Talk:Tourette syndrome/Archive 2

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 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 →

Contents

Major Cleanup and ReWrite Needed

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.

I rewrote the basic front-end definition for the article. Sandy 17:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

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.

I got as far as I could on this. The description of tics is top-heavy, and should be included on the "tic" entry, which could be linked to the Tourette's entry, but the "tic" entry is so far off from anything related to Tourette's, that I don't know how to fix it. Sandy 22:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Moved basic definitions to the tic entry, deleted some from Tourette syndrome entry, and linked to the tic entry. Sandy 03:04, 8 February 2006 (UTC)

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.

Does it bring the article into dispute, or can you just delete the references to rage attacks? Don't assume that only one person has written what you are objecting to.
OK, since no one objected, I deleted it and removed the dispute. Sandy 17:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

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.”

I did as much as I could on this. Sandy 22:17, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

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.

I agree, why don't you move or delete the sentence?
I created a whole new prognosis section, and moved things out of other sections into there. The entire section still needs to be expanded and beefed up. Sandy 17:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

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.

Why don't you add something about differential diagnosis, age of onset, etc.? I believe Tourette's can affect functioning, that is all that is claimed by the article.
I did more work on this section. I think that's about all I can add.Sandy 18:28, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

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.

Perhaps this means the treatment section should be expanded. Why don't you write something about clonodine or other beta-blockers that you say are overlooked?
Done - did all I could. Sandy 00:27, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

The discussion of atypicals includes quotes which aren’t referenced, and discusses only potential negatives, out of context.

The reference to the quote on atypicals is in the wikipedia article on atypicals
I removed the links to Wiki sources, and typed in information from TS sources. The problem with global sources is that they often refer to populations (such as schizophrenics) which take much higher doses of neuroleptics than are prescribed for Tourette's. Sandy 17:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

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.

I don't know who mentioned drummers. However, the person was probably referring to Witty Ticcy Ray, decribed by Oliver Sacks.

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.

If there is consensus, the article is now to a state that the dispute could be removed. Waiting to hear from the original author. Sandy 17:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

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.”

You could be right. I personally do not know enough about genetics and I have never edited the genetics section at all. Do not assume that I wrote everything you object to.
New epidemilogy section created. Info updated. Sandy 22:18, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

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.

I also did not add the entry of Mozart under famous people. However, the person who did cited both experts who believe that Mozart had TS and experts who do not. But it is more that just a "rumor." I did add the link to the documentry on Mozart and Tourette's.
Toluca, James McConel is a musician and composer, not an expert on Tourette's. I do not concur with the edit you just made to the Mozart entry. Experts who have opined concur that there is no basis for speculating that Mozart had Tourette's. A musician/composer is not an expert on Tourette's. You are making changes without consensus, even as these items have been brought to your attention on the talk page. Sandy 01:03, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Toluca, you earlier argued vehemently that Leslie Packer's TS Plus website should be included as an authoritative link. Now you are deleting her professional opinion that there is no evidence that Mozart had Tourette's. You can't have it both ways. Is she an authority on TS or not? Either leave in the link to her opinion about Mozart, or take her link out of the External Links section. I'm fine with either option that you choose. I will accept your entry about Simkin, although I don't think anyone would qualify him as a "TS expert." Even you have acknowledged that he is an endocrinologist. Not a psychiatrist or a neurologist? But I will accept that compromise. Sandy 01:45, 4 February 2006 (UTC)
Leslie Packer did not claim that Mozart did not have Tourette's Syndrome. She said however that there is not enough evidence that he did have it either. She was taking a neurtal point of view.
The entry as worded covers that: "they do not believe there is enough evidence to conclude that Mozart had Tourette's" does not say anyone claims that he did not have TS, just that there is not enough evidence to conclude that he did or didn't. If you have better wording, please suggest it. Sandy 17:58, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes Sandy, I know that James McConel is not an expert on TS. But Dr. Benjamin Simkin is a medical expert who wrote a book argueing that Mozart had Tourette's! You belief that there is a consensus amongst experts is flat out wrong!

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.

Would like to hear from others on this. I hesitate to tackle the section. At minimum, it could be alphabeticized. And, what verification is there that some of these entries are actually about Tourette's? What is their relevance? Are they vanity entries? Sandy 18:31, 5 February 2006 (UTC)
Touched by an Angel and Ally McBeal. [1]
7th Heaven and The Practice [2][3] [4]
I would say "What about Bob?" because I believe that movie was the first to confuse coprolalia with Tourette's Syndrome. However, i don't have a reference.
I also know there was an LA Law episode on Tourette's Syndrome. Again, I don't have a reference.
Thanks for the tip on LA Law -- I found a reference, and added it. Nice find! What About Bob is already on the list. Sandy 23:15, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Maybe (if it can be proven) that What about Bob? was the first movie to confuse Tourette's Syndrome with coprolalia we should note that. Also, shouldn't "What About Bob?" be in the first section that includes films that accurately portray TS or have a main character that has TS? Since Bob has TS in the movie, it would fit the second criteria. Unfortuanely, "What About Bob?" might have had more of an influence on the publics misconceptions about TS than any other film. But that makes it significant in a historical sense.
Do you know of any movies made before "What About Bob?" that confused TS for coprolalia?
I didn't see What About Bob. I think it would be difficult to say conclusively that it was the first to stereotype TS and coprolalia. I'll poke around and see if I can find out more about it. Sandy 12:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

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.

