Jump to content

Talk:Societal and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

GA Review

[edit]

I have reviewed the 29 October, 2006 nomination for Good Article and have the following feedback before I would recommend this for a good article:

  • There are a lot of one- and two-sentence paragraphs in the article. These short paragraphs disrupt the flow of the article and make it jumpy.
  • The very first sentence of the article is confusing. I don't understand what it is trying to say.
  • There is some bits of jargon in the early part of the article that the average reader wouldn't understand. Examples:
    • Tourette syndrome occurs along a spectrum of tic disorders, which includes transient tics and chronic tics.
    • ...relative to their parents, than predicted by the usual model of regression to the mean.
  • What are all the vague references to Laura Schlessinger about? Her picture is in the article and there's one vague sentence about her, but nothing is mentioned about the controversy. Please explain what was said or done.
  • In the legal section, statistics are used without a frame of reference. TS was implicated in 150 cases, 21 of which were criminal. 150 cases out of how many? Is the article saying that 150 cases is a lot, or a little?
  • The introduction, latent advantages section, and legal section are difficult to read. The prose doesn't flow very well, especially part of the latent advantages section that reads like it was cut and pasted out of an academic journal. Too technical, the reader has to do too much deciphering to figure out what is being said. Many of the paragraphs frequently switch from active to passive voice. Try to eliminate the use of passive voice to improve readability.
  • The "legal" section needs a more descriptive title.

I'll keep an eye on the article and put a hold on the nomination to give some time to work out the revisions. Good luck and feel free to ask for clarifications. Neil916 (Talk) 07:23, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Repeat message (most unfortunate that another author put up four articles for GA at once, all written by me, without inquiring if these articles were ready or if I had time to finish them.) Thanks for the input, Neil916, but there's no need to give it time. As I've explained elsewhere, I did not nominate the article for GA, someone put all the TS daughter articles up for review just as I was traveling and did not have time to finish them, I am the only author, and I don't have time for this polishing/finishing right now. My preference would be to remove them all from GA, and strike all GA templates from the page: I'm not a fan of the entire GA process anyway, and would not have submitted these articles:-) When I have time to polish and finish the article, I will ask for review from the medical project and other copyeditors I know, and not from GA. I'm sorry you had to go to the trouble; thanks again for the input. I will finish these articles when I have time, and then submit them for peer review at the Medicine Project. Sandy (Talk) 14:17, 18 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Basshunter

[edit]

In recent fanmail, the European dance-techno star Basshunter appears to also suffer from Tourette's syndrome. This fact also appears on the Wikipedia article for Basshunter. 128.101.201.182 07:41, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

To add it here, we need a WP:RS, preferably English - I haven't located one. Sandy (Talk) 13:12, 19 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]
[1], [2] and [3] should be enough.--MartinUK (talk) 00:44, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
 Done Added. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:59, 19 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Fair use rationale for Image:Matchstick Men.jpg

[edit]

Image:Matchstick Men.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 04:39, 6 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Doctor Samuel Johnson

[edit]

A scholarly source for Johnson:

  • Pearce JM. Doctor Samuel Johnson: 'the great convulsionary' a victim of Gilles de la Tourette's syndrome (PDF). J R Soc Med. 1994 Jul;87(7):396-9. PMID 8046726.

Colin°Talk 17:52, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Very nice! Printing to read, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:39, 23 November 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Tourette's Guy

[edit]

What about the well known internet celebrity? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.64.106.21 (talk) 23:09, 5 October 2007 (UTC)[reply]

i would also like to know why he does not appear in this article, it would be an interesting addition

It's because internet celebrities are usually made famous in a negative, malicious, sarcastic sense. People point and laugh at them. They're not liked for something they can approve themselves. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 85.4.133.153 (talk) 22:23, 26 March 2011 (UTC)[reply]

++It is becuase some mod here has a vendetta against Tourettes Guy. I'd suggest looking at the discussion page for his article but it is gone along with his page, as is the discussion page for the discussion page.

