"57, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Simon Baron-Cohen image

Very kindly provided by Simon Baron-Cohen, who is nice he even ran down the photographer for permission. It is Non-free but with permission for fair use.

Image can be resized, moved, cropped and upload as second image (with same permissions) whatever, but thought I'd better pop it up before it gets deleted as an orphan.  

 It's not an orphan, since Simon Baron-Cohen points at it. I'd really rather not have this image in Asperger syndrome, for reasons already discussed. This article already highlights SBC's theories too much, at the expense of other theories that are just as respectable; including his image and omitting other eminent contemporary researchers make the article look more like a puff piece than it did already.  

He actually gave it for this article, so let's try and see what the consensus is? There is no reason why you shouldn't get images of other ""eminent contemporary researchers"" as well to balance?  
Other editors, such as SandyGeorge, have complained about a lack of images in this article. Delete this one and there is only one small image of Asperger. Zeraeph is right, get more images to balance it, don't just delete.  

Getting more images of other eminent researchers would ""balance"" the article only in that it would be better to have images of Ehlers, Frith, Gillberg, Happé, Klin, Ozonoff, Rogers, Volkmar, Wing, etc., than having just Baron-Cohen. But this would be changing the article in the wrong direction (not to mention being a source of further disputes). Asperger syndrome should focus on AS, not on AS researchers. With the exception of Asperger himself and maybe Wing, who were instrumental in the history of the disorder, the other researchers just don't make the cut. Rather than head in this direction, the article would be better off stealing the images from Autism. If you take a look at the images in Autism, all but one are far more relevant to AS than this image of Baron-Cohen is.  

I agree with Eubulides. SBC is already over-represented, and the suggestion of increasing focus on the researchers themselves is unnecessary. Maybe a secondary linked article could be created for a 'who's who gallery' of AS researchers (for those attached to this idea).  

I agree with Eubulides and Soulgany101.  Yes, we need images, and there are images that could be used to illustrate AS; SBC isn't one of them, and gives undue weight to one researcher's views.  His image should be used in his article, where anyone curious about him can find it (but the right hand side shoulod be cropped off).   (Talk) 01:"