Talk:Tourette syndrome

This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Talk:Tourette syndrome is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:

Related Sponsors

BM Pharmacy Generic pharmaceuticals at unbeatable prices. Insomnia, men's health, hair health, pain control. bmpharmacy.com
Online Pharmacy Carisoprodol, tadalafil, sildenafil, vardenafil and more... xlpharmacy.com
MedBasket.com Discreet. Inexpensive. Fast shipping. Great selection. What more can we say? medbasket.com
Frugalmed 2000 reasons to shop with us first. frugalmed.com
Ads by Tiva

Featured article star Tourette syndrome is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
News This article has been mentioned by multiple media organizations:
21 February 2008 Wikipediots: Who are these devoted, even obsessive contributors to Wikipedia? Mike Miliard – Salt Lake City Weekly
12 December 2007 Wikipedia rules Mike Miliard – The Phoenix
11 January 2007 Truth about Tourette's not what you think Bruce Holtgren – The Cincinnati Enquirer
Toolbox (+/-)

Contents

Unvoluntary/involuntary

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",[1] 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)

Tourette syndrome #Classification currently says "involuntary", not "unvoluntary"; should that be changed as well? (Either way, does that "involuntary" need an HTML comment too?…) Eubulides (talk) 19:53, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Mozart

This article's a rambling mess. If we're not sure Mozart had it, why is it even mentioned? 70.61.22.110 (talk) 19:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)Newt

See WP:MEDMOS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:15, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Proposed replacement for Mozart paragraph

I don't think the article rambles or is a mess at all, not at all, but in rereading the Mozart discussion one thing jumped out at me: it spends too much time talking about the people who are disputing Mozart's diagnosis (Simkin, Sacks, their qualifications, etc.). This jumped out at me because I am currently looking at similar problems in Chiropractic (an article that is a rambling mess, and which goes on and on in the text about the WHO and the NCCAM and such-and-such eminent chiropractor's qualifications, in order to make that article more "persuasive"—but I digress.…) How about the following replacement for the Mozart paragraph, to address this issue? This replacement could be appended to the previous paragraph, which talks about Johnson.

Although it has been speculated that Mozart had Tourette's,[2][3] no Tourette's expert or organization has presented credible evidence to show that this was the case,[3] and there are problems with the available data.[4]

Eubulides (talk) 19:49, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Some authors have speculated that Mozart may have had Tourette's. Benjamin Simkin, a medical doctor, argued that Mozart had Tourette syndrome.[2][5] Simkin is an endocrinologist[2]—not a psychiatrist or a neurologist, the medical fields which specialize in the neurological disorder. His claim was picked up by newspapers worldwide, causing an international sensation, and internet websites have fueled the speculation.[3] However, no Tourette's expert or organization has presented credible evidence to show that this was the case;[3] other authors have found the evidence lacking[6] and noted neurologist and author Oliver Sacks published an editorial disputing Simkin's claim.[7]
Sorry, I have to see them side by side before I can opine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
OK, looking at them side by side, two issues. First, read the FAC to see how I got stuck with all that wording (from a good reviewer) during the FAC, and see if you still think we can shorten. The reviwer considered that the image wasn't justified, and I had to explain how prevalent these rumors are. Then, if we do shorten, your wording looks fine, but you've got refs 2, 3 and 4, leaving off 5, 6 and 7; can we tack them back on to your wording (if that's the wording we use) to gain "insurance" against future speculative insertions, or expand a bit to encompass the concern raised at FAC ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I didn't know the history.
  • I tend to agree with the FAC reviewer that Mozart's image isn't appropriate here. The connection is just too weak. I suggest going with the shortened version of the text, but using Johnson's portrait instead; it's much better to place that portrait near the discussion of Johnson anyway. This would mean an image shortage in "Prognosis", which is bad, but overall it's better to live with an image shortage than to misplace images or to add too-weakly-connected images.
  • If you prefer filling that gap in "Prognosis", how about this idea: put Image:Malraux.jpg under "Prognosis" with an an appropriate caption? That would be a better visual fit for "Prognosis", since someone with TS is currently far more likely to end up looking like Malraux's picture than like Johnson's.
  • The shortened version didn't lose any refs; it just coalesced some of them, which caused them to get renumbered. But they're all there.
Eubulides (talk) 20:58, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
I need to dig back in history and figure something out: we used to have Malraux, but for some reason he got deleted. I thought it was Fair Use, but now I see the image tag says it's OK, so I need to figure out that missing step to make sure we're OK. I am concerned that the rumors about Mozart are so prevalent that they should be addressed (or we'll get constant driveby insertions), but that can be solved via a link over to that section in the daughter article, Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome, so we don't have to include all the verbiage here. Let me look more into the image thingie before I make these changes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:06, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
hmmmm .. turns out I removed Malraux myself, for some reason I was worried about its licensing, and it's still got an unclear tag. I'm going to ask someone who knows images to have a look.[1] (Or maybe it was because back then I hadn't found a solid source for his TS? Still checking.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Please see #Malraux image below for a followup. Eubulides (talk) 22:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
PS, and keep in mind that there's a dispatch coming out in the WP:Signpost next week, such that we could end up with this on the mainpage for April Fools, so we may need the detail. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't quite follow all that (I never heard of WP:Signpost until just now). My (admittedly uninformed) intuition is that we should try to improve the article without worrying too much about what other articles say or about what driveby editors will do in the future. On the other hand, this change can just as easily wait until April. Eubulides (talk) 21:05, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Sorry :-) We have an April Fools' mainpage tradition at Wiki, and for some months now, I've been concerned that we are going to be linked to the mainpage via Lick me in the ass, so I was concerned that we were going to need all the accurate detail. That should be more clear in a week or two. Also, at one point, I read mention of yet another Mozart/Tourette documentary or movie or book (I can't remember) that was in the works, so I erred on the side of keeping all this detail. The notion that Mozart had Tourette's is, inaccurately, fairly entrenched by the popular media. Give me some time to dig back in and figure out where all this stands. At least, a link over to the daughter article may solve all of that and move it out of this article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:12, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Malraux image

