Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:56, 4 September 2007

This template must be substituted. Replace {{FAR ...}} with {{subst:FAR ...}}.

Please stay calm and civil while commenting or presenting evidence, and do not make personal attacks. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If consensus is not reached, other solutions exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

	Asperger syndrome is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Misplaced Pages community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
	This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 17, 2004.
Article milestones Date Process Result June 20, 2004 Featured article candidate Promoted September 5, 2005 Featured article review Kept August 1, 2006 Featured article review Kept
Current status: Featured article

This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details. Medicine Mid‑importance This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Misplaced Pages talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale.

Template:Wikipedians Template:V0.5 Template:MedportalSA

To-do: E · H · W · RUpdated 2007-09-20 There are no active tasks for this page

Wikification

I've caught all the wikilinks I could, but I may have missed some. Per WP:MOSLINK and WP:CONTEXT, the first occurrence of technical, important or relvant terms should be linked, and common terms known to most English speakers shouldn't be linked. Overlinking should be avoided. Because there's a lot of jargon in this article, I've linked a couple of words not only on the first occurrence, but also on a few subsequent instances. If fresh sets of eyes can check the wikilinking, that would be great. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Something I think I should say

I just had time to go over the current article properly, I only got half way down when I realised I have no option but to delink it from several AS related websites where I had, previously (for a couple of years), trusted the article to present a balanced, informed view of AS. I preferred it to actually creating a definition because I felt that the participation of several different editors, with several viewpoints made the article, fairer and more objective.

As it stands today, the article has arrived at a point where the current, overall negative bias sets back the understanding and acceptance of actual people with AS by several years. I can no longer use it.

I would take the quoteboxes that symbolised the negative bias all the way to arbcom if Sandy had not had the consideration to withdraw them as she did. But there is no way I have the time or resources to do that with the whole article. So, instead, I am going to try and trust the community of Misplaced Pages and say please remember, this article has always been regarded as a significant source of objective (rather than agenda driven) information on Asperger syndrome. Real people, human beings like yourselves, have to live with the consequences of the contents.

I wish I could bring them here and show them to you. Intelligent adults with the same passions ands feelings as anyone else who have been raised conditioned to see themselves as perpetual and defective children who will never be able to fall in love, have children, drive cars or even be entitled to the same basic rights as any other human being. This conditioning is born of a lethal cocktail of misinformation, exploitative agenda and the ordinary human aversion to "difference".

I don't ask that this article be biased in favor of those young people, that would be wrong, and against everything Misplaced Pages stands for, and I happen to REALLY believe in, but I do not think it should be biased against them in this way.

To give you the best idea I can of the nature and extent of the problem, I would be happy if the article were reverted to the last featured version with the changes to "History" incorporated. That version had no particularly negative bias and more accessible text, not everybody in need of the information has third level education after all.--Zeraeph 15:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that version wasn't entirely accurate, comprehensive, neutral, up to date, and didn't make use of more recent high-quality reliable sources. Attwood published his book ten years ago, only three years after the diagnosis was recognized, so it wasn't possible for him to reflect the current state of knowledge about AS. That version relied very heavily on Attwood and other self-published sources. The good news is that the people who want to read Attwood's views only can still get his book. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As a casual observer of this debate the comment Attwood and other self-published sources strikes me as odd, even as weasel words. Attwood is not self-published, and I would hope that SG is not implying some form of vanity publishing effort on Attwoods behalf. His 1998 book may be getting a little long in the tooth but he has published a number of books and papers since, including in 2006 The Complete Guide to Asperger's Syndrome. --Michael Johnson 06:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, Michael; I've typed it so many times I've gotten sloppy and blurred it all together in shorthand. No, I don't lump Attwood in with self-published or vanity sources (some of the Myles were vanity sources), and I more correctly should have typed non-peer-reviewed, self-published, or non-reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, to my best recollection, we have included every source that you and CeilingCrash have requested (even in the lead, and even giving undue weight to individual researcher's opinions), and we've deleted the images and quoteboxes you disliked. Is there any reliable source that isn't accounted for, according due weight? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You recollection is faulty, because I did not particularly suggest any sources, I just requested some to review if I got a chance. Sources were suggested by CC and PP, I supported them in some and you in others.

My primary problem is not with the sources, it is with the pervasive, negative spin in the text that presents them. My second problem is with the escalating inaccessibility of the language in which the article is presented. At this stage it is unlikely to be comprehensible to any neurotypical person with less than a third level education and understanding.

In the last FAR you said this: Presenting accurate medical facts is not incompatible with presenting the view that AS need not be considered a "disorder": it is possible to cover both medical facts and advocacy for acceptance in one article. I concur. So, why is that not the end result here? --Zeraeph 16:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't see any "pervasive negative spin" other than Z's spin on Sandy's efforts. The effort looks balanced to me in its present state of progression. Soulgany101 22:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well we already recognise that you are "agenda driven" so just about ANYTHING negative about AS would suit you. --Zeraeph 23:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it - what in particular are you concerned about? How is describing deficits and treatment negative?cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? I should have thought common sense would be helpful there? No matter...visualise with me...imagine you are an autonomous adult with AS, just trying to make it through the night, like anyone else, intelligent, honest, honorable, hurting from the anomie, marginalisation, and general only-being-accepted-or-assisted-as-long-as-you-accept-and-embrace-the-role-of-a demented-child...THEN read the article...

If you have enough empathy you should IMMEDIATELY spot, not only the selective use of sources to present only the negatives (even where the sources actually reference positives), but ALSO the inaccessible language, that a mother, in middle America, or Milton Keynes, cannot make head nor tail of, EVEN THOUGH she lives at the coal face, dealing with a child who seems to be from another planet...

Is there a problem? I am a fully (Micheal Fitzgerald, no less) dx'ed Aspie, I surely have "no empathy"...if I can "get it" why can't you, an NT shrink, get it too? --Zeraeph 01:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I don't get it either, Zeraeph. I can imagine that some of the NPOV, objective scientific facts in this difficult area might be confronting to me if I were emotionally connected with the syndrome, but I'd try to maintain a distance from them. Our readers want clear balanced information, and for all of the research and professional/practitioner activity over the past few decades, the literature is fragmented. This is a place where that literature can be presented in a cohesive way, and Sandy has been doing a fine job, IMV. I don't see negative spin—quite the opposite, just the facts for our readers to interpret. Let's support her and you, Zeraeph, in finishing this task. Everyone is benefiting. Tony 01:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I do maintain distance, it is my job (and vocation) to do so, which is why, unbeknownst to her, Sandy had my full confidence for so long, however, I find it impossible to accept selective negatives and the total omission of positives from THE SAME SOURCES as objectivity. For the very simple reason that it is *not* objectivity, by the standards of any reasonable man, and all the semantic gymnastics in the world will not make it so.

"Everyone" certainly does NOT benefit from the prejudicial and selective presentation of information. Misplaced Pages does not benefit, as such a stain appears on it's overall standard of objectivity. People with AS do not benefit, as selective negatives headline google where there SHOULD be objectivity.

I am, equally, not at all sure that I agree with your assumption that Sandy is soley responsible, she is usually a very neutral editor (evidenced by her last, near single handed revision, of this article last year with totally different, and far more objective, emphasis). --Zeraeph 01:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

PS, I cannot for the LIFE of me understand why you do not get the issue of inaccessible language WHATEVER your viewpoint?

• (outdent) You need to provide examples of "inaccessible language" and, indeed, of negative spin, if you believe that they exist. I'm unconvinced, and think our time is better spent on finishing the task. Tony 01:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you are an experienced enough editor to see inaccessible language without me patronising you by pointing out specifics. The whole article needs rewriting for accessibility.

As for selective representation, the article manages to cite, McPartland J, Klin A (2006). "Asperger's syndrome". Adolescent medicine clinics 17 (3): 771–88; abstract xiii, thus: Although motor clumsiness and the delayed acquisition of language capacity are not mentioned in standard diagnostic criteria, odd speech, language peculiarities and motor skills difficulties are frequently reported features of AS. yet fails to even refer to "Asperger’s initial description optimistically predicted positive outcome based on the presence of intact cognitive ability and the potential application of special skills for gainful employment. Compared with individuals with lower functioning ASDs, a more positive outcome can be expected." from the same source. I could sit here all week listing similar comparisons, I do not have that kind of time available.

By the way, this is inaccurate; see the Prognosis section. The McPartland text is cited there, the historical text could be included in a history article but isn't relevant to current knowledge. Please do "sit here all week" long and list anything that is left out, because I want to get this article right and as of yet, we don't have a single example of negative spin or something left out, although you've found time to edit all day long. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I produced an excellent example which you dismissed out of hand, even though it turns out to have impeccable credentials . I am starting to feel you will do the same with anything I try to say here. I hope I am wrong about that, and if I am, forgive me. --Zeraeph 13:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Within a few sections on this talk page, you have called one editor (Sougany101) "agenda-driven", you've accused Tony1's motives, and you've failed to assume good faith with respect to my edits more than once now. It may help for you to read the link on {{calm talk}} to Misplaced Pages:Etiquette and other talk page guidelines; begging forgiveness for your breach of Wiki policy doesn't make it correct. You've provided no example yet of any POV, undue weight, or anything left out of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That is only one example...but, to be honest, I feel I am going up against heavy duty admins here, and nobody but me really cares if the article is balanced and objective or not. It doesn't matter whether I am right or wrong, I won't win, and will probably attract a community ban for trying, so my smart move now would be a Wiki-break. I am taking my smart move. But I would ask ALL of you to consult your consciences about your comfort level in supporting a POV article with the level of potential significant affect on attitudes and real people's lives as this one. --Zeraeph 02:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

OK - I have found and tweaked a little - it is tricky as many words considered jargon have specific meanings that it can be a challenge to put in simpler words without losing meaning. And, yes, as I work in the area I can let alot slip by without recognising it as a problem for those outside the medical profession. This is one reason I like bluelinks so that folk can click on and find out what a particular concept or word means. In any case I for one am happy to try rephrasing specific problem bit you want to point out.

As far as POV - the article highlights the symptoms and treatment and discusses deficits....you want it to go over the sterngths (?)....but then you write about how difficult it is for you? Isn't that the point of the article who might want to read about it? What else do you want covered? Diagnosing dead people or otherwise high functioning people without interviewing them clinically I feel is speculative at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 02:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, I do not believe I have ever written about "how difficult it is" for me in terms of AS, to the contrary, I always feel it is unwise to go into too many details of one's weaknesses online. Such personal "sharing" is far too open to abuse. You must have mixed me up with someone else.

However, for the record, this is what I think. AS is a condition that makes many ordinary, everyday things others take for granted into exhausting ordeals, but conversely it gives an alternative focus that can, if appropriately applied, make many things more "normal" people would find difficult, or even impossible, come quite easily to the ASpie.

AS can only be understood by accepting it as a combination of strengths and limitations. Strategies that target only the limitations and overlook the strengths are just destructive to the unfortunate human being "inside the ASpie suit", not least because, by determinedly ignoring his considerable strengths you are offering him a modality that, of it's nature, conditions him to seek safety and functionality in undermining himself. Anecdotally, as I understand it, this increases his risk of co-morbidity, substance abuse and suicide to alarming levels. Hardly effective, or helpful.

However, to the rest of your point, no matter how benignly intentioned (that is what you are trying to imply? If not, please clarify?) the exclusion, or how "uninteresting" you feel the "strengths" to be, excluding those strengths, as at present, is not in compliance with WP:NPOV. --Zeraeph 11:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article have been turned into a pro-defective POV of view. This have been an ongoing change ever since the last FAR. The main problem is Sandy's and others propositions that only published research can be put into the article, and basically all published research has a negative bias (for obvious reasons). I also agree that the best would be a revert, as it would take way to much work to reformulate all the negative bias, and most of it would probably be reverted by the defect-lobby anyway. --Rdos 09:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this line that what is reportage of the science is a negative spin. I dispute that a revert is appropriate. Tony 10:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rdos, Tony, you are actually both half wrong and half right...there is absolutely nothing wrong with Sandy's insistence on only published research, I support that myself on this and many other articles (and if you knew the kind of nonsense I use that rationale to keep out I bet you would support it too). However, only using the negatives from published research and ignoring the positives in the same sources (there are plenty RDos, do mail me if you would like copies to see for yourself) as at present, is a "negative spin" and POV. --Zeraeph 11:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

As it stands, DSM IV has as criterion C - "C. The disturbance causes clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning." - thus if someone does not have this criterion then they do not have AS - some may be described as having Asperger traits but they do not qualify for the diagnosis. This is what the medical and legal world understands as AS. Of course DSM may change in future (V, VI etc.) this is how it is currently. Under these criteria high functioning people with no significant deficit do not qualify for the diagnosis cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind the "clinically significant impairment" sh*t. Many people that read this article or potentially recommend it to others, don't care if it causes "impairment". Whatsmore, to understand those that have impairments one first needs to understand those that doesn't. This is because those that are high-functioning are usually much better suited for advocacy and describing their problems / strengths than those that are severely impaired. That's why this article shouldn't be focused on narrow criteria of "impaired functioning". --Rdos 15:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I find myself having to argue with you again here Rdos, because surely Asperger disorder and Aspie (for example) are both potential and different sub-topics to the whole concept of Asperger syndrome (whether pathological or not), not the other way around?

I would personally see most of the current, DSM pathology heavy, article shifted to Asperger disorder (DSM), a more informal article about the concept Aspie (purely about the positive and negative social and cultural aspects?) all tied together by a generic article Asperger syndrome covering the whole concept. --Zeraeph 16:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

True, but the fact that the significant deficit is accompanied by equally significant strengths does not cancel out the deficit, nor render the accompanying strengths into irrelevance or non-existance. The only way any strategy can be effective is by acknowledging and learning how to use our strengths to compensate for our deficits, something that is unlikely to be possible to execute through blanket denial of the existance of those same strengths. --Zeraeph 11:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The US is 4.4% of the world's population. Most of the remainder are not diagnosed using DSM. Poindexter Propellerhead 06:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering if you have a source for the notion that DMS or ICD aren't used in most of the world; Cas seems to say they are, and I couldn't find any data to the contrary in any of the reading I did when I compiled the table for the section on other sets of criteria. It was my impression, without finding any hard data, that the DSM and ICD are used in the large majority. I would be interested in seeing information that they are only used in 4.4% of the world.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Subarticle possibility

