Jump to content

Talk:Ataxia

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

older entries

[edit]

Expanded description is essentially verbatim from website of the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS). Since this information is produced by the government, I do not believe any copyright is being violated.--Sjsilverman 01:29, 22 December 2005 (UTC)[reply]

An automated Wikipedia link suggester has some possible wiki link suggestions for the Ataxia article, and they have been placed on this page for your convenience.
Tip: Some people find it helpful if these suggestions are shown on this talk page, rather than on another page. To do this, just add {{User:LinkBot/suggestions/Ataxia}} to this page. — LinkBot 00:35, 18 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Fine motor coordination?

[edit]

The assertion that ataxia results from impaired fine motor coordination seems wrong. Fine motor coordination refers to such actions as manipulating objects with the fingers. It would be gross, not fine, motor coordination deficit that would produce ataxia. Myron 11:58, 13 January 2006 (UTC)[reply]

[3/8/06 06:22] [some 17-year-old kid] [phoenix, az] i beg to differ. as a recent victim of a vehicle-pedestrian auto accident, i personally know that gross motor actions are wat i can accomplish, while fine motor coordination is a trouble spot. if u think abt it, a degeneration of nueral connections would affect fine-motor actions, leaving u to only be able to accomplish gross.

  • Both are possible to a large degree. I am suffering from acute ataxia from a Black Widow bite and I can assure you that walking and other gross motor activities are not very pretty, but doable. Typing and tooth brushing are possible as well, but exact and precise movements are difficult.

Removing text about specific causes of ataxia

[edit]

I removed the text at the end of the page because it does not deal with ataxia (a symptom) in general, but provides specific info about some of the diseases that have it among their manifestations. That's duplicate info from their respective pages, and is incomplete - missing some common causes of ataxia and going into details in some of the uncommon ones. --Nehwyn 20:28, 25 June 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus for splitting?

[edit]

There seems to be a firm intention by an editor to split this article in two (cerebellar ataxia and sensory ataxia), either by pasting content from the main article (a proper split), or by writing duplicate info ex novo (a "branching out", if you want). I have repeatedly asked the editor in question to gain consensus for his proposed division on this talk page, but he seems unavailable to do so. Therefore I'll do it in his/her stead: is there a consensus to either paste or duplicate the info on this page on two pages? ----Nehwyn 15:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Oppose - And here is my opinion: I prefer to keep the present article as it is unless the new pages have more (not less!) info than the main one. ----Nehwyn 15:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Please review the edit history. Sensory ataxia always has been a distinct article, so it's not up to me to demonstrate a consensus to split; it's up to you to demonstrate a consensus to merge. Most of the support for a single ataxia article has been from three single-purpose IP accounts (87.3.185.18, 87.17.214.56, and 79.9.191.133.) I have no problem with supporting your merge proposal if that's what a consensus of established editors want. But since you're the one that wants the change, you're the one that needs to generate support for it. I don't have a problem with leaving ataxia alone, to be structured as you desire. But if you're insisting that sensory ataxia now redirect to ataxia, you're going to have to follow process. Since we disagree, I'd encourage you to list the issue at Wikipedia:Proposed mergers to get feedback from a broader audience. --Arcadian 17:37, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Arcadian, the articles were merged at that time without opposition. Had opposition been manifested at that time, consensus would have been requested for it, but since there was no opposition, the change proceeded undisputed. Months later, in order to split the article again, the same process applies, only this time opposition has been manifested, so a consensus debate has been requested. Should consensus emerge for the three-article solution, that is what we will go for. Should the one-article solution be preferred, the duplicate articles will be turned into redirects again. You are free to duplicate info from the main article to other two in the meanwhile. --Nehwyn 17:59, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Nope; all three terms refer to neurological syndromes (an ensemble of signs and symptoms) and do not represent a "standalone" diagnosis or disease. Note that "cerebellar ataxia" does not have a separate code from ataxia in ICD-10; the one it was assigned in ICD-9 was removed from the current ICD precisely for this reason (that "cerebellar ataxia" is not a diagnosis, just a generic presentation of a variety of cerebellar diseases and intoxications). To make it clearer to non-medics out there: when a patient goes to the doctor complaining of incoordination, first the doctor examines the patient to establish whether that incoordination indeed represents cerebellar dysfunction ("ataxia"), and in that case whether the cerebellum is unable to function properly because it is itself diseased (which would warrant the "cerebellar" adjective) or because it is not getting the input it needs (which would warrant either the "vestibular" or "sensory" adjective, depending on which imput is impaired). According to this reasoning and to the current ICD, the content from the articles about sensory and cerebellar ataxia had been merged into the current one, and the pages turned into redirects to that. Now they have just been split again, and I requested the involved editor to gain consensus for that, but he ignored the request, so I opened the debate in his/her stead. --Nehwyn 18:22, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Please bear with the laypersons here :-) Are you saying that cerebellar and sensory are subsets of ataxia, with different etiologies (dysfunction in the cerebellum or otherwise)? And if that's correct, and if they have different etiologies (questions from a layperson), why then would they not be separate articles? As an analogy I understand, I wouldn't want Tourettism merged to Tourette syndrome. They have the same symptomatic result, but different etiologies. There is no formal "tourettism" diagnosis, as far as I know, but it still warrants its own article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
They are different localisations of ataxia. (Laypersons' note: The term "localisation" has a specific meaning in neurology. When approaching a patient with a neurological complaint, such as "incoordination" or "imbalance", first you establish what neurological sign/symptom corresponds to the patient's complaint, then you "localise it", i.e. you try and determine which part of the nervous system is causing it - since most neurological signs/symptoms may be generated by disease processes in different parts of the nervous system). Responding to your question, sensory and cerebellar ataxia can present either separately or together, and their aetiologies overlap: in other words, some diseases/intoxications produce only one or the other, whereas others produce both at the same time, and the vast majority of hereditary disorders fall in the latter category. They are not mutually exclusive entities as Tourette syndrome and tourettism are. --Nehwyn 19:29, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
OK, I'm with you so far. So what are the advantages and disadvantages of separate articles? Arcadian states that they've always been split; why should we merge them? SandyGeorgia (Talk) PS, to continue the analogy that I understand, tourettism and Tourette syndrome can't be *proven* to be mutually exclusive until there is a definitive genetic test. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
On the contrary, a quick check to the history of the articles in question will show you that actually they have not always been split. In the beginning, there were three articles with some duplicate info; these were unopposedly merged (based on the reasoning exposed above), and merged they stayed until Arcadian's intention to split them off again a few days ago. He was then requested to obtain consensus before doing so, but he ignored that request and proceeded anyway. As soon as I got back online, I called this debate in his stead in order to verify whether any consensus exists in favour of his "three-article" solution over the "one-article" solution. --Nehwyn 19:58, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
PS - About Tourette's: not quite. I'll be happy to clarify your doubts, but do ask on the talk page of either of those articles, otherwise we'll just create confusion over here. --Nehwyn 20:16, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In both cases, the article histories reveal they were separate articles (for several years) until you recently redirected them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Regardless of history, I still don't see the pros and cons of separate or merged articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:02, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Well, my reasoning for the "one-article" solution is in my response above, adheres to the current ICD classification, and reflects the way ataxia is actually approached in practice (in addition to the way it is treated in most most current medical textbooks). I also second CliffC's reason for opposing the re-split above. --Nehwyn 20:23, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Support continued separate articles, as has always been the case. No convincing reason for merging these articles, which have been separate for several years and represent different issues, has been given. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 6 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

