Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Zeraeph (talk | contribs) at 10:55, 16 July 2006 (→Restoring neutrality). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

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)

Now, it looks like I blanked it, but I still kept the links, plus I hope that removing the info that was going to be replaced anyway will help in getting that section properly rewritten. --Dubhagan 02:40, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The causes section still needs some work. I have a question about the wording of "different brain development." I think it might be better to explain the sources such as cerebellar problems(source), enlarged amygdala and hippocampus (source),etc.Natche24 22:47, 15 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

I just found this quote about this book, on the Yale site:

Now in a fully updated Third Edition, The Handbook of Autism and Pervasive Developmental Disorders, edited by Yale Child Study Center faculty Fred R. Volkmar, M.D., Rhea Paul, Ph.D., Ami Klin, Ph.D., and Donald J. Cohen, M.D., has, since the first edition, become the most influential reference work in the field of autism and related conditions. In two volumes, this invaluable reference provides a comprehensive review of all information presently available about these disorders, drawing on findings and clinical experience from a number of related disciplines such as psychiatry, psychology, neurobiology, and pediatrics. For more information, visit our publications page.

Once again, I encourage those who are concerned about the "medicalization" of this article to seek out sources that will help write the rest of the story. The resources are out there: they just have not been accessed. I just discovered that Donald Cohen (now deceased) was one of the authors of this book. He was the source of most of the text that allowed me to discuss the latent advantages and positive aspects associated with Tourette syndrome on the TS article. He was a unique individual with respect to his ability to write respectfully and about the positive aspects associated with neurological differences. Again, I insist that the information is out there: I hope others will look for it and finish writing the rest of the story, rather than tearing down the accurate information that is now in the article. You can balance the article by introducing missing content, not by tearing down accurate content. Sandy 14:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

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)

Rdos, sure the link list is not necessarily neutral, but it is still informative, plus, the way we have it now, if a link is not mentioned on one of the 4 link sites now provided, feel free to add it. It's that simple. If you can find another site that lists a bunch of AS links, even better. --Dubhagan 02:19, 15 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)

No, I am not a sock puppet, and yes, I realize my post was... strongly worded. However, I feel I made several points very plainly that others have merely danced around. How much time has been wasted undoing what Rdos has done? It frustrates me when individuals sabotage other's efforts by their failure to understand. I suppose I got a bit carried away.70.115.211.122 23:01, 14 July 2006 (UTC)Still tired of Rdos though

I suspect "tired of Rdos" will soon become part of the human condition if he doesn't cop himself on :o( --Zeraeph 23:05, 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" (and I an actively adverse to condecension NB), 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)

Zeraeph, civility is a pillar of Misplaced Pages. Please try to temper your comments towards the anon editor, me, and yes, even towards Rdos. And please refrain from speculation about sock puppets in proximity to my name. I would say Anon also needs to remember civility but s/he has already indicated his/her comments were too strongly worded. If you don't care about the featured status of the article, that presents no problem: I have no vested interest one way or another in the outcome. If that is the consensus of the group, then I will stop working towards the goal of preserving the FA star. Thank you, Sandy 00:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, back off - you are way out of line trying to dictate to me (or anyone else)...maybe you should spend a little time with civility yourself, because there is nothing civil about persistant domineering, condescension, and passive aggression.

I said nothing whatsoever to link your name to sockpuppetry (so why mention it?).--Zeraeph 01:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

certainly isn't Sandy's and Rn's personal feifdom nor about their egos either.(I hope you aren't a sockpuppet?) --Zeraeph 22:34, 14 July 2006 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by User:SandyGeorgia (talk • contribs)

