Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive 20

Archive 15

←

Archive 18

Archive 19

Archive 20

Archive 21

Archive 22

→

Archive 25

ASD, not AS, is characterized by

A recent change to the lead sentence lost some important information, namely, that ASD in general is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests. The changed wording "Asperger syndrome is an autism spectrum disorder characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests" gives the mistaken implication that only AS is characterized that way and that other ASDs are characterized differently. I changed it back. Eubulides (talk) 23:00, 10 October 2009 (UTC)

You're right, but the difference is of one word (therefore). It seems that adding it would have proven a better use of your time than reverting and commenting on the talk.

How about "Asperger syndrome is an autism spectrum disorder and, consequently, is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests. It differs from other autism spectrum disorders by its relative preservation of linguistic and cognitive development. Although not required for diagnosis, physical clumsiness and atypical use of language are frequently reported."? Give or take the commas.

"people with it", and "therefore" just sound very cheesy/awkward and unprofessional to me. MichaelExe (talk) 04:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

In difference format, this proposed change is:

"Asperger syndrome is an autism spectrum disorder , and people with it therefore show and, consequently, is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests."

I'm afraid this change doesn't work well. First, it's not grammatical. Second, the "characterized by" suffers from the same mistaken implication noted in the first paragraph in this thread. Third, the phrases "consequently" and "characterized by" are harder to understand than the text they replace. WP:LEAD says that the lead "should be written in a clear, accessible style to invite a reading of the full article", which means that, other things being equal, it's better to use easy-to-understand words. I don't sense the cheesiness that you do, but is there some other way to write the lead that avoids the cheesiness and also avoids the three problems noted here? Eubulides (talk) 05:03, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

"characterized" (which is used in several other articles concerning medical diagnoses, namely autism and autism spectrum) may be harder to understand than "people with", but it isn't that hard to understand. The following sentence is probably worse in that sense ("It differs from other autism spectrum disorders by its relative preservation of linguistic and cognitive development."). I think most of us would have understood the first sentence with an 8th grade level vocabulary.

"characterized by" does not suffer from the same mistaken implication noted in the first paragraph in this thread, because it's preceded by "consequently", a synonym of "therefore". If you use the same logic, the conclusion is the same: people with Asperger syndrome AND autism show blahblahblah....

Other than the comma I just removed (before "and consequently", the grammar should be sound; I fail to see how it isn't, if it isn't). If you'd like to repeat "is", that's fine, but it shouldn't be necessary.

To properly dumb down the lead, it should have been written like so: "Asperger sickness is an autism sickness, and people with autism sicknesses, like Asperger sickness, have a hard time with others. They also do the same things the same way almost all of the time and like some stuff a lot. Asperger sickness is different from other autism sicknesses, because people that have it can usually learn like most of us. Even though you don't need them for the doctor to tell you that you have it, clumsiness and weird talking are common." Writing that was surprisingly amusing. XP MichaelExe (talk) 06:13, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Obviously we don't want to dumb down the lead with invented and head-scratching phrases like "autism sickness"; this is not Simple English Wikipedia. Still, it makes sense to use simpler wording in the lead when it is just as sound as the more-complicated wording. There certainly is a grammar problem in a sentence of the form "X is a Y and characterized by Z", which is the form discussed here. Inserting an "is" before "characterized" fixes the grammar but makes the sentence even more awkward. "Is characterized by" does not mean the same thing as "has the following characteristics"; the former implies that the following set of symptoms in some sense completely describes or bounds the disease, whereas the latter means only that the disease has the following symptoms (and perhaps some others). In the proposed sentence, "is characterized by", which means the former, is used in the place where the former meaning is wrong and the latter meaning is correct. (This is independent of the "consequently".) Because of the evident confusion about "characterized" in this thread, and because of the way that "consequently" gets in the way of the flow, the proposed rewording is worse than the original. That is not to say that the original can't be improved. Eubulides (talk) 06:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I guess "is" would sound better, because you can avoid the alliteration, if you leave it between "consequently" and "characterized".

"is characterized by" is not the same as "is limited to". [1] It more or less means that the following symptoms are the big markers (it's distinguished/marked by), not the only markers, for AS. A majority of mental disorder articles use "characterized by", and they don't imply the same meaning. Hell, even the first sentence of "Classification" uses "characterized by": "Asperger syndrome (AS) is one of the autism spectrum disorders (ASD) or pervasive developmental disorders (PDD), which are a spectrum of psychological conditions that are characterized by abnormalities of social interaction and communication that pervade the individual's functioning, and by restricted and repetitive interests and behavior." The second sentence of "Characteristics" is "It is characterized by qualitative impairment in social interaction, by stereotyped and restricted patterns of behavior, activities and interests, and by no clinically significant delay in cognitive development or general delay in language. Intense preoccupation with a narrow subject, one-sided verbosity, restricted prosody, and physical clumsiness are typical of the condition, but are not required for diagnosis." To say that "characterized by" is not appropriate in this case, would mean having to replace it in all mental disorder articles using it. If you'd like to see how often we use it, try this (Results 1 - 500 of 2,405 for characterized disorder). Of course, these are not all mental disorders (although most of them are medicine-related), but it still demonstrates the essentially standardized use of "characterized" in these types of articles. MichaelExe (talk) 15:56, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

MichaelExe, please be aware of WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

So it's wrong to be consistent even within the same article? "characterized by" appears twice already in this article, in sentences that are paraphrases of each other, and the lead is also a paraphrase. That policy is a bit of a stretch in this situation. MichaelExe (talk) 16:52, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I linked that in the context of comparing WP:FAs to other psych articles. These featured articles are very well developed, thanks in large part to Eubulides, and other articles should compare to them, not vice-versa. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

But it is consistent within this article. Also, do we absolutely need to repeat these characteristics three times? There seems to be enough overlap between "Classification" and "Characteristics" to merge the two sections (into "Classification and Characteristics"?). Plus, we classify based on characteristics. MichaelExe (talk) 17:16, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see #Is characterized by below. Eubulides (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Is characterized by

• The previous comments are based on a misinterpretation of the phrase "is characterized by". As the abovementioned thesaurus reference makes clear, "is characterized by" is similar to "is distinguished by". That is, if condition A is characterized by X and Y, you can use the presence of X and Y to distinguish the condition A from other conditions. That is the sense that "is characterized by" is used in the body of Asperger syndrome. And it is the sense that "is characterized by" is used in medical literature. In contrast, the proposed wording in the lead misuses the phrase "A is characterized by X and Y" to mean that A has X and Y, plus some other key characteristics not mentioned, so that one cannot use X and Y to distinguish A from other conditions. This is a misuse of the phrase "is characterized by". Furthermore, even if the phrase "is characterized by" were technically correct, which it's not, this still wouldn't address the point that the proposed wording is harder to understand than the original. As far as I can see, the only reason being proposed for the new wording is WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT, which is not a strong enough reason to introduce harder-to-understand (and incorrect) wording. Please don't keep reinserting this wording against consensus. Instead, please try to find wording that addresses the WP:JUSTDONTLIKEIT problem while not making the lead sentence both incorrect and harder to understand. For now, I've reverted the change.
• The distinction between Characteristics and Classification is standard in medical articles on Wikipedia. Please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) #Diseases/disorders/syndromes.

Eubulides (talk) 21:12, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

• Whatever unmentioned key features should be mentioned. When "characterized by" is used, "primarily" is implied, but also a redundant addition. The use of "consequently, is characterized by" and "people with it therefore" both imply that autism and Asperger syndrome share these distinguishing characteristics. "People with it have" said characteristics is also an "A has X and Y". It should be even more obvious this way. Their uses are synonymous in this instance.
• So is it okay if I replace "characterized by" in all of the mental health disorder articles (including this one, which uses it twice already), because almost all mental disorders are subjective, and can't be limited to a set amount of symptoms? I'll gladly replace all of the "characterized by"s and "distinguished by"s in this article with "people with it have".
• I have the argument of consistency (within Wikipedia and THIS SAME ARTICLE, in case you hadn't read it the first couple times) on my side; you've got understandability, which is also subjective. I don't think "characterized by" is hard to understand at all. If you dumb that down, there's a lot more of dumbing down to be done in the lead. You're using policy conditionally, and ignoring my arguments, because you're obviously attached to this article. Also, whose consensus is this, other than your own?
• As for Classification and Characteristics, you're right, but then Classification should go deeper into etiology and pathogenesis ("Diseases may be classified by etiology (cause), pathogenesis (mechanism by which the disease is caused), or by symptom(s)."). It mentions the fact that it has some mutual and different causes with other disorders but does not name these causes. It still doesn't make much sense to repeat the same paraphrased sentence 3 times in 3 consecutive sections, either. MichaelExe (talk) 22:45, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

And please address all of my arguments, not just those you think you can argue against. MichaelExe (talk) 23:09, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again, please stop using OTHERSTUFFEXISTS as an argument; other articles are not our concern here, this one (an FA) is. I can't discern any problem with the previous wording, except that you don't like it, so I'm unsure why this is still being argued. The current wording is accurate. Also, please refrain from edit warring; you have installed now three times a version that did not have consensus, in spite of talk page discussion. Hammer out wording here that we can all agree on; WP:3RR is not a license to revert three times in 24 hours, and three reverts without consensus is still edit warring. Work on improvements in the text, not by edit warring in the article, please. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 11 October 2009 (UTC)

Once again, please stop ignoring my argument that "characterized by" and "distinguished by" are also used within this same article. Please be consistent in your use of policy.

My first edit was an error, and Eubulides corrected it. I've made one revert, and it was after explaining my reasoning (which still hasn't been argued against properly). Your latest revert also goes against Eubulides' consensus (that "characterized by" and "distinguished by" are not only too obscure to understand in the lead, but that they're also incorrect). That logic means that all use of "characterized by" and "distinguished by" in a similar type of structure is incorrect and should be subject to removal. I edited within the "consensus" (albeit to point out the flaw in Eubulides' argument); you edited against.

And please clarify; what is the consensus? I've until now witnessed contradictory positions in you and Eubulides, and any other editors have yet to comment. MichaelExe (talk) 00:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

AAAAAAANNNNNDDD, if it is appropriate to compare this article to other featured articles (namely the other featured mental disorder articles: Autism, Down syndrome, Major depressive disorder, Schizophrenia, and Tourette syndrome, which all use "characterized by" in their leads), your FA argument is moot. Featured articles can still be improved; believe it or not. It says so in the template! =O MichaelExe (talk) 00:16, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• The previous comment incorrectly says that SandyGeorgia and I have contradictory positions here. We don't. We have agreed so far in this thread.
• "Whatever unmentioned key features should be mentioned." They are mentioned, in the next sentence (the 2nd sentence in the lead), which starts "It differs from other autism spectrum disorders by...".
• "So is it okay if I replace "characterized by" in all of the mental health disorder articles" No, "characterized by" should be replaced only where it is being misused, which it generally isn't. It's not being misused in its two instances in this article.
• "I have the argument of consistency" No, because the other instances of "characterized by" in this article are being used properly: they list the attributes that, taken together, characterize the condition in question, and distinguish the condition from others.
• "Classification should go deeper into etiology and pathogenesis" There's no need for that, since the Causes section is what is supposed to cover etiology deeply, and the Mechanism section is what's supposed to cover pathogenesis deeply. These sections are also discussed in Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) #Diseases/disorders/syndromes.
• "It still doesn't make much sense to repeat the same paraphrased sentence 3 times in 3 consecutive sections" It could well be helpful to remove unwanted repetition. Could you please propose specific wording to fix this problem? Whatever wording is used should accurately reflect what the reliable sources say.
• "My first edit was an error, and Eubulides corrected it. I've made one revert" You've made three edits (1, 2, 3) that attempted to replace the phrase "and people with it therefore show" with a phrase involving "is characterized by". All three edits have had errors involving misuse of "is characterized by". Please don't keep inserting that phrase against consensus.

Eubulides (talk) 00:31, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• You've yet to say what you've agreed upon. So far, the consensus seems to be that the article should remain as it is, without any attempt to improve it. Perfection is unattainable, but status quo can not bring us any closer to it.
• Logically, how are the following sentences any different in meaning? "Asperger syndrome is an autism spectrum disorder and consequently, is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests. It differs from other autism spectrum disorders by its relative preservation of linguistic and cognitive development. Although not required for diagnosis, physical clumsiness and atypical use of language are frequently reported." "Asperger syndrome (AS) is one of the autism spectrum disorders (ASD) or pervasive developmental disorders (PDD), which are a spectrum of psychological conditions that are characterized by abnormalities of social interaction and communication that pervade the individual's functioning, and by restricted and repetitive interests and behavior." "A pervasive developmental disorder, Asperger syndrome is distinguished by a pattern of symptoms rather than a single symptom. It is characterized by qualitative impairment in social interaction, by stereotyped and restricted patterns of behavior, activities and interests, and by no clinically significant delay in cognitive development or general delay in language. Intense preoccupation with a narrow subject, one-sided verbosity, restricted prosody, and physical clumsiness are typical of the condition, but are not required for diagnosis." I can see that this last does not necessarily imply that all pervasive developmental disorders have these characteristics, but the first two infer that AS and ASD share the characteristics. Either way, "characterized by" and "people with it" still appear identical in usage to me, in all three instances.
• Then why say that some key features were unmentioned? This must have been a misunderstanding. If something is mentioned later on, that does not mean it is unmentioned. =/
• And the Characteristics section is supposed to cover the characteristics. I don't mean a long explanation on the other criteria for classification, but if you introduce the characteristics, the others should be introduced, as well.
• Changing the wording still makes the sentences paraphrases of each other. I meant the removal of the one in the Classification section, but as you mentioned, characteristics are used in classification, so strike this out.
• Obviously I was unaware of any consensus in the first edit. Your wording also suggests that you aren't supporting SandyGeorgia's conclusion that my edits were reverts. The second edit was also made after I explained myself, and you had yet to respond; I admit I was hasty. For the third, however, I still don't see how the use of "characterized by" and "distinguished by" is different in each instance. I also did not change the use of "people with it" in the lead, I added it to the other sections.

MichaelExe (talk) 01:03, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• "You've yet to say what you've agreed upon." It was your claim that we held contradictory positions. That claim was incorrect.
• "Logically, how are the following sentences any different in meaning?" The first one (incorrectly) characterizes AS as having a certain set of symptoms. The second one (correctly) characterizes ASD (not AS) has having that set of symptoms. The third one (correctly) characterizes AS as having a different set of symptoms.
• "If something is mentioned later on, that does not mean it is unmentioned." It was not mentioned in the proposed sentence, which attempted (incorrectly) to define AS as being characterized by a particular set of symptoms. This error cannot be repaired by mentioning the correct set of symptoms elsewhere in the article.
• "And the Characteristics section is supposed to cover the characteristics." Agreed, though I don't follow the point there. What specific wording change is being proposed here?
• "Your wording also suggests that you aren't supporting SandyGeorgia's conclusion that my edits were reverts." No, I was supporting that conclusion.
• "I also did not change the use of "people with it" in the lead, I added it to the other sections." Ah, sorry, I misinterpreted your last edit. I've struck that part of my comment. However, wasn't the third edit an example of being WP:POINTY? at any rate, it seemed to rely on a mistaken interpretation of what "is characterized by" means.

Eubulides (talk) 01:25, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

This is taking a lot of time on what appears to be a rather insignificant semantic matter; MichaelExe, if you want to change wording, please just propose the wording you want, wait for consensus based on talk page discussion, and then changes can be installed. That will be a more effective way of working than edit warring; also, pls read WP:TLDR and keep it as brief as possible. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:52, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

1. Saying that something is incorrect does not prove it wrong. Please explain what the consensus is.
2. They all characterize AS as having a same set of symptoms, though. In the first (with "and people with it therefore"), AS and ASD both "show significant difficulties in social interaction, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests." With "and consequently, is characterized by", AS and ASD still show the same symptoms. "Consequently" and "therefore" are synonyms; I'm sure we can agree on that, so we can set that aside. "is characterized by" and the "it" in "people with it" both refer to AS (and also to ASD through "consequently" and "therefore"). So either way, the sentence says that both AS and ASD are characterized by "significant difficulties..." We may need a couple of other opinions on this, because our positions don't seem to be getting any clearer to each other.
3. AS is characterized by a particular set of symptoms. The same set of symptoms is used in all three instances, but the preservation of linguistic and cognitive development is attributed to AS in the autism spectrum. The second does not mention these developments at all (because it describes all ASDs/PDDs). In the third, intense interests are considered unnecessary for diagnosis, but the first sentence only says clumsiness and atypical use of language are.
4. You implied that information on etiology and pathogenesis (mechanism) (which are also used in Nosology) should be left only for the respective sections, but characteristics appears in Classification. I'm saying etiology and pathogenesis should be mentioned in Classification.
5. Okay.
6. I was not aware of that policy, and I was not breaking any other policies/guidelines. However, I was going against the consensus, but I was unaware of the consensus (and it still hasn't been explained to me, tbh), too. I apologize; I won't do it again.

I'm switching to numbers, so it's easier to comment on each. MichaelExe (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia, we're already discussing my proposed wording. I just don't understand Eubulides' logic that "and, consequently, is characterized by" is incorrect and doesn't have the same meaning as "and people with it therefore show". They both refer to AS (and people with it), and imply that the characteristics in the sentence are also present in ASDs (and people with them). At the moment, we're discussing more than one issue, too, so I can't keep it much shorter. MichaelExe (talk) 02:15, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Please see #Is characterized by 2 below. Eubulides (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

Is characterized by 2

• "They all characterize AS as having a same set of symptoms, though." No, they don't. The first wording says that Asperger's "is characterized by significant difficulties in social interaction, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests." This is incorrect, because that is what ASD is characterized by; it is not what Asperger's is characterized by. The other two wordings do not have this error.
• "The same set of symptoms is used in all three instances" No, it is not. The first instance (incorrectly) says that Asperger's "is characterized by" a smaller set of symptoms that the third instance (correctly) gives.
• "You implied that information on etiology and pathogenesis (mechanism) (which are also used in Nosology) should be left only for the respective sections" No, I said only that in-depth coverage of the topics should be in the sections devoted to the topics. In other medical articles, shallow or brief introductory coverage of etiology and pathogenesis is sometimes helpful in Classification. In Asperger syndrome, however, such coverage would not help, as the classification of it and related conditions is currently done entirely by signs and symptoms; causes and mechanism are not used in classification.
• "Saying that something is incorrect does not prove it wrong." I see no point to continuing this part of the thread, as it's not about improving the article.

Eubulides (talk) 06:09, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• I think I see the problem. Both Asperger syndrome AND autism spectrum disorders are characterized by these symptoms. When using "and people with it therefore show", "it" is referring to Asperger syndrome; if it isn't supposed to, "and people with one (autism spectrum disorder) show" should be used. "Therefore" would be dropped, because it implies that both people with Asperger syndrome and the other autism spectrum disorders share these symptoms. However, if Asperger syndrome was not characterized by these symptoms, why would we describe only autism spectrum disorders in the lead of an Asperger syndrome article?
• Following up with "It differs from other autism spectrum disorders by its relative preservation of linguistic and cognitive development." corrects this. P"reservation of linguistic and cognitive development" is not technically a symptom; it's the lack of one (and only useful for comparing to other autism spectrum disorders). "characterized by" does not suggest that the symptoms in the sentence are the only symptoms, because the second and third sentences of the lead add to the symptoms (but they aren't the focus of the symptoms). When diagnosing someone with autism, you'd note impairment in "linguistic and cognitive development"; in Asperger syndrome, this would be used only to distinguish it from other autism spectrum disorders. However, if you ignore the fact that Asperger syndrome is an autism spectrum disorder, you'd still be able to diagnose a patient with it - without noting "relative preservation of linguistic and cognitive development".
• I see your point. We'll discontinue this one, as well.