There was a whole argument about it a while back and despite good arguments some mod basically came in and said no, erased all comments and pages, locked them all and that was that. The reason was never really made clear outside of a "We think this is offensive and so we won't allow it" which was reworded into some BS explanation based on the rules they make up at will to defend their indefensible positions. Yet another reason not to donate any money to the wiki foundation until they stop applying their rules arbitrarily. --Tuffsnake

So, it's a case of PoV. That is, funny or not funny? 85.97.5.140 (talk) 11:07, 12 July 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Given that the Tourettes Guy is a notable figure with Tourette syndrome, and it'd be POV not to include him in the article, I don't see why we should omit him from the article. I say we include him regardless of the biased opinions of others. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 21:01, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Neglecting of course any real indication that he actually had Tourette's? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:04, 20 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Oh, that. I guess we just assumed he had Tourette because of his name. Never mind, then. We'll wait until we find such indication. Cat's Tuxedo (talk) 23:21, 22 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Danny admitted on the Howard Stern show that he doesn't actually have Tourette Syndrome. His bizarre behavior is primarily a consequence of his alcoholism. 99.231.241.146 (talk) 15:31, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, but 1) it wasn't necessary for him to admit the obvious, and 2) he is still not notable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 15 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Robert Ashley

[edit]

Text removed: [4] Please see WP:MEDMOS and provide a quote from a reliable source indicating he has actually been diagnosed with TS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:13, 12 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Nightmare scare quote usage

[edit]

The section on legal issues is employing a phrasing that is somewhat biased. In particular describing the insurance problems as a nightmare. (e.g., The insurance "nightmare" that exists for thousands of people with TS.) The cited source is a group that is specifically advocating for TS rights (specifically rights to insurance). This wording is based on a biased source. I have edited this to be slightly less problematic. 24.6.54.186 (talk) 18:55, 24 March 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Sedaris

[edit]

I believe that he has confirmed that he was diagnosed with Tourettes, and therefore warrants inclusion in the article.--96.52.132.224 (talk) 11:20, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

David Sedaris contained a citation that didn't verify the text cited (I own that book), and this provides additional context. If you can provide reliable sources and an accurate accounting in the Sedaris article, it can be discussed here, if it can be shown he has a legitimate diagnosis and has made a lasting impression upon perception of the condition (I haven't heard of him in TS circles or otherwise). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:32, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]
And, appears promotional. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:40, 19 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced POV/OR material

[edit]

On March 3 SandyGeorgia you reverted my edits, stating in your edit summary "no reason for removal that I can tell". In the summary for the first of those three edits of mine, I stated clearly: Copyedit to emphasize attributive wording per WP:NPOV; Rm unsourced material/OR per WP:NOR/WP:V; TV.com/imdb are not considered WP:RS" This seams fairly straightforward. Opinions in matters of controversy should be attributed to their sources, and not stated as facts. IMDB and TV.com are not considered reliable sources under WP:RS because their content is user-generated and lacks full editorial control and oversight. A number of the passages clearly illustrate this:

  • One passage read, "Many television shows have addressed the topic of Tourette's, but few have advanced understanding of Tourette's." The two sources given at the end of that passage are this onethis one. Even putting aside that IMDB and TV.com do not pass WP:RS, and are not even sources qualified in medicine, neither of those two sources contain any information about advancing understanding of Tourette's. This is clearly the POV/OR of the editor who wrote this. Similar unsourced passages read, "However, even more television and film productions are not accurate representations of persons with Tourette's, and many of them have used misconceptions about coprolalia as a plot device, or portrayed people with Tourette's as being dangerously out of control." and "Due to viewer complaints, subsequent airings omitted Bart's cursing or replaced the Tourette's mention with rabies."
  • One of the passages SandyGeorgia restored reads "Other television and film productions depict persons with Tourette's inaccurately...", even though no source is offered for this statement.
  • Another passage is this one: "A South Park episode, "Le Petit Tourette", also used Tourette's as fodder for comedy...The episode received a mixed reaction from the Tourette Syndrome Association, which commented that it provided useful information while at the same time perpetuating outright myths about coprolalia and Tourette syndrome." In the first place the use of the word "fodder" is POV. Second, the source cited at the end of that passage make no mention of any "mixed reaction" or "outright myths". In fact, the text from the source wasn't even written in reaction to the episode, as it clearly indicates that it was written before the episode aired, and was an alert to the impending broadcast of it. It was therefore, not a "reaction" to it, and was not informed by its actual content. If you can find an updated page on that site in which that organization gave a reaction to the aired episode, that would be fine, but the passage's assertion about that pre-airdate text is simply false.

The rest of the material I removed or edited have the same problems. Wikipedia's policies on verifiability, neutrality, and proper attribution are clear. Nightscream (talk) 07:13, 23 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Nightscream, your edits are becoming disruptive and tedious. Could you please answer the questions and stop posting misinfo to my talk page? Where are you getting the claims you are making about the Quincy episode, and why did you remove the cn tag, when as far as I know, there is simply NO basis in any source for the claims you are making about that episode? Second, links are *not* required for hard print sources, and the courtesy link is *not* given in the article; it is included in an invisible, HTML comment, so why are you adding deadlink? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I am going to quote the last message SandyGeorgia posted to her own talk page here, and conduct the rest of our contact here on this page, beginning with my response:

Yes, you made unfounded, incorrect and uncited claims about the Quincy episode. 2) You removed material that can be cited to other sources, rather than putting a citation tag on it (I will look for those sources once I'm home, in a book I have at home). 3) You removed attribution to a source. Please stop being obnoxious and edit warring, raising inane issues on my talk page, and if you want additional citations, then add a cn tag, and I will provide them when I'm home. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

I have not made any claims about the Quincy episode, uncited or otherwise. All I did was move that passage, which was already in the article. Here is the last version of the article prior to my first edit of it. Do a search on that page on "Quincy". See it? Now look at my first batch of edits. All I did was edit the passage that said, "A 1981 episode of the television show, Quincy, M.E., "Seldom Silent, Never Heard",<ref>[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0681828/ Quincy: "Seldom Silent, Never Heard"], ImDB.com. Retrieved on 28 May 2008.</ref> was a seminal moment in the history of Tourette's." to remove the unsourced opinion, as that imdb page makes no mention of this opinion, and in any event, Wikipedia does not consider imdb a reliable source. All websites whose content is user-generated, such as imdb, TV.com, other wikis, etc, are not considered usable under WP:RS. These were the only "attributions" I removed, but if I erred, and inadvertently removed a valid one, please tell me which one.

As for the cn tag, that was an error that occurred when I edited the Quincy passage. I didn't realize that I removed a cn tag until your mention of it now, and I just restored it. Sorry about that.

These are not inane issues, they are valid aspects of policy. One of those policies Wikipedia takes seriously is WP:Civility, which you just violated by using language like "obnoxious". I suggest you calm down, and try to speak with those who disagree with you without the vitriol. We can work this out without name-calling, okay? :-)