I repeat, I said nothing whatsoever to link your name to sockpuppetry, however your harping on it is making me wonder - and I have every right to say so, whether you like it or not --Zeraeph 02:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Of greater importance...shouldn't Wrong Planet be linked from this article?--Zeraeph 23:03, 14 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Planet is linked in this article, in a notably unencylopedic tone. Sandy 00:32, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Please define what YOU mean by "encyclopaedic tone" before you use the phrase again, then we can make our own minds up about whether or not we agree with your definition. --Zeraeph 01:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep reading, it's there. Sandy 01:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I have AS and I do not have a problem with this new medicalized article I donot understnad what the problem is i think it is more informational and less speculative. Also I have a question to Sandy, How can this be linked in a more encyclopedic tone? Natche24 00:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

It is linked in a rather unfortunate paragraph that is free of citations... :\ RN 00:46, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

:-) What he said :-) Also, reads like a thinly-disguised advert. Sandy 00:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I found a source for the unsourced paragraph that was free of citations. Please check it out. Autistic CultureNatche24 01:23, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice, Natche!! (But did I miss the mention of Wrong Planet in that article - I didn't see it?) That article would support a statement like, Internet sites such as Wrong Planet have made it very easyeasier for thousands of individuals to connect with each other. The insertion of a specific reference to Wrong Planet is where the thinly-veiled, unencyclopedic advert comes in. References to one particular group -- when there are so many others -- is out of place in an encyclopedia, unless there is a reliable source somewhere which specifically singles out Wrong Planet as in that specific quote. Sandy 01:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Back to the original objection, since Rdos and his friends are arguing that the article is dry and doesn't cover the "moving away from a disease" aspect, again, someone should write that content, using reliable sources. I am quite sure they are out there. Sandy 01:35, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Planet has 5000+ members (no telling how many of those members are actually active members). Four of them, instigated by Rdos, don't like the new article. hmmmm .... But, regardless if it's 4 or 400, the solution is to write the missing content from referenced sources. Sandy 14:59, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Restoring neutrality

Rdos, what do the others at wrongplanet think is missing? If you mention what everyone thinks is missing, we will work to include it. --Dubhagan 02:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You can ask them. --Rdos 12:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

This is really amazing. May I suggest that User:Zeraeph and User:70.115.211.122 present the evidences of my activities on this article? It is various users that have been changing the content of the article towards the view in the autistic community. I basically had no part in this. When I moved causes and therapies to separate articles I didn't add anything. I just reorganized the material. OTOH, Sandy and several other people have made extensive damage to this article, more or less rewriting it from medical sources and totally ignoring the autistic community. I suppose I would be happy with this if the neutrality of the article had been preserved while making it more encyclopedic, but this is not the case. --Rdos 07:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Now see there is ANOTHER thing you and Sandy have in common, you never answer reasonable questions just plow right ahead.

Hey, Zeraeph, I believe this is my third or fourth request: can you provide an example of a worthy article that is not included in DMOZ? I would like to understand what is going on in the AS category on DMOZ, considering some issues I've seen in the past in the TS category (which are different than what you mention.) Thanks in advance, Sandy 14:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I believe I already explained to you why that is completely irrelevant to the reasons why a DMOZ category edited by a single, notoriously biased and agenda driven editor is not an acceptable substitute for an "External links" section in a Misplaced Pages article that is supposed to be NPOV? What part of that are you having trouble understanding?

Personally I am having a LOT of trouble understanding:

a)Why you dismiss everything you didn't initiate by calling it "unencyclopaedic", and yet refuse to explain your personal definition of "encyclopaedic" (figuring out how come a links page under the sole control of a biased and agenda driven editor is an "encylopaedic" substitute for a few links under the, usually effectively impartial, control of the entire community of Misplaced Pages is only ONE of the aspects of your perception of "encyclopaedic" I have problems grasping).

b)Why you freak out unless you have total control of this Misplaced Pages article, AND YET are quite comfortable with a DMOZ category under dysfunctional control that you have no control over whatsoever?

