Talk:Focal dystonia

message: The Wikipedia Administrator Orangemike (talk) removed what user JonnyDotNet and myself had written.
He answered us in his talk page (here) and told us to discuss this in this talk page so I bring the discussion here. The information he deleted is in this version of the article: (10:34, 2 February 2012)
Regarding this section "Notable Cases" his answer to my question about why he deleted the content was:
:1. I removed references to non-notable musicians as we define them, without prejudice as to medical issues. (See :WP:BAND.)
:2. I removed a swath of material that did not come from reliable sources as you yourselves admit ("it is a reversible condition even the medical science says it's not") but instead served only to advertise a fringe theory not currently recognized by medical science in the field. Self-published material is not a reliable source, for obvious reasons of neutral point of view; and of course we do not take :testimonials here. If you have sources that are more reputable than a YouTube vid, then offer those sources on the talk page of the article, not here.
Orangemike, the subtitle reads "Notable Cases" and not "Notable Musicians" so I don't understand why that section should only apply to notable musicians... If it is the way you say, then, isn't it needed to change that title to anything else but "Notable Cases"? Wouldn't it be then more appropriate something link "Cases of Notable Musicians"? Also, where is all the scientific, reliable and recognized by medical science information regarding the recovery of the other (notable) musicians listed in that section? At least I was publishing a video, yes posted on youtube, where I documented the problems of movement that I had and then show my current situation where those problems don't exist anymore.
It's not that I would like the informatino about the other musicians to be taken out, on the contrary, as a person who suffered Musicians' Focal Dystonia for 9 years any fact that gives hope to sufferes is good for me. But I don't see that the information regarding the other musicians complies with everything you told me that the information I wrote didn't comply with. What you did seems a little biased to me.
The fact that I was diagnosed by two different neurologists with focal dystonia and that now I can play guitar with no problems seems to me "Notable", being that there aren't much information regarding recovery cases. I can have a copy of my diagnosis to be issued to me by the hospital where I was diagnosed "Hospital Italiano de Buenos Aires". Wouldn't that and then a video showing I can play normaly be enough to be reliable information? If so, how should I present that document for Wikipedia to take my case a reliable? 
Of course I am not a "Notable Musician" so probably a different section should be opened to write that information right? Regards. Sebastiandavid (talk) 03:14, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Notable Cases

message: The Wikipedia administrator Orangemike (talk) deleted the content I wrote in the section saying it wasn't a reliable source.
The last version of what I wrote said:
Regarding Musician's Focal Dystonia, doctors Raoul Tubiana (Orthopedic Surgeon) and Peter C. Amadio (Orthopedic Surgeon and Biomechanics Engineer) performed and extensive research on the problems of instrumentalist musicians, including focal dystonia, and were able to recover from this condition, up to concert level, 35 musicians. Three case histories from these musicians were fully documented. They state in that it is not incurable and that "the hopeless malediction 'no single treatment modality had proven effective' is now obsolete".
I had put the references to the Medical Book that contains the investigation ("Medical Problems of the Instrumentalist Musician", Martin Dunitz, 2000.) and the pages from where I took the information.
I wrote an email to one of the authors (his email is publicly available on internet), Doctor Peter C. Amadio, to ask him if he thinks his book is a reliable source. For what I've read about reliable sources on Wikipedia, the claims on the book should have "Academic Consensus". I don't know about this and that's why I contacted the author. Well see. Sebastiandavid (talk) 04:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatment 

message: Please can any admin check this whole article, there are lot of claims not being cited. Even the claim at the begining "Focal dystonia is a neurological condition" is not cited. Even that claim is what medical science states about focal dystonia, there is no citation for that claim. If I say "Aspirin relieves minor aches and pains", since that claim is of popular knowledge then I don't need to make a citation for it?
Orangemike you deleted my editions but didn't check on this, pelase can you check?
I am not a versed Wikipedia editor that's why I don't to it myself. Sebastiandavid (talk) 04:09, 8 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citations Needed 

message: Part of this article is wrong. Focal dystonia is not a disease of the basal ganglia, but of the motor cortex.
GABA SUPPLEMENTS HELP MITIGATE MY ISSUES
Michael Houstoun (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Michael_Houstoun) had a focal dystonia problem with his right hand from 2000-2005, playing "left hand only" pieces during this time. He was able to regain control of his right hand without artificial means such as Botox.
Source "The Piano Man" documentary.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.73.75.68 (talk) 12:49, 13 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: No one has cured it. Nancy Byl has used a behavioral re-training strategy and has in some cases gotten patients up to 85-90% of their pre-dystonic speed on the specific sequences that led to the dystonia. But I reckon a cure would require 100%. --Animalresearcher (talk) 18:45, 4 November 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Part

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Focal dystonia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071020055446/http://www.dystonia-foundation.org/filebin/pdf/focal%20dystonia.pdf to http://www.dystonia-foundation.org/filebin/pdf/focal%20dystonia.pdf
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 02:28, 3 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The organization of causes, treatment, and noted sufferers can be improved by adding signs and symptoms, diagnosis, prognosis, and prevention.  Other treatments and more elaboration on research in the causes of focal dystonia can also be added.  There are many forms of focal dystonia that can be elaborated on as well as media that can accompany new sections.  (CLo12345 (talk) 23:50, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Elaborating and reorganizing 

message: Overall the readability of the lead section is well done. The reader is left knowing what focal dystonia is when reading this section. It may be helpful to add a fact related to epidemiology in this section. Given the complexity of this medical condition, the statement about treatment for focal dystonia is appropriate for the lead section. 
I would suggest moving the “cause” section above the “signs and symptoms section”. 
While the cause of focal dystonia does appear to be complex, the readability of this section may be difficult for Wikipedia users. Starting the introduction to the studies referenced may be improved with the words “studies have shown”, thus introducing readers to findings referenced.  The third paragraph seems complicated for readers and may be improved by summarizing the study’s findings in simple language. The last paragraph of this section had great readability and may be more appropriate as the second paragraph of this section. 
The treatment section is well organized by breaking down the different modalities of treatment in subsections. I think the PT section could be expanded on instead of listing one person’s personal experience. Including different physical therapy modalities would be helpful to readers. In addition, the medication section could be expanded on, specifically speaking about how the mechanism of action of anticholinergics can help improve the symptoms of focal dystonia. The Botox treatment mentioned in the “procedure “subsection may also be appropriate here. The procedures section has good readability and is organized nicely. 
There does need to be information in the Signs and Symptoms, Diagnosis, Prognosis and Performance Arts sections. 
The sources that are cited are mostly primary sources that list specific cases or experiments. Additional secondary sources such as literature reviews may improve the article. I do appreciate the use of multiple forms of media such as YouTube videos. Ginnalowe (talk) 00:38, 17 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peer Review