Talk:Asperger syndrome - Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Amandajm (talk | contribs) at 15:30, 18 August 2006 (→Epidemiology). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 15:30, 18 August 2006 by Amandajm (talk | contribs) (→Epidemiology)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Template:Featured article is only for Misplaced Pages:Featured articles. Template:FARpassed Template:Mainpage date Template:Wikipedians Template:V0.5

Archives
December 2002 – May 2005 June 2005 – August 2005 August 2005 – September 2005 September 2005 – May 2006 June 2006 June - July 2006 - Major review July 2006

Talk cleanup?

Think it'd be appropriate for a talk page archive now? I don't think we've touched some of the top half in a pretty long while now and the page is just getting enormous :3 --Keyne 13:00, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I was ready to suggest that sometime yesterday, but Zeraeph has initiated some admin action against me, and has referred to this talk page as reference for his claims of my "abuse". If you don't mind, I'm afraid we'll need to leave it up for a few days, until admins can comment on his allegations of my abusive behavior. Sorry :-( Sandy 13:54, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

That is completely incorrect as, however the page is archive, any admin who wished could still find the references in moments. --Zeraeph 19:03, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

When we do archive, we should figure out if we're finished with items 8 and 9 in the TOC above. (I'm pretty sure we're done with 1 - 7?) There are a lot of resources still listed above that I'm not sure if we've used or are going to use? Sandy 14:20, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I've archived the page. It can be found in /Archive07 - FrancisTyers · 16:39, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Francis! Sandy 17:44, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Stuff that still needs addressing

Just a section to add/strike things off as we complete the focus.

Lead needs additional information. Second paragraph summarizing history/etc is only two sentences. (min three for good prose)
"Research" section needs a lead-in that will hopefully better address the research fork, or it needs to be satisfactorily merged into one section;
1. "Research into causes" needs ~~a lot of~~ more work. We need more information about the listed research;
2. "Other research" needs ~~a lot of~~ more work. We need more information about the listed research;
"Comorbidities" could probably use some fleshing out;
"See also" should appreciate slightly better NPOV to reflect the diversity of the subject;
~~Should probably have a few more "best case" sourcings for some of the non-clinical subsections;~~
Is NPOV still an issue in other sections, and if so, we need ideas to address it;
~~General wikilinking still needed;~~ Causes and Research need to be wikilinked once they settle in;
~~References need cleaning up to be a tad more uniform; and,~~
Should probably have one or two more "fine tooth combs" passed through the article to scour for inappropriate grammar, consistency, and out of place junk.

--Keyne 00:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Addressed various concerns from additional commentary on the FARC page, but it still probably needs some more tweaking.. --Keyne 20:04, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Glad you got to those: unless you think I should move more quickly, I was still planning to wait until the text is further along before Wiki-linking. I'm also hoping that editor I messaged will run the bot first. Sandy 20:15, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm of the mind that "sooner" is better than "later" as it directly affects the readership of the article, but I'm not the one offering to wikilink. :) Basically, "whenever"; but, much still needs to get done--may as well cross something off the list(s), y'know? We can always adjust new additions fairly easily.

Oh, I didn't address the portions of the FARC list that have prose problems that I was originally wrote. Could someone else look over those and adjust as necessary? --Keyne 20:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

OK, I'll get on the wikilinking later tonight, then, after everyone may be finished editing. Sandy 20:42, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Keyne, I think I'm done Wikilinking: I've seen lots of criticism lately on WP:FAC when articles are *overlinked* with links to common terms. The trend is away from linking everything, and only linking terms once. Causes and Research need to be linked once they settle in.Sandy 02:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Brought forward from archive

So I don't forget where I put the automated bot peer review: Talk:Asperger syndrome/peer review
Asked someone to run a bot cleanup.
And, I added the ref about above-average intelligence to the lead, leaving the other ref Zeraeph mentioned. RDos, I fixed some of your refs in Causes and Treatment (there were some conflicting dates), so please check that I didn't mess them up. Sandy 17:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Rdos questioned the reasoning behind the splitting of the "Research" section in the archives. As near as I can figure at this point, it is mostly to serve as a minor distinction so that "Causes" does not "pollute" the other discoveries being made. If it's objectable, we can always mash them back together, but I think it'll work better if we simply flesh them out as they are. --Keyne 18:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Rewording of treatment section

I think these were not appropriate. It was the simple studies that had been somewhat effective in their attempts to treat comorbidities. The "packet plans", which intended to cure the syndrome have not been evaluated properly (the ASAT CART was not done on groups), side-effects had not been evaluated and so on. I think the new version is not acceptable at all. It is misleading and misqouted. --Rdos 20:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure who reworded them, but I couldn't decipher what was being said there this morning. I'm still not able to decipher it:

Many studies have been done on behavioral interventions. Doesn't add any information for the reader.
Most of these are single case with one to five participants. I can't follow this terminology. If it means to say "single case reports", were they on single subjects? Then where does the one to five come in?
The single case studies are usually about controlling non-core autistic problem-behaviors like self-injury, aggression, noncompliance, stereotypies, or spontaneous language. I think this is the first-time the reader encounters the terminology "non-core", so that introduces confusion.
Interventions such as these (e.g., those run by UCLA or TEACCH) are typically packaged to treat the entire syndrome and have been found to be somewhat effective. I don't know what this sentence is saying ("these" refers back to the non-core? If they refer to non-core, how does that sync with "the entire syndrome"?). If I can't figure it out, other readers may have the same problem. Also, why the need to mention specific research sites - UCLA or TEACCH - which disturbs flow? Also, best to avoid e.g. in favor of for example.
Unintended effects of medication and intervention ~~has~~have largely been ignored in the literature provided for treatment programs for children or adults. provided in treatment programs? Sandy 21:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I reworded about half of those, and it was more of an attempt to consolodate seemingly random inclusions into some sort of meaningful contribution. I'll look over the section once more, but if it isn't terribly clear, someone else should assist in cleaning up the odd ends as well. --Keyne 22:36, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure how to clear it up, because it's all based on a text Rdos has. Maybe if he copies some of the relevant text to the talk page, we can come up with something. Sandy 22:40, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Could you toss out examples of poor wording so we can hash it out? (We'll need some help from Rdos on this one, as he's the objector) --Keyne 02:37, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It's hard to follow, since I don't have the reports Rdos has, but let's give it a go (I already massaged the second part in the text):

~~Many studies have been done on behavioral interventions. Most of these are single case with one to five participants.~~Preliminary studies on early interventions, aimed at managing behaviors like self-injury, aggression, noncompliance, stereotypies, or spontaneous language, ~~Interventions such as these (e.g., those run by UCLA or TEACCH) are typically packaged to treat the entire syndrome and~~ have been found to be somewhat effective. Unintended side effects of medication and intervention have largely been ignored in the literature about treatment programs for children or adults, and there are claims that some treatments are not ethical and do more harm than good.

I thought the study Rdos had was about *early* intervention, so I'm also unclear if this is *behavioral* intervention or early. Sandy 02:56, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

For a limited time (a couple hours or so), the full text version can be found here: www.rdos.net/copies/intervention.pdf. Copy the link into your browser, and download the paper. I feel this study is not very well worded and doesn't provide readable conclusions, but maybe somebody else can interpret it better. After all, I'm a little biased here. --Rdos 05:34, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I've removed it again. I will not be partcipating on Misplaced Pages the next two weeks. --Rdos 10:48, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I missed it ... I'll snoop around other websites to see if I can find something. I hope all is well there, Rdos. Sandy 13:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry Sandy, I downloaded it to my computer. --Dubhagan 20:50, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, and I've set up my own personal sandbox for this article, which can be found here and any relevant text I find from that PDF file I will copy and paste it there until we can word it properly. Hopefully I can read through the PDF file during the weekend. --Dubhagan 21:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Great! I hope you can nail that wording down. Sandy 21:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Research

The prose is still problematic: no matter how many times I read this, I'm not sure if it's saying anything:

Some research is to seek information about symptoms to aid in the diagnostic process. Other research is to identify a cause, although much of this research is still done on isolated symptoms. Many studies have exposed base differences in areas such as brain structure. To what end is currently unknown; however, research is on-going.

The idea to merge the two Research sections may solve this and eliminate the need to try to figure out what to say in a lead. Some of the sections and sentences are very stubby: if someone else doesn't get to them first, I'll work on them while I'm wikilinking. Sandy 21:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Also, Causes is still not comprehensive. I'm bringing forward the old summary from Archives, as it provides a starting place:

Twin and family studies suggest there is a genetic vulnerability to AS and the related disorders, but a specific gene for AS has not been identified. Multiple genes are thought to be responsible for causing AS, since the symptoms and the severity of symptoms vary widely among individuals. Current research points to structural abnormalities in the brain as a cause of AS. These abnormalities impact neural circuits that control thought and behavior. Researchers think that gene/environment interactions cause some genes to turn on or turn off, or turn on too much or too little in the wrong places, and this interferes with the normal migration and wiring of embryonic brain cells during early development.

Researchers at the University of California have proposed that AS stems from abnormal changes that happen during critical stages of fetal development. Defects in the genes that control and regulate normal brain growth create abnormal growth patterns; these may cause overgrowth in some brain structures and reduced growth or excessive cell loss in others. Using advanced brain imaging techniques, scientists have revealed structural and functional differences in specific brain regions between the brains of normal versus AS children. One study found a lack of activity in the frontal lobe of AS children when asked to respond to tasks that required them to use their judgment. Another found differences in brain activity when children were asked to respond to facial expressions. Other methods of investigating brain function have revealed abnormal levels of particular proteins in the brains of adults with AS, which correlate with obsessive and repetitive behaviors. Sandy 22:22, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

The lead as I wrote it was mostly a placeholder, so yes, it really doesn't say much, currently (better than totally blank space, however!); it needs to be rewritten, as noted in comments. As for the causes section, I did my best to syphon what I could from the old version above, but not all of that was research into "causes" so mismatched ones were inserted into "other research" (obviously pending possible future re-merge).

Either way, the entire research section needs to be expanded quite a bit. As it stands, it's almost exclusively a bunch of one-line blurbs that tosses unsuspecting readers into links, which, for all they can tell, might be related to AS research. I'll fiddle it some more, but new content isn't really my forte. --Keyne 22:41, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I expanded some of the info in the Causes section a bit, based on reading the studies, but now that I've been through it, I can't see any distinction between the two sections. They look like material that could easily be combined into one section. Sandy 02:04, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

If we can fairly distribute it, I don't see how it wouldn't work better than seemingly arbitrary separation. --Keyne 02:20, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I fealt like the Peter Szatmari quote was a good fit as a lead for the research section of the article. Is there anybody who agrees with me (in additon the Szatmari article still needs some cleaning up if anybody is interested).Natche24 00:38, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Inconsistency in characteristics

The article currently has three different "lists" of defining characteristics:

AS is characterized by:

Limited interests

Repetitive behaviors or rituals;

Peculiarities in speech and language;

Socially and emotionally inappropriate behavior

Problems with non-verbal communication; and,

Clumsy and uncoordinated motor movements.

The most common and important characteristics of AS can be divided into several broad categories:

social impairments,

narrow but intense interests, and

peculiarities of speech and language.

The Table of Contents

Social impairments

Narrow, intense interests

Speech and language peculiarities

Writing peculiarities

Emotional peculiarities

Other peculiarities

This is confusing to the reader: readability would be improved by finding a way to merge and standardize the text and lists into one list. For example, when the reader encounters early on that AS is characterized by "Repetitive behaviors and rituals", where does the reader go in the Table of Contents to find information about that characteristic? Sandy 21:55, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Another thing in the same section:

The most common and important characteristics of AS can be divided into several broad categories: social impairments, narrow but intense interests, and peculiarities of speech and language. Other features are commonly associated with this syndrome, but are not always regarded as necessary for diagnosis.

The reference to "other features" is never explained, so the reader doesn't know why it is mentioned. What other features? Sandy 23:01, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

"Other features" presumably accounts for the emotional, writing, and "other peq" categories. They're basically "shiny" things, but they are not immediately common to the all-encompassed AS group definition. They could feasibly be knocked down under one roof, but we should try to keep the more important "other features" intact, as some of the information is really quite important. --Keyne 02:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Proposition

As (with slight reorg for flow),

The most common and important characteristics of AS can be divided into several broad categories:

social impairments,

peculiarities of speech and language.

narrow but intense interests, and

Then, we should coincide the lead with the TOC entry, taking the diagnostic portion full-well into account.

Example:

New sectioning (old sectioning)

is characterized by:

Social impairments ("Social impairments", "Emotional peculiarities")
Peculiarities of speech and language ("Speech and language peculiarities", "Writing peculiarities")
Narrow but intense interests, ("Narrow, intense interests")
"Other random stuff that's important" ("Other peculiarities")

Something like that, at least. --Keyne 02:53, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

You're great at re-organizing and moving (although it's going to whack my wikis), so I concur what whatever everyone else concurs with. I'm not concerned about where everything ends up, just that we try for more clarity for the reader, minimizing the number of different ways of viewing the list of characteristics. Is there any way to lose the word "peculiarities"? I'm not fond of it, any more than I'm fond of "disorder" or "disease". Sandy 03:03, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

We can probably lose "peculiarities" fairly easily. Ideas for a more neutral term? If something like this isn't hammered out by morning, I'll give it a whack and hope for the best (refs could get ugly). --Keyne 03:05, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I made the changes to the proposition also can it be the following words as taken from dictionary.comNatche24 03:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Great list: features or traits ?? Sandy 03:19, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, in the TOC, the word "peculiarities isn't really adding anything. The TOC could just be:

2 Characteristics

2.1 Social functioning

2.2 Speech and language

2.3 Narrow, intense interests

2.4 Other

or something like that. Maybe others don't object to "peculiarities", but if I had a child with AS, I wouldn't care for it. "Differences" doesn't bother me, because I like differences :-) Sandy 03:11, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Differences does not bother me either it is a better alternative to peculiarities. Natche24 03:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Either is fine with me. --Keyne 03:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

(Additionally, if we can do this sort of thing with the "big three", then we can certainly mash teh research section up decently.) --Keyne 03:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

More cleanup comments found in text

~~This is a one-sentence paragraph, that was commented that it needed to be expanded:~~

~~Some people seem to be at the extreme end of the temperament scale.~~

~~The wording is vague "Some", "seem to be", and the thought needs to be expanded or incorporated into another paragraph, to avoid stubby paragraphs.~~ Sandy 23:07, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I read the study, and reworked the wording a bit. Sandy 02:23, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

This sentence is never explained or clarified:

This section mainly reflects the views of Attwood, Gillberg, and Wing on the most important characteristics of AS; the DSM-IV criteria represent a slightly different view.

What is "slightly different" in the DSM? Sandy 23:35, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Can we say a bit more about diagnosis?

The article doesn't have much to say about the various diagnostic instruments and procedures that are in use in clinical practice. It would be good to see this aspect expanded -- perhaps to say a little bit more about (a) diagnosis in children, (b) diagnosis in adults and (c) self diagnosis. I get the impression that the latter is likely to be somewhat contentious though: as far as I can tell, the medical establishment tends to caution against it, whereas the autistic community seems to encourage it. Cat Fish 23:10, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur that this information needs to be expanded, and that more information relative to diagnosis in children is needed. Sandy 23:27, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

Wikilinks

There are some terms I can’t find any equivalent links for, couldn't find, or wonder if anyone can think of anything to search on:

diagnostic screen or screening instruments

~~Under Speech and language peculiarities, using a far more formal register of language than appropriate for a context. Should that be Register (linguistics) or Tone (linguistics).~~ Sandy 00:49, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't figure out why, in an article about AS, I never encounter the words stim or stereotypy: shouldn't those be covered somewhere ? It's hard to imagine comprehensive treatment of the topic without some mention of stims. Sandy 01:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC) Found a fit for that info, at the end of the first sentence of Other peculiarities. Sandy 01:30, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I didn't try to wikilink the Research section, because it still needs content improvement: I'll do it once the text is settled. Sandy 02:07, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Writing and Emotional Particularities

Is there any reason why there is a large portion of the characteristics that is devoted to emotional and writing particularities. Is it even important to Asperger's? Should they be deleted?69.242.106.254 00:55, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I have a related question above: . The organization vis-a-vis the various lists doesn't make sense to me. Sandy 00:58, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

It also does not make sense to me anymore they should be removed.Natche24 01:00, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

They are important, but possibly less so than some of the other peculiarities. Writing, in particular, while interesting, is not as much of an importance compared to emotional differences. Emotional differences highlights some commonly misunderstood portions of AS' social difficulties and be kept to the fullest reasonable extent, but it could conceivably be merged under a larger subgroup with the current "speach and language" subsection (along with minor influence from writing for information's sake--or, that could go under the "other peq." section..). --Keyne 02:32, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm indifferent to where they go, or if they go, I'm just concerned about the lack of consistency in the different lists. Since I have a son with dysgraphia, and know how impacting it is to children with neurological differences, I learn towards keeping the handwriting stuff somewhere. Sandy 02:59, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I put up a general proposal in your characteristics query section. I'm pretty convinced we can keep most of the material, just by placing it in more context appropriate locations. --Keyne 03:01, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

~~The first sentence of Writing peculiarities is:~~

~~A 2003 study investigated the written language of children and youth with AS.~~

~~And the paragraph never references this study: we have no idea what the study is. If the study isn't referenced, it shouldn't be mentioned. DOes anyone know what this study was?~~ Sandy 01:02, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes it does the study is a study conducted by Myles

Myles BS, Huggins A, et. al. Written language profile of children and youth with Asperger syndrome: From research to practice. Education and Training in Developmental Disabilities. 38:4 December 2003, 362-369. Abstract.

ah, OK, thanks - I thought Myles was the book the study was mentioned in, and didn't realize it was the actual study. Sandy 01:10, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Another thing I have noticed is the with the exception of the Myles study the two sections are taken from the same source Tony Atwood's book, just differnent page numbers. I feel like if they are important then they should be from multiple sources instead of one. Natche24 01:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm not following? (Also, did you see that someone just added a cite needed tag? I think that is from the Stoddardt book -- who has that book?) Sandy 01:28, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

The point I am trying to make is it okay to delete these sections since they are not that important with the diagnosis of Asperger's.Natche24 02:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Not for diagnosis, but they are important aspects of the syndrome manifestation as a whole, though--particularly in context of social difference. They could be easily wrapped up to point towards one "other random junk" section, as they really are useful to know about.

Remember, that entire section deals with common characteristics (presumably diagnostic+related ones first), not the diagnosis material alone. The article is about more than the diagnosis :) --Keyne 02:39, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Need content additions

Aside from various reorganization and wordings, we really need a lot more information in the "Research" and "Treatment" sections; diagnosis discussion also needs more information, particularly diagnostic info and procedures. It could probably be something as simple as addint a line or two regarding the studies mentioned, but something does need to be done; they both look weak, despite good references. Could some ref-reader buffs assist in expanding these sections, please? --Keyne 03:09, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm done for the day. I can look at them tomorrow if no one gets to them. We could grab something from that emed link in the infobox, or from the NINDS. Sandy 03:15, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

I just did a size check to see where we are in terms of content addition. Overall size is 55KB, prose size is 32KB; both of those are respectable, and we have some room to grow. 30-40KB prose usually results in a comprehensive article, without being overly-long. WP:SIZE WP:SS The older restrictions on 30KB were based on technology limitations, and with current referencing requirements, it's not unusual to see FAs with up to 125KB overall size, and 50KB prose. Sandy 21:29, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

Two small changes

It really isn't appropriate to toss out the phrase "Asperger's Disorder" as though it were a known and universal synonym for AS when referring to the DSM classification. Especially when you also say "This section mainly reflects the views of Attwood, Gillberg, and Wing on the most important characteristics of AS; the DSM-IV criteria represent a slightly different view.".

The DSM equivalents of a lot of well know conditions are not exact synonyms, or undisputed, and when they are it is best to use words like "equivalent" or "corelates" to be exact. In the intro it is better to specify the name change if only for the benefit of anyone who wishes to do a plain text search relating specifically to DSM criteria.

It really isn't appropriate to state that Hans Asperger specified AS as a "personality disorder". In some countries and contexts this error might even be considered pejorative, let alone POV. Under UK and Irish judicial and some psychiatric definitions "personality disorder" is used as a synonym for "criminal psychopath", "psychopathy" in German, only meant "mental disorder" (quite different in definition to a "personality disorder", as far as I am aware there was not any German equivalent for "personality disorder" in 1944), so it is vital to be very careful of the language used around Herr Doktor Asperger...best not to advance any distortion in translation unecessarily. "Disorder" (without misleading wikilinking to "personality disorder") would also be ok, but "condition" seems, of it's nature, to be far more neutral. --Zeraeph 12:30, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Links to self help material for aspies who want to teach themselves social skills.

Is it appropriate to link and in this document? I suspect that it probably is since it includes a section on "treatment", but I can't find an appropriate place.

MedCab case

Is mediation still sought in this case? Torinir _{( Ding my phone} _{My support calls} _{E-Support Options )} 23:06, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Thank you Torinir, but since requesting mediation I have has reason to recognise that it would be inappropriate and impossible in this particular case, see more details here: Misplaced Pages:Mediation_Cabal/Cases/2006-07-19_Domineering_Editor_on_Asperger_Syndrome --Zeraeph 23:21, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a problem. I just signed up for MedCab and saw a backlog. I guess the case can be locked, then. Torinir _{( Ding my phone} _{My support calls} _{E-Support Options )} 23:27, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

Treatment, Research and Causes

Where are we on these? Should we try to pound something out on the talk page? Looking at the FA criteria, prose is good, references are now good, NPOV and stability concerns seem to be gone — so, if we can nail down those two remaining areas, comprehensive will be covered, and that should do it. Wondering if Dubhagan is still working on it, or if I should try to put up a sample something here on the talk page. Sandy 01:37, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Still working on reading through the PDF file, I'll let you know when I'm done that. --Dubhagan 05:09, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks, Dubhagan. Sandy 05:30, 23 July 2006 (UTC)

Exclude

I think remarks like this "A five-year-old child with this condition may regularly speak in language that could easily have come from a university textbook" should be taken out, as they may lead an lesser educated reader in a dead corner. A university textbook is something that everyone can image just as well as a 5 year old....neurological development forbids something for this to happen. Even a student won`t speak university textbook style. Speaking implies an active process of understanding. This may be meantioned in the paper but should still not be included in wikipedia. Lemme know how you feel and edit accordingly after some more replies.Slicky 18:26, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

Keep. Ironically, "Speaking implies an active process of understanding." is precisely what that passage indicates. That, "Even a student won`t speak university textbook style." is mostly true indicates why that particular line is an important differentiation from "the norm." Effectively, it means that the child is speaking at a "university level" (in some respects). --Keyne 22:39, 24 July 2006 (UTC)

links

The links section needs to have some standards. What's the point of linking to a bunch of link directories? We should link to the most relevant sites and maybe link to one relevant directory of links. The link directory should have the sites we'd link to in the article. I saw someone reverted a link because it was included in a link directory. that makes no sense. Perl 17:54, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, it makes sense, per WP:NOT and WP:EL. No one editor can determine what are "the most relevant sites"; if there is a directory, it gives a start. I reverted a link that was already included in the references, by the way. Sandy 17:58, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem reverting a link that's already included in the references. I did note that someone took out WrongPlanet but it was added back. The rationalization for its removal was that it was included in the directory. That's what I had a problem with. Perl 18:00, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

There was/is talk page agreement on the external links; please review. Sandy 18:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes there was. And I seem to remember the outcome being different. Adding links to support groups is not a problem. If something changed since then, there should have been more time. Some people don't have time to go to wikipedia each day. Perl 18:09, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages only allows so many links. Without including the directories, we'd be way over that limit, since there are so many sites out there dedicated to AS. I believe what we agreed upon was to link to the directories, and whatever relevant links are NOT listed in those directories can also be listed. We used to only link to just one directory, but that was deemed to biased, so we decided to include as many directories as possible (currently only 4 we've found), and include any good links not in any of those directories. As I said, including the directories limits the inclusion of links in the article since there are so many, more than Misplaced Pages's recommended limit of 15. We shouldn't make an exception to ANY site in the directories. --Dubhagan 19:05, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

That's also the conclusion I thought we came to, and that Wrong Planet didn't need another separate link. Sandy 19:31, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

Links - New discussion

Part 1

Ok, it is obvious that we no longer have consensus on this. So let's discuss it again till we do.

The initial problem was that User:SandyGeorgia wanted to dispense with links altogether and just link to the DMOZ category, that so happens to be (along with selecting any replacement editor) under the sole control of one of the most biased, agenda driven, anti-wikipedia, NT individuals on the net, so THAT wouldn't do, now would it?

Personally I would be happier to see DMOZ gone altogether and give just a small selection of the best links, and one of the remaining directories - any other ideas? --Zeraeph 16:02, 29 July 2006 (UTC)

Unfortunately different people will have different ideas as to what the best links are (Misplaced Pages does not like a lot of links). Personally, I'd prefer favoring link directories (incl. DMOZ) over individual links, since there are so many links out there. I like DMOZ, there are a lot of good links on it, even though many consider it biased. --Dubhagan 02:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

DMOZ has issues, but in this case, we haven't seen evidence of important links left out. And, we have to consider Wiki's policies and guidelines, in WP:EL and WP:NOT. The current links look fine to me; if anything, I would question the external link to a book publisher as an inappropriate commercial link. Sandy 18:14, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You haven't seen what I am wearing but that doesn't mean I am naked. --Zeraeph 19:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

You are naked ! :) Can you substantiate a claim against impartiality v. DMOZ links (and those left out)? --Keyne 13:00, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes I can but not publicly...and just because YOU are all naked and unseemly under your clothes, don't assume everyyone else is...some of us have STANDARDS ;o) --Zeraeph 11:00, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

PS Apart from the obvious fact that even wrongplanet is missing from the actual AS category...haven't you ever asked yourself why this Misplaced Pages article is missing? --Zeraeph 11:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

What I don't understand is why we refuse to link to the largest Asperger community. Such a link is very helpful and very relevant. There was a link to an Aspies for Freedom article and the link to Wrong Planet was removed. Aspiesforfreedom is a very small group comparitively. Also, the quality of the article seems to have gone down hill since I stopped working on it (other old school admins left as well). Perl 12:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Two simple answers (AFAIK): Wrong Planet has its own entry in Wiki. Internal links are always preferable to external links on Wiki (can't remember where I read that - maybe WP:EL). At one point, I had made a new template, which included *every* See also in the AS and autism articles, so that we'd have them all in one place. Someone objected (can't remember who), so I speedy deleted it. I could re-do it if wanted. But, Wrong Planet has its own link; hence, doesn't need an external link. Links which are already included in Notes, References, or See also don't need to be in External links (I believe the idea being to help conform with WP:NOT). On the DMOZ (Wiki missing), AFAIK, DMOZ requires submissions from webmasters. Who is the "webmaster" of a Wiki entry ? I'm not sure if DMOZ includes any Wiki entries. Sandy 01:08, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Excuse me? Dmoz requires WHAT??? Where in this does it say: "DMOZ requires submissions from webmasters"? --Zeraeph 02:13, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

At the request of Zeraeph (;D) I'm participating in the discussion...I added this link last week, and it has since been removed. I don't mind. I just thought it was an intersting article, but if the guards of the AS page think it's too unprofessional, then by all means, keep it removed. --HantaVirus 14:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You may not have noticed that the Wired article is already specifically mentioned in the article and included among links already provided. Per WP:EL and WP:NOT, we are trying to avoid a link farm; sources which are already included in directories, in the body of the text, or in references or citations need not also be included in External links. Sandy 14:08, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Part 2

No, I have got a better idea, lets discuss this properly with the new editors, (who, in many cases seem to be old editors just returned) until we arrive at a real consensus, because without them there is no "we" (Please, User:SandyGeorgia, humor me and try to use "I" statements occasionally, you might even get a taste for them.).

There is plenty of reason to do this as literally NOBODY seems 100% happy with the current state of the links. Apart from which, haven't you got a lot of other FARC articles to dicta...WHOOPS...I meant, of course, to "work diligently" upon?

...and I don't see anybody explaining why the Misplaced Pages article is not listed in DMOZ??? --Zeraeph 15:57, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Play nice'n civil, Zaraeph. "We" refers to the collective (YOU. WILL. BE. ASSIMILATED.) editing process, and yes, it's a Good Thing™ to stick to. If you (or anyone else) are not happy with the link section, then why don't we mesh out something we can all agree with? --Keyne 16:36, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Under the circumstance I think I was being far nicer than anyone had reason to expect. ;o) ...and "we" can't possibly refer to the collective editing process as long as the older and newer editors haven't had any input, now can it?

Remember this is summer, a lot of people are in and out on vacation, only a tiny proportion of the regular editors of this article had any input into any consensus about the way it stands today. Let's get that right in the real traditions of Misplaced Pages shall we? --Zeraeph 17:09, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Fortunately, Misplaced Pages articles evolve over time, so while what you say is technically true, it is also incorrect, as the evolution of the article has rather directly been the work of the people from the past few months. When others "come back" from wherever, they're obviously quite free to add and help, but until that time it is pretty strong speculation as to their intentions. Let's just see what happens (and by all means, suggest things to work on--and work on them!), and the article will continue to improve, so long as we don't allow OR creep to come back. Gotta have somestandards, y'know. :) --Keyne 17:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Keyne, please try to remember that literally NOBODY "owns" a Misplaced Pages article or gets to dictate who posts on it or with what intentions. Anyone had the right to summarily protect any article from actual vandalism but no one has the right to delete or in any way discourage any editor who has a contribution to make in good faith.

Apart from which it seems to me that at least User:Perl made a lot of contributions in the last part of May (well within the past few months) and is thus qualified as one of the people this article has been "directly the work of" by your own admission. --Zeraeph 18:27, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't see your point here either. I don't have a problem with the community effort, though I do absolutely support following proper guidelines. What are you attempting to insert into my words? You're going to have to spell it out. I don't "read into" words very well so any inference is likely lost on me thus far. --Keyne 22:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Part 3

(who, in many cases seem to be old editors just returned) Coincidence?

Tyco.skinner Perl Snowgrouse AlexPlank

We sure could have used the help while so many were so hard at work during the FARC. Sandy 16:48, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

You mean the FARC you voted "neutral" in anyway? . --Zeraeph 17:13, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Relevance? --Keyne 17:51, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I see no relevance. Please note AlexPlank is my old wikipedia name. it says so on my userpage but sandy didn't seem to read that. Perl 18:24, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

(WHOOPS! I didn't notice either...sorry...let's just think of you as good enough to be asked twice? :o) )--Zeraeph 18:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No I didn't get the relevance of her posting links to other people's talk pages either??? --Zeraeph 18:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No, I didn't see that: thanks for clarifying, Perl/Alex. I see no relevance of my vote to the ongoing work, either, but considering my involvement in FARC as well as in this article, I think a neutral position was fair, in order to avoid any suggestion of conflict of interest. Sandy 18:39, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

THAT's not what you said here is it? Please stick to the facts. --Zeraeph 18:50, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Aren't you reading just a tad much in to what was posted? Could you not simply just drop your little war with Sandy (and vice-versa) and concentrate on more important and relevant things, please? --Keyne 20:16, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No I am not, she lied, outright, I corrected that. What would you do if I lied in a similar way? --Zeraeph 20:32, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

She claims she is neutral, and your link does the same. I'm really not seeing the lie involved. --Keyne 22:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

On my link she says:

I will stay neutral on this one. The effort to return this article to FA status was remarkable: the prose has been largely cleaned up, the references are significantly improved, the lead is fixed, and POV concerns seem to have subsided. Involved editors have been vigilant about original research and the link farm. I am still concerned about the lack of comprehensiveness in Causes, Treatment, Diagnosis, and information relevant to the parent of a child with AS, but my concern is not enough to lead me to vote for removal. I hope editors will continue to guard against original research, and maintain the quality of the references, so we not see this article back on FAR again (NB. No mention of "conflict of interest")

Above she says:

considering my involvement in FARC as well as in this article, I think a neutral position was fair, in order to avoid any suggestion of conflict of interest (NB No mention of her concerns about content)

Completely different stories. Ergo, one must be untrue. I happen to believe every single editor who posts on this site deserves far better than to be misled and manipulated like that, I know I do. It is the person who chooses to mislead who does wrong, not the one who fails to be fooled and points it out.

Misplaced Pages is not about one person, or even a little clique, colonising articles and dictating who should post what to them. I think it is time this article got back on track with that one. --Zeraeph 22:30, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you're misunderstanding something (or, just as likely, I am). Literally, she's stating that she's casting a neutral vote in the FARC, and that her neutral position was fair. There is no misleading going on. --Keyne 23:20, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

I think you are probably the one doing the misunderstanding...her concerns about the article were appropriate and relevant here, yet she only posts them on the review, her concerns about "conflict of interest" were appropriate and relevant to the review, and yet she only posts them here. Mind games is all. Literally she is stating to the review that she is staying neutral because the article has shortcomings and here she is stating that she remained neutral because of a (factually non-existant) "conflict of interest". --Zeraeph 23:34, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, I just don't see the dishonesty. I don't find it improper to look at both this talk page and the FARC page for information on what needs to be worked on, and not duplicating comments in both is hardly duplicitous. --Keyne 00:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

But giving totally different reasons for remaining neutral on each page, most certainly IS. --Zeraeph 00:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

And those reasons/opinions were both ultimately neutral which means... she was honest? We aren't allowed to have multiple reasons to back up our stance (be it neutral, for, or against)? --Keyne 01:09, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

If she was in any way being honest about multiple reasons she would have posted her concerns about the article here, where they might be deemed constructive and her "conflict of interest" on the review where it was relevant. But she did not. --Zeraeph 02:05, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Whether I had voted Keep, Remove, Neutral, or refrained from voting at all, Zeraeph would not have been happy. Best to ignore the distraction and get back to work on the article: there are good ideas being considered, and work to be done. Sandy 01:14, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

wtf, why is my userpage linked above? I've made like one edit, which apparently didn't even add content to the article. And yet I am being called out by Sandy (or something like it?)...gg? --HantaVirus 13:08, 4 August 2006 (UTC)

Because There is no consensus on links, please do not remove any of them until we have consensus. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.236.128.14 (talk • contribs)

I thoroughly agree, let's start applying the guidelines equally to everybody --Zeraeph 23:12, 9 August 2006 (UTC)

Aspergers and asexuality

Part 1

Is it just a murmur on blogs or may Aspergers and asexuality or at least a milder sex drive have some correlation? An Aspergers search on USC's home page brings up a science fair project that says the relationship deserves further study: . Even if some correlation did exist, that would not be to make a sweeping generalization, but sexual feelings do come from the brain. I think most just think or love differently, maybe using different parts of the brain or are attracted by different things from most. Possibly some Aspies get deterred and lose at least some sexual interest because of social failures and/or alienation. Minutiaman 04:34, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

There are definately sexual differences...sometimes asexuality...sometimes gender ambiguity...sometimes other things, for some reason the article has avoided that. Also, in some cases an aversion to children and reproduction that hasn't been mentioned either. These are REALLY important features of AS. Certainly the lack of reproductive drive and asexuality could be related to a similar neurological difference. On the other hand, as far as I can tell a lot of Aspies are unable to get into relationships suitable to losing ones virginity, and, as they say, "what you have never had, you never miss", or at any rate adapt to living without. --Zeraeph 08:44, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, if this is the case, then I am an exception to the rule as I am closer to neurotypicals in this aspect. --Dubhagan 18:08, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Don't worry Dubhagan, those traits aren't invariable, though they apply pretty much to the majority, if they don't apply to you then simply ENJOY ;o) --Zeraeph 19:05, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Here is what a PubMed search on Asperger AND sexuality turns up (mostly single case studies or "Greek to me"):

PMID 11417262, PMID 12455663, PMID 16697263, and PMID 16219258

This one looks like getting hold of the full text might be worthwhile: PMID 9442996 Sandy 18:19, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you SERIOUSLY telling me that, all this time, you have been insisting that all citations prioritise one or two paragraph synopses from PUBMed over full articles? Has anybody READ the full articles cited? (no I didn't check before, I have a life, I just took your word for it that they were adequate sources).

I DAREN'T say anything more about that.

NO MORE PUBmed paragraphs...particularly on this subject...I believe there may be a far more comprehensive search engine called "google"? --Zeraeph 19:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Part 2

Meh, what I do is highlight the PMID article title and paste it into the google search engine. I consider PMID a starting point. --Dubhagan 19:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

That's what I do, or google the names of the authors...to me it's just a good crib list...but there are a few articles fully accessible and when PMID was being so blithely chucked around as "superior" citations, in favor of which all others must go, without other links to the articles, my fevered brain had assumed that the full articles were on PUBmed...--Zeraeph 20:40, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Obviously, there is some variance, as Dubhagan pointed out, and Zaraeph mentions some of the range. Personally, I am approaching 20 and may be at a turing point in my sexual experiences, and have been making significant progress for the past frew years. I do have some fear of touching, but they may in part be related to something disturbing that happened to a loved one and the negative stimuli I have gotten back sometimes from misreads and (if I may say so) a politically correct, third-wave feminism-affected society (I live in L.A.) that favors women when in doubt. So naturally my fear of rejection and some maybe irrational fears are magnified, but the teenage years are typically rough, if rewarding too, and I have not experimented enough to reap as many of the benefits. But I definitely have sexual interest, and staunchly disapprove of the "never had, never miss" attitude said above. Perhaps my Asperger's is on the less severe side of the spectrum, and I may be more willing than some to change, even if fighitng and kicking; I cannot thank some of my neurotypical friends enough and I may be in a position to "assimilate" (while staying true to self) and play the social games with the rules better than many Aspies. I did score a 41 when I took the AQ test yesterday though. I thank Sandy for that research, even if its results are not uplifting (but commonly reported): Socially and sexually, Aspies are more likely to be depressed, anxious, and unsuccessful. Higher rates of suicide have resulted. But it is even worse for Auties. Not very heartening for me, but perhaps it should put my stuggles, failures, and successes in better perspective. Almost since UCLA diagnosed me in late 1999, Flowers for Algernon has been my favorite story for the cognizance/education v. ignorance battle that concluded ignorance may indeed be bliss (hasn't stopped me from learning more about the condition and the world). What do you think of the Aspergers social guides recommended above for sexual situations and/or just social ones? Perhaps I speak for other Aspies when I say self-help may not go as far in the sexual aspect. And sorry for making this so personal, but the information here would I hope not just help me but other Aspies and people reading this, and may bring up some things to add to the article (this topic REALLY should be in it. It mentions greater realtionship problems, but does not talk about sexuality and internal battles raging in Aspies. Minutiaman 18:56, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

From my heart I agree with every word you are saying...--Zeraeph 19:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

We actually had a talk about this subject about a month or so ago. Unfortunately there is nothing concrete either way on this subject nor is there much research going on in this subject so it's really tough to include this subject in the article without major objections to what gets said. --Dubhagan 19:24, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Four things: 1. Dubhagan, can you be more specific about that conversation (the name or closer to when)? If not, it is probably easy enough to locate. 2. Zeraeph, did that last compliment refer to what I said? If so, thank you. 3. I was thinking that this article may not deserve featured article status, not to the fault of its editors, but to disagreements in the medical, psychiatric, and whatever other communities over this fairly recent but important subject. It is glaringly missing some elements that would make it sufficiently comprehensive, but as Dubhagan and disagreements over where to find related information suggest, this article may best reflect the unresolved nature of the topic by adressing what it can (which it does well) and earning near-featured article status (or whatever it is called). 4. Beyond that they are more likely to struggle with relationships, to what extent is the Aspie sexual life spectrum known - including roughly about what percentage (maybe not that precise, but vague words like "many" mean little) of Aspies are lifelong virgins, or get married (I doubt anyone has documented the health of those marriages)? "Many" obviously fall between, but those were examples and at opposite ends of the spectrum. The 40-Year-Old Virgin probably disproportionately describes a minority of Aspies' sexual lives, or something similar, as well. Minutiaman 21:04, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Definately directed at you, I've shifted the comment back to make that clear, I am sure Dubhagan won't mind. There MUST be documentation on AS sexuality somewhere or I would never have known about it, I just can't remember where I got it from...what about Tony Attwood as a starting point? --Zeraeph 21:16, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

To answer #1: --Dubhagan 02:18, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

(Had to shift comment again so as not to lose contexts) As you can see, not exactly a full and balanced discussion of this important topic that arrived at any conclusion or consensus, it was left, and archived, very open ended. So it seems a good idea to re-open now with some more editors around to discuss it? --Zeraeph 05:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Part 3

It wouldn't be impossible to add in asexuality leanings and whatnot to the article, but they really could perhaps only exist in the non-medical sections, due to lack of significant study to that effect. Regarding Minutiaman's #3 above, of course it can be FA-worthy, even if the field(s) studying it are not complete in its description. It's all about putting together the best possible article that highlights the current and past events (with possible future directions). That the scientific community is lagging behind in certain aspects is worth possibly mentioning (which is why this is not an explicitly medicalized article), but does not prohibit FA status. --Keyne 13:07, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

What in the WORLD would anyone want to put sexuality in the medical sections for anyway? Dunno exactly why, but the idea of doing that feels ODD to me...maybe connected to the fact that AS is a condition that may often be a disability but certainly isn't an illness.

Anyway, FA is passed so, for anyone who considers that the first priority, we now have the wriggle room we once had before to take our time making this article relate to the whole reality of AS, without rushing, and using any source that meets WP:CITE to back it up (not just PMID).

Incidentally, I hope everybody realises that asexuality does not always relate to a low sex drive? --Zeraeph 09:52, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Part 4

We have never used only PMID, and the standards for reliable sources don't change just because featured article review is passed; in particular, beware false authority, evaluating sources, self-published sources, and sources pertaining to medicine. Sandy 10:01, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Actually, to be honest, I was really hoping that since we passed the FA, that seemed your only interest in this article at all, in spite of your neutral vote, you would pass on to things you found more interesting and those of us who actually have real experience and knowledge of AS could continue to evolve this article closer to the full reality of AS. --Zeraeph 10:58, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

It might be outside FA scrutinty, but that does not mean that we should loosen the standards any. "Real experience and knowledge" can be just as well sourced as anything else, and there should be very little reason to allow OR creep in. :) --Keyne 12:44, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

No, but I think we are free to apply the real standards of Misplaced Pages as they apply everywhere else now, and concentrate on the value of the content. --Zeraeph 15:07, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Aspie-Aspie social and sexual relationships

Is there general agreement to whether Aspies benefit from befriend or dating or marrying another Aspie as opposed to a neurotypical person? I see many blessings in Aspergers but personally have had more problematic social relationships with Aspies or near-Aspies than others; I do not like being reminded of the disorder's problems or talking about related issues with them too much. One person would not stop badgering me about not conforming enough in his mind and the other admired me and looked to learn from me a bit too intensely and annoyingly. Obviously in general non-Aspies are more at ease communicating, but I of course would expect Aspies can connect better with people they have much in common with, like Aspies. I imagine Aspies can ease into dating more with another Aspie, but I don't know the effect on the success of the relationship. But problems may remain at the relationship's stability and productivity. Is my question more philsophical than legitimate? My guess is it's a matter of personal preference, but anything else? Minutiaman 04:45, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Think it is a BIG mistake to think of Aspies as a kind of "counter culture" or "subspecies" who relate best to each other, share a common language etc. Aspies relate and can identify with each other's DIFFICULTIES better, and support each other through that, but, in their spare time, they are human beings with diverse and often vastly different belief systems, tastes, interests, personalities. I suspect that, just like anyone else, Aspies benefit from befriending those people they most like and share common interests with an marrying people they love, who love them back, whoever they may be. --Zeraeph 08:51, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

From what I understand, Aspie or not, it really depends on the individual. --Dubhagan 18:09, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Big mistake to underestemate our POWER!!! Eh, I think that we are better humans than the 'normal' ones. We could rule the world, but it dosnt work that way. Oh yes... I would prefer to have a girlfriend that also has Aspergers, but I dont mind if she has it or not.--Eiyuu Kou 19:07, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Addressing Aspergers: Attitude, Treatment, and Accomodations

This article, especially to be featured, should expand on attitude and treatment and include accomodations beyond the autistic rights movement; I felt like the movement's lobbyists or sympathizers get their hands on the article, given its imbalance of the movement's philosophy versus reasonable accomdations. It needs a section before "Shift in View" that mentions things like self-improvement, assimilation, and accomodatins as things Aspies should undergo or have. For example, what about Individualzied Education Programs, testing accomodations (I have one for my brain's slower processing of some information and possibly my natural? tendency to answer beyond merely satisfying the questions), more on therapy (the article delegates too many of the details of some things to concentrated autism articles, but AS's differences I think warrant more mention here; ideally one day AS will have its own concentrated Misplaced Pages articles - or does it already?), and job accomodations. I am pretty sure there is a debate as to whether people with Asperger's, certainly austism, qualify under the Americans with Disabilities Act or whatever else in the U.S. The article's exceptionally long talk pages reveal so many issues yet to be addressed, but again this is largely because there is not enough agreement over them; certainly the article has attracted dedicated editors. Minutiaman 01:46, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I support expansion of the article in those areas, for the purpose of making the article more comprehensive – as long as information added is backed by reliable sources (not personal websites). Sandy 01:58, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. I'm not much of a research-hound, myself, but so long as we add in reliable passages, additional good information is quite welcome. The sections in question are pretty bare-bones (read: need expanding), but should pass any criteria for FA status, however. --Keyne 13:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Aspergers internationally

The article should also mention Aspergers in different countries around the world, such as differences in Western and Eastern socities. Perhaps Aspies in one country benefit from a national law in one country but not another, and of course attitudes vary. I do not know enough about these things and would not want to put what little I might know about one country but leave an imbalance. In fact I don't know enough to even make generalizations or statements I'm confident would be suitable for an encyclopedia. Minutiaman 01:53, 31 July 2006 (UTC) (sorry for forgetting to tag)

Definately long overdue to discuss all the issues you raised and incorporate them into the article. I think it's a subject that could eventually branch off into many articles myself. The trouble at present is that the whole article has been "spun" at a clinical perspective that is incomplete, unstable and hotly disputed at the expense of presenting the whole picture. As a result, much of the reality of AS is barely mentioned.

On the international aspect, I think if the situation in one or two countries was presented, over time, other editors would be certain to drop by and add other countries. --Zeraeph 05:23, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Z, you surely know that such can be addressed properly, however, they must also be properly sourced. That said, I'm not sure it woudl be such a good idea to start including a breadth of treatment/temperment from various countries across the world. If we started doing such, a lovely slippery slope would begin. Would it not be better to explain the variety of handling, actions/reactions, and acceptance relations, rather than individualized passages on various countries? --Keyne 13:12, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

To be honest K, I agree with what you say except that I think it would be valid, useful and quite a lot of fun (remember THAT from the old days?) and interest to start adding any special approaches, attitudes or resources worldwide, and encourage passing editors to do the same...as soon as it got over a few paragraphs it could become a daughter article, and a very worthwhile one too.

As for properly sourced, I am sure we can find a one paragraph synopsis on most things (and yes, I KNOW it was only one person, not you, doing that, but it still means the whole lot has to be gone through and cross reffed with the full articles if not already). --Zeraeph 18:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd agree, but I would have to question just how encyclopedic those things would be. I know it's something useful, but documenting detailed treatment/temperment of the various sociopolitical climates isn't something that would typically be done for something this relatively simple. If anything, this sort of approach would be better off in a larger sense for the whole of the ASDs (with appropriate contrasts for the spectrum slider) rather than encompassed in one branch, so to speak. Perhaps in something like the Autistic Culture page (with lesser overtones in primary articles like AS and Aut)? --Keyne 19:51, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Now THAT would depend on how big it gets, on which grounds I would be more inclined to try it out as AS specific for a few month after it outgrows the nest. Also while International responses to AS may sometimes be REACTIONS to Autistic culture, they sure as heck aren't any PART of it, if you think about it. As long as information is valid and NPOV surely the more the better? The trick to simplfying, is in how to arrange the tree of heirarchies. That's why I would like to see this article evolve towards being a summary of all aspects of AS with each aspect having it's own article. --Zeraeph 20:14, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't see why a complete Aspergers article wouldn't have all three. The gay rights movement, for example, mentions all those things, and even if Aspergers movements are not as widespread or big, over time the information would look good here and start filling in. Aspergers has different waves of thought and at least one well-recognized and named "movement"; and from many things I've read, most on the Austism Spectrum Disorders (1 in 166 in the U.S., I think) are relatively higher or high-functioning, including Aspergers, so the condition may not be quite uncommon. Minutiaman 16:03, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Like I said, variety over quantity. It makes sense to add the information, but we don't need to know that AS in Uganda is "splendiferous" in comparison to Ruwanda, where it is merely "splendid." Mentioning the ranges makes far more sense than specific examples, unless said specific examples are truly mention-worthy. --Keyne 17:25, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

I still dream of arriving at a state where many of these aspects, including the clinical, can become daughter articles. Though of course you do have to keep it under control and not get bogged down on details and hair splitting (NOT that anybody with an interest in the topic of this article would EVER do a thing like THAT :o) ) --Zeraeph 18:13, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

Lol, I think you hit on a big reason that this article's discussions have so much activity. I speak for myself that the topic is sensitive to me and it would be in the interest of Aspies and those interested in Aspergers to have as accurate and comprehensive information available to them as possible on the 💕. It is a topic with with questions left unanswered (too much funding goes to "curing" it and "disorders" like it instead of researching how to cope with it!) and obviously I have not been posting these questions here lately for purely unselfish reasons. Minutiaman 18:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

How Aspies respond to social anxiety

Because of internal changes in the teenage brain and external environmental change, teenagers may try to relieve stress or conform with alcohol and other drugs, sex, and violence, but what about Aspies? What is their range? It may vary just as much, but I imagine the distribution is different. I would think as a group they (or should I say we) stigmatize those activities but instead internalize our problems and get depressed. Of course, many people in both groups may not have major coping problems, but how the desperate or devastated respond may be more telling. Minutiaman 17:08, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

If you can come up with some studies on this, by all means put something in. Otherwise, anecdotal evidence tends to point towards similar trends in behavior amongst NTs and Aspies, as they're both part of that larger spectrum known as "humans." I beleive most of your question is addressed (regarding primary differences) in the article, however. --Keyne 17:31, 31 July 2006 (UTC)

My thought about this is that drinking, drugs, sex and violence are often about social conformity, rather than about personal stress. At least, that's the way that kids get into these things in the first place. Teenagers go out and get drunk together.

Kids with AS are more likely to be loners, whether from choice or not. Other kids are less likely to invite them to go out and get drunk, to go out and pick up members of the opposite sex, to go and bash some rival gang or even to join the group that has a smoke behind the school sports shed.

Kids with AS tend to take rules very literally, and to take meaningful information very seriously. So, if articles have been published to say (for example) that 80% of deaths of young people on the road are connected with alcohol, then your average Aspie would think that anyone who drinks and drives is a fool. And they tend to say "How can anyone be that stupid?" with little or no comprehension that social pressure makes people do stupid things. Social pressure is less significant than common sense. Drinking and driving is stupid, and we Aspies don't do it. I think this applies to other things as well. Aspies are the sort of people who use condoms, bicycle helmets and shopping baskets because of HIV, brain damage and the environment. I know this is all a broad generalisation, but I think perhaps it's easier for NTs to turn to drink and drugs when things get bad, because they get more experience of it socially, when things are not bad.

--Amandajm 14:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

OK people can we please not put all this unsourced anecdotal thought here? It is really clogging up this page. Discussion like this is best left on the talk page of the person, as it has little to do with the actual article... RN 18:07, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

EXCUSE ME? Are you seriously trying to say that explaining, expanding and making observations upon the actual topic of the article in plain language is "clogging up" the talk page, and has "little to do with the actual article".

That is exactly equivalent to saying that the grass is "clogging up" the lawn, and has little to do with the actual purpose of it. --Zeraeph 09:57, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

No, it's not. It's saying Misplaced Pages isn't a discussion board. This page is meant for discussion about the actual article, not for any old discussion that happens to be about the same topic. There are countless other Internet forums for the latter. PurplePlatypus 18:52, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

I am afraid it is, because the above discussion is EXACTLY the kind of discussion the the nature and direction of the article should be based upon. Because that is the only way any article can hope to be a true and accurate representation of it's topic...

In fact, that kind of invaluable observation is probably a large part of the reason why we have talk pages at all and not just comments in the histories. --Zeraeph 20:24, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

It's unsourced and anecdotal, and thus not the sort of thing the article can be based on. See, just for starters, WP:V. In addition, as I have already pointed out, there are dozens if not hundreds of more appropriate forums for this sort of thing. PurplePlatypus 20:55, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

How idiotic...you get the overview together from discussion like that and THEN you source as much as you can so that the article is about the topic, not protocol for the sake of protocol.--Zeraeph 21:43, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

Please do not make personal attacks or pretend to know the motives of other users, especially when your only grounds for doing so are that you refuse to follow policy and insist on what strikes me as a very inefficient method of writing articles. If you choose to ignore me, sooner or later an admin will tell you the same thing in a way you can't ignore. PurplePlatypus 22:22, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You are, of course, entitled to your opinion, however peculiar it may be. Though I very much doubt if you are entitled to bully and abuse me or try and twist my words over it. --Zeraeph 23:14, 13 August 2006 (UTC)

You, too, are entitled to your opinion. Among the things you are not entitled to, however, are 1) violating policy and 2) responding to a polite request to desist from personal attacks with further personal attacks. I have said what I had to say; that it has apparently fallen on deaf ears is unfortunate but not my problem. I am not the one attempting to bully and abuse, and see no point in any further discussion with you. PurplePlatypus 00:42, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I think it is quite clear now that all you are doing is projecting. You have made no attempt to *discuss* anything at all. In order to discuss one must first respect and examine the other point of view, not try to inform the other person that they should think as you instruct them to, as you have done. I can also assure you that your invalid and irrelevant accusations do not impress or intimidate me in the slightest. Nobody "violates policy" by expressing an opinion that does not suit you and nobody makes a "personal attack" by refusing to agree with you on command. --Zeraeph 03:57, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

I read that one of the things Aspergers do to relieve stress is to use computers. I also play the saxophone, but that barely releases any. I like solitude also, but social interaction is a must for me.--Eiyuu Kou 19:10, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

Unreferenced text from Comorbidities

I put cite tags on this, but nothing happened, so I'm copying it to here to see if anything can be done with this text:

The original anon editor inserted:

Also worth noting, is the gender-specific diagnostic trends some clinicians and researchers are prone to practicing, such as depression being more commonly diagnosed in females, where as, anti-social personality disorder is more stereotypically defined as a male-dominated personality disorder of the Cluster B type.

Any scientist would tell you that causation does not equal a correlation, therefore, it would be extreme to conclude that no men suffer from depression. Conversely, that no women meet the criteria for anti-social personality disorder.

What's significant here is that the same could be said about the 10:1 ratio of boys versus girls being diagnosed with AS, and the disorder even being characterized as "extreme maleness."

Yet, where diagnosing female patients with AS is concerned, other comorbid disorders might include post-traumatic stress disorder, complex post-traumatic stress disorder, the spectrum of dissociative disorders, and borderline personality disorder which has been gaining in popularity recently.

I attempted to re-word it to a form that could be referenced:

Gender-specific diagnostic trends result in depression being more commonly diagnosed in females, and anti-social personality disorder more stereotypically defined as a male-dominated dramatic-erratic personality disorder of the Cluster B type. Since causation does not equal correlation, it would be extreme to conclude that no men suffer from depression or conversely, that no women meet the criteria for anti-social personality disorder. The same could be said about the 10:1 ratio of boys versus girls being diagnosed with AS, and the disorder even being characterized as "extreme maleness."

Maybe something can be referenced and used. Sandy 21:07, 3 August 2006 (UTC)

Epidemiology

The prevalence of AS is not well established, but conservative estimates using the DSM-IV criteria indicate that two to three of every 10,000 children have the condition, making it more rare than autistic disorder itself.

While I do not doubt the fact that this is indeed what conservative estimates indicate, I think that the conclusion that AS is "more rare than autistic disorder itself" is entirely erroneous. The fact that it is rarely diagnosed does not make it more rare.

Indeed, commonsense would indicate otherwise.

If we accept autism as a spectrum disorder, then the spectrum goes from the least autistic to the most autistic.

Those people who are only a little autistic are regarded as a "little odd sometimes" and escape diagnosis.
Those people who are a little more autistic and keep to themselves, study hard, get good grades and become accademics or computer programmers or research assistants escape diagnosis.
Those people who are a little more anti-social and have loud conversations about eletrical insulators with people in the street, sing too loudly in church, forget to use deoderant and take out their dentures on the public bus are regarded as real jerks but generally escape diagnosis.
A nine-year old who listens to "Question time" on the parliamentary broadcasts, ALWAYS carries an umbrella (in Sydney?!), begins every second sentence with "Excuse me, but I think you'll find that you're mistaken..." and cannot pass an automatic cash machine without screaming "Autobank! Autobank! Autobank! Autobank!"...... is not diagnosed as having AS. The diagnosis is "He has a tendency to internalise things! It's the result of being in a single-parent family!
A kid only gets a diagnosis of AS when it has banged its head black and blue, alienated its fourth class teacher and been set upon on the school bus every afternoon for a year.

If a child is seriously disruptive in class, then maybe you get the diagnosis, the funding, the teacher's aide, the special program. But not unless.

It is my opinion that that perhaps half my family is on the autistic spectrum. One of us has been diagnosed and has had some appropriate help at school. The rest of us just make the best of things, often coping with depression, social rejection and so on.

The point that I am trying to make here is that there are thousands of people out there who are undiagnosed Aspies.

Now that I know what I know, I look around at the people that I meet and I understand their personal condition so much better. That man who is so crazy about trains, that totally excessive marine biologist, that odd person who analyses tombstone inscriptions, that other person who has twenty photograph albums full of pictures of high-voltage transmission towers, that man who obsessivley collects valves from old radios. All these people are regarded by others as odd, weird, eccentric and so on. They are all adult. None of them has a diagnosis of Apergers, but several are regularly treated for depression.

It must be obvious to anyone who thinks about it, that a mild to medium form of autism is going to bbe far mmore prevalent than the full-on, withdrawn, non-communicative, socially-crippling disorder. The difference is that full-on Autism is comparatively easy to diagnose.

And doctors, until very recently have said "Oh, no, Mother! Your child doesn't have autism! Autism is a SERIOUS condition! You can't have mild autism. There is no such thing!"

Then there are the loving parents of the kid who never shuts up, never sits still, flaps continually, and does an almost non-stop impersonation of Stephen Hawking. They say "There's NOTHING wrong with our little Johnnie."

But kids with Aspergers are very good at recognising other Aspies. You can't tell them that Johnnie hasn't got AS because they know he has.

I overheard the following interraction in a cafe.

Girl, at 120 decibles to a total stranger "That's beer you're drinking! It says beer on the label! Kids aren't allowed to drink beer! Why are you drinking beer?"

Boy, at 120 decibels "Ha! Ha! I know what's the matter with you! You've got Asparagus Syndrome! That's what's the matter with you! Ha! Ha!"

Girl at 200 decibles "Mum! How can that boy be so dumb? He said it's Asparagus Sydrome!"

Boy at 200 decibles "Mum! How come that girl with Asparagus Syndrome says my ginger beer is beer?"

--Amandajm 11:38, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

You might want to review the published medical literature to see if there are updated prevalance estimates, and adjust the text according to reliable sources. A good place to start would be Google scholar and PubMed's search engine. Sandy 12:47, 6 August 2006 (UTC)

At the rate it is diagnosed, it is more rare than autistic disorder. The phenotype might not be more rare, because AS is probably missed more often, but the article refers to diagnosed cases. This was even true in the latest study by Fombonne out of Canada. He found a prevalence of 20 in 10,000 for autistic disorder and 10 in 10,000 for AS, if I recall correctly. There are probably cultural shifts in the boundaries between the sub-conditions as time goes by. In any case, it is notable that AS is more rare than autistic disoder, because people would generally assume the opposite is the case. Neurodivergent 15:24, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

In any case, it is notable that AS is more rare than autistic disoder, because people would generally assume the opposite is the case

You are still assuming that Aspergers IS more rare. Let me make the point again.

Regardless of what Fombonne or anyone else said, While I do not doubt the fact that this is indeed what conservative estimates indicate, I think that the conclusion that AS is "more rare than autistic disorder itself" is entirely erroneous. The fact that it is rarely diagnosed does not make it more rare.

I am not a person who "would generally assume the opposite is the case". My opinions are not based on general assumptions from a relatively ignorant standpoint. I have been aware of Asperger's Syndrome for the greater part of 60 years, although not having a name for it until about 1990.

The article is not a place to publish my own opinons. But I am stating them here. I believe that the conclusion drawn from the figures is faulty and should be removed from the article. I would go so far as to say that the notion that people with full-blown Autism are more common than those with Asperger's is ludicrous.

Looking outside the rarified conditions of a clinic, one only has to think about the people that one knows well, to identify a number who are definite Aspie suspects. Then compare it to the number that one knows who are fully Autistic.

I have only known three people with full blown Autism among families that I am friendly with, (aside from the many that I have met professionally). Of the Autistic "friends", in each case one or both of the parents and at least one of the siblings demonstrates the traits of Asperger's Syndrome. But in each case only the family member who is socially non-functional and barely verbal has a diagnosis. The other three or four or more people in the family who are probably in the Autistc Spectrum just battle on with living a life in which they always seem to be out of step. The thing that offends me about the statement that people with Autism are more numerous than those with Asperger's Syndrome is that it confirms my opinions-

1. That there is still no proper recognition that we Aspies have been around in relatively large numbers for a long time.

2. That there is no sudden explosion of this condition, as we would be led by the media to believe.

3. That it is still hard to get recognition and help for kids who are suffering isolation, bullying, teasing and punishment at school because of their condition.

4. That it's much less hard to get help for a severely Autistic child because the condition isn't mistaken for naughtiness, bad parenting or too many jelly-beans.

In other words, Neurodivergent, can we re-state that sentence of yours as-

"In any case, it is notable that AS is more rarely diagnosed than autistic disoder, because people would generally assume AS to be more common" (which is the point that I am trying to make.)

--Amandajm 15:30, 18 August 2006 (UTC)

Notable cases - Glenn Gould?

Glenn Gould is suspected to have had Asperger Syndrome. Should we add his name to the section that says "Some AS researchers speculate that well-known figures, including..."? --DearPrudence 19:29, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Sure, but only with a reference. --James Duggan 19:35, 12 August 2006 (UTC)

Thank you, added. --DearPrudence 01:11, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Whoops

If anyone posted modifications in the last few minutes, I think I may have accidentally removed them. I had the entire article open for editing, and hit submit, and it seemed to stall, so a few minutes later I hit submit again. Any modifications in that time period are probably gone, so you might want to check.

Looking at the page history I believe you're safe, no one else appeared to have edited at the same time. --James Duggan 06:54, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

Using causes section in a peer-reviewed article

I think I will use parts of the causes section in my future article. After all, I've researched lots of the links there. I need a background on the state-of-the-art of autism causes research. Just to let you know :-) --Rdos 11:55, 14 August 2006 (UTC)

The state of the art in autism causation is this: "We have no freaking idea". Actually, a cultural construct resulting from various forms of neurodiversity is most likely to account for what is termed "autism" IMHO. Neurodivergent 15:18, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Perhaps it would offend editors to much to proclaim that "we (other professionals) have no freaking idea"? Yes, neurodiversity is a good term, but it's origin must still be explained. --Rdos 17:37, 15 August 2006 (UTC)

Sandy Georgia

I vote for a new rule that prohibits Sandy Georgia from editing this page more than twice a day. 64.236.128.14

No, that's a little drastic. I do admit that Sandy Georgia is having some issues letting anyone else's edits stick, but your suggestion isn't an enforable, or realistic reprimand. The article isn't that bad right now, it just seems like noone else can make any changes to it without SG reverting them. That's my take. Does anyone here have any realistic ideas for dealing with this issue? Perl 19:22, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't know...my negative feelings about User:SandyGeorgia are no secret but apart from that, being as objective as I can possibly be it can't be a good, balanced thing for any one person to impose so much control on the content of an article.

There isn't anything particularly wrong with what is in the article, it the things that are missing that bother me, and the fact that it has become impossible to edit with any kind of true consensus. In fact, it has become effectively impossible to edit this article at all without the approval of User:SandyGeorgia. --Zeraeph 19:43, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I haven't been following. Has Sandy been reverting citable, notable content? Any examples? Neurodivergent 22:47, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I don't follow too closely myself anymore because it makes me too angry, but she is certainly arbitrarily deleting anything posted without her permission, rather than requesting citations as would be both customary and policy. It seems to me an article often evolves through initially uncited text additions that eventually either have to be dispensed with because they cannot be cited, or yield more information and new directions during the search for citation. What is happening here is creating a static, incomplete article. --Zeraeph 23:35, 16 August 2006 (UTC)

I've also had to stop working on the article because it seems I can't change anything unless I decide to follow suit and babysit the article 24/7. Very frustrating to me that after basically turning it into featured article quality, nominating it myself, and helping to write the core structure of the article, a new person can just pop up form nowhere and turn it into "her" article without anyone else being able to do anything about it. (if you don't know what I'm talking about, look and see who created and uploaded a digital copy of the Asperger picture). Perl 00:14, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

Asperger's Syndrome

It is more frequently referred to as Asperger's Syndrome. Ideas? Perl 12:18, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

^ Matson JL. "Determining treatment outcome in early intervention programs for autism spectrum disorders: A critical analysis of measurement issues in learning based interventions". Res Dev Disabil. 2006 May 5; . PMID 16682171
Dawson, Michelle. The Misbehaviour of Behaviourists. Retrieved 7 July 2006.
Autistic People Against Neuroleptic Abuse. Retrieved 7 July 2006.
^ NINDS (May 11, 2006). Asperger Syndrome Fact Sheet. Accessed 2 July 2006.
Kwon H, Ow AW, Pedatella KE, et al. "Voxel-based morphometry elucidates structural neuroanatomy of high-functioning autism and Asperger syndrome." Dev Med Child Neurol. 2004 Nov;46(11):760-4. PMID 15540637
Hepburn SL, Stone WL. Using Carey Temperament Scales to Assess Behavioral Style in Children with Autism Spectrum Disorders. Retrieved 19 July 2006. PMID 16628481

Talk cleanup?

Stuff that still needs addressing

Brought forward from archive

Rewording of treatment section

Research

Inconsistency in characteristics

Proposition

More cleanup comments found in text

Can we say a bit more about diagnosis?

Wikilinks

Writing and Emotional Particularities

Need content additions

Two small changes

Links to self help material for aspies who want to teach themselves social skills.

MedCab case

Treatment, Research and Causes

Exclude

links

Links - New discussion

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Aspergers and asexuality

Part 1

Part 2

Part 3

Part 4

Aspie-Aspie social and sexual relationships

Addressing Aspergers: Attitude, Treatment, and Accomodations

Aspergers internationally

How Aspies respond to social anxiety

Unreferenced text from Comorbidities

Epidemiology

See also and External links

Notable cases - Glenn Gould?

Whoops

Using causes section in a peer-reviewed article

Sandy Georgia

Asperger's Syndrome