Talk:Asperger syndrome

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

Is this still deserving of featured article status?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

You mean crap theories like asserting that autism is the result of past interbreeding with neanderthals? I can see how that would be grossly offensive, for sure. Just zis Guy you know? 11:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This is really something. First Brian is "promoting" the Aspie-quiz, and now his pal is promoting you-know-what-theory. With the fine job of you two I won't ever need to promote any of them again. Besides, you-know-what-theory is not part of the Causes of autism article, so I guess it is not a crap theory. Yeah, a good reason not to add it to the rest of the unproved, inconsistent, narrow stuff. --Rdos 11:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

Yeah, due to article size issues, things like that should be kept short in detail, if mentioned at all, or atleast if not mentioned, link to the separate article at the bottom, if link not provided elsewhere. --Dubhagan 00:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

Also, Rdos is a self-diagnosed autistic with a very curious theory to promote, so I'm inclined to take his dogmatic statements with a pinch of salt. Just zis Guy you know? 11:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Just because he is not diagnosed with it doesn't mean he doesn't know anything about it. He actually sounds very knowlegable on the subject, diagnosis or not, and he sounds like he's more familiar with it than I am, and I'm medically diagnosed. Actually, reading your comments, it almost sounds like your trolling and trying to discredit every comment Rdos makes, even though he's made no mention of his site/theories/quiz in this discussion, he's only talking about the topic at hand. For an admin, you should know better than that. --Dubhagan 15:18, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Guess again. I am just your friendly neighbourhood admin who has just spent some time and effort cleaning up after a POV-pusher, and some more time and effort calming down a friend who is currently having RL problems; I have seen any number of examples of people arguing that because policy forbids their edits then it's policy that's wrong. Just zis Guy you know? 16:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I don't sense any POV pushing from him in this discussion, all I read is someone trying to help improve the article. Just because his ideas about it are different from yours doesn't mean he's POV pushing, especially when it's a discussion on a talk page. --Dubhagan 16:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

That's largely because his tendentious edits and original research articles have been removed by consensus. Just zis Guy you know? 16:13, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

And he has stopped trying to add that stuff, so stop punishing him. --Dubhagan 16:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yep, this is correct. JzG, you could have checked if I had tried to add any links to the article recently before you go on like this. The fact is, I had the Aspie-quiz here for a short while until RN removed it. I then asked him to remove the other, non-notable tests as well, which he did. The Neanderthal theory haven't been here for quite a while. The last time was before the separate article was deleted in october last year. --Rdos 18:03, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

What reads like an opinion piece? I can't find any section that does. Maybe if we broke it down section by section that might help determine what should stay, what should go and what should be reworded. --Dubhagan 00:28, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

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

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

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

Rdos, your assertion that it is policy which is wrong seems to be founded on the fact that policy forbids the inclusion of your unverified theories. It is you who are at fault, not policy. Policy is written fomr the basis of what Wikipedia is: an encyclopaedia. If you want to write about unpublished or fringe theories, you can do that somewhere else; this site is about taking what is verifiable from reliable secondary sources and stating it in neutral terms. We do not do original research, and that includes novel syntheses of published data. Your perspective as a self-diagnosed autistic is not, I would suggest, a great starting point for an objective assessment of neutrality, since it puts you outside both the medical community and the community of formally diagnosed autistics. Just zis Guy you know? 11:15, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

What is policy? I talked about how the autistic community is organized, which I suppose you have no idea of. And your continued ramblings about me being self-diagnosed are quite tiring. I happen to operate several autistic-oriented forums, for instance a swedish forum with 80+ members, most with a formal Asperger's diagnosis. Unlike what you think, Aspie-quiz is not a random quiz. It has been put together at my forum, with help from many people there. New versions even evolve on a wikipedia so anybody can comment on content (not this one, as User:JzG would certainly delete it and ban me). I also happen to have a daughter diagnosed with autism, so I think I know a lot more about the topic than you do User:JzG. So I suggest *you* shut up instead this time. --Rdos 11:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

So, are you saying that you have been formally diagnosed by a doctor? That's at odds with what I understand from your earlier contributions. The fact that your quiz was assembled from the opinions of a few friends absolutely does not confer any validity on the quiz or its outcomes. Come back when it's been published in a reputable peer-reviewed journal. Same applies to your neanderthal theory. Everything you write looks like special pleading. Just zis Guy you know? 13:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't want a diagnos by a doctor. Haven't you looked at my new user page? I thought you guarded it? It clearly says "This user is an Aspie and does not have Asperger's syndrome". It means just that. I don't need the label because I function well enough in society, but that doesn't mean I wouldn't get it if I tried to. As for the validity of Aspie-quiz. The evaluations speaks for themselves. Can be found at the blacklisted site I'm sure you have kept the url to. There are now 5 different versions that have 17,145 answers in total. Many of the questions are useful to determine aspie vs NT as can been seen in the statistics. The results between quiz versions are quite consistent. The rate of misdiagnosis ranges around 20%, similar to the AQ-test. Besides, it seems quite popular. There is a thread about it at [1] that has 30 pages of answers that has been running for a long time. And no, I didn't initiate it, BTW. To be frank, User:JzG, it looks like you haven't looked at the quiz (the sources for the quiz are mentioned, which include AQ-test, Martha Kate and several others), the evaluations are public (including source code) and the full Neanderthal theory is also available (not the summary deleted from Wikipedia). I suggest you make yourself familiar with the stuff you are commenting on before posting anything else on this topic. --Rdos 13:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This part of the discussion seems increasingly out of place (policy changes, user conduct criticisms, deleted content, etc.). Rdos, others are already discussing improvements. Remember that the burden of proof is on the shoulders of those who want specific material included. Your time may be better spent sourcing the good stuff than defending indefensible content. Especially when it's already been deleted. AvB ÷ talk 15:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree, but as I wrote elsewhere, I'm not too familiar with what various autism-experts have to say. I've read a lot of the MEDLINE research about autism, but their attitude about autistics usually makes me sic. Certainly, it is not very hard to search for specific topics on MEDLINE, and I can do that if somebody has something concrete. I have no specific additional material I want to include. I'm merely concerned that the current neutral view of AS will be "medicalized" too much.

Rdos, I don't "guard" articles, I do guard policy violations. Since you've given an undertaking not to use your page against policy I am taking you at your word. But I do have a problem with the apparent assertion that only an aspie can understand the subject, when that statement is made by a self-diagnosed aspie - I am a bad person, I know, but it riles me. I have indeed looked at the quiz, but it does not interest me particularly. Until it's published in a reliable source it's not of any interest or value to the project. For the rest, I'd say that AvB is right on the money. Do not personalise content disputes. Just zis Guy you know? 16:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you are a bad person JzG, but I'm a bit touchy about special interest projects, which happens to be the one you have been attacking. Just because I haven't got to peer-review (yet), doesn't mean that my work is bad. I have already agreed that it is original research, and that it cannot presently be included here. However, I think I am allowed to discuss various things I've found out with Aspie-quiz. Some of it might actually already be researched, but not widely now. --Rdos 18:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

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

Call it whatever you like, as long as you follow our policies. If you wish to publish material that does not conform to Wikipedia's policies, I encourage you to publish a blog. Nandesuka 00:06, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

As I've seen on WP:ANI, Wikipedia's policies can (and are) interpreted any way a particular admin wants them to be interpreted. In this case, some people are trying to censor all non-medical aspects of AS. I don't see any consensus for doing this. I suggest the non-medical stuff be referenced in the same way it is on autistic community. Requiring PUBMED citations for cultural aspects is clearly not warranted. Look at the Keirsey Temperament Sorter. It is not based on PUBMED citations. It references websites with online quizes. The social traits of AS is similar, and can be classified with similar methods (factor analysis) as temperaments. --Rdos 06:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I checked the section titled "A Gift and a Curse" which is the one I believe is at issue (read: some wish it weren't here). There's very little in there that could be said not to adhere to Wikipedia policy. Before removing anything, I strongly recommend discussing it in the Talk page. Neurodivergent 00:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, since I'm the one that first mentioned it, after rereading it, we could keep it, but that Speculation subsection bothers me, considering how long it is for a section with a main article link. Maybe condense it a bit. --Dubhagan 00:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I don't mind that, considering there's a link to main articles on the subject. Neurodivergent 00:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, the middle paragraph looks the most likely to be deleted/condensed. That's a lot of detail for something that is covered in the link. --Dubhagan 00:39, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I sense some WP:OWN sentiments here, especially the idea that the article is in some kind of danger. If you think it is: There's nothing wrong with letting the wiki process improve articles. Source what you can and accept that the rest has no place in Wikipedia when challenged. It can always be re-added later if it can be documented. AvB ÷ talk 11:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

A note regarding the idea that this is or should be an article on a neurological disorder like epilepsy or aphasia. Medical POV: there is no indication, let alone evidence garnered via research, much less results published in peer-reviewed journals, let alone replication or falsification of such results, that this is a neurological disorder. We do not know what causes AS. There is little or no evidence of pathology. There is no medical consensus on what causes it, there are no medical treatments, certainly not a cure, and if there were, those so diagnosed generally would not want to be "cured" for fear of changing the holiest of holies: one's personality. Psychology/psychiatry is another scientific POV. These disciplines are, to a limited extent, studying the effects AS has on people's lives, proposing and assessing what can be done to help them understand and interact with "normal people", cope with other problems, etc. Politics is another important POV e.g. facilitating (better) work performance or school results, or preventing/discouraging discrimination. Another increasingly important POV to cover: changing attitudes, "grassroots" activism, media exposure, etc. AS has parallels with homosexuality some decades ago in that it is increasingly seen as a (set of) personality traits rather than a psychiatric and/or neurological disorder. Another similarity is that "patients" are fully aware of the differences between themselves and "normal" people. Their views are important too. Just a few points off the top of my head to address the idea that there is only one (scientific) POV that must be described. AvB ÷ talk 11:01, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

If this article shouldn't be compared to articles such as epilepsy, maybe it should be compared more to Autism, to which Asperger's seems related. The autism article also has featured article status. --Dubhagan 14:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, "compared more" being the key. Compared with AS (a form of Autism in its own right) Autism is a mixed bag in that it is linked with brain development disorders or brain damage in a pretty significant number of cases (these patients usually also have many other problems inherent to neuropathology). AS is similar to classical Autism without (1) (per definition) delayed language development and without (2) (per my observation) measurable brain pathology. Indeed, a consensus seems to be developing to lump AS and high functioning autism together and consider any differences to be mere definitional artefacts. AvB ÷ talk 15:26, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Hmmm, I don't think I made comment clear enough. I was referring to comparing the articles, not the conditions, as they are already being compared. I was saying that this article should follow the Autism article more than any other for things that should and shouldn't be included. As for Asperger's being the same as HFA, I was under the impression that there were some differences between the two, and that HFA was somewhat more severe than Asperger's. --Dubhagan 15:40, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Or my response was less than clear :-) I understood what you meant and agree. For the rest my comments were just some background mainly re the brain damage pitfall (a lot of autism is directly caused by brain damage, e.g. lack of oxygen at birth). HFA = AS is an emerging consensus. I think the autism article gives the various POVs. It's definitely an article to look at for some guidance. AvB ÷ talk 17:50, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Order of subsections

Shouldn't the characteristics section be right after the definition section, just before the causes section? --Dubhagan 14:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Theoretically, yes. I originally moved it there, but when I realized it was mostly speculative and unsourced and in disagreement with the DSM, I moved it to the bottom. DSM criteria should be covered, and then divergent criteria (admittedly necessary and used in practice) should be covered in a separate section, IMO. (By the way, DSM is pretty serious about its copyright, and does not like to be reproduced exactly: someone needs to paraphrase the entire thing.) Again, I recommend a review of the sections and headings used in other featured articles for medical, psychological or neuropsychiatric conditions at WP:MCOTW. For example, causes must be included in the AS article, and it is completely glossed over. I hope some people who really know the AS research and literature will spend a few days in PubMed, citing their sources. If you need an example of how to cite PubMed research, you can find it on Tourette syndrome. Almost none of the references, books, or inline citations used in this article are cited correctly, and almost all need to be corrected. Hope this helps, Sandy 16:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

PS - glad to see someone asking about actual work on the article, rather than engaging in unfruitful discussions bordering on personal attacks :-) Sandy 16:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

PPS - I also hope that someone who knows where to find the data will add the infobox used at the top of TS to the top of AS, and the image of Hans is not a good one: isn't there a better quality image available anywhere? Sandy 16:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Citations

Regarding the need for citations, a lot of those statements that are tagged are widely know (like autism being a spectrum) and are even mentioned in other places on Wikipedia. I was under the impression that if something was widely know, then citations weren't needed. It almost looks like citations are now needed for practically every other sentence. --Dubhagan 16:30, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm also not a fan of turning an article into a Xmas tree like this. Statements need to be citable or verifiable, but that doesn't mean we need to cite every single thing that is not common knowledge. I do want to go through the article, if I find the time, and cite whatever can be cited; delete whatever is uncitable and unverifiable. Neurodivergent 17:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There is controversy over *which* spectrum, what the spectrum includes, etctera, how it should be defined, etc. It's not hard to find a citation for any of those kinds of statements from the most reliable sources. (Have a look at WP:RS to help define the best AS resources: for TS it's pretty clear which researchers fit the criteria listed there.) I'd try to do it for you on PubMed, but I don't have as good of a sense of who the most reputable AS researchers are, so I may not provide the best sources. The fact that some things aren't "widely known" or held is demonstrated by the amount of controversy and editing dissent in the article. What is "widely known" and believed by one or another may not actually be supported by the research. The way to avoid having speculation throughout the article is to simply cite statements from PubMed. Theoretically, info on PubMed has been subjected to some kind of peer review, and is not self-published content. It's really not hard to do ... I tagged only a few to give you all an idea of the work needed, but almost the entire article is unreferenced. If I can be of any help, I'm willing, but I don't know the best sources as some of you may. Sandy 16:44, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, there is controversy how to define the "spectrum". I don't agree that the present criteria in any way have cleared this up. IMO, the borders are more or less arbitrary. I base this on neurodiversity version of Aspie-quiz. All the additional diagnosis (ADHD, Dyslexia, Dyspraxia, Hyperlexia, Synaesthesia, OCD, ODD, Prosapagnosia, Dysgraphia and Bipolar) where highly loaded on autistic traits. Of these diagnosis, only one additional axisis formed in factory analysis. It was loaded on dyslexia & dyscalculia. The other dxes simply cannot be meaningfully grouped. This isn't worth anything as evidence in the article, but at least it gives an idea that this is still a controversial area. It is also quit well known in the community that these are common comrbidities. For instance, in addition to autistic traits, I also have tics, ODD, probably OCD, mild prosapagnosia and mild dyslexia. --Rdos 18:23, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

So, add your arguments in the appropriate sections (which would probably be controversy) backed by reliable, verifiable, referenced sources, and not based on personal opinion. Sandy

See Wikipedia_talk:Citing_sources#When_not_to_cite_sources also (I.E. basically everything must be referenced) - BTW the statement about rising incidence seems to be contradicted by recent sources (as layed out in Autism (incidence)). Things like this I'd recommend doing an "as of" or noting a specific time period... RN 16:47, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, adding an example I just thought of: you can still find people, groups, and websites claiming that TS and AS are on the same spectrum, based on some older research which has now been refuted by newer research. The "spectrum" thingie is never clear cut, and it's a statement that should be (and can easily be) cited. That way, everyone reading the article knows exactly which spectrum is supported by the consensus of medical research, how the spectrum is defined, and what conditions are at each end of the spectrum. I tried to tag individual statements, to help orient the work needed. Really, the entire article should be tagged as unreferenced, but I didn't think that would be helpful in terms of understanding why it needs to be referenced and what kinds of statments should be referenced. Others may disagree with some of my individual tags, but I hope they serve as an example, to orient the work needed. Hope this helps, Sandy 17:00, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

For example, an editor just deleted a statement about adults with AS and depression or poverty rates, stating that it couldn't be referenced. [2] A Google scholar search on Asperger adult depression poverty yields this in 5 seconds. Sandy 17:58, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I can't find any studies or claims on the prevalence of poverty in Asperger's, just what appears to be speculation about it being a possible outcome (though i have no access to the full text). Certainly, depression is more common, and there are some studies that could be cited on this (search asperger depression comorbidity). Neurodivergent 18:41, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Nandesuka, do you have a PMID for this addition? [3] The only thing I can find for Blackshaw et al, is this: PMID 11706863 Sandy 18:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

The Blackshaw reference was a mistake; I misread. I meant Stewart ME, PMID 16522713. Nandesuka 18:09, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

ah, OK, I also just found this one PMID 12199134 I was hoping to use these only as examples, to show how easy it is to use Google scholar and Pubmed these days, and how easy it is to provide a complete reference by just typing in the PMID number. Can you include those on the new refs as you add them? Again, I hesitate to add references myself. In TS, I know the "good" research from the "bad" research, which research has been subsequently refuted, etc., but I don't know the AS research well enough to know the best research to cite. Sandy 18:11, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Also, a reminder that reporting controlled, blinded, replicated research is always preferable to a review, or to uncontrolled non-blinded research on small samples. Perhaps the original editor, who deleted the statement, is correct and there is no controlled blinded research to support a connection between depression and AS ??? I don't know the research well enough to say. If there is only a review, then the statement should indicate something to the effect that the research is preliminary, and controlled studies have not been done, blah, blah, blah ... Sandy 18:20, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

This connection very likely is not real. It quite likely have two different components: SAD (seasonal affective disorder) and depression because of social problems. Some time ago it was claimed that depression was inherently linked by genes or something like that, but I don't think this is correct. I've researched this too. Turns out that winder-depression is much more common than summer-depression (hence the hint at SAD). I haven't researched depression in Aspie-quiz, for good reasons. I only research primary traits, not environmental impact. Anyway, good work, Sandy. --Rdos 18:34, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Just trying to orient the work in the right direction. It took me less than a week to reference the entire TS article, doing all the work all by myself, so I know you all can do it. If I knew the territory, I'd be of more help, but I don't. Sandy 18:37, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, Sandy motivated me to spend $30 on a brand new study on the subject ("Comorbid psychopathology with autism spectrum disorder in children: An overview). I cannot post it here, nor any reference to it, but I'll provide som citations:

Depression: "Children with Asperger’s syndrome have comorbidity rates as high as 30% (Ghaziuddin, Weidmer-Mikhail, & Ghaziuddin, 1998; Wing, 1981). Ghaziuddin et al. (2002) assert that depression is probably the most frequent form of comorbid psychopathology with ASD."

Bipolar: "Bipolar disorder is a second mood disorder and a very serious condition which has proven both difficult to differentially diagnose and treat (Matson et al., in press). For 70% of the childhood cases in the general population, the disorder initially presents as major depression (Roberston et al., 1994). Additionally, symptoms may wax and wane (Findling et al., 2001) and comorbidity with other psychopathologies, regardless of the occurrence of ASDs, such as anxiety and ADHD are common (Carlson, 1998; Masi et al., 2001). The literature with the ASD population is almost non-existent at this point." Highly comorbid with ADHD. Remains to show that ADHD and ASDs are related.

Phobias: "The first systematic group study of phobias was by Matson and Love (1990). They looked at the intensity of fears and phobias of autistic children by matching them to normal same age peers. Autistic children were more fearful of thunderstorms, dark places, large crowds, dark rooms or closets, going to bed in the dark, and closed places. The fears and phobias most common in the matched normal developing peers showed little overlap with the autistic group."

OCD: "Charlop-Christy and Haymes (1996) operationally defined obsessions as continuous verbal requests across settings in their study. They note that DSM-IV criteria were used, but it is unclear whether the DSM-IV criteria applied were for OCD and/or ASD. Nonetheless, it is instructive to see these targets described in such a manner for ASD children. The authors label theses behaviors as aberrant and the authors appear to support the notion that in this context, the obsessions (e.g. looking at maps, tossing a ball, playing with a helicopter), were a form of stereotypic behaviors. They also noted, however, that some autistic children display obsessive behaviors while others do not."

Psychosis / Schizophrenia: "Taken together, these preliminary results suggest that autism and childhood psychosis are distinct disorders." I wonder about this. I think I'll research this in next Aspie-quiz --Rdos 19:46, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

There's also a 30% prevalence of ASD in ADHD according to one study. There's very high overlap of all psychiatric conditions. Neurodivergent 19:10, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Don'tya just hate it when that happens? (The money to access an article, that is?) There are at least 3 major medical textbooks, fairly recent, about Tourette's: do you all have something equivalent which cites all the recent research ? Or, can you locate an emedicine or other article, which would also give references? Sandy 19:07, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I had additional interest in this study, otherwise I hadn't purchased it. I've long claimed that all psychiatric conditions are linked, and thought I'll have a go at what studies say about it. --Rdos 19:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I hope I didn't get you all sidetracked, since there is so much work to be done to retain the featured status of the article. (BTW, if you want disputing research about lots of psychiatric conditions being linked, that is right up my alley. The bottom line is that most claims are based on ascertainment bias in poorly-controlled clinical samples, and outdated prevalence estimates, so I hope you all don't get sidetracked onto work that won't help rebuild this article :-) Sandy 19:51, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Not me. I'll help as I'm motivated, but my direct interest in keeping it featured is generally low. Prevalance is another terribly poorly studied topic. I simply cannot believe that there is no cross-racial, large-scale, multi-DSM "disorder" studies. How can hypothesis be put together without this information? I do plan to access this as well, the best I can. BTW, the incredible small studies I sited above, which are WP:RS, are simply nothing compared to the study of this I made in neurodiversity-version of Aspie-quiz. I had several hundred people that indicated each condition. What about comborbidity between ASD and Tourette? I've not managed to collect more than 6-7 individuals in each version, so I have no idea about that. --Rdos 20:12, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

We face the same dearth of broad-based population studies in Tourette's research, and I think (hope?) I managed to convey accurate and relevant info in the TS article. Even if you don't want to keep the article featured, if it doesn't improve, it could end up with disclaimer tags, which wouldn't be good for Wiki or for AS info. Right now, it should probably be tagged as not citing sources. Comorbidity between TS and AS? A Burd Kerbeshian (can't remember spelling on his name) study indicated a higher than expected comorbidity, but it was based on outdated prevalence estimates. Newer research casts his, and some Barone-Cohen (sp?) stuff, in a new light, indicating the numbers could be explained by chance. There is currently no evidence of a TS/AS genetic link, although tics are present in some individuals with autism, particularly AS. Autism spectrum disorders are a secondary cause of tics, known as tourettism. Sandy 20:36, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

OK, I found the study from the TS article [4]. Having tics myself, I have doubts about the proposed causality. The study also have prevalence estimates for AS/TS comorbidity (8.3%), however 13 subjects is a very small group. My results are as follows: Version II, 11 answers, 5-10 points above normal. Version III, 20 diagnosed + 16 self-diagnosed, slightly below normal score, ND, 14 diagnosed (as normal score), 43 self-diagnosed (considerably above normal). Seems like TS/AS comorbidity is generally lower than for the other conditions we discussed before. --Rdos 20:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Gillberg's criteria

Gillberg's criteria are as follows (all six criteria must be met for confirmation of diagnosis) [3] [4],

This is really bloating the article size, and gets into a level of detail that is too much for the main article, especially since it diverges from the DSM criteria (which also shouldn't be quoted verbatim in the article). Can't someone wikify who Gillberg is, and add his criteria in a separate article, so that it can be wikilinked here, for brevity ?? (And, doing it without violating copyright.) Sandy 18:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

BTW, I do think it's important to mention Gillbert's criteria, and I plan to cite an article that comparse with DSM-IV and shows there's a huge prevalence difference between the two. Neurodivergent 18:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

Found him: Christopher Gillberg. This article badly needs someone to go through and wikilink everything, after the more important work is done. Can't his criteria be listed there, and then wiki-linked here ? Sandy 18:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I wasn't aware of the scientific misconduct allegations. It's amazing how common scientific misconduct is in neuropsychology. Anyway, I wonder how this impacts the relevance of Gillberg's criteria for Asperger's, considering there's already DSM-IV. Neurodivergent 21:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

I've been following the debate between Kärfve and Gillberg. I don't know if he had forged data or not, but apparently, he distroyed all the data after courts had forced him to give the data to Kärfve and Elinder. Officially, he did it because of privacy issues, but I don't know. Anyway, this was research on DAMP, a dx somewhere between ADHD and AS. DAMP is increasingly less used these days in Scandinavia, probably somehow due to the Kärfve - Gillberg conflict. --Rdos 06:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

I agree with Sandy and feel like Gilberg dignosis need to be moved to Christopher Gillberg article.Natche24 03:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I added a TOC to the Gillberg article, so that you can now link directly to the criteria there, and not have to use them here. Gillberg Criteria Sandy 04:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Writing a medical article

You can find a LOT of guidelines here about how to improve the article. In particular, the headings that should be employed are listed here. Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Writing medical articles. Sandy 13:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Can someone/anyone please reorganize and orient the text that's there according to the suggested heading? It will make it easier to do the work. What should be covered in each section is discussed in the Wiki link above. Sandy 04:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

To quickly start an article with these sections, you can copy-paste them from this list:

==Classification==

==Symptoms and signs==

==Causes==

==Pathophysiology==

==Diagnosis==

==Treatment/Management==

==Prognosis==

==Prevention/Screening==

==Epidemiology==

==History==

==Social Impact==

==Notable cases==

==References==

Statements at issue

• "It is thought that most people with Asperger syndrome learn to cope with their social impairments later in life."

I haven't found anything on PubMed about Asperger outcome or progress. Note that the diagnosis of Asperger did not officially exist until 1994. There are several studies on the outcome and progress of Kanner autistics, from which you might infer something similar to the above. I vote to just remove the sentence. Neurodivergent 15:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

Actually, I found this: [5]. Anyone have access? Neurodivergent 16:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• "Some clinicians believe that communicative or cognitive deficiencies are so essential to the concept of autism that they prefer to consider Asperger's a separate condition from autism. This opinion is a minority one."

I don't think it can be quantified as a minority opinion. I'm aware of some studies, however, that say there's essentially no difference between HFA and Asperger's. Neurodivergent 16:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

• "Depression and poverty are common in Asperger syndrome patients."

I have found no credible evidence by medical sources of poverty and Aspergers. In fact I know people with Aspergers who are adults and none of them are in poverty. I also checked the PubMed article that was cited by the person who put it in the article [6] and the abstract speaks nothing about poverty. Please note that I do not take issue with the Depression only the part that has to do with poverty. Natche24 02:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I saw a reference to the Szatmari definition under the definitions and diagnostic criteria section, yet no mention is made of the person it is named after. Here's a link I found of him: http://www.fhs.mcmaster.ca/psychiatryneuroscience/faculty/szatmari/. I know several people that have been diagnosed as Asperger's and Autistic by him. He is Canada's leader in that field. I would make the mention myself, but I'm not sure how to word it. --Dubhagan 03:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

"Depression and poverty are often associated with Asperger syndrome"? RN 03:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

RN, we might wait a reasonable amount of time for all statements to be referenced, and then start removing unreferenced statements to the talk page ??? Sandy 03:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that it what I would do as well :). RN 10:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

• "With the increase of Asperger syndrome diagnoses..."

This is an example of something clearly true and commonly known which might nevertheless not be citable. Neurodivergent 18:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

That is just silly. There are references to similar statements all over the literature about Tourette syndrome, and I'm sure there are to AS as well. Do you all know how to use PubMed and Google scholar? You can locate an article on google scholar, and get directly to it with the excellent new advanced search abilities on PubMed. What are the authoritative medical tomes on AS? Have you looked at the extensive citing on Tourette syndrome? I'll go see what I can find. This is explained in the writing medical articles link I've cited here several times. Sandy 19:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Here is what Google scholar coughs up. [7] Next, I'll be back with a PMID. Sandy 19:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Clearly there's an increase in the administrative prevalence of autism. There's a whole Wikipedia article about it. But is there something about the prevalence of Asperger's syndrome specifically? Neurodivergent 13:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's a PMID 12541002 Now, I don't know the research, and I don't know if that's a high quality study, but every statement in this article should and can be referenced, and you can tell by the times that it took me seven minutes, and I don't even know the AS literature well. Sandy 19:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Excess External Links, and work still needed

Per [medical sections], I agree with RN's revert to External Link. The article on how to write a medical article gives some EXCELLENT guidelines, which should be very helpful in re-working the AS entry. I just reorganized Tourette syndrome according to the headings suggested, which helped make it very clear to me where I still needed to do work. The external links should all be in DMOZ, if they are significant, and if they're not in DMOZ, the webmasters should be encouraged to add them.

• See also: Links in this section should be used sparingly. If two topics are truly linked, it should be possible to define that relationship with a sentence in the main article, and provide the wikilink there.
• External links: Links in this section should be used sparingly. If an external link is provided, it is better to tie that link to an assertion in the article, and then use the Reference section instead of the External links section.
  • Significant international and (English-speaking) national organisations may be included here if they contain useful material to supplement the article. However, their number should be kept in check –Wikipedia is not a collection of links. This is an encyclopedia, not a promotional tool for charities however worthy, nor is it trying to be resource for those seeking help. Further guidance is available at Wikipedia:External links.

Sandy 03:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I found the online version of the DSM-IV, here's the link for Asperger's: http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/asperger.htm

--Dubhagan 04:02, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Great, maybe someone will paraphrase them, and then just include a link. Sandy 04:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I've included the link and started paraphrasing, though I need help. --Dubhagan 04:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I just did it as a sample, but you'll have to tweak my wording. Sandy 04:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Found this link, if anyone is interested, or if it can be used to improve the article: http://www.as-if.org.uk/criteria.htm. --Dubhagan 05:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

The link is good I used it in the Definitions and diagnostic criteria section of the article. Natche24 05:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Using DMOZ instead of external links

What a wonderful idea! Now we can eventually end the edit-wars in this section of the article as well. I've submitted my site there. ;) --Rdos 06:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

You can credit User:FrancisTyers for that one. We ended up in mediation over external links on Tourette syndrome, and he gave us that solution, duh ! Gets the little stuff out of the way, so you can do productive work on the article. I've also found help here in the past: Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Week. You all might go there, explain that AS is at risk of losing its featured status (where it's listed on their MCOTW page), and see if folks there will help out or give suggestions. Also, if you all can begin to reference statements, I am willing to help convert them to a correct and complete referencing style. Right now, most of the inline citations and references are done incorrectly, and the sections still need a major, major revamping. Sandy 13:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

An idea

Just a suggestion: feel free to ignore me, or to toss around the idea for a few days. I've been trying to help clean up this article, but the more time I spend in it, the more I realize there is very little medical, reliable, verifiable content. It has really deteriorated and isn't encyclopedic. I was wondering if our efforts would be better oriented if you reverted to the last Featured Article verion, more or less this, and then worked on rebuilding and bringing new content into that version? It would be far easier to reference and update the old version, than to continue trying to fix the new version. Just an idea: it might help keep the FA status, and it seems to provide a much better starting place than the mess of the current article. Any valuable changes made to the newer version could be added to that older version after the revert (things like DMOZ). I'm trying to help with the references, but I'm finding that a lot of the references aren't actually reliable, medical, peer-reviewed sources. Sandy 22:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Would it not be better to correct the current edition, rather than moving forward from out-dated contexts? If you do not wish to correct it, then I'm sure someone else will. --Keyne 23:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

I have no vested interest either way, but the content is so highly speculative, that it doesn't provide a good foundation from which to build. Almost none of the foundations of a medical article are even present at all, and most of the article deals with speculation and controversy, rather than adding speculation and controversy to the end of established views and practices. The last FA version seemed to afford a better starting place. Sandy 23:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

Then, we reorg away, I would imagine. Building from what we have is the foundation of how an article is built. I just cannot see restarting from an older version as being a viable option. It might take work, but I believe it'll be better off if we continue to build, rather than [de+re]construct. I'd advocate a rewrite over other options. --Keyne 13:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asperger_syndrome&oldid=3259426 Here's a link to a version from when it was first a FA. --Dubhagan 00:13, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

But, if you go back too far, you have to reconstruct almost everything: wikilinks and stuff like that. That's why I was thinking of the '05 version, if you all decide to go that direction. Sandy 00:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Ah, sorry, I went back to when it was first a featured article. You should have been more specific. When was it a featured article in '05? --Dubhagan 00:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

I'm not sure, but User:RN reported that it was also featured as of this date: [8] Sandy 00:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

This is the 2nd time it has been on FARC - last time it survived, but standards are higher now. The link I gave was just an approximation :). Even with the '05 version speculation and references are going to be a problem, but in some ways it does provide a better foundation. What I'd do is be merciless in removing the speculation - but often when I've tried to that and/or make it more of a proper medical article I seem to run up against a large amount of advocacy. So I have my doubts... RN 00:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

Well, I'll support whichever is the consensus of the means to getting the article fixed as quickly as possible, whether reverting, deleting massive chunks of what's there now, doing a major rewrite, or whatever is felt will get the job done, but I think aiming for the structure and organization mentioned in the "writing a good medical article" link is the way to organize the work. I wish I could help more in the writing, but I don't know the territory. I can help in doing the reference work, if people just stick in the PMIDs, I'll fix 'em. Sandy 01:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

For those advocating for a rewrite, the article has been in WP:FAR for a week now, the process typically lasts two weeks, and there has yet to be any major improvement to the article. Who's doing the rewrite? The article as of now suffers from prose problems, unencyclopedic content, and lack of references. If no one is going to do the work, the older versions would be preferable. Sandy 11:51, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Asperger's and sexuality

On this person's talk page it says I've heard many describe slower maturation in Aspies, perhaps not being fully mature until their mid-30s. It would be a logical consequence of this slower maturation if males also were attracted to much younger girls. Is there any truth in this? Or is it just one of Rdos's crackpot theories? Skinnyweed 01:37, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

DEFINATELY one of Rdos's crackpot theories!

There is no evidence whatsoever to suggest slower sexual maturation, in some cases the contrary applies. There is sometimes a problen with parents trying to delay maturation.

The only thing I will say is that, just as aspies are more likely to be able to relate emotionally, successfully to (aka "get it on with") someone from a different culture (because in such a case diversity and difference is a positive expectation in both parties, not a source of alienation), it is probable that a relationship with someone much older or younger would also stand a similar chance of success for similar reasons. --Zeraeph 02:03, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That's just bull. Either that or I'm an exception to the rule, which I highly doubt. --Dubhagan 02:13, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

It's not a "crackpot" theory, but then it haven't been proved by published research either. Looking younger than their biological age and feeling younger is just some of those things that Aspies tend to answer more often YES to in Aspie-quiz. --Rdos 18:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

That only cover physical and mental maturity, not sexual maturity. There's a difference. Personally, as a person with Asperger's, I've always been told I look older than my age (when I was in grade 12 people were asking me what university I was going to). Also, if you quiz NT's on whether they look older or younger than their biological age, you could get the same answer. There is no evidence to suggest that Asperger's affects how old you look, but it's more likely a case of family genetics, as there is not an Asperger's (or Autistic) look. As for mental maturity, I've heard that Aspies can more mature in some ways, but less mature in other ways. Personally, I've always related better with adults, but at the same time I can act immature for my age, which seems to correlate with what I've heard. As for sexual maturity, from what I understand, puberty is puberty, no matter who it hits. However, the difference between Aspies and NT's could be in the mental understanding of it. Personally, I feel I've always had a mature understanding of it, though I'm sure that's not always the case. Rdos, if you do study it further, I'd suggest looking at the mental understanding of sexuality in Aspies. --Dubhagan 18:50, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I've said nothing about sexual maturity. There is no evidence for that that I know of, neither in the autistic community nor in Aspie-quiz or in peer-reviewed research. Also, the comparision in Aspie-quiz is always done between a NT-control group and diagnosed Aspies, so that could hardly be the reason for this finding. --Rdos 19:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Then what are you talking about in that opening quote? --Dubhagan 20:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, if you aren't talking about "sexual maturity" you can't be talking about sexual attraction, so that's all right.

Where are your sources? And don't say "Aspie Quiz" for several reasons, as follows:

1. "Aspie Quiz" is only an account of certain self reported aspects of the type of Aspie who isn't too caught up in their own interests to take online quizes, (operated by people who think of them as Neanderthal pedophiles), and AS/NT/other folk making fun. This would be somewhere between an artificially and incidentally selective minority and "not enough to be representative"
2. "Aspie Quiz" does not ask the question "are you attracted to much younger people (not girls, there ARE gay Aspies and lady Aspies, some of them are even straight, y'know, and all the gender/sexual ambivalence Aspies are famous for makes it even MORE interesting). So you are interpreting the results on invalid, untested premise.
3. "Aspie Quiz" is "original research".

--Zeraeph 20:10, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Rather than argue Rdos, give me a reputable SOURCE that supports your entire contention.

Incidentally, I think you will find that Neanderthal Man probably matured sexually earlier than we do today, and sexually immature men are more likely to seek mother figures..--Zeraeph 19:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely not. They matured slower, as basically every mammal that is cold-adapted do in relation to warm-adapted sister-species. This is a direct consequence of lower energy-supply and a seasonal habitat. By delaying maturity, the species can survive on fewer resources. --Rdos 19:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Looking and feeling younger than your bio age is neither sexual immaturity nor pedophillia, it is simply ENVIABLE *rolling eyes*--Zeraeph 18:56, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Um, are you referring to me or Rdos? --Dubhagan 19:16, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Rdos - he managed to split my comment AND avoid providing a reputable source for his original contention (or his new contention)...he may be away with the fairies, but he can be very CUNNING about it ;o) --Zeraeph 19:59, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

gender/sexual ambivalence Aspies are famous for. What sexual ambivalence are they famous for? Skinnyweed 20:46, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Are you SERIOUS??? Have you not heard of that? It's a primary characteristic of AS, along with a way higher than normal aversion to children and/or reproduction (and yup, I was having a time squaring THAT with pedophilia too!). Wondered why the article didn't mention either...better find you some sources --Zeraeph 21:07, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I seem to have "google blindness" tonight, I can't think of the right search terms to find anything extensive and I am hampered by a dial in modem and a thunderstorm, but for now here is a link comfirming I'm not making up the gender identity confusion...more later because it MUST go in the article, and for that it must be sourced properly http://www.brookdalecare.co.uk/www/asdinfo.php?mm=5&sm=16 --Zeraeph 21:25, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, sources would help, I'm not familiar with those statements, though I seem to accurately fit those. But what's with the pedophilia mention? I'm confused with the link to pedophilia and Asperger's that you mentioned. --Dubhagan 21:31, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

No Dubhagan, I am confusing you. What I tried to say was that people with AS are more likely than normal to have a dislike of children and reproducing themselves...which doesn't seem to fit in with Rdos suggestions of pedophilia or near pedophilia...I will find proper links so you can read this stuff up...

I'm confused, why are we talking about this? --Dubhagan 20:54, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think you're confused at all: I think you're right on track :-)) Sandy 20:57, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

They have gender confusion? It also says Inappropriate expression of sexual feelings, what kinds of expression? Skinnyweed 21:43, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Below is a good link but it is all SUCH a big issue, totally missing from the article...must find you some more, but in the meanwhile, think about it. AS means a lack of social skills, and "expression of sexual feelings" is one of the most complex, sophisticated social skillsets...--Zeraeph 23:02, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

See here. You'll have to scroll to near the bottom for the section titled Acknowledging Sexuality. --Dubhagan 21:48, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Not a peer-reviewed, valid medical reliable source. Someone's personal website. Any MD can say anything they want: is any statement there backed by research studies or subject to widespread medical consensus and peer review? Go to PubMed and do a search. And ... not to beat a dead horse but ... the article needs to be fixed before new, missing content is added. Focus. Sandy 00:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Here's what comes up on a PubMed search -- have no idea if they're any good:

PMID 15937042 PMID 11417262 PMID 10478735

Google scholar coughs up an Attwood paper http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1469-7610.2006.00452.x but I can't find it on Pubmed. Google scholar also yields several books, which probably cite sources. Sandy 01:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

masturbating in public; stripping in public; touching others inappropriately; touching private parts of own in public; - that's ridiculous! As if anyone would do that. Can you just imagine that though? That would be the most embarassing thing ever, and you'll be charged with a whole variety of crimes. 'Oh, I'm just going to touch that stranger in broad daylight. Then I'm going to take my clothes off and start touching myself in front of everyone.' Skinnyweed 02:35, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Tagged uncompliant

It's been a week since AS was listed as a featured article in need of review. Very few statements have been referenced, new unreferenced statements continue to be added, the prose has not been cleaned up, speculative opinion and original research has not been removed, and the article does not comprehensively cover basic information about the condition. I originally tagged it only as needing references, but the problems go beyond references, and aren't being corrected, as far as I can tell. Opinions and speculation don't belong in an encyclopedia entry: they belong on personal websites. Sandy 18:08, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Sandy, why don't you be more specific about which passages you have a problem with? Makes it easier to clean up. --Zeraeph 18:49, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Zeraeph, that would take an entire talk page, but I'll be glad to start.

• See Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome.
• I went through one small section of the article many days ago and tagged a few statements which needed references, only as an example.[9]Those statements still haven't been referenced, and more unreferenced statements were added this morning. If you all are going to clean up this article, you'll need to start being ruthless about unreferenced statements. Every editor is supposed to reference everything they add to Wiki from a reliable source.
• See Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Writing medical articles and this.
• Have you read all of the talk page entries here?
• Most of what is referenced is referenced to Attwood's book, which although a reliable source, is secondary to peer-reviewed journal articles, easily available at PubMed.
• Specific examples, starting from the top of the article:
  • Lead: a reference for Lorna Wing paper (a name at least?) and Asperger paper. Note that the article contains no history of the condition.
  • The description of AS in the Definitions section suffers from tense changes. I took the original crack at that sentence, it was changed several times, and now it goes through several different tense changes and doesn't flow. In that same section, there are multiple missing citations, and the section immediately goes into controversy, without providing a thorough analysis of accepted medical knowledge about the condition. There is one paragraph about AS as defined in the DSM, and then two paragraphs deviating from the DSM. We're never told what the Szatmari definition is or what paper they appeared in. There is no reference for the ICD-10 statement, so the reader doesn't know the connection to schizoid disorder. There is no Classification section, as called for in medical articles, which discusses how AS is different than other pervasive developmental disorders. Basically, what is there is incomplete, unreferenced, uncomprehensive, and goes immediately into controvery and conflicting definitions, without adequately defining the condition.
  • The article should start with Classification, then Symptoms and Signs, then Causes. There is no Classification section, Symptoms and Signs are presumably (?) covered under Characteristics: why not call them Symptoms and Signs, and why not organize them according to the diagnostic criteria, to attain encyclopedic tone?
  • Causes: completely omitted. The reader doesn't know, from reading this one (unreferenced) paragraph if the condition is genetic, environmental, an interplay, and may be due to "refrigerator mothers" for all the reader knows. The paragraph that is there says: Nothing. Besides being speculative and unreferenced. Many of the issues I'm raising are available at NINDS, which is in the public domain. If no one here is going to write these sections, it wouldn't be that hard to take them from the NINDS, and reference them to the NINDS.
  • The prevalence section is completely uncited, speculative, unreferenced, and doesn't give the basic info a reader needs to know. It also doesn't cover everything typically covered under epidemiology.
  • There is no pathophysiology or diagnosis section.
  • The entire Characteristics section is largely unreferenced, containing multiple, vague statements beginning with weasle words like "some people feel", and "some autistics assert." Weasle, unreferenced, original research has no place in Wiki, and even less in a medical article.
  • Relationship to autism is poorly written, unreferenced, and overlaps sections: is it wanting to be history or classification? It achieves neither.
  • Cultural and sociological views is largely speculative.

Shall I keep going ? Good samples of how to start the article, and the information which is missing, are found at NINDS, Yale, and WhoNamedIt, at minimum. Since I don't know AS well, I don't know which are the best sources to use, and which are the most accurate, but the article right now is not covering the basics, is not referenced, and is largely speculative original research of the type one expects to find in a personal website rather than an encyclopedia. Sandy 20:12, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks Sandy, and YES, keep 'em coming :o) A list like this means someone like me can dip in and sort out a bit here and there, when they get a break, without having to go over and familiarise self with the whole article and subject, hopefully a FEW "someone like me"S? Gets it all sorted out in NO time.

Especially if a few more people add to the "fault list" - gets rid of that acute "where to start?" feeling. --Zeraeph 20:21, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Zeraeph, I've offered several times to help, but no one seems to be taking the offer. I largely wrote Tourette syndrome, so I know you can make the medical format work for a condition that is not a "disease" or a typical medical condition. I just don't know AS well enough to do the actual writing. If people will just stick in PMID numbers, I can do the full references, for example, and help with copy-editing. But, it seems that some are more interested in promoting original research than fixing the article :-) In that case, the article gets tagged, and no one reads it anyway. Perhaps some consensus to stand up to the "original researchers", and insist that the article be referenced, will help the article. The FAR process typically lasts two weeks, and one has already passed. Let's get to work. Sandy 20:26, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

PS, I suggest using the writing medical articles link as a starting place. Just go section by section, grabbing the text that is available in the article, and referencing it. If you just put it in order, and if others provide some idea of a PMID number or a source, I'll be glad to help with copyediting and completing the references. Another good place to start would be to ruthlessly delete major chunks of the current article: ditch everything that is speculative, and start over.Sandy 20:30, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Let's just DO IT ;o) -but not tonight connection is too bad and thunder too frequent --Zeraeph 21:27, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, now that we have some good medical links and a list, I'll probably pick at it during the week. --Dubhagan 05:13, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm starting to like the words "Original research"

What it eventually comes down to in the context of this article is things that are well-known in the autistic community and virtually unknown or ignored in research circles. That many issues are deemed as original research only gives an indication of the quality of peer-reviewed research in the area. In virtually any real medical article original research would be incredibly unusual and very likely totally misinformed, but not here. I'll refer to Wikipedia in 10 years time when most of these issues are instead of "original research" refered to common sense! --Rdos 19:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I'd believe that argument, except that the same can be said about TS, and I still managed to write and reference the article, including the controversial statements. If you want to write a personal essay on Wiki, there will always be a tag at the top of the article, and no one will read it anyway. So, by putting out original reseach, you're shooting the article, yourself, and Wiki in the foot. You can spin the controversial and speculative parts into a daughter article (if you can reference the statements to reliable sources): they don't belong in the main article, which doesn't even cover the basics.Sandy 20:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

Some links I have found

Here are some links I found that go in some good detail, which might be useful in rewriting the article:

• http://www.mugsy.org/wing2.htm
• http://www.aspennj.org/bauer.html
• http://info.med.yale.edu/chldstdy/autism/aspergers.html
• http://www.aspergersyndrome.com/
• http://www.nlm.nih.gov/medlineplus/aspergerssyndrome.html

That last one actually provides a bunch of other good links. --Dubhagan 23:20, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I haven't had time to look at them, but just wanted to caution against using *general* websites for medical articles. You have to be sure it's a reliable, medical, peer-reviewed site, rather than a "general info anyone can put it up" site. The NIH site, in and of itself, is a valid source, and they keep very up to date (notice the date). It's also in the public domain, so you can "plagiarize" it and reference it directly (see the statement at the bottom of their page). On the other hand, some individual websites (even those listed as HonCode, which is not really enforced) are not reliable sources of info, unless you can establish the author's credentials via WP:RS (as an example, see the blog I cited on the TS article, because of who the author is and what his credential are in the field of TS). For example, I would not consider the aspergersyndrome website as a reliable source, since it doesn't appear to be peer reviewed. If a website sources a statement with a specific study, then you go to PubMed, use the advanced search, and find the specific study. The Yale site is a good primary, verifiable reference, since they are recognized as leaders in the field, so you could reference them directly. But, even better ... For instance, the Yale website above does cite specific studies. Just to give you an example of how to use PubMed:

• 1. The Yale Child study link says: The validity of this condition, as opposed to high-functioning autism, remains a topic of debate (Szatmari, 1992). I used that example because the Szatmari criteria were never explained.
• 2. Go to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?CMD=Limits&DB=pubmed
  • 2a. If you want to get specific, click on limits.
• 3. Put Szatmari into the author field, and asperger into the main search field, and search: yields 9 articles
• 4. There is only one 1992 study: PMID 1483978 . Is that the one? If so, you can make statements based on that study, reference it as (PMID followed by the number), and I'll help fill in the full reference information later.

Three other cautions: you can find a website to say just about anything. Can you find a study in a reputable journal? For example, on the sexuality discussion above, go straight to PubMed and see what you can find, or go to google scholar first. And, just because you can find a factoid on PubMed, that doesn't make it accepted medical consensus. There could have been later studies which refute those findings, the study could have methodological limitations, etc. That's why I can't do more of this work for you: I don't know the full body of AS research as I do TS. And, be careful about how strong the study is. A controlled, blinded study on a very large sample which has been replicated is gold. A small sample, preliminary, not replicated study has to be qualified as such. Sandy 00:42, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, the first link I provided involves Lorna Wing's research, and the second one was done by another doctor, so I'm not sure what you're getting at. I was just providing medical based links that talk about what the research shows. As for what you asked me to do, well, it'll take a while to locate the exact study, but I've found a starting point here. --Dubhagan 00:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm sorry, I hadn't clicked on them yet. I was just speaking in general terms :-)) On the Szatmari stuff, you can search on him as the author, and put in keywords to narrow down what you're looking for. Or, look for it first on Google Scholar, and then go to PubMed when you know what you're after. Hope this helps, Sandy 01:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

On another referencing note, I saw that you added Szatmari's book to the Reference list. Keep in mind there's a difference between references and inline citations. References are sources that are widely used and upon which most of the article is based, or which are used as multiple inline citations. If you plan to use the book to source a particular statement, then you insert an inline citation, indicating the specific page number from the book. Sandy 01:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry, didn't realize that was the purpose of that section, remove it if it doesn't fit. Maybe a section dedicated to books written on the subject? Szatmari should be mention as a key player in the autism/Asperger's medical community, just look at the results PubMed brings up with his name. --Dubhagan 01:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, References is for general, authoritative reading, but doesn't replace the need for inline citations. If you need to source a particular statement, you do that with a ref tag, that ends up in Notes. When citing a book, you have to give the page number. Sandy 01:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

So I guess he can stay? I haven't read his book, but now I think I will. If he verifies any fact tags while I'm reading it, I'll be sure to reference him in the article properly. At least he's there just incase his book can provide the citations we need. --Dubhagan 01:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I can't say if he stays or not: I don't know the territory. I know the top books and journal articles, as well as the controversial, not widely-accepted ones in TS, but not in AS. Just trying to help you all figure out how to write the article to Wiki standards :-) Sandy 01:49, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, all his research is in autism and Asperger's, and PubMed gives me 106 choices for Dr. Szatmari, though I probably do have the ability to contact him directly :) I might just try that, and I might just direct him to this article while I'm at it, only for his input though. --Dubhagan 01:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I've forgotten what you're looking for from him, as I've only been giving examples. Have you tried a keyword search on PubMed? Tell me what keywords you're after, and I'll try to help find something. Sandy 01:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

It was that 1992 reference in one of the links I've provided. That PubMed link was right, but it doesn't provide his full study, which I am currently searching for, though I have found a more detailed reference to it (Szatmari, P. (1992). The validity of autistic spectrum disorders: a literature review. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders, 22 , 583-600). --Dubhagan 01:51, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

ah, I see ... remember to try google scholar first (you find it by clicking on the "more" button from Google). I just went to Google scholar and queried on Szatmari definition asperger, and it returned a ton of good stuff. This was a journal-published article, which seems to give a lot of info, including the Szatmari definition: http://www.asperger.org/MAAP_Sub_Find_It_-_Publications_Ehlers_and_Gillberg_Article.htm Sandy 01:55, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

This article should definately go into more detail on the Szatmari definition, especially since we use the Gillberg definition too. Heck, all leading researchers should be mentioned with their variations. --Dubhagan 02:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Terms not defined

• AQ is used throughout the article, but never defined. Sandy 03:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• ASD is used throughout the article, but never defined.
• Mention is made of five pervasive developmental disorders, but they are never defined. Classifications section is needed. Sandy 04:57, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Controversy section

The controversy section says: nothing. If there's nothing concise or citable to say, it should be a brief summary of what the main controversies article includes. Sandy 05:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Page numbers on refs

• There are two references to the Gillberg 2002 book, which are missing page numbers. Sandy 05:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
• This paper is used twice as a reference: Barnard J, et al. Ignored or Ineligible? : The reality for adults with ASD (PDF). The National Autistic Society, London, 2001. It is not a study, and is not published in a peer-reviewed medical journal. It's a questionnaire, survey, meaning: unscientific. It should not be used as a reference, and if it is used, since it's a very long PDF, specific page number citations should be given for the referenced passages. Sandy 05:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Comorbids

There is no section discussing comorbidity, and comments on comorbid diagnoses are interspersed throughout the article. Those mentioned under characteristics are not referenced. Comorbids need to be pulled together and referenced. On a similar note, I separated the comment about depression and poverty: depression is a comorbid, while poverty is a social or issue of living with the condition, which belongs in a separate section. Sandy 05:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

Glenn Gould notable

There appears to have been a pretty strong rebuttal to the speculation of Glenn Gould having AS. The article by Mesaros is still in Google's cache, but is no longer online. I suggest dropping him, since the case was strong against it, and there will be no reference for it. Sandy 05:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

paragraph in social imparments

Some people feel that much of the social difficulties in Asperger Syndrome are more accurately characterized as "mutual misunderstanding", in that neither the autistic nor the neurotypical understands each other. Some autistics assert that they have a much easier time reading body language of other autistic people, and that neurotypicals have difficulties interpreting autistic body language. Comparing the nonverbal communication problems that often occur between people from different cultures is a common support given for this theory.

I don't think this is published in any peer reviewed sources and smells of original reasearch. It certainly isn't backend up by our current sources AFAIK. If someone can prove me wrong, then please do so but please give an inline cite for that paragraph. RN 05:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

I concur that with pulling it, until/unless someone can reference it. But I noticed you also took out the reference to neurotypicals ? Even I've heard that one, and I've seen it in reliable sources ? Sandy 05:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)