Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive 6

Is this still deserving of featured article status?
I'm beginning to think that this article should be removed from the list of featured articles. It seems to me that political ideas and attempts to be politically correct have compromised the factual veracity of this article. This should be a pretty straightforward article about a neurological disorder like epilepsy or aphasia. Instead, it reads as if Asperger syndrome is either some kind of blessing or lifestyle choice and that there are negligible drawbacks to having it. The very fact that many of the participants on the talk page take issue or offense at even calling AS a disorder or disease when it is viewed as such by the medical community is rather telling. I really think the mainstream medical and scientific view should be emphasized, as medicine and science strive to have the neutral point of view that this article lacks. I'm not looking for an argument. I'm simply warning those interested that if this article stays as it is I will probably lobby to have it removed as a featured article. Brian G. Crawford 05:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I won't comment on the featured status. However, you should note that the same people who object to AS being called a disorder are the ones that are most keen on science in the autism community. If there was a scientifically sound argument to the effect that AS is a disorder/disease, then there would be no significant objection to it. As it stands, calling AS a disorder/disease is just an opinion, albeit one that is held by the majority of the medical community (simply because they have been taught this is the case). If you want to have a philosophical discussion about what the disease/disorder constructs mean, and whether AS fits into the model of said constructs, go ahead. Neurodivergent 20:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I understand the argument, because I take offense to Tourette syndrome being referred to as a disorder, but the medical fact is that Tourette's disorder is the DSM name for the condition, whether the "TS community" likes it or not. Wiki is an encylopedia.  The debate about disease/disorder/condition/syndrome can be summarized in one sentence, and should not detract from encyclopedic content.  Sandy 20:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think there's objection to wording that says AS is classified as a disorder, which I think the article already does. As to additional information, I'm inclusionist. If something is notable enough to be considered "human knowledge", it should be in Wikipedia. If there are article organization issues, let's discuss those. Neurodivergent 20:42, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, it is deserving of being a featured article, especially since I removed all the crap on theories and therapies to *non-featured*, and hopefully, hard-to-find articles. However, given the recent development at Wikipedia, it wouldn't surprise me if you eventually get the crap back in. I for one will fight such change as long as possible. --Rdos 06:16, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I personally don't care for the whole A gift and a curse section. -- Dubh agan  06:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * It provides part of the WP:NPOV of the article. By deleting everything that the medical phalang doesn't approve of, the article would *not* be worthy of being featured. Featured articles should be balanced. --Rdos 06:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * That can be accomplished in neutral, medical terms, without detracting from the medical, encyclopedic quality of the article. For example, some people with Tourette syndrome consider it an advantage:  in order to introduce that notion into the text of the article, I found and summarized in one sentence only a quote from the leading medical textbook on TS written by the physicians considered almost unanimously to be the leading reliable sources on TS.  You can interject these thoughts and issues in a correct, medical, correctly-referenced sense, without writing a speculative, unencyclopedic entry.  I hope that, rather than losing featured status and ending up with some tags on the article, you'll all come together and make this happen.  Sandy 20:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, this article should only deal with the medical definitions, not how people perceive it - that should be left to non-encyclopedic sites. -- Dubh  agan  06:18, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't see why. That would be blatant censorship. This is an encyclopedia, not a medical manual. According to Wikipedia, an encyclopedia is "a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." The Wikimedia Foundations says: "Imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." It doesn't say "the sum of all the knowledge of doctors only" or "the sum of the knowledge the majority agrees with". Neurodivergent 20:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You cite some information about Wiki, but fail to acknowledge WP:RS. Again, the advantage of the new WP:FAR process, is that it gives you time to work on the article.  Please use it wisely :-)  I'm glad to help to any extent I can, but I don't know AS well enough to help with the actual writing.  I can help with sources, Wiki stuff, things like that, if needed.  Also, it can be helpful to spin off content that may not be "medical enough" into daughter articles, like Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome.  You can park reliably-sourced content somewhere, in order to keep a tighter focus in the main article.  Sandy 20:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * AFAIK, it already does. What is most offending to autistics is crap theories and random therapies that haven't been evaluated. --Rdos 06:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * You mean crap theories like asserting that autism is the result of past interbreeding with neanderthals? I can see how that would be grossly offensive, for sure. Just zis Guy you know? 11:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is really something. First Brian is "promoting" the Aspie-quiz, and now his pal is promoting you-know-what-theory. With the fine job of you two I won't ever need to promote any of them again. Besides, you-know-what-theory is not part of the Causes of autism article, so I guess it is not a crap theory. Yeah, a good reason not to add it to the rest of the unproved, inconsistent, narrow stuff. --Rdos 11:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Deserving of featured status? No, and it hasn't been for quite some time.  I suggest a serious review of all Wiki pillars and policies, all elements of WP:MOS, and comparison to numerous featured medical articles of late.  You can find examples on WP:MCOTW, which show how far off from being a concise, encyclopedic article AS has become.  Bold action, and deletions of large chunks of speculation as well as NPOVing, may be necessary to retain this article's featured status: not a few minor fixes here and there.  Featured article reviews typically allow a few weeks to a month for improvements to happen, and editors voting whether an article should be delisted watch for steady improvement in the article, with editors working steadily and consensually towards achieving the criterion for featured articles.  This article has become so unencyclopedic and non-medical that it resembles a personal essay and a website for those looking for speculative information about the condition.  There are plenty of good websites about AS on the net:  reference WP:NOT in terms of focusing here on encyclopedic content.  One place to start working on improvements may be to go back to the original featured version and see what it included, keeping in mind that standards have been raised since this article became featured.  Taking salvageable portions and article structure from the original featured article, and deleting non-encyclopedic content that has crept in since the article was featured, may be one way of orienting the work needed. Sandy 17:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If keeping it listed requires adding the speculative causes and therapies once more, I vote for unlisting it instead. Besides, the article still is too big, and adding those again would make it much too big. Given the complexity of the subject, I think it is much better to keep factoring out parts of the article in sub-articles and only keeping small summaries. After all, this approach should not interfere with the featured status. Besides, since AS is not a disease, or at least it is not widely accepted as a disease, following examples of diseases doesn't sound like a good idea. Also, look at the link WP:FA. Aspergers and autism is listed in the psychology section, not in the medical section. --Rdos 19:02, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, due to article size issues, things like that should be kept short in detail, if mentioned at all, or atleast if not mentioned, link to the separate article at the bottom, if link not provided elsewhere. -- Dubh  agan  00:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Speculative causes and therapies have no place in encyclopedic entry, other than a VERY brief mention as speculation (perhaps a one paragraph summary, mentioning all speculative therapies, for example). Summary style can be adhered to in reducing the size of the article overall. WP:MCOTW featured articles include several neurological, psychological, or neuropsychiatric conditions, and the suggestion I made was to look there for samples of how to write medical articles, not necessarily *diseases*.  Sandy 19:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I just read the entire article. I think Brian is largely wrong. There is a good balance between advantages/disadvantages. A problem is that most of the disadvantages are brought forward by autism researchers, while many of the advantages are from the autistic community. However, Attwood and others are mentioned in the text as having more or less those views as well. That could provide citations to this view. I'm not knowledgable enough to update most of the content related to what various professionals and others have written. My main focus is on original research about autism, and advocating autism as mainly a difference. --Rdos 20:09, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Who is "the autistic community?" Can a reader, reading the article for the first time, figure out who they are?  (Hint:  no.)  Can an independent reader verify that the opinions attributed to them are held?  (Hint: no.)  Are those cited reliable sources?  (Since they are generally not cited, no.) Nandesuka 20:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * There is an article Autistic community, but it can be explained briefly. It is basically autistics that are online, their forums, web-sites, blogs, mailing-lists and so on. Not unlike other social groups and cultures. Social groups and cultures are part of Wikipedia, and they do *not* draw information from peer-reviewed medical journals! The opinions can be verified, but it have to be done as it is done with other social phenomeny, IOW, not in medical journals. --Rdos 21:38, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And, it's not about advantages and disadvantages: it's whether the article is encyclopedic and meets the criteria for featured articles.  I'd like to see the article retain its featured status.  You can spend time debating whether Brian is right or not, or you can spend time fixing the article via a careful review of the criteria and other featured medical articles.  I hope editors will choose the latter while the article is under review.  Again, I suggest a review of the original, featured version would be a good starting place.  Sandy 20:24, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Also, Rdos is a self-diagnosed autistic with a very curious theory to promote, so I'm inclined to take his dogmatic statements with a pinch of salt. Just zis Guy you know? 11:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Just because he is not diagnosed with it doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about it. He actually sounds very knowlegable on the subject, diagnosis or not, and he sounds like he's more familiar with it than I am, and I'm medically diagnosed.  Actually, reading your comments, it almost sounds like your trolling and trying to discredit every comment Rdos makes, even though he's made no mention of his site/theories/quiz in this discussion, he's only talking about the topic at hand.  For an admin, you should know better than that.  -- Dubh  agan  15:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Guess again. I am just your friendly neighbourhood admin who has just spent some time and effort cleaning up after a POV-pusher, and some more time and effort calming down a friend who is currently having RL problems; I have seen any number of examples of people arguing that because policy forbids their edits then it's policy that's wrong.  Just zis Guy you know? 16:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I don't sense any POV pushing from him in this discussion, all I read is someone trying to help improve the article. Just because his ideas about it are different from yours doesn't mean he's POV pushing, especially when it's a discussion on a talk page.  -- Dubh  agan  16:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That's largely because his tendentious edits and original research articles have been removed by consensus. Just zis Guy you know? 16:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * And he has stopped trying to add that stuff, so stop punishing him. -- Dubh  agan  16:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yep, this is correct. JzG, you could have checked if I had tried to add any links to the article recently before you go on like this. The fact is, I had the Aspie-quiz here for a short while until RN removed it. I then asked him to remove the other, non-notable tests as well, which he did. The Neanderthal theory haven't been here for quite a while. The last time was before the separate article was deleted in october last year. --Rdos 18:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * The argument seems to be whether this should be a medical article or an inclusive article with a broader perpective. I argue that it can't be a medical article only, any more than the article on homosexuality could be a medical article only or the article on deafness could be a medical article only or the article on disability could be a medical article only. There's no denying autism is more than the narrow medical definitions of it, and I don't see why this knowledge should be censored or reduced to a minimum expression. Neurodivergent 20:55, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * As long as such broader perspectives are from verifiable, reliable sources, there's no problem. Right now, however, significant parts of the article read like an opinion piece.  Opinion pieces are not within Wikipedia's purview.  That's not censorship.  That's editing. Nandesuka 21:12, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What reads like an opinion piece? I can't find any section that does.  Maybe if we broke it down section by section that might help determine what should stay, what should go and what should be reworded.  -- Dubh  agan  00:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is more a problem with Wikipedia policies than anything else. If autism is not a disease / disorder, why then would all information come from the medical community (which are the only verifiable, reliable sources accepted by some here)? Just look at the Autistic culture and related articles. They don't cite their opinions from medical experts, but from autistic people. The same should be practised here for the non-medical aspects. --Rdos 21:23, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not the place to debate Wikipedia policies, except to note that we will scrupulously follow them. As your own example makes clear, it is easy to find verifiable and reliable sources for non-medical issues.  This article doesn't do that.  That's why, at present, it's a bad article. Nandesuka 21:27, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, but there is a problem here. While neurotypical cultures are typically defined by leaders, newpapers and governments, the autistic community doesn't work like that. There is no single site that can claim to be representable, no government, no common newspaper or anything like that. There are some large organizations like AFF, wrongplanet that sometimes do make headlines in newspapers, but they can hardly be said to speak for every autistic person. This is a preferential, organizational difference problem. It might be handled by citing people like Attwood and others though. --Rdos 22:21, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Rdos, your assertion that it is policy which is wrong seems to be founded on the fact that policy forbids the inclusion of your unverified theories. It is you who are at fault, not policy.  Policy is written fomr the basis of what Wikipedia is: an encyclopaedia.  If you want to write about unpublished or fringe theories, you can do that somewhere else; this site is about taking what is verifiable from reliable secondary sources and stating it in neutral terms.  We do not do original research, and that includes novel syntheses of published data.  Your perspective as a self-diagnosed autistic is not, I would suggest, a great starting point for an objective assessment of neutrality, since it puts you outside both the medical community and the community of formally diagnosed autistics. Just zis Guy you know? 11:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * What is policy? I talked about how the autistic community is organized, which I suppose you have no idea of. And your continued ramblings about me being self-diagnosed are quite tiring. I happen to operate several autistic-oriented forums, for instance a swedish forum with 80+ members, most with a formal Asperger's diagnosis. Unlike what you think, Aspie-quiz is not a random quiz. It has been put together at my forum, with help from many people there. New versions even evolve on a wikipedia so anybody can comment on content (not this one, as User:JzG would certainly delete it and ban me). I also happen to have a daughter diagnosed with autism, so I think I know a lot more about the topic than you do User:JzG. So I suggest *you* shut up instead this time. --Rdos 11:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * So, are you saying that you have been formally diagnosed by a doctor? That's at odds with what I understand from your earlier contributions.  The fact that your quiz was assembled from the opinions of a few friends absolutely does not confer any validity on the quiz or its outcomes.  Come back when it's been published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal.  Same applies to your neanderthal theory.  Everything you write looks like special pleading.  Just zis Guy you know? 13:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * No, I don't want a diagnos by a doctor. Haven't you looked at my new user page? I thought you guarded it? It clearly says "This user is an Aspie and does not have Asperger's syndrome". It means just that. I don't need the label because I function well enough in society, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't get it if I tried to. As for the validity of Aspie-quiz. The evaluations speaks for themselves. Can be found at the blacklisted site I'm sure you have kept the url to. There are now 5 different versions that have 17,145 answers in total. Many of the questions are useful to determine aspie vs NT as can been seen in the statistics. The results between quiz versions are quite consistent. The rate of misdiagnosis ranges around 20%, similar to the AQ-test. Besides, it seems quite popular. There is a thread about it at that has 30 pages of answers that has been running for a long time. And no, I didn't initiate it, BTW. To be frank, User:JzG, it looks like you haven't looked at the quiz (the sources for the quiz are mentioned, which include AQ-test, Martha Kate and several others), the evaluations are public (including source code) and the full Neanderthal theory is also available (not the summary deleted from Wikipedia). I suggest you make yourself familiar with the stuff you are commenting on before posting anything else on this topic. --Rdos 13:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This part of the discussion seems increasingly out of place (policy changes, user conduct criticisms, deleted content, etc.). Rdos, others are already discussing improvements. Remember that the burden of proof is on the shoulders of those who want specific material included. Your time may be better spent sourcing the good stuff than defending indefensible content. Especially when it's already been deleted. AvB &divide; talk  15:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree, but as I wrote elsewhere, I'm not too familiar with what various autism-experts have to say. I've read a lot of the MEDLINE research about autism, but their attitude about autistics usually makes me sic. Certainly, it is not very hard to search for specific topics on MEDLINE, and I can do that if somebody has something concrete. I have no specific additional material I want to include. I'm merely concerned that the current neutral view of AS will be "medicalized" too much.