Incidentally, if you have another, REAL reason for wanting to see links omitted from the DMOZ category, I believe a few have been left on the article, which you would know already if you had bothered to READ the talk page instead of just scanning it for personal insubordination to quell. --Zeraeph 15:19, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Seems to me you keep insisting there was once an RDos approved utopian version of this article and Sandy keeps insisting there was once an RDos desecrated unspeakable version of this article, with limited time and a slow connection I just took your words for it...so sue me.

Now if you feel like breaking the mould and answering a question properly, perhaps you could specify exactly where the neutrality is compromised, or what needs to be added to restore your perception of neutrality, or even a version of the article that in your opinion, preserves neutrality so we can figure out the difference for ourselves and put it right. --Zeraeph 12:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

The section titled Cultural and Socialogical Aspect touches on the shift in view, and that section has a main article link to the Autistic Culture page. Though if there is something missing, let us know. If there is something in an earlier version that got left out, provide a link to that version, and if there is a website or two (or more) out there that talks about it, provide them. I'll do some digging into it myself after the weekend, as I don't have the time during the weekend. --Dubhagan 08:49, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I hardly think the autistic perspective is only applicable to "Cultural and Socialogical Aspect". Some time ago, Sandy wanted to use an older version of the article because it was not "cluttered" by "original research" from the autistic community. I'd say I'd rather use a month-or-so old version, as it has not been excessively cluttered by disease-thinking. NPOV is not created by adding a small section to an article. It has to be integrated into the whole. I tried to NPOV the causes section, but it was reverted. --Rdos 12:56, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Some time ago, Sandy wanted to use an older version of the article because it was not "cluttered" by "original research" from the autistic community. While it's possible I may have said this, I don't recall saying it, and if I did, my comment was misunderstood. I have not seen any past version of this article that meets current Featured Article standards. If you decide to revert to an older version, it will still not meet standards and will need to be referenced. The only version of the AS article that has ever been referenced is the current one, and the decision on FAR has been to hold older FAs to current standards.

Once again, I want to point out that a referenced article is not incompatible with a non-disease-oriented view of the condition. The information needed to present all sides of the story is out there, from reliable sources. Rather than tearing down what is here, focus on building up what is missing. It's out there, and can be referenced, if efforts are focused on finding it rather than arguing. Sandy 14:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No Rdos, I am afraid I do not equate "getting rid of Sandy" with achieving neutrality, any more than I equate "getting rid of RDos" with achieving featured article status. What I want you to show us is SPECIFICALLY either, what needs to be added to the article to achieve your perception of neutrality, OR, if you can't be bothered to do that, post the link to a single version you are happy with so we can play "spot the difference" for ourselves.

It has to be done this way because there is an immense amount of work in the citations alone and it is far easier to re-add material to the existing version than to try and add all the citations to "any version, at random, that doesn't have a contribution from Sandy" (your brief I believe?).

It will also have the benefit of showing us all what you feel is wrong now, which I would have thought would be to your advantage? --Zeraeph 13:39, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You all don't need to argue over "getting rid of Sandy" :-) You have gotten rid of me :-) I can see that my contributions were not welcome, perhaps some editors here were not concerned with maintaining FA status, perhaps my efforts to help you keep FA status were misguided, and I will add suggestions and watch the FAR, but the article is yours. I do believe that Zeraeph is on the right track (above): build and re-add, by referencing content, rather than destroying referenced content. Do not blank Causes: after giving the gist of what is known, expand from there, by adding referenced content. Sandy 14:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Actually, you were blanking the causes section. There is research going into causes, and that should be mentioned. Anyway, I'll repeat, if there is something specific you think should be added, then let us know. --Dubhagan 13:25, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Personally, as a person with AS, I don't see this article as focusing on it being a disease. All I see this article focusing on is mostly how it affects the individuals who have it, I don't see it being negative. I can't see what info that is currently there can be proven wrong. Sure, the shift in view could be expanded upon, but at the same time, views of AS are ever changing as new things are still being discovered about AS, so it might be a little hard to keep track. Plus, there is still a medical aspect to AS that can't be denied. --Dubhagan 13:41, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I think at least the causes section is now acceptable, and NPOV. The same thing should be done in the treatment section. It suffers from exactly the same problem. There is no mention that many people in the autistic community does not regard "treatments" as necesary, and at least are against curing autism. This isn't mentioned, and should easily be able to be referenced. Ideally, the treatment section should be of similar length as the causes section. --Rdos 17:17, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

No, right now, it is not comprehensive, which is an FA criterion. It leaves out substantial medical knowledge on the topic, as well as a thorough discussion of ongoing areas of investigation. Sandy 17:33, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Which isn't comprehensive? The causes section? It would be possible to expand, but if this is done it should be expanded with more than medical "knowledge". --Rdos 18:54, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Right now, neither is comprehensive, but Causes raises more eyebrows than Treatment. (For example, I can go to any number of websites and find far more information on treatment: this article barely scratches the surface.) You can expand with any information referenced from Reliable Sources, but Wiki spells out in various places (I think WP:RS?) that peer-reviewed, medical sources are much better than individual websites, self-published books, or non-peer-reviewed books. Other editors have already expressed concern about the references being used in the article, and PMID numbers will help deflect that criticism. I don't know the AS research inside and out, but I really believe if someone can go to a library and get hold of the book I mentioned above, you'll be able to find the balanced information you seek, which doesn't focus on a "disease" or "disorder-oriented" approach. You can also just try searching Google scholar. HTH, Sandy 19:06, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, but don't forget, those sections have main article links, so they don't need to go in the great detail you seem to be preaching. How much more detail can you go into with the Causes section anyway, there is no known cause but several ideas are being researched, which is what it says. There really is nothing more to be said on the Causes section, ESPECIALLY with a main article link. As for Treatments, it touches on the common treatments and that it is a controversial subject. With a main article link, what else needs to be said? --Dubhagan 05:05, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

There is some known information. A link to a daughter article doesn't substitute for a summary of the info in the daughter article, or a basic overview of Causes. For instance, twin and other studies have shown there are genetic factors. The section which was blanked discussed this information. Even if an article branches to daughter articles, the main article needs to provide a summary/overview. If the NIH summary was not to everyone's liking, there are general summaries like it on several other websites, detailing what is known and what is being investigated. Sandy 05:17, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

oops, sorry, forgot to answer the second part of your question. I think Treatment could squeak by FA, even though it's not comprehensive right now. At least it says something, even though there is so much more that could be said. I understand if you all don't want to add treatment information that is sought by many parents of children with AS: at least there is a shell of basic info there now. Sandy 05:21, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

The main problem I have with doing the detail like we had for twin studies in Causes is that there are many causes being researched so that section would risk saying too much. I'll look into more research being done on causes starting Tuesday, as I am busy until then. Maybe list each cause that is being researched, with a small summary of what the study actually entails, but more than that will make the section too long. As for Treatments, the treatments listed are the treatments being sought. Though the controversy surrounding it could go into more detail. --Dubhagan 05:39, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Dubhagan, if you are going to go to so much trouble, why not do it in as much detail as you need to, put it all into Causes of autism then use the section to synopsise that article (like a "lead in" if you like) and also highlight any differences between the causes of autism and AS you might discover? (For instance I don't think the "refrigerator mother" theory was ever applied specifically to AS if simply for cultural reasons - but don't take my word for it cos I'm not sure.)--Zeraeph 10:54, 16 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, define "encyclopaedic tone"

You keep dismissing things as "having an unencyclopaedic tone" so, I am asking you to explain what you mean by that and give your definition of "encyclopaedic tone". This is a perfectly reasonable question. --Zeraeph 02:10, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I answered above: please let me know which part about content referenced from reliable sources, no advertisements, no original research, notability, etc., I should explain better. You can find it all in Wiki policies and guidelines. Sandy 15:13, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I certainly don't get how ANYONE can constantly hide behind a phrase like "encyclopaedic in tone" (and variations) without having an alternative personal explanation of exactly what THEY mean, in real terms, when they use it as you apparently can't. --Zeraeph 15:30, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Let me break up the explanation above by points, to see if it becomes more clear:

Per Wiki policy, referenced from reliable sources.

