Talk:Asperger syndrome: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous editContent deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 22:41, 14 July 2006 editSandyGeorgia (talk \| contribs)Autopatrolled, Extended confirmed users, Page movers, File movers, Mass message senders, New page reviewers, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers, Template editors278,959 edits Featured article status requires references← Previous edit		Latest revision as of 06:06, 22 December 2024 edit undoAutisticattitudes (talk \| contribs)31 edits →The full spectrum of Asperger syndrome is not included in the diagnostic criteria for Autism spectrum disorder, but is exempted from the diagnostic criteria by a “grandfather clause”: new sectionTag: New topic
Line 1:		Line 1:
	{{~~featured~~}}		{{Talk header}}
			{{American English}}
	{{mainpage date\|April 17\|2004}}
			{{Article history
	{{Wikipedians\|Aspergian Wikipedians}}
			\|action1=FAC
	{{FAR}}
			\|action1date=2004-04-10, 17:06:39
			\|action1link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article candidates/Asperger's syndrome
			\|action1result=promoted
			\|action1oldid=3178454

			\|action2=FARC
	{\| class="infobox" width="315px"
			\|action2date=September 5, 2005
	\|-
			\|action2link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome/archive1
	! align="center" \| ]<br />]
			\|action2result=kept
	----
			\|action2oldid=22581533
	\|-
	\|
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ]
	# ] - ]
	\|}

			\|action3=FAR
	==Causes section==
			\|action3date=August 1, 2006
	Currently, the causes section is a nearly word-for-word duplicate of the referenced article. Shouldn't we be summarizing and not merely duplicating/lifting their wordings? --] 13:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
			\|action3link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome/archive2
	:Because the NIH source is in the public domain (see the info at the bottom of their page), it is OK to use it verbatim. I had originally summarized it, but since RDos disagreed with my summary, I substituted the exact wording. Since there appears to be some controversy here, I thought it best to stick with the exact wording from the reliable source: if you can better reword it, that works for me, but if it gets too far away from the NIH wording, it will need to be referenced from other sources. ] 13:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
			\|action3result=kept
	::I'll take a crack at it a little later today, as I don't think it completely appropriate regardless of ability to do so. Parroting a single source for an entire section is something I find a tad questionable as well, so I'll poke around for some additional references in the process. Keep in mind that even peer-reviewed referenced material can be strongly biased. --] 13:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
			\|action3oldid=66837523
	::::Keyne, I really regret that editors here never wrote the sections, and hope you can come up with some other reliable sources backing up original wording. It's a real shame when a Wiki article has to resort to copying other sources, since no one did the work. ] 14:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
	:::Strongly biased is a good word! --] 13:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

			\|action4=FAR
	==Created template to replace See also==
			\|action4date=15:01, 24 September 2007
	And, it's pretty scary that every link in the Main section is to an article which is tagged at the top. ] 03:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
			\|action4link=Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome/archive3
			\|action4result=kept
			\|action4oldid=159918325

			\|action5 = FAR
	:::There is a way to cut this down so that each individual source is only listed once. The list is now so overwhelming I get the idea I'd better do it? --] 17:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
			\|action5date = 2020-04-25
	::::No, that should not be done. Every single statement in the article should be referenced if you want to be a featured article. More references is a good thing. Please do not remove references. ] 17:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
			\|action5link = Misplaced Pages:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome/archive4
	:::::Zeraeph, I reverted your removal of carefully inserted references, which included the mandatory page numbers. YOu cannot simply reference entire books without page numbers, and hard print resources are preferable to websites. The reason some of the references are repeated is because they include specific page numbers for locating the text. If you remove that, the article will not pass FA. A Further Reading section is also recommended on FA. ] 17:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
			\|action5result = demoted
			\|action5oldid = 951904726