If it helps, the Library of Congress has a very similar (but not identical) photograph available:

This image is available from the United States Library of Congress Prints and Photographs division under the digital ID cph.3b26053
This tag does not indicate the copyright status of the attached work. A normal copyright tag is still required. See Wikipedia:Copyrights for more information.

This one looks like it was done as part of the same shoot. Usage of this one's postage-stamp size would be acceptable here, under fair use. I'd rather have the big one, though, of course. I love the LoC's "Rights status not evaluated".… Eubulides (talk) 22:00, 29 February 2008 (UTC)

Eubulides, I'm hopeless on images, but I trust ElCobbola, who reviews images at FAC. He says we can't use Malraux.[2] I don't know what to make of your link above, it shows a picture of Congress? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 29 February 2008 (UTC)
Ah, sorry, you're supposed to click on the digital ID inside that box. Or you can just click here. Some more points:
  • Assuming the LOC image looks good to you, I can upload it so that you needn't worry about the hassle of doing that.
  • Just to be safe: what is the size limit for fair-use images for important historical figures? We're already using Image:Asperger_kl2.jpg (88×133) and nd Image:Kanner_kl2.jpg (99×135) in Autism, and they pass fair-use muster; what's the size limit for these postage-stamp images? The LOC image is 128×150 but can (and probably should) be cropped to around 110×130 to get rid of the legend and the gap on the right, so it'll get smaller. Is that small enough?
  • Doesn't that mean Image:Malraux.jpg should be removed from Wikipedia?
Eubulides (talk) 00:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't know any of those answers; I really don't speak images. I'll ask Elcobbola to look in here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
The PD tag on Image:Malraux.jpg certainly doesn't hold up. One could make a case for fair use, though; Malraux is dead, Freund and her portraits are quite notable (maybe even iconic) and the image isn't exactly high-resolution. I'm no image expert, so that's just my two cents; I will, however, point a Commons admin to this discussion—the image should go over there. Fvasconcellos (t·c) 00:48, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
A fair use case for the Malraux article itself would almost certainly be easy and appropriate, but I don't believe WP:NFCC#8 would allow it to be used in the Tourette syndrome article. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
@Eubulides: Low resolution, regardless of the image's subject, typically means no more than 300 pixels horizontally or vertically, so those are well under the "max" (going over is acceptable, iff there's an explaination why the extra resolution is needed).
It will need to be removed from Wikimedia Commons (I tagged it for deletion), as they can't have FU. It could, however, be hosted on Wikipedia with a proper (per above) FU. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

The P&P image is tricky. The image’s page says “Rights status not evaluated”, which means only that P&P hasn’t done any footwork. There are different measures for determining PD status, depending on whether the image has been published. The P&P image says “Pantheon Books” (a division of Random House), so I’m inclined to believe it has been published. A published image becomes PD if it was: 1) Registered in the U.S. before 1923 or 2) Registered in the U.S. from and including 1923 through 1963, unless the copyright was renewed.

Given the date of 1935/6 (my eyes fail me), the latter may be valid. I searched at the Copyright Office, and didn’t see it registered/renewed. The caveat is that this really is a search one should do in person (anyone live in D.C.?) From a legal and/or policy standpoint, the uncertainty means it probably shouldn’t be used (I say that because I suspect such a publisher would be diligent about renewing). The lack of a reference in the archive, however, does seem to lend, if nothing else, a degree of "plausible deniability", so to speak. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:35, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

I hate images; all Greek to me. So, what if we/I write to Jim Eisenreich or Tim Howard and ask them to submit an image? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Actually ... is the Tim Howard image OK to use here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:43, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, indeed! ЭLСОВВОLД talk 01:47, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Or if you're set on using Malraux ... ЭLСОВВОLД talk 02:26, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Nice, Elcobbola, thanks ... maybe we can use both. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't have a Commons account. That image says it's lacking info about the photographer, which is given here. More here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Author updated. ЭLСОВВОLД talk 03:25, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Great ! OK, so if everyone agrees, I'll: remove the Mozart image, move the Johnson to where Mozart was (Cultural references), add Howard to Prognosis, and shorten the Mozart wording, making sure I combine all the refs and link over to the daughter article. Good? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

Done, how's that? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, that was fast. I have done my bit by creating a new image Image:Malraux-Freund-1935.jpeg which I hope passes copyright muster, and by replacing all uses of the old Malraux portait with the new one. This no longer affects Tourette syndrome, though, since it uses a different image now. Eubulides (talk) 06:41, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
Well, now that we know about Image:ARC194219.png, we can't use Image:Malraux-Freund-1935.jpeg, Per WP:NFCC#1, "Non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available". Use of Malraux-Freund looks to be just to illustrate the man, something the free version can do. Isn't FU fun? ;) ЭLСОВВОLД talk 11:50, 1 March 2008 (UTC)
I don't think the free version illustrates the man, to be honest. It illustrates his context (which is fine for Tourette syndrome, in fact it's better) but not the man. I'll follow up at Talk:André Malraux #Is the group shot equivalent?, not that I expect much there; that article's kind of moribund. Eubulides (talk) 19:08, 1 March 2008 (UTC)

WP:TALK

If anyone would like to know more about tourettes then i can answer your questions. i now can tell you that it makes your muscles tense and you can't stop it. i learned that if you go to sleep while doing the motions then it is very likely that the tourettes will stop for a while. rckhound1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Rckhound1 (talk • contribs) 22:31, February 29, 2008 (UTC)

Confusing wording re Sydenham's chorea

Tourette syndrome #Diagnosis currently says this:

Other conditions that may manifest tics or stereotyped movements include developmental disorders, autism spectrum disorders, and stereotypic movement disorder; other genetic conditions such as Huntington's disease, neuroacanthocytosis, Hallervorden-Spatz syndrome, idiopathic dystonia, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, Wilson's disease, Sydenham's chorea and tuberous sclerosis.

I'm finding it hard to parse that sentence because of its semicolon; was that intended to be a comma? Anyway, the sentence seems to be saying that Sydenham's chorea is one of the "other genetic conditions", but it's not genetic. Likewise for idiopathic dystonia; it might be genetic but might not. Conversely, the current wording can be read to imply that autism spectrum disorders are genetic; it's true that the mainstream opinion is that genetics are the most significant cause for ASD, but some rare cases do seem to be caused by environmental factors (see Causes of autism #Teratogens).

How about this rewrite?

Other conditions that may manifest tics or stereotyped movements include developmental disorders, autism spectrum disorders, and stereotypic movement disorder; Sydenham's chorea; idiopathic dystonia; and genetic conditions such as Huntington's disease, neuroacanthocytosis, Hallervorden-Spatz syndrome, Duchenne muscular dystrophy, Wilson's disease, and tuberous sclerosis.