As for material that "can be cited to other sources", if that's true, then cite it. Contentious claims like the ones that were in the article have no business being in Wikipedia if they are not sourced, and a cn tag is not a substitute for one. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 05:25, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to get you to focus on the facts once again: first, as I have stated several times, I will cite that passage to a book once I am home in a few weeks. Unless you are editing a WP:BLP, there is no reason to delete citeable, accurate text from an article-- you can place a cn tag and wait for it to be cited (in this case, until I am home and can access the book). Second, you have added false claims about the Quincy episode, by moving it to a passage that begins with "Other television and film productions depicting persons with Tourette's, and using coprolalia as a plot device ..."; when you add material, it is up to you to cite it. I am aware of NO source that claims that of the Quincy episode-- which was a seminal moment in the history of Tourette's, leading to increased diagnoses (a fact that is citeable to book on the History of Tourette's and well known to anyone who knows TS). So, you continue to damage this article rather than simply waiting for me to return from travel where I can access the book for citing the accurate text that was in the article before you began damaging it. You are edit warring about info you're apparently not knowledgeable about, and adding false info to the article. This is NOT a BLP, and the info about Quincy is simply not contentious-- there is no reason for you to remove material that is common knowledge and can be cited. If you aren't knowledgeable about the history of TS, at least please refrain from damaging the article-- where you aren't knowledgeable, you can add a cn tag and be patient until the info can be cited. I don't know how many times I should be expected to explain that I have the book at home, and I'm not home. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:19, 27 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
"links are *not* required for hard print sources, and the courtesy link is *not* given in the article; it is included in an invisible, HTML comment, so why are you adding deadlink?" (I forgot to respond to this one yesterday). If someone is going to include a link in an article--and someone did (I have no idea what a "courtesy link" is)--then it stands to reason that it should be a viable one. If it's not, then it's reasonable to add a deadlink tag on it, so that someone can be alerted to fix or update it, much as User:Anthonyhcole did. (Thanks, Anthony.) Arguing that a dead link found in an article should not be noted as such makes no sense to me, but if you can explain why one should be, please do so.
"first, as I have stated several times, I will cite that passage to a book once I am home in a few weeks. Unless you are editing a WP:BLP, there is no reason to delete citeable, accurate text from an article-- you can place a cn tag and wait for it to be cited. Wrong. Putting aside the fact that you did not state this "several" times, all information in Wikipedia must be cited. The only material that does not need to be cited is that very narrow range of material that is so universally self-evident that it does not need to be (ie.: "Christmas is on December 25"--This is Jimmy Wales' example, not mine). This applies to all articles, and not just BLP's. The idea that this applies only to BLPs is false. If you want to source it at a later date, then do so. But until then, it stays out of the article. The rest of Wikipedia is not required wait until you decide that it's convenient for you to add sources.
"Second, you have added false claims about the Quincy episode, by moving it to a passage that begins with "Other television and film productions depicting persons with Tourette's, and using coprolalia as a plot device ..."; when you add material, it is up to you to cite it." And since I did not add that material, but merely moved it, this has nothing to do with me. Moving material does not constitute "adding" it, except in your mind. By continuing to accuse me of adding false information, when you have already acknowledged that I merely moved it, you are making a deliberately false accusation. If you continue with this uncivil behavior, you risk losing your editing privileges. Again, please calm down, and learn to resolve an editorial dispute without resorting to this sort of behavior, okay?
"You are edit warring about info you're apparently not knowledgeable about" Personal knowledge is not the basis of editing Wikipedia. Good writing and reliable sources are. Criticizing another editor for lacking knowledge of an article's subject, in fact, is considered by Wikipedia to be behavior to be avoided. Please see WP:IKNOW.
"...the info about Quincy is simply not contentious-- there is no reason for you to remove material that is common knowledge and can be cited." Material does not need to be contentious to require sources, especially since what's "contentious" is subjective. The content of a TV show episode from decades ago is not "common knowledge", nor is common knowledge a substitute for proper sourcing under WP:V, WP:NOR, WP:CS, WP:RS, et al. Nightscream (talk) 04:21, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You appear to be on a hobby horse, and you don't even appear to read what is written to you. The link was *not* included in the article; it was an HTML comment. If you don't know what an HTML comment is, and if you don't know what a courtesy link is, please read Wiki policy and guideline pages before reverting other editors. While it was kind of Anthony to add a link to the abstract, it isn't needed or useful for most readers, since it's only an abstract and a fee is required (that actually should be noted in the source, but I'll get to that as I can). Nightscream, when you begin reverting other editors and edit warring, please be certain you understand Wiki policy and guidelines. I'm curious about why these minor issues are taking so much time and space on this talk page, when simple cn tags would have been the way to address your concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you not read edit summaries? Please do. I have stated it several times. And it is curious that you are stating that all info must be cited, while you added uncited, incorrect info about the Quincy episode. You have added incorrect info to the article, and I have tagged it as "citation needed"-- common editing practice. If you aren't going to remove the inaccurate info you added, then please either locate a cite for it, or stop edit warring. Is there a reason you are not responding to my direct concerns? When info requires better citation in a non-BLP, and is non-contentious, you can most certainly add a cn tag and wait for a citation to be added. The info you are questioning is by no means contentious, and is in fact common knowledge to those who know TS. DO you have any knowledge of the history of TS? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
@Nightscream: No one is saying the text doesn't need a source every; what Sandy is saying that the text needs a source but it's not so urgent that it can't wait a week. When we know there is a source to verify something and that source will become available in a week or two, there's no reason to remove the text if it's not hurting someone (i.e., if it's not libel in a BLP or something like that), you can simply leave the {{fact}} tag and wait until the citation is added. rʨanaɢ (talk) 23:15, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
As far as I can tell, the Quincy episode is no longer mentioned in the article. This is a most strange occurrence-- wholly unharmful and fully citable information about a historic episode in the History of TS has now been completely removed from the article, simply because I'm traveling and the book is at home. What a strange way to improve the article. Well, I suppose that's an improvement over the inaccurate info that was here the last time I looked.[5] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I've readded Quincy with what I consider to be an inferior source, and will replace it when I'm home (unless I've already packed the book off to storage, in which case it will take me a while to request the book on interlibrary loan). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:34, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Already explained: you appended it to a sentence that is not accurate about the Quincy episode. You changed content by moving content: not that hard to understand. Please cite the Quincy statement you added-- I can cite the previous passage when I'm home, but I can't cite the inaccurate info you added. I am quite calm, thank you; please focus on the content and refrain from personalizing arguments. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
When you add inaccurate info that can't be cited, it needs to be corrected quickly when a cn tag is added-- since it is inaccurate. Knowlege of the sources equates to knowledge of the subject-- you don't seem to have either. Again, are you familiar with the Quincy episode and the history of TS? Are you aware that you have removed citable material (from a definitive book on the history of TS), and added incorrect material, apparently a reflection of you not knowing either the field or the sources? Again, please focus on the content; your diversion to claims of behavioral issues, after you've added incorrect info to the article, won't solve the issues in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Please stop ignoring the issue; leave the cn tag, and I will add it once I'm home. It is not contentious, and is not harming the article, which is not a BLP. However, the inaccurate info you have added about Quincy is harming the article. Please refrain from lecturing and resorting to personalization of issues: if you can't source your change to the Quincy material, then please stop edit warring and relax until I return home and can access the book, but in the meantime, do not continue to make false claims that the Quincy episode used TS as a plot device, when it was in fact a seminal moment in the history of TS, resulting in increased diagnoses from accurate info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:18, 28 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Please do not break up my post by inserting your answers inside them. I prefer to have my own posts intact. Thanks.