 * Rdos, I don't "guard" articles, I do guard policy violations. Since you've given an undertaking not to use your page against policy I am taking you at your word.  But I do have a problem with the apparent assertion that only an aspie can understand the subject, when that statement is made by a self-diagnosed aspie - I am a bad person, I know, but it riles me.  I have indeed looked at the quiz, but it does not interest me particularly.  Until it's published in a reliable source it's not of any interest or value to the project.  For the rest, I'd say that AvB is right on the money.  Do not personalise content disputes.  Just zis Guy you know? 16:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think you are a bad person JzG, but I'm a bit touchy about special interest projects, which happens to be the one you have been attacking. Just because I haven't got to peer-review (yet), doesn't mean that my work is bad. I have already agreed that it is original research, and that it cannot presently be included here. However, I think I am allowed to discuss various things I've found out with Aspie-quiz. Some of it might actually already be researched, but not widely now. --Rdos 18:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * This is not about Rdos. It's about censorship. Again, I don't mind if the article is cleaned up to adhere to Wikipedia policy. But I'll call censorship what it is when I see it. Neurodivergent 23:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Call it whatever you like, as long as you follow our policies. If you wish to publish material that does not conform to Wikipedia's policies, I encourage you to publish a blog.  Nandesuka 00:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * As I've seen on WP:ANI, Wikipedia's policies can (and are) interpreted any way a particular admin wants them to be interpreted. In this case, some people are trying to censor all non-medical aspects of AS. I don't see any consensus for doing this. I suggest the non-medical stuff be referenced in the same way it is on autistic community. Requiring PUBMED citations for cultural aspects is clearly not warranted. Look at the Keirsey Temperament Sorter. It is not based on PUBMED citations. It references websites with online quizes. The social traits of AS is similar, and can be classified with similar methods (factor analysis) as temperaments. --Rdos 06:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I checked the section titled "A Gift and a Curse" which is the one I believe is at issue (read: some wish it weren't here). There's very little in there that could be said not to adhere to Wikipedia policy. Before removing anything, I strongly recommend discussing it in the Talk page. Neurodivergent 00:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, since I'm the one that first mentioned it, after rereading it, we could keep it, but that Speculation subsection bothers me, considering how long it is for a section with a main article link. Maybe condense it a bit.  -- Dubh  agan  00:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't mind that, considering there's a link to main articles on the subject. Neurodivergent 00:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, the middle paragraph looks the most likely to be deleted/condensed. That's a lot of detail for something that is covered in the link.  -- Dubh  agan  00:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I sense some WP:OWN sentiments here, especially the idea that the article is in some kind of danger. If you think it is: There's nothing wrong with letting the wiki process improve articles. Source what you can and accept that the rest has no place in Wikipedia when challenged. It can always be re-added later if it can be documented. AvB ÷ talk  11:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

A note regarding the idea that this is or should be an article on a neurological disorder like epilepsy or aphasia. Medical POV: there is no indication, let alone evidence garnered via research, much less results published in peer-reviewed journals, let alone replication or falsification of such results, that this is a neurological disorder. We do not know what causes AS. There is little or no evidence of pathology. There is no medical consensus on what causes it, there are no medical treatments, certainly not a cure, and if there were, those so diagnosed generally would not want to be "cured" for fear of changing the holiest of holies: one's personality. Psychology/psychiatry is another scientific POV. These disciplines are, to a limited extent, studying the effects AS has on people's lives, proposing and assessing what can be done to help them understand and interact with "normal people", cope with other problems, etc. Politics is another important POV e.g. facilitating (better) work performance or school results, or preventing/discouraging discrimination. Another increasingly important POV to cover: changing attitudes, "grassroots" activism, media exposure, etc. AS has parallels with homosexuality some decades ago in that it is increasingly seen as a (set of) personality traits rather than a psychiatric and/or neurological disorder. Another similarity is that "patients" are fully aware of the differences between themselves and "normal" people. Their views are important too. Just a few points off the top of my head to address the idea that there is only one (scientific) POV that must be described. AvB ÷ talk  11:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * If this article shouldn't be compared to articles such as epilepsy, maybe it should be compared more to Autism, to which Asperger's seems related. The autism article also has featured article status.  -- Dubh  agan  14:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, "compared more" being the key. Compared with AS (a form of Autism in its own right) Autism is a mixed bag in that it is linked with brain development disorders or brain damage in a pretty significant number of cases (these patients usually also have many other problems inherent to neuropathology). AS is similar to classical Autism without (1) (per definition) delayed language development and without (2) (per my observation) measurable brain pathology. Indeed, a consensus seems to be developing to lump AS and high functioning autism together and consider any differences to be mere definitional artefacts. AvB &divide; talk  15:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmmm, I don't think I made comment clear enough. I was referring to comparing the articles, not the conditions, as they are already being compared.  I was saying that this article should follow the Autism article more than any other for things that should and shouldn't be included.  As for Asperger's being the same as HFA, I was under the impression that there were some differences between the two, and that HFA was somewhat more severe than Asperger's.  -- Dubh  agan  15:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Or my response was less than clear :-) I understood what you meant and agree. For the rest my comments were just some background mainly re the brain damage pitfall (a lot of autism is directly caused by brain damage, e.g. lack of oxygen at birth). HFA = AS is an emerging consensus. I think the autism article gives the various POVs. It's definitely an article to look at for some guidance. AvB &divide; talk  17:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

To all: I have tried to add in as many citations as I could last night in a game of fill in the blanks. Luckily I have a diverse library on AS so it's not a problem for me. I am still working on this so be patient and I should have most of the remaining blanks filled in by the rest of the week (ie. still looking for a citation for the bit about kids with AS playing with older/younger kids. I have seen this countless times in articles, and I know it's true for my son, but can't come up with the reference right now ... will do soon.) Hope this helps save the featured article status; as a mother of a son with AS, it's important to me to preserve this status, in terms of public awareness of AS. If there are any other "facts" in question, please insert citation request and I will try my best to find them. If you have any questions about the veracity of my citations, I would be happy to email you the supporting comments, quotes etc. or post them here if necessary. Pokey2006 14:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Order of subsections
Shouldn't the characteristics section be right after the definition section, just before the causes section? -- Dubh agan  14:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Sections in order now, except diagnosis moved up due to differing diagnostic criteria. Sandy 11:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Theoretically, yes. I originally moved it there, but when I realized it was mostly speculative and unsourced and in disagreement with the DSM, I moved it to the bottom.  DSM criteria should be covered, and then divergent criteria (admittedly necessary and used in practice) should be covered in a separate section, IMO.  (By the way, DSM is pretty serious about its copyright, and does not like to be reproduced exactly:  someone needs to paraphrase the entire thing.) Again, I recommend a review of the sections and headings used in other featured articles for medical, psychological or neuropsychiatric conditions at WP:MCOTW.  For example, causes must be included in the AS article, and it is completely glossed over.  I hope some people who really know the AS research and literature will spend a few days in PubMed, citing their sources.  If you need an example of how to cite PubMed research, you can find it on Tourette syndrome.  Almost none of the references, books, or inline citations used in this article are cited correctly, and almost all need to be corrected.  Hope this helps,  Sandy 16:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * PS - glad to see someone asking about actual work on the article, rather than engaging in unfruitful discussions bordering on personal attacks :-) Sandy 16:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
 * PPS - I also hope that someone who knows where to find the data will add the infobox used at the top of TS to the top of AS, and the image of Hans is not a good one: isn't there a better quality image available anywhere?  Sandy 16:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Gillberg's criteria
Gillberg's criteria are as follows (all six criteria must be met for confirmation of diagnosis) [3] [4],

This is really bloating the article size, and gets into a level of detail that is too much for the main article, especially since it diverges from the DSM criteria (which also shouldn't be quoted verbatim in the article). Can't someone wikify who Gillberg is, and add his criteria in a separate article, so that it can be wikilinked here, for brevity ?? (And, doing it without violating copyright.) Sandy 18:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * BTW, I do think it's important to mention Gillbert's criteria, and I plan to cite an article that comparse with DSM-IV and shows there's a huge prevalence difference between the two. Neurodivergent 18:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Found him: Christopher Gillberg.  This article badly needs someone to go through and wikilink everything, after the more important work is done.  Can't his criteria be listed there, and then wiki-linked here ?  Sandy 18:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I wasn't aware of the scientific misconduct allegations. It's amazing how common scientific misconduct is in neuropsychology. Anyway, I wonder how this impacts the relevance of Gillberg's criteria for Asperger's, considering there's already DSM-IV. Neurodivergent 21:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've been following the debate between Kärfve and Gillberg. I don't know if he had forged data or not, but apparently, he distroyed all the data after courts had forced him to give the data to Kärfve and Elinder. Officially, he did it because of privacy issues, but I don't know. Anyway, this was research on DAMP, a dx somewhere between ADHD and AS. DAMP is increasingly less used these days in Scandinavia, probably somehow due to the Kärfve - Gillberg conflict. --Rdos 06:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree with Sandy and feel like Gilberg dignosis need to be moved to Christopher Gillberg article.Natche24 03:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I added a TOC to the Gillberg article, so that you can now link directly to the criteria there, and not have to use them here. Gillberg Criteria Sandy 04:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Writing a medical article
You can find a LOT of guidelines here about how to improve the article. In particular, the headings that should be employed are listed here. WikiProject Clinical medicine/Writing medical articles. Sandy 13:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Can someone/anyone please reorganize and orient the text that's there according to the suggested heading? It will make it easier to do the work.  What should be covered in each section is discussed in the Wiki link above. Sandy 04:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

To quickly start an article with these sections, you can copy-paste them from this list:

==Classification== ==Symptoms and signs== ==Causes== ==Pathophysiology== ==Diagnosis== Note that in the case of AS, diagnosis needs to be discussed earlier on, because of the problems with multiple criteria and no screening instruments. I moved it above symptoms and signs. Sandy 00:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC) ==Treatment/Management== ==Prognosis== ==Prevention/Screening== ==Epidemiology== ==History== ==Social Impact== ==Notable cases== ==References==

Statements at issue

 * "It is thought that most people with Asperger syndrome learn to cope with their social impairments later in life."


 * I haven't found anything on PubMed about Asperger outcome or progress. Note that the diagnosis of Asperger did not officially exist until 1994. There are several studies on the outcome and progress of Kanner autistics, from which you might infer something similar to the above. I vote to just remove the sentence. Neurodivergent 15:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, I found this: . Anyone have access? Neurodivergent 16:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "Some clinicians believe that communicative or cognitive deficiencies are so essential to the concept of autism that they prefer to consider Asperger's a separate condition from autism. This opinion is a minority one."


 * I don't think it can be quantified as a minority opinion. I'm aware of some studies, however, that say there's essentially no difference between HFA and Asperger's. Neurodivergent 16:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "Depression and poverty are common in Asperger syndrome patients."
 * I have found no credible evidence by medical sources of poverty and Aspergers. In fact I know people with Aspergers who are adults and none of them are in poverty. I also checked the PubMed article that was cited by the person who put it in the article and the abstract speaks nothing about poverty. Please note that I do not take issue with the Depression only the part that has to do with poverty. Natche24 02:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I saw a reference to the Szatmari definition under the definitions and diagnostic criteria section, yet no mention is made of the person it is named after. Here's a link I found of him: http://www.fhs.mcmaster.ca/psychiatryneuroscience/faculty/szatmari/. I know several people that have been diagnosed as Asperger's and Autistic by him. He is Canada's leader in that field. I would make the mention myself, but I'm not sure how to word it. -- Dubh agan  03:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "Depression and poverty are often associated with Asperger syndrome"? RN 03:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * RN, we might wait a reasonable amount of time for all statements to be referenced, and then start removing unreferenced statements to the talk page ??? Sandy 03:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, that it what I would do as well :). RN 10:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * "With the increase of Asperger syndrome diagnoses..."


 * This is an example of something clearly true and commonly known which might nevertheless not be citable. Neurodivergent 18:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * That is just silly. There are references to similar statements all over the literature about Tourette syndrome, and I'm sure there are to AS as well.  Do you all know how to use PubMed and Google scholar?  You can locate an article on google scholar, and get directly to it with the excellent new advanced search abilities on PubMed. What are the authoritative medical tomes on AS?  Have you looked at the extensive citing on Tourette syndrome?  I'll go see what I can find.  This is explained in the writing medical articles link I've cited here several times.  Sandy 19:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is what Google scholar coughs up.   Next, I'll be back with a PMID.  Sandy 19:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Clearly there's an increase in the administrative prevalence of autism. There's a whole Wikipedia article about it. But is there something about the prevalence of Asperger's syndrome specifically? Neurodivergent 13:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Here's a  Now, I don't know the research, and I don't know if that's a high quality study, but every statement in this article should and can be referenced, and you can tell by the times that it took me seven minutes, and I don't even know the AS literature well.  Sandy 19:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Excess External Links, and work still needed
Per [|Wiki medical sections], I agree with RN's revert to External Link. The article on how to write a medical article gives some EXCELLENT guidelines, which should be very helpful in re-working the AS entry. I just reorganized Tourette syndrome according to the headings suggested, which helped make it very clear to me where I still needed to do work. The external links should all be in DMOZ, if they are significant, and if they're not in DMOZ, the webmasters should be encouraged to add them.


 * See also: Links in this section should be used sparingly. If two topics are truly linked, it should be possible to define that relationship with a sentence in the main article, and provide the wikilink there.
 * External links: Links in this section should be used sparingly. If an external link is provided, it is better to tie that link to an assertion in the article, and then use the Reference section instead of the External links section.
 * Significant international and (English-speaking) national organisations may be included here if they contain useful material to supplement the article. However, their number should be kept in check –Wikipedia is not a collection of links. This is an encyclopedia, not a promotional tool for charities however worthy, nor is it trying to be resource for those seeking help. Further guidance is available at Wikipedia:External links.