It just makes sense for a merge given the neurophysiological overlap in mechanisms for the diseases. I cannot believe that it got to such a major debate. SteveD 3rd may 2008. 13:47. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 58.168.20.223 (talk) 03:48, 3 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Bromide toxicity

[edit]

Maybe this needs a mention as a possible cause. 78.86.18.55 (talk) 19:00, 18 February 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dystaxia and Titubation

[edit]

The intro paragraph defines Dystaxia and Titubation, but doesn't say why it's defining them, and they're not mentioned elsewhere in the article. So are these forms of Ataxia, or are they being contrasted with Ataxia? Please clarify in the article. Thanks! —mjb (talk) 11:10, 15 August 2008 (UTC)[reply]

ataxia and autism

[edit]

Are ataxia and autism at all related?i am just wondering because on the pervasive devolopmental disorder portal,ataxiawas listed along with many other disorders,as a related disoder that many autistics have in realation to there autism.could somebody please clarify this for me,so I can make an informed descision on weather or not to remove ataxia from the prevasive developmental disorders portal? Immunize (talk) 16:57, 16 January 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Unsourced changes

[edit]

98.81.19.56 (talk · contribs) has been making changes without including verifiable references from reliable sources, and without discussing on its user talk page.   — Jeff G. ツ 00:51, 22 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Did you really read the changes? To me, they seem pretty good copy-edits. Lova Falk talk 16:22, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Actually, most of these edits are excellent copy-edits. I am restoring a great part of them, because they make the article so much more easy to read and understand. Lova Falk talk 16:48, 23 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Cannabis causing ataxia

[edit]

It needs to be clarified that cannabis does not cause a person to get ataxia. It causes the person to experience ataxia while under the influence of marijuana. The article cited supports what I am saying and it was sort of mis quoted in this article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.220.159.20 (talk) 23:11, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Ataxic cerebral palsy

[edit]

No reference currently to ataxic cerebral palsy. Essentially cerebellar ataxia, of course, but reading the article as written, most people wouldn't make the connection. Does someone want to have a go at incorporating? (I'm too busy editing Paralympic sport) Sportygeek (talk) 01:41, 26 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I added it to the See also section. I don't know enough about it to be able to incorporate it into the article, but I hope someone else will. Lova Falk talk 10:38, 27 January 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Frenkel Exercises

[edit]

There should be an article on these exercises. Cerebellar ataxia is usually thought of as hopeless, which is not so. See the article on Frenkel at http://www.nature.com/sc/journal/v42/n1/full/3101515a.html Fletcherbrian (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2013 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Ataxia. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:33, 20 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Wiki Education assignment: Reading and Writing in the Natural Sciences

[edit]

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 January 2024 and 26 April 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): King-Joma (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Bsb018, Topazflute.

— Assignment last updated by H2Oworks (talk) 17:42, 26 March 2024 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Ataxia&oldid=1216890411"