Eubulides (talk) 07:56, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, something went obviously wrong in that sentence, and I'm not sure what, when or where. Let me go back in my sources and history to doublecheck what happened before we fix it. I'll get to it later today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 7 March 2008 (UTC)
Just found time to get back to this. I don't know when that got jumbled or how Sydenham's ended up as genetic; I'll put the proposed change in and then try to figure out if the article covers now the complete list in the Jankovic and other texts. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:55, 7 March 2008 (UTC)

Need help

Does anybody know how this template works? I see it's used in the article, but I'm trying to add several of these notes in another article, but it won't work. The first note works fine, but the rest don't redirect... Thank! A  ?? B  ?? --Phenylalanine (talk) 20:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Let me know what you're trying to do where, and I'll help. You forgot to sign. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:58, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
I'm trying to use this template in the "global warming" article (see discussion page). --Phenylalanine (talk) 21:00, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
What template? Note labels? And what specifically do you want to do at global warming? Besides not being thrilled to wade in to that mess (although I will try to help), I can't read your mind :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Yes, exactly, the note labels. The first one works fine, but not the rest. I haven't made any changes yet to the Global warming article... still previewing the changes. I can save my changes if prefer to see them. --Phenylalanine (talk) 21:06, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Since the global warming article is so controversial, I don't want to invest time there until I know it won't be reverted. Let's move this conversation to that talk page (I posted there). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
Great! Thanks a lot! Now, I know where to ask to find quick help ;-) --Phenylalanine (talk) 21:12, 9 March 2008 (UTC)
By the way, you can probably find the answers you need in Gettysburg Address; that article has multiple notes, so provides a full example. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:13, 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Maze (film)

I suggest a link to Maze (film) which prominently portrays a character with Tourette syndrome Fholson 03:34, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

See WP:MEDMOS regarding issues that have made a lasting impression upon perception of the condition (Maze did not), and Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:41, 23 March 2008 (UTC)

I second that, as well as suggesting a link to The Tic Code and I Have Tourette's but Tourette's Doesn't Have Me. The film Maze was a good one and it portrayed accurate tics of the character the movie was based on but it did not really show how much more difficult his life really is- the person the character was based on, while his art is every bit as good, is not functioning on a level that the character in the movie did; relationships for him are very difficult to maintain and he has tics that make it difficult to be around babies, etc because he has poking and pinching tics. It also did not truly portray the difficulties he has functioning in society- being accosted by strangers who don't understand, being accused of being high or intoxicated, being asked to leave grocery stores and not return, etc. I would like to see a film that portrays it in all its reality, no matter how ugly and disturbing-- thats what people need to see. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.115.49.127 (talk) 11:32, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:MEDMOS, and these are already linked in the template at the bottom of the page, and included at Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:46, 26 April 2008 (UTC)

New review of TS available

Here's the citation:

Kenney C, Kuo SH, Jimenez-Shahed J. "Tourette's syndrome" Am Fam Physician 2008 Mar 1;77(5):651–8. PMID 18350763.

It looks high-quality, though I haven't read it carefully. It's aimed at GPs rather than at researchers or the general public. Eubulides (talk) 06:20, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

Thanks, Eubulides. I'll purchase it and dig through it over the next week, but without even glancing at the PMID yet, I can tell you that 1) none of those names are among the top-notch TS researchers, and 2) the Am Fam Physician ran an article that had lots of issues a few years ago (uncited inaccuracies, in fact). They just aren't at the same level as other sources used here. The last one they ran was a bit worn out and repeated some old, inaccurate info; I suspect they aim at the general GP (rather than specialist) level, and don't keep up with the most recent. Give me a week or so to purchase and get through it? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:31, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Eek. Glanced at the PMID now. They're from Baylor. I hope I can get the article for free, because I'm not enthusiastic about paying to access this article or about its utility for our purposes, where we've already used top-notch research that enjoys consensus from the best researchers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
Baylor? Isn't that a top-20 med school? Anyway, perhaps you can wait 6 months; I think it'll be free then. You're right that the audience is GPs rather than researchers. Eubulides (talk) 16:48, 9 April 2008 (UTC)
In general, yes Baylor is, but with TS, no it's not in the top, and there are issues. I'm working on getting a copy ... SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

(And I have to remember to add Equine Tourette's, Pepper Belle the horse ... so busy with FAC.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:27, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

New review of sensory phenomena and Tourette's available

This review is freely readable (yay!):

I haven't read this review, but if it's reliable it strikes me that it should be used as a candidate to check and/or replace citations to several primary studies currently used in Tourette syndrome, including Cohen & Leckman 1992 (PMID 1517194), Bliss 1980 (PMID 6934713), Kwak et al. 2003 (PMID 14673893), Scahill et al. 1995 (PMID 7872145), Miguel et al. (PMID 10732667). Some of these studies are pretty old, and a recent reliable review would be preferable to them anyway as per WP:MEDRS.

Hope you don't mind my continuing suggestions for light bedtime reading. Eubulides (talk) 23:34, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

It looks promising, but I won't be able to read it until next week, as I'm going to be traveling, if you don't mind waiting for me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:50, 27 May 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, there's no rush of course. Glad it looks promising. Eubulides (talk) 00:16, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
Printed and packed for airplane reading (the Brazilians are generally Yale trained, and are the tic-related OCD go-to group). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 28 May 2008 (UTC) (P.S., quick scan, it looks pretty standard.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:21, 28 May 2008 (UTC)
This is a fine overview, and we can use it as needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:12, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
OK, I added Prado,[3] but I did it by leaving the primary sources as well because in some cases they used direct quotes that contain key wording and the wording wasn't as tight in the Prado report. And because I hate to lose the excellent original sources. In one case, I'm not sure Prado can be used to replace the text: "Published descriptions of the tics of Tourette's identify sensory phenomena as the core symptom of the syndrome, even though they are not included in the diagnostic criteria ..." Pls let me know what you think; glad to have a free source that describes some of this, although the primary sources provide more indepth coverage. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:25, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Equine Tourette's

By the way, Eubulides, if you come across anything on equine Tourette's, we still need to add it (example, well known race horse, Pepper Belle). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 28 May 2008 (UTC)

I briefly looked at it. It might be better to have a separate article on equine self-mutilation, and just briefly allude to it here. Although Dodman et al. 1994 (PMID 8014092) say equine self-mutilation appears to be similar to Tourette's, they could just as easily have said that it's similar to trichotillomania; that is, it's a stereotypy whose specific relationship to TS is a bit speculative. Anyway, here are a couple more citations that may help in that endeavor:

Eubulides (talk) 00:47, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I came to the same conclusion; I don't feel qualified to write the equine article, and don't think this article warrants more than one or two brief sentences, so I'm not sure if the section (per WP:MEDMOS) is justified. What do you think? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, which section is "this section"? Hmm, perhaps we could add to Tourette syndrome #Classification something that puts human tic disorders in the more-general context of stereotypies in mammals? Eubulides (talk) 01:10, 15 June 2008 (UTC)
No, recently a change was enacted at WP:MEDMOS, adding a suggested section called In other animals. That's what made me think of the whole thing, but I'm not convinced it's worth a section given the tenuous connection. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

Lombroso Scahill

Another free review to work in:

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:57, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

More links

One link should be added: http://www.tourettes-action.org.uk/ <-this is the new TSA UK website (TSA UK has changed name to Tourettes Action now) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Furya (talk • contribs) 14:55, 9 July 2008 (UTC)

There are TSA organizations throughout the world, listing them all would violate WP:NOT, and they are already included in the DMOZ organizations link.
Notice that not even tsa-usa.org is listed separately in the External links section, and they are the most notable TS organization in the world. I encourage the TSA-UK to add their link to DMOZ. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 9 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Thanks for your answer. However I must say I find it a bit unreasonable not to add links to TSA in both countries as they are the places where you should go to get more information. I can also see that TSA US has its own article and I think this is even more silly.Thanks for the tip anyway. I'll add the link to the DMOZ —Preceding unsigned comment added by Furya (talk • contribs) 08:57, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

Survey Reliability

"A study of eight children, age 8–17, found that children with Tourette syndrome were quicker at processing certain mental grammar skills than are children without the condition. The abnormalities that lead to tics may also lead to "other rapid behaviors, including the cognitive processing of rule-governed forms in language and other types of procedural knowledge".[61]

Is this really a good source? How can you possibly make a conclusion on between 0.1% and 1% of the entire population (with Tourette's) of children by looking at 8? 82.17.136.199 (talk) 11:11, 19 July 2008 (UTC) (Sorry forgot to sign in Philipwhiuk (talk) 11:12, 19 July 2008 (UTC))

Changes to citation format?