"The link was *not* included in the article; it was an HTML comment...I'm curious about why these minor issues are taking so much time and space on this talk page, when simple cn tags would have been the way to address your concerns." The link is indeed in the article, and is visible in the references section. You can see it when you click on the footnote at the end of the sentence that references, as seen here. The bottom line remains: If you're going to have a url in the article--anywhere--why not note when it's a dead one? My doing so was perfectly reasonable. Moreover, a dead link tag has nothing to do with a cn tag.

"Do you not read edit summaries? Please do. I have stated it several times." Again, you really need to chill with the rudeness, especially in light of your own accusation that it is I who am "obnoxious". I do indeed read edit summaries, and a glance through the article's history that I could find where you stated this was this one. Even if we include your one mention of this on your talk page, that is not "several". By contrast, you seem to have made a far more deliberate attempt at ignoring my edit summaries, and without discussion, as seen with these comments of yours, with which you express bewilderment at my edits, even though I detailed my rationale in my own edit summaries. So I'd ease off with the accusation of not reading edit summaries, and in general, with the attitude you're exhibiting, especially over such a minor point.

"And it is curious that you are stating that all info must be cited, while you added uncited, incorrect info about the Quincy episode. You have added incorrect info to the article...If you aren't going to remove the inaccurate info you added...Already explained: you appended it to a sentence that is not accurate about the Quincy episode. You changed content by moving content..." This was the passage prior to my edit of it:

A 1981 episode of the television show, Quincy, M.E., "Seldom Silent, Never Heard",<ref>[http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0681828/ Quincy: "Seldom Silent, Never Heard"], ImDB.com. Retrieved on 28 May 2008.</ref> was a seminal moment in the history of Tourette's. It was perhaps the first television representation of Tourette's syndrome, and its portrayal led to many undiagnosed people with tics recognizing their symptoms and getting a correct diagnosis.<ref>[http://www.tv.com/quincy-m.e./show/579/episode_guide.html&season=6 Seldom Silent, Never Heard.] TV.com. Retrieved on 8 May 2006.</ref>

This is what it looked like after I edited it:

Other television and film productions depicting persons with Tourette's, and using coprolalia as a plot device, include "Seldom Silent, Never Heard", a 1981 episode of the television show, Quincy, M.E....

As you can see, all I did was remove the unsourced mention of the show being a "seminal moment" that led to people being diagnosed, to simply mentioning that it depicted Tourettes. It's specious to argue that I "added" anything, since the episode was already in the article as depicting Tourettes. The only thing I can speculate you to be talking about is (correct me if I'm wrong) that the previous passage did not mention "coprolalia", and that this upset you because that episode did not depict that particular aspect of Tourettes. If so, I'm sorry, but then that was a minor quirk that occurred during the process of my taking the mention of the series, and putting it with a paragraph that also mentioned coprolalia. If that's what the problem was, then you could've been specific in explaining that, instead of going on and on and on about "adding this" and "adding that". For what's it worth, I removed the mention of Quincy from the article.

"Is there a reason you are not responding to my direct concerns?" I have responded to every relevant statement you made, directly, referencing the relevant policies, and without personal comments. By contrast, you have not. You did not address the issue over Wikipedia's views of imdb and TV.com, for example, after I informed you of the issues regarding those sources, requiring me to respond this multiple times.

"The info you are questioning is by no means contentious, and is in fact common knowledge to those who know TS." Contentious is subjective, and potentionally circular. If one wishes to add the opinion that a TV episode was a "seminal moment" in the history of Tourettes, then that opinion must be attributed. Not only are imdb and TV.com not considered a reliable sources by Wikipedia, but the imdb and TV.com pages that were given to support that comment don't even contain that information.([6][7]) Without a reliable source, that assertion is contentious. "Common knowledge" among people who know TS is not a reliable source. WP:V requires us to document where information comes from. Saying "it's common knowledge" is called original research, and is not permitted on Wikipedia.

"...refrain from personalizing arguments." If you truly believe that calling someone "obnoxious" or saying, "Do you not read edit summaries?", is within the bounds of WP:Civility, and does not constitute "personalizing", then I would suggest that your adherence to this principle is rather selective. I will be alerting the Administrator's Noticeboard regarding your behavior.