Using this logic, why do we need four different links to the TSA around the world? Why not just one link to the TSA, since have similar information. Have a link to organizations that are not the TSA makes this article more neutral!
I changed the wording that someone attached to the TSA (New-York based group?) back to USA advocacy group, as they do, after all, have chapters in every state, and are the only organization with national reach representing people with Tourette's. Someone may not like that, but Wikipedia reflects the way it is, not the way we may want it to be. As of now, and for many years, the TSDA, on the other hand, only has contacts in Southern California. Sandy 22:27, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

No one disagreed, so I did it. Still needs work. Sandy 17:01, 4 February 2006 (UTC)

No Original Research, vanity entries, collection

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.

I just located a primary source reference (final chapter, Tourette's syndrome: Tics, obessions, compulsions, by Leckman and Cohen) which covers the same point in slightly different words. I'll add them in so the point is covered without being original research. Sandy 21:17, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
Well I just wrote that "some" not "most" people with TS would deny a magic cure. I know that I personally have had TS ever since I was a few months old (my case was a very early onset) and I know I would not take this magic pill. But the book "Twitch and Shout" by Adam Seigelman talks about this in the last couple of chapters.
Understood and agreed. But whether it's phrased as some or most, it still may qualify as original research, without a primary source for that statement. You and I both know people in real life who say that, but it needs to be in print from a reputable, verifiable source. So, I added a comment from a book that hopefully covers the same point you wanted to make. Adam Seligman did not write Twitch and Shout, by the way, and Leckman/Cohen provide a more reputable source than Lowell Handler, as it is a medical text rather than fiction. Sandy 18:31, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Sorry about the author slip up. If you want to remove the bit about the magic pill I do not object.

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)

Dr. Comings FAQ in external links

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?

Yes, I would object (we need to leave it because someone else may want to cover these same topics in the future). As to whether it's resolved, I believe we should eventually effect the recommendation of Greg Kuperberg, Move pot elsewhere. I haven't had time. As he indicated, we should move all four experimental treatments out of the Tourette syndrome article and in to their own appropriate articles within Wikipedia {e.g.; Marinol), and make only a one-sentence mention of the experimental treatments here, referencing the appropriate links. I'd like to eventually do the same thing with the long description of tics, by moving a lot of it to the tics entry.
The Marinol page primarly tells you what it is, and what it has been approved for. There have been all sorts of experiments done with Marinol on other off the label conditions, not just Tourette's Syndrome. There is no laundry list of every condition that Marinol has even been researched in the Marinol article. This is the kind of thing you would find in an article about the specific conditions.
The person what said "move marijuana elsewhere" is too stupid to understand the difference between Marinol and marijuana. I say this person is stupid, because I am assuming good faith. There are only two possible ways to confuse Marinol and marijuana at this point (the article is very clear) a) he/she is intentionally trying to confuse people b) he/she is stupid. So assuming good faith, means b.
This person is also a fool for suggesting that I am motivated by a political medical marijuana cause. Marinol is legal by Rx in all 50 states and under federal law. I have also said that the research so far on marijuana and TS has been anecdotal and therefore doesn't really prove anything. But the Marinol research was controlled. This is not an arguement for medical marijuana! In fact, you could say it is an arguement against medical marijuana! At least in this circumstance, it appears the legal alternative is better! The medical marijuana article also does not talk abou the conditions marijuana is supposed to treat. That information belongs in the articles on the specific conditions.
See note below regarding personal attacks.
Whether a particular study is controlled is not enough to qualify it as worthy research. There is good research design, and bad research design, and blinding and placebo controls are only a few of the factors that contribute to good research design. That particular study (in fact, all of them) was a small sample size, the results have not been validated, and the measurement instruments could be questioned in most of the studies referenced. Marinol is not yet close to becoming standard treatment for Tourette's.
Separately, I have brought several things to the Talk page that you don't comment on. Please try to work with others in good faith to improve this article. Sandy 23:07, 7 February 2006 (UTC)
I do not have the time to go though all your comments and comment on them as quickly as you would like me too. So I am focusing on resolving this issue. (One thing at a time.) All drugs are researched in the preliminary stages using smaller sample sizes before they go on to bigger sample sizes. That only makes sense! I did not say Marinol is a standard treatment for Tourette's. That's why it is in the experimental section. But the Marinol page is not a page that tells you everything that Marinol has ever been researched for. It would be somewhat out of place to put this research on the Marinol article.
I have not yet looked at your Comings link, but I can't agree with your reason for including it here. The TSDA link has been added, and that offers the counterbalance you seek. There are good reasons Comings' outdated work (twenty years old in many cases) is not included in most other sources, and is often referenced in the published literature as a counterexample, or as an example of ascertainment bias, or as an example of research which has subsequently been disproven. The article is already top-heavy, stills needs a major red marker, and your suggestion will add controversy without improving current content. I do agree with you that all the other TS advocacy group links aren't needed, under the "What Wikipedia is not" guidelines. It is not a collection of website links.
I deleted the entry for what you called an FAQ from Comings. It was a link to Hope Press, which is a bookseller. Hope Press was a self-founded vanity press, which Comings founded when he encountered problems getting his views published in peer-reviewed journals (he describes this in his second book). Since Hope Press sells his and other books (many of which are approaching irrelevance at 20 years old), it's not just an FAQ, and could be construed here as an advertisement. Sandy 14:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Did you see my question that the statement about the "magic pill" appears to violate the Wikipedia, No Original Research policy ?
I see that you added the marijuana references to the References. I had left them (and some others, referred to only once) as inline references is so that it would be easier to move those sections in the future. I tried to put in the actual References section only things that were referred to in numerous places throughout the article, or that would be more enduring than the pot research. I will move some of those back inline. Sandy 21:12, 7 February 2006 (UTC)

No Personal Attacks

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."

