Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive 23

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Giftedness plays a role...so where is the section?

There's an issue I'd like to address: why does this article not cull from the literature anything about the strengths and gifts AS provides? "Aspies" are known for delightful personalities, extraordinarily high IQs, extreme creativity, prolific excellent writing, and intense visual thinking. Two great examples of AS sufferers: Albert Einstein and Isaac Asimov. Ideas? Djathinkimacowboy 11:51, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Einstien was never diagnosed, as far as I know. Anyway, that is neither here nor there. You will need to find a reference for your claim. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:10, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Thank you. I am aware of the need for references, hence my suggestion the literature be culled. And Einstein was impossible to diagnose in his lifetime since he died in '55. But many experts agree he probably had AS, including Baron-Cohen. Djathinkimacowboy 12:18, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Oh, and what "claim" did I make that requires a reference? That people with AS are also gifted?Because I'd be happy to provide those refs., if I have time. Djathinkimacowboy 12:21, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think speculating on someone would be useful, re: Einstien. The word 'claim' was not meant to be pejorative. But yes, I mean the claim that people with AS are gifted or that as you put it, 'giftedness plays a role'. So yes you will need to find a source that meets WP:MEDRS for that. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:31, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I don't think you'll find reliable sources for any of the claims made (that Einstein or Asimov had AS, or traits such as "delightful personalities, extraordinarily high IQs, extreme creativity, prolific excellent writing, and intense visual thinking"). See WP:MEDRS for guidelines on the sort of sources we'd need for such claims. Colin°^Talk 12:47, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

I know the guidelines. And there are references, so what one might think is or is not out there is irrelevant. If you knew all that about the full body of literature, you'd know Dr. Asperger himself noted and delineated these traits. I don't have to convince you anyway. Djathinkimacowboy 14:58, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

Actually if you want to include something you do have to convince other editors to add it using a WP:MEDRS source. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:59, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

We need an FAQ linking to the many discussions of these perennial claims in archives, so we dont' have to keep revisiting the same dead horses. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:03, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

agreed Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:07, 24 November 2011 (UTC)

My attention was called back here because I pay little to no attention to this article or talk page. Of course you do what you think is best. If I have a fact with the appropriate citation, I'll add it without consulting anyone here or "beating a dead horse". That is appropriate according to the rules. Djathinkimacowboy 05:06, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

We will need a WP:MEDRS source please. If you have one, provide it here so others can look at it as well before adding to the article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:35, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Yeah - it's pretty simple. You need a WP:MEDRS quality reference for whatever you want to add (unless it is completely uncontroversial and unlikely to be challenged...eg "The sky is blue"). If you think you have that then WP:BEBOLD and just add your information, along with the reference that backs it up. If nobody objects and we all agree that it's notable and well-supported by that WP:MEDRS - then the edit will "stick". If not, then someone will probably revert it - and we'll discuss the matter here. If you prefer, it would probably be better to discuss controversial edits here before you add to the article - but that's not required. That's how Wikipedia operates - this article is no different, except that it is about medical topic so references have to meet WP:MEDRS rather than the lesser WP:RS standard. SteveBaker (talk) 14:58, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

(FAQ discussions moved to a new section at bottom of page) SteveBaker (talk) 13:54, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

[redacted]. I've removed some insensitive comments, the result of which were to offend some editors here and to distract the talk page from discussing the content of the article. Please remember this is not a forum to discuss AS or people with AS in either positive or negative ways. Colin°^Talk 14:27, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

[removed trolling]

Do we need a FAQ?

(Moved from "Giftedness plays a role...so where is the section?") SteveBaker (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

In the past, there has been off-Wiki recruiting to this article: [1] We need an FAQ. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:51, 15 December 2011 (UTC)

Sandy, there is hardly any need to reference that message I received long ago. Posting that above was uncalled for, Sandy. I ignored that message at the time. It was no "recruitment".--Djathinkimacowboy ^{keep it short} 12:03, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Subpages are allowed under an article's Talk page. I do not see anything in WP:Subpages that would disallow Talk:Asperger_syndrome/FAQ from being created. Probably a better idea would be FAQ:Asperger_syndrome which would automatically give it its own Talk page, but that would require a petition to add a FAQ: namespace (which may not be a problem, but this is guessing; perhaps at WP_T:Namespace?) because "FAQ" is not currently a recognized namespace, thus the WP back-end will treat the whole text of the link as a main namespace article title (which is not what we want). Just some thoughts. Feel free to add a header above this response if it needs to be a separate discussion thread (unless that violates the not modifying discussions rule, but I'm not sure that would apply for this... dunno). — al-Shimoni (talk) 07:42, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

This talk page is hardly the place for discussing new namespaces. If such a namespace were to come into being, then we could make use of it - but it doesn't, so a subpage would make more sense. Right now, the "official" way to make a talk page FAQ is to make a sub-page of the talk page that's named "FAQ" (ie Talk:Aspergrer_syndrome/FAQ) and then to place a {{FAQ}} or {{FAQ|collapsed=no}} template at the top of the talk page. SteveBaker (talk) 13:55, 16 December 2011 (UTC)

Hypersensitivity in the Five Senses

I am disappointed in this article as I was hoping to find information related to the often identified hypersensitivity of the five senses (as apposed to affective or psychological hyper/hyposensitivity). It seams that: the DSM defines Asperger Syndrome and Autism in terms of observable behaviors (as it does all disorders) but there is a neurological cause (or causes) that "is" the actual syndrome, and hypersensitivity of the 5 senses is part of that. Is this something that has never been studied? -- BrianFennell (talk) 19:25, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

As far as I can tell, that notion is mostly furthered by Brenda Smith Myles (in her books, and one small preliminary study, PMID 11833406); she is a special education professor. None of the five medical journal reviews that I have seem to mention this, and it is not as far as I can tell considered a key element in Asperger syndrome. See also PMID 21882310. PMID 17917804 seems too tentative ("very preliminary") for inclusion here; if you have a strong source, pls provide one. Not surprising that Baron-Cohen also studies this, but this is not a review article, only a study: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3113855/?tool=pubmed . In summary, I find no review articles that endorse that this is integral or suggest it should be included here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 30 December 2011 (UTC)

There were a couple journal articles during the past year (year and a quarter?) which focused on this, but I do not recall at the moment if these articles were associated with Myles (I can go dig them up if needed to find out, but I am barely awake at the moment, so I shall not do so at this time).

Brian, if you are looking for information on the topic, Temple Grandin often devotes a good distributed-portion of her autism lectures to sensory hypersensitivity and ways for parents to negotiate/manage situations with their autistic children who are hypersensitive. I've viewed a few of her recorded lectures (which are available on the net), but I — as far as I can currently recall — have not read anything she has written on the topic of autism (she's written quite a bit on autism, however, her occupation and doctorate is in the animal sciences/husbandry field, not autism, and partly writes on autism from her own experience with it). — al-Shimoni (talk) 09:06, 31 December 2011 (UTC) (original version dated: 09:04, 31 December 2011 (UTC))

Wholesale deletions

I move that these edits [2], [3], be reinstated and archived, per edit guidelines, for future reference. The editing rules state clearly that a unilateral deletion such as this should not be performed generally. Colin, you did not quite have the authority to make a wholesale deletion, even though in general I agree with the action. The course should have been for you to ask that I delete them or notify me of it before deleting them.--Djathinkimacowboy ^{keep it short} 20:23, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Instead, perhaps we can collapse the discussion. If you want, if consensus is there, I can do that, after reinstating the other stuff, it is not that hard to do. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:34, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, per WP:NOTAFORUM, it is common to remove off-topic rants, but if Dbrodreck can solve the issue via another method, I'm not opposed. The problem with Dj's argument is that, although he may find the IPs comments offensive, the purpose of a talk page is to discuss improvements to the article based on sources. Although the IP provided none, his comments addressed other comments that weren't based on reliable sources, so it's hard to tell when NOTAFORUM should be invoked. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:38, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Well, we could go back to an earlier rev, then I can to a collapse. Or, we can just leave it as is, I am cool either way. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:45, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

See the bit at the top of this page. It says "This is not a forum for general discussion of Asperger syndrome. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article." (my bold). To what purpose would re-instating the text serve? The first was insensitive comments about people with AS and a following discussion that did not cite any sources nor did it concern itself with the rewording/improvement of article text. The second was Djathinkimacowboy complaining about an IP's behaviour. This is an article talk page. We have loads of other places where editor behaviour can be discussed. Both sets of deleted text were inappropriate for this page and I see no benefit to keeping them: it only encourages folk to treat this page as a forum if they can see examples of discussions that are inappropriate (either on-show or in the archives). Djathinkimacowboy, your behaviour seems odd to me that you ask for help, I give it, and you "in general...agree with the action" and then start this discussion to complain about what I just did. It kinda puts me off helping you again. Colin°^Talk 21:53, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Yep. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

Well put Colin, I agree as well. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:57, 8 January 2012 (UTC)

As I have explained above, the removals were unwarranted because they did not constitute a general discussion of Asperger's syndrome. I was enunciating that Asperger's sufferers are, in general, crippled in social and mental areas compared to the general population in response to the assertion that the supposedly widespread phenomenon of "savants" exists within the ranks of Asperger's sufferers, which is of course false. This is relevant to the article because the original comments were questioning why there was no real coverage of savants. I was, in short, simply explaining how and why the idea of savants being common was false. I was not treating it as a forum, and you were wrong to delete my comments.96.49.3.223 (talk) 00:12, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Look, as far as your POV about AS and giftedness/difficulties the sources agree with you. But that's all we need to say: "what do the sources say?" The point had already been made in the discussion and that should have been the end of it. The moment we start having a discussion off the top of our heads on what you think and I think and he thinks the we're straying from the purpose of this page. And if you can't post here without using hurtful language, then I suggest you find somewhere else to be. Colin°^Talk 08:55, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

It is agreed, citations are needed that conform to medical; I was merely proposing something and I get cybermugged. You may invoke my name and beat me up all you like... you're losing sight of the real problem, right now. I won't lose sight of it. I will remove IP's comments on sight henceforth.--Djathinkimacowboy ^{keep it short} 12:07, 9 January 2012 (UTC)

Minor edit to be done

The introduction says: "Some researchers and people with Asperger's have advocated a shift in attitudes toward the view that it is a difference, rather than a disability that must be treated or cured."

The sentence should instead be "Some researchers and people with Asperger's have advocated a shift in attitudes toward the view that it is not a disability that must be treated or cured."

This edit is necessary because a disability is a difference, so we cannot contrast disability with difference. Rather, the contrast is between differences that are disabling and those that are not. We can create a further contrast between differences that are disabling and require treatments and cures, and those that are disabling but do not require this. The original version implied such a distinction and I have kept it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by PolicyCraft (talk • contribs) 20:50, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

I see what you are getting at, but I think you might have misread the point the author of the original version of the sentence was trying to make. I think the point of the original version was that these people are advocating that it is solely a difference (a difference which is not a disability, some even advocating the idea that AS is an advantage), as opposed to the more common view that AS is a difference that is a disability that requires a cure and/or treatment. In essence, these people advocate the idea that AS is not a disability at all. This would make your rewriting of the sentence go against the actual concept originally intended to be conveyed. I think this concept is more prevalent among those with AS than with those who research it (but I don't have any citations that come from a medical or news source to back that impression with). — al-Shimoni (talk) 09:13, 13 January 2012 (UTC)

This statement is confusing, and needs to be unpacked, esp w/respect to "some researchers and people with Aspergers". The article is full of terms like "limited", "severe", "deficits", "poor communication skills", "difficulties", "impairment", "dysfunctional", "failure"....I could go on and on....and that's just the first couple of sections. The only mention of "difference vs. disability" is made in the introduction. If there is a movement to change the public perception of AS, it is largely missing from this article. Crimson_King — Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.79.135.106 (talk) 12:40, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

We go by the sources. WP:MEDRS specifically, so if the sources start using language like that, the article will too. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:45, 9 February 2012 (UTC)

Plagiarism

I'm an aspie. I've always plagiarized. Is it more likely for aspies and others on the spectrum to plagiarize (Due to rote learning, echolalia, and general nature) than non-aspies? Well, I'm not really aspie. No one labels people as being Asperger's specifically anymore. But I like the term "aspie" and I AM autistic as recognized by the DSM and diagnosed by professionals since childhood. I am multiply-disabled, actually. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.197.229 (talk) 04:59, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

I'm not aware of any reports saying anything like that. Certainly this isn't something we could add into our article until/unless there are some pretty strong references to back it up. Anecdotal evidence proves nothing - I'm also an Aspie and I strongly object to plagiarism and would never consider knowingly doing that. Echolalia (which is found in autism spectrum people - including aspies) only applies to vocalizations - it's when someone says something and you repeat it back either immediately or sometime later. That's not plagiarism because plagiarism entails you fraudulently claiming that the idea/writing/whatever is your own when it came from someone else. All that's happening in echolalia is that you're quoting someone...possibly without attribution...that's not at all the same thing. Of course if you have multiple conditions in addition to Aspergers - then it's certainly possible that some combination of issues might result in this tendency. It can get really hard to pin down which issues belong with which causes when there are co-morbid conditions present.

Interestingly though - our article didn't mention echolalia - although the echolalia article does mention Aspergers - and with a pretty solid reference. I just added this to the list of symptoms under the "Speech and language" section. SteveBaker (talk) 20:45, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, with me I've "plagiarized" accidentally. Sort of like Helen Keller, in a way. My brain collects all of this information and trivial facts. My mind is a swirling mass of trivial knowledge, continuously being collected from every single source I encounter, and I spend the majority of the day, each and every day, doing research. Sometimes I think I'm being original when I'm not. It gets confusing. I have a nearly eidetic memory and I rely tremendously on rote learning, at least initially when I learn something. And therefore it is easy for me to recall something verbatim, and attribute myself as the source. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.70.197.229 (talk) 23:23, 7 March 2012 (UTC)

Revert or fix ?

A good deal of this just doesn't work; I'm unsure if a revert is best, or if it's worth it to go through each piece and try to salvage something? If any minor pieces are salvageable, there are still MOS issues introduced, and a good deal of changed meaning introduced (Eubulides was very careful to stick to sources). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:14, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

I say revert per BRD and have the editor bring it here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 05:00, 5 February 2012 (UTC)

Social Interaction note?

Um just wanted to note something here. This article mentions that people with AS lack demonstrated empathy with their peers. However it seems that this is confused as a lack of empathy overall and so is misleading. Perhaps a note could be added to this section that explains this is "social empathy". There is a difference between wanting to help someone in distress and wanting to listen to what someone did on the weekend and it is this latter point that people with AS have difficulty with. 124.148.195.168 (talk) 15:57, 12 February 2012 (UTC)LogiC

Thanks for the suggestion 124.148.195.168 ("LogiC"?).

We're not supposed to add original research, but if you find a reliable website that supports your view, please note it here, and we (or you) can then cite it. Trafford09 (talk) 16:32, 12 February 2012 (UTC)

Non neutrality?

This article seems very biased towards presenting Asperger's as a 'bad thing' or 'disease'

There are many people who consider it to be not a bad thing or disease, just a difference.

Perhaps I'm not the most neutral of people to say this (having it myself), but while there are bad points to having Asperger's, there can also be good points. Kids with Asperger's tend to have good attention to detail, be very single-minded and focused, be quite logical, etc.

I don't believe it's a bad thing or a disease, it's just a way in which some of us are different to others. It has good points and bad points.

~Accalia

Oh, and I forgot to add, also remember that there's growing evidence that it shows in different ways in boys and girls... often girls' speech and creativity is fine... maybe that should be addressed?

I am also an Aspie - but I don't think our article is biassed. We state (in the lede of the article):

"Some researchers and people with Asperger's have advocated a shift in attitudes toward the view that it is a difference, rather than a disability that must be treated or cured."

...and we have an entire section entitled Asperger_syndrome#Cultural_aspects that discusses this. Furthermore, we link to an entire separate article: Sociological and cultural aspects of autism - which covers this in incredible detail. Also, you have to keep in mind that Aspergers' is a "spectrum" condition. Some of us aspies (myself included) have gained tremendous benefits from this "disease" - to the extent that the benefits clearly outweigh the downsides and I would certainly not wish to be "cured"...but I've met other aspies who are so profoundly affected that they can't hold down a job, make no friends and have no prospect of a happy life with a partner. So for some people it most cetainly is a dis-ease. So I think we're OK on the 'balance' part.

