Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive 7

This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

What the autistic community feels about the medicalized article

Look here: [1] --Rdos 21:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No offence to anyone at Wrongplanet but I am not sure that would qualify as a "reputable and valid" link with which to balance the existing list.--Zeraeph 22:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

NO Rdos, that's what YOU and your web-board buddies think about the article. I'm going to let you in on a secret Rdos, THIS ARTICLE IS NOT YOUR PERSONAL PLAYGROUND. It IS NOT about your ego, despite your repeated attempts to make it so. It IS NOT a sounding board for your pet beliefs about Aspergers. It IS NOT an excuse to bully people into accepting junk science and personal opinions as factual information. Stop using your feelings of stigmatization as an excuse for redefining the scientific method. You sound ridiculous when you denounce articles for being "peer reviewed". It amazes me that you think such a thing is a criticism. It only makes sense when taken in the context of what you beleive, that is, garbage "science" and clueless opinions from unqualified individuals, yourself included. If you want to sabotage the credibility of an article by cramming it full of unverifiable nonsense, the you are a vandal and should be dealt with. In all honesty, I have yet to find a single point you've made that is worthy of inclusion, and repeatedly find myself reading your posts and wondering why you are regarded as anything other than a POV pusher with no idea how silly you sound. 70.115.211.122 22:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Tired of humoring you

WHOA!! While I agree that this is not Rdos' personal feifdom nor about his ego is certainly isn't Sandy's and Rn's personal feifdom nor about their egos either.(I hope you aren't a sockpuppet?)

...and if you read the wrongplanet link you would see that, in fact, the opinions of Rdos's "web-board buddies" were fairly balanced and took both sides...(not too sure he read it himself?)

Except it shouldn't BE about "sides" and whether RDos or Sandy is "the boss of this game", it should be about presenting as much accurate and balanced information as possible, as well as possible.

There used to be a genuinely, superlative, breathtaking article in this slot, a real show stopper. Now it has morphed through RDos pet lunacies to become overcited, colorless and dry as dust.

If I didn't have too much respect for the effort it took several people to satify Sandy's personal criteria for citations I SWEAR I would revert the whole thing to 2004 when it was truly remarkable.

My choice would be to see a reasonable amount of the citations from this text merged into a reversion to 2004 along with any new information that has shown up. --Zeraeph 22:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

The difference is that, while Rdos is inserting unreferenced original research, many of us were trying to help you keep your featured status, respecting principles established not by any of us, but by Wiki policies and procedures. Plain and simple. It's not my criteria, never was. It's Wiki's. Perhaps I, personally, misread that any of you were interested in keeping your featured article star. Sorry for the intrusion if you weren't. An unreferenced article doesn't meet featured article criteria, that's all. Sandy 22:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I am not a sock puppet, and yes, I realize my post was... strongly worded. However, I feel I made several points very plainly that others have merely danced around. How much time has been wasted undoing what Rdos has done? It frustrates me when individuals sabotage other's efforts by their failure to understand. I suppose I got a bit carried away.70.115.211.122 23:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Still tired of Rdos though

I suspect "tired of Rdos" will soon become part of the human condition if he doesn't cop himself on :o( --Zeraeph 23:05, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You are trying to help me keep my featured status? Enlighten me as to just where I am featured? (If you think Wikipedia is all about "tribes" hell bent upon featured article status then you have a lot to learn.)

I don't give a flying act of sexual congress about "featured status" (and I an actively adverse to condecension NB), I only care about presenting the best and most valid information available in the most objective, impartial, readable and informative way possible.

The best way to do that is to incorporate all available information and ruthlessly exclude all personalities and personal agenda.

An overreferenced article that one person presumes to treat as their personal feifdom is not good enough for me, or for the real, unfiltered, Wiki policies and procedures that are so dear to me. --Zeraeph 22:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Zeraeph, civility is a pillar of Wikipedia. Please try to temper your comments towards the anon editor, me, and yes, even towards Rdos. And please refrain from speculation about sock puppets in proximity to my name. I would say Anon also needs to remember civility but s/he has already indicated his/her comments were too strongly worded. If you don't care about the featured status of the article, that presents no problem: I have no vested interest one way or another in the outcome. If that is the consensus of the group, then I will stop working towards the goal of preserving the FA star. Thank you, Sandy 00:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, back off - you are way out of line trying to dictate to me (or anyone else)...maybe you should spend a little time with civility yourself, because there is nothing civil about persistant domineering, condescension, and passive aggression.

I said nothing whatsoever to link your name to sockpuppetry (so why mention it?).--Zeraeph 01:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

certainly isn't Sandy's and Rn's personal feifdom nor about their egos either.(I hope you aren't a sockpuppet?) --Zeraeph 22:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)—The preceding unsigned comment was added by User:SandyGeorgia (talk • contribs).

I repeat, I said nothing whatsoever to link your name to sockpuppetry, however your harping on it is making me wonder - and I have every right to say so, whether you like it or not --Zeraeph 02:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Of greater importance...shouldn't Wrong Planet be linked from this article?--Zeraeph 23:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Planet is linked in this article, in a notably unencylopedic tone. Sandy 00:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Please define what YOU mean by "encyclopaedic tone" before you use the phrase again, then we can make our own minds up about whether or not we agree with your definition. --Zeraeph 01:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep reading, it's there. Sandy 01:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have AS and I do not have a problem with this new medicalized article I donot understnad what the problem is i think it is more informational and less speculative. Also I have a question to Sandy, How can this be linked in a more encyclopedic tone? Natche24 00:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It is linked in a rather unfortunate paragraph that is free of citations... :\ RN 00:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

:-) What he said :-) Also, reads like a thinly-disguised advert. Sandy 00:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I found a source for the unsourced paragraph that was free of citations. Please check it out. Autistic CultureNatche24 01:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice, Natche!! (But did I miss the mention of Wrong Planet in that article - I didn't see it?) That article would support a statement like, Internet sites ~~such as Wrong Planet~~ have made it ~~very easy~~easier for ~~thousands of~~ individuals to connect with each other. [66] The insertion of a specific reference to Wrong Planet is where the thinly-veiled, unencyclopedic advert comes in. References to one particular group -- when there are so many others -- is out of place in an encyclopedia, unless there is a reliable source somewhere which specifically singles out Wrong Planet as in that specific quote. Sandy 01:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Back to the original objection, since Rdos and his friends are arguing that the article is dry and doesn't cover the "moving away from a disease" aspect, again, someone should write that content, using reliable sources. I am quite sure they are out there. Sandy 01:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Planet has 5000+ members (no telling how many of those members are actually active members). Four of them, instigated by Rdos, don't like the new article. hmmmm .... But, regardless if it's 4 or 400, the solution is to write the missing content from referenced sources. Sandy 14:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Restoring neutrality

Rdos, what do the others at wrongplanet think is missing? If you mention what everyone thinks is missing, we will work to include it. --Dubhagan 02:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You can ask them. --Rdos 12:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This is really amazing. May I suggest that User:Zeraeph and User:70.115.211.122 present the evidences of my activities on this article? It is various users that have been changing the content of the article towards the view in the autistic community. I basically had no part in this. When I moved causes and therapies to separate articles I didn't add anything. I just reorganized the material. OTOH, Sandy and several other people have made extensive damage to this article, more or less rewriting it from medical sources and totally ignoring the autistic community. I suppose I would be happy with this if the neutrality of the article had been preserved while making it more encyclopedic, but this is not the case. --Rdos 07:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

"Sandy and several other people have made extensive damage to this article, more or less rewriting it from medical sources and totally ignoring the autistic community."

THAT right there, in an nutshell, encompasses my problems with you Rdos. In that single sentence you have two of the most prominent examples of my problems with you.

FIrst, your repeatedly use "medical community" as a stand in for "SCIENCE" as though they are interchangeable. Why? As we see, it's because in doing so you can then denounce all SCIENCE based studies as medical viewpoints. The next step, denouncing the SCIENTIFIC METHOD is easily accomplished, as it is the main method of the medical viewpoint you like to denounce.

However, this is... disingenuous. Psychological studies adhere to scientific method, but ARE NOT the "medical" viewpoint. Nor are sociological studies, nor evolutionary biology studies, etc. It is their adherence to scientific method that you object to, and it's obvious why. Your "non-medical" viewpoint refuses to adhere to scientific method as a rule, so reputable information from such studies is hard to come by. Of course, said alternative views COULD be tested in repeatable, verifiable, studies, but generally are not.

Second, and this is one that should be obvious even to you, you ARE NOT the "autistic community" as if such a thing existed in the first place. As in the previous example, you are being intentionally disingenuous. The "autistic community" you claim to advocate for is non-existent, as much so as "blacks" or "jews". They have MANY different ideas about many different things. What you should be saying is "my single individual idea about what is important to me that realtes to autism" and no more. The arrogance to claim to speak for an entire "community" is infuriating.70.115.211.122 06:30, 17 July 2006 (UTC)STILLtired of Rdos

Now see there is ANOTHER thing you and Sandy have in common, you never answer reasonable questions just plow right ahead.

Hey, Zeraeph, I believe this is my third or fourth request: can you provide an example of a worthy article that is not included in DMOZ? I would like to understand what is going on in the AS category on DMOZ, considering some issues I've seen in the past in the TS category (which are different than what you mention.) Thanks in advance, Sandy 14:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe I already explained to you why that is completely irrelevant to the reasons why a DMOZ category edited by a single, notoriously biased and agenda driven editor is not an acceptable substitute for an "External links" section in a Wikipedia article that is supposed to be NPOV? What part of that are you having trouble understanding?

Personally I am having a LOT of trouble understanding:

a)Why you dismiss everything you didn't initiate by calling it "unencyclopaedic", and yet refuse to explain your personal definition of "encyclopaedic" (figuring out how come a links page under the sole control of a biased and agenda driven editor is an "encylopaedic" substitute for a few links under the, usually effectively impartial, control of the entire community of Wikipedia is only ONE of the aspects of your perception of "encyclopaedic" I have problems grasping).

b)Why you freak out unless you have total control of this Wikipedia article, AND YET are quite comfortable with a DMOZ category under dysfunctional control that you have no control over whatsoever?

Incidentally, if you have another, REAL reason for wanting to see links omitted from the DMOZ category, I believe a few have been left on the article, which you would know already if you had bothered to READ the talk page instead of just scanning it for personal insubordination to quell. --Zeraeph 15:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me you keep insisting there was once an RDos approved utopian version of this article and Sandy keeps insisting there was once an RDos desecrated unspeakable version of this article, with limited time and a slow connection I just took your words for it...so sue me.

Now if you feel like breaking the mould and answering a question properly, perhaps you could specify exactly where the neutrality is compromised, or what needs to be added to restore your perception of neutrality, or even a version of the article that in your opinion, preserves neutrality so we can figure out the difference for ourselves and put it right. --Zeraeph 12:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The section titled Cultural and Socialogical Aspect touches on the shift in view, and that section has a main article link to the Autistic Culture page. Though if there is something missing, let us know. If there is something in an earlier version that got left out, provide a link to that version, and if there is a website or two (or more) out there that talks about it, provide them. I'll do some digging into it myself after the weekend, as I don't have the time during the weekend. --Dubhagan 08:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I hardly think the autistic perspective is only applicable to "Cultural and Socialogical Aspect". Some time ago, Sandy wanted to use an older version of the article because it was not "cluttered" by "original research" from the autistic community. I'd say I'd rather use a month-or-so old version, as it has not been excessively cluttered by disease-thinking. NPOV is not created by adding a small section to an article. It has to be integrated into the whole. I tried to NPOV the causes section, but it was reverted. --Rdos 12:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Some time ago, Sandy wanted to use an older version of the article because it was not "cluttered" by "original research" from the autistic community. While it's possible I may have said this, I don't recall saying it, and if I did, my comment was misunderstood. I have not seen any past version of this article that meets current Featured Article standards. If you decide to revert to an older version, it will still not meet standards and will need to be referenced. The only version of the AS article that has ever been referenced is the current one, and the decision on FAR has been to hold older FAs to current standards.

Once again, I want to point out that a referenced article is not incompatible with a non-disease-oriented view of the condition. The information needed to present all sides of the story is out there, from reliable sources. Rather than tearing down what is here, focus on building up what is missing. It's out there, and can be referenced, if efforts are focused on finding it rather than arguing. Sandy 14:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No Rdos, I am afraid I do not equate "getting rid of Sandy" with achieving neutrality, any more than I equate "getting rid of RDos" with achieving featured article status. What I want you to show us is SPECIFICALLY either, what needs to be added to the article to achieve your perception of neutrality, OR, if you can't be bothered to do that, post the link to a single version you are happy with so we can play "spot the difference" for ourselves.

It has to be done this way because there is an immense amount of work in the citations alone and it is far easier to re-add material to the existing version than to try and add all the citations to "any version, at random, that doesn't have a contribution from Sandy" (your brief I believe?).

It will also have the benefit of showing us all what you feel is wrong now, which I would have thought would be to your advantage? --Zeraeph 13:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You all don't need to argue over "getting rid of Sandy" :-) You have gotten rid of me :-) I can see that my contributions were not welcome, perhaps some editors here were not concerned with maintaining FA status, perhaps my efforts to help you keep FA status were misguided, and I will add suggestions and watch the FAR, but the article is yours. I do believe that Zeraeph is on the right track (above): build and re-add, by referencing content, rather than destroying referenced content. Do not blank Causes: after giving the gist of what is known, expand from there, by adding referenced content. Sandy 14:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you were blanking the causes section. There is research going into causes, and that should be mentioned. Anyway, I'll repeat, if there is something specific you think should be added, then let us know. --Dubhagan 13:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, as a person with AS, I don't see this article as focusing on it being a disease. All I see this article focusing on is mostly how it affects the individuals who have it, I don't see it being negative. I can't see what info that is currently there can be proven wrong. Sure, the shift in view could be expanded upon, but at the same time, views of AS are ever changing as new things are still being discovered about AS, so it might be a little hard to keep track. Plus, there is still a medical aspect to AS that can't be denied. --Dubhagan 13:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think at least the causes section is now acceptable, and NPOV. The same thing should be done in the treatment section. It suffers from exactly the same problem. There is no mention that many people in the autistic community does not regard "treatments" as necesary, and at least are against curing autism. This isn't mentioned, and should easily be able to be referenced. Ideally, the treatment section should be of similar length as the causes section. --Rdos 17:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No, right now, it is not comprehensive, which is an FA criterion. It leaves out substantial medical knowledge on the topic, as well as a thorough discussion of ongoing areas of investigation. Sandy 17:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Which isn't comprehensive? The causes section? It would be possible to expand, but if this is done it should be expanded with more than medical "knowledge". --Rdos 18:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Right now, neither is comprehensive, but Causes raises more eyebrows than Treatment. (For example, I can go to any number of websites and find far more information on treatment: this article barely scratches the surface.) You can expand with any information referenced from Reliable Sources, but Wiki spells out in various places (I think WP:RS?) that peer-reviewed, medical sources are much better than individual websites, self-published books, or non-peer-reviewed books. Other editors have already expressed concern about the references being used in the article, and PMID numbers will help deflect that criticism. I don't know the AS research inside and out, but I really believe if someone can go to a library and get hold of the book I mentioned above, you'll be able to find the balanced information you seek, which doesn't focus on a "disease" or "disorder-oriented" approach. You can also just try searching Google scholar. HTH, Sandy 19:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but don't forget, those sections have main article links, so they don't need to go in the great detail you seem to be preaching. How much more detail can you go into with the Causes section anyway, there is no known cause but several ideas are being researched, which is what it says. There really is nothing more to be said on the Causes section, ESPECIALLY with a main article link. As for Treatments, it touches on the common treatments and that it is a controversial subject. With a main article link, what else needs to be said? --Dubhagan 05:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There is some known information. A link to a daughter article doesn't substitute for a summary of the info in the daughter article, or a basic overview of Causes. For instance, twin and other studies have shown there are genetic factors. The section which was blanked discussed this information. Even if an article branches to daughter articles, the main article needs to provide a summary/overview. If the NIH summary was not to everyone's liking, there are general summaries like it on several other websites, detailing what is known and what is being investigated. Sandy 05:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

oops, sorry, forgot to answer the second part of your question. I think Treatment could squeak by FA, even though it's not comprehensive right now. At least it says something, even though there is so much more that could be said. I understand if you all don't want to add treatment information that is sought by many parents of children with AS: at least there is a shell of basic info there now. Sandy 05:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The main problem I have with doing the detail like we had for twin studies in Causes is that there are many causes being researched so that section would risk saying too much. I'll look into more research being done on causes starting Tuesday, as I am busy until then. Maybe list each cause that is being researched, with a small summary of what the study actually entails, but more than that will make the section too long. As for Treatments, the treatments listed are the treatments being sought. Though the controversy surrounding it could go into more detail. --Dubhagan 05:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Dubhagan, if you are going to go to so much trouble, why not do it in as much detail as you need to, put it all into Causes of autism then use the section to synopsise that article (like a "lead in" if you like) and also highlight any differences between the causes of autism and AS you might discover? (For instance I don't think the "refrigerator mother" theory was ever applied specifically to AS if simply for cultural reasons - but don't take my word for it cos I'm not sure.)--Zeraeph 10:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you also looked at Heritability of autism which has loads of online citations that link from text and need formatting properly (hint, hint ;o) anyone?). Can't help the feeling that should be streamlined and merged with Causes of autism at some stage? --Zeraeph 11:35, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, Causes of autism already goes into that detail. I was actually saying that we shouldn't be going into a lot of detail because that section links to that article, it should basically be a brief summary of the related article, which I am going to attempt to do. --Dubhagan 23:15, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

enough with the flame war! Were getting nothing done. Lets start over! So lets just reslove this dispute and not a flame war and we don't have to go to the lets just talk about this:

Does anyone have an idea to make both sides argee on a soultion so that there is both more about aspie culture and that is scientfially accurate.--Scott3 01:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, define "encyclopaedic tone"

You keep dismissing things as "having an unencyclopaedic tone" so, I am asking you to explain what you mean by that and give your definition of "encyclopaedic tone". This is a perfectly reasonable question. --Zeraeph 02:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I answered above: please let me know which part about content referenced from reliable sources, no advertisements, no original research, notability, etc., I should explain better. You can find it all in Wiki policies and guidelines. Sandy 15:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't get how ANYONE can constantly hide behind a phrase like "encyclopaedic in tone" (and variations) without having an alternative personal explanation of exactly what THEY mean, in real terms, when they use it as you apparently can't. --Zeraeph 15:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me break up the explanation above by points, to see if it becomes more clear:

Per Wiki policy, referenced from reliable sources.

Per Wiki policy, no advertisements.

Per Wiki policy, no original research.

Per Wiki policy, meets notability criteria.

There is more, as explained on Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, but I hope that answers your question sufficiently. The paragraph in question (about Wrong Planet) was not referenced, was about an entry that had not established notability, and appeared as an advertisement for an individual website. It has subsequently been re-written by other editors. Please let me know if I can further clarify. Sandy 15:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere NEAR answering my question, I didn't ask "How do you excuse and/or justify using the phrase "encyclopaedic tone", what I asked was:

What do YOU, personally, mean, when you use the phrase "encyclopaedic tone"? What meaning is actually in your head?

...and if you really don't have a specific answer (rather than excuse or justification) for that, perhaps you should consider specifying what you object to instead of hiding behing a generic "catch all" in future?

As for "Wrong Planet", it self references. It was established (on the day of it's inception) as a site created for Aspies, by Aspies, ergo it is relevant to this "Asperger Syndrome" article WHATEVER, the fact that there is a Wikipedia article about the site, REGARDLESS of the quality, as long as that article exists, gives the internal link priority...if you feel the Wrong Planet article does not meet WP:NN then it is your right, and even your DUTY to RFD, and if you succeed then OF COURSE the internal link must be deleted, because a red link looks silly..--Zeraeph 17:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Planet self-references now, because it was referenced after I raised the problem, and after I tagged it as needing references. [2] When I raised the objection about unencylopedic tone (a dead horse you've been beating for quite a while now), Wrong Planet was not referenced. Sandy 18:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand the expression "self referenced" do you? Why in the world didn't you ask?

"Self referenced" means that it references itself by it's very nature...Wrong Planet does be *being* a resource created by Aspies to enable interaction. Your objections were totally irrelevant to that. --Zeraeph 23:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

...and you will find all of this on the pages you have listed above.--Zeraeph 17:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:MoS - "encyclopaedic tone" it basically needs to be in a formal tone of an encyclopedia... RN 17:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting RN, truly it is, and relevant (though it is, of course, useless without full interpretation of "the formal tone of an encyclopaedia" in terms of each specific context) but it doesn't tell us any more about what Sandy actually means when she uses the phrase instead of explaining what she thinks should be done and why...--Zeraeph 17:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I used the phrase with respect to Wrong Planet, and I have explained the reasons over and over. The paragraph was long ago changed to reflect my concerns, so you might let go of this now. Sandy 18:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Now hold it RIGHT THERE, you mentioned Wrong Planet not me, I just want to know what you actually mean, generically, when you dismiss something as "unencyclopaedic in tone" instead of specifying your objections so that others may discuss (and perhaps debunk) them? --Zeraeph 19:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, Zeraeph, it appears that no answer I give will satisfy you. I said the paragraph about Wrong Planet was unencyclopedic: I've explained why many times. If I say something is unencyclopedic in the future, it will mean the same thing it meant when I said it about the Wrong Planet paragraph. So as not to disrupt the amount of work that needs to be done on this article, I will stop responding to this particular item. Over and out, Sandy 19:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

So, whenever you use the word "unencyclopaedic" it will mean you want your own way and don't have a real reason to offer?

I knew that...--Zeraeph 23:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Category of William Freund

Should it be in Category:Autistic people? The article only says "He was a computer expert who, according to his employer, kept to himself and severely lacked social skills." while List of people from Orange County, California says he was an "autistic murderer". Apokrif 18:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Wrong Planet, yes. Sandy 18:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I would like to make changes to the artical. How many people do I need to get to make sure my changes can not be removed by the current NT maintainers?—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 65.143.98.85 (talk • contribs).

It doesn't work that way (for one thing I have no idea whether or not there actually ARE any "NT Maintainers"). You can make any change you like and, as long as you can show reputable, published references to support it, nobody will have any right or reason to remove it. --Zeraeph 21:44, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

In-line comments: Request for additions and various cleanup

I found several in-line comments which would be better addressed in the talk page. They did not seem to be warnings or comments, but rather suggestions on improving the piece. I've italicized the commented portions with appropriate article inclusions for context:

--The lead is too short, since it lost a paragraph: it was 3 paragraphs, containing a summary of causes and treatment, necessary for comprehensive summary of the article. See WP:LEAD for guidance.--

CHARACTERISTICS

AS is characterized by:^[1]^[2] --This list is not explored in the subsequent text. For example, according to the Table of Contents, where does the reader find "repetitive behaviors or rituals"?--

Other features are commonly associated with this syndrome, but are not always regarded as necessary for diagnosis. --What "other features"? Why is there no discussion of the characteristics from the DSM, glossing over that and going straight to Attwood and Gillberg? If the article ignores the DSM, it is not comprehensive.--

CAUSES

The cause of AS is unknown, but since it was properly defined --What does "properly defined" mean? Try to fix the vagueness here. The sentence also has prose problems: it refers back to cause: was cause "properly defined" or was AS? Causes have not been adequately discussed in this article. No mention of information that is known based on twin studies, etc., and all possible causes are given equal weight, even though some of these may only be environmental contributing factors. No mention of genetic/environmental interplay: section needs to be thorough and comprehensive, and cannot rely on a problematic daughter article with multiple tags.-- several possible causes of AS have been investigated by researchers.

Still somewhat hard to read, but the dashes will help in differentiating the comments and article text. --Keyne 13:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

FARC

Just to remind you all that AS moved to FARC. Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome. Sandy 21:29, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Aren't you a tad involved/biased to offer a proper critique? As written, it has quite a bit of language that would seem to indicate displeasure with other editors not conforming to your vision. --Keyne 23:26, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

If you have a problem with Sandy's view and vote, which is neutral, but is apt to change based on our edits by the end of the review period. Why don't you add your own critique. Do not forget to vote on whether or not to keep or remove from featured status.Natche24 23:50, 17 July 2006 (UTC)

Excellent response :-) And yes, I do have a bias: I am biased in favor of a comprehensive, referenced article from the highest quality reliable sources, and against original research. Nonetheless, I have never lost faith in the editors here, and I continue to believe this article can come through. Sandy 00:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't take any offense. I'm trying to figure out this process as I go along, and it isn't quite as intuitive as I'd thought. I'll refrain from FARC commenting though, as I definately do not have anywhere near enough experience in editing articles to provide a proper commentation. --Keyne 02:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

ah, I see ... Let me try to clarify: anyone can comment on a FARC. (Well, if a rash of new editors sign up because Rdos soliticed outside help, those kinds of votes are typically discounted, simply by mentioning that the editor just registered: in that case, the admin closing the vote typically discounts those votes. You've had a Wiki account for several months, so you are entitled to vote on the FARC.) I'm just another editor, no different than you. Regardless of what happens with *this* FARC, it should be instructive for future editors, to highlight problems, and to help this stay the best article possible. Also, in case you don't know the criteria for a featured article, you can find them at WP:FA: they are 1 - 5, and you'll see people on the FARC referring to those specific criteria (for example, 2a is prose, 2d is NPOV, etc - my numbered list addresses specific criteria for a FA). WP:FAR is for reviewing featured articles to make sure they still meet the criteria: since I'm active there, I can't hold a double standard for this article. The article was on track to NOT have to go through FARC, because of all the work done, until Rdos raised a POV issue. Sandy 02:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, here is What is a featured article? Sandy 02:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, quite frankly, I'd rather see the current article removed from WP:FA if it is not changed to incorporate / reflect prevailing attitudes in the autistic community. Attitudes are not original research. They are just attitudes held by a large group of autistic people. Also, I can tell you that parents with autistic children are also part of the autistic community. It is mostly a small minority of highly vocal curebees that wants their view of autism as a horrible disorder retained in the name of "peer-review". The article would do far less damage tagged with various tags than left featured and hopelessly biased. --Rdos 09:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Whether the article should lose its star is up for a community vote: you may prefer original research over a featured quality article, but everyone has a say. In case you are referring to me, I don't know what you mean by the word "curebee", but I'm not one. And, it doesn't appear you are in a position to know who the "majority" is or what it wants. The article can end up tagged if you prevail: people are less likely to read a tagged article, so it seems that you are advocating for willfully harming the article and Wikipedia. Attitudes *are* original research if they are not backed by primary sources. Sandy 12:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I was talking about the majority with an AS diagnosis or professionals in the field. I view autistics as experts in this field, along with professional researchers. I also know the autistic community pretty well, and their viewpoints. I also know several major sites like AFF have made their own wiki, probably in protest for the bad article here. I don't want to harm the article here. I want it to be acceptable to autistics at large, which it currently isn't. I could do a poll at wrongplanet to see their view on it if you don't believe it is not acceptable to autistics at large. --Rdos 12:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Find some good sources, then! Remember WP:NOT, as well. --Keyne 10:18, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I did below. However, Sandy and the rest of the medical-camp with no doubt complain that these stories are not indexed by MEDLINE. They are however written by professionals. --Rdos 11:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm no longer editing the article, since I don't appreciate being singled out outside of the Wiki community by a message board post. It is your article: take your star or leave it, I'm only trying to provide guidance as to what typically is considered on FAR. I will not remove anything that is referenced from reliable sources, and you should not blank sections that are also referenced. I think a strong case can be made that you are bordering on intentionally disrupting Wikipedia to make a point and to insert original research. Sandy 12:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If you are really "no longer editing" the article, you shouldn't be removing anything. I also fail to see why you are telling other editors what to do.

I am genuinely concerned by the extent to which you are trying to dominate the direction (and fate) of this article, it contravenes the letter and spirit of Wikipedia:Consensus, and I also cannot help wondering whether it is healthy for anyone involved, including you. --Zeraeph 13:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You are overlooking the consensus that occurred all along the way by editors who haven't checked in during the last few days. I haven't edited the article for quite a while: that doesn't mean my hands are tied forever, or that I give up the future right to remove speculative, unreferenced content. Sandy 17:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There cannot be a blind consensus of anyone on something they haven't seen because they haven't checked in to see it. You have every right, of course, to edit the article, but if you are going to, I would personally prefer it if you did not make misleading statements like "I am no longer editing this article" particularly as you last edited it just over 48 hours ago (not my idea of "quite a while" but that's subjective) to leave detailed in-line notes as to what other editors must and must not do. --Zeraeph 17:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, would you see any possible way to have this article conform to the FA standards whilst presenting the appropriate balance? Surely the sterile medical viewpoint is not the only one that exists on this topic, and unfortunately that counter-viewpoint is not something that has been overly peer-reviewed (if at all) per the stringent FA source requirements. How would one present this when the only extraordinarily reliable sources push the opposing view (and would not consider the alternative)? There really must be some way to do this and keep FA (which is actually shaky without said counterpoint). --Keyne 12:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's entirely possible. Why don't we do this, since some here are objecting to my edits. Pick a subtopic of the article that is currently problematic, put it in a sandbox, and let't work on it there together. A small enough topic just to serve as an example. I'll edit as well, and we'll prove to ourselves it can be done. I've been involved for much too long with too many families with AS to believe the research you seek is not out there: I firmly believe that those complaining about POV simply aren't digging up the research. Further, if things are phrased correctly, they don't need to be backed by PMID sources (even though I believe they probably can -- look at the examples Rdos found.) Sandy 17:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't exactly "find them". They are part of the "anti-psychiatry" section of the Neanderthal theory. I found them some years ago. I got the interview link from a guy at wrongplanet. There should be newer examples, but I don't know them because I haven't bothered so much about refuting medical models of AS lately. They are so stupid that they don't really need refuting. By the way, Baron-Cohen's "extreme maleness" model probably should be there. Not that I like it a lot but anyway. --Rdos 17:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, it is my impression that this whole review ordeal was started by a single individual that has now been blocked from editing at least twice. The review seems to have come in handy for a few individuals with a POV to push. --Rdos 09:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

With as many times as you've had material deleted from Wiki, I'm not sure you're in a position to point fingers at other editors. In the time I've been working on this article, it has not been my impression that your views enjoy widespread consensus here. I don't know anything about the person who nominated this article for FAR, but if s/he hadn't done it, I would have done it eventually. I am working my way through the entire list of older medical FAs, and I would have gotten to this one eventually anyway. It did not meet current FA standards, period. Sandy 12:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You shouldn't have this or the Tourette syndrome article on your medical FA list. This seems to be the essence of the problem here. --Rdos 12:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

We cannot ignore that this (as well as Tourettes) is proper in a (neuropsychological) medical sense, Rdos. --Keyne 12:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

So, at the risk of repeating myself, why not seperate Asperger syndrome and Asperger syndrome (clinical) or Asperger syndrome (medical)? Seems to me making that distinction would solve the whole problem? --Zeraeph 12:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Should this be put in the article

I found see also list form an early version of the article. I'm not sure why it was taken out but think this gave some good links to wikipedia articles.

Should this list be put back in the article if not can you explain why it was taken out.--Scott3 00:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally I haven't got a clue why it has been excluded, except for the TV shows and films part which is too speculative and ill defined to really inform anyone of anything, I think it should go back myself --Zeraeph 01:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok I'll put it back in expect for the TV section.--Scott3 01:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Have you read the talk page? It is covered above. I'm no longer editing, but please don't undo the hard work of others. Sandy 01:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please read WP:NOT, WP:EL, and while we're on the topic of things that need to be fixed, WP:LEAD. Wiki is not google, and this will raise objections of a "link farm". Sandy 01:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong topic: See also which are referenced in the text are not used in See also. See also is now repeating articles used in text. It is also silly to delete Special Ed as a category, when autism is one of the largest special ed categories in schools. This is a POV delete, ignoring the reality of school accommodations for children with autism. Sandy 01:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Can I please have a source for Asperger Syndrome (the topic of the article) as "one of the largest special ed categories in schools"? --Zeraeph 09:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Not from me ... I'm not the one adding the category, or who added the category, and talk page comments don't need to be sourced. Material added to an article needs to be sourced. If another editor later re-adds the category, you can certainly ask them for a source. I'm not a fan of the whole IDEA/504 legislative mess in the USA, and I'm not going to spend my time researching someone else's edit. Has anyone checked what else is included in the Special Ed category? My point was to not read too much into a category, which is an internal classification to help other Wiki editors. When it was first deleted, I spent a wee amount of time trying to decipher who had added it, but I couldn't find it in edit history, so I'm not inclined to worry about it. My other point was that, should that editor re-insert it, you should be prepared to back up your deletion. It's not a concern to me, but you all may be dealing with it in the future, if it gets re-added. More importantly, there's a lot of work to be done on the article, and spending time on a category that may or may not ever be re-added here by an unidentified editor may not be the most productive use of time. Sandy 12:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd want to see this as well. I'd argue that many special-ed accomodations are done out of ignorance and lack of flexibility in schools. This is yet another sign of intolerance. --Rdos 11:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I wouldn't even go that far Rdos...I haven't got a clue how many Aspies ARE actually in special ed, the figure might be smaller than you think (focussed attention can mean that, because most of the special ed cases you hear about ARE Aspies, it feels as though most are Aspies overall, when in fact very few are), but I don't think, in this environment where citations are demanded for everything, anyone should sling out a statement like that without both verifying it, and making it a little more specifically relevant. Because I honestly don't think the number of Autistics (a very broad category) in special ed is particularly relevant to the relevance of special ed to Aspies? --Zeraeph 11:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. It seems like peer-reviewed research is only required for things that the medical people don't like. As soon as it is some medical aspect, be it special-ed, racial prevalence, some obscure speculative cause or threatment, the mere mention somewhere is enough to make it stick here. --Rdos 12:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd argue that the inclusion would push POV more than having without. It's quite possible that I'm misunderstanding the purpose or use of Categories, however. Regardless, would not the "Treatment" section cover both adolescents and adults properly? It certainly seems more comprehensive. --Keyne 02:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for fixing the See also: whew, didn't want to see a new problem crop up, that another editor might notice on FAR. On the special ed category, who knows who added it and how long ago, so I'm not going to worry about it, but if that person puts it back, I don't think a reasonable argument can be made to delete it. Autism makes up a very big chunk of Special Ed. A category is just a place to group topics that other editors may want to see when looking at a particular topic: I view it as more of an "internal" function. For example, if there were a new special ed law, the people keeping up with that might need to know what articles might need to be updated, or something to that effect. Not following your treatment question? Sandy 02:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's not insert links that already exist within the article into a "See also" list. It seems "messy" that way. --Keyne 01:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandy,what are you talking about I just thought that would be a good "See also". This not a debate of your edit or anything. I just looking back at previous edits to see there might of been some good info that got accdiently lift out of a previous version and I found this.--Scott3 02:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It was all discussed on past talk page entries (possibly now in archives). Also, some See alsos are in the template at the bottom of the page. I had done a new template, which incorporated everything in the current template as well as all of the See alsos, but others decided they didn't want it. It was all discussed on talk page, including external links and See alsos. Please try to review the history before making changes, at a time that the article is under review. Sandy 02:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm looking at the archives right now. I'm not trying to do anyones work.--Scott3 02:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this what your refering too?Archive 03 Joe male of Aspies for Freedom--Scott3 02:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The current "See Also" links seem quite slanted towards the anti-cure movement. Would anyone with more knowledge care to balance it out a bit? I know not everyone wants a "cure" however, it would be good to include for balance. --Keyne 02:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You can please add some pro-cure links to balance POV--Scott3 02:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Huh? The links are not anti-cure. None of the major autistic community sites have links. The links seems to favor the pro-disorder-view, just like the whole article does. --Rdos 09:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the balancing articles exist: it seems that pretty much all the Wiki articles have the same bent, which is to overlook medical knowledge. As far as I've been able to tell, the "medical establishment" story of autism isn't addressed on Wiki. (You call it anti-cure. I'm wondering why people associate "treatment" with "cure"? Children who benefit from certain therapies or accommodations are not being "cured": treatment does not equal medication or something drastic like deep brain stimulation.) What I had done (and RN had talked about re-doing) was a new template that included everything. I don't know where that got left ... I had it speedy deleted when it was decided not to use it. Sandy 02:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you saying that wikipedia is biased towards medical knowladge?--Scott3 02:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No. Sandy 12:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

