Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive 9

Oxytocin connection
I see here sporadic discussions on causes, and wonder if the oxytocin connection is too new or controversial to include in the article? -- Renice 18:13, 1 January 2007 (UTC)
 * [Just a thought: If low levels of oxytocin cause Asperger's, then wouldn't that mean that those with Asperger's could range in severity through their lives? Is there any evidence of that? -- Renice 20:34, 2 January 2007 (UTC)]


 * Pure BS. Oxytocin is an indicator of "happyiness", and if Aspies have lower levels it only means they are mistreated in society. Much like the other proposed neurotransmitters, I'm afraid. Nobody knows the cause-effect of those either, but there is evidence of an environmental link (IOW, serotonin is affected by status in a group, for instance). --Rdos 09:04, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I personally agree that oxytocin is not a cause of AS. After reading more since my post, I now believe AS is an alternate thought-processing style, which is genetic in that evolutionary pressures favor the proliferation of one type or another. One thought-processing style is not 'better' than another, but it may be more adaptive as the environment shifts.


 * Further, it seems clear that sex hormones influence thought processes (though I doubt in quite the way Simon Baron-Cohen has proposed). So then, in a similar manner, oxytocin would have a different type of effect on the AS brain than it does on an NT brain (perhaps higher levels make Aspies less depressed, less paranoid, less mindblind, and more gregarious, more 'big-picture', for example -- while not changing the underlying qualitatively different method of processing data).


 * So, if the alternate thinking-style notion has merit, then it may be that low or high levels of oxytocin would cause different types of dysfunctions in the 2 brains (that might be a way to prove the notion of parallel thinking types, btw -- if it doesn't, then AS may simply be an artifical collection of related metabolism disorders (unlikely)). The oxytocin connection is an important finding, even if it is currently misinterpreted because of a faulty model.


 * Re your assertion that lower oxytocin is a result of social isolation and status: I agree -- that completely fits my model. Aspies are, in the current environmental climate, a minority (and that certainly won't change in our lifetimes, though the number of Aspies is currently underestimated because of the faulty model). It seems probable that oxytocin levels fall in response to numerous types of stressors, one of which is social isolation. (I think another is trying to force Aspies into an NT-normative circadian rhythm.)


 * At any rate, I'm not sure how to incorporate the oxytocin finding into the article.
 * --Renice 13:00, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I just got it -- Testosterone is the proof that AS and NT are parallel thought-processing styles!
 * --Renice 17:07, 13 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid the higher testosterone idea for ASDs doesn't hold up either. In Aspie-quiz III, I researched the finger ratios proposed to be related to testosterone, and there is absolutely no difference between AS and NT. The population was huge (5700 answers). --Rdos 11:47, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't think you're following me. Testosterone isn't a cause, it's the proof that NT and AS thinking types are neuro-divergent -- i.e., one isn't a pathological state of another -- they are parallel! The proof is in the very fact that there was absolutely no difference between AS and NT populations.

Do you see the ramifications of this to endocrinology?--Renice 20:07, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The reason Asperger's persists in the gene pool is because the species needs people who obsess over one problem. Seriously (but lol). --Renice 20:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)


 * This is a totally new model. And I think the Neanderthal theory could fit into it. (It is so recursively cool that I figured this out by reading and writing in Wikipedia.) --Renice 20:23, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

From the note I've written Prof Baron-Cohen:"Testosterone is, therefore, why we perceive a sex difference, while we are simultaneously blinded to the effects of estrogen. By the latter I mean that I believe female Aspies exist at roughly equal numbers as male Aspies, but we don’t see them for a number of reasons. For example, Aspie women fare better in our culture because certain Aspie behaviors are deemed culturally acceptable for women. Further, I believe that, during the mating years, female Aspies are more social due to documented estrogenic effects. (I think showing this would be another proof of neuro-divergence, and it could be done comparing same- and opposite-sex relatives over generations. But again that would take years.) Importantly, this subtle hormone shift would occur without changing the underlying thought-processing style."--Renice 20:29, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

