal tics and associated with behavioral abnormalities. About three-fourths of patients are male, with onset occurring usually between ages 2 and 14 years. About 10% of patients have a family history of the same condition. "  Manifested "particularly" by?  Tics are the hallmark of the condition - tics *are* the condition - what does "particularly" mean?  Ten percent of patients have a family history?  That is not a helpful statement at all; most TS is inherited, and most family history is undetected because of past lack of understanding of TS.  The statement leaves the idea that 90% aren't genetic - very misleading.  
*"The initial symptom of Tourette syndrome is usually involuntary tic-like movements." Usually?  If you don't have tics, you don't have a TS diagnosis. 
*"With progression of the disease, echolalia, grunting, and coprolalia may develop." Not a "disease", doesn't always "progress", and echolalia and coprolalia rarely develop - misleading. 
*"Although one of the most notorious symptoms of the Tourette syndrome, coprolalia is rather infrequent. Goldenberg et al. (1994) found only 8% of their 112 patients exhibited coprolalia. In a series of 114 patients, 43% had self-mutilation (Van Woert et al., 1977). Tourette syndrome occurs rather frequently in Ashkenazi Jews and rarely in blacks." At least they cleared up the coprolalia issue with correct data, but the VanWoert (very old) study on self-mutilation is extremely misleading and misrepresentative.  Rarely in blacks is completely wrong as far as I know, and I'd like to know where they got that.  Higher prevalence in Ashkenazi Jews isn't conclusive.  (For both SLITRK1 and Jews, see  as one example.)
Moving on from there, we find the source of the problems:  the OMIM appears to rely heavily on old Comings' research.  VERY little recent or well-accepted research is included here, and there is a preponderance of old Comings' research.  The last edits made to the OMIM database are a year old:  I could go on detailing the problems, but I suggest we delete these two entries; at best, they aren't helpful, at worst, they are misleading.  Sandy (Talk) 18:46, 27 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for explaining here. I see the problems you have with these links, but I still think they are valuable resources, although outdated. DiseasesDB has links to other medical websites and OMIM is a good starting point for finding research on tourette, so I would like to keep them in the infobox. --WS 18:24, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Infobox additions

message: Is there a difference? Would it be better to be consistent? - Samsara (talk • contribs) 11:56, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I really don't know - I'll ping Fvasconcellos and see if he knows.  Thanks, Sandy (Talk) 14:20, 29 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Samsara, I spent some time in Google Scholar and PMID - the terms seem to be used interchangeably, so I'm not sure what to do.  I guess we just pick one and go with it?  Sandy (Talk) 18:33, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Interchangeable, AFAIK... I think this is more of a linguistic question, I wouldn't know much about that then... If memory serves there is even a subspecialty of linguistics ("cognitive semantics" or something to that end, may be wrong though) which studies this sort of thing. In Portuguese it would be farmacológico, in French pharmacologique – I don't think Romance languages have this sort of problem (straying from topic though). Sorry I couldn't answer sooner, I hope a consensus was reached. Fvasconcellos 23:17, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Fvasconcellos - I'll see if Tony can help us choose one.  Sandy (Talk) 23:18, 30 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I gag at the practice by some scientists of using "-ic" endings rather than "-ical", but I think that both are officially acceptable. I'd go for the latter as a personal preference, since non-experts will find it more natural. Tony 03:09, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Done - thanks Tony, Samsara, and Fvasconcellos.  Sandy (Talk) 03:14, 31 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Question: pharmacologic vs. pharmacological 

message: What a wonderful quality article. Great job to all those involved, and I'm sorry I couldn't weigh in before it got FA. :) - Francis Tyers · 01:54, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Featured article

message: I'm new to editing beyond minor spelling corrections, so I don't know what the procedure is on this, but I would strongly suggest that this page be protected. I happened to Alt-X into this thing and of course it was loaded with profanity. Given the nature of the article, I'm kind of surprised the page wasn't protected long ago for precisely that reason. 66.236.8.30 03:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure when you came into the article, but a review of the history shows limited vandalism, almost always reverted within a minute.  Sandy (Talk) 13:50, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Hey, when I initially loaded this page I didn't see anything, then after two friends mentioned vandalism (I linked from a site), I checked with Safari and saw all of the profanity right where they described it (third paragraph first few sentences).  I went in to edit it, and it wasn't there. Then I viewed the page and it was not there.  I went into my cache and it definitely is there. So I don't know how someone did it, but something is happening and someone is vandalizing and being sneaky about it.  And apparently it is visible in safari and explorer, not in firefox.  Don't know who to check with on that. Thekeithlane 19:25, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Also, I could throw up a screenshot of how it loads, but it is just a bunch of swearing as you can imagine. Thekeithlane 20:32, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It sounds like you're describing this edit, which was reverted days ago:  it is not visible in Explorer, and it sounds like you have a cache-clearing problem on Safari.  Sandy (Talk) 20:41, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As for the possibility of a cache issue, I never use Safari (and reformatted my computer not too long ago), and just opened it to check it when my firefox opened the page without the mentioned text, and I am pretty sure that my at least one of my friends viewed it with Explorer late yesterday or this morning (I don't know of her ever using a different browser and she is technically challenged). Additionally, the text that I have is similiar, yet different than what just posted in that link. Don't know what to say, other than that. Of course it could just be at least three instances (I checked it yesterday after one report of it and didn't see anything) in the past few days. Anyways, thanks for moderating and all! Thekeithlane 21:20, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