"Knowlege of the sources equates to knowledge of the subject--" But you didn't ask me if I had knowledge of the sources. You asked me if I had knowledge of the subject. The former is required for adding or verifying content. The latter is not. When is asked if they have "knowledge of the subject", what is understood by the listener is whether they have personal knowledge or expertise, and not that they are merely relying on sources. Regarding the material that I removed, I did so because it either lacked sources, or because I did indeed review the ones offered, and saw that they are not permitted under WP:RS or failed verification.

"Are you aware that you have removed citable material (from a definitive book on the history of TS)..." It doesn't matter if it's "citable". What matters is that it's cited. If there is a book that supports the info, why not add it? For that matter, why didn't you just put it in earlier? If you say you have a book that supports that material, then re-add that material with the appropriate source when you return home. The article's not going anywhere. Nightscream (talk) 07:39, 29 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

You're not listening. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 1 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
You still don't appear to be following the issue. Do you know what an HTML comment is? Your link above is to the current article, not the version you edited, which included no link, dead or otherwise. Links are not required for hard print sources, although courtesy links are sometimes provided. This is the version before you started editing it-- a simple review of the article history shows that before you started tagging it, the old link was only a courtesy link given as an HTML comment, that did not appear in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:55, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

"rʨanaɢ: No one is saying the text doesn't need a source every; what Sandy is saying that the text needs a source but it's not so urgent that it can't wait a week." With all due respect, rʨanaɢ, that's not her call to make. If material is going to assert that the media purveys "outright myths" or that a show was a "seminal moment", that is an opinion that needs to be attributed. I don't know why you and Sandy think that BLPs or libels are the only things that need sources, but if you do, please feel free to ask Jimmy Wales himself. He'll tell you that you're wrong, as I've had discussion with him on this very issue. There is no reason why the entirety of Wikipedia should revolve around the whims and travel plans of any one editor, and even if I were to hold off on improving an article for this reason, I would only do so if I had some measure of the other editor's character, reliability, etc. SandyGeorgia has been nothing but rude to me from Day 1 and has shown no interest in either WP:Civility or in working this disagreement out like an adult. As such, she has forfeited any right to the benefit of the doubt by me.

" You're not listening." I've read everything you've said, responded directly and honestly to each statement I thought relevant, and have attempted to discuss things with you civilly. You, on the other hand, have not been civil, and have persistently stonewalled on a number of points. I'm not listening? Really? Okay. Then explain to me why you continue to break up my posts with your responses, instead of keeping your posts separate from mine, even after I asked you not to? Explain to me why you refused to elaborate on the supposed "uncited material" you've persistently accused me of adding, even after I offered a possible explanation above? Why not respond to these points, if for no other reason to make discussion of our points of view easier? Why didn't you just say, "Nightscream, the passage you moved that Quincy mention to contains a mention of coprolalia, which wasn't in the Quincy episode."? Then, I could've just said, "Oh, okay, sorry, I missed that." Instead, you pursued this bizarrely obsessive campaign of self-righteously accusing me ad nauseum of adding unsourced material. But by all means, go ahead and explain why you couldn't simply explain what the unsourced material was, and why this means that I'm the one who's "not listening".

"You still don't appear to be following the issue. Do you know what an HTML comment is? Your link above is to the current article, not the version you edited, which included no link, dead or otherwise." Untrue. This is the last version of the article before I edited it. In the "In film and TV" section, it contains the following:

<ref name="Holtgren">Holtgren, Bruce. <!--[http://news.enquirer.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070111/EDIT01/701110314/1090/EDIT -->"Truth about Tourette's not what you think." ''[[Cincinnati Enquirer]]'', 11 January 2006. Retrieved on 16 January 2006.</ref>

The Cincinnati Enquirer url in that passage is indeed a "link" or "url", if you prefer, and it's dead. Whether that url is in an HTML comment, is there as a "courtesy", or whatever, the simply question is raised: "Why have it in there if it's dead?" I put the deadlink tag to spur its update, and someone was nice enough to do just that. Had I not done this, it wouldn't have been updated.

Please do not mutilate my posts again. Thanks. Nightscream (talk) 06:43, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This conversation is over-- the HTML comment is clear in the info you give above, and you don't appear to know what that is or means. Either you're not reading, don't understand, don't want to understand, or don't care. This conversation has been nothing but disruption, resulting in inaccurate info being added to the article, and accurate info deleted. For now, the issue is temporarily addressed, and I'll repair it more completely once I'm home. Please find a more constructive use of everyone's time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:42, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

