Jump to content

Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive 19

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 15←Archive 17Archive 18Archive 19Archive 20Archive 21→Archive 25

Full-text journal-published AS articles, freely available

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

ASD in males & females

I'm moving the following material here from the article. It's about ASD, not about Asperger syndrome, and so isn't that relevant in the article. The topic is an important one, but the citations here are not the best and the claims are not well supported. Eubulides (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)

Austism Spectrum Disorders in Males & Females

The majority of ASD referrals and diagnoses are for males. However, epidemiological research suggests that females with ASD are largely under-diagnosed. Researchers including Tony Atwood, a regarded expert on Asperger's and author of several books on the subject[1] have attributed this phenomenon to several factors. Although every person on the spectrum is different, the tendency of ASD girls is to withdraw and try to blend in. Conversely, boys on the spectrum "act out," sometimes violently, calling more attention to themselves.[2] The public misconception of savant males obsessed with train schedules and computers doesn't help matters. Females on the spectrum often become entranced with animals, words, and writing.[3] Arguably, the most famous person ever confirmed of being on the Autism Spectrum is the female author Temple Grandin.[4][5]


You can check the links to see that these are all actually about Aspergers but it applies to ASD as well so I made it ASD to cover both bases but you're right, it shouldn't say ASD here. I am reposting with AS.

Drewhamilton (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid that simply replacing "ASD" with "AS" doesn't suffice. First, the citations are weak; they do not, for example, support the claim that females with AS are largely under-diagnosed, nor do they support the claim that Temple Grandin is the most famous person with ASD. Please take a look at the rest of Asperger syndrome to see the sorts of citations we are looking for: preferably articles published in peer-reviewed journals (please see WP:MEDRS for details). Also, please try to read the whole article and see where any new material would go; this material is about diagnosis so surely it belongs under Asperger syndrome #Diagnosis, or better yet under Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome. Also, please see WP:MEDMOS for other important issues, e.g., whether and how notable cases like Grandin should be cited. I'm not saying the topic is unimportant (it is an important one); it's just that it needs to be covered neutrally and with good citations. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome

<copied from User talk:SandyGeorgia>

Hi. I noticed that you reverted my edit to Asperger syndrome. As per the MoS, my understanding is that abbreviations should be pluralised by adding an S, which would seem to apply there because the abbreviation is of autism spectrum disorders. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Referring to this edit. Notice the example given in MoS (They produced three CD-ROMs in the first year; The laptops were produced with three different BIOSes in 2006) applies to subsequent usage of the acronmym in the plural form; the initial definition of the acronym should be singular, I believe. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, I'm not sure, but I'm happy to leave it be. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)

Label "aspie" considered derogatory by some

I have Asperger syndrome and consider the term "Aspie" derogatory. There are others with and without Asperger syndrome that share my views and think this should be noted in the article if it does not already have such a notation. I have seen discussion on some message boards to confirm this but think some established scources would appear more relaible for a citation --Ted-m (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

We can't really include opinion on Wiki. If you have a reliable source stating that Aspie is derogatory, that could be considered for addition at Autism rights movement or Sociological and cultural aspects of autism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
Hmm, well, Asperger syndrome uses aspies twice without any hint of whether the word is considered derogatory; if a significant number of people are offended by the word then the wording should be reconsidered, regardless of what is done in other articles. Sources, please? Eubulides (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
It would probably be good general practice to eliminate the word anyway ... probably some embrace the term, while others reject it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)
I agree. I also consider the term derogatory, and it would indeed be best to remove the word from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.244.28 (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)
As another person diagnosed with AS I have looked into this and I suspect the term was first used by Aspies for Freedom as a soubriquet for people who campaigned for recognition and rights for people with Aspergers syndrome. It was also used in the document "Discovery of Aspie Criteria" written by Tony Attwood and Carol Gray. Its not as far as I know any kind of formally recognised medical term, but more of one used by campaigns etc. So I would be behind any attempt to purge the article of it for that reason alone.
I can't easily find a place to download this document from though (I think I have a reference at home but I'll have to look for that too!) It isn't a peer reviewed article, more one that attempts to draw a distinction between people with AS who passively accept it, and those who actively work against discrimination. Just as a matter of curiosity where does the idea of Aspie being derogatory come from? Soarhead77 (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
This is an encyclopedia article, not merely a medical article; if the terminology "aspie" is in common use then it's fair game as a topic for the article even if the use is outside of medicine. That being said, if "aspie" is commonly thought to be a derogatory term, care should be taken. We haven't yet seen any reliable sources on whether it's derogatory, though. Eubulides (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)
I recognise this and my comments were intended to be in accord with what you say. I am still curious as to why people think aspie is derogatory. Soarhead77 (talk) 08:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Support Group Listings by country

The page should include the support groups for asperger-adults and their websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tucko1 (talk • contribs) 10:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Please see WP:NOT; that kind of information is most likely available via the DMOZ link already listed in the "External links" section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

dinosaurs

i know someone with this, and he likes to run around like a dinosaur and make dinosaur lke noises, is this related to the syndrome or is he just very eccentric —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.175.243 (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a source of medical advice. That said, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science is a better place to ask than here. The Wednesday Island (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)

Discriminating vandals

I hate how people vandalize groups of people on Wikipedia for no reason. People can just be immature sometimes. As an AS-diagnosed teenager, I feel these vandals to this page is discriminating. Who agrees? 71.121.72.7 (talk) 04:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

Everybody (except the vandals) agrees that vandalizing Wikipedia is a bad thing. Vandals attack all over the place, ranging from this article to Tourette syndrome to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Some of them are no doubt expressing discrimination; but most of them, I suspect, simply delight in destruction. Eubulides (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

No mention of skepticism?

I recall the Wikipedia Asperger syndrome article having at one time had a section labeled "controversy," or something similar. At the moment I'm trying to find arguments skeptical of the legitimacy of the diagnosis, and I wanted to reread that section. It's gone.

I was moved to comment on this partly because a similar section was at one time part of another Wikipedia article that I occasionally looked at--one on the author Dennis Cooper. Cooper is a writer known primarily because of the controversies that have attended his work; but someone pruning Cooper's Wikipedia entry commented that he had removed the section as it constituted a distraction. Hence the article became more promotional in nature.

Is this not deeply objectionable? And what are we to make when the discussion of a psychiatric condition seems itself to become promotional in nature?

Asperger syndrome involves as nebulous and subjective a diagnosis as I can personally imagine. We know when someone has a syndrome with definitely biological roots, such as Down's syndrome, because of the scientifically quantifiable debilities associated with it. The debility associated with Asperger syndrome, however, is lack of social adeptness, by a particular society's standards, at a particular cultural moment. This reminds me of now disgraced, once widespread diagnoses such as borderline personality disorder. Those who believe in the legitimacy of the Asperger syndrome diagnosis increasingly do little more, in their online and print polemics, than point out that licensed, educated authorities frequently make the diagnosis. Was the case much different with borderline personality disorder?

At any rate, this article has become more like an act of advocacy than it was when I last read it.

JFC1978 (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)

If you don't believe in Asperger's syndrome I think you need to talk to some of the other people affected by it. Read this article: Families Affected by Adults with Aspergers Syndrome

Soarhead77 (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

As is usual with Wikipedia, the article attempts to give due weight to all significant viewpoints on a topic. If a significant viewpoint has been missed, by all means please suggest specific wording changes with reliable sources, preferably the sort of peer-reviewed journals that Asperger syndrome typically cites now. Eubulides (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)
I'm not sure this is a significant viewpoint to be honest. It is an example of a viewpoint that perhaps was once held but is now diminishing interest in view of the evidence to the contrary. Would you argue for a section called "controversy" in cancer for example? Soarhead77 (talk) 08:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)

Increased Intelligence in some AS

Perhaps this article should mention the Higher-than Average IQ some researchers have corallated with AS 98.169.244.28 (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)14 May, 2008

Sources, please? This topic was discussed at some length in Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive16 #The lead. Back then, we didn't find reliable sources on AS that mentioned higher-than-average IQ. Eubulides (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Famous people with AS section

Just a thought. There are a lot of important people who have or are theorized to have had AS 98.169.244.28 (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)14 May, 2008

See List of people on the autistic spectrum and People speculated to have been autistic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)

Right amount of wikilnking

This change was labeled "Typo fixing + general fixes using AWB" but I didn't see any typos or general fixes there; all I saw was removal of wikilinks, I guess under the general principle that article A should never contain more than one wikilink to article B. That general principle is too strong: it's too much to ask a reader of Asperger syndrome to remember the lead's wikilink to Hans Asperger by the time they've waded all the way through the article to the History section. It could well be that some of the wikilinks are unnecessary, but I'd rather see them judiciously removed by hand, by someone who's reading the article, rather than removed automatically by a deterministic algorithm. As I was writing this I saw that the change was reverted; if the article does have too many wikilinks I suggest starting the stable version, with more links, rather than the AWBed version with fewer. Eubulides (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Right, same thinking here when I reverted. The corrections were almost all delinking, that appeared automatic based on an algorithm. I'm not a fan of WP:OVERLINKing, but all of those links were necessary and not overlinking, IMO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)

Group For Teens With Asperger Syndrome

If anyone wants to join an online support group for Asperger syndrome then here is link to one on Blurtit it is called Group For Teens With Asperger Syndrome I an also adding it as an external link on the Asperger syndrome page. Miagirljmw14 (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for not adding it after all. It doesn't seem to meet the WP:LINKS guideline. Eubulides (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Pronunciation

Is there evidence that the pronunciation /ˈæspɚgɚ/ is either the original or common, or is it just how the person who added it pronounces it? To me, it's always been /æspˈɜ:gɚ/. -- Smjg (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

I've never heard anyone say /æspˈɜ:gɚ/, fwiw. But Dr Asperger's name didn't use English stress patterns anyway, so it's hard to say. The Wednesday Island (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)
This is the English page, so it should give the English pronunciation. The OED gives ˈasˌpərgɘr for the U.S. and ˈasˌpəːgɘ for the British pronunciation, so I made this change to specify them. Eubulides (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Dumb it down for me?

I was diagnosed with Asperger syndrome, and I had to go to all these humiliating classes. My friends didn't seem to think I was weird, and they eventually decided I didn't have it after all...

Anyway, I wish there were explanations on this page for some of the words used in this article, especially around Section "Speech and language". If anyone can help with this, or at least tell me to "go to school, kid", I would appreciate your time. Thanks

Tezkag72 (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment; we appreciate helpful advice like that. Could you please list here which words need explanations? That will help us improve the article. Eubulides (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
The user later wrote me: "Pedantic, prosody, and habituation were the main ones."[1]. These words are all wikilinked, so readers can get an explanation simply by following the link. Should they be reworded anyway? Eubulides (talk) 23:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)
I think it's alright as is. · AndonicO Engage. 23:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Self-diagnosis problems

I'm wondering if something should be put into the "cultural" section about the pitfalls of self-diagnosis. It seems that these days anyone who is vaguely socially awkward and uses the internet is talking about how they have it, or they think they have it, despite not getting an actual doctor's professional diagnosis. Are there any sources for criticism of this behavior, or personality disorder self-diagnosis in general? The false diagnoses take away attention and care from those who actually have it and need it, yet among the internet crowd it seems like the "in" thing to have nowadays. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.76.142.137 (talk) 18:49, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I suggest MacKay 2002 doi:10.1111/1467-8527.00263 as a source in this area. Eubulides (talk) 23:50, 12 June 2008 (UTC)
I wonder if it's valid to make a reference to a work online that you have to pay for. Here, it's US$29. It seems that Asperger's is now a trendy thing to have and an excuse for being rude. Frotz (talk) 10:24, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Now who's being rude? I don't think Wiki is the place to publish your rants, there are more suitable websites where you can vent your frustrations. Fenke (talk) 12:22, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Ignoring the issue of trendiness and rudeness: yes, it's valid for a Wikipedia article to refer to works that are not freely accessible, and Asperger syndrome already does that on many occasions. The most important thing is that the source be reliable; if two equally-reliable sources are available, it's better to refer to the free one so that more readers can check it. If someone can suggest another source that is as good as (or preferably, better than) MacKay 2002, let's use that instead. Eubulides (talk) 14:12, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
Calm down please! How can asking if a non-free source is acceptable be rude? Ebulides' answer makes perfect sense to me. And, no, that was not a rant. Perhaps it has a place in the "cultural" section... perhaps something saying that it appears to be trendy now to have Asperger's with maybe a reference to weird obsessions like eyeglasses. I don't know how to make that sound encyclopedic. Frotz (talk) 22:51, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
The second part of your initial post was also rude: you seemed to imply that people with AS are rude. · AndonicO Engage. 23:39, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
What happened to WP:GOODFAITH? There was no implication at all. I was stating an observation that some people claim Asperger's in order to justify their bad behavior, to the chagrin of people who really do have Asperger's. I'm one of the latter. Frotz (talk) 23:58, 13 June 2008 (UTC)
I have it too (self-diagnosed, I should add, after reading this article). However, I don't think mis-diagnosis's should be mentioned here; most people who think they have it do. · AndonicO Engage. 00:05, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Okay. Not a problem. Frotz (talk) 18:11, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Frotz, you know damn well where you crossed the line and it wasn't with asking about a source. "Good faith" is no excuse for being rude, claiming 'Good Faith' is misplaced as you did imply, knowingly, that not only is the AS diagnosis fake (trendy), but also that it's used to cover up plain rudeness. You were ranting and are now just muttering your 'good faith' excuse when called out. Fenke (talk) 12:03, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
It seems to me that you're insulted by my statement that Asperger's is a trendy thing to have and as a cover for rudeness. Further, it seems that you took that to mean I implied that AS is fake. Do I have this right? Frotz (talk) 18:02, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
Could you guys please take this topic elsewhere? It has nothing to do with this article. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 18:32, 14 June 2008 (UTC)
I am annoyed rather then insulted because you are generalizing a personal, subjective impression. That's why I call it a rant. Fenke (talk) 19:10, 14 June 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum; talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Bias?

This article only describes the disadvantages of Asperger's, except for noting that individuals with it often have excellent auditory and visual perception. It notes that Aspergers have obsessive interests but doesn't describe how they are often very knowledgeable about them (That's why Hans Asperger described his young patients as "little professors". It also doesn't emphasize that Asperger's people only have some of the symptoms described (that's why it's a syndrome). I don't consider myself experienced enough to make big changes but I hope someone who is sees this.--Supertask (talk) 16:12, 18 June 2008 (UTC)

I'm afraid this criticism is a bit vague. Could you please be more specific? In rereading the article I didn't notice major problems in this area. For example:
That being said, the article is obviously far from perfect, and if you can suggest specific problems with wording or make specific suggestions, that would help us improve it. Eubulides (talk) 17:24, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
I think Wired Magazine referred to AS as the "Geek Syndrome", suggesting that the typical symptoms/characteristics of AS are helpful for computer professionals and engineers. Frotz (talk) 22:26, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
  • Yes, and that sort of topic is currently covered in Asperger syndrome as follows: "Although most students with AS/HFA have average mathematical ability and test slightly worse in mathematics than in general intelligence, some are gifted in mathematics and AS has not prevented some adults from major accomplishments such as winning the Nobel Prize." The math-ability source is Chiang & Lin 2007 (PMID 17947290), a more-recent and (on this subject) more-reliable source than Wired.
  • This topic has been discussed at length on this talk page in the past; I suggest reading Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive17 #The math connection, ctd to avoid needless work in re-discussing the topic.
Eubulides (talk) 22:54, 18 June 2008 (UTC)
if the contention is to be made about the nobel prize, i think at least one example should be included. i have recently read speculation that paul dirac (physics,1933) was an as sufferer(?). also isaac newton although he precedes the nobel by a bit.Toyokuni3 (talk) 13:49, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
"At least one" or "at most one"? :-) We have reliable information about only one person with AS winning the Nobel. This information is already cited in the article, and people who are curious about the identity of the individual can easily find out who it is by following the citation. The person in question is not notable enough to make the cut for this article; the vast majority of Wikipedia readers will never have heard of him. Eubulides (talk) 15:48, 26 June 2008 (UTC)
sorry, i missed the reference to v. smith. nonetheless you should see the personality section in the paul dirac article. at least it's good for a laugh. i don't mean to belittle the condition, but dirac's comment about his wife is undeniably funny.there is also reference to the psychologist who has written that dirac had asperger's. apparently he is well thought of in the field.do you think he represents a citable source for a nobel laureate having asperger's? obviously, i can't know your familiarity with theoretical physics (it certainly isn't my field) but i do know and can assure you that dirac was/is very,very notable.on a par with heisenberg,schrödinger, bohr, fermi, etc. Toyokuni3 (talk) 05:22, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
Certainly Dirac is notable but it's only speculation that Dirac had AS. The source in question doesn't claim Baron-Cohen thought Dirac had AS, so the Paul Dirac article has it wrong. I'll go fix it now. We shouldn't rely on speculation in Asperger syndrome. Eubulides (talk) 07:10, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
well, now i know better and the dirac article gets corrected. all's well that ends well.Toyokuni3 (talk) 14:40, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This article is no longer unbiased, as either Wikipedia or members have deliberately removed many positive comments about people with AS. This article has also had remaining portions re-worded to be misleading and give the impression that those with AS are mentally slow, humorless, or that dealing with Aspies is much more difficult than it really is. This article would be much more accurate if many of those deleted adpects were restored. Tattoo-Mage-13 (talk) 00:13, 25 August 2008 (UTC)

Well, your comments would be taken more seriously if there were some diffs, explanations, and refactoring of some of your comments. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:23, 25 August 2008 (UTC)
Then here is a sample of something that has been edited from previous versions:
  • Notable cases
  • AS is sometimes viewed as a syndrome with both advantages and disadvantages,[112] and notable adults with AS or autism have achieved success in their fields. Prominent AS-diagnosed individuals include Nobel Prize-winning economist Vernon Smith,[113] electropop rocker Gary Numan,[114] Vines frontman Craig Nicholls[115] and Satoshi Tajiri, the creator of Pokémon franchise.[116] Colorado State University professor and author Temple Grandin was diagnosed with autism at a young age, and has used her autism to her advantage in her profession as an animal behaviorist specializing in livestock handling.[117][118]
  • The syndrome was in the news in 2007 because of the suicide of Nikki Bacharach, the only child of the songwriter Burt Bacharach and his former wife, Angie Dickinson. The younger Bacharach had AS. A month later, Daniel Tammet, the subject of the television documentary Brainman, published Born On a Blue Day: Inside the Extraordinary Mind of an Autistic Savant (Free Press), a memoir of his life with AS, and was profiled in The New York Times.[119]
  • Some AS researchers speculate that well-known figures, including Thomas Jefferson[120], Jeremy Bentham,[121] Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton,[122] Glenn Gould[123] and Ludwig Wittgenstein,[124] had AS because they showed some AS-related tendencies or behaviors, such as intense interest in one subject, and/or social problems.[125][126] These speculative diagnoses, especially posthumous ones, remain controversial, as they work only from biographical information and sometimes ignore documented traits that would indicate against Asperger syndrome.[122] Autistic-rights activists use such speculative diagnoses to argue that it would be a loss to society if autism were cured.[127]
(I am not bothering to transfer the specific references indicated by the numerals in the interest of space because there are 15 reference notes.) This is an entry in earlier versions of the article that are well cited and supported, as well as that they help to show both how some Aspies have helped to contribute to developments in both arts and sciences to the benefit of others. It also helps to illustrate that Aspies can not only be fully functioning members of society, but valuable contributors as well. To remove sections like these places a slant on the overall article that shows negative aspects while overlooking many positive things that have come from those with AS. Tattoo-Mage-13 (talk) 01:19, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
"I am not bothering to transfer the specific references indicated by the numerals in the interest of space ... " And that sums up the largest flaw in this analysis. The fact that there is a little number after a statement doesn't mean the statement was well-supported or conforms to WP:V, WP:UNDUE or WP:MEDRS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:36, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
WP:MEDMOS #Notable cases rightly recommends against burdening an article such as this with an extensive list of individual cases. Asperger syndrome currently mentions "major accomplishments", "gifted in mathematics", and "winning the Nobel Prize", and it wikilinks to List of people on the autistic spectrum; this should suffice for an article on a medical condition. Eubulides (talk) 07:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Humor

This article used to be much more complete but has been chopped down severely by somone(s). The part I take particular offense at (being someone with AS myself) is the implication that people with AS are not able to understand humor, irony, or teasing on anything more than an "cognitive" level. Whoever edited out the comments from some time back about the fact than many Aspies have a very developed sense of humor that is often based on wordplay, doggerel, and other such things needs to look at whether they were doing so for a "cleaner" article, or simply because they personally can't conceive of someone who's autistic in any way being able to have a sense of humor. I have looked at this article compared to earlier versions and find it rather disappointing that many of the good aspects of Asperger's were chopped out, including the list of famous Aspies and those strongly suspected of having it. To remove all the positive parts of this article is, in my view, reprehensible. (In fact, I added in something this evening about many Aspies actually having a sense of humor, and someone came along and chopped it right back out.) If it was someone who does not work for Wikipedia, I would request they be reported for manipulating articles. If it's someone who works for Wikipedia, they be talked to and made to restore the article to help show Aspies in a more realistic and unbiased light. Tattoo-Mage-13 (talk) 03:17, 24 August 2008 (UTC)

