Talk:Echopraxia

WP:RECENTISM

Removing primary speculative source pending reliable secondary source review:

One hypothesis implicates mirror neuron system in echopraxia observed in schizophrenia. (Pridmore S, Brüne M, Ahmadi J, Dale J (2008). "Echopraxia in schizophrenia: possible mechanisms". Aust N Z J Psychiatry. 42 (7): 565–71. doi:10.1080/00048670802119747. PMID 18612859. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:31, 23 July 2008 (UTC)

The essay doesn't provide any reason. It says recentism is a good thing on stubs, as it helps them develop. Your argument seems to be the more basic WP:RS, arguing that a (peer reviewed) primary source does not qualify.

I'd also like to request that you use full sentences to explain what you are doing. We need to have as much information as possible to form consensus. Your phrasing makes it look like it already exists. — trlkly 19:11, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Table of Contents

I would like to add a table of contents that include sections such as early studies, demographic of subjects in such studies as well as a complete list of all the mental disorders associated with echopraxia. I would like to receive feedback from it. Jdguevara14 (talk) 21:19, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

You should only add the Table of Contents if you are also expanding the article, and if you plan to do that, you should use secondary medical sources, preferably high quality recent reviews rather than primary sources. See WP:MEDRS and Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches. Also, the typical Table of Contents for medical articles on Wikipedia is laid out here, and wouldn't typically include sections like "Early studies" or "Demographics", and lists are usually discouraged in any article (prose is preferable). If you'd like to understand sourcing and organization of medical articles on Wikipedia, you might have a look at Autism or Asperger syndrome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:15, 22 September 2011 (UTC)

1905 source ?

This sentence was incomprehensible; I've now read the source which, not surprisingly is extremely outdated (1905) and also incomprehensible. I don't see any way to incorporate this text, and such old sources shouldn't be used in medical articles when current ones are available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 23 September 2011 (UTC)

Repair and cleanup

This series of edits resulted in multiple issues to the article, which I will list as I correct:

1. Echopraxia is not a tic disorder; please read our article, which is correct. There are four tic disorders classified in DSM and five in ICD. I have restored the previous lead to remove this factual inaccuracy. [1]
2. I've removed two stubby, unnecessary and incorrect sections (it is not an eponym, and a broader definition of echophenomenon can be incorporated elsewhere). [2]
3. I've removed factually inaccurate and uncited original research here [3] ("They can hinder professional lives, as seen in Case #1. Many individuals with severe tics are not able to drive or operate machinery. These individuals are also hindered in social aspects.") and removed the Case studies section, which added nothing to the article. See WP:MEDMOS on the sections included in an encyclopedic article.)
4. I've removed the entire Treatement section [4] as it was a) factually inaccurate, b) based on low-quality or non-MEDRS sources (Sacks, secondary reviews are available), c) not specific to echopraxia and offering nothing not covered at Tourette syndrome. It was poorly sourced, inaccurate info that didn't belong in this article even if well written-- this article is about echopraxia, not tics or tic disorders in general. By the way, please review WP:MSH, and avoid making short choppy sections.
5. I've removed an external link that didn't even mention Echopraxia; this article is not tic disorder. [5] Also note please that External links go last.
6. I've removed an extraneous See also section: [6] see WP:LAYOUT. Articles which are linked or should be linked within the text do not go in See also.
7. Copyedit, wikilink, move echophenomena out of the lead so it can be defined below. Starting sentences with "however" is generally always poor grammar. "Currently" is avoided on Wikipedia: see WP:MOSDATE#Precise language, and it is redundant prose. It is factually inaccurate to say that no medical treatment is available; I've removed that as treatment is at Tourette syndrome. I've merged this text and added wikilinks. [7] I've also corrected the one citation to the style used in this article; please see the Diberri template filler, which generates a citation from a PMID and note the author and number format that was in use here.
8. Please review WP:MEDRS on the correct use of primary sources versus secondary reviews. PMID 19175395 Cho is a primary source, a case report. I'll begin removing primary sources where they are not appropriately used; see Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches for info on how to use sources in biology and medicine articles.
9. What is meant by "initial cause"? Cause is cause. [8] Redudant prose removed.
10. See WP:MEDMOS, we generally avoid referring to individuals as patients.
11. I've copyedited the first paragraph here, which is generally correct so I've not added a citation needed tag, but the second paragraph (about frontal lobe damage) needs citation. [9]
12. Please see WP:MSH, excess uppercase removed. [10]
13. Uncontrollable is an incorrect word to use when referring to tics; please review Tourette syndrome. [11]
14. Copyedit: [12] Beyond the of 3 years old --> beyond the age of three. Years old is redundant, and see WP:MOSNUM on when we use digits and when we spell out numbers. Whole lot of "is" that is factually inaccurate-- swithced to "may be".
15. This is diagnosis, moved. [13]
16. None of this info is relevant to Tourette syndrome, the more common cause of echophenomenon. I've created a subhead, add a citation needed tag, and cleaned up one citation. [14]
17. One primary (speculative) source tagged, another removed, WP:UNDUE speculative text attributed to primary sources removed. A more correct article would give due weight to secondary reviews, and more commonly known causes of tics due to the more common TS, rather than focusing on one theory about frontal lobe damage.[15]
18. Now that irrelevant text has been removed, reorganize, and delete sections that say nothing. [16] This article does not reallly discuss echopraxia; I will later today get out my sources and expand on echophenomena and the things that can and should be said about echophraxia.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:12, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

Expand

The secondary review that I have now cited in this article is what should be used to expand this article:

• Ganos C, Ogrzal T, Schnitzler A, Münchau A (2012). "The pathophysiology of echopraxia/echolalia: relevance to Gilles de la Tourette syndrome". Mov. Disord. 27 (10): 1222–9. doi:10.1002/mds.25103. PMID 22807284. {{cite journal}}: Unknown parameter |month= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

Almost everything else used here is a primary study, case report, and should be minimized. Should another class decide to edit this article, I hope it will confine text to that which complies with WP:MEDRS, including the review above. If specific text about TS is added, it should not repeat what can already be found at Tourette syndrome or any other article, and should be specific to echopraxia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 29 November 2012 (UTC)

I have the full text of this recent secondary review; it can be used to expand the article considerably. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 30 November 2012 (UTC)