Sandy 03:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I found the online version of the DSM-IV, here's the link for Asperger's: http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/asperger.htm

-- Dubh agan  04:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Great, maybe someone will paraphrase them, and then just include a link. Sandy 04:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I've included the link and started paraphrasing, though I need help. -- Dubh  agan  04:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)


 * I just did it as a sample, but you'll have to tweak my wording. Sandy 04:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Found this link, if anyone is interested, or if it can be used to improve the article: http://www.as-if.org.uk/criteria.htm. -- Dubh agan  05:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * The link is good I used it in the Definitions and diagnostic criteria section of the article. Natche24 05:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Using DMOZ instead of external links
What a wonderful idea! Now we can eventually end the edit-wars in this section of the article as well. I've submitted my site there. ;) --Rdos 06:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * You can credit User:FrancisTyers for that one. We ended up in mediation over external links on Tourette syndrome, and he gave us that solution, duh !  Gets the little stuff out of the way, so you can do productive work on the article.  I've also found help here in the past:  Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Week.  You all might go there, explain that AS is at risk of losing its featured status (where it's listed on their MCOTW page), and see if folks there will help out or give suggestions.  Also, if you all can begin to reference statements, I am willing to help convert them to a correct and complete referencing style.  Right now, most of the inline citations and references are done incorrectly, and the sections still need a major, major revamping.  Sandy 13:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

An idea
Just a suggestion: feel free to ignore me, or to toss around the idea for a few days. I've been trying to help clean up this article, but the more time I spend in it, the more I realize there is very little medical, reliable, verifiable content. It has really deteriorated and isn't encyclopedic. I was wondering if our efforts would be better oriented if you reverted to the last Featured Article verion, more or less this, and then worked on rebuilding and bringing new content into that version? It would be far easier to reference and update the old version, than to continue trying to fix the new version. Just an idea: it might help keep the FA status, and it seems to provide a much better starting place than the mess of the current article. Any valuable changes made to the newer version could be added to that older version after the revert (things like DMOZ). I'm trying to help with the references, but I'm finding that a lot of the references aren't actually reliable, medical, peer-reviewed sources. Sandy 22:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Would it not be better to correct the current edition, rather than moving forward from out-dated contexts? If you do not wish to correct it, then I'm sure someone else will. --Keyne 23:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I have no vested interest either way, but the content is so highly speculative, that it doesn't provide a good foundation from which to build. Almost none of the foundations of a medical article are even present at all, and most of the article deals with speculation and controversy, rather than adding speculation and controversy to the end of established views and practices.   The last FA version seemed to afford a better starting place. Sandy 23:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Then, we reorg away, I would imagine. Building from what we have is the foundation of how an article is built.  I just cannot see restarting from an older version as being a viable option.  It might take work, but I believe it'll be better off if we continue to build, rather than [de+re]construct.  I'd advocate a rewrite over other options. --Keyne 13:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asperger_syndrome&oldid=3259426 Here's a link to a version from when it was first a FA. -- Dubh agan  00:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * But, if you go back too far, you have to reconstruct almost everything: wikilinks and stuff like that.  That's why I was thinking of the '05 version, if you all decide to go that direction. Sandy 00:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)


 * Ah, sorry, I went back to when it was first a featured article. You should have been more specific.  When was it a featured article in '05?  -- Dubh  agan  00:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm not sure, but User:RN reported that it was also featured as of this date:   Sandy 00:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the 2nd time it has been on FARC - last time it survived, but standards are higher now. The link I gave was just an approximation :). Even with the '05 version speculation and references are going to be a problem, but in some ways it does provide a better foundation. What I'd do is be merciless in removing the speculation - but often when I've tried to that and/or make it more of a proper medical article I seem to run up against a large amount of advocacy. So I have my doubts... RN 00:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I'll support whichever is the consensus of the means to getting the article fixed as quickly as possible, whether reverting, deleting massive chunks of what's there now, doing a major rewrite, or whatever is felt will get the job done, but I think aiming for the structure and organization mentioned in the "writing a good medical article" link is the way to organize the work. I wish I could help more in the writing, but I don't know the territory.  I can help in doing the reference work, if people just stick in the PMIDs, I'll fix 'em. Sandy 01:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

For those advocating for a rewrite, the article has been in WP:FAR for a week now, the process typically lasts two weeks, and there has yet to be any major improvement to the article. Who's doing the rewrite? The article as of now suffers from prose problems, unencyclopedic content, and lack of references. If no one is going to do the work, the older versions would be preferable. Sandy 11:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Asperger's and sexuality
On this person's talk page it says ''I've heard many describe slower maturation in Aspies, perhaps not being fully mature until their mid-30s. It would be a logical consequence of this slower maturation if males also were attracted to much younger girls.'' Is there any truth in this? Or is it just one of Rdos's crackpot theories? Skinnyweed 01:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * DEFINATELY one of Rdos's crackpot theories!


 * There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest slower sexual maturation, in some cases the contrary applies. There is sometimes a problen with parents trying to delay maturation.


 * The only thing I will say is that, just as aspies are more likely to be able to relate emotionally, successfully to (aka "get it on with") someone from a different culture (because in such a case diversity and difference is a positive expectation in both parties, not a source of alienation), it is probable that a relationship with someone much older or younger would also stand a similar chance of success for similar reasons. --Zeraeph 02:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That's just bull. Either that or I'm an exception to the rule, which I highly doubt.  -- Dubh  agan  02:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's not a "crackpot" theory, but then it haven't been proved by published research either. Looking younger than their biological age and feeling younger is just some of those things that Aspies tend to answer more often YES to in Aspie-quiz. --Rdos 18:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That only cover physical and mental maturity, not sexual maturity. There's a difference.  Personally, as a person with Asperger's, I've always been told I look older than my age (when I was in grade 12 people were asking me what university I was going to).  Also, if you quiz NT's on whether they look older or younger than their biological age, you could get the same answer.  There is no evidence to suggest that Asperger's affects how old you look, but it's more likely a case of family genetics, as there is not an Asperger's (or Autistic) look.  As for mental maturity, I've heard that Aspies can more mature in some ways, but less mature in other ways.  Personally, I've always related better with adults, but at the same time I can act immature for my age, which seems to correlate with what I've heard.  As for sexual maturity, from what I understand, puberty is puberty, no matter who it hits.  However, the difference between Aspies and NT's could be in the mental understanding of it.  Personally, I feel I've always had a mature understanding of it, though I'm sure that's not always the case.  Rdos, if you do study it further, I'd suggest looking at the mental understanding of sexuality in Aspies.  -- Dubh  agan  18:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I've said nothing about sexual maturity. There is no evidence for that that I know of, neither in the autistic community nor in Aspie-quiz or in peer-reviewed research. Also, the comparision in Aspie-quiz is always done between a NT-control group and diagnosed Aspies, so that could hardly be the reason for this finding. --Rdos 19:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Then what are you talking about in that opening quote? -- Dubh  agan  20:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, if you aren't talking about "sexual maturity" you can't be talking about sexual attraction, so that's all right.


 * Where are your sources? And don't say "Aspie Quiz" for several reasons, as follows:

--Zeraeph 20:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * 1) "Aspie Quiz" is only an account of certain self reported aspects of the type of Aspie who isn't too caught up in their own interests to take online quizes, (operated by people who think of them as Neanderthal pedophiles), and AS/NT/other folk making fun. This would be somewhere between an artificially and incidentally selective minority and "not enough to be representative"
 * 2) "Aspie Quiz" does not ask the question "are you attracted to much younger people (not girls, there ARE gay Aspies and lady Aspies, some of them are even straight, y'know, and all the gender/sexual ambivalence Aspies are famous for makes it even MORE interesting). So you are interpreting the results on invalid, untested premise.
 * 3) "Aspie Quiz" is "original research".


 * Rather than argue Rdos, give me a reputable SOURCE that supports your entire contention.


 * Incidentally, I think you will find that Neanderthal Man probably matured sexually earlier than we do today, and sexually immature men are more likely to seek mother figures..--Zeraeph 19:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Absolutely not. They matured slower, as basically every mammal that is cold-adapted do in relation to warm-adapted sister-species. This is a direct consequence of lower energy-supply and a seasonal habitat. By delaying maturity, the species can survive on fewer resources. --Rdos 19:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking and feeling younger than your bio age is neither sexual immaturity nor pedophillia, it is simply ENVIABLE *rolling eyes*--Zeraeph 18:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Um, are you referring to me or Rdos? -- Dubh  agan  19:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Rdos - he managed to split my comment AND avoid providing a reputable source for his original contention (or his new contention)...he may be away with the fairies, but he can be very CUNNING about it ;o) --Zeraeph 19:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * gender/sexual ambivalence Aspies are famous for. What sexual ambivalence are they famous for? Skinnyweed 20:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Are you SERIOUS??? Have you not heard of that? It's a primary characteristic of AS, along with a way higher than normal aversion to children and/or reproduction (and yup, I was having a time squaring THAT with pedophilia too!). Wondered why the article didn't mention either...better find you some sources --Zeraeph 21:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I seem to have "google blindness" tonight, I can't think of the right search terms to find anything extensive and I am hampered by a dial in modem and a thunderstorm, but for now here is a link comfirming I'm not making up the gender identity confusion...more later because it MUST go in the article, and for that it must be sourced properly http://www.brookdalecare.co.uk/www/asdinfo.php?mm=5&sm=16 --Zeraeph 21:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, sources would help, I'm not familiar with those statements, though I seem to accurately fit those. But what's with the pedophilia mention?  I'm confused with the link to pedophilia and Asperger's that you mentioned.  -- Dubh  agan  21:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No Dubhagan, I am confusing you. What I tried to say was that people with AS are more likely than normal to have a dislike of children and reproducing themselves...which doesn't seem to fit in with Rdos suggestions of pedophilia or near pedophilia...I will find proper links so you can read this stuff up...

I'm confused, why are we talking about this? -- Dubh agan  20:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think you're confused at all: I think you're right on track :-))  Sandy 20:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

They have gender confusion? It also says Inappropriate expression of sexual feelings, what kinds of expression? Skinnyweed 21:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Below is a good link but it is all SUCH a big issue, totally missing from the article...must find you some more, but in the meanwhile, think about it. AS means a lack of social skills, and "expression of sexual feelings" is one of the most complex, sophisticated social skillsets...--Zeraeph 23:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * See here. You'll have to scroll to near the bottom for the section titled Acknowledging Sexuality.  -- Dubh  agan  21:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Not a peer-reviewed, valid medical reliable source. Someone's personal website.  Any MD can say anything they want:  is any statement there backed by research studies or subject to widespread medical consensus and peer review?  Go to PubMed and do a search.  And ... not to beat a dead horse but ... the article needs to be fixed before new, missing content is added.  Focus. Sandy 00:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Here's what comes up on a PubMed search -- have no idea if they're any good:
 * Google scholar coughs up an Attwood paper http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.00452.x but I can't find it on Pubmed.  Google scholar also yields several books, which probably cite sources.  Sandy 01:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Google scholar coughs up an Attwood paper http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.00452.x but I can't find it on Pubmed.  Google scholar also yields several books, which probably cite sources.  Sandy 01:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

masturbating in public; stripping in public; touching others inappropriately; touching private parts of own in public; - that's ridiculous! As if anyone would do that. Can you just imagine that though? That would be the most embarassing thing ever, and you'll be charged with a whole variety of crimes. 'Oh, I'm just going to touch that stranger in broad daylight. Then I'm going to take my clothes off and start touching myself in front of everyone.' Skinnyweed 02:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Unfourtnately it might be true, I had a class mate that was aspie and he was actually masturbating under the table during class, and I'm not joking. As for myself I wouldn't say that I have had any problems with slower sexual maturity or something, I lost my virginity when I was 15, which at the time felt very appropriate and the girl was 16, so it was neither pedophilia nor slower sexual maturity. Although out of all profesionals I've talked to they've said I display very little to no symptomps of AS anymore. User:xSpaceyx 15:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * oh, for gosh sakes. Anything "might" be true about anything.  We need medical references, not anecdote and individual stories bloating the talk page.  Some of the problems with your argument are:  a few anecdotal cases do not equal a medical correlation.  OCD is associated with AS, and could explain the behaviors.  Other comorbids need to be accounted for.  Please leave speculative anecdote off the talk page, and focus on medical evidence and studies published in peer-reviewed journals or from reliable sources.  Sandy 15:31, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Remember Sandy we are only confirming and defining source material that was questioned, from personal experience here. I've seen that kind of behavior too. It's not as overt as just "shucking down" in Wal-mart. Masturbating under the table, hands over active in pockets, no perception of when it is inappropriate to be nude in company...my personal guess is that there was a secondary disorder of some kind involved.


 * Also Aspies don't know how to express or react to their own sexual attractions. They can veer between touching inappropriately and not knowing how to touch at all, near stalking and total avoidance. --Zeraeph 15:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not denying it might be a true, medical correlation or fact of the condition. I'm trying to 1) encourage editors here to focus on finding reliable sources from which to reference statements, rather than discussing anecdote, which doesn't belong in an encylopedic entry, 2) encourage editors to write statements in ways they can be referenced, and 3) get folks here to hopefully focus on salvaging the article before adding new content. New content can be added once/if the standards for referencing and citing reliable sources are understood.  Sandy 15:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hey Sandy, I'm with you on sources, but we discuss what we need to discuss on the talk page. Some of these concepts are hard to source, simply because of the search terms (I leave it to you imagination), and the more people discussing them, and looking for sources or terms to FIND sources, and ways to present them, the better, because they ARE important aspects of AS --Zeraeph 15:56, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * ah, OK, agreed. My apologies :-)  This is a helpful discussion, in terms of developing a list of keywords for search terms and concepts.  Sandy 15:59, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

An interesting thread and a interesting topic. Contrary to some claims here, it seems to confirm my view rather than disprove it. I've had a hunch all the time that many "odd" sexual behaviors can indeed by explained if put into the context of another species. This is true for not "understanding" how to show one's sexuality. What is there to understand? Most of it is innate behaviors anyway, and NTs have no problems because their behaviors are the accepted one's! If courting and sexual behaviors weren't largely innate and genetic, how could two strangers from different cultures ever hope to fancy each others? This is clearly an important aspect of a species survival.

I was asked about pedophilia on my talk-page, and I responded that it wouldn't surprise me if it was correlated with autism. That's because pedophilia obviously is quite maladaptive in our species, and so fits with the other differences in sexuality.

I did research some sexual deviations in version II and III of Aspie-quiz, but those failed. I'm starting to suspect that part of the reasons they failed might be similar to why some physical traits failed. The NT-control group was almost exclusively scandinavian, while the aspie-group was more diverse. If homosexuality and BDSM had different prevalence in various etnic groups, this could explain this failure.

At least I "debunked" asexuality as a "sexual" trait. It didn't cluster with the sexual traits group, but with the social group, so I assume it is not something real at all. --Rdos 20:10, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you think pedophilia correlates to autism, why don't you check to see if any convicted pedophiles have autism-type diagnoses. -- Dubh  agan  21:23, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Might be hard to do, and just checking for diagnosed is not a good idea. A recent finding is that many criminals could be diagnosed ADHD, but if you check if a population of criminals have been diagnosed as ADHD, you end up with very different results because many of them have ended up criminal because of lack of diagnosis and support. If I new a "pedophili-site" I could simply post a link and ask them to take the quiz. I did that on BDSM and exhibitionism sites, and they scored higher than normal (compared to links posted on more regular sites). A definite "innovation" in Aspie-quiz is the referrer information. It can link people to specific sites. That's also how the NT-control group is put together. It consists of a couple of manually selected sites that are unrelated to autism and psychiatry. --Rdos 05:58, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So your basically saying you have no way to link Asperger's and pedophilia? That's what I thought.  I figured it a stretch at best, especially since I've known many people diagnosed with Autism and Asperger's, and NONE of them have had any pedophilia tendencies.  -- Dubh  agan  06:04, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't think anybody with pedophilia tendencies would tell you about that! Besides, if there is a correlation, it doesn't mean that all autistics would be potential pedophiles. I'd anticipate only a low correlation. --Rdos 08:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Tagged uncompliant
It's been a week since AS was listed as a featured article in need of review. Very few statements have been referenced, new unreferenced statements continue to be added, the prose has not been cleaned up, speculative opinion and original research has not been removed, and the article does not comprehensively cover basic information about the condition. I originally tagged it only as needing references, but the problems go beyond references, and aren't being corrected, as far as I can tell. Opinions and speculation don't belong in an encyclopedia entry: they belong on personal websites. Sandy 18:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sandy, why don't you be more specific about which passages you have a problem with? Makes it easier to clean up. --Zeraeph 18:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Zeraeph, that would take an entire talk page, but I'll be glad to start.