I do care, and indeed, I did read everything single thing you said quite carefully, and I do understand. I just disagree with you, and you don't like that, that's all. The passage in question has the http prefix, the colon, the double back slash, the domain name, and the suffixes. That makes it a web address. Being a comment rendered with invisible html markup does not change that, and rather than refute this, you simply repeat the same stone-deaf fallacy over and over ad nauseum, so there there can be no true exchange, since your m.o. is to attack anyone who disagrees with you. You self-righteously bleat about "inaccurate info", just so that you can condescend to others, but never once elaborate on what that info was, despite my repeatedly asking you about it. I did this because I wanted to discuss with you. By contrast, you did not, so I'm left to conclude that it was a minor error about coprolalia, which I corrected on a guess, since you refused to answer me directly, and regard anyone editing in a way that is not to your liking as "edit warring". When you manage to get that chip off your shoulder, and are ready to actually address those you disagree with as human beings, and address specifics, and with reference to site policy, you might find disputes like this easier to resolve. Until then, peace. Nightscream (talk) 07:05, 5 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • Update, I am home, but in the middle of moving, and can't put my hands on the book I need to improve the sourcing on the Quincy episode-- it's most likely that it's in a box in storage, and I won't be able to add that info until at least August, so for now, the TSANJ source will have to cover it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:38, 10 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

I tagged this as suffering from an excess of US-based examples and nothing from the rest of the world. The last section is also problematic; it has a bit of {{inpopularculture}} to it and could do with being reorganized and possibly trimmed. --John (talk) 01:57, 30 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Since TS is largely underdiagnosed or unrecognized in a good portion of the world, or insurance isn't an issue in other countries, perhaps you could supply some reliable sources to information you think is missing. You also might want to peruse WP:MEDMOS; this article is Sociological and cultural aspects of TS. The purpose of such articles is to help keep those items out of the medical article, which looked like this before I organized and moved the content to the daughter article, per MEDMOS, so we no longer have to battle cultural cruft in the medical article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:45, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Points taken. I didn't even look at the history before wading in here. Good work on the reorganization. If there is little to add to balance the article, maybe a wee trim of some of the less notable stuff is in order, like I suggested above? --John (talk) 02:03, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I'd love to trim it, but it will just be constantly re-added, and isn't worth the battle. Most people who come to edit these articles try to add it to the main article, so at least by organizing and pushing it all over here, we eliminate the ongoing cruft battles (notice my edits of today just to clean up the latest additions-- if we remove it here, people will just try to add it to the main TS article, messing up a good article, while this one gets fewer hits). Honestly, besides keeping the main article clean, I don't much care, but having to clean up misinfo both here and there is a pain in the neck, so I'd rather keep it here and as accurate as possible to lessen the maintenance headaches. Thanks for the comments-- the main TS article was full of cruft before I organized and moved it out, and someone always wants to add more cruft. This article is now down to cultural references that got significant media attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I follow your logic; actually, I was talking just now about the Legal section being a little bloated and US-based, sorry that wasn't clear. I've trimmed it a little and removed the tag. Let the last section stand; I would in an ideal world prefer that it was less listy and more narrative. Maybe some of the references that are there could allow this? I certainly would resist any further additions unless they're accompanied by proper third-party reliable sources, so long as this will not be to the detriment of the main article. I just took a look at it and it too could stand some slight trimming, as there seems to be some repetition. But this is not the proper place to discuss that, of course. --John (talk) 02:22, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
It's a constant battle to keep the listy mentions of tics/TS as a plot device out of the article, sort them from the legitimate episodes that accurately discuss and advance knowledge of TS (the Quincy episode, which has now gone missing from the article), and to keep the article focused on those mentions of tics that truly received media attention and commentary. Everytime anything mentions tics, someone wants to add it. On the legal section, the changes aren't quite right: there's a difference between "There is no reason to suspect that persons with Tourette's have diminished capacity with respect ... " and "Persons with Tourette's have full capacity to consent to treatment, participate in research, or make a will." The former was correct and sourced-- the latter is subtly incorrect as it doesn't necessarily apply to all. I think the rest of your edit is basically OK, but it's hard to tell (I edit in very small increments so others can see exactly what was changed). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:48, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
There is no reason to suspect that persons with Tourette's have diminished capacity with respect to consent to treatment, participation in research, or making a will. → Persons with Tourette's have full capacity to consent to treatment, participate in research, or make a will.
was the edit I made. I saw the double negative as clumsy, and in editing it without examining the source, I attempted to maintain exactly the same meaning. What would you propose to undo the subtle change you see in the change, but without restoring the clumsiness? --John (talk) 02:56, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Here's the exact wording from the source; no reason to suspect implies that no studies have shown such, while the new wording is a bit too strong-- the previous wording exactly reflected the source. I could probably do better if I was home with all my sources, but that's all we've got for now. PS-- this article gets only a couple hundred views per day while the main TS article gets around 5,000-- it's easier to keep the cruft contained over here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:39, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I liked your edit; it's true to the source without plagiarizing it, and less clunky indeed. Nice. --John (talk) 05:49, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks-- it was a bit too close to the source's wording-- I've learned a lot since I wrote this in 2006, and then stopped paying attention to this article! It was good to revisit it! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:07, 2 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ John: thanks for once again restoring Nightscream's deletion of sourced text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