It appears that the rationale for the deletion was explained in the edit summary: the information was unsourced. A substantive change in content will always be scrutinized for its references. The information you added may be confirmed by personal experience, but per WP:source, it needs to be supported by published scholarship. JNW (talk) 03:24, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
  • JNW's summary exactly explains why I reverted that edit.
  • The current Asperger syndrome does not say people with AS "are not able to understand humor". It says they "may not enjoy it due to lack of understanding of its intent" (my emphasis), which is not at all the same thing. The cited source is Kasari & Rotheram-Fuller 2005 (PMID 16639107).
  • Do you have access to the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders? If so, I suggest consulting Lyons & Fitzgerald 2004 (PMID 15628606); it is a reliable source on the subject and may provide a different perspective from that of Kasari & Rotheram-Fuller 2005.
  • Or if you can suggest better sources than these, that would be even more helpful. Please see WP:MEDRS for what constitutes a reliable source in articles like these.
Eubulides (talk) 03:43, 24 August 2008 (UTC)
Here is a sample of something that was edited from the original article, and was sourced within the article itself.
  • Individuals with AS may use words idiosyncratically, including new coinages and unusual juxtapositions. This can develop into a rare gift for humor (especially puns, word play, doggerel and satire). A potential source of humor is the eventual realization that their literal interpretations can be used to amuse others. Some are so proficient at written language as to qualify as hyperlexic. Tony Attwood refers to a particular child's skill at inventing expressions, e.g., "tidying down" (the opposite of tidying up) or "broken" (when referring to a baby brother who cannot walk or talk).[33]
This citation references the book: Atwood, Tony (2006). The Complete Guide to Asperger's Syndrome, Jessica Kingsley Pub. ISBN-1843104954,p. 82
The current article is much less comprehensive than even the article from 14:48, 18 May 2007. (Which was also more thoroughly referenced from my examination.) The current article is also worded and edited in a manner that can be very misleading regarding the intellectual, educational, and social abilities of those with Asperger's. And while it is understood that psychological data will change over time, certain aspects will not change, such as what is referenced above. I can verify the humor reference personally as an Aspie myself, for example. (Much of my own sense of humor is based on wordplay, puns, multiple word connotations, and the like. And a large number of people have noted that I have a well developed sense of humor.) Tattoo-Mage-13 (talk) 00:46, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Tony Attwood's books are not peer-reviewed, and in some cases, peer-reviewed literature disagrees. For a specific item to be included in the article, it should conform to WP:V, WP:UNDUE and not be contradicted by peer-reviewed sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
  • I like Attwood's breezy and informal style, but I'm afraid SandyGeorgia is right: his non-peer-reviewed book is not as reliable as the peer-reviewed literature. As far as I can tell from the Amazon limited search capability, Attwood cites two sources on AS and humor: one is a case study (a mother writing about her children), which is a weaker primary source; the other is Lyons & Fitzgerald 2004 (PMID 15628606), the review I suggested above.
  • Currently, Asperger syndrome cites Kasari & Rotheram-Fuller 2005 (PMID 16639107), which has this to say about AS and humor:
Social understandings and interactions with others are seriously impaired in children with HFA and Asperger syndrome. For example, although these children have considerable verbal ability they fail to utilize language appropriately in social interactions. Part of the issue may be due to difficulties in taking the perspective of others, thus resulting in poor performance in conversations and interactions with others. Understanding nonliteral language and abstractions, whether humor, irony, or teasing, can be challenging for these children.
In a review of humor in autism and Asperger syndrome, Lyons and Fitzgerald [PMID 15628606; labeled "of special interest" by Kasari & Rotheram-Fuller] suggested that using and understanding humor is a complex process involving problem-solving, memory, mental flexibility, abstract reasoning, and imagination. It also requires an affective response and knowledge of the social context. Children with Asperger syndrome and HFA seem to have some humor understanding, perhaps because of the mathematical properties of humor and logic, but lack the affective understanding to participate fully in humorous exchanges. Similarly, Martin and McDonald [PMID 15264499; labeled "of outstanding interest" by Kasari & Rotheram-Fuller] found that young adults with Asperger syndrome were less likely to understand ironic jokes than typical controls and thus unable to utilize the social context for interpreting conversational meaning. Thus, although individuals with autism usually understand the cognitive basis of humor, particularly around topics they have interest in, they seem to lack the understanding of the intent of humor; that is to share enjoyment with others.
  • Since both Attwood and Kasari & Rotheram-Fuller both cite Lyons & Fitzgerald (PMID 15628606) and since that is a review, I dug it up. You can read the abstract by following the PMID yourself. The conclusion is too long to quote in its entirety, but its first paragraph is typical:
"Each of the neuropsychological/lateralization theories and underlying brain bases reviewed can account for some aspects of impaired humor appreciation in autism/Asperger syndrome. The well documented deficits in linguistic abilities, pragmatics, mindreading, executive functions, episodic memory, self awareness, central coherence and affective processing in individuals with autism and to a lesser extent in Asperger syndrome all contribute to these difficulties. However, despite this overwhelming evidence there are many anecdotal and parental reports of humor in individuals with autism/Asperger syndrome of all levels of functioning. Examples range from basic slapstick humor to highly sophisticated humor based on nonsense and logical confusion of language. These accounts seem to contradict the assumptions of our humor understanding in autism/Asperger syndrome and challenge some of the psychological theories with regard to creativity, imagination, reciprocal social interaction, executive functioning and mindreading."
Individuals with AS appear to have particular weaknesses in areas of nonliteral language that include humor, irony, and teasing. They usually understand the cognitive basis of humor but may not enjoy it due to lack of understanding of its intent.[6]
with this text:
Children with AS appear to have particular weaknesses in areas of nonliteral language that include humor, irony, and teasing. Although individuals with AS usually understand the cognitive basis of humor they seem to lack understanding of the intent of humor to share enjoyment with others.[6] Despite the overwhelming scientific evidence of impaired humor appreciation, there are many anecdotal reports of humor in individuals with AS, which challenge our theories of humor in AS.[7]
Eubulides (talk) 07:11, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
I think that would be good, and would consider the matter of humor resolved well enough on my part. My primary concern is not to have the article written with the specific terms I want, rather it's to help show that not all Aspies are the same and that there's at least evidence of many having strong and well developed senses of humor... often because some of us have a strong understanding of language and its nuances.
Perhaps you might also consider finding a way to incorporate the following from the final section of the List of people on the autistic spectrum; article as a way to help make this more complete?:
  • "research has shown that individuals with autism and Asperger Syndrome are impaired in humor appreciation, although anecdotal and parental reports provide some evidence to the contrary."[39] They describe several individuals with Asperger syndrome who display a sense of humor and further suggest that a minority of such individuals, especially those that are mathematically gifted, can possess a sense of humor that is superior than average due to their unusual personalities, experience and intelligence.
The reference number points to: ^ Lyons V, Fitzgerald M (2004). "Humor in autism and Asperger syndrome" (PDF). J Autism Dev Disord 34 (5): 521–31. doi:10.1007/s10803-004-2547-8. PMID 15628606. Retrieved on 2007-11-26.
This is the same citation you use above. Tattoo-Mage-13 (talk) 15:52, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks, I made the above-discussed change. I'm dubious about the "several individuals with Asperger syndrome who display" text that is in People speculated to have been autistic, though; I don't think it summarizes the source accurately. The only individual they specifically mention is Ludwig Wittgenstein and they (rightly) don't talk about his sense of humor, only his "highly developed linguistic and mathematical abilities". They claim he "suffered from Asperger syndrome", citing Fitzgerald 2000 (PMID 10795857), but this diagnosis is quite speculative; James 2003 (PMID 12519805), an enthusiastic proponent of the theory that Newton and Einstein had AS, merely lists Wittgenstein as a "possible case", and Oliver Sacks says (PMID 11591871) the claim is "very thin at best." Eubulides (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Somewhat late perhaps but I think the qualification overwhelming scientific evidence is perhaps a bit overdone in light of the given sources and citations. Or was that humor, or humour? Fenke (talk) 18:41, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for catching that. The source does say "overwhelming" but does not say "scientific"; "scientific" was my own addition and in hindsight (after looking at the source again) it was not right. The "overwhelming" seems a bit much to me, looking at their sources; at the risk of being accused of exercising my judgment I toned it down to "strong" (if you object, obviously "overwhelming" is better-supported by the source). Eubulides (talk) 19:03, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

New review by Woodbury-Smith and Volkmar

Pubmed reports the following recently-published review of AS:

Woodbury-Smith MR, Volkmar FR (2008). "Asperger syndrome". Eur Child Adolesc Psychiatry. PMID 18563474.

The full text is not yet available from the publisher's website, but judging from the abstract it looks like an excellent review and I suspect we should use it as a source for this article, when the review comes out and we have time to digest it. Eubulides (talk) 18:33, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Image for deletion

I have nominated the photo of the boy in the article for deletion, out of concern for this individual's privacy. Regardless of whether you agree with my concern, or find that my concerns are misplaced, please go to commons:deletion requests/2008/06/23 to discuss. 69.140.152.55 (talk) 19:06, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I am not going to register a Commons account to fight one deletion, but here is the thread where the image was discussed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Added the above link to deletion discussion over at commons. R. Baley (talk) 19:36, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
The boy's father went out of his way to choose the photo which obscured the boy's face. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:38, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
Commons doesn't seem to have a policy on whether/why images are kept, so I can't tell if this is a valid rationale or not. Also, I can't even tell if it's a boy or a girl, so it's not like it's immediately clear who this is. I'll put in a comment at the commons. WLU (talk) 19:43, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

Unclear language

What does "a failure to [...] enjoy spontaneous interests or achievements with others" mean? Шизомби (talk) 01:11, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

That wording is adapted from DSM-IV-TR. I made this change to try to make that wording clearer, and to give an example. Hope this helps. Eubulides (talk) 02:17, 27 June 2008 (UTC)
That helps somewhat. I really wasn't sure what a "spontaneous interest" would be. I guess enjoying achievements with others might be liking accomplishing something as a team? But don't in fact aspergers people generally like sharing information about their interests with others? Шизомби (talk) 21:48, 27 June 2008 (UTC)

This line seems counter-intuitive: "and the speech of those with AS typically lacks significant abnormalities". It implies that those who are not A.S. HAVE significant abnormalities in their speech, and that does not seem to me to be a common view of average humans. Antilog (talk) 17:13, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

That phrase is intended to be part of the earlier "although". The phrasing here is a bit confusing, since the meat of the sentence comes at the end and is only a few words. I tried to clarify it a bit. Eubulides (talk) 17:58, 22 July 2008 (UTC)

Asperger Syndrome and Dyssemia

Children and adults with Asperger Syndrome may possibly exhibit dyssemia, as the diagnosis of AS coexists with other conditions, or their AS condition may be confused with dyssemia. Dyssemia consists of a series of difficulties with expressive and/or receptive nonverbal communication, the language of relationships. These difficulties may refer to facial expressions, gestures, body posture, pitch and tone of voice, appropriate touch and interpersonal space, mood, adaptive manners, punctuality, functioning and performing in rhythm with the environment, clothing, make-up, and hairdo style.

Dyssemia is considered a difference rather than a disability; therefore it is not classified as a standard medical condition. In extreme cases, the symptoms of dyssemia could be considered ‘Social Anxiety’ or ‘Communication Disorder Not Otherwise Specified.’ Many times Dyssemia springs from cultural factors; the same has been predicated of AS, HFA, and NLD. MinerVI (talk) 08:31, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Dyssemia is not a standard diagnosis and is not mentioned in high-quality reviews of Asperger syndrome or ASD. Eubulides (talk) 01:29, 28 June 2008 (UTC)

New section: Nerds and Asperger syndrome

I created this section to fill a gap in the article. Regardless of the negative connotation of the word "nerd", it remains the usual, street English word to describe AS and must appear at least once in the article.

Technical note: the content of this section is not written in the page, but consists of a partial transclusion of the Nerd article. For details, see WP:Transclusion. Emmanuelm (talk) 17:03, 7 July 2008 (UTC)

Unless the references specifically used the word "nerd", that section looked like original research. I would also agree that this would seem to be a minor aspect of Asperger, and I doubt the scholarly sources spend a lot of time discussing the nerdiness of AS. WLU (talk) 17:23, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree with WLU. Further, please do not transclude another article here; this is a featured article, and if an outside article deteriorates or doesn't meet FA standards, that can affect his article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I strongly disagree that "nerd" is the usual, street-English word to describe AS. Lots of nerds do not have AS, and vice versa; and reliable sources do not at all equate the two notions. I agree that the section in Nerd is original research; it should not be included here (or in Nerd either, for that matter). Eubulides (talk) 18:18, 7 July 2008 (UTC)
I think a lot of people we've historically called nerds would have been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, had Asperger's been around at the time. Benjamin Nugent, author of American Nerd: The story of my people, in an interview with Salon two months ago. I found this within five minutes of Googling. Emmanuelm (talk) 14:36, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm unclear what is the relevance of one layperson author's speculation to a well-sourced medical article. Does Benjamin Nugent have some training or qualifications to make diagnoses that isn't revealed in the interview? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:39, 17 July 2008 (UTC)
This link should be of interest: [2]. It is an article by a professor of psychiatry at UCSD discussing the relationship between the nerd stereotype and Asperger's, as well as related autism spectrum disorders. I have added the citation to the disputed section which was transcluded in order to address the OR criticism, although I agree transclusion may not be the best way to add this section to this article. I think discussion of this topic is relevant and entirely appropriate, however, in order to place Asperger's within a societal context: both to illustrate the stigma often faced by people with AS, and to point out how society has historically viewed and responded to people with AS. It need not be claimed or implied that everyone who is called a nerd has AS nor that everyone with AS will be seen as a nerd by peers, rather the noteworthy phenomenon here is that there is a clear and documented overlap between the stereotype on the one hand and behavioral profile associated with AS on the other. Schomerus (talk) 16:00, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
That link is not to peer-reviewed research; it is a hypothesis that nerds suffer from what the author dubs "mild PDD" (MPDD), a condition that is apparently neither PDD nor AS. The connection to Asperger syndrome is dubious, and anyway the "mild PDD" hypothesis does not appear in, and has not been tested by, any peer-reviewed research that I know of. Eubulides (talk) 18:23, 26 August 2008 (UTC)
Please see my comments in Talk:Nerd#Asperger Schomerus (talk) 23:05, 26 August 2008 (UTC)

Asperger Managers and Asperger Parents

See also: WP:NOTAFORUM
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:48, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

These two topics could well do with being covered. I am pretty sure that the phenomina of Asperger managers is quite a common one and is very little researched. If anyone knows of any research on Asperger managers please let me know. I do know of a book sold by Amazon called "Managing With Asperger Syndrome: A Practical Guide For White Collar Professionals" by Malcolm Johnson who is an Asperger manager giving advice for other Asperger managers. Asperger managers often have bad unintended consequences as they dont understand office politics, are oblivious to any office bullying that is going on around them and have serious problems judging someone's character resulting in errors such as promoting the wrong person. On the plus side Aspies are generally more honest than non-Aspies but they can easily get manipulated by a bully. --Penbat (talk) 19:02, 15 July 2008 (UTC)

How can we cover it, if it's very little researched? The Wednesday Island (talk) 19:54, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Just to say that Aspie managers and Aspie parents exist but there is little research would be better than nothing. Anyway maybe there is some research out there I dont know about. I am pretty sure I have personally have had 2 Aspie managers and am personally convinced it is common.
The obvious question about Aspie parents is how it impacts the upbringing of the children. Also are both parents likely be Aspie rather than just one ? --Penbat (talk) 20:34, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Two other interesting questions are:
1/ What percentage of Aspies know they are Aspies either because they worked it out for themselves or were diagnosed by a professional ?
2/ What percentage of the different professions are Aspies. I guess accountants and software engineers have a higher percentage of Aspies than most and I would be surprised if there were hardly any teacher Aspies.--Penbat (talk) 20:41, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Given that the syndrome does not make a person infertile or unemployable it doesn't seem worth mentioning that some people with it are parents or managers. Your other questions are interesting but appear to be calling for more research; Wikipedia is an inappropriate place to do this. The Wednesday Island (talk) 20:51, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I am not calling for more research. I am asking if anyone knows of any existing research so some text can be written in this article. No-one is saying that Aspergers makes anyone infertile or unemployable but the awareness of the general population about Aspie coworkers is very low. Study of thsse topics is very worthwhile. There is a book available suggesting specific professions that an Aspie may take to. The phenomina of Asperger managers, for example is highly important. I am convinced that I had an Aspie manager in two companies I worked for and am convinced that in both cases a serious bullying culture thrived as in both case the Aspie manager was oblivious to its existence and the bullies rang rings around him. If the manager had not been an Aspie I am sure the bully cultures would not have thrived.--Penbat (talk) 21:21, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
I'll go out on a limb and claim that no research on this subject has been reported in any reliable source. (I did a brief search on it, and found nothing.) Eubulides (talk) 23:28, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
Yes. Obviously my experience and conjecture dont stand up as valid scientific evidence. But it is a compelling and powerful proposition that:
"A significant number of bully cultures (in for example the workplace and schools) thrive because the relevant person in position of authority has Aspergers Syndrone and is both oblivious to the bullying and is himself manipulated by the bullies."
Little research has been done in this area. On exception is "Toxic Coworkers: How to Deal with Dysfunctional People on the Job (by Alan A., Ph.D. Cavaiola, Neil J., Ph.D. Lavender)" but even this doesnt mention Aspergers as the book only covers personality disorders and Aspergers isnt a personality disorder. But it does cover Schizoid Personality Disorder which I think is similar to Aspergers but unlike Aspergers is a voluntary adaptive condition.
There is also interactions between personality types which could be studied, for example someone with Narcissistic Personality Disorder is likely to wrap an Aspie round his little finger. --Penbat (talk) 08:44, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I doubt there's going to be much research on it, AS is relatively rare, about 2-3 in 10000, and I'd expect managers with AS to be even rarer since AS strengths usually aren't in the skills needed for management positions. But if you do find solid information on managers with AS it would probably be welcomed. Fenke (talk) 13:46, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
Rare as it is I'd be surprised if it was as low as that. According to the National Autistic Society in the UK the occurrence of all ASCs is about 1 in 100. On this basis 2-3 in 10,000 would imply that only about 1% of people with an ASC have AS. Its true to say that the current occurrence is essentially unknown - this is one reason the UK government has recently said they will attempt to establish the number of people with it (in both adults and children). Simply on the basis that all the conditions required for autism except the delay in language are required for AS would make me think the incidence was higher. We have had two occurrences (me and another) to my knowledge in my place of work, which might imply 1 in 700 if this was typical which I don't suspect it is - apart from anything else there may be more, I've generally assumeed there will be, simply because lots of people go right through life without ever knowing they have AS. There are also many people in denial - I know of at least one.
I've been told that I have none of the skills needed to become a manager - I tend to discount this for two reasons, the person who said this is a known bully (we have at least 12 people who would be claimed to have been bullied by this person), and I have managed a factory in the past. I might be unusual in that I also have two university degrees Soarhead77 (talk) 14:45, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I think it is more common than the figures mentioned. Also you can almost double it if you just look at male Aspies. Also I think you will find the incidence is much higher in the computer or finance industry. My Aspie candidate 1, was actually the company finance director not so much a line manager, but as a consequence I think the company was very dysfunctional as he had problems relating to the requirements of the employees (equipment was inadequate for example). My Aspie candidate 2 was a departmental manager and got there through many years of technical experience. The company appreciated that he was not good with people so they recruited a manager under him to manage people but I think this manager was an NPD bully and manipulated the Aspie manager. --Penbat (talk) 14:57, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
As i mentioned, Aspies can learn to be better managers see for example "Managing With Asperger Syndrome: A Practical Guide For White Collar Professionals" by Malcolm Johnson who is an Asperger manager giving advice for other Asperger managers. --Penbat (talk) 15:02, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

Another reminder of WP:NOTAFORUM; this page is for dicussing improvements to the article based on reliable sources. Perhaps this discussion can be moved to Talk:Sociological and cultural aspects of autism, if there are reliable sources upon which to base the discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:16, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

My only motivation is to highlight areas that have not yet been covered in this article and asking if anyone knows of any relevant research which can be used to support new text relating to these areas. --Penbat (talk) 15:23, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
I would agree here. What in a sense both Penbat and myself have done is to investigate whether evidence for particular assertions is available, and I in particular have said (or at least intimated) that such evidence might become available in the future. Soarhead77 (talk) 12:12, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Physical reprecussions of Asperger's Syndrome?

Solely behavioral and/or neurological things that can stem from Asperger's are mentioned - things like depression, anxiety, etc.. But, shoudln't some physical one be there, too?

I will grant that hypertension, high blood pressure, and even stroke could fall under a wide anxiety umbrella - so if that is your reason for not mentioning them I can understand. However, it seems that the stress associated with an Aspie's attempts to survive in the daily routine of most would lead to this, and perhaps to easier work burnout if not monitored closely. Or, have they actually found that that is not the case, and I am trying to think too logically on this?

Again, though, perhaps you mean to cover all of these in anxiety. (Or, perhaps "anxiety and other stress-related conditions could be place in place of just plain "anxiety.")209.244.187.155 (talk) 15:47, 16 July 2008 (UTC)

British IPA Pronunciation

I can't seem to decode the 'əː' glyphs using the IPA help? Is the former correct? the latter? Am I missing something? 87.254.73.119 (talk) 00:53, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

I got that from the OED, which gives "/{sm}as{smm}p{schwa}{lm}g{schwa}/" as the British pronunciation; "{lm}" denotes the IPA long vowel colon, that is, Unicode U+02D0 "ː". Please see International Phonetic Alphabet #Suprasegmentals, and see this Python program showing how to convert OED notation to Unicode. Eubulides (talk) 03:56, 24 July 2008 (UTC)

Personal relationships

The following text was added as part of a new top-level section Personal relationships that cut the existing Asperger syndrome #Characteristics in half, in a confusing way:

Having Aspeger syndrome can make staying in a personal relationship extremely difficult. The constant battle with miscommunications alone can be both exhausting and heartbreaking for both parties involved. Maxine Aston[8] suggests several ways to better communication when there is a situation where one partner has Asperger syndrome, and one does not. Some of these include utilizing the telephone and e-mail rather than talking face-to-face, or talking with the lights turned down. Tony Attwood[9] suggests using written communication, which allows each partner to actually take some time to think over what they want to say.

A better location for this sort of material is Sociological and cultural aspects of autism #Asperger syndrome and interpersonal relationships; I suspect many of these ideas are there already. Anyway, I made this edit to move the text in question to the above location, and to add a {{further}} template to make it clearer where the subarticle is.

If this material is added to Sociological and cultural aspects of autism I suggest first reviewing WP:MEDMOS #Audience, in particular the section "Signs of writing for (other) patients", as it does appear that this text suffers from some of the problems listed there.

Eubulides (talk) 14:50, 9 August 2008 (UTC)

I would agree with most of this. One word of warning - most aspies that I know (including me) don't like using the telephone for reasons that aren't exactly clear. The other main difficulty in relationships is the lack of emotional response in aspies. The aspie in me wants to find the spelling mistake and correct it :-) Soarhead77 (talk) 18:00, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

nomination

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.

I find this page mostly focuses on asperger syndrome as a disease and does not give weight to other views. It can also be seen by the wording in which it is not stated that these are just one groups views. The complaints on the talk page are yet another clue. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.93.212 (talk) 17:25, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

After putting a POV tag on an article, it does not suffice to merely complain vaguely that that the article is biased and that views are omitted. Any serious criticism must indicate which text is biased, which text should be included instead, and which reliable sources should be cited in the newly-included text. Please see WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS for guidance as to what sort of text and sources are expected here. Eubulides (talk) 18:17, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

I had problems with the wording such as the words impairment and that it seems to be considered a disease. The sources cited from the beggining seem to be made up of mostly medical journals which can many time be ghostwritten. The sociological part thrown in at the end seems like an attempt to give a minimum opposing view. I would see this article in need of improvement I guess. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.93.212 (talk) 18:47, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Stating whos views these are would be enough to suffice although I owuld appreciate more. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.93.212 (talk) 18:50, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Per WP:V and WP:NPOV, please provide examples of reliable sources that are not accorded due weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:06, 23 August 2008 (UTC)
Just saying something is non neutral is not the same as pointing it out with sourced information. SandyGeorgia is correct. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:37, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

"Asperger syndrome is one of the autism spectrum disorders (ASD) or pervasive developmental disorders (PDD), which are a spectrum of psychological conditions that are characterized by abnormalities of social interaction and communication that pervade the individual's functioning, and by restricted and repetitive interests and behavior. Like other psychological development disorders, ASD begins in infancy or childhood, has a steady course without remission or relapse, and has impairments that result from maturation-related changes in various systems of the brain." here is a quote from the wikipedia article. just read through and you will find it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.93.212 (talk) 19:49, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

All right, you're unable to justify either of the tags you've placed; telling us to read the article doesn't justify a POV tag. Since that has already been explained to you at Talk:Autism, which you also tagged, I'll continue the conversation there. Posting the article text to a talk page doesn't justify calling the article POV. Please provide specific sources and examples, or the tag will be removed. Tagging multiple articles without justification can become disruptive. Please provide sources and justification for the tags. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:54, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

My main problem is the wording in this article. It is suggestive. As far as neutrality there are conflicting views which should be specified, but the wording makes it seem like credibility is being given to the medical view and reading through it seems like I am reading a medical manual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view#Explanation_of_the_neutral_point_of_view —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.232.93.212 (talk) 20:05, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Can I suggest (which Sandy also hints at) that we continue this discussion at Talk:Autism rather than two places. I don't see anything being discussed here that isn't a concern shared with autism. Colin°Talk 20:10, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Same discussion at Talk:Autism; continued there. Long and short, no justification or explanation yet for POV tag. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:14, 23 August 2008 (UTC)

Wait!

Someone recently posted a talk section called AS and Crime, which was quickly deleted on the suspicion of it being a sock for a banned member User:Jquandar. I have no way of knowing if the person who posted that section about AS and Crime is User:Jquandar or not (maybe an admin could check the IP's), but the information seems legitimate to me. I know it's not politically correct, and it might be possible to show that the data isn't true, but it seems to me that rejecting the idea of even putting it into the article on the basis of superficial similarity to something that an Encyclopedia Dramatica member posted a few weeks back is a bad idea. Even if by some chance it is the same person, shouldn't we take a look at the information and add it into the article if it seems legitimate?

(Note: It would seem that I chose to use my anonymous IP (65.175.254.105) to edit during the "Autism and Rape" thing because I didnt want it showing up in my recent edit history. I don't know who Jquandar is but I am familiar with Encyclopedia Dramatica and with the help of a friend who isn't on Wikipedia I was able to discover the other things that he/she had likely written. I recently switched from general vandalism watch to watching mostly autism-related articles. I have AS myself, but I'm a novice when it comes to knowledge about AS and autism so I mostly content myself to reverting vandalism and even then I will wait and let someone else do it if I'm not sure what to do. I'm just saying all of this in case anyone here is wondering who I am, since most editors of this page probably aren't familiar with me.) Soap Talk/Contributions 19:04, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

If it's WP:RS, it should go in, with whatever caveats are appropriate. If it's not, it shouldn't. I can never really tell what "political correctness" is supposed to mean other than being polite to people. The Wednesday Island (talk) 19:36, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
The sources given so far are not reliable. Please see further discussion on this topic in #AS and crime below. Eubulides (talk) 23:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

What is going on here. You remove not only text but the source URL's as well? Based on an unchecked and utterly false conjecture that I'm a sock puppet? or troll?(whatever that is). You are reminding me of Vietnam vets with PTSD. I understand it is not the most palatable of issues but that is no reason to wipe it off the page without discussion. At minimum Id like the links restored and something of my question, and maybe an explanation for why there was no check of my IP before wrongly concluding sock puppetry? I'm only suggesting the smallest of mentions in the article, perhaps a sentence or even half sentence if it is found legitimate. 58.170.49.139 (talk) 21:32, 31 August 2008 (UTC) PS. to put your mind to ease please note that I have not been involved in editing any of the previous discussions above, nor have I read them until now. So you can rest that I'm not one who frequents this entry, nor am I involved in AS groups outside of Wikipedia (can't believe I'm having to offer a reassuring resume!) 58.170.49.139 (talk) 21:41, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

There has certainly been activity in the past few days by a sockpuppet account on exactly this topic, along with attempts to recruit people to this page. I'm afraid that in such an environment, large additions of highly speculative material on the same subject by IP addresses are subject to considerably more scrutiny. At this point it remains unclear whether this new effort is indeed independent. Eubulides (talk) 23:53, 31 August 2008 (UTC)
Hang on, whats your problem with assuming good faith? Whilst I understand your valid (yes, I understand) suspicions of the motivation of editors, I take offense at your rhetorical question of whether my effort is indeed independent. I know absolutely nothing about another person posting something on this subject. By taking this suspicious stance you are also giving ammunition to those who (I agree, unreasonably) claim bias on your part. 58.170.49.139 (talk) 00:02, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I asked no question. If I were not assuming good faith, I would not be writing here. By the way, with phrases like "assuming good faith" you are clearly familiar with Wikipedia procedures. I suggest signing in rather than continuing to post from an IP address. Eubulides (talk) 00:17, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Alright, you want to quibble. You did not ask a question of whether my effort was independent, but you made a clear statement that it remains unclear whether my efforts were indeed independent. Note that I had already made a statement that your focus on "coincidence" did not follow through to the suggested reality of me being a sockpuppet, and yet you still feel a need to state that coincidence again. Would you like to take this paranoia further? 58.170.49.139 (talk) 00:28, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

To Eubulides: I didn't think you would be keen to reply to this question of whether you wanted to continue with your paranoia. The fact that you deleted my heading, quotes, and links to studies, all based on your completely unsubstantiated and therefore paranoid assumption that I was a sock-puppet and troll, is unacceptable. Its called bad faith without reasonable justification, and I hope the reason you didn't reply to my question of whether you wish to continue with your paranoid statements is because you may have realized the error of your impulsive reaction (and if you dont, I hope someone points it out to you). I gave you the opportunity recant your actions and you came back with petty quibbling. You even abstained from my request that you reinstate something of my original question plus links to the articles I was citing (which you deleted). To point out the obvious, even someone with your extensive accumulated knowledge on AS studies does not have diplomatic immunity from respectful intercourse. Whilst I don't care one way or the other about the outcome of the topic I introduced, I do care about your inappropriate actions and sincerely hope that other editors record this incident for future reference. Thank you to others who responded to this sensitive topic in a non-paranoid manner. 58.170.49.139 (talk) 05:37, 2 September 2008 (UTC)

Too confusing: no bullet points or diagnosis criteria

This article just isn't clear.

The Attwood book gives 3 different diagnosis criteria types. ie not just DSM-IV. This article is hard to read through and actually see what the list of traits (positive & negative) involved are. If I didn't already know, I would have a hard time figuring out form the article as it stands now! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.32.222.149 (talk) 02:04, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome #Diagnosis is just a brief overview; for more details (including a numbered list), please see Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome, the subarticle. If you can suggest specific wording improvements to either that would be appreciated. Eubulides (talk) 03:09, 3 September 2008 (UTC)

Impairments in lack of eye contact, etc.

  • This edit, which adds "or that the person is lying or insincere", is not supported by the cited source (McPartland & Klin 2006, PMID 17030291). That source doesn't talk about people with AS appearing to lie or be insincere.
  • This edit, which adds the italized words in "impaired nonverbal behaviors in areas such as lack of eye contact, no or inappropriate facial expression", adds words to the text unnecessarily, which adds confusion. The text is already talking about "impairments" in eye-contact etc, so there's no reason to change "eye contact" to "lack of eye contact". Saying "impairments in ... lack of eye contact" is a double-negative, which makes the text more confusing.
  • I suggest first proposing changes like these here, on the talk page (click on "new section"). Lots of editors watch this talk page, and you're sure to get comments.

For now I reverted those changes, pending further discussion here. Eubulides (talk) 19:58, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Problems with "significant debate" edits

This set of edits introduced some problems:

  • It causes the lead to incorrectly imply that Asperger syndrome is an ASD that is characterized by "difficulties in social interaction and by restricted, stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and activities". But that is the characterization of ASD, not of AS.
  • It implies that the standardization of AS occurred when it was included in the DSM-IV. But it occurred earlier, when it was added to ICD-10.
  • It says "There is no treatment" for AS. But there are treatments. It's just that there is no single treatment.
  • It claims that there is a "significant debate among researchers" as to whether AS is a disorder, but we don't have a reliable source saying that.

I see now that the edit has been reverted, but it did point out some problems in the previous text:

  • The previous text leads with the definition of ASDs. But this is an article about AS, not ASDs. This is confusing (and I think it partly explains the above edits). It's better to lead with the characteristic of AS that distinguishes it from the other ASDs.
  • There's a missing "physical" in front of a clumsiness, to distinguish it from social clumsiness.
  • The last sentence of the lead is excessively wordy.

I installed this edit in an attempt to fix these problems. Eubulides (talk) 07:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

While I agree with most of what you said, and your edit is at least better than mine, I have to say that I'm not sure if the opening sentence should quite read like that. If it opens with "There is no general delay in language or cognitive development," then it makes it sound much less like a condition - which could present bias (IMO - open to debate). I think it's best to start the article with an opening sentence that recognizes the most ideosyncratic traits of Asperger Syndrome, positive or negative, and then leave the lack of verbal or cognitive developmental delayment for the next couple of sentences, as they are undoubtedly important in the first paragraph.
And as for the rationale for reversion that "difficulties in social interaction and by restricted, stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests and activities" is not a diagnostic criterion for AS, but rather for ASD. Well, for starters, AS is considered to be, in and of itself, a very mild form or variant of ASD. And secondly, the stereotyped patterns of behavior/social awkwardness is one of the defining elements of the disorder. I would provide sources for this, but I'm a tad too lazy to do so.
Otherwise, all of your other points are correct. Master&Expert (talk) 21:29, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
I can certainly see your point about the opening sentence. It would be nice if the lead sentence included not just what makes AS differe from other ASDs, but also the parts of ASDs that AS shares. Perhaps the 1st two sentences should be combined? But the Wikipedia style guide says that the lead sentence should be a simple declarative sentence.... Eubulides (talk) 07:40, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm still hung up on the new lead sentence, but haven't found a way around it. The problem now is that we hit "the ASD in which" before we hit anything else that explains what all ASDs have in common, so understanding the at that point requires us to click out to the ASD link. It becomes clear as we read, but I get tangled at that point. I liked the original lead better, but I see what you're trying to accomplish, don't know how to solve it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:26, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
How about replacing the first two sentences with the following?
Asperger syndrome (also called Asperger's syndrome, Asperger's disorder, Asperger's or AS) is a brain development syndrome that is characterized by difficulties in social interaction and restricted, stereotyped patterns of behavior and interests, all without general delay in language or cognitive development. This set of signs distinguishes AS from more severe autism spectrum disorders (ASD) such as autism.
The structure of this wording is stolen shamelessly from Autism's lead. Eubulides (talk) 19:59, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Much better: I'm getting tongue twisted in the current version. Not sure you need the word all? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:05, 22 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks. The "all" was designed to remove any ambiguity as to whether the "without" clause applied only to the "restricted" clause, or to both the "restricted" and the "difficulties" clauses. I wasn't sure myself whether it was needed, but if it's clear without the "all" let's leave it out, and I struck it from the suggested wording. Eubulides (talk) 20:13, 22 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope nobody minds if I add Eubulides's version, as it is very good, concise, and eye-catching - and more importantly, a consensus exists to modify the text. Master&Expert (talk) 01:27, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Thanks. In the process, a comma went missing and a "brain" was changed to "neurological" which is less understandable to non-experts; I fixed those. Eubulides (talk) 05:05, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Lead sentences again

This edit changed the lead sentences, on the argument that the text was misleading. But the result is a bit repetitive. How about this replacement instead?

Asperger syndrome (also called Asperger's syndrome, Asperger's disorder, Asperger's or AS) is the autism spectrum disorder (ASD) in which there is no general delay in language or cognitive development. Like the more severe ASDs, it is characterized by difficulties in social interaction and restricted, stereotyped patterns of behavior and interests.

Eubulides (talk) 18:07, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

That looks fine to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:23, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Thanks; I made that change. Eubulides (talk) 19:09, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

'naive' word. Spelling.. . Etymology says it's from France.

I know naive can also be spelled as "naïve" too (which I learnt from wiktionary, and a person who added it, and I reverted it), although I more easily recognise it without the extra symbols above the 'i'. I remember English as a simple language without extra stuff. Have your say please Logictheo (talk) 18:38, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Doesn't matter, as long as it's used consistently. The New York Times uses the diaeresis, for what that's worth, and Wikipedia also seems to prefer Naïve to Naive. If it was spelled with the diaeresis, I'd leave it that way. Eubulides (talk) 19:03, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Asperger's and intelligence

There have been recent attempts ([3], [4], [5]) by 79.71.215.203 to add a claim to the effect that people with AS have above-average or average intelligence. These claims have been supported by questionable sources. The most recent attempt is particularly questionable: it inserted a claim "however those with AS are often of average, or above average, intelligence" into the lead, but the claim is not supported by the cited source (which merely says "Some people who have Asperger's syndrome may have normal or high intelligence but struggle with social skills"; there's a big difference between "Some ... may ... but" and "are often"). Also, the source itself is a fact sheet put out by an insurance company, which is not that reliable by the standards of Asperger syndrome and of WP:MEDRS.

For now I reverted the change. If we can find sources that are reliable by the standards of WP:MEDRS we can of course revisit this. However, the lead already says that AS is characterized by "no general delay in language or cognitive development" (this part is well-sourced). Now, consider a hypothetical syndrome that I'll call the "brown-eyed syndrome", which is characterized by having brown eyes and no significant cognitive delay. On average, people with brown-eyed syndrome have a higher IQ than typical. But this is by definition; once you give the definition, there's little need to spell out the rest in the lead. The case with AS is similar. For more on this topic, please see our previous long discussion about it at Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive16 #The lead.

Eubulides (talk) 17:12, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have brown eyes. Cool. Anyways, I agree. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 17:27, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Asperger Syndrome vs. Borderline Personality Disorder

What are the key differences between these two diagnosis ? Lot's of people get misdiagnosed between them. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Pwjb (talk • contribs) 12:55, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Really? What reliable sources support that claim? Eubulides (talk) 19:18, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

Is there an active WikiProject about autism?

I have just finished writing an article about Denise Phua, a Singaporean politician dedicated to helping the special needs (especially autistic) community in Singapore. The article is currently on peer review in preparation for a GA nomination. Is there an active WikiProject about autism, which I can approach to request peer reviewers? I looked around but could not find any. If no such WikiProject exists, consider creating one. --J.L.W.S. The Special One (talk) 12:38, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

You asked the same question at Talk:Autism#Is there an active WikiProject about autism? Let's discuss the topic there, to avoid duplication of discussion. Eubulides (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

DSM-V

I've heard indications that the draft of DSM-V may not contain Asperger syndrome as a seperate diagnosis - it may all be rolled into the concept of Autism. Anyone any information or views on this? Soarhead77 (talk) 14:06, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

When reliable sources cover this topic then we should put something about into either this article, or perhaps into Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome, depending on what the sources say. Obviously something is going to happen; but without reliable sources there's not much point in speculating here. If you want info about it I suggest typing the query "DSM Asperger" into Pubmed (and then read between the lines carefully :-). Eubulides (talk) 17:23, 17 October 2008 (UTC)
I looked between the lines there but I couldn't see the print ;) I can guess pretty well, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 17 October 2008 (UTC)

The DSM research committee has advocated that Asperger's Disorder be dismissed from the DSM-V and that HFA now cover the territory of the old diagnosis.

Autism and Other Pervasive Developmental Disorders Conference (February 3-5, 2008)
Prepared by Michael B. First, M.D., DSM Consultant to the American Psychiatric Institute for Research and Education (APIRE), a subsidiary of the American Psychiatric Association
The fifth panel addressed the question Asperger’s Disorder – is it Autism? In her introduction, Francesca G. Happé, Ph.D., (London, UK) raised some of the key questions that have arisen regarding the diagnosis of Asperger’s Disorder, which was introduced into DSM-IV in 1994. These questions include: is there an ‘Asperger’ subgroup of autism with distinct cause, course, cognitive profile, and intervention needs, and if so, what is its relation to other ASDs? Asperger’s disorder is essentially defined as meeting criteria for autism without the language impairment. Lorna Wing introduced the term in 1981 to aid recognition of the part of the autism spectrum with good IQ and language. It has increased awareness and recognition and helped to clarify the core deficits of ASD, but also increases the possibility that there may be over-diagnosis of ASD. Asperger’s disorder has also had an impact on family studies of autism with regard to what we recognize as “caseness.” Dr. Happe noted that the current criteria do not work: they do not allow for developmental change, the early language criteria do not demarcate groups with different prognoses, it is hard to apply the diagnosis for adult cases, and there is no clear conceptual basis for the diagnosis. Dr. Happe concluded that although there is a recognizable Asperger’s type and that some cases of classic autism grow into this picture, she wonders whether there may be a better classification schema. Sally Ozonoff, Ph.D., (Sacramento, CA), in her presentation, compared high functioning autism (HFA) with Asperger’s, and noted that there were few differences in their definitional DSM-IV criteria; both require two social symptoms and one repetitive/stereotyped symptom, both are in the average range intellectually and have current fluent language. The main criterion distinguishing the two disorders is the requirement in Asperger’s that onset of language occurs at the expected time, e.g., single words by age 2. Dr. Ozonoff noted that it is difficult to evaluate the literature since definitions vary across studies and that many children who are thought clinically to have Asperger’s actually meet criteria for autism (which supercedes a diagnosis of Asperger's). There is some evidence to suggest that Asperger's and HFA do not represent distinct disorders: they co-occur in the same families and do not “breed true” (i.e., family members of patients with Asperger's have HFA and family members of patients with HFA have Asperger's); children with autism who develop language have similar outcome to Asperger's; HFA and Asperger's are indistinguishable by school-age; and although studies find better language skills and/or verbal IQ in Asperger's, multiple studies have found no group differences in other neuropsychological domains.
The third breakout group made the following recommendations: 1) delete Asperger’s disorder; 2) delete CDD; and 3) create an ASD with two types: Type I would be for prototypical cases characterized by problems in social interaction, social communication, and repetitive behaviors or preoccupations, and Type II is for atypical cases. 58.164.185.176 (talk) 08:12, 29 October 2008 (UTC)
I think that's what I had had told to me - it seems very much like it. Of course searching the American Psychiatric Association webpage with this leads to a much longer article. Soarhead77 (talk) 16:16, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


Thanks for the pointer; that's much better than the "reading between the lines" I was talking about above. I made this edit to try to incorporate that source into Asperger syndrome #Classification, noting that two of three breakout groups recommended eliminating AS as a separate diagnosis. Further improvements are welcome. I suppose we might want to update Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome as well.... Eubulides (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC) Eubulides (talk) 18:00, 29 October 2008 (UTC)


Holy possum pants ... after all these years, there's no Asperger syndrome. The term has such wide recognition that I can't imagine it simply being replaced by "high-functioning autism, type N" or even just "HFA". I hope the DSM people decide to keep the name as a synonym, if that's allowed. e.g. "High functioning autism, also known as Asperger syndrome". Even if they don't keep it officially, I'm sure that colloquially people will still refer to Asperger's syndrome and "aspies" and so on. Incidentally, I have a pet theory that at least some reports of early-talking Asperger's kids are actually just echolalia being mistaken for proper speech. I have seen many a mommy who thinks their kid is talking to them, when I know for one reason or another that they're just repeating something they've heard. But, I can't imagine that phenomenon could explain all of the early-talking Asperger's kids. Soap Talk/Contributions 21:15, 29 October 2008 (UTC)

Gait or Posture

There was an articlerecently on the Australian TV show Catalyst about the different walking characteristics of children with high-functioning autism and Asperger Syndrome; this is probably worth including in the page. Carl.antuar (talk) 03:00, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome #Other currently talks about gait and cites McPartland & Klin 2006 (PMID 17030291) and Klin 2006 (PMID 16791390). Eubulides (talk) 04:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

Skepticism

If anyone would like to do research into skepticism about AS and the people who are diagnosed with it, go for it. I know it exists. 150.176.82.2 (talk) 17:25, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

What you "know" is not helpful. If you have some reliable sources that echo this, please share. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 17:32, 13 November 2008 (UTC)

Edit battle in intro

There appears to be an editor who is adamant on changing "like the more severe ASD's" to "like Autism". While he/she has a point (AS ranges in severity and Autism itself would be the only ASD which we could say is definitely more severe than AS), it's probably best not altered in such a way. I propose something along the lines of "While AS varies in severity, it is similar to Autism in that it..." It would appear that this line is best altered, but that editors can agree on the word choice. Hooliganos (talk) 03:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

We need to stick to wording supported by a cited source. I just now checked one of the sources (McPartland & Klin 2006, PMID 17030291), and it doesn't say anything about AS being milder or other ASDs being severer. I lack access to the other source (Baskin et al. 2006, PMID 16596080); perhaps someone with access to it can check? In the meantime, I replaced "the more severe ASDs" to "other ASDs" in the lead; this makes the lead a bit shorter and easier to read anyway, which is a good thing. Eubulides (talk) 06:08, 14 November 2008 (UTC)
Good edit. There would appear to be no mention of severity there, "like other ASDs" seems a good choice for the moment. Hooliganos (talk) 16:20, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

prognosis

no growin out of it the (%20)percent, taking it under control,living with two ego's alter and the other,a test subject(person)and the tester in the same body

I've talked to a child psychiatrist and she told me that Asperger syndrome and SPD are essentially one and the same. If adult, the diagnosis will be SPD, if it's a child or teenager: Asperger. Is this accurate? 205.151.119.166 (talk) 20:42, 4 November 2008 (UTC)

I suspect not. One of the DSM-IV criteria for Asperger syndrome is that the person not be diagnosed with SPD - thus the two are essentially mutually exclusive. The DSM-IV criteria are usually applied to children and in slightly different form to adults but in this particular case there would be no difference. Soarhead77 (talk) 13:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
Compare and contrast the two (then, perhaps, find a new child psychiatrist!):
  • SPD: lack of interest in social relationships
  • AS: difficulties in social interaction
  • SPD: tends to be solitary
  • AS: social active, but awkward
  • SPD: secretiveness
  • AS: not characteristic
  • SPD: emotional coldness
  • AS: difficulty expressing emotions
  • SPD: unusual interests not typical
  • AS: restricted, stereotyped interests
Mdsummermsw (talk) 13:50, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
So? It's not me or any child psychologist at fault here - read DSM-IV(TR) if you want gospel and verse. Its the American Psychological Association you need to have a go at. "Criteria are not met for another specific Pervasive Developmental Disorder or Schizophrenia" is what it says. In any case people will be around here soon to say this is nothing to do with the article, read the top of the page. Its not for discussion of Asperger syndrome as such. Soarhead77 (talk) 17:19, 9 November 2008 (UTC)
Differential diagnosis between AS and SPD should be addressed in the article. See "Beyond Asperger syndrom" by Sula Wolff. Apokrif (talk) 20:30, 12 November 2008 (UTC)
Assuming you mean this article, it does not appear to be published in a reliable source and should not be used to adjust the page. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 00:40, 13 November 2008 (UTC)
And this, with a similar content (look to page 288)? Counts as reliable source?--83.132.76.66 (talk) 23:59, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
Another article about the issue--83.132.76.66 (talk) 00:03, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Neither of those URLs work for me. I get some diagnostic in Spanish which I presume means "You can't access this." In general, Google Books URLs are not very reliable, I'm afraid. Eubulides (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

My theory

Please forgive this long personal anecdote; I'm not just talking to hear myself talk, but rather trying to give an idea as to how this SPD/AS misconception may have come about.

Based on the list above, I bet I would be diagnosed with SPD instead of AS if I just was going into a clinic now and they only looked at the symptoms listed on the SPD page. Yet, I am absolutely sure that in my case the AS diagnosis would be more appropriate, because of the obvious behavioral signs that I showed as a child but which I carefully hide as an adult. To be more specific: when I was younger, I was very friendly towards other children ... too much, in fact. (I believe this is known in the community as the "Odd" personality, as opposed to "Passive" and "Aloof".) But today? I've given up trying to have friends because nobody wants to befriend a touchy-feely misfit like me. So on Point 1, SPD describes me better today than AS does. And Point 2 seems to be more or less the same thing, such that I don't see why it's even listed separately. So that makes 2-0 for SPD.

On to "Secretiveness". I don't know if that really describes me ... it's probably the sort of thing that no one would use to describe themselves but other people would.

So now "emotional coldness" is up. For me, that could go either way. I would say that I have socially inappropriate emotions, meaning that for example on 9-11-2001 I was angry, but unlike most of my classmates I really had no great emotional reaction. Some people think that I must be a horrible person who doesn't care about other people, but that isn't true. I couldn't react to 9-11 because I couldn't emotionally comprehend the idea of thousands of people dying since I've never even seen one death in person. But if I see a person getting beat up, or even just a person with a visible medical disorder, right in front of me where I can see them, I'll obsess over them for weeks and still feel uncomfortable when something reminds me of the incident years later. People who see this tell me I'm over-reacting to things that are just part of life and can't be bothered with. But I've learned to hide both types of these irregular emotional reactions from other people. However, despite my efforts, I probably look "emotionally cold" to most other people, and therefore SPD rather than AS.

Lastly, while I have always had typical AS "perseverations", the older I get the more they start to look like the personal hobbies that normal NT adults have. So in summation, it seems to me that I have grown up from an AS child into an SPD adult. I think the same would be true of a lot of other Aspies. SPD seems like a state of maturity in which a large number of young AS people eventually end up as they learn to suppress their obvious AS tendencies.

