Jump to content

Talk:Stuttering/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1

POV tag

A point-of-view tag was placed above the section on anti-stuttering devices. This section was inserted by a user who owns a company that makes anti-stuttering devices and therefore has an economic interest in promoting his devices.

End note 11 needs format correction. Rewster 01:40, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

Practical advice

The following was moved from the main article on March, 21, 2005 for its un-encyclopedic nature. For reference and interest, I'll post it here: --Clngre 02:22, Mar 22, 2005 (UTC)

Practical advice
Misconceptions about stuttering and stutters can often create social situations that are frustrating and embarrassing for stutterers and can lead to harmful emotion stress. Here is some practical advice for listeners:
  • Maintain natural eye contact, and try not to look embarrassed.
  • Refrain from making remarks like "Slow down," "Take a breath," or "Relax."
  • Generally do not try and finish off the sentence for the speaker. Sometimes this is welcome but it is mostly demeaning.
  • Speak relatively, but naturally, slower. Do this especially with children so that they can imitate.
  • Try to answer questions after a pause to encourage a relaxed transaction.
  • Be aware that those who stutter usually have more trouble controlling their speech on the telephone. Extra patience is required in these situations.
  • People sometimes ask if they should ask the person questions about his or her stuttering. This is something we must leave to your judgment. But surely, stuttering should not be a taboo subject. If you have a question about it, the person will probably appreciate your interest. It is in your mutual benefit that it be talked about openly. You should be prepared that some people who stutter will be sensitive about it, but if you follow the rules of common courtesy, you should be fine.
  • If you do not understand what is said to you, do not be afraid to say, "I'm sorry, I didn't understand what you just said." No matter how much of a struggle it was for them to say it, this is generally preferable to pretending you understand.

one more song for the list

I noticed that "You Tell Her I Stutter" wasn't on the list. This song's lyrics directly deal with stuttering in social relations, and I've heard it performed by many prominent artists from the 1930s and 40s. slambo 20:58, Mar 30, 2005 (UTC)


table

coprighted, permission pending

Video samples of stuttering
Type Content Video (QT)
Repetition An example of a child repeating phrases, words, and syllable 772 KB
Prolongation A child prolonging on a variety of vowels and soft consonants. 2.16 MB
A prolongations with characteristic pitch and volume rise 446 KB

Blocking

A child blocking before a word and prolonging a sound 870 KB
A child blocking. 524 KB
Secondary motor behavior A man displaying secondary motor behavior while stuttering 580 KB
All clips are from the film Prevention of Stuttering: Identifying the Danger Signs, and are copyright of the Stuttering Foundation of America



The "monster' study

I do not understand the claim that "In June 2001, the San Jose Mercury News revealed this study...to the public for the first time". It hadn't been kept sercret in any manner before this newspaper article, had it? Was this newspaper article the first time the study was brought up in a scientific ethics context? 11:41, May 21, 2005 (UTC)

Stuttering Awareness Week

Shouldn't Stuttering Awareness Week be the week of May 15, 17, 19, 21, 23, 25, and 27? Sorry. Couldn't resist. :) If you desire retaliation, I authorize you to post one lame 'fat joke'. For example, "The entire month of May, as well as the first three days of June, has been designated 'Fat Awareness Week'". (Ouch! My feelings!)

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposal. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the debate was don't move. —Nightstallion (?) 10:42, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Requested move

User:FlareNUKE has proposed the following on the Requested moves page:

Stuttering → Dysphemia : The proper name, Stutter is only for USA.

Voting

Please add  * Support  or  * Oppose  followed by a brief explanation, then sign your vote using "~~~~"

  • Support, with the first sentence of the article amended along the lines of "Dysphemia (also known as "stuttering" or "stammering") is a ..."  David Kernow 15:30, 22 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. Stuttering or stammering is the common name which I believe we should stick with. Dysphemia is the scientific name. --Bruce1ee 05:56, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose. "Dysphemia" is not widely understood or known by most people, "stuttering" is. Upon the stair 19:14, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose due to common names guideline. Rhobite 22:35, 23 February 2006 (UTC)
  • Oppose I, too, think that dsyphemia is the obscure, scientific name and thus goes against the above stated guidelines, but I wonder if the term "stammering" is more well known than "stuttering." I was under the impression that the later was within the US and Canada only, while the former was used in the rest of the English speaking world. If this is the case, it would make sense to move it to stammering, am I wrong? --Clngre 18:13, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
...which is why I opted for "Dysphemia" plus redirects from "Stammering" and "Stuttering", otherwise which is it to be?  I agree that the latter two non-technical names are far more well-known, but short of another (possibly divisive?) vote, I wouldn't know which to use. Best wishes, David Kernow 23:02, 24 February 2006 (UTC)
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page. No further edits should be made to this section.


Childhood psychiatric disorder

Uhm, why is this in the "Childhood psychiatric disorders" category? Simoncpu 12:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

"Dysphemia"?

I've never heard of "dysphemia." The term isn't in the indices of "Stuttering," by Barry Guitar (the most respected textbook in the field); "Early Childhood Stuttering," by Yairi and Ambrose; "Clinical Decision Making in Fluency Disorders," by Walt Manning; or "The Child and Adolescent Stuttering Treatment and Activity Resource Guide," by Ramig and Dodge. These are all highly respected textbooks. Merriam-Webster defines "dysphemism" as the opposite of a euphemism, i.e., substituting an unpleasant or harsh term for a kinder, gentler term. http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/dysphemia defines dysphemia as stuttering with an emotional or psychological basis, which is referred to in the scientific literature as "psychogenic stuttering" and is rare. http://www.tiscali.co.uk/reference/dictionaries defines "dysphemia" as the substitution of a derogatory or offensive word for an ordinary one. Will the sniveling little twit who said that "dysphemia" is the same as stuttering provide a reference? Whoops, I had a "dysphemia" there! :-) --Tdkehoe 21:13, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

Article too long?

See Wikipedia:Article size. This Wikipedia article is 51KB long, the Wikipedia rule of thumb says ">50 KB – Probably should be divided" into two articles (or edited down). Now that the [[wikibook:Speech-Language Pathology/Stuttering|stuttering wikibook] is available, much of the Wikipedia stuttering article could be edited down. IMHO the "Characteristics" could be extensively trimmed; the "Treatments" section should be expanded; and the "Stuttering in Music" section should be broken out as a seperate article (it has nothing to do with stuttering as a speech disorder). The "Monster Study" is interesting historically but explains nothing about stuttering and could easily confuse readers into thinking that Johnson trained children to stutter. The "Onset and development" section is good and the sidebar is excellent, but there's some overlap between the text and the sidebar. The "Stuttering and Society" section has much good stuff but some of the historical items are of questionable value, e.g., the hyoid bone. Entire books could be written about past mistaken views about stuttering, why waste readers' time with that stuff now? Or maybe we should seperate off a new article entitled "Historical Mistaken Ideas About Stuttering." The item about the Turkish telephone company could be deleted as well. American readers would be better served by a link to the TEDPA website or the wikibooks page about states that provide anti-stuttering telephones and other devices and services to consumers with communication disorders.--Tdkehoe 21:43, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

The Fluency section of this article could be merged into the fluency article on wikipedia. That would save a few bytes without losing valuable stuttering information. Fredsmith2 19:15, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

I added a link to the stuttering wikibook at the end of the "External Links" section. Technically it's not an external link, it's an internal link within the wiki-world. Should we add links from sections of the Wikipedia article to sections of the wikibook? E.g., a link from the "genetics" section of the Wikipedia article to the "genetics" chapter of the wikibook? That might be 20 or 30 links.--18:52, 29 March 2006 (UTC)

Mistakes to correct

I see quite a few mistakes in the Wikipedia article. I'll post them here and wait a week or two for discussion before fixing the mistakes:--Tdkehoe 22:15, 28 March 2006 (UTC)

"The term stuttering is most commonly associated with involuntary sound repetition, but it also encompasses the abnormal hesitation or pausing before speech, referred to by stutterers as blocks, and the prolongation of certain sounds, usually vowels."