PS. Just making coffee I remembered one more pertinent thing. This article is called Asperger syndrome, the DSM classification is Asperger Disorder and is, technically, only a subset of Asperger syndrome. If maintaining a DSM Focussed article with an exclusively negative bias seems so important why not RENAME this (FA status and all) as Asperger disorder the DSM category, and move any superfluous information from it to a new, more generic article called Asperger syndrome? It seems to me that would make everybody happy, you would have your exclusive DSM focus, Sandy would have her FA status and a relaxing of size constraints. Everybody would be happy, and the article title would be a lot more honest. Think on't --Zeraeph 11:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. See WP:POVFORK --lucid 12:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Not, it is NOT actually a WP:POVFORK AT ALL. A DSM category is a topic in itself, unto itself. Many have their own articles see: DSM-IV_Codes. Let me just sketch you the reason why. A DSM Category exclusively defines a pathology, whereas a "syndrome" simply defines a condition, independent of whether it is pathological or not. Blue eyes are a syndrome, but not a pathology, if you follow me? It is, actually, very wrong, and grossly inaccurate to define an article titled as a syndrome (Asperger syndrome) solely in terms of a related pathology (Asperger disorder), as Casliber seems to be suggesting we do. --Zeraeph 12:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Following down the track of AS/AD difference leads to OR issues, so maybe the best place for a fork then would be under the Shift in View section, with a subarticle called Controversies with diagnosis or ...something, where the whole shift can be expanded upon from there. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry Casliber, I think you got buried among the verbiage (I am an Aspie, it's my JOB :o) ) today. There DOES seems to be an awful lot to say about "controversies in diagnosis", I agree with you, I would support a subarticle of that nature (did it myself with DID when the controversies nearly BURIED the article), help "keep the weight down" too.

But I am curious, why would you be hostile to the, defect driven, and as you rightly point out, of it's very nature, negative DSM pathology having it's own article like all the other DSM categories, and the Syndrome (which can, but does not NEED to be dysfunctional, or pathological at all) being described in a more balanced way in a generic article? It's an huge subject, and entire culture...in fact, it might be interesting too take a look at how Deaf amnd Blind are managed in this respect? --Zeraeph 20:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see in my job and on the telly the consequences of huge numbers of classification issues and two-tiered practice of psychiatry - on the one we have loads of 'clincial' syndromes, yet when we move into more psychotherapeutic areas therapy (naturally) becomes alot more customised along problems/solutions (now where is this leading?) - i am concerned about the use of labels of many psychiatric conditions in people where they don't actually fit the criteria as they stand and there's a whole lotta reasons behind this. The Main issue in this case is that I don't know whether the strengths in a population purpoted to have AS are the same type of people who fit the DSM diagnosis. The problem is many of the deficits are very general and I could go on for pages on social issues impacting on folks' ability to socialise - anonymous society, bullying etc., psyhological -obsessive traits, avoidant traits

which may totally obfuscate the clincal picture of many of these people. I concede I haven't read much of the literature citing strengths but am familiar with many trends in my profession.

Given people on this page and elsewhere in WP I am also aware of how extremely difficult to discuss this topic in a medium such as this without causing upset or offence and concede I haven't examined much of this material to assess how robust much of it actually is. if I get a chance I will. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

SG multiple responses

Lots to cover here:

1. Misplaced Pages is not a soapbox. Per WP:NOT, please keep talk page commentary focused on specific and actionable items that can be used to improve the article. The talk page and archives are already very long, and we still have a lot of work ahead of us. Criticism and accusations without specific examples based on reliable sources are not helpful. Please remember to assume good faith; everyone working on this page has the same goal, which is to present the most helpful, useful information about AS possible. Accusing others of introducing "negative spin" is not only inaccurate and unhelpful: it's a failure to assume good faith.
2. Criticism here is premature. I understand your concerns, Z, but they are premature. We've consolidated so far a lot of information from a large number of sources, while removing factually inaccurate information that dominated the previous version and was either a misrepresentation of sources cited, completely unsourced, or not based on reliable sources. Further wordsmithing and tweaking of the text to make the prose more compelling, refined, and brilliant is what the next step is about. Premature criticism, before this work has even gotten underway, may only serve to discourage some very fine writers from working further on the article. Please focus on specific items that can be addressed, and provide reliable sources upon which those suggestions are based.
3. Revert discussions. There is nothing to revert to. In the previous FAR, whenever someone retrofitted a citation to existing text, I assumed good faith, took their word for it, and had no inclination to double check or question the efforts of other editors. That answers, hopefully, Z's question about the difference between this FAR and the others; in this case, we were provided with ample reliable sources, and we took the time to verify that some of the older sources were misrepresented or blatantly wrong. Now that we do have reliable sources, and we have taken the opportunity to analyze and check some of the previous citations, it is abundantly clear that every previous version was factually inaccurate, outdated, or not reliable. A lot has changed and science has advanced in the 13 years since AS was recognized as a diagnosis. We shouldn't base current text on historical concepts or constructs. Please focus on moving forward, rather than backwards. If there are specific issues that can be fixed, provide concrete examples backed by reliable sources.
4. Naming the article. There is no such thing as two separate conditions or constructs— Asperger syndrome or Asperger disorder—and creating such a separation would be a POV fork, it would not be based on reliable sources, it would not be accurate, and it would probably be quickly AFD'd. ICD calls it Asperger's syndrome and DSM calls it Asperger's Disorder, and each describes, according to reliable sources, "virtually" the same thing. There is no such notion in reliable sources of one being a subset of the other. Wiki naming conventions do not use apostrophes on eponymous conditions and defer to ICD except where there is a strong reason not to, based on reliable sources. The article is correctly named per ICD-10; I do not support the notion that redirecting the article to name it a "Disorder" will be useful or helpful to people with AS.
5. Accessibility of language. I disagree that the language is inaccessible, while I acknowledge that the final wordsmithing and tweaking of text is not yet finished and fully expect there to be many more edits to refine the text and make it shine. Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, and the language in this article is consistent with the level desired and attained by most of Wiki's finest articles. Wiki does not aim to produce pop psychology. If there are specific phrases or paragraphs that need to be tweaked, please provide concrete examples so work can get under way. If there is a way to turn a particular phrase to make a sentence sound more positive while staying true to the sources, please suggest it.
6. History. Z, you provided a lot of criticism yet offered only one concrete example of text you claim was left out in what you are deeming "selective use of sources". Your example was that I did not include some text about Asperger's original description. If you want to include Asperger's historical observations on AS, I suggest you consider writing the article History of Asperger syndrome. I don't think you'll like what reliable sources have to say about his observations, which is why I didn't think you would want it included here. First, not only were his observations not "sufficiently systematic", they were highly based on the concept of psychopathy and schizophrenia, and according to Hippler and Klipcera's "Retrospective analysis", would be consistent with what is referred to today as "schizoid". The Hippler paper is quite instructive. The topics you want to cover would be more appropriately covered in the History article, but if you want to provide balanced coverage of what is found in Asperger's original sample, I'm not sure you'll be happy with all of the conclusions. He was dealing with a highly impaired sample of mostly children admitted to psychiatric wards—not exactly representative of modern knowledge based on broader samples of persons with AS. I won't take up more space on this here now, but the older notions are covered where they should be, in the History section, and more weight is given in the rest of the article to current concepts based on modern science. Without mentioning the significant negatives in Asperger's original sample, in terms of the positives you mention (not a systematic review, mind you), for example, the infamous "capable of original thought" describes 19% of his sample—not a large percentage. If you have any other specific questions of why I may not have included any specific text, I'll be happy to answer.

   By the way, here's what "negative spin" would look like:

   Accurate, factual reporting: According to so-and-so, who analyzed his records, Asperger believed that 19% of the children he examined were "capable of original thought".

   "Negative spin": Among Asperger's original patients, 81% were not capable of original thought. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

7. Claims of selective use of sources. Please remember to assume good faith, Z. I have no reason whatsoever to want to put a negative spin on AS. If there is any text I have failed to use, reliable source I could have considered, or text that could have been phrased differently while staying true to the original sources, please point it out so we can get to work. Perhaps you're disappointed that, once I was provided with reliable sources, I wasn't able to write the same kind of prognosis I could write for Tourette syndrome (TS). Please keep in mind that, by definition, TS does not include impairment, while AS does. I can't change that; we can only write on Wiki what reliable sources report. I have included everything I could find in the literature to which I had access; that others here have sat on the sidelines instead of actively seeking out reliable sources that could be incorporated is a shame. With respect to my writing, I'm more concerned about the opposite problem; that is, because I conglomerated just about everything I could from almost a dozen sources into the text, the text may be redundant and will need pruning to make it shine. You can criticize those who might help make the article truly shine, working from what is now at least an accurate base, or you can give concrete examples of text you would like us to work on and concentrate on helping to locate current, reliable sources upon which to write the text you would like to see included.

At any rate, once again, any notion that succeeding in having this article defeatured will somehow exempt it from *any* Wiki guideline or policy is simply wrong. Defeaturing it will only remove the star; it won't change the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Moved response to No. 6 above, to preserve formatting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing unflattering in Hippler & Klicpera, nor is there anything particularly negative in the obsolete "Psychopathie" label. In German, a "Psychopathie" was a long-term deviance in personality, such as being too dependent on others (now found at ICD-10, F60.7, "Dependent Personality Disorder"). OCD was also considered a "Psychopathie," as was being anxious or merely eccentric. Sexual deviance (including, through at least the early 1930s, masturbation) was often labelled as a psychopathie. Wing translates it as "abnormality of personality." Schizophrenia had been categorized as "dementia," then shifted into a new category, it was never a "psychopathie." So there was no connection drawn between AS and schizophrenia by Asperger.

There was also nothing of the kind done by Hippler and Klicpera. They refer to Wolff's study on "schizoid" children, but the term does not relate to schizophrenia, it is used in a fairly modern sense, referring to children with little interest in social interaction. As our page on schizoid personality disorder says, "Schizoid personality disorder (SPD) is a personality disorder characterized by a lack of interest in social relationships, a tendency towards a solitary lifestyle, secretiveness, and emotional coldness." There is a similarity with AS in that both are marked by their lack of social tendencies. But that's very different from drawing a comparison with schizophrenia, which would be both inaccurate and unsupported by the literature. Poindexter Propellerhead 21:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I said it was unflattering; what I'm saying is that Z can't cherrypick Asperger's old results either. If we want to include analysis of his population, 1) that belongs in History and 2) you can't cherrypick only the positive. Including Asperger's findings would be the equivalent of saying that everyone with Tourette syndrome had coprolalia because Gilles de la Tourette defined it that way over a hundred years ago; it's no longer relevant, except to History of Tourette syndrome. (PP would you mind if I moved this section to below my response for easier formatting?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind if you move the section.

I don't think that Asperger's studies are particularly obsolescent, or people wouldn't keep doing papers on them. (Attwood has come under the same criticism, because his best-known book dates from 1998, but we go hog wild with the DSM-IV-TR criteria, which are based on the ICD criteria, which were ratified for use in May 1990, yet I hear no hue and cry to dismiss the DSM criteria as nearly twice as dated as Attwood.) Cherry picking is definitely a bad thing. Klicpera's "19% original thought" statistic becomes deceptive if unexplained: under the heading "Special Gifts and Abilities," they say that 19% were "capable of original, sometimes even philosophical thinking processes." This ties into the later statement that the children "spoke like scholars or professors about their chosen field often using original expressions or unusual words. Asperger drew a connection between their language and their thought processes, which he thought of as often being creative, spontaneous and original." 86% were not said to "have a gift for abstract thinking and logical reasoning," 86% did not have eidetic memories, 45% did not have IQs in the high to superior range, and 77% did not have "outstanding mathematical talent." Und so weiter. But you can't really make a negative spin stick by reversing those numbers as I did, you can only do it by not mentioning the numbers at all.

I think this all comes back to something you and I touched on earlier: the view of Asperger, Baron-Cohen, Lovaas, and a number of other rather prominent authorities in the field have stated that autism is not just disability, it is something that blends seamlessly into the "normal" population, whose traits are shared by the diagnosable and undiagnosable alike. And, since some of the criteria lack the "clinical distress" clause, it's not even clear where the line of diagnosability lies. Baron-Cohen feels that 2% of the population should be considered autistic, even though most of them are not distressed by it. And that's where things go amiss, in these POV discussions. DSM-IV-TR is never going to consider anything but pathology, because pathology is DSM's one and only domain. Most studies won't look at it, because pathology is where the funding is.

So, even though as disparate figures as Lovaas and Mottron have made numerous comments endorsing the view that autism extends into the undiagnosable population, there is an unsatisfying lack of papers on the topic; Baron-Cohen has begun scratching the surface, but AS is a badly-researched subject so far (less than 1/3 as many papers have been done on it as on TS, as I pointed out earlier). The void is big enough that sometimes data referring to autism in general have been pulled in to fill the gaps, which I think is a mistake. I believe that the opinions of the leading people in the field should be mentioned, not dismissed as "anecdote and hyperbole and just plain silly and not based on science." For the time being, they are often the most authoritative statements we have on particular aspects of AS -- particularly when they are published in peer-reviewed papers. They should be reported as opinions held by researchers, rather than being either ignored or stated as settled fact. If we don't do that, then the article becomes little more than a recital of DSM, followed by statements that diagnostic criteria vary, symptoms and comorbidities vary greatly, that it is a permanent condition, and that some off-label attempts have been made at dealing with particular symptoms or comorbidities. Whether readers are after enlightenment or practical guidance, a more complete picture will serve them better, I think. Poindexter Propellerhead 08:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break, P

Poindexter, what we need here to get moving and get finished is for those who have sat on the sidelines to put forward specific items that may have been missed or excluded, specific reliable sources that can be used, specific statements that we can discuss for inclusion. I had 10 papers or more spread across my desk and in various stages of word processing, and tried to merge them all. If there is something you can point out that is sourced to a reliable source that can be included and that I missed, or something that I phrased poorly that can be rephrased, now's the time to propose it, and we have plenty of time. The job is not complete, and Z's criticism and alarm is premature. I still believe there is a lot of redundancy in my text (because I was trying to merge so many sources), and I'm hoping Casliber and Eubulides will be able to pare some of it down (it's harder to see your own mistakes), making room for whatever we find that is missing. Describing the lack of research here won't help us move forward; the fact is, Wiki reports what reliable sources say, so we need to locate reliable sources for anything you want to include and/or highlight anything I missed that could be worked in from the sources we all have. Also, it doesn't matter when the DSM and ICD were written; they are the standard, they are current until the DSM is re-written, and we've already given a lot of space to Szatmari and Gillberg. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

My thought is that this article is on a topic which is not entirely medical, both because it encompasses social issues, and because, as discussed, what are thought of as autistic traits extend outside of diagnosability. Instead, because it's a contentious subject, it's been held to the most severe of medical standards; on TS, you could say that a long dead figure probably had it, while here such statements are regularly deleted as too badly documented for a medical article. Here, we have 2.1% of the article ("Shift in View" and "Cultural Aspects," 17 lines out of 790) devoted to anything and everything which is outside the arena of pathology, and none of that is in the first half of the article. While I realize that there have been problems in the past with inclusion of questionable statements, and that challenging the sources was a good way of dealing with the matter, we seem to have taken it to such an extreme that a lot of relevant material will not get the treatment that its importance deserves.

