Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive 13

message: Can I ask you all, no exceptions, to come here and discuss any changes you want to make here first? AND to come here and check any changes others want to discuss? That way we are a TEAM, and a really good one, IMHO.
To start the ball rolling, how do we feel about [BBC's h2g2: "Autism and Asperger's Syndrome: The 'Little Professors'" (2006 April 19)] deleted by Admin User:Davidruben? Just because he is an admin doesn't mean we have to agree with him, so what do we all think?--Zeraeph 16:39, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't meet WP:RS; is that some sort of a Wiki?  There doesn't appear to be any editorial oversight or fact checking.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:50, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

text: See talk page discussion here, where it was established that consensus was behind keeping it, and that WP:EL does not expect external links to be RS, but rather lists under "links to consider," "Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources." So Graham87 (who also happens to be an admin) reverted its deletion, and, aside from occasional drive-by deletions by people who don't read the talk page, it's been there ever since. Poindexter Propellerhead 16:52, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: A part of me wants to accord with the concensus and put the link back. It's good and balanced and says a lot of things that need saying...'BUT...if we do, it sets a precedent that let's in all kinds of self published...er...stuff...that is NOT so good and balanced. Do we want that in the long term? --Zeraeph 17:56, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Possible solution, look for a reliable source that says the things worth keeping, and add them to the article.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:05, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: It doesn't set a precedent, WP:EL says that good, non-RS links should be considered, which was probably why 6 editors got behind keeping it, and only 1 (the one who deleted it originally, who is not a regular editor of this article, and who was recently cautioned and admonished by ArbCom for unilateral edits which disregarded the relevant talk pages) favored the deletion. Unreliable sources in the article itself are a completely different thing, with totally different rules, so creep shouldn't ever be an issue. Poindexter Propellerhead 19:58, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not going to lose sleep over it, but I'm on record as Oppose.  If the article says anything worth saying, a reliable source will have said it.  Example:  I do include a blog on TS as an External link, and I firmly establish the Canadian author's credentials.  The reason I use his blog is that no one else will say what he says about a certain medication, because US physicians are afraid of a certain litigious group I won't mention (WP:BEANS).  So, I include a blog from a very credentialed and published and peer-reviewed reliable author because it contains info that no other source carries. What is there in this link that a reliable source hasn't said, and what makes the *author* of this information reliable ? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The discussion of what people found desirable in that article is here.[] More discussion of its merits, or lack thereof, is certainly possible, but I doubt that any of us consider it a high priority right now. Poindexter Propellerhead 05:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Everybody happy now?

message: This is the only 1982 Becker and Gersten I can find; I can't establish that it's about ABA.
*Becker, W.C., & Gersten, R. (1982). A follow up of Follow Through: The later effects of the Direct Instruction Model. American Educational Research Journal, 19, 27–55. 
This quote can't come from three different places:
*Once certain skills have been acquired, it is possible through ABA to generalize these skills and add new skills to the "existing repertoire through various techniques of shaping, extinction, backward chaining, and prompting." (Schreibman, 1975, Sulzer & Mayer, 1972, Wolery et al, 1988)
What study is it?  This text appears to have been taken from a secondary source which isn't cited. This may be a starting place for locating the sources. http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-745676_ITM SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:48, 17 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's my opinion that the ABA part may as well be scuttled. Most of its cites are very old, and apply only to Kannerian autism (AS didn't have a name yet, let alone diagnostic criteria). I visited PubMed for replacements, and came back empty-handed, there is not a single abstract which mentions both AS and ABA. Does anyone else feel inspired to attempt a salvage, or shall we let it go? Poindexter Propellerhead 04:42, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: "Curebies and parents" isn't my line, I am the parent of a kid with AS. The only issue I have with the ABA section is that there appear to be zero papers in PubMed which discuss use of ABA as a treatment for AS. My approach to it is the same as it would be for any other topic where there was no reliable sourcing. Poindexter Propellerhead 20:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Applied Behavioral Analysis 

message: A section for things I've found in PubMed, no idea if they're good or not, perhaps Eubulides will advise:
*  Current trends in psychological research on children with high-functioning autism and Asperger disorder (Sep 2005). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:20, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Recent reviews 