Correction: "stuttering" is prolongations, repetitions, and blocks. All are core behaviors, none are more or less common.

Hi. I have some objections to a few of these and, if you dont mind, ill just intersperse them within your post, because it would be such a drag to have to endlessly refence them. With this one: stuttering is indeed all three of those but the point I was trying to make was that in popular knowledge stuttering is just repetition. I'm not sure if "popular knowledge" is the best term for it, but I think you know what I mean. For instance, when a non-stutterer prolongs a sound, nobody would call it a stutter, but when they repeat sounds or words some would often joke of it as "oops I stuttered there", or what have you. The point is just to address the common mis-perception and then clarify it, if you see what I mean. --Clngre 04:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
You're right that when something other than a person is "stuttering" (e.g., a CD player) it's doing an involuntary sound repetition. But this isn't article about stuttering CD players, it's about stuttering persons.--Tdkehoe 01:40, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"The emotional state of the individual who stutters in response to the stuttering often constitutes the most difficult aspect of the disorder."

Correction: "often" should be "sometimes."

"with slightly higher percentages of affected African (8%–9%) and West Indies (3%–4%) adults 2."

Correction: such prevalence claims are sketchy. Different studies in different countries use different methodologies.

Sketchy, maybe, but I do think, in some way, there difference in prevalence across ethnicities should be addressed. If such percentage claims are suspect or misleading than by all means we should do away with them, but the end they serve should be accomodated by something else, I think. --Clngre 04:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
How about a new section "Cultural and Ethnic Differences in Stuttering"?--Tdkehoe 17:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"women are much more likely to either outgrow or recover from the disorder 1."

Correction: Young girls are more likely to outgrow stuttering than young boys, mostly before the age of six. Adult women who stutter do no better than men in speech therapy.

"Stuttering is essentially neurogenic"

Correction: Neurogenic stuttering is a different disorder, associated with strokes and head injuries. It sounds quite different from developmental stuttering. Developmental stuttering (what this article describes) is a developmental disorder. Brain scans have associated several neurological abnormalities with adult stuttering, but there's no evidence that these neurological abnormalities cause stuttering. It's just as likely that stuttering caused the neurological abnormalities.

"is generally not a problem with the physical production of speech sounds"

Correction: That's what stuttering is!

The idea I was trying to express, which I think is true, that I might have expressed with less than desirable accuracy, is that it's not the product of, say, some physical malfunctioning of the tongue or through, that physically stutterers are not different than normal speakers (they might develop certain muscles (or whatever) differently due to their stutter, but the cause is whats being addressed in that part) and that the root of it is mental (not sure if "mental" is the exact term. I thought "neurogenic" was more apt, but if that's not the case than it's not the case!--Clngre 04:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Yes, nothing is wrong is with stutterer's lips, jaws, or tongues. That would be a good thing to say.--Tdkehoe 01:41, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"One theory is that an inherited genetic factor may cause the speech pathways in the brain to be less efficient, contributing to the development of a stutter."

Correction: That's a hypothesis, not a theory. No evidence supports that hypothesis.

"Although there are many treatments and speech therapy techniques available to help increase fluency, there is essentially no "cure" for stuttering at present."

Correction: Many stutterers are successfully treated. The ISTAR program, for example, has at least a 70% success rate. There's no single "cure" that works for every stutterer.

Yes and that (that there is no "cure") is what's being addressed. I mean that those are treatments that are sometimes successful, but don't constitute "cures." I don't know the exact definition of cure but I think the general idea of mentioning that is to dispel this idea that a stutter can be "cured" the same way other things can be cured, and that it is something that can only be mitigated. It's just that kind of distinction that I feel is important to be made. Maybe it's just semantics, because if its mitigated into effectual non-existence who is to say it's not then "cured," right? I honestly dont know. You sound like the authority on this, so I'll take your word on it over my own. My own authority, just to get all of this out in the open, basically extends as far my own stutter, reading on it I did for this article, and my experiences with the whole world of stuttering, like therapy and whatever. --Clngre 04:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
OK, we agree about this.--Tdkehoe 02:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"Like most other speech disorders, stuttering begins in early childhood"

Correction: Many speech disorders start in adulthood, e.g., essential tremors and spasmodic dysphonia.

"This is mainly due to the fact that stutterers often resort to a practice called word substitution, where words that are difficult for a stutterer to speak are replaced with less-suitable words that are easier to pronounce. This often leads to awkward sentences which give an impression of feeble mindedness. "

Correction: If one stutterer stutters openly, and another successfully hides stuttering by substituting words, who is going to be seen as less intelligent? In my experience, the open stutterer will be seen as less intelligent. In the job interview the covert stutterer is more likely to get the job. But this is speculation and doesn't belong in this article.

"Speech fluency consist of three variables: continuity, rate, and ease of speaking."

Correction: Four parameters, according to Woody Starkweather:

Smoothness, or lack of interruptions. Speaking rate. Prosody, or emotional intonation. Mental effort.

"Ease of speaking refers to the amount of effort being expended to produce speech. Fluent speakers put very little muscular or physical effort into the act of speaking, while stutterers exert a relatively large amount of muscular effort to produce the same speech."

Correction: Fluent speakers use hundreds of muscles to produce speech. Some of these muscles have higher-then-normal levels of activity, e.g., thoracic respiration muscles aren't used much when not speaking.

"In addition to the physical effort involved in producing speech, the mental effort is usually much greater in stutterers than non-stutterers. 1"

Correction: That's four variables.

"Repetition is by far the most common behavior exhibited by stutterers."

Correction: I haven't seen research showing that repetitions are more common than prolongations or blocks.

"In speech, repetition occurs when a unit of speech, such as a phrase, word, or syllable, is superfluously repeated. (Examples of repetition for a phrase would be, "I want.. I want.. to go.. I want to go to the store," or, "I want to go to the - I want to go to the store." A word repetition would often resemble, "I want to-to-to go to the store," and a syllable or sound repetition being, "I wa-wa-want to go to the store," or, "I w-w-want to g-go to the store.") Repetition occurs in the speech of both stutterers and non-stutterers, but non-stutterers are less likely to repeat shorter units of speech, mainly repeating phrases and sometimes words but rarely syllables. Non-stutterers will also, in the majority of cases, repeat the unit once or twice as opposed to the 6 or so times common from stutterers."

Correction: This isn't wrong, but could be edited down to one sentence.

"Pauses are also a common source of disfluency in both stutterers and non-stutterers."

"Stutterers refer to this as "blocking".

Correction: Yes, these are called "blocks," not "pauses." These three paragraphs about "pauses" could be edited down to one sentence. There's too much detail that the average reader doesn't need to know.

"Blocking"

Correction: This repeats the previous section. Readers will be confused whether pauses and blocks are different.