Let's consider an Ivor Lovaas quote for a moment. "Just look around here at UCLA! The mathematicians? They depend on their wives to dress them properly. We all rock. We all seIf-stimulate. It's just a matter of degree." This is a statement which Lovaas cannot justify with a paper proving it, yet it reflects a general sentiment shared by many, from Asperger to the present. Likewise for comments from Asperger, Baron-Cohen, Attwood, and others, on positive autistic traits. They are examples of what would be considered, in a court of law, to be undisputed facts -- the general ideas they are espousing have gone unchallenged. The way things have gone in this article, a quote like that might be removed, but were it not, it would end up in the intellectual ghetto of "Shift in View." Most readers are unlikely to get past the first 350 lines of a dry, medical article, so they will end up thinking that the tip of the iceberg is all there is. They should know that a pathology-only POV has never been held by the leading researchers in the field, before they have read hundreds of lines of pathology-only material. We end up satisfying verifiability in the strictest possible way, but fall short in our duty to provide readers with truth.

How to get around it? In an ideal world, we could include material like that throughout the body of the article without concern. In practice we can't, because it would establish a slippery slope; if Asperger, Baron-Cohen, Attwood and Lovaas are credible authorities, why isn't someone with an MA in psychology who published an obscure self help book? We could, by consensus, agree to disregard everyone who has not published 5 peer-reviewed papers on autism, or something like that. Or we could enlarge the "Shift in View" section, move it much closer to the top of the article, and include a reasonable summary in the lede. I have no concrete opinion as to the best way to attack the problem, but any reasonable attempt at a solution would leave me happier with the result than I am now.

As far as particular quotes to use, I have lots of them, and will be happy to spam the talk page with specific suggestions, if there seems hope that they will be used in such a way as to meaningfully shift the overall POV of the article.

Does anyone have a better solution than to enlarge "Shift in View," move it up, and include a summary in the lede? If that's the best we can do, I'd like to do it, but we need agreement, and to know that no better answer has been overlooked. Poindexter Propellerhead 20:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Two things. 1) Instead, because it's a contentious subject, it's been held to the most severe of medical standards; on TS, you could say that a long dead figure probably had it, while here such statements are regularly deleted as too badly documented for a medical article. No, we can say a long dead figure (Samuel Johnson) had TS based on the strength of a world famous and highly notable biography written by a contemporary who knew him well in real life, James Boswell, and because this is a topic that has been analyzed and covered by highly reliable sources. 2) We have already included in the lead the topics you mention, even to the extent of giving undue weight to the opinions of one researcher, which aren't backed by solid research. I don't see much more we can do. You don't need to spam the talk page with quotes; we need to know what information you have from highly reliable sources that has been left out. I strongly suspect the difference between the TS and AS articles at this point is simply that no one has done the work of digging up the sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Where would we even begin with that? There has been a book on Thomas Jefferson (Diagnosing Jefferson), a book covering Jefferson, Michelangelo, Newton, Johnathan Swift, Henry Cavendish, Vincent Van Gogh, Eric Satie, Bertrand Russell, Einstein, Bartok, Ramanujan, Wittgenstein, Alan Turing, Glenn Gould and Andy Warhol (Asperger's Syndrome and High Achievement: Some Very Remarkable People), and a third book nominating Orwell, Mozart, Warhol, Melville, Simone Weil, Beethoven, Lewis Carroll, Wittgenstein, Johnathan Swift, H. C. Andersen, A. C. Doyle, Satie, Newton, Glenn Gould, Yeats, and a few others (The Genesis of Artistic Creativity: Asperger's Syndrome and the Arts). Peer reviewed papers have been done on Einstein (2), Newton, Jefferson, Wittgenstein (2), Ramanujan, Charles XII of Sweden (2), Michelangelo, Irène Joliot-Curie and Henry Cavendish (2), among others. But reference to suspected aspies in history have all been deleted by various editors, leaving a peer-reviewed paper, formerly a cite, now demoted to an external link, as the only trace of the discussion. However, my point wasn't particularly to resurrect the topic of possible aspies in history, it was just an example of the POV-related problems that have existed, and continue to exist, in this article. Poindexter Propellerhead 02:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Example Break for Linking

Well, we begin by getting the facts right. I don't know what happened in the past, but in the version I edited it is incorrect to say that "reference to suspected aspies ... now demoted to an external link", because the source speculating that Einstein and Cavendish may have had AS was not used to reference text saying that there is speculation that they had AS. It was used to source the statement about "leading to fulfilling careers", which is a stretch at best, and it was used in the lead no less, which is not a place for speculative text. I don't have a problem with including text in Cultural aspects, as long as it's sourced to refereed journals, saying there is speculation that persons a, b or c may have had AS. If you position the text in the right section of the article, stay true to the speculative nature of these sources, keep due weight in mind with respect to the size of the entry (since it is speculation, unlike the case of a detailed account of Samuel Johnson's personal friend and biographer who knew him well and described his behaviors), and don't stretch the conclusions of the sources, I don't see why such text can't be included. As to this alleged negative POV, we still don't have a single example. We all want to get this article right, and we're still waiting for these examples of positives left out or negative spin. The example Z gave above is inaccurate; see Prognosis. I continue to believe this task can be accomplished, if some folk will quit stirring unnecessary and premature negativity, and if we focus on the task at hand. PP, I hope you'll put together a proposed sentence or two about individuals speculated to have had AS, show us your sources, and let's try to work it into Cultural apects, but speculation doesn't belong in the lead, because that gives undue weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"It was used to source the statement about 'leading to fulfilling careers', which is a stretch at best, and it was used in the lead no less, which is not a place for speculative text." There was nothing speculative about its use, it (an article from the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, I believe they do peer review) was used because it contained quotes from Asperger, which were entirely germane to the "fulfilling careers" you refer to. To quote a small part of the article:

Hans Asperger (described patients) who he regarded as mildly autistic but who were otherwise remarkably able. He was struck by the fact
that they usually had some mathematical ability and tended to be successful in scientific and other professions where this was
relevant:
‘To our own amazement, we have seen that autistic individuals, as long as they are intellectually intact, can almost always achieve
professional success, usually in highly specialized academic professions, often in very high positions, with a preference for abstract
content.’

But we digress from deletion of references to historical aspies. That happened some time ago. (Before I leave the topic, here are some PMIDs for papers on people I mentioned: Einstein, Newton, Cavendish, Curie: 12519805. Einstein again at 11261475. Cavendish again at 11591871. Michelangelo: 15079170. Wittgenstein: 10795857 and 11261476. Ramanujan: 12114951. Charles XII: 12523067 and 12523074.)

And that, in turn was a digression from my point, which was that this article is 97.9% pathology, which seems very unbalanced. Poindexter Propellerhead 07:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that we have established that the above To our own amazement, we have seen that autistic individuals, as long as they are intellectually intact, can almost always achieve professional success, usually in highly specialized academic professions, often in very high positions, with a preference for abstract content. IS, after all from a relevant WP:RS, and does actually make a positive claim (or whatever the original doubts about it actually were, I forget) can we resolve a lot of my concerns about NPOV by working it into the lead this time tomorrow? Paragraph 2 seems a nice place. --Zeraeph 21:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break, Z

I honestly realise that you must think I am a total moron, but to me you say "if there are other sources out there, pls bring them forward," to PP you say "You don't need to spam the talk page with quotes; we need to know what information you have from highly reliable sources that has been left out. I strongly suspect the difference between the TS and AS articles at this point is simply that no one has done the work of digging up the sources." Anyway I try to read that it looks like you are contradicting yourself in a funny way, but I am sure you cannot be, so can you please clarify? --Zeraeph 20:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond at such length, but I find this all very hard to make clear sense of.