This person attacked me first, accusing me of having a political agenda, when that is obviously not true.

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)

And there isn't a "lengthy discussion" of any experimental treatment. There is a paragraph.

Whatever happened to assuming good faith?

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!

Greg's entry doesn't mention you. He talks about Wikipedia policies and encyclopedic content and quality with respect to the entry. Each entry in Wikipedia is written by many editors: comments apply globally, not to a given individual. My suggestion would be that if this is going to become a personal struggle, unrelated to Wiki policies, it would be better to take it to personal talk pages. Or just not go there, because it is not consistent with Wikipedia culture or policies. Focus on the content and the policies, to achieve a well-written entry. I won't be responding to any more personal comments. Sandy 02:06, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
He was referring to the person who initially posted the information on Marinol, myself. That is quite clear. There would be no dicussion of Marinol in this article if it weren't for me and therefore he must be reffering to me! And if he was not referring to me, he was referring to somebody who edited this article and therefore he was NOT ASSUMING GOOD FAITH!
This is why I think you are a hypocrite when you lecture me on wiki rules but you don't point out that Greg is assuming bad faith for somebody, and when you too assume SOMEBODY posted in bad faith to the treatments section to publicize a controversial treatment! The rules should be applied to everyone, even you Sandy.
I certainly did assume some good faith in my previous entry. Anyone can veer onto a political tangent out of human frailty. I am having more trouble assuming good faith now, now that there are these ridiculous defensive responses. Greg Kuperberg 08:36, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
It does not matter if you were assuming good faith or not, you were mistaken that anybody was getting into the "politics of illegal drugs" and was supporting medical marijuana because this could actually be used as an arguement AGAINST MEDICAL MARIJUANA! It appears that the legal alternative (Marinol) works better than marijuana in the treatment of TS!

Toward a reasonable consensus

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?:

  • 1. There is just one paragraph on Marinol in this article. It is in the "experimental treatsments" section. It is made clear that the research is only preliminary.
  • 2. In spite of the fact that Greg accused me (or at least somebody who posted to this article) of getting into the "politics of illegal drugs" and being pro "medical-marijuana" when it comes to Marinol (legal by Rx in all 50 states) Greg is wrong! In fact, this could actually be an arguement AGAINST medical marijuana, because it appears that the legal alternative (Marinol) is supperor to marijuana for treating TS! Greg should assume good faith, and learn that marijuana and Marinol are not the same thing.

The information does not belong in the Marinol article because:

  • 3. The Marinol article just has information on what Marinol is and what it has been approved for. It has been used experimentally in treating all sorts of things, and therefore there is no laundry list of all Marinol research for all conditions in the Marinol article. That sort of information belongs in the articles about specific conditions.
  • 4. Many medications' names have been posted to this article, and many of these medications have their own articles in wikipedia that don't mention Tourette's Syndrome at all! So the standard precident, in this very article and on wikipedia, is: Information about off the label research on a drug for treating a specific condition belongs in the article about the specific condition, not the article about the drug!
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. (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!

By the way the defintion of factoid is

"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)

None of the information in the Marinol paragraph is unverified or inaccurate, so it contains no factoids!
User 206.59.60.140, Please do not continue altering the talk page. Your disruption of the talk page may lead other editors to conclude that your efforts here are not in good faith. Adding a subheading for clarify is helpful: moving entire sections of the talk page to make a point is disruptive. Sandy 21:29, 8 February 2006 (UTC)
Sandy, stop being stubborn and answer the question "Do you have have a good reason to drastically change the paragraph on Marinol or move the paragraph to the Marinol article in the future?" please! We can talk about headings, and semantics and context etc., but I'd rather talk about SUBSTANCE!
To quote from wiki policy above about good faith, "Wikipedia's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric pos Bition combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in 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." You claim that you are doing your edits in the name of being NPOV, but you don't answer the question at the top of the section directly! This is not good faith! The question is the substance of this discussion. Wiki policy is to not worry so much about whether the edits are NPOV or not, and instead answer the question at the top of this section.206.59.60.140 01:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
So far, nobody has given me answer to the question at the top of this section (after reading my 4 points of course.) I believe that is because nobody can think of a good reason to drastically change the Marinol paragraph, or to move the paragraph to the Marinol article in the future. Therefore, if somebody's answer to the question is "No," please say so, in spite of your bias!
To quote from wikipedia policy above, "Wikipedia's consensus practice does not justify stubborn insistence on an eccentric position combined with refusal to consider other viewpoints in good faith." It is not enough to just say "I don't agree" without providing a reason!
I think that some people may need to at least consider, in good faith, the possibility that I am right when I say there is currently no good reason to change the Marinol paragraph drastically, and that there is no good reason to move the paragraph to the Marinol article in the future! 206.59.60.140 01:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

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)