@ Nightscream: please read WP:TALK, WP:TLDR, engage the talk page correctly, and refrain from further damaging the article without reading talk.
I don't care much about this article-- it is largely text that I shuffled out of the main TS article to reduce cruftiness, and then paid little attention to-- but if this silliness continues, I'll simply unwatch and let others solve the mess. If some collaboration takes hold, and edit warring ends, I'll review all sources and text after I'm home, but as of now, I have little motivation to continue reading long, uninformed diatribes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:14, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy, you're welcome. I'd be sad if you stopped contributing to this article as I enjoyed collaborating with you. Let's all try to make it even better. There are some useful suggestions on this page. --John (talk) 14:59, 3 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]


Correct me if I'm wrong,and I'm certainly no legal expert, but isn't forgoing a written diagnosis for the purpose of getting insurance when the condition is known to exist considered insurance fraud? Should Wikipedia be advocating such a practice?

"The diagnostic process should consider the insurance ramifications."

Even if there is a citation supporting that information, is that the information that needs to be gleaned from the text? I think that the following sentence in the section is more appropriate, making the former redundant:

"If a diagnosis is not needed for school or medication processes, some families may choose to forgo a formal, written diagnosis."

Furthermore, insurance ramifications are not part of the diagnostic criteria when determining if somebody has a neurological disorder. I will remove the sentence and move the citation, and edit the remaining sentence to read:

"If a diagnosis is not needed for school or medication processes, some families may choose to forgo a formal, written diagnosis in order to avoid insurance pitfalls."

Dissenters are welcome to revert my edit; I have no moral stance here. Yabopomonofonomopo bay (talk) 20:42, 1 April 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Upcoming memoir

[edit]

The memoir Welcome To Biscuit Land: A Year In The Life Of Touretteshero (ISBN 0285641271) by Jessica Thom will be published in early October 2012.--Auric (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Cobain

[edit]

Doc James sorry for the delay in coming back to this.

  1. Text added by JJA Richardson between 24 and 27 April: [8]
  2. Text removed by SandyGeorgia on 15 May: [9]
  3. Text reinstated by JJARichardson on 17 May without discussion: see WP:BRD. [10] This is edit warring (see BRD, please discuss if you have been reverted once after boldly adding contentious text).

The cited source,[11] says:

Unfortunately, there are no reports by physicians about the frequency of these movements. As Cobain used several drugs and medicines, these may also have caused or exacerbated his tics, making it difficult to determine whether these movements were secondary, idiopathic or associated with possible TS.

That is, there are multiple (non-Tourette's) causes of tics, (see tourettism) that could explain Cobain's alleged movements and this article specifically states that it cannot be determined if Cobain had Ts or if his movements were due to a secondary cause. When the text was reinstated without discussion or consensus, the edit summary said, " ... based on a peer-viewed source. Cobain's case is no less speculative than Mozart's." The text about Mozart is there because it specifically explains why the substantial speculation about Mozart is likely wrong. It goes without saying that Mozart is a much more widely studied musician than Cobain. There are 19 reports of Mozart and Tourette's in Pubmed, many of them by the highest authorities on Tourette's (e.g. Kushner, Jankovic). There is ONE report on Cobain-- the very weak article cited here, which does NOT conclude anything and is not worthy of mention in this article. The article is weak, highly speculative, and does not conclude anything about Cobain and TS. If more reputable and numerous sources discuss with more detail anything about Cobain's reported movements, than it may be worthy of mention.

The text should be removed and the article restored to the version before the edit warring. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Okay thanks will do. Moved this here "Rock musician and Nirvana frontman Kurt Cobain was suggested as having had TS in 2015 based on Cobain's history of OCD symptoms and facial and verbal tics observed in video interviews, along with his obscene and scatological journal entries and song lyrics.[1] In Utero (1993), Nirvana's final studio album before Cobain's suicide at age 27 in 1994, included a song called "Tourette's"." Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ Bronzini, Augusto; Camargo, Carlos Henrique F. (6 October 2015). "Tourette's syndrome in famous musicians". Arquivos de Neuro-Psiquiatria. 73. ISSN 1678-4227. Retrieved 25 April 2015.
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 16 external links on Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 07:24, 25 May 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Societal_and_cultural_aspects_of_Tourette_syndrome&oldid=1205346519"