I feel that you are trying to say that it is wrong to "cherrypick" the positives but somehow ok to exclude them?

Not wishing to sound awkward, but that cannot be in accord with WP:NPOV. All I want is for the positives, that most certainly exist within the sources already used to be given equal weight with the negatives, as they are not at present, and presented in more neutral and accessible text. I doubt if any part of WP:NOT has a problem with that?

I am really sorry if you feel that I am failing to assume good faith, that certainly is not my feeling or intention, after all, if I did not assume good faith, there would not have been a lot of point in me saying "I am going to try and trust the community of Misplaced Pages and say please remember, this article has always been regarded as a significant source of objective (rather than agenda driven) information on Asperger syndrome. Real people, human beings like yourselves, have to live with the consequences of the contents." if I didn't now would there? :o) Actually I don't suppose I would see any point in attempting to discuss the issues of neutrality at all unless I assumed a certain amount of good faith in those I was discussing them with?

I am also sorry for assuming the article was in it's finished form, as you, no doubt, realise, I genuinely DO only have limited time at present, and I must have lost track of the copiuous discussions, because my best recollection was that you were going to write the lead LAST, and you seem to be writing the lead now, but if that strategy has changed, fine. I really hope that final finished article will meet the high standard of WP:NPOV and presentation that I have always expected of you.

Also, I think you misunderstood me, when I said that renaming the article would mean you "got to keep" FA status, I meant AS OPPOSED to starting a NEW Asperger disorder article, which would have been an inexcuseable suggestion in the sense of expecting you to start from scratch on fresh FA status after all the work you have put in. In my mind that would have been an APPALLING thing to suggest, so I tried to make it clear that IN NO WAY was I suggesting it. Obviously I communicated that badly. I hope this clarifies things a little. --Zeraeph 12:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's get back to work :-) We've got a sourced article now as a starting point. I was pushing to do as much as I could because I have travel pending, that doesn't mean we have a finished product. How about if you all start a new section and begin to highlight any sources that may have been missed that we can use, or statements that are missing from the sources we have, so we can all discuss how to include them in our ongoing refinement and tweaking of the text ? I'm hoping cas, Eubulides, Tony or Tim—who are all better writers than I am—will consolidate, prune, tweak and merge anything else needed, since I'm not the best person for final copyediting and refining of the text. I synthesized everything I could from a number of sources; now we need to make it complete and make it shine, but we have a much better starting place than afforded in any previous version. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Seriously Sandy, I DO understand "rushing"...perhaps it is time to point out the "wood" among the tree about AS. When an Aspie says "I have concerns about this, please can we fix it, not least because getting it right is EXTREMELLY important in real terms" they usually MEAN, literally "I have concerns about this, please can we fix it, not least because getting it right is EXTREMELLY important in real terms". (The NT ALWAYS seem to mean something rather more obscure?. :o( )

If I did not trust you (or Tony, or Casliber, et al) to hear me and try and resolve it, I honestly would not waste time asking you to. It would not make sense to me to do so. I also REALLY hope I will feel comfortable with restoring the final version to the websites. --Zeraeph 14:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know if it's an Aspie thing or not, but this page has an awful lot of long dialogues, but a clear absence of, "I would like to add this sentence to this section based on this reliable source". That's how this NT mind works; I can't read minds, I can only read sources. :-) For example, see how we worked out the pharmacotherapy above. Eubulides said too much pharmacotherapy, I reworked it in my sandbox and asked what else we could lose, Casliber said that's as deep as I want to cut, 3 editors working together, done. We need something concrete to work with, and it has to be based on reliable sources. I've only got what I've got; if there are other sources out there, pls bring them forward, and if you want something rephrased, pls start new sections below to discuss these kinds of issues. I can't rewrite based on vague, "I don't like it". I'm looking at about twenty hours of travel time over the next ten days, so if there's something I can download to read, now's the time to point it out. I'd offer to buy Attwood's new book and read it, but I don't think that will help since it's not a peer-reviewed source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

efficacy vs effectiveness

Recent edit summary: (efficacy refers to studies, effectiveness refers to practice)

Here's my convenient desk-top Encarta (not the final authority, though):

• efficacy |ˈefikəsē| noun the ability to produce a desired or intended result : there is little information on the efficacy of this treatment. ORIGIN early 16th cent.: from Latin efficacia, from efficax, efficac- (see efficacious ).

• effective |iˈfektiv| adjective 1 successful in producing a desired or intended result : effective solutions to environmental problems. • (esp. of a law or policy) operative : the agreements will be effective from November. 2 fulfilling a specified function in fact, though not formally acknowledged as such : the companies were under effective Soviet control. • assessed according to actual rather than face value : an effective price of $176 million. • impressive; striking : an effective finale. Tony 02:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Frustrating. I am googling to try and find a succinct page on it somewhere but failing - googling does show ample evidence of the definitions, that is, does the efficacy of an intervention in a controlled environment (which is how it is defined in Evidence Based Medicine) translate into effectiveness in the community. This is how we were taught in medicine WRT trials etc. I'll keep looking.....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Try this, the efficacity of a trained attack dog in deterring burglars is beyond question, but the EFFECTIVENESS of keeping a trained attack dog to deter burglars in an house where all are allergic to dogs might be a little less clear. --Zeraeph 11:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Fedson D. "Measuring protection: efficacy versus effectiveness". Dev Biol Stand. 95: 195–201. PMID 9855432. - Efficacy is if the treatment produces the intended result, effectiveness is if this result actually helps patients in real-world situations. Tim Vickers 18:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

In medical terminology, efficacy is success seen in clinical trials; 'effectiveness' is success seen in general practice. So the difference between 'effectiveness' and 'efficacy' is a measure of robustness as the treatment, where pills get mixed, people are misdiagnosed, mail gets lost, and the cautionary measures of the clinical trial are tested (thalydimide)

In linguistic terms, 'efficacy' is potential, 'effectiveness' is actualized. Efficacy modifies an object, effectiveness modifies the use of the object (tho that use is often implied). CeilingCrash 22:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to memorise all of this, especially CeilingCrashes linguistic summation. PS Don't google it: use the Phrase checker, which is googlish (ooh, a neologism), but oriented towards lexical items. Tony 01:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

CC is right; I was sifitng through my medical and epidemiology notes to find a reference for the definitions but couldn't find one :(....I'll try this phrase checker...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive again?

The talk page is at 150KB again, and hopefully we're now going to begin the next phase of nitpicking and final tweaking and refining of the text. Is anyone opposed to archiving everything up to this stage, so that continuing work can begin on a fresh page? I'll wait until tomorrow at least, in case anyone disagrees, and have no problem if anyone does disagree, just trying to make our work easier. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Erm, OK. I just stuck something above so give a little time but should be ok by tomorrow. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Everything up to "something I think I should say", (until the issues are established on course for resolution, which is only reasonable) is fine by me whenever. --Zeraeph 14:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

We should probably also leave the section above that (Wikification), since I'm not sure anyone else has reviewed that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Totally fine by me :o)--Zeraeph 17:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Inaccessible language or needs rephrasing

Please give specific examples of sentences or paragraphs that have "inaccessible language", are unclear, or need to be rephrased to a more optimistic tone here; perhaps Tony or Cas or Eubulides can then work on those as they check in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• From the section, "Repetitive behaviors and restricted interests", I don't know what the last clause in this sentence means; I kept it from the previous text, but I don't have the source, and have no idea what the final clause is trying to say. Asperger described good memory for trivial facts (occasionally even eidetic memory) in some of his patients; but this typically involves rote memorization more than real understanding, despite occasional appearances to the contrary.

Well I have been known to speak English and I do have a PR diploma, you never know, I might even be able to tweak the odd word ALL BY MYSELF. :o) Mind you, I ALSO have galloping influenza, so if I mark it "tryout" feel free to revert. --Zeraeph 16:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Z rearranged the clauses, but I still don't know what "despite occasional appearances to the contrary" is trying to impart or why it matters. If anyone has the original source, clarification would be appreciated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It means that sometimes, we defectives give the "appearance" of being real people, but were aren't, not really...very much doubt if "Oncle Hans" actually said that, not his style, NOR his "hidden agenda" (keeping the boys out of the clutches of Aktion T4)...but I have never seen the source, I thought you pulled everything that wasn't sourced already? I t's so darn HARD to checked somebody "never" said something...personally I'd pull the whole last sentence as superfluous. --Zeraeph 18:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't pull everything, that's why I'm questioning it. I retained as much sourced text as I could, and that clause is sourced to Gillberg, a reliable source. It originally said, "For example, Wing and Gillberg both argue that, in children with AS, these areas of intense interest typically involve more rote memorization than real understanding, despite occasional appearances to the contrary." Wing specifically uses the term "rote memory", but it was linked to rote learning, and you changed it to say "rote learning'. I have no idea if rote memory and rote learning are the same thing, so now there are two problems. I didn't pull it because strong rote memory is a positive, and I didn't want to be accused of pulling reliably sourced, positive information. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken, I didn't *CHANGE* what it was linked to, I *SCREWED UP* what it was linked to ] and had to fix it to ], all I changed was the text over the link to the more familiar "learning by rote" the link always stayed the same. I was always of the understanding that rote memory was a neutral myself.

You pulled acres of positive text "sourced to reliable sources" on the grounds that you could not verify it already, so what harm if you pull one more sentence, which, taken as a whole, is an huge negative that claims we only learn as a parrot does, without understanding, so don't sweat it. --Zeraeph 18:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Z, per WP:TALK#Good practice, can you please stop hollering in all caps on the talk page and in your edit summaries? Do you have an example of "acres of positive text sourced to reliable sources" that I pulled? I pulled a lot of text sourced to non-peer reviewed or self-published sources; I tried to retain reliable sources or upgrade them to information from the 2006 reviews. I didn't say you changed what it was linked to: I said you changed the wording rote memorization to rote learning. The source refers to rote memory, it was linked to rote learning, you left it linked to rote learning, and changed the wording from rote memory to rote learning. Maybe they're the same thing; I don't know. So I no longer know what it's supposed to say, since I don't have the Gillberg source. If you wait a bit, I imagine Eubulides or Poindexter can access the source and resolve this all without filling up a whole 'nother talk page; it really was a rather simple question. With this change, and the grade school change, I'm trying to highlight the problem I've observed over time with this article: people change the text without concern for staying true to the source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Back to the point, the text in question is obviously not verified, negative and doesn't make sense to you so lets pull it. --Zeraeph 19:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I need to ask you to slow down. We don't need to pull text sourced to a reliable source like Gillberg when we can wait a day for someone to clarify it. Some of the text you are removing and changing was reviewed and agreed upon by as many as four editors in some instances. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well you are the one who has a problem with it, not me. You seem to have given up a lot of valuable time to it. I was just trying nto comply with you so we could move on. --Zeraeph 19:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

PS, Sandy...I tweaked the grammar and syntax and reordered a few sentences, I didn't do anything drastic like reverting the lead! :o) BTW, sorry about the typos, I have duct tape on my finger cos the bruised nail is nearly ready to come off and it keeps catching...--Zeraeph 19:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Missing information

Please add specific examples here of information from reliable sources that has not been included, and please provide the source with enough specificity that others can locate it (for example, saying B-C's second paper referenced fifteeen sections above this one is a bit hard to sort out). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Screening; I'm still concerned that the article makes no mention of screening instruments. There is text in McPartland and Klin (PMID 17030291 p. 780), Baskin (PMID 16596080 p. 5), and Foster and King (PMID 14508298 p. 492). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Also, McPartland p. 780 says that the gold standard consists of a parent interview, the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised, a semistructured conversation/play-based interview, and the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Redundant sections or sections that need trimming

• Classification; I'm still not happy with it; it's overcited and lacks clarity. I suspect Eubulides knows how to fix it, if he has time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Specifically, it's hard for a layperson to determine who says AS and HFA are the same and based on what, who says they are different and based on what, what is the prevailing medical consensus, and what is the bottom line implication for someone living with the condition—that is, establish the relevance of why we care if it's labeled AS or HFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hyperbole there is quite a lot in places, not necessary, and I don't think we should REALLY quote too much text verbatum without quote marks, it's ok (even adviseable, for reasons of copyright) to explain and/or paraphrase. Doubt if toning down hyperbole and using simpler, more familiar, words changes the meaning so much as communicating it more effectively, academics are NOTORIOUS for torturing syntax ANYWAY. --Zeraeph 17:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Can you please give an example? Otherwise, we're right back to, you don't like it, but we don't know where or why. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Just work your way down pulling every adjective and adverb you see that is not essential to the text as if it was a weed, you will be AMAZED at the difference it will make to the clarity and conscision(is that a word? :o) ) of the article.— Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeraeph (talk • contribs) 18:51, September 2, 2007 UTC (UTC)

Yes, I see you're pulling a lot of adjective and adverbs. We're aiming for compelling and brilliant; adjectives, adverbs and connections, when sourced, make the text more interesting, less dry. For example, the source specifically described it as "ironic" that Asperger and Kanner were working across an ocean, at the same time, unware of each other's work. You pulled the sourced word "ironically", resulting in what I consider to be dry text. I guess we disagree on what makes interesting reading. I don't like enjoy short, choppy sentences with no connection, adjectives and adverbs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No Sandy, sorry to be the one to tell you but you are too close to the paintwork for too long, superfluous adjectives only make the text harder to read, more wordy, convoluted, boring, and I hate to say this, but "downright Aspergic" :o) This is not MY thinking, it is professional training...left to my own devices I could daisychain adjectives and adverbs for Ireland in the Olympics and bring home Gold...I had to LEARN to do it a better way, I have no natural talent for it AT ALL.--Zeraeph 19:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I 'spose we could be patient and leave that decision to the professional copyeditors and some of Wiki's most prolific FA writers, particularly since others have already been through and copyedited the text you're changing. Please slow down and consult with others on changes that have been developed among several editors, particularly if you have the flu and aren't feeling well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• NEWSFLASH* I AM a qualified pro copy editor...but I didn't expect you to realise that, what with me having AS and all. :o) It's ok...I KNOW you didn't mean that the way it came out. --Zeraeph

19:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Newsflash—that should be "my having AS", should it? And the ellipsis dots should be spaced, should they? Let's take a breath here and relax. Calling people Aspergic is not going to produce a better article. Tony 01:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't really think think being called "Aspergic" by an Aspie is an INSULT? It just tickled me that the text had actually begun to take on all the attributes it was apportioning to us Aspies ( I think I am allowed a sense of humor?)...BTW, spacing ellipsis dots (which are often considered dubious behavious in themselves) is an option, but you missed "and all" which would be in the "grammatically despicable" range. Joking aside, I am trained and qualified in PR and Journalistic writing. I realise that you honestly do not feel we Aspies have any real ability or contribution to make compared to an NT (and hey, you can't control what you feel, don't worry, I am used to it, I strive to avoid taking offence), but quite a lot of us are actually hyperlexic, not me though...I just trained and qualified. --Zeraeph 01:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

PS. There you go, AS and Hyperlexia, --Zeraeph 01:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Grade school

When rewriting, pls remember WP:FN (punctuation before footnotes). I reverted this because it's incorrect and we must stay true to sources to avoid inadvertently introducing errors or original research. The source (written by a US physician) says, "This proclivity typically is evident by grade school, when children with AS have amassed considerable volumes of information about their area of expertise." Grade school in the US is typically ages 5 or 6 (as opposed to preschool), but since he didn't specify an age, I'm reluctant to introduce one. Yes, this needs to be addressed so it will be globalized, but I try my hardest to stay very true to sources to avoid inadvertent errors; let's figure out how to fix this correctly. I don't think we should introduce an age when the source didn't specify one; we need to reword to somehow reflect primary education as opposed to pre-school. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok fine, but you catch my drift...I was just GUESSING when grade school is, best not let anyone else guess? Just a ballpark comment in brackets is fine...--Zeraeph 17:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I try not to guess; I try to stick to what the sources say. We need to resolve this correctly, not by guessing. In other parts of the world, is the distinction between preschool and primary education the same? If so, we could use some variant of that wording. Hey, Z, did you notice that I didn't make any changes to the text without giving everyone at least 24 hours to review them first in my sandbox and provide feedback, and I only introduced changes after several people had proofread and approved? You just introduced three one-sentence paragraphs into Characteristics, which will be labeled "choppy prose" at FAC or FAR. The flow is also awkward as it changed the syntax of who wrote what. Can you slow down a bit and perhaps make large changes in a sandbox so that others can review first? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree about the "choppy prose" that is largely what I removed, a lot of hyperbolic run on sentences and tormented syntax...see above on the dangers of quoting academics at too great length? The various Euro school systems are totally different to each other and the US, I really think refusing to communicate by offering a generic "ballpark" age everyone can understand might be over-picking the nit a bit?

But anyway, I am obvious making you very uncomfortable by editing here at all so probably best if I go to bed with a hot waterbottle and leave you to do it by yourself? I know I am making ME very uncomfortable sitting up shivering "out loud". :o( --Zeraeph 17:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not nitpicking. There's a big difference developmentally between ages 5 and 6, and ages 11 and 12, and I'm uncomfortable introducing any number that is not sourced anyway. I try very hard to say what the source says. He refers to grade school age; your criticism that this isn't globalized is correct, but we need a globalized way to say the same, without guessing. Also, edit summaries like "that should nail it" could be hard for future editors to follow; it would help if you would use descriptive edit summaries. You and I may know what you meant, but we have to remember other editors who may not be "live". For example, I'm curious why you chopped one connected sentence that flowed well into two here: . "Special interests may dominate the social interaction of a child with AS. The monologues characteristic of their preoccupations may alienate other children." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The shorter, and more succinct, the sentences, the greater the readability...that is just about pro-copywriting 101. But the pursuit of ever longer sentences is a common mistake among academics. No real need to promulgate it (or any OTHER bad habits) here, I am sure you agree? 'night --Zeraeph 18:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Restored calmtalk

I restored the {{calm talk}} that has been in place here since March 21; considering there is a history of tension on this page, it doesn't hurt during a FAR (when things can get even more tense) to keep a reminder of Misplaced Pages:Etiquette, talk page guidelines, assume good faith, use appropriate edit summaries to describe your edits, answer questions when asked, stay on topic, debate the topic not the person, don't type in all caps which is the equivalent of HOLLERING, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, what I think is this, that the calmtalk template probably serves to incite more conflict than it prevents. As you probably know, a well known exercise to demonstrate the concept "cognitive control" is to instruct the audience NOT to think of pink elephants...with the inevitable result that the only thing they CAN think of is pink elephants. In this way, I feel the template may very well have the opposite effect to that intended. But If you are so very uncomfortable with trying my way for a couple of weeks, of course you can keep it. :o) --Zeraeph 11:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand why your emoticon's nose is round -- it's full of beans! Poindexter Propellerhead 18:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You got it :o) (Though beans might not be everybody's first choice of word for what I am full of?) --Zeraeph 18:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Subarticle

I like the idea of a subarticle to rid all the negative DSM stuff. I would propose to call it Aspie or something like that instead to really differentiate it against DSM and "clinical impairment" sh*t. What would be needed is to deleted the redirect from Aspie to Asperger's syndrome, which is wholly inapropriate in the first place. BTW, it is circular to first require that people that are diagnosed have "clinical impairments" and then to define the whole set of traits as deficits. --Rdos 16:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed my point Rdos, I personally feel that all the negative DSM stuff should be in a subarticle (perhaps Asperger disorder, but I think, out of respect for ALL the hard work Sandy has put in this one should be renamed to preserve the FA status she so richly deserves for her hard work in presenting the clinical deficits here) while the main article Asperger syndrome should be the overview of ALL aspects, positive and negative, with perhaps a second subarticle like Aspie to examine the cultural aspects in depth. --Zeraeph 18:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The article sounds too clinical, there is an Aspie culture. Please make that clear in the main article, either a paragraph on Aspie culture, or a clear link to a subarticle, would be useful for the lay reader seeking more information about AS. Kreb Dragonrider 21:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That would make a good alternative (for now anyway). All that is wrong with the article is that it needs a little balance. There is an HUGE Aspie-specific culture. It's not very accurate to pretend it doesn't exist or invalidate it. See Deaf for precidents on how this should be done.--Zeraeph 21:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent) err, ummm, hi.. please don't WP:BITE me if I'm 'way off track; I'm a newbie in the sense that I know zero about Asperger's.. but.. here's a thought.. is it possible that the "Aspie culture" aspect can be folded into the existing articles Autistic culture & Autistic community? Sorry if I am wrong... -- Ling.Nut 21:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, but if we do THAT the Asperger syndrome article remains unbalanced towards the soley clinical perspective and deficits, thus POV and not representative, which is the problem here...

And NOBODY bites Newbies here, not without cooking them first anyway. :o) --Zeraeph 00:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

PS. MIND YOU, those two did seem to be noticeable by their absence from "see also" --Zeraeph 00:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Cultural Aspects

This really needs to come earlier in the article, not right at the end (in the hope nobody sees it, perhaps? :o) ). As it really is such a tiny section I would almost go for popping it right under "classification"? Any other ideas? Can we decide and execute this in the next 24 hours please? It would be another "one move" address to the POV issues of the article, and, in the right place it would break up the dry stuff and keep the reader interested. --Zeraeph 00:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Placing wider cultural aspects of AS before a full description of what it is (ie. before classification, characteristics, diagnosis, prognosis, comorbidities etc.) would make the cultural aspects more difficult to appreciate. Also, I don't understand your comment that this is required because of a "POV issue". Unless a beneficial reason can be given I vote for cultural aspects to remain where it is. Soulgany101 00:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Misplaced Pages featured articles
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
• Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
• All unassessed articles
• FA-Class medicine articles
• Mid-importance medicine articles
• All WikiProject Medicine pages
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists