Talk:Visual snow syndrome

Disorder? - Restructuring the introduction text

The current introductory text describes visual snow as a "transitory or persisting medical disorder", implying that if falls under ICD-10 H53.1. However, visual snow is currently NOT a recognised disorder and does not appear in ICD H53.1, which itself is not a list of disorders but of "subjective visual disturbances", and some medical professionals have publicly shared criticism of its classification as such (such as dr. Deborah Friedman).

I also observe that the article gives undeserved credence to these ideas, sometimes without question and without the necessary qualification.

Therefore, the article should make haste to:

1. More clearly distinguish between:

a) The proposed classification of visual snow as a disorder made by some researchers,

b) the symptom of visual snow as being additional visual noise, present in some other disorders and diseases (such as migraines, optical neuritis), injuries (such as head injury), meditation practices, result of the process of aging, etc.,

c) visual snow as intrinsic visual noise, a normal part of human physiology (something already referenced in "Signs and Symptoms" and "Comorbidities", where it, in my estimation, does not belong),

d) and it should do so in the introductory text.

2. Use less assertive language and more qualification.

It should perhaps also be pointed out that the symptom of excessive visual noise is actually quite a regular complaint from psychiatric patients, especially GAD and OCD patients. This has also been noted in various literature, but the names elude me at the moment. Some of these patients, it is believed, for various reasons become aware and subsequently obsessed with their intrinsic visual noise, much alike breathing, floaters (and various other entoptic phenomena), heartbeat and other normal physiological phenomena. I suspect many of the stereotypical and milder cases of "visual snow" are exactly that. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.253.148.14 (talk) 03:10, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

Have done some updating. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:48, 12 July 2017 (UTC)

> quite a regular complaint from psychiatric patients

Migraines are associated with psychiatric disturbances also. Sure thing I support your idea that people can become obsessed with entoptic phenomena or eigengrau that appears in absence or low light. But I think it's pretty clear that's not what we're talking about here. This is about persistent visual disturbances that literally interfere with seeing things. Gamma1138 (talk) 19:15, 22 December 2022 (UTC)

The point of naming visual snow separately from eigengrau is that it is severe enough to interfere with vision. ie the individual has intrinic visual noise that is more noticeable than that of most people — Preceding unsigned comment added by 120.20.100.230 (talk) 17:07, 4 October 2020 (UTC)

Adding a link to www.visualsnowsyndrome.com

Hello everyone,

I added a link to my website www.visualsnowsyndrome.com on the Visual Snow page, but it was taken down as being an inappropriate external link. I don't believe that it is inappropriate. Fair enough I own the website, but i'm not trying to sell a product or gain fame or whatever. I set it up for the sole purpose of spreading the word about the condition so that patients (and their family/doctors) can understand their own symptoms. I gain nothing from this. I can honestly say it's the most comprehensive website about VS, and it is based heavily on peer-reviewed literature. I think the link to it should be allowed on the wiki page so that patients can have access to detailed information about the condition.

If someone can give me a reasonable explanation as to why it would be inappropriate, I would be willing to hear it.

Many thanks

Davin96 (talk) 08:11, 4 August 2017 (UTC)

The addition of an unreliable personal website violates WP:EL (especially WP:ELNO #2, #4 and #11). My apologies for not answering sooner, but the guideline is very clear about this (and I was hoping someone else would chime in). Please do not promote your personal website here - wether it's commercial or non-commercial is irrelevant. If you disagree, feel free to ask for additional advice at Wikipedia:External links/Noticeboard. I'll also post a short notice at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine to draw more attention to this question. GermanJoe (talk) 00:38, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

While I'm not an official participant of the WikiProject, I noticed the note. I agree that such links should be avoided (GermanJoe already linked to the guideline). Thanks, —PaleoNeonate – 01:15, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

• Appreciate the intent to help educate, but this does violate our external links guidance, and is not a reliable source for information about a medical condition. — soupvector (talk) 02:26, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

agree w/ above editors--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Thank you for your replies. I've read through the guidelines and I appreciate that the main concern is the verifiability of the source. I guess at this stage nobody can produce an objectively verifiable webpage because so little is known about the condition. Just know that my intention is purely to help people and nothing else, and where possible my content derives from more authoritative literature. I won't try to add it again. Davin96 (talk) 08:21, 23 August 2017 (UTC)

Differentiating visual snow and visual snow syndrome

Currently, the text seems to mix "visual snow" (a particular neurological symptom) with "visual snow syndrome" (the disorder described by the Headache Classification Committee of the International Headache Society). The symptom "visual snow" can appear without the patient meeting the diagnostic requirements for the "visual snow syndrome". The symptom can appear alone, but syndrome is usually accompanied by many other comorbidities.

I think differentiating the symptom and the syndrome would make the article clearer and would stop a common misinterpretation: that the visual snow syndrome consists only of visual snow.

Mroman42 (talk) 14:19, 28 June 2021 (UTC)

Most likely false info

"The dots remain individual and do not clump together or change in size." oh yes they do. for me, they clump and change opacity to create images such as faces. i also see no source? Llucadesigns (talk) 20:03, 23 December 2023 (UTC)

Removed the info you think is false (after checking some sources I agree) and added a source to the beginning paragraph. Do you think that represents it better? Honeyedmilk (talk) 13:37, 2 April 2024 (UTC)

Wiki Education assignment: Technical and Professional Writing

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 January 2024 and 7 May 2024. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Voidchicken (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Eaturvegeez (talk) 19:34, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

Potential Changes

Hello, for the next few weeks I will be editing this page such as re-organizing some sections for clarity, adding links to relevant articles, and any needed copy editing. I have already started working on a sandbox and the new organization should be here soon! Voidchicken (talk) 03:42, 21 February 2024 (UTC)

I’ve noticed that all the information on “pulse type” and “broadband” visual snow uses an unreliable source to cite it. I struggle to find any scholarly research with the basis for these categories and the citation directs to a personal website. It may be worthwhile for you (or someone else!) to revise these chunks out of the article unless a reliable source is found. 73.223.196.210 (talk) 05:51, 10 April 2024 (UTC)

I actually went and made an edit to this effect re: pulse-type and broadband-type that will hopefully stick.

Additionally, the "common misconceptions" section seems to be lacking citations, not aligned with standard wikipedia tone and structure, and I'm uncertain how this information should actually be presented at all. Seeing that you are perhaps working on this article as a course assignment -- maybe one way to go about revision of that section would be to look at other articles about medical conditions and see what methods they use to discuss misconceptions, and how those structurally work into the overall article. I could see a world where the whole section is struck due to structural and tone misalignment and lacking any citations whatsoever. 73.223.196.210 (talk) 06:19, 10 April 2024 (UTC)