Misplaced Pages

Talk:Asperger syndrome: Difference between revisions

Article snapshot taken from[REDACTED] with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.
Browse history interactively← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisualWikitext
Revision as of 02:09, 19 August 2007 editPoindexter Propellerhead (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users5,122 edits →CeilingCrash← Previous edit Latest revision as of 09:13, 22 January 2025 edit undoHtonl (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Pending changes reviewers35,167 editsm fix permalink in {{Old merge}} 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{talkheader}} {{Talk header}}
{{calm talk}} {{American English}}
{{Article history
{{ArticleHistory
|action1=FAC |action1=FAC
|action1date=June 20, 2004 |action1date=2004-04-10, 17:06:39
|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Asperger's syndrome |action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Asperger's syndrome
|action1result=promoted |action1result=promoted
|action1oldid=4200633 |action1oldid=3178454


|action2=FARC |action2=FARC
|action2date=September 5, 2005 |action2date=September 5, 2005
|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article removal candidates/Asperger's syndrome |action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome/archive1
|action2result=kept |action2result=kept
|action2oldid=22581533 |action2oldid=22581533
Line 16: Line 16:
|action3=FAR |action3=FAR
|action3date=August 1, 2006 |action3date=August 1, 2006
|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome |action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome/archive2
|action3result=kept |action3result=kept
|action3oldid=66837523 |action3oldid=66837523


|action4=FAR
|currentstatus=FA
|action4date=15:01, 24 September 2007
|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome/archive3
|action4result=kept
|action4oldid=159918325

|action5 = FAR
|action5date = 2020-04-25
|action5link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome/archive4
|action5result = demoted
|action5oldid = 951904726

|currentstatus=FFA
|maindate=April 17, 2004 |maindate=April 17, 2004
}} }}
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=B|vital=yes|1=
{{WikiProjectBanners
{{WikiProject Medicine|importance=High|neurology=yes|neurology-imp=High|genetics=yes|genetics-imp=High|selected=yes}}
|1={{WPMED|class=FA|importance=Mid}}
{{WikiProject Neuroscience|importance=High}}
|2={{MedGen|class=FA}}
|3={{WikiProject Psychology|class=FA|importance=High}} {{WikiProject Psychology|importance=High}}
{{WikiProject Disability}}
{{WikiProject Autism|importance=Top}}
}}
{{DSM copyright}}
{{Reliable sources for medical articles}}
{{User:MiszaBot/config
|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
|maxarchivesize = 250K
|counter = 25
|algo = old(90d)
| minthreadstoarchive = 1
| minthreadsleft = 3
|archive = Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive %(counter)d
}}
{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
|target=/Archive index
|mask=/Archive <#>
|leading_zeros=0
|indexhere=yes}}
{{Banner holder |collapsed=yes|1=
{{top 25 report|December 8, 2013|May 9 2021}}
}}
{{Broken anchors|links=
* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Teratogenic agents) is no longer available because it was ] before. <!-- {"title":"Teratogenic agents","appear":{"revid":135538675,"parentid":135512255,"timestamp":"2007-06-03T12:43:49Z","replaced_anchors":{"Teratogenesis and Teratology":"Teratogenesis and teratology","Wilson's 6 Principles":"Wilson's 6 principles","Teratogenic Agents":"Teratogenic agents","Teratogenic Outcomes":"Teratogenic outcomes"},"removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":582749178,"parentid":582748391,"timestamp":"2013-11-22T00:14:29Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} -->
}}
{{Old merge
| otherpage = Autism
| result = not merged
| discuss = Talk:Autism#Proposal to merge Asperger syndrome here
| URL = https://en.wikipedia.org/search/?title=Talk:Autism&oldid=1231109180#Proposal_to_merge_Asperger_syndrome_here
| image = <!-- ] -->
| date = 8 May 2024
}} }}
{{Wikipedians|Aspergian Wikipedians}}
{{V0.5|class=FA|category=Natsci|small=yes}}
{{MedportalSA|small=yes}}
{| class="infobox" width="238px"
|-
! align="center" | <br />]
----
|-
|
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ] - ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
# ]
|}




== Major new research released ==

A team of Autistic and NT doctors, physicians and researchers has just published a new study, "The Nature of Autistic Intelligence." These researchers are hell-bent on revolution within the medical field and apparently (i haven't got the article yet) have - ahem! - scientific studies (remember those!?) indicating the autistic brain has been universally misunderstood in the past.

I want to be careful about advancing my own POV on this issue, i hope we can get an active discussion going once i can get hold of the paper (which i'll put here or something).

Here's an article about the study anyway, it is quite a bombshell :
http://www.news-medical.net/?id=28489

Still no word on shutting CeilingCrash the hell up, word has it the Volkmar group is working on that one ... ] 17:04, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

:Here's the actual study: PMID 17680932 Asperger's isn't mentioned; I believe this could be considered for the ] article. ] (]) 17:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

=== new research shows superior intelligence in autism ===

It will be interesting to see how NT's react to this turning of the tables.

That article I mentioned above detected a cluster of supernormal intelligence
(1/3 landing into "high" as opposed to 5% of the normal population)
across the autistic spectrum, and found rather amusingly that Auties are not stuck at the detail level, rather they can shift rapidly from details to the big picture, while it is NT's who are stuck at the "big picture" level. It goes on to discuss a unique fluidity to autistic thought.

This may spawn a sea-change in the professional view that an Autistic is a defective NT.

One of the team members has gone on to state that Auties are not mind-blind, intention-blind, or anything-blind; they are simply using a different language.

Viva La Revolution.

(CeilingCrash will be insufferable until further notice.) ] 21:28, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

:Not exactly news to all of us, but good to have reliable sources building up. ] 22:57, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

einstien had aspergers,

:The abstract (PMID 17680932) says that the scores of subjects with autism on a particular test (Raven's) were higher than their WISC scores: "Their scores were, on average, 30 percentile points, and in some cases more than 70 percentile points, higher than their scores on the Wechsler scales of intelligence." That is not the same as saying they have superior intelligence; just that one test measures intelligence their intelligence differently than the WISC. If you have the full text of the study, perhaps it says more, but the abstract (at least) doesn't reflect the commentary above. ] (]) 17:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

:The ABC link above mentions, "The average boost in score is 30 points, Mottron says, enough to put someone previously considered mentally retarded into the normal range and the average to gifted status," which again, doesn't say more intelligent than average, just a different measure of intelligence that shows better results than WISC. I'm not sure there's anything earth-shattering here. ] (]) 17:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

== Autistic Vision : new section draft ==

A first swipe at a new section on psychoneurological differences in vision between Aspies and NT's. I am hoping that other editors are '''bold''' in their revisions :

straw man section ----------

Since 1980 there has been a shift in the view of Autism from a psychological to a neuropsychological perspective. Once presumed to be a result of a lack of maternal attention as a child (the "Ice Box Mother" theory), the Autistic spectrum is now understood to be at least partly of genetic origin, and to be associated with fundamental differences in sensory perception, integration, and recall.

Difficulty recognizing faces has long been observed in people on the Autistic spectrum. It was originally proposed that this deficit was due to "weak central coherence" - that Autistics lack the ability to synthesize details into a "big picture", also called a lack of "global processing". It has since been shown that Autistics do not have this deficit and may, in fact, exceed their peers in the ability to move fluidly between global and local scale. This has lead researchers to seek new explanations at the level of sensory perception and integration. Additional visual differences have also been reported. In many of these - contrary to expectation - people on the Autistic spectrum exhibit superior ability. This had led to new diagnostic tools, differentiators between Asperger's, Autism and other disorders, spawned new research into the brain structure of Autistics, and is being used to form new educational programs.



Autistics are better able to identify faces that are upside-down in photographs.

Autistic (including AS) adults and children outperform their peers on the Embedded Image Test, a task where a geometric figure is sought within a complex image.
(this source both reproduces this result and refutes the "central coherence" hypothesis :)
http://www.autismresearchcentre.com/docs/papers/1997_JolliffeBC_embeddedfigures.pdf

Autistic children and adults exhibit superior performance in a test for Visual Search.

Autistic children and adults are less prone to misremember visual information.

Autistic children have inferior performance analyzing a moving visual field.

The Yale Child Study group is conducting research where autistic and AS children are shown video. A laser reflected from their cornea records which areas they are focussed on. Fred Volks is investigating the hypothesis that face-blindness, and difficulty interpreting facial expressions, are a result of different visual processing in the brains of children on the ASD.
http://jp.physoc.org/cgi/content/full/581/3/893
--------------------
(i've got sources for this which i'll insert at the end. i'm sticking to rock solid sources to avoid controversy){{unsigned|CeilingCrash}}

:''(Work with us here cc, SIGN the posts :o) )'' NEAT :o) I once read an ENTIRE readers digest article in the dentist that clearly attributed some aspects of Autism to auditory processing and even mentioned a clinic in Geneva that specialised in auditory retraining...made sense to me, might be interesting to find some ] for that?--] 22:25, 11 August 2007 (UTC)
:: It would be interesting. My guess - and I don't think it's original to me - is that autism is a natural readaptation of neurology; there is brain-space allocated for rapid sensory processing which was an evolutionary advantage as tribal hunter/gatherers. Nature is experimenting with releasing this brain-space for other purposes, resulting in this puzzling mix of deficits and abilities; note the abilities are almost universally advantageous in an industrial society. ] 01:35, 12 August 2007
------------------- pass 2 --------------------------------
Since 1980 there has been a shift in the view of Autism from a psychological to a neuropsychological perspective. Once presumed to be a result of a lack of maternal attention as a child (the "Ice Box Mother" theory), the Autistic spectrum is now understood to be at least partly of genetic origin, and to be associated with fundamental differences in sensory perception, integration, and recall.

Difficulty recognizing faces has long been observed in people on the Autistic spectrum. It was originally proposed that this deficit was due to "weak central coherence" - that Autistics lack the ability to synthesize details into a "big picture", also called a lack of "global processing". It has since been shown that Autistics do not have this deficit and may, in fact, exceed their peers in the ability to move fluidly between global and local scale. This has lead researchers to seek new explanations at the level of sensory perception and integration. Additional visual differences have also been reported. In many of these - contrary to expectation - people on the Autistic spectrum exhibit superior ability. This had led to new diagnostic tools, differentiators between Asperger's, Autism and other disorders, spawned new research into the brain structure of Autistics, and is being used to form new educational programs.



Autistics are better able to identify faces that are upside-down in photographs.

Autistic (including AS) adults and children outperform their peers on the Embedded Image Test, a task where a geometric figure is sought within a complex image.
(this source both reproduces this result and refutes the "central coherence" hypothesis :)
http://www.autismresearchcentre.com/docs/papers/1997_JolliffeBC_embeddedfigures.pdf

Autistic children and adults exhibit superior performance in a test for Visual Search.

Autistic children and adults are less prone to misremember visual information.

Autistic children have inferior performance analyzing a moving visual field.

The Yale Child Study group is conducting research where autistic and AS children are shown video. A laser reflected from their cornea records which areas they are focussed on. Fred Volks is investigating the hypothesis that face-blindness, and difficulty interpreting facial expressions, are a result of different visual processing in the brains of children on the ASD.
http://jp.physoc.org/cgi/content/full/581/3/893

----------- references ------------
http://en.wikipedia.org/Refrigerator_mother

Existing 69




(UTC)

==Scrolling ref box removed ==
Please note ]: Scrolling reference lists should never be used, because of issues with readability, accessibility, printing, and site mirroring. Additionally, it cannot be guaranteed that such reference lists will display properly in all web browsers. ] (]) 02:51, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

== einstien had aspergers ==

there is actually proof that einstien had aspergers, eg. he dident talk directly to people, if he wrote request in a letter and the request did not happen, he got someone else to write a letter, he lost his temper at school, and lots of other things, i think that aspergers is autism in a person with a supergenius IQ

:It is certainly plausible that einstein was Aspie, as was Mozart and others. Special talents (see sources for the opening paragraph) have been undeniably linked to Asperger's; the Poincare Conjecture was recently proved by an Aspie.

:It is very difficult to get the world to recognize the talents of living Aspies,
so I personally don't make much of historical figures since they cannot be tested. DNA tests may change that in the future. CC

== Lead ==
The ] of a featured article should be a compelling, stand-alone summary of the entire article, covering all major topics (treatment, diagnosis, classification, history, etc.) in about four summary paragraphs. Since the lead had become top-heavy, loaded with detail while neglecting coverage of some sections of the article. I moved large chunks of text from the lead to the appropriate sections, and brought back summary statements from the featured version, while also cleaning up some references that had gotten mangled over the past year. ] (]) 05:21, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

: I suggest reverting back, the lede was developed after extensive discussion among a number of editors. The goal was not to ensure featured article status; but rather to give a NPOV overview of Asperger's. Asperger's is very different than other medical issues because it is very recent (1994 in the USA) and very controversial. The current state of knowledge is not going to resemble that of other medical topics. CC ] 19:33, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
The guidelines at ] don't apply only to featured articles; they apply to all articles. The content is all still there, just in appropriate sections so that the lead is a summary. Also—I doubt this need to be said, but anyway—intentionally undermining the featured status of an article would not seem to fall under good faith editing practice on Wiki. ] (]) 20:11, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
:I agree that it should be reverted, that version was worked out over a period of 6 weeks (2 June-17 July, see talk page Archive 11), every part of it was discussed in advance on the talk page in detail, and there was no dissent; I have a hard time thinking of more solidly-documented examples of consensus on Misplaced Pages. I'm not agreeing that it was too top heavy before, but it was 20 lines before, and now it's 21, so if that really is a problem then we don't seem any closer to a solution. If you think it needs major changes, that's fine, but I think they ought to be discussed here beforehand, like we did when writing it. ] 20:31, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
I think you're overstating the consensus, since I also opined in those discussions. The lead should summarize the article; the previous text is still all there, but the previous lead did not even discuss treatment, causes, history, other aspects of the article. It focused almost exclusively on controversial aspects, which is undue weight. ] (]) 20:57, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

:Indeed you did, although I didn't want to bring it up. A day into the discussion you added the following comment before going silent for several weeks:
Comment. I see several mentions above that this article is at FAR or up for FAR. The article is not at WP:FAR; I only mentioned
a list of items that should be addressed so it wouldn't be necessary to bring the article to FAR, as it has deteriorated
significantly since it last passed FAR. You can access the version that passed by clicking on the link in the Article Milestones
at the top of the talk page. Hopefully editors can address the list I gave above, and the article won't need a review.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)
:And I think all agreed with the general sentiment; much of the article had deteriorated into a graceless patchwork of edits. So, in full view of all, we went through the bother of discussing all of the changes, and determining what we could agree was an accurate and balanced treatment of the subject. We wanted to be ], but with contentious subjects the line between boldness and being a ] can be very thin, so we hammered it all out in a collaborative fashion. I haven't looked over the changes in enough detail to be sure whether I have significant objections to the changes in content, but I do object to tossing out weeks of collaboration without prior discussion. ] 22:06, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
''That content did not change''; I moved some of that text from the lead to other parts of the article, and brought back a few broad summarizing statements from the featured version for the lead. You might want to review the text since nothing that was created during those discussions was deleted; it's all there, but the lead now touches on all aspects of the article, rather than focusing only on controversy. It may be a lot to digest at once; perhaps if you view my edits one by one you can tell me if any of them are problematic. PS: sometimes in writing new text, editors may forget to write the ''article'', putting everything into the ''lead'' instead. The lead needs to summarize ''the entire article'', touching on all points, not just controversy; the body can expand on the concepts in more detail. ] (]) 22:39, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

:Ok, I am probably going to get hair ripped out from all sides for this, but apart from the fact that I really, REALLY would like to see:
<blockquote>
It manifests in individual ways and can have both positive and negative effects on a person's life.<ref>{{cite journal|journal=Rev Neurol.|date=], ]|volume=44|issue=Suppl 2|pages=S43-7.|title=Asperger's syndrome, little teachers: special skills.|last=Etchepareborda|first=M.C. |coauthors=Diaz-Lucero A., Pascuale M.J., Abad-Mas L., Ruiz-Andres R.|pmid=17347944|accessdate=2007-07-27}}</ref><ref name=Att1>Tony Attwood, ''The Complete Guide to Asperger's'', Jessica Kingsley Publishers, London, UK., 2007, Page 12. "... the unusual profile of abilities that we define as Asperger's Syndrome has probably been an important and valuable characteristic of our species throughout evolution."</ref><ref name=Baron-Cohen>], Sally Wheelwright, Richard Skinner, Joanne Martin and Emma Clubley , ''Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,'' Vol 31-1, February 2001</ref><ref name=Asperger>Hans Asperger ''Die ‘autischen Psychopathen’ Kindesalter.'' Arch Psychiatrie Nervenkrankheiten 1944;17: 76-136. Pertinent quotations translated to English, in ''; Ioan James, ''Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine'', v.96(1); Jan 2003</ref><ref name=Brasic>Brasic, JR. . eMedicine.com (], ]). Retrieved ] ].
</ref><ref>Treffert, DA. . Wisconsin Medical Society. Retrieved
on ] ].</ref></blockquote>
:go back into the lead (but with less citations, SIX citations looks just a tad defensive :o) ), I honestly cannot see a big deal here. The two versions aren't so very different, and I don't think anybody should be expanding on ANYTHING in the lead really.