As for the effect of the syndrome on females - that is a rather new observation...and it's hard to find good information about it. Certainly there are relatively few women who are diagnosed with Aspergers (some estimates say four times fewer than men). Those that are diagnosed seem to have different symptom sets compared to men who have the syndrome - so it's clearly gender-related in some way. It's recently been suggested that Anorexia in women may be the female expression of the disease (See: Anorexia_nervosa#Relationship_to_autism) - which is a really interesting (and controversial) finding. A majority of anorexics and nearly all aspies suffer from Alexithymia - which suggests some kind of a connection. I think we should write more about this - but it has to be backed with reliable sources that meet the WP:MEDRS standard - which is tough. You might read: Sociological_and_cultural_aspects_of_autism#Gender_aspects

SteveBaker (talk) 15:12, 23 January 2012 (UTC)

I just feel a bit like all through the opening paragraph it's 'Asperger's is bad in this way, and this way, and has difficulties in this' and then there's just that sentence stuck on the end in a token gesture.

In the opening paragraph it states that we have significant difficulties in social interaction, restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests, and we're often physically clumsy and use atypical language. I feel it would be a bit more neutral to present the good and bad alongside one another - instead of just listing the bad points and sticking a sentence on the end to make it neutral, list good and bad alongside one another. Or, in Characteristics at the top of the section, where it lists all the bad points but none of the good points, it ought to list the good points too.

It just seems a little like the article outlines all the negative points of the syndrome but states none of the positive points.

And where it says 'restricted and repetitive patterns of behaviour', yes, all of these bad points are very true, but 'restrictive and repetitive' is a bit of a negative word... I'm not sure what I'd use instead, 'single minded/focused' comes to mind but that's not quite right. But surely the word used should be neutral and not inherently bad. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.139.45.14 (talk) 16:41, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

The phrasing needs to be neutral, yes, but it also needs to be as specific as possible. There is sometimes a tendency to try to be inoffensive by being vague or ambiguous -- we should avoid that. Looie496 (talk) 18:27, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Actually, there was a discussion a few months ago about the possibility that anorexia is the female form of the syndrome. Personally, I am a female aspie without anorexia, and I cannot help but think that to be an erroneous theorem. I personally think that gender differentiated social structures make the criterion for Asperger's easier to see in males. I mean, a girl who doesn't fit in well with her peers, especially in adolescence, is considered commonplace, so she can be easily overlooked, whereas an anti-social male is assumed to possess an abnormality.
As to the neutrality of the article, it does seem biased towards the negative, but what isn't at this point? Asperger's is still viewed as high-functioning autism in many countries, and even when it is acknowledged as a separate matter, people tend to assume that it is just a bizarre aspect of autism, which has always been viewed negatively. Are there any expert books on the subject (i.e.- not written by those with Asperger's or their families, who would have a bias) that would address positive aspects of AS and could be cited on this article? Teach267 (talk) 15:45, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Certainly there are female aspies - and for sure they don't all have anorexia symptoms. However, statistically, they are in the minority. Your case is undoubtably real - but also relatively rare. This is why it is so dangerous to write the encylopedia on the basis of individual anecdotes. Wikipedia has a clear rule about that: No Original Research. Your personal view on the reason for the gender disparity is interesting - but it's just that...a personal view. What we need is realiable sources - papers written in serious medical journals backed by years of careful research. Certainly some aspies have some symptoms that they consider advantageous. For myself, I love my ability to focus on one small task to the exclusion of all else for protracted periods of time...it lets me learn about things that interest me and allows me to hold down a great job in a difficult field...however, ask my girlfriend whether she like me sitting glued to the computer screen for eight hours straight without ever looking up or responding to her. She doesn't think it's so great. This is a difficult topic. SteveBaker (talk) 16:58, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'm certainly not going to edit this on the basis of my personal experience. Actually, some of what I just said is backed up in Asperger's Syndrome: A Guide for Parents and Professionals, by Tony Attwood. It raises some interesting points, and it cites a number of studies on the subject performed in America, England, Australia, and Canada. I'll admit that it's outdated (1998), but it could be used as a reference regardless. After all, even if the points it makes aren't entirely accurate, the data it uses are relevant. Teach267 (talk) 21:46, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Yes, Attwood is quite outdated, and not the high-quality source required for a medical Featured article; please see WP:MEDRS for information on medical sourcing. Discussions of text to be added should be based on adequate sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:49, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 20 February 2012

I would like to add more information to the diagnosis section, specifically about the elimination of the Asperger's diagnosis in the DSM V.

Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome can be tricky as there is a lack of a standardized diagnostic screening for the disorder . According to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, physicians look for the presence of a primary group of behaviors to make a diagnosis such as abnormal eye contact, aloofness, failure to respond when called by name, failure to use gestures to point or show, lack of interactive play with others, and a lack of interest in peers. Difficulties in at least one area of communication or repetitive, limited behavior must be present in a child before the age of 3. The DSM-V is proposing to eliminate the diagnosis of Asperger’s Syndrome as a specific disorder and place it under the label of Autism Spectrum Disorder. In the proposed revision, individuals must meet must the criteria in sections A, B, C and D to receive a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder .

A)Deficits in social communication and interaction not caused by general developmental delays. Must have all 3 areas of symptoms present. .

1) Deficits in social-emotional reciprocity; failure to have a back and forth conversation..

2) Deficits in nonverbal communication such as abnormal eye contact and body language or difficulty using and understanding nonverbal communication, and lack of facial expressions or gestures..

3) Deficits in creating and maintaining relationships appropriate to developmental level (apart from relationships with caregivers). This may include trouble adjusting behavior to suit different social contexts, difficulties with imaginative play and making friends, and a lack of interest in other people. .

B. Demonstration of restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior, interest or activities. Must present two of the following. .

1) Repetitive speech, repetitive motor movements or repetitive use of objects (echolalia, idiosyncratic phrases). .

2) Adherence to routines, ritualized patterns of verbal or nonverbal behavior, or strong resistance to change (insists of eating the same food, repetitive questioning or great distress at small changes)..

3) Fixated interests that are abnormally intense or focus (strong attachment to unusual objects, restricted interests)..

4) Over or under reactivity to sensory input or abnormal interest in sensory aspects of environment (such as indifference to pain, heat or cold, negative response to certain sounds or textures, extreme smelling or touching or objects, fascination with lights or spinning objects). .

C. Symptoms must be present in early childhood (May not become apparent until social demand exceeds limited capacity)..

D. Symptoms collectively limit and hinder everyday functioning. .

The proposed removal of Asperger’s Syndrome from the DSM has been controversial as it is commonly used by health insurers, research, state agencies, schools, and individuals with the disorder. Experts are concerned that eliminating the Asperger’s label will prevent mildly affected people from being evaluated for Autism. .

Links for resources on Asperger’s Parenting Asperger’s Community http://www.parentingaspergerscommunity.com/ Autism Society http://www.autism-society.org/about-autism/aspergers-syndrome/ Asperger’s Association of New England http://www.aane.org/ Autism Speaks http://www.autismspeaks.org/what-autism/asperger-syndrome

Annalieset (talk) 19:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: That would be undue weight for this article. The main article for this content would be Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome and that article already has some mention of the change to the DSM. That article is also not semi-protected, so you will be able to improve it yourself. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 22:43, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

Diagnosing Asperger's and New DSM V proposal to remove Asperger's

Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome can be tricky as there is a lack of a standardized diagnostic screening for the disorder . According to the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke, physicians look for the presence of a primary group of behaviors to make a diagnosis such as abnormal eye contact, aloofness, failure to respond when called by name, failure to use gestures to point or show, lack of interactive play with others, and a lack of interest in peers. Difficulties in at least one area of communication or repetitive, limited behavior must be present in a child before the age of 3. The DSM-V is proposing to eliminate the diagnosis of Asperger’s Syndrome as a specific disorder and place it under the label of Autism Spectrum Disorder. In the proposed revision, individuals must meet must the criteria in sections A, B, C and D to receive a diagnosis of Autism Spectrum Disorder .

A)Deficits in social communication and interaction not caused by general developmental delays. Must have all 3 areas of symptoms present. .

1) Deficits in social-emotional reciprocity; failure to have a back and forth conversation..

2) Deficits in nonverbal communication such as abnormal eye contact and body language or difficulty using and understanding nonverbal communication, and lack of facial expressions or gestures..

3) Deficits in creating and maintaining relationships appropriate to developmental level (apart from relationships with caregivers). This may include trouble adjusting behavior to suit different social contexts, difficulties with imaginative play and making friends, and a lack of interest in other people. .

B. Demonstration of restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior, interest or activities. Must present two of the following. .

1) Repetitive speech, repetitive motor movements or repetitive use of objects (echolalia, idiosyncratic phrases). .

2) Adherence to routines, ritualized patterns of verbal or nonverbal behavior, or strong resistance to change (insists of eating the same food, repetitive questioning or great distress at small changes)..

3) Fixated interests that are abnormally intense or focus (strong attachment to unusual objects, restricted interests)..

4) Over or under reactivity to sensory input or abnormal interest in sensory aspects of environment (such as indifference to pain, heat or cold, negative response to certain sounds or textures, extreme smelling or touching or objects, fascination with lights or spinning objects). .

C. Symptoms must be present in early childhood (May not become apparent until social demand exceeds limited capacity)..

D. Symptoms collectively limit and hinder everyday functioning. .

The proposed removal of Asperger’s Syndrome from the DSM has been controversial as it is commonly used by health insurers, research, state agencies, schools, and individuals with the disorder. Experts are concerned that eliminating the Asperger’s label will prevent mildly affected people from being evaluated for Autism. .

Links for resources on Asperger’s Parenting Asperger’s Community http://www.parentingaspergerscommunity.com/ Autism Society http://www.autism-society.org/about-autism/aspergers-syndrome/ Asperger’s Association of New England http://www.aane.org/ Autism Speaks http://www.autismspeaks.org/what-autism/asperger-syndrome

In previous discussions of this, I believe we agreed not to discuss the DSM-V entry until it's published. Wikipedia does not usually speculate about unpublished works - and that is what this is. Doubly so because this is so incredibly controversial. People should not read this as "these are the latest guidelines for diagnosis" because they aren't guidelines at all yet. At most, I think we need a single sentence saying that some future release of DSM-V "is likely to" revise things this way. SteveBaker (talk) 21:43, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Article title

Why "Asperger syndrome"? Should it not be "Asperger's syndrome" or even "Asperger's disorder" to match the literature? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.15.96.12 (talk) 00:54, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 21 February 2012

Hello,

I have edit the information about Executive Functioning. Please consider again adding the paragraphs or part of them under the section "others". I think the paragraphs presenting new information regarding impaired Executive Functioning, which is a common symptom among people suffering from Asperger's Syndrome. The paragraphs are the following:

Some may argue that research into one primary deficit for autism, being a complex disorder, may not be a reasonable endeavor. Instead, perhaps autism is a disorder that is influenced by numerous prime-deficits . Recently, Executive Functioning has been linked to autism spectrum disorder . It is common for people suffering from Asperger’s syndrome to have problems with their Executive Functioning abilities. Executive Functioning is defined as a person’s ability to manage his or her attentional focus and to be attentive and aware of too few stimuli as well as prioritize these stimuli according to their relevance and importance at a specific time . Executive Functioning can also be defined as a person’s ability to maintain reasonable problem-solving abilities to help themselves achieve certain goals in the future. This includes behaviors such as planning, flexibility of thoughts and actions, as well as organized search .

When communicating with children suffering from Asperger’s Syndrome and impaired executive functioning, it might be helpful to use clear and concise language. Not always a child with Asperger’s Syndrome can understand things that seem obvious to most people. Therefore, it is suggested to use positive explanations and guidance when interacting with them . — Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.122.73 (talk) 21:00, 23 February 2012 (UTC)

Please consider adding the paragraphs below under the section "others". These paragraphs help presenting new information regarding impaired Executive Functioning, which is a common symptom among people suffering from Asperger's Syndrome. The paragraphs intend to help professionals and other people who have contact with people suffering from the syndrome, including the people who suffer themselves, to become more aware of this condition and to approach it better. The paragraphs are the following:

Executive Function Some may argue, that because autism is a complex disorder, it might not be reasonable to search for one primary deficit; instead, perhaps autism is a disorder that is influenced by numerous prime deficits. A recent understanding around the autism spectrum disorder, is that social and non-social difficult challenges with which a person suffering from autism has to deal, can be caused due to a problem in the person’s Executive Functioning.It is very common for people with Asperger’s syndrome to have problem with their Executive Functioning abilities. Executive Functioning is defined as a person’s ability to manage his or her attentional focus and to be attentive and aware to few stimulus as well as prioritize these stimulus according to their relevance and importance at a specific time. Executive Functioning can also be defined as a person’s ability to maintain reasonable problem-solving abilities to help himself achieving certain goals in the future, and it includes behaviors such as planning, flexibility of thoughts and actions, as well as organized search.

It is important to understand people suffering from Asperger’s Syndrome and poor executive functioning. When communicating with children with Asperger’s Syndrome and impaired executive functioning, it is advised to use clear and concrete language. A person should not expect a child with Asperger’s Syndrome to understand things that seem obvious to most people. Therefore, it is highly recommended to use positive explanations and guidance when interacting with them. Often, people with Asperger’s Syndrome, especially children, act in ways that do not suit the society or the environment where they live. Usually, they are not aware to the fact that such behavior is inappropriate, which is why it is so important to help the child to become more aware of the environment. Therefore, instead of telling the child that he is wrong, it is important to try to understand the child’s perspective and intentions when acting in this certain way. By doing that, one can increase the child awareness and consciousness to his actions and get him to understand what is more acceptable or less, rather than criticizing the child. When a child is more aware of his actions, there is a bigger chance that he will change them.

Some evidences exist proving that Visual Imagery, the proceed of imagining the sequence of a task in order to improve the performance in completing this task, can be helpful when treating individuals with impaired executive functioning due to Asperger’s Syndrome.

GadotS (talk) 03:25, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

Not done: That is a lot of content to drop into this article without discussion and it would be good to get someone to verify the references. Would you mind discussing this with the other editors on this talk page to establish a consensus? Also, there are a few issues from a style standpoint: the references should follow the punctuation, the second paragraph has an "advice to parents" tone which is not encyclopedic and the last paragraph starts with "weasel words". Perhaps you could spend a few days discussing it, become autoconfirmed and be able to add it yourself. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 03:59, 21 February 2012 (UTC)

The term aspie. Coined by whom, when, where? Edit request.

See article on Liane Holliday Willey, with talk page. The term aspie does not even occur in Pretending to be normal. Please change the text and reference accordingly. --80.216.74.226 (talk) 09:38, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I emailed her to try to find out. SteveBaker (talk) 14:35, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

OK - she replied back:

"Hi. From what I'm told, the first time Aspie came into print (though not spoken venacular) was in my book Pretending to be Normal, 1999. Take care, Liane"

So I checked and you're wrong. That the word *IS* in "Pretending to be normal" - once on page 71: "Funny that she, another Aspie, is often able to see my pretense before I am" and again on page 104: "I know my life with an Aspie mom can be very difficult on children."