MichaelExe (talk) 16:00, 12 October 2009 (UTC)

• This is not a case where we have two different conditions that are characterized by the same symptoms. Asperger's is a subset of ASD, and its characteristic symptoms are therefore a superset of ASD's. The fact that its characteristic symptoms includes what you're calling a "lack of a symptom" doesn't change this. All sorts of behavior can be a symptom. If you're sneezing, that can be a symptom, and if you're not sneezing, that can also be a symptom that is useful in diagnosing your condition. One cannot use just the ASD characteristics to diagnose someone with Asperger's, because if one did that, one might diagnose someone who actually has PDD-NOS as having Asperger's. Eubulides (talk) 20:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

The second sentence ("It differs from other autism spectrum disorders...") still distinguishes Asperger Syndrome from other autism spectrum disorders, whether "consequently, is characterized by" or "people with it therefore show" is used. "consequently, is characterized by" does not imply that people with Asperger syndrome do not relatively preserve linguistic and cognitive development. MichaelExe (talk) 21:26, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

'"consequently, is characterized by" does not imply that people with Asperger syndrome do not relatively preserve linguistic and cognitive development' Sorry, but it does imply that, because it says (incorrectly) that Asperger's "is characterized by" the same set of symptoms that ASD is characterized by. Rather than going around and around about this, how about proposing a different wording that fixes the problem you perceive with the current text (a problem that apparently nobody else perceives)? Surely that will be a more efficient way of addressing this issue. Eubulides (talk) 23:18, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It only implies that it's characterized by these common symptoms. It does not imply that it shares ALL of the same symptoms.

If we wrote: "Like other autism spectrum disorders, Asperger syndrome is characterized by..."

"Asperger syndrome (AS) is one of the autism spectrum disorders (ASD) or pervasive developmental disorders (PDD), which are a spectrum of psychological conditions that are characterized by abnormalities of social interaction and communication that pervade the individual's functioning, and by restricted and repetitive interests and behavior." In this case, "characterized by" refers to ASD, PDD (and less directly, AS). In the lead, "characterized by" refers to AS and less directly, ASD. I don't see how that's any different (except PDD, which is neglected in the lead, of course).

Tbh, I'd rather just get a couple others' opinions on the use of "characterized by" in this context. Should we start a poll/vote (not for using "characterized by" in the lead, but for defining "characterized by" in this context)? MichaelExe (talk) 23:35, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

• "It only implies that it's characterized by these common symptoms. It does not imply that it shares ALL of the same symptoms." "Is characterized by" means that this set of symptoms distinguishes ASD from non-ASD. It is an error to say that the same set of symptoms distinguishes Asperger's from non-Asperger's.
• "Like other autism spectrum disorders, Asperger syndrome is characterized by..." Sorry, no, that makes the same error.
• "In this case, "characterized by" refers to ASD, PDD (and less directly, AS)" No, in that case "characterized by" clearly refers only to ASD or PDD. It does not refer to Asperger's per se.
• "Should we start a poll/vote" This matter has already taken up far too much of both of our time. Let's not prolong it by asking for a vote. The phrase "is characterized by" has a standard meaning in medical literature; let's not use it to mean something different here. It's perfectly reasonable to dislike the current wording for stylistic reasons, but it's not reasonable to replace it with incorrect wording.

Eubulides (talk) 23:56, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

It would also be unnecessary to start a poll, since no other editor is concerned about the current wording, which is accurate. This discussion has taken too much time already. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:58, 13 October 2009 (UTC)

To chime in a little late here, the original wording is fine, there is one editor that does not like it, consensus says keep it as is it seems to me. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:16, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

Well, actually, the 'people with it' wording does look a bit odd to me. I don't think it's a way of wording it that is commonly used. Fenke (talk) 07:02, 15 October 2009 (UTC)

• That's what "consequently" is for; it links the symptoms to both.
• When you use "like", it also links the symptoms to both. Basically, Asperger syndrome, ASD and PDD are all characterized by...
• If all PDD and ASD are characterized by certain symptoms, and AS is a PDD/ASD, ASD is characterized by these same symptoms. They are not distinguished from each other, but from everything else with these characteristics.
• That's telling me to admit I'm wrong without understanding why. I will admit I'm wrong if/when I understand why. If someone corrected a test of yours and marked something as wrong, and you don't understand their explanation, would you be satisfied?
• If we simply wrote "Asperger syndrome is characterized by..." and follow up with "other PDD and ASD share these symptoms" (obviously excluding preservation of development), would this be correct?

Yes, the current wording is accurate, but it could be better (therefore it's a matter of improvement, not just of WP:IDONTLIKEIT). From WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (which we can ultimately choose not to follow without getting banned, being an essay): "For instance, when an actor recently died suddenly, a discussion broke out about adding "the late" before his name in one of his movie pages. In order to judge the necessity of such a phrase, other articles of famous deceased actors could be checked, which was done. By and large, these other articles do not use this sort of reference, and thus the newest article did not. While not a strict OSE reasoning, the overarching concept remains, that of precedent and consistency throughout the Wikipedia project." This is a similar case. "people with it" is almost never used when describing the actual disorder. And while you're here, you might as well comment on the use of "characterized by". MichaelExe (talk) 00:26, 14 October 2009 (UTC)

DSM Criteria

http://www.autreat.com/dsm4-aspergers.html, http://autism.about.com/od/aspergerssyndrome/f/dxcriteriaforas.htm, http://www.aspiesforfreedom.com/showthread.php?tid=3244

These probably aren't the most reliable of sources (perhaps copies of each other), but their lists are the same:

A. Qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following:

• marked impairment in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to eye gaze, facial expression, body postures, and gestures to regulate social interaction
• failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level
• lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people (e.g., by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people)
• lack of social or emotional reciprocity

B. Restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities, as manifested by at least one of the following:

• encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity of focus
• apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals
• stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g., hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)
• persistent preoccupation with parts of objects

C. The disturbance causes clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

D. There is no clinically significant general delay in language e.g., single words used by age two years, communicative phrases used by age three years).

E. There is no clinically significant delay in cognitive development or in the development of age-appropriate self-help skills, adaptive behavior (other than in social interaction), and curiosity about the environment in childhood.

F. Criteria are not met for another specific pervasive developmental disorder or schizophrenia.

If someone has a copy of the DSM-IV, it would be great if they could confirm this list. MichaelExe (talk) 03:11, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I believe the criteria are already linked in the article; I'm unsure why you've posted them here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ah ok, I didn't see Diagnosis_of_Asperger_syndrome. The list above has "sub-criteria", however, unlike the other article. MichaelExe (talk) 03:21, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

"Diagnostic Criteria For 299.80 Asperger's Disorder

A. Qualitative impairment in social interaction, as manifested by at least two of the following: marked impairments in the use of multiple nonverbal behaviors such as eye-to-eye gaze, facial expression, body postures, and gestures to regulate social interaction failure to develop peer relationships appropriate to developmental level a lack of spontaneous seeking to share enjoyment, interests, or achievements with other people (e.g. by a lack of showing, bringing, or pointing out objects of interest to other people) lack of social or emotional reciprocity

B. Restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior, interests, and activities, as manifested by at least one of the following: encompassing preoccupation with one or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus apparently inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g., hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements) persistent preoccupation with parts of objects.

C. The disturbance causes clinically significant impairment in social, occupational, or other important areas of functioning.

D. There is no clinically significant general delay in language (e.g., single words used by age 2 years, communicative phrases used by age 3 years)

E. There is no clinically significant delay in cognitive development or in the development of age-appropriate self-help skills, adaptive behavior (other than social interaction), and curiosity about the environment in childhood

F. Criteria are not met for another specific Pervasive Developmental Disorder or Schizophrenia."

Those with Asperger's may not have all of these manifestations. For instance, not all people with Asperger's have rituals they must perform or engage in repetitive mannerisms. Those who were trained in the "social graces" do not lack social or emotional reciprocity. It is a tough thing to diagnose and, of course in May 1012 it may very well be dropped from the DSM V as those with Asperger's are not dangerous, are generally brilliant and are responsible for much that is important and great. Gingermint (talk) 01:12, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree that not all criteria have to be met. It's the same for any mental disorder, including personality disorders.

If it was not acknowledged as a disorder, they wouldn't be trained in the "social graces", and there would be fewer schools and societies focused on helping those with Asperger syndrome. This isn't the way to support them.

On a semi-related note, do you watch The Big Bang Theory, Criminal Minds or Bones, or have seen the film Adam? =P MichaelExe (talk) 01:30, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I watch Bones. Do you think Dr. Temperance "Bones" Brennan is an Aspie? She seems to be. There is some kind of Pervasive Development Disorder at work and it wouldn't amaze me if she had Asperger's. Gingermint (talk) 01:39, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Would anyone mind if we archive this thread? It's huge, talking a lot of space on the page, doesn't have any info that's not linked in the article, and went a bit off-topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:07, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Go ahead; I've taken the discussion to our talk pages. You can also archive the "characterized by" stuff, too, if you'd like. I might bring it back up, someday, though. ;) MichaelExe (talk) 02:13, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Worsening via medication

I feel that the source given for the statement "for example, misdiagnosis can lead to medications that worsen behavior." (Fitzerald and Corvin, 2001) is not a very good source for that specific statement. The relevant element in the paper is simply "[...]; misdiagnosis as ADHD [leads] to the prescription of psychostimulants (e.g. methylphenidate), which can cause deterioration in behaviour in this population." and is unsourced. This is essentially a blank assertion, and if it is considered common knowledge in this study area, surely there are sources expounding on this specific aspect? Circeus (talk) 05:45, 31 October 2009 (UTC)

Diagnosis - "Challenge of obtaining payment"

This phrasing seems to be less relevant to Asperger Syndrome itself and more of a comment on the features of the health care system in a given country. Any thoughts? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.148.129.210 (talk) 15:59, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Very true, probably US-centric since this is the only English-speaking country without a functioning national healthcare system. I've reworded this to say "The cost and difficulty of screening and assessment can delay diagnosis." Tim Vickers (talk) 16:02, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Based on my experience with TS, I'd not say that the UK or Canadian systems are "functioning" well, but I do agree that your new wording covers the issue more globally and correctly. The difficulties of getting a correct TS or AS diagnosis in the UK or Canada are worse than in the US. But that's just my opinion, not an RS. :) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:23, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Even in the US, a lot of finding proper assessment or any kind of specialist is either random luck or having to wait around and hope you get a tip from a tip that someone else in your normal clinic might have heard about someone moving in. Complete fluke. In my case, to even try an evaluation process would have meant endless visits 100+ miles to Chicago that would have been out-of-pocket expense until I got extremely lucky when an incoming specialist showed up. Others I've spoken to generally have the same opinion that getting something very reliable decreases with overall population density, meaning it goes from nearly impossible down to lottery-jackpot-winner impossible. Any data from the US would be skewed I fear, since a lot cases of "confirmed diagnosis" via shady school counseling tend to happen so it would both inflate total cases and presumably lower cost (to nothing, in those cases). Well, might balance out? But still poor statistical data. Different insurance companies may also treat it differently depending on the classification of doctor/therapist seen, or might not cover assessment for ASD above a certain age at all... or just not at all in the first place. Since AS is "new", no one in a million years would have known to try to evaluate me over it 15-20 years ago when a normally diagnosed age, which means adults are more likely to pay out-of-pocket as well. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 18:04, 7 November 2009 (UTC)

To contribute a little about my own experience (necessarily anecdotal) in the UK - my GP originally tried and failed to find someone to refer me to. I then found a charitable institution which wanted more in fees than either I could afford or my GP could source from the NHS. By this time the Cambridge Lifespan Asperger Syndrome Service was accepting only local people rather than people from out of area due to demand for services. Eventually I had to contact my local MP (the equivalent of a congressman I would guess) and he got an assurance from the head of the local NHS that I would be dealt with within nine months. Eighteen months later I actually got someone who eventually gave me a diagnosis. Since then local services have deteriorated to next to nothing! So there are problems in funding and in knowledge in the UK - the latter is probably more significant however. This is the thrust of the Autism Act[1] in England and Wales - though not yet in Scotland since the SNP to date has not given much thought about the matter and want to lump ASCs in with learning disability - which in many cases is not appropriate. Once again a lack of knowledge. IMO the Autism Act is considerably more appropriate than the Combating Autism Act in the US.

[1] to my knowledge this has not got Royal Assent as yet but has passed all parliamentary stages. Soarhead77 (talk) 12:18, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Blog

I made what I regarded as a valuable contribution, giving a URL to a blog 'Asperger's is Just a Racket' that expressed what anyone reading this discussion must surely conclude, which is that nobody knows exactly what characterizes Asperger's syndrome. It kept getting deleted -- not, I note, criticized in the discussion section -- and I got told it was 'warring' and, bizarrely, that the blog was 'off-topic'. Since, previously, someone took the trouble to give my message a section of its own, there is evidently at least one other person out there who thinks the blog is valuable and germane to the discussion. There are bound to be others, and and I urge such people to work all the harder, against the tide, to disseminate the blog around the 'net.82.24.171.148 (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Check out WP:RS. Blogs are generally frowned upon as reliable sources. If you can make the same argument with a reliable source.. such as the American Mental health Association or something to that effect you would probably receive a better response. - 4twenty42o (talk) 17:15, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with the above. Common blog, unknown writer, SPS, missing NPOV... It was being removed as rubbish by an author using an assumed named instead (no google results). For comparisons I've been in recently involving editors who tried to use a blog there as a resource, one was blocked for edit warring against a huge POV consensus, and another reached ArbCom in part because their blog was indirect evidence of massive and destructive POV pushing and spent months and months refusing to back down. By contrast and ironically, I ran into an edit war in an article about someone who shares this opinion and has made it publicly known, but is a celebrity with plenty of sources in their article so I reverted it back to its starting state and asked they discuss it more. Such is Wikipedia, where I could not in good faith participate in any official discussion regarding that. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 04:56, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Oh, but worth mentioning as an odd-on, since it's Wikipedia such a thing would be open to discussion if you could prove it with scientific investigation, published research, etc etc. I'll say in advance that that would be incredibly difficult in this case. "Others" and a "tide" we'd have to see, since we operate on consensus, meaning a sole opinion or fringe view literally cannot represent an article. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 05:13, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid this just personifies the Catch-22-style 'downward spiral' that the blog was exposing. Peer review qualifies respectability, but peer review is not, itself, respectable. It is certainly not remotely pluralistic, and that is exactly how the various vested interests have engineered it to be. Just look at the way editors of eg. publications such as the British Medical Journal have resigned, owing to their being fed up with the way they, or academic institutions they have been affiliated with, have been made a pawn in the pharmaceutical corporations' game of chess. This, however, is the Internet, where one expects a higher degree of pluralism. The blog itself was simply a healthy bit of discussion, which is what this section was created for. 82.24.171.148 (talk) 13:47, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

<< text removed per WP:BLP >> Colin°^Talk 16:28, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Please read WP:V, WP:RS, WP:MEDRS and WP:SOAP. Wikipedia-- and article talk pages-- are not soapboxes, and edits are based on reliable sources. If you would like to attempt to change Wiki's core policies, please take that discussion to the talk page of WP:V, and keep it off of this page, as this discussion is not relevant to this article. 13:54, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Reliable source, as 'defined' by Wikipedia: <<In general, the most reliable sources are peer-reviewed journals and books published in university presses; university-level textbooks; magazines, journals, and books published by respected publishing houses; and mainstream newspapers. Electronic media may also be used. As a rule of thumb, the greater the degree of scrutiny involved in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the evidence and arguments of a particular work, the more reliable the source is.>> Nebulous. In any case, earlier in the discussion somebody posted a quote from a much-referenced medical encyclopedia affirming that Asperger's is of 'uncertain nosological validity'. The blog was merely a reasoned expansion upon this. It certainly provided something that the psychiatric literature is woefully lacking -- and which places it at the top of the pile by the above definition of 'reliable' -- namely, a rigorous philosophical and logical scrutinization of medical dogma.82.24.171.148 (talk) 14:29, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure what it is... maybe you're a parent and worried for a child and really want to think nothing is different? Perhaps you work at a disability firm and don't want to hear about it? A teacher sick a student you feel is just using it as an excuse for just not "getting it"? It must be something deeply embedded for this kind of frustration, but this isn't the place to just try to chat about it. Science, verifiability, consensus. That's what Wikipedia is for and not a blog. There's a reason this article has 'FA' status, and it's because a lot of editors have put a whole lot of time into making it as professional, accurate and presentable as possible. You can look through the rest of this talk page and see how much they'll discuss even minor changes; it means a lot. Anything you bring the table needs scholarly material behind it as just a start. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 17:10, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Let's say that the notion of a neutral point of view is rather spurious and open to manipulation by those who can present an argument that, by sophistry, appears to be as such. Surely, failing neutrality per se, we should aspire to provide a balance among viewpoints. If I see injustice and sources of needless upset, I consider it my duty to attempt to rectify the situation. If clinical psychologists were competent at understanding the human mind or the nature of human idiosyncrasy, we would have more of them taking up careers as playwrights, actors and so on; but I have never known any great such talents to have emerged having had a former life in clinical psychology. So, since you ask, I think it is time psychologists had their wings clipped and their intellectual monopoly was dismantled.

I don't know what you mean by 'scholarly material'; if you are referring to peer review then I have already given my views, and I'll add that some of the all-time classic works in philosophy, science and so on, though published, were never subjected to peer review (they doubtless would have been rejected). —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.171.148 (talk) 17:49, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Simply put, a blog is not a reliable source. I think the only way to use a blog in a Wikipedia article is if we credit it to its author, and that this author is notable (educated). [Axial Connival] is hardly notable (his profile has only 33 views, so far, a google search yields only 2 results: [2], and the blogger does not even use his full name) and that one blog is his only.

Also, I'd like to redirect you to this page, although it is far from policy, some of the observations may apply to this situation, specifically: 1. When someone complains loudly about censorship, you may be certain they are up to no good. (not yet, but I'm waiting for it, tbh) and 9. Single-topic editors are rarely, if ever, either interested in or capable of NPOV. Additionally, if you look closely you will often find a conflict of interest. Although we're all forced to assume good faith, I would not be surprised that you are actually Axial Connival. Case and point, there's no way we can support such an anonymous user's blog. If he/she publishes such a criticism under his/her full name, including education (preferably MD or PhD) and background information, it may see a mention in this article, but until then, that user's opinion is moot. If you wish to support this user's opinion on Wikipedia, look for ways of doing so within the verifiability, notability and reliability policies of Wikipedia. I don't doubt that there is controversy because of Asperger's, but a blog is not a good start to point it out.

Finally, before someone accuses me of not assuming good faith, I'd like to point out that such an accusation is also in bad faith. XP MichaelExe (talk) 18:40, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

And at the end of all this, perhaps someone here will be kind enough to explain exactly what Asperger's is. Issues relating to antics in the medical profession are too grave to play games relating to the manner in which people should be allowed to comment.

There are probably individuals out there in positions that will enable them to confirm my suspicion that the majority of Asperger's diagnoses nowadays are undertaken upon delinquents who are using the medical profession to play the system. By the way, the concepts entertained in this discussion section exemplify the kinds of confusion exposed in the blog. At my last check, people who entirely lack empathy were otherwise known as psychopaths.82.24.171.148 (talk) 20:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Not all people that lack empathy are psychopathic, sociopathic, antisocial or dissocial, because these also lack guilt and remorse (which are used as diagnostic criteria). Lack of empathy is also typical in Schizophrenia and some related disorders (schizoid personality disorder, for example) as well as narcissistic personality disorder. By being completely involved in one's own world, one would become self-sufficient to the point of indifference to having others around. [3] [4] [5] Perhaps this is more apparent in the schizoid personality disorder, but I think it still applies often enough to Asperger's. If you're looking for more information on what exactly Asperger syndrome is, this may prove useful. I agree that there needs to be some clarification on the "lack of empathy" issue, but the concept appears often enough in medical reviews to warrant its inclusion here. MichaelExe (talk) 21:04, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

When you look at the way schizophrenia has been redefined from decade to decade, there being suggestions that the redefinitions have been made to accord with governmental agenda (specifically, mind control techniques involving auditory [as distinct from visual] hallucinations), one must wonder about all other definitions in psychology. I recall reading in a respected Dictionary of Psychology (probably a Penguin publication) that autism was reckoned by some psychologists to be a form of schizophrenia. It strikes me that nobody has a clue about the true nature of any of these distinctions. And the theories associated with this sort of thing are truly appalling, just as they were in the era when everything psychological had something to do with sex.

The reason for the question mark over nosological validity is surely down to the fact that people with restricted, repetitive etc. behaviors will be best categorized, at least by the layperson, as 'boring', and those with 'sociological impairment' as 'shy'. If academe wants to make more of it than this, it needs to make a better justification than has thus far been presented.82.24.171.148 (talk) 23:23, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps Fallibilism, Solipsism or Nihilism would suit you, because, after all, we could be wrong about everything. Or, if you think you know better than all of the other psychologists and psychiatrists, seek the publication of your opinion in a medical journal or the like.