But if we can accept the definition of "once an Aspie, always an Aspie", there's no way I could ever not be considered to have Asperger's Syndrome. I was one of the most clear-cut cases of AS when I was younger, and in fact, I might be mentioned in medical literature somewhere since my parents signed a form that allowed the laboratory that diagnosed me to use information about me and artwork I created as a child for just that purpose. And of course, the SPD symptoms I've listed above are all just part of a shell I've built around myself to make myself more acceptable to other people; they don't reflect my true inner personality at all. Soap Talk/Contributions 15:29, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

All of this is original research without a source, and therefore should not be placed on the page. The discussion also isn't really of benefit to the main page itself - which is what talk pages are for. WLU (t) (c) (rules - simple rules) 17:44, 5 November 2008 (UTC)
I've been around a while and I'm familiar with all the basic rules of Wikipedia. OR is perfectly acceptable on talk pages and in fact a lot of improvements to Wikipedia have come from discussions on talk pages that began with a question just like this one, involved multiple people sharing their personal knowledge, and eventually led to an editor improving the article by adding a properly referenced answer to the original question. I know that personal anecdotes, while not forbidden, are not encouraged either, and that is why I began with an apology, as I wanted to help but I didn't have anything besides my own personal experience to back up my information. Now, regarding the other issue you raised, that the discussion I entered isn't relevant to the Autism article, I disagree: as I said before, a lot of things that may look like irrelevant chatter at first end up being integrated into the article later on. Not all of them, obviously, but I don't take it upon myself to make that judgment except with outstandingly obvious cases. Soap Talk/Contributions 01:22, 6 November 2008 (UTC)

'The' to 'An'

I tried to change this, but got reverted. To me, it is the same thing as saying "A dodo is the bird which blah", it should be "A dodo is a bird which blahblah". Anyone got any thoughts on this? — neuro(talk) 21:23, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Firstly, it doesn't say "An Asperger syndrome is..." but "Asperger syndrome is..."; the left-hand side is already definite, so it doesn't meet the "A dodo..." analogy. Secondly, it would be "the" if there was only one possible kind of bird ("A/the Dodo is the bird that Alice met in Alice's Adventures in Wonderland"); AS is defined as the ASD where there is no language impairment; it's therefore the only one (well, with the possible exception of HFA) and "ASD" is therefore definite. The Wednesday Island (talk) 21:51, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
PDD-NOS ... What he means is that there are other ASD's, or people who meet the criteria for an ASD, that do not meet the criteria for AS or AD. Fenke (talk) 23:36, 27 November 2008 (UTC)
Exactly. The 'the' or 'an' applies to what is directly after it, which is in this case 'ASD', of which is it not the only thing. — neuro(talk) 05:18, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Sorry, I don't follow the previous two remarks. Consider this sentence, taken from Kuran et al. 2008 (PMC 2257961): "Duodenogastroesophageal reflux (DGER) is the disorder in which material from the duodenum passes into the stomach and the esophagus." Clearly its first "the" does not mean that DGER is the only disorder that exists; it means only that DGER is the only disorder in which material from the duodenum passes into the stomach and the esophagus. Similarly, "AS is the ASD in which there is no general delay in language or cognitive development" does not mean that AS is the only ASD; it means only that AS is the only ASD in which there is no general delay in language or cognitive development. Eubulides (talk) 05:52, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Which is exactly the problem, because AS is not the only ASD in which there is no general delay in language or cognitive development (at the age of 3). Fenke (talk) 12:09, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Comment: If we decide that it really is the only one, I recommend a rewording such as "Asperger's Syndrome or AS is an autism spectrum disorder distinguished by.." to both make it clearer that it's the only one (it's easy to miss a single word "the") and satisfy the objections of people who think the present wording is clumsy or generally not in good writing style. I'm unclear on the actual classification details, such as whether PDD-NOS is an "autism sprectrum disorder" or not, and where HFA fits in now that some people are saying that children who are normally-developing with respect to language should be called HFA instead of AS. Soap Talk/Contributions 13:06, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
I agree with Neurolysis here. It's hard to say why exactly, but when I read the sentence with "the" I do a double-take and have to think about what it is trying to say, whereas the version with "an" reads perfectly naturally. Looie496 (talk) 17:32, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

(outdent) But AS is the only ASD that has the property of having no general delay in language or cognitive development. That's the definition of AS, right or wrong (lots of people think that's wrong, but the lead sentence is not the place to take this up). I take your point about the wording being too terse, though. How about this instead? "Asperger syndrome (also called Asperger's syndrome, Asperger's disorder, Asperger's or AS) is the autism spectrum disorder (ASD) distinguished by having no general delay in language or cognitive development." Eubulides (talk) 18:19, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

I'd be fine with that if 'the' were substituted with 'an'. The latter flows more naturally. — neuro(talk) 18:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Actually, if the word "only" is added, the version with "the" reads okay too. Looie496 (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2008 (UTC)
Whilst I agree, it then sounds too assertive for an intro for my liking. — neuro(talk) 12:44, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I think that even in classical autism a delay in speech is not a necessary condition. If someone don't have a spech delay but has, for example, "marked impairment in initiating and sustaining a conversation", and more 5 symptoms (being at leat 2 of social impairmaint and 1 of repetitive behavior), these person has classical autism, not AS.--83.132.76.66 (talk) 23:48, 29 November 2008 (UTC)
I think I see some of the confusion here. The intent of the lead (regardless of the wording changes being proposed above) is that AS is the ASD in which a defining characteristic of the condition is no general delay in language or cognitive development. None of the other ASDs have that characteristic. It is true that an individual can be diagnosed with PDD-NOS or autism and have no general delay in language or cognitive development, but those two features are not characteristic of PDD-NOS or of classic autism. In other words, the lead is talking about the defining characteristic of the condition, not of individuals. Eubulides (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
The 'no delay' is what distinguishes AS from AD and not ASD's. Perhaps that should be made clear in the lead, especially since it is also an important factor in the problem with AS as a separate diagnosis/condition. Fenke (talk) 13:30, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

POV paragraph: Poor interpretation of NIH and Baron-Cohen sources etc

  • Comments about this paragraph, which I revised: "There is no single treatment for Asperger syndrome, and the effectiveness of particular interventions is supported by only limited data. Intervention is aimed at improving symptoms and function. The mainstay of management is behavioral therapy, focusing on specific deficits to address poor communication skills, obsessive or repetitive routines, and physical clumsiness. Most individuals with AS can learn to cope with their differences, but may continue to need moral support and encouragement to maintain an independent life.[10] Researchers and people with AS have advocated a shift in attitudes toward the view that AS is a difference, rather than a disability that must be treated or cured.[11]"
  • My revision: "There is no single treatment package for Asperger syndrome, but most professionals agree that the earlier the intervention the better. Intervention is aimed at improving symptoms and function. The mainstay of management is behavioral therapy, focusing on specific deficits to address poor communication skills, obsessive or repetitive routines, and physical clumsiness. With effective treatment, children with AS can learn to cope with their disabilities, but they may still find social situations and personal relationships challenging.[10]"
  • I slightly revised the first sentence to stay true to the NIH source. See NIH section "Are there treatments available?"
  • I kept the 2nd and 3rd sentences as they are consistent with the NIH article section "Are there treatments available?"
  • 4th sentence appears unsupported by the NIH article. Also, NIH article focuses on children, especially from section "What are some common signs or symptoms?" and onward through the other sections. I removed unsupported text (likely POV text) and replaced it with a simple information from the source.
  • 5th and last sentence. First, the Baron-Cohen source is merely a 4 sentence abstract, and not a complete article/source. Abstracts only introduce articles, and as such shouldn't be used as sources. Also, nowhere in the abstract is there a link to the article. Moreover, the content of the abstract doesn't support any text in the paragraph. Also, the 5th sentence appears to be the users POV. Also, and regardless of how it's unsupported here, the statement "Researchers and people with AS have advocated a shift in attitudes toward the view that AS is a difference, rather than a disability that must be treated or cured" is misleading, as it implies that all or most researchers and people with AS have done so, which is false. POV bias often involves extending one's ideas to include "everyone" "all" "most", of if not directly stating this, implying this. Also, the Baron-Cohen abstract doesn't discuss any shift in attitude; it only "considers" (word from abstract) various things and mentiones that it's article concludes that Aspergers Syndrome is more fairly considered a "difference" than a "disability" and the like, but, that for legal, financial, and other services, it should be considered a "disability". And, that lower functioning autism is fairly considered a disability in all cases (with regard to functioning, and with regard to services).--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 20:06, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I revised the 5th (last) sentence as follows, in light of Simon-Baron's full article being provided...the original sentence I provided immediately above in the start of this section, and here: "Simon Baron-Cohen is an example of a researcher who argues that AS is more fairly considered a difference, rather than a disability. Although, he does argue that it may be necessary to consider AS as a disability with regard to the legal framework that provides financial and other support."[11][12]
  • In Baron-Cohen's 28 page article, if you could provide specific quotes that support what I removed from the sentence, or anything else, please do so here. The sentence was POV I believe: It unfairly led the reader to believe that all or most researchers and people with AS advocate...etc. The source is Baron-Cohen, one person, and he is advocating for certain things. He is one example, and the article should reflect that he alone is the person being cited here that advocates for certain things. The reader than will see he is a researchers/scientist and that there is such a person advocating for these things.--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 02:59, 2 December 2008 (UTC)
I have a slight issue with describing it as "treatment"; treatment for aspergers syndrome would be a cure. You're treating the symptoms, not the illness. Ironholds (talk) 20:10, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • The NIH source (National Institute of Health) uses the term 'treatment'. Isn't your view your POV (point of view) and not neutral (not NPOV)?
  • The NIH source (National Institute of Health) uses the term 'treatment'. Competing ideas and criticism are found at other wikipedia articles. I've noticed a persistent effort among many users to try to spread their activism wherever they can in wikipedia...their own articles are not enough, so sort of like writing to politicians in masses, they persistently edit wikipedia articles to infiltrate their POV (which is contrary to Wikipedia rules). I've been wondering if this is due to how many, especially many with autism and Aspergers, spend immense time on the Internet, many many times more time than most others. I wonder if their activity on the Internet is based on their deficits in doing other outside-Internet activities such as socializing, exercising, working, travel, culture.--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 20:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Which seems to translate as "if you disagree with me you're obviously a POVwarrior with no life. Please see WP:NPA. Ironholds (talk) 20:25, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Please have a look at WP:UNDUE regarding overrepresentation of the views of one author. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • SandyGeorgia could you also examine the Autism Speaks article...there is very little involvement by other users...Ebubilies is the main person and essentially runs the article and seems to believe he/she has a kind of authority to do so...I've noticed this in the tone of his edits and also his frequent refusal to accept any edits and Talk page discussion. Also, he used a 95+% negative source initially 8 times in this very short Autism Speaks article, which is now down to 5 after my comments. Source was used for very simple aspects of the article such as goals, names, dates, etc. It's the current #2 source "Autism debate strains a family and its charity". I tried to find other sources, and was still working on it, and I added a lot of Talk discussion, but my last set of main edits were largely removed, even several separate PBS articles which he removed as "being the same article". Maybe you'd agree with him...regardless I thought it might be useful to have you involved as I see you're involved in many autism/aspergers related articles.--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 20:32, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • SandyGeorgia I see you removed my last two edits. I provided considerable discussion for my edits in this Talk section? It's a typical procedure to leave the edits until another person(s) can respond? Or is the typical procedure to propose changes, wait until others respond, and then at some point in time make the changes? If so, how long is the typical wait time to see if others respond in this Talk section (days, weeks?) I'd prefer my edits to be put back, and then if anyone else can respond adaquately to my above discussion, then we'll see what they write and what they propose.--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 20:40, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion, see WP:BRD. There are several ways to edit an article collaboratively, but Sandy clearly felt your changes were detrimental and so in her opinion, the article was better before. We're now at the "discuss" part of "bold-revert-discuss" so please continue discussing rather than un-reverting (that way leads to edit wars).
Wrt your comment on an abstract source: the source is the whole paper. Generally, if the paper is freely available for anyone to read, the title of the paper will be a URL link to the full paper. Another convention for medical papers is to include the DOI and the PubMed ID (PMID). Both are supplied as URLs. The former takes you to the publisher's online paper but often you have to pay to read more than the abstract. The latter takes you to the abstract in the PubMed database (which often has a link to the full text too). So the only way you can judge whether the source and the text agree is to get hold of the paper either by subscribing, paying or through your library. Colin°Talk 20:51, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
  • I tend to highly doubt wikipedia policy would permit a source to be used as a reference if, to actually read the source, it has to be paid for. Also, as mentioned, no where in the abstract, or the reference, is there a link to the actual article. The source isn't an article. Simple point isn't it?
  • "but Sandy clearly felt your changes were detrimental and so in her opinion, the article was better before." If she clearly felt this, then it is her responsibility, isn't it, to articulate why, and in response to the considerable discussion I provided above in this section. To do so with no explanation is unacceptable. To do so if she "felt" this way, and with no explanation, is inappropriate. And it would be disgusting, and an abuse of the work some people, such as I, put into adding considerable and I believe worthwhile discussion here. But anyway, I don't think she did as you believe...you seem to merely assume this about her. It appears she is simply waiting for comments, and your comment about the abstract is the first, and appears to me to miss my simple points. Yes provide the article and then well see...but currently there is no article.--ObjectivityInAutismDiscussion (talk) 21:02, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Firstly, Wikipedia has no policy on whether sources should be free or paid-for. The majority of scholarly references require a payment or access to an academic library. Books, after all, are not free. So that's no reason to exclude a source. Secondly, the article is linked from the abstract pointed to by the DOI (here). The website could be clearer, and probably is if you were registered with them. If you don't have subscription access to that journal (most folk don't) then you'd have to pay £15/$25 to read the paper. Or else see if your library can get it. The point is that the source is the full text of:
SIMON BARON–COHEN (2000). Is Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism necessarily a disability?. Development and Psychopathology, 12, pp 489-500
which is a paper, not a website. The website links are just for convenience (though admittedly, this paper isn't particularly convenient). I don't have access to the article either. If you wait/ask, someone who does (such as Eubulides) may quote the parts of the article that support the text. Colin°Talk 21:22, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
There you go: Is Asperger’s syndrome necessarily a disability?. Fenke (talk) 12:11, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
That's not the same paper, but is based on it. It appears to be draft of:
Baron-Cohen. "Is Asperger Syndrome Necessarily Viewed as a Disability?" Focus on Autism and Other Developmental Disabilities, Vol. 17, No. 3, 186-191 (2002) doi:10.1177/10883576020170030801
Colin°Talk 20:44, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Mhh, you're right, I read the 'published in ...' part but it didn't connect with the 'based on...' part. It could still address the question about the abstract or article being used. Fenke (talk) 22:04, 1 December 2008 (UTC)
Try this link Is Asperger’s syndrome necessarily a disability from their own website. Soarhead77 (talk) 16:37, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Addressing some of the above points:

  • The lead's main role is to summarize the article, and we have to keep that in mind here. Summarizing the cited sources is also important, but the sources are cited in the article as well and the lead is not the place to bring out new points that are not mentioned in the body of the article.
  • Re changing "treatment for Asperger syndrome" to "treatment package for Asperger syndrome": I don't see what "package" buys us here. Let's leave out "package"; that keeps the lead shorter.
  • Re removing "the effectiveness of particular interventions is supported by only limited data". This statement is supported by McPartland & Klin 2006 (PMID 17030291), whose page 781 says "Limited data exist to support efficacy of particular interventions, although some progress has been made in this area." citing Klin & Volkmar 2003 (PMID 12512394). It is also supported by Attwood 2003 (PMID 12512399), which says "Finally our scientific knowledge in the area of psychologic therapies and Asperger disorder is remarkably limited. We have case studies, but at present, no systematic and rigorous independent research studies that examine whether CBT [cognitive behavior therapy] is an effective treatment with this clinical population." McPartland & Klin is more recent and more authoritative, so we should cite it here.
  • Adding "most professionals agree that the earlier the intervention the better". Although this is a true and well-sourced statement, it's not worth mentioning in the lead. It's only very briefly discussed in the body. Also, the scientific evidence is lacking to support this belief of professionals, so it's not clear why we would be highlighting it in the lead.
  • Re changing "Most individuals with AS can learn to cope with their differences, but may continue to need moral support and encouragement to maintain an independent life." to "With effective treatment, children with AS can learn to cope with their disabilities, but they may still find social situations and personal relationships challenging.": Both statements are true; the latter better summarizes the cited NIH source, but it doesn't summarize Asperger syndrome #Prognosis well, which is the goal for the lead. McPartland & Klin write (p. 782), "Adolescents with AS continue to have difficulty with independent self-care and organization, and they exhibit ongoing disturbances in social and romantic relationships. Studies of young adults with AS report that most remain at home despite high cognitive potential, but a few marry and work independently." There is also Woodbury-Smith & Volkmar 2008 (PMID 18563474), which says "By far the most informative studies are longitudinal in design that measure outcome and its predictors and correlates, and there are now several studies that focus exclusively on people with autism with IQs in the normal range, which indicate that although the majority improve over time, difficulties, in terms of communication skills, social adjustment and independent living, continue into adulthood." Both these studies are currently cited in Asperger syndrome #Prognosis, and it's better to summarize these peer-reviewed reviews than to cite a government web site.
  • For the Baron-Cohen sentence, please see #Difference vs. disability below.

Eubulides (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Difference vs. disability

This edit replaced this:

"Researchers and people with AS have advocated a shift in attitudes toward the view that AS is a difference, rather than a disability that must be treated or cured."

with this:

"Simon Baron-Cohen is an example of a researcher who argues that AS is more fairly considered a difference, rather than a disability. Although, he does argue that it may be necessary to consider AS as a disability with regard to the legal framework that provides financial and other support."

However, the latter text does not summarize anything in the body. As per WP:LEAD, the lead should summarize the body and not raise new arguments about the legal framework. In the literature the legal-framework argument is secondary and is not notable enough to be worth summarizing in the lead.

Reading through the above remarks, and looking at the lead and the body, I have some thoughts.

  • Baron-Cohen wrote two versions of his paper on difference vs. disability, one in 2000 and the other in 2002. They are on essentially the same subject, but the latter paper should be cited here, as it corresponds more closely to the current situation. The 2000 paper would be useful only as something in History of Asperger syndrome.
  • The topic of AS as a difference rather than a disability has been quite active recently, and Baron-Cohen (2002) is not the only source. The current lead makes it sound like only Baron-Cohen cares about this topic, which is certainly not the case. We should base the discussion on other recent sources and adjust the text to match. Here are a few sources that are relevant:
  • Molloy H, Vasil L (2002). "The social construction of Asperger Syndrome: the pathologising of difference?". Disabil Soc. 17 (6): 659–69. doi:10.1080/0968759022000010434. ... we question whether AS constitutes an actual impairment as opposed to a neurological difference and we examine how AS has been socially constructed.
  • Clarke J, van Amerom G (2007). "'Surplus suffering': differences between organizational understandings of Asperger's syndrome and those people who claim the 'disorder'". Disabil Soc. 22 (7): 761–76. doi:10.1080/09687590701659618. The debate about whether AS is a difference or a disorder, one type of neurodiversity or a neurological disability can be seen as a part of the ongoing debate about the power of medicalization in contemporary society. Another quote: "There are striking contrasts between the views expressed on the organizational websites and the personal blogs written by people who have been diagnosed with AS. The organizations clearly medicalized and pathologized AS and the people with AS, were directed most often at parents and described those who had been diagnosed in terms of their 'deficits'. The blogs, on the other hand, expressed resistance to the AS organizations, to medicalization and to what they felt was the public stigma associated with AS. Bloggers spoke of celebrating their differences and of anger at neurotypicals for stigmatizing them."
  • Clarke J, van Amerom G (2008). "Asperger's syndrome: differences between parents' understanding and those diagnosed". Soc Work Health Care. 46 (3): 85–106. doi:10.1300/J010v46n03_05. PMID 18551831. Self-identified Aspies made it very clear that they did not want to be cured and that they were proud of their Aspie identity and of their different ways of seeing the world. They considered themselves to be on a spectrum of neurodiversity rather than neurologically disabled. They opposed the medicalization and pathologization of their lives. Those diagnosed with AS were more concerned about changing the stereotypes and stigma that they confront than changing themselves.
  • Baron-Cohen S (2008). "The evolution of brain mechanisms for social behavior". In Crawford C, Krebs D (eds.) (ed.). Foundations of Evolutionary Psychology. Lawrence Erlbaum. pp. 415–32. ISBN 0‑8058‑5957‑8. While ASCs are disabling in the social world, hyper-systemizing can lead to talent in areas that are systemizable. In this sense, it is likely that the genes for increased systematizing have made remarkable contributions to human history. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help); Check |isbn= value: invalid character (help)

Eubulides (talk) 20:33, 2 December 2008 (UTC)

Tony Attwood is also a great supporter of the Difference concept, however most of his work might be seen as being in the clinical area rather than the research area. Is Asperger's really a disorder? may be useful in this context. The author, Luke Beardon, is I believe a colleague of Digby Tantam who has published quite a few papers in this area. Soarhead77 (talk) 15:15, 3 December 2008 (UTC)

Aspergers and Vocabulary

After a quick skim of the article, I failed to come across a mention of formal vocabulary. I myself have Aspergers Syndrome, and everyone I've come across who had Aspergers either speak or can easily speak in an overly formally vocabulary.

In short, excessively formal words (i.e. big wods, fancy talk, ect.) seems to be rather common among autistic people, at least under the Aspergers category.

Adding the fact that Hans Asperger called his paitients "little professors" my serve as enough for inclusion in the article.

Alas, I can't cite any references.
74.184.188.59 (talk) 23:13, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome #Speech and language mentions "unusually pedantic, formal or idiosyncratic speech" and cites McPartland & Klin 2006 (PMID 17030291). Eubulides (talk) 06:59, 30 November 2008 (UTC)
Are there any reliable sources showing a high incidence of AS among professors and pedants? Seems not unlikely. Edison (talk) 20:30, 20 December 2008 (UTC)

Social Interaction, Management, and Prognosis

The section about social interaction doesn't include any information about what happens when a child with Asperger Syndrome is successful in establishing social ties. The fact is, despite challenges, children with Asperger can still learn, just as any other child, it's just harder and takes longer.

(Link to supporting information was blacklisted so unable to provide proof to the above at this time.)

Also, the suggestion for lacking empathy is a bit misleading. It suggests that a total lack of emotional understanding is typical, which is far from the truth. The problem has more to do with a difficulty in putting thoughts into spoken words than in actually understanding others.

Management needs to include the practice of Mindfulness Meditation as a form of treatment. There are a number of books on that topic, with supporting studies in Neuroplasticity. These studies suggest that the practice of Meditation can actually help someone grow out of it into adulthood.

Meditation Alters Structure of Brain:

[6]

This website on ADHD talks about how Neurplasticity can be applied to treatment, includes mention of Asperger Syndrome:

[7]

I am not able to update the article myself with these views because my view is biased. I have Asperger Syndrome and I speak from experience on every point. So I am writing these thoughts here in discussion hoping that someone who would not be biased checks in on them.

--24.182.230.186 (talk) 21:48, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Please explain what you mean when you say a link was blacklisted. That should not happen. Even if you're forbidden from linking directly to a source, you can still type out the URL manually so we can see it. Here is the current blacklist; if a site is on there that doesnt contain spam and/or libel, then it shouldnt be.Soap Talk/Contributions 22:35, 1 January 2009 (UTC)

Asperger's syndrome vs. Asperger syndrome

Google books search shows that "Asperger's syndrome" is used in three times as many books as Asperger syndrome. Should the article be moved to that title? DCDuring (talk) 21:28, 10 January 2009 (UTC)

A Google Scholar search of recent articles (i.e., 2004 or later) finds about 2,440 hits for "Asperger's syndrome", and about 6,730 hits for "Asperger syndrome". I think the apostrophe is more popular among older sources, and that the form without the apostrophe is more common among reliable sources nowadays. Eubulides (talk) 21:38, 10 January 2009 (UTC)
This question comes up for all the "personified" diseases: Parkinson's, Alzheimer's, Huntington's, Down's, etc. My own attitude is that it doesn't matter which one is used, as long as a redirect is provided for the other. Even medical journals aren't consistent about this. Looie496 (talk) 18:06, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Google Scholar includes hits for "asperger's syndrome" in the search on "asperger syndrome", so it will always have more hits. Other then that I'd agree with Looie496. Fenke (talk) 21:14, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Possessive eponyms are best avoided unless there is a strong reason for them; older publications use the possessive, most newer ones don't. Asperger syndrome is more accepted currently. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:31, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Could we not just do a redirect for the possessive version? Interestingly, someone recently removed some apostrophe's from Alzheimer's disease. I wonder if there's a trend here.  :) OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 21:33, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Yes, we already have the redirects (Asperger's syndrome and Asperger's); it's just an issue of what the preferred terminology these days. The modern trend among reliable sources is to avoid the "'s" (my Google search wasn't quite right, but even after correction it shows a strong preference against the apostrophe). Eubulides (talk) 21:38, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
Somebody on WP once postulated that the use (or loss) of the possessive form was more to do with pronunciation than political correctness. Hence "Down syndrome", "Asperger syndrome", "Alzheimer's disease", "Huntingdon's disease", "Crohn's disease". It is difficult to say "Down's syndrome" and easy to elide the "'s" when talking. I agree with this, and believe all other explanations are just made up to suit the author's preferred style :-) Colin°Talk 23:37, 11 January 2009 (UTC)
It is true, though, that "Alzheimer disease" is the actual spelling used in many if not all of the citations given as such on the Wikipedia article. Which came as a surprise to me, as I had been assuming the loss of 's would only affect names followed by the word "syndrome". Soap Talk/Contributions 00:14, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
My understanding is that the change was made because of a belief that people would interpret Down's syndrome (for example) as a syndrome that Down had instead of one that he described. Looie496 (talk) 01:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)
That's one reason given, but has anyone actually studied whether people make that mistake?. There are only a handful of conditions named after patients, but probably thousands of eponymous diseases (see WhoNamedIt.com). Apostrophe or not, it is still named after Mr Down for whatever reason. Wrt "Crohn's", think about being told you have "crohn disease". Would you ask, "Whereabouts in my body is the crohn and how did it get diseased?" :-). People drop the "'s" because they now think it is the "done thing" and invent a rationale for this behaviour. It should be regarded as the same issue as "color" vs "colour" -- purely personal or cultural preference. Colin°Talk 12:11, 12 January 2009 (UTC)

Deep fat fryers "joke"

I left the cited text in place because of the comment warning, I only removed the link to the topic after reading what I thought was also a joke. However this is an unnecessary use of hyperlink. The topic doesn't need linking to deep fat fryers. 68.89.47.220 (talk) 17:04, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

That wikilink was later restored (not by me) with the comment "restore link, not a universally known word (outside of US)". It's a close call, as wikilinks are normally intended to be used for related topics, not as substitutes for dictionaries, but on balance I think the wikilink to the Deep fryer article helps the encyclopedia more than it harms it. Eubulides (talk) 23:11, 17 January 2009 (UTC)

Diagnosis - only tests and not CT scan?

Admittedly, perhaps ordering a CT scan - or an MRI is a big thing compared to some psychological tests, but I was surprised to find that neither here nor in the main article on diagnoses is it mentioned that this can be detected via either.