message: This is a Wikipedia article, it is not supposed to be aimed at "parents of Aspies", "partners of Aspies", "Goldfish of Aspies" or "Adult Aspies", it is supposed to be aimed at what the French call "Le Monde".
Having said that, in terms of "what works" trawl every reputable source you can find and ALL you will find is a lot of polysyllabic verbiage that loosely translates as "it might have worked on a few but we aren't really sure".
Literally the ONLY thing I know of that works, or in any way helps Aspies is being treated as equal sentient human beings, and (at the appropriate age) as the autonomous adults they should be. So the article should really place a priority on sustaining that attitude throughout.
Beyond that, not all high function Aspies have the slightest interest in "mathematics, engineering, the sciences". There IS a creep that suggests that those areas are the only route to high function. There is lot of documented evidence of a special (sometimes prodigious) relationship to music, it has been considered an actual symptom, but it isn't even mentioned here. Only anecdotal, but most of the HF Aspies I know tend towards the Arts, writing, film etc, there must be some sources for similar? --Zeraeph 17:43, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It strikes me that, right now, the article is written for, aimed at, and contains exclusively one POV:  successful scientific adults. There's a good deal of undue weight.  I still say someone needs to locate the most recent review and rewrite the whole thing to be accurate, reliably sourced, and comprehensive. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I suppose that IS the short version of what I was saying! It's great to have the positive view of AS, but that CAN be a double edged sword...it can make lifestyle losers, like me, feel VERY inadequate by comparison. In a way, just as bad as an article based on the assumption that Aspies require lifelong parental supervision. :o) --Zeraeph 18:17, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: PS, if I ask everybody to take a look at the form and format of the Tourette syndrome article do you feel I will be showing then an example of the kind of form you feel this artricle should be considering? --Zeraeph 18:34, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Autism (written by Eubulides) passed FAC more recently, and had a strenuous peer review with a lot of input from many editors, and is in great shape.  Tourette syndrome garnered record support (20 Supports within two days), passing FAC without a single Oppose; both TS and autism conform to WP:MEDMOS.  Schizophrenia recently squeaked by FAR, but it only got the input of a few editors, and I feel it could still use some work.  But I've already offered all 3 of them as examples of the improvements needed here.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't think Schizophrenia (like Bipolar or ADHD) would be a great parallel anyway, as it is a medication dependent neurochemical condition, which is quite different. Autism is brilliantly presented, and the closest vin epidemiology, treatment and prognosis but it is definitely describing a lower range of functionality, and, as such, must be largely pitched at parents and carers. I still feel Tourette syndrome is the closest parallel overall in tone and coverage, I particularly like the cultural references. --Zeraeph 19:18, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's an area that frustrates me about this article.  To my knowledge, AS is far more studied than TS.  If I can find reliably sourced peer-reviewed information about the optimistic prognosis for most people with TS, why can't this article do that?  It shouldn't be necessary to stretch what the sources say; it should be possible to find sources and accurately reflect them. I just get the sense every time I visit this article that none of the regular editors are thoroughly steeped in all of the recent literature, and are trying to bootstrap the article together based on Attwood.  Surely there's better info than Attwood's 10-yo book.  By the way, the regular editors of schizophrenia completely disagree with you; the argument there is exactly the same as the argument here.  They argue that schizophrenia is not an illness and should be viewed as a variant of the normal human condition, and they aren't much interested in exploring sections like treatment and causes, so there is something to be garnered from that article's structure and progress.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know the TS field well enough to be 100% certain, but when I go to entrez PubMed and search for "Asperger" I get 931 matches, while "Tourette" gives me 2,869, so I suspect that TS is quite a bit better researched at this point. Poindexter Propellerhead 03:01, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: A lot of AS research may get published under broader autism articles.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Ok, you caught me bang to rights stigmatising others there *deep purple shame*. MOST sorry for that...though I think we should also take a look as some of the structure of Gay, Michael Fitzgerald often parallels the two (though that information MIGHT be OR). Took a scan though Amazon, and there isn't much recent that even squeaks into WP:RS except this: Asperger's Disorder (Medical Psychiatry) (Hardcover) by Jeffrey L. Rausch (Editor), Maria E. Johnson (Editor), Manuel F. Casanova (Editor) - and something tells me that, at $200, that is totally prohibited by WP:AFFORD. Maybe there just ISN'T any new, cutting edge research? That does sometimes happen...--Zeraeph 20:45, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I know, but I didn't want to name names :-)  (You disappoint me, the same can be said about Tourette's.  It's not the plaque, you know–there are also huge controversies there about where to put the fence posts :-)  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:21, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: A Couple of POV Creep Points

message: This is a bit of a dial-in no fly zone again...anyone mind archiving down to "Major New Research"? --Zeraeph 17:00, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK with me.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:29, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh well, no one else has objected, let's do it. --Zeraeph 18:35, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Can we Archive?