text: Not really necessary just yet; I've been watching it.  Based on what I'm seeing on a number of articles, I suspect it's school vacation week in lots of places, so we're seeing increased vandalism from kids out of school.  It's still manageable, though.  It SP is needed, I can ask an admin directly.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:36, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Vandalism

message: Early versions of this article (like ) say information is from NIH (http://www.ninds.nih.gov/health_and_medical/disorders/tourette.html).  If this means actual content, they should be cited specially as a source.  It is legal to use copy public domain material from the government outright, but all sources of content should be attributed.  I'm not sure what that remark meant, though, or whether the article still uses the same info. Superm401 - Talk 04:23, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I've completely rewritten the article since then, using better and more diversified sources, going to the original journal-published literature rather than the NIH summary.  They are cited as a source in a couple of places where I couldn't find a better source.  Also, even the old NIH info was never as bad as the old TS article here, so I don't think that's a common source - there were some very particular phrases in the old article here, that could only have been written by a layperson. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:28, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

text: Here's a an example of poor prose and a grammar error in Wiki, repeated verbatim in K12:  "only approximately 10% TS patients suffer from this aspect of the malady."  Here's another one that would never come from the NIH (or any professional writer), featuring redundant prose that is duplicated exactly in the K12 article: "What is recognized is that the control which can be exerted from seconds to hours at a time may merely postpone and exacerbate outbursts of symptoms. "  Tortured prose - surely a K12 copy from Wiki, not from NIH.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:11, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  NIH 

message: I have reverted a recent addition by an anon diff and feel compelled to provide a rationale, lest it appear I'm enforcing "ownership" of the article. As for late onset of TS, Chouinard and Ford (2000) studied 411 adults and found only seven could be diagnosed as having a true idiopathic, new-onset tic disorder, which is not defined as TS; rather, they maintain
The clinical evidence suggests that adult tic disorders are part of a range of illness that includes childhood onset tics and Tourette's syndrome.
:()
As for the remaining additions: in the "Characteristics" section, the statement altered to read "the tics of Tourette's are sometimes temporarily suppressible and are at times preceded by a premonitory urge, although sometimes they occur spontaneously and without any warning" is, as such, no longer supported by the cited reference. The inserted paragraph "Although in some cases, for certain tics, the premonitory urge is entirely absent..." is unsourced and, quite frankly, sounds unlikely as it was presented; that is, however, just my humble opinion. 
I don't mean to attack the validity of these additions, but please cite them or at least discuss further if you wish to re-add, so that other editors may verify them. Thanks, Fvasconcellos 23:48, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, TS is diagnostically defined as having onset in childhood, so part of the addition was not only unsourced, but inaccurate.  Another problem was the redundant prose, which has to be avoided if the article is to maintain featured status - the premonitory urge adddition said nothing that isn't already said more succinctly.  If I could figure out what the editor wanted to say - that isn't already said in the article - I could source it, since I know the literature.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:53, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent additions 

message: Thanks to Riana dzasta for semi-protecting the article. My previous request was denied by a different person, and I was intending to request again after yesterday's fresh increase. The daily vandalism got tiring, and it's been bothering me that people are so immature and negative about TS. Anyway, thanks again. -- Immora 06:16, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The article was vandalized by three IPs in two days; doesn't really warrant protection, and easily reverted.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:35, 22 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Semi-protection

message: I've attempted to rationalise the use of archive.org. The general practice on Wikipedia seems to be that web links do not need to be linked to a fixed archive snapshot. An "accessed" date is required, which could be used with a web archive to retrieve a version of the document should the link become dead or radically change. This has already happened on a number of links used by this article. The changes I've made are:
* If the link is dead, I've kept a link to the last archived version of the page (confirming no change). I've reworded "accessed ..." to "archived ...". I think that better reflects what is going on. We have to assume the archive is a faithful and fixed copy from the date of archiving. The actual viewing date after that period is irrelevant. Using the archive date means this article documents the age of the information the reference is based on, rather than giving the impression that an up-to-date page has been consulted.
* If the link is live, I've checked that the text is the same as what was previously archived. If OK, then I've changed the link to a direct one. Since I've reviewed the text against the article, I've updated the "accessed" date.
* There were a few cases where a named ref had its body repeated.
I hope this is OK and I haven't broken the existing careful punctuation. Colin°Talk 21:40, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, Colin — it looks much improved, and it looks like you caught some repeat, named refs I had missed.  If the TSA website ever settles down, I'll eventually substitute live links, but they've been changing URLs constantly over the last year.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:45, 14 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Web sources and archive.org