:Having said that, I was happy with both versions, and took no part in the discussions, so I should probably shut the feck up at this point, except to point out that, with one tiny edit I just wiped out a nasty bit of negative POV you ALL missed...so maybe, just MAYBE neither version is QUITE perfect yet and a little discussion now could come up with an even better, third, version? --] 23:40, 15 August 2007 (UTC)
::No POV intended: I just grabbed the text from the previous featured version. Yes, the six citations in the second sentence were a bit of overkill. ] (])
::: is the negative POV removed; it was before I moved text around, and is not the result of any of my edits. I'm confused about why that statement is POV, since the diagnosis of AS requires, by definition, A. Qualitative impairment in social interaction, and B. Restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities. ] (]) 03:17, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::I didn't say it was your edit, I just said everybody missed it, including you. Which seems to me to show that there was still work to do on both versions :o) --] 06:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

::::::Yes, there's always been a lot of work remaining to be done here; that's why I posted the long list a few months ago, hoping to avoid yet a third FAR, and I think the article is within featured range now, albeit still needing attention. I'm still missing the POV; DSM-IV, ICD-10, Szatmari and Gillberg Diagnostic Criteria all contain impairment in social interaction and repetitive behaviors. That is, every published criteria contains those features, so why the change from "includes" to "can include"? ] (]) 08:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

:::It's a less negative POV way of saying the same thing, I am just surprised nobody disputed it in either version and see it as a sign (and example) that there is still work to do. --] 10:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC) (late signing, mea culpa!)

-----

: The difference in language is stark and immediate. We went from
::"Asperger syndrome (...) is a condition on the autistic spectrum. It manifests in individual ways and can have both positive and negative effects on
:to
::Asperger syndrome (...) is one of five neurobiological pervasive developmental disorders (PDD), and is characterized by deficiencies in
:The lede was painstakingly balanced between the two schools of thought, pathology versus neurodiversity. To the extent the two versions are similar, there is no reason for the change. To the extent they are different, the difference should be discussed. I would add that Sandy's work on this article has been otherwise an big improvement. ] 03:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
: (The thrust behind this is that there is enormous debate as to the DSM criteria, which are likely to change soon. This is by no means a settled disorder, and everyone from Asperger himself to Attwood has questioned whether this is a disorder at all.)
:That's why there are SIX sources on this point.] 03:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
:::Yet, for some strange reason, the diagnostic confusion and differing criterion was specifically mentioned in the featured version, dropped from the revised version, and added back by me :-) It ''is'' an important point, one that not everyone knows; the new text obscured this issue completely in a lot of controversy that wasn't clearly explained. The basics should be summarized in the lead, and expounded in the text. Basic info is that there are differing diagnostic criterion. Basic info is that AS is one of five PDDs. The controversy is still mentioned, differences in diagnostic criterion had been dropped and was added back. Regarding the rest of my cleanup work, I don't know how the refs got so far out of hand; some of them had actual errors (wrong authors, dead links, etc.) The original text is still present, but now with corrected refs, so if changes are decided upon, pls move text around rather than reverting to the older versions that had messed up refs. ] (]) 03:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

:::On the issue of the six refs, I can't decipher that any one of those refs says what the text says, so it looks like synthesis (original research), backed by a string of refs. Does anyone have a quote from any one of those sources which supports the text? ] (]) 03:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

:: The sources support the text. The points are not synthesized, rather mentioned together with no new thesis advanced.
:: The basic info is that AS is a neurological condition which, at this time, is characterized by controversy first and foremost.
:: Some clinicians are calling for its removal from the DSM, others seek a new set of criteria, yet others propose it be completely recast in terms of neurology. Not a one I am aware of advocates the DSM description as it is now. These are not my POV's, Attwood has written "Is Asperger's a Disorder", Asperger wrote "not all difference is disease", Baron Cohen ... well, you look it up !!! A crisp and dry lede does not befit a topic in such a state of massive flux.
:: Frankly I don't have time to go through all this again. I will NOT go dig out the quotes for you from those references, you can read for yourself, they assert positive aspects of AS. They come from the field's leading authorities, and are very clear.
:: I wanted to expand the article with new neurological research. My question is this - do you feel we are required to re-debate this content with you, months after it was reached by consensus? You will notice we did not undo your work, rather we discussed it. Might you return the courtesy ? This is my final comment on reverting the lede.] 05:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

:::It's not "redebating", remember Misplaced Pages is never forever, but always a work in progress. Maybe Sandy shouldn't have just gone ahead and changed all that without some discussion, BUT, on the other hand, if she sees problems with the lead, and she obviously does, she shouldn't be expected to "shut up and get used to it" she should be able to express and discuss that. --] 06:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
(outdent) CC, any reader can request a quote at any time if sources don't appear to support the text; I don't find that sentence supported by the sources, and would like for someone to provide a supporting quote from one of the journal articles for which I don't have the full text. I suspect it has six sources attached because no single source really supports the text—the appearance is one of synthesis. If you want to reintroduce something like that sentence to the lead, it would be best if the single sentence was strongly supported by a solid reliable source. As it is, the article relies too heavily on self-published and non-reliable sources, but I've never challenged that.

I encourage you to have a look at ], which to my knowledge having followed it for over a year, is not a disputed or rarely followed guideline. Note that I have deleted none of the new or questioned text, even though some of it doesn't appear to be well sourced or based on reliable sources; I've merely moved text around so that the lead conforms more closely to guidelines. The lead should summarize the entire article, should be able to stand-alone and provide an overview of the entire topic, invites the reader to explore the greater detail in the article, and prepares the reader for the detail that follows. If a reader sees nothing but the lead, they should have a good stand-alone overview of all important aspects, of which controversy is one. The lead as written previously was not a summary of the entire article and was not carefully balanced. It contained three paragraphs of detail about controversial aspects of the diagnosis, while completely overlooking most of the rest of the topics. There was no balance; there was no overview. Further, the three paragraphs weren't a summary of text that was discussed elsewhere in the article; they were items only debated in the lead. A reader seeking a basic overview of AS got only controversial aspects, but nothing of the other basics about treatment, diagnosis, history, causes, epidemiology, prognosis, etc. That is not a description of a carefully balanced lead; it describes a lead that not only does not summarize the article, but is biased towards describing controversy. Please read ]. ], for example, is controversial, but its lead contains a bit of history, causes, epidemiology, treatment, prognosis, etc. A ''summary'' of each important section need not be dry; in fact, it should be compelling, but a summary it should be rather than three paragraphs of detail on one issue (controversy) not discussed in greater detail elsewhere in the article. The lead from the featured version was developed over more than a month, with consensus from many involved editors—not the two or three who developed the recent lead. It did not reflect either balance or wide consensus that has been suggested here. At any rate, all of that new text has been preserved in the article, even when not well supported by sources and even when not reflecting wider medical consensus. When developing new text, editors often focus on the lead and forget to write the article, and then summarize all aspects of the article back to the lead. I encourage you to focus on developing those themes within the article (they weren't in the article at all before), and then coming up with single clauses or sentences well supported by sources that can be summarized back to the lead. ] (]) 07:51, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

==Non-reliable sources==
Another problem with using personal websites and other non-reliable self-published sources is that the links may go dead. PubMed sources are not only peer-reviewed; they endure. Does anyone know what became of AS-IF? To begin with, it was a personal webpage, which should never have been used as a source, and now it appears to be dead. Here's a link can anyone access this site and does anyone know if it has been taken down? It was used to source several statements, even though it is not a reliable source, and now it seems to be gone.
* ^ a b c AS-IF.org. Asperger Syndrome Information and features: Definition. Retrieved June 29, 2006.
* ^ AS-IF.org. Asperger Syndrome Information and features: Overlap. Retrieved July 6, 2006.

] (]) 08:09, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

:Don't care whether it is live or not, I just checked it, let's lose it...it isn't even CLOSE to ] (have I been in a COMA or something?). --] 10:34, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

::PS The only appropriate use I can see for a ref like that is as a live link to text quoted from a print ], like using "behavenet" as a hyperlink under a citation to DSM. --] 10:40, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

== Review of the lead ==

I just now read ]'s lead in detail for the first time and have some suggestions for improvement. I wrote this review without looking at the comments in ] above, but in reading those comments now I don't see any reason to change the review. This review is of the .

* The word "neurobiological" is out of place in the lead. The lead talks about "five neurobiological pervasive development disorders", with the implication that some PDDs are not neurobiological. And the word "neurobiological" is weird here. Just remove it. It's not needed.
::Now moot. ] 18:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
::*{{done}} (It was just as out of place where it moved to)--] 18:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
* It's better not to start the lead with PDDs. The lead should start with what Asperger's is: that's what the reader cares about. The lead can mention the broader category later.
::Now moot. ] 18:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
* The first sentence's summary of the characteristics of Asperger's is misleading. talks about impairment in social interaction, not "deficiencies in social and communication skills". The "communication skills" gives a misleading impression that language skills must be lacking.
::Now moot. ] 18:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
:::No, that is still in the classification section. It came from the NIH source, which uses that wording. (The NIH often gets it wrong.) ] (]) 18:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
:::*{{done}}--] 18:48, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
* The first sentence says Asperger's is characterized by "standard language development". This is also incorrect: DSM-IV-TR says only that there be "no clinically significant general delay in language" and it gives examples that allow delay in some areas.
::Now moot. ] 18:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
* The first sentence says Asperger's is characterized by "normal to above normal intelligence", while failing to note that this is by definition: i.e., if there is significant delay in cognitive development, then by definition it is not Asperger's.
::? Not quite sure what to do with this; we are giving the definition, so it should be true by definition. Suggestions, anyone? ] 18:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm stumped as well on how to fix that one; perhaps Eubulides will be encouraged to help with the fix if he pops back in for a look here. ] (]) 18:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
* DSM-IV-TR gives "restrictive, repetitive, and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities" as one of the two main characteristic signs of Asperger's, but the first sentence completely omits this. Ouch!
:*{{done}} ] (]) 21:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
* The second sentence says that Asperger's "can" (but presumably need not) "include repetitive behavior patterns and impairment in social interaction". But the presumption is incorrect. Both signs are characteristic of Asperger's; they are not optional. This claim needs rewording.
{{done}} ] 18:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
* The 3rd sentence "However, Asperger's differs from 'classic' autism in that non-social aspects of intellectual development generally proceed at a normal or accelerated rate." cites a source that does not justify the "normal or accelerated rate" claim. The source merely says there is "no clinically significant delay in cognitive development". The text should be reworded to match the source better.
:*{{done}} ] (]) 21:08, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
* In the second paragraph, "AS is most commonly diagnosed in children but is also found in adults." is confusing and misleading. It makes it sound like AS commonly goes into remission. It should be reworded to make it clear that AS is normally considered to be a lifelong condition.

* The sentence "Assistance for core symptoms of AS consists of therapies that address poor communication skills, obsessive or repetitive routines, and physical clumsiness" gives an overly optimistic appraisal of AS therapies. Please change "address" to "attempt to address".
::Now moot. ] 18:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
:::*{{done}}--] 18:54, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
* Paragraph 3 says "The diagnosis of AS is complicated by the lack of a standard diagnostic screen, and the use of several different screening instruments." This is redundant. If several instruments are used, there is no standard. Please reword to remove the redundancy.
{{done}} ] 18:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
* Paragraph 3 says "The diagnosis of AS is complicated by … the use of several different … sets of diagnostic criteria." This may have been a problem back in the 1990s but I don't see why it is a problem now, since DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10 are now standards and they pretty much agree. This claim should be removed, or if it is still a justifiable claim then it should be sourced.
::? Apparently this needs some clarification; Mayes was asking "Does DSM-IV Asperger's disorder exist?" ''after'' the publication of DSM-IV-TR, ditto for Szatmari's criticisms, and Baron-Cohen's complaints are from 2005. So I guess we need to elaborate on how it is still a problem... ? ] 18:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
* "The exact cause of AS is unknown." This is too brief about causes. It should be expanded to at least one normal-length sentence, and perhaps two or three. The cause of AS is an important and controversial topic. Please drop the word "exact" while you're at it.

* "the prevalence is not firmly established, due partly to the use of differing sets of diagnostic criteria" I am skeptical of the suggestion that circa-1990 disagreements in diagnostic criteria are the most important reason that prevalence is not firmly established. Please remove the claim or provide a recent citation.
::? This sentence does not exist in the current copy, nor can I figure out what circa-1990 cite he might be discussing, the 5 cites I know of on this subject are from 1997-2005. I am thinking that the apparent deletion or rewriting of this sentence has addressed this, but reasonable minds may differ. ] 18:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
* "the broader category of high-functioning autism". The "broader" implies that high-functioning autism is a superset of AS, which is controversial. Perhaps it is meant to imply that more people have HFA than AS? If so, please reword to make this clear, and provide a citation. If not, please just remove the "broader".
{{done}} ] (]) 12:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

* "While neither AS nor HFA have universally accepted definitions" is misleading. AS has a standard definition; HFA does not. This should be made clear.

* "most diagnostic manuals distinguish the two". This is incorrect. Neither DSM-IV-TR nor ICD-10 mentions HFA, so neither standard diagnostic manual distinguishes AS from HFA. I presume this is talking about the distinction between AS and autism, but if so, that should be made clear.
{{done}} Partially reworded already, will adjust a little more momentarily. ] 18:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
* "However, at least one diagnostic guide takes the opposite position; that delayed onset of speech favors a diagnosis of AS." The cited source contradicts this claim. This claim is incorrect; please remove it.
{{done}} The old cite was to a list of all the main diagnostic criteria, so at a glance it did not appear to support it. The problem was fixed by citing a different copy of Gillberg's criteria alone, so that it is easier to see that Gillberg listed delayed speech as one of the diagnostic criteria for AS. ] 18:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
* "Tests have shown no significant difference between patients diagnosed with AS and those diagnosed with HFA. Even among those who feel that the differences between AS and HFA are significant…" This wording gives the mistaken impression that the dissenters against distinguishing AS from autism have reliable scientific evidence but the opinion that they are distinguishable does not. Please reword so that the dispute is presented neutrally.

* There is way too much discussion in the lead about the HFA versus AS controversy. There should be just one or at most two ordinary sentences about this. The rest of the controversy should be summarized in the main text. And even the main text need not cover the controversy in detail, as it can refer to ] for the blow-by-blow.