In a nutshell, yes, WP should be, as medical standpoints are very verifiable, whereas lesser pushes are not. In practice, though, people tend to push POV. --Keyne 02:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The basic idea is that some wish to "cure" Autism (and related subsections) whereas others simply want an easier time as they are (therapies/accomodations). It's a bit much for this talk page, though, but you are correct: the medical community is primarily interested in furthering a nullication of the "adverse" affects ASDs have, so much research into "positive" methods (enhancement, rather than removal, as a goal) is not and probably will not see the light of day. I believe on WP, you'd call it "OR," then. --Keyne 02:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, that is not the basic idea. Perhaps you cannot see that many people in the autistic community think that autism mostly can be characterized as "neurodiversity", because most traces of this have been removed? --Rdos 10:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You're preaching to the choir, Rdos. If I didn't acknowledge that, the sterile medical version is what I would be pushing for as well. Finding good sources for the other, however, is very difficult. --Keyne 10:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

A useful interview?

[3]

Among other things, it talks about asortative mating between autistics. The professional claims there is a 4:1 relation between same type parent and mixed-type parent. It also potentially contains sources for other claims that the medical-people have removed. --Rdos 10:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's controversial material, from a non-peer-reviewed source. Material like that can be added as long as it is not given undue weight: that is, the context of the material should be presented, and not presented as medically-accepted fact. And, the same can be said about material from medically-reviewed sources: just because something can be found in PubMed, doesn't make it "fact" -- there can be newer, conflicting or refuting research, or the study could suffer from methodological problems. That's why I suggest going to a larger medical tome (such as the handbook above), because it likely analyzes all of the past research, including what has been refuted or replicated. Even medically-referenced statements must be put in context. For example, "a prospective, blinded, controlled study on a large sample, replicated by two subsequent studies concluded that ... " is very different from "a retrospective, non-blinded, unreplicated look at a small sample of patients found that ... " Sandy 12:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Reliable sources

I think Sandy have largely misunderstood the WP:RS policy. It does not say that this article should exclusively be referenced from PMID.

I have never said it should be referenced "exclusively" from PMID. I have pointed out that PMID sources are the strongest for medical articles, and that current FA medical articles are laregely referenced from PMID sources. The article is currently referenced, which is far better than a few weeks ago. There is a question about the strength of the references, and this has been noted in other places by other editors. The better your references, the stronger the article, the more likely to retain FA. PLEASE take note that this article had satisfied most of the commentators on FAR on July 9, and it was not headed to FARC until you raised POV. The article had been referenced. Now, the article is undergoing FARC review, and the quality of the references is part of that review. Wikipedia asks that articles be referenced. FA examines the quality of the references: FA is supposed to represent "our best work". Sandy 13:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Not my fault. If the referencing had been done without biasing the article I'd never had to question it's NPOV. Besides, once again, this article should *not* be a medical-only article, but a balanced article that will leave readers with a correct impression of AS. It currently doesn't do that. If this requirement can be met while keeping the featured status, I'd be happy about it. I believe it can be met by leaving out controversial aspects and place them in daughter articles. Neutral summaries can then be provided instead of detailed descriptions of the exact controversies. --Rdos 13:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This is an excerpt: "There is sometimes no single prevailing view because the available evidence does not yet point to a single answer. Because Wikipedia not only aims to be accurate, but also useful, it tries to explain the theories and empirical justification for each school of thought, with reference to published sources. Editors must not, however, create arguments themselves in favor of, or against, any particular theory or position. See Wikipedia:No original research, which is policy. Although significant-minority views are welcome in Wikipedia, the views of tiny minorities need not be reported. (See Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View.)

Make readers aware of any uncertainty or controversy. A well-referenced article will point to specific journal articles or specific theories proposed by specific researchers."

This has a lot to do with the current state of affairs.

1. The view held by the autistic community is probably a majority view among autistics, but at least it is a minority view among those that can be viewed as experts in this field. It therefore should be part of the article for POV-reasons.

2. Controversial topics are not pointed out. For instance, the summary of causes and therapies are not noted as controversial.

3. Non-PMID theories are left out. The neurodiversity view, held by the majority of the autistic community, and some professionals is not presented.

Excerpt from "popular culture": "Articles related to popular culture and fiction must be backed up by reliable sources like all other articles. However, due to the subject matter, many may not be discussed in the same academic contexts as science, law, philosophy and so on. Personal websites, wikis, and posts on bulletin boards, Usenet and blogs should still not be used as secondary sources."

IOW, cultural aspects of AS does not need to backed up by PMID or peer-reviewed research. --Rdos 11:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

One thing I am absolutely certain of is that there is no need for citations to be PMID, here, or anywhere on Wikipedia! Aspergers, like all forms of Autism, also has educational and cultural aspects that cannot realistically be sourced from PMID by any reasonable standards. I also feel that self-published sources should be avoided in most cases...these, however, would seem a valid exception:

That is, they should not be used as sources of information about a person or topic other than the owner of the website, or author of the book. AS as specifically experienced (be careful with this one, it lets some things in, like personal experience, but rules others out, like abstract speculation) by a diagnosed Aspie?

Were they actually there? Be careful to distinguish between descriptions of events by eyewitnesses and by commentators. The former are primary sources; the latter secondary. Both can be reliable. eg AS culture as witnessed by individuals.

I am beginning to wonder if there might be a case for dividing this article into Asperger Syndrome and Asperger Syndrome(clinical), because there is a case (though not neccesarily a clear cut one) to be made for seeing the two as different topics, it's way over recommended article length ANYWAY.--Zeraeph 12:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That is how/why "sociological and cultural aspects" typically get divided into a separate article, which becomes the more interesting one :-) By doing that, you can include info from non-medical sources more easily. Several Wiki physicians encouraged me to separate the info in Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome, to strengthen the main article. Now, we all know that the "TS community" cares more about the info that was split out: they can find it all in one place, and refer to it often :-) And, every time someone wants to speculate about whether George W. Bush has Tourette's, vandalism can occur in the daughter article rather than the main article. The main article has to provide comprehensive coverage of the medical basics, known info, and areas of investigation: the more interesting info can be found in daughter articles.

Article length is still fine: remember, reviewers look at prose size, not overall size (which is an older, technical limitation). I will run a current prose size check and post it here. Prose size becomes a problem when it passes 50KB. Sandy 13:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Then, this would be a "good thing" for all interested parties. The Medical nature would be preserved in the "clinical" version, and as long as a mention to the "cultural/controversy" (etc) article would be included, would there be any significant problem? Really, I think that's primarily the only thing that is holding the article back. --Keyne 13:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

My *opinion* (for what it's worth, since I'm not the only one voting :-) is that, in the event you all decide you're interesting in keeping FA status, that is your only option: keep what was there after Tony's copyedit, and build upon it, within the article, and by creating daughter articles. Sandy 17:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Splitting the article

Whatever you all decide, but in my mind, the hardest obstacle to overcome right now is 2b) comprehensive. In the minds of outside reviewers, who may vote, 2d) POV and 2e) stability may take on greater importance, so that's in Rdos' court, since I think he is the only one contributing to those concerns on FAR.

On a technical note, and I really don't know the answer to this, I don't think you can change the name of the article and retain the featured status? I really don't know: I've not seen it done before, since doing that inherently implies the article is not 2e) stable. One way you may get around that (and I'm really not sure on this either), is to include something like a dbalink at the top (disambiguation) which says, this article discusses the clinical view of AS, for <whatever> view, see <name of article> ... Sandy 13:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That shouldn't be a problem...after all, I feel sure you will have a free hand with Asperger syndrome (clinical) (which is best "clinical" or "medical"?), and with your special interest in FA I feel certain you will not have the slightest difficulty in achieving FA status for it at the first opportunity.

The best way seem to be:

create Asperger syndrome (clinical) using the existing text
revert this page to the last featured version
delete all none clinical text from the new Asperger syndrome (clinical) (copy any that seems relevant back here)
start reviewing the medical information here for synopsising and seeing what else needs adding. There are SO many other features of AS that need sourcing and adding it's unreal, like "aversion to children" (fact/fiction/both), gender ambiguity (fact/fiction/both). Misconception debunking...

That way this article can stand or fall in the current FARC in accord with the wishes of the community (I warn you, it will probably fall, but can always re-submit, but are we really that bothered?) and the Asperger syndrome (clinical), which is, essentially, a new article, will have a clean sheet upon which I feel certain it's submission will ultimately be accepted.

HOWZAT??--Zeraeph 13:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

A very good idea. --Rdos 13:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't support that, because of concerns about changing the name of a featured article, which has to be comprehensive, stable, and NPOV. That will create an uncomprehensive (leaving out medical fact), unstable (demonstrated by changing name), and POV article (biased by not including medical consensus) Sandy 13:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Nobody plans to leave out medical hypothesis (no such thing a "medical fact" yet on this) far from it, you synopsis the Asperger syndrome (clinical) article in one plain language section to reference it.

The article will initially be reverted to last reviewed article, which is what earned the featured article status currently under discussion in the first place. This is currently as POV as all get out as a generic AS article (but not as a specifically clinical one) ande if it's curerntly stable, then Gallipolli was a picnic on the beach.

I will go one further and state that I pledge my support for any section of this article presented for FA status under Asperger syndrome (clinical) or similar, because I believe it is warranted, but NOT as Asperger syndrome(generic), because it isn't.--Zeraeph 14:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not support the notion that the main article should be a medical article with non-medical daugther articles. There is already a autism community article, which deals with what happens there, but this is separate from providing balance in a featured article which is floating around everywhere on the Internet. I think we should simply keep to the concept that was practised here before, to put controversial topics in daughter articles. That includes causes, therapies, prevalence / epidemy and similar topics. The main featured article should describe what AS is and shouldn't dwelve into controversial research by anybody. This way it can be both featured, balanced *and* referenced. --Rdos 13:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Same here, I think Asperger Syndrome (medical) should be the daughter article, and Asperger Syndrome should cover all aspects of the phrase in use, NOT just culture and community.

One reason for wanting to do it this way is that people seeking information on Asperger Sydrome most usually need an accessible, readable explaination of what it actually is, not a lot of far less accessible, or relevant (TO THEM) medical information from academic sources, which, of course would have to be linked. --Zeraeph 13:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

See above: I'm really not sure you can change the name and retain your star: it might be good to work this out with a disambiguation link at the top of the current article. And, what would you DBA to? There's no good article out there: every single autism article I've seen is tagged. Sandy 13:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And, what would you DBA to? Obviously, we would have to get to work, either way (they should be fixed up anyhow!). However, I cannot see promoting the clinical side over the cultural dissent or vice versa. It's really two sides of the same coin, if you get my drift and really seems like it should be addressed in completion in the same article. It's cross-relevant. --Keyne 13:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, I see the dilemma. I don't know how long FARC will last, and the admin closing it can sometimes be convinced to leave it open if work is ongoing and progress is demonstrable, so I do hope everyone here will put their heads together, come to consensus, and just get it done. I was previously willing to help with the actual editing, but have decided I'd best leave it alone, considering fingers which have been pointed at me :-) Sandy 13:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Regardless of finger-pointing, the medical nature does need pointing out and fewer of "us" have been willing to doggedly drive that issue home as much as it should (it's somewhat unpopular, as if you couldn't have guessed!). However, we really should find a compromise to complete the integrity (better) of the article/situation :) --Keyne 14:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I still believe it's possible to do it all in this article: I don't think those arguing POV here have spent enough time in the actual research, to find that it is possible to present all sides of the story in this article, using reliable sources. Some recent examples have been uncovered. It can be done; it just can't be written in a speculative tone ("some say ..." "some argue ... " "some think ..." the "autistic community says" ...) that existed in the previous versions. Sandy 14:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There's another factor you all are overlooking here: WP:FA?, criteria 3, about headings and conforming to WikiProjects. RN and I re-oriented the structure of the article so that it would be comprehensive. All of this info needs to be in the featured article. If you split out the basics, you're no longer meeting 3) for FA. Cultural aspects is not what was awarded a star: the featured article must be the comprehensive one, with splits to other sections. Sandy 13:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Even by your own admission this is currently clinical rather than comprehensive, which is why it needs, not "purging" but respectfully moving to a new article with a more appropriate name that neutralises the POV aspect here. I feel sure you will have no problem steering that to FA, but, if you will pardon the pun, the point here is AS, NOT FA.

Let this article here jump off from the last reviewed article and seek to tie together ALL strands of the AS article (and yes, when we all have time I WOULD like to see a "sociological and cultural aspects" article some day) --Zeraeph 14:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Even by your own admission this is currently clinical rather than comprehensive, which is why it needs, not "purging" but respectfully moving to a new article with a more appropriate name that neutralises the POV aspect here. No, I think you can better accomplish it by building on what's here. There is nothing POV about the title: the current title is Asperger syndrome. Changing it to include (clinical) could be viewed as a POV fork, leaving out other aspects. The featured article needs to be comprehensive. And again, if the decision is to lose the star, that's not a problem, it's a choice. I can't "steer" FA: it's a community vote. Sandy 14:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Why change it's name? By purging speculative, biased sections and providing summaries of daughter articles, we pretty much end up with a good primary article. --Rdos 13:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What you are calling speculative and biased is information that enjoys reliable source references and widespread medical consensus. Rdos, everyone here is working their hardest to get the work done: if you are determined to see the article lose its featured status, should we just get on with it, save everyone the work, and vote to remove? Sandy 13:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

...and that is why it needs moving to Asperger syndrome (clinical), a context in which, I feel sure, even Rdos would not call it speculative or biased, as he rightly does here. I repeat, the point of this article is AS, NOT FA. --Zeraeph 14:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Purging isn't the answer. The medical community has just as valid a viewpoint as the "community" in opposition. --Keyne 13:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree. That's why I think your efforts will be better oriented by making this article conform to FA criteria, getting through FARC, and then beginning work on a new article, that will be a disambiguation link at the top. There isn't time to do both at once. Fix this article, then work on the dba link that will eventually be added at the top. Sandy 13:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, lets call it summarizing rather than purging. The current causes section contains detailed information about speculative causes from a medical standpoint. Most of the cites are actually not even causes, but observations done in studies that have not in any way been confirmed to be causative. About the only claim that enjoys some consensus is the genetic nature, although not even that is left undisputed. --Rdos 14:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't had time to look at the article this morning, but last time I checked, Causes said nothing (two sentences). All of your objections can be addressed in Causes: you don't address Causes by saying nothing, and you can't give equal weight to all possible causes, when there is good evidence (strong evidence) for a genetic underpinning with environmental influences. Sandy 14:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, so let me refresh your memory then. It says "The cause of AS is unknown. Since Asperger's Syndrome was officially defined in the DSM-IV, several possible causes of AS have been investigated by researchers. These possible causes include: genetics,[36] epilepsy,[37] folic acid,[38] a serotonin dysfunction,[39] cerebellar dysfunction,[40] an enlarged amygdala and hippocampus,[41]and other brain problems.[42][43][44]". It speculates about epilepsy (a comorbid), folic acid (I have on idea about this cause), serotonin (serotonin is a "status" substance), cerbellar dysfunction (speculative), enlarged brain parts (what is the causative effect?) and various other brain problems, which no doubt have not been proved to be causative either. --Rdos 14:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You're splitting hairs. Everything is currently speculative about the cause of AS, otherwise, there would be no "The cause of AS is unknown." statement prefacing the intro to the list of currently investigated triggers. If there is substantial proof to the contrary for any of the included, then change it for the better. If anything, we should possibly include the frequently speculated causes which have been debunked (like MMR shots/Mercury) in a sort of disclaiming function in either the Causes section or something similar, with appropriate references to that effect. --Keyne 14:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just a reminder. It was *I* that added "The cause of AS is unknown". This was not originally part of the medical list of causes! I'd say it would feel more relevant to add information about MMR and sociological causes of autism than to dwelve into detail about speculative medical causes. --Rdos 14:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The article should contain "good" investigations into causes of AS, Rdos, and that does include "medical causes." Everything is speculative about that section, so please do not attempt to dismiss one speculation for another, especially when one has history of debunking previously understood/"popular" speculative causes. --Keyne 15:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it doesn't contain good investigations. I bet most of it is severely outdated as well as speculative. I'd take another attempt to NPOV it --Rdos 16:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Back to basics. It seems to me that there is a clinical viewpoint on AS, it exists, right, wrong or various, so as far asd I can see it isn't POV to say that a clinical viewpoint, and clinical research, exists in it's own right?

What would be POV is to say whether that clinical viewpoint (or rather, any perspective on it, because some of them conflict too) was right or wrong, or even MORE right or wrong than any other.

It can be argued that AS is a case similar to deafness, where those affected are largely functional and intelligent people, and where it is almost impossible for those not affected to have any easy understanding of it, or perhaps full understanding at all.

Thus there are many more "non-clinical" aspects than clinical ones.

Thus it would be POV to suggest that the clinical aspects of AS are predominant over the others in any sense. It would also be POV to exclude the clinical aspects.

I think that the most important thing is to present ALL aspects of AS as fairly, accurately and effectively as possible. Until all points of contention and conflicts are resolved it is probably best NOT to have FA status. Who wants FA status for an unbalanced and inaccurate article that nobody is happy with anyway?

Perhaps it would be best to have an AS page that synopsies and links all the aspects of AS such as:

THEN request FA status --Zeraeph 15:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree it would be a good alternative if it is impossible to provide a balanced, featured article with all points present. I still think we should try to rework the article to include the neurodiversity aspect. After all, the references I provided before cannot be dismissed as original research. --Rdos 16:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Would you all mind holding the discussion until we fix the premature talk page archive? Ongoing discussions should never be archived: I'd like to fix it, if Zeraeph agrees. Sandy 14:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll respond after the talk page is restored: it's a mess now (no TOC, formatting destroyed, and current, ongoing discussions archived against Wiki recommendations. Let's restore the talk page, archive closed discussions properly, and then continue conversation. Sandy 14:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Allright, with the talk page archive, I sorta lost track of where we are. I think, if you don't want FA, you can do whatever you want. But if you do want FA, the main article must be 2a) well written, 2b) comprehensive, 2c) factual, 2d) neutral and 2e) stable. All of these proposals are moving away from comprehensive and neutral (by splitting content, and according to POV) and into an argument in favor of instability. But again, it's a choice you all can make. If you *do* want FA, time's a wasting. Sandy 16:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I really think we NEED fresh impartial input so I should like to wait and see what fresh and impartial input the RFC generates. --Zeraeph 16:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe I'm too close to the topic, but I can't figure what you're asking in the RFC, so I'm not clear on how others can comment. But I also think it's good to wait for other involved editors to catch up here: there are some allegations of "bulldozing" on the FARC, which are entirely unfounded. Are we overlooking Pokey, Dub, RN, Nande (can't remember how to spell it) and other editors, who haven't checked in to these recent developments, and supported the work that was done? By no means was anything done to this article without consensus, and the statements to that effect on the FARC are simply unfounded. And, since it's been many days since I edited the article, I think the comments are a bit heavy-handed. Sandy 16:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think all of that will be for fresh, impartial, commentators to form their own opinions on, which is why I am seeking them. Incidentally, this was your last edit on the article, 48 hours ago http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asperger_syndrome&oldid=64281368 . --Zeraeph 16:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a misleading representation, since you don't show the diff. My edits of two days ago were to insert comments about areas of the text that needed work, and I didn't touch the text. Prior to that, my last edits were on July 14, around the time Rdos singled me out on a message board. Sandy 17:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No it isn't misleading, however I did use the wrong link, this is the link I meant to use clearly showing the nature of your edits: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asperger_syndrome&diff=64281368&oldid=64279185 --Zeraeph 18:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As I said: no content changes, only inserted comments. Sandy 05:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Article and prose size

Back with size info: current overall size is 50KB, which is not a problem, so there's no need to even check prose size. No one lately objects to overall size of 50KB, since a well-referenced article will be at least 50KB. Some current FAs have up to 125 overall KB, because of all the references. Prose size looks only at the prose: that is, how much the reader actually has to digest. Since this article is only at 50KB overall (which includes references, templates, pictures, etc), it's content (prose) is undersized relative to many current FAs. The article content should be beefed up. Here is how you calculate prose size: [6] Sandy 13:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Revert archive

Z, you prematurely archived the talk page, including comments made TODAY, in the midst of a FARC. Ongoing discussions should not be archived (read the archive link above). Not only that, you wiped out the table of contents, and did something to the page formatting. Please fix it, and bring forward current discussions from archive to the talk page. It is never appropriate to archive a current, ongoing discussion that others may not have had a chance to see. Please undo this. Sandy 14:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

S, I archived the page because I genuinely believe discussions should be accessible to the easiest possible participation by all users. This page was so long it was getting hard to submit, particularly at the current rate of comment.

I still believe that. So, if you want it done differently, you must do it yourself. --Zeraeph 14:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I corrected it, and you reverted it. Did you read WP:ARCHIVE, which says, "you should leave current, ongoing discussions on the existing talk page"? You archived comments added in the last hour! I would like to restore the talk page, archiving only the old, closed discussions, and readding your new comment (below). I will do the work, if you agree not to revert it. Let me know. Sandy 14:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Either revert, or do not revert; but either way, holding this minor decision up is wasting valuable discussion time. --Keyne 15:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, zereaph hasn't responded, and I can't revert without consensus. If you agree, and give me 20 minutes, I will restore the talk page, archive closed discussions, and bring forward all new comments made since the premature archive. I need consensus to do that, so let me know if you concur, and I'll proceed. Sandy 15:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree. Relevant discussion was still occuring in the archived areas. Let's abide by the R&Rs. --Keyne 15:36, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, give me a few minutes: it will take a few steps. I'll let you know when I'm done. Sandy 15:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy. --Keyne 16:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I think I'm done now, but give me a few more minutes to double check my work. Does anyone see anything I missed? Sandy 15:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I've doublechecked, and it seems to be done. I'll stick around a bit in case anyone finds anything I need to fix, but then I've got to get off the computer for a bit. Sandy 15:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

RFC

I have listed this RFC http://wiki.alquds.edu/?query=Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Maths%2C_science%2C_and_technology#Miscellaneous it seems the best, most realistic, and civil solution.

Here is exactly what I said:

"This article is now FARC, there seem to be some serious problems with NPOV and consensus to which no immediately satifactory solution is presenting itself. It really needs all the impartial input it can get."

I'm not sure RFC is the best place to list it, but I am sure the article and possible solutions to it's difficulties, needs impartial input.

--Zeraeph 14:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Are we still having this sort of problem? And, if so, where, so that it can be addressed? --Keyne 17:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Causes section

(note: Section needs to be "beefed up")

Let's continue the discussion here, for clarity's sake.

Firstly, "neurodiversity" is not a cause; it is a result. Secondly, we do need examples with proper citations. Removing the examples and leaving the citations looks horrible and leaves the reader no room to easily figure out which reference goes for what. I'm all for other references that are not specifically medically-based, but they really must come from good sources.

If we can refute some of the currently listed causes, then let's do so! Blanking them out is not an option, in my opinion. Find sources that refute those studies, and then we will remove them. --Keyne 17:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You are quite right, there are enough invalid premise flying around without trying to suggest "neurodiversity" is the cause of anything...except itself. ;o)

Looking at it just to catch the typo I wondered if various medical hypotheses (which is all they are and all they should be listed as) could be listed with a small paragraph on bullet points and references?

Then maybe (or not) a paragraph explaining the concept of neurodiversity itself at the bottom? Something like "Other views suggest that AS is not condition at all but rather a manifestation of neurodiversity which is etc." --Zeraeph 17:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If we can flesh out the referenced bullet-point list, then it would probably be a good idea. As it stands, there is a general lack of information and it would look pretty weak to have two lines and a string of references! :)

As for neurodiversity, it definately does not belong in "causes." It can't be a "cause"; but, it does belong somewhere (appropriately references) in the main article. It's a bit of a difficult angle to ply and significant enough space would have to be devoted (with references!) to discuss the whole "natural evolution" point ND supports otherwise it's about as reliable as palmistry. --Keyne 17:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree. Neurodiversity means that the genetics involved in AS is simply human diversity and not faulty genes. Therefore, neurodiversity is a cause! --Rdos 17:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Neurodiversity is a difference, not a "cause." What I think you meant to state is that AS would be an evolutionary step. Got Research™ showing this? You know, that AS individuals (nee Autism) are at the cusp of human evolution? --Keyne 17:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

What about a subsection under "causes" as an equal and opposing hypothesis?

And Rdos, if AS is just human diversity then there ain't anything to be "caused" thus no cause, if you get me? Neurodiversity is a counter argument to any cause. As "natural hair" is a counter argument to dyed hair...but it still isn't a color or a dye. --Zeraeph 17:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Keyne, you might want to check the version I had written on Causes, and which was deleted -- you have to go back around July 13.

This is a perfect example of why I keep trying to get you all to look at that book (now in talk page archives) which had Donald Cohen as an editor. We have some GREAT wording in the TS realm from a medical textbook that he also co-authored, and I suspect if you’ll look at that book, you may find some similar wording, because he was that kind of person. If you find it there, you can reference it to an authoritative medical tome ! This is info I was able to reference in the TS article, just for you to see an example:

“A brief time spent with members of the Tourette’s community reveals that, although Tourette syndrome can be a difficult condition, not everyone wants treatment, especially until they learn precisely what else they may “lose” in the bargain (ref). As discussed by Leckman and Cohen in Chapters 1 and 8, there may even be some latent advantages for individuals with Tourette’s. Genetic disorders may indeed be selective adaptations to changing environmental conditions. (HECK, you can use that line !! p. 408 from the Leckman/Cohen book refd in the TS article) For example,” … and then they give the example of sickle-cell anemia conferring resistance to malaria … continuing …

“Others suggest that the question is not what (behavior) is good or bad, but to what purpose the range of variation seems to be for. Nobel Laureate Konrad Lorenz suggests that “humanity as a species in danger, and … many of the dangers threatening it derive from inherited norms of behavior unique to the species – those adaptations to yesterday which, today, under greatly changed circumstances of human life, may prove harmful” (in Tiger & Fox, 1989).”

p. 409 “Some adults with Tourette’s syndrome believe that overemphasis on cure supersedes a more complete definition of the disorder. For example, the 4:1 ratio of males to females suggests differences ….

“Another concern is that losses could occur in the process of ‘curing’ TS … “ followed by a long discussion …

My point is, the info to merge these two views (medical and neurodiversity) is probably out there – go find it, and try Cohen as a resource. I am quoting from the top medical tome on TS, and he was an author, and he was also involved (now deceased) with autism at Yale ! I won't bore you with more TS excerpts, but there is an entire chapter in this book dedicated to this, so I really wish someone would find that other book by him in a library somewhere, as it may solve this dilemma. Sandy 17:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Causes - epilepsy

It is claimed that "epilepsy" is a cause of autism (note autism, AS isn't mentioned). However, this is not what the article claims. It is a comorbidity study of autism spectrum disorders and epilepsy. Since it is a comorbidity study, it doesn't say (and cannot say) that there is a causal relationship. IOW, this cause should be REMOVED. It could instead be included in comorbidities.

More refuting on this can be found here: [[7]]. It says that "improvement in language function often does not follow successful treatment of seizures". IOW, there seems to be no relationship between autistic symptoms and epilepsy. --Rdos 17:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Good! I know some (like this) have published refutes, and it's just a matter of tracking them down properly. It doesn't make sense to make "wild" alterations without some substance. Holding ourselves and the article to a higher standard only serves to improve it! --Keyne 17:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Causes - serotonin

I did a search on the Neanderthal psychology forum for this. I new this has been refuted in several studies. [8]. Citation: "we now know that human leadership, bonding, and obedience can also be affected by the functional state of neurotransmitter systems like serotonin"

Here is another study: [9]. Citation: "The neurotransmitter serotonin (5-HT) has been implicated in the modulation of aggression in animals and humans."

I know there is also a study of serotonin levels in various animal species, but I have lost them. The consensus is that serotonin level is correlated with perceived status. After a high-status individual looses status, he will also decrease serotonin-levels. It is also well known that anti-depressants work on serotonin, so for serotonin to be a cause of AS it must be proved that depression is a cause of AS, which seems highly unlikely. --Rdos 18:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Quick note: Serotonin levels affect more than just depression~~, though I don't specifically think there is enough causative evidence that it would apply to AS specifically (if that were the case, then we'd have a handy "cure" in all likellihood!)~~ --Keyne 18:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's what the PMID reference says:

OBJECTIVE: The cause of autistic spectrum disorder (i.e., autism and Asperger's syndrome) is unknown. The serotonergic (5-HT) system may be especially implicated. However, cortical 5-HT2A receptor density in adults with the disorder has not been examined, to the authors' knowledge. METHOD: The authors investigated cortical 5-HT2A receptor binding in eight adults with Asperger's syndrome and in 10 healthy comparison subjects with single photon emission computed tomography and the selective 5-HT2A receptor ligand 123I iodinated 4-amino-N-[1-[3-(4-fluorophenoxy)propyl]-4-methyl-4-piperidinyl]-5-iodo-2-methoxybenzamide (123I-5-I-R91150). RESULTS: People with Asperger's syndrome had a significant reduction in cortical 5-HT2A receptor binding in the total, anterior, and posterior cingulate; bilaterally in the frontal and superior temporal lobes; and in the left parietal lobe. Also, reduced receptor binding was significantly related to abnormal social communication. CONCLUSIONS: The authors' findings suggest that adults with Asperger's syndrome have abnormalities in cortical 5-HT2A receptor density and that this deficit may underlie some clinical symptoms.

--Dubhagan 18:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It is likely, but the study to support serotonin as a casue of AS does not prove what it is out to prove. About the only conclusion is that the serotonim gene is different, and that doesn't mean it is dysfunctional nor that it is in any way involved as a cause of autism! --Rdos 18:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Enlarged brain

This information really should be self-evidently removed. How could enlarged volumes and different development trajectories be proposed to be causes of autiam? If anything, this should be used as evidence for the neurodiversity view.

The citation used to support this claim say this itself: "The cause of amygdala and hippocampal abnormalities in autism is currently unknown.". --Rdos 18:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Causes - amygdala theory disputed

MEDLIN link: [10] --Rdos 08:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Something to pursue. Almost certainly not a "cause" but it is still quite interesting.

Previous wording

That's what I thought, too. When that whole two paragraphs got reduced to two sentences, it lost all meaning, everything became equal, and accuracy was lost. Here's what was there before:

Twin and family studies suggest there is a genetic vulnerability to AS and the related disorders, but a specific gene for AS has not been identified. Multiple genes are thought to be responsible for causing AS, since the symptoms and the severity of symptoms vary widely among individuals.^[1] Current research points to structural abnormalities in the brain as a cause of AS.^[1]^[3] These abnormalities impact neural circuits that control thought and behavior. Researchers think that gene/environment interactions cause some genes to turn on or turn off, or turn on too much or too little in the wrong places, and this interferes with the normal migration and wiring of embryonic brain cells during early development.^[1]

Researchers at the University of California have proposed that AS stems from abnormal changes that happen during critical stages of fetal development. Defects in the genes that control and regulate normal brain growth create abnormal growth patterns; these may cause overgrowth in some brain structures and reduced growth or excessive cell loss in others.^[1] Using advanced brain imaging techniques, scientists have revealed structural and functional differences in specific brain regions between the brains of normal versus AS children. One study found a lack of activity in the frontal lobe of AS children when asked to respond to tasks that required them to use their judgment. Another found differences in brain activity when children were asked to respond to facial expressions. Other methods of investigating brain function have revealed abnormal levels of particular proteins in the brains of adults with AS, which correlate with obsessive and repetitive behaviors.^[1]

I don't remember how epilepsy crept in, but that's what I wrote. Sandy 17:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The original section was hopelessly POV, and I would not allow it to be reintroduced if I can help it! --Rdos 18:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"Hopelessly POV"? It's informative regarding the studies being done, which in my opinion, is a far sight better than blind links, one/two-word introductions, or absence of information regarding the medical approach. If there is good non-POV information, you should source it and include it in rebuttal! --Keyne 18:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it is not informative. It is even worse than presenting studies of brain region differences, which I favor to include, but not as "causes", but differences that can be cited in research. Sandy's version is hopelessly speculative and provoking to people with a neurodiversity-view. If we shall present research, lets present the valid conclusions and not the wishes of the researchers that have done those studies. --Rdos 18:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You're welcome to provide the alternative viewpoint regarding diversification, Rdos. Oddly enough, the neurodiversity viewpoint is hopelessly speculative and provoking to people with a medical view. It doesn't mean we shouldn't include it (and the counter-point) for information's sake (NPOV), as a lead-in to the research articles.

I already did, but it was reverted. Somebody claimed that neurodiversity was not a "cause", yet much of the current citations in the causes section supports neurodiversity, even if it reads as if it supported brain-disorder-view. --Rdos 18:40, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As explained, neurodiversity cannot be a "cause"; it is an effect. Additionally, there was no reference to back up the assertion, which is quite a bit more controversial than the medical studies listed. Keep high standards and the article will be better for it, and all that jazz, but let's keep the voodoo out --Keyne 18:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Of course it can and is a cause. Human genetic diversity is the cause of physiologic and psychologic differences among individuals. The neurodiversity view is simply saying that whatever differences there is in brain chemistry are *functional* and not dysfunctional. I also backed it up by one of the citations I put here before (making intelligence a disease). --Rdos 18:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As you and I are both aware, intelligence (etc) is more than "Aspergers" as defined by the DSM-IV. The other idiosyncracies, then, do need to be sufficiently explained. --Keyne 18:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

This is really hilarious. You demand that neurodiversity should explain every trait of autism, yet you seem to have no problem with narrow medical theories that at most explain ONE TRAIT at a time. I'm sure that the neurodiversity view explains more than any individual medical hypothesis you can think of! --Rdos 19:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It should be able to do so, given that it is an evolutionary step, right? That the medical standpoints are incomplete reflects on how little is known; that which is known is important, and ND would have to be able to (eventually) explain them, as well (see: "[...]ONE TRAIT at a time!"). I don't see why that's hilarious at all--it's a request for more information in support of the hypothesis, as it isn't fact, which is something both will need to do before it can be confirmed as being "caused" or "next step"-ish. --Keyne 19:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Neurodiversity is really not a specific theory or hypothesis. It is more on the same rank as the medical approach to AS. IOW, while a medical hypothesis asssumes something is wrong with the autistic brain, neurodiversity assumes the differences are functional and part of human diversity. There is really no (accepted) neurodiversity theories, mostly because the medical researchers doesn't use it as a model when formulating their hypothesisis.

I understand that limitation, however, it still does need to be held accountable for its inclination. We can't simply say, "I think it is fine because it is natural." without reasoning therein. Regardless, some of the functionality as differences does need additional explanation, if it is to be held to the "it's natural" line of thought, preferrably without unreferenced speculation. We need good explanations, savvy? --Keyne 19:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That there are no conclusions in either "camp" (medical v. evolution) indicates that we have a need to show what both are investigating, in some small detail, so that the article is more complete. As it stands, we have virtually nothing, when several aspects are being tested (in either viewpoint). --Keyne 18:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It is simply not doeable, because the ideas are so many that the article would be twice as long, at least. Thus we must sort out the most likely one's and present them objectivitely. --Rdos 18:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

You just explained how it was doable. The "small detail" doesn't have to be paragraphs upon paragraphs of information (nor for every study). The most promising should get more space than others, and we should present them properly (probably by using this as a template to be pruned). --Keyne 18:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Given all the revers in the section I don't think it is doable. The medical camp keeps insisting that every word in primary research (which should not be used as WP:RS) is correct and must be kept. The medical camp also obviously insists that no other cause than medical ones could really be a cause. I don't see how consensus could ever be reached here. --Rdos 18:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

We've deviated from that specific goal. You do still need good references to back up assertions, however. --Keyne 18:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I see very little reason we couldn't use that as the framework for a much more comprehensive "Causes" section. I don't particularly like some of the implications nor studies, but that does not mean that they are not relevant (and interesting to read more about!).

Would there be any major objections to doing this, so long as we make good efforts to provide counter-balance to the "abnormality" argument, assuming we can find appropriate references? --Keyne 18:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

uh, well, I've been saying it for days ... I gave a framework upon which others could build. Instead of building, it was blanked :-) But, be careful of moving too fast, or someone may say in a few days that they were "bulldozed" :-))) Sandy 18:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll leave that to Dubhagan, as it was his major edit, but I do believe that we could build something much better from that framework, with pruning and assorted other additions as proper. --Keyne 18:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

D'oh. I wanted to expand the section myself after I made that edit, but after trying to research it, I didn't know where to start and found it overwhelming. Besides, that edit was meant to encourage others to look into it too. Anyway, here's a link that I though was a good starting point: http://www.as-if.org.uk/cause.htm. --Dubhagan 23:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That was me. I was haphazardly looking for stuff that discussed causes and trying to list as many potential causes from what I found. I was just trying to form a starting point so the section can talk about all potential causes, not just the two that were there before (which came from only one source, nonetheless). --Dubhagan 18:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry, Dub, at least you've been trying to add referenced content -- didn't mean to point fingers :-) Sandy 18:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Article split

Wow, miss a day, miss a lot.

Anyway, I like the idea of splitting the article between the medical definition and the cultural view. The sections Classification and diagnosis, Causes, Treatment, Prognosis, Epidemiology, and History can all go into the medical article, while the rest can go into the cultural article.

Personally, I don't care if this article loses FA status after a split and name change, the new articles can always reapply later. In order for this article to be viewed as NPOV by all parties involved, it needs to be split, otherwise it could get quite diluted.

However, before we split the article, we should discuss what the new articles should be named and if we need a disambiguation page.

--Dubhagan 17:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

AS has two aspects to it, a medical and a cultural, and in splitting them we can better focus on each aspect. It is not about POV. I'm currently seeing that the cultural aspect isn't being talked about fully because it doesn't conform to medical proof. If we split the article, we can better discuss the cultural aspect without having to worry about interference from the medical aspect. --Dubhagan 17:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I still do not see why it would not be possible to have one article discussing both "sides" (medical opine vs. cultural opine) as it stands. Care to comment on why you'd think it wise to separate two oppositional POVs into multiple POV-driven articles? --Keyne 17:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The split could be done within the article itself too, grouping all the medical stuff together and the same with the cultural stuff. Either way, the current version has too much emphasis on the medical. --Dubhagan 17:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The more I look the more obvious diversifying seems to me too. Though I'd be loathe to file everything non-medical under "cultural", nor (in this one, particular, case where the medical view is SO heavily contested by "sufferers") give the medical article any particular weight over the others.

It's almost as though, in this case, neutrality depends almost entirely on the perspective of the article and there are so many diverse perspectives, think that is my answer to your question too Keyne.--Zeraeph 17:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, again, you all might not care about FA (I don't know, that's up to you), but you should know that the standards for getting FA are very high now, while keeping the one you have won't necessarily be quite as hard. It's likely the votes on FARC will mostly be from *you*, while the votes on FAC will be from a much broader community, and the standards have gotten much higher. Just something to keep in mind, Sandy 17:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It isn't so much about "FA" or whatnot, but the article (and indeed, other articles) really should be held to similar high standards. It makes for good reading, work, and all-round information. That said, I do not see why we could not present differing viewpoints (appropriately) in this article and still retain/regain FA status. It seems foolish to split it into multiple POV articles, when we're trying to promote an NPOV standpoint! --Keyne 17:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think you are missing my point here Keyne which is that there is more than one perspective on AS and what is POV depends on the perspective. I am advocating splitting it into perspectives not POV...and the article is long already without even touching on some really well known aspects of AS like gender confusion and the curious aversion to children and/or reproduction that some Aspies have.

To me it should be split into perspectives giving the points for and against each, which either makes one very long, rambling article, of a dozen or so tiny ones, so that the easiest breakdown is to split it into "general", "clinical" and "cultural" or similar. --Zeraeph 18:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

True, the split I mentioned could easily be done within the article. --Dubhagan 17:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Keyne: truth is, all Wiki articles should ideally aspire to meet FA criteria, because the criteria are what Wiki is supposed to be about. This discussion of splitting the articles is a loss of valuable time. There are already too many really bad autism articles on Wiki: we don't need more to work on. Put up a straw poll, give it 24 hours, and then get moving in whatever direction is decided. Sandy 18:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I copied the article into a subpage of my user page so I could experiment with splitting the article. I did the split within the article instead of creating two seperate articles. Page is found at User:Dubhagan/Asperger syndrome. What do you all think? --Dubhagan 18:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It looks like it'll need a bit of overhauling, but I don't see why that couldn't be made to fit properly. Then again, I'm a little short on organization and whatnot, yet. :) --Keyne 18:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

But does it look better with the medical stuff isolated? --Dubhagan 18:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

ME LIKE :o) But could we try "medical(or "clinical" - less negative?) perspective" and...something other than "Cultural and Sociological" perspective...I'd suggest "Sufferers Perspective" but if I did that Rdos would have to come round here and kill me and what's more I would agree with him! "General Perspective" or is that just too naff? There IS a right word, it just refuses to pop into my head right now. --Zeraeph 18:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

PS Suppose we went with "Clinical Perspectives" and literally "Other Perspectives" would that unbalance the priorities, or would it work? --Zeraeph 18:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Or maybe Clinical and Non-clinical? --Dubhagan 18:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

As far as I am concerned, that's as neutral as it gets, unless anyone objects, MAKE IT SO Mr Dubhagan (:o) I ALWAYS wanted to say THAT in an appropropriate context) --Zeraeph 18:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It'd probably be a bad idea to do that specifically. "Clinical" and "Community" would be a good start, as both are relatively benign. --Keyne 18:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Community isn't accurate (there's a lot more to it than community or culture) or neutral...that's why I's stay safely with the negative? --Zeraeph 18:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Changed the heading names. Aside from that minor detail, is splitting it up like this a better idea? --Dubhagan 18:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, it took AGES to get past edit conflicts but I really think "Non-clinical" is more accurate than community --Zeraeph 18:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Agreed. Also, if we're splitting the article between clinical and non-clinical lines, we should make effort to flesh out both viewpoints appropriately, in appropriate sectioning. --Keyne 19:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That is not possible. It would not be NPOV if the cause and therapy sections would be based only on medical aspects. There are several sections that must have both perspectives. Even the characteristics section needs some balance (it is not self-evident that the used criteria is meaningful, for instance). --Rdos 19:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It would not be NPOV if it provided all of the same details in appropriate places? I'm not sure how you read what I wrote, but I did not advocate skimping on appropriate responsing. --Keyne 19:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've made the changes to this article. Hopefully now we can go into more details about Neurdiversity and such without worrying about clinical interference. --Dubhagan 19:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just looked at it: only had a chance to glance at the top. It doesn't flow, since you dive right into characteristics, without giving any defining basics first. I think if you can do some rearranging, you can fix that ... Sandy 19:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

When people look up AS, they are mostly concerned with the characteristics. Characteristics ARE the defining basis, they incorporate the diagnostic criteria and expand on it. Besides, diagnostic criteria are part of the clinical aspect, characteristics are the only thing that both the clinical and non-clinical communities agree on. Of course, the diagnostic criteria could be considered part of the characteristics, and be the first subsection under characteristics instead of under the clinical perspective. Thoughts? --Dubhagan 19:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, on many, many articles, the "DSM criteria" leads in after the intro like a kind of formality? No harm in it? Yes? No? --Zeraeph 19:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I dunno. After looking at this all day, my brain hurts. Moving stuff around later won't be hard; maybe just focus on getting missing content written, and it can always be rearranged if needed. Sandy 19:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Is there really any consensus for splitting the article? I'm getting pretty tired of trying to NPOV the causes section and getting it reverted all the time. Either we make a decision to split it up, and create the daughter articles, or we just skip the whole idea. --Rdos 19:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Work on this article should not continually be sidetracked by one divergent opinion, and if four people are working on the article, you should go along with their consensus. Splitting the article -- although I haven't examined it in detail -- doesn't trouble me, since sections can easily be rearranged. It's more important now to get the missing content written, and you keep resisting any efforts to do so, while never proposing written, referenced content that supports your views. Let the other people work. Sandy 19:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't be TOO hasty Rdos. Personally I think Neurodiversity and the fact that some people now believe that is all there is to AS would make a great lead in to the "Non clinical" section? --Zeraeph 19:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

In that case the "Causes" section shoud be renamed to "medical causes" or better "speculative medical causes" ;-) --Rdos 19:41, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Information that is referenced and enjoys widespread medical consensus doesn't need a "speculative" label, which only makes the article sound like it uses weasle words (can't find the link to WP:WEASLE right now).Sandy 19:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Found it: WP:AWW. That was a big shortcoming in the previous versions. Sandy 19:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Whatever, but it cannot be called "causes" of it is placed in the clinical section --Rdos 19:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, yes it can, because it is precisely what the clinicians are researching: causes of Asperger's Syndrome. --Keyne 19:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's already under the "Clinical" super-section! --Keyne 19:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That makes it sound like there is a non-medical cause. Maybe renaming it to "Research" or something along those lines? --Dubhagan 19:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Research would be fine, even though I'd prefer "speculative research" ;-) --Rdos 19:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

"Research" works for me FAR more accurate and Encyclopaedic...Rdos, you should know better, cos ALL Research, of it's nature, is speculative ;o) --Zeraeph 20:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Putting "speculative" on stuff in the clinical section is bringing a non-clinical POV into the clinical section, giving the WHOLE article an non-clinical slant. If the non-medical community has any dispute with what the medical community is doing, it should be expressed in the non-clinical section. --Dubhagan 19:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree, support. Consensus? Research is research; science is science. It's not speculation. You discuss the strengths and weaknesses of the conclusions of the studies, ongoing areas of investigation, etc., but it's not "speculation", which implies no scientific method. Again, Rdos, please focus on writing the sections you say are missing. Sandy 20:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Research is ALWAYS speculative of it's nature because it is performed with the aim of discovering what the conclusion may be. (But blimey! Of COURSE I didn't mean put "speculative" in the header, just research) --Zeraeph 20:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Besides, I don't personally believe that there is only neurodiversity to AS, and especially not autism. I also think some suffer from negative effects of hybridization. In the neurodiversity model I explain this in terms of gene incompatibiliries.

