Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome/archive1

Asperger syndrome

 * This article is still a featured article

Though the article may be comprehensive it does not meet the stability requirements of a featured article as well as the fact that it is not easy to read and does not conform to the style guide and the writing is all over the place and the article is highly disputed and the subject of many edit wars, see:Asperger's syndrome page history. Jtkiefer T - 21:56, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
 * Perhaps you could be so kind as to more specifically point out what features of the article, outside of the recent edit war, lead you to say that? For example, I find the article as a whole much better written and easier to understand than the majority of Wikipedia articles I've seen (not to mention your own description of it above!). Also, what features of it have been disputed recently by anyone other than Tern? I do not mean to be snide; my interest is in improving it. So far all the comments I've seen on this subject have been rather vague, and we Aspies don't handle vagueness well :-). 24.77.97.3 08:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Wikipedia's entire ethics would be dead unless these medical censors' mob game comes out of this banned. FA status removal is the least they have brought on themselves for trying to turn the artricle into their own controlled biased soapbox. - Tern, 01:26! Aug''' 23  Keep . As noted above, the "controversy" is entirely the work of one user. The person denying this above is that one user, who among other things, is now claiming that phrases like "terrible cruelty" - a paradigm case of POV - are neutral and even "axiomatic". Feel free to visit the talk page and confirm this for yourself. Ironically many of Tern's above accusations could be more accurately applied to himself, particularly the last two. 24.77.97.3 01:04, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Personally, I think this was from the Brillant Prose crop of articles. Most of the articles from there have went to FARC and usually are delisted. So, until we get this figured out, I support the removal of the FA status. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:13, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
 * It was promoted on 10 April 2004 with 10 supports, including a resolved objection (here is the position from the WP:FAC page history immediately before it was promoted). For some reason, fac was added when it was promoted, on 10 April 2004 (diff), and was not replaced by featured until 20 June 2004 (diff). -- ALoan (Talk) 11:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * 'Keep due to the valiant efforts of the Wikipedians at the article. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 23:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Remove No it isn't, a lot of its content is controversial. See the talk page for that,as well as for what has been going on in the last few days: a fantastical eruption of hate vendetta against one person, by voices including this Ryan who
 * reject all efforts to find a mutually inclusive edit of the subject they object to
 * never give an alternative point of view on the issue, just keep claiming it doesn't matter
 * reject anything else than total deletion of all mention of it, even though it involves child cruelty towards the group this medical article is about
 * base their arguments mostly on personal prejudice and personal attacks
 * are trying to force this by repeating the same delete-vandalism at high frequency, and in ways that have been demonstrated personally malicious as you can see if you go there and look at the history or the discussion, then filing malicious 3RR charges when stood up to
 * Hey, given that this user is indefinitely blocked, does the above vote count? (To be clear, he was not blocked at the time he voted, however he has since been blocked indefinitely for his many and various policy violations and generally needlessly antagonistic behaviour.)
 * Keep. I don't like removing an article from FA status only a few days into an edit war. Afterall, these things happen all the time and tend to resolve themselves within a week or two. While the article may have other issues, it is difficult to tell at this point. I'd be happy to revisit this issue in a month or so. If the article is still unstable then, I would vote to remove.--Alabamaboy 00:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * Your views are appreciated and have been noted however your vote cannot be counted since you are an IP, if you would like you are welcome to create an account and revote or sign your name to this vote. Jtkiefer  T - 02:51, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Tern's tendency towards retaliation on other sites precludes that, sorry. I have made over 150 edits to various pages, all under the same IP, only one of which has been seriously disputed (not to the Asperger page); I think I'm a legitimate contributer. I'd be happy to contact you somewhere other than publically available parts of Wikipedia with any personal information that might help make an exception to this rule (which I can't seem to find documentation of, by the way, though it's possible I'm not looking in the right place). Failing that, I guess I'll have to accept having my vote not count for this particular purpose. 24.77.97.3 08:20, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
 * This is 24.77.97.3. I have reconsidered the above, and have now created an account. Thus my vote can now be added to the keep side. (I still can't find that rule, by the way.) PurplePlatypus 02:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Note: as noted in my nomination of this for FARC it isn't just the edit warring that led me to put this up for deletion removal, it's also that the article is not especially a greatly written article and doesn't seem to fit the criteria for a featured article and the guide for style. Jtkiefer  T - 02:48, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
 * Note, the article is not up for deletion, we are just seeing if it is even worthy for the FA status. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 02:54, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * [keep] Controversy will always exist with "disorders" such as AS. It's not clearly defined and it includes a huge range from low to high functioning.  Personally, I clearly have several of the traits - more than one in each of the categories defined by the DSM-IV.  I'd say the ability for intense focus is quite the counter-balance to the lack of social ability; which as I must be high-fuctioning, it is hardly that limiting.  So you're a bit colder than most, have problems expressing your feelings, and get very uncomfortable in large groups; many social people get uncomfortable in small groups... [take  that for what it's worth]


 * I tend to think this disorder should be defined in more detail, and should be geared towards low-functioning aspies. As those who are high functioning can use AS to their adv. in the real world .  One could actually argue that being a high-functioning Aspie is actually adaptive... specialization and a tendancy to focus on logic is a good combo for success if you can adapt to the lack of social skills.


 * Nonetheless... Wikipedia's page defines AS better than any other site out there and should not be removed as a FA. It's not that the article is poorly done, but rather that the key/core issues involving AS are controversal and up for debate... me thinks this article does a decent job at presenting the different angles. ** - Oilers99fan


 * KEEP Article is much better now. If there are any style problems please mention them and they will be corrected -- Ryan Norton T 11:41, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. The article, as RN mentions, is much improved. The main problems it had before were stylistic, and the page was pretty stable until the edit war with Tern broke out. Oilers99fan has a good point in that there will always be some controversy in the core of the debate, but the page is comprehensive. ManekiNeko 21:25, 23 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. The edit war has abated, and cooler heads are prevailing. The article has retained the informational value it had when it ascended to FA status, NPOV--from my POV, at least--is returning, and from what I can tell, all vandalism (by any rational definition) has been cleaned up, and the source has been dealt with. I agree with ManekiNeko: the page is comprehensive. matt 20:08, 24 August 2005 (UTC)


 * The truth of the above is to be tested during the day starting now. The statement "The source has been dealt with" is a continuing expression of personal victimisation that does not bode well, and only if it is shown not to be true and this kind of thing is stamped out will everything else Matt has said become true. In fact lagre parts of the article have been thoroughly rewritten in a check for fairness by those editors who realised they were under wider scrutiny now for the personal stuff to stop and a basis for neutral common ground to be found.tern 02:36, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * You know very well, or should, that non-neutrality has nothing to do with why they were rewritten. PurplePlatypus 04:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep. Though the grammar could use improvement and it might be better to remove the culture section from the article altogether. This article is overall a very good read. Cedars 02:25, 28 August 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep I came to the talk page to make sure it had already been featured. --Ryan Delaney talk 03:33, 1 September 2005 (UTC)


 * Keep The article has grown a lot of late, which is true of many articles as Wikipedia has proliferated. But unlike some other expanding articles it has retained most of it's sense of style and accuracy, while substantially improving it's depth. A definate keep. D-Katana 01:29, 4 September 2005.