"This closure is very similar to the closure of the larynx during the Valsalva maneuver—a maneuver commonly used as pressure equalization technique by scuba divers and airplane passengers to avoid barotrauma. The Valsalva maneuver intentionally exploits the Valsalva mechanism, which is a natural mechanism involving a group of neurologically coordinated muscles in the mouth, larynx, chest, and abdomen. The speech therapy techniques of "gentle onset" or "passive airflow", where the speaker controls his or her airflow to ease into words, aim to avoid abrupt increases in air pressure, and thereby reduce the likelihood of the Valsalva mechanism activating. Constant use of the Valsalva mechanism in speech can create nerve pathways linking speech to the Valsalva mechanism, making it more difficult to reduce blocking."

Correction: I'd delete this entire paragraph. The relationship between stuttering and the "Valsalva maneuver" is hypothetical, without scientific documentation. IMHO stuttering is unrelated to pus in the middle ear, air pressure in the Eustachian tubes, or bowel movements.

"When stuttering, stutterers will often use nonsense syllables or less-appropriate (but easier to say) words to ease into the flow of speech."

Correction: "often" is incorrect. Some stutterers do this, some don't.

"Finger-tapping or head-scratching are two common examples of tricks,"

Correction: "common" is incorrect. I've never seen a stutterer do either.

"Famously, some stutterers drastically limit their options when dealing with employees at given establishments; only eating cheeseburgers at fast-food restaurants, ordering toppings they do not like on pizzas, or getting a style of haircut they do not want as a by-product of their inability to pronounce certain words. "

Correction: "Famously"? I suspect this is an urban legend.


It could be worded differently, no doubt, but I do think it'd be good to sort of provide some kind of relatable example of such a thing in practice. It might be hard to do this and remain orthodoxly "encyclopedic," I understand, but the idea of it is good one, I think. --Clngre 04:56, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Let's use an example that has been documented, e.g., the effect of stuttering on income. Let's not trivialize stuttering by making it sound like a the worst thing is eating pepperoni on pizza when you prefer sausage.
Personally, I've been in such a situation of ordering an item that was not my primary choice, but certainly it's the one of the smaller problems caused by stuttering. --Undersea 23:35, 18 October 2006 (UTC)

"Some stutterers have even changed their own given name because it contains a difficult-to-pronounce sound and frequently leads to embarrassing situations."

Correction: Another urban legend? Any documentation?

You could e-mail John Ahlbach and see if he can help you find such people. I've talked to probably 1000 stutterers and none have ever said they order foods they don't like in restaurants, or changed their names.--Tdkehoe 17:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"Severe stutters often, but not always, are accompanied by strong feelings and emotions in reaction to the problem such as anxiety, shame, fear, self-hatred, etc. This is usually less present in mild stutterers and serves as another criteria by which to define stutters as mild or severe."

Correction: It's the other way around. Speech-related fears and anxieties are usually strongest in covert stutterers (who appear to stutter mildly or not at all). Severe stutterers can't hide their stuttering so are typically more open about being a stutterer. It may be best to say that speech-related fears and anxieties have little correlation with severity of physical stuttering.

"There is no universally accepted explanation for these phenomena."

Correction: These are all either responses to stress or altered auditory feedback (which appears to affect central auditory processing).

"All speech is more difficult when under pressure."

Correction: certain types of stress increase fluency. Bloodstein documented cases, and neurologists attribute this to how adrenaline interacts with dopamine.

"This usually leaves dead silence in the place of nonverbal communication, which will indicate to the listener that the stutterer is not there or the line has been disconnected."

Correction: this contradicts the earlier statement that repetitions are the most common type of dysfluency. If stuttering "usually" results in dead silence, then blocks are the most common dysfluency.

"Other time pressures will also worsen a stutter, such as saying one's own name, which must be done without hesitation to avoid the appearance that one does not know his or her own name, repeating something just said, or speaking when somebody is waiting for a response."

Correction: This sentence isn't entirely wrong but doesn't add any information.

"Traditional speech therapy reduces the frequency and severity of a stutter and teaches stutterers to use effective communications skills, such as making eye contact. "

"Traditional stuttering therapy" usually means Van Riper stuttering modification therapy, which increases the frequency and decreases the severity of stuttering.

"The duration or type of therapy needed varies among stutterers but usually involves both speech training (articulation, intonation, rate, intensity) and language training (phonology, morphology, syntax, semantics)."

Correction: articulation and language therapy aren't used to treat stuttering. Changing intonation (prosody?) and intensity might happen but aren't target behaviors of widely practiced stuttering therapies.

"Depending on the nature and severity of the disorder, common treatments may range from physical strengthening exercises and repetitive practice to the use of medication, electronic devices, and neurosurgery."

Correction: Neurosurgery for stuttering? Physical strengthening exercises? Does this mean working out in the gym, so you can beat up bullies that pick on you?

"Behavioral and cognitive therapy is the most common approach to stutter treatment."

Correction: Cognitive-behavioral therapy is a psychological treatment for mental illnesses. Using these terms may or may not be correct to describe stuttering therapies, but it will confuse readers.

"Proponents of this method see uncoordinated movements of the diaphragm as the core cause of stuttering."

Correction: The speech-language pathologists most often associated with diaphragmatic breathing (Martin Schwartz and Ronald Webster) see stuttering as a vocal fold disorder.

"Another area sometimes emphasized during speech therapy is Valsalva training, which is training that specifically targets blocks by focusing on the gaining of greater control on the bodily mechanism that produces a block by halting airflow, the Valsalva mechanism (See External Links for more)."

Correction: I never heard of a speech clinic that does that.

"self-therapy is also a very popular practice, mainly due to its lower cost, convenience, and lower pressure. The stutterer invests in the necessary books or tapes and spends varying amounts of time per day doing exercises similar to the exercises used in professional speech therapy. Therapy usually provides some improvement to most individuals within a few weeks or months."

Correction: No published research says that self-therapy works, and plenty of anecdotal reports say it doesn't.

"But, like most therapy for other disorders or afflictions, it often requires constant attention and practice to maintain success."

Correction: Like what other disorders? Diabetics need insulin every day, but a broken arm doesn't need "constant attention" after it heals. And since when do stutterers who have been successfully treated need to pay "constant attention"?

"Other, less-accepted methods include everything from hypnosis to laughter to art therapy."

Correction: I can't argue that these methods are less accepted. Perhaps they could be left out of this article?

"although it is usually used in conjunction with behavioral and cognitive therapy"

Correction: The people I've heard of taking anti-stuttering medications weren't in therapy. No speech clinics I know of prescribe medications.

"One recent trend in speech therapy is the use of electronic fluency aids. "

Correction: "Recent"? DAF has been used since 1965. The Edinburgh Masker's heyday was 25 years ago.

But at what point does it constitute a trend? I mean it would have to reach a certain level of (subjective) popularity to be considered a trend, right? I don't know absolutely how recently such a trend happened, but I agree just using the word "recent" is insufficient. --Clngre 04:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Nearly 3000 Edinburgh Maskers were sold in the U.S. in the early 1980s. No other devices have substantially surpassed that sales volume.--Tdkehoe 02:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"(frequency altered feedback or altered auditory feedback)"

Correction: "altered auditory feedback" is the general term for for FAF, DAF, MAF, etc.

"playing white noise to disallow the individual from hearing his own voice"

Correction: Kalinowski's 1993 paper found only a 35% reduction in stuttering with 85dB white noise. I haven't heard of white noise used by stutterers. If the writer was trying to describe the Edinburgh Masker, that device produces a sine wave, not white noise.