I encourage you to pursue the acknowledgement of your views, but use better sources. There's no point continuing the argument over the blog, because you will not win. Move on, and look somewhere else for support of your conclusions. MichaelExe (talk) 00:03, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid seeking publication in peer-reviewed journals would be an immense waste of time for me. many of the most talented academics are leaving their profession in disillusionment at the system. I know someone, fairly well, who openly and unashamedly told me of his involvement in the 'medical peer-review mafia', to use his phrase.82.24.171.148 (talk) 01:32, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Please just realise that a blog such as the one we are discussing is not a reliable source. You have had a number of editors tell you this. You claim things with no cites (on this page) and then tell us that 'you know some guy' or whatever. These are not reliable sources. Either do the work to find actual sources that agree with you, or move on. Oh and full disclosure, I am a member of the peer review mafia... Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:24, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

The attitude of the medical establishment towards aspects on Asperger's syndrome appears, to use the terminology of a French politician who commented on the British Conservative Party's attitude towards Europe, autistic.82.24.171.148 (talk) 17:09, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

MRS Findings

Might anyone want to take a crack at taking this into account? Arch. Gen. Psychiatry, 2002;59:885-891

I hope that I'm not horribly mistaken in the Archive of General Psychiatry being a reliable source. I've seen it cited in psychology articles, although few, such as Phobia. --Saerain (talk) 10:51, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

This is a single study-- not a review. Please see WP:MEDRS; if this 2002 study is mentioned in reviews, it might be included. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:57, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Empathy

Perhaps we should try to include some clarification about the "lack of empathy" in autism spectrum disorders (versus that in psychopathy), or links to Empathy#Lack_of_empathy, Empathy#Empathy_and_autism_spectrum_disorders, Alexithymia and/or Theory_of_mind#In_autism. Some PubMed reviews that would help distinguish the "lack of empathy" in autism spectrum disorders are:

• PMID 19240041
• PMID 16958304
• PMID 18038346
• PMID 16157488

I didn't think it would be such an issue, but seeing as it has become one, we should look for means to clear things up. MichaelExe (talk) 22:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

There seems to be a lot of muddled thinking. As is commonly known, psychopaths lack empathy; and it is classic psychopathic behavior to live one's life spinning webs of deceit. But webs of deceit, as any ruthless con-man will tell you, require that one has a gift for reading the mind of one's victim. If psychologists want to say that people with Asperger's syndrome have little in the way of intuition (which hardly qualifies as a disorder!), they should simply come out and say so. For some reason they always steer clear of the word 'intuition', as though it brings them into territory in which they risk being cut to pieces by philosophers.82.24.171.148 (talk) 16:53, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

It would be helpful if posters here would stop furthering the meme that this article mentions "lack of empathy". It does not. It mentions well cited "lack of demonstrated empathy". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:55, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

But, taken on its own, that observation doesn't help anyone very much.82.24.171.148 (talk) 17:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Maybe not.... Even I learned a good deal from this-- rather, it was the sort of rare publication where I nod at the whole thing... in agreement and not just of habit. You're getting somewhere on changes i nthat section, I think, if you put together what feels good out of ↑ up and ↓ down articles. Oh, and I'd have to say "demonstrated" as well, and that's also by far the politically correct thing to say since it could (and rightfully) be taken as a very harsh insult to be confronted on that. It can be easier on some, or you could end up in therapy for years trying to suck some normal social reactions from people to try to learn better. Even if I mostly don't understand the concept at some major events, even I know that empathy isn't some on/off switch, and I'd never deliberately seem heartless (the suggestion of no empathy). Logic can spark the concept of empathy, you might say. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 22:05, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry but I did not understand a single sentence in this. With the possibility of sarcasm, I did not even get whether you are 'for' or 'against' me. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.24.171.148 (talk) 22:30, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

lack of *demonstrated* empathy?

Isn't it a little extreme to say they lack empathy? They lack the meanns to fluently express themselves and understand others but they don't lack the ability to care how others feel. A lack of empathy sounds like something you'd associate more so with a psycopath not about someone who simply doesn't understand the world around them. Saying this about people who don't deserve seems disrespectful and condescending ... if people out there are using this article as a first source for info on aspegers then its setting a pretty bad impression. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.41.152.236 (talk) 22:30, 26 October 2009 (UTC)

The article doesn't say that people with Asperger's "lack empathy". It says that they have a "lack of demonstrated empathy", which is pretty much agrees with the previous comment. Eubulides (talk) 02:57, 27 October 2009 (UTC)

I have fixed this as even a demonstrated lack of empathy is not typical of AS. Gingermint (talk) 00:40, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

We have multiple reliable sources saying that a lack of demonstrated empathy is a core sign of Asperger syndrome. Do you have reliable sources to the contrary? Any edits to the article need to be based on reliable sources. Eubulides (talk) 00:49, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

As a psychologist I can assure you that lack of demonstrated empathy is not a "core sign" of Asperger's syndrome. If I did believe that then I'd have to practice in some backward place like England where medicine and the soft sciences are 50 years out of date. I believe that this article, which is full of errors, is the kind of thing that develops when people who are not expert in a field try (even with the best intentions) to research what they do not understand. Articles on Psychology should be written and researched by real psychologists. Gingermint (talk) 01:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

the argument from authority does not work here, WP:RS and in this case WP:MEDRS carry weight. Oh, and I am a psychologist too.... Dbrodbeck (talk) 05:43, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

On Wikipedia, unfortunately, your experience as a psychologist isn't what we base articles on. Per Wiki's core policy of WP:V, and the guideline of WP:MEDRS, text is based on reliable sources. Reviewing the full-text of the journal articles cited should help clear up your concerns. If you have other reliable sources that say differently, let's discuss them here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome, like (other) mental disorders affects everyone differently, so I agree that we shouldn't claim that the lack of empathy affects all people with Asperger syndrome, although it should still definitely be noted as a symptom, and adding "often" or "may" is unnecessary. Perhaps finding a DSM list of symptoms would be best, if there is one. MichaelExe (talk) 02:50, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Discussion here should be based on reliable sources, not editor opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Ok, then you explain the "lack of empathy" to the original poster. :) MichaelExe (talk) 03:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

That's not our "job" :) The original poster needs to understand Wiki policy, and refrain from expressing anecdotal opinion on talk, which consumes everyone's time for nothing :) You could, however, take that discussion to her talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I've already said what I'd wanted to; you've continued needless discussion, against your own standards. My standards don't stop me from trying to explain on the talk page of an article; it won't get me blocked (Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines is a behavioural guideline, not a policy). Besides, if one person has enough trouble understanding the "lack of empathy" to post about it, perhaps the article needs clarification on this, anyway. MichaelExe (talk) 03:30, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Carry on then; my concern was that you cited wrongplanet to a new user, who is still working to learn about reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:32, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

To the original poster: the lack of empathy (the ability to try and put yourself in someone's position, or feel what they feel) in a psychopath/sociopath/antisocial/dissocial and in Asperger syndrome (as well as other autism spectrum disorders, schizoid personality disorder, schizophrenia, etc.) is probably the only common symptom. What truly separates the former from the latter(s) is the recklessness and lack of remorse of the former. The personality types of people with Asperger syndrome tend to be INTJ, INTP, ISTJ, ISTP (in that order, from [6], although may be reasons why other personality types aren't on the forum) and introversion usually conflicts with antisocial behaviour. I'd say people with Asperger syndrome lack empathy because they focus their attention on objects, while a psychopath would focus on himself. Lack of empathy doesn't necessarily mean selfishness. MichaelExe (talk) 02:46, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Wrong planet is not a reliable source; please see WP:RS, WP:MEDRS and WP:V; Wikipedia uses reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:02, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Here are some reviews supporting the lack of empathy in Asperger syndrome, if, by chance, we don't have enough already: PMID 1924004 PMID 16596080 PMID 15376613 PMID 11234553. MichaelExe (talk) 03:00, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Lack of empathy is NOT in my DSM IV. And there is a reason for that. Gingermint (talk) 05:13, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I should also add that some of the reviews you site regarding lack of empathy are about Clostridium septicum infection, which is of interest to oncologists but not psychologists. Nor would I consider PubMed.gov a reliable source. It looks like one, and someone who is not an expert in this field would not have any apparent reason for thinking it isn't a good source. This is one of the reasons why articles on medicine or psychology written or edited by non-experts (even very intelligent and well-meaning non-experts) are dangerous. Gingermint (talk) 05:22, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

Gingermint, you will find Wiki editing more enjoyable if you read WP:MEDRS and understood what PubMed is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:26, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

SandyGeorgia is of course correct: PubMed is a database of sources, not a source itself. MichaelExe's reference to "PMID 1924004" is a typo; evidently Tantam & Girgis 2009 (PMID 19240041) was intended, as its abstract says "The social impairments of people with AS include deficits in empathy, self-awareness and executive function." The highest-quality source in MichaelExe's list is Baskin et al. 2006 (PMID 16596080), which says in its abstract that Asperger's is "characterized by a lack of social reciprocity and empathy, and severe difficulties in social integration". So far, all the reliable sources mentioned in this thread support the claim that lack of demonstrated empathy is a core sign of Asperger's. Eubulides (talk) 06:42, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

A note to MichalExe that got lost in yesterday's edit conflicts and re-threading here: to automatically link PMIDs, you can write them like this, with no colons. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:14, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I cannot agree with Baskin JH, Sperber M, Price BH.. The DSM IV and the WHO do not agree. My colleagues do not agree. The WHO reads much like the DSM IV but with some additions:

WHO ICD 10

F84.5

Asperger's syndrome

"A disorder of uncertain nosological validity, characterized by the same type of qualitative abnormalities of reciprocal social interaction that typify autism, together with a restricted, stereotyped, repetitive repertoire of interests and activities. It differs from autism primarily in the fact that there is no general delay or retardation in language or in cognitive development. This disorder is often associated with marked clumsiness. There is a strong tendency for the abnormalities to persist into adolescence and adult life. Psychotic episodes occasionally occur in early adult life."

There is no mention of lack of empathy. Nor should there be. People with Asperger's are not psychotic. They are not sociopaths.

As for PubMed. It is, indeed, not a source. It a a place to look up sources. There are very (very!) brief abstracts for those wishing to actually do research. And the papers represented may not necessarily present down and solid facts but ideas, theories and questions. PubMed is, indeed, not a source. And (not to sound too much as one on a very high horse) it is not appropriate to site things one has not actually read.

At any rate, it is not, absolutely not a fact that those with Asperger's have a demonstrated lack of empathy and we do not utilize that as a criteria in diagnosis. Gingermint (talk) 01:00, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

The lack of empathy does not make someone psychotic (although your quote draws a such link) or a sociopath. Sociopaths don't care ("lack of remorse"); people with Asperger syndrome don't understand. Finally, this article doesn't claim "lack of empathy" to be a defining characteristic and doesn't suggest it as a criterion for diagnosis. Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome doesn't even mention the word "empathy". "lack of empathy" is also part of the history of Asperger syndrome, being in the Hans Asperger's description of the disorder. MichaelExe (talk) 01:14, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Again, the Asperger syndrome article nowhere says that people with Asperger's "have a demonstrated lack of empathy". Nor does the article say anything about empathy and the DSM-IV. Please stick to what the article actually says. There is widespread agreement among reliable sources supporting claims along the line of what the article actually says, which is "The lack of demonstrated empathy is possibly the most dysfunctional aspect of Asperger syndrome." Here's a sample quote, this one from a reliable source in medical psychiatry: "A lack of demonstrated empathy in Asperger's disorder is one of its more dysfunctional associated features." This quote is from page 41 of: Rausch JL, Johnson ME (2008). "Diagnosis of Asperger's disorder". In Rausch JL, Johnson ME, Casanova MF (eds.) (ed.). Asperger's Disorder. Informa Healthcare. pp. 19–62. ISBN 0-8493-8360-9. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link) So far, no reliable sources have been proffered that disagree on this point. Eubulides (talk) 01:51, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

Gingermint, please assume good faith, I know I read the papers that are cited, and they are from peer reviewed journals. Please read WP:MEDRS. Your opinions, or mine, or anybody's do not matter, what matter is sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:55, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

I generally say of myself that I have troubles with empathy or that I'm void of it at some very important times, but I have no idea if that's an extension of social problems, life experience, or any combination with AS, or who knows what more. I even jest about this on my userpage. It should not be listed without sources and it must vary a lot... surprises me that it's not sourced one direction or another anywhere social interactions are fairly well-studied. My extremely unofficial view is that it can be an extension of social interaction problems and AS might complicate it all, but this is more of a realization and matter to try to treat after diagnosis and review. Because of the extremes that a lack of empathy might mean (such as the tagging of sociopaths) and the line between empathy and bad intentions in criminal minds is quite blurry, I hardly think it would a valid diagnosis criteria and there there are plenty of other uncontroversial things to look at where in diagnosis that are more of the yes/no variety and far less subjective than defining empathy. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 23:28, 9 November 2009 (UTC)

While this is of course anecdotal, my experience would echo much of that discussed at empathy#Empathy and autism spectrum disorders: I'm quite able to empathize with people if they are making their feelings explicit, but I'm unable to read their emotional state if they're only expressing it through subtext (e.g. body language), _especially_ when they are putting on a false front in their verbal communications. John Darrow (talk) 05:22, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Hello. I have aspergers syndrome, and I can tell you. Lack of empathy is not correct. I care for others. More than some of my friends. It isn't a lack of empathy. Please change it. Gelatart (talk) 14:42, 15 November 2009 (UTC)Gelatart

Asperger syndrome affects everyone differently. The "lack of empathy" is not a diagnostic criterion, just like clumsiness, but it is part of the history of Asperger syndrome, and many researchers have noticed it. "lack of empathy" doesn't necessarily mean someone with Asperger syndrome doesn't care, but that they have difficulty understanding other people's feelings, especially through non-verbal communication. MichaelExe (talk) 15:43, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This is becoming tiring. The article does *not* say "lack of empathy"; it says lack of *demonstrated* empathy. Very different things. Please read. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Well, if so many people are against its inclusion, there needs to be clarification, quite simply. When 20 people come to an article and say "wtf is this?" (as an example), something is definitely wrong. XP MichaelExe (talk) 15:50, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

This is an incredibly interesting discussion to me, in spite of the "heat." This, from my own personal experience seems to be the most misunderstood, and debated aspects of AS. I wonder if I might add a little "middle ground" perspective here as one who feels I can see both sides of this argument, and some of the possible reasons for this disagreement (one I have heard and discussed on many occasions over the past ten years).

In some ways, as in other discussions I have participated in on this subject, I can see areas of agreement where it appears you all agree, but perhaps don't even realize it. Yet the apparent disagreement, given the many discussions like this I have observed and participated in, is also not surprising and even understandable. Let me see if I can deconstruct this as a bullet list of points as I see them, both as points of agreement, and clarification of what the disagreements really are. (IMHO):

• Point of agreement: The article states that lack of demonstrated empathy is a symptom of AS
• Point of agreement: Lack of empathy (NOT lack of demonstrated empathy - that is debated) is not a symptom of AS
• Point of disagreement: Whether "lack of demonstrated empathy" is the same thing as "lack of empathy."
• Possible point of disagreement: Whether "lack of empathy" is a symptom of AS (moot, because the article doesn't state it anyway, so I'm not even going to address this).

The only thing worth addressing for purposes of this discussion is the third point: Whether or not lack of demonstrated empathy is the same thing as lack of empathy. I'm going to paraphrase from a brief scanning of this section, as well as from actual conversations I've had in an attempt to present both sides as succinctly as I can, as well as attempt to redirect the conversation (if possible), to what I believe the real issue is.

• Argument for "lack of demonstrated empathy" being the same as "lack of empathy:"
  • Lack of demonstrated empathy can be considered the same as lack of empathy due to the fact that, if empathy is not demonstrated, we have no way of knowing empathy exists. Even if the subject proclaims empathy, and can define the term with reasonable understanding, we still do not know whether it truly exists. If Charles Manson proclaimed empathy (an extreme and perhaps bad example because he has flatly stated he understands it, and does not empathize with anyone - however a good example, I think, for the sake of argument), would it be reasonable to believe him? The point here is not to suggest any link between Manson's psychopathy and Asperger's. The point is, if anyone says they are empathetic, can we believe them with no demonstrative evidence in their own behavior?
  • Another point, and one I actually am trying like the dickens to get my own kids to understand (two of whom have been diagnosed with AS, which I believe I and my third child also have - although we have not been diagnosed - yet), is that if we can't, or don't demonstrate empathy we claim to feel for others, in ways in which others can understand and accept, it is the same as if the empathy does not exist as far as others are concerned. People are not mind readers, and must assume, lacking outwardly apparent evidence that empathy does not exist.

• Arguments against "lack of demonstrated empathy" being the same as "lack of empathy:"
  • When we are evaluating whether someone else has empathy, we are not mind readers. One of AS symptoms is the lack of, or reduced ability to express oneself with obvious actions like facial expression, body language and specific actions on behalf of others. We must recognize that just because we can't "see" the empathy, does not mean it doesn't exist.

Both arguments have at least some merit, however both are faulty in their conclusions, if conclusions are drawn from either stance. Both base arguments on the same thing. We cannot read minds.

In a sense, this is a lot like the old question, "If a tree falls in the forest..."

While both arguments seem to make sense, and they do, reaching any conclusion at all from either is a slippery slope. On the one hand, "If we can't see it, it isn't there," and on the other hand, "If we can't see it, doesn't mean it isn't there, so we'll assume it is." Neither really makes sense, and the fact is (IMHO), it doesn't matter.

It is entirely possible that those with AS do experience empathy, but simply cannot express it. It is entirely possible that those with AS do not experience empathy, and that is why it isn't being expressed. No one can prove either position.

Personally I think that lack of empathy, and lack of ability to demonstrate are both symptoms of AS, but to varying degrees, and often not at all (to both), as is true with every symptom of AS. There is no one symptom present in every case. That's why it is called a "spectrum." But this is just my opinion, and doesn't matter either.

What does matter is "What can we do about it?" The real question here is whether the statement "The lack of demonstrated empathy is possibly the most dysfunctional aspect of Asperger syndrome." belongs in the article. I think it does. It is sourced, and well worded with the clear inclusion of the words "demonstrated" and possibly leaving the statement open to debate, as it should be.

On the other hand, given the debate here, as well as many personal conversations I have had with professionals on both sides of this debate, I think the very fact that this is debated should be included in the article. It is a hot topic, and should probably be included as part of a "Controversy" section, which is lacking in this article. Asperger's is a hotly debated topic. I'm very surprised not to see a controversy section here. There really, really needs to be one there.

That's my twenty buck's worth! ;) --SentientParadox (talk) 23:11, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Third paragraph is a mess

We shouldn't be talking about interventionists and people who think Asperger's isn't a syndrome in the same paragraph. Both views ought to be covered in separate paragraphs or sections, and the interventionist position ought to cover exactly what it's goals are before discussing how they are achieved, because it's not made very clear in the article. It ought to say something along the lines of "Treatments have been developed to help people with Asperger's syndrome do X, Y and Z" rather than the ambigious "Treatments for Asperger's syndrome." Mentioning "treatment for Asperger's" doesn't make clear exactly what the goal is. "Most individuals improve over time" - what, besides independent living, constitutes an improvement? Where do the disorders end and the personality type begin?

There seems to be no clear distinction between things other people who don't have the condition don't like and things that actually prevent the person with the condition form accomplishing their own goals. I'm confused over whether Asperger's is a set of undesirable (to others) social behaviors or just a different way of looking at the world which would be perfectly OK if everybody else looked at it that way too. --Nerd42 (talk) 16:24, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

• I understand your questions, probably because I hear them all the time in relation to AS. However I don't think getting into this much detail is a good idea. The problem is there is still much debate as to the preciseness of AS symptoms, what it really is, and what it really isn't. Getting into this much depth on the details is highly likely to start an editing war, using this article and talk page as a place for debate. I really think this article should stay as simple as possible, with a lot of "more info" links for people to investigate on their own, and leave it at that. --SentientParadox (talk) 19:31, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
• Edit: Though I do agree with your point on people who don't agree that Asperger's is even a syndrome. I've already begun to advocate for a Controversy section. --SentientParadox (talk) 23:17, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Worsening via medication

I feel that the source given for the statement "for example, misdiagnosis can lead to medications that worsen behavior." (Fitzerald and Corvin, 2001) is not a very good source for that specific statement. The relevant element in the paper is simply "[...]; misdiagnosis as ADHD [leads] to the prescription of psychostimulants (e.g. methylphenidate), which can cause deterioration in behaviour in this population." and is unsourced. This is essentially a blank assertion, and if it is considered common knowledge in this study area, surely there are sources expounding on this specific aspect?

reposted: just because nobody wants to bother with it doesn't mean it's irrelevant. Circéus (talk) 18:12, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

If the Royal College of Psychiatry is not a reliable source, we may as well question every source that doesn't offer other sources. Where does it stop? If it did have sources, should we check those too, and the sources listed in the sources, and continue until we reach sources that don't cite sources, eventually throwing out the whole kit and kaboodle, claiming they are all based on blank assertions? If we start going down that road, there will be NO usable sources left for any Wikipedia articles. I find the source perfectly acceptable and in line with Wikipedia's reliability guidelines Just my two cents. :). --SentientParadox (talk) 19:26, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

I expect quite naturally that should I seek more details on an aspect of an article, I can do so by tracking the sources. This article is not concerned with medication in any significant way and I worry about the source because a similar approach lead to a blatant misrepresentation in Diffuse panbronchiolitis. To be honest, the article is useless at justifying the inclusion of this statement. It's basically an incidental blanket throwaway assertion and just because it's included in a peer-reviewed article doesn't mean that article is a good source for it! I can source physics articles from Surely You're Joking, Mr. Feynman!, but that doesn't mean it's a good source for such assertions!
Let's put it this way: is it so encyclopedically nonsensical to expect such a rather important statement to be sourced to (a) paper(s) who are specifically concerned with pharmacotherapy of Asperger's? Circéus (talk) 02:51, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

I respectfully disagree that it does not address the issue raised by the statement. The cited article does, in fact, specifically address misdiagnosis leading to medications that can worsen the condition of AS, and specifies certain examples in this paragraph. I agree that particular section of the article does not cite sources for the assertions made, however I do not see the paragraph in question as making any "blanket assertions." "Asperger syndrome can (italics added) be misdiagnosed as a variety of conditions (Box 6Go) requiring contradictory treatments" is not a blanket assertion. It is, rather, a statement of possibility, which the article here on Wikipedia reflects by its own inclusion of the word "can."

Whether the cited article cites its own sources for its own statement is a legitimate question however. For the purposes of a Wikipedia article, I feel the cited article is a perfectly acceptable source according to Wikipedia's standards. You clearly disagree. That's fine. It's bound to happen. Wikipedia's reliable source policy states "Where there is disagreement between sources, their views should be clearly attributed in the text." I take this to mean that when there is disagreement as to source reliability, the source in support of the statement should be attributed directly in the article text as the basis for the statement.

Considering that disagreement over sources is common on Wikipedia, in addition to the fact that much disagreement occurs on the subject of AS among professional organizations and individuals, I propose the statement here be changed to:

"According to the Royal College of Psychiatrists misdiagnosis can lead to medications that worsen behavior."

At least that specifies the statement is the opinion of a specific group. My own personal research however, has demonstrated the statement as is, is widely supported among professional experts specializing in Asperger's Syndrome. I'm aware enough of Wikipedia's standards and policies though, to understand that personal knowledge doesn't matter.--SentientParadox (talk) 17:30, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

First, that source is not the opinion of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, and it would be inaccurate to ascribe the opinion to that organization. Second and more important, that quote from WP:SOURCES is not talking about disagreement among Wikipedia editors; it's talking about disagreement among reliable sources themselves. If there were a significant disagreement among reliable sources whether misdiagnoses and treatment by the wrong medication could lead to behavior problems, then it'd be appropriate to cite reliable sources on both sides of the disagreement, attributing them in the text. However, so far we've seen no evidence of any such disagreement. On the contrary, what limited information I can find on the subject (e.g., see case 2 of Dossetor 2007, PMID 18095536) indicates that medication from misdiagnosis can lead to behavior problems. Eubulides (talk) 20:55, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Please indulge me, Eubulides. I'm doing my best not to sound like a harassing single-issue wonk (having dealt with them elsewhere), but I'm not sure reading your answer whether or not you think my issues with the specific source used in the article are legitimate (namely that the article makes a throaway blanket statement that is not actually explicitly supported by anything else in the text). Circéus (talk) 21:50, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

My impression from reading the article is that the authors are summarizing their clinical experience. As such, this is not scientific evidence, and it's fairly low quality evidence from a WP:MEDRS point of view. So in that sense I agree with you. Asperger syndrome should not be presenting this point as if it were settled science. I'm not sure whether the point should be removed or simply reworded, though. What do you propose? Eubulides (talk) 23:12, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

"Some researchers/clinicians/scientists/doctors of the Royal College of Psychiatrists suspect that misdiagnosis can lead to the prescription of medications that could potentially worsen behavior." <-- We could use something on the lines of that, if you want to imply that it is a minority-view, and that the authors' opinion may not reflect that of the Royal College of Psychiatrists, in general. It's basically the lowest possible implied weight we can give to the statement. Diagnosis_of_Asperger_syndrome#Differential_diagnosis goes more in depth, so we could link to it or just leave it to that article altogether. MichaelExe (talk) 23:45, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Generally speaking it's better to avoid in-text attribution (what I call a "Simon says style") of a claim like this. Particularly since the Royal College affiliation is so misleading. It'd be better to remove the claim entirely than to spend a lot of space on it to identify the sources in-text. This topic is not that important to the article, after all. Eubulides (talk) 23:53, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

If the claim has some merit, I'd love to see it referenced with a proper source, but a cursory (read: 3h spent on it) search on PubMed back when I first made my comment did not uncover anything I could use. Of course I might have been using improper search terms (mostly stuff around "pharmacotherapy"): I am not all that versed in the use of medical scientific sources research on such a specific issue. Removing the claim in the meantime might be the best option. Circéus (talk) 01:48, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Possible sources

• Foster PMID 14508298

For some children with AS treated with selective serotonin reuptake inhibitors, behavioral activation can occur at surprisingly low doses. Many clinicians will err on the side of caution and introduce these agents, for example, citalopram or fluoxetine, in liquid form at just a milligram or two initially. Families should be cautioned to watch for increased impulsivity, aggression, and sleep disturbance as potential manifestations of selective serotonin reuptake inhibitor induced behavioral activation.

• McPartland PMID 17030291

Scahill and Martin [112] reviewed research on the use of medicines to treat ASDs and reported that research has shown beneficial effects of atypical antipsychotics, serotonin reuptake inhibitors, stimulants, and mood stabilizers in treating autistic symptoms. It has been hypothesized that, compared with other ASDs, individuals with AS respond differentially to medication [113], but insufficient data exist to support this conclusion. Only a few studies specifically have investigated outcomes for pharmacotherapeutic treatment of individuals with AS.

• [112] Scahill L, Martin A. Psychopharmacology. In: Volkmar F, Paul R, Klin A, et al, editors. Handbook of autism and pervasive developmental disorders, vol 1. 3rd edition. Hoboken (NJ): John Wiley & Sons; 2005. p. 1102–17.
• [113] McDougle CJ, Brodkin ES, Naylor ST, et al. Sertraline in adults with pervasive developmental disorders: a prospective open-label investigation. J Clin Psychopharmacol 1998; 18:62–6. PMID 9472844

• Towbin PMID 12512397

In addition to these, several other obstacles are related to the state of the field. First, no pharmacologic agent influences the core pragmatic social deficits such as misinterpreting cues or failure to appreciate social cues and nuances. As a result, there is no one algorithm to follow that targets the primary source of impairment or the greatest source of difficulty for the patient. Second, there is an absence of high quality, valid studies of the efficacy of different pharmacologic agents for specific symptoms in this population. Most of the studies are case reports or small-scale, open, unblinded trials [1]. This requires the clinician to take findings from studies of other disorders in the hope that the results translate to HFA/AS. This presumption is entirely theoretic at this point. Much of the time, a clinician has no way to gauge the patient's response in comparison with other individuals with this condition; global functioning may or may not be meaningfully improved. A third obstacle is the absence of treatment and outcome studies of HFA/AS with comorbid conditions. For example, it may be erroneous to presume that mood dysregulation and the response to mood stabilizers in the context of HFA/AS is identical to bipolar disorder in an otherwise ordinary adolescent. Nearly all treatment studies of other childhood disorders exclude persons with PDD spectrum disorders. Consequently, when a patient appears in the clinician's consulting room, unless one has the luxury of a previous relationship and sense of that patient's baseline functioning, one cannot know what the individual looks like when the comorbid condition is “resolved.” Most of the core social impairments are likely to remain, although functional gains are possible.

Individuals with HFA/AS also may be more prone to side effects. Typical children and adolescents may experience these as more of a nuisance than a source of major impairment, but persons with HFA/AS often find even minor side effects hard to tolerate. The exquisite and atypical sensory world of individuals with HFA/AS means that they may experience a greater variety and rate of these kinds of side effects. When side effects appear, they often outstrip the patient's ability to follow conventional advice “to just ignore it.” We do not know if the actual amount of discomfort is greater or if the means for self-soothing, distraction, or rationalization are insubstantial. In either case, some HFA/AS individuals cannot tolerate some medications because of “minor” side effects that patients who do not have HFA/AS handle with relative ease. In addition, they may be less likely to report side effects, or may allude to them in a manner that makes it much harder to detect them. Clinicians may be misled by comments that are offered in a flat, toneless manner, suggesting minor uneasiness for the patient when in fact they are extremely distressing. Similarly, highly concrete patients may not report side effects because the clinician does not ask about each specific one. Some patients stop their medication without telling the clinician in order to extricate themselves from the discomfort of side effects or having to talk about them.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:36, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent reviews discussing treatment (I don't have full text):

• PMID 17354570
• PMID 19159835
• PMID 18415882

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:08, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Your quotes seems to relate to the uncertainty of ASD children reaction to treatment, which in my understanding, is pretty normal given the semi-experimental nature of pharmacology in AS disorders. PMID 19159835 is definitely not relevant. It never actually touches pharmacotherapy and the closest it gets is

"The nature of ASD places these children at risk for various medical complications; for example, they may present with lead poisoning from pica, and therefore, routine lead screening is indicated. Many children with autism visit the primary care clinics due to common infections, allergies, and illnesses. Management of these issues is sometimes complicated by various biological treatment protocols children with ASD might be trying. It is therefore important to maintain open communication with families about how they are caring for their children."

PMID 18415882, however, is much more interesting on that regard, even though it does not discuss the misdiagnosis angle, it looks like a pretty extensive review. Most relevantly it notes that typical ADHD medication (methylphenidate, amphetamines and atomotexine) were all found to have more adverse than useful effects in ASD children without ADHD, though the great variation in methodology and nosology might influence these results:

"Some patients with PDDs taking methylphenidate experienced adverse events such as increases in lethargy/social withdrawal, stereotypy, irritability, dysphoria, motor tics, and increased hyperactivity. The most frequently reported adverse effect was a decrease in appetite. It was determined that children with ASDs have less symptom amelioration and higher rates of significant adverse effects compared to those without ASDs."

"As a result of differences between past and contemporary nosology, however, some of these patients might not meet current diagnostic criteria for autistic disorder. Furthermore, some of these youth might meet current diagnostic criteria for an ASD but were given other diagnoses (e.g., schizophrenia) back in the 1970s. [...] Dextroamphetamine was reported to have a disorganizing and deteriorating effect, thus yielding poor clinical results. [...] The minimal positive effects of levoamphetamine were outweighed by adverse effects or worsening of preexisting “schizophrenic” symptoms."

"Atomoxetine is a nonstimulant agent recently approved for treating ADHD in children, adolescents, and adults. Like stimulants, in preliminary publications atomoxetine has had a lower response rate in patients with ASDs than in typically developing children with ADHD. [...] placebo-controlled, blind studies are necessary to determine atomoxetine's efficacy and safety for ADHD-like symptoms in ASDs."

I can get you a copy if you want (not a medical researcher, so am not clear how to best evaluate and integrate any interesting data). Circéus (talk) 07:10, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

I think we've got enough information on the general issue that we shouldn't just delete/disregard the original questioned source and text, but figure out how to reword it to be more comprehensive and inclusive of what these reviews do say about medication in the treatment of AS. For some reason, I could access the full Towbin article last night, but I can't now, but if I recall correctly, it placed the topic of medication in the context of the importance of the correct diagnosis. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:51, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

• Wow, thanks for tracking down all those sources! I can't read Towbin now either (the site is down for maintenance). I have just now read Leskovec et al. and it's pretty strong. In addition to what Circéus quoted there's also 'In a 1971, single-blind pilot study of ten children with autistic disorder and "schizophrenia," treatment with imipramine produced a mixture of stimulating, tranquilizing, and disorganizing effects.' This sort of thing clearly supports the "misdiagnosis can lead to medications that worsen behavior" of the article, even if it's not the direct support that Fitzgerald & Corvin 2001 provide. I have revised my opinion of their conclusion: I think it's backed not only by their clinical experience, but also by these old studies. There's a more recent quote by Fitzgerald "today many persons with Asperger's syndrome are misdiagnosed as having schizophrenia with the great negative consequences associated with this misdiagnosis" (Google Books snippet from: Fitzgerald M (2008). "Autism: Asperger's syndrome—history and first descriptions". In Rausch JL, Johnson ME, Casanova MF (eds.) (ed.). Asperger's Disorder. Informa Healthcare. pp. 1–7. ISBN 0-8493-8360-9. {{cite book}}: |editor= has generic name (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)) which, though it doesn't directly state that the problem is drug treatment leading to deteriorating behavior, certainly suggests that Fitzgerald hasn't changed his opinion since 2001.
• Reading all the above, I think that the sentence supported by Fitzgerald & Corvin should stay in. I suggest interchanging it with the next sentence, though, to make it clearer that it's talking about misdiagnosing AS as something else, rather than misdiagnosing something else as AS. I also think we should cite and summarize Towbin. Perhaps the following change to Medications? "Care must be taken with medications, as side effects may be more common and harder to evaluate in individuals with AS, and tests of drugs' effectiveness against comorbid conditions routinely exclude individuals from the autism spectrum.[citing Towbin] ; abnormalities Abnormalities".

Eubulides (talk) 14:42, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

Occasionally, I'm still capable of productive work :) I agree we should keep the original questioned text, as there is plenty of support in other reviews, and will leave it to you to expand text as needed to incorporate this new info. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

New Asperger photo

In April we had a long discussion about whether a photo of an older Hans Asperger looking at a child was suitable for the History section under a fair-use rationale. This older photo, Image:Hans Aspergersmall.jpg, was eventually removed from Wikipedia for reasons unrelated to that discussion. Another photo Image:Asperger-Vienna-clinic.jpeg is now available and can be used here under a fair-use rationale. Unlike the older-Asperger photo, this photo shows Asperger in action at the time he was doing the seminal research discussed in History; also, this photo is one of a series of photos that is discussed in the History section. This is a far stronger rationale than the one that applied to the previous (removed) photo, and it's appropriate to include the new photo in the History section. Eubulides (talk) 21:39, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

No, no, no, no, no. Why on Earth do we need to know what he looked like while he was doing his research? The image would add nothing to the article, and it is perfectly understandable and comprehensive without it. J Milburn (talk) 17:08, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. The article is about Aspergers Syndrome not Asperger himself. - 4twenty42o (talk) 17:16, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

You may believe that you can know everything there is to know about AS by reading the perfectly understandable and comprehensive article, but eventually you may find that real life, with real people with AS, is rather different. Fenke (talk) 00:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

This article is not meant to be a substitute for real life. We're not pretending that, once you've read this article, you are an expert, or you have actually studied with Asperger. I'm not quite sure what your point is. J Milburn (talk) 11:13, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

He may have Asperger or be close to someone that does and is offended by the accompanied stigma or the way people throw around the term without any real experience with it (albeit not as bad as ADHD). Being able to recognize a few symptoms does not mean that you understand what it's like to have Asperger, especially since Asperger affects everyone differently. I think that may be the point.

Anywho, back on topic: I don't care much for that particular picture, and it doesn't help anyone's understanding of the disorder. The image of the boy is actually pretty useful, as well as the brain scan image. Pictures that are relevant to typical behaviour and neurology of Asperger syndrome are likely the most useful, although I can't think of any other pictures to put in this article. I like pictures, though. XP MichaelExe (talk) 12:19, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Free images of major doctors/scientists may be nice additions. Obviously, we can't justify a non-free image of them. J Milburn (talk) 12:36, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed as well. The images the article does have do add to the understanding of Asperger's Syndrome, I don't see how adding a nonfree image of the guy whose name it happens to bear would enhance that sufficiently to justify a nonfree image. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 15:28, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The pretty picture of a brainscan does not add anything, you'd need an additional article to explain it and it is, as far as I can tell, not related to AS. The article is rather abstract and clinical, the picture of Asperger and the child could help to reduce the 'distance', illustrate that it is about people. Fenke (talk) 16:52, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

That would not matter. We do not use nonfree content due to preference, we use it if there is absolutely no alternative. Here, there are clear alternatives. We don't use nonfree content just because it would be nice. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 01:47, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

The prior argument was that it does not add anything to the article. If it's the non-free nature of the image that makes it's aadition to the article unwanted, state as much, but don't start arguing about it's added value. Fenke (talk) 02:39, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

(indent reset) I thought I did state as much, but yes, the image's nonfree nature is what makes it unacceptable. If it were a free image, its addition would be a normal content decision. Nonfree images are held to a much higher standard, and the first one of those standards is that their purpose is indispensable and could not be served by free content. Here, a combination of the text article and free media can provide a very clear explanation of what Asperger's syndrome is without the need to resort to nonfree media, so we would not use it. Seeing that nonfree image is not crucial to a reader's understanding of what Asperger's syndrome is. It might look nice, but for a nonfree image, that's not enough. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 11:00, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

• I assume that even those objecting to placing the image in the article would not object if the article merely wikilinked to the image's file page? I've done that, since the article does directly discuss the series of photographs in question. Also, I would like to hear comments that address the rationale given; the negative comments above are generic boilerplate that can be used to oppose the use of any free image, and don't seem to reflect consideration of this particular case. Eubulides (talk) 18:07, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
  • Seems a bit of an end run, and also might confuse readers expecting wikilinks to lead to articles. I would not be in support of that, though you could certainly wikilink to any article that has a legitimate need for it. As to addressing this case, it's replaceable. That may be boilerplate, but that's because the requirement is project wide and without exception. If it's replaceable, we don't use it. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 18:33, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
    • What is it "an end run" around? What policy or guideline prohibits it? Does the policy or guideline also prohibit the other wikilinks to non-articles that are in Asperger syndrome? Why would it be confusing for a reader, who wikilinks on a phrase "photographs taken during his seminal work", to be sent to a photograph taken during his seminal work? Eubulides (talk) 06:58, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
      • It is an end run around nonfree content not being included in articles where it is replaceable. If we allowed that, it'd happen all over the place. I'm not sure there's any specific policy or guideline that states in so many words that article links are to other articles, but that's all we allow, for example, mainspace redirects to, and that's so widely true and practiced (that article wikilinks are only to other articles) that I don't think we particularly need a page with the policy tag to specifically say that's how it works. That just is how it works. Seraphimblade ^{Talk to me} 07:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
        • I don't see how it is an end run. The nonfree content is not being included in the article. There's nothing at all wrong with talking about a non-free image; the only prohibition is against displaying the image. Prohibiting wikilinks to non-articles is certainly not just "how it works", and I'm surprised to see an assertion to the contrary. Articles routinely wikilink to non-articles: Asperger syndrome links to Portal:Pervasive Developmental Disorders, for example. Eubulides (talk) 07:39, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
          • Not in the main prose (or it shouldn't). In any case, the portal space is a reader facing space, unlike the image space, which is mostly directed at other editors. J Milburn (talk) 11:14, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
            • I don't agree with this restriction: it is not a consequence of any Wikipedia policy or guideline. Rather than edit-war over whether wikilinks to file pages are OK, I replaced it with a wikilink to an article, which you've already indicated you have no objection to. Eubulides (talk) 07:12, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Members of Congress

A recent pair of edits made this change:

"Individuals with AS may collect volumes of detailed information on a relatively narrow topic such as dinosaurs or members of Congress a famous fictional character, without necessarily having genuine understanding of the broader topic."

with the edit summaries 'change "members of Congress" to "fashionable fictional characters" - this is the exact wording in the second source, and less US-centric' and 'changed "fashionable fictional characters" to "a famous finctional character" -- prior is too vague and confusing to possible readers; do agree on the change away from Congress'.

These changes depart from what is said by the cited source, Klin 2006 (PMID 16791390). It gives "members of congress" as an explicit example of "extraordinary amounts of factual information are learned about very circumscribed topics ... without a genuine understanding of the broader phenomena involved". In contrast, it gives "fashionable fictional characters" as an example of "strong interests ... [that] are ubiquitous" among both children with AS and neurotypical children. I've therefore reverted the change; we need to stick pretty closely to what the sources say. Eubulides (talk) 07:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with what you say. That would also suggest that "dinosaurs" needs to go as well for the same reason (to be replaced with snakes/names of stars e.t.c.)? Now for the reason I made that change: I was reading through the article I saw the "such as dinosaurs or members of Congress" line, and thought it was a little imperfect as it was perhaps too US-centric (just as "dinosaurs or members of parliament" might be a bit too specific), so decided to look at the source. Obviously I have no access to the first source, but the second source was online. When I read the second source given for that sentence, I saw the following text: "[...] such as dinosaurs or fashionable fictional characters" and just assumed that someone had changed our article over time. Also giving me that assumption was that I seemed to remember the bit about members of Congress not being in the article the last time I read it (which was a long time ago). (Skip to my final paragraph for those who aren't interested in a history of the section)

Indeed, a line similar to the line in question has been in the article ever since this series of edits by SandyGeorgia in August 2007. Back then it read as follows:

Individuals with AS may intensely amass encyclopedic volumes of detailed information on unusual topics of circumscribed interest that are typically unusual in degree or content. While many children have developmentally appropriate interests in topics such as dinosaurs or trains, a child with AS may be interested in transistors, subway tokens, deep fat fryers, or members of congress [...] Because topics such as dinosaurs and fictional characters often capture the interest of children, this symptom may go unrecognized, and may not be apparent until the interests become more unusual and focused over time.

In early September of the same year the opening sentence of that quote was changed by Zeraeph to "Individuals with AS may amass volumes of detailed information on their topics of special interest.". Later on that same month this was changed by your good self to read:

Individuals with AS may amass volumes of detailed information on a relatively narrow topic such as dinosaurs or deep fat fryers, without necessarily having genuine understanding of the broader topic. For example, a child might memorize camera model numbers while caring little about photography. [...] Because topics such as dinosaurs often capture the interest of children, this symptom may go unrecognized, and may not be apparent until the interests become more unusual and focused over time.

I think this is likely where the first bits of confusion came in as, like you say, this section then contradicted itself and the source in some way. It stayed mostly in this form for close to two years. In June 2009 it read:

Individuals with AS may collect volumes of detailed information on a relatively narrow topic such as dinosaurs, trains or deep fat fryers, without necessarily having genuine understanding of the broader topic. For example, a child might memorize camera model numbers while caring little about photography. [...] Although these special interests may change from time to time, they typically become more unusual and narrowly focused, and often dominate social interaction so much that the entire family may become immersed. Because narrow topics often capture the interest of children, this symptom may go unrecognized.

It was only at this point, on the 27th of June that the members of Congress line was inserted, replacing "trains or TV guides" (TV guides being a replacement for deep fat fryers added in the previous edit) with "members of congress".

Anyway. To summarise, I agree with your point completely, and I suggest that the bit about dinosaurs should also be removed for the reason you present above. However, I still feel that the bit about members of Congress is perhaps a bit too US-specific (is "personal information on members of congress" a good example of AS children all over the world, or is that merely an example used by the author due to the study being based in the US? I'd suggest the latter). With that in mind, there are six specific examples given in the paper: "snakes, names of stars, TV guides, deep fat fryers, weather information, personal information on members of congress". Obviously dinosaurs and fictional characters aren't included there like you say, but could we perhaps choose something more globally applicable? Names of stars would be a good example of a very specific interest, and for a second example perhaps snakes or weather information? Dreaded Walrus ^{t c} 09:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that sounds reasonable, and thanks for catching the error about dinosaurs. I replaced the examples with "weather data or star names". Eubulides (talk) 07:02, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Intense Narrow Interests

I've been struggling to accept this to be a valid "symptom" of AS since I first heard about it. The reason being is that it does seem to imply that the only people in the world with an intense, narrow interest in anything are people with Aspergers, which is plainly ridiculous. In my own personal experience, I've found that the capacity to have an intense interest in something is usually linked to intelligence, rather than any kind of disorder. What I do believe is indicative of Aspergers is the tendency to ensure that everything revolves around or is somehow related to their specific interest. For instance, in a conversation about work, an Aspergers participant might only contribute by talking about their interest in, lets say, the weapons of the 16th century British Army; so that if someone mentions how a flexible contract is a "double edged sword", the individual with Aspergers will chime in with a factoid about swords. I don't think it's at all abnormal to have an intense interest in something, what I do think is abnormal is the way in which people with Aspergers are so intensely focused on it, to the exclusion of all other matters, and have an overwhelming desire to express and relate that interest to everyone around them. I realise that you need reliable sources to support this, and that this is mostly my opinion, but I was hoping that someone here might see that this is more of a wording issue, and that with a little bit of digging we might be able to come up with something that supports this distinction. ▫Bad▫harlick♠ 19:53, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

The article does not currently use the phrase "intense narrow interests" so I don't see a problem. If there is a problem, could you please propose a specific wording change? Eubulides (talk) 20:01, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with the statement-- the focus can be incredibly unhealthy at times. For me, at least, I have only 3-4 things I'm "interested in" doing for fun and under that perhaps 1-2 under each of those as extreme interest. So, I suppose I'm saying that focus on interest of topics is narrowed significantly and ends at a very bright top. Unfortunately that's the sort of thing that finding sources on would be very difficult. It's the sort of thing that's almost impossible to test or be "certain" about. Trying to judge interest, high interest and obsessive and detailed interest can be hard. If the hyper-intense focus is on a particular person, that's arguably one (if not the only) potentially "dangerous" possibility of AS. Does yank at the body in unpleasant ways. There are a lot of really ridiculous things I've done that I now realize in hindsight weren't actually me doing what I thought I should do but was just going with it anyway since could always justify staying, no matter what other responsibilities I had tthen. A mostly harmless example would be when there is a notable Atlantic hurricane with aircraft patrols in it where I'll sit and stare at what's literally a raw line of numbers being spat out across the screen which is the incoming data from the plane given in real-time online. This is in a numerical format before decoded for reading, I mean. Since I don't want to miss even a 0.0001" of pressure drop I have to keep looking. Sure, I enjoy all things weather-related, but that one example and an equivalent for Tornadoes are things I openly admit I go a bit far with. The hyper-detailed interests are only amplified and extremely discouraging since there's scant another person on the planet to talk to about what they might want to on the same level they think of it. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 07:35, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

"The reason being is that it does seem to imply that the only people in the world with an intense, narrow interest in anything are people with Aspergers." (quoted from original poster) This is, in my experience, an unfortunate inference that many make about not just this symptom of AS, but all symptoms of AS. IMHO, too many people make the blanket assumption that because "this" or "that" is a symptom, this means that if one has the symptom one necessarily has AS. This simply isn't true, and I have seen NO evidence that anyone says it is. Impossible to prove a negative however. There are lists of possible symptoms of AS. Having one symptom does NOT mean one has AS. Also, the absence of a symptom does not mean one doesn't have it. There are several different systems for analysis of criteria. Some require a minimum number of symptoms before reaching a diagnosis, and not all agree on how many. I have never seen any evidence that anyone claims that narrow interests alone is a sign of AS, or that imply that only those with AS have abnormally narrow interests. I'm not surprised however, that issue is mentioned here. I have personally encountered Psychologists, Psychiatrists, and Pediatricians that have made the same mistake, quickly dismissing the presence of AS based on the absence of a single symptom. I have never seen any evidence whatsoever that the criteria of any system of diagnosis precludes AS on the basis of a single missing symptom, or that stipulates that any single symptom is an indicator. I see nothing in the Restricted and repetitive interests and behavior section of the article that indicates "Narrow Interests" alone as an indicator of AS, nor do I see anything in the section indicating that the symptom only applies to AS.--SentientParadox (talk) 17:07, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

Characteristics/Other: Perceptions

In the above subsection it says, "These include differences in perception and problems with motor skills, sleep, and emotions." Right after that, in the first sentence of the following paragraph, it also states, "Individuals with AS often have excellent auditory and visual perception." This might seem somewhat contradictory being that many may make a connection between "perception" in the first paragraph and depth perception as it applies to vision. I would think it may be better to specify that the perception referred to in the first sentence is more about mental perception, or maybe more accurately, how one with AS perceives life and the Universe in general as opposed to neurotypical individuals. That being such a commonly misunderstood aspect of Asperger's, I think it's important to be extremely clear what is meant by "perception." The paragraph lacks citations too, which would be good to add.

BTW: I will be more than happy to contribute more in the way of research myself fairly soon, when my own workload lightens up a bit. Also need to build up editing status before I can actually help edit this particular article. I do want to be sure nobody thinks I'm only here to criticize. I do have a very strong interest in AS, and plan to help out when and where I can. --SentientParadox (talk) 23:20, 26 November 2009 (UTC)

The two sentences are not condtradictory: the "perception" in the 1st sentence refers to the same thing that the "perception" in the 2nd sentence refers to. I don't see how a reader could conclude "depth perception" from the text, as the text doesn't mention depth perception. The first sentence is saying that there are differences in perception, not that every aspect of perception differs. If you can suggest wording that would make that clearer, please do. I added a source to support the 1st sentence in that paragraph; the second sentence is merely a structural one that summarizes the section. Eubulides (talk) 02:23, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Synesthesia

"and they may exhibit synesthesia;"
Since non-Asperger people also "may exhibit synesthesia", this seems non-relevant, unless the percentage of syesthetists was higher among Asperger people than in the non-Asperger population. -- megA (talk) 11:18, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

It is (supposedly) more common among people with Asperger's, as are eidetic memories and savantism in general, but there doesn't seem to be any reviews on PubMed linking synesthesia to Asperger's syndrome or even autism in general. Perhaps we should remove it altogether for now. MichaelExe (talk) 12:04, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

PMID 18781431 (not a review) and PMID 19528016 (a review mentioning the other source) are probably the only two articles on PubMed making this link, but it's only in the case of one person (Daniel Tammet, I'd assume). MichaelExe (talk) 12:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Claims of synesthesia are poorly supported and there is a WP:WEIGHT problem here. I attempted to fix the problem. Eubulides (talk) 18:39, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Intro paragraph requires rewrite

is an autism spectrum disorder, and people with it will experience difficulties with social interaction, which will likely include restricted and/or repetitive patterns of behavior and interests. It differs from other autism spectrum disorders by a relative preservation of linguistic and cognitive development. Although not required for diagnosis, physical clumsiness and atypical use of language are frequently reported.

Reason? The original phrasing 'therefor show' is gramatically disturbing. It also demonstrates that the article was writen by an impartial observer as opposed to someone who actually understands the condition: will experience is more symathetic than judgemental. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.52.225.2 (talk) 21:49, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

as per our neutral point of view policy Wikipedia articles are supposed to be written from a neutral, dispassionate viewpoint. Tim Vickers (talk) 22:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

You still have to keep the "therefore", or replace it with "consequently", or the like, to maintain the fact that both people with Asperger's and autism experience/show those symptoms. "will" might be a bit too strong of a word; it implies that everyone with Asperger's and autism experience/show "difficulties with social interaction", without exception, while, in reality, autism affects everyone differently (even though those difficulties are perhaps the most debilitating and common), so "will" would be best left out. Their "restricted and/or repetitive patterns of behavior and interests" aren't necessarily part of their "difficulties with social interaction", either. MichaelExe (talk) 22:22, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Refining it with a rewrite results in either peacocking phrases or WP:WEASEL-type wording depending decision to go inclusively or exclusively. Though the grammar isn't fantastic, if you want to be really technical about how to handle it, WP:NPOV is a policy, taking priority over the guidelines of improper wording in that type of rewrite. At least, that's the answer you'd probably get out of ArbCom or they'd start pointing backward toward since it's both technically correct within Wikipedia and the most reasonable/understandable to readers and doesn't specifically detract from the accuracy of the encyclopedia, either. Might suggest anyone who wants to end up in an infinite collection of theoretical pairings and groupings of any and every possible combination of key words spend time in Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories. I gave up after a week of trying to merge or discuss to delete a few dozen ways of saying as something as simple as "Terrorism in the United States" and forking it out endlessly. Not saying the problem here is even 1% as serious, but that's the only high article volume place on Wikipedia that at least shouldn't have the weaseling so cleanups and edits is a little more straightforward. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:37, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

Asperger in Anime?

This discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There are many examples of this, I would like people to locate them and add a section to this article. Alternately we could have a "In Popular Culture" section, as per other articles, as an excuse for an In Anime section...User:Tryptofish may be able to help here..._ImmortalYawn|Talk 02:32, 7 December 2009 (UTC) I'd limit it to this page instead, and keep out speculation. Official information about characters or interviews are probably some of the more reliable sources, too. MichaelExe (talk) 02:42, 7 December 2009 (UTC) Only one case I can think of even close to "without conjecture" after significant review-- L in Death Note, from my experience, has been about a 100% for AS to any that know some common indicators before watching. Interesting article here I found in a quick search. Doubting much else out there, though. It's self-confessed to be an essay and half of it is AS background, but it gives a detailed list of behaviors demonstrated. The bottom 3 are particularly telling. Don't take the images shown toward the bottom all that seriously as they're mostly taken out of content for text, but images are good. That writer comes to the conclusion that it's only coincidental and part of the character creation process. This is backed up by an author interview in our Wikipedia article. Honestly, it surprises me, though perhaps I'll get lucky and find some original Japanese text interviews on the at least minor possibility of it being specifically left out for English markets. One quazi-source and one character? Nothing to add. However! L (Death Note) mentions nothing of this possible angle, and if sources could actually be coughed up it'd probably be worth a mention over there. A direct quote from that article-- Matsuyama portrayed L as if he does not "quite understand other people on an emotional level", would appear to be a reason it could be agreed upon to add. It'd take a whole lot of sources and discussion to get in since to the majority it would look like WP:SYNTH no matter how much was offered as reference... but I have the feeling that if a put a link of the essay above on that talk page it would get comments. That said, anything further on this character will be there, if ever completed. Obviously 1 instance isn't going to mean anything here or in the Sociological aspect article. Off the top of my head I can think of a half dozen others from popular series, generically defined as being syndicated in English. Any of that would be conjecture and I'd be shocked to see any kind of writing outside of a bland forum or maybe a blog that ever dug into much of it. The "shy, quiet type" is one of the expected and standard character templates in all anime, and since that normally makes a terribly boring protagonist. Unfortunately, it seems a likely WP:SNOWout for the thought of there ever being anything past 1 or 2 pointed character mentions as is here for L. Mind you, it'd be entirely great if anyone had other starting points, since after ~3+ notable examples it'd could legitimately warrant a new category or a new stub under Sociological and cultural aspects of autism. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 15:00, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I just became aware of this. Editor starting this thread is just a troll. Please don't waste any time on it. --Tryptofish (talk) 16:58, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

"Your son has the knack"

This video kind of talks about Aspgerger's and kind of parodies the condition. --Nerd42 (talk) 20:22, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

"Can he lead a normal life?" "No, he'll be an engineer." XP Funny, but not really useful in this article, especially since they don't actually say autism or Asperger in the video. MichaelExe (talk) 20:42, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

I think thay are simply paroding the "engineer stereotype", not Asperger's--109.50.185.43 (talk) 22:41, 14 December 2009 (UTC)

proposed elimination of Asperger syndrome in DSM-V

It has been widely reported that DSM-V will eliminate Asperger syndrome and instead will be reclassified under autism spectrum disorders.

Should this be included in the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 134.193.253.226 (talk) 03:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, that speculation is already there; see the text in Classification that is supported by First 2008. Eubulides (talk) 05:41, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the more-recent citation; I folded it in and updated the text to match. Eubulides (talk) 17:53, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

no problem —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.145.243.35 (talk) 05:26, 12 December 2009 (UTC)

Autism-diets dont work

http://news.discovery.com/human/autism-diet-treatment.html —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.250.74.192 (talk) 20:04, 5 January 2010 (UTC)

Article lacks people with AS

I think the article should mention a few well known people with Asperger syndrome, such as Daniel Tammet, or Clay Marzo and more historic persons. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 218.102.164.154 (talk) 04:08, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

There really is waaaayyy too much for this article to cover, and we've got List of people on the autism spectrum. I'll add the link to the bottom of the page. MichaelExe (talk) 05:31, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

The best example is the author of analytical wiki (http://analytical.wikia.com) - Sivashanmugam

Wikipedia has separate pages on notable people diagnosed as autistic, those suspected of being autistic and a page for fictional characters on the spectrum. Soarhead77 (talk) 14:42, 6 January 2010 (UTC)

Did Greta Garbo have this illness?

Legendary actress, Greta Garbo, I read online she was secretive, withdrawn, reclusive, did not like interviews and "wanted to be alone". She also had sexual relationships with mostly other women.

Also, did Michael Jackson have this illness? I think he may have because he did not interact appropriately around other people, esp. children, and he was shy and sort of withdrawn, and delusions of childhood he wanted, and he did not see the world/society as others perceived and other odd qualities? Do you think? Is there any info about this? 24.188.204.121 (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Diagnosing Garbo or Jackson, who are (last time I checked) quite dead, is pointless speculation. I am unaware of any reliable sources regarding your speculation. - SummerPhD (talk) 01:36, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hormonal levels/blood volume in brain

I've heard that people with AS have higher concentrations of sex hormones in the brain, like LH, FSH, Estradiol, and Testosterone. Are these hormones have higher blood levels in the brains of people with this illness? and, on several news reports and studies ive seen and heard that based on brain scans and MRI images, etc that their brain structure is different from others, and a higher concentration of blood in the brain. Is any of this true or factual? 24.188.204.121 (talk) 10:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

New article in need of attention

I've created a new article (stub) for Yale's Ami Klin, a fairly high-profile autism/Asperger's researcher. As this is rather out of my field, I'm looking for any assistance in expanding the article. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

New article in need of attention

I've created a new article (stub) for Yale's Ami Klin, a fairly high-profile autism/Asperger's researcher. As this is rather out of my field, I'm looking for any assistance in expanding the article. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Add Link Asperger Czech Republic

Hello, my Name is david, I tried add a link about the single organization in Czech about the Asperger Syndrome, that is the link: Organization Asperger Czech Republic but the Wikipedia Robbot delete this links, can you something explain me please what I can do for register this link in this topic: Asperger Syndrome Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidcz1989 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

It was me not a robot... Anyway, please check your talk page there is a link there to the external links policy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Genetic contribution

If there is a genetic contribution to AS does that means that children from parent(s) with AS will also have some form of ASD ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.135.211 (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Things are not that simple. Please see Heritability of autism. Eubulides (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)

Genetic issues never are. However I seem to remember that Simon Baron-Cohen's group had recently identified something like 34 genes involved in the autistic spectrum. Soarhead77 (talk) 12:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

DSM V will be deleting Asperger's

Resolved

 – Something Awful trolling archived

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

Released proposed changes for DSM V include deleting Asperger's and continuing to classify afflicted people as part of the autism spectrum. As such this article will need to be redirected to autism or have the language changed to a more historical tone referring to a previous disorder once the DSM V is officially released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.175.87 (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The DSM-V is not the sole authority for mental health conditions and diagnoses. Asperger Syndrome remains a diagnosis outside of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, (i.e., ICD-10 code F84.5) so it remains a (present-tense) condition.68.230.53.193 (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It may not be the sole authority to you or to the people that desperately want to have a special affliction but not one that makes people lose the higher functioning sympathy towards them, but to the rest of the medical community and indeed the leading edge of the mental health academic circles it's THE book with well thought out, well studied and well justified decisions. Autism it is and any article relating to Aspergers will have to refer to it being a diagnosis seperate to autism as a historical fact with a mention that other older publications (like the one you've just mentioned) have not yet updated themselves to show this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.89.78 (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

This should probably be marked for deletion or redirected to Autism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.246.96 (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

DSM-V won't come out until 2013, though. Should this be redirected before it's officially released, even though they've leaked the information that it will be changed?

I changed the article to reflect the change in tone about aspies. 70.70.128.20 (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Your revision was, to put it mildly, inappropriate without consensus and has been reverted. Doniago (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Your revision to the revision was, to put it mildly, inappropriate without consensus and should be reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.55.13 (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Most of the articles on this proposed change mention that there is a comment period before the change will take effect in the DSM. I think it is safe to say that the Aspie community at large will play a significant role in forming any final change, if there even is one. It is much too soon to change this article, lableing Aspergers as Autism. And I think all the people saying Aspies should not be able to edit this article are biggots. Should civil war reenactors not be able to edit the civil war article? If anything you should be reaching out to the Aspie community to help in creating a complete article on this afflictment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.239.48 (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose redirect. The subject is still notable, regardless of the reclassification. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

At the very least, it shows how ridiculous an article of this depth and length is on a condition that doesn't really exist. It's a spectrum of autism, not a separate disorder. It deserves, at most, a sub-section in the autism article. This article should be seriously pared down and the redundant information between it and the autism article should be removed. 74.12.50.21 (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If you feel that way I recommend proposing a merge. Just talking about it here won't accomplish your goals, and without consensus a merge/redirect isn't appropriate. Doniago (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm not dumb enough to think a proposal for merging the aspergers article by an anonymous user has any chance whatsover of happening. IMO this article is edited by far too many interested parties who self identify as "Aspies". Frankly I think they should be blocked from editing the article because of significant bias. 74.12.50.21 (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm sorry you feel that way. If you're of the opinion that a merge/redirect isn't going to happen yet you feel that the article as-is needs improvement, I'd recommend adding sourced material that supports your views. Doniago (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree that those who identify as "aspies' should be blocked from editing, as I feel that some amount of bias will always be present in such users. I would propose that the pages autism and aspergers syndrome be merged into the page autism spectrum disorder, with that page becoming the main article on autism and aspergers. Immunize (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Sounds reasonable! Luckz (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Not really. Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines don't advocate blocking users just for having a bias, provided they can maintain neutrality in their edits. It would be a real failure of the assume good faith policy to preemptively block users because they have a bias that -might- influence their edits.

If I wanted to agree with him agreeing with blocking, I would have just replied to the first user suggesting this. But no, I mainly agreed with his additional suggestion.Luckz (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Ah, misunderstood you then, sorry. Thank you for the clarification, though I still disagree. Doniago (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, exactly how would one implement this? Have any potential editors take a psych test? Doniago (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Perhaps a good guiide would be if the editor has one of those "This person has aspergers syndrome" then they should be expected to refrain themselves from it. Perhaps someone could make a aspergers barnstar as a reward for their restraint. Duckmonster (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(blinks) How would you prove someone has chosen not to edit an article, and why should someone be prohibited from editing an article as long as their edits are reasonable? If their edits aren't reasonable, by all means sanctions should be considered, but again, AGF works for me. Also, the thought of a barnstar sounds almost, to me, like "Good little Aspie leaving your article alone. Here, have a cookie!"

Again, IMO - there's no reason to block or otherwise discourage anyone from editing any article, regardless of bias, provided their edits are free of said bias. If not, the editor should be dealt with appropriately. Frankly I trust the editors who would make some of the earlier comments (and the ones who attempted to summarily delete/merge/redirect this article without discussion, much less consensus) a lot less than I'd trust an anonymous editor who may or may not have Asperger's. Doniago (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

So should we also ban baseball players from editing the baseball article or ban scientists from editing the science article? Perhaps you should encourage those of us who truly understand Aspergers to contribute to creating a complete well rounded article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.239.48 (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Your comparison is flawed at best. If a person is a scientist or a baseball player, then at some point they have undergone training and have, one would think, a fundamental understanding of their field. A person born with Aspergers does not. What next, are you going to suggest all black people intrinsically know all there is to know about Africa? --Sothicus (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Well it would depend on whether or not the black person was from Africa or perhaps from the Caribbean, or America, or just a person of a different race with a Skin pigmentation disorder. I see your point though. However I would say that an article about Africa written by a black man would be more likely to convey the reality of life "down under" than one written by a white or European man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.239.48 (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

"Down Under" is Australia. Luckz (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

At the very least, it shows how ridiculous an article of this depth and length is on a condition that doesn't really exist. It's a spectrum of autism, not a separate disorder. It deserves, at most, a sub-section in the autism article. This article should be seriously pared down and the redundant information between it and the autism article should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.176.181 (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Athiests and many scientists say God does not exist. Biologists generally agree that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist. Few besides small children believe that Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny exist. Government studies have concluded that there is no evidence for Flying Saucers. Existence versus nonexistence is not a guideline or policy for having article. Notability is. If Aspergers has significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, then it satisfies the notability requirement. One document like DSM does not set Wikipedia policy. Edison (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I would have to beg to differ, your logic seems to work against your argument user 'Edison'. I would urge you to consider this statement;

       "A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything."
       Friedrich Nietzsche
       German philosopher (1844 - 1900)

You are insisting that your FAITH in this "syndrome" supersedes the AGREED UPON FACT of the matter at hand. unsigned comment - must be another sock huh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.176.181 (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Exact same comment (about how ridiculous the article is) was made by a different anon user earlier. Brings to mind WP:SOCK. Doniago (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Zomg, two people without accounts disagree with you, they must be them puppetz of sockz. Luckz (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You'll have to forgive me if I find two anon IP's using -exactly- the same block of text somewhat unusual. Also, it would have been nice if you could have responded without belittling me. Doniago (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

The proposal to remove Asperger's from the DSM-V is certainly notable. It was mentioned in the article already, but it deserves to be summarized in the lead as well, so I just now did that. As for merging into Autism, that's not appropriate: even if Asperger's is removed from the DSM, the existence of the diagnosis for decades will mean that the article will continue to be important, even if it's an article about a historical rather than a current diagnosis, just as Vapors (disease) should continue to exist as a separate article even though vapors is no longer a current diagnosis. It would make more sense to merge Autism spectrum into Autism, though, as those two articles will essentially overlap once the new DSM is out. Eubulides (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You're comparing a pretty huge article to one that's barely two lines. Not much of a fitting comparison. Nobody said there can't be a similar two-lines stub reminding the world that there once was a great article here, before it was all merged into a) Autism b) Autism spectrum c) soemthing entirely different.Luckz (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

(Shrug.) OK, if you want a longer article, how about Demonic possession? This is a diagnose that was formerly used for cases of autism. But we shouldn't remove the Demonic possession article, or shrink it to two lines, simply because that diagnosis is no longer standard. Eubulides (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Just wondering whether any of the pro-move/merge people are going to formally propose such, or just continue making arguments here that would be better served by making such a proposal... Doniago (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Merging isn't really practical, as Autism is already too large. If anything, Autism needs to be split, instead of being made larger. Eubulides (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

If you're expecting me to disagree, you're going to be disappointed. :) Doniago (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

User 'Doniago' it seems as though someone has already made such a proposal, for your -astute- consideration I waded through four whole paragraphs of text to bring it to the light, -just for you-;

I agree that those who identify as "aspies' should be blocked from editing, as I feel that some amount of bias will always be present in such users. I would propose that the pages autism and aspergers syndrome be merged into the page autism spectrum disorder, with that page becoming the main article on autism and aspergers. Immunize (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC) 96.236.176.181 (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Very kind of you, but it appears you missed the part where I said -formally- propose, not just bring it up on the Talk page. See WP:MERGE.

Unsigned comment disagreeing with me, brings to mind WP:SOCK. (/sarcasm) 96.236.176.181 (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Of course there is some bias on the part of someone with Asperger's, but there is also bias on the part of people who do not have Asperger's. Should we ban them, too (effectively banning everybody)? The proposal to ban Aspies from editing is like a KKK member saying blacks should be banned from editing the African-American article because they are biased on account that they were born black — which is totally ridiculous. The negative vehemence of the anti-Aspies should be an indication that there is bias going-on on the other side of the aisle. What is your hatred (so it appears to me from what is written) toward Aspies or Aspie designation come from?

The article should not be deleted, either, as Asperger's will still remain a significant designation for these people, even if the medical community abandons the term (as many other terms still remain in use among the non-medical community, even though the medical community no longer uses them, or even never used them to begin with). Wiki policy states that just because a topic is no longer in vogue does not, in itself, kill its eligibility for an article, other factors are involved in that decision (such as notability).

Asperger's isn't a separate designation from Autism Spectrum, it is a sub-division of it. This is similar to Heavy Metal being a genre of music, specifically a sub-genre of Rock. Like Asperger's, it does exist. Heavy Metal is Rock, but it has its own characteristics just as Asperger's is a form of autism, but it has its own characteristics as well. — al-Shimoni (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You can't compare something that is or is not a medical diagnosis to racism, that is a knee-jerk reaction and a logical fallacy. 96.236.176.181 (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Logically sound in that blacks are born by what some people term as "black" (it is their genetic/medical situation). Aspies are born by what some people term as "Asperger's Syndrome (it is their genetic/medical situation). People argue that "black" is now a no-longer acceptable term, but yet it is still an accepted term (more so among the older African-American community). People argue that "Asperger Syndrome" is now a no-longer acceptable term, yet it is still an accepted term. People are prejudiced against blacks. People are prejudiced against Aspies. Where is the logical fallacies. Both groups are dealing with how they were born. — al-Shimoni (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Also, could you do the Wiki community a kindness and register. It's good for both you and us. :) — al-Shimoni (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It is an 'apples and oranges' argument from antiquity. If you happen to decide to, you know, actually research and understand the terms you are trying to invalidate my use of. 'Negro' is argued to be an unacceptable term, if you want to continue illogical arguments, yet people still call other people the arguably worse version of the term, which rhymes with 'nagger'. The fact that a term is still in use by the 'common man' does not equate to it's continued FACTUAL VALIDITY, which you are implying by continuing to support the term's related article. 96.236.176.181 (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Umm... actually, a terms popular use does equate to its "continued factual validity". Additionally, that is part of what Wikipedia considers when considering a topic's notability. — al-Shimoni (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No. Popular use indeed equates to 'notability' however popular use does NOT equate to factual, scientific VALIDITY, that being what I believe a respectable source of information should hold as it's first concern. 96.236.176.181 (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Total sperglords. 96.236.176.181 (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

so does the DSM V mean nothing here Zisakuzienn (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Per everything said both above and below, I'd say ask again in 2013. In the meantime, there's no reason this article can't be edited to incorporate pertinent news. Doniago (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Semi-protection

A quick search found (link removed). Since the intent here seems simple disruption rather than anything constructive I've semi-protected the talkpage. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No argument here...I considered requesting semi-protection myself, but wasn't sure there was sufficient disruption to justify it. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I've removed the above link. My antivirus complained of Malware on the page, so let's not encourage anyone else to follow the link. Colin°^Talk 20:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Your antivirus is mistaken. --Golbez (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think semi-protection was needed. Some users and anonymous IPs were constantly commenting on the archived discussion. I restored it now. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 00:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Closing 'Merge with Autism' section

No consensus to merge closing discussion Gerardw (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

How can it concluded that a consensus wasn't reached when the discussion was only open for 10 hours? Hardly enough time for everybody to weigh in on the subject. This should remain open. Wreckus (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

A consensus cannot be reached if you close the discussion in 10 hours see:WP:There_is_no_deadline. If you feel that it should be close please discuss it here, until then re-opening discussion. Wreckus (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Mrmazoku there. I mean I was alerted to this when the DSM-V leaked and decided to look. I was going to vote after I returned from Uni, and now I see this. Unclose the debate page. A gigantic WP:There_is_no_deadline violation. --Cleave and Smite, Delete and Tear! (talk) 04:55, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

From what we have seen, I find it highly unlikely a consensus could have emerged, the closure seems quite sensible. Dbrodbeck (talk) 05:30, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

What I saw, for the most part, was a bunch of anon IPs (quite possibly imports from SomethingAwful) who seemed intent on being disruptive and substantial altering an article based on something that -may- happen three years from now. In any case, even if AS is stricken from the DSM in 2013, that wouldn't mean the article wouldn't maintain notability for historical reasons. And for those who claim 'AS isn't real', well, neither is Santa Claus, the Easter Bunny or the Loch Ness monster, not to mention tons of other Wikipedia articles on non-real subjects. The guideline is notability, not realism. Doniago (talk) 06:24, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia is not a democracy. Those in support are evidently wrong, especially since none (or next to none) of them have addressed any of the points the opposed presented. One could leave messages on the talk pages of those in support of the merge, explaining the situation (it isn't final or until May 2013 that the change would be made, and the ICD may not follow); most of them will likely change their minds, and the rest probably won't answer. In the end, any further comments will just be spam, because they won't have any effect.
The moral of the story is: if you're going to be a troll or an idiot, at least be funny about it, so the rest of us can get a few laughs out of it. Unfunny jokes are unfunny. >.> MichaelExe (talk) 19:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Merge with Autism

• No consensus to merge closing discussion Gerardw (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
• Closed prematurely and inappropriately, without allowing the community a chance to comment, so of no consequence or import. Leave any such discussion open for seven days if you wish it to be taken seriously by anyone. Edison (talk) 05:28, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

How can it concluded that a consensus wasn't reached when the discussion was only open for 10 hours? Hardly enough time for everybody to weigh in on the subject. This should remain open. Wreckus (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Reason: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/11/aspergers.autism.dsm.v/index.html?hpt=C1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twolves14 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

^ So your only argument is "Wah they took away his feeling of being special"? If Wiki desires to ever become a reputable CITE-ABLE source then SCIENTIFIC FACTUAL VALIDITY must become it's first concern, not "Aww it made that aspy feel bad :-(". 96.236.176.181 (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose - Only brought up proposal due to lengthy discussion above. Let's get consensus and move on. Doniago (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Super King Kamehameha Support - The 'syndrome' was ONLY brought up BECAUSE of it's inclusion in the DSM, and given it's merger with the Autism spectrum the articles MUST reflect this. You CANNOT pick and choose based on what suits your ideals and what does not. 96.236.176.181 (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - per some of the arguments I made earlier. To previous person's argument that it was brought up because of it's inclusion in the DSM, an idea or term may originate with one thing, but over time it can grow beyond its original source, independent from the original source. — al-Shimoni (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

^Ridiculous and also a logical fallacy, there was ONE reason for the 'syndrome' to be given it's own article, and now that medical, peer reviewed support has now vanished. Your argument is on par with Jenny McCarthy insisting vaccines cause autism, ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE A CORRELATION DOES NOT MAKE. 96.236.176.181 (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Extreme Badass Mega Support - Wikipedia's classification of things should reflect the scientific consensus. 24.4.168.91 (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Support I belive that Wikipedia should include only current scientific information, and that now that Asperger's disorder is an obsolete term, it should be merged with the autism, the current diagnosis in use. Immunize (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

It's NOT an obsolete term - that's complete and utter nonsense! Do your education a favor and look up the meaning of "obsolete" in Wiktionary: Actually - I'll save you the trouble. It means: "no longer in use; gone into disuse; disused or neglected". How can you possibly call a medical term that's right there in the premier guide used for diagnostics and by governments around the world for setting criteria for special education, disability funding, "obsolete"? (Yeah - the actual, published, current DSM IV - not an unpublished first draft of a hypothetical future edition). The term is mentioned in 3.7 million web pages - that hardly qualifies as "no longer in use" does it? So how about you dial the rhetoric a bit? It might (might) be grouped into the same section as Autism in the DSM in 2013 - but in the meantime, someone suffering from the set of symptoms described by DSM IV will be completely unable to claim benefits that might be due to someone with Autism. That means that the term is very far from obsolete. Even after terms are merged in DSM, they will still be considered as distinct conditions - governments aren't going to run away from the unfortunate individuals with full-on Autism - and they aren't going to start giving the same benefits to multi-millionaire software geeks who are just far enough down the spectrum to get the benefits without suffering too badly from the downsides. So even if this does eventually become the official language in the DSM, that's still not a reason to merge a Featured Article that refers to a term that many millions of people are identified with and confuse an awful lot of people. SteveBaker (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose Are you supporters even aware that the new DSM is currently only a draft, and won't be finalized until 2013? Until then Asperger's remains an officially supported diagnosis. Looie496 (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Support per Immunize, it's clear the scientific consensus has changed. 67.9.133.14 (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose No matter what the DSM says, this is still a notable topic, and, the new DSM is not out yet. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

^"No matter what that "Science" says. Harumph" (smugface goes here)" This is why we cannot cite Wiki in any uni paper, people like you. 96.236.176.181 (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

No - that's not the reason. The reason is the same reason you can't cite Encyclopedia Britannica - you're supposed to cite primary sources - not secondary or tertiary sources like encyclopedias. (Also - too many idiot kids cut and paste entire sections from Wikipedia and call that an "Essay"). Besides, the DSM is more about politics and funding for people with disabilities than it is about science. The science says that there is a continuous variation from "Normal" to the terribly sad kids who are completely cut off from the world at the most extreme end of the Autism spectrum. However, there are many things that are a continuous spectrum (from pebble, through asteroid to dwarf-planet to planet, for example). Should we merge "pebble" with "planet"? Because that's what you're saying. Sure it's a spectrum - but that's not a reason to avoid providing a convenient term covering some region of that spectrum. How about another example: Should we merge "Red" into "Yellow" because there is a continuous spectrum through "Orange" between them? Is it unscientific to attach names to things that blur together and overlap? No! SteveBaker (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Actually it is people like me that stop people from citing wikipedia at University. Most of us (professors) do not like the use of an encyclopedia for the reasons listed above. by SteveBaker.Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Support - The medical opinion of Aspergers has changed. Why should wikipedia continue to relect an outdated classification? Obviously a lot of people have their self identity wrapped up in a (usually) self diagnosis of Apserger's but that's no reason to not keep in line with mainstream medical practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.246.96 (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland has changed its name to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland when Republic of Ireland became independent. Did Wikipedia delete the former article? Pluto was a planet but now a dwarf planet. But did it affect the status of the article? I can give you hundreds of such example. Btw, where did you get this argument that changing of an opinion would lead to deletion or merger of an article? -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 23:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

PLUTO WAS EDITED TO REFLECT IT'S CHANGED STATUS. Your argument is null, void and logically reprehensible. 96.236.176.181 (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Who stopped you to edit reflected status? Why are you spending your time in this silly debate? -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 00:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Support - Same. --Sothicus (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - I am sick and tired of viewing such funny merger proposals on Wikipedia, specially from anonymous IPs who behave like one-night-stand on a single article for a very specific period of time but good enough to produce huge pain for the real editors who are spending their valuable times to improve quality of WP. Come on guys! This is an FA!!! This article is notable on its own merit. Btw, I am having a feeling that anonymous IPs in the discussion have close relation with DSM, thus they are trying to establish its view on WP. Cheers. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 23:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Personally I'd think that anyone who actually works in psychiatry or understands the DSM would realize that the change they're proposing is really not all that big a deal, and would oppose the deletion. But I can only speak for myself. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

^Wooo-oooo "strong" opposition. Because your opinion is much more valid than mine for the simple sake of your wiki-badges and your registered account? Oooobviously. I can't physically roll my eyes any harder at that statement, else they would spin back into my skull. I would insist that viewpoint would suggest YOU are the one trying to establish your own views on WP. Lose the conspiracy theory, gain some scientific insight. Thanks in advance, some day I would like to see Wiki as a cite-able reputable source, and your views are not conducive to that wish.

Buy a time machine and go where you wanna go, but leave us alone to work in a quiet environment. See you in the future. - Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 23:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Honestly the amazing part is this merger was formally proposed by a registered member, not as you personally describe; "[an] anonymous IP who behaves like a one-night-stand". 96.236.176.181 (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Anonymous IP can register to establish their one-night-stand. To protect them, we have IP check. - Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 23:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I am starting to question if you even understand what you are writing, user 'Niaz'. An open source should not bias it's weighting of opinion based on if I decide I desire to register or not. 96.236.176.181 (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I wish you could understand where are you discussing! - Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 23:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

You wish I could understand "where" I "are" discussing? Because your version of that sentence is incomprehensible. You wish I could understand 'WHAT' I 'AM' discussing? If that is what you mean, you wish I could understand a (now) non existent syndrome (now) recognized as a part of the Autism spectrum? If that is indeed what you mean then I believe I have a working understanding of the (now) non existent "syndrome", thank you. 96.236.176.181 (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Again I wish you could understand where are you discussing! -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 00:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Don't bite the newbies. --Sothicus (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Ohh really??? -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 00:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes, really. WP:BITE if you haven't read it. Or would you prefer that I ask you to assume good faith? You don't appear to be doing either at this juncture. --Sothicus (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I read it before you joined WP, but read carefully who is biting whom! - Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 02:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

• Oppose; premature. The move proposal is obviously influenced by the proposed revision in the DSM-V, but as this revision is only in the draft stage at this point, a move would be premature. --Golbez (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose until the actual new version is published. While it should no doubt be reflected in the article that this change is under consideration, I don't know whether it's really necessary to have it merged as soon as some slight information about the draft is found. 78.105.161.115 (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support Mention the former diagnosis, the draft has never been edited significantly and few if any professionals will risk credibility making this diagnosis now Studmandudebro (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)

I would like to request an admin to check whether or not Studmandudebro and 96.236.176.181 are same person. -- Niaz^{(Talk • Contribs)} 00:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That isn't an administrator's job; you'd need a checkuser and I don't believe you'd have a valid case here. Checkusers generally deny requests based on simply two people voting in the same discussion that don't have a lot of edits elsewhere. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Since neither account has ever been used to do anything other than post to this thread - neither has ever made even one single edit to either this article or to the Autism article - they don't carry any weight in a debate. Both seem to understand the rules for posting and signing and such - so it's highly likely that both of them are socks for some third account. You might try requesting a checkuser - but it's not likely that it would be accepted. Remember, this is not a vote - there has to be a near-unanimous consensus to do a merge and the arguments on the side of making a change have to be a hell of a lot stronger than those opposing it for that to happen. In reality there is something more like a 50/50 split here - this merge clearly won't happen - it's already over for the "Support" folks. SteveBaker (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I love how user Stevebarker makes a decision BEFORE the consensus has been reached, noted by the obvious posts after his, and also makes this decision AS IF he had the AUTHORITY to do so. Please. I can't physically roll my eyes any more, they will get stuck. 96.236.176.181 (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I also love how ZOMG IP USER MUST BE A SOCK, you possibly have a persecution complex, please do a "usercheck". My IP is not associated with any account because I don't want to register. Simple as that. Perhaps you should see a mental health professional before posting again in a mental health related debate Thanks In Advance <3 96.236.176.181 (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose - While Autism and Asperger's are known to be related spectrum disorders, there are very distinct symptoms involved. If DSM V does change it's perspective on this in three years time, then we can revisit this - but it's certainly not the job of Wikipedia to pre-judge that. Quite the opposite, in fact. The current DSM IV is the authoritative document - an unfinished draft of a possible future edition is most certainly not. There is no urgency here - we don't have to jump at the smallest news item - we're here to take the longer, more considered route - and that means revisiting this when DSM V is actually published, and not a day earlier. SteveBaker (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support What the medical community believes should go. RobMasterFunk (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Why isn't Wikipedia taken seriously? *refuses to edit article to reflect current scientific and medical opinion becuase it contridicts pseudo-scientific personal beliefs*

Oppose. Asperger syndrome is still an official diagnosis. The proposal to remove it from DSM-V has not been accepted. Even if it is accepted, it will still be an official diagnosis until the removal takes effect, which won't be for years. Even after it takes effect, it will still be an official diagnosis in ICD-10 (see the ICD-10 page listing it) and will be a valid diagnosis in countries that use ICD-10. Even assuming it is later removed from ICD-10, it will still be a notable historical diagnosis and will deserve an article in its own right. The proposal to merge it into Autism now cannot be taken seriously, particularly since Autism is already too large. Eubulides (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose Eubulides summarizes it perfectly. People, nobody's saying that Asperger's is going to be a synonym for autism. All they're doing is moving it from its own category into a sub-category of autism. Not a big deal, certainly not worth deleting the Asperger's article. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I totally agree that this article should reflect the medical community's consensus, by the way, which is that Asperger's syndrome exists. Ask any psychiatrist if you want a truly informed opinion about this issue. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 01:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No one has suggested a delete, but a merger is in order, Period. Again, NO ONE has suggested a delete, only a merger. Please get your facts straight before entering into a debate TIA <3 96.236.176.181 (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Support Wikipedia's classification of things should reflect the scientific consensus. The Bob Talbot (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Strong Oppose: per Eubulides above, the proposed merger doesn't make any sense. I'm [dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ] and I approve this message. 01:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Super-Double Duper Oppose No Takebacks as per others, it really doesn't make any sense. When [[7]] became part of Spain, we didn't delete the article. Also, there's a very good chance it will remain in the DSM; it's only in the trial stage. I am thoroughly oppose to this.--Nog64 (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose I don't see how anyone can think otherwise. Don't get your panties in a bunch; May 2013 is a long way from now. Even if Aspeger's loses its place in the DSM, I can't see the term losing much popularity, and there's also the ICD, which's new revision is set for 2015. If/when Asperger's syndrome is removed, we would still have to separate high-functioning/mild autism from low-functioning/severe autism (and then there's the moderate inbetween >.>), because of the evident differences and the reviews specific to each. MichaelExe (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Strong Support It's pretty obvious that Wikipedia should support the opinions of actual mental health professionals if it cares at all about having a reputation for being a legitimate source of information. There's absolutely no reason not to merge the two if the APA itself is doing so. Arguing otherwise is arguing against science. 64.17.82.34 (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Seems an appropriate place to remind people that all that I believe anyone's heard so far is that the APA is -considering- changing the DSM...in 2013. AS hasn't been removed from the DSM yet, and may never be. A proposal is not a certainty. Thank you for your time. Doniago (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, 1) per Eubulides; 2) it is and will always be a notable entry even if it disappears from the DSM; and 3) it hasn't happened yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, 1) per Eubulides; 2) it is and will always be a notable entry even if it disappears from the DSM; and 3) it hasn't happened yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose, the draft DSM is incomplete and although we can revisit this discussion once it has been finished, Aspergers will still be a notable topic even if this does happen to be re-classified as a subset of autism, rather than one of a set of ASDs (which is quite a minor difference to be honest). Tim Vickers (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Oppose When homosexuality was removed from the DSM, its wikipedia article didn't get merged. Mental breakdown has its own article even though it's not in the DSM. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Weak Support AS apparently is not real anymore so why bother keeping it Zisakuzienn (talk) 22:45, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Really existing isn't a requirement for article subjects, as the Loch Ness monster, the Easter Bunny and Santa Claus could attest. This was brought up earlier in the discussion as well. Doniago (talk) 22:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

"Therefore..."

I made a minor change to the reading of the first sentence. "Asperger syndrome is an autism spectrum disorder, and people with it therefore show significant difficulties in social interaction..." now reads, "Asperger syndrome is an autism spectrum disorder. People with it can show significant difficulties in social interaction..."

I think the new rendition agrees better now with most of the wording in the remainder of the article, which rightly includes terms such as "can," "are likely too," and other phraseology I believe more accurately describes possible symptoms of A.S. There are NO givens with A.S. Using a term such as "therefore" in the original wording of the first sentence made it sound as though it's a virtual given that because A.S. is an Autism spectrum disorder, one with A.S. must therefore display the following symptoms. This simply is not the case. A.S. is a spectrum in and of itself. There is no one single symptom that occurs in all individuals diagnosed with A.S.

I feel quite strongly that wording that suggests otherwise should be avoided.

Apologies in advance if anyone considers the edit to be presumptuous. Presumptuousness happens to be another possible symptom of A.S. and one I am prone to occasionally display myself. *wink* --SentientParadox (talk) 22:51, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Works for me. Just because someone doesn't show difficulties doesn't mean one doesn't have AS either. Doniago (talk) 22:57, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't disagree with that wording - it's a true statement. However, an alternative rewording would have been to instead remove "significant". ie "people with it show difficulties in social interaction."...That's a stronger statement and it's true because unless such difficulties are present, you wouldn't get an Asperger's diagnosis. SteveBaker (talk) 23:12, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Although this wouldn't count as a good resource for the article itself, I can tell you from personal experience that this simply is not true. I know personally of at least some diagnoses made of folks who weren't generally considered to have any significant "social ineptness." Even by their doctors. It took over eight years for my own son to get a diagnosis because of his apparent social skills. The doctor who finally did diagnose him knew nothing whatever of our suspicions, and made the diagnoses in spite of feeling herself he demonstrated [mostly] perfectly acceptable social skills for his age.

This is, of course, anecdotal, but the fact remains diagnoses ARE made lacking significant social deficiencies. They may be few and far between, but they DO exist. --SentientParadox (talk) 23:46, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

That part of the lead, including the "therefore", is well supported by the cited source, McPartland & Klin 2006 (PMID 17030291), which says that Asperger's falls within the ASDs and that ASDs are "characterized by significant difficulties with social communication and play and restricted, rigid, or repetitive behaviors and interests". Omitting the "therefore" gives the reader that the mistaken impression that Aspergers's alone (unlike other ASDs) is characterized by "significant difficulties in social interaction, along with restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests". That impression is incorrect: it's not just Asperger's, it's all ASDs that have these properties. Personal experience shouldn't trump a reliable secondary source. Eubulides (talk) 06:59, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Even though AS has a set list of required diagnostic criteria, I'd imagine doctors have some liberty in diagnosing. Social skills aren't inherent, but, knowing what AS is like, you may have already helped your son. Also, let's use "characterized by" now. ;) MichaelExe (talk) 15:49, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

A.S. Real, Not Real, and whether it is Autism or not...

My goodness! This talk page has been through the wringer and back since I first laid eyes on it months ago. This is a hot topic, but my intentions are NOT to incite debate over the questions that this section's headline might illicit. My intention is to present at least some arguments toward whether those actual questions should, or should not have any bearing over the content, and even the existence of the article.

A little background may help in understanding my own perspective, and how that may affect what I have to say.

• I have two children diagnosed with A.S.
• I believe my third also has it.
• I am self diagnosed with A.S.
• So is my wife.
• Based on my own research, none of the above is unusual.
• I accept that A.S. has long been generally considered by the medical community at large as being part of the Autism spectrum.
• I have never found any evidence that Hans Asperger ever actually said that A.S. was an "Autistic Disorder."
• I don't personally believe that A.S. is even a disorder, much less related to Autism in anything other than a few somewhat shared traits.
• I believe A.S. is a personality type, and that there isn't necessarily anything at all "wrong" with anyone who supposedly "has" it.
• What I believe is my own opinion and has no place in any article on Wikipedia.

Now, a couple of arguments have been presented lately over this article.

1. That the A.S. article should be merged with the Autism article.
2. That the A.S. article should be deleted.

Reasoning given for each simply does not take into account WHAT Wikipedia is, and what it is NOT. Wikipedia is NOT about dispensing absolute truth, nor is it about a quest to determine what absolute truth is. Wikipedia is about collecting and dispensing general knowledge with good intent. It is NOT about promoting ANYONE'S personal opinions or political agendas.

Articles are not deleted or merged with others simply based on whether the article topic discusses something that does not exist. So what if A.S. does not exist? I just said that I don't believe myself that it is a real disorder, even though I believe my entire family qualifies for diagnosis!

I do not believe it exists as a disorder, yet I feel most strongly that is no basis for deletion or merging with any other article.

Neither is the opinion of any medical group or establishment reason enough for either suggestion.

If we start deleting ANY articles based solely on whether the topic matter discusses something non-existent, then we may as well delete any and all articles about historical mythologies, fictional stories, and so on.

I am NOT saying that A.S. isn't real. I am saying that [as far as whether it should be a Wikipedia article] it does not matter whether it is!

I've watched this article and its talk page for a very long time. The same arguments keep rearing their ugly heads over and over.

Enough already!

Whether Asperger Syndrome is real or not, and whether it is an "Autistic" disorder, is irrelevant. What IS relevant is the indisputable fact that thousands of people are diagnosed with it every year. What IS relevant is the fact that millions of people believe it is real.

MOST IMPORTANTLY: What IS relevant for Wikipedia's purposes is how often people actually look for information about Asperger Syndrome.

The research I've done, in spite of how I actually feel about the diagnosis and its perceived connection to Autism, reveals to me that it should remain as its own article, EVEN if the definition is removed from the DSM-V.--SentientParadox (talk) 01:15, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

No argument here, but since the majority of the discussion to merge/move/delete appeared to come from anon IP's...quite possibly ones affiliated with SomethingAwful...I fear whatever you say here is falling largely on a disinterested audience. To my mind, it's obvious from the above that there isn't going to be a consensus to merge/move/delete...my advice would be to just stop talking about it at this point unless someone feels strongly enough to make a case for the change with arguments that actually seem valid based on policy. Doniago (talk) 01:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Absolutely agreed here. I had nothing more to say on the matter. Looking over the previous discussions, it didn't seem to me the most obvious reasons for leaving it alone were being addressed. Maybe I missed it. Either way, the above is pretty much all I felt compelled to add. My own personal opinion is way outside both camps, yet even I think it ought to be left alone. Okay, there. I'm done. If anyone wants to close this, go right ahead! I wouldn't blame you if you did. ;)--SentientParadox (talk) 02:12, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Okay, sorry. I do have one more point to add, if only to "beat a dead horse." If anything though, this adds what I believe a hell of a lot of justification for the decision to leave this article right where it is, and for some time to come (more than likely). If anything should put an end to the discussion of merging or deleting this article, this ought to do it: Aspergers Syndrome stat page. That says it all IMHO.--SentientParadox (talk) 04:21, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Holy cow! This is interesting. Compare the stats for the Autism page to the stats of the Asperger page I linked to above. That came as a total surprise to me. I would have thought the Autism page would have ranked higher! I'm glad I'm not a conspiracy theorist, otherwise I might feed on that as an explanation for the recent controversy here! lol Oh NO! Let's NOT go there!--SentientParadox (talk) 04:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I am distressed that so many people here think this is some kind of a game. A competition to see who can get rid of this article. Let's put some reality into this medical condition. I'm going to talk frankly about my version of this condition...and to hell with WP:NOR - let's "Break all rules" for a while.

There are many misunderstandings about AS.

• "Self-diagnosed" is the same thing as "not diagnosed" - the number of people who think they have this condition but almost certainly don't is at epidemic proportions. And that's definitely muddying the waters. If you really think you have the symptoms - go see a doctor and get it confirmed. Until you do, you really might just have a particular personality type.
• Diagnosis in small kids is almost impossible. A lot of the things that are symptomatic of AS are normal kid behavior. But there are a few odd things (like the tendancy for AS people to walk on the balls of their feet instead of putting them flat on the floor) that are a recognisable symptom that might mean something. Again, you've gotta see an expert to know.
• It's a "spectrum" disorder. There is no binary "you have it" or "you don't have it" at the less affected area of the spectrum. Those people who are at the near-normal end of the spectrum are hard to place as either "normal" or AS. This leads to a lot of confusion about just how mild this is.
• Aspergers is exceedingly unusual amongst medical conditions in that in some individuals it conveys benefits as well as disabilities - this seems to outrage some people, whether out of jealousy (they wouldn't be jealous if they had a dose of the downsides) or disbelief. When you consider that set of issues, it's not surprising that some people are very confused about the reality of it.

User:SentientParadox may or may not "have Aspergers" - his wife and kids may or may not have it. They may be so far along the "normal" end of the spectrum that even saying that they have it is pointless. I don't know. But you cannot say on the basis of being at a point along the spectrum where the symptoms are not severe that they aren't severe a little further away from "normal". There is no doubt that Autism is real and horribly debilitating - and there is no doubt that there is a spectrum - so it follows that there are people who are functional - but just barely.

As a victim of this "thing" myself (I was diagnosed by two different doctors at age 38 and 40), I can tell you that the downsides in someone as far along the spectrum as me are very noticable and sometimes are difficult to live with. I can't tell you how many times I've screwed up social interactions due to my almost complete inability to understand how other people are feeling - my inability to pick up on expressions, body language, and the more subtle aspects of conversation such as innuendo, sarcasm and a bunch of other things I am incapable of understanding. The ability of "normal" people to almost read each other's minds is downright spooky to me. I can't tell when other people are bored with what I'm saying - how the hell could I possibly do that? I'm not telepathic! I can't tell whether the person I'm talking to is agreeing with me or becoming angered by what I'm saying (unless they make it REALLY obvious by yelling at me or something). I've been taught some aspects of human behavior that don't come naturally to me. I have to make a conscious effort to make appropriate eye contact with people - too much looks weird - too little is bad too. Why is that? It's a mystery to me - but "normal" people seem to care about that. I've had to learn to "mirror" the body language of people I agree with and use different body language when I don't - to look consciously for people who aren't mirroring my body language. I can do this when I do it consciously - but it's a lot of effort - and I tend to forget and behave inappropriately.

Let me give you an anecdote: In the course of a conversation with my teenage son about him leaving his Wii console turned on, it became aparrent that he couldn't tell the difference between the red, green and orange colors of the LED that tells you whether it's turned on, turned off or on standby. It occurred to me that he might be colorblind. I got really excited about testing him and looked up the color blindness charts on Wikipedia - we did the test and he failed it. I devised a test to see which of the variations of color blindness he had. I was so excited about the science and the deductive logic of finding out which variety of color blindness he had and what things looked like to him that I completely failed to notice that his life had just fallen apart. I love my son - he must have been devastated about the news - but my inability to recognise other people's feelings or even (to a degree) to subconsciously consider their feelings meant that I didn't think to wonder whether I needed to break this to him gently - or to give him a hug - or do any of the things one is supposed to do under those circumstances.

When my wife patiently explained what I'd done - I was devastated - heartbroken - I didn't know what to do or say to make things right. (It's a symptom that I imagine that everything can somehow be "made right" - even though, intellectually, I know it can't).

Now - tell me THAT isn't a real medical condition - with real world, un-amusing consequences. Think carefully when you say "Wah wah, poor aspie doesn't feel special anymore".

There are upsides of sorts - this is what makes Asperger's such a special thing. I have an ability to concentrate on a very narrow field of interest for a protracted time. This lets me learn things - fast. It's a benefit that I exploit - and which goes some way to offset the upset. I have a kick-ass job and I earn a ton of money doing it because I'm bloody good at it. An example of this focus was the Mini Moke article. This article (about a very obscure kind of small jeep-like vehicle) was a one paragraph stub. I somehow got interested in it (the reasons are complicated) - I found that there was not much written about this car on the Internet. My Aspie "focus" locked onto it - and I was unable to concentrate on much else until I'd bought and read literally every book ever written on this vehicle. I didn't stop there, I tracked down 40 year old magazines with articles about it and bought them on eBay. I spent $200 on a rare Mini Moke toy. I was only narrowly restrained by my wife from buying an actual vehicle that was out in Australia and paying a small fortune for shipping it to Texas. I couldn't concentrate on much else until the Wikipedia article was pushed to featured article status. I am literally the world's leading expert on this vehicle. Then, as fast as my focus had switched to it - it switched off again - and I haven't looked at the books, the magazines or the toys for a year.

This is not "normal". It is a recognised medical condition.

But it's also not all the way over to autism. I've met autistic kids and teens - that's a tremendously sad condition - but it's just a bit further along the spectrum.

So Aspergers' clearly exists. You couldn't meet me and talk for 10 minutes without realising there is something disctinctly "wrong" about the ways I interact with other people - you couldn't meet a full-blown Autism victim and say they were the same as me. We say this is a spectrum because we can see people in every stage from normality - through people who are just good at concentrating and a bit awkard in the presence of strangers - to people like me - to people who are so obsessive that they can't keep a job and who are so bad at social interactions that they have to be alone most of the time - all the way to people who are so cut off from other people that they sit all day rocking back and forth with no interaction whatever with the rest of humanity.

I like the Internet - email - it levels the playing field. Nobody here can see body language, nobody can tell what someone else is feeling. It turns everyone into an Asperger victim. It's amusing to see people struggle with their loss of "telepathy" - something I've lived all my life without.

Now, whether we say there is "Autism" and "Aspergers" or just one condition called "Autism" is just a matter of nomenclature. In a sense it doesn't matter. But if you reduce things to just one word, you'll induce a lot of confusion - the people who are completely unable to function in the world will get utterly confused with the people who not only can function - but can leverage the benefits of the milder end of the spectrum to make a complete success of their lives. Just as we name parts of the electromagnetic spectrum "Radio", "InfraRed", "Red", "Green", "Blue", "UltraViolet", etc - so we name parts of the Autism spectrum "Normal", "Aspergers" and "Autism". That's not unscientific - it's a rational use of language to make life easier. We have separate articles about all sorts of sections of the electromagnetic spectrum. Nobody is saying "Let's merge Radio with Pink and Cosmic Ray". So why say "Merge Autism and Aspergers"? It's not rational, it's not scientific, it doesn't make a whole lot of sense - even in Wikipedia terms - to merge a featured article with another article that's already pushing the limits of reasonable article size. When an article gets to be large - you split it into sub-articles. A merged Asperger/Autism article would be simply gigantic - and splitting it up would be the first rational suggestion. How else would you split it than to split Autism from Aspergers. But doing that merge and then (belatedly) splitting it again would trash the value of a featured article - and that's not something we should do lightly.

SteveBaker (talk) 05:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Nicely said, Steve. The best bit of writing on this subject (or any other for that matter) I've read on Wikipedia, by the way. Anthony (talk) 07:57, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

With the greatest respect, none of this is very helpful concerning the status of the article. What should be obvious to anybody who approaches the topic neutrally is that even if the next version of DSM decides to drop Asperger's as a distinct condition (which is not yet certain), the historical and sociological factors alone would require having an article on the topic, just as we continue to have an article on hysteria although DSM no longer recognizes the term. Looie496 (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I know that - I'm merely responding to SentientParadox's statement that "I do not believe it exists as a disorder". He doesn't believe it - possibly because the symptoms his kids have are mild - or perhaps this is something they've been mis-diagnosed with that they may well grow out of (diagnosis of kids is exceedingly difficult) - and both he and his wife are "self diagnosed". (It's beyond me how you can self-diagnose yourself with a disorder that you don't think exists!) However, I just wanted to impress on people that Asperger's is most certainly "real". For people far enough up the spectrum, it's debilitating - for people lower down on the spectrum, it's something of a benefit. I believe I'm right on the cusp. SteveBaker (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Yes. Asperger's syndrome isn't moving anywhere. Anthony (talk) 06:27, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Indeed - there is no consensus to do anything other than leave it where it is. SteveBaker (talk) 19:51, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Is there a link between this illness and people who are gay and lesbian (LGBT)?

I've read somewhere that this illness sometimes (not always) is slightly linked (in some cases) to people having this are sometimes attracted to the same sex. Is there any link? Are there alot of LGBT people with this illness? 10:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Some people who had or have been thought to had the illness are gay, ie. Daniel Tammet, Michaelangelo 24.188.204.121 (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, diagnosing anyone dead is pure speculation. Similarly, diagnosing someone outside of a clinical setting (without meeting them) is speculation. As to the supposed "link": Yes, there are people who are LGBT and aspies. There are also people who are LGBT and have the flu. There are people with broken arms who are aspies. Are any of those "links"? - SummerPhD (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

I think what we're seeing here is simply the fact that gay people and people with Asperger's share some stereotypical personality characteristics in common (such as being intellectually inclined, "clumsy" or unusual mannerisms, less "macho" in the case of men, etc.) When we're talking about dead people for whom only anecdotal evidence is available, this could potentially lead some people who were gay (but didn't have AS) to be misidentified as having AS. This kind of "stereotype overlap" (different groups sharing a lot of the same qualities in stereotypes) is also found elsewhere (for example, people with Asperger's also share some of the stereotypical qualities historically ascribed to Asians, Jews, the British, among others). Some of these stereotype overlaps may have a basis in fact (for example, Asperger's is more common in Japan than in most other countries); most of them probably do not, however. Stonemason89 (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Kizcat (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Excuse me! As a mother of a daughter with Asperger's Disorder I have NEVER heard of there being any connection between having A.D. and being a homosexual. What does your sexual orientation have to do with A.D.? This is my opinion only, I think that the gay & lesbian lifestyle is caused by a sexual brokenness. I don't believe that you are born gay. I believe that it comes from a brokenness (sexually) caused by sexual abuse at a young age, or relationships that were not nurtured by the mother or father. Something caused this brokenness in your life. kizcatKizcat (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

There are some studies that indicate that people with Asperger's are more likely to be asexual, but no study that I'm aware of has turned up a statistically significant surplus of homosexuals. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Just to stay on the safe side, I'm crossing out the first part of what I wrote because I cant find the study I read that in and cant be sure it's a reliable source. Someone else may be able to help here. -- Soap ^Talk/_{Contributions} 15:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

From what I have read, males with Asperger's syndrome may actually be less likely to be gay; there was a study I read about in which they "randomly" selected 100 or so men with it for a study, and mentioned specifically that none of them were gay; this is interesting given that between 5-10% of the general male population is believed to be gay. Of course the results of that study could just have been a coincidence; nonetheless, it strongly implies that there is not a positive correlation between Asperger's syndrome and being gay. If there is any correlation at all (and there might not be), it is likely a negative correlation (men with AS less likely to be gay). I am not sure about women with AS, in any event. They have not been studied as extensively. As far as the asexual thing goes, I have AS and I strongly doubt it. I think they may be perceived by the outside world to be asexual due to their social difficulties (which would make any form of dating or romance extremely difficult, since those relationships are far more difficult to maintain than simple friendships, and even simple friendships are often hard for people with AS to maintain.) This difficulty with dating (some people with AS have been known to become frustrated and give up altogether) could be misconstrued by "well-meaning" psychologists as a lack of interest in romance or sexuality altogether. Hence the "asexual" rumor. People with Asperger's are, unfortunately, widely misunderstood according to what I have observed.

I also happen to believe that the "people with Asperger's syndrome lack empathy" thing is a myth; it is my experience that people with AS do have empathic feelings, but usually do not know how to express them "properly" and so keep them bottled up inside. Or they may feel empathy for some people, but not others; I myself am like this. Mostly I feel empathy for people I get along with or who are nice to me, but I have a very difficult time having empathy for people who are mean to me (or who are racist, bigoted, etc.), since it seems, after all, that these people don't deserve empathy from me! Stonemason89 (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Why is this discussion here at all? "This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject." (It's right there at the top of this page.) This is not the place to debate the subject of A.S. This entire section doesn't discuss the article itself at all. This is the sort of thing that belongs in a forum somewhere else, or on a user's talk page, not on a Wikipedia article discussion page. This should be deleted.--SentientParadox (talk) 23:28, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

While you're technically right, I believe threads like this can do good. Suppose there was a study that showed that in fact people with AS are four times more likely to be gay than the general population. Someone could see this thread and provide a link to the study that could then go into the article. ♥Soap♥ 23:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Hello Soap! Yes, I agree it could be helpful, but it does clutter up a discussion page with debate that really belongs elsewhere. I know you've been watching this article, maybe as long as I have. I think if you look back you'll agree the topic of A.S. is hot enough already. Not to mention there utterly no basis for the idea of connection between A.S. and homosexuality. If you, or anyone else thinks there is, I issue my standard cry: "Show me the study!" Yes, I am "technically right." I have A.S. myself, and to me, that means I am right! ;) lol. Anyway, it seems to me this discussion only clouds the discussions that really belong here, which is discussion of the article itself.--SentientParadox (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

It could be relevant, but no one has provided reliable sources, and, having just checked PubMed myself, I doubt they'll find any. However, there is probably a link with love-shyness: "Gilmartin notes that because of their perceived lack of interest in women, love-shy men are frequently assumed to be homosexual." MichaelExe (talk) 23:38, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

This discussion may well belong here if it were accompanied by something better than "I read somewhere," which is exactly how this discussion begins. That sort of "sourcing" has no place on Wikipedia. Well, I have A.S. and tend to be dogmatic when I think I'm right, and I really think I am this time. I stand by my original stance. This section doesn't belong here. It's already sparked debate that isn't going to do anyone any good (other than the last few entries, that is...) Before these however, it isn't hard to see where it started to go. I don't think anyone "needs" that here.--SentientParadox (talk) 02:03, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I've read a lot of research papers on AS, and one showed that persons with AS are much more likely to be bisexual rather than homo- or heterosexual. I will look that paper up and post the citation here. I think it's worth discussing this issue because it appears it might be an important feature related to AS social functioning, and therefore maybe it should be in the article. I'll post again when I find the data. Dcs002 (talk) 09:42, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

ASPERGER SYNDROME Edited by Ami Klin Fred R. Volkmar Sara S. Sparrow, 2002. This clinical text states that we aspies are generally less sexually active, but more likely to be into fetishism. Their evidence is pretty weak though. More to come... Dcs002 (talk) 10:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC) UPDATE: Evidence cited in this text is anecdotal, consisting of a subset of the author's patients only. Dcs002 (talk) 10:12, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Ok, here's what I found in a literature search. (Hope y'all don't mind me putting the abstract here!) It's a small sample, which makes weak evidence. This is not the source I'd originally read, but I can't seem to find that one now. :o(

J Autism Dev Disord. 2007 Feb;37(2):260-9.

Sexual behavior in high-functioning male adolescents and young adults with autism spectrum disorder.

Hellemans H, Colson K, Verbraeken C, Vermeiren R, Deboutte D.

University Center of Child and Adolescent Psychiatry Antwerp, ZNA Middelheim, University of Antwerp, Lindendreef 1, B-2020, Antwerp, Belgium. Hans.Hellemans@telenet.be

Group home caregivers of 24 institutionalized, male, high-functioning adolescents and young adults with Autism Spectrum Disorder, were interviewed with the Interview Sexuality Autism. Most subjects were reported to express sexual interest and to display some kind of sexual behavior. Knowledge of socio-sexual skills existed, but practical use was moderate. Masturbation was common. Many subjects were seeking physical contact with others. Half of the sample had experienced a relationship, while three were reported to have had sexual intercourse. The number of bisexual orientations appeared high. Ritual-sexual use of objects and sensory fascination with a sexual connotation were sometimes present. A paraphilia was present in two subjects. About one third of the group needed intervention regarding sexual development or behavior.

BTW, I'm a bisexual aspie. Not really into fetishes or paraphilias, but certainly interested in this subject. Dcs002 (talk) 12:00, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Deletion time, right?

It's just autism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.130.194.109 (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Autism and aspergers syndrome are two separate disorders. In Autistic patients, language is limited, and mental retardation is often, though not always, present, while in the case of aspergers syndrome, language is age-appropriate and mental retardation is not present. However, there was recently a discussion over weather or not to merge this article with autism, as the DSM-V will be removing aspergers syndrome from it's text. However, it was decided that this article will not be merged with autism. I personally supported a merge, however, as I feel that wikipedia should reflect current scientific consensus. Immunize (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm a little confused...you "feel that wikipedia should reflect current scientific consensus"...but you cite the DSM-V, which a) hasn't been released yet, and b) claim that said DSM will remove Aspergers when there's no proof of that yet...to date the strongest proof is a -proposal-. Could one not argue that "current scientific consensus", then, should be based on the current DSM rather than one that hasn't been completed yet? I would really appreciate it if you could elaborate on your reasoning. Doniago (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

What disorder do the so called self diagnosed aspies actually suffer from? I strongly support merging by the way since aspergers syndrome doesn't actually exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.27.246.98 (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

That issue is discussed in #Merge with Autism above; no point in starting a new thread on exactly the same subject. Eubulides (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Why not when people close the discussion after less than a day because they don't agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.73.61 (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

When homosexuality was removed from the DSM, its wikipedia article didn't get erased. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Um... Homosexuality was removed from the DSM a couple decades before there was a Wikipedia.

BTW, this is by no means a closed discussion. The DSM-V working draft has been published and is now open to public and professional comment. I have personally made a number of comments concerning this very issue. I think it's important to do so because otherwise the most poorly trained and notoriously underachieving world of psychiatrists will make these decisions for us. Dcs002 (talk) 12:17, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Offensive Nickname

I don't mean to be rude by suggesting this, but since WP is not censored, shouldn't this article mention the derisive "Ass burgers" nickname somewhere (possibly the cultural aspects section)? It seems to be used pretty frequently on the internet by critics of the Asperger community.GetOutFrog_ribbit 18:53, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Only if you can find a reputable published source that covers this. Looie496 (talk) 19:01, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Does [8] work?GetOutFrog_ribbit 19:08, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

This is an encyclopaedia, not a dictionary of offensive slang. There are other resources on the internet if folk want to look up new ways of being crude. Colin°^Talk 19:36, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Once again, Colin, Wikipedia is not censored. The term clearly has widespread use and is notable enough to be included in news articles about Aspergers as a common insult, and whether it's offensive to some people is irrelevant to its inclusion.GetOutFrog_ribbit 20:32, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm quite aware of the policy, thank you. If Wikipedia was a dictionary of offensive slang, then I'm sure your notability arguments would carry weight. See WP:WEIGHT: "An article should not give undue weight to any aspects of the subject but should strive to treat each aspect with a weight appropriate to its significance to the subject.... Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors or the general public." It doesn't really matter how many schoolchildren with internet access think it is a cool insult. Unless our reliable sources are frequently discussing this insult, it carries no weight and is not worthy of inclusion. Colin°^Talk 21:11, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

There was once an entry on a page of epithets which I believe is deleted now (the whole page, that is). There are also a few redirects, such as assburger, assburgers (deleted now), and Assburger syndrome, but I don't think anyone's tried to make them into full pages. And they've been RfD'd at least six times: search. ♥Soap♥ 20:37, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Looking over the ~RfD's shows me that there never was an entry for ass burgers on any list of epithets, at least not one known to the people voting on the most recent RfD. ♥Soap♥ 20:41, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Colin's right: the number of people who vandalize this page is irrelevant when deciding whether a particular disparaging term is notable enough to mention here. Reliable sources typically don't mention this term as a notable synonym for the disorder, nor do they mention the other slang phrases occasionally used. Eubulides (talk) 21:47, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:NEO (talking about using neologisms) says: "To support the use of (or an article about) a particular term we must cite reliable secondary sources such as books and papers about the term, not books and papers that use the term. ". This term is evidently a neologism - so User:GetOutFrog's reference isn't usable because it's not about the term - it merely uses it. But in any case, look at other articles such as Jews and Antisemitism, Racism or Homosexuality - I don't see any list of insulting names for those kinds of people - why the need here? SteveBaker (talk) 19:35, 15 February 2010 (UTC)

Would you guys change an article about Jesse Owens or Martin Luther King to add that many called them n***rs? NO! NO FRIGGIN WAY! The fact that some people said those things doesn't justify the gratuitous use of derisive terms in an article. I don't care about neologisms. It's simply a matter of describing a condition many people live with and then telling readers "here's how you can piss 'em off!" Dcs002 (talk) 12:33, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Intense World

For those who were looking for a reference to a paper on the Intense World idea which covers, in part, that Aspies (and other ASD) feel too much rather than too little: Try The intense world syndrome - an alternative hypothesis for autism (includes a downloadable PDF of the paper if that's easier for you). A layman's description of what the paper discusses can also be found at Do supercharged brains give rise to autism?. — al-Shimoni (talk) 20:24, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

This might be a plausible explanation at the full-on Autism end of the spectrum - but I don't see how it explains many of the symptoms of Aspergers...and indeed, those articles don't do much to explain that link. However, both Autism and AS are caused by multiple genetic mutations - so it's quite possible that this "Intense World" think is caused by some component of Autistics that AS sufferers don't typically have. It's tricky to know though - you can't really ask people "Do you feel the world very intensely?" - how the heck would I know how everyone else feels it? Well, yeah - it's pretty intense - but how can that be compared to "normality" ? SteveBaker (talk) 20:50, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

re: "but I don't see how it explains many of the symptoms of Aspergers"; I think the second article tries to explain some of the main aspects (of the full spectrum) on fairly easy to read terms, and then explains why classical Autism differs from AS. — al-Shimoni (talk) 21:39, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

Should the article add some discussion about the Asperger community and historical figures who were most likely Asperger?

There are a lot of recent sources that support the theory that several important scientific figures were afflicted by Asperger - hard evidence is hard to obtain for obvious reasons, but can we add information about figures for which there is strong circmustantial evidence such as Einstein and Godel?

That would be very much original research and not allowed. --Golbez (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I think what you would consider strong circumstantial evidence, most people would consider pointless conjecture. Please post the evidence here though so the community can decide.72.43.239.48 (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

We should also discuss Asperger self-identification, as there is a sigificant community who identifies with the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.205.206.25 (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. There is strgon circumstantial evidence that Jesus Christ, Charlemagne, Christopher Columbus, Martin Luther King Jr., among others, had Aspergers syndrome. I support including this new research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.73.61 (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

^^I agree, you should also include notorious aspies like Kanye West and Adolf Hitler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.27.246.98 (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

It might be easier just to list who is not an aspie. 174.137.69.7 (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

Whether or not any of you are serious, there's Historical figures sometimes considered autistic. MichaelExe (talk) 02:42, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Good point MichaelExe. The article already exists. I see no need to clutter this one with redundant information that cannot be proven. Speculative information on the condition of dead celebrities should be excluded. Especially those who died before the diagnosis was even conceived, or were never actually diagnosed. I see no problem however, with listing individuals of note who were actually diagnosed, IF (and ONLY if!) reliable and supporting documentation can be found and cited.--SentientParadox (talk) 23:54, 13 February 2010 (UTC)

Just FYI, Einstein's brain was sectioned and evaluated by several labs in the 1990s, and it showed classical autistic morphology (e.g., enlarged parietal lobes, shortened temporal fissure, greater overall cerebral sphericity). It's more than circumstantial, at least in Einstein's case. Dcs002 (talk) 04:12, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Removed edits

I've removed the following text, added by User:HFAgirl, for discussion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Aspergers Syndrome is a form of neurodiversity, like many disorders that are diagnosed by Psychiatrists, or Psychologists with a phd. One might ask how I can contribute to this page? I am a female with High Functioning Aspergers (HFA), I also have a twelve year old with the same diagnosis. What I want to share is that HFA or aspergers manifests so differently in every individual. My son and I are lucky we both possess gifts bestowed upon us from our neourdiverstiy. I myself have Epilepsy, and ADHD, what I want to say is that what most researchers and Physicians don't see is that all neurologically diverse individuals are the next step on the latter or the evolutionary adaptation of the human brain.

What we think of as "Mental Disorders", such as depression, bipolar, ADHD,OCD,hyperfocas,schizophrenia. These are not mental disorders, thanks to Charles Darwin we are able to be witnesses to our own evolution! This is accomplished by technology such as fMRI, and PET scans. In conclusion I would like to leave this with individuals to ponder, Aspergers or High Functioning Aspergers is believed to be a milder form of Autism. This deduction is made by scientists, researchers, and physicians who are not Autistic. I believe that this makes a huge impact in understanding who this community of Autistic individuals are. Aspergers syndrome red flag is amazing vocabulary, often defined as off the wall. We are characterized as very formal, mistaken for professors, scientists, lawyers, or Physicians.

However we are rendered as silent as those on the other end of the spectrum, who are loosing the anatomical ability to speak. Why? Because all individuals who are neurologically diverse have a huge commonality, they have social deficits. Society does not understand you can't reverse that, however as a community we can be taught to learn coping skills. I wish that the media, researchers would stop misrepresenting, individuals with Aspergers as the milder form. The injustice that they unintentionally cause, does irreparable damage to a group of individuals on the spectrum.

The section recently entered under Characteristics, needs to be appropriately footnoted. Because my ideas and book are influenced by the research of the following scientists.

Footnote: An Evolutionary Basis for the aetiology of autism, Dr.B.Crispi Behavioral Ecology Research Group, Simon Fraser University, Burnaby, BC V5A 1S6, Canada. Dr.B.Crispi, is also in the Department of Biological Sciences, Simon Fraser University.

Dr.C.Badcock Department of Sociology, London School of Economics, London, UK.

HFAgirl, please see Sociological and cultural aspects of autism, where some of these notions are covered. Material added to Wikipedia must be sourced to reliable sources: see WP:V, WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. Also, anecdotal stories are original research and have no place on Wiki. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:00, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

HFAgirl's post is interesting - but it's not something that should be in an encyclopedia article. So it obviously has to be removed. Wikipedia isn't really the place to discuss AS, but if she has a need to discuss this stuff (and all sufferers have a need to do that) - my email can be reached from my user page and there are MANY online resources - a bazillion of which are listed here. SteveBaker (talk) 02:22, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

HFAgirl's account is now gone, but if she comes back, or if anyone else needs a more appropriate and supportive place to discuss these things, try (http://www.wrongplanet.net/). It's run by aspies & auties, it's supportive, it has discussion boards, live chat, resources, etc. I know this talk page isn't a place to promote websites, but 1) I'm not affiliated with that website (just a grateful user), and 2) this article is quite unusual in its popularity and emotionality, so I think posting this resource on the discussion page is a good idea. Dcs002 (talk) 04:06, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

We are not here to promote anything, we are here to write a good article. wrongplanet is not a WP:MEDRS Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:42, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

WP:MEDRS doesn't apply. I only posted the website to this talk page, not the article, and I posted it as an alternative for people who want to talk about their experience with Asperger's, people like HFAgirl. Besides, the site gives no medical advice, so again WP:MEDRS does not apply. It's a discussion website for aspies and auties. Dcs002 (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Her account isn't "gone"?! It's a redlink because she hasn't yet created a User: page. Getting an account actually deleted takes an act of congress around here! SteveBaker (talk) 04:54, 21 February 2010 (UTC)

Oh! My mistake. I thought a red link meant no account. Dcs002 (talk) 07:52, 21 February 2010 (UTC)