Right, there is no 4:1 or 10:1 gender relation between high-functioning male and female Aspies. There is a 1:1 relation. This is also what Aspie-quiz have found. The gender ratio for people with higher Aspie-score than NT-score in Aspie-quiz is as close to 1:1 as one can hope to get, and it is consistently so in all 9 versions. A high proportion of mentally retarded male autistics is just what we would expect. It seems like males are more vulnerable for mental retardation for some reason, but this has nothing to do with the gender ratios for non-mentally-retarded autistics. --Rdos 15:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Whoa there everybody. This horse has really run. Yea, I see how this collaberative brainstorming can be productive to some purpose, but I don't see how the article can benefit after a point. And, though I do think this discussion should by all means be carried on, I also think it could distract and hinder the presentation of information for inclusion in the article and become an exclusive avenue of pursuit. I suggest your own talk pages. I suspect that much of the above is speculative both in the POV and OR directions, some of it highly so. OK, great for the goal of discovery but not so good for advancing verifiable info. I really find only two questions above pertaining to the article, though neither seem to be addressed, really:
 * ONE - Is the oxytocin connection too new or controversial for the article? In this case, any controversy is probably due to newness so let's address newness. The researchers themselves warn about drawing conclusions here for numerous reasons; small sample, mixed (autistic and asperger) group, narrow criteria (e.g. no social function evals), etc. They are hopeful of sparking future research of a broader, more conclusive nature. They do, also, mention previous research which they are advancing - building on. I think this may be a basis for direction in ...
 * TWO - How should the oxytocin information be incorporated into the article? This is where I think the common goals of NPOV, no OR, and verifiability must stand out as our operative point of view, as editors. This should also, perhaps, suggest some organic, logical structure to the causes/research section, if not more. Couldn't there be outlines of ongoing research projects, lines of theoretical pursuit, which include, within a simple, consistent and systematic format, the proven (peer-reviewed and verifiable) research leading up to this point (the theoretical horizon, as it were) and only the postulated theory of the researchers. Here there is a need to be both ruthlessly and carefully excisive of any results not verified by the researchers and their peers. In other words, a catalog of lines of research established that is concise and linear, maybe catagorized by symptom or biosystem. That "other research" mentioned in the oxytocin finding would have a home here.
 * I think that those who've followed the research as well as has been thought through above would be wonderfully qualified to systematize these lines of research, maybe even in a way that can become a framework for this ongoing process of discovery (because this is nothing if not a wide open field for discovery). I would be interested in helping. I would, however, warn and advise against focussing on making your own connections between the research. Anyone who is that qualified, should be doing the research, otherwise, we need to be content with clearly defining the line between the known and the unknown. I'm sorry, I'll get off of my high horse now.Bearpa 03:02, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

You're right of course, Bearpa. However, I don't think I can contribute at this point -- I now absolutely believe that AS is not a pathological subset of 'NT', which is the current model for the condition ('disorder', or even 'syndrome', is no longer an appropriate label). I think the problem with even presenting that model as remotely reasonable, even though it is supported by 'peer-reviewed research', is contributing to misunderstanding and discrimination.

There needs to be a paradigm shift. Rather than a single spectrum, i.e., Normal (NT)<-> Asperger (AS) <-> Autism, there are (at least) 2: Where AS is, under current environmental conditions, a minority thought-processing style. If there's a way to present that, I'm in, otherwise, I think this article is largely anachronistic, but won't be recognized as such until NT researchers recognize the parallel pathologies in their own population (difficult because of a sort of global mindblindness -- mindblindness being a very useful concept that has come out of the previous model). --Renice 10:44, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * NTypical <-> pathology || Autism
 * AS <-> pathology = Autism


 * If it were up to me, I'd probably start the article off with something like, "Aspergers is a particular thought-processing style, and is an example of polymorphism in the human species."
 * --Renice 13:31, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I really do hear you Renice. Personally, I don't believe that NT actually exists just as I don't believe that GOD exists. To me they are both like endless reflections of the myriad human ideations of perfection. But I do not choose to question anyone's fundamental beliefs at that level where I would be challenging the very nature of their reality. That's what a paradigm shift is: and they "just" happen. However I don't think one can plan to create a new paradigm. The unintended consequenses of an infinitely variable universe prevent that, in my opinion. We can look backward and see, or even sometimes look sideways in the present and see great events and changes occuring, and predict some shift, but that's all.