 * See Featured article review/Asperger syndrome.
 * I went through one small section of the article many days ago and tagged a few statements which needed references, only as an example.Those statements still haven't been referenced, and more unreferenced statements were added this morning. If you all are going to clean up this article, you'll need to start being ruthless about unreferenced statements.  Every editor is supposed to reference everything they add to Wiki from a reliable source.
 * See WikiProject Clinical medicine/Writing medical articles and this.
 * Have you read all of the talk page entries here?
 * Most of what is referenced is referenced to Attwood's book, which although a reliable source, is secondary to peer-reviewed journal articles, easily available at PubMed.
 * Specific examples, starting from the top of the article:
 * Lead: a reference for Lorna Wing paper (a name at least?) and Asperger paper.  Note that the article contains no history of the condition.
 * The description of AS in the Definitions section suffers from tense changes. I took the original crack at that sentence, it was changed several times, and now it goes through several different tense changes and doesn't flow.  In that same section, there are multiple missing citations, and the section immediately goes into controversy, without providing a thorough analysis of accepted medical knowledge about the condition.  There is one paragraph about AS as defined in the DSM, and then two paragraphs deviating from the DSM.  We're never told what the Szatmari definition is or what paper they appeared in.  There is no reference for the ICD-10 statement, so the reader doesn't know the connection to schizoid disorder.  There is no Classification section, as called for in medical articles, which discusses how AS is different than other pervasive developmental disorders.  Basically, what is there is incomplete, unreferenced, uncomprehensive, and goes immediately into controvery and conflicting definitions, without adequately defining the condition.
 * The article should start with Classification, then Symptoms and Signs, then Causes. There is no Classification section, Symptoms and Signs are presumably (?) covered under Characteristics:  why not call them Symptoms and Signs, and why not organize them according to the diagnostic criteria, to attain encyclopedic tone?
 * Causes: completely omitted. The reader doesn't know, from reading this one (unreferenced) paragraph if the condition is genetic, environmental, an interplay, and may be due to "refrigerator mothers" for all the reader knows.  The paragraph that is there says:  Nothing.  Besides being speculative and unreferenced.  Many of the issues I'm raising are available at NINDS, which is in the public domain.  If no one here is going to write these sections, it wouldn't be that hard to take them from the NINDS, and reference them to the NINDS.
 * The prevalence section is completely uncited, speculative, unreferenced, and doesn't give the basic info a reader needs to know. It also doesn't cover everything typically covered under epidemiology.
 * There is no pathophysiology or diagnosis section.
 * The entire Characteristics section is largely unreferenced, containing multiple, vague statements beginning with weasle words like "some people feel", and "some autistics assert." Weasle, unreferenced, original research has no place in Wiki, and even less in a medical article.
 * Relationship to autism is poorly written, unreferenced, and overlaps sections: is it wanting to be history or classification?  It achieves neither. Moved to History
 * Cultural and sociological views is largely speculative.

Shall I keep going ? Good samples of how to start the article, and the information which is missing, are found at NINDS, Yale, and WhoNamedIt, at minimum. Since I don't know AS well, I don't know which are the best sources to use, and which are the most accurate, but the article right now is not covering the basics, is not referenced, and is largely speculative original research of the type one expects to find in a personal website rather than an encyclopedia. Sandy 20:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Thanks Sandy, and YES, keep 'em coming :o) A list like this means someone like me can dip in and sort out a bit here and there, when they get a break, without having to go over and familiarise self with the whole article and subject, hopefully a FEW "someone like me"S? Gets it all sorted out in NO time.


 * Especially if a few more people add to the "fault list" - gets rid of that acute "where to start?" feeling. --Zeraeph 20:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Zeraeph, I've offered several times to help, but no one seems to be taking the offer. I largely wrote Tourette syndrome, so I know you can make the medical format work for a condition that is not a "disease" or a typical medical condition.  I just don't know AS well enough to do the actual writing.  If people will just stick in PMID numbers, I can do the full references, for example, and help with copy-editing.  But, it seems that some are more interested in promoting original research than fixing the article :-)  In that case, the article gets tagged, and no one reads it anyway.  Perhaps some consensus to stand up to the "original researchers", and insist that the article be referenced, will help the article. The FAR process typically lasts two weeks, and one has already passed.  Let's get to work.  Sandy 20:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * PS, I suggest using the writing medical articles link as a starting place. Just go section by section, grabbing the text that is available in the article, and referencing it.  If you just put it in order, and if others provide some idea of a PMID number or a source, I'll be glad to help with copyediting and completing the references. Another good place to start would be to ruthlessly delete major chunks of the current article: ditch everything that is speculative, and start over.Sandy 20:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Let's just DO IT ;o) -but not tonight connection is too bad and thunder too frequent --Zeraeph 21:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yeah, now that we have some good medical links and a list, I'll probably pick at it during the week. -- Dubh  agan  05:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * By next Monday (the 10th of July), the article will be eligible to be moved from the Major review section of WP:FAR, to FARC, for featured article removal. A lot of work needs to be done this week.  Sandy 13:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I kind of support this theory though, but still I've meet alot of aspies in my life (around 40) and they're all very diffrent and so are their symptoms all they share is usually being very unsocial/antisocial, though how much differs from extremely odd to quite normal

I'm starting to like the words "Original research"
What it eventually comes down to in the context of this article is things that are well-known in the autistic community and virtually unknown or ignored in research circles. That many issues are deemed as original research only gives an indication of the quality of peer-reviewed research in the area. In virtually any real medical article original research would be incredibly unusual and very likely totally misinformed, but not here. I'll refer to Wikipedia in 10 years time when most of these issues are instead of "original research" refered to common sense! --Rdos 19:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'd believe that argument, except that the same can be said about TS, and I still managed to write and reference the article, including the controversial statements. If you want to write a personal essay on Wiki, there will always be a tag at the top of the article, and no one will read it anyway. So, by putting out original reseach, you're shooting the article, yourself, and Wiki in the foot. You can spin the controversial and speculative parts into a daughter article (if you can reference the statements to reliable sources):  they don't belong in the main article, which doesn't even cover the basics.Sandy 20:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'd be more content with an article that is "unreliable" than a medical article that reads as if AS was an terrible disease. I think it is preferable that readers don't bother to read it, and thus search for autistic community sites instead, instead of walking way with a totally biased idea of AS. I'll expect the same thing can be said about TS, but it doesn't seem like there is any strong community fighting for a non-disorder-view of TS. You could learn from the autistic community, you know ;-) --Rdos 06:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * but it doesn't seem like there is any strong community fighting for a non-disorder-view of TS. You're wrong.  In fact, a chapter of one of the most authoritative tomes on TS covers that issue, and it is mentioned in the TS article.  The TS article still has to cover the basics.  The discussion happens where it belongs:  on websites, not in an encyclopedia.  An encyclopedia is not an advocacy organization.  Can you please point out examples of where the article on AS is now reading like a "terrible disease"?  Please feel free to introduce verifiable, reliable information which combats any negativism you see.  Sandy 12:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Some links I have found
Here are some links I found that go in some good detail, which might be useful in rewriting the article: That last one actually provides a bunch of other good links. -- Dubh agan  23:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
 * http://www.mugsy.org/wing2.htm
 * http://www.aspennj.org/bauer.html
 * http://info.med.yale.edu/chldstdy/autism/aspergers.html
 * http://www.aspergersyndrome.com/
 * http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/aspergerssyndrome.html


 * I haven't had time to look at them, but just wanted to caution against using *general* websites for medical articles. You have to be sure it's a reliable, medical, peer-reviewed site, rather than a "general info anyone can put it up" site.  The NIH site, in and of itself, is a valid source, and they keep very up to date (notice the date). It's also in the public domain, so you can "plagiarize" it and reference it directly (see the statement at the bottom of their page).  On the other hand, some individual websites (even those listed as HonCode, which is not really enforced) are not reliable sources of info, unless you can establish the author's credentials via WP:RS (as an example, see the blog I cited on the TS article, because of who the author is and what his credential are in the field of TS).  For example, I would not consider the aspergersyndrome website as a reliable source, since it doesn't appear to be peer reviewed. If a website sources a statement with a specific study, then you go to PubMed, use the advanced search, and find the specific study.  The Yale site is a good primary, verifiable reference, since they are recognized as leaders in the field, so you could reference them directly.  But, even better ... For instance, the Yale website above does cite specific studies.    Just to give you an example of how to use PubMed:


 * 1. The Yale Child study link says: The validity of this condition, as opposed to high-functioning autism, remains a topic of debate (Szatmari, 1992).  I used that example because the Szatmari criteria were never explained.
 * 2. Go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Limits&DB=pubmed
 * 2a. If you want to get specific, click on limits.
 * 3. Put Szatmari into the author field, and asperger into the main search field, and search: yields 9 articles
 * 4. There is only one 1992 study:  .  Is that the one?  If so, you can make statements based on that study, reference it as (PMID followed by the number), and I'll help fill in the full reference information later.


 * Three other cautions: you can find a website to say just about anything.  Can you find a study in a reputable journal?  For example, on the sexuality discussion above, go straight to PubMed and see what you can find, or go to google scholar first. And, just because you can find a factoid on PubMed, that doesn't make it accepted medical consensus.  There could have been later studies which refute those findings, the study could have methodological limitations, etc.  That's why I can't do more of this work for you:  I don't know the full body of AS research as I do TS.  And, be careful about how strong the study is.  A controlled, blinded study on a very large sample which has been replicated is gold.  A small sample, preliminary, not replicated study has to be qualified as such.  Sandy 00:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the first link I provided involves Lorna Wing's research, and the second one was done by another doctor, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. I was just providing medical based links that talk about what the research shows. As for what you asked me to do, well, it'll take a while to locate the exact study, but I've found a starting point here. -- Dubh agan  00:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry, I hadn't clicked on them yet. I was just speaking in general terms :-)) On the Szatmari stuff, you can search on him as the author, and put in keywords to narrow down what you're looking for. Or, look for it first on Google Scholar, and then go to PubMed when you know what you're after.  Hope this helps, Sandy 01:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * On another referencing note, I saw that you added Szatmari's book to the Reference list. Keep in mind there's a difference between references and inline citations.  References are sources that are widely used and upon which most of the article is based, or which are used as multiple inline citations.  If you plan to use the book to source a particular statement, then you insert an inline citation, indicating the specific page number from the book.  Sandy 01:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sorry, didn't realize that was the purpose of that section, remove it if it doesn't fit. Maybe a section dedicated to books written on the subject?  Szatmari should be mention as a key player in the autism/Asperger's medical community, just look at the results PubMed brings up with his name.  -- Dubh  agan  01:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Yes, References is for general, authoritative reading, but doesn't replace the need for inline citations. If you need to source a particular statement, you do that with a ref tag, that ends up in Notes.  When citing a book, you have to give the page number.  Sandy 01:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * So I guess he can stay? I haven't read his book, but now I think I will.  If he verifies any fact tags while I'm reading it, I'll be sure to reference him in the article properly.  At least he's there just incase his book can provide the citations we need.  -- Dubh  agan  01:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I can't say if he stays or not: I don't know the territory. I know the top books and journal articles, as well as the controversial, not widely-accepted ones in TS, but not in AS. Just trying to help you all figure out how to write the article to Wiki standards :-) Sandy 01:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, all his research is in autism and Asperger's, and PubMed gives me 106 choices for Dr. Szatmari, though I probably do have the ability to contact him directly :) I might just try that, and I might just direct him to this article while I'm at it, only for his input though.  -- Dubh  agan  01:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I've forgotten what you're looking for from him, as I've only been giving examples. Have you tried a keyword search on PubMed?  Tell me what keywords you're after, and I'll try to help find something.  Sandy 01:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It was that 1992 reference in one of the links I've provided. That PubMed link was right, but it doesn't provide his full study, which I am currently searching for, though I have found a more detailed reference to it (Szatmari, P. (1992). The validity of autistic spectrum disorders: a literature review. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 22, 583-600).  -- Dubh  agan  01:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * ah, I see ... remember to try google scholar first (you find it by clicking on the "more" button from Google). I just went to Google scholar and queried on Szatmari definition asperger, and it returned a ton of good stuff.  This was a journal-published article, which seems to give a lot of info, including the Szatmari definition:  http://www.asperger.org/MAAP_Sub_Find_It_-_Publications_Ehlers_and_Gillberg_Article.htm  Sandy 01:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This article should definately go into more detail on the Szatmari definition, especially since we use the Gillberg definition too. Heck, all leading researchers should be mentioned with their variations.  -- Dubh  agan  02:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Terms not defined

 * AQ is used throughout the article, but never defined. Sandy 03:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * ASD is used throughout the article, but never defined.
 * Mention is made of five pervasive developmental disorders, but they are never defined. Classifications section is needed. Sandy 04:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Do they really need to be defined? This is the Asperger's page, not the PDD page.  Can't you simply just link those names to the respective articles?  -- Dubh  agan  21:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think you can link them, but right now, the reader who knows little about AS (like me :-) doesn't even know what the five are or why they are mentioned. I'm referring to all the confusion in terms of the 299.8 diagnsosis, mentioned below in other talk sections.  I don't understand how it all hangs together. Sandy 16:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Controversy section
The controversy section says: nothing. If there's nothing concise or citable to say, it should be a brief summary of what the main controversies article includes. Sandy 05:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Page numbers on refs

 * There are two references to the Gillberg 2002 book, which are missing page numbers. Sandy 05:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This paper is used twice as a reference: Barnard J, et al. Ignored or Ineligible? : The reality for adults with ASD (PDF). The National Autistic Society, London, 2001.  It is not a study, and is not published in a peer-reviewed medical journal.  It's a questionnaire, survey, meaning:  unscientific.  It should not be used as a reference, and if it is used, since it's a very long PDF, specific page number citations should be given for the referenced passages, and it should be clearly specified that it is not a medical, controlled, peer-reviewed study, rather a survey.  Sandy 05:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comorbids
There is no section discussing comorbidity, and comments on comorbid diagnoses are interspersed throughout the article. Those mentioned under characteristics are not referenced. Comorbids need to be pulled together and referenced. On a similar note, I separated the comment about depression and poverty: depression is a comorbid, while poverty is a social or issue of living with the condition, which belongs in a separate section. Sandy 05:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I disagree. Depression is as much a "social issue" as is poverty. --Rdos 06:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It is classified medically: poverty is not.  Poverty is not classified as a "comorbid condition", while depression is.  You can get into what may have caused the depression or what impact it has on social issues in another section, if you can reference the statements.  Sandy 12:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sandy's right, depression is a medical term, it is something that gets diagnosed by a doctor, so it is not a "social issue" like you believe. -- Dubh  agan  21:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Glenn Gould notable
There appears to have been a pretty strong rebuttal to the speculation of Glenn Gould having AS. The article by Mesaros is still in Google's cache, but is no longer online. I suggest dropping him, since the case was strong against it, and there will be no reference for it. Sandy 05:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

paragraph in social imparments

 * Some people feel that much of the social difficulties in Asperger Syndrome are more accurately characterized as "mutual misunderstanding", in that neither the autistic nor the neurotypical understands each other. Some autistics assert that they have a much easier time reading body language of other autistic people, and that neurotypicals have difficulties interpreting autistic body language. Comparing the nonverbal communication problems that often occur between people from different cultures is a common support given for this theory.