No you have not answered this specific question at all. If you have, PLEASE repeat your answer! Or show me exactly where you posted your answer!
At the very least you can provide me with a link that goes to right to where you claim you posted the answer! It is not hard to provide a link! I must say, if you can't even do that, then you are not acting in good faith! According to wiki policies "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." Please try to accurately describe your answer to the question, or at least provide a link to where you claim to have already posted this answer! I want to read your answer, but I can't find it! So please, as wiki policy says "work together" with me so that I can at least KNOW WHAT YOUR ANSWER IS! 206.59.60.140 02:17, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Can you at least answer this part of the question: "After looking at points 3 and 4, above, do you have any good reason why the paragraph on Marinol and TS should be moved to the Marinol article in the future?" 206.59.60.140 01:48, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Twitch and Shout, HBO Documentary awards

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]

Here's my reference. [10] 206.59.60.140 00:06, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
There's no mention of a Golden Globe there ?? Sandy 00:09, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
My mistake, it was a golden gate award. I'll take it out of the article.206.59.60.140 00:12, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Also, of note - the first award nomination for the HBO documentary, as we go into the season: [11]

Okay, I just edited out the statement that it was a "highly acclaimed" documentary, because I felt that was too POV. But mentioning an award that it won is fine with me.
That sounds reasonable, and is fine with me. I also edited the POV out of Twitch and Shout. Sandy 00:11, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, would you mind starting to use edit summaries? That will make it much easier for other editors to understand the reasons for your edits. Thanks! Sandy 00:18, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
"Twitch and Shout" was nominated for and won many awards. This link has all the awards this documentary was nominated for and won.[12]
I only listed the emmy nomination because that was the only award big enough worth mentioning. Likewise, I think we should delete the stuff about the director of the HBO documentary being nominated by the directors guild, that is not that big of an award! Either that, or we should list all the awards Twitch and Shout won!206.59.60.140 23:18, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Generally speaking, if the awards are not televised, they are not big awards! And we definately should delete the dead link around the director's name since there is no article on this guy! He isn't that important! I will do that now!206.59.60.140 23:22, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Also, I find it interesting that we would want to publicize a director producer of that HBO documentary who did not have TS! Now, maybe I'm biased because I have TS, but I do think it is very hard for someone who doesn't have it to understand it. I'm sure the TSA could have found somebody with TS to do that documentary! Was anybody who had TS actually hired to work on that documentary (even if only as a grip?)206.59.60.140 23:41, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

In the News

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.

It's helpful to bring items to the talk page before deciding to delete them. The recent genetic discovery is mentioned, and as indicated by TS researchers, the relevance of that finding is questioned, and it may not even apply to genetic Tourette's. I can't agree that the first documentary dealing with Tourette's in children is not noteworthy, and those articles in particular offer information about and, more notably, videos clips of children with TS who are doing quite well, which is a topic that is always of interest. We were all children once :-)) Sandy 00:26, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I agree that the first documentary on children with TS is noteworthy but I think it should be noted in the part of the article in the documentary section. Perhaps you can link the reviews and the video clips of the documentary in the documentary section? I think an entire new section for reviews about documentaries may not be necessary.
Very good idea ... I'll do that. That is, put the links as part of the documentary item, rather than as news item. Thanks for the suggestion. Sandy 01:29, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
"John's not mad" was an unbiased documentary about a 16-year old with TS, assuming it is really possible to be "unbiased."206.59.60.140 00:58, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
I noticed that you have again deleted the links. Can you recommend any other (unbiased) news links which contain live video clips of children with Tourette's, talking about living with tics, and doing well? I am not aware of any other online source that would allow Wikipedia readers to see a professionally-produced clip of "regular kids" with tics. Sandy 00:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Insider TV dropped the link to the video clip, so I added back in only the News10 report. Sandy 00:40, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Toward a reasonable half-way consensus

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:

  • 3. The Marinol article just has information on what Marinol is and what it has been approved for. It has been used experimentally in treating all sorts of things, and therefore there is no laundry list of all Marinol research for all conditions in the Marinol article. That sort of information belongs in the articles about specific conditions.
  • 4. Many medications' names have been posted to this article, and many of these medications have their own articles in wikipedia that don't mention Tourette's Syndrome at all! So the standard precident, in this very article and on wikipedia, is: Information about off the label research on a drug for treating a specific condition belongs in the article about the specific condition, not the article about the drug!


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."

Mort Doran, primary source document

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)

I finally found my paperwork, a brochure from a TSA conference which includes the bio for Morton L. Doran, MD, the "surgeon written about in The Man Who Mistook His Wife for a Hat by Oliver Sacks, MD" So, I went online looking for a source. Found nothing on Google, but find multiple Google Groups posts, such as CT TSA Conference And the fictional character was Carl Bennett, not Jim Bennett. Sandy 00:07, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

Super-Tourette? Is Oliver Sacks always credible?

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?

Well, I happen to know of a TSA MAB MD who has expressed publicly his disagreement with Sacks' fictional views, but Usenet entries aren't valid primary sources for Wikipedia. He wrote those books so long ago, that whatever was labeled as "mild" then would not likely be labeled "mild" today. Super-Tourette's sounds like another way of saying what is called "Tourette plus" today. And, you're right -- studies have shown a linear correlation between the number of comorbid conditions and the presence of coprolalia -- suggesting that one needs to have co-occurring conditions beyond tics to have coprolalia. I have problems in general with Sacks fictional literature, and would prefer to delete all references to it, since not all agree with everything he writes. His journal-published info is different, as it is subject to peer review, but his fiction is self-published, and often sensationalized. Unless we can find a reference for substantiating that the fictional "Jim Bennett" was the real person, Dr. Mort Doran, I'd rather delete references to Sacks' fictional literature. Sandy 20:20, 9 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, in the book Sacks said that after meeting Ray he realized that TS was common and all around him. He cited this example of this old lady in a New York Park bench. She didn't have corprolalia, she just mirrored peoples facial expressions in a very exaggerated way. Now usually doctors don't make a diagnosis in a park anyway, but he was not only diagnosing her, he diagnosed her with a whole new condition!
Hence my concern about his fictional writing and sensationalism. Without a thorough examination, ruling out other conditions, he can't diagnose her from a park bench. Sandy 21:45, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