Per Wiki policy, no advertisements.

Per Wiki policy, no original research.

Per Wiki policy, meets notability criteria.

There is more, as explained on Misplaced Pages is an encyclopedia, but I hope that answers your question sufficiently. The paragraph in question (about Wrong Planet) was not referenced, was about an entry that had not established notability, and appeared as an advertisement for an individual website. It has subsequently been re-written by other editors. Please let me know if I can further clarify. Sandy 15:42, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Nowhere NEAR answering my question, I didn't ask "How do you excuse and/or justify using the phrase "encyclopaedic tone", what I asked was:

What do YOU, personally, mean, when you use the phrase "encyclopaedic tone"? What meaning is actually in your head?

...and if you really don't have a specific answer (rather than excuse or justification) for that, perhaps you should consider specifying what you object to instead of hiding behing a generic "catch all" in future?

As for "Wrong Planet", it self references. It was established (on the day of it's inception) as a site created for Aspies, by Aspies, ergo it is relevant to this "Asperger Syndrome" article WHATEVER, the fact that there is a Misplaced Pages article about the site, REGARDLESS of the quality, as long as that article exists, gives the internal link priority...if you feel the Wrong Planet article does not meet WP:NN then it is your right, and even your DUTY to RFD, and if you succeed then OF COURSE the internal link must be deleted, because a red link looks silly..--Zeraeph 17:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Wrong Planet self-references now, because it was referenced after I raised the problem, and after I tagged it as needing references. When I raised the objection about unencylopedic tone (a dead horse you've been beating for quite a while now), Wrong Planet was not referenced. Sandy 18:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

You don't understand the expression "self referenced" do you? Why in the world didn't you ask?

"Self referenced" means that it references itself by it's very nature...Wrong Planet does be *being* a resource created by Aspies to enable interaction. Your objections were totally irrelevant to that. --Zeraeph 23:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

...and you will find all of this on the pages you have listed above.--Zeraeph 17:47, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

WP:MoS - "encyclopaedic tone" it basically needs to be in a formal tone of an encyclopedia... RN 17:50, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

That's interesting RN, truly it is, and relevant (though it is, of course, useless without full interpretation of "the formal tone of an encyclopaedia" in terms of each specific context) but it doesn't tell us any more about what Sandy actually means when she uses the phrase instead of explaining what she thinks should be done and why...--Zeraeph 17:55, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

I used the phrase with respect to Wrong Planet, and I have explained the reasons over and over. The paragraph was long ago changed to reflect my concerns, so you might let go of this now. Sandy 18:08, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Now hold it RIGHT THERE, you mentioned Wrong Planet not me, I just want to know what you actually mean, generically, when you dismiss something as "unencyclopaedic in tone" instead of specifying your objections so that others may discuss (and perhaps debunk) them? --Zeraeph 19:07, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, Zeraeph, it appears that no answer I give will satisfy you. I said the paragraph about Wrong Planet was unencyclopedic: I've explained why many times. If I say something is unencyclopedic in the future, it will mean the same thing it meant when I said it about the Wrong Planet paragraph. So as not to disrupt the amount of work that needs to be done on this article, I will stop responding to this particular item. Over and out, Sandy 19:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

So, whenever you use the word "unencyclopaedic" it will mean you want your own way and don't have a real reason to offer?

I knew that...--Zeraeph 23:03, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

Category of William Freund

Should it be in Category:Autistic people? The article only says "He was a computer expert who, according to his employer, kept to himself and severely lacked social skills." while List of people from Orange County, California says he was an "autistic murderer". Apokrif 18:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)

According to Wrong Planet, yes. Sandy 18:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)