Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive 15

Archive 10

←

Archive 13

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Archive 17

→

Archive 20

Wikification

I've caught all the wikilinks I could, but I may have missed some. Per WP:MOSLINK and WP:CONTEXT, the first occurrence of technical, important or relvant terms should be linked, and common terms known to most English speakers shouldn't be linked. Overlinking should be avoided. Because there's a lot of jargon in this article, I've linked a couple of words not only on the first occurrence, but also on a few subsequent instances. If fresh sets of eyes can check the wikilinking, that would be great. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Something I think I should say

I just had time to go over the current article properly, I only got half way down when I realised I have no option but to delink it from several AS related websites where I had, previously (for a couple of years), trusted the article to present a balanced, informed view of AS. I preferred it to actually creating a definition because I felt that the participation of several different editors, with several viewpoints made the article, fairer and more objective.

As it stands today, the article has arrived at a point where the current, overall negative bias sets back the understanding and acceptance of actual people with AS by several years. I can no longer use it.

I would take the quoteboxes that symbolised the negative bias all the way to arbcom if Sandy had not had the consideration to withdraw them as she did. But there is no way I have the time or resources to do that with the whole article. So, instead, I am going to try and trust the community of Wikipedia and say please remember, this article has always been regarded as a significant source of objective (rather than agenda driven) information on Asperger syndrome. Real people, human beings like yourselves, have to live with the consequences of the contents.

I wish I could bring them here and show them to you. Intelligent adults with the same passions ands feelings as anyone else who have been raised conditioned to see themselves as perpetual and defective children who will never be able to fall in love, have children, drive cars or even be entitled to the same basic rights as any other human being. This conditioning is born of a lethal cocktail of misinformation, exploitative agenda and the ordinary human aversion to "difference".

I don't ask that this article be biased in favor of those young people, that would be wrong, and against everything Wikipedia stands for, and I happen to REALLY believe in, but I do not think it should be biased against them in this way.

To give you the best idea I can of the nature and extent of the problem, I would be happy if the article were reverted to the last featured version [1] with the changes to "History" incorporated. That version had no particularly negative bias and more accessible text, not everybody in need of the information has third level education after all.--Zeraeph 15:30, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Unfortunately, that version wasn't entirely accurate, comprehensive, neutral, up to date, and didn't make use of more recent high-quality reliable sources. Attwood published his book ten years ago, only three years after the diagnosis was recognized, so it wasn't possible for him to reflect the current state of knowledge about AS. That version relied very heavily on Attwood and other self-published sources. The good news is that the people who want to read Attwood's views only can still get his book. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:57, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

As a casual observer of this debate the comment Attwood and other self-published sources strikes me as odd, even as weasel words. Attwood is not self-published, and I would hope that SG is not implying some form of vanity publishing effort on Attwoods behalf. His 1998 book may be getting a little long in the tooth but he has published a number of books and papers since, including in 2006 The Complete Guide to Asperger's Syndrome. --Michael Johnson 06:26, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You are correct, Michael; I've typed it so many times I've gotten sloppy and blurred it all together in shorthand. No, I don't lump Attwood in with self-published or vanity sources (some of the Myles were vanity sources), and I more correctly should have typed non-peer-reviewed, self-published, or non-reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

By the way, to my best recollection, we have included every source that you and CeilingCrash have requested (even in the lead, and even giving undue weight to individual researcher's opinions), and we've deleted the images and quoteboxes you disliked. Is there any reliable source that isn't accounted for, according due weight? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:59, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

You recollection is faulty, because I did not particularly suggest any sources, I just requested some to review if I got a chance. Sources were suggested by CC and PP, I supported them in some and you in others.

My primary problem is not with the sources, it is with the pervasive, negative spin in the text that presents them. My second problem is with the escalating inaccessibility of the language in which the article is presented. At this stage it is unlikely to be comprehensible to any neurotypical person with less than a third level education and understanding.

In the last FAR you said this: Presenting accurate medical facts is not incompatible with presenting the view that AS need not be considered a "disorder": it is possible to cover both medical facts and advocacy for acceptance in one article. I concur. So, why is that not the end result here? --Zeraeph 16:36, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I certainly don't see any "pervasive negative spin" other than Z's spin on Sandy's efforts. The effort looks balanced to me in its present state of progression. Soulgany101 22:58, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

Yeah, well we already recognise that you are "agenda driven" so just about ANYTHING negative about AS would suit you. --Zeraeph 23:06, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't get it - what in particular are you concerned about? How is describing deficits and treatment negative?cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 01:00, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Really? I should have thought common sense would be helpful there? No matter...visualise with me...imagine you are an autonomous adult with AS, just trying to make it through the night, like anyone else, intelligent, honest, honorable, hurting from the anomie, marginalisation, and general only-being-accepted-or-assisted-as-long-as-you-accept-and-embrace-the-role-of-a demented-child...THEN read the article...

If you have enough empathy you should IMMEDIATELY spot, not only the selective use of sources to present only the negatives (even where the sources actually reference positives), but ALSO the inaccessible language, that a mother, in middle America, or Milton Keynes, cannot make head nor tail of, EVEN THOUGH she lives at the coal face, dealing with a child who seems to be from another planet...

Is there a problem? I am a fully (Micheal Fitzgerald, no less) dx'ed Aspie, I surely have "no empathy"...if I can "get it" why can't you, an NT shrink, get it too? --Zeraeph 01:14, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Nope, I don't get it either, Zeraeph. I can imagine that some of the NPOV, objective scientific facts in this difficult area might be confronting to me if I were emotionally connected with the syndrome, but I'd try to maintain a distance from them. Our readers want clear balanced information, and for all of the research and professional/practitioner activity over the past few decades, the literature is fragmented. This is a place where that literature can be presented in a cohesive way, and Sandy has been doing a fine job, IMV. I don't see negative spin—quite the opposite, just the facts for our readers to interpret. Let's support her and you, Zeraeph, in finishing this task. Everyone is benefiting. Tony 01:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I do maintain distance, it is my job (and vocation) to do so, which is why, unbeknownst to her, Sandy had my full confidence for so long, however, I find it impossible to accept selective negatives and the total omission of positives from THE SAME SOURCES as objectivity. For the very simple reason that it is *not* objectivity, by the standards of any reasonable man, and all the semantic gymnastics in the world will not make it so.

"Everyone" certainly does NOT benefit from the prejudicial and selective presentation of information. Wikipedia does not benefit, as such a stain appears on it's overall standard of objectivity. People with AS do not benefit, as selective negatives headline google where there SHOULD be objectivity.

I am, equally, not at all sure that I agree with your assumption that Sandy is soley responsible, she is usually a very neutral editor (evidenced by her last, near single handed revision, of this article last year with totally different, and far more objective, emphasis). --Zeraeph 01:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

PS, I cannot for the LIFE of me understand why you do not get the issue of inaccessible language WHATEVER your viewpoint?

• (outdent) You need to provide examples of "inaccessible language" and, indeed, of negative spin, if you believe that they exist. I'm unconvinced, and think our time is better spent on finishing the task. Tony 01:43, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you are an experienced enough editor to see inaccessible language without me patronising you by pointing out specifics. The whole article needs rewriting for accessibility.

As for selective representation, the article manages to cite, McPartland J, Klin A (2006). "Asperger's syndrome". Adolescent medicine clinics 17 (3): 771–88; abstract xiii, thus: Although motor clumsiness and the delayed acquisition of language capacity are not mentioned in standard diagnostic criteria, odd speech, language peculiarities and motor skills difficulties are frequently reported features of AS. yet fails to even refer to "Asperger’s initial description optimistically predicted positive outcome based on the presence of intact cognitive ability and the potential application of special skills for gainful employment. Compared with individuals with lower functioning ASDs, a more positive outcome can be expected." from the same source. I could sit here all week listing similar comparisons, I do not have that kind of time available.

By the way, this is inaccurate; see the Prognosis section. The McPartland text is cited there, the historical text could be included in a history article but isn't relevant to current knowledge. Please do "sit here all week" long and list anything that is left out, because I want to get this article right and as of yet, we don't have a single example of negative spin or something left out, although you've found time to edit all day long. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:01, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I produced an excellent example which you dismissed out of hand, even though it turns out to have impeccable credentials [2]. I am starting to feel you will do the same with anything I try to say here. I hope I am wrong about that, and if I am, forgive me. --Zeraeph 13:32, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

• Within a few sections on this talk page, you have called one editor (Sougany101) "agenda-driven", you've accused Tony1's motives, and you've failed to assume good faith with respect to my edits more than once now. It may help for you to read the link on {{calm talk}} to Wikipedia:Etiquette and other talk page guidelines; begging forgiveness for your breach of Wiki policy doesn't make it correct. You've provided no example yet of any POV, undue weight, or anything left out of the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Sandy, I refuse to rise to this bait. It's not a big deal, I can, and will, live with it if you insist, but I am honestly not at all comfortable with you haranguing me on this personal level instead of addressing the clear POV issues outlined to you, in detail several times, and not only by me, with quotes and examples, that you seem to go on choosing to ignore. I just want a fair, neutral article here. What do you want? --Zeraeph 01:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That is only one example...but, to be honest, I feel I am going up against heavy duty admins here, and nobody but me really cares if the article is balanced and objective or not. It doesn't matter whether I am right or wrong, I won't win, and will probably attract a community ban for trying, so my smart move now would be a Wiki-break. I am taking my smart move. But I would ask ALL of you to consult your consciences about your comfort level in supporting a POV article with the level of potential significant affect on attitudes and real people's lives as this one. --Zeraeph 02:07, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

OK - I have found and tweaked a little - it is tricky as many words considered jargon have specific meanings that it can be a challenge to put in simpler words without losing meaning. And, yes, as I work in the area I can let alot slip by without recognising it as a problem for those outside the medical profession. This is one reason I like bluelinks so that folk can click on and find out what a particular concept or word means. In any case I for one am happy to try rephrasing specific problem bit you want to point out.

As far as POV - the article highlights the symptoms and treatment and discusses deficits....you want it to go over the sterngths (?)....but then you write about how difficult it is for you? Isn't that the point of the article who might want to read about it? What else do you want covered? Diagnosing dead people or otherwise high functioning people without interviewing them clinically I feel is speculative at best. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Casliber (talk • contribs) 02:54, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry, I do not believe I have ever written about "how difficult it is" for me in terms of AS, to the contrary, I always feel it is unwise to go into too many details of one's weaknesses online. Such personal "sharing" is far too open to abuse. You must have mixed me up with someone else.

However, for the record, this is what I think. AS is a condition that makes many ordinary, everyday things others take for granted into exhausting ordeals, but conversely it gives an alternative focus that can, if appropriately applied, make many things more "normal" people would find difficult, or even impossible, come quite easily to the ASpie.

AS can only be understood by accepting it as a combination of strengths and limitations. Strategies that target only the limitations and overlook the strengths are just destructive to the unfortunate human being "inside the ASpie suit", not least because, by determinedly ignoring his considerable strengths you are offering him a modality that, of it's nature, conditions him to seek safety and functionality in undermining himself. Anecdotally, as I understand it, this increases his risk of co-morbidity, substance abuse and suicide to alarming levels. Hardly effective, or helpful.

However, to the rest of your point, no matter how benignly intentioned (that is what you are trying to imply? If not, please clarify?) the exclusion, or how "uninteresting" you feel the "strengths" to be, excluding those strengths, as at present, is not in compliance with WP:NPOV. --Zeraeph 11:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I agree that this article have been turned into a pro-defective POV of view. This have been an ongoing change ever since the last FAR. The main problem is Sandy's and others propositions that only published research can be put into the article, and basically all published research has a negative bias (for obvious reasons). I also agree that the best would be a revert, as it would take way to much work to reformulate all the negative bias, and most of it would probably be reverted by the defect-lobby anyway. --Rdos 09:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with this line that what is reportage of the science is a negative spin. I dispute that a revert is appropriate. Tony 10:44, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Rdos, Tony, you are actually both half wrong and half right...there is absolutely nothing wrong with Sandy's insistence on only published research, I support that myself on this and many other articles (and if you knew the kind of nonsense I use that rationale to keep out I bet you would support it too). However, only using the negatives from published research and ignoring the positives in the same sources (there are plenty RDos, do mail me if you would like copies to see for yourself) as at present, is a "negative spin" and POV. --Zeraeph 11:16, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

As it stands, DSM IV has as criterion C - "C. The disturbance causes clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning." - thus if someone does not have this criterion then they do not have AS - some may be described as having Asperger traits but they do not qualify for the diagnosis. This is what the medical and legal world understands as AS. Of course DSM may change in future (V, VI etc.) this is how it is currently. Under these criteria high functioning people with no significant deficit do not qualify for the diagnosis cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:20, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Never mind the "clinically significant impairment" sh*t. Many people that read this article or potentially recommend it to others, don't care if it causes "impairment". Whatsmore, to understand those that have impairments one first needs to understand those that doesn't. This is because those that are high-functioning are usually much better suited for advocacy and describing their problems / strengths than those that are severely impaired. That's why this article shouldn't be focused on narrow criteria of "impaired functioning". --Rdos 15:56, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I find myself having to argue with you again here Rdos, because surely Asperger disorder and Aspie (for example) are both potential and different sub-topics to the whole concept of Asperger syndrome (whether pathological or not), not the other way around?

I would personally see most of the current, DSM pathology heavy, article shifted to Asperger disorder (DSM), a more informal article about the concept Aspie (purely about the positive and negative social and cultural aspects?) all tied together by a generic article Asperger syndrome covering the whole concept. --Zeraeph 16:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

True, but the fact that the significant deficit is accompanied by equally significant strengths does not cancel out the deficit, nor render the accompanying strengths into irrelevance or non-existance. The only way any strategy can be effective is by acknowledging and learning how to use our strengths to compensate for our deficits, something that is unlikely to be possible to execute through blanket denial of the existance of those same strengths. --Zeraeph 11:32, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

The US is 4.4% of the world's population. Most of the remainder are not diagnosed using DSM. Poindexter Propellerhead 06:51, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm wondering if you have a source for the notion that DMS or ICD aren't used in most of the world; Cas seems to say they are, and I couldn't find any data to the contrary in any of the reading I did when I compiled the table for the section on other sets of criteria. It was my impression, without finding any hard data, that the DSM and ICD are used in the large majority. I would be interested in seeing information that they are only used in 4.4% of the world.SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, ICD most definitely IS used in most of the world! But, as the great chart you made points out, only DSM has criterion C. DSM is a publication of the American Psychiatric Association, ICD is published by the World Health Organization, and their areas of use reflect that. If you want someone to pay for psychiatric services in Australia, for example, you'd better have an ICD (ICD-10-AM, the Australian version) number for the diagnosis, because DSM has no standing there. Canada uses their own, customized version, ICD-10-CA, Germany uses ICD-10-GM, most of the rest of the world use the standard version. The 1.3 billion Chinese are under CCMD, a loose rewrite of ICD, and I'm pretty sure it has no such clause either (else they would not be institutionalizing gays and Falun Gong people who are not likely to be distressed by anything more than unwanted treatment). Poindexter Propellerhead 04:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

ah, ok, that makes more sense. But remember, the study cited in that same section (next to the table) showed that the diagnostic prevalence for DSM, ICD and Gillberg criteria were all essentially the same, and the authors concluded (I can get the exact text if you want) that the significant distress criterion should be retained. It didn't account for the differences in prevalence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:18, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

ICD-10's criteria are quite similar to DSM-IV's overall -- DSM had been criticised for using different criteria, which made it impossible to know how a DSM-based study reflected on ICD-diagnosed populations, and vice-versa. So DSM's criteria were rewritten to be much closer to ICD's. But the issue at hand isn't the criteria overall, it's DSM's requirement for distress, which is not found in any of the other criteria.

Assuming you mean the article on the Finnish school kids (Mattila), I can provide the quotes myself, although I can't agree with your recollection of them. Under "Discussion" (p.8) it says that some children who met the ICD-10 criteria "did not have clinically significant impairment in social or other important areas of functioning and thus did not meet the DSM-IV criteria. Because of this conclusion the prevalence rates of the DSM-IV and ICD-10 differ from each other." So they did differ, precisely because the children were not having problems. As to what the researchers thought of that situation, I didn't notice anything beyond their conclusion ("Clinical Implications, page 10) that "The results of our study point to the huge need to reconsider the diagnostic criteria of AS." I didn't notice any explicit condemnation or approval when it came to DSM's variance in criteria, but that would beside the point, regardless. They noted that ICD does not require impairment the way that DSM does, and that the difference between the two was the reason for differences in DSM and ICD prevalence rates. Outside of the US we can expect to see higher rates of diagnosis, because they may regularly be diagnosing people who are not impaired. And that is an important finding -- in your criticism of Baron-Cohen's AQ paper, for example, you seemed to feel that the study could not be used to reach any useful conclusions because many of the academics studied were not distressed by their autism, and could not be diagnosed under DSM. The fact that many of them were probably diagnosable under ICD (or Gillberg, or Szatmari) puts the whole thing in a different light. Mattila is a great example of how people can receive a valid AS diagnosis despite the fact that they don't have any real problems. Poindexter Propellerhead 18:46, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Subarticle possibility

PS. Just making coffee I remembered one more pertinent thing. This article is called Asperger syndrome, the DSM classification is Asperger Disorder and is, technically, only a subset of Asperger syndrome. If maintaining a DSM Focussed article with an exclusively negative bias seems so important why not RENAME this (FA status and all) as Asperger disorder the DSM category, and move any superfluous information from it to a new, more generic article called Asperger syndrome? It seems to me that would make everybody happy, you would have your exclusive DSM focus, Sandy would have her FA status and a relaxing of size constraints. Everybody would be happy, and the article title would be a lot more honest. Think on't --Zeraeph 11:56, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely not. See WP:POVFORK --lucid 12:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Not, it is NOT actually a WP:POVFORK AT ALL. A DSM category is a topic in itself, unto itself. Many have their own articles see: DSM-IV_Codes. Let me just sketch you the reason why. A DSM Category exclusively defines a pathology, whereas a "syndrome" simply defines a condition, independent of whether it is pathological or not. Blue eyes are a syndrome, but not a pathology, if you follow me? It is, actually, very wrong, and grossly inaccurate to define an article titled as a syndrome (Asperger syndrome) solely in terms of a related pathology (Asperger disorder), as Casliber seems to be suggesting we do. --Zeraeph 12:13, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Following down the track of AS/AD difference leads to OR issues, so maybe the best place for a fork then would be under the Shift in View section, with a subarticle called Controversies with diagnosis or ...something, where the whole shift can be expanded upon from there. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I am sorry Casliber, I think you got buried among the verbiage (I am an Aspie, it's my JOB :o) ) today. There DOES seems to be an awful lot to say about "controversies in diagnosis", I agree with you, I would support a subarticle of that nature (did it myself with DID when the controversies nearly BURIED the article), help "keep the weight down" too.

But I am curious, why would you be hostile to the, defect driven, and as you rightly point out, of it's very nature, negative DSM pathology having it's own article like all the other DSM categories, and the Syndrome (which can, but does not NEED to be dysfunctional, or pathological at all) being described in a more balanced way in a generic article? It's an huge subject, and entire culture...in fact, it might be interesting too take a look at how Deaf amnd Blind are managed in this respect? --Zeraeph 20:09, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, I see in my job and on the telly the consequences of huge numbers of classification issues and two-tiered practice of psychiatry - on the one we have loads of 'clincial' syndromes, yet when we move into more psychotherapeutic areas therapy (naturally) becomes alot more customised along problems/solutions (now where is this leading?) - i am concerned about the use of labels of many psychiatric conditions in people where they don't actually fit the criteria as they stand and there's a whole lotta reasons behind this. The Main issue in this case is that I don't know whether the strengths in a population purpoted to have AS are the same type of people who fit the DSM diagnosis. The problem is many of the deficits are very general and I could go on for pages on social issues impacting on folks' ability to socialise - anonymous society, bullying etc., psyhological -obsessive traits, avoidant traits

which may totally obfuscate the clincal picture of many of these people. I concede I haven't read much of the literature citing strengths but am familiar with many trends in my profession.

Given people on this page and elsewhere in WP I am also aware of how extremely difficult to discuss this topic in a medium such as this without causing upset or offence and concede I haven't examined much of this material to assess how robust much of it actually is. if I get a chance I will. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:53, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

SG multiple responses

Lots to cover here:

1. Wikipedia is not a soapbox. Per WP:NOT, please keep talk page commentary focused on specific and actionable items that can be used to improve the article. The talk page and archives are already very long, and we still have a lot of work ahead of us. Criticism and accusations without specific examples based on reliable sources are not helpful. Please remember to assume good faith; everyone working on this page has the same goal, which is to present the most helpful, useful information about AS possible. Accusing others of introducing "negative spin" is not only inaccurate and unhelpful: it's a failure to assume good faith.
2. Criticism here is premature. I understand your concerns, Z, but they are premature. We've consolidated so far a lot of information from a large number of sources, while removing factually inaccurate information that dominated the previous version and was either a misrepresentation of sources cited, completely unsourced, or not based on reliable sources. Further wordsmithing and tweaking of the text to make the prose more compelling, refined, and brilliant is what the next step is about. Premature criticism, before this work has even gotten underway, may only serve to discourage some very fine writers from working further on the article. Please focus on specific items that can be addressed, and provide reliable sources upon which those suggestions are based.
3. Revert discussions. There is nothing to revert to. In the previous FAR, whenever someone retrofitted a citation to existing text, I assumed good faith, took their word for it, and had no inclination to double check or question the efforts of other editors. That answers, hopefully, Z's question about the difference between this FAR and the others; in this case, we were provided with ample reliable sources, and we took the time to verify that some of the older sources were misrepresented or blatantly wrong. Now that we do have reliable sources, and we have taken the opportunity to analyze and check some of the previous citations, it is abundantly clear that every previous version was factually inaccurate, outdated, or not reliable. A lot has changed and science has advanced in the 13 years since AS was recognized as a diagnosis. We shouldn't base current text on historical concepts or constructs. Please focus on moving forward, rather than backwards. If there are specific issues that can be fixed, provide concrete examples backed by reliable sources.
4. Naming the article. There is no such thing as two separate conditions or constructs— Asperger syndrome or Asperger disorder—and creating such a separation would be a POV fork, it would not be based on reliable sources, it would not be accurate, and it would probably be quickly AFD'd. ICD calls it Asperger's syndrome and DSM calls it Asperger's Disorder, and each describes, according to reliable sources, "virtually" the same thing. There is no such notion in reliable sources of one being a subset of the other. Wiki naming conventions do not use apostrophes on eponymous conditions and defer to ICD except where there is a strong reason not to, based on reliable sources. The article is correctly named per ICD-10; I do not support the notion that redirecting the article to name it a "Disorder" will be useful or helpful to people with AS.
5. Accessibility of language. I disagree that the language is inaccessible, while I acknowledge that the final wordsmithing and tweaking of text is not yet finished and fully expect there to be many more edits to refine the text and make it shine. Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and the language in this article is consistent with the level desired and attained by most of Wiki's finest articles. Wiki does not aim to produce pop psychology. If there are specific phrases or paragraphs that need to be tweaked, please provide concrete examples so work can get under way. If there is a way to turn a particular phrase to make a sentence sound more positive while staying true to the sources, please suggest it.
6. History. Z, you provided a lot of criticism yet offered only one concrete example of text you claim was left out in what you are deeming "selective use of sources". Your example was that I did not include some text about Asperger's original description. If you want to include Asperger's historical observations on AS, I suggest you consider writing the article History of Asperger syndrome. I don't think you'll like what reliable sources have to say about his observations, which is why I didn't think you would want it included here. First, not only were his observations not "sufficiently systematic", they were highly based on the concept of psychopathy and schizophrenia, and according to Hippler and Klipcera's "Retrospective analysis", would be consistent with what is referred to today as "schizoid". The Hippler paper is quite instructive. The topics you want to cover would be more appropriately covered in the History article, but if you want to provide balanced coverage of what is found in Asperger's original sample, I'm not sure you'll be happy with all of the conclusions. He was dealing with a highly impaired sample of mostly children admitted to psychiatric wards—not exactly representative of modern knowledge based on broader samples of persons with AS. I won't take up more space on this here now, but the older notions are covered where they should be, in the History section, and more weight is given in the rest of the article to current concepts based on modern science. Without mentioning the significant negatives in Asperger's original sample, in terms of the positives you mention (not a systematic review, mind you), for example, the infamous "capable of original thought" describes 19% of his sample—not a large percentage. If you have any other specific questions of why I may not have included any specific text, I'll be happy to answer.

   By the way, here's what "negative spin" would look like:

   Accurate, factual reporting: According to so-and-so, who analyzed his records, Asperger believed that 19% of the children he examined were "capable of original thought".

   "Negative spin": Among Asperger's original patients, 81% were not capable of original thought. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:53, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

7. Claims of selective use of sources. Please remember to assume good faith, Z. I have no reason whatsoever to want to put a negative spin on AS. If there is any text I have failed to use, reliable source I could have considered, or text that could have been phrased differently while staying true to the original sources, please point it out so we can get to work. Perhaps you're disappointed that, once I was provided with reliable sources, I wasn't able to write the same kind of prognosis I could write for Tourette syndrome (TS). Please keep in mind that, by definition, TS does not include impairment, while AS does. I can't change that; we can only write on Wiki what reliable sources report. I have included everything I could find in the literature to which I had access; that others here have sat on the sidelines instead of actively seeking out reliable sources that could be incorporated is a shame. With respect to my writing, I'm more concerned about the opposite problem; that is, because I conglomerated just about everything I could from almost a dozen sources into the text, the text may be redundant and will need pruning to make it shine. You can criticize those who might help make the article truly shine, working from what is now at least an accurate base, or you can give concrete examples of text you would like us to work on and concentrate on helping to locate current, reliable sources upon which to write the text you would like to see included.

At any rate, once again, any notion that succeeding in having this article defeatured will somehow exempt it from *any* Wiki guideline or policy is simply wrong. Defeaturing it will only remove the star; it won't change the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Moved response to No. 6 above, to preserve formatting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

There's nothing unflattering in Hippler & Klicpera, nor is there anything particularly negative in the obsolete "Psychopathie" label. In German, a "Psychopathie" was a long-term deviance in personality, such as being too dependent on others (now found at ICD-10, F60.7, "Dependent Personality Disorder"). OCD was also considered a "Psychopathie," as was being anxious or merely eccentric. Sexual deviance (including, through at least the early 1930s, masturbation) was often labelled as a psychopathie. Wing translates it as "abnormality of personality." Schizophrenia had been categorized as "dementia," then shifted into a new category, it was never a "psychopathie." So there was no connection drawn between AS and schizophrenia by Asperger.

There was also nothing of the kind done by Hippler and Klicpera. They refer to Wolff's study on "schizoid" children, but the term does not relate to schizophrenia, it is used in a fairly modern sense, referring to children with little interest in social interaction. As our page on schizoid personality disorder says, "Schizoid personality disorder (SPD) is a personality disorder characterized by a lack of interest in social relationships, a tendency towards a solitary lifestyle, secretiveness, and emotional coldness." There is a similarity with AS in that both are marked by their lack of social tendencies. But that's very different from drawing a comparison with schizophrenia, which would be both inaccurate and unsupported by the literature. Poindexter Propellerhead 21:51, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't believe I said it was unflattering; what I'm saying is that Z can't cherrypick Asperger's old results either. If we want to include analysis of his population, 1) that belongs in History and 2) you can't cherrypick only the positive. Including Asperger's findings would be the equivalent of saying that everyone with Tourette syndrome had coprolalia because Gilles de la Tourette defined it that way over a hundred years ago; it's no longer relevant, except to History of Tourette syndrome. (PP would you mind if I moved this section to below my response for easier formatting?) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:12, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't mind if you move the section.

I don't think that Asperger's studies are particularly obsolescent, or people wouldn't keep doing papers on them. (Attwood has come under the same criticism, because his best-known book dates from 1998, but we go hog wild with the DSM-IV-TR criteria, which are based on the ICD criteria, which were ratified for use in May 1990, yet I hear no hue and cry to dismiss the DSM criteria as nearly twice as dated as Attwood.) Cherry picking is definitely a bad thing. Klicpera's "19% original thought" statistic becomes deceptive if unexplained: under the heading "Special Gifts and Abilities," they say that 19% were "capable of original, sometimes even philosophical thinking processes." This ties into the later statement that the children "spoke like scholars or professors about their chosen field often using original expressions or unusual words. Asperger drew a connection between their language and their thought processes, which he thought of as often being creative, spontaneous and original." 86% were not said to "have a gift for abstract thinking and logical reasoning," 86% did not have eidetic memories, 45% did not have IQs in the high to superior range, and 77% did not have "outstanding mathematical talent." Und so weiter. But you can't really make a negative spin stick by reversing those numbers as I did, you can only do it by not mentioning the numbers at all.

I think this all comes back to something you and I touched on earlier: the view of Asperger, Baron-Cohen, Lovaas, and a number of other rather prominent authorities in the field have stated that autism is not just disability, it is something that blends seamlessly into the "normal" population, whose traits are shared by the diagnosable and undiagnosable alike. And, since some of the criteria lack the "clinical distress" clause, it's not even clear where the line of diagnosability lies. Baron-Cohen feels that 2% of the population should be considered autistic, even though most of them are not distressed by it. And that's where things go amiss, in these POV discussions. DSM-IV-TR is never going to consider anything but pathology, because pathology is DSM's one and only domain. Most studies won't look at it, because pathology is where the funding is.

So, even though as disparate figures as Lovaas and Mottron have made numerous comments endorsing the view that autism extends into the undiagnosable population, there is an unsatisfying lack of papers on the topic; Baron-Cohen has begun scratching the surface, but AS is a badly-researched subject so far (less than 1/3 as many papers have been done on it as on TS, as I pointed out earlier). The void is big enough that sometimes data referring to autism in general have been pulled in to fill the gaps, which I think is a mistake. I believe that the opinions of the leading people in the field should be mentioned, not dismissed as "anecdote and hyperbole and just plain silly and not based on science." For the time being, they are often the most authoritative statements we have on particular aspects of AS -- particularly when they are published in peer-reviewed papers. They should be reported as opinions held by researchers, rather than being either ignored or stated as settled fact. If we don't do that, then the article becomes little more than a recital of DSM, followed by statements that diagnostic criteria vary, symptoms and comorbidities vary greatly, that it is a permanent condition, and that some off-label attempts have been made at dealing with particular symptoms or comorbidities. Whether readers are after enlightenment or practical guidance, a more complete picture will serve them better, I think. Poindexter Propellerhead 08:39, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break, P

Poindexter, what we need here to get moving and get finished is for those who have sat on the sidelines to put forward specific items that may have been missed or excluded, specific reliable sources that can be used, specific statements that we can discuss for inclusion. I had 10 papers or more spread across my desk and in various stages of word processing, and tried to merge them all. If there is something you can point out that is sourced to a reliable source that can be included and that I missed, or something that I phrased poorly that can be rephrased, now's the time to propose it, and we have plenty of time. The job is not complete, and Z's criticism and alarm is premature. I still believe there is a lot of redundancy in my text (because I was trying to merge so many sources), and I'm hoping Casliber and Eubulides will be able to pare some of it down (it's harder to see your own mistakes), making room for whatever we find that is missing. Describing the lack of research here won't help us move forward; the fact is, Wiki reports what reliable sources say, so we need to locate reliable sources for anything you want to include and/or highlight anything I missed that could be worked in from the sources we all have. Also, it doesn't matter when the DSM and ICD were written; they are the standard, they are current until the DSM is re-written, and we've already given a lot of space to Szatmari and Gillberg. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

My thought is that this article is on a topic which is not entirely medical, both because it encompasses social issues, and because, as discussed, what are thought of as autistic traits extend outside of diagnosability. Instead, because it's a contentious subject, it's been held to the most severe of medical standards; on TS, you could say that a long dead figure probably had it, while here such statements are regularly deleted as too badly documented for a medical article. Here, we have 2.1% of the article ("Shift in View" and "Cultural Aspects," 17 lines out of 790) devoted to anything and everything which is outside the arena of pathology, and none of that is in the first half of the article. While I realize that there have been problems in the past with inclusion of questionable statements, and that challenging the sources was a good way of dealing with the matter, we seem to have taken it to such an extreme that a lot of relevant material will not get the treatment that its importance deserves.

Let's consider an Ivor Lovaas quote for a moment. "Just look around here at UCLA! The mathematicians? They depend on their wives to dress them properly. We all rock. We all seIf-stimulate. It's just a matter of degree." This is a statement which Lovaas cannot justify with a paper proving it, yet it reflects a general sentiment shared by many, from Asperger to the present. Likewise for comments from Asperger, Baron-Cohen, Attwood, and others, on positive autistic traits. They are examples of what would be considered, in a court of law, to be undisputed facts -- the general ideas they are espousing have gone unchallenged. The way things have gone in this article, a quote like that might be removed, but were it not, it would end up in the intellectual ghetto of "Shift in View." Most readers are unlikely to get past the first 350 lines of a dry, medical article, so they will end up thinking that the tip of the iceberg is all there is. They should know that a pathology-only POV has never been held by the leading researchers in the field, before they have read hundreds of lines of pathology-only material. We end up satisfying verifiability in the strictest possible way, but fall short in our duty to provide readers with truth.

How to get around it? In an ideal world, we could include material like that throughout the body of the article without concern. In practice we can't, because it would establish a slippery slope; if Asperger, Baron-Cohen, Attwood and Lovaas are credible authorities, why isn't someone with an MA in psychology who published an obscure self help book? We could, by consensus, agree to disregard everyone who has not published 5 peer-reviewed papers on autism, or something like that. Or we could enlarge the "Shift in View" section, move it much closer to the top of the article, and include a reasonable summary in the lede. I have no concrete opinion as to the best way to attack the problem, but any reasonable attempt at a solution would leave me happier with the result than I am now.

As far as particular quotes to use, I have lots of them, and will be happy to spam the talk page with specific suggestions, if there seems hope that they will be used in such a way as to meaningfully shift the overall POV of the article.

Does anyone have a better solution than to enlarge "Shift in View," move it up, and include a summary in the lede? If that's the best we can do, I'd like to do it, but we need agreement, and to know that no better answer has been overlooked. Poindexter Propellerhead 20:03, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Two things. 1) Instead, because it's a contentious subject, it's been held to the most severe of medical standards; on TS, you could say that a long dead figure probably had it, while here such statements are regularly deleted as too badly documented for a medical article. No, we can say a long dead figure (Samuel Johnson) had TS based on the strength of a world famous and highly notable biography written by a contemporary who knew him well in real life, James Boswell, and because this is a topic that has been analyzed and covered by highly reliable sources. 2) We have already included in the lead the topics you mention, even to the extent of giving undue weight to the opinions of one researcher, which aren't backed by solid research. I don't see much more we can do. You don't need to spam the talk page with quotes; we need to know what information you have from highly reliable sources that has been left out. I strongly suspect the difference between the TS and AS articles at this point is simply that no one has done the work of digging up the sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Where would we even begin with that? There has been a book on Thomas Jefferson (Diagnosing Jefferson), a book covering Jefferson, Michelangelo, Newton, Johnathan Swift, Henry Cavendish, Vincent Van Gogh, Eric Satie, Bertrand Russell, Einstein, Bartok, Ramanujan, Wittgenstein, Alan Turing, Glenn Gould and Andy Warhol (Asperger's Syndrome and High Achievement: Some Very Remarkable People), and a third book nominating Orwell, Mozart, Warhol, Melville, Simone Weil, Beethoven, Lewis Carroll, Wittgenstein, Johnathan Swift, H. C. Andersen, A. C. Doyle, Satie, Newton, Glenn Gould, Yeats, and a few others (The Genesis of Artistic Creativity: Asperger's Syndrome and the Arts). Peer reviewed papers have been done on Einstein (2), Newton, Jefferson, Wittgenstein (2), Ramanujan, Charles XII of Sweden (2), Michelangelo, Irène Joliot-Curie and Henry Cavendish (2), among others. But reference to suspected aspies in history have all been deleted by various editors, leaving a peer-reviewed paper, formerly a cite, now demoted to an external link, as the only trace of the discussion. However, my point wasn't particularly to resurrect the topic of possible aspies in history, it was just an example of the POV-related problems that have existed, and continue to exist, in this article. Poindexter Propellerhead 02:38, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Example Break for Linking

Well, we begin by getting the facts right. I don't know what happened in the past, but in the version I edited it is incorrect to say that "reference to suspected aspies ... now demoted to an external link", because the source speculating that Einstein and Cavendish may have had AS was not used to reference text saying that there is speculation that they had AS. It was used to source the statement about "leading to fulfilling careers", which is a stretch at best, and it was used in the lead no less, which is not a place for speculative text. I don't have a problem with including text in Cultural aspects, as long as it's sourced to refereed journals, saying there is speculation that persons a, b or c may have had AS. If you position the text in the right section of the article, stay true to the speculative nature of these sources, keep due weight in mind with respect to the size of the entry (since it is speculation, unlike the case of a detailed account of Samuel Johnson's personal friend and biographer who knew him well and described his behaviors), and don't stretch the conclusions of the sources, I don't see why such text can't be included. As to this alleged negative POV, we still don't have a single example. We all want to get this article right, and we're still waiting for these examples of positives left out or negative spin. The example Z gave above is inaccurate; see Prognosis. I continue to believe this task can be accomplished, if some folk will quit stirring unnecessary and premature negativity, and if we focus on the task at hand. PP, I hope you'll put together a proposed sentence or two about individuals speculated to have had AS, show us your sources, and let's try to work it into Cultural apects, but speculation doesn't belong in the lead, because that gives undue weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

"It was used to source the statement about 'leading to fulfilling careers', which is a stretch at best, and it was used in the lead no less, which is not a place for speculative text." There was nothing speculative about its use, it (an article from the Journal of the Royal Society of Medicine, I believe they do peer review) was used because it contained quotes from Asperger, which were entirely germane to the "fulfilling careers" you refer to. To quote a small part of the article:

Hans Asperger (described patients) who he regarded as mildly autistic but who were otherwise remarkably able. He was struck by the fact
that they usually had some mathematical ability and tended to be successful in scientific and other professions where this was
relevant:
‘To our own amazement, we have seen that autistic individuals, as long as they are intellectually intact, can almost always achieve
professional success, usually in highly specialized academic professions, often in very high positions, with a preference for abstract
content.’

But we digress from deletion of references to historical aspies. That happened some time ago. (Before I leave the topic, here are some PMIDs for papers on people I mentioned: Einstein, Newton, Cavendish, Curie: 12519805. Einstein again at 11261475. Cavendish again at 11591871. Michelangelo: 15079170. Wittgenstein: 10795857 and 11261476. Ramanujan: 12114951. Charles XII: 12523067 and 12523074.)

And that, in turn was a digression from my point, which was that this article is 97.9% pathology, which seems very unbalanced. Poindexter Propellerhead 07:07, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent). I'm beginning to see the source of the confusion. There are several problems with using that to source a statement about "fulfilling careers". *Fulfilling* is a subjective term, and nothing in any of the 3 sources originally attached to the statement proved or said anything about these subjects having "fulfilling" careers. I suspect this is happening a lot here; from reading the talk page archives, it's apparent that text was developed independently from soures, and then an attempt was made afterwards to retrofit sources to the text. But none of these sources ever discussed fulfillment in careeers. Second, what Asperger observed in his original patients is interesting history and that source can be used to cite history, but it can't be used to make a declarative statement of fact about people diagnosed with AS today. To state as fact that people with AS have "fulfilling careers", you would need a large, controlled, unbiased study of a random sample showing that people with AS have career success (however you define "fulfilling") to the same extent "normal" controls do. This article never had any such source. Perhaps your earlier statements about historical figures were deleted because, as in every case we've discussed, they stretched what the source actually said; if you stick closely to what the sources say, this text should be easily incorporated into History, just as it should be possible to write something about notable individuals in Cultural aspects, if you just stick close to what the sources actually say.

On the topic of historical figures, I call your attention to WP:MEDMOS, which was submitted for review to every medical or clinical or pharmacological WikiProject and announced on the Village Pump (in other words, it garnered broad consensus so that it could be included as part of Wiki's Manual of Style). WP:MEDMOS#Notable cases mentions "include only those individuals who have lastingly affected the popular perception of a condition." That should give you some leeway to include some mention of historical figures in Cultural aspects—reviewing MEDMOS may help. You could also link in your text to the other articles with lists of autistic people. I would help you write this section, but it sounds like you already have the sources, and I'm not excited about paying about $25 each to download nine different PMIDs to write a couple of sentences—that would get kind of expensive. Why don't you propose a paragraph in Sandbox that we can all have a look at, since you have all the sources? I really believe it may have been deleted before because it may have been given undue weight, may have been in the wrong places, or may not have adequately mentioned the speculative nature of this information. History is already a bit long; have a look at History of Tourette syndrome. Someone really should be able to write History of Asperger syndrome and include Asperger's observations of his clinical sample; unfortunately, his observations can't be used to source declarative statements of fact about people currently diagnosed with AS.

Regarding your statement that the article is 97% pathology and unbalanced, I refer you to WP:UNDUE. Balance doesn't mean WIKI has to present all points of view equally. It says we have to present significant viewpoints as published by reliable sources. I disagree with your word "pathology" (and am curious at why editors here are so unaccepting of AS, but that's another story), but even if I were to agree that the article is "97% pathology", if 97% of the reliable sources present a view that agrees with 97% are being about pathology, the article is balanced and there is no POV. Until someone presents a significant point of view published by reliable sources that is excluded, the article is balanced and neutral, true to sources. I have repeatedly urged you to explore this part of UNDUE, because the way we can write the article you want is for someone to come up with reliable sources we can use to source text. I think I've been asking for those sources for about a week now; none have been produced, except for your examples we can use to write about Historical figures. The key to getting this article where you want it to be is in a library, and I'm not close to one and don't have journal access. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Now that we have established that the above To our own amazement, we have seen that autistic individuals, as long as they are intellectually intact, can almost always achieve professional success, usually in highly specialized academic professions, often in very high positions, with a preference for abstract content. IS, after all from a relevant WP:RS, and does actually make a positive claim (or whatever the original doubts about it actually were, I forget) can we resolve a lot of my concerns about NPOV by working it into the lead this time tomorrow? Paragraph 2 seems a nice place. --Zeraeph 21:35, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

No. See above. And you've demonstrated no POV; the article is true to the majority viewpoint expressed in the reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

In your opinion, but not in, at least, mine, or PP's, and if you have a problem with the phrase "fulfilling careers" why not accept it in the article verbatum as you usually do with other phrases? PP, CC and I (and any others) have an equal right to edit the article (see WP:OWN), though of course, I will certainly leave it until tomorrow, out of courtesy, as you requested. --Zeraeph 01:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Arbitrary break, Z

I honestly realise that you must think I am a total moron, but to me you say "if there are other sources out there, pls bring them forward," to PP you say "You don't need to spam the talk page with quotes; we need to know what information you have from highly reliable sources that has been left out. I strongly suspect the difference between the TS and AS articles at this point is simply that no one has done the work of digging up the sources." Anyway I try to read that it looks like you are contradicting yourself in a funny way, but I am sure you cannot be, so can you please clarify? --Zeraeph 20:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for taking the time to respond at such length, but I find this all very hard to make clear sense of.

I feel that you are trying to say that it is wrong to "cherrypick" the positives but somehow ok to exclude them?

Not wishing to sound awkward, but that cannot be in accord with WP:NPOV. All I want is for the positives, that most certainly exist within the sources already used to be given equal weight with the negatives, as they are not at present, and presented in more neutral and accessible text. I doubt if any part of WP:NOT has a problem with that?

I am really sorry if you feel that I am failing to assume good faith, that certainly is not my feeling or intention, after all, if I did not assume good faith, there would not have been a lot of point in me saying "I am going to try and trust the community of Wikipedia and say please remember, this article has always been regarded as a significant source of objective (rather than agenda driven) information on Asperger syndrome. Real people, human beings like yourselves, have to live with the consequences of the contents." if I didn't now would there? :o) Actually I don't suppose I would see any point in attempting to discuss the issues of neutrality at all unless I assumed a certain amount of good faith in those I was discussing them with?

I am also sorry for assuming the article was in it's finished form, as you, no doubt, realise, I genuinely DO only have limited time at present, and I must have lost track of the copiuous discussions, because my best recollection was that you were going to write the lead LAST, and you seem to be writing the lead now, but if that strategy has changed, fine. I really hope that final finished article will meet the high standard of WP:NPOV and presentation that I have always expected of you.

Also, I think you misunderstood me, when I said that renaming the article would mean you "got to keep" FA status, I meant AS OPPOSED to starting a NEW Asperger disorder article, which would have been an inexcuseable suggestion in the sense of expecting you to start from scratch on fresh FA status after all the work you have put in. In my mind that would have been an APPALLING thing to suggest, so I tried to make it clear that IN NO WAY was I suggesting it. Obviously I communicated that badly. I hope this clarifies things a little. --Zeraeph 12:35, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

OK, let's get back to work :-) We've got a sourced article now as a starting point. I was pushing to do as much as I could because I have travel pending, that doesn't mean we have a finished product. How about if you all start a new section and begin to highlight any sources that may have been missed that we can use, or statements that are missing from the sources we have, so we can all discuss how to include them in our ongoing refinement and tweaking of the text ? I'm hoping cas, Eubulides, Tony or Tim—who are all better writers than I am—will consolidate, prune, tweak and merge anything else needed, since I'm not the best person for final copyediting and refining of the text. I synthesized everything I could from a number of sources; now we need to make it complete and make it shine, but we have a much better starting place than afforded in any previous version. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:43, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Seriously Sandy, I DO understand "rushing"...perhaps it is time to point out the "wood" among the tree about AS. When an Aspie says "I have concerns about this, please can we fix it, not least because getting it right is EXTREMELLY important in real terms" they usually MEAN, literally "I have concerns about this, please can we fix it, not least because getting it right is EXTREMELLY important in real terms". (The NT ALWAYS seem to mean something rather more obscure?. :o( )

If I did not trust you (or Tony, or Casliber, et al) to hear me and try and resolve it, I honestly would not waste time asking you to. It would not make sense to me to do so. I also REALLY hope I will feel comfortable with restoring the final version to the websites. --Zeraeph 14:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I really don't know if it's an Aspie thing or not, but this page has an awful lot of long dialogues, but a clear absence of, "I would like to add this sentence to this section based on this reliable source". That's how this NT mind works; I can't read minds, I can only read sources. :-) For example, see how we worked out the pharmacotherapy above. Eubulides said too much pharmacotherapy, I reworked it in my sandbox and asked what else we could lose, Casliber said that's as deep as I want to cut, 3 editors working together, done. We need something concrete to work with, and it has to be based on reliable sources. I've only got what I've got; if there are other sources out there, pls bring them forward, and if you want something rephrased, pls start new sections below to discuss these kinds of issues. I can't rewrite based on vague, "I don't like it". I'm looking at about twenty hours of travel time over the next ten days, so if there's something I can download to read, now's the time to point it out. I'd offer to buy Attwood's new book and read it, but I don't think that will help since it's not a peer-reviewed source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

efficacy vs effectiveness

Recent edit summary: (efficacy refers to studies, effectiveness refers to practice)

Here's my convenient desk-top Encarta (not the final authority, though):

• efficacy |ˈefikəsē| noun the ability to produce a desired or intended result : there is little information on the efficacy of this treatment. ORIGIN early 16th cent.: from Latin efficacia, from efficax, efficac- (see efficacious ).

• effective |iˈfektiv| adjective 1 successful in producing a desired or intended result : effective solutions to environmental problems. • (esp. of a law or policy) operative : the agreements will be effective from November. 2 [ attrib. ] fulfilling a specified function in fact, though not formally acknowledged as such : the companies were under effective Soviet control. • assessed according to actual rather than face value : an effective price of $176 million. • impressive; striking : an effective finale. Tony 02:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Frustrating. I am googling to try and find a succinct page on it somewhere but failing - googling does show ample evidence of the definitions, that is, does the efficacy of an intervention in a controlled environment (which is how it is defined in Evidence Based Medicine) translate into effectiveness in the community. This is how we were taught in medicine WRT trials etc. I'll keep looking.....cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 11:01, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Try this, the efficacity of a trained attack dog in deterring burglars is beyond question, but the EFFECTIVENESS of keeping a trained attack dog to deter burglars in an house where all are allergic to dogs might be a little less clear. --Zeraeph 11:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Fedson D. "Measuring protection: efficacy versus effectiveness". Dev Biol Stand. 95: 195–201. PMID 9855432. - Efficacy is if the treatment produces the intended result, effectiveness is if this result actually helps patients in real-world situations. Tim Vickers 18:24, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

In medical terminology, efficacy is success seen in clinical trials; 'effectiveness' is success seen in general practice. So the difference between 'effectiveness' and 'efficacy' is a measure of robustness as the treatment, where pills get mixed, people are misdiagnosed, mail gets lost, and the cautionary measures of the clinical trial are tested (thalydimide)

In linguistic terms, 'efficacy' is potential, 'effectiveness' is actualized. Efficacy modifies an object, effectiveness modifies the use of the object (tho that use is often implied). CeilingCrash 22:33, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm trying to memorise all of this, especially CeilingCrashes linguistic summation. PS Don't google it: use the Phrase checker, which is googlish (ooh, a neologism), but oriented towards lexical items. Tony 01:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

CC is right; I was sifitng through my medical and epidemiology notes to find a reference for the definitions but couldn't find one :(....I'll try this phrase checker...cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:02, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Archive again?

The talk page is at 150KB again, and hopefully we're now going to begin the next phase of nitpicking and final tweaking and refining of the text. Is anyone opposed to archiving everything up to this stage, so that continuing work can begin on a fresh page? I'll wait until tomorrow at least, in case anyone disagrees, and have no problem if anyone does disagree, just trying to make our work easier. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Erm, OK. I just stuck something above so give a little time but should be ok by tomorrow. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Everything up to "something I think I should say", (until the issues are established on course for resolution, which is only reasonable) is fine by me whenever. --Zeraeph 14:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

We should probably also leave the section above that (Wikification), since I'm not sure anyone else has reviewed that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Totally fine by me :o)--Zeraeph 17:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ditto. cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Inaccessible language or needs rephrasing

Please give specific examples of sentences or paragraphs that have "inaccessible language", are unclear, or need to be rephrased to a more optimistic tone here; perhaps Tony or Cas or Eubulides can then work on those as they check in. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• From the section, "Repetitive behaviors and restricted interests", I don't know what the last clause in this sentence means; I kept it from the previous text, but I don't have the source, and have no idea what the final clause is trying to say. Asperger described good memory for trivial facts (occasionally even eidetic memory) in some of his patients;[31][32] but this typically involves rote memorization more than real understanding,[31] despite occasional appearances to the contrary.[33]

Well I have been known to speak English and I do have a PR diploma, you never know, I might even be able to tweak the odd word ALL BY MYSELF. :o) Mind you, I ALSO have galloping influenza, so if I mark it "tryout" feel free to revert. --Zeraeph 16:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Z rearranged the clauses, but I still don't know what "despite occasional appearances to the contrary" is trying to impart or why it matters. If anyone has the original source, clarification would be appreciated. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It means that sometimes, we defectives give the "appearance" of being real people, but were aren't, not really...very much doubt if "Oncle Hans" actually said that, not his style, NOR his "hidden agenda" (keeping the boys out of the clutches of Aktion T4)...but I have never seen the source, I thought you pulled everything that wasn't sourced already? I t's so darn HARD to checked somebody "never" said something...personally I'd pull the whole last sentence as superfluous. --Zeraeph 18:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No, I didn't pull everything, that's why I'm questioning it. I retained as much sourced text as I could, and that clause is sourced to Gillberg, a reliable source. It originally said, "For example, Wing and Gillberg both argue that, in children with AS, these areas of intense interest typically involve more rote memorization than real understanding, despite occasional appearances to the contrary." Wing specifically uses the term "rote memory", but it was linked to rote learning, and you changed it to say "rote learning'. I have no idea if rote memory and rote learning are the same thing, so now there are two problems. I didn't pull it because strong rote memory is a positive, and I didn't want to be accused of pulling reliably sourced, positive information. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken, I didn't *CHANGE* what it was linked to, I *SCREWED UP* what it was linked to [[Rote learning|rote memorization]] and had to fix it to [[learning by rote|rote memorization]], all I changed was the text over the link to the more familiar "learning by rote" the link always stayed the same. I was always of the understanding that rote memory was a neutral myself.

You pulled acres of positive text "sourced to reliable sources" on the grounds that you could not verify it already, so what harm if you pull one more sentence, which, taken as a whole, is an huge negative that claims we only learn as a parrot does, without understanding, so don't sweat it. --Zeraeph 18:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Z, per WP:TALK#Good practice, can you please stop hollering in all caps on the talk page and in your edit summaries? Do you have an example of "acres of positive text sourced to reliable sources" that I pulled? I pulled a lot of text sourced to non-peer reviewed or self-published sources; I tried to retain reliable sources or upgrade them to information from the 2006 reviews. I didn't say you changed what it was linked to: I said you changed the wording rote memorization to rote learning. The source refers to rote memory, it was linked to rote learning, you left it linked to rote learning, and changed the wording from rote memory to rote learning. Maybe they're the same thing; I don't know. So I no longer know what it's supposed to say, since I don't have the Gillberg source. If you wait a bit, I imagine Eubulides or Poindexter can access the source and resolve this all without filling up a whole 'nother talk page; it really was a rather simple question. With this change, and the grade school change, I'm trying to highlight the problem I've observed over time with this article: people change the text without concern for staying true to the source. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:57, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Back to the point, the text in question is obviously not verified, negative and doesn't make sense to you so lets pull it. --Zeraeph 19:16, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I need to ask you to slow down. We don't need to pull text sourced to a reliable source like Gillberg when we can wait a day for someone to clarify it. Some of the text you are removing and changing was reviewed and agreed upon by as many as four editors in some instances. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Well you are the one who has a problem with it, not me. You seem to have given up a lot of valuable time to it. I was just trying nto comply with you so we could move on. --Zeraeph 19:41, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

PS, Sandy...I tweaked the grammar and syntax and reordered a few sentences, I didn't do anything drastic like reverting the lead! :o) BTW, sorry about the typos, I have duct tape on my finger cos the bruised nail is nearly ready to come off and it keeps catching...--Zeraeph 19:49, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Missing information

Please add specific examples here of information from reliable sources that has not been included, and please provide the source with enough specificity that others can locate it (for example, saying B-C's second paper referenced fifteeen sections above this one is a bit hard to sort out). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Screening; I'm still concerned that the article makes no mention of screening instruments. There is text in McPartland and Klin (PMID 17030291 p. 780), Baskin (PMID 16596080 p. 5), and Foster and King (PMID 14508298 p. 492). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:56, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Also, McPartland p. 780 says that the gold standard consists of a parent interview, the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised, a semistructured conversation/play-based interview, and the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Redundant sections or sections that need trimming

• Classification; I'm still not happy with it; it's overcited and lacks clarity. I suspect Eubulides knows how to fix it, if he has time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC) Specifically, it's hard for a layperson to determine who says AS and HFA are the same and based on what, who says they are different and based on what, what is the prevailing medical consensus, and what is the bottom line implication for someone living with the condition—that is, establish the relevance of why we care if it's labeled AS or HFA. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:22, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Hyperbole there is quite a lot in places, not necessary, and I don't think we should REALLY quote too much text verbatum without quote marks, it's ok (even adviseable, for reasons of copyright) to explain and/or paraphrase. Doubt if toning down hyperbole and using simpler, more familiar, words changes the meaning so much as communicating it more effectively, academics are NOTORIOUS for torturing syntax ANYWAY. --Zeraeph 17:26, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• Can you please give an example? Otherwise, we're right back to, you don't like it, but we don't know where or why. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:13, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Just work your way down pulling every adjective and adverb you see that is not essential to the text as if it was a weed, you will be AMAZED at the difference it will make to the clarity and conscision(is that a word? :o) ) of the article.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Zeraeph (talk • contribs) 18:51, September 2, 2007 UTC [3]

Yes, I see you're pulling a lot of adjective and adverbs. We're aiming for compelling and brilliant; adjectives, adverbs and connections, when sourced, make the text more interesting, less dry. For example, the source specifically described it as "ironic" that Asperger and Kanner were working across an ocean, at the same time, unware of each other's work. You pulled the sourced word "ironically", resulting in what I consider to be dry text. I guess we disagree on what makes interesting reading. I don't like enjoy short, choppy sentences with no connection, adjectives and adverbs. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

No Sandy, sorry to be the one to tell you but you are too close to the paintwork for too long, superfluous adjectives only make the text harder to read, more wordy, convoluted, boring, and I hate to say this, but "downright Aspergic" :o) This is not MY thinking, it is professional training...left to my own devices I could daisychain adjectives and adverbs for Ireland in the Olympics and bring home Gold...I had to LEARN to do it a better way, I have no natural talent for it AT ALL.--Zeraeph 19:11, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I 'spose we could be patient and leave that decision to the professional copyeditors and some of Wiki's most prolific FA writers, particularly since others have already been through and copyedited the text you're changing. Please slow down and consult with others on changes that have been developed among several editors, particularly if you have the flu and aren't feeling well. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:31, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• NEWSFLASH* I AM a qualified pro copy editor...but I didn't expect you to realise that, what with me having AS and all. :o) It's ok...I KNOW you didn't mean that the way it came out. --Zeraeph

19:45, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

• • Newsflash—that should be "my having AS", should it? And the ellipsis dots should be spaced, should they? Let's take a breath here and relax. Calling people Aspergic is not going to produce a better article. Tony 01:34, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You don't really think think being called "Aspergic" by an Aspie is an INSULT? It just tickled me that the text had actually begun to take on all the attributes it was apportioning to us Aspies ( I think I am allowed a sense of humor?)...BTW, spacing ellipsis dots (which are often considered dubious behavious in themselves) is an option, but you missed "and all" which would be in the "grammatically despicable" range. Joking aside, I am trained and qualified in PR and Journalistic writing. I realise that you honestly do not feel we Aspies have any real ability or contribution to make compared to an NT (and hey, you can't control what you feel, don't worry, I am used to it, I strive to avoid taking offence), but quite a lot of us are actually hyperlexic, not me though...I just trained and qualified. --Zeraeph 01:55, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

PS. There you go, AS and Hyperlexia, [4] --Zeraeph 01:59, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Grade school

When rewriting, pls remember WP:FN (punctuation before footnotes). I reverted this because it's incorrect and we must stay true to sources to avoid inadvertently introducing errors or original research. The source (written by a US physician) says, "This proclivity typically is evident by grade school, when children with AS have amassed considerable volumes of information about their area of expertise." Grade school in the US is typically ages 5 or 6 (as opposed to preschool), but since he didn't specify an age, I'm reluctant to introduce one. Yes, this needs to be addressed so it will be globalized, but I try my hardest to stay very true to sources to avoid inadvertent errors; let's figure out how to fix this correctly. I don't think we should introduce an age when the source didn't specify one; we need to reword to somehow reflect primary education as opposed to pre-school. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok fine, but you catch my drift...I was just GUESSING when grade school is, best not let anyone else guess? Just a ballpark comment in brackets is fine...--Zeraeph 17:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I try not to guess; I try to stick to what the sources say. We need to resolve this correctly, not by guessing. In other parts of the world, is the distinction between preschool and primary education the same? If so, we could use some variant of that wording. Hey, Z, did you notice that I didn't make any changes to the text without giving everyone at least 24 hours to review them first in my sandbox and provide feedback, and I only introduced changes after several people had proofread and approved? You just introduced three one-sentence paragraphs into Characteristics, which will be labeled "choppy prose" at FAC or FAR. The flow is also awkward as it changed the syntax of who wrote what. Can you slow down a bit and perhaps make large changes in a sandbox so that others can review first? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:23, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't agree about the "choppy prose" that is largely what I removed, a lot of hyperbolic run on sentences and tormented syntax...see above on the dangers of quoting academics at too great length? The various Euro school systems are totally different to each other and the US, I really think refusing to communicate by offering a generic "ballpark" age everyone can understand might be over-picking the nit a bit?

But anyway, I am obvious making you very uncomfortable by editing here at all so probably best if I go to bed with a hot waterbottle and leave you to do it by yourself? I know I am making ME very uncomfortable sitting up shivering "out loud". :o( --Zeraeph 17:32, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

It's not nitpicking. There's a big difference developmentally between ages 5 and 6, and ages 11 and 12, and I'm uncomfortable introducing any number that is not sourced anyway. I try very hard to say what the source says. He refers to grade school age; your criticism that this isn't globalized is correct, but we need a globalized way to say the same, without guessing. Also, edit summaries like "that should nail it" could be hard for future editors to follow; it would help if you would use descriptive edit summaries. You and I may know what you meant, but we have to remember other editors who may not be "live". For example, I'm curious why you chopped one connected sentence that flowed well into two here: [5]. "Special interests may dominate the social interaction of a child with AS. The monologues characteristic of their preoccupations may alienate other children." SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:47, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

The shorter, and more succinct, the sentences, the greater the readability...that is just about pro-copywriting 101. But the pursuit of ever longer sentences is a common mistake among academics. No real need to promulgate it (or any OTHER bad habits) here, I am sure you agree? 'night --Zeraeph 18:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)

Restored calmtalk

I restored the {{calm talk}} that has been in place here since March 21; considering there is a history of tension on this page, it doesn't hurt during a FAR (when things can get even more tense) to keep a reminder of Wikipedia:Etiquette, talk page guidelines, assume good faith, use appropriate edit summaries to describe your edits, answer questions when asked, stay on topic, debate the topic not the person, don't type in all caps which is the equivalent of HOLLERING, etc. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, what I think is this, that the calmtalk template probably serves to incite more conflict than it prevents. As you probably know, a well known exercise to demonstrate the concept "cognitive control" is to instruct the audience NOT to think of pink elephants...with the inevitable result that the only thing they CAN think of is pink elephants. In this way, I feel the template may very well have the opposite effect to that intended. But If you are so very uncomfortable with trying my way for a couple of weeks, of course you can keep it. :o) --Zeraeph 11:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now I understand why your emoticon's nose is round -- it's full of beans! Poindexter Propellerhead 18:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

You got it :o) (Though beans might not be everybody's first choice of word for what I am full of?) --Zeraeph 18:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Subarticle

I like the idea of a subarticle to rid all the negative DSM stuff. I would propose to call it Aspie or something like that instead to really differentiate it against DSM and "clinical impairment" sh*t. What would be needed is to deleted the redirect from Aspie to Asperger's syndrome, which is wholly inapropriate in the first place. BTW, it is circular to first require that people that are diagnosed have "clinical impairments" and then to define the whole set of traits as deficits. --Rdos 16:05, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I think you missed my point Rdos, I personally feel that all the negative DSM stuff should be in a subarticle (perhaps Asperger disorder, but I think, out of respect for ALL the hard work Sandy has put in this one should be renamed to preserve the FA status she so richly deserves for her hard work in presenting the clinical deficits here) while the main article Asperger syndrome should be the overview of ALL aspects, positive and negative, with perhaps a second subarticle like Aspie to examine the cultural aspects in depth. --Zeraeph 18:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

The article sounds too clinical, there is an Aspie culture. Please make that clear in the main article, either a paragraph on Aspie culture, or a clear link to a subarticle, would be useful for the lay reader seeking more information about AS. Kreb Dragonrider 21:41, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

That would make a good alternative (for now anyway). All that is wrong with the article is that it needs a little balance. There is an HUGE Aspie-specific culture. It's not very accurate to pretend it doesn't exist or invalidate it. See Deaf for precidents on how this should be done.--Zeraeph 21:45, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

(undent) err, ummm, hi.. please don't WP:BITE me if I'm 'way off track; I'm a newbie in the sense that I know zero about Asperger's.. but.. here's a thought.. is it possible that the "Aspie culture" aspect can be folded into the existing articles Autistic culture & Autistic community? Sorry if I am wrong... -- Ling.Nut 21:57, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

I see where you are coming from, but if we do THAT the Asperger syndrome article remains unbalanced towards the soley clinical perspective and deficits, thus POV and not representative, which is the problem here...

And NOBODY bites Newbies here, not without cooking them first anyway. :o) --Zeraeph 00:09, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

PS. MIND YOU, those two did seem to be noticeable by their absence from "see also" --Zeraeph 00:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Cultural Aspects 1

This really needs to come earlier in the article, not right at the end (in the hope nobody sees it, perhaps? :o) ). As it really is such a tiny section I would almost go for popping it right under "classification"? Any other ideas? Can we decide and execute this in the next 24 hours please? It would be another "one move" address to the POV issues of the article, and, in the right place it would break up the dry stuff and keep the reader interested. --Zeraeph 00:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Placing wider cultural aspects of AS before a full description of what it is (ie. before classification, characteristics, diagnosis, prognosis, comorbidities etc.) would make the cultural aspects more difficult to appreciate. Also, I don't understand your comment that this is required because of a "POV issue". Unless a beneficial reason can be given I vote for cultural aspects to remain where it is. Soulgany101 00:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't really see how that would "make the cultural aspects more difficult to appreciate"??? Are you sure there isn't a typo or something in there? --Zeraeph 01:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent). First, there is no POV; someone needs to read WP:UNDUE and offer one example of a reliably-sourced viewpoint which has not been covered or that has not been given due weight. We have given undue weight to Baron-Cohen's personal views in the lead. I've been begging for more sources to work with so we can write the text others want; none have been produced. Either there are none, and the article is complete, or someone should get to a library and get busy. The article is balanced to what reliable sources say and even gives more than adequate space to minority viewpoints. Second, I agree that it would be difficult to adequately cover cultural aspects before you've even defined the condition; moving Cultural aspects up would be confusing and wouldn't conform to WP:MEDMOS, which garnered widespread consensus on Wiki to become part of the Manual of Style. Third, why on earth are people here so worried about the order? It's as if you honestly think people only read the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, in YOUR opinion there is no POV, other opinions differ, and have equal weight with yours (see WP:CON) and people have just as much right to express those differing opinions as you have to express yours, until there is resolution. This is what we have a talk page, and discussion for. Every time people produce WP:RS and quotes and you dismiss them out of hand. --Zeraeph 01:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Third, why on earth are people here so worried about the order? It's as if you honestly think people only read the lead. Sorry that statement left me gasping. Of course most people only read the lead, if that. Ask any newspaper or magazine editor what gets read. Very few "casual" readers will get past the first paragraph. Anybody writing an article and believing that a gem buried in the last paragraph is going to get read is kidding themselves. I've got more to say, just got to find time. --Michael Johnson 02:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Its a bit of a leap to suggest that newspapers where there are multiple subjects covered about which I might not be interested, is somehow the same as an internet subject I have specifically searched for. I would guess that people would be more inclined to read something in its entirety if they had gone looking for it. Soulgany101 03:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Exactly. Either they care enough about the topic to read the entire article, or they have a specific interest and they go straight to that section, which is why the lead is supposed to be a summary of what is contained in the body, and is supposed to be compelling to encourage them to read further. We see a misplaced emphasis here on cramming POV into the lead, as if nothing else will be read, and that misplaced emphasis helps assure the article won't be worth reading. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Obviously I disagree, and believe you are being unduly optimistic. Netherless, I think the lead to this article has two problems. Firstly it is difficult to read. The language is unnecessarily dense and complex. Reading one of the most commonly referenced sources, here, I was struck by how easy the "background" section was to read. Struck because it is aimed at a professional audience, while this article should be aimed at a general audience. Secondly, and this I believe is may be the POV point other editors have been getting at, is that the prognosis for aspies in this article, at least as it reads in the lead, comes across as extremely negative. Reading that I would be lead to believe only the rare aspie can hope to function "normally" in society. By contrast the impression I am left with reading the eMedicine article introduction is that there are problems, but they can be overcome, and there may also be advantages. I just don't get that from this article. --Michael Johnson 03:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Micheal, You have just managed to put everything I have been trying to say here into clear, simple words.--Zeraeph 04:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Michael, WebMD is a commercial site and the article is not peer-reviewed, even if written by psychiatrists. The site even has a disclaimer at the bottom of the page to not rely on what is read on their site, that it cannot be guaranteed to be correct or reliable. But as you are using it at this point, its accuracy is neither here nor there. Kiwi 09:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I think Michael is using that link as an example of the more readable and accessible style this article needs so desperately, as it stands it is just a gruelling slog to read. I don't believe people should be made to wade through that for their information. I also note that, incidentally, that article has a far more positive focus than this one. As it is written by a Professor of Psychiatry, that is worth consideration on the POV issues. --Zeraeph 12:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

THIS PORTION WAS ADDRESSED TO MICHAEL, but I managed to put my signature in the wrong place and being responded to by Z, it took it out of intended context.

Yes, (Michael - added for clarity), language can be simplified. Right now, it seems that major work is being done to eliminate uncited and unverifiable text. Once that is done, then the simplified language can be incorporated into what remains without wandering away from what has been established as encyclopedia worthy. You (Michael) can probably be very valuable once that stage is reached by helping simplify the presentation. But right now, trying to do both at the same time could lead to you working hard on things that will be deleted or vastly rewritten - and that is both frustrating and disappointing. (talk • contribs) 09:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC) - signed as intended

Yes, I am rather afraid that any attempt to tidy it up does seem to get reverted. --Zeraeph 12:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

You're working on a deeper level than we've been able to take this article (yet). Three weeks ago, the article was riddled with factual inaccuracy, unverified text and undue weight. We now at least have a starting place of text that is true to reliable sources and we are now in a phase where it should be possible to tweak and refine the text to make it shine. Instead, negativity abounds and there's an apparent lack of willingness to dig out a book, put some text in a sandbox, stay true to the reliable sources, and develop consensus on how to make the text brilliant. It was a long struggle just to get recognition here of what a WP:LEAD is according to Wikipedia guidelines, and I'm not sure it's understood yet; there's quite a push to get particular points of view up front, rather than summarize the article according to guidelines in WP:LEAD. Although all of the text was developed in sandbox with time for other editors to review and comment, several chose not to; belated criticism is ironic considering no text was brought into the article that wasn't first developed in sandbox with consensus. If you're willing to give it a try, how about grabbing what's there, putting it in your sandbox, working your ideas, and letting the rest of us review? If you write something that is true to reliable sources, doesn't violate WP:LEAD or WP:UNDUE, summarizes the entire article, and shines with brilliant and compelling prose as well, that's gravy. Or, if it's easier, I'll be glad to put it into a section of my sandbox for you, and you can work there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I've heard of sandboxes, but am not sure how they work, let alone how to access them, but will certainly try to contribute when I can. I have been a little bit reluctant to date, because as I said I don't have a professional background in this area. --Michael Johnson 04:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Michael, you don't need a professional background in this area (be that AS or editing). You are able to recognize easily understood text. That is all it takes. I hope you give it a try! Kiwi 09:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I support Zeraeph's proposal to move the cultural discussion nearer the top of the page to ensure a more balanced, neutral point of view. There is more to Asperger's syndrome than the potentially disabling aspects traditionally covered in medical journals.--NeantHumain 19:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please explain the reverts

I do not understand these reverts [6]? Can you please explain your rationale fully? --Zeraeph 02:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Do you mean that you missed the detailed discussion that we had yesterday, or that you want me to break down my edit summary piece by piece? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Are you referring to the discussion we had yesterday about run-on sentences and hyperbole versus professional editing standards? --Zeraeph 03:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Please keep my contribution to the lead. AS people are high functioning, and have above average to high IQ. I understand that you SandyGeorgia is an award winning Wikipedian and like to have a nice tidy article on Asperger Syndrome, there are other editors, and there is no need to attempt to monopolize the article. In the spirit Wikipedian freedom of cooperative multi-user editing, can you at least allow my contribution to the lead paragraph to remain. I may not be able to write like a technical author or bring up citations, but I consider my knowledge of AS to be sufficient to contribute to the article. Thank you. Kreb Dragonrider 16:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi Kreb, will this citation do for you? [7] it's an impeccable WP:RS from the Royal Society of medicine, 2003. If you read it you might like to revise a little to cite it, or you might even like to add comments that cite it to the rest of the article? I think this article could use a little more consensus and co-operation too. --Zeraeph 16:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That source doesn't cite that text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I did suggest that he might like to rewrite it to cite the text more directly...or perhaps you would like to do it...remember, a Wikipedia article is definately not supposed to be a compilation of quotations, that would be copyright infringement. --Zeraeph 16:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

I will find a citation or two, will research later, have to go out now (karate class tonight), will come back later. You asked for a "little professor", you got it! ;)Kreb Dragonrider 16:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Unsourced text addition to lead

Please discuss additions to the lead on talk before making them; the current lead was developed in sandbox with consensus, and there are ongoing efforts to improve it but at least it was accurate. Regarding this edit, please provide a source for your definition of "high functioning". The rest of the text already delves into the controversy over AS vs. HFA, and this addition prematurely introduces the concept before it's discussed, and is probably based on an incorrect definition of "high functioning". Further, none of the four sets of diagnostic criteria specify that AS has an average or above average intelligence; when they say anything on the topic, they define it as no delay in cognitive development, which can be otherwise phrased as no mental retardation, which is not the same as above average intelligence. Wing included mental retardation in her sample, so have some others, and the cutoff of 70 IQ is mentioned throughout the literature. That many do have high intelligence can be mentioned in the text if sourced, but is not part of the defintion in the lead. The definition of the condition contains no mention anywhere of above average intelligence. This article is never going to stabilize if regular editors don't read and digest Wiki's policies and guidelines on writing and attributing text in such a way that it is verifiable to reliable sources. We can't move on to refining prose if we can't get past the stage of daily corrections (such as the section just above this one) to just keep the article factually accurate. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

So, in accord with WP:CITE are you challenging the statement "and with average and high IQ score, and high functioning (meaning that most AS people are able to live independently)" --Zeraeph 16:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

PS, can you cite me exact, WP:RS for the cutoff of a 70 IQ that supports your contention? --Zeraeph 16:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

SIZE Counts!

This article is now WAY too long. See WP:SIZE. It should be less than 10 pages printed, it is 19, in font 10 even WITHOUT the citations (with them it is 26), it is over 98kb long and over 12,000 words. There is a lot of duplication, a lot of unnecessary wordiness. "Classification" could (and probably SHOULD) be just a short summary of the main articles Pervasive developmental disorder and Autistic spectrum. Diagnosis is out of control. "Multiple sets of diagnostic criteria" seems to me a section that is fully expressed by a one para summary and the table. Any other ideas for taking it down a bit? --Zeraeph 21:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Not sure I agree. The standard is readable text. Have you tried dr pda's script? -- Ling.Nut 21:27, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Ling.Nut, thanks for uncovering this extensive discussion dr pda's script. Brilliant find. I spent some days investigating WP's "recommended length" last year and discovered that it is not set in stone, and that it does depend upon the article. This is a point of understanding that has evolved over time due to need. However, until User:Dr_pda, I had not found someone who has spent so much time researching and analyzing this issue of article length and when variance is appropriate.

Already, many splinter topic needs have created their own linked topics and are all valuable to presenting a unified understanding of AS today as the percentage of autistic children skyrockets.

But again, we cannot begin to trim and refine until after everything here is fully and correctly cited to verifiable and encyclopedia worthy sources. It was like writing a research paper (back in the days at college). You bought at least two huge packs of 5 x 8 note cards, spent endless hours recording notes, citing on each note card, exactly where it came from, down to page number. Quotes were precise and did not vary from the original text. THEN you started sorting through the note cards and ended up dumping a huge number in the "won't use this" pile, then refining further by deciding just what part of the remaining cards would be used and just how. More was discarded and the pile of cards begain to be sorted into piles, the paper being "written in your head" from the facts before you.

It wasn't until all the sorting was done that the paper was written with further fine tuning all during the process, turning it into an A+ paper (or a B+ when you started out, according to the prof, brilliantly, but then seemed to peter out along the way (because sometimes I underestimated how much time I would need). Kiwi 22:38, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

That is the basis of

NEW TOYS :o)

File size: 267 kB

Prose size (HTML): 78 kB

References (HTML): 128 kB

Wiki text: 98.1 KiB (13679 words)

Prose size (text only): 51 kB (7760 words)

References (text only): 24 kB

Images: 12 kB

Right. Not sure what Z is reading, but I've been tracking and reporting on the size all along, and it is well within established WP:SIZE guidelines that have passed FAC and FAR, and well under several dozen FAs that have recently passed WP:FAC and WP:FAR. The relevant measure is readable prose, easily determined by using Dr pda's script, and it's currently at 51KB as pointed out by Ling.Nut. There are FAs as high as 80KB prose that have recently passed FAC and FAR; I prefer them to stay around 50–55KB. And, since this article has essentially no images, it's well under total size and load time compared to almost all recent FAs. Goodness, Z, considering all of this has all been discussed and built according to consensus at every stage, you're certainly coming up with lots of issues after the fact. But, if you want to reduce Diagnosis, certainly all those non-standard diagnostic schemes and the table I generated to explain them are given undue weight, since the ICD and DSM are the worldwide standard, so they can go to Diagnosis daughter article if that's what you prefer; there's not much need to mention Szatmari and Gillberg here if you're that worried about article size. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:24, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, I though it best just to keep the table, explain the whole thing fully at a glance, rather than all the superfluous text, and there has been no real consensus at any stage that I can see since you insisted that article that was created by consensus had to go. --Zeraeph 22:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

No, by all means, I'm not at all attached to the Table just because it took me so long to research and deverlop it. The studies make it clear that there is very little difference in prevalance when using DSM or ICD anyway, and only Szatmari is out of line, and both Gillberg and Szatmari are given undue weight. If we need to reduce size, the mention of all of those other sets of non-standard dignostic criteria are given undue weight and can be completely dumped to a daughter article, along with the table, I have no ego attachment to that work at all, and enjoyed learning how to build a table. I suggest Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome can easily be created, and we can move that text straight away and the article won't lose much except one mention of See diagnosis that will need to be changed above, and then we can delete all those bloaty mentions of other diagnostic criteria as well. I've read the talk page archives thoroughly, and I found ... consensus of 2 editors, developing text independently of sources, and then trying to figure out how to source it after the fact. Many editors were involved in this version, and every word here was developed in sandbox, according to reliable sources, and giving everyone time to review before it was brought in. But if you want to have the article end up tagged again, that works for me, too. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Not a bad idea to shift the whole thing to Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome and just summarise it, here. Let's do it. --Zeraeph 22:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC) Still well overweight though, and it needs balance. I still think "Classification" should be cut down as above (most of it isn't even directly relevant and all the information is in the relevant articles), and "Diagnosis" needs is overwhelming (particularly when you have "characteristics", "mechanism", and "epidemology" well bloated too).--Zeraeph 21:45, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

• Current prose size per Dr pda is 41KB readable prose, well within WP:SIZE, although Diagnosis still needs repair and I believe Eubulides is still paring down some sections. It looks like size will continue to be within guidelines. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:25, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome

Article created, created, let's get a clear consensus on what remains in the summary? --Zeraeph 22:58, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

How's this for a summary?

Diagnosis 1

Main article: Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome

Asperger's Disorder is defined in the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) by six main criteria.

The diagnosis of AS is complicated by the use of several different screening instruments. In addition to the DSM-IV and the similar World Health Organization ICD-10 criteria, other sets of diagnostic criteria for AS are the Szatmari et al. criteria and the Gillberg and Gillberg criteria.

Asperger syndrome can be misdiagnosed as a number of other conditions, leading to medications that are unnecessary or even worsen behavior.

--Zeraeph 23:05, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Too short, too deep, doesn't provide an adequate overview of the daughter article per summary style, makes no mention of several critical points, and probably renders some of the text above and below nonsensical, as they refer back to concepts developed in this section. Easy to chop; take some time to read through the entire article, make sure all concepts needed for other sections are still mentioned, and basics like typical age of diagnosis, who diagnoses, what are the names of the other critieria, etc. are mentioned. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Twiddle with it, so, then I feel sure PP will want to express his opinion too. Incidentally. We can probably transfer some of the diagnostic specific references to the new article anyway, and this time, let us try to work with a real consensus of equals? It will probably do all of us, as well as the article, a world of good to learn how to do that. --Zeraeph 23:37, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

Let's? Who does that include; I've never done otherwise. I'm going to be traveling; I did all the heavy lifting I could do and won't have time for more. If you want to cut it, and you can get broad consensus (patience, please), please do it correctly. To summarize correctly, you can't chop context that will be needed for the rest of the article. Other parts of the article depend on text in Diagnosis; that needs to be accounted for. As but one example, the diagnostic controversies and dilemmas are mentioned in all reviews and deserve to be mentioned in the lead; the article needs enough context for that to make sense. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:15, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I like the middle; the beginning and the last sentence I'm slightly less comfortable with. The beginning, since if we're to pick one set of diagnostic criteria to use as a standard, I think ICD's international standing should give it the edge over DSM; and the end mostly because I'm puzzled by "the condition may be at the root of treatment-resistant mental illness in adults." I think that statement (if it's to be made) needs some explanation. Poindexter Propellerhead 00:01, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"the condition may be at the root of treatment-resistant mental illness in adults." can actually go, it was just a run on from the bit that seemed important important to me, and I didn't want to get arbitrary.

As it is really a condition of European orgin I agree with you, the ICD10 would seem more appropriate...AND we have actually been TOLD by the APA NOT to use or transcribe DSM criteria for anything so a link to behavenet is usually safer?--Zeraeph 00:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

PS can we drop the table now?--Zeraeph 00:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Patience, please. There's no fire. You can allow 24 hours for consensus to develop, can't you? Isn't that what you advocated above? Is that not what I did when I wrote text in Sandbox and gave everyone time to review? You haven't even given enough time to make sure you can chop diagnosis; consensus means patience and waiting for others to have a chance to review and opine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:18, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Actually it doesn't, it just means arriving at agreement...but if, after stating above that you were happy to delete the table into oblivion, you now want to delay the article by dissenting from deleting it since it moved to a new article (that was your own idea), that is fine, but I thought you were in a hurry? --Zeraeph 01:45, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Who's in a hurry, and who wants to delay? I've always developed text in sandbox, and given people time to review, no change, no hurry, no delay, same policy. You don't propose a massive change and make it within an hour, patience. And, I clearly stated I was in support of moving the table and the non-standard diagnostic criteria to a daughter article, and still am. What I will not support is a complete gutting of all diagnostic info so that the rest of the article doesn't hang together, have context, or make sense, and we don't provide any of the diagnostic basics. Comprehensive is the goal; the article is within size guidelines. Removing exhaustive material about non-standard sets of diagnostic criteria is fine; gutting diagnosis is not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps you can show us some examples of things in the article that will not "hang together" without leaving excess text that is duplicated in a daughter article...simply because try as I might, I cannot find any.

Reducing sections to brief summaries is what we create daughter articles for, see WP:SIZE.

The DSM criteria should really go down to a "behavenet" link on the grounds of copyright infringement (mail Chad Thompson at the APA and find out for yourself if you don't believe me). One you get rid of everything you suggest, and that, all you have left are the ICD10 criteria anyway, and a few words, similar to those above, to tie it all together. --Zeraeph 02:53, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Not to worry; I'm confident there are other editors here are quite able to work it out. I told you two weeks ago I had travel pending and would run out of time, but you frittered away the time I had with complaining and ignoring the sandbox work, and decided today "let's get consensual". Convenient. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:43, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Seems to me that quite a lot of "classification" really belongs in Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome too?--Zeraeph 03:25, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

"Rage" ???

Rather than try to have a conversation in edit comments, I thought I'd bring one sentence here.

---
The Gillberg and Gillberg criteria are considered closest to Asperger's original description of the syndrome;<ref name="Fitzgerald">Fitzgerald M, Corvin A (2001). [http://apt.rcpsych.org/cgi/content/full/7/4/310 Diagnosis and differential diagnosis of Asperger syndrome.] ''Advances in Psychiatric Treatment'' 7: pp. 310–18.</ref> the aggression, rage and abnormal [[prosody]] that other authors say defined Asperger's patients are not mentioned in any criteria.<ref name="Baskin"/><ref name="McPartland"/><ref name="Hippler"/>
---

I had edited this sentence to say "one author," Sandy added 2 cites and changed it to "other authors." Now, McPartland and Hippler do both mention prosody, those I take as part of the mainstream opinion, and accept completely. But when it comes to aggression and rage, McPartland mentions that "aggression and noncompliance" were noted in some of Asperger's patients, but later lists violent behavior with comorbidities, saying that a hypothesised connection between AS and violence was "unsupported by data." Hippler mentions "associated problems, such as conduct disorders," not in the context of Asperger's patients, and that is the closest thing I can find to any mention of aggression or rage in that paper.

I can't comment on what Baskin says, since only Sandy has a copy of that paper, but I do not see a scientific consensus that AS, or Asperger's patients in particular, were defined by aggression and rage. Because Baskin has never written anything else on autism, psychiatry, or any related subject (apparently he's an endocrinologist, his other papers were on liposarcoma and the rejection of liver cell transplants by mice), I can't look to any of his other work for enlightenment. If we are to lay it on so thick as to say that Asperger's patients were defined by rage, and even that the criteria should possibly be changed to reflect that, I'd like some clear indication that it's a broadly held opinion, because I'm not seeing that right now. Poindexter Propellerhead 01:09, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh no, you haven't found yet another piece of text that isn't exactly supported by the text in the source? Sandy is quite right, the article must have been rotten with them, I think we should remove it right away, the way she has with all the others. I really do not think an endochrinologist is a WP:RS for Asperger Syndrome either, so he really should go too --Zeraeph 01:50, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

PS, I whipped that bit out here ( rather radically, but most of the text will be going ANYWAY, a couple of words cann't matter) and took out (very conservatively) the text makes reference to "rage and aggression" that did not accurately reflect the source in the Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome--Zeraeph 01:58, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

WHOOPS! Baskin is definately a shrink at Massachusetts General, still there is a LOT sourced to that one study that only Sandy has seen, and the other two sources definately don't match the text. I'll leave it as is here, because it will wind up deleted anyway but I'd better fix it on Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome?--Zeraeph 02:34, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Hmmm... I do find a Joseph Baskin at McLean Hospital that I suppose must be him... perhaps those other "J.H. Baskin" papers on pubmed were by some other J.H. Baskin, and he has only coauthored the one paper... or else he is a shrink with very unusual interests. In any event, I'd think that statement, or its sourcing, need a lot of attention. Poindexter Propellerhead 02:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely right, I have never been happy for so much to be sourced to Baskin, Sperber and Price when none of us have seen it and there are so many other texts we can all see...I know everybody is going to GROAN, but it probably ALL needs some checking. :o( --Zeraeph 03:02, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Poindexter, you're mixing separate concepts—what McPartland reported about Asperger's observations of his patients vis-a-vis the diagnostic definition and what McPartland reports about contemporary studies on current patients. (By the way, the source for the contemporary statement about violence given by McPartland is a very old study, but that's not a can of worms I'm even going to open. If you're interested, do a Google Scholar search on Asperger violence, Asperger aggression, Asperger rage, or Asperger murder for information updated since the study that McPartland reported, which is quite dated. It's clear that there's a raging controversy over the connection between AS and violence and that McPartland is reporting an old study, but I'm not going there, just saying I know that's something that will never make it into this article.) What is in the article now is mangled: Baskin does not say AS is defined by rage, and the syntax of what is there now munges who is saying who said what, and makes it appear that Baskin is saying aggression and rage define AS. I'm not clear why you're focusing on the particular word rage rather than aggression, conduct disorder, opposition etc.; if you want to swap out the particular word rage for a long list of these other terms, that's fine with me. Here are all three quotes:

• McPartland: AS is named after an Austrian pediatrician, Hans Asperger. In 1944, at approximately the same time that Leo Kanner described children with ‘‘autism’’ in the United States, Asperger published an article about a clinical population of predominantly male school-age children with intact cognitive and language skills who experienced difficulties with social interaction [3]. He called the disorder ‘‘autistic psychopathy,’’ and noted that these children displayed reduced nonverbal communication, idiosyncratic verbal communication, poor social integration, strong (and often unusual) areas of interest/expertise, limited empathy, clumsiness, and behavior problems (eg, aggression and noncompliance).

• Baskin: Asperger was uncomfortable with the characterization of his patients being placed on the continuum of autistic spectrum disorders. Indeed, the current diagnostic criteria in both the DSM-IV (Table 1)5 and ICD-10 (Table 2)6 are inconsistent in some ways with his initial description. They fail to acknowledge the element of aggression and rage and the abnormal prosody that defined his patients. Despite diagnostic ambiguity, the renewed attention has been positive when considering the value of increased understanding and expanded treatment services these individuals now receive.

• Hippler: Most frequent reasons for referral to the pedagogical ward in the AP group with detailed files (n = 46). behavioural difficulties, aggression and opposition, 26%. Table 5. Behavioural difficulties in children with AP who were admitted to the remedial pedagogical ward. verbal and physical aggression, 44%. The ability to concentrate on schoolwork was usually poor, and disciplinary problems and conduct disorder were seen in half of the children of the sample. These children were not capable of following the rules and joining in with the normal school routine. Usually, typical pedagogical measures proved to have no effect on the child’s behaviour, but rather made it worse. More extreme forms of aggression (‘autistic malice’) were reported less often.

You can't attribute the concept that Asperger described aggression, opposition and conduct issues in his patients to only one author; it's just not so. I don't have time to dig it out now, but I'm fairly certain Wing also mentions this aspect of Asperger's original population. Z, you've mangled the text; please fix it; if you're worried about Baskin, I purchased it online for $20. Yes, do check my work, Z; I'd love for you to actually get your head into some research. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:38, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, even by your own admission, the article text was simply not what your sources say, if anyone else tried to pass it off this way you would go ballistic. You can't hold everybody else to one standard and yourself to a different one. We will have to check everything now. --Zeraeph 03:46, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

No, not at all. All 3 sources say Asperger reported aggression, opposition and conduct disorder were part of his original population. The original statement was correct and Poindexter fiddled with it in a way that left incorrect impressions, and now you've fiddled it to something that is no longer decipherable. I'd welcome you to check some sources, Z; that is a skill that I've been hoping you'd make a regular part of your editing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:03, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The original statement completely distorted the sources in a prejudicial way. Only Baskin used the word rage at all, and you attributed it to all three. McPartland gives aggression as an example of "behavior problems" not the significant issue you stated. It does not seem reasonable to scrutinise everybody else's edits with a fine tooth comb to the point where no-one can contribute at all in any real way, and then distort sources yourself. I would also ask you to try and keep your negative personal commentary on-Wiki to a minimum, it is not appropriate here, and I am not comfortable with it. --Zeraeph 04:13, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Z how about relaxing your negative commentary about Sandy, who as far as I can see has always welcomed input from others and indeed actively encouraged it all the way. I really can't see anything malevolent or negative about her efforts (quite the contrary, the present working information and sources are markedly improved, substantially as a result of her effort). So lets revert to the good faith assumption? and hopefully muddle through this article to the finished product. Soulgany101 04:48, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I am not commenting on Sandy, what she intended, or why, but rather the fact that the result was text that did not match it's sources, which is something Sandy never tolerates from others. --Zeraeph 04:54, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) Results 1 - 10 of about 236,000 for tourette rage; Results 1 - 10 of about 167,000 for asperger rage; Results 1 - 10 of about 1,340,000 for deafness rage. According to my Google survey, aspie rage is slightly less common than TS rage, but it's those deaf people you really have to worry about. I had no idea that hearing impairment and rage comprised a syndrome, who'd have guessed? My luck on PubMed was not as good, 5 matches for deafness and rage, 13 matches for TS and rage, but only 1 match for AS and rage, and that was by an author whose cites we scrubbed a week or so ago, because almost all of her work was self-published.

Faulty logic; what you've proven about TS and rage is that it is very well studied, with all studies concluding that any "rage" associated with TS is due to comorbids. You can't cite the number of PubMed studies to say how common something is. Every study done has shown that rage is not associated with TS and no study has shown that it is associated with TS; it's associated with comorbids, more specifically the number of comorbids (linear correlation). I asked you to "read" the studies, not count them, and I suggested you look for them via Google Scholar, which will lead you to PubMed sources, but with much easier search flexibility, since PubMed's search engine is unwieldy. Sorry I wasn't more clear. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

The point I was contesting was the appearance of an academic consensus that aggression and rage play such a major role that they defined Asperger's patients, and the suggestion that the criteria were deficient for not mentioning that. Baskin says that, McPartland says something milder, and makes no comment WRT the criteria, Hippler doesn't discuss Asperger's patients at all. Poindexter Propellerhead 04:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

That's a lot more WP:UNDUE than I actually would have expected PP? --Zeraeph 05:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

There was no suggestion that the criteria were deficient; please don't put words into the sources' mouths or my fingers. There was a comparison of the different sets of criteria vis-a-vis each other and Asperger's original description. As you can see from the Baskin source above, I stayed very true to what he said, although it's now mangled beyong anything recognizable, along with an article that is now hopelessly compromised by words to avoid, passive voice and weasle words. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:05, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, at least that is a serious improvement on opinions presented as if they were concrete facts, which was really misleading. --Zeraeph 05:14, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Worried by "Diagnosis"

This is all I have examined closely so far, and what is left after removing the parts we have consensus on, and the DSM copyvio, much that is left seems to be barely paraphrased from NINDS and Fitzgerald this is barely paraphrased from NINDS:

Developmental screening during a routine check-up by a general practitioner or pediatrician may identify signs that warrant further investigation. The National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke state that this requires a comprehensive team evaluation to either confirm or exclude a diagnosis of AS. This team usually includes a psychologist, neurologist, psychiatrist, speech and language pathologist, occupational therapist and other professionals with expertise in diagnosing children with AS.[4][1] Observation can occur across multiple settings; the social disability in AS may be more evident during periods when social expectations are unclear and children are free of adult direction.[2] A comprehensive evaluation can include neurologic and genetic assessment, with in-depth cognitive and language testing to establish IQ and evaluate psychomotor function, verbal and nonverbal strengths and weaknesses, style of learning, and skills for independent living. An assessment of communication strengths and weaknesses includes the evaluation of nonverbal forms of communication (gaze and gestures); the use of non-literal language (metaphor, irony, absurdities and humor); patterns of speech inflection, stress and volume; pragmatics (turn-taking and sensitivity to verbal cues); and the content, clarity and coherence of conversation.[4] ......... A medical practitioner will diagnose on the basis of the test results and the child’s developmental history and current symptoms.[4]

This is barely paraphrased from Fitzgerald:

Asperger syndrome can be misdiagnosed as a number of other conditions, leading to medications that are unnecessary or even worsen behavior; the condition may be at the root of treatment-resistant mental illness in adults[55]. Diagnostic confusion burdens individuals and families and may cause them to seek unhelpful therapies. Conditions that can be considered in a differential diagnosis include other pervasive developmental disorders (autism, PDD-NOS, childhood disintegrative disorder, Rett disorder), schizophrenia spectrum disorders (schizophrenia, schizotypal disorder, schizoid personality disorder), attention-deficit hyperactivity disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder, depression, semantic pragmatic disorder, multiple complex developmental disorder and nonverbal learning disorder.

Obviously that kind of bare paraphrasing is hardly FA standard and needs urgent work (in both articles), but is it also plagiarism? Does it have to be deleted RIGHT NOW (and from Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome). HELP! --Zeraeph 20:04, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, boy. Zeraeph, do you have any idea what public domain means in the USA? Did you read the NINDS page, particularly the blurb at the bottom on copyright? Do you understand why we can use public domain images and text on Wiki and not other images? Do you know anything about copyright on Wiki and why we're having such issues with images? Do you know we could take that entire NINDS page and copy it in here verbatim, and that we actually have featured articles that have done exactly that? (Um, yes, you should know because we specifically discussed it during the last FAR, and I specifically mentioning using that public domain text above; do you read the tlak pages here?) Many of the geology articles are entirely lifted from the US Geological Survery public domain articles. You need to do some very serious work on WP:AGF; that's your fourth offense against me this week. You *really* ought to know by now that I wouldn't plagiarize. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

So, you concede that it is not original text, but is basically slightly paraphrased and copied?

Personally I have no idea about NINDS copyright status with regard to GFDL, but I very much doubt if Michael Fitzgerald is writing "in the Public Domain" and he is paraphrased as much, to the exact same extent, as NINDS.

I doubt if WP:AGF applies to voicing legitimate concerns that paraphrased text, lacking in context in places, is not worthy of featured article status and must be replaced. Nor for having concerns about the implications of same in terms of copyright. The whole principle of consensus goes out the window if you are going to accuse people of failing to AGF every time they criticise your edits. --Zeraeph 22:57, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't think the similarity to Fitzgerald is so close as to be copyvio, although now I'm seeing that sentence again... Fitzgerald talks about how misdiagnosis, resulting in prescriptions for Ritalin or antipsychotics, can result in someone who is messed up by the drugs, perhaps permanently. He then says that "The condition may also be at the root of treatment-resistant mental illness in adult psychiatry," followed by more cautions about the damage caused by misdiagnosis. Since we lift the one sentence almost verbatim, can anyone explain exactly what Fitzgerald is trying to say? There are a lot of possible readings, but in that particular context it leaves me scratching my head. Misdiagnosis followed by wrong drugs causes it, or what? Poindexter Propellerhead 23:11, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I hope to heaven it isn't an actual copyvio. I have been doing some searches and some claim that paraphrasing is a copyvio without citation (thank heavens I popped one in earlier). The APA always claim that even paraphrasing is a copyvio (but they are...er...things that cannot be expressed interms of WP:CIVIL, when it comes to copyright and may well be exaggerating).

I was only checking because the text didn't make sense to me either, it sort of began in mid air, without context, and stated too many opinions as concrete facts, so I was trying to get to the originals to reword it a bit more realistically. Anyway, even if it squeaks in on copyright, there is no way it is FA standard text,it needs a total rewrite...though with no FAR looming over Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome if we can get a green light on copyright (how do we DO that?), it can stay there for the time being. --Zeraeph 23:29, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Apparently you haven't read the talk page discussions, either in the last FAR where I specifically mentioned we could lift verbatim public domain text from the NIH because you all refused to write the text yourselves, or in this FAR, where I've discussed several times that I've cribbed portions from the NIH. If you're not reading the talk page, then consider the note at the bottom of the NINDS page: "All NINDS-prepared information is in the public domain and may be freely copied." Public domain means no copyright, we can use it as we want. The good news is that, in your quest to discredit an experienced editor, you're actually reading peer reviewed sources. I'm not sure that will be enough to salvage the damage done in the last two days vis-a-vis WP:WIAFA, but I'll still be checking here to make sure there aren't false accusations against me or further breaches of WP:AGF. Thanks for doing such a good job of pointing out that I stick to what the sources say and avoid the kind of original research that has always plagued this article. Maybe you can use your newfound sleuthing abilities to go report all the Wiki mirrors that actually have violated GFDL by completely lifting the TS article verbatim with no credit to Wiki; thought I'd mention that, because at the rate you've been breaching WP:AGF and casting aspersions on my editing, you're likely to come across the blatant GFDL copyright violations of my writing at http://www.k12academics.com/tourettes.htm and accuse me of plagiarizing them. I'll save you the trouble; I reported k12academics a year ago for extensively lifting all of their content from Wiki with no GFDL credit, and Wiki foundation does nothing about it. By the way, the choppy prose, unsourced edits inaccurate edits, weasly prose and passive voice are still in the article; I suggest a revert to the last accurate version with intact prose, which was A Kiwi on Sept 4, and I don't support any of the text mangling that has occurred since then. I understood Poindexter's original edits and concerns on the Baskin source, but the subsequent edits which mangled that text haven't been repaired yet either, and I see the inaccurate unsourced definitions of AS and "high-functioning" are still in the lead. Keep working on discovering my "plagiarism"; it's not like there's no other work to be done here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, I know you are upset, I appreciate you were rushing because of the FAR and your going away, but the fact remains that paraphrased sources are not good enough for an FA. In addition, even when paraphrasing sources you really cannot start a subsection in mid air, without context, as with "Developmental screening during a routine check-up by a general practitioner..." and then go on to assert what is only an opinion (and a good one BTW) of the optimal approach as though it were a generic concrete fact of the course of most, if not all AS diagnoses when nothing could be further from the truth.

Anyway, I HOPE it isn't a copyvio (WP:COPY is so vague in this area, it just points you to articles that leave you none the wiser). I am certainly not going to tag it formally, or anything arbitrary like that, while we work it out I KNOW you meant well, and I know you were under pressure, nobody is perfect, everybody cuts corners. But the fact remains that REGARDLESS of the derivation, it really does need re-writing to be FA worthy. It isn't comprehensive, or accurate (many AS diagnoses are made in totally different ways, including at the specific request of parents), and in places it doesn't make sense. --Zeraeph 02:04, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

There was no rush, Zeraeph. The NIH text has been cribbed into the article since last year, because you all refused to even write a diagnosis section, and we discussed that I would bring it over from the NIH. And your statements about paraphrasing from reliable sources and cutting corners are so far off base that they hardly warrant a response. Wiki reports what reliable sources say; we don't do original research, and there are only so many ways to state some concepts. I'm sorry you think COPYVIO is vague after your first foray into it, and I wish you would have looked into this years ago when you kept uploading unfree images; on the other hand, I've been following these issues for a very long time, and I don't have any problem understanding it. You consider it pressure to get through ten little journal articles in several weeks? Sorry, I don't; you can stop the condescension right now. "Everyone cuts corners?" Please speak for yourself only and don't roll me into that crowd. Again, this is A Good Thing. You are finally reading reliable sources; this article has a record three FARs because editors have never understood that edits must be based on reliable sources, not original research and opinion. I'm looking forward to seeing your best FA prose. Curious that you said yesterday that Diagnosis was too long, but today it's not comprehensive. So, which is it? What is left out that you now want to include? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

(outdent) AFAIK, the only thing you can do with a copyvio, is (1) determine that it's extreme and unquestionable, and place it here,[[8]] the page will be blanked and replaced with a huge copyvio tag while admins look into it for a week; or (2) if it's less than blatant, you use your judgement and do the best you can. Change some words, or whatever. Usually it's only a problem when someone cuts and pastes whole paragraphs (or even an entire article) from elsewhere, or when someone uploads an image without the proper assurances. Or, once in a blue moon, an author will complain that their work is being infringed on here. What constitutes a copyvio is pretty murky. George Harrison was ruled to have stolen a song's tune, despite the appearance that he didn't do so consciously, whereas Led Zeppelin blatantly lifted the intro to Stairway to Heaven from the song Taurus by the band Spirit, who they happened to be touring with at the time. But they changed a couple of chords, added lyrics, and got away with it. Here, we're talking about similarities in structure, but where no complete sentence is used verbatim. I wouldn't lose any sleep over it. Poindexter Propellerhead 01:06, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh, Z's not losing sleep either and I'm sure not; she's just trying to have some fun with this at my expense  :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Sandy, I really hope you intend that as a joke, because it is SO not true. --Zeraeph 04:02, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Will this do for now?

User_talk:Zeraeph/ASedit#Rewrite as summary Feel free to tweak, I feel it is very dry and boring as is, not FA worthy yet. --Zeraeph 00:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

I tweaked a few things that stuck out at me. Have to go run an errand now, but will look at it more later. Poindexter Propellerhead 01:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Please do, because even though it is inoffensive, it's nothing special yet. --Zeraeph 01:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Flows well - the issue with DSM criteria and copyright is another headache which keeps me away from these type of articles :( cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Oh thank you...one day I must tell you my "apa story", it leaves Spanish Inquisition in SHADE. I have have popped this bit into article for now because Sandy is right about my weaselly attempt to fix the old section, they are embarassing, and it solves any "copyvio" issues. --Zeraeph 02:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)