Talk:Congenital iodine deficiency syndrome

I suggest that this article might incorporate some information related to the work of Creswell Eastman. http://www.abc.net.au/catalyst/stories/s1497255.htm Begs 10:50, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Is this term still preferred? It doesn't sound very PC -- Simon J Kissane

• No. See congenital hypothyroidism Alteripse 16:29, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

I removed the external link to some bizarre speculation about how Neandertals had iodine deficiency. Prima facie silliness. Some geographer who hasn't bothered to look at current populations with endemic cretinism published this speculation based on single minor physical feature with multiple potential causes. If you want to check out my characterization, here is the link: Neandertal’s prehistoric diet may have lacked a crucial element? It might have been a respectable hypothesis in 1925 but doesn't deserve encyclopedia space now. If person who put it here wants to dispute, I'll find some neandertal links and some iodine deficiency disease links and it will be clear. Alteripse 16:29, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)

quick reversion

Just erased the anti-Christian comments some bugger scrawled onto it. I'll go see who the hell it was. Wareq 0026 EST

• Anonymous wanker, IP identity 86.131.80.63. See what else s/he's up to. Wareq

That is actually one of the possible derivations, in an older reverent sense of the word. The actual etymology of cretin is not known. The source listed for cretin as a "woodwose" equivalent is a 19th century Balzac novel which I have looked at in both French and English, and is misrepresented here in this article. It provides no convincing etymology and doesn't even leave you thinking Balzac thought that was where the word came from.

The derivation from Christian is equally unproven but I have heard it before. A cretin is someone who has "original innocence" in the sense of lacking the mental capability to sin deliberately, what the lawyers call mens rea. This is questionable theology or expresses some medieval anti-Church irony, but is not scurrilous or anti-Christian in a modern sense. If I could find a better source than my vague memory I will rewrite this, but I don't think the source has been convincingly proven.

The entry you erased was etymologically questionable in another sense though, as the intermediate form was likely the French Chretien and we have no proof that Latin Christianus was ever applied to people like this. alteripse 11:21, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

rewrite

I got rid of the nonsense about Balzac and massacres. It was apparently based on a misreading of a single French website speculating that cretins might have been the origin of the woodwose legends. The original contributor didnt bother to actually read the Balzac source, which says nothing of the kind. There are lots of prima facie problems with this hypothesis and it doesnt warrant inclusion here without better sourcing. alteripse 15:45, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Britannica lists the most likely etymology for certain words, and since every dictionary I've seen, including OED, doesn't even question whether the etymology came from anywhere but the Latin word for "Christian", it should remain as is. No matter who complains for whatever reasons, we are not in the business of doing original research. --BRIAN0918 18:12, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

First, I agree that Christian is the most commonly cited dictionary etymology but most of the online dictionary derivations derive from the same source. It doesnt make sense to provide a single etymology in the first sentence and then later on explain that it is uncertain and there have been other alternatives.

Second, this is not primary research. You need to review our policy on wikipedia:original research. I cited my sources for the alternatives.

Third, I put a lot of effort into elaborating this article and trying to track down the etymology. I know a lot about this topic and am basing it on several sources. Don't tell me you know more about it because you looked it up in a dictionary.

I looked at your user page. It doesnt match this behavior. Are you having a bad day? alteripse 18:26, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• This is the talk page for Cretinism. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-11 18:33
• The lead section is supposed to summarize the article. Britannica provides the "most likely" etymology in the first sentence, and we should be inclined to do the same. Simply because another possible etymology has been found doesn't mean the most likely etymology should not be front and center. — BRIAN0918 • 2005-12-11 18:33

I know its the talk page. You were the one making changes without discussing them here and I posted the note on your user page as a courtesy notice, not an affront.

I agree with you that this definition deserves primacy and respect the OED as the best dictionary source, but it's explanation of the connection between cretin and Christian is just as speculative as the others, which I did not invent as you will see if you do a little research. How about if we drop the stupid dictionary list and acknowledge more than one like this:

The connecting meaning between Christian and cretin is not obvious. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term Christian is a reminder of the humanity of the afflicted, in contrast to brute beasts. Other sources have suggested Christian refers to the inability to sin of a person who lacks the capacity to distinguish right from wrong.

I won't change it til you respond but the dictionary list does not belong in the article. alteripse 18:55, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• What is your source for the "inability to sin..." part? --BRIAN0918 19:17, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

It is one of the oldest of the explanations and the one I have seen most often. Here is a long article on this topic from the Atlantic Monthly of 1858: [1]. alteripse 19:38, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• While I'm fine with your addition, I think it would be better to leave in the rationale for the OED's origin, namely that "the mod. Romanic languages translate the Latin term to "human creature", as distinguished from beasts, with the implication that, although a person afflicted with cretinism is mentally and physically deformed, he is still human." If possible, it would would also help to specifically explain the rationale behind the Atlantic Monthly's origins, no matter how obvious it seems. In any case, we can agree that the Latin word for "Christian" is the most widely accepted etymology, and leave that in the lead/summary section. --BRIAN0918 19:48, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

OK, how about The connecting meaning between Christian and cretin is not obvious. According to the Oxford English Dictionary, the term Christian is a reminder of the humanity of the afflicted, a human "creature" in contrast to brute beasts. Other sources have suggested Christian refers to the inability to sin of a person who lacks the capacity to distinguish right from wrong. I don't like the piece of the OED phrase by itself because I don't think we need to remind the reader that french is a romance language, and whether the term cretin originated in post-latin pre-french dialect that eventually became helvetian, provencal, or lyonnais french, or left no offspring, is beyond secure knowledge and the needs of this article. Isn't the simpler version faithful to the meaning? alteripse 20:06, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

• Alright, I think that takes care of it. --BRIAN0918 20:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Just a small note or suggestion as to the etymology of the word cretin. A lecturer told me it was from post crusade times, when they found all the iodine deficient christians who had been driven to the alps by the muslims. Since there was a lack of iodine those people produced such symptoms and the muslims had used the local (basque i think it was) word for 'christian' to name them...and so cretin became synonomous with iodine deficiency and the big neck hyperetc

• Sorry but that explanation ranks with the neanderthal and woodwose (see above)explanations for silliness in all respects. It doesnt remotely match history, linguistic characteristics, or geographical distribution. I hope he didnt burden you with more dangerous misinformation. alteripse 11:20, 13 January 2006 (UTC)

recent comments

I moved this comment from my talk page for discussion. Hallo, I read your entry on cretinism, and was surprised with the discussion about christians. As far as I know, cretin derives from chretien, but the implication is not offensive. The implication is that Jesus was a victim (in fact, in italian the phrase "un povero cristo" describes someone who's having difficulties in life; not an idiot). The connotation of cretin in those days was not offensive: it was near the latin "imbecillis" which did not mean "imbecile", but "weak" (the primary meaning was physical weakness). Only later in the centuries did the connotation drift towards offensive. I am not christian and this is why I did not edit the main page, please check on your favorite ethimological dictionary and fix it. I just don't want to post something and see it reverted! Daniela —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 81.211.189.168 (talk) 23:44, 6 December 2006 (UTC).

Thanks but I am not sure which part your comment refers to. The article had accumulated some extra junk that was either unsourced or redundant or simply did not improve the article. Have I removed the parts that did not seem right to you? alteripse 00:29, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

cagot

I moved this cryptic line here, as it needs some context and verification. alteripse 00:31, 7 December 2006 (UTC)

A cretin of the Pyrenees was called a cagot (kag'ō).

Creationism

Added paragraph on the use =Creationism. Orcoteuthis 16:38, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Parliamentary Cretinism

Shouldn't this include an internal referrence to George "W" Bush?Pustelnik 01:04, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Complaint about photographs

Received on OTRS:

I have just viewed your article on cretinism on your site. I don't think it's appropriate to display the picture of a child supposedly with that condition, especially when the child is naked. Please remove it. Thank you.

This is because as the page notes, 'cretinism' is a derogatory term. Therefore I consider that any photograph of an affected person should be linked to the page containing the correct medical terminology, and that it is in essence insulting the dignity of that child to have their photograph linked to a page on a derogatory term. Would you have a picture of a particular race in a page about a derogatory term for that race? (I checked a couple of pages, and you do not). So why have such a photograph next to a derogatory term for a particular disability?

Note: I'm not the person who complained, so do not answer to me personally. David.Monniaux 06:45, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of removing the photograph on the grounds that

• it's an invasion of the intimacy of a patient who is clearly not in condition to give his consent
• it is associated with a precise medical condition for which I fail to see a clear diagnosis
• if it was acceptable, the place of the photograph would be on the article of the precise medical condition anyway
• the setting of the photograph yields improper lyricism. I expect medical photographs to be medical in nature (there are such things are "photographic NPOV").

I think that a proper illustration for this article would be an ancient drawing, or maybe an ancient photography, as to reflect the obsolescence of the term. The person (not me either) who wrote the OTRS notice makes an excellent point with the parallel of race: our negro article does not and should not contain photographs of present-day Africans, but 19th century drawings could be OK. Rama 15:15, 17 October 2007 (UTC)