Does anybody else that is referenceable think that? It sounds like you're simply pushing your POV now. Be cautious. --Keyne 19:49, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I explicitly wrote it was my personal opinion. --Rdos 19:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The split has been done within the article, what's wrong with that? --Dubhagan 19:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Rdos, I think your misunderstanding the inter-article split. the Clinical section should only deal with what's being done in the medical community. The Non-Clinical section deals with what's being talked about outside the medical community. If the non-medical groups have a problem with the research into causes and the treatments, then that should be talked about under the Non-Clinical section, possibly in it's own subsection. --Dubhagan 19:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Just to add the my whole npoint in being so nit-picking about what the sections were called was to strongly imply that they have equal weight and there is no heirarchy between the information contained in them. --Zeraeph 19:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

And, well done, because when one looks at the Table of Contents, it doesn't scream POV, problem, controversy, or anything. It just looks neutral. Sandy 20:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

References

OK, I looked closer at the split, and I think you can make it work, although it still needs some tweaking for flow, and some missing content. The split whacked out some of the references, though. The info is still in there, but needs to be re-arranged. Do you want me to work on fixing them later today, after you're done? Sandy 19:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Or better yet, maybe we should wait to fix them? Until the article really settles down? Sandy 19:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

With the way the references are done, they just rearrange themselves, so it's not really out of whack, just in a different order that reflects the different order in the article. --Dubhagan 20:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, have a closer look (for example, number 16 8). The first full instance of the named ref has to occur first in the text: they have to be juggled a bit. We also have to make sure that the first reference to each book -- subsequently referred to in other refs -- still occurs first. I can easily fix them if you want me to, but it may be best to wait a bit. Sandy 20:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The references went all to heck again: best to fix them at the end. Sandy 23:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I really like the split reference style, but they're horribly askew. If someone could fix them to appropriate places, I'll go about standardizing them for neatness' sake. :) --Keyne 01:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

They aren't split on my screen, so maybe it's browser-dependent. I remember seeing someone added something today, but don't know what it was, but I'll put it back to the standard. Sandy 01:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I liked the columns (fills in ugly whitespace). If anyone else has a problem, by all means change it back. I'm all for aesthetics and value! :) I'll see if I can fix up the references so they're more uniform, now. --Keyne 02:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I never saw the columns, so don't know what that's about. They didn't show on my browser. I think RN had added them, and if anyone wants to put them back, it will be easy - it's in the diff where I changed them. Sandy 03:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose it'd help if I knew which uniform style would be appropriate. For example, we have a lot of "Romanowski and Kirby (2005) p. 336."-style references. Are they all for the same material type, and which reference style should we use? There are quite a few variations. --Keyne 02:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If we could come to a consensus regarding which style we will be using for what references (such as the differing ones as I mentioned above), I will try to fix them in the morning. An example for each media type should do the trick :) --Keyne 02:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm stumped on the style. It's been a hodge-podge. The problem I have is that web cite doesn't handle journal articles correctly, some of the pre-existing refs used web cite, some used web cite when they shouldn't have (for journals or books), so we have a real hodge podge. I don't know how to fix it, but journal references should end up looking like they do on Cystic fibrosis (notice format on author names there, journal italicized, PMID at the end, and full-text after that when available). Most of the medical journal articles are correct, I think -- I've been checking them. The rest: I don't know what to do. I haven't noticed anyone else doing a lot of ref cleanup, so I think you can probably pick a style and do what you want. Sandy 03:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

PS, Keyne, I should have mentioned: whenever we have a page number on a reference, we need it. Don't lose the page numbers :-) Sandy 03:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, indeed. I'll be cleaning up the obvious stuff a little bit later in one swell foop, but someone with more solid reference experience might need to be brought in to make the less obvious dissimilarities more uniform. --Keyne 13:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It needs some more work, but I cleared up all of the obvious gaffes (mostly regarding punctuation..). If it's more appropriate to do it another way, by all means. --Keyne 14:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Images and Lead

By the way, current FAC doesn't let any article become FA if the images don't have clear copyright status, and some object to any Fair Use rationale on a FA. None of our images comply. I don't really speak that language, but someone has to look into this. If we can't get clear copyright status, we'll have to delete them. Sandy

How do you get clear copyright status for the images I looked into it but I had some troubles can somebody please look into this it would be helpful.Natche24 20:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That's an area I haven't been able to figure out, but I don't think any of these images can be used in an FA. FAC is insisting lately on clear copyright, and we have Fair Use claims, which are pretty dubious ones. I think. Does anyone have any other source of images? If we can find anything in the USA public domain (for example, .gov) those are good. Sandy 20:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't sweat it they were tagged "fair use" since AT LEAST 2004, tags just needed updating --Zeraeph 21:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you sure? I really don't speak that language at all, but I keep seeing "no fair use images" on FAC. Sandy 21:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Totally, you could try mailing the sites they come from for further copyright info. I think we have consensus that article quality is preferable to FAC? --Zeraeph 22:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I asked someone who "speaks images" and it's still Greek to me, but here it is. Sandy 22:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Well that's my excuse to remove the little one that bugs me by messing with layout...personally I LIKE the image with the little boy (though it spooks me that beautiful kid was maybe lucky to survive with a PDD in Austria at that time?).

Now, welcome to the Asperger Family Album:

http://www.quarks.de/dyn/pics/28383-29226-2-kap4_1.jpg (REALLY SPOOKY *shudders*)
http://www.nas.org.uk/content/1/c4/89/38/Hans%20Asperger%202.jpg (more cuddley?)
http://www.nas.org.uk/content/1/c4/89/39/Hans%20Asperger%203.jpg (JANEY he looks like my Uncle R)

Pinup he was not...but take your pick if you need to --Zeraeph 23:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

But, we can't use those unless we get copyright permission, or unless they are in the public domain, right? I'm afraid to upload pics: convinced I'll be sued in a future life for copyright infringement :-) Sandy 23:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Usually all you have to do is ask the site they come from for permission. Unlikely NAS would use them if it was a copyright infringement, and it's surely not like anybody WANTS to use that awful "One flew over the Asperger's Nest" pic from Germany - do they? --Zeraeph 23:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Another note: when you've finished working, the lead needs to grow (it's too short by current FA standards). It should be at least 3 paragraphs, and be a stand-alone summary of the article. See WP:LEAD. It may be easier to do that after the article settles into a new form. Sandy 19:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Please remember that the lead also need to be NPOV. If you cannot fix that, let somebody else do it :-) --Rdos 20:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, so, I would be REALLY, GENUINELY happy to see you add a paragraph from your preferred paradigm, but it MUST have at least one REALLY good citation to avoid further dispute? If it does, I'll guard it with my life...BTW, have you written text to use those two really good links you came up with yet? --Zeraeph 21:20, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm getting tired of all of this. I've tried to install NPOV in the causes section for several weeks into this article, ultimately referencing it with an article by a professor in psychiatry, but it still gets reverted. The last assault seems to be that causes should be regarded as a wholy section only form NIH-aproved stuff. --Rdos 21:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't recall anyone actually stating that. You just need references and fleshed out ideas rather than pure speculation. That's sort'a why we broke this article up into portions where each can be properly addressed. --Keyne 22:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Slightly different note: History looks like a good introductory body section, to me. --Keyne 22:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting ... I like it. Sandy 22:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Meh, history is not as important as criteria or characteristics. Most medical articles start with diagnostic criteria. Personally, it should start with diagnostic criteria followed by characteristics, since that is the main info people look for. I would then put History after that, followed by the two perspectives. --Dubhagan 23:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The split

OK, so I agree that the split seems to be ok, but some things needs to be fixed:

The new research section should not link to the Causes of autism article
- Why?
  - Isn't that obvious? When the section is no longer supposed to present causes but research, it cannot make POV statements about causes, neither can it pose as authoritive for causes.
- Changed to a further information link instead of a main article link.
- Disagree. Renamed "Research" into a more informative "Research into Causes" to better fit with supersection direction.
  - I think WP:MOS says it has to be "Research into causes" Sandy 22:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Research should describe research and not speculative causes
- Disagree.
- Strongly disagree. All research into cause/effect is speculative until it is complete, at which point it becomes fact.

There should be a third part in the article. Perhaps it could be called "controversies"?
- What do you think it needs to include?
  - Everything that is controversial, and this includes causes, therapies and the general view as a disorder/difference
    - You are applying undue weight. There is someone out there who thinks the earth is flat: that doesn't make earth is round statements controversial. What is currently included enjoys referenced medical consensus: it is not controversial any more than the earth is round is controversial. Stop protesting and start writing. Sandy 21:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
      - No undue weight here. The treatments are very controversial, and this is no minority view. The causes are equally controversial. Your comparisons of a flat earth are simply ridiculous. --Rdos 21:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Partial agree. Controversy regarding the medical viewpoit can be addressed in the non-medical section.

There should still be a causes section, and it should be in controversies
- Disagree.
- Disagree. Both viewpoints can be addressed in proper places quite nicely.

Treatments or therapies should probably be in controversy as well.
- Disagree Sandy 20:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
- Disagree. Keyne 22:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

--Rdos 20:38, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

IOW, Sandy's view is that the reorganization of the article makes it acceptable for parts of the article to be totally biased. This, of course, is not the case. NPOV doesn't become unnecessary by rearranging. Also note that it is not allowed to do POV-forks, which essentially is what we are doing here. --Rdos 20:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

RDos, it's more a question of "render unto Caesar, what is Caesar's", Research and Treatment are, right or wrong, CLINICAL things. So that is where they get filed.

I'm not happy with "Non Clinical" beginning with "Autistic Culture", yet it has to begin with SOMETHING, any suggestions? Ideally the most important, non-clinical aspects you can think of to put ABOVE "Autistic Culture"? --Zeraeph 21:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it just needs an introductory paragraph, for flow. Sandy 21:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, Rdos, what will make it NPOV is for you to write that which you claim is missing. The split provides an organization that allows you to insert your content. Stop complaining, and start writing :-) There is no POV fork here, since everything is in one article. The solution was brilliant: you are complaining, but in the weeks I've been here, I have not seen you write and reference any of the content you claim is missing. I've only seen you delete referenced content. Sandy 20:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe you should look a little closer? I've inserted the neurodiversity-view several times already in the former causes section. --Rdos 21:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Insert what you want to say, based on proper references, without speculative language, not as original research, and not based on your own research. If you can't do that, the content belongs in a blog or a website, not in Wiki. Put it here on the talk page, and we can help. But, if you put unreferenced, speculative, original research into the article, someone is likely to delete it, with good reason. My goodness, the folks here have been patient. Sandy 21:04, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I already did. It was referenced by the "making intelligence a disease", written by a clinical professor in psychiatry. IOW, it belongs in the clinical section. --Rdos 21:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That view would be better served under the Non-clinical section. The article was split to avoid slanting the article a certain way. --Dubhagan 21:07, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

DAG NAPPIT (<do you spell it that way?)!! It should HEADLINE the non-clinical section...because it's almost a BRIDGE between the two...c'mon Rdos...let's get that IN THERE --Zeraeph 21:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No, it is a way to escape NPOV. --Rdos 21:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No what is biased is bringing non-medical POV to medical section, which is what you want to do. That would give the article a non-medical slant. I'll repeat what I said earlier, anything being done within the medical community should only be mentioned in the Clinical section and any view being put forward should only be under the Non-clinical section. THAT'S how you maintain NPOV, by not letting the differing sections interfere with each other. That way BOTH views are present. If the non-medical community has any problem with the research, causes, treatments, etc. they should be brought up in the Non-clinical section. --Dubhagan 21:03, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That is breaking the rules of wikipedia. It is called POV-forking. The sections that are relevant to both clinical and non-clinical parts should be kept separately, otherwise this action is simply a way to escape NPOV. --Rdos 21:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

A POV fork is an attempt to evade NPOV guidelines by creating a new article about a certain subject that is already treated in an article often to avoid or highlight negative or positive viewpoints or facts. This is generally considered unacceptable. The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.

We are not creating a new article, so it's not POV-forking. All facts and POV's are still evident in this article, they should just be seperated from each other to avoid slanting the article one way. --Dubhagan 21:11, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It is still the same thing. The reader should not be presented biased information in one part of the article, that possibly is refuted in another part. Opinions should be presented adjacent to each others so people can evaluate them. It also is a requirement to point out controversial things, something that seems to be done very little here. --Rdos 21:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The generally accepted policy is that all facts and majority Points of View on a certain subject are treated in one article.

That is what's being done here. --Dubhagan 21:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

If you really think it violates NPOV, then bring it up to the admins. Let them tell us which way is NPOV. --Dubhagan 21:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I won't bother to. I would simply keep my remove vote for featured status instead, and hope otherwise will follow. --Rdos 21:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, sounds like intentionally disrupting Wiki to make a point to me. Dub bent over backwards to provide a means for you to add your content. Agree with Dubhagan and all others: no POV fork, because everything will be in one article. If you disagree, put out your own RFC. Have you writtten that content yet? Sandy 21:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually I don't think that rule applies to talk pages. After all, this is what talk pages are for. --Dubhagan 21:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually Rdos, what you want to do violates Undue weight by putting a non-medical slant on medical sections. Seperating them gives us a chance to give both view points equal weight. --Dubhagan 21:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It does not, and I'm going to bed... --Rdos 21:45, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Then explain why it doesn't in the morning. --Dubhagan 21:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

The split it awesome!!!! Who came up the with idea? Hopefully we can stick to RSources for everything now and please everyone. BTW, neurodiversity as a "cause"? I mean I guess it makes technical sense, but seems kind of odd... RN 22:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Blame Dubhagan. He came into the middle of a big discussion between Zeraeph, Keyne, Rdos and me, and put a fresh perspective on it :-) I guess the early bird doesn't get the worm after all Sandy 22:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I have a habit of doing that lol :P --Dubhagan 22:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

It's kind of odd, but it is a pretty significant weight in the counter-medical movement. Arguing a biological difference as a continuance of the human (de/e)volutionary scale would not be out of place, but it really should get more referencing for stability.

With a bit more fiddling around (and laying silly arguments to rest), I think this layout will be quite nice! --Keyne 22:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

History

Does History belong in "clinical" or should it stand alone at the bottom? Sandy 20:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Standalone --Rdos 20:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I think I'd like it standalone as well, unless someone thinks it has a "clinical" POV. Sandy 21:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I put it under Clinical because the history covered the history of it within the medical community. Feel free to put it as a stand alone section. --Dubhagan 21:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Now that History is up top, how about a transition sentence at the end that takes us from history, to increasingly recognized today, and provides a lead-in to classification and diagnosis? Sandy 23:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know, I think history would fit better after Characteristics. --Dubhagan 23:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is the history from the neurodiversity POV: [11] --Rdos 07:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Goodness ! If all of those PDFs are really currently available online, there is a lot of info in there! (In reviewing the talk page entries above, I see a lot of information that has still not been accessed, which is why I didn't think we were ready to archive those entries. Are you planning to use some of it?) The article is still short (based on prose size). Sandy 13:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Spelling

I can never get it right myself, but "pathologising" doesn't look right. Sandy 21:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Pathologising is actually bang on, it just happens to be an UK spelling, I use both, I mix 'em up.--Zeraeph 21:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, how come it feels like it should be pathologicising ? And, here's another one I always get wrong: doesn't accomodated have two m's?

OK, went downstairs to check dictionary, and yes, found "Pathologizing" is American English. Are we writing the article in UK or US English? We should be consistent throughout. Sandy 21:56, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

US, it's the Wikipedia standard, I went to fix it but someone else already had.--Zeraeph 22:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

That paragraph needs to grow by at least several sentences, so it doesn't look stubby. There is much more that can be said. And, the ref isn't complete. Shall I fix refs later tonight? Sandy 21:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Maybe RDos can add some more tomorrow when he is fresher? --Zeraeph 22:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

We can hope. He's the resident otherly-voice, and we could probably use a bit more balanced information. That said, if you feel like you could add more that would be worthwhile, why not simply be bold? --Keyne 22:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Cos it's nearly my euro-bedtime too...zzzzzz--Zeraeph 22:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Why doesn't someone add something from here? Sandy 22:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither of those spelling gave any results at dictionary.com. From what I could find, the word is "pathologisation". --Dubhagan 21:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

I thought of that, but hey...CUT ME SOME SLACK...I barely managed to spell a recogniseable "pathologising". ;o) Tweak however you feel. --Zeraeph 22:17, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops my bad, both pathologizing and pathologising are right. (They were found under the pathologize/pathologise entries). --Dubhagan 22:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem...I was still wrong with the Uk spelling --Zeraeph 22:32, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

n and m dashes

Keyne, you inserted some dashes: you've got to use m and n dashes, and I don't know which is which. Maybe someone else will get them. Sandy 22:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

...I had no idea. Silly formatting. Could someone help adjust? Dashes would be grammatically appropriate. --Keyne 22:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

There's an – and an — . I've never known the difference. I hope the person who fixes them gives us a tutorial. Sandy 23:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Got it. There are actually abunch of symbols I've ignored until now at the bottom of the submission pages. Go figure! --Keyne 23:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

Causes again

... and neurodiversity. (Clements, Colleen. Making intelligence a disease. The Medical Post, 2001. Retrieved 18 July 2006.)

This article never mentions the word neurodiversity. Nor does it discuss causes. It has some interesting things to say, but not in the clinical section. Is someone going to restore some medical causes to the article? Sandy 02:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed "Neurodiversity" as something clinical research is poking at (they aren't). It should be inserted in the non-clinical section, preferrably with better wording to express what the article talks about, more specifically (read: less OR). I don't see why it couldn't be included, but reading into it should probably be avoided.

Some clinicans obviously are, or think somebody should be. I will reinsert it without labeling it neurodiversity. --Rdos 08:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Additionally, if nobody working on the clinical cause section minds, I think it might be best to revert to the old version and prune it back to make room for brief explanation of competing ideas. --Keyne 02:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd support that. It was only intended to be a start, and we do need something there. It was referenced to ref name NINDS (where I stole it, per public domain :-) Sandy 03:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't. I think the review site on MEDLINE covers it in more detail, and without bias. [12] --Rdos 08:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

(You can just enter the PMID directly: Wiki recognizes PMIDs since they are oft-cited -- PMID 15813671 .) That looks like a comprehensive, and very recent, summary. Full-text would help. Maybe some of it can be merged into the older version. Sandy 13:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, do you not know what Neurodiversity is all about? The line We are taking the regular characteristics of bright boys and calling that an illness says the same thing the Neurodiversity people preach. --Dubhagan 02:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, however, then the line about neurodiversity should include that as a prelude to somewhat explain to the reader where and what the concept portrays and contains, rather than having a out-of-place looking reference to a term that is not used in that article. It's about introducing clarity :) --Keyne

I understand where you're coming from, Dubhagan, but we were still going beyond what is actually stated in the reference. We can't make that kind of jump. And the article wasn't talking about research into causes at all. I'm not saying not to introduce the concept, just not under Research into causes. Sandy 03:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, while I was cleaning up the references, I saw that we do not have a medical source for the statement about above-average intelligence as part of the condition. Since that is not part of the diagnostic criteria, we should really try to find one. It's OK to use non-medical resources to reference some kinds of statements, but if we're going against the diagnostic criteria, I think we'd better be able to back it up. Non-medical websites which say "usually" don't make a strong case. I'm going to spend some time in PubMed looking for one: there's got to be something there. Sandy 03:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The National Autistic Society of the UK would REALLY appreciate you describing them as "not a medical source"! IQ is, by definition, equally the province of educational science. That is now two medical and two ed sources.--Zeraeph 09:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you for correcting my terminology: to clarify, I mean sources which have the benefit of peer review by (theoretically) unbiased medical editors, as in journal publications. Does the NAS-UK website have that? Does it have a Medical Advisory Board, and does that MAB oversee its website? Sandy 13:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Doesn't need any of that to meet and surpass Wikipedia:Reliable sources and forgive me if I give more weight to that than to your personal opinions.

