Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:44, 26 June 2006

Template:Featured article is only for Misplaced Pages:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date Template:Wikipedians This template must be substituted. Replace {{FAR ...}} with {{subst:FAR ...}}.

Archives
December 2002 – May 2005 June 2005 – August 2005 August 2005 – September 2005 September 2005 – May 2006

Extroversion and Asperger's Syndrome

Hello, I would like to describe myself as someone with Aspergers' Syndrome, but i acknowledge i am very different to many Aspergers people i have encountered in local support groups and media/psychology stereotypes. I do know that when i was young boy i would have intense interest in things like dinosaurs, computers science and art, but i had a very intense creative imagination - I didn't really fit in primary school but i had some close friends who would defend me despite my socially eccentric behaviours. Thing is, when i became a teenager i became less and less like an AS person, i still have the interest in pursuit of knowledge - But i seem to undergo a process of self-realisation and ended up being very sociable and popular. I never had any awkward 'body physicality' and i was coordinated to the point of being a competent artist, musician, rugby player and break dancer. I never had any problems relating to people, i understood queues, i had no inhibitions and became versatile as a conversationalist and i haved flirted with many girls and would describe my social success as something better then average. And then i got into the whole drug/rock scene and i seemed to be antagonistic of the Asperger Syndrome typical - i do admit i had great interest in chess/poker/art/producing electronica/philosophy and psychology. aswell as attraction to conspiracies, ancient cultures and eccentric sciences/art/personalities i never exhibited any Aspergers Syndrome traits typical in this article. I will say this though - I am obsessed with hygeine/beauty/gym/mental/physical/spiritual perfection and i will not settle for 'average'. Now i know this is purely anecdotal, but i know my father has Aspergers and its very strong even as an old adult and i seem to have not been effected. I'm wondering if my ability of analytical/intuitive which was very high in IQ tests attributed to my reading and accessing of situations set me apart from AS typicals? (At A Levels, I was nominated to be Social Coordinator of my school for my people skills). perhaps the idea that i have successfully self-actualised myself in my teenage years with active socialisation that i have forced my natural Asperger's Syndrome self to die. I'm sorry if this story doesn't make sense, I have to attend a charity drive this morning so i was in a rush. Any thoughts from everyone who has been diagnosed with Aspergers Syndrome or know of anyone with it that doesn't fit the characteristics of Asperger's Syndrome (such as social impairment, yet obviously have some AS tendeancies)? --213.106.102.178 00:13, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

Couldn't it be a misdiagnosis? 165.146.92.121 22:33, 16 June 2006 (UTC)

Link Removal

There was a tag on the link section requesting the number of links be brought down to a max of 15 (cleanup-spam), so I took out the following, which I thought were the most easily classified as spam if any were:

• 'Future Horizons Inc.' 'Publisher and distributor of books, videos, DVDs and workbooks, including works by Attwood and Myles' Their site includes a comprehensive list of links to Asperger and Autism organizations and services
• Being diagnosed with Asperger's as an adult
• Liane Holliday Willey's website which is filled with her podcasts, articles, lesson plans, poetry and more
• Stephen Shore's website offering his insight into life with Asperger syndrome
• Fresh Air with Terry Gross - 'National Public Radio (NPR) Program on Asperger's (May 5 2004)'
• Farleigh Further Education college- 'Frome,Somerset Boarding school for students aged 16+ with Asperger Syndrome.'
• Franklin Academy - 'Connecticut boarding school for students in grades 8-12 geared specifically for students with Asperger's syndrome and non-verbal learning disabilities'
• Hampshire Country School - 'New Hampshire boarding school for middle school students specializing in students with ADHD and Asperger's syndrome that believes in "close interaction between students and faculty living together in a well-preserved rural environment.'
• Asperger Adults of Greater Washington - 'The AAGW is metropolitan Washington D.C.'s Asperger adult support, social and advocacy organization'
• Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typical - 'Well-known parody of non-autistics by some people from the autism spectrum'
• Autism Asperger Publishing Company Publisher for Brenda Smith Myles

There are 15 left, and I don't think any more are really necessary. I put them here just in case someone has a really good reason to keep one. (169.231.23.121 06:44, 10 June 2006 (UTC))

I just put one back; the link to a list provided by an autism publisher to dozens of groups and Asperger resources. I realize the book publisher is a commercial site, but this is not spam. The list they are offering is just a great collection of links to autie and Aspie groups, which may head off urges to list all the same groups' links individually here. Pokey2006 03:34, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Further reading

Originally from the article - lots of good info, but too much :). People oppose featured articles for including sections like this - best to keep it here. If you have one please add :). RN 19:31, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Just an idea, but rather than putting the further reading on the talk page, which really doesn't work permenently, could we create a seperate list page that can be referenced within the article (TELL ME you did't put "see also: Talk Page" ON the article - PLEASE???). It's all good stuff but yep, a BIT overwhelming...worth it's own page I think? --Zeraeph 20:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Feel the fear and do it anyway List of further reading on Asperger syndrome ;o) --Zeraeph 20:18, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

I think this information is useful. Skinnyweed 23:05, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

So do I, it's just overwhelming in quantity on the main article and buried here --Zeraeph 23:19, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Great idea to create a list with a link. As the person responsible for suddenly adding a couple of dozen books into further reading, I did feel it looked cluttered but didn't want to toss anything out (coincidentally, I have this very same problem with my bookshelves at home). :) This solves the clutter problem without having to ditch any titles. I will continue adding to this list as my own personal collection expands. Pokey2006 04:09, 8 June 2006 (UTC)

Different Worlds Site - Add Link

Please could you add a link to our Web Site

www.differentworlds.org.uk

We are a support group for those parents who have children with Aspergers Syndrome or related disorders.

Many Thanks Lyn and Tony

Lyntony 06:00, 27 May 2006 (UTC)

psychotic

After reading the referenced article I think that Westernmost is right to remove but for the wrong reasons. The article (Frey) says that other researchers say that psychotic eposides are more likely but give no sources. I am agree ing with removal for that reason not because it puts us Aspies in a bad light. We should respect (valid) studies. However Frey is quite bad and I suggest perhaps removing as claims AS people have a 50% incidence of lack of oxygen at birth. If this was really true I'm sure much more would have been said on this... What do others think? --Imcdnzl 02:52, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

precisions

It is not very clear in what AS differs from other forms of (HF-)autism. If I understand well, people having AS can/"must" still have a "normal" life? Is this the reason why "Rain Man" is not listed as example movie (the main character having too heavy problems to live a normal life)? Please elucidate... Thanks in advance. — MFH:Talk 18:11, 29 May 2006 (UTC)

From what I can tell, it's mostly a matter of subtlety. You can't entirely mistake there being a disorder (or at least, a HUGE quirk) of some sort with "Rain Man" type autistics, but I know plenty of "Aspies" who went for years without being diagnosed with it, and who if you were to talk to them online, you quite probably wouldn't know they had any disorder unless they told you. Hell, I might have it (I'm suspecting it, lately, anyway), and though I've been diagnosed with ADD, the first time I ever heard of Asperger's was after I met a couple of Aspies on a forum I used to frequent (that forum turned out to have like half a dozen more diagnosed Aspies, interestingly enough. Then again, not only did it have a couple of thousand members, it was also partially devoted to fan fiction, and Aspies are apparently frequently drawn to writing, so perhaps it's not all that surprising). Then again on here (since the Wiki has a user category for Aspies), then on Boston Legal where "Hands" was a bit... er, more Rain Man-esque, except less Rain Man and more "nervous wreck", with a side of OCD... though I'm somewhat taking the Boston Legal character with a grain of salt, since it was fiction, and in a series that tends to have ultra-kooky characters and situations to begin with. Anyway, again - I think it's a matter of subtlety, in large part (at least, in many cases it is), the difficulty in detecting it or in some cases, the difficulty in identifying it as Asperger's and not something else entirely. It's a ranged disorder then, so... I dunno, in some cases, maybe there's a technicality. Or something. (Did I mention I have ADD? Heh) Runa27 04:53, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Asperger's tests and "self-promotion"

I have big problems about Ryan's continuing removal of Aspie-quiz. I suggest that either the entire section should be removed or there should be some objective criteria for inclusion. It is not true, as Ryan claims, that only Aspie-quiz was added by site-owners. The same thing applies to the Geek-test (added by Amy of AFF). I don't know about the DSM-test, but it was so badly designed that I really wonder why removing this wasn't the first priority of Ryan. I suggest that either we feature the best tests (based on some criteria) or delete the whole section. --Rdos 08:11, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Here's a good objective criterion for inclusion. Publication in a peer-reviewed medical journal. 212.134.28.61 00:48, 19 June 2006 (UTC)

The Wired Magazine Article

Though the information provided by the article is invaluable, I suppose it is unencyclopedic to mention it in this way --> A Wired Magazine article called.... Just my two cents, and you are invited to comment. --Nearly Headless Nick 12:33, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Added references tag

I added the <div class="references-small"><references /></div> that listed the 20+ references that were building up but not listed. Skinnyweed 17:45, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Possible Mistake

In the section "TV shows and films that have dealt with Asperger syndrome", under the entry "Oprah" comes the following: "(One of the main characters, Bob Melnikov (actor Dmitry Chepovetsky) a brilliant biochemist, is revealed to have Asperger syndrome)" This must be a misplaced piece of text, since The Oprah Winfrey Show doesn't have "characters" (it's a talk show, not a dramatic serial). Can anyone put this in the correct place? -- Jalabi99 06:26, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

Fixed. It was caused by this edit. Graham talk 07:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)

"TV shows and films which have dealt with Asperger syndrome"

OK, this section is annoying me - it is very time consuming to maintain (i.e. people keep adding speculation etc.) and I wonder if it adds anything. I don't remember seeing any other articles that do this. Perhaps we should remove it? RN 19:12, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

• I removed it - the thought of having a list in this article of every tv show that ever dealt with this is crufty. Perhaps a seperate article - hopefully with referencing standards. RN 19:22, 7 June 2006 (UTC)

Request for HELP by Wiki newcomer re: adding a footnote

Could someone please help me make a footnote for my addition to the "Social impairments" section regarding the concept of "The Hidden Curriculum" by Brenda Smith Myles. The book I am trying to make reference to is:

Myles, Brenda Smith; Trautman, Melissa; and Schelvan, Ronda (2004). The Hidden Curriculum: practical solutions for understanding unstated rules in social situations. Shawnee Mission, Kansas: Autism Asperger Publishing Co.

It should end up being footnote #5. My gratitude for your patience and help. Thanks, Pokey2006 22:14, 9 June 2006 (UTC)

I think I've got it. The reference should be enclosed with "</ref>" rather than "<ref>". I'm not that familiar with footnotes either, and my screen reader is temperamental about getting to the right reference, but I think I've got the syntax correct. Graham talk 11:38, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Thanks! Pokey2006 14:19, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

Causes and etiology

"It is currently thought by many that Asperger syndrome and autism share the same etiology. Others suggest that the two conditions have differing etiologies. Debate in this area is ongoing. Various models to explain Asperger syndrome have been proposed, with some of them gaining wider acceptance than others. Quotes from experts and the comparison of older research to more recent research may be of particular interest."

This paragraph says absolutely NOTHING, it reads like one of those excerpts from horrible high school papers that are always circulating through chain emails. I realize that there's not a lot of concensus in the area, but surely it can be better summarized than "Some believe A is the case. Other do not. There are a lot of theories. Some are more popular than others." This is really shocking in a featured article. I lack the expertise to improve this, but it certainly needs to be done. -Elmer Clark 08:24, 13 June 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right. "The two conditions"? Autism isn't considered to be "one condition". My understanding is that most researchers believe there is no such thing as just one kind of autism. Autism is a collection/spectrum of syndromes, disorders (including Rett's, PDD-NOS etc.) and differences with a range of suspected "causes" including a possible genetic predisposition and possible environmental triggers. One theory is that Asperger syndrome is simply an autism spectrum disorder but without a speech delay. Some believe Asperger syndrome is same thing as high functioning autism -- there is no difference except in terminology. Certainly, Asperger's has been associated with genetics since it's been observed that some extended family members show similar traits; often the fathers. It's certainly very complex and really an expert in the field should be approached to write this section. Really, nobody really knows for sure what's behind this and that's why the writer was so vague. But it could be improved. Pokey2006 04:12, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

It would be possible to change this text, but it shouldn't start to present any causes or theories, because this section has been moved to Causes of autism. I don't agree with the idea that there is a huge collection of syndromes. It turned out in the neurodiversity version of Aspie-quiz that the additional diagnoses (Hyperlexia, Dyspraxia, Dyslexia, Dyscalculia, OCD, ODD, Prosapagnosia, Dysgraphia and Bipolar) have very high loadings on autistic score. In fact, most of these have similar Aspie and NT scores as diagnosed autism/AS and self-diagnosed autism/AS. Even if all diagnosed & self-diagnosed autism/AS is removed from the additional diagnosed, the scores differences are similar to when autism/AS is removed from the entire population. This tells me that the autism-spectrum should be extended with many neurodiversity-diagnoses instead of being split more. --Rdos 13:21, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

Aspie Comments

(WARNING: Long Comment) - This comment is probably going to seem quite long, and maybe to some not the optimum in perfect prose, however for a long time viewing this page on my watch list and observing the history I have had some comments which in general people may or not think are relevant. I have noticed in general this article has focused on medical scientific viewpoints of Asperger's Syndrome, while this may in general be most fitting with the wikipedia NPOV policy with regards to Asperger's Syndrome this standard practice in some ways actually violates the NPOV concept, a large number of people who actually have a diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome disagree with the conclusion that the neurological wiring of an AS person is defective or a medical phenomena. It is known in the scientific community and the medical community quite rightly that AS causes a different way of thinking which is obvious by the fact this is a neurological difference we are discussing here. However in my experience (by the way I happen to be diagnosed as fitting the criteria for AS from the Early Years Centre, Nottingham, diagnosed by Professor Elizabeth Newton herself) as both an officially diagnosed AS person and a member of a large number of groups for AS persons on the internet the current medical stance is both controversial and one sided.

Now I understand wikipedia policies in many ways regard the viewpoints of AS people as original research, however one must note that persons with AS are on the inside looking out, and from that position will struggle to pass through the peer review process to publish articles in a way that wikipedia would consider valid as a reliable source. While I understand the reasons for this I also know that the opinions in a predominantly NT (NeuroTypical (Non-AS)) society where we are outnumbered something like ~150:1 (Estimated as figures vary depending on source even if one only uses "official" sources) where those whom form scientific, public, medical and peer reviewed studies are in general those on the outside looking in, many of the peer review studies being funded by organizations with a financial benefit in creating a treatment or cure for AS or Autism, in some cases offering unproven treatments for financial gain or unproven causes to advertise such treatments (See MMR, Vaccines, Chelation etc).

I feel regardless to us as individuals and as a group being outnumbered by every peer review process that for such an article as this to be NPOV then the alternative view of AS people looking from the inside out must be considered. Yes I agree much of it is not peer reviewed and yes it should be discussed fully before being taken as a true representation of actual AS people; however I do not believe, as one of the few sources of information on AS which claims to be free and unbiased, that viewpoints of AS people should be ignored in any way although they should be discussed.

Anyway I don't feel I have left much out of my comments at this time so I shall end my comment now, however I shall be happy to do all in my power to answer questions people may have on my comments and defend this position if need be, I also will be willing to retract from my position if a valid reason why my position is invalid can be argued successfully. MttJocy 04:00, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I hope that this comment will not be deleted and removed, as due to being an Aspie with some communication issues I have spent the last three hours attempting to formulate the above comment and I still feel I failed to communicate in full what I meant to MttJocy 04:04, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

A lot of work has already been done on this issue, but I think more remains to be done. For instance, I removed all the speculative causes and therapies from both this and the autism article and created separate articles. That way I don't have to see the bad science here. --Rdos 04:12, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

I personally did not know you were the one responsible for those changes, I however thank you for your efforts as every little helps inprove the free flow of public information which I believe is what wikipedia is all about, however I still feel both I myself and hopefully you will agree and help to enable more to done on these points MttJocy 04:33, 15 June 2006 (UTC)

The Gillberg study

There is a lot of reference to the Gillberg study in this article. I think those references should be reconsidered; Gillberg has been involved in an "academic fight" where he refused other scientists (notably sociologist Eva Kärfve and paediatrician Leif Elinder) to peer review his source material. Denying peer review must make the result very questionable, at least until they are confirmed by other researchers and scientists. As far as I know the results, so far, are unconfirmed and hence shouldn't be referenced here.

He refused to show others a particular set of data due, he says, to privacy concerns, but he has numerous peer-reviewed journal articles on these topics. I am not prepared to assume the former undermines the validity of the latter, at least not without knowing a lot more than I currently do about which data it was he refused to share. PurplePlatypus 20:23, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Yet another assault on free speech about autism

Go to my user page and comment on this User_talk:Rdos#Page protection of my user page. JzG, a notorious bully-type-administrator, have made changes to my userpage and deleted radical autism-related stuff that he doesn't approve of. Non-admins cannot see what was on my page, because he first deleted the entire page and then reinstalled it. --Rdos 10:10, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

To put it another way, Rdos persists in trying to use Misplaced Pages to promote his original theory that autism is caused by internreeding with neanderthals, which theory has been removed from article space numerous times by consensus. WP:NOT a soapbox, and there is no right of free speech here, it is a private site belonging to the Wikimedia Foundation. Just zis Guy you know? 11:47, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

To put it in another way, JzG acts as if he owns Wikimedia (which I doubt he does), and makes up his own rules all the time. He will obviously have no success in controlling me, especially since he knows nothing about ODD. A fair warning, JzG, you'd better read the article thoroughly before you try to use your authority on me again. --Rdos 12:18, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

So what you are saying is that not only are you determined to include your offensive and uncited theory, you are obsessively determined, and that this determination is reinforced by any attempt to educate you as to the policy and guideline reasons why you may not use Misplaced Pages to push your barrow. As far as I can see, then, you are in effect asking to be indef-blocked on the grounds that if you are not, you will continue to disrupt Wikiepdia in order to make your point. Is that a valid interpretation of the threat you issued above? Just zis Guy you know? 12:31, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

No, you still don't understand anything, and our previous correspondance clearly points out that you are unable to discuss this in a rational matter. It was not a threat, but merely a hint that you won't get anywhere with threats. You still haven't done anything else than told me what to do, and when I refuse to adhere to your authority, you make threats. I suppose you haven't ever got the idea that if you can convince me that based on Misplaced Pages policy the content should not be on my userpage I will remove it? After all, it wasn't me that reintroduced the Neanderthal theory to Misplaced Pages article space, and I didn't do that because people convinced me it violated WP:NOR. --Rdos 12:34, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I understand well enough. Just zis Guy you know? 13:02, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

You do? I'm not reassured. My I advice you to read the article on which´s talk page you are posting? It certainlty will enable you to understand the issue a little better. Just an advice. --Rdos 17:58, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

FWIW (and I'm not going to comment on NOR or user page blocking) I don't believe Rdos' theory is "offensive" as JzG has characterized it. The Refrigerator Mother theory is offensive. Theories that say autistics are brain damaged, poisoned, broken, etc. are offensive. Theories that say autistics are limited in various ways, that we inherently can't do this, that or the other, are offensive. Claims that autistics are a burden, mad, a devastation, costly, and so on, are offensive. For the Neanderthal theory to be offensive, you'd have to think that Neanderthals were inherently inferior, which would be racist (or specieist if you will). Neurodivergent 19:06, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

"He will obviously have no success in controlling me, especially since he knows nothing about ODD." – To be honest, he has already 'controlled' you by deleting that stuff off your talk page and then protecting it. No amount of 'defiance' will stop him. – Skinnyweed 19:22, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Possibly, but he won't get the pleasure of me accepting his actions. He will have to update my user page until he appologizes for his rude actions! --Rdos 19:25, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

Not really. If you revert his edits he will simply block you for longer and longer until you desist. – Skinnyweed 19:41, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

I think you misunderstand. I won't do any edits to it, and I'll instead let him maintain it. If he unblocks it, I will force him to block it again. --Rdos 19:46, 23 June 2006 (UTC)

hey people

stop being proud of having this disease. the horrible mental problems that come with it outweigh whatever special powers you think we have. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Krein (talk • contribs)

um... who's proud to have AS? and what special powers? I want special powers... please try to keep talk page discussions on topic... - Adolphus79 05:48, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm proud of it all I want without asking anybody for permission. --Rdos 06:22, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Gilles Trehin

I have listed this article at WP:DRV for possible undeletion based on information I have received regarding a book that has been written by Trehin about his fictional city, Urville. Interested parties should contribute to the discussion. Brian G. Crawford 05:59, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

Is this still deserving of featured article status?

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

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

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

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

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

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

It provides part of the WP:NPOV of the article. By deleting everything that the medical phalang doesn't approve of, the article would *not* be worthy of being featured. Featured articles should be balanced. --Rdos 06:30, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

That can be accomplished in neutral, medical terms, without detracting from the medical, encyclopedic quality of the article. For example, some people with Tourette syndrome consider it an advantage: in order to introduce that notion into the text of the article, I found and summarized in one sentence only a quote from the leading medical textbook on TS written by the physicians considered almost unanimously to be the leading reliable sources on TS. You can interject these thoughts and issues in a correct, medical, correctly-referenced sense, without writing a speculative, unencyclopedic entry. I hope that, rather than losing featured status and ending up with some tags on the article, you'll all come together and make this happen. Sandy 20:32, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

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

I don't see why. That would be blatant censorship. This is an encyclopedia, not a medical manual. According to Misplaced Pages, an encyclopedia is "a comprehensive written compendium that contains information on all branches of knowledge or a particular branch of knowledge." The Wikimedia Foundations says: "Imagine a world in which every single person is given free access to the sum of all human knowledge. That's what we're doing." It doesn't say "the sum of all the knowledge of doctors only" or "the sum of the knowledge the majority agrees with". Neurodivergent 20:36, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

You cite some information about Wiki, but fail to acknowledge WP:RS. Again, the advantage of the new WP:FAR process, is that it gives you time to work on the article. Please use it wisely :-) I'm glad to help to any extent I can, but I don't know AS well enough to help with the actual writing. I can help with sources, Wiki stuff, things like that, if needed. Also, it can be helpful to spin off content that may not be "medical enough" into daughter articles, like Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome. You can park reliably-sourced content somewhere, in order to keep a tighter focus in the main article. Sandy 20:44, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Please just ignore whatever Rdos says. It's better if we just ignore him and revert his edits on sight. He has proven that he is not interested in doing anything but promoting his "Aspie-quiz" and his website. Pretending he doesn't exist will save a lot of time and grief. Don't take the bait, don't respond to him, don't engage him. Let's just fix this article in spite of Rdos, rather than with help from Rdos. Brian G. Crawford 22:51, 26 June 2006 (UTC)

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