However, the author says that this was the first time in print. I don't know whether she actually invented the word. SteveBaker (talk) 17:26, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

Regardless, that sort of text would fit better at Sociological and cultural aspects of autism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

You could argue that our entire "Cultural aspects" section belongs there - but if we're going to have an abbreviated version of that article here - then I think this fact is worth mentioning. Either way - this edit request was about fact checking, which I've done - so I'm marking this "answered". SteveBaker (talk) 17:39, 28 February 2012 (UTC)

I was indeed wrong! Thank you. Good that we are fully referenced now. For the sake of completeness, could the second locus (page 104) be added to the footnote also? --80.216.74.226 (talk) 10:00, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Done - added to citation. Thank you. Begoon ^talk 02:16, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Perfect.Thank you. --80.216.74.226 (talk) 12:07, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

Clumsiness

Please add a clarification to the idea that clumsyness is a symptom of Asperger syndrome -- it's actually only THE APPEARENCE of clumsyness that is a symptom -- the difference being that in the case of Asperger syndrome, the brain randomly reassigns metal resources to the thought processes consindered to be the highest priority -- if a subject is in deep thought or otherwise mentally engaged, the brain occasionally prioritises said mental engagement above basic motor control and the person stumbles, falls, trips, etc... until the surprize of such reaction causes them to switch those mental resources back to motor skills... This, from the point of an observer, appears as general clumsyness when in fact it is nothing of the sort... Thanks!! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.54.35.228 (talk) 01:53, 2 March 2012 (UTC)

That's really a bit of a stretch. Clumsiness is the actual tripping over/dropping things/whatever. (Wiktionary: "awkward, lacking coordination, not graceful, not dextrous"). It doesn't matter what the underlying cause is - if you lack dexterity and coordination - for whatever reason - then you are, without doubt, "clumsy". At any rate, we'd need a solid reference to say this before we could add it to the article. I'm unaware of any research that shows that this symptom is caused in the manner which you suggest. SteveBaker (talk) 14:47, 8 March 2012 (UTC)

It's a big difference, in terms that the sort of "appearence of clumsiness" described by the first poster will not inhibit the learning and performing of complicated motoric and coordination actions such as dance and martial arts - as long as the brain is focused on the task. However, I suppose the "real clumsiness" as most people understand it would not enable doing that. E.g. both kinds, when being focused about some thought or so, will drop a cup off the edge of the table, but not both of them will notice and grab it in mid-air. Itaj Sherman (talk) 00:43, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Well, whatever - we don't have a reference for this "fact" - so we can't put it into the article. SteveBaker (talk) 02:12, 11 March 2012 (UTC)

Again

User:AFOH has a history of making unexplained alterations; the reversal of the words low and high here isn't something I understand. The full-text of the source is available,[4] but it's gibberish to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:56, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

i see no reason for the edit, and have reverted, and asked it to be brought to talk. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:30, 14 March 2012 (UTC)

Mechanism section

I removed a reference to Weak Central Coherence Theory, which is associated with other types of autism, as most cases of Aspergers do not seem to suffer of any disability to see the so called "big picture". As a matter of fact, on scientific terms, the discussion goes the opposite way, as Aspergers diagnosis criteria have been applied to many theorists now known for their ability to see that "big picture" through close synaptic connections, preventing them from seeing the many "small" pictures of social life.

Here is the reference I deleted:

"It maps well to general-processing theories such as weak central coherence theory, which hypothesizes that a limited ability to see the big picture underlies the central disturbance in ASD. "

It is sourced, however, it contradicts scientific knowledge of the syndrome in saying "it maps well" to that theory. This is a mere account, so it should not be added as if it were conclusive, much less distinctive of Aspergers Syndrome.

Another sentence I modified was the following:

"The underconnectivity theory hypothesizes underfunctioning low-level neural connections and synchronization, along with an excess of high-level processes"

to read

"The underconnectivity theory hypothesizes underfunctioning distant neural connections and synchronization, along with an excess of close processes"

The reasons for this change is that we know individuals suffering from Aspergers Syndrome do have different synaptic maps by their neural distance, as per neurotypical people think "as far as they can", whereas "Aspies" think "as close as they can", according to their synaptic connections. This fact does not associate the connections to any "high" or "low" process. It is distinctive and also serves different functions.

AFOH 10:09, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

You've provided no sources supporting these changes, which were sourced. IF you have sources contadicting them, please provide them. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:59, 17 March 2012 (UTC)

The reason I deleted that citation was because as a source it didn't uphold itself against the backings presented, -if you managed to read that source-, and my reason to modify the other sentences was provided in this talk page, in perfect accordance with the sources. The first citation was misleading in presenting 3 different possible conclusions about the Weak Coherence account, all of which contradicted one another. The paper explored whether each could be decisive, but the article stated it [either of the paper's assumptions] "mapped well" to the article's own statements, which strikes me as conclusive --something the paper is not.

Here is the full reference if anyone wishes to add it one more time, over different assertions. -> Happé F, Frith U (2006). "The weak coherence account: detail-focused cognitive style in autism spectrum disorders". J Autism Dev Disord. 36 (1): 5–25. doi:10.1007/s10803-005-0039-0. PMID 16450045.

It speaks of superiority of close processes, which does not suggest a disability to see the big picture, but rather a difference in range as to what the big picture is. It addresses the big picture as that of "global [processing of] form/meaning" during presumably social situations, whereas common use of the term "big picture" refers to an ability to see the general mapping of a topic or issue, which, if Asperger's have greater close control over its variables, would cede them a maximized perspective over the topic.

If by addressing autism as being detail-focused they refer to an ability of most ASD/AS people to control and connect small variables, this might be true. If, however, they refer to a disability to see the big picture, socially speaking, I believe this to be erratic, in that some people diagnosed with Aspergers Syndrome -George Washington, Benjamin Franklin- had a terrific big picture of social situations, not addressing form or meaning within a single conversation, so much as interactions amidst entire societies.

It therefore seems to be a range issue, rather than a well understood pronouncement.

AFOH 00:34, 18 March 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by AFOH (talk • contribs)

Please sign your entries by entering four tildes ( ~~~~ ) after them. This is the text you modified this time ("high-level" became "distant" while "low-level" became "close"). This is the full-text of the source. Earlier, you reversed the "high" and "low" level. Neither change is comprehensible. Please explain, based on the source (which is not the one you mention, rather the one I linked above). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:31, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

What SG said, please explain. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:52, 18 March 2012 (UTC)

The details, presented in the form of an abstract, are offered as follows:

Most modern scientific evidence and research today -including the sources added- points to Asperger's Syndrome as being caused by a difference in the way brain synapses -that is, the pathways between neurons in the brain- map together and how they connect, and this seems to be the very root of Asperger's Syndrome -which is explained as follows-.

One of the sources cited, which I removed altogether, is this: Happé F, Frith U (2006). "The weak coherence account: detail-focused cognitive style in autism spectrum disorders". J Autism Dev Disord. 36 (1): 5–25. doi:10.1007/s10803-005-0039-0. PMID 16450045.

It examines Weak Central Coherence Theory, a theory which claims that there is a condition in Autistic Disorders -not specifically Aspergers- by which Autistic individuals can't see the "big picture" -sadly, the term "big picture" is poorly defined-.

This paper provides 3 different hypotheses about how the brain of Autistic individuals works in connection with WCC theory ( you may read them here: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16450045 ), one of which addresses whether Autism is based on an excess of close neurons -neurons communicating with each other very closely-, while another, pretty much related, says there may be a difference in the way the brain processes information, instead of a deficiency, with a third possible conclusion saying this supposed deficiency comes along with a disability for social understanding.

All these three supposed conclusions are meant to explain Weak Coherence Theory, and they make perfect sense on their own, for they do explain the problems with Asperger's and provide a root cause, but they're addressed as conclusions rather than causes. Truth is, according to research -as backed by these sources-, the cause for Asperger's Syndrome is not WCCT, but rather these synaptic map distinctions, and these scientists still have to do away with WCCT and realize their "conclusions" are the real cause.

WCCT's main inconsistency is claiming Asperger's is caused by an inability to see the big picture, and this is evidently not the case. The research provided in the second paper -located here: http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/content/17/4/951.full - concludes than in some regions of the Autistic brain there is an underconnectivity issue, but it also implies that other regions make up for this apparent deficiency. This suggests what the first paper had "concluded", that there is indeed a distinction in the way the brain is mapped, but the confusion stems from the fact that when the previous paper scientists mentions the "big picture" it refers to those social situations in which meaning and form aren't well understood, thus defining the "big picture" as a simple conversation. Sadly, this mistake has heavy implications. The big picture is usually understood as an ability to see beyond. This ambiguity is what causes WCCT to collapse on its own.

The "big picture" as a term, refers to greater situations. A social big picture does not refer to the meaning or form in single conversation -as these scientists mistakenly claim-, but rather to how societies work and how conversation itself takes place, which is a proficient area of study for Aspergers individuals, which is why I did away with it, and kept the other source alone, because it provides those same backings for later conclusions, without linking them to faulty WCCT.

According to Merriam-Webster dictionary, the big picture is: "the entire perspective on a situation or issue". Concerning social interaction, the scientists in the first paper implied to define the term as "an ability to extract meaning or form", which is completely wrong. Aspies have a great perspective on social interaction, not concerning interaction during a single conversation, but rather interaction between whole societies, which is a much broader perspective.

And that broad perspective is allowed by those close-ranged synaptic mappings, not by WCCT. On the whole, the WCCT source is only an account whereas the Oxford source is pure raw evidence. The very reason the article says WTC "maps well" to the accounts on the Oxford paper, is that of a bad definition. This contradicts our more scientific source -Oxford's-.

The reason I replaced "high level" and "low level" processes with "close" and "distant" was that of synaptic range. There is no commonly accepted definition of "high" or "low" level processes. Scientists can't agree on what makes a high or a low process. Sometimes you'll find these loosely defined terms addressing opposite situations -for example, that of high process as that of NT communication and low process as that of Aspie communication, and then the other way around-. All we know is there are close synapses producing presumably so-called "high processes" and long-range synapses producing so-called "low processes", however to use the terms "high" and "low" is less scientific. To use the terms close and distant is the safer choice, provided the pathways followed by these processes could theoretically be traced more reliably than agreeing upon which makes a high and which makes a low process.

187.159.207.230 (talk) 19:55, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like WP:SYN to me. I await other comments. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:20, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 19 March 2012

Under "Causes" Many environmental factors have been hypothesized to act after birth, but none has been confirmed by scientific investigation. Should be changed to: Many environmental factors have been hypothesized to act after birth, but none have been confirmed by scientific investigation. Ahskrenaim (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

Not done: It's actually correct now. "none has" is grammatically the same as "no one has", so technically its meaning is "many factors have been hypothesized, but not one of them has been confirmed". One of those funny little English grammar quirks I often get wrong myself. I think probably both ways are viewed as acceptable these days. Begoon ^talk 01:19, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Tetarology

I'm concerned about this under Asperger syndrome#Causes:

A few ASD cases have been linked to exposure to teratogens (agents that cause birth defects) during the first eight weeks from conception. Although this does not exclude the possibility that ASD can be initiated or affected later, it is strong evidence that it arises very early in development. (Citing this 2005 article)

I don't see that article making a strong claim for very early genesis of Asperger's, I read it as pointing to several lines of evidence that suggest it arises long before symptoms are apparent. That is, saying "strong" evidence for "very" early genesis seems to me to be misrepresenting the source. Other opinions would be appreciated. --Anthonyhcole (talk) 14:45, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Indifferent, unsure; could be deleted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 30 March 2012, grammatical error

Under the headline Characteristics, it start out with "A pervasive developmental disorder, Asperger syndrome is"

^

when it should be "As a pervasive developmental disorder, Asperger syndrome is"

^^^^

130.243.239.232 (talk) 10:32, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

Done. Thanks, Dawn Bard (talk) 12:29, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I've restored the original text, which was grammatically correct. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:50, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Suicide and depression

Re this edit, I believe we have a review source that can be located in talk archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:35, 20 March 2012 (UTC)

A month later, still not correctly sourced, so I removed it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:56, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Featured Article Review?

I'd say this article is due for one; much of the article is quite simplistic and simply glosses over a lot of the details of this controversial diagnosis. Not to mention what the references included choose to selectively include or exclude. Sans culottes (talk 02:19, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

You will need to provide some specifics, relative to WP:WIAFA, backed with sources compliant with WP:MEDRS; sources were chosen to be compliant with MEDRS. If you have newer secondary reviews, please post them. (As a newly registered account familiar with WP:FAR and the WP:FA process, I hope you're also familiar with WP:WIAFA, WP:MEDRS and WP:OWN#Featured article.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Don't have anywhere near enough time to engage in such a convoluted bureaucratic process—maybe in a few weeks. I'm just glad to have brought this matter to attention for now. Sans culottes 03:12, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Without sources that comply with WP:MEDRS and specifics of deficiencies relative to WP:WIAFA, you've brought nothing to attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:58, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

DSM-IV / V and Ghaziuddin and Klin's Criteria

Mohammed Ghaziuddin wrote an opinion piece in JADD (2010) expressing the thought that DSM-IV had the AS definition wrong, and that DSM-V, instead of dropping the separate AS definition in DSM-V, should redefine AS based on Klin's criteria in JADD in 2005 which does make a distinction (based on three differences between AS and HFA; the current DSM-IV def only distinguishes them by early lang/cog delays, otherwise they are identical conditions in DSM-IV, thus the proposal to remove AS in edition V).
    I did find a brief mention of Ghaziuddin's proposal of the above ("[...] and it has been argued that the syndrome's diagnostic criteria should be changed instead." — end of second para of Classification section).
    My question: would it be worth-while to briefly expand this mention in the article to elaborate on what Ghaziuddin's opinion actually is? The current phrasing stating "should be change instead" makes it sound like he is proposing change, but not actually providing what that change should be (kind of change-for-change's-sake). Something simple and brief such as (by example) "Muhammed Ghaziuddin has proposed the DSM-IV diagnosis was flawed, and that instead of eliminating the diagnosis in the fifth edition, it should be redefined along the lines of criteria proposed by Ami Klin, et al., in 2005."
If I sounded disorganized above, apologies — I was attempting to be terse. — al-Shimoni (talk) 05:45, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

I don't know why this hasn't been responded to, but I don't have the full text of the article. Anyone? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

DSM changes

This report is another indication that we need to handle the transition to DSM-5 with great care. It's not over til the Fat Lady sings, and until DSM-5 is published, we don't know which way it's going to go. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:07, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

A whole bunch of edits on April 17

I have reverted them, per WP:BRD so they can be discussed here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:33, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Definitely a bit too bold considering the void those edits filled—Uta Frith's 1991 work wasn't even cited until today. Also you have taken away tags that were left to draw attention to pre-existing citation errors. Great job! Sans culottes 11:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Is that sarcasm? Because, sarcasm will not help much. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:42, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I know what will. Is it ok to add to the article that Hans Asperger rode a white unicorn, actually fought on the Allied side in WWII, and that no one has ever questioned any aspect of Asperger Syndrome (peace be upon it). Ever. In the World. That's ok right? Sans culottes 11:45, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Please stop the WP:POINTy sarcasm. Please, instead, stop edit warring, and discuss what you would like to add. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:54, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

In all seriousness I am not edit warring (I've been the only person editing the article for the last few edits before you), and if you look at the edits I have made they are totally innocuous. Unless of course the point is to have a puff piece containing only one point of view—you'd think AS wasn't a condition on the way out with extremely tenuous definitions from all major professional bodies by reading the article in its current form (or in the case of the APA, none at all seeing as they do not recognize it). Sans culottes 12:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

So to be specific:

1. The fact that AS is controversial should be mentioned. Almost every major work and article mentions this fact, either pro-AS or AS sceptical.
2. The WHO's ICD diagnosis needs to be mentioned: its outrageous that it isn't.
3. The clear distinction between Asperger's AP diagnosis and the 1980's invention of AS has to be included. Sans culottes 12:06, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

OK, let's eliminate the hyperbole (outrageous, controversial, etc), and focus on the issues. I hope you don't mind me numbering your points for discussion.

1. AS as a diagnostic entity was established. For years. It will now apparently be eliminated from the DSM, in about a year, because there were nosological issues. "Controversial" is an overstatement, it was an established diagnosis, but we do need to reflect the newer issues. This has always been recognized here. We can do it in the context of the DSMV, and I believe we've attempted that, although everything is tentative until the DSMV actually ... happens. If you can suggest wording that isn't misleading (your original text was), we can discuss how to better reflect your concern.
2. Eliminate the outrageous, please, and focus on the content. I was unaware that WHO's ICD diagnosis isn't mentioned. It's linked in the infobox, isn't it? And we have a diagnosis sub-article-- isn't it there? By the way, is that going to change when/if the DSM changes?
   • OK, I checked on this one myself, since no responses were forthcoming. ICD codes are used in infoboxes, so ICD is covered more here than DSM, and at Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome, we give equal time to ICD and DSM, so I don't know what the issue is here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

   The article gives the impression that the ICD diagnosis is rock solid; it isn't, as you well know from reading it. Sans culottes 01:27, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

   That is to say that the WHO believes that AS is a valid diagnosis, which the WHO explicitly state they do not consider AS to be. Sans culottes 01:33, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

   also, remarkably, the article espouses the minority that the diagnosis criteria themselves are to blame, not AS (Klin A (2006)). Sans culottes 01:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

3. The clear distinction belongs in History, and you kept plopping it in to the lead, and with a POV, which you've expressed rather clearly on my talk page, where you rather astoundingly labeled Asperger's as a "fringe theory". It's not-- it may be eliminated from DSM-V, but that doesn't make it close to anything Wikipedia considers "fringe". [5] Please drop the attitude and the POV, and let's work on wording to incorporate your concerns into History (which I thought was done), using WP:MEDRS-compliant sources, and reflecting accurately what they say.

You also have a faulty understanding of editwarring. WP:3RR is not a license to revert three times. Please read WP:OWN#Featured articles, discuss your edits on talk, and when you've been reverted once, do not continue to re-insert text without consensus. You can be blocked for edit warring based on one edit, just an FYI.

You've also made faulty statements in edit summaries about Uta Frith, who most certainly is represented in the article. Please take the time to read the daughter articles, digest everything here, and then propose coherent changes to the correct articles. We don't cover every single issue in the main article if it belongs better in a daughter article, and we all know this article will undergo major changes when DSMV goes through. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I only reverted User talk:Yobol's edits—this editor was referring to a linking error that existed (and now still exists) in the article, and ignoring both my edit summaries and messages on their talk page. I invite anyone to view the edits here ([6]) and here([7]). You are using the accusation of edit warring in a weak attempt to discredit anything I'm saying about the article. Also you haven't addressed any of what I said except that Uta Frith's 1991 work is there it turns out, but only used as a general source, as nothing she actually says about AS is mentioned. This is the correct article to make changes to as there are significant POV and citation flaws. Sans culottes 19:24, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Also I had added two new references that describe AS as controversial specifically, with Mohammad Ghaziuddin's article referring to AS as one of the most controversial childhood disorders known. There are many other articles that can be used also. As for Frith she from the outset in her 1991 work describes AS in these terms on p. 2. There is a serious issue with selectively citing from sources used, as well as misrepresentation of sources. The WHO's ICD is a prime example of this, as the nosological issues have always been specifically mentioned in that organization's lead to the diagnosis itself. Again one one could not possibly gleam this form the article. You say "AS as a diagnostic entity was established. For years," but the amount of time it was established was very short in medical terms, and the diagnostic entries themselves have always been unclear (and, yes controversial), whether in the ICD or the DSM. Sans culottes 19:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

My point in raising your (yes, continued) edit warring was to encourage you to discuss and collaborate on talk, rather than revert and edit war in the article. Please stop pontificating about perceived wrongs, and focus on discussing content. Propose text here, with citations. As far as I know, you added some good and well sourced text, but in the lead, so I moved it to History, and you added some wording about the ICD which was off and Yobol reverted; hence, I don't know what you're still beefing about. Drop the personalizing, propose text here on talk. Coherently, without hysterics. It works. Really. We all know AS will be no more after DSMV is enacted, no one is denying that, so let's get the text right, not react as if AS was some fringe theory. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

This too is all I am asking for. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:59, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

This is clearly a waste of time. There is no point trying to convince people who wilfully want to exclude certain material from the article to add significant missing material. So have fun (falsely) ad hominem attacking the next person who edits the article in a way that you personally disagree with but I'm done with it. Sans culottes 20:13, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

By the way I have no "beef" with Yobol (I'm not even the one who keeps bringing it up). You are totally misrepresenting a misunderstanding them and I had about a vague reference most likely added by SandyGeorgia before I ever edited this page. Also for any interested observers, User:SandyGeorgia told a admin to "take a hike" while falsely accusing me of being a sock puppet([8]) What a delightful person. Sans culottes 20:38, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

Personalize much? Focus on the content, not the editor. You've been asked to propose text, and your response is off-topic adhominems. Carry on, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:49, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I wish you would focus on the article rather than crying "edit war!" and "sock-puppet!" So if you have that out of the way, can you consult the articles and refs I previously added, specifically Ghaziuddin (2010) and Mayes (2001) regarding AS being controversial (also Frith (1991), p. 2). This represents a significant—even majority—opinion and it's inexplicable as to way it isn't included. Also, can you address if you have any real objection to a consistant distinction between AP and AS throughout the article. Sans culottes 23:01, 17 April 2012 (UTC)

I suggest you take the opportunity to propose the text changes you're after, with the sources, here on talk before you lose folks' attention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:57, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Proposed text for discussion

Some variant of this will do for the time being:

Fifty years later Asperger's syndrome was standardized as a diagnosis, but since its popularization in the early 1990's it has remained controversial.

Sans culottes 02:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Please provide quotes from the sources (since the text isn't freely available) so those coming to the discussion who don't have access can review and discuss, please indicate where you want this text inserted, and then please wait for consensus to form (which could take several days or longer). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:14, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

From the first sentence of the Ghaziuddin (2010) article:

Few childhood-onset psychiatric disorders have generated as much controversy as Asperger syndrome (AS).

That would be PMID 20151184 (curiously, one that argues that the AS diagnosis be retained). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

First sentence of the Mayes (2001) article:

Much controversy exists regarding the definition of Asperger’s syndrome or disorder, both in clinical practice and in research studies.

That would be PMID 11411788, not a review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Many more references like this are around, so that's not the issue here. Also the Frith (1991) work also acknowledges this from the outset, like I mentioned. Sans culottes 02:25, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

What is the quote from the Frith book? I'm confused about why you feel this addition is necessary, since the lead gives a good deal of space to the fact that the diagnosis will likely be eliminated from DSM5-- in other words, I fail to see why your proposed text is needed, it seems to me redundant to what is already there, but leaving out the non-review source, I don't have a problem citing something to Ghaziuddin. But please wait for others to opine. The issue is to assure a "peaceful transition" here from a DSM-IV diagnosis to a non-diagnosis after DSM-5 ... that is, an orderly transition for the article, and working test in logically. The current text in the lead is:

Fifty years later, it was standardized as a diagnosis, but many questions remain about aspects of the disorder. For example, there is doubt about whether it is distinct from high-functioning autism (HFA); partly because of this, its prevalence is not firmly established. It has been proposed that the diagnosis of Asperger's be eliminated, to be replaced by a diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder on a severity scale.

and we also cover it in more depth in Classification. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:45, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Why did the diagnosis take half a century to gain recognition? This is what needs to be drawn attention to. I'm glad you are no longer claiming that AS isn't controvertial, so that represents some progress. Why also does the classification section not even mention the ICD? Sans culottes 03:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I just noticed you mentioned that Ghaziuddin argues that AS should be retained. That is the point that needs to be made. Every work and author on the subject—positive or negative as far as recognising AS—openly admits this; this isn't some little known fact about AS. Sans culottes 03:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm glad you are no longer claiming that AS isn't controvertial, so that represents some progress. I do not appreciate having words put in my mouth, or at the tip of my fingers, that I didn't say or type, so thank you for refraining from doing that henceforth. IF you want to claim someone said X, providing diffs is good. You said Asperger syndrome was WP:FRINGE (diff). Wrong, per Wikipedia's definition of fringe. Some of your wording in edits didn't reflect what sources said. AS is clearly controversial-- it has been proposed to be dropped from the DSM. D'oh.

Improvements to the text will proceed faster if you will propose the changes you want, focusing on the sources, without editorializing. I have no idea what your point about Ghaziuddin is, or how you want that reflected in text. And if I don't get it, it's unlikely folks coming to this page to try to read through this amount of verbiage over the next few days will be able to sort it and come to consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Also:

"should autism and Asperger syndrome be seen as distinct and mutually exclusive diagnostic categories …This question cannot yet be answered definitively from existing scientific data" — Frith (1991)

This reference is particularly significant, as two decades later these exact same issues persist. That is why I choose these three refs; each representing the beginning, mid-point and end of the AS era respectively. Sans culottes 03:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Interesting, but one thing is current status (covered in Classification), and another is what we cover in the History section of articles. What couldn't be answered in 1991 was answered when AS was added to the DSM. Whether they got it wrong, and that changes, we won't know until DSM-5 comes out, so again ... propose text, but the History section is distinct from the Classification section, and we don't just plop it all in to the WP:LEAD, which is where these problems began. We need to keep the article coherent in spite of the uncertainty about DSM-5. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:12, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

You mention Hans Asperger and the 50 year journey of the diagnosis in the lead… and you mention future categorisation of AS. This the same thing. Sans culottes 04:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

So, back on topic, which source are you using to support this part of your proposed text: "since its popularization in the early 1990's"? If you're stringing together these three sources to yield the 1990 date of this "controversy", that's WP:SYN. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:16, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I never used the date "1990". Frith's book was published in 1991. Stop stone walling with wiki policy wonk-age. I don't want to assume bad faith or that you are being obstinate but at this point I have little alternative. Sans culottes 04:23, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Here is the text you proposed above:

Fifty years later Asperger's syndrome was standardized as a diagnosis, but since its popularization in the early 1990's it has remained controversial.

I see a 1990 in there :) The question is, what source are you using to support that text? We can't add text that isn't sourced. Please adjust your attitude so I can try to work with you, focus on content, and avoid personalizing issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:31, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Projection much? I assumed you knew the difference between the date "1990" and the use of "1990's" to refer to a decade. My bad. I should not assume such basic things in future. And "early nineteen-nineties" (there maybe spelling it out in words helps) is appropreate due to Frith's work and also both the APA and WHO ICD diagnosis appeared before 1995. Sans culottes 04:38, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

My final attempt: what source do you have that says that AS diagnoses were popularized in the 1990s? There is no such text in any of the sources you've given for your proposed text; in fact, I don't even know what you intend with the word "popularization". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:47, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Are you hung up on the word? Or do you believe AS "came to prominence" in the 1980's with Wing's paper? Sans culottes 04:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

This is a featured article; we don't just throw in any old word, we use the wording from high-quality sources, re-phrasing them in our words. For example, some respected researchers have said that AS was "popularized" by the likes of Michael Fitzgerald (psychiatrist)'s three books in the mid-2000s, not in the 1990s at all. I don't know what you mean by "popularization", but it's unsourced, and original research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:56, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Also, above you say "AS as a diagnostic entity was established. For years. It will now apparently be eliminated from the DSM, in about a year, because there were nosological issues. "Controversial" is an overstatement." Now you are saying you never denied that AS is controversial. Which is it? Sans culottes 04:26, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It was and is a recognized diagnosis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Good lord, I'm not saying it isn't! The point of me posting that was to put your statement about controversy in its context. Sans culottes 04:41, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

And, I have proposed changes. Propose your counter-changes to the text provided (if indeed you have any, other than the dropping of one source, for reasons known only to you). Sans culottes 04:28, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm fine with the text we have now; if you want to change the text, you need to propose the new text, based on review sources (not primary sources), explain, discuss, and gain consensus for your proposed changes. I've been willing to invest the time here to try to help you understand how to go about proposing a coherent change to the text before DSM-5 comes out, but I think I'll let someone else take over for a while .. I've had enough insults for the day :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:35, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I already "understand" the difference, thanks. This has nothing to do with the DSM-5. This has to do with significant views marginalised or just plain left out in the article. And above you said you'd be fine with the Ghaziuddin citation added to the article? Sans culottes 04:46, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I said, "I don't have a problem citing something to Ghaziuddin" and you've not yet made a case that any significant view is left out of the article (we cover the issues you raise as far as I can tell, but I'm open to improvements if you can explain what you want); you haven't yet provided sources that back your proposed text. Over and out, perhaps someone else can help out here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:50, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

"not yet made a case that any significant view is left out of the article"? Unbelievable… I know you don't want to hear it, but this article is far from perfect. I think you are too closely connected to it to actually have an objective view, quite frankly. Sans culottes 04:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

That's nice; could you please read WP:TALK, indent your posts correctly, and refrain from personalizing issues? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:58, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

No I'm good. You are the only one here personalising anything in any non-valid way. The more you say it (in every post) doesn't make it anymore true. Back to the matter at hand, do you consider AS to have became controversial in the 1980's, 1990's, or some time before then? Sans culottes 05:02, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

It does not matter what we think, it matters what sources think. This is not a forum. I am fine with the text the way it is now, I see no compelling reason to change the text. Others may disagree. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:53, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree - I don't see any compelling need to change what we already have. We state clearly that this is a difficult and controversial diagnosis - reflecting the position that Sans culottes maintains. We explain that Aspergers is a part of the Autism spectrum - we have solid references for all of those statements. More references is generally a good thing (especially if they add balance rather than causing undue weight to be applied to one side or the other) - but more text stating things that we've already stated is not. Unless a dozen or more people suddenly come along to support Sans culottes' position, or unless a radically new and compelling argument comes forth, there simply isn't a consensus to change - and the matter is over and done with. SteveBaker (talk) 12:30, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

SteveBaker, thanks for the input. I only have two concerns with the article; that the extent of the difficulty regarding AS is made clear, and that the difference between AP and AS is made clear throughout the article (which extends to the balkanization of AS diagnoses since the early 1980's). Both can easily be rectified with minor tweaks and the appropriate refs. Also, it is of course recognized that AS is an autistic spectrum disorder, and no place have it been indicated otherwise. Sans culottes 15:01, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Autistic psychopathy

Sorry - you keep using this "AP" acronym - what does it stand for? There doesn't seem to be anything using those two letters in our article - and the AP page doesn't turn up anything that seems meaningful. SteveBaker (talk) 14:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

He's She is referring to the term Hans Asperger used in describing the original "little professors", autistic psychopathy, which is relevant in History. If San culottes would realize that not everyone follows what he's she is saying or asking for, we could move forward more quickly. And we don't need to load up the article with acronyms unless they are needed multiple times (eg, AS).

I think one place we're having difficulty is that Sans culottes wants more of the controversy and history worked in to the article, but if AS is eliminated from DSM-5, the entire article has to re-focus more on History as the diagnosis will become historical. So, I suggest that Sans culottes is getting ahead of the game, and we need to make sure the article stays coherent depending upon DSM-5. Right now, AS is a recognized diagnosis, and autistic psychopathy only warrants a brief mention in History, and anyone is free to write a more in-depth History of Asperger syndrome article. When/if AS is no longer a recongized diagnosis, the focus of this article may need to change, but we can do that while still perserving FA status.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

"Autistic Psychopathy" (AP)—this was the diagnosis that Hans Asperger came up within his original research. The eponymous diagnosis of AS was an invention of the 1980's. Refer to my previous edits on this article and it might make it clearer for you; that was the intention of my edits. Sans culottes 16:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Also SandyGeorgia, he? You already apologized for calling me that, not that it much matters. I like my anonymity. Sans culottes 16:45, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Sorry, struck and corrected. It's not likely to be the last time I make a mistake, though. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:51, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

See this is the problem with not referencing the WHO's ICD; the ICD lists "Autistic psychopathy" (along with "Schizoid disorder of childhood") as an alternative title for AS (see here: F84.5). Adding this clear distinction adds to the article, and does not denigrate the article in any way. Sans culottes 16:59, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

We do reference it (it's the first link in the infobox), but I see your point. We don't specifically mention it as an alternate name. And I think I can tell you why, although my memory could be faulty-- adding the term "psychopathy" to the article brought in all kinds of complaints from autism advocates. So, we need to gain consensus to add that as WHO's alternate name, which would logically be in the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I meant referencing the ICD diagnosis specifically, not just as a link most people won't follow up on. But I'm glad you see my point. The thing is, as much as I empathize with anyone with a mental disorder, the sooner autism advocates start dealing with the reality of their situation, the better. In this case that probably means the loss of government support/grants and educational support, or an expensive re-diagnosis. It just doesn't seem right to warp reality or omit facts to stop feelings being hurt. Sans culottes 17:21, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Well, again, I think we go into all that detail in the sub-article, Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome, but we will have to discuss how to fix the issues you've raised. And while I agree with you on "hurt feelings", I can assure you that if we add AP to the lead, we're going to be dealing with fallout, so we'd best be sure it's grounded in guidelines. I've just checked, and there's a similar problem at Tourette syndrome, because the WHO has the ridiculous name for TS of "Combined vocal and multiple motor tic disorder [de la Tourette]". I suspect that this falls under our guideline to use common names, and I'm unsure if we really need to add these terms (nobody calls AS "autistic psychophathy" these days, do they?). We need to get consensus, and it might be better to pose the question in a broader forum, like WT:MED (I really don't know how the ICD works in terms of why those alternate terms are listed below, nor can I imagine why they don't just call Tourette's, well, Tourette's, so I'm unsure what to do here). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The parallel you draw with Tourette Syndrome is a telling one, and goes to the heart of the matter. The WHO lists specific and alternative names for the sake of clarity. I would refer you to the chapter "Treatment for Autism: From Science to Pseudo-Science or Anti-Science" in Eric Schopler's The Research Basis for Autism Intervention, if you have access to it. The reason Asperger Syndrome has never been fully accepted, is because it has in many cases drifted far from a scientific basis, becoming little more than a popular culture phenomeon. Many leading specialists on the subject go into ahistorical and anti-scientific rants in their works, applying AS to various long dead historical figures in a manner that would be laughable if it weren't for the fact that some people actually take them seriously. And while few call AS "Autistic Psycophathy" today, Hans Asperger did. He died before AS even came into existence. And that is really the point here. Sans culottes 18:09, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Hence my earlier reference to Michael Fitzgerald (psychiatrist) who helped "popularize" AS in the mid-2000s with absurd post-humous diagnoses of everyone and his brother, and some interesting misses in living folks as well (I wonder if he regularly confused personality disorders with AS). Anyway, I don't understand your comment about the TS example, because the WHO lists *no* additional names there for clarity, including the most common ones, so that doesn't help me understand the issue in a way we can resolve it generally. [9] Colin will have better ideas on this; if he doesn't, we can inquire at WT:MED. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:16, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I meant "Combined vocal and multiple motor tic disorder [de la Tourette]"—in the case of Tourette Syndrome—being the correct specific title for the disorder; sorry to break it to you but I don't have a problem with the WHO's choice of title there. You don't often read between the lines Sandy, although unlike Michael Fitzgerald, I won't speculate as to why. Sans culottes 18:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Also if you can think of an example here on Wikipedia where the WHO (or the APA for that matter) does have alternative names for a disorder/syndrome that have been listed in a similar article, by all means give examples here. Sans culottes 18:36, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I think someone asked you earlier, twice, to drop the sarcasm, and I know I've asked you to drop the personalization. You said, "The WHO lists specific and alternative names for the sake of clarity." The WHO does not list any alternate names for TS, including the most common one used in Europe (GTS, Gilles de la Tourette Syndrome). Neither do I have a problem with their choice of title, but it's your statement that I'm trying to understand with respect to what we need to sort here (our guidelines at various pages, like WP:MOSINTRO, WP:COMMONNAMES, WP:MEDMOS). The only examples I've dealt with that have differing names are TS, and now here ... so I'm not aware of precedent or guideline in this matter. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The term "Autistic Psychopathy" is a term only used by our sources when discussing Hans Asperger's early published works. There is sufficient WP:WEIGHT for it to be mentioned briefly in the History section, but not in the lead and it should not (to avoid confusion) be mentioned in other sections. Asperger's "Autistic Psychopathy" and what we currently call "Asperger's syndrome" are not identical. The fact that certain classification schemes list "Autistic Psychopathy" as an alternative name should not be interpreted as meaning it is equivalent. For example, Tuberous sclerosis is listed by ICD-10 as being also known as "Bourneville's disease" and "epiloia". These are both archaic terms and come from an age when patients were found only in institutions. Bourneville would not recognise all TSC patients as having "his" disease just as Asperger would not recognise all AS patients as having "his" disease. Colin°^Talk 19:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Exactly. I really wish you'd read my posts to realize how much we agree colin (although there is a lot of read so I understand why you haven't). Much like Eric Hobsbawm's theory of nationalism in Nations and Nationalism Since 1780: Programme, Myth, Reality, there is a mythology constructed around AS, to make it seem like it has a longer lineage than it actually has. Look at my previous edits on the article. There are three places where I feel this is not made clear enough. Also, I don't wish to add a reference to AP in the intro, this can be avoided if it makes some people happy. Sans culottes 20:03, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I have read your posts and your edits. I think there are some points we all agree on wrt the subject but we differ as to whether aspects of those points need more emphasis in the article. You did add AP to the lead originally (here). The addition to causes wasn't helpful IMO and the extra precision/clarification it may add is rather pedantic in value compared to the problems it gives the reader. If you feel that part must not confuse the reader about AS/AP then perhaps it would be best if Causes didn't mention historical aspects at all. The same goes for this edit in Classification. I can't find another place to make three (except including the lead). You appear to have come to the article with things you want it to say. But WP has to work the other way round. What do our sources say? What WP:WEIGHT do they give to various issues? Would some aspects be better handled in a daughter article? I don't think this article contributes to any myths about long lineage and the history section is not misleading. Colin°^Talk 20:39, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

All I wish for here is less cherry picking of the sources used, and the non-omission of other valid sources (such as the ICD, for goodness sake). Older edits aren't set in stone as a manifesto, please understand that. Sans culottes 20:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Break

(unindent) The proposed text is unclear/ambiguous and not fully supported by the sources. The term "popularization" is not clear and as Sandy notes does not come from the source. The use of the apostrophe in "Asperger's syndrome" is problematic here. Firstly, the article doesn't use that style (except for the abbreviated form without "syndrome" or "disorder"). Secondly, when discussing history, it is important to not too closely attribute this syndrome to Asperger for it is named after him rather than being precisely defined or described by him. Both of the "it"s in the sentence are vague and if intended to mean "everything about AS" then it is an overstament. I suspect the proposer doesn't consider that an overstatement as the first edit made yesterday added that "even [its] existence" is unknown, which is untrue. One must not confuse a nosological debate over the value of a diagnosis/term with the kind of debate we have about genuinely controversial diseases like the one Wakefield invented. For example, in epilepsy there is a long history of questioning and revising diagnostic terms, which (like AS) reflects our poor understanding. That the term "complex partial seizures" gets removed from a particular revision of the classification guidelines doesn't mean people diagnosed with such seizures actually did not have seizures or that they didn't have the characteristics described by the definition of that term. Merely, that some academics and clinicians have agreed that the old term had problems and some newer term is more useful to them. This issue is already covered by the article and so I see no reason to add or change the text in this regard. -- Colin°^Talk 12:43, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Colin, I actually fully agree with you about the Asperger/Asperger's distinction; consider that a typo. In fact, part of my edits were specifically to address the difference between AP and AS, which is unfortunately muddied in several parts of this article as it stands. Other than that, I think the debate got considerably out of hand, with considerable misunderstandings (on both sides). I now see in retrospect that it was wrong to engage on such a prolonged scale regardless of the validity of the edits, and without enough level headed third parties such as yourself—many of my original points have been obscured by wild accusations about editing practises, bad faith assumptions and topics shifting too fast from one to another.

Regarding the use of "popularization," I would refer you to the 1998 work Asperger Syndrome or High-Functioning Autism? and Eric Schopler's chapter "Premature Popularization of Asperger Syndrome," where the author talks of "50 years of controversy," that reached its peak after Wing's 1981 paper; this work fulfils any reference criteria nessessary. Sans culottes 14:49, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Progress: a source for the term "popularization" and a basis for the dates you want to include. Please provide us with more complete citation information, or a quote, or a link, or a revised text proposal incorporating sources, so discussion can move forward. I found this and this, but not all of it is available via google books. Which pages would you like us to review? The Schopler chapter doesn't seem to be available on preview, but by looking at the Table of Contents, I suspect (not sure) that if we are to use Schopler text and maintain NPOV, we may need to also consult the McPartland/Kim chapter. Also, since that's a 1998 book, and we already (rightly) use more recent high-quality sources (see WP:MEDRS), the book might be most useful in expanding History text. Again, a concrete proposal of what you want the text to say, backed by quotes from this book here on talk (since we can't preview the book), will help. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:48, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Sample

Featured articles are (hopefully) carefully vetted, must conform with WP:WIAFA, and should use the highest quality most recent secondary reviews compliant with WP:MEDRS-- that is, the wording is watched more carefully than in perhaps other articles, and WP:OWN#Featured articles applies. To shorten discussions of proposed changes, this model might help:

The article (link to permadiff of current version) currently says:

X, Y and Z

This source (include full citation, with PMID, DOI, or ISBN and full text if it's available or a google books link if available) says:

A, B and C

I propose modifying the above text to say:

blah, blah, blah,PMID number, etc

Please remember to focus on content and sources, not editors; that proposed text should be fully supported by sources and added to the correct section (see WP:MEDMOS); and that if other editors don't have access to the sources, quotes are helpful. Following this example and avoiding personalization may help the rest of us understand proposals more quickly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 18 April 2012 (UTC)

Request quote

For these changes, which part of which one of those sources makes the connection that the current diagnosis is controversial? We have to take care with WP:SYN. Also, please take care with uppercase conventions; I've corrected the names to lower case. In anticipation that changes to this artilce will accelerate as May 2013 approaches, we need to take care that the article doesn't deteriorate with respect to WP:WIAFA. Also, please review WP:OWN#Featured articles, and refrain from making controversial edits when the topic is under discussion and consensus has not formed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The edit isn't contentious; it has been established that AS is controversial, and not mentioning that while in the same breath describing the changes to the diagnostic criteria as such is not WP:NPOV. Sans culottes 21:20, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Is it established by those sources in that context? If not, OR, SYN. Do those sources make that connection or not? If not, find a source that says that and discuss where to add it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I can add addtional references if you like? They will be from books and journal articles rather than CNN and the NYT, like the sources already there. Sans culottes 21:24, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

IF you add an additional reference, and want to retain that text, it should be one that makes the connection your edit made; otherwise, it's classic WP:SYN, joining together sources to synthesize a conclusion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:32, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Well the source says that, and discusses both sides of the debate. I can remove it if you wish. Sans culottes 21:46, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

You've added a 1998 source, [10] which was before the proposed changes to DSM-5, so it's unlikely that source is making the connection the text is making. Once again, please provide a quote here that backs the entirety of the text (that is, no synthesis), and please discuss your edits and gain consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

The diagnosis of Asperger syndrome existed—and was controversial—before the proposed changes… Sans culottes 21:49, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Better source now, but we still need a quote to see that we don't have synthesis. [11] Would you please put some text here that backs the conclusion, since the text is not freely available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:26, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

"some researchers have called for its [AS] elimination from the forthcoming DSM V. This report argues for a modification of its diagnostic criteria … Few childhood-onset psychiatric disorders have generated as much controversy as Asperger syndrome (AS)"—Ghaziuddin (2010), p. 1146

Sans culottes 22:33, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

That looks good to me, so I've removed the tag. And, since we now have that recent, high-quality source (which we didn't have when whomever added the two laypress sources), I've also removed the CNN source-- if anyone disagrees, it can be reinstated, but we shouldn't be sourcing to the laypress when the issue is now covered in higher quality sources. But, we do have to take care that Ghaziuddin is an opinion piece, valid to document the DSM-5 controversy since the laypress already has ... but I've flagged this use of Ghaziuddin, that was inline tagged long ago, as it needs to be upgraded to a better review for that text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:55, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Image

• - User_talk:SandyGeorgia#Asperger_syndrome

On my talk, although please continue discussion here: [12] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:52, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Allright, now that I've understood the background of the removed image, I don't see consensus for it. Discussion? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:53, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I'm sure the poor kid in the picture wishes to avoid the playground beatings that will result from being the "Aspie kid on Wikipedia," so I'd say remove (due to the diagnostic issues with AS that we have discussed ad nauseum, he might not even be considered to have a mental disorder in the near future) . Sans culottes 21:58, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't think it'd be easy to identify the boy since he is at least five years older now and possibly more (since we don't know if the photo was new when it was uploaded). If this image can't be saved perhaps someone could be kind enough to upload a childhood photo of themselves doing some stereotypically AS-like activity, even if they don't actually have AS. ☮Soap☮ 22:17, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

We discussed it at length when the boy's father took the picture here, and he took it (new) for this article, five years ago, so yes-- the boy would be now the age in the picture plus five. IF memory serves, he was nine then-- someone should look for the discussion in talk archives. Good idea-- any volunteers for a pic? I have a great picture of my naked butt in the air, sucking my thumb, as a baby ...  :/ NOT! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

I read an article on Gawker the other day about books being produced culled from "high quality Wikipedia articles" (an oxymoron if ever I heard one), such as this one. I imagine the cover image is from Wikipedia or the Creative Commons and might portray an AS diagnosed kid. Failing that, this equally excellent Wikipedia based book might have an appropriate image. Sans culottes 23:30, 19 April 2012 (UTC)

Nope ... I ordered one of those books once just to see how they were dealing with copyright and licensing issues, and they're too cheap to use pictures. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:25, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

I have been considering the details about this picture that Sandy informed me of after I removed the pic and searching the web looking at pics that are used and the picture doesn't stand out as far from the general type of portrayal of the condition and as the picture was uploaded with discussion and consideration for the subjects identity , my major concern of personality rights and the picture subject being able to give permission have been addressed in main and I am replacing the picture where it was prior to my edit - In addition this discussion has been open for a few days and no major policy objections have been presented. - regards - Youreallycan 21:10, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

The other image, FMRI; does that actually portray someone with an ASD, or specially AS? Could very well be misleading. Sans culottes 21:19, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Hi Sc. I haven't investigated the other picture, my knowledge of medical conditions is far lower than my copyright understanding. Best wishes to you. - Youreallycan 21:25, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Thanks, YRC; it was most kind of you to revisit and reconsider. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:48, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

No problemo - fluidity of opinion through reassessment of updated information is one of my better traits, don't get me started on the dark side. Thanks to you for all your contributions - Youreallycan 22:16, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Seizures

This text doesn't belong in the lead. I suspect it belongs in "Diagnosis", but am unsure. Also, "above normal rates" is not optimal phrasing. San culottes, another request for you to discuss edits on talk, and to review WP:LEAD; the lead should summarize the article, following the guidance at that page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:15, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

If I had to discuss every edit in minute detail, no new edits would ever be made. And I believe it in fact does belong where it was placed. However, this raises a chance to discuss an interesting point I have noted. Why are seizures not mentioned on the Autism page? Despite the fact that the autism page is far better than this one (and is in some ways a model to replicate), this seems to be a huge omission. Sans culottes 20:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

If all of your edits didn't need correction, I wouldn't be asking you to discuss. The absence of seizures significantly more than the non-autism population is not warranted in the lead IMO, I believe it's a diagnostic issue, and I share your confusion about why it's not mentioned. Colin is the best person to speak to that, as he is quite experienced with seizures and may know the literature-- another reason you might have inquired before adding text to the lead that was not mentioned in the body of the article. The lead summarizes the body of the article; that the text is missing in the body should have led to an inquiry before plopping it into the lead, which was exactly the problem explained to you with your first edits. Further, please review summary style; neither is seizures mentioned at Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome, which warrants discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:29, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Would you stop acting like the article is immutable and sacred? It won't even survive a FA review as it stands, so it might be more productive to stop feeling personally offended by my edits. Sans culottes 20:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Someone who used to edit here years ago spoke very much like you, and the article survived all three FARs. Please focus on content, and refrain from personalizing issues. Also, please avoid making edits that will assure the article won't meet WP:WIAFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

Back to the sock-puppet accusations… while asking not to "personalize issues." Yawn. Sans culottes 21:28, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

I too am disturbed at the number of your contributions that need revising, moving or reverting. Truly, I agree with Sandy - you should err on the side of discussing things here before "being bold". If you think that this article would no longer pass FA review then according to WP:FAR you should first create a new section here and explain point-by-point why you think it wouldn't pass so that we may either allay your fears or fix whatever problems there truly are. If you are not satisfied with the results of that, after two to three weeks (per WP:FAR) then you can go ahead and initiate yet another FAR and explain there which points that you brought up here were not addressed to your satisfaction. But note that many of the contributors here have been around the block many times with FAC and FAR - so you'd be wise to listen to their input before creating a giant ruckus with an actual WP:FAR. SteveBaker (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy. It quite clearly doesn't belong in the lead paragraph. The weight we give to aspects of the topic needs to follow the weight given by our best reliable sources. The absence of seizures is not a diagnostic criterion: a statistical nuance cannot be used to diagnose an individual. The information about rates of epilepsy in AS, if accurate and widely accepted (I don't have that source), belongs in the Epidemiology section. We should add new facts to the body and then decide if the lead summary needs adjusting. Since I'm not aware that it is common, when introducing the subject of AS, to note the statistical relative absence of epilepsy, I'm not persuaded it belongs in the lead, never mind the first paragraph. There are lots of things that are no more common in AS than in normal individuals, and they also don't merit mention in the lead. BTW: epilepsy is mentioned on the Autism page. In big bold letters. In the epidemiology section. And not in the lead. -- Colin°^Talk 07:57, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

I also agree - the lead is already on the heavy side. WP:LEAD says that we can't say anything in the lead that isn't also explained in the body of the article...and even then, because we only have three or four paragraphs for the lead, we can't use it to explain small, subtle or obscure details. It's strictly for "big picture" stuff...and this is most certainly not that. SteveBaker (talk) 13:13, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Citation overkill

Requesting again that San culottes read WP:LEAD. The lead is a summary of the article. Text in the lead does not need to be cited unless it is surprising, is data, a few other circumstances. There is no reason to be loading up the lead with citations to information that is common knowledge, and is already cited in the article; decades do not use apostrophes (WP:MOSDATE); page ranges use WP:ENDASHes; "subsequently" is (almost always) redundant; and Schopler is spelled with a "c".[13] Please discuss your edits on talk so that others don't have to always clean up. You have been asked multiple times to refrain from adding text to the lead that hasn't been discussed and added to the body of the article. By continuing to do so, the article's compliance with WP:WIAFA is jeopardized. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:24, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

At least you are no longer questioning the validity of the references. Is there any particular reason why you removed the International handbook of autism and pervasive developmental disorders? What I mean by that is, do you have an issue with it vis-à-vis the work's bias, neutrality or validity? This represents the most up to date consensus regarding the condition, if anything the article should be aiming to incorporate more from it. The objections here to references seem quite frankly arbitrary. Sans culottes 22:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Ignoring the ongoing sarcasm, the lead here is already overcited, and in trimming them, I chose first to delete those that didn't have free full access-- a rubric we use often because that serves our readers best. Most of the cites aren't needed in the lead at all, and I don't know why so many have crept it. If you think the International handbook has info that should be covered or is missing, please quote it here for those who don't have access. What "objections here to references" are you speaking of? Requirements for citing leads are spelled out on guideline pages; please read them. If you want to add text to the body, please discuss it and gain consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:04, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

To be more specific, the purpose of a reference is to say "Here is proof that what Wikipedia is saying is true". Once proof has been supplied, we may move on. Collecting a bunch of references for a single fact is unnecessary - this isn't like stamp collecting - we don't have to find every single book or article that says that the fact is true. One or two is plenty - and quality by far exceeds quantity. SteveBaker (talk) 17:05, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

The string of references in the lead in this version is as clear an example of trying to prove a point in front of the readers as I have seen in a long while. It is characteristic of POV pushing. Shouting at the reader, with little numbers in square brackets, "look at this fact, go on look, it is really honest to goodness true, and I've got bazillions of sources to prove it, look, look!" Seven citations in a row. This is disruptive childish editing. Stop it now. If a fact needs to be justified in detail then do so on the talk page using the best source or two. Our readers shouldn't have to put up with such games. Nearly always, one citation is sufficient for any given fact. And facts in the lead should be already present in the body. Choose a good source. If several are great, then, as Sandy says, a freely available one is helpful for our readers. Generally, the lead should not need sources that aren't already used for the body. We get the point about Asperger's being new and its value as a diagnosis being questioned. That much was already stated clearly in the article. Can we move on? Colin°^Talk 08:03, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Yes, this is getting rather tiring. I agree, let us move on. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:20, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

Childish in this context seems to mean "editing the article in a way I disapprove of due to my particular opinions." You know what else is characteristic of POV pushing? Keeping the article in one state, not utilising certain valid references (quite deliberately), cherry picking the sources that are used, and going out of the way to rely on older sources that don't represent current consensus (I mean scientific/medical community consensus, not Wikipedia® consensus) because you happen to agree with them. But having said that, other that the general reference issue and the wilful ignoring of aspects of the ICD diagnosis (both of which I have neither the time nor patience to address), the article is largely fine now. Thankfully Dbrodbeck is right, time to move on. Sans culottes 22:54, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

... time to move on. OK, please do; with your sarcasm and provocative posts, you're risking that editors here will just begin to ignore you. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

They largely have anyway (yourself included). Luckily that didn't end up being significant. Sans culottes 17:27, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Genetic category

• This category is fully supported by the sources and the article text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:22, 21 April 2012 (UTC)
  • Agree SteveBaker (talk) 12:58, 23 April 2012 (UTC)
    • The fact that a major claim about AS and the conditions genetic aspects ("AS may have a stronger genetic component than autism") relies on a six year old article by AS advocates from a now defunct journal raises alarm bells. And there are several references here regarding the genetic issues with AS (that is, they are uncertain). But whatever, this is not a big deal. Sans culottes 23:09, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Sources

• Landau, Elizabeth. "Geekiness and autism: Is there a connection?" CNN. April 23, 2012.

WhisperToMe (talk) 06:32, 24 April 2012 (UTC)

This is basically the same article that came out in Wired (magazine) over a decade ago; "The Geek Syndrome."

(For other editors: WP:BITE) Sans culottes 15:05, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Eh? WP:BITE? WhisperToMe is a sysop with a third of a million edits since 2003. Hardly a "newcomer"! SteveBaker (talk) 16:56, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

"newcomer" [to the article]. Calm down dude. Sans culottes 17:21, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 24 May 2012

From the section Epidemiology: "... rates ranging from 0.03 to 4.84 per 1,000, with the ratio of autism to Asperger syndrome ranging from 1.5:1 to 16:1; ...". Is there any reason why we've got two different ratio formats in the same sentence?

The conversions of these two to the other format appear to be "33,333:1 to 206:1" and "58.8 to 400 per 1,000". I'm not sure which format is prefered around here, but I prefer the N/1000 format; 33,333:1 just looks ridiculous. 81.231.245.214 (talk) 20:47, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

I think both formats are the standard in each context: "n per 1000" (or the smallest possible power of 10 that will give a whole number for the 'n') is the standard way of saying how many people have something versus the normal population, and "n to 1" is standard in comparing ratios of symptom prevalence one group to symptom prevalence in another group. I would agree with you if the numbers were measuring two things of the same type, but they're not. ☮Soap☮ 21:43, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Note: The template is for requesting specific changes. Soap's comment indicates it's not neccessary to change the article text (or at least that there's no consensus that there needs to be a change). --Six words (talk) 23:46, 27 May 2012 (UTC)

Stimming

Sometimes people like me, with Asperger Syndrome stim a lot. Stimming can be snapping, clapping, and/or shaking your hands in weird ways. The reason why people stim is that they need input. Not physical input, (i.e. visible items) , but intellectual input.(i.e. actions, activities) Also if they/you do some activities, stimming increases. (but this is temporary) Try to handle stimming in a way which does not upset you or the autistic person. DO NOT say stimming is weird or strange. Try to solve the problem by ignoring, or better, try to stop it in a friendly way. If responding makes them stim more, ignore. -AMS

This more often comes under the larger banner of Stereotypy - of which stimming is a narrower category. We do discuss this briefly in the section under "Restricted and repetitive interests and behavior" - but in a more general manner. Your personal set of symptoms and your suggestions for how others should handle it can't really be a part of this article because we need more solid references. For example, your suggestion as to how people should intervene to stop stimming doesn't seem to be recommended anywhere I've seen. From that perspective, it's really your own original research - which we can't use in our article. If you can research the problem further - perhaps backing up your assertions from some serious medical books or journals - then maybe we can find something more to write about here. SteveBaker (talk) 02:32, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Article In Cantonese?

Is this article available in Cantonese? I need to find a copy of this for a Canton-speaking Chinese person who isn't very fluent in English. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.226.155.231 (talk) 01:06, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It doesn't look like it. We have a Chinese Wikipedia article - but the Cantonese wikipedia only has around 20,000 articles and a ton of those are auto-generated from stuff like databases of US cities. SteveBaker (talk) 01:22, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

May I have a link to the genric Chinese article then plz if one's available? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.226.155.231 (talk) 15:00, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

It would appear to be zh:亞斯伯格症候群 (the full URL of which is http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E4%BA%9E%E6%96%AF%E4%BC%AF%E6%A0%BC%E7%97%87%E5%80%99%E7%BE%A4). It's a surprisingly short article, though ... I expected more on a wiki the size of Zh. The autism article isnt' much longer: http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/%E8%87%AA%E9%96%89%E7%97%87 . Perhaps there's more information somewhere else in the articles linked from within those two. ☮Soap☮ 21:49, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

No, no, no! The Chinese-language article may not be as short as you think.

Remember, traditional Chinese is not a phonetic writing system. One symbol in Chinese can replace an entire word in English and you don't need spaces between words. When I put our English-language version through Google Translate, it came out about four times shorter (in terms of symbol count) when translated into "Chinese (traditional)".

For example, picking one sentence at random from the English version of the article, I started with:

"Training and support of parents, particularly in behavioral techniques to use in the home." (90 characters)

...which Google translates to...

"培訓和家長的支持，尤其是在家裡使用的行為​​技術。" (24 characters)

Admittedly, Google Translate probably does a poor job of translating the meaning - but the number of symbols it generates should be approximately representative of what a good human translation would produce.

SteveBaker (talk) 13:00, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

TY. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 173.226.155.231 (talk) 00:36, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Request for information about AS in another article

I recently saw the film Adam, featuring a lead character with AS. Our article -- Adam (2009 film) -- touches briefly on how the writer/director and the star investigated AS, but includes no information about the accuracy of the on-screen portrayal. Are there any reliable sources giving expert opinion about the extent to which this characterization is realistic, versus the extent to which it was Hollywood fiction aimed at making an interesting story? It would be great if someone knowledgeable about AS could add some such information to the article about the film. JamesMLane t c 10:05, 7 July 2012 (UTC)

Accumulated changes without consensus

See also WP:OWN#Featured articles, WP:WIAFA and WP:CITEVAR

I have reverted several changes that were made without consensus or that did not seem to result in article improvement. I have scanned the talk page and find no indication that consensus was gained to change the citation style.

1. This edit resulted in several choppy, disjointed paragraphs.
2. This edit introduced unnecessary changes including an ly adverb hyphen error.
3. This edit introduced an inferior reflist format.
4. This edit altered an intentional citation choice, to not include citation information in the lead, rather in the body of the article (for many reasons, including ... the lead is a summary of the body of the article and since the lead may change it is not the best place to first cite a source, for example).
5. This edit altered the citation style with no consensus or attempt to gain consensus (and no, I do not support changing to sfn).
6. Reflist|3 is broken on some browsers and is not generally preferred.
7. This edit (and several others) introduced an author format not used in this article (and not preferred in this or in fact in most medical articles, since it results in unnecessary parameters and punctuation).
8. I am not convinced that this edit is an improvement; others may disagree.

Also, a series of edits was made without edit summaries, and edits which were not minor were marked as minor (a bit concerned that no one else corrected these issues, hope folks are still watching this featured article so that it doesn't deteriorate).

So, I have reverted to this version while reinstating a few correct minor changes made along the way; changes to citation formatting should be based on consensus and these changes to the text of a featured article should be discussed to gain consensus to assure that improvement results. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:42, 2 September 2012 (UTC)

People with...

How about a 'notable people with Asperger's syndrome'? 71.139.164.10 (talk) 16:18, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

You'll be pleased to learn that there's a list of people with autism spectrum disorders. You might also be interested in Historical figures sometimes considered autistic (basically, anyone famously eccentric or reclusive). DoctorKubla (talk) 18:44, 3 September 2012 (UTC)

Great! I just wasn't able to find it easily. I think that links to "list of people with autism spectrum disorders" should be in the 'links' section at the bottom of the article; I mean, I didn't know that the "list of people..." even existed. 71.139.164.10 (talk) 19:04, 4 September 2012 (UTC)

I think this is a good idea. A "See Also" section for this page would be welcome. --Mr. Vernon (talk) 01:09, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

No on both counts (See also and Notable individuals) ... Several points:

1. See WP:MEDRS on notable individuals (AS has no equivalent of, for example, Samuel Johnson with Tourette syndrome, Ronald Reagan with Alzheimer's disease, or Michael J. Fox with Parkinson's disease. And, since AS is likely to be written out of DSM-5, it's unlikely it ever will.
2. See WP:LAYOUT and WP:WIAFA; See also sections are unnecessary in fully developed, comprehensive articles (they are sometimes parking places for into that hasn't yet been incorporated into articles, but Featured articles are comprehensive hence rarely have need for a See also section).
3. The information you seek is already linked in hatnotes at the top of each section, and in templates at the end of external links. See also would repeat info already linked.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:51, 5 September 2012 (UTC)

Claim that Asperger's syndrome is the fastest-growing psychiatric diagnosis among children living in affluent Silicon Valley

A "Geek Syndrome" specific to Silicon Valley was most recently reported in a "Wired" magazine article at the link below in 2007. Statistics were provided for a rise in Autism Disorder, but no statistics were available at that point in time for Asperger's syndrome.

http://www.wired.com/wired/archive/9.12/aspergers_pr.html

The claim that Asperger's syndrome was surging was based on increasing prevalence statistics for Autism Disorder, described as "Classic Autism", in that "Wired" article, and a reference to future research to better understand the prevalence of ASD's was made in the article.

While Autism Disorder may be the fastest growing psychiatric diagnosis in Silicon Valley there is no source cited for prevalence data specific to Asperger's syndrome other than a report of a claim made by an author in a book referenced in the "Medscape" source cited in the Wiki article as quoted here:

"Osborne reports that tens of thousands of people have been diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, and it is the fastest-growing psychiatric diagnosis among children living in affluent Silicon Valley."

Since the time of the "Wired" magazine article linked above in 2007, and the source cited in the Wiki Article from Medscape in 2006 quoted above, a study published in 2010, linked and described as quoted below, disputes the claims that have been made, not supported by epidemiological studies, that autism is clustered preferentially around areas rich in IT industry in California. Instead clusters tended to occur in areas where parents were older and educated to a higher level than parents in surrounding areas.

The idea still circulates widely that there is a "Geek Syndrome" in Silicon Valley, that appears to have been supported by anecdotal evidence, rather than epidemiological studies as referenced below that dispute that previous claim. The claim referenced in the subject title/headline section here from the Wiki article on Asperger's syndrome provides credibility to that "Geek Syndrome" claim.

I suggest that there is not enough evidence to support the claim referenced above in the subject title/headline section, and suggest that it should be removed from the Wiki article on Asperger's Syndrome, based on the sourced information provided here.

http://www.nature.com/news/2011/111102/full/479025a.html#B11

"A 2010 analysis of autism diagnoses in California11 did not find that autism clustered preferentially around areas rich in IT industry. Instead, it found that clusters tended to occur in areas where parents were older and educated to a higher level than were parents in surrounding areas. "Virtually all of these clusters were also clusters of higher education," says lead author Irva Hertz-Picciotto, an epidemiologist at the University of California, Davis."

Yellowboy70 (talk) 08:35, 6 October 2012 (UTC)

Hi Yellowboy70! I did not remove the text, because it was sourced, and also because I think a lot of people have heard about this - so instead I added the article you mentioned. Lova Falk talk 16:54, 13 October 2012 (UTC)

Thank you Lova Falk. I agree, and think that was a better edit than what I suggested. Yellowboy70 (talk) 07:03, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

And thank you for telling us about this review, including the sources! Lova Falk talk 07:46, 31 October 2012 (UTC)

In popular culture

Perhaps this section should be added to the article. There is a Belgian movie called "Ben X" about a guy with this syndrome. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.210.107.10 (talk) 12:50, 17 November 2012 (UTC)

Lack of demonstrated empathy

If a lack of demonstrated empathy is so pervasive in Asperger Syndrome, then why is it not part of diagnostic criteria. It isn't even factored in when diagnosing someone with ASD or Asperger Syndrome.--24.7.156.185 (talk) 06:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The two criteria :"a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people (e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)" and "lack of social or emotional reciprocity" have a great deal of overlap with lack of demonstrated empathy. Lova Falk talk 09:50, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

No they do not the first has nothing to do with empathy, and the second has to do with not knowing how to properly respond to emotional situation. They have nothing to do with empathy. Lack of demonstrated empathy is a defining diagnostic characteristic of Antisocial Personality Disorder not Autism. This is made very clear in the DSM IV and V. --24.7.156.185 (talk) 15:03, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I have Asperger syndrome and I don't have much of an issue with empathy, but as AS affects everyone differently there are plenty who do have issues with that. Empathy issues to me seem to be a result of AS, not a symptom of it. Toa Nidhiki05 15:09, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I understand some have issues with empathy, my point wasn't that some don't have issues with it, my point was it wasn't part of the diagnosis and it isn't required for diagnosis. --24.7.156.185 (talk) 15:31, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Correct, but it is a common trait among Aspies. That would be why it is mentioned in the article, but it might be good to differentiate it from the clinical diagnosis. Then again, I'm not the best on policy on this issue. Toa Nidhiki05 15:44, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Could folks please focus the discussion away from personal opinion and anecdote and on to what the sources that are citing our text say? Wikipedia is not a forum and talk pages are for discussing improvements to articles based on reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

This isn't opinion or anecdote it is a FACT that empathy forms no basis in diagnosis. The diagnosis criteria is well established and empathy isn't one of them.--24.7.156.185 (talk) 18:12, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Once again, please use sources, not opinion. What is the sentence you challenge, what source is used, and what is the text in the source? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:21, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

The DSM is my source it isn't an opinion. Also the source sited in the text refers to only cognitive empathy as studies have only focused on cognitive empathy until that point. Later studies like the one bellow have shown no differences in effective empathy between people with Asperger/ASD and those without. http://www.cog.psy.ruhr-uni-bochum.de/papers/2007/Rogers(2007)_JAutismDevDisord.pdf --24.7.156.185 (talk) 18:26, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I'm still working on the pieces (below), but please provide a PMID so the rest of us can more easily examine the source you cite above, specifically, whether it is a primary study or a WP:MEDRS-compliant secondary review (as Baskin is).

Also, as best I can tell, nowhere do we say a lack of empathy is required for the diagnosis, so I don't know what point you're makign. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:16, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

OK, did that myself, too. The study you cite above is PMID 16906462 .... it is a primary source, a study, not a secondary review. Do you have a secondary review that covers that, or any other, empathy research other than the Baskin review discussed below? Please review WP:MEDRS; we don't cite text on Wikipedia to primary studies of 21 subjects unless they are covered by secondary reviews. The Rogers 2007 study of 21 subjects proposed that the topic of empathy in AS should be revisited; has it been revisited in a more recent secondary review than Baskin? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:29, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Baskin on empathy

Allright then, it looks like I'll have to do this myself. The text in question seems to be:

The lack of demonstrated empathy is possibly the most dysfunctional aspect of Asperger syndrome.

It is cited to Baskin, PMID 16596080. I have that source somewhere around here in a file drawer. I'll look it up myself, momentarily. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:39, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

Text excerpts from Baskin JH, Sperber M, Price BH (2006). "Asperger syndrome revisited". Rev Neurol Dis. 3 (1): 1–7. PMID 16596080.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)

• "Asperger syndrome (AS) is a disorder on the continuum of autistic spectrum disorders characterized by a lack of social reciprocity and empathy ... "
• The ability to relate to others is fundamental in communal living. Known anatomical correlates exist for profound lack of empathy related to frontal lobe damage. Price and colleagues presented 2 patients who suffered from disability in the areas of insight, social judgment, and empathy, stemming from early frontal lobe damage.22 Other conditions exhibit a similar absence of empathy, notably schizophrenia and psychopathy. All of these groups suffer from limbicfronto-temporal dysfunction that in each case exacts a great toll on society due to the loss of a reciprocal relationship with others. Clearly there are some differences, especially in psychopaths, but the inability to empathize has significant negative implications for schizophrenic and AS patients.23 Confirmation of lack of empathy was provided by Baron-Cohen and Wheelwright,24 who examined the differences between age-matched controls and Asperger syndrome and high-functioning autism (AS/HFA) individuals, as well as gender differences in both groups. Their definition of empathy included both cognitive and affective components. Given the social impairments inherent in both HFA and AS, it is not surprising that these individuals scored significantly lower on tests of empathic ability.
  • 22. Price B, Daffner K, Stowe R, Mesulam M. The comportmental learning disabilities of early frontal lobe damage. Brain. 1990;113:1383-1393. PMID 2245302
  • 23. Tantam D. Lifelong eccentricity and social isolation II: Asperger’s syndrome or schizoid personality disorder? Br J Psychiatry. 1988;153: 783-791. PMID 3256377
  • 24. Baron-Cohen S, Wheelwright S. The empathy quotient: an investigation of adults with Asperger syndrome or high functioning autism, and normal sex differences. J Autism Dev Disord. 2004; 34:163-175. PMID 15162935

That's it, except for the statement cited, which seems to be a summary of Baskin's opinion from the above studies. Based on all of that, I tend to share IP 24's concern that the statement from Baskin may be a somewhat overstated (and unattributed) opinion ("possibly the most dysfunctional"). Pending further discussion and prose suggestions, I will alter the wording to:

A lack of demonstrated empathy has a significant impact on aspects of communal living for persons with Asperger syndrome.

Other than that, we are making no statements about empathy as required for the diagnosis, so I don't know what IP 24's concerns are in that area. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

These recent secondary sources seem to confirm that a lack of empathy occurs commonly in AS, and medication has been proposed for this autistic deficit. These references may be of interest to editors here. The nature of the lack of empathy is different from that which occurs in anti-social personality disorder.--MrADHD | T@1k? 23:18, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

[This] is not a review, but I work in child psychiatry and we are starting to look at AS (and actually, autism) and empathy in this way: "Results suggested that while individuals with AS are impaired in cognitive empathy, they do not differ from controls in emotional empathy." One of the problems for individuals with AS is that they don't always understand what is going on in other persons and in those situations, naturally, don't show empathy. And, just as MrADHD says, the nature of the lack of empathy is different from that which occurs in anti-social personality disorder - because in the latter, the individual does understand, but doesn't feel it. This is the way we're thinking, but, as I said, unfortunately I don't have a good source. Lova Falk talk 09:38, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for the sources! On to proposed text additions. The two primary studies (IP 24's above and Lova Falk's here) both are old enough now that they should have been covered in secondary reviews-- possibly those listed by MrADHD. Given their age, if they haven't been covered in secondary reviews, that says something.

Can anyone access the full text of MrADHD's more recent secondary sources? If either of those reviews support it, it seems to me that we may want to add one or two sentences explaining that this lack of empathy in AS pertains to cognitive rather than emotional empathy, and differs from the lack of empathy in other conditions, such as <blah, blah> ... Can anyone locate text in those secondary reviews supporting such a sentence? If so, please post the relevant excerpts here (I don't have journal access to full text).

Separately, when considering changes like this, we should keep May 2013 in mind; do we need to make any related additions to other articles, considering pending changes in DSM? We should be on the lookout for that in all discussions here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:17, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

This is an elaborate discussion of the cognitive vs emotional empathy hypothesis. I am very tired and the last week before the holidays will be a really tough week at work, and I probably will only have energy for some "editing-light" and not for really looking into if we can use this article as a source. About the pending changes in DSM, the article here is about autism and empathy, so I guess it won't be a problem to transfer it or copy it into a future article of autism defined by DSM-5. Lova Falk talk 19:39, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

That doesn't seem to be indexed in PubMed; since this is a Featured article, the highest quality recent secondary reviews should be consulted (well, actually that should be the case in all articles, but if FAs breach that, they may not meet FA standards). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:24, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Another issue

OK, this can of worms has been troubling me since I discovered it yesterday, but it has to be dealt with, so here goes. I spent longer than necessary yesterday trying to track down the information in the Baskin article, because I discovered that the sentence

The lack of demonstrated empathy is possibly the most dysfunctional aspect of Asperger syndrome.

was direct text taken from the Baskin article. It was not in quotes and it was not attributed to Baskin. (In other words, it was plagiarism.) I spent a long time trying to figure out how that happened, eventually finding that I first inserted that text as an attributed quote from Baskin: [14] There were a lot of tussels on this article in 2007 and 2008, rapid back-and-forth editing involving some edit wars, two FARs, and an arbcase. The quote marks with the proper attribution got dropped along the way by another editor, and all of the other editors who were most active during the 2007/8 rewrite are now gone. I cannot say that anyone directly and knowingly plagiarized, because there were multiple steps and multiple editors involved in changing what started out as my directly quoted and attributed text, but nonetheless, someone back then didn't understand that citing a source doesn't mean we can drop quote marks and attribution. So, the rest of the article may need to be checked for plagiarism (most likely to Baskin, and the McPartland Klin articles); I tend to overquote to avoid plagiarism, and others probably were trying to address my overquoting. <sigh> I have both of those sources, but would not be able to do this work until after the holidays. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:30, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Change proposed

I would like to propose that "lack of demonstrated empathy" be changed to something else, such as "lack of social reciprocity", since that is part of the cited source. In light of the recent school shooting and the shooter being widely reported as having Asperger's, I think it would be a good idea to have some sensitivity to the feared backlash on people on the autism spectrum. The problem is that the semantics of the word "empathy" are typically erroneously associated with caring about others, which it does not mean at all. Sociopaths usually have well developed empathy and use it deviously to their advantage. Empathy simply means awareness of others' feelings, not having no concern for others' feelings. Here are two possible sources from which to draw on this topic:

http://www.scn.org/autistics/empathy.html

http://m.utsandiego.com/news/2012/dec/18/tp-aspergers-syndrome-community-fears-backlash/

http://psychcentral.com/lib/2011/debunking-6-myths-about-asperger-syndrome/all/1/ 71.60.83.37 (talk) 18:50, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

As discussed above, "lack of demonstrated empathy" is specifically mentioned in numerous high quality recent secondary reviews (the kinds of sources used in medical articles). We don't use the lay press or advocacy organizations to refute consensus of the highest quality sources. Also, you seem to be missing the "demonstrated" part. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 20 December 2012 (UTC)

Time for a revisit to this article

So now that as of December 1st the American Psychiatric Association has dropped Asperger's Syndrome (it is no longer a valid diagnoses) to take effect immediately but printed in May in the new Diagnostic and Statistical Manual version 5, this article should be re-written to reflect the condition as a historical event. Asperger's Syndrome is no more it is just Autism and what was once known as "Autism Spectrum Disorders" (note the s at the end) is now "Autism Spectrum Disorder" (singular with no s at end), one disorder with a range of effect according to the APA. The World Health Organization may follow with their definition and the APA decision from what I've seen affects the UK and possibly Europe as well though I haven't been able to verify that yet due to the fact the decision was made so recently. What I haven't found listed is if PDD-NOS has also been removed but the name change to "Autism Spectrum Disorder" leads me to think that it has as well, but it isn't a concern for this particular article. However, this is Wikipedia and this doesn't affect all countries (though likely soon will), so how do we proceed, leaving it unchanged would be inaccurate but changing it for worldwide may be not accurate either, I am not sure how to proceed thus I will not at this time attempt to address it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.65.86.34 (talk) 04:05, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Reflecting the change, while maintaining FA standards, will require a collaborative effort, and I suggest we proceed in sandbox. We also should not use news reports as our basis for the update, and since Wikipedia is not a crystal ball, we shouldn't speculate about what likely will happen unless high quality sources discuss that. I will ping WT:MED to see if there is interest in working in sandbox, but I would not be in favor or working in a way that will jeapordize the featured status of this article, by piecemeal updating. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

Regarding this change, Asperger's dropped from revised diagnosis manual. There is no speculation. It already happened. Mlbncsga (talk) 21:59, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

May is not now. I agree with SandyGeorgia, let's take this slowly and do a good job so this article stays as an FA. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:33, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

And when we do globally update the article (to account for past tense, etc), let's not cite a medical article to the lay press, much less to Newsday! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:37, 3 December 2012 (UTC)

What I think the unsigned original poster and Mlbncsga (if they are separate users) are saying is that the decision is effective immediately for all new diagnoses (effectively, anything within DSM-IV in opposition to the new decisions is immediately nullified), regardless of the printing date of these changes within the new DSM in May. In other words, it doesn't matter if DSM-V gets printed in 3033 CE, the changes are in effect now.

I am not sure if this "effective immediately" is actually the case, however, there is a not-so-vague memory in my mind of reading this point in the decision, so the above user(s) may be correct in it being effective immediately, not to wait for the printing in May. — al-Shimoni (talk) 04:39, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Follow-up: I took a quick glance/skim and did not see when it takes effect. I followed with a quick google for it and effective date, and the news article seem to agree it takes effect upon publishing of DSM-V contra to the original poster, Mlb(something), and my vagueish memory of reading something along those lines. — al-Shimoni (talk) 05:06, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Please read this from NHS Choices. NHS Choices a UK service that provides analysis of press (and press-releases) by experts for a lay audience in the UK. The actual APA press release is here. The press release says "Autism spectrum disorder: The criteria will incorporate several diagnoses from DSM-IV including autistic disorder, Asperger’s disorder, childhood disintegrative disorder, and pervasive developmental disorder (not otherwise specified), into the diagnosis of autism spectrum disorder for DSM-5 to help more accurately and consistently diagnose children with autism." The NHS Choices analysis says this will have little impact on the UK in the short-term, as we follow the WHO classification system, and have used the term "autistic spectrum disorder" already for many years. But even in the long-term, they claim the effect of the change is "difficult to predict". The APA has not made Asperger syndrome disappear. Those diagnosed with Asperger's have exactly the same issues as they did last year and will have next year. This is just a change to a classification system; the merging of categories. It is interesting in that it accepts that Asperger's probably doesn't have a clearly distinct cause or treatment to other disorders on the spectrum, weakening its value as a separate diagnosis.

The NHS Choices analysis claims this will not come into effect, even in the US, until the publication in May next year. Perhaps folk have other high quality sources that claim differently. An encyclopaedia does not take the lead wrt terminology and certainly not wrt medical classifications. It seems to me bizarre that Wikipedia should be more "up-to-date" than the DSM publication it claims to be following. The NHS Choices article concludes: "the new version of the DSM may have long-term healthcare, as well as cultural and political, implications that are impossible to predict." Colin°^Talk 20:12, 4 December 2012 (UTC)

Extended commentary, unrelated to sources or article improvement
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This change will affect thousands of families and their children worldwide. Parents of children who have Asperger's are fearful that their children will no longer be eligible for special services. However, experts are saying that the revision will not affect children's educational services. Sean P. O'Sullivan (talk) 02:38, 6 December 2012 (UTC) While I am sympathetic to the parents who are fearful, it is wrong to stigmatize children who might be shy, unathletic, and clumsy in their social skills with a disorder that I think does not exist. Calling it a very mild form of "autistic spectrum disorder" might be a step in the right direction, but then again maybe the whole diagnosis syndrome should be discarded. Plus with all these bogus alarmist reports of rising autism levels, I think there is a tremendous amount of disinformation and hysteria which is not really being remedied. JonErber (talk) 13:47, 8 December 2012 (UTC) That you think it does not exist is really not important. What anyone thinks is not that important, we use sources. Please, as well, read WP:FORUM. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:15, 8 December 2012 (UTC) I was going to give up a complaint about your lack of civility. Please do not reply to me again. I believe I have the right to ask you. I am fairly certain there is a rule about stalking. You are stalking me and this is harassment.JonErber (talk) 18:10, 8 December 2012 (UTC) Dbrodbeck has followed this and related articles for quite some time, so the "stalking" allegation doesn't fit. And his response is not uncivil; please see WP:TALK, confine discussion on this page to that related to how the article can be improved based on reliable sources, and please give WP:FORUM a review along with the information given you previously at the Help Desk. If you have further commentary about individuals, that can go on user talk pages. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:49, 8 December 2012 (UTC) Please block my wikipedia account if you want to. It is interesting that wikipedia would consider a man who called users on the Peter Duesberg "crackpots" and mocked me on that page would have no action taken. He knows I considered filing abuse claims yet he follows me here and that is fine. Yet you give me instructions. Wikipedia has no credibility any more. You are just like some member of the Soviet politburo imposing your dogamatic and rigid view and expelling any heretics. What a piece of sh !t wikipedia has become. — Preceding unsigned comment added by JonErber (talk • contribs) 19:32, 8 December 2012 (UTC) No go ahead, file your 'abuse claims', I truly welcome it. I have been editing this page and others along these lines since 2006. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:57, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of confusion in the categories here. The May 2013 date is about the economics of a diagnosis. In so far as the science/medicine can be separated from the economics, politics, and social issues, it should be treated separately, imho. I do not understand why the fact that the diagnosis is depreciated is not one of the most important parts of the article. It should be included in the lead, not buried (arguably) in "Classification". The questionable utility of the diagnosis is important. (Probably so is the controversy, too). Rampant overdiagnosis is pretty important, I would think that most would agree?173.189.79.30 (talk) 23:25, 12 January 2013 (UTC) I agree with you. While some pages on wikipedia are open to free and open debate, articles about medical and psychiatric topics must conform to the gospel of the medical orthodoxy and no dissent can be tolerated from "reliable sources". These reliable sources are treated as if they are sacrosanct and any one who dissents is a heretic.JonErber (talk) 14:13, 14 January 2013 (UTC)

Broken reference

The internal reference "Asperger syndrome and interpersonal relationships" in the section "Social interaction" refers to a wiki page that was merged, and as a consequence redirects to the page start instead of the relevant section. The correct reference should be http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sociological_and_cultural_aspects_of_autism#Asperger_syndrome_and_interpersonal_relationships . Please correct this. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.177.47.232 (talk) 12:57, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Fixed, thanks. (But if anyone understands how to use anchors-- I don't-- the anchor should be placed in Sociological and cultural aspects of autism in case that section name changes.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:03, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Done. Is this what you had in mind? --Florian Blaschke (talk) 18:47, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

No, I was looking to use an anchor, lest the redirect changes again. I don't know how to use anchors. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:28, 22 December 2012 (UTC)

Multiple

I removed several edits to restore accurate content or style:

• This edit removes sourced text with a claim that the text misrepresents the source. To my knowledge, it does not; please clarify.
• This edit alters citation style; citations within Featured articles must be consistent, and the style here consistently uses ISO dates on retrieval.
• This edit adds links already present in the article; see WP:OVERLINK.
• The next edit linked case report, but we already had case study linked. Problem-- one of those articles needs to be merged to the other, I noticed WT:MED, and linked on first occurrence to case report, which seems to be in better shape than case study.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:21, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

I removed a preliminary study tagged since April 2012. [15] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 27 December 2012 (UTC)

Genetics

In Paragraph 3: "Although research suggests..." Suggested change:

"Although some researchers believe..." The original is a quote taken verbatim from autism-part2.pdf as found at wpanet.org. The evidence given there is only empirical. The "doi" reference is a dead link.

Googling Asperger "Although research suggests" brings two reseach papers along with many sites containing the quote "... Although research suggests the likelihood of a genetic basis, there is no ..." Unfortunately I have not found the original research to which they refer. Pendare (talk) 09:17, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

I am not in favor of this change. I don't have access to the source either, but if you look at Autism_spectrum#Genetic_risk_factors, research does suggest the likelihood of a genetic basis. Lova Falk talk 10:25, 29 December 2012 (UTC)

Need for a wider view

I would just like to point out, regarding the proposed changes in DSM-5 that the 'American diagnostic and statistical manual' is not the final authority on mental illness - in particular it is, as it says, 'American', and other diagnostic criteria are available. Hence this article should not be re-written just because of a change in DSM. More the views of countries like China, Europe and the UK need to be reflected fairly. An article about AS is not, in the end, about diagnostic criteria, let alone one country, it should be about the totality of facts surrounding the term. I also think that statements about whether AS is a 'neurodevelopmental' disorder, and a genetically determined disorder, need to be changed, as discoveries are ongoing and views are changing rapidly. For example, in 'Nature' 17th Jan 1013 p327 I read, "research has shown unequivocally that ASD is largely a genetic disorder". I'm not sure I agree with that, but a paper on translational causes of autistic behaviours in that copy (p411) adds to the evidence. I believe many experts are moving towards the idea of a spectrum for each trait rather than traits as caused by a 'disease', a view championed by UK Prof. Richard Bentall in his books, where he backs this view with statistical analysis showing that traits cluster better than overall labels for supposed diseases diagnosed 'statistically'. I would also like to point out that some 'Aspies' believe they have too much empathy - are unusually sensitive to the effects of empathy, and cannot act on empathy in the 'normal' ways, perhaps because such ways do not stand up to the rational analysis at which they excel - they will not 'suck up'. Statements about empathy and understanding need to be made with more regard for this fact, which is not reflected in stereotyped writings on the subject that may just perpetuate accepted myths. -Lindosland (talk) 15:51, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

On the empathy stuff, you will need to find references. Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:43, 26 January 2013 (UTC)

You can check Empathy and see if you can use some of the things that are written there. Lova Falk talk 14:01, 27 January 2013 (UTC)

The mention of "A lack of demonstrated empathy" can lead to misconceptions. There is a common but unfortunate misconception that persons with Aspergers do not feel empathy. This article speaks of a lack "demonstrated" empathy, and a reader may believe the article is speaking of a lack of empathy itself. I think this sentence should be reworded to convey more clearly that persons with Aspergers may in some cases have difficulty expressing empathy, they still possess empathy.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ste11aeres (talk • contribs)

Hi Ste11aeres and welcome to Wikipedia. If you want to add or change something to this article, you need WP:reliable sources, and not just ordinary reliable sources, but the extra strict reliable sources for medicine articles. It is of vital importance to respect secondary sources and summarize scientific consensus. So the first thing to do is to find a source of this high quality - then you can make your change. Unfortunately, I suspect there is no scientific consensus that individuals with Aspergers only have difficulty expressing empathy, and only in some cases. But you may know more than I do. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 08:34, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

I was reading the empathy article (as Lova Falk suggested), and found the sentence: "Rogers' research, following the distinction between cognitive empathy and affective empathy, suggests that people with Asperger syndrome have less ability to ascertain others' feelings (in terms of theory of mind), but demonstrate equal empathy when they are aware of others' states of mind (in terms of affect)." This isn't quite what either of the above posters were getting at, but I feel it's something that could be mentioned in this article. The source cited is this paper, published in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, which corroborates the claim made in the article: "Our data would suggest that when individuals with AS are given the information that allows them to understand the point of view of others, they have as much concern and compassion as unaffected individuals" (p. 713). I assume this journal is considered a high-quality source (because it's already cited numerous times in this article), and while I accept that it may not represent scientific consensus, I think it's still worth a mention. DoctorKubla (talk) 09:10, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Rogers' research suggests - that word is a problem though. But this could be mentioned as a hypothesis, a theory.Lova Falk talk 09:50, 10 February 2013 (UTC)

Aspergers and Friendship

I added a section pertainging to Autism Spectrum disorders from the Wilkipedia page on Friendship.This addition filled in a needed gap, by affirming the possibilities of the formation and maintenance of friendships for people with Aspergers, while giving information on the qualities often marking those friendships. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rivka3 (talk • contribs) 05:46, 13 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Ritva! Your text was based on a primary source. I started to edit the text, but then I remembered that this article is a Featured article, and that we should discuss all major changes on the talk page first - so we won't lose this qualification.

So here it comes:

Proposed addition to Section social interaction:

Research suggests that individuals with AS have a strong desire for friendship, although there are variations in the level of social functioning of children and adolescents with AS. Some individuals develop positive and sustained relationships, whereas other do not manage to develop deep and intimate friendships. Friendships of children with ASD differ in quality and quantity from those of typically developing children because of their difficulties with emotion sharing and theory of mind.

Being very close friends with one individual is crucial for developing social skills necessary for everyday interactions, skills that most children on the autistic spectrum do not have. Also, it is shown that children with autism spectrum disorder are more likely to be friends with other children who have some sort of a disability, than a typically developing child.

It is shown that a sense of parental attachment aids in the quality of friendships in children with autism spectrum disorder. This sense of attachment with one's parents compensates for the lack of social skills that would otherwise inhibit or drastically affect friendships.

********************************

Please comment! Lova Falk talk 14:32, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Partiality

Hello, I am new here, but I'd like to point that this article lacks colossal volumes of information relative to the "good parts" of the syndrome. It is known that individuals affected by Asperger's have increased cognitive abilities, specially related to those "limited" obcessive interests (which CAN be much wider than the article states), and may surpass a great deal of people on that matter. For instance, an Asperger's in school might be interested by a specific school subject and have more knowledge than anyone else there about that subject, but still not be willing to do "usual" homework about it because of the limited interests. Just saying. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 189.102.163.8 (talk) 13:25, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

You would need WP:MEDRS compliant references, to insert stuch stuff. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:36, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Hi, and welcome to Wikipedia! Please, find some good and reliable sources, be bold and add to the article! Lova Falk talk 13:39, 29 January 2013 (UTC)

Partiality and re rather than de Humanising people out there in the big wide world

On the subject of partiality I feel I would like to say the following. For some this may be beyond the obvious, others beyond the pale and for many they will have no extreme reaction.here it is anyway:

"I would also like to add that it is beyond academic debate that there are people with aspergers, have been people with aspergers, and always will be people with aspergers. We are talking about people who have real lives, many who never see, feel the need, or do need to access 'special' specialists, ie a Aspergers specialist teacher, rather than just a good teacher, or the first mechanic someone recommended you, or the doctor you are registered with. People with this form of neurobiology have lived alongside and in the same times (recessions, world wars, booms, creation of good quality build homes and towns, you might move for your kids to have a better life in etc) as everyone else. They biologically can and therefore do have children, grandchildren, nieces, nephews, great aunts & distant relatives anyone might only need & want to talk to every few years or so. Any or even many of these family members may also have Aspergers. They have partners, and exes. I like, anyone else reading this; have & had crushes and people who just make them smile. They can and therefore do take up roles such as carers, teachers, architects, psychologists; never mind cheesepackers, or martial arts instructors. I've even heard of a family doctor with aspergers. If your find yourself considering your own child and thinking: do they have aspergers?, you may as well also, alongside and at the same time as that ask yourself, do I live through it?, does my really friendly postman or that grumpy retireree next door live with this?

People live their lives, do their chores, go through heaven and hell bringing in the bread and with there kids, appreciate and despoil their environment, and reach and hope to enjoy retirement, neurobiology in this context does not change that, whether those people think in neuro-tyicallese, or neuro-aspergerese.

The only difference is in how a individual, you, me or a third person, processes the world, and what they, with their life experience and starting points consider significant/insignificant, something omnipotent in its applicability and something with no applicability. That's all. Everything else is simple misunderstanding/misassumption of base approaches, feelings & aspirations by us of you, and by you of us."

If someone can think of a way of expressing that which is wiki compliant, you'd be doing me a favour. AP3 10 10/05/2013 — Preceding unsigned comment added by AP3 10 (talk • contribs) 08:43, 10 May 2013 (UTC)

The problem with your argument is that it can be said for people with any kind of mental disability. Yes, some or many people with a certain disorder can be highly functioning (and Aspergers is considered a high functioning disorder) and have great lives but that does not mean it has no bad aspects and particularly bad aspects that can make the individual very unhappy. In some people with Aspbergers, the bad aspects outweigh the good and yes, they do need specialists and special treatments. Far from Aspergers being just a difference it can really be a crippling disability for some. Not everyone with Aspbergers is Temple Grandin or Gary Numan. Yes, Aspbergers is not all bad, but I reject your attempt to portray it as always a gift and that everyone who has it is not hurt by it and needs no treatment or help. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.205.57.121 (talk) 15:06, 28 May 2013 (UTC)

Move history after Epidemiology to follow WP:Medicine standard

Can we please move the history section after Epidemiology to follow WP:Medicine manual of styleSthubbar (talk) 03:12, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

Agree and done. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:19, 26 March 2013 (UTC)

General readability

I'd like to mention that in general, I find the article difficult to read. As someone with very limited knowledge of the terminology used in the psychiatric field, I find that the article quickly loses itself in this terminology and seems to be written by and for people already familiar with the terms and similar disorders. In my humble opinion, it could use some rewriting overall to become a bit more accessible to the average Wikipedia visitor, to more clearly explain what this disorder is about. Wolfbeast (talk) 01:21, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Yes, very filled with jargon. I've never managed to slog through it myself. But I don't think it's meant for the general reader. Couldn't possibly be, as there are other sources that are much more understandable. It's geared to the medical professional, not the average person looking for information on the subject. Star767 01:35, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

That's not correct. The target audience for Wikipedia's medical articles is the general reader. Medical professionals have many other sources of information. To the extent that the article is incomprehensible to the general reader, it fails to meet its goals. The fact is that writing for the general reader on academic topics is much more difficult than writing at a technical level -- that's why it breaks down so often. Plus there are, unfortunately, some writers who think that writing things that the general reader can understand is somehow condescending. But you shouldn't think that that's what most of us are trying to achieve. Looie496 (talk) 02:07, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Sorry! I meant this particular article only. I understand that it's a talent to write technical info so the general reader can understand it, but this article doesn't succeed at all. It seems to go out of its way to use a more difficult word when a common word would be better. Too bad too, since it would benefit the general reader to understand it (I'm assuming because I'm not willing to slog through it). Star767 02:15, 8 April 2013 (UTC)

Asperger’s in Children

Asperger’s in children in usually discovered when the children enter pre-school or kindergarten. It is noticed when they are interacting with other children. They tend to not pick up on social cues or be able to take turns talking. Another symptom of Asperger’s in is, children tend not to pick up on speech tones for example it’s hard for them to understand jokes and sarcasm. They tend to avoid eye contact with people; it’s extremely awkward for them. They also have slower motor skills. It is harder for them to catch on to riding a bike and catching a ball. A child may have one or two of these symptoms it does not quite mean that they have the syndrome, if they have one or two and have a lot of social issues then they may have it (WebMD 1). — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mherriman32 (talk • contribs) 17:20, 17 April 2013 (UTC) Web MD. "Asperger's Syndrome Symptoms in Children, Teens, Adults." WebMD. WebMD, 03 Jan. 0000. Web. 13 Feb. 2013. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mherriman32 (talk • contribs) 17:26, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Okay, but why have you put this material here? Looie496 (talk) 17:33, 17 April 2013 (UTC)

Edit request on 12 May 2013

Re source 76, the sentence toward the end of the section "Diagnosis" states "Furthermore, there is a predilection for adults to self-diagnose." This sentence should be removed. It references the article: ^ Markel H (2006-04-13). "The trouble with Asperger's syndrome". Medscape Today (WebMD). http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/529208 However, self-diagnosis was not the article's point. The doctor who wrote the article mentioned how medical students tend to self-diagnose, and how the author of the book he is referring to also self-diagnosed. The article was not a study as should be expected from so sweeping a generalization. Rather, the article's point was that "sometimes a quirk is just a quirk"...and was actually a semi book review. 71.226.44.109 (talk) 20:42, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

Agreed. Done - Thanks! --ElHef (Meep?) 04:10, 13 May 2013 (UTC)

Small edit request

Third paragraph, second sentence, please link the word "etiology" to it's corresponding Wiki page. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Agentj42 (talk • contribs)

Done - with this edit. Thank you. Begoon ^talk 02:50, 15 May 2013 (UTC)

Person First Language

I only noticed this in the society and culture section second paragraph: "Autistic people" it is best practice to say "People with Autism" so literally the person goes first. I have not looked to see if this is an issue elsewhere in the article... — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.118.68.72 (talk) 03:51, 20 June 2013 (UTC)

Hi 24.118.68.72 and thank you for your comment. However, there has been criticisms against people-first language, and it is not one of the guidelines of Wikipedia. With friendly regards, Lova Falk talk 08:20, 29 June 2013 (UTC)

Seriously

Seriously, folks, we don't cite medical Featured articles to the Huffington Post, prose is deteriorating, and we don't include raw URLs in any articles. Also, undue text on the test mentioned-- belongs elsewhere. This is a featured article, and such editing will result in its demotion ... is anyone watching this article? I will check back the next time I have a free moment, and consider reverting the whole mess if it is not fixed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 15 July 2013 (UTC)

DSM-V

Someone needs to update this article in regards to the now published DSM-V.

Have been Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 02:06, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Edit request, 2013-08-09

In the "See also" section of the article, there is a link to the article "Friendship". This seems inappropriate. Apparently, it was added along with some content from the article "Friendship", the revision of the link itself being added is http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asperger_syndrome&diff=537998366&oldid=537998296 but it seems that all (some of?) the relevant content was later removed in http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asperger_syndrome&diff=538561120&oldid=538560347 anyhow. Regardless, even if the content had been kept, the link doesn't seem to fit well in the entire article's "See also" section. Thus proposing to remove the link. --89.204.152.54 (talk) 22:51, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

I read up on WP:ERQ, not sure whether this qualifies as "uncontroversial" but might be so, hence here is the template to queue it. --89.204.152.54 (talk) 22:59, 8 August 2013 (UTC)

 Done I removed that inappropriate link, and several more that were already included in the navigational templates. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:34, 9 August 2013 (UTC)