I think you will also find that the only way the National Autistic Society of the UK could be "peer reviewed" would be by, for example, the Autism Society of America, however it IS subject to close scrutiny by qualified clinicians daily. --Zeraeph 17:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how that statement got there, it should be removed. I've heard average or above average, but not just above average. Of course, the are non-aspies that have above average intelligence, so it's not really relevant. --Dubhagan 03:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I found a source that was reviewed by a doctor and mentions average to above-average abilities

[13]
[14]Natche24 03:43, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

All of these sources mention "usually" or "sometimes", and none of them are strong. Unless we can find journal research, I think we can say "usually" or "sometimes" somewhere in the article, but we can't put it in the lead, where it implies that is part of the diagnosis. I was off to search PubMed when I got hit by another lightening storm. Will go do that now. Sandy 03:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Found it in the intro, removed it. It was sounding like people with average or above average intelligence all have AS. --Dubhagan 04:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

ack: between the edit conflicts, and the lightening, I can't get anywhere ...

While searching PubMed, I came across this: it looks like (if someone can get hold of the full-text) it could be a good source for some of what some of you say is missing from the article. PMID 11086556 Sandy 04:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Full text: http://www.cpa-apc.org/Publications/Archives/CJP/2000/Oct/Classification.asp

Good stuff in there -- some of it can be used to expand on history. Sandy 04:14, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Too lame. It should be in the diagnostics section to question the diagnostic criterias reliability! --Rdos 08:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Found this, which is old, and doesn't help: PMID 8989556 Sandy 04:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This is the only mention I can find of above-average intelligence, it applied to 17% (which is probably the same as normal controls), and it was on a very small sample size: PMID 2680690 Sandy 04:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Moot point now, I removed it, it didn't belong there anyway. Diagnostic criteria mentions that intelligence is normal. Besides, nothing about intelligence in that sense helps define AS. --Dubhagan 04:19, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I couldn't find anything anyway, but that full-text you found has lots of good stuff. Sandy 04:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Dubhagan, the old version said: and is characterized by normal intelligence and language development, but deficiencies in social and communication skills.

Did you mean to also take out normal intelligence and language development? Sandy 04:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, AS is defined by what it affects, not by what it doesn't affect. If you think they should stay, then they should be after the deficiencies, not before. And it said "average to above average intelligence", not "normal intelligence" when I removed it. --Dubhagan 04:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Except wherein it must be distinguished from other forms of autism and social skills deficiencies. Additionally, AS is never found in combination with below normal intelligence. --Zeraeph 10:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think this should be in the causes / research section: [15] --Rdos 07:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Media reports or magazine summaries are sometimes wildly inaccurate: the article is based on a study, and sometimes you can find the actual study by going to PubMed. Sandy 13:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This review seems promising (and a lot better than NIH-s speculative site): [16] --Rdos 08:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Rdos, you're citing the NIH database (PubMed - PMID), and then saying it's better than NIH. Are we getting crossed up in terminology? Your link above is to PMID 15813671 . Sandy 13:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is another review of "what's going on": [17] --Rdos 08:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

PMID 16639107 Sandy 13:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't know where to put this. The study is about temperament and ASDs [18] --Rdos 08:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

PMID 16628481 Sandy 13:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

This also belongs in the research section: [19] --Rdos 11:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

PMID 16628481 I don't have time to look at all of them this morning, but I'm glad to see you coming up with PubMed research ... I kept saying you could find it if you'd look :-) I've added the PMID links so I can read them later today. Sandy 13:18, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Should be PMID 511073 --Rdos 13:31, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I knew about PubMed research. Most of the articles I've put here are referenced in the Neanderthal theory. I just re-read it and checked possible references. It is not always obvious what to enter in the Publ Ned search engine. You need to know what you look for. --Rdos 13:33, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Found this [20]. It only came out last week. --Dubhagan 00:48, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's the PMID 16802879 Sandy 01:13, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

And the full text, I believe. Anyway, here's what Google brings up on it. --Dubhagan 02:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Neurodiversity concept - citations

Here is one: [21] It also contains other links to professional work in the area.

New Horizons isn't a particularly strong source, but if it contains information about the actual research, you can find it in PubMed by using the Limits function. Sandy 13:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The author has PMID articles, but the word "Neurodiversity" cannot be found there, so the article would not be indexed. --Rdos 13:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is another possible citation: [22] --Rdos 07:11, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't find anything there -- seems to be a personal account, or personal website ?? Sandy 13:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It is Jody Singer's website. She invented the concept. --Rdos 13:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Ref #66 re: Neurodiversity in the lead-in for the non-clinical section seems to be blank. --Keyne 14:13, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Treatment section

This claim seems pretty controversial, and to a large degree contributes to the POV-problems there: "There is no one best treatment modality for all persons with AS, but most professionals agree that early intervention is beneficial for children". I think it should simply be removed. The citation is not from a reputable source that evaluates autism-treatments either. AFAIK, there is no evidence that any specific treatment is useful over a longer time-span. --Rdos 10:49, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that should be removed too. It's very fuzzy thinking. Who are "most professionals"? And if ever a statement needed PMID citation to be even considered for inclusion that one does.

Apart from which, it's really only waffling the self evident, in the sense that, wherever there is any problem, (from a puncture to an international incident) the sooner you intervene, the more "beneficial".

Only thing is that the point really needs making somehow that nobody has come up with a single actual treatment for AS.

Staggers me that nobody, in or outside medicine, has managed to come up with anything better than that rare quote from "Oncle Hans" himself from the 1940s that I found today http://www.wisconsinmedicalsociety.org/savant/aspergers.cfm "exceptional human beings must be given exceptional educational treatment, treatment which takes into account their special difficulties. Further, we can show that despite abnormality, human beings can fulfill their social role within the community, especially if they find understanding, love and guidance". (NB That is a translation from German, so "abnormal" could have begun life as a different word, possibly "unterschiedlich", published in Nazi Austria, where the usual "treatment modality" for difference was euthanasia - BRAVE GUY!)

Very thought provoking stuff --Zeraeph 11:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

PS LOOK what I found http://www.neurodiversity.com/library_asperger_1944.html a download of Die 'Autistischen Psychopathen' im Kindesalter(Autistic Psychopathy of Childhood) Hans Asperger - now my German is just about enough to facillitate me in getting drunk or sobering up, but I know I want to see what he actually SAID ;o)

Also, I think we should go through this for additional facts and references, seems a SERIOUSLY GOOD article to me: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Autismus --Zeraeph 11:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, my german understanding is not good enough for those texts :( --Rdos 11:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Neither is mine, but I won't let THAT stop me :o) I'm doing a text scan of the pdf now. --Zeraeph 12:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I removed the claim, based on consensus, but it is back in the article again, still without any proper citation in sight. --Rdos 12:35, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

My fault. I edited before reading the talk page. If the consensus is to remove it, then by all means. However, another addition pointed out that early intervention in infants led to some good results (and so forth) and it would not be unreasonable to extrapolate, provided it was under a suitable umbrella. We should find some additional sourcing for it, however, to show if early "treatment" is beneficial, or if that one study was perhaps an exception. --Keyne 12:42, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, so if you can find a proper citation for the claim, I'll let it be there. --Rdos 12:45, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It should not be difficult to source, but I don't have time for a PubMed search during the day today: if no one else gets to it, I can look for it tonight. Treatment section is pretty sparse already, so some good content would be helpful. Sandy 13:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Lead, 4 refs

characterized by a combination of at least average intelligence[1][2][3][4],

Four references are not needed to back up what is in the DSM. In fact, no references are needed to back the DSM definition, except the DSM definition. The condition is defined as no cognitive impairment. The problem before, which required a ref, was a statement about "above-average" intelligence, which is not part of the diagnosis. If you stick to the definition, you don't need references, much less 4 in the lead, which makes it look like a controversial statement, which it's not. Sandy 11:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I disagree, apart from anything else the DSM defines a slightly different disorder and is at variance with other diagnostic methods as well as some of the work of Hans Asperger himself...the statement stays, with is references against the next late night assault. Incidentally, could you try to express your comments as the personal opinions they are, rather than the "hard facts" they most certainly are not? --Zeraeph 11:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Partial disagree. One of the main things separating AS from something similar, like LFA, is perception of intelligence (which isn't to say intelligence itself). It probably doesn't need four citations, though. --Keyne 12:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

If four references are needed to back up a statement in the lead, that is a tipoff that it's a controversial statement, which needs to be explored in the text, not in the lead. The lead, per WP:LEAD is a summary of the article. The DSM vs. other sets of criteria is ex;ored in the text: perhaps that needs to be covered there ? Sandy 13:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Not at all, in this context, it is just a "tipoff" that you are nitpicking in order to manipulate the factual information again, which needs deflecting. Once again, could you try to express your comments as the personal opinions they are, rather than the "hard facts" they most certainly are not? --Zeraeph 17:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"it is just a "tipoff" that you are nitpicking in order to manipulate the factual information again" - ???? Hardly. If something is controversial in the article it should not be stated as fact in the lead. RN 20:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

It's specifically "controversial" in that it uses intelligence as a sort of marker to "divide" the spectrum, and some people do not find that quite appropriate. Nevertheless, it (avg.+ IQ) is unfortunately one of the primary distinctions from other ASDs . Whether or not it is "right" can be reserved for the body, I'd think. If we can separate it without gutting the distinction, that may perhaps be for the best. --Keyne 20:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Improper reference and citation

Here is the claim: "People with severe AS symptoms may frequently be diagnosed with clinical depression, oppositional defiant disorder, antisocial personality disorder, Tourette syndrome, ADHD, general anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, or obsessive-compulsive personality disorder. Dysgraphia, Dyspraxia, Dyslexia, or Dyscalculia may also be diagnosed; however, while elements from all of these conditions are associated with AS, the cause is usually the syndrome itself, rather than a separate condition.[37] "

It is backed up by the AS-IF site, however this site is not authorative for the causes of AS, and how the comorbidities are related. The last part "however, while elements from all of these conditions are associated with AS, the cause is usually the syndrome itself, rather than a separate condition" should be removed unless better referenced. --Rdos 11:57, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know if the rest of the claims are properly cited either: "While there may be a correlation between them, the disorders are distinct. Research indicates people with AS may be far more likely to have the associated conditions, but the connection appears to be largely one of resemblance. For example, the "obsessions" common to those with AS are usually focused on a special interest; these differ in nature to those specific to OCD, which tend to be based on anxieties, such as a fear of germs"

The cite is to a book I don't have. However, I doubt that the cite can show that the conditions are distinct (see the ref on this I added in the diagnostic section about the dxes not beeing properly delimited). It would need a PMID citation. The claims of different ethology for obsessions also would need a PMID-citation --Rdos 12:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, some of 'em have hives, indigestion, sprained ankles and I know at least one with Cystic Fibrosis (but no PMID citations to back it up)...blimey lose THAT claim asap!

...amazing after all the nit-picking over PMID cites on some issues, to which it was not always relevant, how many glaring inaccuracies and wild statements remain that SHOULD have PMID citation and don't...PLEASE don't tell me we have to go through the whole blessed thing, checking sources, AGAIN? --Zeraeph 12:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Even still, mention of comorbidity should probably be included in some small detail, as it is very relevant. We'll just have to find a Good Source™ for it. :) --Keyne 12:46, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I've long had a problem with some of those book cites. Comorbidity is sticky because of ascertainment bias issues: those with more comorbids tend to come to tertiary, clinical attention more than those who don't have comorbids (Coffey, Park 1997). A laundry list is problematic on that score, but it shouldn't be hard to find an up to date analysis of comorbidity in PubMed: I saw several last night. (Yes, I do think we need to go through some of the sources: the book sources are suspect in my mind.) Sandy 13:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Dunno, one part of me wants to say: "Yeah, but it really needs paring down from the above *some of everything* to a select few".

Another part of me wants to say: "Nah, co-morbidity isn't specifically relevant to AS, Aspies have lives and sh*t happens to people who have lives"

A THIRD part wants to say "RED ALERT: We have a clinical/non-clincal crossover situation - because surely comorbidity is only relevant when it results from the interaction between the Aspie and a society he is not fully compatible with, such as Alcoholism and depression"?

Hmmmmmmmm --Zeraeph 13:00, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, but for me comorbidities are interesting. I usually think I'm ODD, OCD, ADD and TS ;-) --Rdos 13:05, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe some treatment is called for in terms of making the article comprehensive. It's a very sticky topic because of referral bias, but can't be just glossed over. TS is a perfect example: tics are part of the autism spectrum, yet many are inaccurately diagnosed as TS (See Mejia, Jankovic, Burd/Kerbeshian, Freeman, and many more.) Some sort of clarifying statement on where the research stands would be helpful. I believe it can be found in PubMed. I've also found it's very important to parents, who are tying to figure out what's what and how to treat it: for example, if OCD is a separate condition, it may respond to SSRIs; if what looks OCish is just part of AS repetitive rituals, it may not require or respond to an SSRI. And so on ... more, if a child happens to have separately inherited a number of other conditions (OCD, ADHD, mood disorder), then there are some very helpful resources with respect to explosive outbursts and inflexible behaviors which can be used in focusing treatment. So, I hope some brief summary of comorbidity issues can be made. Sometimes the comorbids are causing more problems than the condition itself. Sandy 13:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps, but my personal opinion is that comorbids are not different if they are part of AS or not. So, in the case of OCD, which I have quite a lot of experience with, I don't see why the outbursts or behavioral outcome would be different if its part of repetitive rituals / special interests or not. What seems to be important is 'how you deal with people with OCD. I don't think the traditional stereotypical treatments are anywhere near optimal. For me, the absense or presence of explosive outbursts is more related to environment, and especially how people are behaving themselves towards the OCD individual. It is also controversial, but a Aspiesh environment is probably the best treatment available for OCD and ODD. --Rdos 13:47, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Comorbidity

I think there should be a separate section for comorbidities. It could use Conditions comorbid to autism spectrum disorders as it's main article, and provided a referenced summary. --Rdos 13:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Would it not be a good idea to do this uner the characteristics supersection (possibly under other characteristics)? This would be something clinicians and non-clinicians should probably agree upon. --Keyne 13:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Just my thought. I've done it --Rdos 13:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Subsection needs some more meat on it, such as a brief explaination regarding comorbid disorders and possible confusions during clinical diagnosis. --Keyne 13:29, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Oops, I was reading down the talk page in order. I guess my paragraphs above should have gone here. Sandy 13:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Comorbidity isn't really a Characteristic of the condition, rather, associated conditions. Couldn't it be moved to the bottom of the Clinical section? Sandy 23:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Early intervention

Possible cites:

PMID 16730944 Problem: it doesn't use a control-group, neither does it check if the effects are lasting.
PMID 16712638 Controlled study, but it is on a very narrow set of traits (attention), and no follow-up
PMID 16682171 A critical review of early interventions

I have bought the full text study for PMID 16682171. If anybody wants to read it, give me your email address. --Rdos 14:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Good stuff, Rdos ... you can probably build a paragraph around it. "A small, uncontrolled study showed X, but did not examine long-lasting effects, while a controlled study on Y found Z, but didn't consider A." And so on ... as long as it's worded to reflect the relative strengths and weaknesses of each study, I think it will do. I don't have time to read the full-text, but if you have it online and want to build a paragraph around it, you could quote the relevant parts for us. It sounds fairly comprehensive ? (I hope it wasn't expensive: I've spent a pretty penny accessing articles I couldn't find in my local hospital library.) Sandy 14:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't know what to make out of it. Many claim to improve IQs, but according to large controlled studies of black children adopted into white homes, gains in IQs are not lasting. Blacks still end up at the black average IQ. For this reason, I think any increase in IQ in ASDs is not believable, unless it is confirmed 20 or so years after the intervention. The article criticizes most of the studies for lacking control-group, not using screening instruments for ASDs (that's really something, when they claim to cure it), not recording problem behaviors (tantrums and so on). I think this paper would make a new proper treatment section. I haven't time to do it today though. --Rdos 15:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Because it's a recent review, I like it. Because you have access to the full-text, not just the abstract, I like it even more. What concerns me is, who is the author and what kind of consensus does s/he enjoy? I don't recognize the name among leading autism researchers. What do others say on the topic? Can we be sure it's a through review? How strong is the peer review for that particular journal? I may have to go buy that Cohen PDD book myself :-) I wouldn't say necessarily a "new" treatment section, rather new information complementing what is typically said in the treatment realm; covering the basics, but then going into the "buts" ... Sandy 15:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

One other thing to keep in mind: "treatment" or intervention is not aimed only at increasing IQ. It's also aimed at increasing daily functioning in various realsm (for example, behavior, social and academic). Since we're talking about AS here, increase in IQ would not necessarily be the main concern. Sandy 15:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Various cleanups

I'm working on cleaning up the prose and whatnot, but I've found some pretty unusual claims as well, such as:

~~:"People with AS may be very skilled at using computers and keyboards."~~

I don't want to yank them outright, but there are some sentences that just seem.. odd. For instance, in this case, would it be reasonable to assume that if one is "very skilled" with a computer, one would be proficient with a keyboard as well? As such, would the latter warrant a mention? --Keyne 15:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm for a remove, even though I'm skilled with computers ;-) --Rdos 19:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree for a remove I have been trying to make sense of that senetence ever since it was but in by somebody who is knowledgable of Tony Attwood something has to be done such as finding another source that makes sense of that paragraph.69.242.106.254 20:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

The paragraph on computer and keyboard has been removed. Natche24 21:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Also,

~~:"Research on infants points to early differences in reflexes."~~

The article backing up this statement does not seem to believe that the early differences in reflexes is a cause, but rather an early detection method. Could someone with a bit more knowledge check on this one for appropriateness in the "Research into causes" section? Regardless, if it does not belong there, it could almost certainly be included elsewhere. --Keyne 16:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I added this earlier today. Yes, you are right, it is described as a detection method and not cause. However, I think the section should be called "Research" or possibly "Research and causes". Otherwise the study might be moved somewhere else? --Rdos 19:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

"Research and causes" actually sounds like a pretty good idea, though I'm not sure if that is something specifically allowed under more medical-y sections. It'd certainly allow for more good information, though, we would have to be careful to make the distinction between "research" (into what? to what extent?) and "research into causes" --Keyne 19:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

I changed it to "Research" and divided it into two subsections: "Research into causes" and "Other research". --Dubhagan 19:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Any chance we could put bars (underlines?) around it? Sub-subsections look pretty crummy. :P --Keyne 20:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Underlined them. Looks better. --Dubhagan 20:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

More,

There is a decent sized paragraph discussing comorbidity in the "Epidemiology" section. I'm not sure if we want to move any of it to the newer "Comorbidities" section, but the option may be present. --Keyne 16:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

...and I think I'm done with my once-through. Could at least one more person comb through the article and make suitable corrections and whatnot? That way, we can primarily worry about additions! :) --Keyne 17:10, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Dr. Asperger's Own Work On A Connection To Celiac Disease?

