![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Updating the list of what I have worked on so far. Sandy 17:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow. Last time I checked in on this entry, it was not great, but it was passable. Now it’s a trainwreck. Since there seem to have been some editing wars, I will include a discussion of things that need to be addressed before making editing changes myself. The entire article is alarming, and I hesitate to edit in the presence of editing controversy.
As mentioned above, the link to the article on tics isn’t particularly helpful for the context of Tourette’s.
The phrase “that occur repeatedly in the same way” is confusing and needs repair. Movements that "occur repeatedly in the same way" are suggestive of stereotypies or stims. The hallmark of tics is that they constantly change in number, severity, frequency, and anatomical location. The basic definition of Tourette’s needs to be reworked.
SYMPTOMS
Does not even include a good, basic definition of tics. This should include a working description of motor and phonic tics, descriptions and definitions of each, simple vs. complex tics, and examples. Suppressability and premonitory urge are not adequately explained, especially as they relate to other movement disorders. There is more emphasis on sensory phenomena (coprolalia, echolalia, etc.) than more common tics; yet, even these subjects are not well examined. There is no discussion of simple versus complex tics. A discussion of the spectrum of tic disorders (transient tics, chronic tics, and Tourette's) should also be included and expanded. In summary, the essential information defining Tourette’s is not well addressed.
Rage attacks are mentioned as a symptom. There is no such diagnostic entity as a rage attack, and it is a term that has been used colloquially by many different people with many different diagnoses to mean many different things. Different people may be describing different issues when they use the term. The only thing that has been shown and replicated by many multiple research sources is that “rage attacks” are not part of Tourette’s, rather related to co-occurring conditions which may be present in some persons who also have tics or Tourette's. References to rage attacks should be deleted, as they are not a symptom of Tourette’s. This terminology brings the article into dispute.
The tone of some statements is not appropriate for Wikipedia or for an entry about a medical condition. Examples are “a person with Tourette's can feel as if their Tourette's Syndrome has totally taken control of their body, and they almost feel as if they are standing outside of themselves” and “doing so is like putting a lid on a boiling pot of water.”
There is a lot of overlap between the sections of the entry. For example, the sentence about tic severity and adolescence does not belong in symptoms.
DIAGNOSIS
Has no treatment at all of differential diagnosis, or how the diagnosis is made, typical presentation and age of onset, etc. “Highly functioning” is a term more often found in autism discussions. Tourette’s does not typically impact upon functioning, so this term is confusing.
TREATMENT
The most commonly used medications in Tourette’s are never even mentioned (clonidine, tenex). Much more of the article is dedicated to controversial topics and alarming information, while commonplace treatment modalities are overlooked or never mentioned. A dramatic tone is employed in the description of some other medications. Example: “have caused severe permanent brain damage to some people taking them, sometimes as severe as Tardive dyskinesia.” These medications are typically safe when used at correct dosages. The mention of Parkinson’s is spurious.
The discussion of atypicals includes quotes which aren’t referenced, and discusses only potential negatives, out of context.
The two paragraphs on tic severity and living with TS do not belong in the treatment section. A prognosis or outcome section is needed. Why are drummers in particular even mentioned? That seems like a vanity entry.
The issues with the marijuana and marinol entries have already been discussed here (see above). Expert input is needed to bring the treatment section up to the quality needed for a medical entry, along with copy editing.
GENETICS
Includes outdated information and does not present the entire story. It was once accepted that the mode of transmission was autosomal dominant, but this has been called into question, and is now held to be an overly simplistic view of the genetics involved in Tourette's. This section also needs a major overhaul by a qualified expert. There are too many vague statements like “it is known that.”
FAMOUS PEOPLE
Is one section that looks improved over the past. Relevance needs to be taken into account when adding “famous” people. In the past, this section included vanity entries about people who were not known outside of Tourette’s, or people who had conditions which may co-occur with tics, rather than actual Tourette’s. The idea that Mozart had TS is discredited by experts and it is unfortunate to see that entry here, but that rumor needs to be addressed.
ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY
Why is every possible mention of Tourette’s in the industry worthy of mention here? Why should every show which uses Tourette’s as a cheap plot twist be included as an entry? And why are realistic, important and/or controversial productions, such as 7th Heaven, Ally McBeal, or The Practice overlooked in favor of cheap plot twist mentions of Tourette’s? Some criteria for what should be included here might be helpful. Why is mention of a possible upcoming film, not even in production, warranted? There are too many vanity entries. Again, the entire tone and content of this entry is just not Wikipedic or encyclopedic.
