Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Medicine: Psychiatry Low‑importance

	Medicine portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Psychiatry portal This article is supported by the Psychiatry task force (assessed as Mid-importance).

Compulsive talking received a peer review by Wikipedia editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Informal, irrelevant assertions

I take issue with the assertion that "Society today is known to reward talkativeness." Sure, there's many benefits to being a good conversationalist and talking when you have something worth saying but "talkativeness" has connotations of just chatting about anything and everything to keep small talk going. Regardless, this is just my point of view, and the sentence in the article is someone else's point of view. Subjective assertions like this aren't encyclopaedic and frankly make this article seem very amateurish, rather like someone got too "talkative" while writing it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.129.240.245 (talk) 19:27, 22 November 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Agree. In particular I am confused by the claim that talkaholism (a very casual and unprofessional sounding term) are particularly desirable in the US. Of course they are not. Good conversationalists are popular - nearly everywhere, I'd guess, assuming that the "good" part means "good at being interesting and having an interactive conversation." Giving endless monologues does not get you invited to parties in the States. Maybe elsewhere, but I doubt it. 165.225.38.84 (talk) 21:08, 9 December 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Cultural similarities

I think the section on cultural perspectives could benefit greatly from a broader set of information, particularly from places outside of the English speaking world. However, I'm having difficulty locating such sources; if anyone could provide terms to search for, or better yet, links to studies on the topic from other parts of the world, I think it'd make very interesting additions to the article. Zujua (talk) 07:01, 13 December 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Elizabeth Wagele in 'Consequences and management' section

in 2nd paragraph, it implies that Elizabeth Wagele's opinion on the management of compulsive talking may have a professional value; i made a search and it looks like this best selling author has no relevant training or experience or any other type of qualifications in speech disorders or like, so her opinion at best is one of a lay person, not a of a professional; I suggest the paragraph be removed (basically Im interning to do so if no substantiated objections in a week or two course).