Is this one of these things where I think technology is more advanced than it is, so that we can't really distinguish between AS and other things via brain scan? Can we even detect anything with AS via brain scan? I'd think so - there's a picture of an MRI in the article, and it is neurological. Right? Or am I way off base?209.244.187.155 (talk) 20:59, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

MRI is used in research into AS (that's why the picture is there), but it's not particularly helpful for clinical diagnosis right now. There's a big difference between speculative research and day-to-day diagnosis. Eubulides (talk) 21:21, 4 February 2009 (UTC)

Pop culture references

Perhaps a section should be added to this article to make it more comprehensive that includes pop culture references. The character Jerry in Boston Legal is a good example to start with who had Asperger's. Joshuadelung (talk) 22:01, 9 February 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.66.198.236 (talk)

Instead, let's not per WP:MEDMOS. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:04, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
It would be gigantic. Hollywood thinks Asperger's is just about the funniest thing ever and an exhaustive list of pop culture references would be longer than this article. However you may be interested in List of fictional characters on the autistic spectrum. Feel free to add to that article anything you can find that's real and verifiable and not just speculation (e.g. Charlie Godfrey from Summer of the Swans doesnt pass verifiabilty because the author never specifically said he was autistic.) Soap Talk/Contributions 03:17, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
That's why many editors remove these lists from medical articles. Who decides which is the most notable? Which is the most interesting? I usually delete these trivia lists when I see them in any medical article. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 03:23, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I am onside with OrangMarlin here. These lists are hard to maintain, grow to ridiculous sizes, and well, they are generally frowned upon (for those reasons I think) Dbrodbeck (talk) 03:51, 10 February 2009 (UTC)
I agree with both Orangemarlin and Dbrodbeck, so much so that I just now reread WP:TRIVIA, decided it wasn't clear enough, and tried to make it clearer with a new section WP:TRIVIA #Example that contains an example trivia section. I resisted the temptation to put Jerry from Boston Legal in the example. Eubulides (talk) 04:39, 10 February 2009 (UTC)

dinosaurs

Whaaaaaaat? so now anybody who's interested in dinosaurs has asperger syndrome? so does that mean that Robert Bakker and Jack Horner and Richard Owen all had asperger's? i don't think so.... 76.102.94.69 (talk) 23:26, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

Obviously you're correct, but Asperger syndrome doesn't say "anybody who's interested in dinosaurs has asperger syndrome", or anything like that. Eubulides (talk) 23:30, 13 February 2009 (UTC)

However, there is more of a likelyhood that there will be an interest in dinosauria if a person is autistic. I mean to say that this fascination will continue later into life than it does with most other people. I am fourteen years old and only stopped being avidly interested in dinosaurs two years ago. My friend, who has worse AS than me, is fifteen and is still interested in them. So you see, there is a connection but that is not the same as saying that everybody who has ever been interested in prehistory had or has AS. Themanfromthenorth

Vandalism?

What's with this line at the end of the article? "If you have AS, you could die in 7 days." Seems highly suspicious to me, so I'm deleting it. Feel free to revert if the sentence has a valid place in the article. Already taken of by another user.--Whip it! Now whip it good! 23:25, 17 February 2009 (UTC)

See my notes under 'AS and Crime'. Themanfromthenorth

New review on AS by Tantam and Girgis

There's a new review on AS diagnosis and treatment here:

Eubulides (talk) 03:15, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

Aspergers and genetics

I would love to see a new section added on current genetic theories of the regions involved for each given trait. 96.233.42.222 (talk) 04:09, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Not sure what you're asking. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 05:47, 26 February 2009 (UTC)
That stuff is in Heritability of autism #Candidate gene loci. Please feel free to improve it; it needs a lot of care and feeding, which it isn't getting. Eubulides (talk) 09:43, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

The page on Heritability of autism is terrific, and just what I was hoping to see. I think the Aspergers page should have a link to it. 96.233.42.222 (talk) 04:16, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion; I just now added one. Eubulides (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Has anyone done a study of geographical incidence of the distribution of Aspergers across continents?

96.233.42.222 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 05:54, 28 February 2009 (UTC).

Sorry, not as far as I know. The best info for that sort of thing is under Epidemiology of autism. It says, for example, that the prevalence of autism (and presumably of AS) in Africa is unknown. Eubulides (talk) 17:56, 28 February 2009 (UTC)

Antisocial and/or Violent Behaviour

  • I have no idea why that's in there or why some people think it. I have Aspergers' syndrome as do at least three of my friends and none of us have ever acted antisocially in public. How dare some people think this? This is propoganda for the people of this world who are frightened of us. Themanfromthenorth 19:24 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Themanfromthenorth (talk • contribs) 19:24, 1 March 2009 (UTC)
Your personal experience is not relevant to this article, which was written NPOV with the use of WP:MEDRS. OrangeMarlin Talk• Contributions 00:22, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
Are you thinking of this from the main article: "The hypothesis that individuals with AS are predisposed to violent or criminal behavior has been investigated but is not supported by data". If you are it shows (with references) that there is no link. Soarhead77 (talk) 12:04, 3 March 2009 (UTC)

AS and crime

I note the increase in studies finding an overrepresentation of AS individuals in acts of crime in relation to their numbers. For instance the following By Haskins and Silva:

'Asperger's Disorder remains an under-diagnosed condition because of clinical unfamiliarity with its adult presentation. As forensic clinicians become familiar with the presentation of Asperger's disorder, it appears that affected individuals are over-represented in forensic criminal settings. Unique features of such persons may heighten their risks for engaging in criminal behavior.' Asperger's Disorder and Criminal Behavior: Forensic-Psychiatric Considerations

The authors of that study, and other studies, eg. [8] [9] mention the significant representation of AS individuals in sexual crimes, violent crimes, arson, cyber crime, stalking, and others. Whilst these might not be the best sources for these crime-AS correlations, a cursory read still suggests that the issue is at least significant enough to warrant a brief mention in the article. 58.170.49.139 (talk) 13:16, 31 August 2008 (UTC) 58.170.49.139 (talk) 21:57, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

  • The sources given are:
  • Haskins & Silva 2006 (PMID 17032961) is merely a set of case studies, which is not evidence of any association between AS and crime.
  • Stokes et al. 2007 (PMID 17273936) is about ASD, not Asperger syndrome.
  • Berney 2004, as far as I can see, contains no new data on this topic; is is almost entirely tentative speculation, based on one older result of Tantam.
  • None of these studies present scientific evidence on the subject. They are either speculation or case studies. Obviously there are examples of people with AS committing violent crimes. But the abovementioned sources are low-quality, are not particularly reliable, and have been selected to present AS as badly as possible (a theme that the banned member User:Jquandar and sockpuppets have recently promoted; pardon me, but I cannot help but notice the coincidence).
  • There are some very limited data on violent crime in general and Asperger syndrome / high-functioning autism. See, for example, Woodbury-Smith et al. 2006 (doi:10.1080/14789940600589464). There are several incidents reported in the popular press about offenders with Asperger syndrome or high-functioning autism; most of these individuals seem to also have other psychiatric disorders at the same time (e.g., major depression) (see Newman & Ghaziuddin 2008, PMID 18449633), which suggests that it may be other factors, not autism or AS per se, that increase the risk for violent crime.
  • Although the two sources in the previous bullet are considerably more reliable than the three sources previously mentioned, I'm not sure how to turn them into high-quality text that appears in Asperger syndrome. What we really need here is a reliable review on the subject, and I don't know of one. It would be out of place for us to write a mini-review on the topic ourselves.
Eubulides (talk) 19:39, 31 August 2008 (UTC)

Once again you raise the sockpuppet coincidence. For goodness sake provide any real evidence for that conjecture, or please desist! You are on the right track by discussing this issue, and thats all we need do. Simple!

I'm surprised at your claim that the sources are selected purely to present AS as badly as possible. Are you saying that about me? or about the authors of those studies? Either way I think its time you stopped with the hyperbole, and allow for a polite and friendly discussion of this sensitive subject. This issue of crime in the context of psych disorders of a common one (eg for personality disorders) and is not an attack on people with AS. It is more a question of the vulnerability of individuals toward these behaviors. I would like to see a breif mention in the article based on the surest of details these studies provide.

Dismissing controversial details in the entry could also invite the claim of creating the entry as a front-page for AS lobby groups. 58.170.49.139 (talk) 00:21, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Case studies and speculation are not all that useful, a proper review is needed for the subject to be mentioned in the article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:44, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
I'm not convinced, no need to adjust the page with the evidence provided. WLU (talk) 00:46, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Based on Eubulides paranoia about me being (apriori) a sockpuppet I dont think an environment was created for a trusting, open-minded discussion. So I'll just drop it. 58.170.49.139 (talk) 00:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

For me my decision was and is based on a lack of evidence, not on anything else. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:39, 1 September 2008 (UTC)
It might be fair to mention it, if backed up clearly by statistics. However it should then also be explained, otherwise it might invite discrimination. It might be good to clarify the kind of crimes committed more, and the reasons behind it. As such it would actually be informative. Merely mentioning a suspicion would do more harm then good, and barely holds any informative value. --217.122.225.60 (talk) 00:00, 21 September 2008 (UTC)
It also must be mentioned that their anxiety in social situations might render people with AS more likely to be suspected of crime even if they're not guilty, because said anxiety can be mistaken for anxiety over getting caught. So, even if the proper critera were met for sources, the possibility of false accusation should also be noted.209.244.187.155 (talk) 13:29, 24 September 2008 (UTC)
  • AS and crime? This is nonesense. I, my father and many of our friends all have AS and most of us have never even spoken to a policeman except if we were the victims, as we so often are simply because we are different. Even the worst cases of autism, in which an autistic finds it difficult to tell the difference between fantasy and reality, do not generate violence or crime. On the contrary, they find themselves the target of bullying at school because they are so-called 'nerds' or 'techer's pets', meaning therefore, that they would never commit crime or take part in violence. Themanfromthenorth 19:32
  • Are we making a distinction between physical aggression and violence? I know a number of people with AS who are impulsively drawn to acts such as biting, hitting, and disruption of the immediate surroundings. I would hate to see persons with AS stereotyped as criminals, but personal experience suggests that there is a link between AS and lowered inhibition regarding physically aggressive acts. Nebnosam (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)
As the article says, "The hypothesis that individuals with AS are predisposed to violent or criminal behavior has been investigated but is not supported by data. More evidence suggests children with AS are victims rather than victimizers." Three reliable sources are cited to support those claims: McPartland & Klin 2006 (PMID 17030291), Allen et al. 2008 (PMID 17805955), and Tsatsanis 2003 (PMID 12512398). This article is about what reliable sources say, not about personal experience. Eubulides (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)

Proper reviews

Although there are some reports of an association with violence or criminal behavior in AS [3], [26], [27], a systematic review of the literature did not find support for increased behaviors of this nature in AS [28]. Taken along with the current results, there is more evidence to suggest that children with AS occupy the role of victim rather than victimizer [1], [29].

An entire section, "Challenge 8: people with AS as aggressors and not just victims", includes discussion of sexual deviation.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

  • Thanks. Sheesh, how could I have forgotten about those? Also, McPartland & Klin 2006 (PMID 17030291) address the subject, saying "Researchers have investigated the notion that the combination of preserved intellectual and linguistic capacities with limited empathy and social understanding would predispose individuals with AS to violent or criminal behavior, but this hypothesis is unsupported by data."
  • And this review material is all currently summarized in Asperger syndrome #Social interaction, with the paragraph "The hypothesis that individuals with AS are predisposed to violent or criminal behavior has been investigated and found to be unsupported by data. More evidence suggests children with AS are victims rather than victimizers." In reviewing this summary, the phrase "and found to be unsupported" is too strong; it suggests that the matter is closed, which it's not. I changed it to "but is not supported".
Eubulides (talk) 16:11, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Newman & Ghaziuddin 2008

The final version of Newman & Ghaziuddin 2008 (PMID 18449633) has been published. It's a review, albeit not a systematic one. After reading it and rereading this thread, I appended the following text to the last paragraph of Asperger syndrome #Social interaction: "A 2008 review found that an overwhelming number of reported violent criminals with AS had coexisting psychiatric disorders such as schizoaffective disorder. Eubulides (talk) 10:23, 5 December 2008 (UTC)

Violent crime is only one of many crimes in which the role of AS has been posited and studied. I trust you don't consider your insertion of a detail about violent crime somehow absolves you from blame for having shut down a proper discussion of AS in relation to a variety of crime-types above, and accusing a user of being a sock-puppet, and deleting an entire post based on your bad-faith paranoia. 124.187.89.37 (talk) 01:58, 11 January 2009 (UTC)

AS and lack of jealousy in relationships

I'm researching the connection between those with Aspergers (emotional distancing) and interaction with group sexual dynamics. In other words, if AS allows some people to not be jealous if their partner has other sexual outlets... Is there any possibilty of adding this? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.253.30.129 (talk) 04:51, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

You'd need a reliable source; please see WP:MEDRS for a guideline, and Asperger syndrome #References for examples of reliable sources. Eubulides (talk) 05:52, 27 February 2009 (UTC)

I don't think this is true. As I have already said in above and below sections, I have AS. I would feel extremely jealous if any partner of mine were ever to start seeing someone else. I would be angry, upset and feel like a failure. There would be no lack of jealousy. Themanfromthenorth

AS and sexual behavior is a tricky subject. I have a number of good friends with AS and we commonly share views on sexuality and sexual preference. From discussion, I'd say that the majority of the group hold non-traditional views on sexuality, with most comfortable in group sexual dynamics but still very possessive of their main partner. If there is material that supports this, I think it would be pertinent to the article. Nebnosam (talk) 15:53, 6 March 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to remind people that talk pages are about improving Wikipedia (see WP:TALK); they are not to discuss one's personal views about sexual preferences, or even the views of one's good friends. As there are no reliable sources in this area, we shouldn't waste our time talking about it here. Eubulides (talk) 04:15, 7 March 2009 (UTC)
Right. Nothing to see here; please move along. Keep your opinions and anecdotes away from Wikipedia, lest you rouse the ire of the constable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.236.88.188 (talk) 04:16, 25 March 2009 (UTC)

Post-Traumatic Stress Disorder and Asperger's

Would Post-Traumatic Stress Syndrome be classed with the anxiety-related disorders that it's said are more common with those in the autism spectrum, or should it be listed separately?

I ask becuase it seems the problem of PTSS is that some traumatic event is so...burned into the conscience, let's say (you know, like you burn a CD), that the person remembers every sight, sound, etc., surrounding it. And, the memories keep coming back. Well, this seems to be the case with how Aspies record many instances in their lives, even non-traumatic ones.

Or, is PTSS so problematic for neurotypicals because it's so opposite from how the brain records things?172.131.176.22 (talk) 12:46, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

PTSD is an anxiety disorder, yes. I see that the article was a bit sloppy about distinguishing anxiety from anxiety disorder, and similarly for depression vs. major depressive disorder, so I tried to fix that just now. Eubulides (talk) 23:28, 13 March 2009 (UTC)

Umm...

Why does YCS redirect here? What does it mean? Egg-Emperor (talk) 17:21, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for catching that; it was almost certainly vandalism. I don't think "YCS" refers to Asperger syndrome in any way. Soap Talk/Contributions 17:27, 15 March 2009 (UTC)
Probably not vandalism -- see this site -- but not appropriate either. Looie496 (talk) 17:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

VIQ and PIQ

There is evidence that Not all ASPIES show VIQ>PIQ. Ghaziuddin 2004, has shown about 10% of Aspies/HFA's show inverse trends. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.194.228.249 (talk) 23:43, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

I don't see why this comment is relevant to Asperger syndrome, an article that doesn't talk about VIQ, PIQ, or (for that matter) IQ. Eubulides (talk) 03:07, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Planning conference

Why does the following sentence omit that the planning conference was carried out specifically for the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual regarding it's planned revision in 2011? I would have thought this was a link with massive implications for world diagnosis:

A panel session at a 2008 diagnosis-related autism research planning conference noted problems with the classification of AS as a distinct subgroup of ASD, and two of three breakout groups recommended eliminating AS as a separate diagnosis.[14]

"A panel discussion..." is needlessly vague. 123.211.74.2 (talk) 21:40, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

It's a bit wordy, but I appended "in future versions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems" to that. Can anyone thing of something more succinct? Eubulides (talk) 23:43, 17 March 2009 (UTC)

Challenging theories of AS

A recent edit replaced "which challenge theories of humor in AS" with "which highlight the complexities of humor in AS", commenting " Anecdotes never disprove in a syndrome as complex as autism. At most they only highlight the complexities. Fixed to show this.". First, it's not correct that "anecdotes never disprove"; certainly an anecdote can disprove a broad claim, since it's a counterexample. Second, the cited source (Lyons & Fitzgerald 2004, PMID 15628606) has as its main conclusion that the anecdotal evidence challenges theories, not that it "highlights the complexity". For example, the source's summary section describes the theories behind well-documented deficits in autism/AS that lead to impaired humor appreciation, but then goes on to say:

"However, despite this overwhelming evidence there are many anecdotal and parental reports of humor in individuals with autism/Asperger syndrome of all levels of functioning. Examples range from basic slapstick humor to highly sophisticated humor based on nonsense and logical confusion of language. These accounts seem to contradict the assumptions of our humor understanding in autism/Asperger syndrome and challenge some of the psychological theories with regard to creativity, imagination, reciprocal social interaction, executive functioning and mindreading."

Our summary should not lose sight of the main point of the source, which is that theories of humor in autism/AS are being challenged. I attempted to fix the problem by replacing "there are anecdotal reports of humor in individuals with AS, which highlight the complexities of humor in AS" with "anecdotal reports of humor in individuals with AS seem to challenge some psychological theories of AS and autism". Eubulides (talk) 16:06, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Proposed merging of NLD with AS

I believe that the NLD article should be merged with this one as 80% of people with Aspergers also meet the criteria for NLD and the fact that the way the two were defined in the last ten years has changed. I believe the two diseases are very similar. because of this I believe that the NLD article should be added to this article. Tydoni (talk) 16:44, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Certainly NLD is associated with AS, but the 80% rate sounds high; Asperger syndrome currently cites one study (Cederland & Gillberg 2004, PMID 15473168), which reported only 51%. However, a merge doesn't sound appropriate: the two diagnoses are distinct and reliable sources by and large don't treat them as equivalent or nearly equivalent. Eubulides (talk) 18:45, 29 March 2009 (UTC)

Problems understanding article on Asperger's

I cannot understand this article. I have read it, and I still cannot understand anything about Asplerger's. The article says such things as impaired social skills, and does not explain any further. I need to see a list of many social skills that are impaired and specifically how they are impaired. I need to see these concrete, specific examples for nearly every topic covered by the article. 67.150.122.218 (talk) 05:43, 3 April 2009 (UTC)hagexk 040209

Asperger syndrome #Social interaction gives multiple examples of impaired social skills. Eubulides (talk) 06:41, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Asperger photo

A recent edit removed Image:Hans Aspergersmall.jpg from Asperger syndrome #Classification with the comment "What Asperger looking at an unnamed child looks like is irrelevent". I tend to agree that the image is not that relevant to the Classification section, but the image is quite relevant to Asperger syndrome #History, so I moved it there. The image illustrates the co-discoverer of autism and the psychologist that Asperger syndrome is named for, and in particular illustrates the following longstanding comment in the text:

'He [Asperger] called his young patients "little professors", and believed some would be capable of exceptional achievement and original thought later in life.'

No free photo is available to illustrate this, and a photo cannot be created now because Asperger is no longer with us and stopped seeing young patients many years ago.

This particular image has been used to illustrate Asperger syndrome since 2006, and passed featured article review in 2006 and 2007 without any problems that I know of. Have the standards for non-free images changed significantly since 2007? If not, then let's keep the image, as it significantly increases readers' understanding of the syndrome's history. Eubulides (talk) 07:41, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the standards have become stricter since 2007. Back then, we often still had album covers in discographies, for example. I admit that there is no free way to illustrate this, but that statement really does not need illustrating. When reading it, you certainly don't think "I wonder what Asperger and one of his "little professors" looked like". You may want to learn more about Asperger or his experiments, or you may wonder how that idea developed, and we have article for both of them. This visual aid is simply not required. J Milburn (talk) 09:58, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you do not wonder what Asperger and his patients looked like, oddly enough I did the first time I read this article. It does illustrate something (that something, to me, was and is what is noted above by Eubulides , and the argument that *you* do not wonder about it is not a very good one, as, well, others do. The image has been here for a long time and nobody has had a problem with it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:02, 5 April 2009 (UTC)
Let's leave in this image while it's being discussed. It's been there since 2006, and there's no rush to remove it. Eubulides (talk) 17:00, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

I can't agree with leaving the image (the burden of proof lies with those wishing to include it, and, with matters like NFC and BLP, it's best to err on the side of caution...) but I have no desire to edit war. At no point in the text is the appearance of Asperger discussed, nor the appearance of his patients, nor (the most likely of the three) the appearance of his experimental technique. I admit my argument was hardly a conventional one, but I thought it may help others to understand the issue. As we do not seem to think in the same way, I will have to return to the conventional line. Unless the appearance of the image (in this case, as the image itself is not famous, the appearance of Asperger, his patients, or their interaction as shown in this image) is necessary for a full understanding of the article subject ("full understanding" meaning the level of understanding that should be conveyed by this single article) then it should not be included. If such a visual understanding was necessary, it should be mentioned in the text. What element is this illustrating that really needs to be illustrated at this level? (Note that I am requesting a third opinion on this issue.) J Milburn (talk) 21:06, 5 April 2009 (UTC)

There is no Wikipedia policy requiring that the image's "appearance ... is necessary for full understanding". The relevant policy doesn't say "necessary", nor does it say "full understanding". What policy requires (as far as understanding goes) is that the image significantly increase readers' understanding of the topic, a much lower bar than your comment implies. Whether Image:Hans Aspergersmall.jpg satisfies this policy is necessarily a judgment call. So far we've heard from three editors; it would be nice to hear from more. Eubulides (talk) 06:32, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Please explain why this image meets that bar, if you're so convinced it does. I can't even see what it's actually meant ot be illustrating, let alone how it increases the readers' understanding of it. J Milburn (talk) 08:56, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Given your previous comments on the topic, there's little point to responding to this request. I prefer to see what other editors have to say. Eubulides (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
(3rd opinion). I've removed the photo. It's a nice old photo which is appropriate in the biographical article Hans Asperger—and guess what, it fittingly appears there. It has no relevance in the article Asperger syndrome, whether or not you wonder what Asperger and his patients looked like. I suggest people who wonder that should go to Hans Asperger, the right place for it, and take a look. Bishonen | talk 09:36, 6 April 2009 (UTC).
Next time you might want to join in the discuss before acting on your own, by removing the image while the discussion is ongoing you're basically saying that you don't give a damn about the opinions and ideas given here. Fenke (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
The onus is on those wishing to include the image- while there is a lack of clear consensus, the image should be kept out of the article. J Milburn (talk) 21:53, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
(5th) It's not about the appearance of Hans Asperger, the image shows, more importantly, that AS is more then a description of symptoms, more then an abstract concept, but that there's a human side to it, that it is about real, vulnerable people, young children. And that is hard to express in words. Fenke (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
It shows that real people are affected by Asperger's syndrome? What's wrong with a free image of someone with the syndrome? Why do we have to use this non-free image? J Milburn (talk) 21:54, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
It helps to show how Asperger syndrome was discovered; this is something no free image can do, since there is no free photo of Asperger and his interaction with patients. Eubulides (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
My blind opinion, no, the image is not discussed in the article enough to be valid. ViperSnake151  Talk  11:40, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Blind opinion? What is a 'blind opinion'? Fenke (talk) 17:28, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

The image neither "significantly increase [my] understanding of the topic" nor would its absence "be detrimental to that understanding". I can imagine what "little professors" might be like and it is a behavioural concept, not a visual one. There is nothing in the picture of the cute little boy that is characteristic of asperger syndrome. Colin°Talk 19:29, 6 April 2009 (UTC)

I think we're enforcing the policy over-strictly here. It's intended to exclude images that are decorative, not images that are clearly directly relevant and helpful such as this one. An example of a tangentially related photo that would not be permitted would be, say, a non-free photo of Asberger's mother, or a non-free photo of some random professor (re the "little professors" comment). Dcoetzee 20:20, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
So, what do you feel that this image is actually illustrating, that needs illustrating? J Milburn (talk) 21:50, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Dcoetzee's comment clearly states that the image is directly relevant and helpful. There is no need for Dcoetzee to give a detailed breakdown to support what must be editorial judgment. Let's accept Dcoetzee's comment and move on. Eubulides (talk) 22:14, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
No, because we don't work on mindless democracy, thank God. If Dcoetzee wants his thoughts to be taken seriously, he's going to have to provide some explanation and reasoning. Dcoetzee takes it for granted that this image is "helpful", which is the point of contention here. J Milburn (talk) 22:21, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
This sort of argumentative response is not helpful. Please don't post rash conclusions about what other people think. Again, this is an issue of editorial judgment, upon which reasonable editors can disagree, and for which editors need not post detailed justifications. Eubulides (talk) 22:34, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
"It's intended to exclude images that are decorative, not images that are clearly directly relevant and helpful such as this one"- I was not jumping to any conclusions, just rehashing what was said. Surely, if you believe that people could reasonably disagree, then there is all the more reason to provide an explanation? I repeat- Wikipedia is not a democracy. People merely stating that an image is helpful does not suddenly make it so; explanations and reasoning have to be provided. J Milburn (talk) 22:43, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
Your statement 'Dcoetzee takes it for granted that this image is "helpful"' was not simply a rehash of what Dcoetzee said: it stated unwarranted (and mildly disparaging) opinions about Dcoetzee's thought processes (or lack thereof). Again, there's no need to badger or belittle proponents of the image; let's just accept Dcoetzee's opinion and move on. Eubulides (talk) 23:25, 6 April 2009 (UTC)
It is clear that your only intention with this diversion is to disparage my views by implying that I am in some way being confrontational. And yes, that is an assumption about others' views and thought processes, unlike my previous comments. If you have an issue with my conduct, raise it on my talk page, where I will respond as appropriate. J Milburn (talk) 10:14, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Historical background behind image

To me, the image illustrates that a person with Asperger's looks like any other person. It also shows the person that discovered the disorder interacting with the kid, he is not oh say, restrained in any way, things like that. In the 1940s (especially in Nazi Germany I might add) the idea of treating people with some mental disorder like this is fascinating. The image brings that out, to me.Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:18, 7 April 2009 (UTC)

Yes, Asperger wrote his 1944 paper in part to defend his patients from being exterminated. Here's a quote from that paper (Frith translation):
"We are convinced, then, that autistic people have their place in the organism of the social community. They fulful their role well, perhaps better than anyone else could, and we are talking of people who as children had the greatest difficulties and caused untold worries to their care-givers."
Those "untold worries" were not just the worries of today's parents of autistic children. Frith comments, "The historical background to this passionate defence of the social value of autism was the very real threat of Nazi terror which extended to killing mentally handicapped and socially deviant people." The illustration would significantly improve readers' understanding of this important historical background, if it hadn't been deleted by editors unconversant with the content. Eubulides (talk) 06:55, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
If such a thing is so important, can I ask why it is not in the article supported by reliable, third party sources? J Milburn (talk) 10:16, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not taking sides on the debates about the picture, but if somebody wants info about how Kanner and Asperger's work affected the Nazis' treatment of autistic chiildren, I or someone else can probably find something. I'm pretty sure the only reason it isn't mentioned in the article so far is that this an article about Asperger syndrome itself and not the history surrounding it. Soap Talk/Contributions 10:40, 7 April 2009 (UTC)
The main reason I hadn't suggested putting it into the article is that I hadn't gotten around to it. There's no time like the present, I guess, so I just now added it. Eubulides (talk) 08:02, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
I admit that it is a useful addition to the article, but I am still not seeing what it has got to do with the image. The image is a picture of Asperger touching a boys head. Why does it matter what Asperger touching a boy's head looks like with regards to the Nazi eugenics programme? J Milburn (talk) 11:26, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
It shows the discoverer of ASD with a kid, in Nazi Germany. The kid is dressed normally, the kid is not being restrained, etc. I guess, in other words, see what I said above....Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
If this information is so important, how come it isn't discussed more in the article? Ok, we've got a primary source supporting the view that Asperger considered those with Asperger syndrome as equals, but there is nothing to the level that you're implying. If it's so important, how come it isn't discussed at length? If it's not important enough to discuss at length, how on Earth can we justify using an image for which we don't even have permission? J Milburn (talk) 12:58, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
How much would you require? There is an entire paragraph about this and the history section. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:29, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Anything about the appearance of the image. I'm just not seeing what the image conveys that, firstly, cannot be conveyed in words, and, secondly, needs to be conveyed. J Milburn (talk) 17:31, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
This is an absurdly high standard. Any image can be conveyed in words, and by this standard no image needs to be in Wikipedia. The Wikipedia policy is not whether the picture can be said in words, but whether the picture significantly improves understanding for the typical reader. Most typical readers look at pictures first, and use them to decide what to read: for this large class of readers, a picture like this significantly improves their understanding. Eubulides (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
The policy states that images must not be replaceable, which can include a replacement with text. For instance, it would not be fair to use a non-free image just to illustrate that a car was red- you could easily state it. It would be fair to use a non-free image of a car which has since been destroyed to demonstrate its artistic appeal (if the artistic appeal was discussed in the article, with sources). It's not a matter of "can this image be replaced with text" so much as "can what this image is illustrating in the context it is used here be conveyed fully in text, or is the image required?". J Milburn (talk) 19:21, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Artistic appeal can also be described in text, so by such a standard there would never be any need for any image. Evidently the standard that Wikipedia actually requires is not as strong as that. Eubulides (talk) 21:43, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
If you think works like Study after Velázquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X or The Scream can be adaquately described in words, I really want to borrow your dictionary. J Milburn (talk) 21:48, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Please see #Artistic appeal below. Eubulides (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Artistic appeal

Certainly the artistic appeal of works can be adequately described in words. To take J Milburn's first example, the article Study after Velázquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X has a description of Bacon's painting that is reasonably adequate to describe its artistic appeal; it could be improved, of course, but seeing the image of Bacon's painting is not required for that purpose. Furthermore, that image's use in other articles clearly falls outside the Wikipedia policy. For example, the text of the article Detournement does not even mention the image (!), and even if it did, it would be trivial for any Wikipedia editor with some Gimp or Photoshop experience to modify the free Image:Innocent-x-velazquez.jpg and produce a perfectly adequate and free example of détournement without any need for a non-free image. Similarly, Bacon's painting could be removed from Western painting, History of painting, and Francis Bacon (painter) without significantly harming any of those articles; none of them are required to have that image.

(The Scream is public-domain in the U.S., so it's not a good example here.)

While we're on the subject of non-free use, Image:Study after Velazquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X.jpg lists neither the copyright holder nor the source of the image. The copyright holder cannot be Francis Bacon, as dead people are not allowed to hold copyrights. The source is given only as "desmoinesregister.com", which is not a specific citation of a source. This is a clear violation of Wikipedia policy WP:NFCC#10 (a policy which I am trying to get fixed, but nevertheless that's the way the policy is written now).

If Bacon's painting is intended to be an example of the best use of non-free works in Wikipedia, then all I can say is that the policies for non-free use do not seem to be applied at all fairly and uniformly. Articles on art seem to be able to use non-free works with almost blithe disdain for policy, whereas articles on medicine seem to get the short end of the stick, with skeptics who seem to reject any and all justifications. Eubulides (talk) 22:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

As it happens, I have worked with the visual art WikiProject in the past (in a big way) in an attempt to clean up the usage of non-free images- specifically, on history of painting, colour field and various other articles. I admit, it still needs work, but that's beside the point here- as are potential violations of policy with other images (feel free to remove/nominate any other images yourself, if you are concerned about their policy compliance). However, I maintain that, to take obvious examples, you could not have a full understanding of a painting without actually seeing said painting. I also further, I think a single shot of a person in a biography, a cover (album, film, game, book, magazine, whatever) or a logo are all useful for identification of the subject of an article. After this, the image really should be tied into the text- if there is a description of a building that is now demolished, an image of the building would be useful (there is a distinction to be made between what is significant- say, if the only significant detail was that it was made from limestone, an image would not be needed- it can just be said. If the appearance of the building in general was extremely significant, then a non-free image may be required.) Also, I think the distinction between visual art and science articles is obvious- you're never going to get a text about artwork without images (or, if you would, it'd be a pretty dry one...) whereas there are plenty of books on science without images- I'm not a scietist, but I could pull one off my bookshelf. As such, any non-free image on a science article sticks out, and it's going to find itself challenged, as in science, it normally doesn't really matter what things looked like. (Obviously, in art, it does.) Imagine another comparison- non-free sound files are going to stick out like a sore thumb here, but wouldn't on an article about contemporary musician. That is a potential explanation for any perceived scrutiny. Another reason- this is a featured article. Another featured article I worked on recently (also about science, albeit loosely- intelligent design) had four non-free images before I started with it, and had only one remaining afterwards. I mention this because I admit that I was convinced that the image was worth including- the presentation of the book was key to an understanding of the history of the ID movement, and displaying the cover, accompanied by textual explanations, was the best way to do this. Here, I am failing to see any reason at all to include the image- instead, many of the arguments in favour revolve around my motives and a general attack on policy. We've ended up bogged down in semantics- basically, it is not clear to me why this image is needed. What is it illustrating? Why does that need to be illustrated? Why is the use of this image the only way that it can be illustrated? J Milburn (talk) 23:08, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
  • In both cases the image is significant and shows the origin of the topic in question (the book originating intelligent design vs. the man originating autism and Asperger syndrome).
  • In both cases the image provides immediate identification for a reader of the containing section dealing with the origins of the topic in question.
  • In both cases the image adds explanatory power through the visual impact of how the idea was discovered and promulgated (the Panda book vs. the doctor in the white coat).
  • In both cases the image provides useful information for identifying and locating the origin of the idea in a way that prose cannot.
Does this help to justify the Asperger photo?
  • "the image really should be tied into the text" I agree with this (even though it's not policy), and the Asperger photo clearly meets this standard.
  • "there are plenty of books on science without images" It depends on which part of science. In many areas of science, images are required. In my experience, books that talk about the history of science (and that's what's being discussed in the text here, not the science per se) typically have pictures relevant to that history.
  • I understand that Wikipedia has artwork that it probably shouldn't, but I wasn't talking about just any artwork: I was talking about Bacon's painting, which was singled out in this thread as being irreplaceable.
  • "you could not have a full understanding of a painting without actually seeing said painting" The use of the word "full" here isn't quite right, as it implies a too-low standard for inclusions of paintings. WP:NFCC #8 doesn't say "full" understanding; it says "significant" understanding, which is a stricter standard for inclusion. For example, it would violate WP:NFCC #8 to include a non-free painting merely to fill in insignificant details needed to gain "full" understanding.
  • "you're never going to get a text about artwork without images" Sure, but does Francis Bacon (painter) require seven non-free images, two of them quite similar? No. Does Study after Velázquez's Portrait of Pope Innocent X require a relatively high-resolution color image? No, it could easily do with a monochrome image of lower quality. For example, Rina Arya's recently published scholarly analysis of that painting (doi:10.1093/litthe/frn039) contents itself with a lower-quality monochrome rendition.
  • Though the image of Bacon's painting currently violates policy, the policy is wrong and not the image, so it's not appropriate to nominate the image for deletion. Likewise for the Asperger photo.
Eubulides (talk) 07:29, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
You make some valid points, but I remain unconvinced. First of all, I chose the Study as a painting because I like the painting, and would struggle to describe it in words- I didn't mean to imply that the rationale/usage of the picture was perfect. I also chose The Scream for this reason- it didn't occur to me that it would be public domain (it isn't public domain in Norway...). Secondly, the comparison to the Pandas and People example is accurate (and you're right that it's a good comparison, that's the reason I mentioned it) apart from one point- the Pandas image is there to convey the presentation of the work, which is an issue central to the concept of intelligent design (displaying it as science) and an issue discussed in the text with regard to the presentation of that book, cited to decent third party sources. The Asperger image is not really demonstrating anything. There has been talk about displaying the relationship between Asperger and his subjects, but when the discussion of that is so limited in the article, it's difficult to justify the importance of displaying that. J Milburn (talk) 10:16, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
This is getting rather off-topic and turning into an essay on Milburn&Eubulides interpretation of FU policy. What is rational and what is fair has very little to do with copyright law or WP's policy on the matter. Attempting to come to an understanding of this policy through rational analysis or pleas to what is sensible are just going to fail, I'm afraid. Too many people have tried this and got unstuck. You've both got so emotionally involved in this that it may be better for you both to recuse yourselves and endeavour to find an impartial judge with experience in applying WP policy here. Colin°Talk 11:49, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
That's a rather bleak assessment. I arrived at this article as an impartial, fair judge, very experienced with non-free content issues, and my opinions were just argued against endlessly. Other admins experienced with image use commented earlier in the discussion, and they were summarily ignored. What makes you so sure that, this time, bringing in an experienced third party will result in a conclusion? J Milburn (talk) 12:03, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
You may have arrived here like that but it is quite clear that your opinions are being rejected by Eubulides and that your arguments mostly consist of you explaining your opinions and the rationale behind your opinions. There are some points that are clear in policy and other that are open to judgement -- and you've reached a stalemate on that. J Milburn's opinion (or Eubulides opinion) on FU policy is only interesting up to a point and that if you still can't agree after all this discussion then back down. Neither of you are trolls and I'm sure both of you have better things to do. So pass the baton to someone else and see if they can resolve the situation. Colin°Talk 12:23, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Please see #What to do if photo is deleted below. Eubulides (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Colin, it would be very "convenient" if I was to back down now in the hope that someone else does what needs to be done- I note the image is currently being (ab)used in the article. J Milburn (talk) 23:42, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
Sometimes it is not about winning but about accepting there isn't consensus for change. Like you, I don't think there's a strong FU claim but I also respect those who disagree with me on this matter. The image has been here a long time and is such poor quality that I don't think it is doing the copyright-holder (whoever they may be) any harm. Colin°Talk 19:23, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
It hasn't been in this article for a long time, at all. I would not be particularly concerned if the image was kept and the current wording of the NFCC was changed, but I would be concerned if the image stayed in this article while the article is in its present shape. J Milburn (talk) 22:07, 10 April 2009 (UTC)
No, this image, or a similar non-free one, has been in the article since User:Perl added one in March 2004, shortly before Asperger syndrome became a Featured Article. The current image replaced the previous one in 2006 (apparently after an earlier flap about non-free use, which was before my time). A non-free image of Asperger is a longstanding tradition here. Eubulides (talk) 00:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

What to do if photo is deleted

I agree with Colin's analysis and had already followed up with him re SandyGeorgia's suggestion to ask Elcobolla about it (see User talk:Elcobbola #Asperger); no response to my query yet. I worry, though, that the situation will be escalated, in that File:Hans Aspergersmall.jpg will be deleted due to a technicality (at least, it's a technicality in the context of this thread: it's lack of copyright info) and as a result Wikipedia won't contain any image of the (co-)discoverer of autism, which would be a significant deficiency. If the above kerfuffle hadn't occurred, I would simply respond to the deletion by substituting a different (and necessarily, alas, non-free) photo that would satisfy the technicality. I worry, though, that in the current environment such an action will be interpreted as disruptive editing. Any comments or suggestions? Eubulides (talk) 19:45, 9 April 2009 (UTC)

An image of Asperger is not required here- that was decided by the previous IfD. This current discussion regards an image of Asperger with an anonymous child. I see little difference- you see a large difference. If this image does wound up deleted, uploading another image of Asperger and adding it to this article would clearly be disruptive. Adding another image that is of use to this article (as you argue an image of Asperger with an anonymous child is) would not be disruptive, but if it is anything like the current one, I suspect there will still be opposition from myself and others. I admit it would be a shame if there was no image of Asperger; such an image would be very useful in his biography. J Milburn (talk) 23:41, 9 April 2009 (UTC)
I'd like an opinion from someone not so closely involved with this dispute. Eubulides (talk) 00:09, 11 April 2009 (UTC)

Image source

Incidentally, I happen to notice that both of the images that used to be in this article appear in the book Autism and Asperger syndrome, chapter 1, and are labeled as From the collection of Dr Maria Asperger-Felder. This chapter was written by Uta Frith in 1991. Does that mean anything to us regarding permissions? Soap Talk/Contributions 17:44, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Not really, as just because they are in her collection, doesn't mean anything about their copyright- unless she also bought the rights to the images (which is unlikely, unless she intended to publish them, and because the book doesn't specify that the rights belong to her). Instead, the copyright will belong to the original photographer (probably now deceased, but not for long enough) or original photographing organisation (which, unless it is one of the few organisations which allow reproduction, will not be any help. If it was one of them, we'd probably know.). J Milburn (talk) 18:11, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Again, this is an absurdly high standard. For the vast majority of non-free images, we do not know the current copyright holder, because copyright transfers are typically not public. This does not mean Wikipedia can't or shouldn't use the image. For more on this topic, please see Wikipedia talk:Non-free content #Unknown copyright holder?. We are currently checking with Mike Godwin (the Wikipedia counsel) on this. Eubulides (talk) 19:13, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
My objection to the image here is based on the fact that it is not needed, not with concerns about who the copyright holder was. In my last comment, I was answering Soap's question, which I assumed was implying there was a possibility that the image could be considered "free" because of what we know about it already. I was simply arguing that, until we know more, this image has to be assumed non-free. I have not made any argument about the image's original author on this talk page, as that discussion belongs elsewhere (namely, on the NFCC talk page, as you are supporting a change of policy there, rather than an alternative interpretation of it). J Milburn (talk) 19:18, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Thanks, I see now. I was confused because Soap's question was not about the image here; it was about another image or images (now deleted) clearly sourced to a copyrighted publication, which is a different case. I agree with you that the image here has to be assumed to be non-free. Eubulides (talk) 21:41, 8 April 2009 (UTC)
Oh, yes, you're right- well, we'll have to assume all of them to be non-free. J Milburn (talk) 21:49, 8 April 2009 (UTC)

Overdiagnosis and legitimacy of the condition

The article should cover this in detail. The backlash to AS and a huge fraction of the public's opinion of the condition (basically a huge joke), along with the fact that everyone and their dog now has the condition (why was the world "asperger" free until the early 90's?), should be covered here.

1) Don't try to simply brand this comment as inflammatory as the easy way out, and completely swerve the matter at hand, and 2) don't go telling me that it's only myself who holds the opinion of AS as a fraud. I'm not even saying I do consider AS to be that, although there are myriad cites and webpages out there which basically shoot the notion of AS down in flames (as anyone knows, let's not play dumb), basically telling these "self-indulgent nerds" to get on with their lives like they had to before the popular sanctuary of AS. The criticism of the condition should be covered here, that's obvious.—Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.201.40 (talk • contribs) 16:44, April 23, 2009

If this point of view is widely discussed by reputable sources, it can be discussed in the article. Is it? Looie496 (talk) 16:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
It's all over the net. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.71.201.40 (talk) 17:43, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
If there are significant reliable sources on the topic, it should be covered here. However, I don't know of any reliable sources asserting that AS is a fraud. Please see WP:MEDRS for what constitutes reliable sources in medical articles in Wikipedia. Eubulides (talk) 19:54, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
Whether or not an idea is "all over the net" is irrelevant, please read WP:V and WP:MEDRS and provide sources that are compatible with our policies. Tim Vickers (talk) 20:14, 23 April 2009 (UTC)
The fact that this condition's legitimacy is strongly disputed should most definitely be covered. Brendan Heron (talk) 22:06, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
Disputed by whom? In what reliable source? Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:28, 25 April 2009 (UTC)
The condition's legitimacy is disputed by multiple reliable sources, including Szatmary 2000 (PMID 11086556) and First 2008, and this dispute is covered (and both these sources cited) in Asperger syndrome #Classification. Eubulides (talk) 01:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)
Actually, upon reading these links, it is apparent to me that the information contained in them (see Szatmary 2000 (PMID 11086556) and First 2008) is exclusively in regards to criteria for diagnosis. There is no mention of dispute over the validity of the diagnosis, but rather many statements pertaining to the clairification of and emphasis upon various characteristics for the purpose of facilitating an accurate clinical picture for the diagnosis of Asperger Syndrome and other PDD's. 08:39, 5 May 2009 (whipstitches)
Sorry, I don't follow the previous point. We have multiple reliable sources disputing the validity of the diagnosis, as mentioned above, and these sources are cited and discussed in Asperger syndrome. Perhaps you could make the criticism more concrete by proposing a specific wording change, including any citations? Eubulides (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Illegitimacy

"The condition's legitimacy is disputed by multiple reliable sources, including Szatmary 2000 (PMID 11086556) and First 2008, and this dispute is covered (and both these sources cited) in Asperger syndrome #Classification. Eubulides (talk) 01:46, 26 April 2009 (UTC)"

The only problem with this is that I see nothing mentioning the legitimacy of the disease in the article, nor do I see the multiple reliable sources you mention. I am in the camp that asperger syndrome is not a legitimate disorder, and from what I gather this is a prominent camp, so I felt very confused upon not seeing anything from that camp in the article, despite it being a featured article. --ScWizard (talk) 05:57, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
Sorry, I misspelled Szatmari's name. Search for "11086556" in Asperger syndrome to find that citation. To find the other one, search for "First MB". They're in there. Currently they're citations [13] and [14] but these numberings might change soon. Eubulides (talk) 06:31, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
If you had read the article more thoroughly you would have seen it, the issue takes approx one-third of the appropriate section, Classification. Fenke (talk) 10:08, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
"The current ASD classification may not reflect the true nature of the spectrum.[13]"
That sentence means nothing. "The current classification may not reflect the true nature" could be said about anything. Let me go investigate the source to see if it makes a stronger claim or not. --ScWizard (talk) 19:13, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I was referring to the entire last portion of the section dealing with the issue, "The extent of the overlap between AS and high-functioning autism (HFA—autism unaccompanied by mental retardation) is unclear.[5][11][12] The current ASD classification may not reflect the true nature of the spectrum.[13] A panel session at a 2008 diagnosis-related autism research planning conference noted problems with the classification of AS as a distinct subgroup of ASD, and two of three breakout groups recommended eliminating AS as a separate diagnosis in future versions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders and of the International Statistical Classification of Diseases and Related Health Problems.[14]". It covers enough of the issue. Fenke (talk) 20:07, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure what you mean by illegitimate. AS isn't like Down's Syndrome where you have a visible sign of the disorder that can clearly indicate whether someone has Down's syndrome or not; Asperger's is defined by characteristics. As such, it's not really possible to say that it doesn't exist or that it is a fraud. Saying that Asperger syndrome should be merged diagnostically with HFA is not the same as saying that Asperger syndrome is a fraud. Could you please explain more clearly what you mean. Do you mean to say you don't believe that all people with Asperger's were "born into it", so to speak, and that they can grow out of it? There are plenty of case studies of children with Asperger's growing up to be normal adults; perhaps even the majority do. This does not necessarily disprove the existence of lifelong Asperger syndrome. Soap Talk/Contributions 22:34, 27 April 2009 (UTC)
I think he holds the common belief that "Asperger Syndrome" is a fashion statement, and there's nothing wrong with the people who claim to have it other than being self-indulgent and are overdue a clip round the ear. Sure, you want reliable medical journals for cites, but none will say that. But there are certainly hundreds of articles out there which support the notion that "Asperger Syndrome" is simply a cool label for attention-seekers who should be doing something constructive with their lives. In many cases, that "something" would be working a job rather than leeching off the taxes of hard-working people (many of whom are reserved, quiet people and could get a diagnosis of this highly questionable condition themselves, but choose to get out there and contribute). But of course, these cites are conveniently "not suitable" for the article. Whatever. The "Asperger Syndrome" phenomenon continues, drawing support away from people with real Autism and disorders like Fragile X. Brendan Heron (talk) 21:28, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
As per WP:NOTSOAPBOX, this talk page is not supposed to be a soapbox for editors' personal beliefs. Please refrain from inserting unsourced speculations and hurtful allegations; they waste our time and detract from Wikipedia's goal of improving the encyclopedia. Eubulides (talk) 22:14, 1 May 2009 (UTC)
I agree, leave the opinions to a forum. If you're not a psychologist, don't go around claiming this isn't a real disease. The hurtful statements are why I asked for the page to be semi-protected, as an Aspie myself (I was diagnosed by a psychiatrist who specializes in the disorder btw), I was extremely offended by them. I'm not a retard either, nor are any other Aspies. Its two completely different things, Aspies have normal (or even above average) intelligence. The "child stuck in an adult's body" claim is also based on ignorance. All Aspies mature normally both physically and emotionally / mentally. TomCat4680 (talk) 22:30, 1 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps some mention of discrimination of individuals with disabilities would balance a section such as this one? Regardless, it does seem to me that there is a real need for clairification on the above mentioned issues based on the comments I have seen and the information that has been presented in this section. For this reason, I feel that there should be a section which addresses "debate surrounding the diagnosis of Asperger's" as opposed to a section which addresses the "illegitimacy of a diagnosis of Asperger's". The information that I have read in this discussion suggests to me that there is significant confusion between debate in the medical community over the true "clinical picture" for Asperger's with respect to assigning a correct "label" and the notion of the non-medical community that this debate somehow gives credance to those who question the legitemacy of such a label in the first place. 09:06, 5 May 2009 (whipstitches). —Preceding unsigned comment added by Whipstitches (talk • contribs)

Many in the medical community disagree with the existence of the Asperger-syndrome diagnosis in the first place. And this is covered in Asperger syndrome. So I'm not sure that the distinction being proposed above (between medical and non-medical community) is a valid one. Eubulides (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Where the debate in the medical community is about the question if AS isn't just another word for HFA, in the non-medical community this debate is taken as a justification to claims that AS isn't a disorder at all, let alone a disability. What is 'validity' supposed to mean within the context of this article, and what would it mean to the average reader? Fenke (talk) 22:39, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
In Asperger syndrome #Diagnosis, "validity" is external validity, which is discussed in the "External validity" section of Klin & Volkmar 2003. I added a wikilink to External validity to try to help make this clearer. The debate in the medical community is not merely over whether AS is another word for HFA; for example, there are serious questions over whether autism is a "spectrum" with a single underlying dimension, or even whether autism can be factored into multiple dimensions in a useful way. The issue as to whether AS is a disorder or a condition is orthogonal to the question of whether fAS is a valid diagnosis, and the disorder-vs-condition issue is discussed in Asperger syndrome #Cultural aspects. Eubulides (talk) 23:49, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Asperger's Syndrome

The correct title is Asperger's Syndrome, not "Asperger syndrome" and as a person with it myself I believe the title should reflect its official name, not simply public opinion. Glenn L (talk) 12:46, 5 May 2009 (UTC)

Yeah I thought it looked wrong, I've always been told its spelled with an 's. I'll change the name of the article to correct this. TomCat4680 (talk) 13:26, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Nevermind, I guess I can't, its semi-protected for another week due to POV pushing vandalism. An admin has to do it. TomCat4680 (talk) 13:27, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Different sources spell it different ways. These days, the more common spelling is "Asperger syndrome", though. Of the first 10 sources currently listed in Asperger syndrome #Notes, 2 say "Asperger's syndrome" and 4 say "Asperger syndrome" in their titles. Let's stick with Asperger syndrome. Eubulides (talk) 16:40, 5 May 2009 (UTC)
Eubulides is probably right; this has been discussed here before. The trend in modern medicine seems to be towards removing 's from eponymous diseases, even to ones like Alzheimer disease. (Though it seems to be catching on better when the second word is syndrome perhaps because the difference in pronunciation is less apparent.) --- Soap Talk/Contributions 00:15, 6 May 2009 (UTC)
Yes, as I've written here before, the basis for "Asperger syndrome" and "Down syndrome" instead of "Asperger's syndrome" and "Down's syndrome", however prevalent they may be, is simply a mishearing that has spread. I don't think there are any eponymous diseases where the possessive s has been removed, where the second word doesn't also begin with an s. Se Wikipedia's article for Alzheimer's disease, where the s is not removed. It's ridiculus that an encyclopedia should be influenced by such things, it should instead strive to be correct. 193.91.181.142 (talk) 23:02, 9 May 2009 (UTC) (Nick)
Are you referring to the previous discussion here? I don't see your name there. (edit: I just found this.) Whatever you think of Alzheimer disease, Asperger syndrome is an acceptable variant name, not an error, and might eventually become the most common form. However I think that the existence of a shortened form with the 's (e.g. "He has Asperger's") might prevent it from becoming universal. Soap Talk/Contributions 23:14, 9 May 2009 (UTC)

I just now checked Google Scholar for articles since 2004 and found the following number of hits:

  • 8,200 "Asperger syndrome"
  • 2,970 "Asperger's syndrome"
  • 1,520 "Asperger disorder"
  • 978 "Asperger's disorder"

The article's lead didn't mention "Asperger disorder" but did mention "Asperger's disorder", which seemed a bit out of whack, so I reworded it a bit to talk about this label as well. Since there are so many names that the naming business is highly distracting in the lead sentence, this rewording moved the terminology stuff into the lead for the 2nd paragraph. Eubulides (talk) 01:27, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

Nosological validity

A recent edit inserted a new lead sentence, as follows:

"Asperger syndrome is a disorder classified under autism spectrum disorder (ASD), though the validity of this classification is uncertain." (citing ICD-10-F84.0)

This sentence misstates the issue in question. There is no dispute among reliable sources that Asperger syndrome is an ASD. The only dispute is whether there is a valid distinction between Asperger syndrome and some other forms of ASD. For more on this subject, please see #Overdiagnosis and legitimacy of the condition and #Illegitimacy above.

The dispute about validity is already summarized in the lead, which says "... questions about many aspects remain. For example, there is lingering doubt about the distinction between AS and high-functioning autism (HFA) ...". The validity issue should not be in the very first sentence; as per WP:LEAD #First sentence, that sentence should be a simple, straightforward definition of the topic. Perhaps the validity issue could be summarized better in the lead, but this change was for the worse; so for now, I have reverted it. Eubulides (talk) 22:26, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

WHY DO YOU HAVE TO CREATE AN ENTIRE SECTION ON THE ARTICLE TALK PAGE ABOUT MY MISTAKE INSTEAD OF MESSAGING ME? Repku (talk) 23:34, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

"Stereotyped"

A lot of people don't know what this word means and aren't going to bother going to the page to find out. To casual readers (which most users are), this will give out a completely wrong perception of the condition. Clearly another word can be used here which promotes plain English, first of all, and avoids the obviously incorrect perception that the word "stereotype" will give 99% of readers. Sure, we can still link to the Stereotypy article, but this word should be altered. 88.109.58.184 (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, but altered to what? Can you propose a specific wording change? Eubulides (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Perhaps you could sir, simply because I'm not the greatest wordsmith in the world. Surely we could lift the summary from the autism article, where the condition is well explained without the use of "stereotyped". 88.109.58.184 (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
Why not change "stereotyped" to "repetitive patterns of behaviour", while retaining the link? "Repetitive" is used on the autism article. 88.109.58.184 (talk) 22:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ted Dryburgh (talk • contribs) 23:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well, the sources are pretty strong on saying "stererotyped", in addition to "repetitive", and they don't seem to equate the two. In addition to the cited sources, DSM-IV, the definition of Asperger's, says "Restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior"[10], and ICD-10, the international definition, says "restricted, stereotyped, repetitive"[11]; both standards indicate that one can't simply substitute "repetitive" for "stereotyped". Autism uses both terms. It would make sense for this article to use both terms too, following ICD-10 and DSM-IV, so I did that. Eubulides (talk) 23:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)
I'm not disputing that stereotyped is the correct term. But the people who read Wikipedia are not doctors, for the most part. They have a completely different perception of what "stereotyped" means, thus rendering the article as a disservice to people with the condition. Also, plain english is coming back into fashion. I again contest that a link should be retained to "stereotypy", but with different wording. 88.109.58.184 (talk) 02:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
  • OK, well, let's give it a shot. One option is to use "stereotypies" rather than "stereotyped", as most non-expert readers have never seen the word "stereotypies" and therefore will be less likely to interpret it incorrectly. Something like the following:
"Asperger syndrome is an autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and people with it therefore show significant difficulties in social interaction, along with stereotypies and other restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests."
  • A nice property of this paraphrase is that it makes it clear that a "stereotypy" is one of the forms of "restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests", thus explaining something about "stereotypies" without spending a lot of extra words to do it.
  • Another option would be keep the current lead, except inserting the parenthetical remark "(that is, voluntary, repetitive and apparently purposeless)" after "stereotyped". This would also explain "stereotyped". However, I wouldn't favor this approach, as it would make the lead sentence too long and convoluted to satisfy WP:LEAD.
Eubulides (talk) 06:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)
Altered to suggested version. 88.109.53.33 (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Needs

I have asperger and my father, and I have noticed a few things missing from the article that could be added for the "symptons". First, I have noticed that ridalin (or however you spell it) is not a good thing for treatment. It caused me to have major mood swings, become extremly hyper (to the point of undesireble), sexually active to an extreme at 8yrs, depressed, and suicidle. Another is (and I talked to a others with it) my dad and I are extremely angered at something that would be considered too much (ie someone takes the last pop and I curse and hit someone) --Flynn M Taggart (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Oh, the sister didorder should be mentioned that.--Flynn M Taggart (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Methylphenidate (Ritalin) is not normally prescribed for Asperger's; I don't know of any reliable sources recommending it, or commenting on adverse effects in Asperger's, and we can't put anything into the article that is not supported by reliable sources. The other topic, aggression, is briefly discussed in the last paragraph of Asperger syndrome #Social interaction; specific wording suggestions (plus sources) to improve it are welcome. Eubulides (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
People with hyperactivity disorders are often calmed by what would cause a "normal" person to become hyper. Examples are caffeine and ritalin. Some doctors have diagnosed people with AS as being hyperactive when they are not. Being prescribed ritalin may indicate that your doctor believed you to have a hyperactivity disorder when in fact you did not. Thus, instead of calming you as ritalin would do for a hyperactive person, it instead threw you into hyperactivity. However, this is just non-medical speculation on my part (I am not giving medical advice). 71.196.135.148 (talk) 06:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a friend wh has aspergers and he is giving alot of prescriptions that aren't normally recommended for people with that sort of thing.I think it is used to treat small portions of the symptoms. He is given Clondine, albilify, and some type of bi-polar medicine, even though he is not bi-polar and they seem to work. (205.134.216.18 (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC))

What you have to understand is that AS is a syndrome, ie it can consist of combinations of many differing symptoms. An Aspie is just as likely to have a bi-polar disorder as a 'normal' person. It doesn't mean that it is part of the condition. Even Aspies can mental health disorders that have no relationship to AS at all. --WebHamster 18:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to remind us all that talk pages are for discussing ways to improve an article, not for discussing the topic itself. Any followups should be framed in terms of possible changes to the article. Looie496 (talk) 14:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Are short tempers a symptom of AS?

I don't see temper mentioned anywhere in the article but I've noticed that many people with AS have short tempers and often have temper tantrums, is this a symtpom of AS or is it caused by something else? Dionyseus (talk) 00:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Probably to do with difficulties in social interaction and/or understanding other people's views, feelings, and how things in the world work.--Deitrohuat (talk) 01:54, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Drug treatment

Some people with Asperger do not respond well with SSRI's and the article suggests instead they are on older tricyclic antidepresents such as Imipramine. Should that be mentioned in the article Natche24 20:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natche24 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I'm lost. The Asperger syndrome article does not suggest that some people with AS are on older tricyclic antidepressants such as Imipramine; it doesn't mention tricyclic antidepressents, or Imipramine, at all. Could you please explain? The article does mention some SSRI downsides, for what it's worth. Eubulides (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)
While medicinal treatment tends to be for the linked disorders which are symptomatic of Asperger's syndrome, it would be useful some references to articles on trends in atypical medicine responses by people with Asperger's syndrome with regards to treatment of accompanying disorders and/or specific symptoms. This would give an interesting insight. --Robert Wm "Ruedii" (talk) 08:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
What I am saying is that some people I know with Asperger's do not respond well on SSRI's because they are too narrow focused on Seritonin. Where as other drugs are more broadly focused on other Neurotransmitters. Some people are also taking drug combinations which area Tricyclic drug and another such as Abilify.Natche24 03:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natche24 (talk • contribs)
Again, I'm not sure what this discussion has to do with the article. For what it's worth, there is a recent high-quality study saying that citalopram, an SSRI, is ineffective for treating repetitive behavior in autistic children (see King et al. 2009, PMID 19487623), and this matter is discussed further in Autism therapies #Prescription medication; but that source is about autistic children in general, not Asperger syndrome in particular. Does anyone have relevant, reliable sources on the topic of SSRIs and Asperger's other than what's in the article now? If not, perhaps we should move on to the next topic. Eubulides (talk) 06:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

I propose a "criticism" section, where the arguments that Asperger Syndrome is not a legitimate disorder shall be discussed. 81.170.75.166 (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This topic was discussed in on this talk page last month; please see Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive 19 #Overdiagnosis and legitimacy of the condition. It wouldn't hurt to read that thread to avoid undue repetition. WP:CSECTION is also a good resource. Eubulides (talk) 04:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)
Some people appear to mistakenly think, perhaps from reading the article, that the debate in the medical community is whether or not Aspergers is a "normal" variation of personality that does not merit any sort of diagnosis. No, on the contrary, the discussion in medical community is whether or not Asperger's is a distinct kind of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) that merits its own diagnostic sub-category i.e. a debate between Lumpers and Splitters. I believe the section on Classification should emphasise that point more. --Diamonddavej (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the "controversy" or "criticism" is more directed at if Aspergers even "exists", not if it belongs here or there. Much like the ADHD controversy. I think it would be a good section to add, as right now it seems to have a view that it without-doubt exists, when there are plenty that believe it doesn't.
It could of course include the other controversies, such as if it is a part of the autism spectrum, and so on.Avalik (talk) 04:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
Again, please see Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive 19 #Overdiagnosis and legitimacy of the condition, as we seem to be repeating that discussion. As before, nobody has cited reliable sources on the topic, or made any specific proposals for improvements to the article's wording, and so the article hasn't changed. Eubulides (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Strongly one-sided article, need of re-write

The current article gives a very one-sided view that many (most?) "aspies" would be in very strong disagreement with. In particular, it paints the syndrome as a strong deficiency, and uses a lot of suggestive language. Only at the very end, the typical "aspie" view is presented in a few paragraphs. I very strongly urge that this article be completely re-written by someone actually diagnosed with the syndrome. Until this has been done, I further urge that its status as "featured article" is revoked.

Compare e.g. http://isnt.autistics.org for a satirical take on with the tables turned.

I have added the tags misleading and POV. Beware that there are strong interest groups (notably "autism speaks") that are very highly critizied by autists for acting against the best interest of the autists, and that this article plays strongly into the propaganda of these groups. (Think of a PETA for autists.)

A similar critique may apply to the article on autism, which I have not reviewed.

88.77.188.152 (talk) 00:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Please supply sources that conform with Wiki policies and guidelines WP:V, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:MEDMOS for any text that you feel is missing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with SandyGeorgia. We'd need reliable sources to present any alternative viewpoints in this area; this article cannot rely on opinions of Wikipedia editors. Another relevant Wikipedia guideline is WP:MEDRS for reliable sources on medical facts and figures. Eubulides (talk) 05:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The general point is that the presentation of the article has a one-sided focus on "Asperger's is a decease", "Aspies need to be cured", etc. This is an attitude that the corresponding communities consider offensive, unfair, and/or just plain stupid. This should be likened to the hypothetical claim "Negroids need to be cured": I doubt that my protest against that attitude would meet resistance.

Notably, this is not a question about medical facts (or other easily referenced issues), e.g. whether Aspies and NTs are neurologically different, but whether the attitude taken towards Asperger's is the analogy of racism or a similar phenomenon.

In addition to the link already provided (the contents, btw, are not by me), I would encourage you to read corresponding forums, e.g. http://www.wrongplanet.net/forums.html. (I note that http://www.wrongplanet.net is already linked from the article page.) 94.220.242.34 (talk) 05:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Self-published sources like http://www.wrongplanet.net/forums.html are not reliable in the Wikipedia sense for this sort of thing; please see WP:SPS. Personal opinions supplied via IP addresses are not sufficient to support a claim about POV; we need reliable and verifiable sources. Because these are lacking, I have removed the tag. To improve the article (as opposed to merely tagging it) I suggest getting a Wikipedia account (see WP:LOGIN for why) and supplying some reliable sources. Please don't continue to tag the article against consensus; that won't help the encyclopedia. Eubulides (talk) 06:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to go into an edit war over this. However, I maintain my position, and point out that

  1. The given link is not a self-published source (but could conceivably be considered a primary or even "zero-ary" source): These are the direct statements and opinions by aspies. Anyone who bothered to look could within fifteen minutes convince himself of my statements.
  2. It is not my job to prove that this article fails the NPOV criterion; it is your (respectively the authors) job to prove that it meets it. That is the way WP works: Claims have to be proven, and it is the claimers duty to prove them.
  3. I stress again that I do not question the medical opinions, but the angle and way of writing: The language used is not NPOV, which does not require any verification (and is something that even a layman can often spot in various articles). Further, this is not something that can reasonably be supported by references. To take one specific example (the first I found) from the current introduction: "Most individuals with AS can improve over time[...]" This is a value-laden statement with too little qualification to be considered NPOV. In contrast, "Most individuals with AS can over time improve in areas where they have [...]" would be reasonably NPOV (although this can depend on the context).
  4. You should be more careful about using formulations in your answer that can be (and in my case is) interpreted as patronizing. That I, for personal reasons, prefer to work without an account does not make a beginner it matters WP. I have hundreds of edits behind me, and I have read most of the policy documents at least once.
  5. Your claim that I am tagging the article against consensus is unfounded. There was no proof of consensus provided between my first and second (resp. last) tagging.

88.77.128.233 (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just going to respond to the second point. It isn't the job of either side to demonstrate NPOV or lack of it, it's a matter of consensus among all the involved editors. It isn't reasonable to say that an article must be tagged forever if a single implacable editor doesn't get their way. I personally hate to see articles tagged except in critical cases such as AfD and suspected hoaxes, because it defaces them for readers -- can I suggest that we discuss the POV issues here without resorting to tags? Looie496 (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
The neutral point of view on a topic is the point of view taken by the majority of reliable sources on a topic. This is distinct from the "equidistant point of view", which is the point of view that tries to balance two extreme views on a topic. If the reliable sources all tend to take a particualr view, this this is the view that the Wikipedia article will adopt. In this case the majority viewpoint is that AS is a disorder, and the minority viewpoint is noted, but not given undue weight. This tagging is therefore entirely unjustified, especially since no reliable sources have been presented that dispute the view presented by this article. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure I agree. If one depends totally on reliable sources that only see AS as a disorder then that's what you'll get in the article, but not all reliable sources see it that way. As a diagnosed Aspie I'm in agreement with 88.77.188.152. Myself and most Aspies that I know do not consider it a disorder, we consider it simply as a difference. It's very much like being gay. Gays can't be cured and neither can Aspies. All it is is a slight difference in our main wiring harness. So I agree, this article is rather one-sided and yes, as a long time editor, I understand that my opinion means nothing as far as the article is concerned. But there are sources out there that indicate that it's just a 'difference' rather than a disorder. They just need to be found and then added to the article to balance it out. --WebHamster 18:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)
  • Such sources have been found, and have been added to the article. They include Clarke & van Amerom 2007 (doi:10.1080/09687590701659618) and 2008 (PMID 18551831), Stoddart 2005 (ISBN 1-84310-319-2), Molloy & Vasil 2002 (doi:10.1080/0968759022000010434), Baron-Cohen 2002 (doi:10.1177/10883576020170030801), and Crawford & Krebs 2008 (ISBN 0‑8058‑5957‑8). However, as TimVickers writes, this is the minority opinion among reliable sources, and we can't rewrite the article to present the minority view out of proportion to what reliable sources do.
  • The only specific suggestion in recent comments is the following change:
"Most individuals with AS can improve over time over time improve in areas where they have, but difficulties with communication, social adjustment and independent living continue into adulthood."
However, this would be ungrammatical, so I expect that this is merely an indication of the sort of text that 88.77.128.233 was objecting to, without being a specific proposal for a wording improvement. Possibly the existing text can be improved; it would be helpful to propose a specific wording change that works. Any such change should carefully reflect what the cited source (Woodbury-Smith & Volkmar 2008, PMID 18563474) says, which is this:
"By far the most informative studies are longitudinal in design that measure outcome and its predictors and correlates, and there are now several studies that focus exclusively on people with autism with IQs in the normal range, which indicate that although the majority improve over time, difficulties, in terms of communication skills, social adjustment and independent living, continue into adulthood."
  • In rereading what the source says it is obvious that the "can" in the article's text is wrong; the source doesn't say "can". So I just now removed the "can".
Eubulides (talk) 07:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Us autists and many others see it as a 'unique difference' rather than a Disorder. Keep in mind that everyone, especially people with AS, also have their say on how Autism is shaped. In addition to this, I believe this article requires a serious clean-up, as it is currently a mess, slightly one-sided and is written like it reflects the interests of members of the general community rather than facts and science. --Billsta1 (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Empathy and One-Sided-ness

In response to Andrewlp1991's relatively immediate revert of text added (06:17, 18 July 2009) for an other-side view of the AS empathy debate (claiming "unsourced essay-like ranting"): 1) Why was it deemed "ranting" — that seems to be a rather harsh adjective for this case; 2) If you wanted a source (I'm including it below) I would have expected the more usual response of tagging it requesting a source rather than an immediate revert, and/or modifying it to be more "acceptable" (do moderators of this page follow slightly different rules from the rest of Wiki?). A couple sources for the previous text would be [12] (an old one), and [13] (although not a link to the actual study or its abstract, I'll try to find a one soon).

Also, I am in agreement with the section pointing at one-sidedness to the article — this is one of the reasons why I added the text that I did (to give a different view than the typical clinician "aspies don't have empathy" view, which just about any Aspie would disagree with). It often seems that people have a view that everyone with AS is like Rainman (Perhaps the movie coming out this year on Temple Grandin might help change people's perspectives) not realizing most Aspies live normalish lives, sometimes undiagnosed, and that there are many aspies — by no means "all" — falling at the genius level. That was a rant, BTW, even aspies get annoyed when people seem to be acting rudely. :( Would you prefer a different way of expressing the thought? Feedback appreciated. — al-Shimoni (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Two sources are mentioned in the previous comment.
  • The first, Rogers et al. 2007 (PMID 16906462), is a primary study that (as far as I know) has not been reviewed. Its results seem to conflict with those of Minio-Paluello et al. 2009 (PMID 18814863), and those of Shamay-Tsoory 2008 (PMID 18161015), the only two on-point primary studies that I could find that cite it. In contrast, we have several reliable reviews agreeing on the topic of limited empathy, including Baskin et al. 2006 (PMID 16596080) and McPartland & Klin 2007 (PMID 17030291). It could be that more-recent research will overturn this consensus, but given the primary studies mentioned in this paragraph it seems unlikely, and in the meantime we can't really be emphasizing one primary study (Rogers et al.) to argue with reviews, particularly when other primary studies disagree.
  • The second, Szalavitz 2009-05-14, is a popular-press article that refers to "a groundbreaking study" that, as near as I can make it out, is Markram et al. 2007 (PMID 18982120). This is a theory about autism in general, not about Asperger syndrome in particular. Possibly the actual "groundbreaking study" is not published yet; either way, we can't cite it here.
  • "Unsourced essay-like ranting" was a bit harsh, but the text in question did have serious problems that warranted immediate removal. The most important problem was that it was original research, which is against Wikipedia policy (see WP:OR). Wikipedia articles are supposed summarize what reliable sources already say: it is not for summarizing our own theories.
  • Please see WP:MEDRS for a summary of the sort of sources that we are looking for in this article when discussing medical facts and figures. Briefly: the strongest biomedical sources are reviews published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, and Wikipedia articles should not attempt to use weaker sources in order to debunk or contradict stronger sources.
Eubulides (talk) 06:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Watson

Could someone assist me in adding section to the Cause section of Asperger syndrome. In 2009 James D. Watson (Nobel prize winner for discovery DNA was a double helix) announced his discovered patients with Asperger syndrome had significant loss of DNA as compared with the parents DNA.

R.R. Roberts (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This information sounds incorrect to me. Please cite a source. Eubulides (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Naming and abbreviations

A recent edit made this change to the lead:

"Asperger syndrome (AS) is also called has also been referred to as Asperger's syndrome, Asperger (or Asperger's) disorder, or just Asperger's."

and tagged the sentence "[citation needed]", with the edit summary "These terms appear outdated." I looked into this and found that the terms are definitely not outdated. Also, while doing this I was reminded that a reliable source said that there's no consensus over whether the name should end in "syndrome" or "disorder".

I looked over the article and found some glitches in this area:

  • The article currently leads with "Asperger syndrome" and goes so far as to list "AS" as the abbreviation first thing. However, given the controversy over the name (including the use of "AD" as an abbreviation), this is a minor NPOV violation. Instead, the article should lead right away with both names, to indicate that there's not an agreement over the name.
  • The abbreviations in the lead ("AS", "ASD") are confusing. They are useful in the body, for brevity, but they don't shorten the lead much, so they should be removed there. The lead is supposed to be more accessible than the body, and the abbreviations are jargon and a turn-off.
  • There's no need for the lead to get into naming details such as whether it's "Asperger's syndrome" or "Asperger syndrome", or whether "Asperger's" is a noun in its own right. This relatively-unimportant detail about terminology can be put into the Classification section (in a new "What is the name of this condition?" paragraph) instead of taking up valuable space in the lead.
  • The History section currently says "There is little consensus among clinical researchers about the use of the terms Asperger's syndrome or Asperger's disorder"; this material rightly belongs in the little "What is the name of this condition?" paragraph mentioned above.

I installed a patch that attempts to address the issues mentioned above. Eubulides (talk) 06:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Asperger's in UK and Asperger in USA surely ? Eric Partridge (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
I hadn't noticed that, but it seems to be the tendency. I expect that another factor is the conscious attempt by some to eliminate possessives from medical eponyms. See, for example, Jana N, Barik S, Arora N (2009). "Current use of medical eponyms—a need for global uniformity in scientific publications". BMC Med Res Methodol. 9: 18. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-18. PMC 2667526. PMID 19272131.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) Eubulides (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
The request for citation was frivolous. The article should confrom with WP:LEAD (as it previously did) by listing synonyms. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Good point. I changed the lead back to mention the five alternate names in common use. I agree that the request for citation was over the top, but to forestall further such objections I added citations for now. It's OK with me if someone removes these (in my opinion unnecessary) citations from the lead. Eubulides (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
Much better. The citations are unnecessary, but they aren't doing any harm. A reminder to others that featured articles must conform to WP:WIAFA and meet a higher standard than other Wiki articles, so please discuss edits and develop consensus before reverting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
The sheer number of misspellings and misnomers used to describe Asperger syndrome is staggering, including those used as schoolyard taunts. Given this situation, requesting citations for titles and attempting to determine which titles are in common, current use seems reasonable to me. Whatever404 (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)
The term Asperger's disorder comes from the DSM-IV, where nearly every condition is labeled disorder: e.g., Tourette's disorder, bipolar disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder. The ICD-10 uses the wording Asperger's syndrome. The possessive is sometimes elided when the next word begins with an s, as is the case with syndrome, but Asperger disorder surely would sound funny. By analogy, the article really should be titled Asperger's syndrome just as it used to be.--NeantHumain (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit to Cultural Aspects section

{{editsemiprotected}} the proposed edits do not involve changes to existing text, rather additions that enhance the discussion about cultural aspects.

Please change the paragraph that currently reads: Some researchers have argued that AS can be viewed as a different cognitive style, not a disorder or a disability.[10][95] In a 2002 paper, Simon Baron-Cohen wrote of those with AS, "In the social world there is no great benefit to a precise eye for detail, but in the worlds of math, computing, cataloguing, music, linguistics, engineering, and science, such an eye for detail can lead to success rather than failure." Baron-Cohen cited two reasons why it might still be useful to consider AS to be a disability: to ensure provision for legally required special support, and to recognize emotional difficulties from reduced empathy.[96] It has been argued that the genes for Asperger's combination of abilities have operated throughout recent human evolution and have made remarkable contributions to human history.[97]

to:

Some researchers have argued that AS can be viewed as a different cognitive style, not a disorder or a disability.[10][95][13] For example, in a 2009 article Sarah Allred argues that an appropriate reframing may involve the demedicalization of Asperger Syndrome, in part, because published assessments of the diagnostic criteria reveal a problematic pattern of unreliability. In addition, Allred supports demedicalization because the published accounts of Asperger Syndrome—those by people who study, live with or have Asperger Syndrome—indicate that the Asperger cognitive and social differences as a whole do not meet the general criteria of a mental disorder as specified in the preface of the DSM-IV. These criteria include evidence of an internal dysfunction, unexpected responses to particular events, and behaviors that are distinguishable from deviant behavior. In a 2002 paper, Simon Baron-Cohen wrote of those with AS, "In the social world there is no great benefit to a precise eye for detail, but in the worlds of math, computing, cataloguing, music, linguistics, engineering, and science, such an eye for detail can lead to success rather than failure." Baron-Cohen cited two reasons why it might still be useful to consider AS to be a disability: to ensure provision for legally required special support, and to recognize emotional difficulties from reduced empathy.[96] It has been argued that the genes for Asperger's combination of abilities have operated throughout recent human evolution and have made remarkable contributions to human history.[97]

JRS8688 (talk) 19:47, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Done Welcome and thanks for contributing. Celestra (talk) 13:25, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

  • Thanks for the heads-up about Allred, but that change gives way too much WP:WEIGHT to Allred's arguments (which are even more extreme than Baron-Cohen's and are clearly in the minority among reliable sources). More importantly, the change doesn't give the gist of Allred's proposal, which is to remove Asperger syndrome from the DSM entirely, much as homosexuality was removed. Also, I notice that that section cited Molloy & Vasil 2002 (doi:10.1080/0968759022000010434) from the same journal, an article that says something similar (except it's less well-developed, as being earlier). If we cite the latter article, we need not cite the former. I made a further change to summarize Allred's argument more concisely and to remove the older citation, resulting in this combined edit. Eubulides (talk) 14:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Notables with Asperger's

Now then.. there is much conjecture about notable people from the past that are thought to have had the same psychological profiles now recognized as Asperger's Sydnrome [Jane Austen, Mark Twain, Thomas Jefferson, for example.] Does anyone else feel this should be added to the article, as well as a possible "In Popular Culture" section that would make reference to the new Hugh Dancy film "Adam", amongst other things? Let me know and I can get on it. Hrhadam (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Speculation does not belong in an overview article. The article about speculative diagnoses is linked in the template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
The speculation about Jefferson I'd heard of, but Austen and Twain? Why not throw in Goethe and Dante while we're at it? Anyway, I agree that this sort of speculation belongs in People speculated to have been autistic, not here. And please use reliable sources, not random websites. Eubulides (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)
I'm not sure of a few things: What qualifies a web site as "random" in your mind; whether or not you are suggesting that these speculations come from myself and noone or nowhere else, but mainly, I'm curious about what you feel justifies your wildly out of line tone. Thank you to SandyGeorgia who had already answered my question and made a good enough point. Hrhadam (talk) 21:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
WP:MEDRS is the guideline for reliable sources for medical facts such as who's been diagnosed with what. Apologies if my previous comment's tone seemed out of line. Eubulides (talk) 23:17, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

This intelligent blog is vehemently opposed to the whole prevailing epistemology of Asperger's syndrome: http://racketaspergers.blogspot.com/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.171.148 (talk) 15:36, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

Further reading

A recent edit added a huge batch of citations in a new Further reading section, which I've listed below:

  • Attwood, Tony; foreword by Lorna Wing (1998). Asperger's Syndrome: A Guide for Parents and Professionals. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. ISBN 1-85302-577-1.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Attwood, Tony (2007). The Complete Guide to Asperger's Syndrome. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. ISBN 1-84310-495-4.
  • Baron-Cohen, Simon (2003). The Essential Difference: Male and Female Brains and the Truth About Autism. New York: Basic Books. ISBN 0-465-00556-X.
  • Bashe, Patricia Romanowski; and Kirby, Barbara L. Forewords by Simon Baron-Cohen and Tony Attwood (2005). The Oasis Guide to Asperger Syndrome. New York: Crown Publishers. ISBN 1-4000-8152-1.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Bolick, Teresa (2001). Asperger Syndrome and Adolescence: Helping Preteens and Teens Get Ready for the Real World. Gloucester, Mass.: Fair Winds Press. ISBN 1-931412-69-3.
  • Bolick, Teresa (2004). Asperger Syndrome and Young Children: Building Skills for the Real World. Gloucester, Mass: Fair Winds Press. ISBN 1-59233-062-2.
  • Cumine, Val; Leach, Julia; and Stevenson, Gill (1998). Asperger Syndrome: A Practical Guide for Teachers. London: David Fulton Publishers Ltd. ISBN 1-85346-499-6.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Davies, Amelia (2004). Teaching Asperger's Students Social Skills Through Acting: All Their World is a Stage!. Arlington, Texas: Future Horizons]. ISBN 1-932565-11-6.
  • Faherty, Catherine (2000). Asperger's ... What Does It Mean To Me? (A Workbook). Arlington, Texas: Future Horizons. ISBN 1-885477-59-7.
  • Gomez, Joan (2005). Living with Asperger Syndrome (Overcoming Common Problems). London: Sheldon Press. ISBN 978-085969-935-8.
  • Haddon, Mark (2003). The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night-time: A Novel. New York: Doubleday. ISBN 0-385-50945-6.
  • Jackson, Jacqui (2003). Multicoloured Mayhem: Parenting the Many Shades of Adolescence, Autism, Asperger Syndrome and AD/HD. Jessica Kingsley Publishers. ISBN 1-84310-171-8.
  • Jackson, Luke (Foreword by Tony Attwood ) (2002). Freaks, Geeks and Asperger Syndrome: A User Guide to Adolescence. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. ISBN 1-84310-098-3.
  • Jackson, Luke (2001). A User Guide to the GF/CF Diet for Autism, Asperger Syndrome and AD/HD. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. ISBN 978-184310-055-3.
  • Jackson, Luke (2006). Crystalline Lifetime: Fragments of Asperger Syndrome. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. ISBN 978-184310-443-8.
  • Kennedy, Diane M., with Rebecca (2002). The ADHD-Autism Connection : A Step Toward More Accurate Diagnoses and Effective Treatments. Colorado Springs: Waterbrook Press. ISBN 1-57856-498-0.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Lawson, Wendy (2003). Build Your Own Life: A Self-Help Book for Individuals With Asperger Syndrome. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. ISBN 1-84310-114-9.
  • Lawson, Wendy (2001). Understanding and Working With the Spectrum of Autism: An Insider's View. London: Jessica Kingsley. ISBN 1-85302-971-8.
  • Levanthal-Belfer, Laurie; and Coe, Cassandra (2004). Asperger Syndrome in Young Children: A Developmental Approach for Parents and Professionals. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. ISBN 1-84310-748-1.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Tani P, Lindberg N; et al. (2005). Childhood inattention and hyperactivity symptoms self-reported by adults with Asperger syndrome. epub. PMID 16299413. {{cite book}}: Explicit use of et al. in: |author= (help)
  • Ratey, John J., and Catherine Johnson (1997). Shadow Syndromes: The Mild Forms of Major Mental Disorders That Sabotage Us. New York: Bantam. ISBN 0-553-37959-3.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Sainsbury, Clare (2000). Martian in the Playground: Understanding the Schoolchild with Asperger's Syndrome. Lucky Duck Publishing. ISBN 1-873942-08-7.
  • Schnurr, Rosina G. Illustrated by John Strachan (1999). Asperger's Huh? A Child's Perspective. Ottawa: Anisor. ISBN 0-9684473-0-9.
  • Schopler, E.; Mesibov, G.; and Kunce, L. (1998). Social Stories and Comic Book Conversations With Students with Asperger Syndrome and High-Functioning Autism (Chapter by Carol A. Gray). New York: Plenum Press. ISBN 0-306-45746-6.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Sohn, Alan; and Grayson, Cathy (2005). Parenting Your Asperger Child. New York: Perigree Trade. ISBN 0-399-53070-3.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Stoddart, Kevin P. (Editor) (2005). Children, Youth and Adults with Asperger Syndrome: Integrating Multiple Perspectives. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. ISBN 1-84310-268-4. {{cite book}}: |author= has generic name (help)
  • Stuart-Hamilton, Ian (2004). An Asperger Dictionary of Everyday Expressions. London: University of British Columbia Press. ISBN 1-84310-152-1.
  • Szatmari, Peter (2004). A Mind Apart. Understanding Children with Autism and Asperger Syndrome. New York City: Guilford Press. ISBN 1-57230-544-4.
  • Willey, Liane Holliday (Foreword by Tony Attwood) (1999). Pretending To Be Normal. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. ISBN 1-85302-749-9.
  • Willey, Liane Holliday (editor; Foreword by Luke Jackson) (2003). Asperger Syndrome in the Adolescent Years. London: Jessica Kingsley Publishers. ISBN 978-184310-742-2.{{cite book}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

These citations, where they do not repeat sources that are already cited, are not useful as recommended publications (see WP:FURTHER), and anyway the list is way too long and obsolescent, so I moved these citations here for further discussion. Further reading sections should not be a dumping ground for random books published on Asperger disorder. Eubulides (talk) 01:19, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Some of them probably should be added. If anything because the author has an article on themselves on WP. Tony Attwood would be a prime example. I do agree though that we have to be careful to stay within the rules of WP:DIR. GetDumb 23:46, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

NOne of these need to be added. The article is comprehensive, and there is an entire page of AS reading linked in the template already. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:25, 8 September 2009 (UTC)

Hormonal anomaly in Asperger's

I monitor T:TDYK, and the new article cortisol awakening response (CAR) includes an interesting tidbit from a recent paper: apparently AS "sufferers" (for lack of a better term) lack the CAR. The paper is Mark Brosnan et al. (2009) "Absence of a normal cortisol awakening response (CAR) in adolescent males with Asperger syndrome (AS)." Psychoneuroendocrinology. 34(7):1095–1100 PMID 19304400 doi:10.1016/j.psyneuen.2009.02.011. The epub was back in March, Circeus (talk) 18:56, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Primary study, small sample, not a review article, doesn't conform to WP:MEDRS, shouldn't be included at DYK. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:59, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Agree with SandyGeorgia. I read the abstract back in March or April and it's clearly not suitable for a high-quality article on Asperger syndrome nor, I would expect, for CAR. Eubulides (talk) 22:51, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
The single bullet line mentioning Asperger's and CAR has been removed. I think the comment should have been made first on the talk page before the DYK and then with a more full explanation of the objection.
The words "Hormonal anomaly" in this section title are inappropriate. CAR is a response and it appears related to some preparation process in regard to the new day upon waking--it is not an "anomaly". As noted in the article roughly one quarter of people do not have it. The explanation offered by Eva Fries, Lucia Dettenborn, and Clemens Kirschbaum would make it perfectly understandable why those with Aspergers would not show it in a way that would not imply that this was due to any anomaly. --LittleHow (talk) 00:10, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Lead paragraph

The lead paragraph is lanky: sterotypies is a stumbler; the leading sentence structure is haphazard. Aspergers is too important.

Currently: Asperger syndrome is an autism spectrum disorder, and people with it therefore show significant difficulties in social interaction, along with stereotypies and other restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests. It differs from other autism spectrum disorders by its relative preservation of linguistic and cognitive development. Although not required for diagnosis, physical clumsiness and atypical use of language are frequently reported.

Proposed: Asperger syndrome is a mental disorder of the autistic spectrum whose psychological profile demonstrates normal linguistic linguistic and cognitive abilities, but appears void of the skills for empathy and the non-verbal communication. Behaviors and interests are restricted severely and highly repetitive. The reality complex manifests stereotypy, a bodily movement disorder. Persons diagnosed with Asperger Syndrome have also been frequently reported to have physical clumsiness and an atypical use of language. [14][15]

Rationales:

  1. I made stereotypies into stereotypy: apparent typoes are distrative.
  2. I put stereotypy with another hard word: complex.
  3. I intro Aspergers more simply as a mental disorder, not as an kind of spectrum disorder.

It is only a copy-edit.

Be There Do That (talk)cpiral

The proposed lead has several problems.
  • It omits considerable important information that is in the current lead, including:
  • The significant difficulties with social interaction (arguably the core of Asperger's)
  • These difficulties and the stereotypies and other restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests are shared with other ASD.
  • Asperger's differs from other ASD in that linguistic and cognitive development is relatively preserved.
  • Physical clumsiness and atypical use of language are not required for diagnosis.
  • The article formerly used "stereotypy" but was continually miscorrected by well-meaning editors who replaced the word with "stereotype". After we changed it to "stereotypies" the rate of miscorrection dropped dramatically. In practice, readers appear to consider "stereotypy" to be a typo more often than they consider "stereotypies" to be one.
  • Asperger's is not normally called a "mental disorder" by reliable sources. Instead, it is normally called an autism spectrum disorder (ASD), a term that is more specific. Autism spectrum disorders are a subset of neurodevelopmental disorders, and "autism spectrum disorder" is a far more accurate term than "mental disorder" is, and communicates more-useful information.
  • The proposed phraseology is confusing and is not supported by standard reliable sources. Odd phrases/grammar include "psychological profile", "appears void", "skills for empathy", "are restricted severely and highly repetitive", "reality complex", "bodily movement disorder", and "and the non-verbal communication".
  • The proposed phraseology uses technical terms that are less likely to be understood by a casual reader than the current wording is. These terms include "demonstrates" and "manifests".
  • The proposed lead is inaccurate. Physical disorders (or "bodily movement disorder") are not a characteristic of Asperger's, and people with Asperger's are not "void" of empathy.
Eubulides (talk) 18:11, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Although the article is not grotesque, it IS not beautifully written. The lead paragraph is confusing. I could not figure out exactly what was being said about stereotypes. Is it being said that those with Asperger's have trouble comprehending stereotypes? Are they, in many cases, alleged to speak in stereotypes? Are they supposed to engage in repetitive behavior? I must say that I am a bit surprised. This is a rather important article and expected a better job. Gingermint (talk) 07:04, 1 September 2009 (UTC)

The word is stereotypy, which is different from stereotype (that is explained inline). The other changes aren't supported by reliable sources, so I removed them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:16, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
I agree with SandyGeorgia that most of those wording changes (e.g., "Most Some individuals improve over time") were incorrect and should be reverted. However, since it seemed that almost all of the confusion about the lead paragraph stemmed from misparsing "stereotypies" as "stereotypes", how about if we simply remove the phrase "stereotypies and other" from the lead? That should shorten the lead, and make it clearer, and it would be just as accurate technically. It would be losing a bit of information (about stereotypies) but that bit of info is costing us a lot of confusion, and the cost appears to be more than the benefit, in the lead anyway. Obviously the body should mention stereotypies but it's OK to omit that detail from the lead. Eubulides (talk) 07:44, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
Yes, in spite of the inline, it's become too much of a problem ... people don't click or don't see it ... as long as it's linked in the body somewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 07:48, 1 September 2009 (UTC)
No further comment, so I removed the "stereotypies and other". Eubulides (talk) 02:33, 6 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD: Dion Betts

The article Dion Betts is being discussed for possible deletion.

I was unable to find sources indicating his notability (or that of his books), but I am by no means an expert in this area! If he is indeed notable, if his books are thought of as being significant in the field of Aperger syndrome, I would be grateful if people could take part in the discussion.

I am not seeking to get this article deleted if he/his books are actually notable and significant in the field. However, if they are not significant, then the article is right to be deleted.

If you want to make your thoughts known, the AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dion Betts

Thanks -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

AfD: Dion Betts

The article Dion Betts is being discussed for possible deletion.

I was unable to find sources indicating his notability (or that of his books), but I am by no means an expert in this area! If he is indeed notable, if his books are thought of as being significant in the field of Aperger syndrome, I would be grateful if people could take part in the discussion.

I am not seeking to get this article deleted if he/his books are actually notable and significant in the field. However, if they are not significant, then the article is right to be deleted.

If you want to make your thoughts known, the AfD is at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Dion Betts

Thanks -- PhantomSteve (Contact Me, My Contribs) 17:37, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

USA misquoting

The quote from Baron-Cohen is in quotation marks, as it should be, but has been altered to suit the preferences of USA English.

Baron-Cohen writes in UK English. Why do you want to translate him yet leave it as a quote? Bias, that's why.

He wrote 'maths' not 'math'.

And yes, it matters. This USA bias can be found throughout Wikipedia and when it interferes with quotations from those who do not speak USA English, you diminish yourselves and Wikipedia in one fell swoop. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.28.140.105 (talk) 18:49, 22 September 2009

There were several mistakes in the quote. Perhaps some US writer mistakenly copy-edited his prose and didn't spot it was a quote. I've fixed it. Thanks. Colin°Talk 19:08, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
No, the quote is accurate. It is taken from the final version of the paper (doi:10.1177/10883576020170030801), whereas the above comments are based on the draft. We should quote the final version, not the preliminary draft. I edited the citation to make this clearer. Eubulides (talk) 19:52, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
One other thought: perhaps we should omit the URL to the preliminary draft? If it's that different for the quote, it might be a lot different elsewhere. Eubulides (talk) 19:55, 22 September 2009 (UTC)
If it still supports the "two reasons" text following on from the quote, then the draft is useful. It grates a little that our text says "Simon Baron-Cohen wrote" when our quoted text possibly isn't what Baron-Cohen wrote, but may have been subject to US editing for the journal. Colin°Talk 20:49, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

Epistemology

This intelligent blog is vehemently opposed to the whole epistemology of Asperger's syndrome: http://racketaspergers.blogspot.com/ — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.171.148 (talk)

an anonymous blog with one entry is hardly a reliable source. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)
The same IP address posted the exact same comment weeks ago. It was rightfully ignored then, too. John Darrow (talk) 22:02, 28 September 2009 (UTC)
It should be ignored as well. Whoever posted this shows no knowledge and no knowledge of Asperger syndrome in particular. By dressing things up in fancy language e.g. using the term nosological, it pretends to an academic content it actually denies. Soarhead77 (talk) 20:26, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

College internship program

[16]

"Now College Internship Program -- with campuses in Massachusetts, Indiana, California and Melbourne -- is among a handful of places where young people with Asperger's can attend college while getting the support they need to help them succeed. Another, called the College Living Experience, has five locations around the country, including a program in Fort Lauderdale." This may be worth mentioning somewhere, although I'm not sure where exactly. Management?

Also, "People with AS/Asperger snydrome/Asperger's" appears way too often in the article. Is there something else we could replace it with? I was thinking "those affected by" (rather than suffering from), but this may imply friends and family members. Any ideas? MichaelExe (talk) 21:01, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

That source is fairly weak, as it's a popular-press article that (to be honest) reads like a press release. Please see WP:MEDRS for the sort of sources that we'd prefer. If we can find a better source, that sort of thing is covered in Prognosis now, which'd probably be a better home for it. I agree that "those affected by" has the wrong implication, and cannot think of a better alternative wording offhand. Eubulides (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
Please don't introduce the POV term "suffering from". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:04, 10 October 2009 (UTC)
In some contexts - e.g. forms of cancer - the term "suffering from" may be appropriate. It does in this context introduce a POV - since most very high functioning people with AS do not suffer except at the hands of other ignorant people. This is not generally their own fault! This does not mean that no help is wanted to cope with a largely NT society. Soarhead77 (talk) 08:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
That's why I'm suggested we not use "suffer". Many of these use "affected" as I've suggested. The problem I had is the common use of "affect(ed)" and "suicide". The depictions in the medias have actually lead me to admire people with Asperger syndrome (see, it does sound bad XP), like Sheldon Cooper, Bones, and Adam (which I'm still waiting to see, though). Of course, not all "aspies" are geniuses: Nature vs. Nurture. MichaelExe (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
And the article is supported by the American Psychological Association (of course: "This news story is not produced by the American Psychological Association and does not necessarily represent the opinions of the association."). We wouldn't use it to describe Asperger syndrome. Here are a couple more direct sources: http://www.brevardcenter.org/ and http://www.collegeinternshipprogram.com/ MichaelExe (talk) 16:18, 11 October 2009 (UTC)
One doesn't need to go to fictional characters for people to admire with Asperger Syndrome - there are a considerable number of real people - Gary Numan, Vernon L. Smith, Richard Borcherds are good examples of very successful people in the mainstream of society with Asperger sydrome in some form. (I am aware that Richard Borcherds is not formally diagnosed since he has no distress. As he says most mathematics departments have people wierder than him anyway.)
I have some good evidence of the nature side of things - myself and my great nephew (at opposites in age!) have both been formally diagnosed with AS. There are several other people in our extended family who I would speculate might have or had it, but they are either in denial or dead. Soarhead77 (talk) 11:35, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
It's been suggested that genetic factors play a pretty big role in it. "Evidence for a genetic link is the tendency for AS to run in families and an observed higher incidence of family members who have behavioral symptoms similar to AS but in a more limited form (for example, slight difficulties with social interaction, language, or reading)." Then again, personality traits are also inherited (not genetically, of course), so some of your relatives may just be mimicking certain types of behaviour they commonly see. I have no doubt that people with Asperger syndrome can succeed (Daniel Tammet, William James Sidis, etc.). There are also people speculated to have been autistic (Einstein, Newton, Mozart, Beethoven, etc.). Mind you, it is only speculation. MichaelExe (talk) 20:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)
  1. ^ [17]
  2. ^ FAQ from Global & Regional AS Partnership (GRASP_
  3. ^ Tony Atwood on Females with Asperger Syndrome
  4. ^ Famous People with ASD
  5. ^ [18]
  6. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Kasari was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  7. ^ Lyons V, Fitzgerald M (2004). "Humor in autism and Asperger syndrome". J Autism Dev Disord. 34 (5): 521–31. doi:10.1007/s10803-004-2547-8. PMID 15628606.
  8. ^ Aston, C A. (2001)The Other Half of Asperger Syndrome, The National Autistic Society./
  9. ^ Attwood T. (1998) Asperger's syndrome: a guide for parents and professionals, Jessica Kingsley./
  10. ^ a b National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) (2007-07-31). "Asperger syndrome fact sheet". Retrieved 2007-08-24. NIH Publication No. 05-5624.
  11. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Baron-Cohen2000 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  12. ^ http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=55139
  13. ^ Allred S (2009). "Reframing Asperger Syndrome: Lessons from other challenges to the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual and ICIDH approaches". Disability and Society. 24 (3): 343–355.
  14. ^ Cite error: The named reference McPartland was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  15. ^ Cite error: The named reference Baskin was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Asperger_syndrome/Archive_19&oldid=1088277541"