I don't think this is published in any peer reviewed sources and smells of original reasearch. It certainly isn't backend up by our current sources AFAIK. If someone can prove me wrong, then please do so but please give an inline cite for that paragraph. RN 05:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I concur that with pulling it, until/unless someone can reference it. But I noticed you also took out the reference to neurotypicals ?  Even I've heard that one, and I've seen it in reliable sources ?  Sandy 05:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't object to it being in the article, I just thought it was an odd place to have it there (as it refers to it being merely just for non-autistics). I added it back for now, but pending a better idea perhaps put it in the culture section and expand upon the meaning? RN 06:01, 3 July 2006 (UTC) OK, nevermind - it is there - I'm out of date it seems - I'll fix it. RN 06:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Looks good now. Sandy 06:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is another finding of the autistic-community, but probably isn't part of "published research". Most of peer-reviewed research is only about negative aspects anyway, so by excluding "original research" we once more end up with a terribly biased article that autistics will not be content with and thus will change back to how it is now sooner or later. --Rdos 06:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have reinstated both graphs, found and added citations. Pokey2006 04:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's likely some of that content has been mentioned or studied somewhere. You might try to stop being so negative and resistant, and actually go and look for some references to the information among the many examples listed above of where/how you can find data, so that the information can be included.  Several times, when editors have indicated that something couldn't be referenced, I've found a reference in five minutes.  I suggest starting with the Yale link given above, as they seem to have a TON of information covering many different sections, and they also give the journal cites.  Sandy 13:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I have reinstated both graphs, found and added citations. Pokey2006 04:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

No treatment section
There is no treatment section at all. It is surprising that, for a condition often diagnosed in childhood, this article appears written entirely from an adult perspective, overlooking issues impacting upon pediatric populations. Treatment options (which doesn't only mean medication) need an entire section. If no one can write it, I'll have to resort to again paraphrasing the NINDS or other articles. Sandy 12:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Actually, there is no specific medication for Asperger's itself, but rather for some of the "side effects" (can't think of a better word), like depression, anxiety, and others. There was a Therapies section that linked to the page about the different therapies, but someone must have removed it.  The therapies are highly controversial, which is why they were moved to their own article.  But your right, a treatment section should be established, touching on the therapies with a link to that article, an mentioning the medication stuff I said here.  Like I said, I'll be picking away at it throughout the week, maybe even establishing a sub-page in my userpage first before adding to this article.  -- Dubh  agan  21:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Treatment does not encompass medication only: the NINDS article above gives a good sample.  Sandy 16:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Classification
Here are the DSM codes:
 * 299.00 Autistic Disorder
 * 299.10 Childhood Disintegrative Disorder
 * 299.80 Asperger's Disorder
 * 299.80 Pervasive Developmental Disorder NOS
 * 299.80 Rett's Disorder

Are these the five pervasive developmental disorders referred to in the text? Why do AS, Rett's, and PDD-NOS have the same DSM code? This all needs to be covered in a section called "Classification", where the similarities/differences/controversy with ASD's can also be covered ( and ASD still needs to be defined in the article ).

The database used in the Wiki infobox for AS does not include the code 299.80 -- it uses 299.8. And, it leasts even more codes for diagnosis 299.8 (Atypical childhood psychosis and Borderline psychosis of childhood). This needs to be resolved for the reader. This is exactly the kind of discrepancy one expects to resolve by reading an encyclopedia. The article often refers to schizophrenia, and the reader doesn't know what the connection or relevance is. Sandy 13:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Characteristics section
This section is very interesting, and it would be a shame to lose it because it's simply not referenced. How about some discussion of signs and symptoms and characteristics from the DSM point of view? That seems to be completely missing? I just did a quick pass, and it looks like a lot of what is there may come from Attwood's book. Does someone have that book, and can someone adequately cite the entire section? I found one example of unreferenced info which I know has been studied: there is a good, quantitative study of the content of the narrowly-defined interests in AS, as it has been contrasted with the obsessions of TS. Here is some info which should be incorporated. Honestly, if I can find these resources on Tourette syndrome webpages, you all must have an even more extensive list of sources you can cite. Sandy 14:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * (Please note at the top of the page, you can click on related articles and find a WHOLE lot more !!)
 * http://www.autism.org/stim.html and http://www.autism.org/tunvsn.html (these have some good info which is not cited - we would need to find PMID cites).
 * http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1872620 If someone can listen to this, it may contain some information sources.
 * http://www.udel.edu/bkirby/asperger/aspergerpapers.html An entire listing of AS papers, may contain a lot of sources
 * http://www.udel.edu/bkirby/asperger/karen_williams_guidelines.html This paper contains references at the bottom, which may prove useful
 * http://www.cpa-apc.org/Publications/Archives/CJP/2003/september/tidmarsh.asp This looks important and recent: someone should get hold of it and use it here.

History
Can anyone please take a shot at writing a History section, which should be included in medical articles? Here's a sample. Sandy 14:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sociological and cultural aspects
Another unsourced paragraph, looking like original research, removed from the article. There should be something salvageable in this paragraph, if it can be sourced. If this paragraph can be re-phrased and referenced, let's add it back in. If it can't be sourced, it belongs on a website, not on Wiki.


 * The social contributions of autistic people are believed to have contributed to a shift in perception of autism spectrum disorders as complex syndromes rather than diseases that must be cured. Proponents of this view reject the notion that there is an 'ideal' brain configuration and that any deviation from the norm must be considered pathological.  They demand tolerance for what they call their neurodiversity in much the same way physically handicapped people have demanded tolerance for theirs. Views such as these are the basis for the autistic rights and autistic pride movements.

Sandy 15:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This is well-known thought within the autistic community, hence not original research. Maybe you won't find it on PubMed, but that seems like a restrictive source of knowledge. You might find some books on the subject, most notably Jasmine O'Neill's. Some caveats: (1) The anti-cure perspective is not dependent on social contributions. In fact, Temple Grandin has been criticized for using the 'social contribution' argument to divide the autism spectrum, as if only those who are able to contribute to society are worthy of existence. (2) Autistic rights is the movement (also called autism self-advocaty movement; autistic pride is part of that and not a separate movement really. Neurodivergent 15:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Again, your time would be better spent in sourcing the information, than arguing that it is "well-known thought". If it is, in fact, "well known thought" it should not be hard at all to find a source for it, and work on writing it in a way that can be sourced.  The entire section is very well written, and it came from someone/somewhere, so please try to find the source.  I'm going to stop removing paragraphs (after the one below), because the entire section is unsourced and needs to be deleted.  Sandy 15:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Another - there must be something salvageable here, if it can be referenced. It currently reads as an original research essay:
 * However, Asperger syndrome does not guarantee one will have a miserable life. The intense focus and tendency to work things out logically, a characteristic of Asperger syndrome, often grants people with the syndrome a high level of ability in their fields of interest.  When these special interests coincide with a materially or socially useful task, the person with Asperger's often can in fact lead a profitable life.  The child obsessed with naval architecture may grow up to be an accomplished shipwright.

Sandy 15:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Statements deleted for no reason
Someone has apparently deleted a statement that explained that the DSM-IV prevalence of AS is 3 in 10,000 (lower than autistic disorder). This is notable information. I just hadn't gotten around to sourcing it. Whoever deleted it, please explain yourself. Neurodivergent 16:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * NVM, the statement had been reworded elsewhere. I corrected "incidence" as the sentence described "prevalence". Neurodivergent 16:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Glad you found it. The sooner we can get all of the correct sections set up, the easier this work will be :-)  Sandy 17:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

AQ Test is a sensitive instrument
Sandy, please fix deleted text. . Neurodivergent 18:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm heading out for 4th July prep, and will review all of these, and address the text, later tonight. Sandy 18:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

ND, looking at your articles (above) I find (based on reading abstracts only: perhaps you have access to the full text of the articles?): OK, so given that I'm not up on AS issues as all of you are, what am I missing? The Autism Spectrum Quotient article seems accurate. That is, the AQ is a screening questionnaire, not a diagnostic tool, more useful for ruling out AS, but it's value even as a screening tool has still not been fully established. Is that not correct? Sandy 16:36, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Test—retest and interrater reliability of the AQ was good. The AQ is thus a valuable instrument for rapidly quantifying where any given individual is situated on the continuum from autism to normality. Its potential for screening for autism spectrum conditions in adults of normal intelligence remains to be fully explored. (appears to be a controlled study with good sample size)
 * The results indicate that it has good discriminative validity and good screening properties at a threshold score of 26. (appears to be a preliminary study, not controlled, but abstract doesn't really say)
 * At a cut-off of 26, the AQ-J had satisfactory sensitivity, specificity, and negative predictive value, but it had low positive predictive value (0.24) and The AQ-J and two short forms are useful not to predict but to rule out mild HPDD, (appears to be a controlled study of good sample size)
 * Based on the abstract only (again, no access to full text of the article, which is in Japanese) appears to make the strongest case, but still doesn't tell us it's reliable for diagnosis (as opposed to screening).  ( seems to be a variant of the same study, and  doesn't appear relevant to the discussion - is measuring something different.)


 * At a cut-off of 26, it's useful for ruling out AS. That is, if you score 26 or lower, the odds that you have AS approach zero. Now, at a threshold of 32, it appears to be sensitive, but this is based on only one study that I know of. That is, if you score higher than 32, the odds that you meet diagnostic criteria seem to be about 60%. (In my personal experience, Aspies tend to score around 36-38). Neurodivergent 00:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Going back to the article content in question, yes, it may be senstive, but even the text indicates confusion over "sensititive to what?" The fact that math majors score higher on the AQ quotient doesn't mean it's AS that is being measured. (Math major undergraduate here, with no AS qualities whatsoever. Maybe it's measuring mathmatical abilities :-)  It's not clear just what the quotient is sensitive to, at least to the uninitiated reader like myself. My concern is that the text added left implications that go beyond what is known about this AQ number. What do highly respected groups like the Yale Child Study Center have to say about the AS Quotient? Do they use it? Maybe those who know the AS literature better than I do can fill me in, but PubMed and Google Scholar are screaming to me that this quotient does not have widespread acceptance in the broader medical community, and it's largely a Barone-Cohen concept. As far as I can tell, the most reputable USA AS centers (e.g.; Yale, KKK) don't even refer to it. Sandy 16:42, 4 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well, is there literature that says the AQ is not reliable? Clearly, there's literature that says it is. You have a point that most of the research that says "AQ yay!" is by Baron-Cohen and collegues; but if you care about authority, there's not much more authoritative than Baron-Cohen in autism research. About the scores of mathematics students, note that they were interviewed afterwards and diagnosed with the DSM-IV. Neurodivergent 00:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, so now that I've read up on this instrument, how would you like to adjust the text? Here's what we have now:

The prevalence of AS in adults is not well understood, but Baron-Cohen et al. documented that 2% of adults score higher than 32 in his Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ) questionnaire, developed in 2001 to measure the extent to which an adult of normal intelligence has the traits associated with autism spectrum conditions.[23] All interviewed high-scorers met at least 3 DSM-IV criteria, and 63% met threshold criteria for an ASD diagnosis; a Japanese study found similar AQ Test results.[24] Sandy 00:24, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That paragraph is fine. I questioned a different paragraph, the one about the "Geek Syndrome" article being printed along with the AQ questionnaire, and how "geek" is not known to be related to AS. It's probably fine as it stands now. Though I'd say that since mathematics students tend to score higher in the AQ, at least being a math geek is likely associated with AS. Neurodivergent 01:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, do you agree that the sentence is not right? "It promoted the notion that "Geek Syndrome" is the same as Asperger syndrome, in part because it was printed alongside the Autism Spectrum Quotient questionnaire"~. Neurodivergent 01:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I haven't caught up with you: how do you want to fix it?  The problem that I see is that not all "geeks" are "aspies", in spite of the AQ.  Sandy 11:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What I mean is that it's probably true that the article argued that "geek syndrome" is the same as AS. But the reasoning that it's "because it was printed alongside the AQ Test" is speculative. The question of whether "geek" is the same as AS is non-answerable really, because there's no formal diagnostic criteria for "geek". Neurodivergent 12:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * ah, OK, now I understand. Yes, it is a speculative statement.  Should we delete the entire sentence, or do you have a proposed fix?  Sandy 12:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I removed the phrase. Another issue with that paragraph is that, while the article does claim that AS is prevalent in the Bay Area, in the California DDS data, prevalence is much higher in the Los Angeles area. Even though engineers have higher odds of having kids who are autistic, the numbers are just not sufficient to result in a noticeable prevalence difference. Neurodivergent 12:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Diagnostic criteria
This link provides details on the DSM-IV definition, the ICD 10 definition, and definitions set forth by Tony Attwood, Christopher Gillberg and Peter Szatmari (all word for word, no summary). These separate definitions should each be summarised separately in this article. I am currently working on it myself separately, though that could take a while before I get it to the point of putting it in this article. If someone else wants to attempt it, go ahead. -- Dubh agan  20:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I added the link in several prominent places. We link to the Gillberg criteria.  Rather than list all the different criteria in the article, I think it would be better to add, for example, the Szatmari criteria in an article about him, and link to it ?  Sandy 11:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Notable cases
I removed this section because it's not needed here. I've moved the two main article links down to see also section. This article is about AS, not people with AS. -- Dubh agan  01:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Examples are inappropriate? --Keyne 13:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Notable cases are a recommended section per the guidelines to writing medical articles. I'll be adding it back in, since what was there before was appropriate and was referenced.  Sandy 15:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Additional note: not sure who added Geek Syndrome to the definition of AS at the top, but it has to go.  It's not a medical term, and the previous section was fine.  Sandy 15:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Note also that those sections contain information that is likely not yet in the full articles. I went and looked for some references to add to those sections myself. Neurodivergent 00:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Ehlers & Gillberg study mention in the Epidemiology section

 * "The Ehlers & Gillberg study[5] found a 4:1 male to female ratio in subjects definitely suspected of having Asperger's, but a lower 2.3:1 ratio when merely suspected or otherwise borderline cases were included."

This strikes me as a very awkward way to word this ("definately maybe" vs "maybe maybe"?), but I don't know enough about the study to make a substantive alteration. Any idea on how to clear this up a bit? --Keyne 13:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I just had a look at the study, and will try to clear it up. "Definites" met G&G criteria, others were suspected or possible.  Sandy 15:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Reworded: pls have a look. Sandy 11:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Much more clear. --Keyne 12:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Lots to do still
Progress has been encouraging, and the article is much improved! But, it is still largely unreferenced as the two week Major Review period approaches its end.

The following sections have still not been written:
 * Classification
 * Symptoms and signs Moved characteristics here, they are still unreferenced
 * Treatment/Management
 * Prognosis
 * Screening - saw the addition, thanks Natche24. Can anyone expand on the different screening instruments in use?  I've now read about the AQ quotient, but are there others?  If so, we can turn it back into a section. Sandy 11:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Unless someone writes them soon, I will take a stab at summarizing them from other sources, such as NINDS. Sandy 15:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Structure complete
The basic structure recommended in the Wiki "How to write a medical article" link (above) is now in place. The article is in bad need of:
 * extensive Wiki-linking (can folks please begin to work on that)?
 * a thorough copy edit
 * references.

I can try to drum up someone to help with a thorough copy edit, but there is no point in asking for that help until the article is Wiki-linked and referenced. It would be really stupendous if those of you who know the territory would help reference the article. Then we can drum up some of the Wiki physicians to look at the article, and finish tweaking it. Sandy 19:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sandy, I cn probably help with the wikilinking if I have a better idea of what we're looking for, in that regard. Just a bit more information (relatively new to the whole process; yes, I know how, just not "what"), lest I just link the whole thing. ;)  --Keyne 13:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Possible references to use
For missing references, let me suggest:


 * Mindblindness: . Criticism:


 * Body language:


 * Something interesting about Asperger's being an "impossible diagnosis" in children: . (Probably wrong and simply due to low levels of recognition).


 * Analisys of Hans Asperger's clinical records:


 * Kanner's criteria as recounted by Lorna Wing:


 * On the difference with HFA: . Attwood says "similarites are greater than differences".