"playing slow and steady clicks, much like a metronome. "

Correction: That is a metronome. The effectiveness isn't worth mentioning.

"These approaches have variously been said to either offer great success, or to have no effect whatsoever."

Correction: I'm sure people have said both, but the published research in peer-reviewed journals have found 70-80% reductions in stuttering for DAF and FAF devices.

"It is still unclear why these devices may work to alleviate stutters."

Correction: Everyone agrees that the devices can improve fluency by inducing speech motor changes (e.g., continuous phonation). The controversy is whether a second mechanism involving correcting the auditory processing underactivity associated with stuttering is also at work. We won't know the answer until brain scan studies are done.

"Recent advances in digital technology have made the commercial application of these devices possible, and such products are already available,"

Correction: Digital technology has improved the size, sound quality, battery life, etc. but the devices have been available since the 1970s.

Perhaps I should have wrote "... widespread commercial application..." or something to that effect. The sentiment is specifically that they have existed in less convenient or affordable forms but that recent technological developments have facilitated their increased commerical potential or popularity. Would that be an inaccurate characterization? --Clngre 04:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
In terms of convenience, the PaceMaster hearing aid-style metronome was as "convenient" as the current hearing aid-style devices. In terms of "affordable," the Edinburgh Masker was $380. There are hearing aid-style devices now that cost more than ten times that. In terms of "popularity," the Edinburgh Masker sold about 3000 units, which is as popular as any more recent device. You're right that anti-stuttering devices have become more "commercial." The Edinburgh Masker was sold at cost by a non-profit foundation, solely to aid stutterers.--Tdkehoe 17:33, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

"although they have yet to be widely adopted due to their high cost."

Correction: One company sells a DAF/FAF application for $30. Another company's has a DAF device under $300 for DAF. The Edinburgh Masker sold for $380 in 1982. I'd estimate that close to 10,000 speech clinics, schools, and individuals use the devices, which IMHO is "widely adopted."

"The most popular form of electronic fluency aids are devices that are placed inside the ear, resembling hearing aids."

Correction: The sales figures I've seen show that desktop or computer-based, pocket-sized, and hearing aid-sized categories sell about equally.

"For centuries "cures" such as speaking with a pebble in the mouth (as per the legendary orator Demosthenes), consistently drinking water from a snail shell for the rest of one's life, "hitting a stutterer in the face when the weather is cloudy", strengthening the tongue as a muscle, and various herbal remedies were often used6 ; clearly to little effect. Similarly, in the past people have subscribed to various theories about the causes of stuttering which today one might consider odd. Proposed causes of stuttering have included tickling an infant too much, eating improperly during breastfeeding, allowing an infant to look in the mirror, cutting a child's hair before the child spoke his or her first words, having too small a tongue, or the "work of the devil."3 Roman physicians attributed stuttering to an imbalance of the four bodily humors: yellow bile, blood, black bile, and phlegm. Humoral manipulation continued to be a dominant treatment for stuttering until the eighteenth century. Italian pathologist Giovanni Morgagni attributed stuttering to deviations in the hyoid bone, a conclusion he came to via autopsy. Later in the century, surgical intervention, via resection of a triangular wedge from the posterior tongue to prevent spasms of the tongue, was also tried."

Correction: That may all be true, but do readers need to know this? The article is already too long.

I really do think this stuff should basically remain. I'm not saying that it should necessarily remain exactly as it is now, because I'm sure that it could easily be pruned or improved in whatever ways, but it's really important to have a substantial look at stuttering from a sociological/cultural/historic/etc perspective so as to avoid having the article be overly technical or scientific in scope. This was one of the requirements imposed on me when I submitted this for per review before going for featured article status and I totally agree with it. In a way I feel there should be even more information about its role and place in history and society. But obviously you can still agree with that basic intent (adding that kind of context) and disagree with the execution (that paragraph), but the intent should be kept in mind when editing that, is all I'm really suggesting. --Clngre 04:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Editing out true but less-important information is less important to me than correcting misinformation.--Tdkehoe 02:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"Howard Stern also has a collection of frequent guests, many of whom have speech impediments of some type; while their afflictions are exploited for comedic purposes, members of "The Wack Pack" are well-loved by Howard Stern and his fans."

Correction: Can we keep this article about stuttering, and leave out other disabilities?

"One interesting example is the Turkish Association of Disabled Persons, which successfully appealed to the major Turkish telephone company Telsim, resulting in reduced rates for people with stutters or other speech disabilities because of the additional time it takes them to converse on the telephone."

Correction: I suggested taking this out, or replacing it with the programs in many American states to help stutterers use telephones.

I'm unaware of those programs of which you speak but if they're of a comparable notability (or just otherwise serve as much of a singular example of stutterers and the various lobbying efforts they've been involved with) I would have no objection to their supplanting of this little bit --Clngre 04:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
If you want an example of stutterers organizing themselves to enact a new law or policy, then the state programs to provide anti-stuttering telephones are a poor example. I more-or-less single-handedly got stuttering into those programs. The stuttering organizations have never supported the use of anti-stuttering telephones. What point is this paragraph trying to make? That stuttering self-help organizations have accomplished things? We could list somethings that the NSA has accomplished. BTW, I'm skeptical that the Turkish story may be an urban legend. I've heard of it before, but someone should do a fact check before putting it on wikipedia. And "the Americans with Disabilities Act of 1990 both specifically protect stutterers" is not true. The ADA lists "speaking" as a major life activity but no specific speech disorders are listed.--Tdkehoe 02:23, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

"Stuttering in Music"

Correction: I suggested making this a separate article, as it is unrelated to stuttering as a speech disorder. But I'd leave in Scatman John's lyrics, that's a nice ending (and he was a stutterer).

"References"

Correction: The dates on these books might explain why this article has so many errors and out of date statements.

"Fraser, Jane (2005). If Your Child Stutters: A Guide for Parents, "

Correction: Jane's the publisher, not the author.

"Stuttering Associations:"

Correction: Is there a policy about links to non-English websites? I recall that the Open Directory Project had a rule that non-English websites could be linked only from the non-English pages. Should these non-English links be moved to non-English wikipedia pages about stuttering?

Great point, I didn't even think of that at all. --Clngre 04:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

"Other pages:"

Correction: The Stuttering Homepage has three links. The University of Minnesota-Duluth Stuttering Homepage has two links. The SFA has two English and one Spanish link.

"Other wikis:"

Correction: as I wrote earlier, this isn't an external link.

"Categories: Spoken articles | Childhood psychiatric disorders | Communication disorders | Human voice"

Correction: Someone already questioned why this article is categorized under "Childhood psychiatric disorders". Why is the article not listed under Category:Medicine? Can we get a "Speech-Language Pathology" subcategory? Why is "Communication disorders" not listed under Category:Medicine? ("Speech-Language Pathology" is half of the field of communication disorders, the other half is audiology.)


All the rest I either had no objections to and thought your proposed corrections were right on, had superficial objections to but didn't know enough about the thing in question to really be able to take issue, or had objections to but the thing was trivial or inconsequential enough that I don't think it would matter either way. In any case, it's great to have (someone who appears to be) a real expert around here to clean this stuff up, I was always hoping that someone would. I wrote pretty much this whole thing without any real check or balance and was nervous about that. Thanks for taking the time and effort to do this all, that's great --Clngre 04:53, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

New Article

I put together a new stuttering article, based on the stuttering wikibook. Unlike the current Wikipedia stuttering article, this has less description and more proscription. In other words, the old article was oriented more to a reader who came across a reference to stuttering, had never heard of stuttering, but wanted to know what stuttering is. The new article is oriented more to a person who stutters or a parent of a child who stutters, who wants to find out what can be done. The new article has more about treatments and less about descriptions of stuttering, ancient history of stuttering, etc.