message: #Nobody can demand that all edits are approved on a talk page, one person cannot own an article. Controversial material may be removed to talk pages for discussion, but pre-approval of edits is not an option.
#If you need access to sources, list them below and put your signature in the e-mail list. I will see what I can get access to at work on Monday and e-mail the PDFs I gather to everybody listed in the "E-mail list" section below - remember to activate e-mail in your account! Tim Vickers 21:07, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: E-mails now sent, anybody else wanting these Pdfs, please ask on my talk page. Tim Vickers 15:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Two comments

message: * Current trends in psychological research on children with high-functioning autism and Asperger disorder (Sep 2005).
* The autism-spectrum quotient (AQ): evidence from Asperger syndrome/high-functioning autism, males and females, scientists and mathematicians" Dec 2001
**(repeat) DOI 10.1023/A:1005653411471 The Autism-Spectrum Quotient (AQ): Evidence from Asperger Syndrome/High-Functioning Autism, Malesand Females, Scientists and Mathematicians (2001) 
* 'Obsessions' in children with autism or Asperger syndrome. Content analysis in terms of core domains of cognition.
* Determining treatment outcome in early intervention programs for autism spectrum disorders: a critical analysis of measurement issues in learning based interventions 2006 
* Social skills interventions for children with Asperger's syndrome or high-functioning autism: a review and recommendations 2007?
* Reliability and accuracy of differentiating pervasive developmental disorder subtypes (March '98)
*  An epidemiological and diagnostic study of Asperger syndrome according to four sets of diagnostic criteria. (The 4 different sets of diagnostic criteria, we need that).
*  FOUND, Asperger's syndrome.  A recent review from Yale, 2006.  It looks quite complete.  Tim this is my first priority, in case we're overwhelming you.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Requests

message: * Thanks so much.  If you are able to locate a recent comprehensive review of AS, that's what we really need (as well as the one above).  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:09, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: E-mails now sent, anybody else wanting these Pdfs, please ask on my talk page. Tim Vickers 15:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: E-mail list

message: Hi all - I've semi-protected the page so that all edits can be attributed so everybody can see who is doing what as this would be a headache of a time for anon IPs to start complicating things, well intentioned or otherwise. Would it be worth generating a list of 'Bones of contention' to navigate below? cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:11, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you the Cavalry? :o) If so permit me. --Zeraeph 23:30, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tra..traaa (sound of trumpet blast and horses hooves)  -yep. heeheehee. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:36, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Good idea; bad time for IP vandalism, etc.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:32, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Clean slate

message: *Shift in view section - this para is highly relevant to treatment and I feel should go there. I feel it would gell better in treatment section almost as first or second para (whole cure --> management paradigm needs to be up top of treatment). Culture bit is also then more cohesive.cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:24, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *It was argued in the last FAR that Diagnosis had to come first, to explain the differences between DSM/ICD/Szatmari/Gillberg, since some of Characteristics depends on what definition you're using. Not sure I agree, but that was the logic.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: (groan) - realistically the differences between diagnostic systems are pretty minor. I wasn't around for the FAR, maybe a better have a read...cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 23:50, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

text: *Personally I think that perhaps the BEST way is to cite the characteristics common to ALL diagnostic definitions, THEN expand into diagnosis? It's sorta logical. --Zeraeph 23:55, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yep. that's what I felt...cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 07:14, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Casliber

message: *My list
** POV, towards successful adults and controversial opinions, away from children and away from medical consensus, which are underdeveloped.
** Lead is not a WP:LEAD; that content needs to be corrected, incorporated to correct sections, and lead needs to be written.
** Not comprehensive in areas of treatment, causes, prognosis, epidemiology, etc.
** Overreliance on one outdated source (Attwood book, not peer reviewed), and reliance on non-peer reviewed os self-published sources (Kirby, Myles, others; I believe Myles or her husband owns her press)
***(YIKES!! That can SO BEGONE *shudders*--Zeraeph 00:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: SandyGeorgia

message: *My list
** I don't think the article should be POV to successful adults, but I really DO feel that the tone of the article should at all times acknowledge adults with AS as autonomous and equal, and should NEVER devolve into an atmosphere where AS appears to be about the parents (it's not)
** I would be very uncomfortable with too much assertion of treatments and managements. So far nothing has been effective on a significant scale, some modalities have done as much harm as good and I don't think we should take responsibility for in any way promoting specific treatments (which would be POV ANYWAY). 
** I absolutely NEVER want to see any of the small community of amateur self appointed "parents and partners" groups appear in the article. They are just a tiny non-WP:RS and non-WP:NOTE cottage industry seeking publicity. They do keep trying, and I think that has contributed to the defensiveness of the editors and created a reactionary "POV creep".
** It is very important to me that all text should be impeccably and unassailably cited (not least to keep the self appointed amateurs OUT of it!) 
I'll add more as I think of it. --Zeraeph 23:53, 18 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Strongly agree with you on parents and other support group info, but that applies to adult groups as well as parent groups (and is covered by WP:NOT, WP:EL). Only reliable sources should be in External links, they should be minimal, every external link needs a strong justification, and everything else is covered by DMOZ and shouldn't be there (they can submit it to DMOZ). On treatment and management, though, I think we have to at least offer whatever info reliable sources have.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:00, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No groups AT ALL goes without saying (equality goes both ways after all!). DMOZ (and minimal links) is fine with me too these days, things changed and there is no longer the same risk of arbitrary, POV, editorial control there (it was under the editorial control of a banned Wikipedia editor with a grudge, but it isn't any more, thankfully). Absolutely, any reliable information on treatment and management must be offered, but perhaps conservatively? --Zeraeph 00:26, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: As a former DMOZ editor, I would point out that DMOZ is not at all reliable, but that it's acceptable as an external link, because external links don't have to be. Poindexter Propellerhead 00:29, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No matter HOW unreliable it is now, at least it isn't conducting a personal vendetta any more :o) Do you have a better suggestion though? --Zeraeph 00:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No, I think that DMOZ is fine on most subjects, and external links is where good and useful, but non-RS, material rightfully belongs. Poindexter Propellerhead 01:19, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I've added an invisible tag in the External Links section that should help slow cruft accumulation. Tim Vickers 00:34, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: NEAT TAG, I have just copied it to Bullying an article that usually has a bumper harvest of links over time. --Zeraeph 00:40, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Zeraeph

message: I'm taking this out of brackets (where all the REALLY important things always seem to wind up) and transcribing it a little because I think we all need to consider it seriously and with an open mind:
just because kids with AS are smarter than expected and faster than kids without AS and have better logical, musical and mathematical ability, do I wish for everyone to have AS and do I pretend the difficulties don't exist and do I frame an entire article around the latent advantages, ignoring the rest of the story?
I think the answer is No; this is the sin of the opposite extreme.   We need to balance the two, and roughly speaking, my guess is the abilities shd be about 25% or so.  —The preceding unsigned comment was added by CeilingCrash (talk • contribs). 
--Zeraeph 01:53, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Important Point to Consider

message: Ack, Poindexter, don't just remove sources.  As long as the text is there, we need to know where it came from.  We can source similar text to other reliable sources later, but for now, it's better to leave the sources so we know the origin of the info at least.  You should only remove the source if you also remove the text, or flag the text as uncited.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:10, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah, I should have tagged them as uncited before, I'll go do that now. Poindexter Propellerhead 02:51, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But I'd rather keep the sources; even if they're not reliable, sometimes they have a bibliography that gives an idea where they got the info, and we can use that to find reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:52, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If I may make a suggestion, it seems to me that we all have pretty full plates already... rather than going out and acquiring copies of 2 non-RS books so that we can look at their bibliographies, how about we provide better cites instead? They were used as cites for 3 statements, but one already had an additional cite, and at least one other could be cited very easily. I'd hate to see someone waste $50 on questionable books over one cite. So how about I put a better cite on one statement, and leave the other one tagged for now? Reasonable compromise? Poindexter Propellerhead 03:23, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Good point, makes sense; I just hate to lose a citation. I get attached to those ref tags too easily :-)  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:24, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, that was an exercise in frustration. No peer-reviewed article has taken special notice of Myles' coining of the catchphrase "hidden curriculum," so while sourcing the other facts in the sentence is very easy, citing her use of that expression is not. I have restored the cite, reluctantly, and will tear it out by the roots shortly, rewriting the sentence to eliminate use of Myles' particular jargon. Poindexter Propellerhead 04:08, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's kind of a disguised book advert, I guess :-)  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:13, 19 August 2007 (UTC)