Standard neurological exam normal

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)

Documentary - Source please, Discovery Health Channel

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)

Hmmm. Well I think I was wrong -- it was part of the "Medical Mysteries" series, and I think it may have been coproduced by the BBC. I have never heard controvery about it, but many I just am not aware of it.206.59.60.140 04:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes, I too remember co-production of a documentary with the BBC, and that it wasn't well received. I'll dig around some more under Medical Mysteries and see if I can come up with any references or descriptions. Sandy 14:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
That documentary was made 5 years ago (or more) when some people still thought that nicotine was a good idea. But it did point out that all nicotine does, at best, is double the potency of the neuroleptic drugs. This documentary went though many theories and treatments, but did not endorese any of them. It contained numerous TS experts, including Olive Sacks and David Comings and others whose names I don't recall right now. But since I had heard of Comings and Sacks, of course I remember them. There was also a lady in Brition who had a TS clinic, I can't recall her name... But Sacks and Comings are both TS experts.
If Sacks is not a TS expert, should we be referring to his book in the references section? A lot of books in the references section don't seem to meet your criteria for experts.206.59.60.140 23:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
I'm trying to work from Wikipedia criteria, not mine. I've mentioned a couple of times that we need to put Sacks' fictionalized writing into context for a medical article. Sandy 04:14, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, the name of that expert from Harvard was HI Kushner, I remember now because it said he was the author of "A cursing brain." So I think you would agree that he qualifies as an expert. He is on the TSA MAB is he not? Well he was also in the Discovery Health Channel's Documentary.206.59.61.72 19:22, 15 February 2006 (UTC)


Wiki standards and all fictional stuff

I'm thinking in terms of Wikipedia standards: WP:RS "Try to use sources who have degrees in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions. The most reputable have written textbooks in their field for the undergraduate level or higher: these authors can be expected to have a broad, authoritative grasp of their subject." That puts the TSA and their MAB, and a number of other sources, in another league relative to Comings or Sacks. Comings is a geneticist (not a psychiatrist, not a neurologist) who has never written a TS textbook subject to peer and editorial review (he's self-published by his own vanity press), and as far as I know, Sacks' writings and work with respect to TS (besides being very old) are mostly fictionalized accounts, and neither of them (to my knowledge) are affiliated with academic institutions where, as in the case of most of the TSA MAB, and the likes of Leckman, Cohen, Jankovic, Walkup, etc., they are also heads of their departments. And neither of them are contemporary, practicing "experts" (if we even accept the premise that either of them ever were that, which is debateable): most of what Comings published is now approaching the 20-year mark. I go back to the question of why a medical entry should list every time TS was mentioned in the media or film, and the reminder of what Wikipedia is not: it is not a collection of lists or links. Sandy 22:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Using this logic, should we also remove the link to the "Motherless Brooklyn" book? The author of that book is not a doctor, has never published any textbooks, and at the time he wrote the book, he never even met anybody with TS!
And using this logic, we should get rid of the link to an LA Law episode about a lawyer who sues on behalf of someone with TS. No TS expert of anykind wrote, directed, or producded the episode! They did not publish textbooks on TS! And the LA Law episode really is not very useful at all for a medical standpoint! A doctor won't learn how to treat TS by watching LA Law!
It seem to me that using your logic, all of these fictional entries should be deleted, because they were not made by experts and don't have any medical instructional value! I'm not going to delete them, but I will list them here:
  • The UK movie, Dirty Filthy Love, tells the story of Mark Furness (Michael Sheen) with Obsessive Compulsive Disorder (OCD) and Tourette's negotiating his way through divorce, his best friend's matchmaking efforts, and a woman who introduces him to therapy, filth and unconditional love.
  • In a 1990 episode of LA Law, the character, Rollins, represents a man with Tourette's Syndrome who is suing for wrongful termination after he is fired because of his TS.
  • The main character, and narrator, of the novel Motherless Brooklyn by Jonathan Lethem has Tourette syndrome.
  • In a January, 1998, episode of The Practice, characters Ellenor and Rebecca fight to keep a 12-year old girl with Tourette's Syndrome in school, raising awareness about issues of educational advocacy for students with Tourette's.
  • An episode of the television show Quincy, M.E. has Quincy arguing with the drug companies, lawyers and the Food and Drug Administration to promote research into the syndrome. This was a seminal moment in the history of Tourette's, as it led to many people who didn't know what they had was Tourette's getting a name for their symptoms.
  • A movie released on video, The Tic Code, stars Gregory Hines as a saxophone player with TS who befriends a 10 year old boy who wants to be a jazz pianist (and also has TS). Written by Polly Draper, and produced with her husband, jazz musician Michael Wolff, who has Tourette's in real life.
  • In the February 7, 2000, episode of 7th Heaven, Simon befriends a boy with Tourette's syndrome.

Should all this stuff go?206.59.60.140 23:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


Also, the Discovery Health Channel documentary had many many experts, not just those two! In fact, it had one expert on there just to debate Comings. (The documentary was trying to be neutral.) The guy debating comings had a PhD in Neurology -- forgot his name.) Besides, how many textbooks have been written on TS anyway? I think that people like Comings, who had their own clinic and published a lot of papers on TS in scientific journals are the people who come the closest to being TS experts. I don't know of anybody who has published textbooks on TS for undergrads.206.59.60.140 22:37, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
There are many textbooks and books on TS, several written by people fulfilling Wiki criteria for most reliable sources. These two are very accessible to laypersons, although they have a few chapters on brain circuitry that are more advanced. Cohen, DJ, Jankovic J, Goetz CG, (eds). Advances in Neurology, Vol. 85, Tourette Syndrome. Lippincott, Williams & Wilkins, Philadelphia, PA, 2001. [13] Leckman JF, Cohen DJ. Tourette's Syndrome—Tics, Obsessions, Compulsions: Developmental Psychopathology and Clinical Care. John Wiley & Sons, Inc., New York, 1999. [14] I have read both of these cover to cover, and highly recommend them. However, there is a new textbook due out in April, 06, by Walkup, which should provide an update. These authors "have their own clinics", most are/were (Cohen died a few years ago) teaching professionals at institutions of note (e.g.; Yale), their books were subject to editorial and peer review (unlike Comings' self-published work), they are far more and widely journal-published than Comings (in reputable journals), they serve/served on the TSA Medical and Scientific Advisory Boards, and the ones who are alive are still practicing professionals, recognized as the tops in their fields. I don't believe David Comings meets most of those criteria. For a review of some of the problems with his work, see PMID 3165247 . Sandy 12:54, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Okay, one expert that was on that documentary that I think is on the TSA MAB was this guy from Harvard ... but I forget his name. I don't know the TSA MMAB as well as you do. The guy from Harvard was talking about examining the brains of people with TS who donated their brains to the Harvard brain bank.
I might pass on the textbook thing. I have been driving myself a little nuts "thinking about the monkees" with the article! But at least now I can think about Tourette's a lot more than I could, but I still have limits. For example, books like Motherless Brooklyn and Twitch and Shout I could never finish because they always made me cry.206.59.61.168 18:31, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
OK, I finally located my own notes on this documentary, and now understand why I assigned it to obscurity (as apparently, so did Google). Yes, it was Medical Mysteries, not Diseases & Conditions, yes, it was co-produced in the UK, and there was some confusion in the USA as it eventually aired on the Discovery Health Channel, not the Discovery channel. I submit that it's not a relevant entry here because of 1) its obscurity (only one mention on Google that I can find, by someone with TS who was in the documentary), and 2) the outdated information contained in it. It didn't have any true "TS experts" (reference Wikipedia criteria on reliable sources), but it did have Dr. Sandberg (Sanberg?) from Fl discussing the nicotine research. Several members of the South Florida group had a financial interest (patent holders) in either mecamylamine or inversine (verified in their disclosures in their journal-published research), and the usefulness of those agents in the treatment of TS has since been disproven. I suggest we delete this entry, based on Wiki criteria that Wiki is not a collection or list, and as TS is a medical entry, relevance and reliable sources should be established. For example, Handler's documentary won numerous awards, so may be worthy of mention (I haven't seen it -- I would also suggest removing it if it is found to contain outdated or inaccurate medical information). We also need to come up with a reason for keeping the entry for "John is Not Mad." Sandy 16:02, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

"John's not Mad."

John is not Mad is one of the most famous documentaries ever made about TS, and is one of the most famous BBC documentaries ever made. It was the first documentary to make TS more familar to many people, especially in the UK.
I'd never heard of it until it was listed here a few days ago, but who am I, besides someone who has followed everything you can follow about TS for a decade <grin>? Google turns up 12 hits on "John is not mad" and tourette. Sandy 22:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Now that you've provided the correct name, "John's not Mad," I was able to find it on Google. (Produced in 1989, released by TSA Scotland in 2/04.) Noting that the correct title was added on here after I did the Google search. Although it was released to DVD two years ago, I never heard of it. Perhaps we could discuss items here and nail down the correct details before they get added to the article?Sandy 04:10, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
Look I realize that my spelling is not always perfect, but considering that I have a very bad case of ADHD and TS, and that I used to be terrible at spelling I have come a long way. I'm not asking you to pity me, but can you cut me just a little slack with the spelling and grammer? I'm doing the best that I can.
Hi there. I hope you'll reread my entry and see that I wasn't attacking your spelling, rather explaining why I hadn't come up with the documentary on Google. Spelling attacks are lame -- I wouldn't do that :-) My suggestion was only that if we brought new items here before adding them to the page, we might be better able to nail things down here, which would result in less editing to the main entry. Sandy 22:32, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
Here is a link that I added to the documentary part of the article on John's not made. It should answer your questions.[15] As you can see, it is one of the most famous documentaries on TS. The DVD is being put out by the TS Foundation of Scotland to raise funds, and the DVD was endorsed by Tim Howard.
And here is another link I added to Tourette Scotland's page on John's Not Mad.[16]206.59.60.140 22:29, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Upon closer examination of the Tourette Scotland website, it appears the TSA chapter of New Jersey is also recieving a donation for the DVDs sold. So there is an endorsement form a TSA chapter as well!
Also if John is not Mad is not justified, they why is the HBO documentary justified? The HBO documentary was NOT the first documentary on children with TS, John's not Mad was!
First is not the only measure of relevance, and that's without mentioning accuracy and durability -- the HBO Documentary's usefulness in representing TS will outlive this entry. Google turns up 20,300 hits on HBO tourette, and 334 on the name of the documentary alone. Since the TSA was involved in the documentary, it doesn't put out any inaccurate medical statements about Tourette's. Reliability of sources, and relevance. Sandy 22:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)
Well, you consider Tourette Scotland to be a reliable source, right? Why would they endorse a documentary that they thought had inaccurate information?
On Handler's documentary: I agree with you on Handler's medical information, he is partially biased against marijuana treatment, and doesn't bother taling about Marinol. He said that couldn't sit though a movie without smoking pot before he starting taking Orap. He felt incredibly guilty that he smoked marijuana (??) and felt it lead one of his mariages to break up! He completely failed to reconize that he was self-medicing (and it was working) with marijuana (he might have done even better with Marinol!) He acts like Orap was a godsend, because it didn't have the side effects of Haldol. Of course, as you know, that was proven false and Orap may be just as bad as Haldol when it comes to side effects. It certainly is more dangerous than Marinol and even (gasp!) more dangerous than pot! But I like the part where he goes to that town where so many people have TS. I like the fact that he points out that in Zulu culture TS is one of two "diseases" that are considered holy, and anyone with Tourette's Syndrome would be a triabal cheiftan, and a shaman of some sort. I think it is okay to link to things that address some cultural aspects of TS even if they endore Orap way too much.
And the search for the "safe" antipsychotic (what Orap was supposed to be) has always ended up the same way. It is always discovered that the drug is really dangerous, right before the patent expires, but now they've got this NEW antipsychotic that is supposed to be safe! Xyprexa, of all the new antipsychotics, is proven to be the lest likely to cause brain damage or tardive disconesia! But it is the MOST likely to cause weight gain and diabetes! I know people who gained 100 lbs. after taking Xyprexia!