The new article totals 38K. This is considered to be the right length for a Wikipedia article. In contrast, the current Wikipedia stuttering article is 51K, which is considered to be too long. The new article has pointers to the stuttering wikibook, so this article doesn't need to be long.

Please discuss the strong/weak points of each article. Let's set a target date of May 1, 2006 to replace the original article or merge these two articles.--Tdkehoe 04:38, 30 March 2006 (UTC)


2006 June 11 revisions

I combined the old and new articles. My rule was that if there was clearly erroneous material in the old article, I replaced it with correct info, or deleted it; if there was material in the old article that wasn't erroneous I left it, regardless of whether I could write it more clearly or concisely or if I think it doesn't belong at all. For example, I left the "Stuttering in music" section even though IMHO it has nothing to do with stuttering and should be a separate article. The exception was the "monster study." I deleted it, and then realized that, although I don't think it belongs here, I'd decided to not the delete material solely because I don't think it belongs here. If someone misses it, heor she can put it back (I doubt anyone will miss it).

The article is now 80K. This is more than twice the suggested length for Wikipedia articles. IMHO, the article could be edited down to half the length. Some material is redundant, much is unimportant. But that's my opinion and I don't want to make anyone upset. I feel strongly about making the article correct. I'd be happy to also make it clear and concise but before editing further I'll discuss it here and wait at least a month for responses.--Tdkehoe 02:03, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Thoughts on new article

In all fairness, there is a real problem with that general approach, I think, not only just in my opinion but I think per Wikipedia policy. I can probably find the policy saying as much, but I do think wikipedia is supposed to be for that first type of audience (the person who knows nothing and wants to leanr about it), and is definitely not supposed to be all about the latter type, the expert or just knowledgeable reader. It can be both to an extent, I'm sure, but what you've drawn up I think is too much geared towards the latter audience type. The idea is always to gear it more towards the layman and rightly so in my opinion. The general divisions of the existing article (causes, development, characteristics, treatments and stutter and society) should basically remain, I think. Maybe not it that order or under those headings ( I can imagine that characteristics should come first and causes and development should come later, with treatments second last and stuttering and society last, perhaps), but thats a good general way of dividing the topic up, I think.
Also, some of the sections are indisputably against wikipedia's policy, like with how user manual a lot of this stuff seems. Here's the link [1] -- at the bottom of that list. It basically says that content that has that kind of focus is for wikibooks and that general encyclopedia-style articles are for wikipedia. I'm referring mostly to the "living with a stutter" section. Similar information to the kind included in that section has been included and habitually reverted a number of times, if my memory serves me, because its against policy (amongst other things). Other things, like the linking of each section its respective wikibook section, would also clash with general practice, if not some hard rule. I wish I could rattle of the exact policy names and whatnot, but I'm really not too well-versed with that stuff, but I do have a good general idea for what exists
But, most of all, I object to the deletion of the "stuttering and society" section. Like I said above with regards to your proposed corrections, it's really important to devote a significant amount (however that's defined) of the articles focus to those ends. The article really should not be overly technical, for all the same reasons any other article on similar things aren't
With regards to the length thing: I forget where I read this but I don't think that size limit is actually too firm. The warning itself says that it "may be longer than is preferable", not that it necessarily has to be kept below. There are many examples of heavily-vetted articles that exceed the limit with impunity because the article, to retain its quality on the whole, demands that it must be the size it is. So all I'm saying is that I wouldn't worry too much about the article size thing unless it was drastically over the limit
There are other objections but the main objections stated above, especially the technical focus/non-layman audience one, already encapsulate most of the others I would bring up. I don't mean to be rude or unreasonable, if that's how I sound, but I do strenuously object to some major aspects of this new version --Clngre 05:18, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I just read the policy on [Wikipedia:External links|external links] and all the links to stuttering therapies and anti-stuttering devices violate the policy against "Sites that primarily exist to sell products or services." So those will have to be cut.

I didn't delete "Stuttering and Society", I changed it to "Living With Stuttering." The famous people who stutter are still there (although I replaced the historical persons with contemporary persons). The history of inaccurate ideas about stuttering should go. I agree with you that we should have a section for "Public Perceptions of Stuttering" but it should be a couple paragraphs only. I don't see the value of the Howard Stern paragraph or "Stuttering in Music."

I don't see anything on [Wikipedia:External links] opposed to the wikibook links. My sense is that links to wikibooks are encouraged.

[Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not] says: "Instruction manuals - while Wikipedia has descriptions of people, places, and things, Wikipedia articles should not include instruction - advice (legal, medical, or otherwise), suggestions, or contain "how-to"s. This includes tutorials, walk-throughs, instruction manuals, video game guides, and recipes. Wikibooks is a Wikipedia sister-project which is better suited for such things."

"How to handle a job interview" clearly violates that policy. How about you cut it and replace it with a few paragraphs entitled "Public Perceptions of Stuttering"?

I don't any other sections that are "advice." Everything else looks descriptive to me. Maybe the "support groups" section should be rewritten to be more descriptive and less like "how to run a support group" advice.

You wrote: "wikipedia is supposed to be for that first type of audience (the person who knows nothing and wants to leanr about it), and is definitely not supposed to be all about the latter type, the expert or just knowledgeable reader." I don't agree that my article is written for experts. What sections make you think that? I'm pretty sure I defined every technical term. Some subjects are technical, such as neurological abnormalities, but that's the nature of technical subjects.

Changing the subject, do you want to help me write a short article for the May stuttering issue of "ADVANCE For SLPs" about the wiki article and book?--Tdkehoe 19:23, 30 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't really have so much time to deal with this so I'll just try and write this quickly now and get back to it as soon as I can later on. I normally don't really involve myself too much in debates over the form of an article but I really feel strongly that some elements of this new version are wrong, and/or that some elements of the older version are preferable. I do agree that changes are needed, though. I don't know if you saw them (doesn't seem like you did), but I posted some comments in your Statement/Correction thing above. Did you see them? I broadly agreed with the majority of your proposed changes, but this new overhaul kind of throws the baby out with the bath water, so to speak. Let me just clarify the broad nature of my objection now and I hope to return soon (hopefully tonight or tomorrow night) with some more specific objections and suggestions.
Overall, you summarized the general nature of the problem when you said it was to be more proscriptive than descriptive. This comes down to the fundamental role of wikipedia, which is that of encyclopedia. Encyclopedias generally just describe, they compile the existing body of knowledge available on soemthing, they don't really proscribe. This here is a good summary of what I'm trying to express http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Guide_to_writing_better_articles#Think_of_the_reader
But I should say, just to be clear, that I do agree with many elements and ideas of your new version, so I'm not at all saying its awful or anything like that because it isn't at all. I really hope we can just come to the best possible version of the article, whatever that may objectively be, and I'm trying hard to detach myself from this and be fair as I can. It is, I admit, hard to be totally impartial when your article version is in question.  :) --Clngre 20:31, 30 March 2006 (UTC)
Sorry, I didn't see your comments in the corrections section. I've made a few responses. Next week I'll make some changes in the new article based on your comments.--Tdkehoe 17:35, 1 April 2006 (UTC)

I looked at this again and tried to combine the best parts of the old and new articles. Is the new article now good enough to replace the old article? Let me know what else needs to be done.--Tdkehoe 03:55, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

Old stammering article

I redirected "stammering" here and 'll just post the contents of the article that existed at that name in case its needed for some reason --Clngre 18:12, 2 April 2006 (UTC)

Stammering is a learned developmental disorder. Some specialists believe that stammering develops from the normal mistakes all children make when learning to speak ("normal dysfluencies"). While most children can pick themselves up after a stumble, some children get into a vicious cycle of trying harder to talk, tensing their speech-production muscles too much, and getting more stuck.