I had hoped to find something that would resolve my perplexity about the way in which Dr. Asperger's own work on a link to celiac disease has been either forgotten or rejected by later researchers on the subject. It seems odd that most discussions of a condition which received Asperger's name completely omit his thoughts on the role of dietary irritants. I understand that controversy remains around the model (as refined in recent years) of undigested opioid proteins from gluten and casein concentrating in and overstimulating areas of the brain that affect autism-spectrum behavior. But in light of work by Reichelt, Panksepp, and Cade, and in light of the dramatic improvements some families have achieved treating autism-spectrum disorders based on this model, and particularly in light of Dr. Asperger's own thoughts on the topic, it seems negligent to have no mention whatsoever of this angle -- even if only to explain why the expert mainstream has examined and rejected it (if that is what has happened).

Is there someone familiar with the writings of Asperger and these other researchers on the celiac/exorphin connection who has the expertise and perspective to integrate some mention of them into this article? 66.32.215.243 16:54, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Alden G

WOW!! Though this is probably more relevant to the Hans Asperger than here (or maybe it's own article?) if anyone digs anything up I REALLY want to see it for my own interest...--Zeraeph 17:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Not quite what you were looking for (celiak link), but the GFCF diet addresses similar concerns. --Keyne 17:40, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

As briefly as I can: I've seen claims that Dr. Asperger believed the symptoms we now call Asperger Syndrome were an expression of celiac disease. I don't know whether these claims (about his belief) are true but they're typically supported with a reference to one or more articles like this one: Asperger H., Die Psychopathologie des Coeliakikranken Kindes. Ann. Paediat. (1961) 197: 146-151. I haven't found any such article myself and I'm not sure I'd be able to read it adequately if I did. Obviously today we know more and we understand that there is no single, universal explanation for autism. But K Reichelt (University of Oslo) and RF Cade (University of Florida) have apparently succeeded in showing how the lack of certain critical enzymes (as in celiac disease) leads to accumulation in the bloodstream and the brain of specifically identified opioid molecules ("exorphins") that originate within the structure of casein and gluten. They have identified and made extensive use of tests for metabolites of these "exorphins" (in the urine for Reichelt and the blood for Cade), tests in which strong positives correlate strongly with cases of autism that resolve or improve on the GFCF diet. If I recall correctly, Cade has demonstrated the mechanism through rat models of autism and schizophrenia and has shown through necropsies that the exorphins in question do (surprisingly) accumulate in relevant areas of symptomatic brains, where they would presumably hyperstimulate receptors and result in excessive activation of that area's function. He also writes of one research group in which 100% of subjects tested positive and responded to a GFCF diet. I don't have the insight or qualifications to evaluate any of this myself but I'm always frustrated to find instances like this article or expert radio discussions which simply ignore the whole angle. If it's for real, it's very important; and if it's not, there are apparently many people who need to be enlightened as to why it's not (most of the GFCF community, I suppose). Since it was apparently Dr. Asperger himself who set in motion the whole dietary avenue of investigation, it would seem appropriate to summarize the expert consensus on his speculation and on the proper perspective in which to view Reichelt's and Cade's modern work. That's about all I can offer in a nutshell. Googling Reichelt (Kalle) or exploring celiac and GFCF sites should lead to a fair amount of material in the area and to people who are more familiar with it than I am. 69.15.111.19 23:02, 19 July 2006 (UTC) Alden G

I'm on a gluten-free diet since several years back. It certainly solved some (unnecessary) problems (not brain-related). --Rdos 19:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for all this info. I must explain why I asked. I know a whole family, most of whom are celiac and who also have a metabolic blood disorder (I think it's excess iron) too. They ARE all a bit eccentric...but, after seeing this, I am now trying to figure out whether their eccentricity is similar to AS or not...and obviously, any information on how to handle being celiac. --Zeraeph 00:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I suppose by excess iron you mean Hemochromatosis? Yes, I think this angle should somehow be incorporated in the article, but I'm not sure if it can be referenced to Publ Med. I suspect several more metabolic disorders are also correlated with autism. That's why I researched it several years ago, with positive results. For instance, I have parkinson in my family, and many other seems to have as well.

I THINK Hemochromatosis is right. I wasn't particularly suggesting any of this be put into the article (or that it shouldn't if you know reasons why it should be) but I would be personally very interested in hearing about any connections you know of? --Zeraeph 10:51, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You can look at my "psychiatric covariation surveys" at www.rdos.net (select Psychiatric covariation). The problem with them is that there was no control-group, so only the big differences might be relevant. --Rdos 12:06, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Research section(s)

We need more information in these sections (they're pretty weak stubs right now). If nobody objects, I'm going to slice the old research section into both halves (with ensuing edit frenzy, I'm sure!) for a starting point. --Keyne 20:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, I put in a reminder to add a lead-in paragraph to the new daughter subsections. I can work on that later if it isn't in by the time I get home. --Keyne 20:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

To do

Just a section to add/strike things off as we complete the focus.

Lead needs additional information. Should be approximately three paragraphs;
"Research" section needs a lead-in that will hopefully better address the research fork;
"Research into causes" needs ~~a lot of~~ more work. We need more information about the listed research;
"Other research" needs ~~a lot of~~ more work. We need more information about the listed research;
"Comorbidities" could probably use some fleshing out;
"See also" should appreciate slightly better NPOV to reflect the diversity of the subject;
Should probably have a few more "best case" sourcings for some of the non-clinical subsections;
Is NPOV still an issue in other sections, and if so, we need ideas to address it;
General wikilinking still needed;
References need cleaning up to be a tad more uniform; and,
Should probably have one or two more "fine tooth combs" passed through the article to scour for inappropriate grammar, consistency, and out of place junk.

--Keyne 00:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll work on the wikilinking, since I don't think that will offend anyone's POV :-) If there are other areas in which I can help, let me know. Although some of the inconsistency in the refs troubles me as well, I actually think no one will notice. Sandy 00:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Any help would be appreciated. Silly things like POV arguments can be toned down if need be, as we have a good sampling of editors' tastes. ;) --Keyne 01:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Since content is still being added, I should probably hold off a bit on wikilinking. I came across someone once who ran a bot for me that checked for too many wikilinks (removed all but the first link), but I should probably hold off on that, too. And, I've got a script that does an auto check on FA features, so I can run that and post the results. Sandy 01:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I attempted to address #s 2, 3, and 4, though they definately need more work. Could someone more familiar with the mentioned studies (among other possibilities) please expand this section and daughter subsections? --Keyne 01:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Automated peer review

I ran an automated peer review bot on the article, and posted the results to Talk:Asperger syndrome/peer review. It says the TOC is too long :-( It mentions that some footnotes aren't right: don't know how those got by RN or me, since we both watch for that. Have a look, Sandy 01:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, I've been going through fixing the footnotes as I have time - but there were a lot of out-of-place ones so I'm not too surprised I missed one :). RN 01:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

~~Ack, I broke the major NINDS reference.~~ (Still going to try to fix others that I know how..) --Keyne 01:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Footnotes should be relatively safe, now. --Keyne 01:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Asked someone to run a bot cleanup. Sandy 03:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Tweaking Keyne's lead

I don't think it's "ugly", but here are some ideas:

Research regarding AS is split into two sub-groups: those that seek a "cause" and those that seek information regarding the syndrome's symptoms, which may then be possible to use as a diagnostic screen. While no research has been definitively shown as an individual factor, many have exposed base differences in things such as brain structure. To what end is currently unknown; however, research is on-going.

Saying it's split into two groups sounds ... "definitive" ... as in, needing a reference. I also don't agree with the sentence: there are many who seek a cause and ALSO seek information -- that is, who fit into both camps. RDos has uncovered a gazillion good sources above: maybe you can find some wording in one of them, so as not to have to figure it out on our own, which would require backing into a reference? Rather, start from something that is referenced, and rephrase it? Sandy 01:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

DSM addition date ref

I really thought we used to have a ref for 1994? The NINDS says this:

Asperger’s observations, published in German, were not widely known until 1981, when an English doctor named Lorna Wing published a series of case studies of children showing similar symptoms, which she called “Asperger’s” syndrome. Wing’s writings were widely published and popularized. AS became a distinct disease and diagnosis in 1992, when it was included in the tenth published edition of the World Health Organization’s diagnostic manual, International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10), and in 1995 it was added to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV), the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic reference book.

Should we just switch to 1995, and ref to NINDS? I thought we had it nailed to 1994, with a ref? Sandy 01:45, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Should be in '94, as that is when teh DSM-IV was published. I'll see if I can't dig it up (would a publish date work?). --Keyne 01:47, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I dunno, I'm confused ... we have this passage later on in History, and it's ref'd to the DSM def, which is incorrect, it should be ref'd to the NINDS, even though the date is different ??? I think we lost a ref somewhere along the way, 'cuz I thought we had it.

Wing’s writings were widely published and popularized. In 1992, the tenth published edition of the World Health Organization’s diagnostic manual and the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10) included AS, making it a distinct disease and diagnosis. Later, in 1994, the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) and the American Psychiatric Association’s diagnostic reference book also added AS.[6]

Sandy 01:53, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

~~By the way, we should lose the disease word from the History section: it's not needed.~~ (done-Keyne) Sandy 01:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It's definately 1994. The DSM-IV-TR (current version) was later published in 2000. No corrections were issued in between dates. --Keyne 01:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Yup, listed here. --Dubhagan 01:59, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, that puts us in a bind, since the stupid NINDS site says 95, and it's ref'd all over the place. We can add a clarification to the footnote, but what do we say ? Where did the 95 come from? Are there different dates used on the DSM, as in, copyright vs. publishing date or something? Sandy 02:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I really have no idea. I daresay NINDS is incorrect on that fact, as so many other sources seem to indicate the pub date of 1994.

Publisher: American Psychiatric Association; 4th edition (January 15, 1994)
ISBN 0890420629 --Keyne 02:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll look at the footnotes and see if there's a way we can note something.

Goofed ref

Something's wrong here, (current refs 51 and 52):

51. News-Medical.net (7 Feb 2005). Clues to autism's neural basis. Retrieved 11 December 2005. PMID 15694294

52. News-Medical.net (7 Feb 2005). Eshkol–Wachman movement notation in diagnosis: The early detection of Asperger's syndrome. Retrieved 19 July 2006. PMID 511073

They both have the same pub date and source, so maybe something got confused, but I can't get the second ref to load, so I can't tell what it is. Sandy 02:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Not sure how to fix the source, but #52 was "published online 2004 July 28." --Keyne 02:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Reference 52 is wrong it was online from PNAS not news-medical.net Natche24 02:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Did someone fix it? Sandy 02:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, I see now -- I'll fix it -- the other link is only to the abstract, so we don't need it (same as PMID). Did we somehow lose the full-text, or did we never have it? Sandy 02:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That PMID was wrong -- went to something about elephtiasis !

Is this the correct ref for 52?

Teitelbaum O, Benton T, Shah PK, et al. "Eshkol-Wachman movement notation in diagnosis: the early detection of Asperger's syndrome." Proc Natl Acad Sci U S A. 2004 Aug 10;101(32):11909-14. Epub 2004 Jul 28. PMID 15282371 Full text.

Sandy 02:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Found it -- normal to superior intelligence, peer-reviewed source

Right here: [23] currently our ref #55. Sandy 02:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we ref that source, and lose the 4 refs in the lead? Sandy 02:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No, but we can lose 3 links and retain Treffert--Zeraeph 03:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Holy detail Batman. That is a great link to borrow from, we can include that or the links provided in its bibliography here. --Dubhagan 02:58, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

No, we don't have to put it in the links. It is a source that is so accepted by Wiki, that it is included in the infobox at the top of the article :-) And, we've already used it as a ref (#55). Per some Wiki policy, you shouldn't put in links what you use as refs. Sandy 03:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

You misunderstood me, I said use the links that article provides in its bibliography for our references. I didn't mean provide that site in our external links. --Dubhagan 03:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

~~An anon editor changed that section last night, but it hasn't been updated to reflect the new reference. Sandy 12:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)~~ Done, Sandy 14:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Additions to treatment

I think I'm satistified with the current treatment section. I cited most of it directly from the full-text study I found above. The only "novel" interpretation I did is that self-injury, aggression, noncompliance, stereotypies, or spontaneous language is not core-autistic symptoms. The article mentioned these as primary targets, however it did not classify them as non-core autistic symptoms, but rather wanted to view them as symptoms of autism. However, none of these are part of the DSM definition, so I think my addition here is valid. Feel free to differ. Indeed, the article were so critical that it is probably not even necessary to refer to Dawson. It seems like curing autism to some people is the same as curing the above PTS symptoms! --Rdos 07:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

There is currently quite a big discrepancy between what Sandy's original link says are usually treated in behavioral programs, and what the review study says are usually treated. I think this discrepancy largely is because NIHs article describes non-cure ABA, while the PublMed review deals with "cures". There is quite a bit of inconsistence here. Of course, in reality, the "cure"-programs only seems to work on symptoms from a bad environment while the non-cure program actually could make a difference ;-) --Rdos 12:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Why separate research into causes from other research?

I don't see the rational for this. Many of the things described in other research has implications for causes, like the differences in brain regions. It also looks rather ugly, IMO. --Rdos 08:11, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur: they could be merged to be less "stubby". It's just "Research". Also, the automated peer review reveals the TOC is a bit complex, so anything we can do to help that will be beneficial.

Rdos, I added PMIDs and fixed some info in the refs you added to Treatment and Causes: can you please doublecheck that I got the correct info? Sandy 12:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

It wouldn't be so bad if the section was fleshed out a bit more than it is currently. I'd get to work on that, but interpreting and rephrasing direct medical opinion isn't precisely one of my strong suits. :)

If we're in a bind, merging the section back together wouldn't be bad, especially now that there is less argument over NPOV and whatnot, but that shouldn't take place over supplying more information than current. --Keyne 12:57, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f NINDS (May 11, 2006). Asperger Syndrome Fact Sheet. Retrieved 2 July 2006. Cite error: The named reference "NINDS" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).
^ BehaveNet® Clinical Capsule™. DSM-IV & DSM-IV-TR: Asperger's Disorder (AD). Retrieved 28 June 2006.
^ Kwon H, Ow AW, Pedatella KE, et al. "Voxel-based morphometry elucidates structural neuroanatomy of high-functioning autism and Asperger syndrome." Dev Med Child Neurol. 2004 Nov;46(11):760-4. PMID 15540637

[NINDS-1] ^ ^a ^b ^c ^d ^e ^f NINDS (May 11, 2006). Asperger Syndrome Fact Sheet. Retrieved 2 July 2006. Cite error: The named reference "NINDS" was defined multiple times with different content (see the help page).

[DSMIV-2] BehaveNet® Clinical Capsule™. DSM-IV & DSM-IV-TR: Asperger's Disorder (AD). Retrieved 28 June 2006.

[3] Kwon H, Ow AW, Pedatella KE, et al. "Voxel-based morphometry elucidates structural neuroanatomy of high-functioning autism and Asperger syndrome." Dev Med Child Neurol. 2004 Nov;46(11):760-4. PMID 15540637

[1]

[2]

[3]