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)

When it comes to Mozart, I don't really know if he had TS or not. I think that there may not be much evidence that he had TS, but it does not mean it is impossible. I think it is interesting that a doctor wrote a book that somebody published putting forth that theory. Now maybe you're right. and that it is a bad theory. But should we cover up the theory? Wouldn't it actually be better to present both sides?
I agree, it's maybe a matter of in what light it is presented. Sandy 22:11, 10 February 2006 (UTC)


A Brand New Concensus Has Been Reached

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:

  • 1. There is just one paragraph on Marinol in this article. It is in the "experimental treatsments" section. It is made clear that the research is only preliminary.
  • 2. In spite of the fact that Greg accused me (or at least somebody who posted to this article) of getting into the "politics of illegal drugs" and being pro "medical-marijuana" when it comes to Marinol (legal by Rx in all 50 states) Greg is wrong! In fact, this could actually be an arguement AGAINST medical marijuana, because it appears that the legal alternative (Marinol) is supperor to marijuana for treating TS! Greg should assume good faith, and learn that marijuana and Marinol are not the same thing.
  • 3. The Marinol article just has information on what Marinol is and what it has been approved for. It has been used experimentally in treating all sorts of things, and therefore there is no laundry list of all Marinol research for all conditions in the Marinol article. That sort of information belongs in the articles about specific conditions.
  • 4. Many medications' names have been posted to this article, and many of these medications have their own articles in wikipedia that don't mention Tourette's Syndrome at all! So the standard precident, in this very article and on wikipedia, is: Information about off the label research on a drug for treating a specific condition belongs in the article about the specific condition, not the article about the drug!

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!

Talk page?

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)