Experts have found that severe stammering or stuttering can develop almost overnight in younger children. They know that stammers may not develop gradually from normal disfluencies. Genes have been found associated with stuttering, so these experts believe that a genetic defect causes something in the child's brain to trigger stutters.

Although the origin of stammering is not clear, everyone agrees that childhood stuttering can develop into a severe physical and psychological disability. Adults who stutter will often have the condition for life. Most adult stammerers have physical symptoms but every person can stumble over their words now and then. When most of us are dysfluent, we may feel embarrassed but we quickly recover from it. For people who stutter (PWS), each dysfluency can be a fearful, anxiety-filled experience. A life filled with these difficult experiences can affect a person's self-concept, personality and personal relationships. Stammering affects friends and family of the person who stutters as well. Moreover, family and friend's reactions and feelings about the stammering also known as stuttering can have a significant impact on the person who stammers. The following will give insight into the emotional and psychosocial ramifications of stuttering on the individual and those around him or her.

Self-concept refers to how a person sees him or herself; some authors have called it the "image we hold in our mind's eye." It is composed of body image (how we view our bodies in space and time), self-esteem (our sense of worthwhileness), and identity (how we call ourselves and describe ourselves). We begin to form our self-concept early in life, partially based on other people's reactions and responses to us. We internalize these messages and begin to tell them to ourselves. Usually though a simple hypnosis course can counteract this [2] Often many people who stutter, their self-concept revolves around their stuttering. PWS may have experienced a number of negative and disapproving reactions to their stuttering. The person may internalize these reactions and begin to believe that their stuttering is socially unacceptable behavior and they are socially unacceptable people because of their stammering. PWS may label themselves as "stammerers" and take on the negative stereotypes that go with it.

Because of the negative self-concept that people who stammer sometimes have, they present some characteristics that we associate with personality. Stammering is not a personality disorder and there is no defined "stammering/stuttering personality." However, many people who stutter share some similar traits.

Concepts
People who stammer may not be as outgoing as they normally would be if they did not stammer. People who stutter may avoid talking in many situations for fear of getting laughed at or misunderstood. They may present themselves as shy or withdrawn when, in reality, they have an outgoing personality. Their view of their stuttering prevents them from expressing their personality the way they would like to. A second trait common to many PWS is an unwillingness to express anger in an open way, even when there may be cause to do so. One reason for this trait may be fear of rejection. Third, many people who stutter experience depression. This depression usually develops in response to living with a complicated, unpredictable, and socially unacceptable disorder such as stuttering. The depression can result from grieving the loss of fluency and the loss of relationships because of their fluency, or grieving the loss of the self that they have kept hidden.

A fourth trait shared by many PWS is guilt. Stutterers may feel that they could stop stuttering if they only tried hard enough, had more will power, or were stronger people. This guilt is reinforced by well meaning people who give advice like "slow down, take a deep breath, think about what you want to say." This advice makes the control of stuttering seem so simple, when it really is much more complicated than that. Feelings of guilt can also be reinforced by well meaning clinicians. Clinicians unknowingly and unintentionally convey the same message to clients that they could do better at controlling their stuttering if they would only try harder. Clinicians who do not stammer themselves often do not realize the depth of emotional pain and fear that PWS can have regarding their stuttering. Fear can be a silent and powerful shackle that holds people back from making healthy changes in their lives. Guilt can also stem from feeling as if they are violating a social expectation by taking up too much of their listeners' time. From an early age we are all socialized to expect the information in a message to come out at just the right rate, between 150-170 words per minute. When information comes out too fast, we feel anxious and frustrated because we are missing parts of it. When information comes out too slowly, we feel impatient and bored because we have other things to do and this person is taking more of our time than they are entitled to have. People who stutter pick up on these subtle and blatant messages that listeners convey to them and they internalize those messages that they are taking more of their listeners' time than they deserve to take.

Anxiety about speaking is the fifth characteristic that many PWS share. Anxiety can come from anticipating having difficulty in a situation, anticipating a negative reaction from the listener, and wanting to avoid the pain and embarrassment of it all. We would expect that people with severe stuttering would experience more anxiety and desire to avoid stuttering than people with mild stuttering, but often the opposite is true. People with mild stuttering sometimes can hide their stammering and pass for normal. In this case, each encounter with a listener with whom they have "passed" before may generate anxiety and fear about "will I pass this time or will I be found out? If I stutter, will the person still accept me?" The person with severe stuttering usually can't conceal it enough to pass for normal and finds out rather quickly which listeners accept her/him and which ones don't.

Low self esteem
The final trait common among PWS is a feeling that speech is out of their control. This is sometimes referred to as an external locus of control. People who stutter may feel as if they cannot control what their mouths do and have no control over when and where they are fluent. They often ascribe their stuttering to external factors in a situation: the location, the listener's reaction, the presence of people in the vicinity who may overhear them stuttering, or how much sleep they got the night before. With this view of control, PWS often attribute moments of fluency to luck and chance. An external locus of control regarding speech can interfere with progress in therapy. Therapy requires the stutterer to learn how to control their speech and to take responsibility for that control. This responsibility also includes actively chosing when they will try to manage their stuttering and when they will let it go and not try to control it. It is difficult to make active choices about something that we attribute to chance.

A few groups of people can have an impact on the self-concepts of people who stutter and can help them develop healthy, positive views of themselves. First, parents play a major role in their child's overall development. Since parents are usually the people with whom a child has the most contact, their reactions to stuttering will be important. Some parents react by patiently waiting for the child to finish, acting unconcerned about their child's stuttering. However, many parents react to their child's stuttering in a different way. Some will finish their child's sentences, tell the child to slow down, or give other words of advice. Often times parents are not aware that they are showing any reactions to their child's stuttering and these subtle, unconscious reactions can have the most negative impact on the child's developing self-concept. See the section on Do's and Don'ts for ideas on helpful, positive ways to respond to stuttering.

Teachers may encounter stuttering students on a daily basis. When a child who stutters wants to answer a question, he or she may use different words than they normally would in an attempt to avoid difficult words. Sometimes a child may try to avoid answering at all by saying "I don't know." In these situations the teacher may not realize that the child is trying to avoid stuttering and will view the child as less intelligent that he or she really is. Teachers can help children who stutter by talking with the child privately to find out how the child feels about the stuttering and how the child wants the teacher to handle it in the classroom. The Do's and Don'ts section has some suggestions that will be helpful for teachers to try.

People who stutter face some difficult emotional obstacles in life. The anxiety and fear that develop around stuttering can cause changes in self-concept and lead to a variety of emotional responses for coping with the a disorder that is unpredictable and socially unacceptable. Knowing how a person is affected by stuttering will give us a better ability to understand the disorder and help the individual cope with it in positive and healthy ways.

