Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 22:53, 14 July 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 June 2006 June - July 2006 - Major review

Causes section

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? --Keyne 13:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

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. Sandy 13:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

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. --Keyne 13:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

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. Sandy 14:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Strongly biased is a good word! --Rdos 13:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Created template to replace See also

And, it's pretty scary that every link in the Main section is to an article which is tagged at the top. Sandy 03:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

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? --Zeraeph 17:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

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. Sandy 17:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

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. Sandy 17:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

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.

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. --Zeraeph 19:14, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

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. Sandy 20:00, 8 July 2006 (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. --Zeraeph 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, cystic fibrosis. I repeat, if you delete citations, you jeopardize the FA status. IN fact, more citations are still needed. Sandy 20:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

More importantly, on closer examination of the most recent featured medical article, cystic fibrosis, 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. Sandy 20:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

New template didn't need to be created, replace with PDD template which should have been here to begin with. --Dubhagan 08:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

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. Sandy 13:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

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. --Dubhagan 20:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

And need I remind you that templates like that go at the BOTTOM of the page. --Dubhagan 20:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

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. RN 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. RN 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? Sandy 21:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

It's already gone. Sandy 21:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

If it got nixed already I can ask for undeletion later, so it is no big deal :). RN 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 Sandy 21:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

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? --Dubhagan 19:02, 9 July 2006 (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? Sandy 12:19, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

I was thinking of trying to expand the template to include newer articles that are important to Autism but not listed such as Christopher Gillberg, Peter Szatmari and others.Natche24 06:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Gillberg goof

Not sure what happened here, but something is wrong with these sentences:

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. Sandy 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. 69.242.106.254 04:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we find a similar statement from another source, or re-word around the missing page number somehow ??? Sandy 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:

] 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>.

The comment may have been inserted by Tony. Can someone (who has access to that book) list what those "other language-related areas" are ? Sandy 21:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I do not have the book but I found a Link 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? Sandy 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)

Peter Szatmari Article

It was brought to my attention that there is no article on Peter Szatmari. 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)

It's on my to do list. --Dubhagan 21:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

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 Peter Szatmari 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."

69.242.106.254 21:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Hmm, that reference is no longer there, but I remember it. I thought the reference had specified the page number. --Dubhagan 22:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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. Pokey2006 03:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

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.

http://www.fhs.mcmaster.ca/psychiatryneuroscience/faculty/szatmari/

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

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

http://www.cairn-site.com/conference/04/docs/DrPS_bio.pdf

--Dubhagan 03:51, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

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. Arthur K. Shapiro 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. Sandy 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 notable. Sandy 04:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

I just created and article for Peter Szatmari 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 the Wiki Manual of Style. Sandy 05:06, 12 July 2006 (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 Causes of autism , a biased copy of NIHs site should not be here. --Rdos 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. Sandy 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. --Rdos 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. Sandy 21:25, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

No, this stuff should NOT be here. If all the referenced, "reliable" stuff from Causes of autism were brought back here, and also into the "treatment" section, the article would go over it's bounds again. --Rdos 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? --Dubhagan 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. --Dubhagan 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. Sandy 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. --Dubhagan 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 Sandy 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: "Autism and Abnormal Development of Brain Connectivity" and "Autism and Pervasive Developmental Disorders." Natche24 02:44, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

May I suggest that Sandy reads Causes of autism. Much of it is referenced. Aren't we reinventing the wheel here? --Rdos 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. Sandy 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.Sandy 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 Causes of autism 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 Causes of autism 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. --Zeraeph 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, Sandy 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 Causes of autism article will always be relevant to Asperger's syndrome...maybe in 6 months time the Asperger syndrome article will be utterly worthless and the Causes of autism will be exemplary...and they will STILL be relevant to each other. --Zeraeph 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> ~ Sandy 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.--Zeraeph 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 WP:NOT and WP:EL. 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 ? Sandy 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.--Zeraeph 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. --Dubhagan 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! --Zeraeph 18:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Ok, then I'll add it to the existing list. --Dubhagan 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. --Zeraeph 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. --Dubhagan 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. --Zeraeph 18:15, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

But if there's nothing important missing from DMOZ, we can comply with WP:NOT and WP:EL 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. Sandy 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 WP:NOT. Oh, well. Sandy 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. --Zeraeph 19:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

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

...and Dmoz does not even come close to WP:NPOV, 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. --Zeraeph 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. Sandy 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? --Zeraeph 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! RN 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. --Dubhagan 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. --Dubhagan 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--Zeraeph 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. --Zeraeph 20:32, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

I agree, looks much better. --Dubhagan 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. Sandy 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. --Rdos 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. --Zeraeph 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. --Rdos 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. --Zeraeph 22:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

What the autistic community feels about the medicalized article

Look here: --Rdos 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.--Zeraeph 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. 70.115.211.122 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. --Zeraeph 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. Sandy 22:41, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

You are trying to help me keep my featured status? Enlighten me as to just where I am featured? (If you think Misplaced Pages is all about "tribes" hell bent upon featured article status then you have a lot to learn.)

I don't give a flying act of sexual congress about "featured status", I only care about presenting the best and most valid information available in the most objective, impartial, readable and informative way possible.

The best way to do that is to incorporate all available information and ruthlessly exclude all personalities and personal agenda.

An overreferenced article that one person presumes to treat as their personal feifdom is not good enough for me, or for the real, unfiltered, Wiki policies and procedures that are so dear to me. --Zeraeph 22:53, 14 July 2006 (UTC)