EXTERNAL LINKS
What do all of these add? Multiple sources of the same or similar information. At least this is better than in the past, when this section included many vanity entries or outdated sites, some of which included copyright issues.
I hope this list is a starting place for improving this entry. Sandy 19:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. Those are all sections I could work on, but I hesitate to make edits given the current contention that exists, and would prefer to see more consensus before tackling major rewrites. For example, I don't really know how the external links should be handled, and I agree that multiple links to advocacy organizations may not be necessary, but I'm not sure what kind of consensus could be reached about which to include. Certainly, the TSA should not be the only side of the story told. I also don't understand why Witty Ticcy Ray deserves special mention in the symptoms and diagnosis of the condition, but don't want to offend by deleting that. I could clean up the genetics, but this is a recognized area of controversy, so will have to be written carefully, presenting all views, and with consensus. The environment right now seems a bit touchy to tackle that. I could also rewrite treatment, symptoms, etcetera, but again, I hesitate to do so without consensus. I also don't want to just delete rage attacks, as I know that could develop into an issue. Sandy 20:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
If others agree, perhaps we could at least create a Prognosis or Outcome section of the entry, and move some of the statements about tic severity and adolescence and others out of the symptoms and diagnosis sections and into that section, which could later be expanded ? What should that section be named? Sandy 22:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I've added all the content I can for now, tried to reference it (although some of it is just common knowledge), and am now trying to review the entry with respect to the five pillars of Wikipedia. With respect to No Original Research: It is also not the place to insert your own opinions, experiences, or arguments — all editors must follow our no original research policy.
I happen to personally agree with the following statement, and have seen it used by many of my friends. But, I'm not sure it doesn't qualify as original research, as there is no verifiable, reliable primary source document for this statement. Does it qualify as opinion or experience, and just because some of us associate with people who feel this way, how do we know it accurately reflects how most people with TS feel ???
Some people with Tourette's Syndrome say that even if there was a "magic pill" that would cure them of TS with no side effects, they would not take the pill, as they think the benefits of having TS outweigh the benefits of not having TS.
Also, in the five pillars: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, a collection of primary source documents, a soapbox, a newspaper, a free host, a webspace provider, a series of vanity articles, a memorial collection, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a grouping of links (whether internal or external).
I'm still confused about the lengthy list of irrelevant references to Tourette's in the media. Unless someone disagrees, I suggest we delete all spurious references to Tourette's, and focus only on important shows actually about Tourette's, not just referring to Tourette's. Those include, at least, Qunicy, The Tic Code, Touched by an Angel and Ally McBeal [5], 7th Heaven and The Practice [6] [7] [8] Opinions ?? What is the usefulness of including a list of every time Tourette's is mentioned on TV or in a movie? Sandy 23:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I added a link to a FAQ written by Dr. Commings. This FAQ contains information on clonidine patches and comorbid conditions, amongst other things, not found on the other websites in external links.
I'm not trying to endorse Dr. Comings. I think ADHD is part of the TS spectrum, but in some of Dr. Comings stuff I think he is forgetting that statical correlation does not mean cause and effect; "The Gene Bomb" in particular, is a very flawed book.
But if we are going to have 3 or 4 links to TSA website around the world which all say basically the same thing, other opinions can be at least be put in external links to make it more balances and neutral.
Also, since the marijuana/marinol stuff has been resolved, would anybody object to delecting the particallarly long dicussion about it on the talk page?
Referencing Greg Kuperberg, unsigned user 206.59.60.140 said, "The person what said 'move marijuana elsewhere' is too stupid to understand the difference between Marinol and marijuana," and "This person is also a fool for suggesting that I am motivated by a political medical marijuana cause."
I'm losing patience with this. Everyone has evidenced good faith in trying to bring this page up to Wikipedia quality, bringing items that need attention to the talk page, which you apparently don't read. Please read the Wiki policies on personal attacks. Sandy 23:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Your points have been made and acknowledged, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. It does not need to include lengthy discussions of every experimental, marginally useful treatment. Sandy 23:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Sandy, the person who accused me of simply writing this stuff on Marinol because of some sort of political agenda was not only saying something that was FALSE, but he failed to ASSUME GOOD FAITH!
When you agree with him, that my motive was politically motivated, you are not assuming good faith. You too need to not violate wikipedia policy!
Does anybody have a good reason to drastically change the paragraph on Marinol or move the paragraph to the Marinol article in the future?
(Please read my four points against drastic change and against moving the paragraph to the Marinol article before you answer the question!)
I don't think drastic changes are needed, here's why?:
The information does not belong in the Marinol article because:
"Note that consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject. (e.g. insisting on insertion of an insignificant factoid into an article in opposition to many other editors has been judged a violation of consensus; see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute.)
It is difficult to specify exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position. Nearly every editor believes that their position is reasonable; good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own may also be reasonable.ut Wikipedia's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric pos Bition combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith. With respect to good faith, no amount of emphasized assertions that you are editing according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view while engaging in biased editing will serve to paper over the nature of your activities."
We can argue all we want about semantics or if something is in context or not, but it is now time for people who are simply being stubborn to answer this question!
"A piece of unverified or inaccurate information that is presented in the press as factual, often as part of a publicity effort, and that is then accepted as true because of frequent repetition: “What one misses finally is what might have emerged beyond both facts and factoids—a profound definition of the Marilyn Monroe phenomenon” (Christopher Lehmann-Haupt)." (answers.com)
I see this is still troubling you. I don't how else to answer the question, as I have already answered it at least three times in the different sections where this topic is discussed, and it is not helpful to continue to restate the same thing. I wish I knew how to make this better, as it's obviously important to you. I don't know where we're getting crossed up, but I do encourage you to bring it to a user talk page, rather than continuing to add volume here on this topic. Sandy 01:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Source please for the statement that T&S has a Golden Globe? I found that it has a CINE Golden Eagle, not a Golden Globe. [9]
Also, of note - the first award nomination for the HBO documentary, as we go into the season: [11]
I deleted two links that were simply reviews of documentaries about TS. I don't think that is newsworthy. Articles about the recent genetic discovery would be more newsworthy.
After reading points 3 & 4 below, can anyone give me a good reason why the paragraph on Marinol in this Article should be moved to the Marinol article in the future?
The paragraph does not belong in the Marinol article because:
I realize that I am only asking half of what I was asking before in the "Toward a reasonable consensus" section, but since no one can answer that question, I'd like to know what people's answers are to the question at the top of this section. Maybe we can reach a partial concensus.
Any answers to the question at the top of this section are welcome, even if the answer to the question at the top of this section is "No."
I have heard Mort Doran speak at several TSA conferences. Conference bios and write-ups include the info that he was the person upon whom Oliver Sacks based the character using the pseudonym, Jim Bennett, in the book. In his speeches, Mort Doran discusses same (piloting and surgery, and how his tics remit while he is doing either). However, I am unable to locate a primary source document to reference this statement. I no longer have the conference bios. Can anyone help locate a reputable, primary source reference for this statement? Another option is to drop Mort's name, but because some medical experts differ with Oliver Sacks' depictions and portrayals of TS, it is important to establish that "Jim Bennett," and the descriptions of his tics, was not a fictionalized representation.
"Neurologist and writer Oliver Sacks has described a physician with severe TS, (Canadian Mort Doran, M.D., a pilot and surgeon in real life, although a pseudonym was used in the book), whose tics remit almost completely while he is performing surgery." TIA Sandy 13:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
From WP:RS, "Wikipedians often report as facts things they remember hearing about or reading somewhere, but they don't remember where, and they don't have any other corroborating information. It's important to seek credible sources to verify these types of reports, and if they cannot be verified, any editor may delete them." Sandy 14:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Since there are a few references to the "Man Who Mistook His Wife for A Hat" by Sacks in this article, on thing about that book that seemed totally off the wall was when he describes the case of an old lady who has super-Tourette's, 50 times as bad as Witty Ticcy Ray. Even though Sacks describes "Witty Ticcy Ray" as a mild case of Tourette's, Ray had coprolalia, and I'd say anyone with coprolalia does nto have mild Tourette's.
But I don't think super-Tourette's exists and I only have heard about it from that book. Does anybody know anything else about it?
I'm trying to reference the entire article. I added this statement to the diagnosis section, but now I can't locate my reference. Will add it back in if found. "Standard neurological examination is usually normal in Tourette's syndrome patients." Sandy 20:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Update - I found my source, but it's not yet published. Maybe someone else can find the same statement somewhere. Sandy 21:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Still trying to source and reference everything in the article.
Diseases & Conditions: Tourette syndrome" - A documentary on Tourette's Syndrome that was part of the Discovery Health Channel's "Diseases & Conditions" series. This documentary includes numerous Tourette's Syndrome experts.
I haven't been able to locate any primary source document about this documentary, or that it was part of the Diseases and Conditions series, or what "TS experts" may have been included. I recall some sort of controversial documentary that couldn't necessarily be described as having "experts," so we need to locate a source on this. Sandy 22:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Should all this stuff go? 206.59.60.140 23:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The relevance of the Mozart documentary should also be examined, as there were no Tourette's experts involved; and it makes a claim that no TS experts have endorsed, that we know of, and which authoritative sources have failed to endorse. We need to determine Wikipedia criteria for the inclusion of these entries on a page dealing with a medical condition. Sandy 16:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe we can agree with the following consensus statement:
"Considering points 1, 2, 3 & 4 below, there is no good reason to move the paragraph on Marinol to the Marinol article."
The information does not belong in the Marinol article because:
Please note that this is not the same concensus I declared a few days ago, since there was disagreement with the clause on how the paragraph should “roughly stay the same,” so I dropped that part. This is instead a compromise that I was working on in the Towards a Reasonable Half-Way concensus section!
This is from wikipedia's policy on consensus: "Note that consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject. “
Given Wiki policy, I will declare that the “concensus statement” is something everyone agrees with, unless someone disagrees and PROVIDES A GOOD REASON TO DISAGREE! If someone writes and says “I already gave you my reasons” but won’t even provide a link to those reasons, this is acting in bad faith because wiki policy requires editors to work toget in good faith to describe their different views on the subject. If someone can’t easily find your reasons against the concensus statement, we still have a concensus! If you gave reasons to disagree with the last concensus, they do not apply to this one! Please give us your reasons here!
More of Wiki’s concensus policy: “Wikipedia's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric pos Bition combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith.”
For this reason, if someone just says they’re disagreing with the concensus statement without providing a good reason, it shall be assummed that we STILL HAVE A CONCENSUS!
I won't delete this or any other section of the talk page.
If somebody can think of a good reason to disagree with the consensus statement at the top of this section in six months, they can post it!
But until then, we have a consensus ladies and gentleman! Finally!
User 206.59.60.140, it would be nice if you could give us a name to call you - doesn't have to be your real name, but it would be nice to be able to address comments to you instead of your IP address. This talk page is becoming prohibitively long for anyone wanting to work on this article in the future, and some of the discussions digress from the task at hand. I was thinking you might be interested in looking at the article for a condition which has some similarities to Tourette syndrome, and which achieved featured article status on Wikipedia, Asperger syndrome. It gives an example of a well written Wikipedia article, and the encyclopedic tone and quality this article should seek to attain. This is your user talk page. Maybe we can talk about how to move towards that level of article on your talk page? Sandy 00:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Does tics really need to be wikified every time? -- Chapukwuk 04:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I am just beginning to add footnotes, and will merge it into References section when finished. It is important to preserve the order of the footnotes, so please call my attention to any references that need to be added to the article while I am doing the work. Adding references while I'm doing the work may change the order of footnotes. TIA! Sandy 16:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure the references for the documentaries, "famous" people, etc. are needed in the article, but I'm going to save them here, pending guidance from an experienced editor.
References for "famous" people [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]
References for documentaries [25] [26] [27]
Update: I converted the referencing to this style - m:Cite/Cite.php - which uses automatic numbering, allowing others to edit without concern for numbering. Sandy 17:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Sandy. I'd just like to thank you for all your work in this article and this field. Chapukwuk 23:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Anyways, do you have any plans to put some information on or make a reference to P.A.N.D.A.S. in the article?
One thing I noticed about the AS article is that it did have a photograph included. I have a feeling that articles that are seleted by Wikipedia to be "model articles" or whatever they call it are much more likely to have at least one photograph. This is means the article is at least more than just text and uses more multimedia.
Now I think perhaps a drawing of Giles de la Tourette would be good. Any other ideas?
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
Updating the list of what I have worked on so far. Sandy 17:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Wow. Last time I checked in on this entry, it was not great, but it was passable. Now it’s a trainwreck. Since there seem to have been some editing wars, I will include a discussion of things that need to be addressed before making editing changes myself. The entire article is alarming, and I hesitate to edit in the presence of editing controversy.
As mentioned above, the link to the article on tics isn’t particularly helpful for the context of Tourette’s.
The phrase “that occur repeatedly in the same way” is confusing and needs repair. Movements that "occur repeatedly in the same way" are suggestive of stereotypies or stims. The hallmark of tics is that they constantly change in number, severity, frequency, and anatomical location. The basic definition of Tourette’s needs to be reworked.
SYMPTOMS
Does not even include a good, basic definition of tics. This should include a working description of motor and phonic tics, descriptions and definitions of each, simple vs. complex tics, and examples. Suppressability and premonitory urge are not adequately explained, especially as they relate to other movement disorders. There is more emphasis on sensory phenomena (coprolalia, echolalia, etc.) than more common tics; yet, even these subjects are not well examined. There is no discussion of simple versus complex tics. A discussion of the spectrum of tic disorders (transient tics, chronic tics, and Tourette's) should also be included and expanded. In summary, the essential information defining Tourette’s is not well addressed.
Rage attacks are mentioned as a symptom. There is no such diagnostic entity as a rage attack, and it is a term that has been used colloquially by many different people with many different diagnoses to mean many different things. Different people may be describing different issues when they use the term. The only thing that has been shown and replicated by many multiple research sources is that “rage attacks” are not part of Tourette’s, rather related to co-occurring conditions which may be present in some persons who also have tics or Tourette's. References to rage attacks should be deleted, as they are not a symptom of Tourette’s. This terminology brings the article into dispute.
The tone of some statements is not appropriate for Wikipedia or for an entry about a medical condition. Examples are “a person with Tourette's can feel as if their Tourette's Syndrome has totally taken control of their body, and they almost feel as if they are standing outside of themselves” and “doing so is like putting a lid on a boiling pot of water.”
There is a lot of overlap between the sections of the entry. For example, the sentence about tic severity and adolescence does not belong in symptoms.
DIAGNOSIS
Has no treatment at all of differential diagnosis, or how the diagnosis is made, typical presentation and age of onset, etc. “Highly functioning” is a term more often found in autism discussions. Tourette’s does not typically impact upon functioning, so this term is confusing.
TREATMENT
The most commonly used medications in Tourette’s are never even mentioned (clonidine, tenex). Much more of the article is dedicated to controversial topics and alarming information, while commonplace treatment modalities are overlooked or never mentioned. A dramatic tone is employed in the description of some other medications. Example: “have caused severe permanent brain damage to some people taking them, sometimes as severe as Tardive dyskinesia.” These medications are typically safe when used at correct dosages. The mention of Parkinson’s is spurious.
The discussion of atypicals includes quotes which aren’t referenced, and discusses only potential negatives, out of context.
The two paragraphs on tic severity and living with TS do not belong in the treatment section. A prognosis or outcome section is needed. Why are drummers in particular even mentioned? That seems like a vanity entry.
The issues with the marijuana and marinol entries have already been discussed here (see above). Expert input is needed to bring the treatment section up to the quality needed for a medical entry, along with copy editing.
GENETICS
Includes outdated information and does not present the entire story. It was once accepted that the mode of transmission was autosomal dominant, but this has been called into question, and is now held to be an overly simplistic view of the genetics involved in Tourette's. This section also needs a major overhaul by a qualified expert. There are too many vague statements like “it is known that.”
FAMOUS PEOPLE
Is one section that looks improved over the past. Relevance needs to be taken into account when adding “famous” people. In the past, this section included vanity entries about people who were not known outside of Tourette’s, or people who had conditions which may co-occur with tics, rather than actual Tourette’s. The idea that Mozart had TS is discredited by experts and it is unfortunate to see that entry here, but that rumor needs to be addressed.
ENTERTAINMENT INDUSTRY
Why is every possible mention of Tourette’s in the industry worthy of mention here? Why should every show which uses Tourette’s as a cheap plot twist be included as an entry? And why are realistic, important and/or controversial productions, such as 7th Heaven, Ally McBeal, or The Practice overlooked in favor of cheap plot twist mentions of Tourette’s? Some criteria for what should be included here might be helpful. Why is mention of a possible upcoming film, not even in production, warranted? There are too many vanity entries. Again, the entire tone and content of this entry is just not Wikipedic or encyclopedic.
EXTERNAL LINKS
What do all of these add? Multiple sources of the same or similar information. At least this is better than in the past, when this section included many vanity entries or outdated sites, some of which included copyright issues.
I hope this list is a starting place for improving this entry. Sandy 19:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the suggestions. Those are all sections I could work on, but I hesitate to make edits given the current contention that exists, and would prefer to see more consensus before tackling major rewrites. For example, I don't really know how the external links should be handled, and I agree that multiple links to advocacy organizations may not be necessary, but I'm not sure what kind of consensus could be reached about which to include. Certainly, the TSA should not be the only side of the story told. I also don't understand why Witty Ticcy Ray deserves special mention in the symptoms and diagnosis of the condition, but don't want to offend by deleting that. I could clean up the genetics, but this is a recognized area of controversy, so will have to be written carefully, presenting all views, and with consensus. The environment right now seems a bit touchy to tackle that. I could also rewrite treatment, symptoms, etcetera, but again, I hesitate to do so without consensus. I also don't want to just delete rage attacks, as I know that could develop into an issue. Sandy 20:16, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
If others agree, perhaps we could at least create a Prognosis or Outcome section of the entry, and move some of the statements about tic severity and adolescence and others out of the symptoms and diagnosis sections and into that section, which could later be expanded ? What should that section be named? Sandy 22:33, 3 February 2006 (UTC)
I've added all the content I can for now, tried to reference it (although some of it is just common knowledge), and am now trying to review the entry with respect to the five pillars of Wikipedia. With respect to No Original Research: It is also not the place to insert your own opinions, experiences, or arguments — all editors must follow our no original research policy.
I happen to personally agree with the following statement, and have seen it used by many of my friends. But, I'm not sure it doesn't qualify as original research, as there is no verifiable, reliable primary source document for this statement. Does it qualify as opinion or experience, and just because some of us associate with people who feel this way, how do we know it accurately reflects how most people with TS feel ???
Some people with Tourette's Syndrome say that even if there was a "magic pill" that would cure them of TS with no side effects, they would not take the pill, as they think the benefits of having TS outweigh the benefits of not having TS.
Also, in the five pillars: Wikipedia is not a dictionary, a collection of primary source documents, a soapbox, a newspaper, a free host, a webspace provider, a series of vanity articles, a memorial collection, an experiment in anarchy or democracy, or a grouping of links (whether internal or external).
I'm still confused about the lengthy list of irrelevant references to Tourette's in the media. Unless someone disagrees, I suggest we delete all spurious references to Tourette's, and focus only on important shows actually about Tourette's, not just referring to Tourette's. Those include, at least, Qunicy, The Tic Code, Touched by an Angel and Ally McBeal [5], 7th Heaven and The Practice [6] [7] [8] Opinions ?? What is the usefulness of including a list of every time Tourette's is mentioned on TV or in a movie? Sandy 23:55, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
I added a link to a FAQ written by Dr. Commings. This FAQ contains information on clonidine patches and comorbid conditions, amongst other things, not found on the other websites in external links.
I'm not trying to endorse Dr. Comings. I think ADHD is part of the TS spectrum, but in some of Dr. Comings stuff I think he is forgetting that statical correlation does not mean cause and effect; "The Gene Bomb" in particular, is a very flawed book.
But if we are going to have 3 or 4 links to TSA website around the world which all say basically the same thing, other opinions can be at least be put in external links to make it more balances and neutral.
Also, since the marijuana/marinol stuff has been resolved, would anybody object to delecting the particallarly long dicussion about it on the talk page?
Referencing Greg Kuperberg, unsigned user 206.59.60.140 said, "The person what said 'move marijuana elsewhere' is too stupid to understand the difference between Marinol and marijuana," and "This person is also a fool for suggesting that I am motivated by a political medical marijuana cause."
I'm losing patience with this. Everyone has evidenced good faith in trying to bring this page up to Wikipedia quality, bringing items that need attention to the talk page, which you apparently don't read. Please read the Wiki policies on personal attacks. Sandy 23:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Your points have been made and acknowledged, but Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a soapbox. It does not need to include lengthy discussions of every experimental, marginally useful treatment. Sandy 23:00, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Sandy, the person who accused me of simply writing this stuff on Marinol because of some sort of political agenda was not only saying something that was FALSE, but he failed to ASSUME GOOD FAITH!
When you agree with him, that my motive was politically motivated, you are not assuming good faith. You too need to not violate wikipedia policy!
Does anybody have a good reason to drastically change the paragraph on Marinol or move the paragraph to the Marinol article in the future?
(Please read my four points against drastic change and against moving the paragraph to the Marinol article before you answer the question!)
I don't think drastic changes are needed, here's why?:
The information does not belong in the Marinol article because:
"Note that consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject. (e.g. insisting on insertion of an insignificant factoid into an article in opposition to many other editors has been judged a violation of consensus; see Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Charles Darwin-Lincoln dispute.)
It is difficult to specify exactly what constitutes a reasonable or rational position. Nearly every editor believes that their position is reasonable; good editors acknowledge that positions opposed to their own may also be reasonable.ut Wikipedia's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric pos Bition combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith. With respect to good faith, no amount of emphasized assertions that you are editing according to Wikipedia:Neutral point of view while engaging in biased editing will serve to paper over the nature of your activities."
We can argue all we want about semantics or if something is in context or not, but it is now time for people who are simply being stubborn to answer this question!
"A piece of unverified or inaccurate information that is presented in the press as factual, often as part of a publicity effort, and that is then accepted as true because of frequent repetition: “What one misses finally is what might have emerged beyond both facts and factoids—a profound definition of the Marilyn Monroe phenomenon” (Christopher Lehmann-Haupt)." (answers.com)
I see this is still troubling you. I don't how else to answer the question, as I have already answered it at least three times in the different sections where this topic is discussed, and it is not helpful to continue to restate the same thing. I wish I knew how to make this better, as it's obviously important to you. I don't know where we're getting crossed up, but I do encourage you to bring it to a user talk page, rather than continuing to add volume here on this topic. Sandy 01:43, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Source please for the statement that T&S has a Golden Globe? I found that it has a CINE Golden Eagle, not a Golden Globe. [9]
Also, of note - the first award nomination for the HBO documentary, as we go into the season: [11]
I deleted two links that were simply reviews of documentaries about TS. I don't think that is newsworthy. Articles about the recent genetic discovery would be more newsworthy.
After reading points 3 & 4 below, can anyone give me a good reason why the paragraph on Marinol in this Article should be moved to the Marinol article in the future?
The paragraph does not belong in the Marinol article because:
I realize that I am only asking half of what I was asking before in the "Toward a reasonable consensus" section, but since no one can answer that question, I'd like to know what people's answers are to the question at the top of this section. Maybe we can reach a partial concensus.
Any answers to the question at the top of this section are welcome, even if the answer to the question at the top of this section is "No."
I have heard Mort Doran speak at several TSA conferences. Conference bios and write-ups include the info that he was the person upon whom Oliver Sacks based the character using the pseudonym, Jim Bennett, in the book. In his speeches, Mort Doran discusses same (piloting and surgery, and how his tics remit while he is doing either). However, I am unable to locate a primary source document to reference this statement. I no longer have the conference bios. Can anyone help locate a reputable, primary source reference for this statement? Another option is to drop Mort's name, but because some medical experts differ with Oliver Sacks' depictions and portrayals of TS, it is important to establish that "Jim Bennett," and the descriptions of his tics, was not a fictionalized representation.
"Neurologist and writer Oliver Sacks has described a physician with severe TS, (Canadian Mort Doran, M.D., a pilot and surgeon in real life, although a pseudonym was used in the book), whose tics remit almost completely while he is performing surgery." TIA Sandy 13:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
From WP:RS, "Wikipedians often report as facts things they remember hearing about or reading somewhere, but they don't remember where, and they don't have any other corroborating information. It's important to seek credible sources to verify these types of reports, and if they cannot be verified, any editor may delete them." Sandy 14:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Since there are a few references to the "Man Who Mistook His Wife for A Hat" by Sacks in this article, on thing about that book that seemed totally off the wall was when he describes the case of an old lady who has super-Tourette's, 50 times as bad as Witty Ticcy Ray. Even though Sacks describes "Witty Ticcy Ray" as a mild case of Tourette's, Ray had coprolalia, and I'd say anyone with coprolalia does nto have mild Tourette's.
But I don't think super-Tourette's exists and I only have heard about it from that book. Does anybody know anything else about it?
I'm trying to reference the entire article. I added this statement to the diagnosis section, but now I can't locate my reference. Will add it back in if found. "Standard neurological examination is usually normal in Tourette's syndrome patients." Sandy 20:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Update - I found my source, but it's not yet published. Maybe someone else can find the same statement somewhere. Sandy 21:07, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Still trying to source and reference everything in the article.
Diseases & Conditions: Tourette syndrome" - A documentary on Tourette's Syndrome that was part of the Discovery Health Channel's "Diseases & Conditions" series. This documentary includes numerous Tourette's Syndrome experts.
I haven't been able to locate any primary source document about this documentary, or that it was part of the Diseases and Conditions series, or what "TS experts" may have been included. I recall some sort of controversial documentary that couldn't necessarily be described as having "experts," so we need to locate a source on this. Sandy 22:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Should all this stuff go? 206.59.60.140 23:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
The relevance of the Mozart documentary should also be examined, as there were no Tourette's experts involved; and it makes a claim that no TS experts have endorsed, that we know of, and which authoritative sources have failed to endorse. We need to determine Wikipedia criteria for the inclusion of these entries on a page dealing with a medical condition. Sandy 16:13, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I believe we can agree with the following consensus statement:
"Considering points 1, 2, 3 & 4 below, there is no good reason to move the paragraph on Marinol to the Marinol article."
The information does not belong in the Marinol article because:
Please note that this is not the same concensus I declared a few days ago, since there was disagreement with the clause on how the paragraph should “roughly stay the same,” so I dropped that part. This is instead a compromise that I was working on in the Towards a Reasonable Half-Way concensus section!
This is from wikipedia's policy on consensus: "Note that consensus can only work among reasonable editors who make a good faith effort to work together to accurately and appropriately describe the different views on the subject. “
Given Wiki policy, I will declare that the “concensus statement” is something everyone agrees with, unless someone disagrees and PROVIDES A GOOD REASON TO DISAGREE! If someone writes and says “I already gave you my reasons” but won’t even provide a link to those reasons, this is acting in bad faith because wiki policy requires editors to work toget in good faith to describe their different views on the subject. If someone can’t easily find your reasons against the concensus statement, we still have a concensus! If you gave reasons to disagree with the last concensus, they do not apply to this one! Please give us your reasons here!
More of Wiki’s concensus policy: “Wikipedia's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric pos Bition combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith.”
For this reason, if someone just says they’re disagreing with the concensus statement without providing a good reason, it shall be assummed that we STILL HAVE A CONCENSUS!
I won't delete this or any other section of the talk page.
If somebody can think of a good reason to disagree with the consensus statement at the top of this section in six months, they can post it!
But until then, we have a consensus ladies and gentleman! Finally!
User 206.59.60.140, it would be nice if you could give us a name to call you - doesn't have to be your real name, but it would be nice to be able to address comments to you instead of your IP address. This talk page is becoming prohibitively long for anyone wanting to work on this article in the future, and some of the discussions digress from the task at hand. I was thinking you might be interested in looking at the article for a condition which has some similarities to Tourette syndrome, and which achieved featured article status on Wikipedia, Asperger syndrome. It gives an example of a well written Wikipedia article, and the encyclopedic tone and quality this article should seek to attain. This is your user talk page. Maybe we can talk about how to move towards that level of article on your talk page? Sandy 00:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Does tics really need to be wikified every time? -- Chapukwuk 04:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I am just beginning to add footnotes, and will merge it into References section when finished. It is important to preserve the order of the footnotes, so please call my attention to any references that need to be added to the article while I am doing the work. Adding references while I'm doing the work may change the order of footnotes. TIA! Sandy 16:06, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm not sure the references for the documentaries, "famous" people, etc. are needed in the article, but I'm going to save them here, pending guidance from an experienced editor.
References for "famous" people [17] [18] [19] [20] [21] [22] [23] [24]
References for documentaries [25] [26] [27]
Update: I converted the referencing to this style - m:Cite/Cite.php - which uses automatic numbering, allowing others to edit without concern for numbering. Sandy 17:11, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi Sandy. I'd just like to thank you for all your work in this article and this field. Chapukwuk 23:59, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Anyways, do you have any plans to put some information on or make a reference to P.A.N.D.A.S. in the article?
One thing I noticed about the AS article is that it did have a photograph included. I have a feeling that articles that are seleted by Wikipedia to be "model articles" or whatever they call it are much more likely to have at least one photograph. This is means the article is at least more than just text and uses more multimedia.
Now I think perhaps a drawing of Giles de la Tourette would be good. Any other ideas?