Neurodivergent 00:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. The journal-published studies disagree with some broad, sweeping generalations and assumptions, replayed in the article. The Mindblindness sources show exactly where this article's weakness is: it quotes a bunch of non-peer-reviewed books, but when you get down to the journal-published studies on PubMed, you find the cases are not quite so clear. I am very troubled by the amount of sourcing this article has that is not based on actual peer-reviewed, journal-published studies. I don't consider the article even remotely medically-sourced yet, but it's getting much closer :-) Sandy 00:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Missing refs
These two are missing page numbers: This ref lists page numbers that are much too broad: the reader needs to be able to find the relevant text in the book.Natche24 02:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Christopher Gillberg (2002). A guide to Asperger Syndrome. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. ISBN 0521001838. p. number missing.
 * Gillberg, 2002, p. number missing.
 * I found approximate page number for the Gillberg book better and exact page numbers need to be found
 * Asperger, H. (1944), Die 'Autistischen Psychopathen' im Kindesalter, Archiv fur Psychiatrie und Nervenkrankheiten, 117, pp. 76-136.
 * I reasearched the article and it is a long article the page numbers are correct.Natche24 02:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Natche, I reverted your page numbers, because you listed 178 pages. The reader needs to be able to locate the exact page that is quoted: 178 pages is too much to look through. We need the exact page number (or two or three). Sandy 02:24, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Poverty link
Should there be a section explaining the poverty link between Asperger's and Poverty? Falconleaf 3:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I think it should be handled easily in a sentence or two, or a paragraph, in social impact. Sandy 02:17, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay then do it! Falconleaf 3:20, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Can't. I've not seen any study supporting it.  I've seen references here to a survey/questionnaire, which in my book is unscientific and doesn't belong in an encyclopedia.  I don't have anything upon which to reference a poverty paragraph.  Sandy 02:21, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Checked PubMed. A search on Asperger AND poverty yields no hits, and a search on autism AND poverty yields 15 hits, none relevant to adults in poverty.  Google scholar comes up with one article that may look relevant, but I don't have access to the full text, so don't know what it says.  Sandy 02:30, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well try to make get access to the text then, if not then try using some of the hits on Google on Aspergers AND poverty and see if they might have some hidden messages. Falconleaf 3:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I also found there's also a mention in the text, in this massively speculative and unreferenced paragraph:
 * Although they are not recognised as often, there are adults with Asperger's. Adults are not as regularly treated, yet they still have similar problems as children. They may find it difficult gaining a job or getting into undergrad or graduate schools because of poor interview skills or a low score on Standardized or Personality tests, due to this they may be more vulnerable to poverty than the general population.[24] If they do get a job they may become victims of bullying or be misunderstood at work. They may also have difficulty finding a life partner and getting married because of poor social skills. Even later in life, many people with Asperger's report a feeling of being unwillingly detached from the world around them. There are adults with AS?  Not very encyclopedic.  Sandy 02:42, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Can't be unreferenced, there is already references. Well until we can find good resources for a poverty-Asperger's link this seems to be our only proof that may be the first building block for a paragraph explaining the link. I have checked Google and found some interesting articles about Asperger's and poverty, but many of them say it's just "in the works" or it's "possible" not definite. Remember I have this conidtion and I know some books about it and they too say there is a "possible" link between Poverty and Asperger's, but all agree that poverty is risk factor, but not possibly linked or correlated. Falconleaf 4:10, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Can't you source something from one of the books, just expanding on it as a risk factor in the social impact section? Do the books cite anything other than that unscientific survey/questionnaire for data?Sandy 11:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'm sorry to have had to delete the sentence you added. That PDF file contained no study whatsoever indicating increased poverty in AS subjects.  It mentioned the word poverty in other contexts.  Sandy 15:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Causes and pathophysiology
Why has this section gotten such a POV-name? Patho- directly implies that AS is a disease, which has not been confirmed. I'd suggest changing back to only "Causes". --Rdos 18:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That terminology was taken from the medical writing article: I have no objection to leaving it as "Causes" only.  Sandy 19:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Additional "rambling" in the same section: "Studies suggest there is a genetic vulnerability to Asperger syndrome". Where is the evidence for this? "Vulnerability", just as "pathophysiology", implies a specific disorder / disease cause of AS.

"Current research points to structural abnormalities in the brain, impacting neural circuits". I can guarantee that there is absolutely no study that have linked the structural abnormalities in autism to any impact on neural circuits.

"The condition may stem from abnormal changes that happen during fetal development". Speculation. It might be in the reference article, but this has not been proved either. Also, this clearly is offensive to autistics that claim the phenotype is not a disorder, and thus doesn't have anything to do with fetal development. Th thing is that none of the early markers of autism in fetal developments have been proved to have a causative role. These could simply be correlated just like a vast number of other traits are. Correlation is not causation. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Rdos (talk • contribs).


 * Rdos, every statement there is referenced. Try clicking on the reference and reading it.  The NINDS/NIH is where PubMed resides. Sandy 22:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It is not referenced in actual research. It is speculations on the part of the people that wrote the summary and is reflecting their agenda that AS is a disease. You did talk about reliable resources before didn't you? Biased opinions by NUH hardly can be considered reliable. --Rdos 05:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Rdos, you may not be familiar with the research, but it exists. Period.  Yes, the article has a weakness in that people here never written the sections citing the actual PubMed abstracts, so I had to summarize from the NIH.  Perhaps that is because the article has been a repository of original research for so long that editors didn't realize that they should be citing real research.  If you would stop complaining and obstructing progress on the article, and spend some time in PubMed, you would find that the NIH doesn't report anything that isn't based on journal-published research.  I'm trying to help you keep your featured article:  I'm not going to do every bit of work for you.  The NIH does not publish speculation:  they publish a summary of journal-published research, and are accepted as a reliable source (the same can't be said of some of the books used to cite some of the speculative content).  Sandy 12:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If they publish things that are journal-published research and whatnot, then, should it not be relatively simple to back it up with proper citations? --Keyne 13:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes, it should. I've been asking editors who know the most reliable sources in this area to do it for over a week.  I don't know the good research from the bad in AS, as I do in TS.  I don't know which research is refuted, which is controlled, which is replicated, etc.  People who follow AS should know that, or should have access to authoritative tomes on the topic which give references to the research, summarizing the strength of each statement and what kinds of studies it's based on.  I've given multiple sources of finding that kind of research above, and places where the work could start.  Again, I think the problem is that folks here might not have realized how much of a repository for original research this article had become, or how little referencing of actual, journal-published research is done in the article.  Most of the article is currently referenced to non-peer-reviewed books and articles.  I don't know if that will get past FAR or not. Sandy 13:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, it is not easy to backup. NIH takes a POV point on AS but the opinions that differ from their perspective are hard to find, especially in peer-reviewed research. --Rdos 13:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Any opinion or speculation that is not available from reliable sources has no place in Wikipedia, period. Get a blog or a website.  Sandy 14:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Another idea
The weakest, most vague, and most unreferenced part of the article is the whole section that used to called "characteristics", now under Symptoms and signs. Most of it really should just be cut, because it's enough to keep the article from retaining its FA status. It's just too vague for an encyclopedic entry, and also way too long, speculative and unreferenced. It needs a serious pair of editing shears. Any other ideas for how to fix it? Sandy 03:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I was just working on that section (sensory issues). Check it out. What remains to be fixed?Pokey2006 03:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I saw lots of tags RN added there ... and I saw some other problematic statements. Do we have exact page numbers for the long paragraphs?  I'll go look again.  Sandy 03:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * ack. too much to tag.  When books are used to reference an entire paragraph, page numbers for each statement are needed.  An AOL member webpage as a reference ????  Referencing is still too weak to get by FA:  every sentence has to be looked at, and if the entire paragraph is covered by one ref, it needs to very specific as to how to find that reference.  Sandy 03:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, I'll go through it systematically. I have about half a dozen AS books in front of me as I write so I can look up each reference as I go. I have already found stuff on mindblindness from the Oasis guide. Pokey2006 03:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks so much, Pokey, you're doing a great job. I wish I could help more, but I just don't have the books and resources on AS.  Sandy 04:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's my pleasure. It's a labor of love for my son who has AS.(I would do anything for my angry yet adorable little 6-year-old 45-pound bunny). I've done a general cleanup of the section. I cut out a fair bit of vague, rambling stuff. Please continue to point out stuff that needs citation and I'll try my best to find it over the next few days. Pokey2006 04:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Okay this section was just cut out since it was unreferenced, but I think I can find references for at least some of it, in particular the bit about launching into monologues about a special interest. This is a hallmark of Aspergers and should remain in the article. I will hunt for a citation so we can add at least that bit back in:


 * During the school years, many are perceived as highly intelligent underachievers, clearly capable of outperforming their peers in their field of interest yet persistently unmotivated to do regular homework assignments (sometimes even in their areas of interest). Others, in contrast, may be overachievers who are hypermotivated to outperform peers in school. This adds to the difficulties of diagnosing the syndrome. In more serious cases, the combination of social problems and intense interests can lead to unusual behavior, such as greeting a stranger by launching into a lengthy monologue about a special interest rather than introducing oneself in the socially-accepted way. Pokey2006 04:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Pokey, there are two paragraphs (above, on the talk page, in Sociological and Cultural something) which I cut out a few days ago: maybe you can do something with them? About those labors of love: my community got two Emmy nominations today, so we're all doing backflips with excitement :-)  I Have Tourette's But Tourette's Doesn't Have Me Sandy 04:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I have restored one of them, about Asperger culture, difference not disability etc. with citatons to two articles in a reputable, recent academic book aimed at clinicians. (Stoddart)I will try to get to the other one soon.Pokey2006 04:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Okay, done. What next? Pokey2006 04:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Treatments
Once more ABA and all the rest of this crappy stuff is back here. It has been moved to a separate article because there is so much controversy around this topic. I suggest keeping this minimal here. Already the stuff brought back is terribly POV. Both the Causes and Treatment sections should be tagged POV. --Rdos 05:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that it should be kept minimal. It should basically be a brief overview.  Also, the fact that the treatments are controversial should be mentioned, along with a citation.  -- Dubh  agan  06:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has the article Ethical challenges to autism treatment which should provide the proper citations and such to a mention of the treatments being controversial. -- Dubh agan  06:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I added a line about the controversy, linked to the article I mentioned above, and used a couple of links provided by said article for citation. -- Dubh  agan  19:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

More bias - prevalence in races
Regardless of how many places this fantasy is published in, it is still not supported in research, and I know this because a professional in the field did an extensive litterature search on this topic for me just a year ago. Additionally, the new version of Aspie-quiz supports the observation in the autistic community that blacks are lower in prevalence (currently no black person with AS in 230 answers, 5 amerindians and 5 asian aspies). --Rdos 06:07, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It says so right on eMed about the race issue - please provide a reliable source that says otherwise. RN 06:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * 12% of the US population is non hispanic black with about 42% of those using the internet (14,666,178), 68% is non hispanic white with about 68% using the internet (total:132,516,272). http://pewresearch.org/assets/files/trends2005.pdf . Which means that only 11% as many blacks as whites actually use the internet AT ALL, then you need to factor in the fact that Autism tends to be diagnosed later in the black community http://www.starautism.louisville.edu/images/RubleHeflingerRenfrew&saunders2005.pdf, then you see if you have any OTHER aspect (such as the proportion of black people involved in the predominantly white interactive internet, which may well be lower than the overall usage, breakdown of black internet usage by gender, co-related with the proportion of MtoF with AS). Then you cross reference with statistics like Prevalence of Autism in a US Metropolitan Area Various, JAMA. 2003;289:49-55. where it can be clearly seen that, in a 1996 study of 3-10 year olds, 5.3 per thousand of white males and 1.5 per thousand of white females were autistic (total 6.8 per thousand), and 5.4 per thousand of black males and 1.4 per thousand of black females were autistic (total 6.8 per thousand). Of other races, 4.3 per thousand of males and 1.4 per thousand of females were autistic (total 5.7 per thousand).


 * THEN you need to recognise that a study of 230 is far from sufficient to establish any

trends. --Zeraeph 10:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm sure that the "study" of Autism in a US metropolitan area is the one I refered to below. It is not a prevalence study, it is a study of children in special education. Because of the lower average black IQ (15 points), blacks are much more likely to end up in special education, therefore this study is basically useless when it comes to prevalence of autism, much more so when it comes to prevalence of AS, which is usually diagnosed after 3-10 years of age. My study is ongoing. I will let it accumulate a couple of thousand answers before I terminate it and present more reliable conclusions. Anyway, thanks for the links to the persentage of Internet users per race. I'll use this when comparing racial groups in the evaluation of Aspie-quiz 6. --Rdos 11:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Exactly, here's what the eMed cite says about it:
 * Race: Asperger disorder has no racial predilection. -- Dubh agan  06:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't care what eMed says about this. If they / you claim there is no prevalence difference between races, these claims must be backed up by real, peer-reviewed research. They are not, and thus this claim is for POLITICAL CORRECTNESS reasons. AFAIK, we do a encyclopedia here, and not a NIH sponsored political correctness. --Rdos 06:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What about this link? It says Cultural Biases:  Individuals with Asperger’s Syndrome are found in all racial, ethnical, intellectual, and socioeconomic backgrounds (Case-Smith, 2001).  -- Dubh  agan  06:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * "real, peer-reviewed research" - you mean like the 50-something references in its bibliography? Or the fact that "eMedicine.com, Inc, henceforth referred to as eMedicine, is dedicated to providing up-to-date, peer-reviewed medical information"? Or the fact that it is authored by a doctor and four other doctors who are editors of the information as per the eMed policy? RN 06:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I suspect that what he meant to say was "Occupational Therapy for Children with autism" Jane Case-Smith, 2001 -, which, unlike "Aspie Quiz" meets all criteria for a valid source.


 * It is not a valid source on autism prevalence. It might very well be a valid source for other things, but not for autism prevalence. --Rdos 11:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Now I am getting as tiny bit annoyed at your constant attempts to ram your pet project down our throats. A demographic study of people with AS could be an interesting and useful thing if it were conducted properly, under controlled conditions, with discipline and without bias or constantly being *spun* to *authenticate* some of the most addle-pated, nonsense theories I have ever heard.


 * Personally I think "Aspie Quiz" is no more than a long running, attention-seeking exercise.I don't seem to have much time for any of the articles I am trying to assist with at present, but I certainly have time to lend my 3rs to reverting invalid, egomaniacal foolishness on a daily basis --Zeraeph 10:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * RN, you are avoiding the issue. There is no racial prevalence study on AS/autism. eMedicine.com doesn't cite it's source on this issue. --Rdos 06:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately, the 3RR rule makes me unable to revert this crap again. However, if RN or somebody else cannot show a peer-reviewed PREVALENCE STUDY ON RACE AND AS within 24 hours, I will revert it again. --Rdos 06:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

RN, ever heard of MEDLINE. Check out this --Rdos 06:42, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What about the link I provided, which references a study done by Jane Case-Smith in 2001. If it's being referenced, it must be peer-reviewed.  -- Dubh  agan  06:52, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * What about your link? It doesn't show up when I searched MEDLINE for autism+prevalence+races. In fact, no relevant study showed up, just as I knew. There simply is no prevalence study in Africa that I know of, and the only study that compares rates in blacks versus white are in special education, and that study says the white children in special education are more "disordered" than their black counterparts in social interaction. --Rdos 06:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok then, I see your point. How about then, instead of simply removing that line, why don't you reword it so it says there is nothing on how or if there is any racial difference (can't think of proper wording myself, hopefully you can), along with providing your MEDLINE link as a reference?  I don't think that will violate 3RR, as it's more of a reword than a revert.  -- Dubh  agan  07:13, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I decided to take a stab at it, though it may need rewording. -- Dubh  agan  07:26, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * OK, this should be the current consensus, despite popular beliefs to the contrary. --Rdos 08:16, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * This is the only case where you have backed your statements with research. I don't know the field, don't know the journal, and don't know how valid your source is (in terms of whether his conclusions enjoy widespread support in the medical community, or if there is refuting evidence).  You can find a study that supports anything:  is there widespread consensus and support from other studies, or is your report the whim/opinion of one author, who got published in a less-than-prominent journal?  Others here will have to figure that out.  I guess I shouldn't fight so hard for this article to keep its star if it's going to again revert to a personal essay and repository for original research as soon as external focus is off of the article.  Sandy 12:25, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's because I've been deeply involved in this aspect, and even asked professionals to do extensive searches for me. Without that, I too might be fooled by summaries by NIH that isn't backed up by any real research. I don't have time to look up and refute every crazy idea NIH and others have written in summaries about AS. --Rdos 13:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, something tells me to trust the NIH more than your "professionals who have done extensive searches". Again, this is Wikipedia, not your personal website.  Do you have a blog?  It might be a good place for your ideas. I have many of the same issues wrt TS research as you do with AS, and I can tell you the NIH summary of TS doesn't contain anything speculative, unproven, or biased. If you don't have time to properly refute the NIH info from reliable sources, then you might not want to make speculative, unsourced, original research entries into Wikipedia.  Wiki uses reliable sources, and the NIH is one. Sandy 13:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sandy, I welcome you to provide the studies that prove that every race is equally affected by AS. This is a long-runner in autistic circles, probably mostly in curebee-circles and parent-circles, but nobody to this date have been able to provide any meaningful reference for it. The other hopelessly speculative information from NIH about fetal development leading to autism is equally un-researched. It is not my reponsibility to provide studies that refute this, but your to provide evidence for the claim. Look at this MEDLINE article for instance: --Rdos 13:46, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Rdos, you apparently don't understand how Wikipedia works. I suggest that you spend more time reading policy.  Every statement added by every editor needs to be referenced to a reliable source.  I've added content that meets that criteria, because quite simply, no one else had written the sections.  If you have additional content that refutes what I've added, it's up to you to add it and reference it from reliable sources. Further, the reference you give above doesn't disagree with anything stated in the article.  There is a genetic factor, and probably an environmental one as well:  same is true for most neuropsychiatric spectrum conditions (e.g.; TS) -- nothing new there.  Sandy 14:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sandy, I'm gonna have to agree with Rdos on this one. All NIH says about rase is Asperger disorder has no racial predilection.  It includes no details and no source.  The statement is just there.  Referring to one unsourced statement isn't exactly a reliable source.  Now, I also found this statement:  Individuals with Asperger’s Syndrome are found in all racial, ethnical, intellectual, and socioeconomic backgrounds (Case-Smith, 2001).  Now, I went to look up the reference provided in brackets, and turns out it was a study in occupational therapy for children with Autism, not a study in prevalence.  Otherwise, I haven't been able to find anything discussing Autism/AS and race.  -- Dubh  agan  17:19, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Sandy, there are quite a few "autism by race" entries on google, but the most promising are 'pdf' files and I only have dial in (and very little time) at present...easy to check on broadband though? --Zeraeph 16:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I searched Google using your key words, and found only one PDF file, which contained a race study within one US city, hardly reliable for racial prevalence. A true race study would go all over the world, studying groups in Asia, Africa, Europe, South America, North America and the Pacific Islands.  No study has yet to do that.  -- Dubh  agan  17:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * For now, we've deleted the statement anyway, right, or corrected it with the references which says there is debate, so it seems like we've addressed it ?? I will try the advanced search features on PubMed and see what I can find. Sandy 17:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Studies found

 * This appears to address race (black-white, but not Hispanic and others) in autism but not Asperger's. Since it comes up on an AS search, someone might want to find the full text of the article, as it may also address AS. Sandy 17:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Full study here: http://www.naar.org/news/pdfs/JAMAcdc.pdf. -- Dubh  agan  17:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * This one's about autism: it's Greek to me.
 * This one comes up on Asperger search, but has no abstract.
 * This one probably contains some data, if we could get hold of the full text of the article.

Yeah, but they only use one US city in each case. A proper race study will go all around the world to study it, as I've said above. Besides, using only two races isn't sufficient enough for a full racial study anyway. Also, using one US city doesn't address environmental factors as a potential cause either. -- Dubh agan  17:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * That would be geo-racial, would it not? Racial studies using appropriate qualifiers in a region would be just as valid, if different than what you're suggesting.  It'd certainly be interesting to see how AS prevalence in various regions around the world would be, but it should have little bearing on prevalence within accepted racial bounds, unless you are suggesting that a non-significant racial mix is present in the cities in question.  --Keyne 19:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Those studies only looked at Blacks and Whites, they didn't look at any other races (Hispanics, East Asians, South-East Asians, Middle Easterners, Pacific Islanders, Natives...). -- Dubh  agan  19:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, yes. I didn't say they were good; rather, that a proper racial study need not be geo-locationally based (though, that, too, would be interesting). :)  --Keyne 20:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Out of curiousity, isn't there a message board or newsgroup or something where you all deal with these questions and issues on an ongoing basis? When we're trying to salvage this article, which has still not been fully referenced, copy edited, written or wiki-linked, I can't understand so much debate over one sentence. Just fix the sentence to something you can all accept as a compromise, and move on to the more important work. Some sources say there is no racial predilection, others disagree, cite both sides, and move on. Sandy 20:28, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Causes section
Currently, the causes section is a nearly word-for-word duplicate of the referenced article. Shouldn't we be summarizing and not merely duplicating/lifting their wordings? --Keyne 13:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Because the NIH source is in the public domain (see the info at the bottom of their page), it is OK to use it verbatim. I had originally summarized it, but since RDos disagreed with my summary, I substituted the exact wording.  Since there appears to be some controversy here, I thought it best to stick with the exact wording from the reliable source: if you can better reword it, that works for me, but if it gets too far away from the NIH wording, it will need to be referenced from other sources.  Sandy 13:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I'll take a crack at it a little later today, as I don't think it completely appropriate regardless of ability to do so. Parroting a single source for an entire section is something I find a tad questionable as well, so I'll poke around for some additional references in the process.  Keep in mind that even peer-reviewed referenced material can be strongly biased.   --Keyne 13:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Keyne, I really regret that editors here never wrote the sections, and hope you can come up with some other reliable sources backing up original wording. It's a real shame when a Wiki article has to resort to copying other sources, since no one did the work.  Sandy 14:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Strongly biased is a good word! --Rdos 13:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Created template to replace See also
And, it's pretty scary that every link in the Main section is to an article which is tagged at the top. Sandy 03:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * There is a way to cut this down so that each individual source is only listed once. The list is now so overwhelming I get the idea I'd better do it? --Zeraeph 17:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, that should not be done. Every single statement in the article should be referenced if you want to be a featured article.  More references is a good thing.  Please do not remove references.  Sandy 17:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Zeraeph, I reverted your removal of carefully inserted references, which included the mandatory page numbers. YOu cannot simply reference entire books without page numbers, and hard print resources are preferable to websites.  The reason some of the references are repeated is because they include specific page numbers for locating the text.  If you remove that, the article will not pass FA.  A Further Reading section is also recommended on FA. Sandy 17:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

No Sandy, sorry but in this you are very wrong, the citations are overwhelming the article, and the "further reading" was already removed because it overwhelmed the article.

Please try to remember that, although everything must be properly sourced, THE ARTICLE, and the quality of the article is the priority here, NOT the citations, and before you argue, or revert again, please find me 5 featured articles which have 70 lines of citations, including specific page numbers for the same sources. --Zeraeph 19:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * FA articles must have complete citations, including page nos, and must include a Further reading or references list. If you want to take the risk of losing your star, it's your risk.  RN follows FAC as I do, and she can tell you, as I have, that they have become much much more strict on this.  If you remove the citations, and further reading, it will be a problem on Featured status.  Please do not compare to *old* FA articles, as the standards have changed. Sandy 20:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Page numbers are fine when you only have 30 seperate citations anyway, but there comes a point when you have to use common sense. Currently the article length is way over recommended on citations alone. --Zeraeph 20:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * No, you are wrong. Both the article size and the prose size are well within limits.  I've been checking both all along.  Citations do not count in prose size.  I suggest that you review the number of citations on the latest medical featured article, cystic fibrosis.  I repeat, if you delete citations, you jeopardize the FA status.  IN fact, more citations are still needed.  Sandy 20:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * More importantly, on closer examination of the most recent featured medical article, cystic fibrosis, you will see that almost every single reference is to a journal-published medical study from PubMed (PMID). Medical studies published in journals don't require page numbers:  books do.  The MOST preferred reference for any medical article is the actuual PMID study.  We already have a real weakness in that this article almost never cites actual research, and cites too many books, which may contain content that has not been subject to peer review.  Sandy 20:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * New template didn't need to be created, replace with PDD template which should have been here to begin with. -- Dubh  agan  08:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You're welcome. The AS template I created included all of the previous "See also" entries, as well as everything linked to in the AS article.  The PDD template you added does not contain that info, so I added back the new AS template.  If you want me to re-do the new AS template to include some sections from the PDD template, I can do that.  Sandy 13:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * PDD template is SUPPOSED to be there, as this article is on it. That template is on every other article listed on said template.  Also, the last link on that template shows a list of ALL related topics, including ALL the topics included in the template you created, so I removed yours.  Besides, if an AS specific template needed to be created, then the same should be done for Autism, which it shouldn't, because EVERYTHING can be found through the PDD template.  -- Dubh  agan  20:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)


 * And need I remind you that templates like that go at the BOTTOM of the page. -- Dubh  agan  20:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

To be honest, I like Sandy's template that was there before - we should probably replace the PDD one with something like that one of these. Templates in see also are also a common occurance, in case anyone is wondering (albiet not with the blue top). As for the references, do not remove them, period - they are needed and yes some articles with only a few paragraphs sometimes need 100+ citations so there is no "number limit" - the idea is that every claim needs to be referenced. Further reading, not so much really, and sometimes people on FAC will actually ask you to remove that section. RN 21:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * And before anyone gets into an argument about it please note that I am indeed the author of the PDD template and propogated it around the articles back in the day. RN 21:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * You liked the template? Uh,oh, I submitted it for speedy deletion, and it's probably already gone. Do you want me to try to salvage it? Sandy 21:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's already gone. Sandy 21:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * If it got nixed already I can ask for undeletion later, so it is no big deal :). RN 21:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
 * OK. In case you need it later, I had merged it with all the articles in the PDD template.  It was at Template:Topics related to Asperger syndrome Sandy 21:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

All I'm saying is that, like with all other templates I've seen, if the article is listed on the template, than the template should be posted on the article. If the PDD template isn't detailed enough, then why not expand it? -- Dubh agan  19:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

RN, where do we stand on the template? I see an addition of a See also article was just made (a needed one, I think?), so we have See also in one place, and the template in another. Do you plan to expand the template, and we shouldn't have a See also as well as a template. I can envision the See also getting out of control again, if we don't hold it what's in the template. Maybe you can look at the way I had reorg'd the deleted AS template to include all of the PDD template? Sandy 12:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I was thinking of trying to expand the template to include newer articles that are important to Autism but not listed such as Christopher Gillberg, Peter Szatmari and others.Natche24 06:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Gillberg goof
Not sure what happened here, but something is wrong with these sentences:

''Christopher Gillberg argues that although there may well be significant delays in some areas of language development. Gillberg's own set of diagnostic criteria emphasizes linguistic peculiarities that are not mentioned in the DSM-IV criteria.[6]'' Sandy 04:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sandy I restored the prevous statement back to the original, I hope this clears up the goof. The page numbers are still necessary but are no where to be found on the internet etc. 69.242.106.254 04:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Can we find a similar statement from another source, or re-word around the missing page number somehow ??? Sandy 04:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Sounds like a good idea I will start looking ASAP have you found any sources yet that quote Gillberg??Natche24 05:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I see someone added the page.

I saw another in-text comment regarding the Gillberg quote:

Christopher Gillberg argues that although there may well be significant delays in some areas of language development, AS children often show exceptional skills in other language-related areas. .

The comment may have been inserted by Tony. Can someone (who has access to that book) list what those "other language-related areas" are ? Sandy 21:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I do not have the book but I found a Link that states the following from that book but does it does not give a page number I am assuming that it is the same that was cited page 34.

''In A Guide to Asperger Syndrome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), Christopher Gillberg also criticizes the "no significant delay" clauses of the DSM, and to a lesser extent some of the others, and argues that the clauses represent a misunderstanding or oversimplification of the syndrome. He states that although there may well be significant delay in some areas of language development, it is often combined with exceptionally high functioning in other language-related areas, and he argues that this combination superficially resembles but is in reality very different from normal development in language and adaptive behavior.'' Natche24 21:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * It's making me nervous that we're including a quote from this book which it seems that no one here has access to, and which we really can't explain. Can't we delete the portion we don't have complete info on, and just address the fact that his criteria call for language difficulties not included in the DSM?  Or, does anyone see a way to fix this?  Sandy 21:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I am having difficulty deciding what to do or how to fix it the only solution that I could think of is to delete the entire paragraph and cite the part that we know somewhere else. Is there anybody who agrees to delete the paragraph. Natche24 22:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Peter Szatmari Article
It was brought to my attention that there is no article on Peter Szatmari. I tried to create an article but it was quickly deleted by unnamed user. Can somebody create an article for him that includes his dignosic criteria for Aspergers. It is a needed article that can take place of that broken link for Szatmari. Natche24 21:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It's on my to do list. -- Dubh  agan  21:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

In a related note I am trying to find the source for this quotation which was found in the reference section under Stoddart(2005) I am not soure what to do with this quotation. I feal like it should be pit into the Peter Szatmari article instead of the Classification and diagnosis section of the AS article.
 * Szatmari suggests that AS was promoted as a diagnosis to spark more research into the syndrome: "It was introduced into the official classification systems in 1994 and has grown in popularity as a diagnosis, even though its validity has not been clearly established. It is interesting to note that it was introduced not so much as an indication of its status as a 'true' disorder, but more to stimulate research ... its validity is very much in question."

69.242.106.254 21:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hmm, that reference is no longer there, but I remember it. I thought the reference had specified the page number.  -- Dubh  agan  22:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Found the reference in an earlier version. the reference says it's on page 239.  -- Dubh  agan  22:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I contributed that quote from the Stoddart book. Any questions about any of my contributions can be left on my talk page. If people feel it should go into a Szatmari article, feel free to put it there. If anyone is starting an article on him, the Stoddart book contains a current article written by Szatmari himself that is excellent. That's where I got the quote. Pokey2006 03:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)


 * As per a recomendation form one of the editors I moved the quote to the Szatmari article.Natche24 00:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

As much as I'd love to start the Szatmari article, that sort of thing is not my forté, so I'm gonna need some help to set it up. I can easily contribute once it's set up. Here are some biographical links for Szatmari for those who would like to start the article.

http://www.fhs.mcmaster.ca/psychiatryneuroscience/faculty/szatmari/

http://www.cairn-site.com/bios/szatmari.html

http://www.geocities.com/autismandpdd/OurStudies.htm

http://www.cairn-site.com/conference/04/docs/DrPS_bio.pdf

-- Dubh agan  03:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I could help, but my house was hit by lightening, lots of damage, and I'm on a very slow, obnoxious dialup connection. I think (?) if you put a stub at the bottom, it won't get deleted while you're working on it. Here's a short physician stub I started: just copy it as an example, change the info, and you should have a start that won't get deleted, until we can work on it. Arthur K. Shapiro I think if you have a good basic structure in place, and make sure to give it a stub sort, it shouldn't be deleted. Sandy 04:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * PS - it also could have been speedy deleted as non-notable. You have to establish notability in a bio, so make sure your original structure gives enough information to explain why he is notable. Sandy 04:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I just created and article for Peter Szatmari hopefully it is not deleted since it is my first page that I ever created. Thank you for all of your advise it was very helpful.Natche24 04:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Very nice! I did a little bit of cleanup, formatting, fixing refs, but you look to be in good shape!  Be sure to add a reference for his criteria, which we have on the main page here.  Also, for any questions on article structure, you can see the Wiki Manual of Style.  Sandy 05:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Causes section still reads like a promo-essay
Apparently, Sandy thinks that everything that is "properly cited" is immune to deletion. Not true. This whole section not only reads like a promotional essay for NIH, it is almost an exact copy of their POV. Since this topic is dealt with in detail in Causes of autism, a biased copy of NIHs site should not be here. --Rdos 21:16, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * You are welcome to refute points of disagreement with referenced text from primary, medical sources. Blanking referenced text is considered vandalism. Sandy 21:17, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If it is referenced or not is not the point. It is duplicated information, and not only that, but also BIASED information. --Rdos 21:20, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * If you have a reliable primary source which says that it is biased (not a personal website), you are welcome to add that discussion. Sandy 21:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * No, this stuff should NOT be here. If all the referenced, "reliable" stuff from Causes of autism were brought back here, and also into the "treatment" section, the article would go over it's bounds again. --Rdos 21:28, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Talking about the research being done into the subject, which is all I see in the article, is not biased. If you think it's so biased, what's biased about it?  -- Dubh  agan  22:36, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

One critique I do have of the section is that there are many theories on the causes and research going into each of those theories. Covering only two of those seems only unfair. Maybe we should just list the causes that are being researched. Something like this:

Example: ''While the cause of AS is currently unknown, there is research being done on several possible causes. Researchers at the University of California are looking into the possibility that AS is caused by abnormal changes during fetal development.(Citation) Another area being researched...''