The intenseness of a stammer can be affected by how the listener responds to the PWS. Many listeners are often unaware of how to deal with a stammerer and can often show signs of embarrassment when dealing with the PWS. This type of negative reaction (no matter how unintentional it may be) to a PWS - especially if it is in a public place - can make the stammerer feel extremely anxious and can, in turn make them stammer more. This can be a real problem and these kinds of encounters can make a PWS shy away from social situations and this obviously has far bigger implications on the their emotional and psychological health.

A highly successful fluent speaking course for stammerers was developed by Andrew Bell in Kirkcaldy, Scotland, during the 1970s. Mr Bell developed a five-day residential course during which students learned the following important points regarding speech: breathing should be done using the diaphragm, not by moving the chest up and down, and not by using the abdominal muscles (which should always be taut); speech should occur only during exhalation; before speaking, you should think only of the first syllable you're going to say; before speaking, you should take a deep breath, then exhale some air, then stop breathing out momentarily, then start saying the first syllable; the first syllable should start as a deep note, rise linearly to a high note, then fall rapidly to the deep note again (practising this in slow motion is a key part of the Andrew Bell course), then speech should continue mainly on the deep note, with short rises and falls in tone as you articulate your words; your torso should be stretched tall, and your shoulders should be raised and back; and your chest should be out; eyes should always be focused on a fixed point when you speak, especially on the eyes of the person you're talking to (look up and away when you look away from the person's eyes); when you've reached the end of your exhalation (while talking) and need more air, breathe in sharply, then continue speaking during the next exhalation, then breathe in sharply again, etc; the voice should be deep and breathy; you can slightly "smudge over" consonant sounds in a breathy way if you like; keep your chest always in the same position as it is when you've taken a deep breath in, even when you're breathing out (this feels strange at first); lips should be tremendously mobile during speaking; when the mouth opens during speaking, it should open widely, elongating downwards; during speaking; speech should be calm and enthusiastic; when you're talking on the phone, keep your eyes focused on a fixed point, keep your hands still, and preferably stand up.

Irony

Has it not yet occured to anyone that this is the talk page for stuttering? Anand 15:43, 4 April 2006 (UTC)

I don't get it... Phauge 00:55, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Stuttering not equal to stammering

My childhood speech therapist said these are different. He said "stammering" is dropped or slured sounds [from the mouth not able to keep up with too high a rate of thought] while "stuttering" is repeating the same sound. Jon 19:53, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

I also believe that Stammering is different to stuttering. A good example of stammering is what British politicians do, when they repeat certain words: "The national debt is growing and I - I - I - I - I believe that it is out of control". The word "the" can also be used to stammer: "My honourable friend is wrong and the-the-the-the-the facts are different...". The raconteur Peter Ustinov said he believed there was a room in the Foreign Office were British diplomats learned to stammer, and I think this hits the nail on the head - stammering is affected, and developed, and even subconsciously learned (just like sportsmen who all speak in a strange disinterested monotone when being interviewed, because they've picked it up from their peers).

What you're describing here, the word repetition rather than sound repetition, is cluttering, rather than either stuttering or stammering. Stammering is the Brittish term for stuttering. Fredsmith2 15:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Oh, and if it's done completely and only for affect, then it's probably neither cluttering, stuttering, or stammering, even if it kind of sounds like them. Fredsmith2 15:42, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

Stuttering is something completely different, and is described well in the main article. Stuttering is a speech disorder. Stammering is an affectation.

So I vote that stammering is separated from stuttering. The two are not the same. They shouldn't even be classed in the same category. 86.138.167.250 13:24, 20 October 2006 (UTC)

Actually stammering and stuttering are one of the same. A stammer/stutter is a speech disfluency but it is much more pronounced and obvious. Most people have experience some sort of speech disfluency (I.E when they are nervous) but people with a much more pronounced, repetitive speech disfluency are said to have a stammer/stutter. There is no difference between them

Stammering is typically the Brittish term for it and Stuttering is typically the American term for it. About 40 years ago, many books had them as different things, but currently, most books use them synonymously. Fredsmith2 15:37, 3 April 2007 (UTC)

New article in the works? Fix Comings' statements

I saw several mentions above to a revamped article (hopefully shorter). I hope you'll either delete the statement about Tourette's, or reference a more accurate paragraph to more widely-accepted research.

In one study, stuttering was correlated with three genes that control the neurotransmitter dopamine. The study also correlated these genes to ADHD, Tourette syndrome, obsessive compulsive disorder (OCD), and tics.41 All five disorders are exacerabated by stress, and when the affected person tries harder to control the undesirable behavior, the conditions can become more pronounced.
  • Comings, D., et al., "Polygenic Inheritance of Tourette Syndrome, Stuttering, Attention Deficit Hyperactivity, Conduct, and Oppositional Defiant Disorder," American Journal of Medical Genetics 67:264-288 (1996).

The gene(s) for Tourette's have not been identified, and Comings' work (linking many other conditions together) is not widely accepted among his peers. (General info about Comings' TS research) The relationship between TS and OCD is faily well established, but the relationship to ADHD is less clear. Linking Tourette's to Oppositional Defiant Disorder and Conduct Disorder has little support at all. There may be a link between TS and stuttering, so hopefully you can reword the paragraph without referring to controversial research by Comings.

You can more accurately summarize the research on TS and stuttering by referencing the following studies:

Tics and developmental stuttering

Features resembling Tourette's syndrome in developmental stutterers.

Speech disfluencies in individuals with Tourette syndrome.

Neurology review article Sandy 17:21, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

Waited more than two weeks: fixed note 41 myself. Note 29 still needs to be addressed, since Comings' conclusions are not widely accepted by his peers. Sandy 21:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
Tics and developmental stuttering
simply says that stutterers have secondary symptoms, such as eye blinking. That's been known for decades, if not longer.
Features resembling Tourette's syndrome in developmental stutterers.
says that stutterers have secondary symptoms and obsessive-compulsive behaviors.
Speech disfluencies in individuals with Tourette syndrome.
says that children with Tourette's don't stutter, although they have more normal dysfluencies than non-Tourette's children.
Neurology review article
says that children who stutter have secondary symptoms during speech, and occasionally during silent play. I suspest the latter may have been when the children were imagining dialogue while playing. All in all, these four article don't impress me.
General info about Comings' TS research
comments negatively on Comings' suggestion that persons with Tourette's have unusual sexual impulses, and then negatively reviews Comings' popular (not scholarly) book "The Gene Bomb." From the description on Amazon, the book sounds alarmist and politically incorrect, but this doesn't mean the author's scholarly research is unscientific. I'm skeptical that "Comings' work is not widely accepted among his peers." If that were true, then the American Journal of Medical Genetics would have rejected the study in question. I disagree with your assertations, but the point (whether stuttering and Tourette's are genetically related) is unimportant so I'm not going to change anything.--Tdkehoe 23:07, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
I think you overlooked the following in your analysis above:
From Pauls DL, Cohen DJ, Kidd KK, Leckman JF. Tourette syndrome and neuropsychiatric disorders: is there a genetic relationship? Am J Hum Genetics, 1988 Aug;43(2):206-17.
"In a remarkable series of papers by Comings and Comings in the Journal, a number of claims are made that have profound implications for future research on Gilles de la Tourette syndrome (TS). Their assertions fall outside of the mainstream of the very extensive TS literature that has developed over the past 2 decades. The novelty of the conclusions and the visibility of their presentation require that the papers receive thorough discussion."
"He concludes that it has not escaped his attention that the reason disorders of disinhibition are so common 'is that they are (1) genetic, (2) dominant, and (3) result in disinhibition, especially of sexual activity.' Aspects of this statement are unfounded, particularly his comment concerning sexual activity. In the first six reports in the series, the authors present no data to demonstrate that individuals with TS are sexually disinhibited in a way that would result in increased frequency of the disorder. Specifically, they do not provide any family data to show that TS patients have larger than average family sizes. In fact, data presented in these papers suggest that the TS patients' sexual activity is not different from that of controls. To attach such a label to individuals who have already suffered tremendously because of their illness is at best insensitive; to do so without having any data to substantiate the claim is inexcusable.
In summary, any one of these methodological difficulties is sufficient to weaken considerably the conclusions offered by Comings and Comings. All of them together make it impossible to accept as valid any of the results presented and raise serious concerns regarding the integrity of the peer review process for these papers."
In addition to the strong wording in that paper (written by the most notable experts in the field), you have the review of the Gene Bomb, and entire chapters in the most notable Tourette's textbooks that deal with the methodological problems with Comings work, extending beyond the sexuality issues described in the passage above. I'll let you draw your own conclusions about why some journals will publish his work, when he acknowledges in his own (self-published, second) book that he couldn't get his work published elsewhere.
At any rate, I do hope the article will focus on accurate up-to-date information about any possible relationship between TS and stuttering, and refrain from promoting Comings' controversial, largely self-published views about Tourette's. The information in footnote 29 still needs adjustment. Sandy 00:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
I don't believe there is conclusive evidence about any possible connection between stuttering and tics. What I do know is that this article goes beyond the medical consensus when promoting the genetic conclusions of Comings. It is the outdated references to Comings' conclusions (in notes 29 and 41) that need to be adjusted. Sandy 23:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Max Headroom

