Wikipedia

Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome/archive3

< Wikipedia:Featured article review | Asperger syndrome
The following is an archived discussion of a featured article review. Please do not modify it. Further comments should be made on the article's talk page or at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The article was kept 15:01, 24 September 2007.

Asperger syndrome

edit

Review commentary

edit
Notifications at WP Psychology, WP Medical Genetics, SandyGeorgia, RN and WP Medicine
previous FAR, 2005
previous FAR 2006

3rd FAR - 1st can be found here, 2nd can be found here.

Top of article lists issues with NPOV, factual accuracy, WP:SYN, confusing prose, and citation issues. I have no significant opinion on the article, and am not watchlisting this debate. I merely bring it here to let others have their say. Giggy Talk 01:32, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I've notified the relevant WikiProjects: [1][2][3] and top two editors of the article (since 3rd highest was an IP): [4][5]. Giggy Talk 01:52, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Giggy, if you nominate an article for FAR, you're supposed to take an interest in the process. You should watchlist it. Tony 06:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Watchlisted. Giggy Talk 23:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
According to Giggy (talk · contribs)'s talk page, s/he has left Wikipedia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:26, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
So, how do you feel that affects the review? --Zeraeph 14:31, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It doesn't; it's just a reminder that we don't need to ping him/her for further input. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:01, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

The issues with this article are daunting, and it has squeaked by FAR twice in bad shape. But, the timing of this FAR is most unfortunate, which the nominator could have realized by reading the talk page (maybe we should institute that suggestion that nominators must first raise issues on talk before nominating—I would have asked the nominator to give it a week to see how things proceed). Work has just begun, although it's not clear yet if the article will be stable or if reverts of attempts to address the deficiencies will continue. If work gets underway without edit warring, this review may need extended time (six weeks). If edit warring continues, then I suggest moving in a timely fashion to FARC. We now have the peer-reviewed literature necessary to rewrite the article, and several editors are helping, but the timing for me is terrible, as I'll be off-Wiki a lot over the next month. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:55, 21 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Delist after FAR. Article has too many tags to be FA. I'd like to offer some suggestions to improve it, especially since my degree is in Psych, but I'm unfamiliar with the disputes. In the meantime, I think SandyGeorgia's idea is feasible. MrPrada 03:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Standard disclaimer, pls read the instructions at WP:FAR. Keep or Remove are not declared during review. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:17, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The dispute is that the entire article needs to be written to be neutral, comprehensive, and factually accurate. We're almost halfway through, working from the bottom up (so the top and the lead are still most in need of work). Your ideas are welcome, as long as they are based on the highest-quality reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Comment Could someone tell me why I see tags saying, "cite this quote" when there's a citation right next to the sentence? Am I just stupid or something?--Rmky87 22:57, 23 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Because those sources don't appear to verify the text they are attached to; that is an issue throughout the article. If someone has the full-text of the journal reports, we need the quotes that supposedly verifies the text. Having seen a lot of journal reports on AS in the last week, I'm fairly certain most of that text can't be cited and overextends the results of the studies/reports. A lot of the text was developed as original research, with later attempts to retrofit citations to the text. There's a lot of synthesis (mostly in the lead), POV and OR (particularly in favor of successful, scientific adults while overlooking children struggling to become successful creative adults). We're going through section by section, verifying the text and rewriting to be certain the text is true to the sources. Once the text is rewritten, we will attempt consensus to 1) write a correct WP:LEAD that summarizes the entire article (it doesn't now) and 2) remove the POV, synthesis and OR from the lead. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:07, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Okay, I have access to two full texts that look useful. The abstracts can be found here and here. Funny story: both of them say that Aspergians suck when it comes to visuospatial analysis. The full text of the first one looks much more useful, since it says that while verbal IQ is superior to performance IQ in Aspergians, high functioning autistics are the opposite. Whoever stuck that in this article (the Wikipedia one, that is) must be awfully confused. As you can see, the abstract says nothing of the sort, so citing it may be a bad idea. Would you like me to copy and paste it's references onto the Talk page?--Rmky87 being lazy
Actually, the one that discusses the visuospatial abilities of HFAs relative to Aspergians is the second one. We don't have to cite the first one at all. I don't know what the hell I was thinking. And I happen to know that it's "its" and not "it's".--165.173.136.127 15:44, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The sections that still need to be completely rewritten, neutralized, and reviewed for reliability are:
  • Causes
  • Characteristics
  • Epidemiology struck, rewritten
  • Classification
  • And last, but most critical, the Lead
I wouldn't count on anything in those sections being true to reliable sources yet. We've rewritten to reliable sources so far:
  • History
  • Comorbidities
  • Treatment (still in my sandbox)
  • Diagnosis
  • Prognosis
  • Cultural aspects
We could use any/all help in sources to verify content for the sections that need to be rewritten, and later we need to smooth out all the text. We need images. There is ample discussion on the article talk page. Confining comments to the article talk page at this point would be helpful. There's no need to fill up the FAR page with detail, as there are many editors at work on the article talk page. Of particular concern is replacing the overreliance on Attwood (a 10-year-old book not subject to peer review) with PubMed or other peer-reviewed sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:34, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Also, it may not be efficient or productive to go point-by-point looking to verify pieces of text, since so much of it is inaccurate. I've got four journal reviews that I'm using to completely rewrite, mostly from scratch, saving what I can verify from the original text. It's a matter of using peer-reviewed secondary sources to verify that info included is relevant and up to date and correctly reported vis-a-vis subsequent and other work. The Characteristics section, for example, may not be salvageable at all; it seems to have developed in bits and pieces by people adding their idea of what AS is, and then later trying to retrofit citations to the text. If you can verify anything sourced to Attwood to a PubMed source, or locate any images, that would be helpful. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:54, 24 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I'd like to suggest during this FAR that care be taken to comprehensively represent the full state of knowledge on this topic; Asperger's is not fully described by medical manuals as these sources by definition have interest only in pathology. There is persistent mention of special abilities in Asperger's among the world's leading subject matter authorities. In order to avoid accusation of POV, I think care should be taken not to dismiss nor to marginalize these claims, nor to engage in OR disputations of them. The two centers of research in the english speaking world may be taken to be the Autism Research Centre at the University of Cambridge, UK, headed by Simon Baron Cohen and The Yale Child Study Center in the USA under the direction of Volksmar. quoth baron cohen, "We have grown familiar with the idea that autism is a 'psychiatric condition', a 'disorder', a 'disability' or a 'handicap' ... autism might be better characterised as a different cognitive style" http://www.geocities.com/CapitolHill/7138/lobby/disability.htm baron cohen writes in subsequent studies that mathematical ability is linked to autism. In fact, of the very most talented mathematicians he studied, he found a *majority* satisfied the DSM for Asperger's. He has also argued for the existence of a genetic correlation between mathematical ability and the AS spectrum. These materials are easy to google. Volksmar says, as children, "these are kids who talk before they can walk". Given that these researchers are THE authoritative researchers in the field, i would suggest that central characterization of what Asperger's IS come as much from these researchers as the DSM, etc. CeilingCrash 00:37, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Reply. Please put forward any reliable sources which are not included in the article on the article talk page.
  1. Any reliably sourced info can be included, subject to due weight. That's not to say undue weight will be given in the lead. Please read WP:LEAD; the lead is a summary of the entire article, not a place to debate only controversial aspects.
  2. Geocities is a personal website and a copyright violation of a journal article: that journal report is used and cited in the article, a link to geocities website is not.
  3. The Baron-Cohen report you mention is used in the article, correctly.
  4. I'm not aware of anyone disputing Volkmar's stature in the autism community .
  5. The Volkmar media statement that "These are kids who talk before they walk" was not in the article before work began; it was used in a footnote, sourcing a statement about "fulfilling careers in math and science" for which so far not a single source has emerged or been verified. "Talking before they can walk" is not "fulfilling careers in math and sciences". In fact, not a single piece of that sentence has been verified accurate:
    Some positive characteristics include things such as enhanced mental focus,[dubious – discuss][citation needed] excellent memory abilities,[dubious – discuss] superior spatial skills,,[dubious – discuss][citation needed] and an intuitive understanding of logical systems.,[dubious – discuss][citation needed] These characteristics can often lead to fulfilling careers in mathematics, engineering, the sciences,[failed verification][1][2][3] music, art, or language.[failed verification][4]
    I've been reading these sources and journal articles for over a week now, and nowhere has there appeared a souce saying anything close to "fulfilling careers in math and science", nor do any of the citations listed verify that text. What Baron-Cohen did say is now accurately reflected in the article.
    Baron-Cohen reports a link between AS and high-achieving mathematicians, physicists and computer scientists that shows that the condition need not be an obstacle to achievement.[2] The symptoms of AS can at some point "fade to normal" and people with AS can become valued workers as adults because of the "intensity of interest and volume of knowledge" that they may bring to idiosyncratic subjects,[5] but they may lose employment if impaired understanding of social norms leads to poor judgment in work site behavior.[6]
    Getting from "not an obstacle to achievement" to "fulfilling careers in math, engineering, etc." is synthesis and original research. If you have a source for fulfilling careers, pls provide. Attwood's book does mention indulging children's interest in gardening so they can become gardeners, if you'd like to include that.
  6. If you have sources to verify any of the previously uncited and unverified text, please provide them and discuss them on the article talk page. Numerous editors are engaged in rewriting the article to be factual, neutral, and an accurate representation of reliable sources; if there is something that has not been included, you should raise it on talk. Since it appears that you helped develop much of the text that is being rewritten, your reliable sources to cite the text would be helpful. Debating on the FAR page when numerous editors are engaged on the article talk page won't help improve the article. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  7. I wouldn't describe anyone at the Yale Child Study Center—including Volkmar—as having an "interest only in pathology"; it's unfortunate you view the same experts you quote in that light, but that's not been my experience with Yale. The problem with the article was that it presented a point of view that was synthesis, original research, and which misquoted and extensively misrepresented the sources, or didn't cite sources at all. There's no need to stretch the facts; there's no problem with accurately reporting what Baron-Cohen, Volkmar or any other reliable source says, accounting for due weight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  8. Regarding the anecdote published in a media report that "these are children who talk before they walk"; what would you like to do with that anecdote? I've now read dozens of sources that mention the gait, posture, balance, clumsiness, motor control and proprioception problems (not atypical to AS, although not mentioned in the DSM). Most articles dedicate more space to discussing atypical language and speech and motor skills issues in people with AS than they do discussing the diagnostic criteria. In what context should we use the statement "talk before they walk" in children with documented issues affecting walking, and how would you propose to do that without getting into original research? We can't; because it was a news report, we have no context—we have a cute anecdote that is certainly true but no context for how to use it in the article. If it's added, it's hanging, unexplained, in the context of the issues affecting walking in toddlers with AS. What we can't do is use it to support superior math and science skills or fulfilling careers. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:49, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Reply Perhaps you misunderstand, I am advocating Volksmar, Baron-Cohen, and Asperger himself be given authoritative weight in terms of the characterization, in their own words. Statements by these authorities should be considered without editorial commentary. For example, the supplied reference to Asperger says, in his words, "to our suprise, we have found autistics, so long as they are intellectually intact, almost always achieve professional success, often in ..." These references are already there. When someone like Baron Cohen writes a paper, "Mathematical Talent is linked to Autism", https://doi.org/10.1007%2Fs12110-007-9014-0, that is encylopedic prima face. We should keep in mind medical sources will choose a different balance, because talent is largely irrelevant to their raison d'etre.
I think a reasonable consensus as to the weight and content of this aspect should be resolved prior to this article being listed as Featured. These are not 3rd or 4th section issues, we have Baron Cohen himself openly questioning whether this is a disorder at all. This is paragraph one; a survey of the world's most recognized sources reveal a mixed consensus as to what Asperger's IS. Let the sources speak for themselves and let the mixed message emerge. Updated CeilingCrash 18:05, 27 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  1. This article is already a featured article; its deterioration in featured status is handled via review, with the goal of retaining the featured status it already has—a goal shared by numerous editors. Even if you succeed in having it defeatured, as you advocated last May when I raised concerns on the article talk page,[6] that will not exempt the article from upholding Wiki policies and guidelines. Featured or not, the article must comply with NPOV, NOR, and RS, so causing it to lose featured status will not generate the result you advocate. The article is now within striking distance of restored status again, and I see no reason it won't be able to retain status.
  2. The issue of diagnostic confusion and controversy is addressed in the article, and will likely be contained in the lead, and doesn't and won't depend only upon Baron-Cohen. That does not mean the entire lead should be Baron-Cohen's opinions and controversial apsects of the diagnosis. The lead is a stand-alone summary of the entire article with due weight given to controversies. I've been asking since May; have you read WP:LEAD yet? The prior lead had two pararaphs of controversy, one sentence that turned out to be completely uncitable, and no summary of the rest of the article.
  3. Almost two weeks after work started and citations were requested, you've now provided a cite for this math link info; that's progress. Please understand the difference (as already explained to you on the talk page) between
    a. A non-controlled, unscientific survey indicating that an unexpected number of people who chose math as a field of study say they have an autism diagnosis (the article is about Asperger's, not autism, by the way), and
    b. A controlled, scientific study comparing a broad population of "normal" controls to people with Aspergers documenting a higher than expected rate of math talent among people with AS.
    The second would document a link; the first suggests an area for further study but proves nothing. It may only show that people with autism in England choose math as a career, not that people with AS are across the board more talented in math than "normal" controls or can have fulfilling careers in math science fields. The Baron-Cohen hypothesis is already mentioned in the article; the only thing that can be sourced is what has been sourced (he suggests a link, etc.), and I've not encountered anything else in the literature to substantiate any further extension of the concept. You have provided no study documenting that people with AS are more talented at math than "normal" controls, or likely to have "fulfilling careers in math", but we have plenty of real studies documenting neuropsych differences which lead to learning difficulties. No one is trying to keep positive information out but first, present reliable sources for your edits on the talk page when asked, not two weeks later on the FAR page; and second, please understand the difference between the weight given to controlled studies vs. informal unscientific surveys in any article, particularly a medical one, please present your sources when requested, and please stop misrepresenting the strength of the results or what the sources actually say.
  4. Others can't read your mind: the supplied reference to Asperger says, in his words, "to our suprise ... What supplied reference? We've been asking you for your sources for almost two weeks. Please provide them on the article talk page, where many editors are trying to source the article and where due weight to unscientific surveys are being discussed. I don't think you're being intentionally obtuse, but these issues have already been explained to you on the article talk page and you seem determined not to accept consensus and explanations from many editors. Responding to you on the FAR takes time that could be invested into restoring the article to status. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
reply I've given you all this. You simply don't read it. Baron Cohen's 1st paper had was a sample size of 1,000 people with a control group of 840. You launched into a similarly bizarre lecture that a control group was necessary as well as a large sample. You didn't read it. Cohen's more recent paper was placed in the Talk page two weeks ago. The quote due to Asperger was in the reference to his primary paper, which was reference #4 for months, since removed. Your objections to the content of these studies is part OR and part misreading; They do use large control groups, etc. - you are right it would be better to randomly find AS in the general population in and test those ppl for math ability, but your objection to Cohen's using mathematics students and then testing them is OR. If you want to attack a study's methods, find another RS that does it.
Our job is not to vette this research. It is to guage the prominence of the sources, report and balance it. There are more sources, indicating more accurate memories among those with AS, but every source i introduce, rather than being judged for credibility - gets lost in OR objections to what the researcher should have done.::
In short, WP:V says "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth." When a luminary in the field announces a finding, we are left only to consider its weight. Even if we happen to be subject matter experts, our role here in wiki is not in an expert capacity.
I and other editors - the consensus who left a couple of weeks ago - are not likely to provide new sources when research such as this (the A you refer to) is dismissed http://www.autismresearchcentre.com/docs/papers/2001_BCetal_AQ.pdf, with a lecture on statistical theory that even a cursory reading of the source would indicate is not necessary.

The encylopedic - and efficient - way to proceed is to guage the credibility and reliability of the source, not the finding, and let the source speak for themselves via direct citation. World-recognized authorities, publishing in peer-reviewed journals, documenting their statistical methods is RS. If you disagree with their sampling methods or their conclusions and thus declare the finding "unscientific" that is an OR rejection. Updated CeilingCrash 21:02, 28 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Three or four editors tried to explain the problem with 1) the source and 2) your interpretation of the source. The information has been accurately included. You are again referring to sources without specifying them, so there's not much else can be done here. If you don't recognize the need to stick to strong medical consensus and the most reliable sources when reporting on medical conditions, perhaps PMID 12455663 will help you understand the problem that can occur by including speculation about things linked to AS absent conclusive evidence. The case of Jeffrey Dahmer: sexual serial homicide from a neuropsychiatric developmental perspective. "We propose that his homicidal behavior was intrinsically associated with autistic spectrum psychopathology, specifically Asperger's disorder." If you want to open the door to inclusion of the type of reports you're mentioning, that door can swing both ways. If you want to include positive speculation, you open the door to negative speculation as well: do you want the article to say that Jeffrey Dahmer's sexual serial homicidal behavior was specifically associated with Asperger's disorder? That's where your logic leads. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:24, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Others agree with the connection between violence and AS: shall we add this and any other speculative info about what is linked to AS, or shall we stick to the higher-quality journal reviews that reflect widespread, peer-reviewed medical consensus that are now being employed in the article? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:48, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
In case you want to persist down this path, here's more on the connection between Asperger syndrome and serial killers: these are the kinds of sources we are removing from the article in favor of peer-reviewed literature. Pls consider carefully the consequences of ignoring WP:UNDUE and WP:MEDRS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:33, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I'll write the sentence for you; not only do you want to use non-reviewed unproven inconclusive speculation, you want it in the lead, so let's just add the following to the lead, keeping it balanced:
  • Some researchers report a link between AS and mathematical ability that can lead to fulfilling careers in math, physics and sciences; other researchers report a link between violence and sexual serial homicidal behavior, indicating that Jeffrey Dahmer's specific psychopathy was related to AS.
That's where your editing pattern leads; happy now? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:58, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I am rather afraid that, having dug the Dahmer article up, you had probably better include it to maintain NPOV. It's a formal, peer reviewed study. You can't "spin" the article by exclusion any more than inclusion. Oh well, at least he was a competant, and prolific serial killer, that might offset the popular image of "Aspie as useless and ineffectual" a little?Zeraeph 03:05, August 29, 2007 (UTC)
You might have read it more carefully than I did, so pls quote from the sources if I'm wrong, but I didn't see that it was a formal study or a formal diagnosis; it seems to be someone's opinion and speculation. Also, there's a broader point here. We don't rely exclusively on primary sources on Wikipedia. The reason we use the journal reviews is that we rely on secondary source commentary to interpret controversial and confusing results for us and assign due weight to statements like these, rather than relying on the primary source, individual report. The parallel between these two cases is that no important secondary source has mentioned either Dahmer or the math connection; they are both no more than speculation by individuals that got published, haven't been mentioned in any important medical journal, and don't rise to the level of importance of being mentioned in any secondary source review. Neither of these meet WP:RS and WP:ATT guidelines; the math issue has two sentences in the article now only because CeilingCrash has insisted, not because there is any worthy mention of this issue in any important literature. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:06, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
It's Ferrari, Silva and Leoung (very reputable names and familiar WP:RS from other psych articles), from the Journal of Forensic Sciences. PMID 15171195 is one review of it on PUBmed, it is cited here [7] - I'm sure there are more, but I'm in a hurry here. I cannot imagine what else it would need to fit WP:RS. You really had better include it to avoid POV. --Zeraeph 12:34, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I linked to the full text of that Letter to the Editor above. It's only a letter to the editor; in other words, someone's opinion that got published. Journals have different policies on what they will publish as a Letter to the Editor. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:49, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The source under discussion is this http://www.autismresearchcentre.com/docs/papers/2001_BCetal_AQ.pdf . My allegation has been such sources - and this is one of many - primary and secondary sources, have been dismissed without so much as reading them. Your response was
"either Dahmer or the math connection; they are both no more than speculation by individuals that got published."
Quod erat demonstrandum CeilingCrash 20:07, 29 August 2007 (UTC) Out[reply]
As stated before: the conclusions of that paper are already included in the article, and you are overextending the results. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:44, 29 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (copied on talk page) I am very concerned that the article has developed a really alarming POV creep. Not sure why or how that is happening. But I am sure that I honestly do not have time to have every word I say, and source I suggest, dismissed out of hand for, often spurious, reasons, as has happened to other editors here. I stopped editing to avoid the stress of the constant arguments here, honestly believing the article was in safe hands, so what the heck? I pop back to look and find that there are illustrations giving WP:UNDUE to one, unproven neurological theory of Autism (not even AS) and an anti-psychotic that is occasionally prescribed, and quoteboxes [8] that highlight ONLY the most negative and disparaging quotes about AS, completely distorting the impression given to any casual reader of the nature of the condition and those who have it. The Tourette syndrome article, for example, has never had similar quoteboxes. --Zeraeph 07:54, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
No need to have the same discussion in two different places; here's my response to you on the article talk page. Basically, TS already has sufficient images, while we're seeking images for AS, and I didn't expect you to think that "One of the most striking features of individuals with AS is their passionate pursuit of specific areas of interest" was "negative and disparaging". I'm still not sure why you think the brain image of areas implicated in AS *and* autism is undue weight, but we can all explore that on the talk page. Very little is "proven" wrt neurological conditions, but we can still reflect strong consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 08:42, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Here is my full response to you. The subliminal message created by the quoteboxes and images, in sequence [9], indicates cold blooded, single minded people without verbal skills or grace who are brain damaged and need medication. That is POV.
Risperidone is not of any particular significance or relevance to AS, and the suggested neurological features of Autism (not AS) are not relevant at all (unless you are now prepared to accept sources that reference Autism without specific reference to AS in the article as well?) so it becomes misleading to use them.
On the talk page you imply that you must find more images for FA status. I think it is a very good idea to raise that issue here, because any attitude of "images for the sake of images", particularly semi-relevant or irrelevant images, as a qualifier for FA, is unreasonable. If there are no relevant images available, then there are not. --Zeraeph 12:40, 31 August 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • (outdent) I've been involved in the copy-editing of part of this nomination. It's not an easy job to revamp, but I'm satisfied that it's going in the right direction, particularly Sandy's efforts to present the rather fragmented literature in as scientifically and socially balanced way as possible, while providing as much cohesion as possible. Tony 01:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Unfortunately, having have time to sit and read the article fully I am forced to regretfully concede that it has developed an overall negative bias so serious that I have been left with no option but to delink it from several websites where I trusted the article to provide a consistently objective dynamic overview for years (something that I felt was more objective and balanced than providing a static overview). The sources seem fine, but the information cited to them is confined to the negatives (though an equal amount of positives do exist in the sources, and remain unmentioned), and much of the text seems to have a further negative bias.
Equally, the current nature of the text makes it totally inaccessible to anyone with less than third level comprehension (though, in it's current, biased, state, perhaps I should be thankful for small mercies?)
This is a particularly significant article globally in terms of influencing attitude and opinion. Because of the specific nature of AS, those affected are more likely to seek information on the internet. During the years of it's existance this article has built a solid reputation, even in print, as a balanced and neutral source. The RL damage done by this negative POV shift will be considerable. Up to this point, the editors involved honestly seem more interested in justifying what they have done and "winning", than in whether the article is actually fair, balanced, objective and accessible, as it should be.
My evaluation of this situation is as detached and impartial as it needs to be, but as someone who has to directly deal with the RL fallout I do not feel I can continue to maintain impartiality in my comments for much longer, so I am taking a Wikibreak rather than start "saying what I REALLY think" and incurring sanction. --Zeraeph 10:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

FARC commentary

edit
Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), prose (1a), organization (4), and stability (1e). Marskell 13:53, 8 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep. Substantive points in review commentary have been addressed by a substantial rewrite by SandyGeorgia, myself, and others. Citations are now high quality and support the claims made. Prose is of a professional standard; I won't claim "brilliant". Organization now conforms to WP:MEDMOS. Since we finished major editing today I can't claim the article is stable. The article, like every article about the autism spectrum, remains controversial, but it is now high-quality. Eubulides 22:17, 19 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove I have considered this long and hard. During this review, as during the last, serious issues of WP:OWN have arisen, where a single editor has dedicated between 60 and 80 hours a week, whenever necessary, to effectively preventing anyone else from editing this article for FAR in any substantial way unless they are prepared to embrace a subordinate role to an editor who's main area of knowledge is more likely to be featured article reviews than Asperger syndrome. This is not the place to discuss that issue as a whole, and I do not intend to do so, but after due consideration I feel certain aspects of that are relevent to FA status.
I do not feel that under those circumstances an article can be considered "stable". 11 months after the last FAR the article was largely unrecogniseable [10]. Not because old editors had come back and reverted, but because new editors had found the contents unsatisfactory. An annual, overhaul for FAR that does not remain by consensus is not a stable article.
I also feel that, as the exclusion of editors, and the contribution of editors, who refused to subordinate themselves has taken clear priority over the quality of the article, I do not see how it could possibly be an example of the best that Wikipedia can produce. To the contrary, it is an example of the antithesis of everything Wikipedia stands for.
Lastly, without the without the autonomous input of a variety of editors there is no way to avoid POV creep, no matter how subtle, and no matter how subtle, POV creep does not add up to a featured article. --Zeraeph 11:56, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Remove and improve per Zaraeph. In its present form the article is open to credible accusations of POV, in that it does not reflect the dual nature (disability versus gift) articulated by the leading centers of research in this field, particularly the U Cambridge Centre for Autism Research (Baron-Cohen), the Montreal/U Wisconsin group, and the Yale Center for Child Studies (Volksmar). It is more important to me that further work is done to balance the article than that a star appears next to it. updated CeilingCrash 17:33, 20 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong Keep because each contentious section now leads to a main or child article where emotionality and cutting edge, but not yet strongly enough peer reviewed and replicated can be effectively presented. This is the type of article that attracts emotionally charged readers, for these are THEIR children and diagnoses that have impacted too close to deal with an unemotional NPOV article. The daughter articles (linked at the TOP of each section) allows those who need more, who need more sources of optimism and hope, who need more positive spin. This gives them those platforms that will keep a well-written encyclopedic quality article from being destroyed again by quotes, research results and "facts" that cannot be verified by those who have been struggling with the rewrite.

And some who want things to stay as they already are have often not offered anything in exchange and that makes me irritated as I want to see them add reworded things or help fix the citation errors or add new things that can pass the Wiki encyclopedia test. For me, it seems critics can be taken more seriously when the critic is a participant in the process. There have been very active and productive participants as well as being vocal critics (should point out some persons are on vacations and have not been available).

To those persons with strong objections, perhaps some strong importing of deleted material and significant editing begun on these sister or child articles would be a compromise. And perhaps it is now time to contact those editors who did a lot of work on the 2006 edition, but who haven't dropped by in this past month so they can look this over. My opinions and thoughts, for what they are worth Kiwi 01:49, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

removed comment that was not part of what I posted in rewrite Kiwi 18:17, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Replacing explaination that first comment was replaced as per agreement with Kiwi [11],[12]--Zeraeph 18:31, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
    • Comment
  1. In terms of Wikipedia, "sources of optimism and hope" and "more positive spin" would constitute clear WP:POV, and should definitely disqualify an article from featured article status. - Zeraeph 02:22, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
      • Comment I follow the further point of your argument, and if that were what happened here I would agree with you, but, in truth, no editor was allowed to contribute without the permission of one editor who seems to have near unlimited time to revert and tie them up with, largely spurious, arguments on Talk. To my mind, every aspect of WP:OWN and WP:GAME were flouted openly here. There is no point in making contributions that you know are only going to be reverted anyway based on endless, convoluted, rationales that nobody has the time to follow let alone challenge. To my mind, that is all very clever in terms of "strategy", and suggests a considerable potential for playing chess, but it does NOT lead to a fair and balanced article created by consensus.--Zeraeph 06:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
(outdent) Comment I ceased participating - and i don't think I'm alone in this - due to a persistent failure to observe WP in the consideration of sources. I would introduce a peer-reviewed, large-sample, conclusive study published by a luminary in the field only to be confronted with nearly delirious nay-saying. "It must be peer reviewed." "It is." "But we need a large sample." "There's 1000 data points." "I don't see where in this study it says ..." "Let me paste it for you." "This study does not prove causation." "It doesn't claim causation." "Well, given all this controversy, I'm not sure ..." And so on. A startling failure to make coherent progress. I had 20 or so sources. I walked away at 2. The Archives make manifest the failure, so far, to dispassionately adhere to policy while surveying the broad, conflicting and evolving body of knowledge w.r.t. Asperger's - with an apostrophe - the preferred american spelling. CeilingCrash 04:10, 21 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove. I'm extremely pressed for time at the moment (late for a wedding) so can't say as much as I'd like, but this is my first involvement in a FAR, and I have to admit to being caught by surprise by the stability requirement. As should be apparent to anyone reviewing the talk pages and discussion above, there are still a lot of disagreements about what this page should be like, and I can't imagine the article being stable unless someone succeeds in asserting permanent ownership of it, which should not happen. I hope that the conflicts in perspective can be worked out eventually, but doubt that it will happen soon. Rather, I expect that substantial changes will continue for some time to come. Poindexter Propellerhead 01:50, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

comment I can't say "keep" since I already have, but wish to point out that one of the biggest problems in attempting to bring this article to FAR status was to weed out huge amounts of material about various evolving theories of everything from causation to treatment to whether or not AS has anything in the world to do with the autistic spectrum of disorders. Most of this material (and even much of the retained text) was totally unsourced or miscited to have little or not relationship to text it was attached to... As has been said, the objectives were to trim the size and to describe AS alone, as best as it is universally understood, while addressing the fact that there is much contention and variant thought. I think this has been well dealt with by the enhanced creation of child articles (prominently noted/linked at the BEGINNING of each relevant sub-topic). Only in such child topics can these issues be fully and realistically addressed with the vast quantities of studies available. Within the existing article, to reduce such scope to a sentence or two would be demeaning and dismissive of these very important issues. I feel that this compromise can lead to a very enriched presentation of the Asperger Syndrome without anyone who reads the central article being led to think that there is no more to be said, explained or understood about AS. -end of comment. Thank you for listening- Kiwi 04:36, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Remove I had a hard time deciding this but I finally had to vote Remove. There are several reasons:

(1)I think the current article is too POV and does not reflect a balance between the "medical condition" and "alternate cognitive type".

(2)I also think it is obvious that there are strong opinions on both sides that have not been worked out - and there is no rush. It is not worth risking the quality of the article by rushing it to just "get a star next to it" as someone said. As a person diagnosed with "mild" Asperger's and with a son who has been diagnosed with a far more serious case I am committed that this article be an authoritative and accurate NPOV source of information for the circle of people around myself and my son.

(3) I am concerned that - upon reviewing the histories- that it does seem that some valid studies have been suppressed or removed because some editors were aggressively maintaining their point of view. I don't want the Dahlmer article quoted but I also don't want POV suppression. So remove on my part! Alex Jackl 17:29, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Suggested FA criteria concerns are citations (1c), prose (1a), organization (4), and stability (1e)

  • Further comment The Reject reponses have all cycled round issues that properly belong on and have been extensively discussed on the Talk Page for the AS topic.
  • first of all, this is a medical article, not a social issues article, not a "what to hope for your AS child" or how some adult AS see themselves and are seeking more public understanding and acceptance.
  • second of all, if this medical article were to be considered NPOV because of the fact that it IS a medical article, then the bipolar article or breast cancer article or innumerable articles, if seen the same way, would fail the medical article test and changed to show a plethora of POVs.
  • third of all, allowing room for adequate presentation of each desired alternative interpretation of AS would easily double or more the length of the article, while still leaving the topics less than thoroughly covered.
  • I hold that the "main articles" (or daughter-hild-whatever they have been called) are seen for what they are, not POV non-Wiki compliant topics, but, over time, as with all Wiki articles, will come to attract the quality of editors who can teach and guide newcomers to properly present and cite the basis for properly presented facts.
  • I summarize by pointing out that this Article Review forum is not the place to argue issues that were already argued out on the talk page. In each case, it was attempted to explain that what was desired was to include non-medical, non-peer reviewed demonstrably replicated research. In other cases, it was begged and begged that the original quotes be presented to support material that had gradually devolved into what seemed OR or hopeful opinion. No one was able or willing to do so over the past 6 weeks.
No one, including Sandy or Eupi, are trying to say that the newest of theories, hypotheses and early research studies should be ignored, but are simply saying they cannot be legitimately covered, at length without proper medical-worthy citation, in a a medical article.
However, in articles that deal with theories and tests of treatments and cures, social movements afoot, the history of the AS, covering the evolution of how AS has been understood and interpreted over time, even going into depth about recent neuropsychiatric research involving MRI scans of LFA, HFA and AS subjects, seeking for brain similarities and differences to clarify diagnositic issues. I believe that all these topics need thorough coverage in their own topic pages. I think the present acknowledgements and links to the main topic pages is the ultimate solution to keeping this medical article a medical article.

Kiwi 19:08, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I am in complete agreement with the creation of "daughter articles". Prior to this FA I actually printed off a synopsis (not the whole) of the existing article at that time, to accompany a presentation, and was shocked to find it came to 8 pages. That told me, there and then, that the subject needed daughter articles...and it got bigger since, before it got smaller.
However, that being said and done, the main article needs to summarise all aspects and POV on Asperger syndrome even more than before. Articles such as Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome are the medical articles (just as History of Asperger syndrome is nothing of the kind. With the breakdown into other articles I believe that Asperger syndrome should be less of a strictly medical article than ever before. (BTW now you have expressed a clear, objective opinion, would you mind terribly if we archived all the other stuff, and my responses, to avoid senseless clutter?)--Zeraeph 19:40, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment in form of responses to Zeraeph
Hi, Zeraeph, first to address your last issue, I don't think any of this FARC should be removed, save for the "senseless clutter". If you know how to make it disappear or be archived on its own, I give an unqualified YES.
Next, I happen to know that you are an excellent editor and a more than good writer, and I would like to kindly ask you if you would please create that first draft of such a separate paragraph that would indeed summarize all POV and contentious areas. Your long and close familiarity with AS gives you an edge over those of us who are definitely in the learner stage. Put it on the Talk Page. And your sandbox, too? It would have to be concise and precise to each and all. Someone needs to do this. It would have the ability to pull all the random mentions into one locale. Kiwi 20:19, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Now I have decluttered as I see it Wikipedia:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome/special archive, but if you disagree, move stuff back. I left your "strong keep" with it's original timeline, I think you reiterated all the objective points since (and very well too)?
I will take a stab at what you suggest tomorrow, but to be very honest with you, I am "painting too close to the wall" whenever I try. I feel others, like PP and CC, always wind up expressinbg it all far better than I could. So don't hold your breath.--Zeraeph 20:57, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Gee, Z - didn't expect you to use a meat cleaver. :o))Yeah, I'd like to see the good stuff put back in, even if I've said it better since. Makes my "strong keep" now look like a rather shallow knee-jerk opinion without any basis. So I presume I have to do this myself????? You're the expert, not me. Please?
So go ahead and paint close to the wall! If you start if off, then PP & CC will be forced to step into your sandbox, then you can bring the result into the Talk page for comments and critique, to clean it up, smooth the presentation, make sure all the links to other pages are properly in place. All that good stuff all gathered together rather than scattered here and there. It will be good to see how it works. Kiwi 21:15, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
I disagree, I think your later, objective, commentary, if anything made your point more strongly, I don't agree (in this specific case), but that doesn't mean the point is not well made. Actually, I doubt if we have any fundamental disagreement at all that could not be ironed out in the way you suggest.
The problem is that this article was not recreated in the way you suggest at all, nor discussed with the open minded respect you offer. --Zeraeph 21:31, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

We have never had to refactor a FARC page before; I've restored the text removed by Zeraeph.[13] Zeraeph, please refrain from removing commentary. Please, both of you, read WP:TALK, confine your commentary to issues related to WP:WIAFA, and if you must tit-for-tat like this, then please use the talk page associated with this page, at Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome/archive3. Please don't disrupt this page further; if you want the page refactored, pls discuss it at WT:FAR. Please don't create other archives that remove FARC commentary to a strange page; if you must comment elsewhere, use the talk page associated with this page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

I have returned the page to the state in which I am only prepared to defer to User:A Kiwi's choices. It is not for you to dictate and micro manage every page you edit over the wishes of other editors. My wishes, and those of User:A Kiwi have the same weight as yours, and, in combination, override them. --Zeraeph 21:48, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Will you two please work this out on the associated talk page? I've put a record of the refactoring there. Zeraeph, you can't remove someone's Strong Keep commentary, and A Kiwi indicated displesure with "the meat cleaver". Please take it to talk; this is disrupting the FAR. Wikipedia talk:Featured article review/Asperger syndrome/archive3 SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:55, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
We have already worked it out, without your input. I have archived the discussion on the amiable understanding that User:A Kiwi will restore anything she feels is missing. I cannot really understand why you would wish to challenge that civilised resolution? It seems to me that the only person disrupting the FAR at this point is you? --Zeraeph 21:58, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment: I'll offer no judgement on who is disrupting here, and only say: almost always, you cannot remove anyone's comments. You can remove a post full of cussing etc., that says nothing applicable to the topic, but you can't remove comments that you (merely) disagree with. Repeatedly doing so is blockable. So don't. Marskell 22:23, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment Marskell, it is not about "comments I disagree with", User:A Kiwi has eloquently reiterated plenty of those with my blessing, it is simply about the removal of irrelevant personal speculation about me that User:A Kiwi was unaware was inappropriate, and was only too willing to see archived, for the sake of simplicity, subject to her approval. Now, in the event that you feel I am sufficiently notable for my personal details to merit an article, feel free to open one, and any who wish may contribute. I raised the question of archival on WP:AN/I several hours ago and not one single person (including User:SandyGeorgia raised any objection. --Zeraeph 22:34, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
If you two will please use the talk page here, we can all mutally work out a way to refactor the page to everyone's satisfaction. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 22 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment I follow the further point of your argument, and if that were what happened here I would agree with you, but, in truth, no editor was allowed to contribute without the permission of one editor who seems to have near unlimited time to revert and tie them up with, largely spurious, arguments on Talk. To my mind, every aspect of WP:OWN and WP:GAME were flouted openly here. There is no point in making contributions that you know are only going to be reverted anyway based on endless, convoluted, rationales that nobody has the time to follow let alone challenge. To my mind, that is all very clever in terms of "strategy", and suggests a considerable potential for playing chess, but it does NOT lead to a fair and balanced article created by consensus.--Zeraeph 06:56, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

Comment in reply. Since many people (like me) look at the bottom of the page to catch up on what has been said since their last visit, I took the liberty (hope that's okay) to copy your comment up high in the Comments section in order to respond to it.
Your comments follow your arguments of last year regarding the review of the same article - that only one editor, the same one as last summer, dictated to the point of refusing to allow any POV but hers to be retained. This particular editor is particularly expert in bringing articles to FAR status and the reason is that she is very knowledgeable in what it takes for an article to achieve that status. To someone understanding the standards governing a medical article, what had to repeatedly explained were not "convoluted rationales" and to suggest that they were could be ignored since "nobody has the time to follow let alone challenge" is ludicrous in the extreme. To reduce the hard justifiable work on this terribly degraded article to a supposed exercise in "cleverness" and "strategy", a game of chess, shows me a great deal of disregard for a talented skillful effort built on years of intelligent hard work. Kiwi 14:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment (sorry to be patchy but my connection is WEIRD today) Firstly, the priority on Wikipedia is the actual quality of the article, NOT whether it can be "finnessed" through FA status, by FA regulars. That is like learning how to pass driving tests instead of learning to drive. Secondly, if you look back (through archives is best) you will find that the "convoluted rationales" I referred had little or nothing to do with unbderstanding of the standards governing a medical article at all and a lot to do with disputing which way a bean grows up a stalk for the sake of it. --Zeraeph 15:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Sandy & Eubi both availed themselves of the kinds of research reviews that are acceptable to a medical article. Those who most objected presented nothing but dismay that conjecture and OR was being removed, but few were able or willing to spend the past weeks gathering anything, available through a variety of sources. I have learned that you can often email an author for a full abstract and he will insteaad delightedly send you the entire article. It can be that easy.
'Comment Not when every piece of research thus obtained is summarily dismissed (often unread) on spurious grounds then buried under verbiage of questionable relevancy. --Zeraeph 15:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Criticism of those who lead is easy. Taking the effort to become an authoritative contributor takes a bit of effort, but is open to all. Better to be a student and take the time to read those rationales than to dismiss them as meaningless. It is easy to sit on the sidelines and jeer, much harder to become an educated contributor - but it is worth it. Kiwi 14:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment On Wikipedia, as in life, he who imposes leadership without consent, or respect, simply dictates. We are not here on Wikipedia to be "leaders and educators" (see WP:OWN), we are here to produce and edit valid information by consensus. In fact the "kinds of research" availed of were usually of no greater or lesser quality than those dismissed under an avalanche of superfluous verbiage on talk...
You would be surprised how many people, worldwide, behave exactly the same way this year as they did last...it is called "consistency". --Zeraeph 15:27, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I believe that in order to make progress certain of us need to drop their presumption of authority, and dispassionately apply WP to high quality sources - balancing their relative weight. I think we also need to drop our preconceptions as to what kind of article this is, and let the sources themselves characterize Asperger's - warts and all : Asperger, Wing, Baron-Cohen, Attwood, Volksmar, and so on. I agree with Z's suggestion of mediation, not as a means for one group to bring another 'to justice', but because a referee will bring the many points of contention to speedy conclusion or compromise in compliance with WP.
I would further suggest this : perhaps we can reach agreement over the sources first, come up with a list of the world's most recognized sources - primary and secondary - and then balance what it is they say, irrespective of personal beliefs as to their statements. In short - let's not write an article about what Asperger's is; let's write an article on what the prevailing experts say it is. CeilingCrash 16:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
That's a good idea actually, particularly with all the spin off articles now. This may be a bit "cutting edge" but I wonder if it would be possible to set up a mediated "AS and Autism Project" to agree these things? I think the alternative is to have the same sordid scrummage annually, even if with different players, to get a "token AS article" long enough to fast track FA. That isn't representative of either AS or Wikipedia.--Zeraeph 18:23, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Comment - a directed response Zeraeph, this quote of yours, "On Wikipedia, as in life, he who imposes leadership without consent, or respect, simply dictates. We are not here on Wikipedia to be "leaders and educators" (see WP:OWN, we are here to produce and edit valid information by consensus."

Indeed, elder editors are repeatedly urged to educate those less experienced and to lead in topic development by leading by example as well as explaining why something doesn't hit the mark, no matter how well intended.

As to you suggesting WP:OWN has any relevancy on AS, it holds not a drop of water as the editor you are targeting had not taken so much as a peek at the topic since last July. Her role is helping bring suggested topics to FAR status or to help them regain FA status. She has not, in any manner whatsoever, exerted any sense of ownership at all. She spends a few weeks, then moves on.

As to valid information, total agreement on medically peer reviewed valid. But consensus is seldom or never an outcome, but those who oppose improvement do not, via words and viewpoint, make their lack of consensus have greater weight when WikiPedia policy is still the ultimate goal - to make this venture, in every topic eventually, completely encyclopedia worthy. Kiwi 18:04, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Reply You really got me there Kiwi...cos if I concede you "elder editor" status you can probably have me under WP:CIVIL. :o)
Of course, like Marriage, WP:OWN applies as much to episodes of ownership as to a lifetime of it. It is about the manner of the presumed ownership, not the duration.
Also, I don't mean this unkindly, but you do have a history of innocence and confusion over what actually constitutes "medically peer reviewed valid" [14] and might not always be the best person to make a final judgement about what that is? Though you are AWESOME on accessible text. --Zeraeph 18:36, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
Suggesting Formal Mediation
edit

Before this gets any bloodier (or becomes a lifetime vocation for anyone) I suggest the wisest course would be to bring this to WP:MC, and have all the issues here formally mediated once and for all. For myself I am concerned about:

But I am sure others can add to that list. Until this is properly resolved it will just crop up over and over again. --Zeraeph 19:50, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Clear examples of article instability, which I see as the main reason why this needs to be sorted out finally with Medcom:

--Zeraeph 20:48, 23 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]

  • Suggesting that formal mediation is a waste of time here. This article, in my view, now well and truly satisfies the FA criteria, and is an important contribution to the field. IMO, an excellent job has been done in negotiating NPOV; there may be room for tweaks here and there from time to time, but the article should be retained. I call for this nomination to be settled now as "Keep". I do not believe that it's appropriate to wind FAR/C into a mediation process: bring it to mediation if you must, but outside and after this process, which should not be influenced by this tactic. Before we know it, every second FAC and FAR will end up at mediation. Tony (talk) 08:54, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
  • Strong keep, and kudos to Eubulides for another fine restoration of a controversial article to featured status. In one month, and with over 30 different editors and 700KB of talk discussion encompassing six talk page archives, and with all editors afforded time to review most proposed text in Sandbox prior to it being added to the article, the article has gone from a poorly and unsourced article containing problematic images and factual inacccuracies, synthesis, POV and original research [15] to a reliably sourced, comprehensive article with free images, reflecting majority and minority viewpoints about the condition. Notably, in spite of on- and off-Wiki canvassing and stealth canvassing (more than meeting the Raul intelligent design test for bringing articles under attack to featured status), the article has enjoyed stable consensual editing for at least a month. Summarizing the opposes raised above:
  • Stability: there seems to be some confusion about the stability criterion. There were problems prior to the FAR period, but the article has enjoyed remarkable stability during the FAR, with extensive talk page discussions of every edit. Those saying the article is unstable haven't presented any indication of instability. Zeraeph presents diffs showing the article was massively rewritten, which reflects the restoration needed during this FAR due to the inferior version which passed FAR last year and the deterioration in the article during the year.
  • POV: there seems to a misunderstanding of WP:UNDUE. Majority viewpoints based on the highest quality sources are reflected, while every minority viewpoint raised on talk and that could be attributed to reliable sources has been included, some even in the lead in order to balance positive and impairing aspects of the condition.
  • Zeraeph's arguments are the same she used in last year's FAR, which were resoundingly rejected in four discussions at the administrators' noticeboards and three mediations. She has never presented a single piece of evidence that the article is POV or unstable; no one has ever presented any reliably sourced point of view that is not already included in the article and accorded due weight. Zeraeph's arguments amount to IDON'TLIKEIT, with no actionable evidence backing up any of her claims about the article or any editors involved in the article.
Closing: I am going to keep this. The general precedent on split reviews is to lean toward keep. (And I'm not really sure how split this really is, when you get past some of the cruft that's been posted.) The specific precedent would be Global warming. In both, daughter articles have been deemed the best way to handle extraneous details. In both, peer reviewed journals have been vigorously demanded. And in both, the article has been good and information rich despite cries to the contrary. The prose is solid here and the page comprehensive.
And no, formal mediation is not within FAR's ambit. Marskell 14:55, 24 September 2007 (UTC)[reply]
The above discussion is preserved as an archive. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the article's talk page or in Wikipedia talk:Featured article review. No further edits should be made to this page.
  1. ^ Cite error: The named reference Att1 was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  2. ^ a b Cite error: The named reference Baron-Cohen was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  3. ^ Cite error: The named reference Asperger was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  4. ^ Moran, Mark. Asperger's May Be Answer To Diagnostic Mysteries. Psychiatric News October 6, 2006, Volume 41, Number 19, page 21, "These are kids who talk before they can walk."
  5. ^ Cite error: The named reference Moran was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
  6. ^ Cite error: The named reference emed was invoked but never defined (see the help page).
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Wikipedia:Featured_article_review/Asperger_syndrome/archive3&oldid=1138476517"