* Just looking at the table of contents, it is apparent that the lead does not cover the article well. Several topics covered by the table of contents are barely mentioned in the lead. Part of the problem, as I've mentioned above, is that the HFA-AS controversy is way too long: it should be one or two sentences, instead of being over half the lead. Please see ] and ] for example leads that do a much better job of summarizing their articles.

Although I intended to review the whole article I'm afraid that I did not have time to get past the lead, except for one sentence in "Diagnosis", which states "The diagnostic criteria of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual are criticized for being vague and subjective." and gives two citations. The first, Timini 2004, criticizes the DSM criterion for autism, not Asperger's, and so is not relevant here; it should be removed. The second, Ehlers & Gillberg 1993, predates DSM-IV-TR and so cannot be fairly said to criticize it. This sentence should be given citations that support it, or should be removed.

Hope this helps. ] 08:23, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

:This analysis, unfortunately, is symptomatic not only of the lead, but most of the article, whether the text that was developed during the last review or the new text. Very little in this article is truly supported by reliable sources, and the article has a gaping weakness in that it relies very heavily on self-published non-referreed sources like Attwood, Myles, and self-published websites, and even then, text doesn't always accurately reflect the source used. Almost every single sentence in the article is subject to the sorts of problems listed above. The article does not stay true to reliably-sourced published info. The highest quality sources are not used, and text is rarely accurate to the sources used. By correcting the refs, I hope to provide a starting place for reliably-sourced edits. I'm still hoping to avoid another FAR, but this article basically warrants a factually inaccurate tag. ] (]) 08:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

::The crux of the problem, in both the current and previous featured version is, ''This may have been a problem back in the 1990s but I don't see why it is a problem now, since DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10 are now standards and they pretty much agree.'' The article gives undue weight to controversy and self-published theories, while not recognizing or addressing fundamentals of DSM-IV and ICD-10 definitions. Some progress has been made, which brought the article within striking range of featured status and squeaked it by FAR, but there are still undue weight and factual accuracy problems. ] (]) 08:49, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Well, personally, I wouldn't agree about DSM-IV-TR and ICD-10 as the only valid standards in AS, but I AM alarmed at the use of self-published, unreliable and even INACCURATE sources...c'mon guys...sauce for the goose and all that...you wouldn't tolerate those kind of sources from *curebies*, *parents* and *partners* on a POV binge...BECAUSE they are:
:::#Against protocol
:::#Usually full of dodgey rubbish
:::To be honest, I am kinda shocked that they are there. It's all well keeping the article neutral and representative, but Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, which means STRICTLY LIMITED TO VERIFIABLE INFORMATION. Can we straighten this out please? --] 10:29, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

::::Part of the text Eubulides looked at is new (and problematic), but a lot of it is from the last featured version. It's apparent that version shouldn't have passed FAR either. ] (]) 20:52, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

''(have I been in a COMA or something?)'' I don't think you've been in a coma; it's just a difficult balancing act. During the last review, certain changes were forced into the text by a number of editors, apparently without a lot of focus on staying true to reliable sources. Although I'm alarmed at the level of factual inaccuracy Eubulides has found in the lead, if I may be so bold, I suggest for now that someone utilize Eubulides' list to patch up the lead, and then turn focus instead to the article. The article needs to be gone through line by line to replace non-reliable sources, and make sure the text is true to the sources. Once that is done, the lead can be rewritten as a summary. Overfocus on the lead is common in Wiki editing. I have never actually written any of the text, preferring to leave that to the article's regular editors who may be more familiar with the full body of literature. My hope is that by keeping the article clean in terms of references, manual of style, ce, section headings, etc., they will be encouraged to stick true to the sources and make the necessary text corrections; I largely confine my edits to manual of style and reference cleanup, and moving text around for flow and guideline conformance (lead). Unfortunately, in the last go-round, it appears that a lot of the writing was just factually wrong, and less than reliable sources crept in. Eubulides can evaluate that better than I since he has access to the peer-reviewed sources that I don't always have. I'm a bit alarmed at what he has uncovered; the problem is worse than I thought. In the last FAR, I was "assuming good faith" and accepting the text as factual. Since we now know it's not, a section by section review may be needed. Perhaps someone can patch up the lead according to Eubulides' list, and then focus can be on fixing the text, rewriting a new lead at the end? I'm confident regular editors here can do this; I'd still like to avoid a third FAR for this article. ] (]) 15:54, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Personally I cannot see a single thing wrong with using the list Eubulides was kind enough to write out to check the lead. Ok, if people don't agree with any point, they don't agree, and should say so, and we should all discuss that, buyt we should use the list...on my way out the door (and an expensive car crash, but that's OFF Wiki, except, I WISH I'd stuck around and had an edit war instead :o( ) I managed to make two tiny tweaks that changed little in real terms, and crossed two items off the list.

:::I genuinely believe that, at present, we have a group of editors (including Sandy) who are honestly only really interested in producing the best, NPOV article they can, which means we all want the same thing, so we should be co-operating.

:::It may be a hard truth, but if Sandy can pull the citations apart in a friendly way, it would be TWICE as easy for the next POV pusher to pull them apart FAR worse, in a a...er...*less friendly way*. Getting the article right is phase one, getting it unassailable is phase two (and Sandy's core competance). There is no point in having the right words if any idiot with basic literacy skills and his own website can drive a regiment of tanks through the citations. --] 17:00, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

For patching up the basic definition in the lead,
#Here's the emed introduction: Asperger disorder is a form of pervasive developmental disorder characterized by severe persistent impairment in social interactions, repetitive behavior patterns, and restricted interests. Unlike an autistic disorder, no significant delay occurs in language development or cognitive development. Asperger disorder is generally evident in children older than 3 years and primarily occurs in boys.
#Here's the NIH introduction, which is the source of the current wording of "language and communication skills", apparently: AS is an autism spectrum disorder (ASD), one of a distinct group of neurological conditions characterized by a greater or lesser degree of impairment in language and communication skills, as well as repetitive or restrictive patterns of thought and behavior. ] (]) 16:32, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

== Sources in the previous version ==

If you wanna clip the DSM criteria, that's a simple job.

The previous version had the best possible sources : Baron Cohen's Cambridge study (showing superior mathematical ability), Volksmar of the Yale Child Study group saying, not that these kids showed no verbal deficit, but that they "talked before they could walk" - they all post-date the DSM. If you want to give the current state of knowledge, you are not going to find it in the DSM, you are going to find it coming from the verifiable, peer-reviewed publications of the authorities in this field.

Given the apparent reluctance to even read the sources yourselves, i suggest you cut-and-paste the DSM. When the DSM gets around to including the new state of knowledge, you can cut-and-paste that too. Peace out, i'm done here. ] 14:24, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

:I'm not sure what you're suggesting, CC; are you saying to add DSM criterion cut and paste? That's a serious copyvio; we need to paraphrase. I'm also confused about your reference to the previous version, since none of that text has been deleted. ] (]) 16:02, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

::Don't even GO there, my life hasn't recovered yet from the LAST run in with Chad Thompson of the APA. Those guys are SERIOUS about copyright (bemuses the heck out of me, you would have thought they wanted it advertised accurate). While I am here, WHAT is with these "single name" citations...y'know, like "Smith and Jones, pp. 3,046, July, 1066" that are sprouting everywhere, that HAS to STOP...please...($800!!!! And he rammed ME...all I DID was leave a little red paint on his silver car...but "when the justice is gone, there's always force" :o( Prob'ly cost him $10 for cutting fluid... )--] 17:06, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

:::"Although I'm alarmed at the level of factual inaccuracy Eubulides has found in the lead, if I may be so bold, I suggest for now that someone utilize Eubulides' list to patch up the lead, and then turn focus instead to the article." Yes, we knew that the old lead was factually inaccurate, which was why we spent many long hours replacing it. So I have another idea. I'm reverting it to the form which did not contain many of those inaccuracies, and going from there. We put a ton of time into writing that version, and ''did not roll it out until over other editors had had weeks to voice any complaints.'' As for why there were six cites for one sentence, see the talk page archives, there was no trace of OR, rather there was at least two mentions that we were doing that because there is a minority who vehemently insist, contrary to almost every authority on the subject, that AS has no positive traits. As for the changes and the critique:
The word "neurobiological" is out of place in the lead...
It's better not to start the lead with PDDs...
The first sentence's summary of the characteristics of Asperger's is misleading...
The first sentence says Asperger's is characterized by "standard language development"...
The first sentence says Asperger's is characterized by "normal to above normal intelligence", while failing to note that this is
by definition...
The second sentence says that Asperger's "can" (but presumably need not) "include repetitive behavior patterns and impairment in
social interaction". But the presumption is incorrect. Both signs are characteristic of Asperger's; they are not optional...
:::Those are six problems, in the first two sentences alone, which had been eliminated, but now are back.

:::CC has already visited my talk page, demoralized enough that he's washing his hands of this article over the matter. Nobody is going to have ANY interest in fixing the rest of the article if the fixes that have already been made won't stay in place. So I'm reverting this not just because the former version fixed a lot of problems, but because consensus here is fragile and hard-won, and major changes which ignore that are simply too harmful to morale. If someone cannot stand the old version, then I propose that we ask for mediation. ] 21:35, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

==Factual accuracy and sources disputed==
Nice move, Poindexter. By reverting, you wiped out hours of work on cleaning up the references and manual of style issues, merely to change two paragraphs in the lead, which you could have copied back in. If you wanted to restore the prior lead, you could have simply moved those paragraphs back, thereby preserving clean refs. Whatever. This article no longer warrants featured status; it is speculative, uses non-reliable sources, and is not comprehensive. ] (]) 21:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
::I made sure and left in several changes which you made, which were uncontroversial improvements, and am going through the list of edits looking for more of the same; I don't want to throw out the baby with the bathwater. Nor do I think that your criticism of the opening is invalid, not at all! I agree that there were areas which should have been mentioned but weren't, and that emphases are out of kilter. I'm working on it now, and will post my recommendations for changes on the talk page, where others will point out problems with my ideas, I will eat a little crow, and the version which everyone can agree upon will go forward. I think we all appreciate your good intentions, your concern with the article's shortcomings, and want to address the problems which you've brought up. Given a little time I'm sure that we can do it, and do it in such a way that every regular editor of this page is content with the result. Yes, we are quirky about consensus, but quirkiness comes easily to this subject. ] 22:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
:On May 28, 2007 (see archives) I detailed a list of issues with this article. I respected the text developed by editors here after I left that list, merely moving excess detail and controversy from the lead to different sections while bringing back summary text from the featured version which had been deleted from the lead. I spent hours cleaning up the references, and didn't remove any of the new text. The article uses unreliable sources, doesn't accurately reflect sources, the lead is not a summary per ], the lead is biased, the article is not comprehensive, the article is not neutral, and there are other Manual of Style issues now because of the revert. The article is now unstable, with another editor reverting and removing several days of cleanup work (note that I didn't remove any other editors' work). If anyone wants to work on these issues, pls ping me. Regards, ] (]) 22:15, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
::Give us a little time, I'm going over it all as fast as I can. I don't doubt that some happy hybrid version will be the eventual result. ] 22:25, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

:::*Punching air* YES!!!--] 22:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Now here is what I said BEFORE the edit conflict hit:

:C'mon all, I am the one who had the car crash and is sitting here, well oiled with Shiraz, white, shaking and irrational, not yez. This is NOT a good way to carry on.

:Sandy, maybe it was my head (not exactly A1 right now), but it doesn't seem as simple as changing a couple of paras, still, I have done my best to restore the rest of the clean up (that should NEVER have been reverted - PP WHAT were you THINKING???) WITH the changed lead I am sure there are still duplications, I just cannot see them like that *snap fingers*, wish I could.

:Still, maybe the guys felt the same way about you reverting the lead that you felt about them incidentally (no less - that is REALLY heavy dissing where I live) reverting your hard work on the rest?

:The way I see it, this is a VOCATIONAL issue...being the hot head on a hair trigger is MY job...I do it well and reliably, so please, in future, leave that to me? Huh?

:There are obviously issues on both sides, that is why we have ], to iron them out.

:Sandy is a darn good editor, she doesn't invent concerns about sources and accuracy from thin air, I have tried to catch her out myself on that and never even got close, so if she says there are concerns, there are...but on the other hand, the guys here have honestly been at pains to do everything "by the book". That is worth something too...in fact it is worth A LOT...

:I honestly see both sides so clearly and vividly that I don't HAVE an easy resolution to suggest...except...DISCUSS...please...--] 22:42, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Allright, I'll try to explain this again. ALL of the prior text was still in the article. It only needed to be moved back to the lead, if that was consensus. It was correctly referenced and cleaned up, but I didn't touch the text. Your revert of Poindexter's revert did not corectly restore the refs, and besides removing my dispute tags, the article now has mangled refs, incomplete refs, and missing refs, in addition to duplicate text. It takes hours of tedious, time consuming, manual work to check and clean up references; that work is gone by the revert and partial restore. All that needed to be done to restore the prior lead was to move the text back; it was all there, with clean refs. The article is disputed; I'm not going to revert war to put my tags back, but it's not clear if editors here intend to work together, or engage in edit warring instead. Please note, Poindexter, that I respected the work done here and didn't delete any of the text; returning the courtesy would have been kind. That text was all preserved, merely moved. On the other hand, the last two reverts wiped out my tedious ref cleanup work. If you all want me to restore the prior lead correctly, I can do that, preserving the clean refs. However, it will likely receive an even stronger critique from Eubulides and others, because it has larger problems than the featured version. Say the word, and I'll restore it correctly, so the refs aren't mangled, but the article will still be disputed with that kind of lead. If editors want to work together, we can do that. Otherwise, the dispute tags need to go back and I've got plenty of other articles to work on. Thanks, ] (]) 22:56, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

:What I was honestly trying to do was to copy and paste the prior lead while leaving the rest intact at ...obviously I screwed up (cut me slack, I really am in shock here). Poindexter wants the prior lead restored, I'm easy, but I want to keep your cleanup, can you please restore the prior lead correctly (for now) and if you would prefer, you can post it on a subpage, give me the link, and I will post it myself? --] 23:12, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
::I could see that was what you tried to do, but you missed :-) Good intentions count :-) And now, PP is making it worse, rather than discussing. I can fix it in less than five minutes, but you need to get PP to agree, as I will not engage in revert wars. And, the lead s/he wants restored is problematic and will need to be worked out. Or I can add back the dispute tags tomorrow. ] (]) 23:14, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Great, just great; now we have new editors "removing dead links" which I just updated to corrected live links last night. Nice job, PP. ] (]) 23:18, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

:Ah c'mon, after $800 I need the light relief...mind you, the link IS dead let's keep checking it for the next week or so and if it STAYS dead we can pull it (remember, everything does have a "moment of death" and that MAY have passed)?

:I totally agree with working out the lead (real concerns are real concerns). But I have no say in what PP does, I have already said that I want to see vthis discussed, and I hope PP will respect that. --] 23:31, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
::PS I mean PLEASE fix it in 5 minutes --] 23:39, 16 August 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm not revert warring; PP has to agree. So far, s/he has reverted and not discussed, and the refs are getting even further mangled (yes, I know that link is dead. I just cleaned it last night.) Sorry about the $800 wreck. ] (]) 23:43, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

::::Ah right, NOW I understand, still there was a nutter in the meanwhile so I can revert back to original removal.

::::Don't worry too much about edit warring on that, you really WOULD only be doing what I was trying to do in first place (and messed up), and, if you prefer, I will post it for you myself.