 * I think of it sadly that you aren't going to contribute, though I do hear that you are not comfortable with this "model". You have, I think, such a strong mind though, I do hope you can follow these ideas I hear from you a little further, somehow. I was thinking about some things you say about a thought-processing style and ASps&NTs in their own populations and it came to me that what that seems to describe, to me, is like an evolutionary adaptation, one that we cannot know whether it is maladaptive, well-suited, or whatever. It is, however, on the genetic level. Like homo sapiens was to homo erectus, perhaps, for some adaptive reason, homo sapiens will be survived by descendants of "assortive matings" of AS style humans.


 * My gut feeling about it though is not to fly in the face of peoples' sense of reality if you have something to say to them, so I guess that is self-defining as to the audience I choose - those who don't understand and wish to learn more. I think that is what an encyclopedia's for. Thank you very much for your thinking. Bearpa 04:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Interesting that we've come to some of the same conclusions about GOD (although I think the concept of G-d is another matter), the shape/nature of the universe, and the advantage of polymorphism in evolution. My real problem with further support of the single-spectrum vs a multi-spectrum model is that a faulty model is like religion in the way it puts blinders on our thinking.

What's funny to me is how a lot of Aspies argue that AS is a parallel thinking style, while simultaneously using the single-continuum model to explain pathologies. That's crazy-making.

Looking for a cause is a waste of time -- there is no cause if it's simply a neuro-divergence. However, dealing with pathologies specific to this brain/metabolism type is something else entirely, and would be a lot easier if a better model were used.

For example, I think the relative prevalence in the AS population of depression and paranoia are explained by group dynamics (majority/minority), and the resulting hormone cascade in a minority individual.

From looking at the oxytocin info, among other things, it seems clear that metabolic disorders are at fault in many pathologies. We're currently lumping a lot of pathologies together because they're caused by a similar mechanism (as well as separating things that are related). But we need to tease out the various metabolic mechanisms and how different brain/metabolic-types are processing them.

A healthy Aspie can't metabolize certain substances that a healthy 'neurotypical' can (and vice-versa) -- if we find substances a body can't metabolize, eliminate them (or provide a crutch), then the body regains balance. I think this is already being recognized by some metabolism researchers, but the connection between Aspergers hasn't yet been made -- and, in a way, I see it as a sort of Rosetta stone for endocrinology.

Your approach to paradigm shifts is nobly considerate, but I think a little in-your-face tough love is in order now. Aspies have been coping with discrimination for long enough; and like many forms of discrimination against minorities, the single-spectrum model (as a cause of discrimination) is simply limiting our advancement as a society (advancement being understanding).

Oh, and you're right about neurotypical as a single type being an artificial construct, but it's useful in simplifying the illustration. I'll need to learn the vocabulary before I can write a book :)) --Renice 14:10, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Btw, 'high-functioning Aspergers' is also misleading terminology -- with a multi-spectrum model, "healthy" would be more accurate. --Renice 14:40, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Assburger issue
Is "Assburger" a common mispronounciation? Should it be created as a redirect? I am now finding it is quite common through searching. It should also be asked whether this is a personal attack or not.

Should this be included as well? Simply south 19:27, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Assburger syndrome is actually a protected redirect! The Wednesday Island 00:08, 6 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I know because i nominated it as a delete and so it got deleted twice. Also look at Assburger's syndrome redirect. This one has not been deleted Simply south 16:37, 6 January 2007 (UTC)

As far as I know, Assburger is just a common mis-pronunciation/mis-spelling, thanks in part to Urban Dictionary. -- James  Duggan  00:49, 9 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Just because it's common does not mean it should be a redirect, in my opinion. There are 749 results on Google for "Assburger", sure, but there are 794 results for the marginally less ambiguous term "Justin Trousersnake", a common media nickname, in the UK at least, for Justin Timberlake. Does that mean we create a redirect for that too? --Dreaded Walrus 11:33, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'd say there's a difference between a misspelling and a nickname. The former is likely to be put in the "go" box by people who have no idea what the real name is. —Random832 2007-01-25 17:42 UTC (01/25 12:42 EST)

No, but if you include "Justin Trousersnake" in the article (perhaps in the much-maligned trivia section?), the appropriate article will at least come up in a search. People search for Assburger not out of maliciousness but ignorance, and their ignorance should be redirected. --Renice 11:03, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Also, I have just reverted an edit that said something like 'It is hard to function when your ass is a burger' While I was slightly amused at this, (having Aspergers, yes, really, verified by a psychiatrist) this does not belong in Wikipedia. CosmicWaffles 02:49, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Why doesn't someone add the correct pronunciation into the opening sentence? --DearPrudence 23:17, 21 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, someone add that. I was damn sure it was pronounced like "assburgers" until I read this discussion. Recury 21:11, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It is pronounced that way, regionally. Neither I nor my parents or doctors have, in my experience, used any other pronunciation. —Random832 2007-01-25 17:42 UTC (01/25 12:42 EST)
 * It IS pronounced "assburger". Hans Asperger was Austrian, ergo it is a German name, and pronounced as such. Any other pronunciation is absolutely incorrect. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.113.87.178 (talk) 08:51, 31 January 2007 (UTC).

Since when was there a letter "B" in the name "Asperger"???? Isn't it obvious how it is pronounced? I once asked Prof. Baron-Cohen about the pronounciation, and I think he said it is pronounced with a hard G sound. That makes sense to me, as I know an Austrian person with a surname that is similar to Asperger, no doubt a linguistically related name, and the "G" sound in it is pronounced like the "G" in "Goat". BUT it seems most Australians pronounce it like it is a French name, which goes to show what an ignorant bunch they are. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 203.59.212.112 (talk • contribs).
 * There is no audible difference between "p" and "b" after an "s", so saying "since when was there a 'b'" is a specious argument. The fact is, "burger" is an english word, so when someone who has no idea how to spell it hears it, that's what they'll guess. --Random832(tc) 16:55, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEDE
Am I the only person that feels that the lede of this article has expanded beyond all reasonable limits? I've not read through the whole article (which itself seems to have become somewhat larger since the review last august), but the size of the lede seems quite outrageous to me for a featured article. Crimsone 19:03, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, Crimsone, I agree, it seems the lede (lead?) has grown explosively as has the article. I looked on the history page and there has been a blizzard of edits recently, a whole page of history log, with no notes, comments, or proposals etc. on this page to float ideas and reach some sense of consistent approach. Maybe it is the article, I don't know, but those who deliberate here seem likely to get buried by a landslide of "unfloated" edits. Some are good, some are too esoteric, most seem, to me, to be "outrageous" as you say, creating an anarchic cacaphony (that's caca and phony put together you know). I almost wish for a dictator here. If we're lucky, a benificent despot. Alas. But at points, things also clear up. I don't know, but presently I agree about the rampant drift.Bearpa 01:52, 12 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I agree, that last paragraph in the lead is way too wordy. Infact, that whole paragraph is better off integrated with the article.   James   Duggan  19:12, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

I reverted the intro to the way it was in October. Here's the edit that expanded it here on October 17, 2006. Here's the part that I deleted: ''There are instances where adults do not realize that they have AS personalities until they are having difficulties with relationships and/or attending relationship counseling. Recognition of the very literal and logical thought processes that are symptomatic of AS can be a tremendous help to both partners in a close/family relationship.'' I didn't bother to look so I don't know if this is covered in the article. If it's not, could it be integrated with the proper section? -- James  Duggan  19:28, 14 January 2007 (UTC)

What??

 * It posited that AS may be the result of assortative mating by geeks in mathematical and technological areas.

Is this for real? Can we at least get a ref? Wtf?? --DanielCD 01:52, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Simon Baron-Cohen mentioned the idea in an interview by Wired [12/2001]. Years later, in the NY Times (8/2005), Baron-Cohen states, "Nonetheless, my hypothesis is that autism is the genetic result of assortative mating between parents who are both strong systemizers. "
 * --Renice 02:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Um, the Wired article explains that the mating of computer geeks in the Silicon Valley may have lead to the increase in AS cases there. That statement talks about all AS cases, which isn't the case.   James   Duggan  03:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I questioned (24 December 2006 this page headed Wired article in "autistic culture" page) the verifiability of this:
 * The article does not cite this position.
 * Isn't this posited in the form of a question and only in the sub-title of the article?
 * If so, as I believe, doesn't this simply constitute unsupported conjecture on the part of the referred article's author.
 * Can we be vigilant and not rely on such journalistic "hooks" as verifiable information?
 * Bearpa 22:18, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes, I think we need a better scientific reference or some serious rephrasing. --DanielCD 02:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've wanted to do that for a while, but I have a broader question(anyone): Does a culture section deserve a little more leeway? I mean, there is really a bunch of stuff that people want to include that is not very encyclopedic. How should we draw the line? I do know that the heading "Autistic culture" should be changed; this article is more narrowly specific than that. But do we need to let those who have a subjective experience of Asperger have a place for that perspective? This might help reduce the conflict between the differing views; between objective (scientific) and subjective (cultural?). There seems to be those conflicting needs out there and the effect, as I see it, is a bleeding over of perspectives. Sometimes it seems a battle, with scientific conclusions diluted with unverifiable anecdotes or cultural perspectives reverted for being "non-scientific". It's here on the talk page, it's in the article. I think it's counter-productive all the way around. Anyone else have thoughts on this?Bearpa 03:32, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I don't know about the larger issues you've raised, but the assortative mating issue is a complete red herring. I believe it stems from the fact that NT-types are amazed that AS-types (at every age) recognize each other -- and, omg! mate together (sometimes). This amazement is simply another example of mass mindblindness. --Renice 10:58, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I probably should have read a bit more closely before I left the comment. I just keyed in on the "assortative mating by geeks" and flipped a bit. It does state where it came from (Duh for me). But I do think it is inappropriately placed, as is the autistic culture section. I think that section should be minimal here and the paragraph from Wired made more obvious it's speculation. I'm not demanding it be removed or anything; I'll go with whatever you guys think. Might be an interesting note, but best made outside the main body of the article. --DanielCD 20:59, 16 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hey, DanielCD, I don't think you flipped - you just said what you thought. Anyway, making sure we're on the same page, yes, that paragraph in the "Autistic culture" section does cite the Wired article - yes OK. But that Wired article cites NO references or research, etc. to back it up, though it may exist (see Renice entry just below your start of this sec., which, by the way, I read as an incomplete quote about an academic's hypothesis or idea - no research cited) somewhere. Bearpa 03:38, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Strangely, I feel slightly insulted.
Hi, I'm an "aspie" and I like to know why this article makes "sweeping generalisations", so to speak... To be honest, I feel insulted at some parts of the article, like, for example: "Individuals with AS need support on how to make connections on a personal level." Why does this sentence do the sweeping argument that all aspies needs the support? I, for one, do not even want the support. I'm a quite the introvert and I feel that I don't want "connections on a personal level" unless I can create and establish those bonds by myself, without external support. The next sentence in that very paragraph also caught my eye. "In order for them to see the purpose or relevance of a relationship beyond a point of interest or concept it may represent to them, will require facilitation from a skilled professional." Why do we have to see that at all? Yeah sure, some of us might want the help, but that sentence makes it sound like we have to learn that. Sentences like that occurs on more than one place in this article. As wikipedia is an encyclopedic site, it should not make sweeping statements like that since it might give false impressions or inaccurate beliefs of understanding. 217.208.27.4 02:04, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I think you don't feel like you need help because you are a healthy Aspie. The statements that offend you are the result of pathologizing a normal thought-processing style. This article is simply presenting the currently accepted model that the Asperger thinking style is a pathological subset of a more prevalent thinking style. See the Oxytocin connection discussion above.
 * --Renice 14:25, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I'm going to have to disagree, Renice. The statement "Individuals with AS need support on how to make connections on a personal level" is indeed a sweeping generalisation. There is no reason that it can't be revised to say something such as "Some/many individuals with AS may need support on how to make connections on a personal level.", which generalises far less than the current statement, is likely to cause less offence to those with the condition to whom the statement does not really apply, and is more encyclopedic due to greater accuracy. Crimsone 14:39, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Ahh, quite right! Except that if a multi-spectrum model were applied, it would be more like "Individuals with AS may need support in developing mechanisms to cope in an environment in which different thinking styles are more prevalent." --Renice 14:44, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Yes, I agree with that, and I feel that the statement you've just made is better again, but I'm not certain if "thinking style" is a phrase that everybody would understand as meaning a particular way that the mind works. To many people, I'm wondering if perhaps the concept of different people having minds that can work and make connections in ways fundamentally different to the "norm" is one that is widely understood or even thought about.
 * Even so, I can't think of a better way of saying it at the moment. Crimsone 14:56, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Yes! If you come up with one, let me know -- I'm thinking about that as well. In the meantime (and until a multi-spectral model is accepted), you're edit is definitely better than what's there. --Renice 15:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

After some thought, I wonder if "Individuals with AS may need support in developing mechanisms to cope in an environment in which different thought processes are more prevalent.", or perhaps even ''"Individuals with AS may need support in developing mechanisms to cope in an environment in which the differing thought processes of those without the condition are more prevalent." '' may be better? Your thoughts Renice? :) Crimsone 17:18, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * The first one is much easier to follow. --Renice 21:05, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I too support the former. Like Reince typed, it's much easier to follow. Thanks for taking your time with this matter, guys. I appreciate it. 217.208.27.4 22:57, 17 January 2007 (UTC)


 * If I may barge in, this discussion is great and has sparked broader thoughts in me about the disjointedness of the article: what I thought of as conflict is really an intrinsic, inherent result of the knowledge and human experiences of our subject. The important need to clearly demark the "some/many may" inclusion that Renice, or the "some" that RDOS find to be needed a few subjects down today, become important needs resulting from what I thought was conflict.
 * Because the subj. is relatively new, the nature of that "knowledge set" is itself dis-jointed, with numerous and various affects, histories, deductions, etc. So as this information comes together, as it gets down to it, it does not have to coalesce as from a fog, but be fit together, like a pile of pipes and fixtures becomes the running water system in a house. To achieve the most elegant system, which is really the goal of writing this article, a design must meet appropriate criteria, such as convenience, flow, economy of space, utility, divergences etc.. So, as we, very early in the water system, divide the hot from the cold water, we might also decide to make a divergence in the story within the "knowledge set". And we must make this divergence in as elegant a way as we will need to keep the whole system just as elegant.
 * To do this, I propose beginning to define the divergence of the science and human sides from the beginning, in the first paragraph of the lead even, something like:


 * (starting after the first line, after AS --) is a cluster of differences, anomolies, and particular qualities, affecting humans in both their physical/motor and mental/thinking selves. These affects range from subtle to distincly evident and may, for some/many, be involved with difficulties that arise from socialization, and adapting to living life as an individual. Some individuals affected by AS, however, are able to adapt well and find or create their own social niches and life-styles.
 * The scientific/clinical community, in its own rigorous language, tends to refer to AS as a disorder, and its "qualities" as symptoms and deficiencies, as it continues the effort to clarify diagnoses, understand causes and assess treatments. Many who share AS's differences find this type of terminology too harsh, and believe that this view diverges from their experiences by setting a qualitative limit on mmembers of their population when, at times, they find that their qualities can enhance their lives, and they feel that their adjustments and adaptations in living life, though sometimes different from those of others considered NT ("neuro-typical", that is, "normal"), nevertheless can allow them to live a normal life, every bit as valid in meaning and content as any other. (then continue into the rest, fitting in w/segue, intro, editing, etc.)


 * Does any one else see what I mean. It may be too long. Could perhaps be woven in with a continuation in the main article, with this divergence referred to when needed. This is especially true in the scientific/clinical side because the inclusion of "some/many" or "may" is demanded by the data; the symptoms/qualities are almost never universal in AS and this is actually made more apparent in most of the reference materials I've read than it sometimes seems in the article.
 * The bulkiness might be necessary, though, to the goal of delineating this divergence, but I think something like this should be tried, at least, to allow the two sides to co-exist while lessening the disruptive potential of what may be, not a pointless, but eventually maybe a moot, conflict. I hope for moot, for mootness then, at least of a mutually exclusive atmosphere in this process of open-source creation: to collaborate, not compete. The effort would be to get the entire article to fit within this framework, and all edits to therby, in spirit, acknowledge this divergence. Bearpa 21:17, 18 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I see what you're saying, and yes, I think it would be a worthwhile effort. --Renice 05:51, 20 January 2007 (UTC)


 * I've been thinking more about this - oh, and sorry about weird indents up above - that I've read now the Summary style page, along with others such as Article size and Content forking so that I'm getting the idea that something can be done here that is already described and outlined. The most fundamental realization about it came from Summary style, 1.2.7 Lead section:


 * "For the planned paper Wikipedia 1.0, one recommendation is that the paper version of articles will be the lead section of the web version. Summary style and news style can help make a concise intro that works stand-alone."


 * This helps me understand the view to take - about layered strucure of the info, summarizing sections into the main article, allowing subsections to develop (even into their own articles) not independently (as in POV), but nonetheless following their own line. It's a restructuring that will take into account a bigger picture and change the way some things fit in. Right now, for instance, two editors have decided to remove a repeated sentence from the Lead. OK, I myself have said there is too much in there. But if those sentences (they mention other copies from sections to the lead) were summarizing their sections, they would have to stay. In a large article (and this one is 78kb, more than twice as large as to begin being a candidate for "splitting" into several) with lots of ground to cover, summaries going into the lead will create a sizeable Lead sec., and thus, a decent Wikipedia 1.0 (paper version) article.
 * That really clarifies so much for me. More later (I know I'm verbose but I wish to say what I mean HOW I mean it . . . Ha ha) Bearpa 01:37, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Clean up tag
Why was this article tagged? It's a feature article for crying out loud. -- James  Duggan  03:37, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * It's an OTRS tag; probably someone emailed the Wikimedia Foundation directly to tell them about their thoughts regarding the article. I can see their point; for example, "The diagnosis of AS is complicated by the lack of adoption of a standardized diagnostic screen ..." appears both in the lead and in the "Diagnosis" section. It is clear that some of the lead sentences were copied verbatim from other parts of the article. Fixing this will probably be tricky because the article is so heavily referenced. Graham 87 04:03, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I've removed the tag; this is an unusual use for OTRS tags - they're normally for articles which require major cleanup or where a living person has complained about defamatory content in their article. I doubt that anyone will sue the Wikimedia Foundation over the issue of repeated text in an article, so I think the explanation on the talk page will suffice. Graham 87 04:07, 17 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I referred to this discussion yesterday in the topic above, which I would be interested in y'all reading. It really illustrates my view of the different needs competing for page space and the subtext behind those needs. The sentence you've exampled, for instance, I myself would have agreed needed to be removed as redundant, but now I see a greater goal compromised: that of making the Lead a summary style article appropriate for stand-alone entry (as in the above note from WP:Summary style). You see, that sentence is actually a very important summary statement, one that a whole section or more could address. The dilemma is really the process of getting from long, multi-subject article to a layered, multi-tiered one without a confusion of concerns based on different editors not persuing the same (layered, multi-tiered) goal. And I think that goal is the way to go; pullup the guidelines pages I link above (there are others too) and see if that sounds reasonable. I hope we can help this whole thing along by doing this. Bearpa 23:16, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Given the persistence with the disease-tag, I'm for tagging it again. --Rdos 12:18, 24 January 2007 (UTC)