Talk:Circumstantial speech

Psychology Low‑importance

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

Disability

Circumstantial speech is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles

Low Quality Article, Very Thin Material, Unverifiable Sources[edit]

I spent at least an hour trying to verify some of these sources and found nothing. Most sources reference, directly or indirectly, Dorland's Medical Dictionary, which is an illustrated medical dictionary. It's strange that this term would appear in there but I can't verify it without buying a copy of the medical text. Other sources are completely dead links, even in archive. One of them was an archive of a blank google page. Some sources only keep referencing Dorland's which leads me to believe the references are just copied from other sources and not direct references.

This is a modern term used in a specific context for medical treatment and diagnosis, surely there has to be a person or paper that coined the term some time in the recent past. It's a fairly new term. Even if Dorland's illustrated medical textbook ends up being a legitimate source, which is looking dubious, the term still had to originate somewhere in a seminal paper or thesis. Currently I am suspicious this term was just arbitrarily invented and then corroborated by circular references.

As it stands now, even in google there are very few references to this term and most of them lead back to this page. So it's not like there is some large body of material to draw from. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 47.189.180.244 (talk) 22:43, 20 August 2022 (UTC)[reply]

duplicate?[edit]

There are also an article with very similar topic: Circumstantiality --Dennis714 (talk) 06:14, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, same topic. Thanks for pointing out. I just added merge flags and instead of going around the subject, discussing it for too long (pun intended) can merge soon. History2007 (talk) 07:28, 9 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

sometimes a person just wants to talk[edit]

It is a bit too controlling to expect that the person being spoken to has to stick to a script of narrow dialog. There is an agenda for profit that wants to be able to label normal human behavior as pathologic. "Do more for one in four" is a mental health month slogan and it reveals more about marketing goals than anything else. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 50.104.217.8 (talk) 04:59, 24 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Ego's[edit]

Sometimes you'll encounter people who after being asked a question, going lengths about irrelevant show off knowledge and finally answering the question. If they can still remember what that was. Is this also Circumstantial speech or should this be called something else?

Hyperplanes[edit]

Is it just me, or is a lot of this article self-parody? Some (most?) of the sentences seem to go off in really odd directions. Hyperplanes!? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2604:2D80:4022:86AE:2594:C643:7675:6039 (talk) 02:15, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Fixed. Thanks. Staszek Lem (talk) 17:43, 16 February 2018 (UTC)[reply]

More disastrous?[edit]

The article currently reads:

... preempt more disastrous ambiguous communication ...

"More disastrous" seems like a clumsy phrase, not really the best choice. Perhaps someone can improve on it?

Karl gregory jones (talk) 14:19, 11 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

how much of a disorder[edit]

I'm with the other two commenters in wondering how definite a problem this speech is. The article says a person is "afflicted," as if he is incapable of giving a straight answer. There should be some distinction between afflicted people and those who can edit their wordiness. The article could also explain the "slowed thinking" more. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.184.73.156 (talk) 16:25, 9 March 2021 (UTC)[reply]