That article addresses many things that I thought you said do not belong in this article. I thought you didn't want information about possible social impairments. TS can be one of the most socially impairing disorders, especially in children. (I realize not everyone with TS has this problem. But a lot do! I'd bet it is more socially impairing that Asperger's Syndrome. I'm sure not everyone with Asperger's is socially impaired either.)
TS is like autism in the sense that an autistic person does not innately understand the facial expressions of others (such as a smile) but can learn them intellectually and someone with TS does not understand the concept of what is socially acceptable, but we can learn intellectually. The fact is TS ALWAYS involves irrestable urges to do things that are not socially acceptable. If tics were socially acceptable, nobody would label it as a abberation.
Also, I liked the part in the Asperger's article that talked about how it was a blessing and a curse. This is sort of what I was trying to get at with the "magic pill" thing, because TS can be a blessing and a curse too.206.59.61.72 07:15, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Hi 206.59.61.72 -- it would be so helpful if you would give us a name to call you :-) I'm not sure where I said we shouldn't have information about social impairments? The reason I referred you to the AS article is that it is the only DSM condition I've located on Wikipedia that was a featured article, meaning that it meets certain standards on Wikipedia and was reviewed by numerous editors and had medical collaboration. Wikipedia principles call for verifiable information from reliable sources. In the majority of cases, TS is not impairing, and in fact, is less impairing than AS (just look at the diagnostic criterion for the two conditions). Impairment in social functioning is not part of TS, so I'm not sure why you say people with TS don't understand that concept of what is socially acceptable? That doesn't apply to any of the people I know with TS, unless they also have co-occurring conditions, such as anxiety disorders, etc. I don't know of a medical source that would agree that TS *always* involves urges to do things that are not socially acceptable. I don't think people label eye blinking, for example, as socially unacceptable -- it's just irritating. Yes, as I mentioned, I personally agreed with the "magic pill" statement, so I found a chapter in a published textbook that dealt with that. When the next textbook about TS comes out in two months, perhaps we can expand on that concept, using information from a verifiable source, and without reflecting our own experiences (which Wikipedia disallows as "original research.") I, too, thought of creating and labeling a section "Blessing and curse," but maybe we can come up with something on our own rather than lifting the AS terminology :-)) Anyway, I just hoped you'd enjoy the AS article, as it gives an example of the encyclopedic tone that Wikipedia aims for. Sandy 12:47, 14 February 2006 (UTC)
Well until the most recent version of the DSM came out (DSM IV TR) all previous version included impairment as a criteria for diagnosis, including the first DSM IV. A lot of people opposed this, saying not everyone with TS has impaired funtioning, etc. AS's has been discovered more recently, and has less lobbing groups behind it than TS does as of now. But I'll bet you that someday, they will remove that requirement for AS that it causes social impairment from the DSM. Anyway, forget the phrase "socially acceptable." TS always involves the irrestable urge to do things that can annoy or irk other people.206.59.61.72 01:39, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I wouldn't put money on that bet, if I were you <grin>. The "core" deficit in AS is social impairment. Without the impairment, there's no disorder. The core deficit in TS is something physically measurable and viewable: involuntary motor and vocal tics. You can have those without being socially or functionally impaired. TS can exist without impairment: AS can't, because it is defined as a disorder of social impairment. Sandy 02:03, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Yes TS can exist without impairment. But ask ANYBODY who has TS and they will tell you that they suppress their tics, at least some of the time. Why do they do so? Because around other people and in public tics can make people react in negative ways to the person with TS. A person with TS is never supressing his/her tics because he/she does not like them; usually a person with TS does not understand why other people are making such a big deal about his/her tics. This is what I was getting at with the comment about people with TS not always understanding WHY something is not socially acceptable. We understand that our tics are not socially acceptable, because even when we aren't even aware that we are doing them in public someone will point them out to us. Children are a lot less polite than adults, so this affects children with TS even more. All people with TS supress their tics around others and in public because they know that ticing in public will VERY likely generate negative remarks from others. You can become functional, find creative ways to vent your energy, and effectively supress you tics enough that it does not impair you at all, and your Tourettic energy can even be used to your own advantage. Still, someone with TS is always walking on a tight rope, balancing their need to tic with their need to suppress tics in public because of the negative social consequences of ticing in public view. That is why I say that supressing tics is like putting a lid on a boiling pot of water. (I believe I am unusually gifted at explaining the existential experience of TS to people who do not have it.)206.59.61.72 03:16, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
My tight rope walker analogy is a good one. A tight rope walker HAS to keep moving or else he/she will fall.
And yes, I was also referring to Nietzsche's image of the "tight rope walker" between man and overman. But I'm waxing philosophical.206.59.61.72 18:02, 15 February 2006 (UTC)

tics wikified many times

Does tics really need to be wikified every time? --Chapukwuk 04:28, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

I've been trying to do it once a paragraph, more or less. Can you/someone give us some guidelines? Sandy 05:07, 11 February 2006 (UTC)
generally we link a word or phrase only the first time it appears in an article. Though I think that a second link can be provided the first time it appears in a section that it is key to (such as treatment of tics). I'll go delink a bunch that I think are redundant. Matt 13:40, 12 February 2006 (UTC)
Thank you so much, Matt. I hadn't discovered (yet) a guideline! Sandy 14:55, 12 February 2006 (UTC)

Adding footnotes and other reference notes

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)

Done adding the ones I know how to do: waiting for guidance on how to best do others. Sandy 19:20, 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)

P.A.N.D.A.S.

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?

Thanks! PANDAS is on my To Do list, unless someone else gets to it first <grin> ... I've got a very long To Do list! P.S. - the reason I'm putting it off is that it's a very controversial topic, and I'd like to have other editors involved to help develop consensus on phrasing. Sandy 01:40, 13 February 2006 (UTC)
I began to gather the research info in a Sandbox page of my User page. User:SandyGeorgia/PANDAS I hope we can aim towards a "Causes and origins" section, which will include PANDAS, after the P.A.N.D.A.S. article is improved. Sandy 14:02, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

I think a photograph would enhance this 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?

—Preceding unsigned comment added by 206.59.61.72 (talk • contribs) 18:09, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Thanks for the picture - yes, that was a much needed addition. (BTW, did you verify that the image you used was not copyrighted? I hadn't gotten to it yet, as I was tracking down the copyright issues.) I configured your picture to be right justified and porportionately-sized. I would like to ask you to please remember 3 things that will make things easier on other editors: please add edit summaries to all your edits, please add new talk sections to the bottom of the talk page, and please sign your entries. TIA! Sandy 20:19, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
Well I found the photo by searching google for images of Gilles de la Tourette (no quotes) and the first one I found was the one I'm using. It just so happens that Google linked it to the TS Disorder's page -- I am not trying to endore that site or sneak a link in to it. But how does on go about finding out the copywrite status on a drawing made in France more than 100 years ago?206.59.61.72 22:40, 15 February 2006 (UTC)
I actually don't know how one goes about finding out if a picture is in the public domain, which is why I had adding a picture on my To Do list, and hadn't yet done it. I needed to research the copyright issue. I think it important to note, however, that the website/webmaster from where you found the picture is not honoring copyright, so you might want to investigate further. Sandy 23:10, 15 February 2006 (UTC)