::::I only wish it WAS $800 for a wreck, in fact it was $800 for leaving a little contrasting paint on a car that JUST HAPPENED to belong to an avaricious soul :o( But it HAS rattled me...--] 23:50, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

::::::Well, it appears now that PP intends to keep editing and not come to the talk page to discuss his/her reverts. I'm going to unwatch this article now (edit warring is not an environment I intend to frequent) and work in other areas; I'll come back tomorrow to re-add dispute tags which should not have been deleted. ] (]) 23:57, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Not at all, although with an edit to the talk page every 5 minutes for somewhat more than an hour, trying to do anything else means that I will get behind on the talk page. I am attempting to restore much of what was lost in the revert, just as Zeraeph is doing - I just have to sort out what Zeraeph already got to, and what may have been missed. Please do clarify what sources you're contesting with the tag, as I'm unclear on that. Out of the first 30 cites, everything is peer-reviewed with the exception of 3 or 4 secondary sources which were in the earlier form of the article (cites 4, 5, 6 and 17), and a few cites to various Attwood publications. There may be bad sourcing in later parts, but I'm not there yet... Anyway, my question is, does anyone have any problems with the 4 secondary sources or Attwood for cites? ] 01:21, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

That seems reasonable and to be open to discussion --] 01:35, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
:::I would prefer to see Attwood references eliminated, where he is not publishing for peer review. I must admit, however, he is a world-reknowned authority and i have no serious objection to him. As for quality of sources, I'd also point out that Baron Cohen and Volksmar are world-famous luminaries, better sources than them do not exist to my knowledge.
::: Speaking of Baron-Cohen, he is developing a new diagnostic criteria, and has come out critical of the DSM, indicating, among other things, it is not suitable for adults and is too broad :
http://www.autismresearchcentre.com/docs/papers/2006_BCetal_AAA.pdf

CC] 02:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

::::Can we start incorporating this? --] 02:14, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

:::: Zeraeph. I pleased you are open to discussing the layour and detail of the Asperger's article. Could you please do the same on the Alexithymia page and desist from your present blanking rage on the alexithymia page too. ] 02:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

::::::I TRIED to discuss it and you ignored me (if memory serves me you told me I should put your sources in for you. I would, but my crystal ball is on the blink right now :o( ) --] 02:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Fortunately the page there has an edit block placed on it, which should stop your blanking rage. Please discuss details properly in future (no, you didn't discuss it, period). I hope you don't do the same thing here. ] 03:19, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

I think this qualifies as "discussing it" as does this , easiliy enough resolved, I would have thought?

I also think we discuss ] on ]--] 03:27, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

::Making two tiny remarks and immediately deleting massive tracts of the entry ON THE SAME DAY is hardly discussing it. LOL. Pull everyone's other leg. But yes I agree this discussion should be moved to the alexithymia talk page. I mentioned it here because I thought you may attempt a blanking frenzy here too in the present unsettled context. See you on the other page ] 04:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Please discuss ] on ]--] 04:12, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::Nobody seems to like DSM's criteria; Baron-Cohen finds them impossibly broad, Mayes (et al) found them impossibly narrow, and when Volkmar tried to come to DSM's rescue, he found that ''only'' a third of AS diagnoses appeared to violate DSM. And that's without touching the specifics, like significance of language delay (which has been disputed in many papers and championed by virtually none). Thus First and Pincus reported that, in going from IV to IV-TR, "For some disorders, such as learning disorders, there were no changes, and for others, such as Asperger's disorder, virtually the entire text was rewritten." Yet the IV-TR version is getting ripped just about as badly as the IV one was. It's hard to see how this could end well for the DSM. ] 02:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

So let's get that reality impeccably cited and INTO the article? Yes? --] 02:56, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

:OK, I just altered one sentence slightly to accomodate, and used the above paper + Mayes as cites. ] 03:33, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

::Was that before, or after the AGF peculiar person? Trying nto keep track here. --] 03:44, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

:::That was a few minutes ago, right here. ] 04:05, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

==Edit reconciliation==
As of right now, there are no significant differences between the pre-revert form and the current form, other than the opening paragraphs. ] 02:22, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sourcing: I looked over both of the recent versions of the article, and noted that the only difference in the current version are some peer-reviewed articles from PubMed, and one secondary source, this one. Since there would appear to be no differences in the cites other than that, I will move it from being a cite to being an external link, and, hopefully, that puts an end to contention about the sources for the opening paragraphs. ] 03:57, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
:That's not the case. Yesterday, while you all were edit and revert warring, the text in question could have been moved, along with clean citations, back to the lead in one edit taking a few minutes. Today, it will take longer to sort through the subsequent edits to clean up the refs for the second time. Your revert of ref cleanup was rude and inconsiderate when all you had to do was move the paragraphs you wanted from within the body of the article back to the lead, which would have preserved the ref cleanup. I'll be putting the article in use to clean up the refs again; I hope another editor returns to you someday the courtesy you've shown here. Your excuse that you couldn't be bothered to read the talk page during several hours in which you were editing and revert warring is flimsy at best. ] (]) 15:07, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

== lede ==
I think the sentence "Some positive characteristics include things such as enhanced mental focus, excellent memory abilities, superior spatial skills, and an intuitive understanding of logical systems" needs to be sourced point-by-point, or reworded, such that each ability mentioned can be RS'd per se. I've got a couple of sources, more tomorrow ... Z makes a good point about perhaps including the diagnostic controversy ... ] 04:58, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

:Besides that the lead is not a ]:
:*It manifests in individual ways and can have both positive as well as negative effects on a person's life ... The disorder affects people in various ways,
:Those two sets of wording says absolutely nothing to the reader. What does "manifests in individual ways" mean? Do some pick their noses? Become ax murderers? Have tics? Get cancer, warts, or asthma? The phrase imparts no meaningful content to the reader, and it's inaccurate besides. By all definitions, AS manifests by restrictive and repetitive behaviors, interests, and activities, so the "individual ways" adds nothing, says nothing, and is inaccurate. Then the article adds another similar throw-away clause in the lead, "affects people in various ways". Again, what ways? These phrases tell the reader ... nothing. ] (]) 13:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

::Actually, you have one hell of a point there now I think of it...in it's present form it would actually slot quite neatly into ] famous "Party Political Broadcast"! :o)

::Can we boil it down to: "It can have both positive and negative effects on an individual's life" while we think about it?

::But REALLY, keep it wholesome...Aspies NEVER pick their noses, that is a well autheticated NT trait *chuckles* --] 13:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

:::"Individual ways" was CC's wording, and while I was never 100% comfortable with the clarity and flow of "individual," I understood what he was trying to say, and couldn't think of a great alternative. In one study I was reading yesterday, for example, AS patients and HFA patients were subjected to a battery of tests to try to determine whether there was any validity at all to the distinction between the two, and while they found that, overall, there was a small aggregate difference that might be used to justify the existence of 2 categories, many of the participants in both groups had scores which were completely atypical of either group, and didn't really mesh with ''any'' theory. I think this was what he was trying to convey: that aspies are a wildly disparate bunch. Can anyone think of a better word? ] 19:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
::::Gotta do the same there as everywhere else; find a reliable source and use the words it uses. You can't get into trouble if you stick to what the sources say. And, if a source doesn't say it, don't try to bootstrap it in. ] (]) 19:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

==Everybody happy now?==
Can I ask you all, no exceptions, to come here and discuss any changes you want to make here first? AND to come here and check any changes others want to discuss? That way we are a TEAM, and a really good one, IMHO.

To start the ball rolling, how do we feel about (] ])] deleted by Admin ]? Just because he is an admin doesn't mean we have to agree with him, so what do we all think?--] 16:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

:It doesn't meet ]; is that some sort of a Wiki? There doesn't appear to be any editorial oversight or fact checking. ] (]) 20:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Poindexter added this link back to the article, when it appears (to me at least) that it is clearly not a reliable source, thereby violating ]. Please discuss and explain how this is a reliable source ? ] (]) 13:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

:See talk page discussion here, where it was established that consensus was behind keeping it, and that WP:EL does not expect external links to be RS, but rather lists under "links to consider," "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." So Graham87 (who also happens to be an admin) reverted its deletion, and, aside from occasional drive-by deletions by people who don't read the talk page, it's been there ever since. ] 16:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. Once again, I think the notion of there being consensus there is overstateed; there was meaningful and relevant opposition from well respected admins and editors to adding the link because it's clearly not a reliable source. It needs to go. ] (]) 17:51, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

:A part of me wants to accord with the concensus and put the link back. It's good and balanced and says a lot of things that need saying...'''BUT''...if we do, it sets a precedent that let's in all kinds of self published...er...stuff...that is NOT so good and balanced. Do we want that in the long term? --] 17:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

::Possible solution, look for a reliable source that says the things worth keeping, and add them to the article. ] (]) 18:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

::It doesn't set a precedent, WP:EL says that good, non-RS links should be considered, which was probably why 6 editors got behind keeping it, and only 1 (the one who deleted it originally, who is not a regular editor of this article, and who was recently cautioned and admonished by ArbCom for unilateral edits which disregarded the relevant talk pages) favored the deletion. Unreliable sources in the article itself are a completely different thing, with totally different rules, so creep shouldn't ever be an issue. ] 19:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
:::I'm not going to lose sleep over it, but I'm on record as Oppose. If the article says anything worth saying, a reliable source will have said it. Example: I do include a blog on TS as an External link, and I firmly establish the Canadian author's credentials. The reason I use his blog is that no one else will say what he says about a certain medication, because US physicians are afraid of a certain litigious group I won't mention (]). So, I include a blog from a very credentialed and published and peer-reviewed reliable author because it contains info that no other source carries. What is there in this link that a reliable source hasn't said, and what makes the *author* of this information reliable ? ] (]) 20:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

==Work needed==
I've what could have been accomplished yesterday by moving two paragraphs took an hour today, so that I could preserve work done since the revert war. I've flagged areas that need attention. They are some contradictions in the text, some unreliable sources, some uncited text, and some unclear text. In terms of the bigger picture:
# The lead is still completely out of conformance with ]. It makes no attempt to summarize the article, and introduces detail that is not discussed elsewhere in the article. A summary of history, treatment, causes, prognosis, epidemiology, etc. is completely lacking, and those topics aren't well developed within the article.
# The article suffers from serious undue weight. It neglects completely coverage of DSM and ICD, while focusing almost exclusively on controversial aspects not reflecting overall medical consensus.
#:From ]: We should not attempt to represent a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention as a majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views. To give undue weight to a significant-minority view, or to include a tiny-minority view, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Misplaced Pages aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation among experts on the subject, or among the concerned parties.
# '''The article relies too heavily on Attwood (a 10-year-old, non-peer reviewed book)''', who in spite of the high esteem in which he is held by the AS community, is not an author who has significant peer reviewed publications. The article relies far too heavily on self-published sources, at the expense of referreed sources.
# The article contains too much unattributed opinion (Attwood, Szatmari, etc.), and too little coverage of peer-reviewed medical consensus. For example, what one or two researchers may view as "controversy" might not be controversial at all according to the majority view. Opinions of individual researchers need to be stated as such (attributed to the author), while majority viewpoint needs to be included, at minimum.
I'll check back later to see if progress has been made, and will refrain from tagging the article now, but I have been highlighting these issues now since May. I am particularly concerned about statements not supported by the sources given, considering I've watched over the last year many unsourced text additions being made to a section with a given citation, without attention to whether that text is sourced by the reference given. Further, we've already seen multiple examples where the sources do not support the cited text; those existed in the featured version, and still exist in this version. ] (]) 17:17, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

:Fair enough comment particularly on attributed comments, I just tried to tidy up a couple myself and couldn't find the refs. It's a long article, I'd say that many of those sections should probably be pulled?

:I know I am not the only one who agrees with you about Attwood, he has become way too self published and self-publicizing for my tastes of late. HOWEVER, if you look, I think you will see that the actual Medical Community doesn't place too much weight on the DSM or ICD for diagnosis in AS.

:I hope you KNOW that if you spot any text that got snuck in next to a citation and remove it, I will also stand over that removal.--] 17:28, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

The current article size, per Dr pda's script is 33KB prose (readable text), which is well within ] guidelines (30–50KB readable prose), and ideal. There is room to grow the missing areas (treatment, epidemiology, causes, etc.) a bit. ] (]) 17:55, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

:That goes without saying, but if they aren't sorted by this day week shall we agree to whip out the tagged discrepancies? --] 18:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
::I'm not putting any deadlines; I'm waiting to see if editors intend to work on the issues, or edit war and revert. That can be determined in a day, a week, or a month. As of now, the article is far enough out of compliance with Wiki ] policy, ], ], ] guidelines, and ] that anyone may FAR or tag it at any time. I would have preferred the consensual approach, but edit warring seems to be the order here. ] (]) 20:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

::Can we tone down the drama a little? Zeraeph and I missed 4 cite cleanups in the opening paragraphs, but got all of the others, and last time I checked one revert wasn't a war. ] 21:00, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
:::One revert while ignoring the talk page is. I can't think of any good reason for you to disregard "Regarding the rest of my cleanup work, I don't know how the refs got so far out of hand; some of them had actual errors (wrong authors, dead links, etc.) The original text is still present, but now with corrected refs, so if changes are decided upon, pls move text around rather than reverting to the older versions that had messed up refs", causing me another hour of repair work unnecessarily. ] (]) 21:26, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
::::Sandy, you seem so unhappy editing here, though I really appreciate your thoroughness and neutrality, I am beginning to feel very selfish and guilty for asking you to come back today. --] 21:47, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::Not at all unhappy; just genuinely bothered that someone deliberately wasted my time out of what appeared to be spite, disrespect, and something akin to machismo (I can revert, therefore I will, rather than simply move 2 paragraphs). So, now the article has a completely inaccurate lead, duplicate text, and the previous lead could have been easily fixed. <shrug> At least it has clean refs ! ] (]) 22:25, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

Sandy I am SURE it wasn't spite or disrespect...PP isn't like that. Look I tried to set it right myself and made a mess of it, ok, I was a few sheets to the wind ( :o/ ), and somewhat away with the birds, but I am usually quite good at things like that (after I clear up the typos on the second edit anyway), so maybe it wasn't that easy?

I am really bothered by this, there is a good team of editors, and really nice guys, including soulgany, here and what they need most is your neutrality and thoroughness to pull it all together and staunch any POV creep, but somehow it has all become so adversarial, instead of co-operative. Can we ALL just put it to bed for tonight than start fresh tomorrow? --] 22:51, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

== Applied Behavioral Analysis ==
This is the only 1982 Becker and Gersten I can find; I can't establish that it's about ABA.
*Becker, W.C., & Gersten, R. (1982). A follow up of Follow Through: The later effects of the Direct Instruction Model. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 27–55.

This quote can't come from three different places:
*Once certain skills have been acquired, it is possible through ABA to generalize these skills and add new skills to the "existing repertoire through various techniques of shaping, extinction, backward chaining, and prompting." (Schreibman, 1975, Sulzer & Mayer, 1972, Wolery et al, 1988)
What study is it? This text appears to have been taken from a secondary source which isn't cited. This may be a starting place for locating the sources. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-745676_ITM ] (]) 22:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

:It's my opinion that the ABA part may as well be scuttled. Most of its cites are very old, and apply only to Kannerian autism (AS didn't have a name yet, let alone diagnostic criteria). I visited PubMed for replacements, and came back empty-handed, there is not a single abstract which mentions both AS and ABA. Does anyone else feel inspired to attempt a salvage, or shall we let it go? ] 04:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Scuttled entirely, no. Rewritten. As demonstrated by Eubulides in the ] article, it's effective. See ] for leads on where to start (I'm not sure if what is written there applies equally to AS, or needs adaptation). I'm afraid that some of the regular AS editors forget that there are parents seeking information about effective treatments for their children; this article will not be comprehensive as long as it deprecates and demeans parents seeking to help their children by rolling them in with "curebies and parents". Children's issues need to be addressed, not overlooked by a focus on successful adults. ] (]) 12:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

:"Curebies and parents" isn't my line, I am the parent of a kid with AS. The only issue I have with the ABA section is that there appear to be zero papers in PubMed which discuss use of ABA as a treatment for AS. My approach to it is the same as it would be for any other topic where there was no reliable sourcing. ] 20:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

== Proposal ==

Let's be methodical about this. We seem to have three points of contention :
A) the sources are either not RS or misrepresented here.
B) the emphasis is misplaced
C) the lede does not summarize the article.