			\|currentstatus=FFA
	No Sandy, sorry but in this you are very wrong, the citations are overwhelming the article, and the "further reading" was already removed because it overwhelmed the article.
			\|maindate=April 17, 2004
			}}
			{{WikiProject banner shell\|collapsed=yes\|class=B\|vital=yes\|1=
			{{WikiProject Medicine\|importance=High\|neurology=yes\|neurology-imp=High\|genetics=yes\|genetics-imp=High\|selected=yes}}
			{{WikiProject Neuroscience\|importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Psychology\|importance=High}}
			{{WikiProject Disability}}
			{{WikiProject Autism\|importance=Top}}
			}}
			{{Reliable sources for medical articles}}
			{{User:MiszaBot/config
			\|archiveheader = {{talkarchivenav}}
			\|maxarchivesize = 250K
			\|counter = 25
			\|algo = old(90d)
			\| minthreadstoarchive = 1
			\| minthreadsleft = 3
			\|archive = Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive %(counter)d
			}}
			{{User:HBC Archive Indexerbot/OptIn
			\|target=/Archive index
			\|mask=/Archive <#>
			\|leading_zeros=0
			\|indexhere=yes}}
			{{Banner holder \|collapsed=yes\|1=
			{{top 25 report\|December 8, 2013\|May 9 2021}}
			}}
			{{Broken anchors\|links=
			* <nowiki>]</nowiki> The anchor (#Teratogenic agents) is no longer available because it was ] before. <!-- {"title":"Teratogenic agents","appear":{"revid":135538675,"parentid":135512255,"timestamp":"2007-06-03T12:43:49Z","replaced_anchors":{"Teratogenesis and Teratology":"Teratogenesis and teratology","Wilson's 6 Principles":"Wilson's 6 principles","Teratogenic Agents":"Teratogenic agents","Teratogenic Outcomes":"Teratogenic outcomes"},"removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":},"disappear":{"revid":582749178,"parentid":582748391,"timestamp":"2013-11-22T00:14:29Z","removed_section_titles":,"added_section_titles":}} -->
			}}
			{{Old merge
			\| otherpage = Autism
			\| result = not merged
			\| discuss = Talk:Autism#Proposal to merge Asperger syndrome here
			\| URL = https://en.wikipedia.org/Talk:Autism#Proposal_to_merge_Asperger_syndrome_here&oldid=1231109180
			\| image = <!-- ] -->
			\| date = 8 May 2024
			}}

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

			Aspergers may get lack of empathy, due to conflicts or traume; this is what Hans Asperger and other resarcher observed. People with bad
	::FA articles must have complete citations, including page nos, and must include a Further reading or references list. If you want to take the risk of losing your star, it's your risk. RN follows FAC as I do, and she can tell you, as I have, that they have become much much more strict on this. If you remove the citations, and further reading, it will be a problem on Featured status. Please do not compare to old FA articles, as the standards have changed. ] 20:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
			general cognitive development or bad emotional development through childhood, may have problem processing emotions and thoughts in a proper way; aspergers that do not have emphatic skill, may have been wrongly diagnosed - due to lack of proper general cognitive development. If one look at csikszentmihalyi's flow model, apathy arises when skill level is low; and slides over to anxiety (social anxiety), when challenge becomes bigger. Such anxiety, that is evident through lack of empathy, is a pinpointer to problems related to general cognitive development.

			] (]) 05:26, 28 June 2024 (UTC)
	:::Page numbers are fine when you only have 30 seperate citations anyway, but there comes a point when you have to use common sense. Currently the article length is way over recommended on citations alone. --] 20:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
	::::No, you are wrong. Both the article size and the prose size are well within limits. I've been checking both all along. Citations do not count in prose size. I suggest that you review the number of citations on the latest medical featured article, ]. I repeat, if you delete citations, you jeopardize the FA status. IN fact, more citations are still needed. ] 20:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
	:::::More importantly, on closer examination of the most recent featured medical article, ], you will see that almost every single reference is to a journal-published medical study from PubMed (PMID). Medical studies published in journals don't require page numbers: books do. The MOST preferred reference for any medical article is the actuual PMID study. We already have a real weakness in that this article almost never cites actual research, and cites too many books, which may contain content that has not been subject to peer review. ] 20:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

			:This is contradicted by evidence for what is often known as the ]. Theorisation of that concept and evidence for it have both cast into doubt past evidence of autistic people being low in empathy, by pointing out that what was actually found was autistic people struggling to empathise with allistic (non-autistic) people. There is also evidence that allistic people struggle to empathise with autistic people, but that autistic people empathise well with other autistic people and allistic people empathise well with other allistic people. ] (]) 17:22, 22 November 2024 (UTC)
	:New template didn't need to be created, replace with PDD template which should have been here to begin with. --]] 08:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

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

			I don't have a dog in this race. The two most recent short descriptions for this article are:
	:::PDD template is SUPPOSED to be there, as this article is on it. That template is on every other article listed on said template. Also, the last link on that template shows a list of ALL related topics, including ALL the topics included in the template you created, so I removed yours. Besides, if an AS specific template needed to be created, then the same should be done for Autism, which it shouldn't, because EVERYTHING can be found through the PDD template. --]] 20:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
			*Formerly recognized neurodevelopmental condition
			*Formerly recognized subtype of autism; considered milder due to intact intelligence and language
			Shouldn't the short description say what Asperger syndrome {{em\|is}} rather than say what it {{em\|is not}}?

			—] (]) 14:29, 4 November 2024 (UTC)
	:::And need I remind you that templates like that go at the BOTTOM of the page. --]] 20:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

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

			{{Edit semi-protected\|answered=yes}}
	All I'm saying is that, like with all other templates I've seen, if the article is listed on the template, than the template should be posted on the article. If the PDD template isn't detailed enough, then why not expand it? --]] 19:02, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

			The statement (under History) "leading some of those diagnosed with Asperger syndrome to instead refer to their condition as 'Sukhareva's Syndrome', in opposition to Hans Asperger's association with Nazism" is unsupported by the reference given, whether with regards to Asperger's alleged association with Nazism, the proposal to use a different name, or the reasons for the proposal. I suggest the entire statement be removed. The preceding statement about Sukhareva is supported by the reference. ] (]) 21:45, 19 November 2024 (UTC)
	RN, where do we stand on the template? I see an addition of a See also article was just made (a needed one, I think?), so we have See also in one place, and the template in another. Do you plan to expand the template, and we shouldn't have a See also as well as a template. I can envision the See also getting out of control again, if we don't hold it what's in the template. Maybe you can look at the way I had reorg'd the deleted AS template to include all of the PDD template? ] 12:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
			:{{Done}} I verified the request and removed the statement.--] (]) 13:09, 20 November 2024 (UTC)
	:I was thinking of trying to expand the template to include newer articles that are important to Autism but not listed such as ], ] and others.Natche24 06:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

			== Uta is NOT "he" but "she" ==
	==Gillberg goof==
	Not sure what happened here, but something is wrong with these sentences:

			Can someone please correct this typo? Thanks! ] (]) 03:08, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
	''Christopher Gillberg argues that although there may well be significant delays in some areas of language development. Gillberg's own set of diagnostic criteria emphasizes linguistic peculiarities that are not mentioned in the DSM-IV criteria.'' ] 04:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
	:Sandy I restored the prevous statement back to the original, I hope this clears up the goof. The page numbers are still necessary but are no where to be found on the internet etc. ] 04:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
	::Can we find a similar statement from another source, or re-word around the missing page number somehow ??? ] 04:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
	:::Sounds like a good idea I will start looking ASAP have you found any sources yet that quote Gillberg??Natche24 05:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
	::::I see someone added the page.
	I saw another in-text comment regarding the Gillberg quote:

			:{{Done}}. Thanks for spotting the error. ] (]) 04:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)
	<nowiki>] argues that although there may well be significant delays in some areas of language development, AS children often show exceptional skills in other language-related areas.<!--I hope you tell us what these areas are, somewhere in the article ...--><ref>{{cite book \| author = Christopher Gillberg \| title = A guide to Asperger Syndrome \| publisher = Cambridge University Press \| location = Cambridge, UK \| year = 2002 \| id = ISBN 0521001838}} p. 34.</ref>. </nowiki>
			::While it's correct that Uta Frith is a woman, she translated Asperger's paper to English, not her own or Wing's papers. The source given is a digital version of this translation.--] (]) 15:54, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

			== The full spectrum of Asperger syndrome is not included in the diagnostic criteria for Autism spectrum disorder, but is exempted from the diagnostic criteria by a “grandfather clause” ==
	The comment may have been inserted by Tony. Can someone (who has access to that book) list what those "other language-related areas" are ? ] 21:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
	::I do not have the book but I found a that states the following from that book but does it does not give a page number I am assuming that it is the same that was cited page 34.
	''In A Guide to Asperger Syndrome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), Christopher Gillberg also criticizes the "no significant delay" clauses of the DSM, and to a lesser extent some of the others, and argues that the clauses represent a misunderstanding or oversimplification of the syndrome. He states that although there may well be significant delay in some areas of language development, it is often combined with exceptionally high functioning in other language-related areas, and he argues that this combination superficially resembles but is in reality very different from normal development in language and adaptive behavior.'' Natche24 21:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
	:It's making me nervous that we're including a quote from this book which it seems that no one here has access to, and which we really can't explain. Can't we delete the portion we don't have complete info on, and just address the fact that his criteria call for language difficulties not included in the DSM? Or, does anyone see a way to fix this? ] 21:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
	::I am having difficulty deciding what to do or how to fix it the only solution that I could think of is to delete the entire paragraph and cite the part that we know somewhere else. Is there anybody who agrees to delete the paragraph. Natche24 22:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

			](2023), Understanding Mental Disorders: '''Your Guide to DSM-5-TR'''®, American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 22-23. https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/book/10.1176/appi.books.9781615375370
	:It's on my to do list. --]] 21:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

			"Social (Pragmatic) Communication Disorder
	In a related note I am trying to find the source for this quotation which was found in the reference section under Stoddart(2005) I am not soure what to do with this quotation. I feal like it should be pit into the ] article instead of the Classification and diagnosis section of the AS article.
	::''Szatmari suggests that AS was promoted as a diagnosis to spark more research into the syndrome: "It was introduced into the official classification systems in 1994 and has grown in popularity as a diagnosis, even though its validity has not been clearly established. It is interesting to note that it was introduced not so much as an indication of its status as a 'true' disorder, but more to stimulate research ... its validity is very much in question."''
	] 21:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

			Social (pragmatic) communication disorder involves problems in the social use of verbal and nonverbal communication. . . .Because of the problems in social communication, this disorder might look like autism spectrum disorder, but those with this disorder do not have fixed interests or repeating behaviors. <u>Those who in the past had a diagnosis of Asperger's disorder or pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified based on their problems in social communication might better fit this new diagnosis of social communication disorder.</u>"
	:Hmm, that reference is no longer there, but I remember it. I thought the reference had specified the page number. --]] 22:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

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

			Committee to Evaluate the Supplemental Security Income Disability Program for Children with Mental Disorders; Board on the Health of Select Populations; Board on Children, Youth, and Families; Institute of Medicine; Division of Behavioral and Social Sciences and Education; ]; Boat TF, Wu JT, editors. Mental Disorders and Disabilities Among Low-Income Children. Washington (DC): National Academies Press (US); 2015 Oct 28. 8, Clinical Characteristics of Autism Spectrum Disorder. Available from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK332891/
	:::I contributed that quote from the Stoddart book. Any questions about any of my contributions can be left on my talk page. If people feel it should go into a Szatmari article, feel free to put it there. If anyone is starting an article on him, the Stoddart book contains a current article written by Szatmari himself that is excellent. That's where I got the quote. ] 03:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

			"The diagnosis of ASD is typically made during childhood, based on comprehensive behavioral evaluations by specialists in child psychiatry or psychology or by those in behavioral and developmental pediatrics. ASD was not officially recognized until DSM-III, the third edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders, in 1980 (APA, 1980; Kanner, 1943). The current version of the DSM introduced in 2013, DSM-5, is the first edition of the DSM to use the term “autism spectrum disorder.” This version does not distinguish subtypes such as “autistic disorder” or “Asperger syndrome,” and the diagnostic criteria specified in <u>the DSM-5 for ASD are somewhat narrower than used previously</u>. DSM-5 criteria require that a child has persistent impairment in social communications and interactions across multiple contexts as well as restricted or repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities; that symptoms should present in early childhood and cause significant functional impairments; and that the impairments are not better explained by intellectual disability (APA, 2013).
	::::As per a recomendation form one of the editors I moved the quote to the Szatmari article.Natche24 00:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)
	As much as I'd love to start the Szatmari article, that sort of thing is not my forté, so I'm gonna need some help to set it up. I can easily contribute once it's set up. Here are some biographical links for Szatmari for those who would like to start the article.

			<u>DSM-5 introduced major change by eliminating subcategories and providing an overall approach to the diagnosis of ASD (Volkmar et al., 2014a). Concerns about individuals losing services prompted the addition of a “grandfather clause” in DSM-5 granting continued diagnostic assignment to cases previously diagnosed under DSM-IV.</u>"
	http://www.fhs.mcmaster.ca/psychiatryneuroscience/faculty/szatmari/

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

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

			] (2018), APA Handbook of Psychopathology Volume 1: Psychopathology: Understanding, Assessing, and Treating Adult Mental Disorders, American Psychiatric Association Publishing, 44-45. https://www.apa.org/pubs/books/4311535
	http://www.cairn-site.com/conference/04/docs/DrPS_bio.pdf

			"What constitutes a mental disorder is not a trivial decision because it can have quite an important impact on significant social and political issues (e.g., see Bayer & Spitzer, 1982, for a discussion of the controversy surrounding the inclusion of homosexuality in previous editions of the diagnostic manual).
	--]] 03:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

			<u>For example, proposed for DSM–5 was a revision to the criterion set for autism disorder that arguably increased the threshold for diagnosis, leaving many persons diagnosed with DSM–IV Asperger’s disorder no longer qualifying for the special benefits, services, and support that had been available to them before DSM–5 (Volkmar & McPartland, 2014). The authors of DSM–5 therefore made an essentially sociopolitical decision to allow persons who had been diagnosed with autism using DSM–IV to continue to receive the diagnosis (American Psychiatric Association, 2013, p. 51), even though they had concluded that the DSM–IV threshold was wrong. At some point, this grandfather clause will expire, but presumably, the parents of the children who no longer qualify for special services will not protest in large part because they had never experienced the benefits of receiving the DSM–IV diagnosis</u>."
	I could help, but my house was hit by lightening, lots of damage, and I'm on a very slow, obnoxious dialup connection. I think (?) if you put a stub at the bottom, it won't get deleted while you're working on it. Here's a short physician stub I started: just copy it as an example, change the info, and you should have a start that won't get deleted, until we can work on it. ] I think if you have a good basic structure in place, and make sure to give it a stub sort, it shouldn't be deleted. ] 04:07, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
	:PS - it also could have been speedy deleted as non-notable. You have to establish notability in a bio, so make sure your original structure gives enough information to explain why he is ] ] 04:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
	I just created and article for ] hopefully it is not deleted since it is my first page that I ever created. Thank you for all of your advise it was very helpful.Natche24 04:43, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
	:Very nice! I did a little bit of cleanup, formatting, fixing refs, but you look to be in good shape! Be sure to add a reference for his criteria, which we have on the main page here. Also, for any questions on article structure, you can see ] ] 05:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

			I just joined Misplaced Pages today to make this known, but I can't edit this article due to access restrictions. ] (]) 06:06, 22 December 2024 (UTC)
	== Causes section still reads like a promo-essay ==

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

	I found two journal entery websites which I thought fit in the cause section can somebody check them out to see if they should be included in the article: and Natche24 02:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

	==DMOZ NOT NPOV==

	After careful thought I realise that the substitution of DMOZ for "external links" is grossly inappropriate.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

	== What the autistic community feels about the medicalized article ==

	Look here: --] 21:54, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

	::No offence to anyone at Wrongplanet but I am not sure that would qualify as a "reputable and valid" link with which to balance the existing list.--] 22:12, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

	::NO Rdos, that's what YOU and your web-board buddies think about the article. I'm going to let you in on a secret Rdos, THIS ARTICLE IS NOT YOUR PERSONAL PLAYGROUND. It IS NOT about your ego, despite your repeated attempts to make it so. It IS NOT a sounding board for your pet beliefs about Aspergers. It IS NOT an excuse to bully people into accepting junk science and personal opinions as factual information. Stop using your feelings of stigmatization as an excuse for redefining the scientific method. You sound ridiculous when you denounce articles for being "peer reviewed". It amazes me that you think such a thing is a criticism. It only makes sense when taken in the context of what you beleive, that is, garbage "science" and clueless opinions from unqualified individuals, yourself included. If you want to sabotage the credibility of an article by cramming it full of unverifiable nonsense, the you are a vandal and should be dealt with. In all honesty, I have yet to find a single point you've made that is worthy of inclusion, and repeatedly find myself reading your posts and wondering why you are regarded as anything other than a POV pusher with no idea how silly you sound. ] 22:22, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Tired of humoring you

	WHOA!! While I agree that this is not Rdos' personal feifdom nor about his ego is certainly isn't Sandy's and Rn's personal feifdom nor about their egos either.(I hope you aren't a sockpuppet?)

	...and if you read the wrongplanet link you would see that, in fact, the opinions of Rdos's "web-board buddies" were fairly balanced and took both sides...(not too sure he read it himself?)

	Except it shouldn't BE about "sides" and whether RDos or Sandy is "the boss of this game", it should be about presenting as much accurate and balanced information as possible, as well as possible.

	There used to be a genuinely, superlative, breathtaking article in this slot, a real show stopper. Now it has morphed through RDos pet lunacies to become overcited, colorless and dry as dust.

	If I didn't have too much respect for the effort it took several people to satify Sandy's personal criteria for citations I SWEAR I would revert the whole thing to 2004 when it was truly remarkable.

	My choice would be to see a reasonable amount of the citations from this text merged into a reversion to 2004 along with any new information that has shown up. --] 22:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

	:The difference is that, while Rdos is inserting unreferenced original research, many of us were trying to help you keep your featured status, respecting principles established not by any of us, but by Wiki policies and procedures. Plain and simple. It's not my criteria, never was. It's Wiki's. Perhaps I, personally, misread that any of you were interested in keeping your featured article star. Sorry for the intrusion if you weren't. An unreferenced article doesn't meet featured article criteria, that's all. ] 22:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Latest revision as of 06:06, 22 December 2024

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Asperger syndrome article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL

Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 3 months

This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.

Asperger syndrome is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.

This article appeared on Misplaced Pages's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 17, 2004.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 10, 2004	Featured article candidate	Promoted
September 5, 2005	Featured article review	Kept
August 1, 2006	Featured article review	Kept
September 24, 2007	Featured article review	Kept
April 25, 2020	Featured article review	Demoted
Current status: Former featured article

This

level-5 vital article is rated B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects.

Medicine: Genetics / Neurology High‑importance

	Medicine portal 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
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by the Medical genetics task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article is supported by the Neurology task force (assessed as High-importance).
	This article was selected on the Medicine portal as one of Misplaced Pages's best articles related to Medicine.

Neuroscience High‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.NeuroscienceWikipedia:WikiProject NeuroscienceTemplate:WikiProject Neuroscienceneuroscience
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Psychology High‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Disability

Asperger syndrome is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability

Autism Top‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism
Top	This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.

Ideal sources for Misplaced Pages's health content are defined in the guideline Misplaced Pages:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Asperger syndrome.

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

Other talk page banners

This article has been viewed enough times in a single week to appear in the Top 25 Report 2 times. The weeks in which this happened:

Tip: Anchors are case-sensitive in most browsers.

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

] The anchor (#Teratogenic agents) is no longer available because it was deleted by a user before.

Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. | Reporting errors

This article was nominated for merging with Autism on 8 May 2024. The result of the discussion (permanent link) was not merged.

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

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

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

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

short description

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

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

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

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

Semi-protected edit request: Sukhareva's Syndrome

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

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

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

Uta is NOT "he" but "she"

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

Done. Thanks for spotting the error. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 04:06, 30 November 2024 (UTC)

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

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

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

First,

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

"Social (Pragmatic) Communication Disorder

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

second,

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

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

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

third,

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

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

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

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

Categories: