Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive 7

message: Should it be in :Category:Autistic people? The article only says "He was a computer expert who, according to his employer, kept to himself and severely lacked social skills." while List of people from Orange County, California says he was an "autistic murderer". Apokrif 18:16, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: According to Wrong Planet, yes.  Sandy 18:20, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Category of [[William Freund]] 

message: I found several in-line comments which would be better addressed in the talk page.  They did not seem to be warnings or comments, but rather suggestions on improving the piece.  I've italicized the commented portions with appropriate article inclusions for context:
:--The lead is too short, since it lost a paragraph: it was 3 paragraphs, containing a summary of causes and treatment, necessary for comprehensive summary of the article.  See WP:LEAD for guidance.--
CHARACTERISTICS
:AS is characterized by:NINDS (May 11, 2006).  Asperger Syndrome Fact Sheet.  Retrieved 2 July 2006.BehaveNet® Clinical Capsule™.  DSM-IV & DSM-IV-TR: Asperger's Disorder (AD).  Retrieved 28 June 2006. --This list is not explored in the subsequent text. For example, according to the Table of Contents, where does the reader find "repetitive behaviors or rituals"?-- 
:Other features are commonly associated with this syndrome, but are not always regarded as necessary for diagnosis. --What "other features"?  Why is there no discussion of the characteristics from the DSM, glossing over that and going straight to Attwood and Gillberg?  If the article ignores the DSM, it is not comprehensive.--
CAUSES
:The cause of AS is unknown, but since it was properly defined --What does "properly defined" mean?  Try to fix the vagueness here.  The sentence also has prose problems:  it refers back to cause:  was cause "properly defined" or was AS?  Causes have not been adequately discussed in this article.  No mention of information that is known based on twin studies, etc., and all possible causes are given equal weight, even though some of these may only be environmental contributing factors. No mention of genetic/environmental interplay:  section needs to be thorough and comprehensive, and cannot rely on a problematic daughter article with multiple tags.-- several possible causes of AS have been investigated by researchers.
Still somewhat hard to read, but the dashes will help in differentiating the comments and article text.  --Keyne 13:13, 17 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  In-line comments: Request for additions and various cleanup 

message: I found see also list form an early version of the article.  I'm not sure why it was taken out but think this gave some good links to wikipedia articles.
Should this list be put back in the article if not can you explain why it was taken out.--Scott3 00:53, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I haven't got a clue why it has been excluded, except for the TV shows and films part which is too speculative and ill defined to really inform anyone of anything, I think it should go back myself --Zeraeph 01:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ok I'll put it back in expect for the TV section.--Scott3 01:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Have you read the talk page?  It is covered above. I'm no longer editing, but please don't undo the hard work of others.  Sandy 01:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Please read WP:NOT, WP:EL, and while we're on the topic of things that need to be fixed, WP:LEAD.  Wiki is not google, and this will raise objections of a "link farm". Sandy 01:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Wrong topic:  See also which are referenced in the text are not used in See also.  See also is now repeating articles used in text.  It is also silly to delete Special Ed as a category, when autism is one of the largest special ed categories in schools.  This is a POV delete, ignoring the reality of school accommodations for children with autism. Sandy 01:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Can I please have a source for Asperger Syndrome (the topic of the article) as "one of the largest special ed categories in schools"? --Zeraeph 09:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not from me ... I'm not the one adding the category, or who added the category, and talk page comments don't need to be sourced.  Material added to an article needs to be sourced.  If another editor later re-adds the category, you can certainly ask them for a source.  I'm not a fan of the whole IDEA/504 legislative mess in the USA, and I'm not going to spend my time researching someone else's edit.  Has anyone checked what else is included in the Special Ed category?  My point was to not read too much into a category, which is an internal classification to help other Wiki editors.  When it was first deleted, I spent a wee amount of time trying to decipher who had added it, but I couldn't find it in edit history, so I'm not inclined to worry about it.  My other point was that, should that editor re-insert it, you should be prepared to back up your deletion.  It's not a concern to me, but you all may be dealing with it in the future, if it gets re-added.  More importantly, there's a lot of work to be done on the article, and spending time on a category that may or may not ever be re-added here by an unidentified editor may not be the most productive use of time.  Sandy 12:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd want to see this as well. I'd argue that many special-ed accomodations are done out of ignorance and lack of flexibility in schools. This is yet another sign of intolerance. --Rdos 11:28, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I wouldn't even go that far Rdos...I haven't got a clue how many Aspies ARE actually in special ed, the figure might be smaller than you think (focussed attention can mean that, because most of the special ed cases you hear about ARE Aspies, it feels as though most are Aspies overall, when in fact very few are), but I don't think, in this environment where citations are demanded for everything, anyone should sling out a statement like that without both verifying it, and making it a little more specifically relevant. Because I honestly don't think the number of Autistics (a very broad category) in special ed is particularly relevant to the relevance of special ed to Aspies? --Zeraeph 11:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree. It seems like peer-reviewed research is only required for things that the medical people don't like. As soon as it is some medical aspect, be it special-ed, racial prevalence, some obscure speculative cause or threatment, the mere mention somewhere is enough to make it stick here. --Rdos 12:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd argue that the inclusion would push POV more than having without.  It's quite possible that I'm misunderstanding the purpose or use of Categories, however.  Regardless, would not the "Treatment" section cover both adolescents and adults properly?  It certainly seems more comprehensive.  --Keyne 02:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for fixing the See also:  whew, didn't want to see a new problem crop up, that another editor might notice on FAR.  On the special ed category, who knows who added it and how long ago, so I'm not going to worry about it, but if that person puts it back, I don't think a reasonable argument can be made to delete it.  Autism makes up a very big chunk of Special Ed.  A category is just a place to group topics that other editors may want to see when looking at a particular topic:  I view it as more of an "internal" function.  For example, if there were a new special ed law, the people keeping up with that might need to know what articles might need to be updated, or something to that effect. Not following your treatment question?  Sandy 02:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Let's not insert links that already exist within the article into a "See also" list.  It seems "messy" that way.  --Keyne 01:58, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It was all discussed on past talk page entries (possibly now in archives).  Also, some See alsos are in the template at the bottom of the page.  I had done a new template, which incorporated everything in the current template as well as all of the See alsos, but others decided they didn't want it.  It was all discussed on talk page, including external links and See alsos.  Please try to review the history before making changes, at a time that the article is under review.  Sandy 02:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm looking at the archives right now.  I'm not trying to do anyones work.--Scott3 02:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Is this what your refering too?Archive 03 Joe male of Aspies for Freedom--Scott3 02:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: You can please add some pro-cure links to balance POV--Scott3 02:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Huh? The links are not anti-cure. None of the major autistic community sites have links. The links seems to favor the pro-disorder-view, just like the whole article does. --Rdos 09:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think the balancing articles exist:  it seems that pretty much all the Wiki articles have the same bent, which is to overlook medical knowledge.  As far as I've been able to tell, the "medical establishment" story of autism isn't addressed on Wiki.  (You call it anti-cure.  I'm wondering why people associate "treatment" with "cure"?  Children who benefit from certain therapies or accommodations are not being "cured":  treatment does not equal medication or something drastic like deep brain stimulation.)  What I had done (and RN had talked about re-doing) was a new template that included everything.  I don't know where that got left ... I had it speedy deleted when it was decided not to use it. Sandy 02:19, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you saying that wikipedia is biased towards medical knowladge?--Scott3 02:24, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No.  Sandy 12:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: In a nutshell, yes, WP should be, as medical standpoints are very verifiable, whereas lesser pushes are not. In practice, though, people tend to push POV. --Keyne 02:27, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: The basic idea is that some wish to "cure" Autism (and related subsections) whereas others simply want an easier time as they are (therapies/accomodations).  It's a bit much for this talk page, though, but you are correct: the medical community is primarily interested in furthering a nullication of the "adverse" affects ASDs have, so much research into "positive" methods (enhancement, rather than removal, as a goal) is not and probably will not see the light of day.  I believe on WP, you'd call it "OR," then. --Keyne 02:26, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that is not the basic idea. Perhaps you cannot see that many people in the autistic community think that autism mostly can be characterized as "neurodiversity", because most traces of this have been removed? --Rdos 10:08, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're preaching to the choir, Rdos. If I didn't acknowledge that, the sterile medical version is what I would be pushing for as well.  Finding good sources for the other, however, is very difficult.  --Keyne 10:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Should this be put in the article 

message: Among other things, it talks about asortative mating between autistics. The professional claims there is a 4:1 relation between same type parent and mixed-type parent. It also potentially contains sources for other claims that the medical-people have removed. --Rdos 10:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's controversial material, from a non-peer-reviewed source.  Material like that can be added as long as it is not given undue weight:  that is, the context of the material should be presented, and not presented as medically-accepted fact.  And, the same can be said about material from medically-reviewed sources:  just because something can be found in PubMed, doesn't make it "fact" -- there can be newer, conflicting or refuting research, or the study could suffer from methodological problems.  That's why I suggest going to a larger medical tome (such as the handbook above), because it likely analyzes all of the past research, including what has been refuted or replicated.  Even medically-referenced statements must be put in context.  For example, "a prospective, blinded, controlled study on a large sample, replicated by two subsequent studies concluded that ... " is very different from "a retrospective, non-blinded, unreplicated look at a small sample of patients found that ... "  Sandy 12:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  A useful interview? 

message: Back with size info:  current overall size is 50KB, which is not a problem, so there's no need to even check prose size.  No one lately objects to overall size of 50KB, since a well-referenced article will be at least 50KB.  Some current FAs have up to 125 overall KB, because of all the references.  Prose size looks only at the prose:  that is, how much the reader actually has to digest.  Since this article is only at 50KB overall (which includes references, templates, pictures, etc), it's content (prose) is undersized relative to many current FAs.  The article content should be beefed up. Here is how you calculate prose size:   Sandy 13:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Article and prose size

message: I have listed this RFC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Maths%2C_science%2C_and_technology#Miscellaneous it seems the best, most realistic, and civil solution.
Here is exactly what I said:
"This article is now FARC, there seem to be some serious problems with NPOV and consensus to which no immediately satifactory solution is presenting itself. It really needs all the impartial input it can get."
I'm not sure RFC is the best place to list it, but I am sure the article and possible solutions to it's difficulties, needs impartial input.
--Zeraeph 14:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Are we still having this sort of problem?  And, if so, where, so that it can be addressed? --Keyne 17:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: RFC

message: It is claimed that "epilepsy" is a cause of autism (note autism, AS isn't mentioned). However, this is not what the article claims. It is a comorbidity study of autism spectrum disorders and epilepsy. Since it is a comorbidity study, it doesn't say (and cannot say) that there is a causal relationship. IOW, this cause should be REMOVED. It could instead be included in comorbidities.
More refuting on this can be found here: []. It says that "improvement in language function often does not follow successful treatment of seizures". IOW, there seems to be no relationship between autistic symptoms and epilepsy.
--Rdos 17:39, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good!  I know some (like this) have published refutes, and it's just a matter of tracking them down properly.  It doesn't make sense to make "wild" alterations without some substance.  Holding ourselves and the article to a higher standard only serves to improve it!  --Keyne 17:47, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causes - epilepsy 

message: This information really should be self-evidently removed. How could enlarged volumes and different development trajectories be proposed to be causes of autiam? If anything, this should be used as evidence for the neurodiversity view.
The citation used to support this claim say this itself: "The cause of amygdala and hippocampal abnormalities in autism is currently unknown.". --Rdos 18:21, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Enlarged brain 

message: OK, I looked closer at the split, and I think you can make it work, although it still needs some tweaking for flow, and some missing content.  The split whacked out some of the references, though.  The info is still in there, but needs to be re-arranged.  Do you want me to work on fixing them later today, after you're done?  Sandy 19:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Or better yet, maybe we should wait to fix them?  Until the article really settles down?  Sandy 19:55, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With the way the references are done, they just rearrange themselves, so it's not really out of whack, just in a different order that reflects the different order in the article.  --Dubhagan 20:10, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, have a closer look (for example, number 16 8).  The first full instance of the named ref has to occur first in the text:  they have to be juggled a bit.  We also have to make sure that the first reference to each book -- subsequently referred to in other refs -- still occurs first.  I can easily fix them if you want me to, but it may be best to wait a bit.  Sandy 20:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: They aren't split on my screen, so maybe it's browser-dependent.  I remember seeing someone added something today, but don't know what it was, but I'll put it back to the standard.  Sandy 01:58, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I liked the columns (fills in ugly whitespace).  If anyone else has a problem, by all means change it back.  I'm all for aesthetics and value! :)  I'll see if I can fix up the references so they're more uniform, now.  --Keyne 02:06, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I never saw the columns, so don't know what that's about.  They didn't show on my browser.  I think RN had added them, and if anyone wants to put them back, it will be easy - it's in the diff where I changed them.  Sandy 03:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I suppose it'd help if I knew which uniform style would be appropriate.  For example, we have a lot of "Romanowski and Kirby (2005) p. 336."-style references.  Are they all for the same material type, and which reference style should we use?  There are quite a few variations.  --Keyne 02:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I'm stumped on the style.  It's been a hodge-podge.  The problem I have is that web cite doesn't handle journal articles correctly, some of the pre-existing refs used web cite, some used web cite when they shouldn't have (for journals or books), so we have a real hodge podge.  I don't know how to fix it, but journal references should end up looking like they do on Cystic fibrosis (notice format on author names there, journal italicized, PMID at the end, and full-text after that when available).  Most of the medical journal articles are correct, I think -- I've been checking them. The rest:  I don't know what to do.  I haven't noticed anyone else doing a lot of ref cleanup, so I think you can probably pick a style and do what you want.  Sandy 03:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PS, Keyne, I should have mentioned:  whenever we have a page number on a reference, we need it.  Don't lose the page numbers :-)  Sandy 03:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, indeed.  I'll be cleaning up the obvious stuff a little bit later in one swell foop, but someone with more solid reference experience might need to be brought in to make the less obvious dissimilarities more uniform.  --Keyne 13:32, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It needs some more work, but I cleared up all of the obvious gaffes (mostly regarding punctuation..).  If it's more appropriate to do it another way, by all means.  --Keyne 14:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: References

message: Does History belong in "clinical" or should it stand alone at the bottom?  Sandy 20:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Standalone --Rdos 20:59, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I think I'd like it standalone as well, unless someone thinks it has a "clinical" POV.  Sandy 21:05, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I put it under Clinical because the history covered the history of it within the medical community.  Feel free to put it as a stand alone section.  --Dubhagan 21:16, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't know, I think history would fit better after Characteristics.  --Dubhagan 23:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Goodness !  If all of those PDFs are really currently available online, there is a lot of info in there! (In reviewing the talk page entries above, I see a lot of information that has still not been accessed, which  is why I didn't think we were ready to archive those entries.  Are you planning to use some of it?) The article is still short (based on prose size).  Sandy 13:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Keyne, you inserted some dashes:  you've got to use m and n dashes, and I don't know which is which.  Maybe someone else will get them.  Sandy 22:52, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ...I had no idea.  Silly formatting.  Could someone help adjust?  Dashes would be grammatically appropriate.  --Keyne 22:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's an  –  and an  — .  I've never known the difference.  I hope the person who fixes them gives us a tutorial.  Sandy 23:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Got it.  There are actually abunch of symbols I've ignored until now at the bottom of the submission pages.  Go figure!  --Keyne 23:02, 18 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: n and m dashes

message: Here is one:  It also contains other links to professional work in the area. 
New Horizons isn't a particularly strong source, but if it contains information about the actual research, you can find it in PubMed by using the Limits function.  Sandy 13:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The author has PMID articles, but the word "Neurodiversity" cannot be found there, so the article would not be indexed.  --Rdos 13:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It is Jody Singer's website. She invented the concept. --Rdos 13:28, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neurodiversity concept - citations 

message: characterized by a combination of at least average intelligence[1][2][3][4], 
Four references are not needed to back up what is in the DSM.  In fact, no references are needed to back the DSM definition, except the DSM definition.  The condition is defined as no cognitive impairment.  The problem before, which required a ref, was a statement about "above-average" intelligence, which is not part of the diagnosis.  If you stick to the definition, you don't need references, much less 4 in the lead, which makes it look like a controversial statement, which it's not.  Sandy 11:30, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree, apart from anything else the DSM defines a slightly different disorder and is at variance with other diagnostic methods as well as some of the work of Hans Asperger himself...the statement stays, with is references against the next late night assault. Incidentally, could you try to express your comments as the personal opinions they are, rather than the "hard facts" they most certainly are not? --Zeraeph 11:36, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Partial disagree.  One of the main things separating AS from something similar, like LFA, is perception of intelligence (which isn't to say intelligence itself).  It probably doesn't need four citations, though.  --Keyne 12:44, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If four references are needed to back up a statement in the lead, that is a tipoff that it's a controversial statement, which needs to be explored in the text, not in the lead.  The lead, per WP:LEAD is a summary of the article.  The DSM vs. other sets of criteria is ex;ored in the text:  perhaps that needs to be covered there ?  Sandy 13:26, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Not at all, in this context, it is just a "tipoff" that you are nitpicking in order to manipulate the factual information again, which needs deflecting. Once again, could you try to express your comments as the personal opinions they are, rather than the "hard facts" they most certainly are not? --Zeraeph 17:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "it is just a "tipoff" that you are nitpicking in order to manipulate the factual information again" - ???? Hardly. If something is controversial in the article it should not be stated as fact in the lead. RN 20:12, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's specifically "controversial" in that it uses intelligence as a sort of marker to "divide" the spectrum, and some people do not find that quite appropriate.  Nevertheless, it (avg.+ IQ) is unfortunately one of the primary distinctions from other ASDs .  Whether or not it is "right" can be reserved for the body, I'd think.  If we can separate it without gutting the distinction, that may perhaps be for the best.  --Keyne 20:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Lead, 4 refs 

message: I think there should be a separate section for comorbidities. It could use Conditions comorbid to autism spectrum disorders as it's main article, and provided a referenced summary. --Rdos 13:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it not be a good idea to do this uner the characteristics supersection (possibly under other characteristics)?  This would be something clinicians and non-clinicians should probably agree upon.  --Keyne 13:08, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Just my thought. I've done it --Rdos 13:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Comorbidity isn't really a Characteristic of the condition, rather, associated conditions.  Couldn't it be moved to the bottom of the Clinical section?  Sandy 23:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Comorbidity 

message: Possible cites: 
*  Problem: it doesn't use a control-group, neither does it check if the effects are lasting.
*  Controlled study, but it is on a very narrow set of traits (attention), and no follow-up
*  A critical review of early interventions
I have bought the full text study for . If anybody wants to read it, give me your email address. --Rdos 14:22, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good stuff, Rdos ... you can probably build a paragraph around it.  "A small, uncontrolled study showed X, but did not examine long-lasting effects, while a controlled study on Y found Z, but didn't consider A."  And so on ... as long as it's worded to reflect the relative strengths and weaknesses of each study, I think it will do.  I don't have time to read the full-text, but if you have it online and want to build a paragraph around it, you could quote the relevant parts for us. It sounds fairly comprehensive ? (I hope it wasn't expensive:  I've spent a pretty penny accessing articles I couldn't find in my local hospital library.) Sandy 14:37, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know what to make out of it. Many claim to improve IQs, but according to large controlled studies of black children adopted into white homes, gains in IQs are not lasting. Blacks still end up at the black average IQ. For this reason, I think any increase in IQ in ASDs is not believable, unless it is confirmed 20 or so years after the intervention. The article criticizes most of the studies for lacking control-group, not using screening instruments for ASDs (that's really something, when they claim to cure it), not recording problem behaviors (tantrums and so on). I think this paper would make a new proper treatment section. I haven't time to do it today though. --Rdos 15:04, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because it's a recent review, I like it.  Because you have access to the full-text, not just the abstract, I like it even more.  What concerns me is, who is the author and what kind of consensus does s/he enjoy?  I don't recognize the name among leading autism researchers.  What do others say on the topic?  Can we be sure it's a through review?  How strong is the peer review for that particular journal?  I may have to go buy that Cohen PDD book myself :-)  I wouldn't say necessarily a "new" treatment section, rather new information complementing what is typically said in the treatment realm; covering the basics, but then going into the "buts" ...  Sandy 15:15, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: One other thing to keep in mind:  "treatment" or intervention is not aimed only at increasing IQ.  It's also aimed at increasing daily functioning in various realsm (for example, behavior, social and academic).  Since we're talking about AS here, increase in IQ would not necessarily be the main concern. Sandy 15:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Early intervention 

message: I'm working on cleaning up the prose and whatnot, but I've found some pretty unusual claims as well, such as:
:"People with AS may be very skilled at using computers and keyboards."
I don't want to yank them outright, but there are some sentences that just seem.. odd.  For instance, in this case, would it be reasonable to assume that if one is "very skilled" with a computer, one would be proficient with a keyboard as well?  As such, would the latter warrant a mention?  --Keyne 15:21, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm for a remove, even though I'm skilled with computers ;-) --Rdos 19:27, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree for a remove I have been trying to make sense of that senetence ever since it was but in by somebody who is knowledgable of Tony Attwood something has to be done such as finding another source that makes sense of that paragraph.69.242.106.254 20:59, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The paragraph on computer and keyboard has been removed. Natche24 21:07, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: "Research on infants points to early differences in reflexes."
The article backing up this statement does not seem to believe that the early differences in reflexes is a cause, but rather an early detection method.  Could someone with a bit more knowledge check on this one for appropriateness in the "Research into causes" section?  Regardless, if it does not belong there, it could almost certainly be included elsewhere.  --Keyne 16:01, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I added this earlier today. Yes, you are right, it is described as a detection method and not cause. However, I think the section should be called "Research" or possibly "Research and causes". Otherwise the study might be moved somewhere else? --Rdos 19:25, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: "Research and causes" actually sounds like a pretty good idea, though I'm not sure if that is something specifically allowed under more medical-y sections.  It'd certainly allow for more good information, though, we would have to be careful to make the distinction between "research" (into what? to what extent?) and "research into causes" --Keyne 19:38, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed it to "Research" and divided it into two subsections: "Research into causes" and "Other research".  --Dubhagan 19:53, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any chance we could put bars (underlines?) around it?  Sub-subsections look pretty crummy.  :P  --Keyne 20:03, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Underlined them.  Looks better.  --Dubhagan 20:16, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Various cleanups 

message: We need more information in these sections (they're pretty weak stubs right now).  If nobody objects, I'm going to slice the old research section into both halves (with ensuing edit frenzy, I'm sure!) for a starting point.  --Keyne 20:09, 19 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Research section(s) 

message: Just a section to add/strike things off as we complete the focus.
# Lead needs additional information.  Should be approximately three paragraphs;
# "Research" section needs a lead-in that will hopefully better address the research fork;
# "Research into causes" needs a lot of more work.  We need more information about the listed research;
# "Other research" needs a lot of more work.  We need more information about the listed research;
# "Comorbidities" could probably use some fleshing out;
# "See also" should appreciate slightly better NPOV to reflect the diversity of the subject;
# Should probably have a few more "best case" sourcings for some of the non-clinical subsections;
# Is NPOV still an issue in other sections, and if so, we need ideas to address it;
# General wikilinking still needed;
# References need cleaning up to be a tad more uniform; and,
# Should probably have one or two more "fine tooth combs" passed through the article to scour for inappropriate grammar, consistency, and out of place junk.
--Keyne 00:31, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any help would be appreciated.  Silly things like POV arguments can be toned down if need be, as we have a good sampling of editors' tastes. ;)  --Keyne 01:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Since content is still being added, I should probably hold off a bit on wikilinking.  I came across someone once who ran a bot for me that checked for too many wikilinks (removed all but the first link), but I should probably hold off on that, too.   And, I've got a script that does an auto check on FA features, so I can run that and post the results.  Sandy 01:21, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Yeah, I've been going through fixing the footnotes as I have time - but there were a lot of out-of-place ones so I'm not too surprised I missed one :). RN 01:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Ack, I broke the major NINDS reference.  (Still going to try to fix others that I know how..)  --Keyne 01:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Footnotes should be relatively safe, now.  --Keyne 01:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Asked someone to run a bot cleanup. Sandy 03:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  To do 

message: I ran an automated peer review bot on the article, and posted the results to Talk:Asperger syndrome/peer review.  It says the TOC is too long :-(  It mentions that some footnotes aren't right:  don't know how those got by RN or me, since we both watch for that.  Have a look, Sandy 01:28, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I've been going through fixing the footnotes as I have time - but there were a lot of out-of-place ones so I'm not too surprised I missed one :). RN 01:33, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Ack, I broke the major NINDS reference.  (Still going to try to fix others that I know how..)  --Keyne 01:34, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Footnotes should be relatively safe, now.  --Keyne 01:43, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Asked someone to run a bot cleanup. Sandy 03:25, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Automated peer review

message: I don't think it's "ugly", but here are some ideas:
:Research regarding AS is split into two sub-groups: those that seek a "cause" and those that seek information regarding the syndrome's symptoms, which may then be possible to use as a diagnostic screen. While no research has been definitively shown as an individual factor, many have exposed base differences in things such as brain structure. To what end is currently unknown; however, research is on-going.
Saying it's split into two groups sounds ... "definitive" ... as in, needing a reference.  I also don't agree with the sentence:  there are many who seek a cause and ALSO seek information   -- that is, who fit into both camps.  RDos has uncovered a gazillion good sources above:  maybe you can find some wording in one of them, so as not to have to figure it out on our own, which would require backing into a reference?  Rather, start from something that is referenced, and rephrase it?  Sandy 01:19, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Tweaking Keyne's lead

message: Something's wrong here, (current refs 51 and 52):
*51. News-Medical.net (7 Feb 2005). Clues to autism's neural basis. Retrieved 11 December 2005.  
*52. News-Medical.net (7 Feb 2005). Eshkol–Wachman movement notation in diagnosis: The early detection of Asperger's syndrome. Retrieved 19 July 2006.  
They both have the same pub date and source, so maybe something got confused, but I can't get the second ref to load, so I can't tell what it is.  Sandy 02:18, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not sure how to fix the source, but #52 was "published online 2004 July 28." --Keyne 02:23, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Reference 52 is wrong it was online from PNAS not news-medical.net Natche24 02:29, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Did someone fix it?  Sandy 02:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh, I see now -- I'll fix it -- the other link is only to the abstract, so we don't need it (same as PMID). Did we somehow lose the full-text, or did we never have it? Sandy 02:32, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Goofed ref

message: Right here:   currently our ref #55.  Sandy 02:30, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we ref that source, and lose the 4 refs in the lead?  Sandy 02:46, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, but we can lose 3 links and retain Treffert--Zeraeph 03:16, 20 July 2006 (UTC)

text: No, we don't have to put it in the links.  It is a source that is so accepted by Wiki, that it is included in the infobox at the top of the article :-)  And, we've already used it as a ref (#55).  Per some Wiki policy, you shouldn't put in links what you use as refs.  Sandy 03:08, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You misunderstood me, I said use the links that article provides in its bibliography for our references.  I didn't mean provide that site in our external links.  --Dubhagan 03:14, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Found it -- normal to superior intelligence, peer-reviewed source

message: I think I'm satistified with the current treatment section. I cited most of it directly from the full-text study I found above. The only "novel" interpretation I did is that self-injury, aggression, noncompliance, stereotypies, or spontaneous language is not core-autistic symptoms. The article mentioned these as primary targets, however it did not classify them as non-core autistic symptoms, but rather wanted to view them as symptoms of autism. However, none of these are part of the DSM definition, so I think my addition here is valid. Feel free to differ. Indeed, the article were so critical that it is probably not even necessary to refer to Dawson. It seems like curing autism to some people is the same as curing the above PTS symptoms! --Rdos 07:56, 20 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions to treatment