As for C, the lede was written after the article, and the plan is to rework the article in accordance with the lede. Anyway,
B and C are big issues, what is not big is A). We are all agreed that sources should be reliable and accurately represented. So can we start there?

As for Attwood, I agree. He isn't publishing for peer review. That makes two editor-objections, so let's remove references to Attwood.

Let us now go through the lede, source by source, line by line. Can we agree to this first step? CC] 00:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

:OI!! I agreed on Attwood too if you don't mind, and I am agreeing to rest. :o) --] 00:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

::I agree about Atwood being a less desirable source than something with a PubMed number. In practice, I think that would mean throwing out much of the article. This is ''not'' because there aren't reliable sources for it, it's because you have to pay 95% of those reliable sources. If, for example, you want to cite Gillberg's Criteria, as I had to today, you have a choice of (1) someone's personal copy of them, which was tagged as iffy, (2) a copy of Gillberg's paper, which you have to pay for, because the abstract (as usual) doesn't contain the info you need, (3) the Misplaced Pages article on Gillberg, but that's totally forbidden, or (4) Attwood (1997), pp. 195-196, which is exactly what I ended up using. Before resolving to throw out everything by Attwood, I suggest you try the following exercise: take a heavily Attwood-dependent section, say the first 3 paragraphs of "Speech and language differences." This text is all pretty ordinary, non-controversial stuff, right? Now try fully citing it with PubMed papers (or, 95% of the time, PubMed abstracts, since the paper's not going to be free) that clearly and undeniably say the same things. When you're done tearing out your hair, come back to this thread and we can compare results. Yes, nearly all of this article could easily be sourced from peer-reviewed articles, the data are mostly quite solid. But it cannot all be sourced from ''freely-available abstracts'' without verging on OR, and we will only rarely have more than abstracts to point to.

::That's not to say that we can't try it; in cases where ready replacements are found, by all means, let's use them. But I know that some of them cannot be replaced without citing offline books or paid articles, because I've already tried. ] 04:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

::::Ok, here is a little rationale of my own I invented that might work for Attwood, can we cite Attwood ONLY where he is referring to third parties who cannot be as openly cited in their own right?

::::I think Sandy has a LOT of Pubmed sources already though. They should be there in the last FAR version.

::::Also, I don't think it is forbidden AT ALL to reference a Misplaced Pages article for something like Gillberg's Criteria. Isn't the whole point of Misplaced Pages that it is intended to interlink and constantly evolve? So that if the article or criteria is deleted and editor will spot it and change it? --] 10:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::I don't have *any* full text AS sources or reviews; if I did, I'd fix the article myself :-) I do not know AS as well as I know TS (meaning, I don't know what is the topnotch medical research vs. run of the mill junk that gets published even on PubMed but doesn't enjoy wide consensus), and it makes little sense for me to be doing any writing here, so I haven't purchased an article. I'm tempted to go get a copy of Attwood, as I'm fairly certain a lot of the text sourced to Attwood is probably not verified by Attwood. No, it's never OK to link to a Wiki article as a source. Wiki is not a ], and Wiki articles are rarely accurate. Some articles may incorrectly link to Wiki as a source; they shouldn't. A featured article cannot retain featured status if it doesn't conform to Wiki policies and guidelines in ], which includes the use of reliable sources. ] (]) 12:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

:::I get what you are saying, but I would have thought it was ok to link to Wiki for something like the full text of Gillberg's criteria. Even if you only put the link, as illustration, under citation to the actual Gillberg publication? (Which is similar to what I am suggesting we do with Attwood). I certainly cannot find any policy against it.
::::Yes, it's OK to link to Gillberg for information purposes, but we still have to make sure *this* article also contains a reference to a reliable source. ] (]) 12:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::Here's an illustration of this issue:
:::::*INCORRECT (only links to a wiki article, which may or may not be reliable): ] are found in all walks of life.
:::::*CORRECT (links to a Wiki article for detail, but *also* sources the text to a reliable source, except the #$%@ing TSA has yet again altered their website, so I need to tweak): ] are found in all walks of life.
:::::] (]) 12:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::::Yep, that is '''EXACTLY''' what I meant...but maybe I didn't explain it well... or, alternatively, surely: Gillberg IC, Gillberg C. "]" J Child Psychol Psychiatry. 1989 Jul;30(4):631–38 --] 13:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::::Yeah. The only problem is that the abstract doesn't contain the criteria, and cites which do nothing to demonstrate the truth of the text aren't very exciting. ] 20:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
:::It REALLY doesn't seem very fair for others to do the writing while you have to come and fill in citations after them! Can we specify a single format for citation everybody can use (I don't mind which, as long as we all use same one), and "informal template" if you like, posted here? Save you a LOT of drudgery I am sure.
::::See my link to Diberri's tool below. (Also see ] and ] for additional guidance.) If editors will use it for pmids, it will return consistent and accurate results. I don't mind repairing refs as long as other editors here are respectful of the work. From my own experience on ], I can tell you it makes me nuts when someone who doesn't have a full working knowledge of the entire body of research starts tweaking the text, introducing subtle inaccuracies. I don't feel qualified to tweak AS text. ] (]) 12:47, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Do we actually HAVE anyone around anymore with a copy of Attwood to verify? --] 12:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

::::I have a copy of Attwood, and 90% of what I've been doing (aside from struggling to keep up with the talk page) has been citing stuff. I haven't been including quotes in the citations, but will start doing so, where good, terse "text bites" exist. ] 20:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

OK, in the lede we mention positive characteristics of AS and give four sources. The reason we give four is we are aware this fact is suprising given the popular conception and the DSM description of AS. Extraordinary claims, sources, etc.

The most important source, to my way of thinking, is , Simon Baron Cohen. First, it is important to know who he is. He was Lorna Wing's graduate student when she first proposed AS; he created and field-tested the AQ screening tool; he originated 'Theory of Mind'. he has since produced study after study, http://en.wikipedia.org/Simon_Baron_Cohen . He is by any measure almost certainly the world's single most established authority.

The reference we give is to a suprise result he reported when field-testing his AQ test at Cambridge university. He found that,
:"scientists (including mathematicians) scored significantly higher than both humanities and social sciences students, confirming an earlier study that autistic conditions are associated with scientific skills"

He goes on. The Mathematical Olympiad is the UK's most prestigious competition of creative mathematical talent. He tested 11 winners of the Olympiad. These are mathematical geniuses. He found ALL ELEVEN met at least three of the DSM criteria for AS, and 7 of them met the threshold for AS/HFA.

So the correlation between AS and mathematical talent is astonishingly strong for an otherwise rare condition.

It's here, peer reviewed in the Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. This article, by the way, is the magna carta of AS testing.

http://www.springerlink.com/content/k872618310261272/

As for mathematical talent, it doesn't get any more RS than this, to my way of thinking anyway. Are we agreed this far?
] 00:57, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

::I'm sorry to have missed this comment, which was stuck in the middle of another conversation, breaking it up. Now I see the problem, and the text is far more wrong than I originally thought. You are mistaking casuality and drawing completely erroneous conclusions based on confusion over sampling issues and correlation. Testing a lot of scientists and finding they have AS is NOT THE SAME as testing a lot of people with AS and finding they have scientific ability. This is a completely erroneous conclusion and error in logic. That text really needs to be fixed to reflect what the source says. A study of a lot of people with AS, compared to a lot of "normal" controls, showing that the AS group has statistically more scientific, mathmatic, whatever ability than the "normal" controls and more than expected by chance is needed to establish correlation. Is there such a study ? What the study you cite may have shown is that people with AS are more likely to pick a particular profession, but it doesn't establish that all people with AS are more likely to be mathmatically or scientifically inclined. Is there such a study, is it on a large sample, and is compared to "normal" controls? ] (]) 21:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

:I don't mean to sound repetitious, since I already said this above, but I believe the problem is precisely because of a focus on writing the ''lead'' rather than writing the ''article'', and I suggest this approach is backwards. I suggest the opposite; fix and finish the article, writing it comprehensively, balanced, and based on reliable sources, and then figure out what one or two sentences can best summarize each fully developed section back to the lead. Right now, the lead is the biggest problem because it doesn't flow from a well constructed, comprehensive, well sourced article. If the article is correct, it will be easier to do the lead at the end, and then the lead will truly be a summary (it's not a summary now). ] (]) 04:04, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
:: Forget that the sentence is in the lede. We cannot write a balanced and comprehensive article until we come to accord on what it is we are attempting to balance and comprehend. That will be a collection of facts. About 50 of them, and we are on #1. I am asking if you think it is fairly represented as a 'positive trait' and if it is RS. How, where, and if it is used in the article is another matter which is entirely moot if it's not RS in the first place. So what is it? Accept, Reject, or Abstain?
:: Will you work ''with us'' on this, one issue at a time, despite your dissenting view as to what we should be doing ''first'' ?
] 05:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)05:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
:::Sorry, but no, I don't think that's the best approach. Working one sentence at a time in the lead, when the entire article needs major surgery, will not get the job done. I'm answering here at the bottom to cover a lot of what was written (overnight) above: patching up the lead, covering over the Attwood sources, finding better reliable sources, and finishing up the missing sections in terms of comprehensiveness *all* need to be done by someone getting their hands on the best, recent journal-published review of AS (as an example, see my use of 4 papers/books in ]— Zinner, Bagheri, and Robertson papers and the Advances in Neurology book—then complementing and updating the basics in those reviews with individual PubMed abstracts as needed). Trying to retroactively cite an incomplete article, and trying to retroactively cite a lead that doesn't summarize an incomplete article, won't do the job effectively. The article was patched up in the last featured article review by using Attwood (a book written when AS was still in its infancy, and now 10 years old), and Eubulides' analysis of some of that text shows how far off most of the article still is; it needs major surgery. Going to PubMed to try to individually cite statements is the wrong approach; some of those statements are outdated or poorly written to begin with. There must be a good recent overview that can be used to update and cite the entire article. Eubulides probably has access to one or can recommend one. Yes, someone may need to purchase one review; not a lot of PubMed studies. The review will reference studies which can then be accessed as needed. I'm sorry you may disagree, CC, but the lead is a wreck and the entire thing needs to be rewritten. Most of the current content there needs to be expanded, corrected for accuracy, and included within the text, and then the lead needs to be a summary of the entire article, per ]. The entire second, third and fourth paragraphs do not belong in the lead; they provide excess detail for the lead, and text which is not covered in the article. Those topics need to be included and explored completely within the article, and summarized back to the lead with a sentence or two. The lead is not a ]—that it has 26 citations is the first tipoff that it's trying to be an article, not a summary. To see what a lead is supposed to be, see ], ] or ]. Working on individual sentences within the lead is the wrong focus, and will take forever. ] (]) 12:40, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

== Recent reviews ==
A section for things I've found in PubMed, no idea if they're good or not, perhaps Eubulides will advise:

* PMID 16639107 Current trends in psychological research on children with high-functioning autism and Asperger disorder (Sep 2005). ] (]) 11:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

== Ref repair ==
did the following:
# Page ranges are separated by endashes, not hyphens (see ])
#pmids and dois don't need last accessdates, I filled in missing dois. Last accessdates are used for other URLs
# The ref named DSM merely pointed to a website with the DSM definition, which is the same as BehaveNet; I replaced it with BehaveNet.
# Accurate cite journal data can be had from by merely plugging in the PMID.
# The Treffert and Att1 named refs were dropped when subsequent text that defined them was deleted, leaving missing refs; I put them back.
# I changed the MedScape link to the printable version, which includes the entire text rather than just the first page.
# I deleted the Sagepub url on Leekam because it is replaced by the doi, which is an automatic link in the cite journal template generated by Diberri's tool.
# ... that delayed onset of speech favors a diagnosis of AS.ref name=dsm/ Removed DSM, since it doesn't verify that text, left Attwood.
# Named ref for Attwood 150–151, since it's repeated.
# Added citequote and failed verification on "and too vague." PMID 9519632 The abstract says "The current DSM-IV criteria show good to excellent reliability for the diagnosis of PDD, Asperger's disorder (AsD), and autism, but they show poor reliability for the diagnosis of atypical autism." This abstract seems to be saying exactly the opposite of what is alleged in the Wiki article.
] (]) 11:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

===Ongoing problems with citations===
Another ongoing problem in this article is the lack of specificity and sourcing which simply and accurately backs the statement. I added a fact tag on the "often" part of
*These characteristics can often lead to fulfilling careers in mathematics, engineering, the sciences,
We now have two more citations in the lead, but neither of them supports the word "often". This is a similar situation for all of the statements in the lead which have two, three and four citations, yet not a single one of those citations supports the text. This is synthesis and original research, camoflauged by a string of references. When the {{t1|citequote}} template is added, it means the reader is requesting a quote that specifically verifies the text. The lead is overburdened with citations, most of which don't accurately source the text cited. Where is a quote that says AS characteristics "often" lead to fulfilling careers? That statement implies that most people with AS have fulfilling careers; where's the evidence? Linking to a speculative article about Einstein and Cavendish give me no information at all about the career prognosis for *most* people with AS. ] (]) 14:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

::I pulled *often* instead...it really IS a "POV keyword" if ever I saw one! "Often" is SUCH a subjective, context independent, concept it is meaningless anyway...--] 14:41, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
:::That helps; I pulled the refs that went along with it, since one was already used to cite the sentence, and the other was Attwood. Next example:
:::*Some positive characteristics include enhanced mental focus, excellent memory abilities, superior spatial skills, and an intuitive understanding of logical systems.
:::Where is the evidence in those sources that these are truly "characteristic"; that is, a study which shows this is typical for most people with AS? The sources cited, again, are anecdote about a few people, and provide no evidence of these traits being characteristic of most people with AS. If there's evidence that these traits are characteristic of most people with AS, put it forward, by all means !! Anecdote isn't evidence just because it's published, and anecdote doesn't belong in the lead (it can be explored in the text). The ongoing problem with this article is that it's POV and inaccurate, but rather than rewriting it to reflect accurate sources, editors are now trying to retrofit sources to what they want the article to say. In every case I've looked at, the sources don't support the text and don't provide comprehensive info about the condition that will help the mom whose kid was misdiagnosed for five years with everything from ADHD to OCD to TS and just got an AS diagnosis and wants to know how she's supposed to get from the suicidal, obsessive, raging, explosive, bullied, unhappy middle-schooler to the next successful adult and next Einstein. (NO, Wiki isn't a support group, but it does need to provide accurate info about treatment and prognosis.) Does she fill the risperdal prescription? Is there evidence that it works? How come the Dr. told her the kid had OCD, but kiddo doesn't excessively wash his hands, which is what *she* thinks is OCD? Are obsessions in AS different than those in classic OCD? (I know the answers to those queries, but this article doesn't tell me.) Does she use ABA? Does she hire someone for CBT, or use medication alone? This article pretends kiddo is going to be Einstein, but sure doesn't give any info about how he's going to get from here (miserable bullied unhappy middle schooler) to there (successful mathmatical genius adult). The article needs to be rewritten comprehensively from accurate sources; trying to retrofit sources to POV text isn't going to work, and is horribly unfair to that kiddo who might be the next Einstein. The last time this article was reviewed, the active editors then refused to even write a treatment section, so I cribbed that section from the NIH public domain text. That's pathetic. People need to know what works. Biased, POV medical articles are the worst kind, because they harm real people—mostly innocent children and well-meaning parents. If you think I'm unhappy working on this article, that's why. ] (]) 15:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Similar problem found here:
*Some positive characteristics include enhanced mental focus, excellent memory abilities, superior spatial skills, and an intuitive understanding of logical systems.

I'm not able to find in those sources indications of studies beyond anecdote. If there are studies showing that these items are characteristic of most people with AS (that is, evidence of a statistically significant superiority to "normal" controls), those sources should be given. These kinds of statements need to be backed by specific studies, not anecdote. ] (]) 16:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

::Again, it seems to me that the real problem is a single POV word "characteristics", and I agree with you, it is grossly misleading, let me see if I can tweak it, revert it if you just HATE it? --] 17:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

===A Couple of POV Creep Points===

This is a Misplaced Pages article, it is not supposed to be aimed at "parents of Aspies", "partners of Aspies", "Goldfish of Aspies" or "Adult Aspies", it is supposed to be aimed at what the French call "Le Monde".

Having said that, in terms of "what works" trawl every reputable source you can find and ALL you will find is a lot of polysyllabic verbiage that loosely translates as "it might have worked on a few but we aren't really sure".

Literally the ONLY thing I know of that works, or in any way helps Aspies is being treated as equal sentient human beings, and (at the appropriate age) as the autonomous adults they should be. So the article should really place a priority on sustaining that attitude throughout.

Beyond that, not all high function Aspies have the slightest interest in "mathematics, engineering, the sciences". There IS a creep that suggests that those areas are the only route to high function. There is lot of documented evidence of a special (sometimes prodigious) relationship to music, it has been considered an actual symptom, but it isn't even mentioned here. Only anecdotal, but most of the HF Aspies I know tend towards the Arts, writing, film etc, there must be some sources for similar? --] 17:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
:It strikes me that, right now, the article is written for, aimed at, and contains exclusively one POV: successful scientific adults. There's a good deal of undue weight. I still say someone needs to locate the most recent review and rewrite the whole thing to be accurate, reliably sourced, and comprehensive. ] (]) 18:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

::I suppose that IS the short version of what I was saying! It's great to have the positive view of AS, but that CAN be a double edged sword...it can make lifestyle losers, like me, feel VERY inadequate by comparison. In a way, just as bad as an article based on the assumption that Aspies require lifelong parental supervision. :o) --] 18:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

::PS, if I ask everybody to take a look at the form and format of the ] article do you feel I will be showing then an example of the kind of form you feel this artricle should be considering? --] 18:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

::: ] (written by Eubulides) passed FAC more recently, and had a strenuous peer review with a lot of input from many editors, and is in great shape. ] ] (20 Supports within two days), passing FAC without a single Oppose; both TS and autism conform to ]. ] recently squeaked by FAR, but it only got the input of a few editors, and I feel it could still use some work. But I've already offered all 3 of them as examples of the improvements needed here. ] (]) 19:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

::::I don't think ] (like ] or ]) would be a great parallel anyway, as it is a medication dependent neurochemical condition, which is quite different. ] is brilliantly presented, and the closest vin epidemiology, treatment and prognosis but it is definitely describing a lower range of functionality, and, as such, must be largely pitched at parents and carers. I still feel ] is the closest parallel overall in tone and coverage, I particularly like the cultural references. --] 19:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

::::: That's an area that frustrates me about this article. To my knowledge, AS is far more studied than TS. If I can find reliably sourced peer-reviewed information about the optimistic prognosis for most people with TS, why can't this article do that? It shouldn't be necessary to stretch what the sources say; it should be possible to find sources and accurately reflect them. I just get the sense every time I visit this article that none of the regular editors are thoroughly steeped in all of the recent literature, and are trying to bootstrap the article together based on Attwood. Surely there's better info than Attwood's 10-yo book. By the way, the regular editors of ] completely disagree with you; the argument there is exactly the same as the argument here. They argue that schizophrenia is not an illness and should be viewed as a variant of the normal human condition, and they aren't much interested in exploring sections like treatment and causes, so there is something to be garnered from that article's structure and progress. ] (]) 19:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::::Ok, you caught me bang to rights stigmatising others there *deep purple shame*. MOST sorry for that...though I think we should also take a look as some of the structure of ], Michael Fitzgerald often parallels the two (though that information MIGHT be OR). Took a scan though Amazon, and there isn't much recent that even squeaks into ] except this: Asperger's Disorder (Medical Psychiatry) (Hardcover) by Jeffrey L. Rausch (Editor), Maria E. Johnson (Editor), Manuel F. Casanova (Editor) - and something tells me that, at $200, that is totally prohibited by ]. Maybe there just ISN'T any new, cutting edge research? That does sometimes happen...--] 20:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

''(rem indent)'' - much of the milder side of Asperger blends into normal human behaviour and there are ''huge'' issues as to where you put the fence posts. Schizophrenia and Tourettes are much more easily demarkated..hey I was a regualr editor on schizophrenia and didn't have that view....cheers, ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 23:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
:I know, but I didn't want to name names :-) (You disappoint me, the same can be said about Tourette's. It's not the plaque, you know–there are also huge controversies there about where to put the fence posts :-) ] (]) 23:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

== == Changes discussed first == ==

I would like to express my strenuous conviction that changes should be introduced in Talk first; that changes made unilaterally to the article shd be reverted regardless of their merit.

How do others feel about this?

] 15:16, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

:Well, if people don't get cracking and start fixing this article, which right now should be tagged as factually inaccurate and POV, it's ridiculous to expect others to sit around and do nothing. Further, if you start reverting good faith, well-sourced, accurate edits, I intend to call it to admin attention. And, if you want to move at a snail's pace on every word here, I'll agree; let's put the factual inaccurate, POV tags on the article, and then take all the time in the world to fix it, as long as the article is tagged, reader beware. Let's see now; the textual changes this morning have been 1) the deletion of one word (often), 2) the deletion of the redundant words "such things as", and 3) the reorganization of the order of two sentences. You have a problem with those edits? Was there a substantive change there? Furthermore, I raised the problems with the lead in May, and Eubulides agrees with them; don't you think 3 months is enough patience? ] (]) 15:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

::Ok...I am going to sit on the fence on this...

::YES, OF COURSE minor tweaking of existing problems and citations (eg, unnecessary "often" plus it's dodgey overcite to Attwood or this which was just a bit of nasty syntax) should just be GOT ON WITH, and reverting that would be silly.

::BUT...major changes really should be discussed here with everybody, it's only courtesy to all to do that, isn't it?

:'''Let's hail the admin ppl now. I will be back to work on this article when it is agreed that we shall discuss and agree on substantive changes. Sandy, you charge factual inaccuracy yet refuse to comment on the sources themselves. You charge POV yet refuse to enter a discussion as to the state of knowledge on this topic with the group prior to editing.'''

:'''Most of all, you simply refuse to respect the uconsensus of EVERY OTHER editor here, that we post a draft in Talk, discuss it, modify it, when consensus is reached we place it in the article. This keeps the article from changing hour-to-hour, as it's doing now. I, for one, will revert any text that hasn't been discussed from this point forward, and I welcome admin mediation in this matter.'''

::I am in favor of getting consensus before making major changes, and favor avoiding even minor changes where there is clearly no consensus for them. I see no reason to delay tagging the article, and am considering doing so myself. If you'd like to ask for mediation, or other administrative remedies, I'm 100% fine with that. ] 21:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

:::If you tag the article, someone may submit it to FAR, and then we'll be working under a time deadline. I was hoping we could do without that. ] (]) 21:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Zaraeph, I'd ask we hold off on archiving this discussion for a while as I think it will help admin discern how best to move forward.] 20:08, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
] 20:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

::::Oh SCR*W, why you not ask BEFORE I do it? It's all still THERE in Archive 12, and actually easier to read. --] 20:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

::That's rubbish, and you're displaying ] issues. First, the article has not substantially changed (although it needs to). Second, I've detailed the POV, the factual inaccuracy (as has Eubulides), and problems with the lead several times (ad nauseum, in fact). Third, this is Wiki; articles change. Fourth, you can hardly say these issues aren't being discussed. As I said, it's your choice if you want to improve the article by working together, or let it be tagged and FAR'd. I'd prefer the former. Regards, ] (]) 20:23, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

==Can we Archive?==
This is a bit of a dial-in no fly zone again...anyone mind archiving down to "Major New Research"? --] 17:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
:OK with me. ] (]) 17:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
::Oh well, no one else has objected, let's do it. --] 18:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

==Two comments==

#Nobody can demand that all edits are approved on a talk page, one person cannot own an article. Controversial material may be removed to talk pages for discussion, but pre-approval of edits is not an option.
#If you need access to sources, list them below and put your signature in the e-mail list. I will see what I can get access to at work on Monday and e-mail the PDFs I gather to everybody listed in the "E-mail list" section below - remember to activate e-mail in your account! ] 21:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

===Requests===
*PMID 16639107 Current trends in psychological research on children with high-functioning autism and Asperger disorder (Sep 2005).
*PMID 11439754 The autism-spectrum quotient (AQ): evidence from Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism, males and females, scientists and mathematicians" Dec 2001
*PMID 10789283 'Obsessions' in children with autism or Asperger syndrome. Content analysis in terms of core domains of cognition.
*PMID 16682171 Determining treatment outcome in early intervention programs for autism spectrum disorders: a critical analysis of measurement issues in learning based interventions 2006
*PMID 17641962 Social skills interventions for children with Asperger's syndrome or high-functioning autism: a review and recommendations 2007?
*PMID 9519632 Reliability and accuracy of differentiating pervasive developmental disorder subtypes (March '98)
* The Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ): Evidence from Asperger Syndrome/High-Functioning Autism, Malesand Females, Scientists and Mathematicians (2004)

===E-mail list===
* Thanks so much. If you are able to locate a recent comprehensive review of AS, that's what we really need (as well as the one above). ] (]) 21:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
* Tim you are an ABSOLUTE STAR, please email me any relevant PDFs --] 21:15, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
* Yes, thanks very much! And please add me to the list. ] 22:03, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

==Mediation==
I have never made a direct edit to this article, besides a single word change. It is precisely ownership that we have been trying to avoid. This article will now enter a state of constant flux as text is entered and removed, in this single most controversial issue in neuropsych. Rather than a single editor (me) demanding all changes be posted here, if you review the archived discussion, it is the stated, unanimous view of everyone but Sandy. I shall request mediation. ] 21:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
:You're welcome to waste our time on that rather than working towards consensus to repair the article, which is demonstrably deficient. Mediation is not binding, and not often effective. At any rate, I'm much more concerned about the inaccuracy of this article right now, and I strongly suggest that you reconsider that you are showing all the signs of ownership. Would you like to mediate the fact that Zeraeph and I together decided to delete the word "often"? Or the fact that I've spent now about four hours cleaning up references? What exactly is the change that has occurred in this article that has you so worried? Can you point to a single textual change you're concerned about ? ] (]) 21:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

CC, regarding do you think 3 months is charging ahead? Do you think there's been no consensual discussion here? Do you think my moving two paragraphs between sections while leaving the (inaccurate) text completely intact—text that could have been easily moved back to the lead rather than reverting and losing the work I also put into cleaning up the refs—is so drastic as to warrant mediation and intervention? I still don't know of a single change in the text that should trouble you, which is why this looks like ownership. My read of this talk page is that other editors are understanding that these issues should be addressed, and that you're the only one resisting. Am I wrong? ] (]) 22:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

::Trying to be objective here, wouldn't a little non-hostile mediation just to get everybody on the same page save more time than it wasted? Because unless something changes it will all just go on like this and get nowhere. The way I see it, at present, both side would have to make MASSIVE concessions against what they feel is right just to co-operate. (I can see both sides, and that leaves me feeling liable to get lynched any minute.) Maybe just a little informal mediation would help close that gap a little? I am SURE it can all be ironed out, because the harder I look the more I see that everybody, ultimately has the same goal, just vastly different ways of going about it. --] 22:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

: What troubles me is you didn't seek consensus for these changes first. This led to the reversion of the lede - not by me. Edit-first and Discuss-later is a recipe for chaos in a field this controversial and evolving.

: We are all agreed the references need fixing. We are all agreed the article needs work.

:I do not object to, nor do i think other editors object to - repairing references or single world changes, especially those arrived at in discussion with at least one other editor. It is substantive changes in content, going forward, that i am concerned with, as i indicated in my proposal. There are warring and shifting schools of thought in this topic; edit-wars have been avoided thus far by introducing new material or substantively reworking old material in Talk first. This is not my idea, rather i was introduced to it by other editors when i first began working on this article. I do not like to speak for others; it is the weekend, as the new week begins I am sure they will speak for themselves. I would suggest that if you wish to collaborate with others, you yield to their consensus mode of collaboration as it is likely to have developed for good cause. (Added by ceilingcrash - Z's proposal of informal, disinterested mediation seems a good idea to me.)] 22:13, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

::I'd recommend as a start that everybody familiarise themselves with ], particularly the first few sections. ] 22:14, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Thanks, Tim! ] 22:25, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

::(edit conflict) CC, those edits you so objected to, once again, were ''moving two paragraphs from one section to another''. If such a small and easily changed edit troubles you so much, this article will be indefinitely stalled, needs to be tagged and FAR'd, and isn't worth working on. The article is massively deficient, and you want to pick away one word at a time. Will mediation be worthwhile, to answer Zeraeph's question? Not in my experience. Mediation is only as good as the volunteer mediator who happens to take the case, and it often turns out to be someone who joined Wiki two weeks ago, and makes things worse. A better idea is to cool off for a few days, and think things over. Here, right on the heels of Tim making an incredibly generous offer that could resolve a lot of problems, you come asking for mediation? Again, this looks like ownership. Think it over; it was very nice of Tim to make that offer so that we can cut through the problems in the article and get the work done. ] (]) 22:19, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

We will resolve these issues here, or by undoing each other's work on the Article. Speed is not our mandate, accuracy and NPOV are. The foregone conclusion that an impartial mediator is likely to make things worse strikes me as an intensely non collaborative sentiment. I shall wait to see what other editors say, I won't revert simple corrections. ] 22:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

:::I am a bit put out that Tim's kind offer got overwhelmed by other stuff myself...people aren't that nice very often. I just hope you haven't put him off.

:::Sandy...ME NO DAFT :o) ...I know RIGHT well the inherent flaws in mediation, which is why I remembered ] and sneaked over to ask him if he would consider informally mediating this. He seems exactly the right sort of person to defuse this and get us on the same page and working together. --] 22:38, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

:: Oh - and Tim, your offer is enormously generous and I suggest we make good use of it. Thanks. ]

::::That's nice :o) --] 22:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

:::::Recently, Francis hasn't been as active as before; not sure he's still around, but yes, he's a good mediator, and mediated Schizophrenia several times in addition to TS, so understands some of the issues. On the other hand, Tim is also one of Wiki's best diplomats, so what more could we want? I think he offered a perfect solution; we really just need some reliable sources. CC, perhaps I moved too fast for your comfort zone. When I see a job that needs to be done, I dig in, and I work fast so I can move on. I don't want this article to still be in bad shape in another 3 months, but I'm certainly willing to back off for several days if that will make you more comfortable, and then we can all see what Tim can come up with for sources. Would that help? Problem is, then my end of summer travel plans get underway, and I won't be around for either mediation or working on the article, which is why I was trying to get some work done. I 'spose lots of people will be off-Wiki at the end of August. ] (]) 22:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

:::Well then, between Tim (who seems a total angel) and hopefully Francis (who is definately around, but whether he wants to get into this is another matter), I have it in my mind that we can sort this out in a few days...and a little easing up on each other and communicating, we should be FINE...
:::Isn't anybody else, but me, just a TINY bit excited to see what Tim digs up for us (I have VISITORS on Monday too, DRAT!)? --] 23:06, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

===Clean slate===
Hi all - I've semi-protected the page so that all edits can be attributed so everybody can see who is doing what as this would be a headache of a time for anon IPs to start complicating things, well intentioned or otherwise. Would it be worth generating a list of 'Bones of contention' to navigate below? cheers, ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 23:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

:Are you the Cavalry? :o) If so permit me. --] 23:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
:::'''''Tra..traaa''''' ''(sound of trumpet blast and horses hooves)'' -yep. heeheehee. cheers, ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 23:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

:Good idea; bad time for IP vandalism, etc. ] (]) 23:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


== Better discussion why it is contradicting that asperger do not have normal level of empathy ==
==Bones of Contention==


Aspergers may get lack of empathy, due to conflicts or traume; this is what Hans Asperger and other resarcher observed. People with bad
===Content Issues===
general cognitive development or bad emotional development through childhood, may have problem processing emotions and thoughts in a proper way; aspergers that do not have emphatic skill, may have been wrongly diagnosed - due to lack of proper general cognitive development. If one look at csikszentmihalyi's flow model, apathy arises when skill level is low; and slides over to anxiety (social anxiety), when challenge becomes bigger. Such anxiety, that is evident through lack of empathy, is a pinpointer to problems related to general cognitive development.
''(Everyone please add thoughts under each)''
====Casliber====
*'''Shift in view''' section - this para is highly relevant to treatment and I feel should go there. I feel it would gell better in treatment section almost as first or second para (whole ''cure --> management'' paradigm needs to be up top of treatment). Culture bit is also then more cohesive.cheers, ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 23:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


] (]) 05:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
*'''Epidemiology''' -section is pretty controversial and important; in Schizophrenia we had it up under diagnosis and I think it should be there here too. Then '''prognosis''', '''treatment''' and '''culture''' are all closer together.cheers, ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 23:28, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


:This is contradicted by evidence for what is often known as the ]. Theorisation of that concept and evidence for it have both cast into doubt past evidence of autistic people being low in empathy, by pointing out that what was actually found was autistic people struggling to empathise with allistic (non-autistic) people. There is also evidence that allistic people struggle to empathise with autistic people, but that autistic people empathise well with other autistic people and allistic people empathise well with other allistic people. ] (]) 17:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
*'''Characteristics''' section before '''Diagnosis''' - allows a more descriptive bit, then the nitty gritty of the criteria.cheers, ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 23:33, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
:*It was argued in the last FAR that Diagnosis had to come first, to explain the differences between DSM/ICD/Szatmari/Gillberg, since some of Characteristics depends on what definition you're using. Not sure I agree, but that was the logic. ] (]) 23:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
:''(groan)'' - realistically the differences between diagnostic systems are pretty minor. I wasn't around for the FAR, maybe a better have a read...cheers, ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 23:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
:*Personally I think that perhaps the BEST way is to cite the characteristics common to ALL diagnostic definitions, THEN expand into diagnosis? It's sorta logical. --] 23:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
====SandyGeorgia====
*'''My list'''
** POV, towards successful adults and controversial opinions, away from children and away from medical consensus, which are underdeveloped.
** Lead is not a ]; that content needs to be corrected, incorporated to correct sections, and lead needs to be written.
** Not comprehensive in areas of treatment, causes, prognosis, epidemiology, etc.
** Overreliance on one outdated source (Attwood book, not peer reviewed), and reliance on non-peer reviewed os self-published sources (Kirby, Myles, others; I believe Myles or her husband owns her press)(''YIKES!! That can SO BEGONE *shudders*--] 00:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)''
** Concern that text isn't supported by cited sources
** Concern that POV text is original research, editors now trying to retrofit sources to match, entire article should be revamped from updated peer reviewed sources, assuring that text is actually supported by sources and not "successful adult" POV ] (]) 23:31, 18 August 2007 (UTC)


== short description ==
''(I'll look in detail later - gotta be off-keyboard for a while..)''cheers, ]&nbsp;(]&nbsp;'''·''' ]) 23:39, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
*'''Comments''' I don't have any serious issues with any of the above so far. Except to note that "medical consensus" is underdeveloped on LOT larger scale than this article, and that really DOES need to be taken note of.
====Zeraeph====
*'''My list'''
** I don't think the article should be POV to successful adults, but I really DO feel that the tone of the article should at all times acknowledge adults with AS as autonomous and equal, and should NEVER devolve into an atmosphere where AS appears to be about the parents (it's not)
** I would be very uncomfortable with too much assertion of treatments and managements. So far nothing has been effective on a significant scale, some modalities have done as much harm as good and I don't think we should take responsibility for in any way promoting specific treatments (which would be POV ANYWAY).
** I absolutely NEVER want to see any of the small community of amateur self appointed "parents and partners" groups appear in the article. They are just a tiny non-] and non-] cottage industry seeking publicity. They do keep trying, and I think that has contributed to the defensiveness of the editors and created a reactionary "POV creep".
** It is very important to me that all text should be impeccably and unassailably cited (not least to keep the self appointed amateurs OUT of it!)
I'll add more as I think of it. --] 23:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
:Strongly agree with you on parents and other support group info, but that applies to adult groups as well as parent groups (and is covered by ], ]). Only reliable sources should be in External links, they should be minimal, every external link needs a strong justification, and everything else is covered by DMOZ and shouldn't be there (they can submit it to DMOZ). On treatment and management, though, I think we have to at least offer whatever info reliable sources have. ] (]) 00:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
::No groups AT ALL goes without saying (equality goes both ways after all!). DMOZ (and minimal links) is fine with me too these days, things changed and there is no longer the same risk of arbitrary, POV, editorial control there (it was under the editorial control of a banned Misplaced Pages editor with a grudge, but it isn't any more, thankfully). Absolutely, any reliable information on treatment and management must be offered, but perhaps conservatively? --] 00:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
::As a former DMOZ editor, I would point out that DMOZ is not ''at all'' reliable, but that it's acceptable as an external link, because external links don't have to be. ] 00:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
::::No matter HOW unreliable it is now, at least it isn't conducting a personal vendetta any more :o) Do you have a better suggestion though? --] 00:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
:::::No, I think that DMOZ is fine on most subjects, and external links is where good and useful, but non-RS, material rightfully belongs. ] 01:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


I don't have a dog in this race. The two most recent short descriptions for this article are:
:::I've added an invisible tag in the External Links section that should help slow cruft accumulation. ] 00:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
*Formerly recognized neurodevelopmental condition
*Formerly recognized subtype of autism; considered milder due to intact intelligence and language
Shouldn't the short description say what Asperger syndrome {{em|is}} rather than say what it {{em|is not}}?


—] (]) 14:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
::::NEAT TAG, I have just copied it to ] an article that usually has a bumper harvest of links over time. --] 00:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


:Frankly, I would go with:
====CeilingCrash====
:* Formerly recognized subtype of autism; distinguished by increased intelligence and language skills
My quick take is this - the NPOV balance between disability/difference is a tough issue and inherently subjective to some extent. What we tried to do in the initial lede was balance the two equally, list abilities with impairments. This probably leans too much to the 'difference' pole and away from the 'disability'. It is my rough sense that around 25% of the text should focus on abilities; and the introductory sentences in the lede shd be compound statements which mention them together. My reasons are not political, they have to do with sources :
:As a person with Asperger's I feel that this is a better description.
Baron Cohen found an astonishing correspondence between mathematical talent and AS; which he reported in his seminal paper establishing the AQ.
:] (]) 22:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
In Hans Asperger's initial paper describing what was later termed AS, he states over and over again that these are unusually talented people who tend to achieve professional success in areas of abstract content. He actually went so far as to claim that "it seems that, for success in the arts and sciences, a dash of autism is required."
::That woulld be a clear violation of ]. The point of short descriptions is simply to disambiguate the topic from other topics with which it could be confused. For instance, for many film articles, the short description is merely, "(Year) Film", because no other disambiguation is needed. ] (]) 00:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
I could go on, and will later. My point is the world-class heavy-weight authorities on this subject are making this assertion in a non-peripheral way. It is easy to see how this information would be ommitted in medical manuals - talents are not problems a doctor needs to worry about. But our goal here is comprehensive coverage. On a technically irrelevant note, this is critical information to care-givers, educators and patients who are trying to guide AS folks to productive lives. But we shd make this central point because the sources do, first and foremost.
:::As I loathe contravening any rules/regulations etc. Can you either recommend a better one, fix it, or do both?
(This is a very interesting situation, as i know of no other disorder that is directly correlated to certain talents. We find ourselves unable to follow typical templates for medical disorders.)
:::regards
:::] (]) 02:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
::::"Formerly recognized subtype of autism" seems to cover it sufficiently? ] (]) 06:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)


== Semi-protected edit request: Sukhareva's Syndrome ==
Secondly, and i think someone else just suggested this too, the controversy over the DSM is no mere footnote. To some extent, I expect every DSM category has detractors. But the current DSMV-TR is under blistering and near-universal attack. Baron Cohen asserts that 2/3's of people thus diagnosed are misdiagnosed, and has suggested a new set of dx criteria altogether. Five independent field tests of the DSM-TR criteria have shown it is untenable for various reasons. Between the DSMV and the DSMV-TR virtually all the text was replaced. ( Folklore in the subject - which i can't substantiate but could try - is the category was put together in order to attract the research money necessary to develop workable criteria.)
I think we should consider introducing this 'state-of-the-DSM-category' first; it is very unusual for a DSM category to be in such a state. I'm not sure we should do this, but i think it's worth considering. Let me post this comment, then add some links ...


{{Edit semi-protected|answered=yes}}
Lastly, I think we should endeavor to go with recent sources. Larger studies have been conducted in the last 5 years, and certain theories (like Theory of Mind) have been overturned, whilst new data have emerged - such as the systematic underestimation of IQ among autistic children. New studies have appeared from the field of neurology or cognitive psychology, especially regarding differences in visual and auditory processing. This is very much part of the current state of knowledge, and sources even 10 years old must be suspect of being overturned or incomplete. ] 01:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


The statement (under History) "leading some of those diagnosed with Asperger syndrome to instead refer to their condition as 'Sukhareva's Syndrome', in opposition to Hans Asperger's association with Nazism" is unsupported by the reference given, whether with regards to Asperger's alleged association with Nazism, the proposal to use a different name, or the reasons for the proposal. I suggest the entire statement be removed. The preceding statement about Sukhareva is supported by the reference. ] (]) 21:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
::Two things, first see my comments at ]: If I'm reading correctly what you've reported about the math/science/AS connection, it appears to be an erroneous interpretation of that result and an overextension of the conclusions. Re, ''This is a very interesting situation, as i know of no other disorder that is directly correlated to certain talents. We find ourselves unable to follow typical templates for medical disorders.'' <sigh> Hello, TS. Second, this is not a unique situation and can well be handled by reliable sources. There is a good deal of evidence that Tourette syndrome is truly correlated with specific advantages, discussed in the text in proper context to the strength of the studies, so AS is not blazing some new territory that Wiki can't handle. There's DSM controversy about lots of condtions; we deal with that in the text of each article with no problem. ] (]) 01:02, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
:{{Done}} I verified the request and removed the statement.--] (]) 13:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)


== Uta is NOT "he" but "she" ==
:::Let's see the math/science/AS connection thing in full before we decide it?


Can someone please correct this typo? Thanks! ] (]) 03:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
:::I thought I'd leave it to Sandy, who actually knows what she is talking about, not me, who just read it today, to tear you a new one over TS and correlation with specific advantages (you wanna start praying there aren't any low fly Schizophrenics or Bipolars around)...but though AS is NOT unique, I feel the principle remains the same? --] 01:12, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
:::: Glad someone appreciates that TS has taken two hits here in the last few hours; that's OK, better chopped liver than headline news :-) ] (]) 01:16, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


:{{Done}}. Thanks for spotting the error. ] (]) 04:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
<s>''CC, you are NUDE again...please log in? *rolling eyes* You won't be ABLE to edit in that state right now. --] 00:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)''</s>
::While it's correct that Uta Frith is a woman, she translated Asperger's paper to English, not her own or Wing's papers. The source given is a digital version of this translation.--] (]) 15:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)


== The full spectrum of Asperger syndrome is not included in the diagnostic criteria for Autism spectrum disorder, but is exempted from the diagnostic criteria by a “grandfather clause” ==
Apart from which I think you have put many important matters, close to my heart, very eloquently above. The only thing I don't wholeheartedly agree with is that I REALLY don't think we should let the article get too bogged down in DSM controversy, it isn't so very important to the overall topic...and can we get this stuff PROPERLY CITED? --] 01:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


Many people used to think that the full spectrum of ] was encompassed by ], and I used to think so too. But I learned something new from the official DSM-5 guide, or from resources such as the American Psychological Association; Committee to Evaluate the Supplemental Security Income Disability Program for Children with Mental Disorders; Board on the Health of Select Populations; Board on Children, Youth, and Families; Institute of Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; and The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.The diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder in DSM-5 and DSM-5-TR are subject to a “],” which is the concept of an exemption from the diagnostic criteria. And the full spectrum of Asperger's Syndrome in DSM-IV is not included in the Autism Spectrum Disorder in DSM-5! However, there was an exemption called the “]” for political and social reasons, as people with Asperger's Syndrome would lose social services if they lost their diagnosis, so the exemption included the full spectrum of Asperger's Syndrome.


First,
::: The math/science connection is due to Baron Cohen, http://www.springerlink.com/content/k872618310261272/. He states,
:::: " scientists (including mathematicians) scored significantly higher than both humanities and social sciences students, confirming an earlier study that autistic conditions are associated with scientific skills
::: and
:::: On interview, 11 out of 11 of these met three or more DSM-IV criteria for AS/HFA, and all were studying sciences/mathematics, and 7 of the 11 met threshold on these criteria."
::: (these numbers are nothing short of amazing.) I don't believe there is any room for misinterpretation here, pls correct me if i misread somehow.
::: As an aside, a long-standing Millenium problem posed in 1900, the Poincare Conjecture, was solved by a man named Perelman, whom Baron Cohen also dx'd as AS.
::: OK, now let me insert the remaining links as Z asked ... ] 01:15, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


](2023), Understanding Mental Disorders: '''Your Guide to DSM-5-TR'''®, American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 22-23. https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/book/10.1176/appi.books.9781615375370
I think what worries Sandy (correct me if I am wrong) is that SO far, all that proves is that people with AS and HFA are more likely to CHOOSE sciences and mathematics, it doesn't really say anything definate about whether they are especially talented at them. The full text may do so though, so stay on the right side of Tim so he gets it. --] 01:20, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


"Social (Pragmatic) Communication Disorder
::::Without seeing the full journal study, I'm not sure ... but ... Repeating what I asked above, is there a large study of people with AS establishing that they have a greater than chance statistically significant difference in math/science ability over "normal" controls? That's how you establish correlation. The observation that a lot of math/scientists have AS isn't the same as saying most people with AS have math/science ability. Two different things. Is there a controlled study comparing people with AS to non-AS peers, and establishing a math/science correlation? It's, again, an issue of sticking true to what the sources say and not overextending the results. I invite you to read the Prognosis and Cultural aspects sections of ] and ] (see Latent advantages section) to see that this kind of information can be handled neutrally and accurately without overextending the conclusions of the studies. ] (]) 01:22, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


Social (pragmatic) communication disorder involves problems in the social use of verbal and nonverbal communication. . . .Because of the problems in social communication, this disorder might look like autism spectrum disorder, but those with this disorder do not have fixed interests or repeating behaviors. <u>Those who in the past had a diagnosis of Asperger's disorder or pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified based on their problems in social communication might better fit this new diagnosis of social communication disorder.</u>"
In that study, Baron-Cohen tested over 1,000 people. He arrived at the correlation precisely as you indicate. This is clear from his summary. If you are having trouble accessing the summary, i can paste it here. <small>—The preceding ] comment was added by ] (] • ]){{#if:01:32:12, August 19, 2007 (UTC)|&#32;01:32:12, August 19, 2007 (UTC)}}.</small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot-->


second,
:Tiny problem cc, according to the summary, he took 3 groups, one of Aspies, one randon control and one from Cambridge, then tested them for '''AQ''' not mathematical ability, he just cross referenced it with their course choices :o( But the full text may explain far more and fix that. --] 01:43, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


Committee to Evaluate the Supplemental Security Income Disability Program for Children with Mental Disorders; Board on the Health of Select Populations; Board on Children, Youth, and Families; Institute of Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; ]; Boat TF, Wu JT, editors. Mental Disorders and Disabilities Among Low-Income Children. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2015 Oct 28. 8, Clinical Characteristics of Autism Spectrum Disorder. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK332891/
::Another problem with making this conclusion is that ]. If you find a group of mathematicians that have Asperger's, is it the fact that they have Asperger's that causes them to be good at maths, or is it that fact that they find it difficult to interact with people and express emotion the reason that they are more likely to enter fields where abstraction and logic are highly valued? Finding this correlation does not prove that A causes B, only that A and B are associated. We will have to read the article carefully to see if the authors propose causation. ] 01:46, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


"The diagnosis of ASD is typically made during childhood, based on comprehensive behavioral evaluations by specialists in child psychiatry or psychology or by those in behavioral and developmental pediatrics. ASD was not officially recognized until DSM-III, the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, in 1980 (APA, 1980; Kanner, 1943). The current version of the DSM introduced in 2013, DSM-5, is the first edition of the DSM to use the term “autism spectrum disorder.” This version does not distinguish subtypes such as “autistic disorder” or “Asperger syndrome,” and the diagnostic criteria specified in <u>the DSM-5 for ASD are somewhat narrower than used previously</u>. DSM-5 criteria require that a child has persistent impairment in social communications and interactions across multiple contexts as well as restricted or repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities; that symptoms should present in early childhood and cause significant functional impairments; and that the impairments are not better explained by intellectual disability (APA, 2013).
::: '''I think Z makes a valid criticism; it is almost certain that math and science students entered university with higher math and science scores, but this is a sticky point.'''
::: '''As for causation, I propose it is a non issue. When it comes to an inborn condition like autism (no credible evidence i know of indicates a sudden 'onset' of AS), there is only correlation and not causation. To say A caused B, we must establish that B would not have likely have occurred without A. We cannot sensibly imagine the same person who somehow is not autistic. It's inherent.'''
::: '''The negative aspects of autism are all similarly correlations; causative hypothesese are unverifiable. Correlation is all we got. I've got to tend to other things for a while, but find this discussion intensely interesting and productive and shall return soon ....''' ] 01:56, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


<u>DSM-5 introduced major change by eliminating subcategories and providing an overall approach to the diagnosis of ASD (Volkmar et al., 2014a). Concerns about individuals losing services prompted the addition of a “grandfather clause” in DSM-5 granting continued diagnostic assignment to cases previously diagnosed under DSM-IV.</u>"
:::::I think that, if you want a statement which is concise and directly addresses the matter, Asperger's quote, "It seems that, for success in the arts and sciences, a dash of autism is required," does that pretty well. Any medical/psych type, in the last 50 years, who wanted to a lifetime's worth of academic laurels could do so by proving a monumental figure like Asperger wrong, but I've never heard of anyone contesting it, only (like Baron-Cohen) working out the details. ] 02:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
::::::No, that's anecdote and hyperbole and just plain silly and not based on science. And I have a graduate degree in math/sciences and a successful career, with no autism, so it's not even useful. ] (]) 02:07, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


:Maybe someone else can explain this better than I can (I wish Eubulidies would pop in). That study (I think, based only on reading the abstract) shows that people with AS rate higher on the Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ) instrument than controls. That may tell us something about the ASQ rather than people with AS. The question is (for example), if you look at 1,000 people with AS and 1,000 people without AS, are you going to find higher mathmatic ability and talent in the group with AS than expected by chance, independently of this ASQ instrument? The next question is how strong is the medical consensus in support of these results. And the next question is whether that conclusion is so earth shattering that it frames our entire approach to the condition (I don't think so -- just because kids with TS are smarter than expected and faster than kids without tics and have better cognitive control, do I wish for everyone to have TS and do I pretend the difficulties don't exist and do I frame an entire article around the latent advantages, ignoring the rest of the story? No, we balance this info in the context of everything else we need to say.) We need to see what other researchers say about this conclusion and how it is framed in the overall context of AS. That's why we also use secondary sources to evaluate primary sources, and need an overall review of AS. We just can't overlook the difficulties associated with "growing up different" even though there are latent advantages. ] (]) 01:47, 19 August 2007 (UTC)


third,
====Poindexter Propellerhead====
(Being written, quick edit to avoid yet another conflict.)


] (2018), APA Handbook of Psychopathology Volume 1: Psychopathology: Understanding, Assessing, and Treating Adult Mental Disorders, American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 44-45. https://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4311535
==Important Point to Consider==


"What constitutes  a mental disorder is not a trivial decision because it  can have quite an important impact on significant  social and political issues (e.g., see Bayer & Spitzer,  1982, for a discussion of the controversy surrounding the inclusion of homosexuality in previous editions of the diagnostic manual).
I'm taking this out of brackets (where all the REALLY important things always seem to wind up) and transcribing it a little because I think we all need to consider it seriously and with an open mind:


<u>For example, proposed for DSM–5 was a revision  to the criterion set for autism disorder that arguably  increased the threshold for diagnosis, leaving many  persons diagnosed with DSM–IV Asperger’s disorder  no longer qualifying for the special benefits, services, and support that had been available to them  before DSM–5 (Volkmar & McPartland, 2014). The  authors of DSM–5 therefore made an essentially  sociopolitical decision to allow persons who had  been diagnosed with autism using DSM–IV to continue to receive the diagnosis (American Psychiatric  Association, 2013, p. 51), even though they had  concluded that the DSM–IV threshold was wrong.  At some point, this grandfather clause will expire,  but presumably, the parents of the children who no  longer qualify for special services will not protest in  large part because they had never experienced the benefits of receiving the DSM–IV diagnosis</u>."
'''just because kids with AS are smarter than expected and faster than kids without AS and have better logical, musical and mathematical ability, do I wish for everyone to have AS and do I pretend the difficulties don't exist and do I frame an entire article around the latent advantages, ignoring the rest of the story?'''


I just joined Misplaced Pages today to make this known, but I can't edit this article due to access restrictions. ] (]) 06:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
--] 01:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 09:13, 22 January 2025

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Asperger syndrome article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.
Article policies
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 3 months 
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
Former featured articleAsperger syndrome is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
[REDACTED] This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 17, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 10, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
September 5, 2005Featured article reviewKept
August 1, 2006Featured article reviewKept
September 24, 2007Featured article reviewKept
April 25, 2020Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article
This  level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.
WikiProject iconMedicine: Genetics / Neurology High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Medical genetics task force (assessed as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Neurology task force (assessed as High-importance).
Note icon
This article was selected on the Medicine portal as one of Misplaced Pages's best articles related to Medicine.
WikiProject iconNeuroscience High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconPsychology High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
WikiProject iconDisability
WikiProject iconAsperger syndrome is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability
WikiProject iconAutism Top‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism
TopThis article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
All editions of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders are copyrighted. Do not post a copy of the official DSM diagnostic criteria in any Misplaced Pages article. Simply reproducing the entire list in the DSM is not fair use and is a violation of the Misplaced Pages:Non-free content criteria legal policy. Instead, describe the criteria in your own words.
See Misplaced Pages:Copyright violations#Parts of article violate copyright for instructions if the criteria have been copied into the article.
Editors may quote a small part of the DSM criteria for a given condition, especially if that quotation is used to discuss the DSM's choice of terminology in that quotation.
Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Asperger syndrome.

          Other talk page banners
This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened:
Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.

  • ] The anchor (#Teratogenic agents) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors
This article was nominated for merging with Autism on 8 May 2024. The result of the discussion (permanent link) was not merged.

Better discussion why it is contradicting that asperger do not have normal level of empathy

Aspergers may get lack of empathy, due to conflicts or traume; this is what Hans Asperger and other resarcher observed. People with bad general cognitive development or bad emotional development through childhood, may have problem processing emotions and thoughts in a proper way; aspergers that do not have emphatic skill, may have been wrongly diagnosed - due to lack of proper general cognitive development. If one look at csikszentmihalyi's flow model, apathy arises when skill level is low; and slides over to anxiety (social anxiety), when challenge becomes bigger. Such anxiety, that is evident through lack of empathy, is a pinpointer to problems related to general cognitive development.

2001:2020:31D:BB94:50A6:F6AE:3ACF:8F4B (talk) 05:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)

This is contradicted by evidence for what is often known as the double empathy problem. Theorisation of that concept and evidence for it have both cast into doubt past evidence of autistic people being low in empathy, by pointing out that what was actually found was autistic people struggling to empathise with allistic (non-autistic) people. There is also evidence that allistic people struggle to empathise with autistic people, but that autistic people empathise well with other autistic people and allistic people empathise well with other allistic people. Elcalebo (talk) 17:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)

short description

I don't have a dog in this race. The two most recent short descriptions for this article are:

  • Formerly recognized neurodevelopmental condition
  • Formerly recognized subtype of autism; considered milder due to intact intelligence and language

Shouldn't the short description say what Asperger syndrome is rather than say what it is not?

—Trappist the monk (talk) 14:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)

Frankly, I would go with:
  • Formerly recognized subtype of autism; distinguished by increased intelligence and language skills
As a person with Asperger's I feel that this is a better description.
Read-write-services (talk) 22:28, 19 January 2025 (UTC)
That woulld be a clear violation of WP:SD40. The point of short descriptions is simply to disambiguate the topic from other topics with which it could be confused. For instance, for many film articles, the short description is merely, "(Year) Film", because no other disambiguation is needed. DonIago (talk) 00:24, 20 January 2025 (UTC)
As I loathe contravening any rules/regulations etc. Can you either recommend a better one, fix it, or do both?
regards
Read-write-services (talk) 02:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)
"Formerly recognized subtype of autism" seems to cover it sufficiently? DonIago (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request: Sukhareva's Syndrome

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

The statement (under History) "leading some of those diagnosed with Asperger syndrome to instead refer to their condition as 'Sukhareva's Syndrome', in opposition to Hans Asperger's association with Nazism" is unsupported by the reference given, whether with regards to Asperger's alleged association with Nazism, the proposal to use a different name, or the reasons for the proposal. I suggest the entire statement be removed. The preceding statement about Sukhareva is supported by the reference. 216.106.104.39 (talk) 21:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done I verified the request and removed the statement.--TempusTacet (talk) 13:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)

Uta is NOT "he" but "she"

Can someone please correct this typo? Thanks! 50.4.132.185 (talk) 03:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

 Done. Thanks for spotting the error. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
While it's correct that Uta Frith is a woman, she translated Asperger's paper to English, not her own or Wing's papers. The source given is a digital version of this translation.--TempusTacet (talk) 15:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

The full spectrum of Asperger syndrome is not included in the diagnostic criteria for Autism spectrum disorder, but is exempted from the diagnostic criteria by a “grandfather clause”

Many people used to think that the full spectrum of Asperger's Syndrome was encompassed by Autism Spectrum Disorder, and I used to think so too. But I learned something new from the official DSM-5 guide, or from resources such as the American Psychological Association; Committee to Evaluate the Supplemental Security Income Disability Program for Children with Mental Disorders; Board on the Health of Select Populations; Board on Children, Youth, and Families; Institute of Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; and The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine.The diagnostic criteria for autism spectrum disorder in DSM-5 and DSM-5-TR are subject to a “grandfather clause,” which is the concept of an exemption from the diagnostic criteria. And the full spectrum of Asperger's Syndrome in DSM-IV is not included in the Autism Spectrum Disorder in DSM-5! However, there was an exemption called the “grandfather clause” for political and social reasons, as people with Asperger's Syndrome would lose social services if they lost their diagnosis, so the exemption included the full spectrum of Asperger's Syndrome.

First,

American Psychiatric Association(2023), Understanding Mental Disorders: Your Guide to DSM-5-TR®, American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 22-23. https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/book/10.1176/appi.books.9781615375370

"Social (Pragmatic) Communication Disorder

Social (pragmatic) communication disorder involves problems in the social use of verbal and nonverbal communication. . . .Because of the problems in social communication, this disorder might look like autism spectrum disorder, but those with this disorder do not have fixed interests or repeating behaviors. Those who in the past had a diagnosis of Asperger's disorder or pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified based on their problems in social communication might better fit this new diagnosis of social communication disorder."

second,

Committee to Evaluate the Supplemental Security Income Disability Program for Children with Mental Disorders; Board on the Health of Select Populations; Board on Children, Youth, and Families; Institute of Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; The National Academies of Sciences, Engineering, and Medicine; Boat TF, Wu JT, editors. Mental Disorders and Disabilities Among Low-Income Children. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2015 Oct 28. 8, Clinical Characteristics of Autism Spectrum Disorder. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK332891/

"The diagnosis of ASD is typically made during childhood, based on comprehensive behavioral evaluations by specialists in child psychiatry or psychology or by those in behavioral and developmental pediatrics. ASD was not officially recognized until DSM-III, the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, in 1980 (APA, 1980; Kanner, 1943). The current version of the DSM introduced in 2013, DSM-5, is the first edition of the DSM to use the term “autism spectrum disorder.” This version does not distinguish subtypes such as “autistic disorder” or “Asperger syndrome,” and the diagnostic criteria specified in the DSM-5 for ASD are somewhat narrower than used previously. DSM-5 criteria require that a child has persistent impairment in social communications and interactions across multiple contexts as well as restricted or repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities; that symptoms should present in early childhood and cause significant functional impairments; and that the impairments are not better explained by intellectual disability (APA, 2013).

DSM-5 introduced major change by eliminating subcategories and providing an overall approach to the diagnosis of ASD (Volkmar et al., 2014a). Concerns about individuals losing services prompted the addition of a “grandfather clause” in DSM-5 granting continued diagnostic assignment to cases previously diagnosed under DSM-IV."


third,

American Psychiatric Association (2018), APA Handbook of Psychopathology Volume 1: Psychopathology: Understanding, Assessing, and Treating Adult Mental Disorders, American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 44-45. https://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4311535

"What constitutes  a mental disorder is not a trivial decision because it  can have quite an important impact on significant  social and political issues (e.g., see Bayer & Spitzer,  1982, for a discussion of the controversy surrounding the inclusion of homosexuality in previous editions of the diagnostic manual).

For example, proposed for DSM–5 was a revision  to the criterion set for autism disorder that arguably  increased the threshold for diagnosis, leaving many  persons diagnosed with DSM–IV Asperger’s disorder  no longer qualifying for the special benefits, services, and support that had been available to them  before DSM–5 (Volkmar & McPartland, 2014). The  authors of DSM–5 therefore made an essentially  sociopolitical decision to allow persons who had  been diagnosed with autism using DSM–IV to continue to receive the diagnosis (American Psychiatric  Association, 2013, p. 51), even though they had  concluded that the DSM–IV threshold was wrong.  At some point, this grandfather clause will expire,  but presumably, the parents of the children who no  longer qualify for special services will not protest in  large part because they had never experienced the benefits of receiving the DSM–IV diagnosis."

I just joined Misplaced Pages today to make this known, but I can't edit this article due to access restrictions. Autisticattitudes (talk) 06:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)

Categories:
Talk:Asperger syndrome: Difference between revisions Add topic