Other possible causes that I've heard include genetic, environmental and vaccines. They all should be covered in a way similar to how I wrote the fetal development one. -- Dubh agan  23:03, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree that it would be good to include mention of ongoing areas of investigation, but I suggest keeping in mind two things:
 * 1) I don't find it helpful when articles say who is doing the research or where it's being done (e.g.; Researchers at University of California ... ). Unless the need to include this info is compelling, it's easier on the reader just to see "Research into ... " whatever, and then the reference cite indicates who/where the research is ... it begins to feel like a vanity entry when specific researchers are mentioned, and if subsequent institutions are also doing research, they get left out.
 * 2) Make sure PMID cites are used, or at least official websites calling for research, so that entries include published research, or research from legitimate teaching and research institutions (UC Davis, Yale, Kennedy Krieger, etcetera).
 * I completely agree that the Causes section is incomplete, and as mentioned before, regret that it had to be summarized from NIH since it was not here. It certainly should be expanded, but not by the method used by Rdos (deleting verified content, and introducing speculation).  Let's try to take care that we don't make it sound speculative, rather scientific.  Sandy 23:14, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Good point about the who. Anyway, A good place to start in compiling an initial list of causes being researched is here: http://www.as-if.org.uk/cause.htm.  that link should give an idea of what key words to use when looking into full references.  -- Dubh  agan  23:32, 13 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Here is the list of 2005 research awards from NAAR:
 * http://www.autismspeaks.org/docs/2005_naar_research_supplement.pdf Sandy 00:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I found two journal entery websites which I thought fit in the cause section can somebody check them out to see if they should be included in the article: "Autism and Abnormal Development of Brain Connectivity" and "Autism and Pervasive Developmental Disorders." Natche24 02:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest that Sandy reads Causes of autism. Much of it is referenced. Aren't we reinventing the wheel here? --Rdos 09:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Causes of autism has two tags at the top: that is a tipoff that it probably is mostly unreferenced original research as well, and means most people won't read it, and it needs to be cleaned up as this article has been.  For the article here, which is now correctly cited, I'd prefer to work from known fact than speculation in another article. Sandy 11:08, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I had a look: that article needs to be re-done from scratch.  There is probably some real information in there somewhere, but it's impossible to sort it out from the speculation, and decipher what is what from the poor writing.  The article is largely unreferenced, has a lot of prose problems, and reads like a speculative essay.  Many of the references needed over there can now be found in this article. What references are in place are not done correctly:  when you click on a reference number, it doesn't take you where it should.Sandy 11:52, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Hostile as I am to anything that springs from the uniquely fevered imagination of Rdos, and sceptical as I am about the unsullied veracity of the entire Causes of autism article. Good, bad or indifferent, it really does belong here and the link should not be removed. Also, it's a great "crib list" for potential sources of causes to be checked.


 * Sandy, I think you are overstepping the mark into presuming too much control here. No article should become the personal territory of a single editor and an exclusion zone for anyone who does not blindly submit to their thinking.


 * I am going to replace the Causes of autism link on the grounds of it's extreme relevance. If you want to see that in a positive light I suggest you regard it as a reminder to clean it up. --Zeraeph 12:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's fine with me, Zeraeph, it was just an idea. If anyone is interested, Causes really needs to be restructured.  It needs to start with what is known, and branch from there into what is being investigated, in a more clearly organized way.  For example, AS is known to have genetic underpinnings, blah, blah, blah, twin and sib-pair studies have shown such-and-so, blah, blah The exact genes have not been identified.  It is believed to be polygenic (???) and so on.  Then, there are also environmental issues ... and expand on each one of them.  It would also help to stay away from mention of particular researchers and research institutions, and just lay out the research.  I just find it very sad that a currently featured article links to a series of articles, every one of which is tagged and problematic.  HTH, Sandy 16:59, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Looking at it myself I can see that there are a lot of real facts, and a lot of...er...UNfacts, and my feeling is that you would, at present, have to chase up every cited source and a few more besides to figure out which is which...BUT...wikipedia isn't about you, or me, or today or tomorrow, nor even about Rdos, it's about information and objectivity, and the Causes of autism article will always be relevant to Asperger's syndrome...maybe in 6 months time the Asperger syndrome article will be utterly worthless and the Causes of autism will be exemplary...and they will STILL be relevant to each other. --Zeraeph 17:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Zeraeph, you are absolutely right. What was I thinking?  We want to increase the chances that someone will improve the Causes article, not decrease it by de-linking to it ! ~  Sandy 19:18, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Now, it looks like I blanked it, but I still kept the links, plus I hope that removing the info that was going to be replaced anyway will help in getting that section properly rewritten. -- Dubh agan  02:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
 * The causes section still needs some work. I have a question about the wording of "different brain development.[37][38][39][40][41]" I think it might be better to explain the sources such as cerebellar problems(source), enlarged amygdala and hippocampus (source),etc.Natche24 22:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Handbook of autism and PDD
This is a 2005 publication from leading researchers in the field: if anyone has this book, it would be a far better resource for referencing the article than some of the websites used. http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471716987/ref=ase_autismfm-20/102-9746915-7996156?s=books&v=glance&n=283155&tagActionCode=autismfm-20

I just found this quote about this book, on the Yale site:
 * Now in a fully updated Third Edition, The Handbook of Autism and Pervasive Developmental Disorders, edited by Yale Child Study Center faculty Fred R. Volkmar, M.D., Rhea Paul, Ph.D., Ami Klin, Ph.D., and Donald J. Cohen, M.D., has, since the first edition, become the most influential reference work in the field of autism and related conditions. In two volumes, this invaluable reference provides a comprehensive review of all information presently available about these disorders, drawing on findings and clinical experience from a number of related disciplines such as psychiatry, psychology, neurobiology, and pediatrics. For more information, visit our publications page.

Once again, I encourage those who are concerned about the "medicalization" of this article to seek out sources that will help write the rest of the story. The resources are out there: they just have not been accessed. I just discovered that Donald Cohen (now deceased) was one of the authors of this book. He was the source of most of the text that allowed me to discuss the latent advantages and positive aspects associated with Tourette syndrome on the TS article. He was a unique individual with respect to his ability to write respectfully and about the positive aspects associated with neurological differences. Again, I insist that the information is out there: I hope others will look for it and finish writing the rest of the story, rather than tearing down the accurate information that is now in the article. You can balance the article by introducing missing content, not by tearing down accurate content. Sandy 14:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

DMOZ NOT NPOV
After careful thought I realise that the substitution of DMOZ for "external links" is grossly inappropriate.

The reason is very simple, the continued inclusion of any link in DMOZ depends entirely upon the POV, and good graces of the page editor, and, while the Asperger's syndrome page lacks an editor, it could get one at any minute, and until then is controlled by an editor further up the tree.

There really is no excuse for introducing this degree of bias into an article.--Zeraeph 12:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I'm not sure I agree with you, and I've not observed that to be a problem with DMOZ. Can you please give an example of a worthy site that is not in DMOZ, and if there is one, do you know if the webmasters have submitted it?  But anyway, we need to pay close attention to WP:NOT and WP:EL.  Some criteria for inclusion should be established here.  Specifically, if a particular link is not already in DMOZ, the reasons should be examined:  there may be a good reason DMOZ rejects a particular site.  For example, I just reverted a site claiming to be the most popular:  if it's the most popular, it should already be in DMOZ.   If you let one external link in here, without it being the link to a nationally or internationally-recogized non-profit representing AS, you may end up in a position of having a web directory again.  Thoughts ?  Sandy 16:55, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * It astonishes me that you can spot every minute flaw in a Wikipedia article and yet never have noticed the extent of the bias in DMOZ?


 * Currently nothing gets into the category (including a new editor) without the approval of the last editor back along the line. Very few of these editors meet Wikipedia's high standard of impartiality and neutrality, the one in this instance falls further short of it than most (and since I found that out the link really has to go), but that isn't really the point. Which is that there is no point in having a neutral article that includes only a link to a directory of external links that could be suddenly biased in any one of a number of directions, suddenly, or dramatically, on whim or towards agenda, with precious little accountability, and nothing anybody her could do to mediate, at any minute.


 * Far better to take the little effort and add a few sites we have checked and chosen impartially, or link mechanical searches from google, yahoo and altavista.--Zeraeph 17:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I think DMOZ can still be included, but if there are sites not listed on DMOZ, then we can include those too. Personally, ANY external link for AS can be considered POV.  -- Dubh  agan  18:02, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Linking a POV directory is a different case. Because it implies neutrality that does not exist in reality. I have no problem with it being included as part of a balanced list of links, but not as a substitute for one! --Zeraeph 18:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Ok, then I'll add it to the existing list. -- Dubh  agan  18:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * That's fine ;o) It's perfectly acceptable as *a* link, just way to open to bias to be *the* link. --Zeraeph 18:24, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I just did a comparison between DMOZ and the external links list, and the majority of those links are listed on DMOZ, so I don't know where the bias is. -- Dubh  agan  18:10, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * The bias is in the fact that it is edited by a single, notoriously agenda-driven, editor. Something that cannot happen on Wikipedia. If the list is made on Wikipedia, it is under the control of the entire community of Wikipedia, not a single, unusually fallable, individual. --Zeraeph 18:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * But if there's nothing important missing from DMOZ, we can comply with WP:NOT and WP:EL by linking to it. Is there a particular site that is missing from DMOZ that concerns you?  I'm well aware of certain problems with DMOZ (don't get me started on the TS category), but I've not seen that problem to include rejection of legitimate links.  Sandy 19:20, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * WOW. I see we're back to a full web directory, which makes this entry look like Google, and doesn't comply with WP:NOT.  Oh, well.  Sandy 19:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Well you are the one who insisted in so many citations that the entry looks like google with or without it, so what harm? This double standard is silly. On one hand you DEMAND that the article be NPOV and over cited, on the other you demand a single POV link instead of either a few carefully chosen links, or (and I would be quite happy with this too) no external links at all. --Zeraeph 19:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I agree that it does not comply with WP:NOT something needs to get done it looks more like the external links section of the autism article which also needs some work.Natche24 19:27, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * ...and Dmoz does not even come close to WP:NPOV, so I suggest the options consist in limiting external links to a few generic, relevant ones, or having no external links at all which complies with everything. --Zeraeph 19:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Would everyone agree to a plan whereby we again delete all of them, and then review them one by one for inclusion according to some criteria? For example, if they're in DMOZ, why include them here?  What schools get included and what don't?  I mean, if you really want to include all schools that deal with autism, you're going to have a long web listing there.  What personal websites get included and what don't?  What prevents you from having a Google list of all personal websites? What is the criteria, and how to keep from degenerating into silly revert wars over external links?  Let's establish some standards that are, um ... encyclopedic.  Sandy 19:31, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * ...and a directory entry under the control of an autocratic, agenda driven individual is NPOV and "encyclopaedic" on which planet, in which galaxy? This is Wikipedia, not Dmoz. Of course we could take it to RFC? --Zeraeph 19:37, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

People, the absolute maximum that FAC commentators usually allow before crying link farm is 15 links. This article is way past that now! RN 19:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy that some of the links have got to go such as the websites for AS people because there are so many. Some othe informational web sites are advertisments for books they need to go. As for the schools there are also to many to count and also need to go. On the other hand I feel like the Adult issues and some of the organizations should stay. Natche24 19:43, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, I've condensed it. I put the DMOZ and MedlinePlus links at the top, and listed the other link not on those two below, and removed links provided by DMOZ and MedlinePlus, atleast I think I got all of them. -- Dubh agan  19:58, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * Dubhagan you did a good job condensing the problem is that we have 23 websites that are listed in the external likes so somebody has to delete 8 links in order for it to be the acceptable 15 links that RN requested.Natche24 20:07, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Working on it, removed location specific organizations in Dallas, DC and NJ. We could probably remove the schools too.  Still going through and seeing how important the current links are.  -- Dubh  agan  20:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Really don't think that DMOZ and Medline should be at the top, any more than "Further reading" should be at top of article...for pretty much the same reason--Zeraeph 20:26, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Seems to me that looks about right now, nicely balanced too, unless someone has a link or two to add, and if they do, there is plenty of room. --Zeraeph 20:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree, looks much better. -- Dubh  agan  20:33, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Wow, I go away for a few hours, and you all chopped it away :-) First, Zeraeph, I'm still wondering what DMOZ has left off?  Can you please give me an example?  If the commercial links added are the problem, I can see why DMOZ might leave off commercial links.  Also, you don't need MedlinePlus in the External Links because it's in the Info Box at the top of the article.  The Brenda Myles link feels commercial -- isn't that basically a bookseller?  And there's another book publisher there:  that raises more eyebrows than the excessive number of links, since they are commercial.  More importantly, I'm thinking you all might want to agree on criterion as to what gets included, so you won't have to edit war it in the future.  If you allow commerical websites, you could end up with every AS snakeoil seller.  Just food for thought.  Sandy 21:21, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I don't exactly find the link-list especially neutral. Just like the rest of the article, it is strongly biased toward medical views of AS. I followed all of the links, and only in very few of them could you even find any of the major autistic "culture" sites. I certainly don't see why the parody-site is there. I don't find it very amusing, especially since they make fun of the NT-label. --Rdos 21:40, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Rdos, sure the link list is not necessarily neutral, but it is still informative, plus, the way we have it now, if a link is not mentioned on one of the 4 link sites now provided, feel free to add it. It's that simple.  If you can find another site that lists a bunch of AS links, even better.  -- Dubh  agan  02:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I personally LOVE the parody site, and feel it adds a touch of color to what has become a very dry article.


 * As for the rest, the remedy is simple, add two or three sites that you feel will balance the list...but make sure they are valid and reputable please. --Zeraeph 21:50, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * I once thought it was amusing myself, but I no longer do. The site is telling people that the NT-label is invalid, which I certainly don't agree with. --Rdos 21:57, 14 July 2006 (UTC)


 * Rdos - chill - it's called "fun"...and one of the most witty and informative pieces of fun I have seen in years. --Zeraeph 22:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)