This edit did things like changing "Arch Neurol." to "Archives of Neurology" (adding a wikilink, and spelling out the journal), and adding " (Review)" in places. Was this for consistency within this article only, or was it prompted by some change to some style guideline somewhere? (I ask because I mildly prefer abbreviations, non-wikilinked journal titles, and omitting "(Review)", and I hope I don't have to make similar changes to other articles. :-) Eubulides (talk) 04:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

No guideline change; I only did it for my purposes in the General References, and I don't plan to do make any changes to formatting on the footnotes/citations. Basically, I started down that path as I'm gearing up to review all the citations (per the MEDMOS discussion), and I was trying to discover the impact factor for each journal, which appears to be a hit-and-miss venture on Wiki ... that led me to see which journals we have articles on. Since they are still very sporadic, they aren't helpful in locating impact factors. By the way, Eubulides, what is considered a high or good impact factor? Our article doesn't discuss that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Which MEDMOS discussion was that?
  • Whether an impact factor is "high" depends heavily on the field. For TS I expect that multiple fields are involved; one can't reliably compare the impact factors of a journal in one field with that of another.
  • I'm leery of ascribing much weight to the journal's impact factor. Although impact factor is a (crude) measure of the quality of a journal, it is neither designed for nor appropriate to estimating the quality of a journal article. For more on this please see: Seglen PO (1997). "Why the impact factor of journals should not be used for evaluating research". BMJ 314 (7079): 498–502. PMID 9056804. PMC:2126010. 
  • Can you tell that I'm dubious of wikilinking to journal titles in citations? :-)
Eubulides (talk) 15:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes, I've come to the same conclusion on the Impact factors, after digging around in this issue last night. As an example, we have the blatantly wrong definition of Tourette syndrome that was included in an NEJM review. If I went by impact factor alone, I'd cite that article; since it had inaccurate info, I'm finding impact factors not to be very useful. I suspect I'll have more questions as I get further into this, but it was the MEDMOS discussion about how to reflect replicated notable important primary sources vs. reviews; I'm just now starting through everything again, and I got off on the wrong track last night by thinking 1) that impact factors would be helpful, or 2) that I'd find impact factors in those links. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Oliver Sacks

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Oliver_Sacks - this guy has done some of the more formidible research in the disease. His work is referenced several times but not the man or his actual research which was pivotal to understanding and treating the condition, specifically with his case studies of "Witty Ticky Ray." Perhaps some inclusion? It's like having an article on Polio without mentioning Salk.

205.219.133.241 (talk) 20:53, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Please produce some of this formidable research; numerous sources disagree and I'm not aware of any. Sacks is mentioned at Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome, which is where his literary works are a better fit. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:55, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

At the same time, Sacks has faced criticism in the medical and disability studies communities. The details of some of his case studies have been questioned,[8] and Arthur K. Shapiro—described as "the father of modern tic disorder research"[9]—referring to Sacks celebrity status and that his literary publications received greater publicity than Shapiro's medical publications, said he is "a much better writer than he is a clinician".[10] Howard Kushner's A Cursing Brain? : The Histories of Tourette Syndrome, says Shapiro "contrasted his own careful clinical work with Sacks's idiosyncratic and anecdotal approach to a clinical investigation".[11] More sustained has been the critique of his political and ethical positions. Although many characterize Sacks as a "compassionate" writer and doctor,[12][13][14] others feel he exploits his subjects.[15] Sacks was called "the man who mistook his patients for a literary career" by British academic and disability-rights activist Tom Shakespeare,[16] and one critic called his work "a high-brow freak show".[17] Such criticism was echoed in the movie The Royal Tenenbaums, with Bill Murray's comic portrayal of "an Oliver Sacks-like neurologist who snickers openly at his weirdo subjects".[18] Sacks himself has stated "I would hope that a reading of what I write shows respect and appreciation, not any wish to expose or exhibit for the thrill," he sighs, "but it's a delicate business."[19]

Wikipedia content modification information:

  • This page was last modified on 26 August 2008, at 20:58.

Wikipedia Authorship and Review

Wikipedia content provided here is not reviewed directly by MedLibrary.org. Wikipedia content is authored by an open community of volunteers and is not produced by or in any way affiliated with MedLibrary.org.

Wikipedia Usage Guidelines

This article is licensed under the GNU Free Documentation License. It uses material from the Wikipedia article on "Talk:Tourette syndrome".

The URL for this specific entry is:

All Wikipedia text is available under the terms of the GNU Free Documentation License. (See Copyrights for details). Wikipedia® is a registered trademark of the Wikimedia Foundation, Inc.