Is a mention of Max Headroom in place?

My god...

It's a medical disorder now?!?!? Shit.. they've even got professionals, graphs, standards and everything. I'm impressed, really.--72.38.204.116 05:19, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

How non-stutterers should react?

I have a co-worker with this affliction. I want to be a helpful to him as I can - but I never know what is the best thing I can do. When he's struggling hard to get out the last few words of a sentence that both he and I know the ending of - he's working hard to get the words out - and I know exactly what he's going to say. Jumping in and finishing it for him would end the torture - staring at him seems like it would increase the stress, but looking away seems like I lost interest - which would be horribly disrespectful of a clearly very intelligent guy. Whatever I do seems that it's making matters worse? There seems to be no good answer.

In a rational world, I'd like to jump in just as soon as he's gotten the concept across to me - interrupt and say "Oh - so you mean such-and-such?" - conversations would be ten times faster - and I kinda think they would be less stressful - but the general advice is to not do that?

I'd really like to know what is the best thing to do. I'm an Aspergers syndrome sufferer - and I guess when you get the two of us together - I have poor social skills and an inability to make natural conversation and maintain 'normal' levels of eye contact without concentrating on following guidelines that seem very artificial...well, it's a disaster waiting to happen! I can be taught what to do - but I need rules.

The article needs something about this - the advice at the top of this Talk page isn't a whole lot of use - but such as it is, it should be in the main article - not here. I come to an encyclopedia for the answers to questions I have - this question needs to be answered in this article - especially if sufferers are writing here. 15:00, 22 October 2006 (UTC)

The Stuttering Wikibook has an article with Advice for Listeners. We discussed whether the Wikipedia article should include advice for stutterers about getting through job interviews, advice for listeners, etc. Wikipedia apparently has a policy against including advice (proscriptive vs. descriptive). Wikibooks has a different policy.--Tdkehoe 04:01, 25 October 2006 (UTC)
I usually find the best way is to finish their sentances for them and laugh at them. There is no point in pretending it isn't funny and it might encourage them to stop doing it. I'm a stutterer mmmyself. AdamButtery 19:35, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Featured article review needed

A while back on this talk page, a rewrite/upgrade of this article was mentioned, but it's not happened. The article is due for a featured article review, unless the deficiencies can be corrected. Some examples only:

  • Disease/disorder info box is not complete (see recent FAs at Influenza, Tuberculosis, Tourette syndrome).
  • Main and See also templates in each section are not employed correctly (see WP:GTL and WP:SS). "For more information" at the bottom of sections is not the way to go.
  • The See also section should not include articles which are already linked in the text (see WP:GTL).
  • References section should be alphabetical.
  • Footnotes aren't in order, as the non-standard footnote style used in the article doesn't automatically renumber. Someone should locate the bot that converts this old style to cite.php, so that numbers will correctly begin with 1 and not have gaps.
  • External links is a farm that seriously needs to be pruned - see WP:EL and WP:NOT.
  • PMIDs should be provided on all journal-published research (see WP:MEDMOS and recent medical FAs; eg, Influenza, Tuberculosis, Tourette syndrome, and Bacteria).
  • The article is seriously undercited, containing broad patches of unreferenced text.
  • The article needs attention to wikilinking of the first occurrence of each technical or related term - it is seriously underlinked.
  • Mixed reference styles and external jumps - pls use one referencing style consistently, and remove imbedded links to external websites by converting them to wikified text or references.
  • Many footnotes are incorrectly place vis-a-vis punctuation - pls see WP:FN.
  • Extremely long image captions and oversized images.
  • Prose needs attention to organization - bouncing readers around the article with parenthetical inserts reflects poor organization or incorporation of wikilinks. Example: Stuttering is generally not a problem with the physical production of speech sounds (see Voice disorders) or putting thoughts into words (see Dyslexia, Cluttering).
  • Unreferenced, unencyclopedic essay on Support groups.
  • Section headings need attention per WP:MOS and WP:MSH.

Sandy (Talk) 17:13, 28 December 2006 (UTC)

I agree with most all of those above mentioned problems and will get on them shortly. I wrote and nominated the article initially, but it has changed a lot since achieving FA-status and does need some serious work. I'll be busy for the next little while, but I'll find time soon to go through this and address all of the issues. --Clngre 23:38, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

Six weeks have passed - no progress on the article. It should come to WP:FAR soon. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

It also needs copyediting for mistakes and tone. Christopher Connor 23:15, 16 April 2007 (UTC)
I agree that FAR is required. There are MOS issues as above, but it is also not a good summary of the state of knowledge in the field. There is a good deal of original research, (even COI) included, and important aspects are missing. --Slp1 12:31, 15 September 2007 (UTC)

Gosh, almost a year since I put up the notice of the need for a featured article review, and the article is only further deteriorated. FAR is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:18, 17 September 2007 (UTC)

Sexual causes of stuttering

I know that something that has been really detrimental to stuttering research has been the rumors that it stems from sexual disfunction, sexual addiction, or some sex-related malady. Providing a resource that shows that this was a bad theory from a hundred or so years ago that cannot be proven could be a valuable resource for this article. Fredsmith2 19:22, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Fair use image

The fair use image of Porky Pig should either be removed from this article or a fair use rationale should be provided. – Ilse@ 10:27, 4 June 2007 (UTC)

Contradictions and neutrality?

"This article appears to contradict itself. Please see the discussion on the talk page."

"The neutrality of this article or section is disputed. Please see the discussion on the talk page."

Excuse me? Where is the contradiction? The neutrality of what was disputed? Can someone either take off the flags or explain what the problem is? There should be a rule against flagging articles without explanation.--Tdkehoe 20:10, 26 June 2007 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Stuttering/Archive_1&oldid=1089789432"