text: Thanks... yeah, I saw that one, but figured that the NY Times wouldn't really cut it as a cite in a medically-based article. Poindexter Propellerhead 05:03, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Removing sources 

message: Asperger syndrome was named in honour of Hans Asperger (1906–1980), an Austrian psychiatrist and pediatrician. In 1944, Asperger observed four children in his practice who had difficulty integrating socially.  Although their intelligence appeared normal, the children lacked nonverbal communication skills, failed to demonstrate empathy with their peers, and were physically clumsy. Their way of speaking was either disjointed or overly formal, and their all-absorbing interest in a single topic dominated their conversations. Asperger called the condition "autistic psychopathy" and described it as a condition primarily marked by social isolation.  
The Austrian-American child psychiatrist Leo Kanner identified a similar syndrome in 1943, although the population characterized by Kanner was perhaps less "socially functional" than Asperger's.Attwood(1997), p. 15  Kannerian autism is characterized by significant cognitive and communicative deficiencies, including delays in language development or complete lack of language.Kanner, L (1943). "Autistic Disturbances of Affective Contact". Nervous Child, 2;217–250.  
Asperger’s observations were published in German and were not widely known. Ishikawa and Ichihashiassert that the first author to use the term "Asperger's syndrome" in English literature was the German physician Gerhard Bosch in a 1970 paper (probably Infantile Autism, 1962Bosch Gerhard [http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED049567&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&accno=ED049567 Infantile Autism. A Clinical and Phenomenological-Anthropological Investigation Taking Language as the Guide. translated into English by D. Jordan and I. Jordan in 1970);  the term was first widely popularized in 1981, when an English psychiatrist named Lorna Wing published a series of case studies of children showing similar symptomsWing, Lorna. "Asperger syndrome: a clinical account". Psychological Medicine. 11:115–129 .  Available at mugsy.org. Retrieved on 2007-08-15. which she called Asperger’s syndrome. AS became a distinct diagnosis in 1992, when it was included in the tenth published edition of the World Health Organization’s diagnostic manual, International Classification of Diseases (ICD-10), and in 1994 it was added to the 4th edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-IV) as Asperger's Disorder.
--Zeraeph 23:23, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know where to start with this; it's several iterations behind the current text, which I've expanded based on the new sources.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:57, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This version is now fine , except I think the word "ironically" is too POV and should be pulled. Perhaps we should just archive all outdated versions to prevent further misunderstandings? --Zeraeph 00:15, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ironically is taken straight from the cited source; knowing the full history of Tourette syndrome, the word doesn't trouble me. World War II really messed with medical science; the irony is two Austrian researchers separated by a war.  No one has objected to the content yet, so if you're OK with it now, why don't I just pop it in so we can move on?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:20, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Personally I would be a lot more comfortable if you took out ironically AND "influential" (which I missed), they are totally superfluous words that add nothing. --Zeraeph 00:37, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That's fine; then is it good to go to the article (I know there will still be tweaks, but would like to move on from that section).  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:39, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No problem, as far as I am concerned you can archive this bit now. --Zeraeph 00:54, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd rather leave it so others can review.  I'm moving on to work on Comorbidities in my Sandbox next, since the new sources cover it well.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:08, 21 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Let's try it this way

message: :I've now incorporated the sources Zeraeph found, and re-worded to avoid saying whether the 1970 paper was *the* paper.  I've updated the entire section to reflect the info in the Baron-Cohen paper.  The only portions (from the previous text) I haven't verified are the final statements about Frith, Ozonoff and Baron-Cohen.  If someone can check into those, it would be great.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:02, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: There's more detail in the new sources to finish this up, so I'll rework in in my sandbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:10, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Earlier draft removed, replaced with later draft in my sandbox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:44, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: This history is lacking a sentence describing how the term "autistic psychopathy" got dropped in favor of AS.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Found in one of the new sources, will add later in my sandbox.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Third, consolidating proposal

message: Instead of taking of space here again, I'll leave it in my sandbox.  Can you all tell me if it's close?  If so, I'll ask Tony to copyedit before putting it into the article.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Next draft

message: For our sourced statement about the DSM being too narrow, we use  Mayes as a source.   Woodbury-Smith present another view that we might incorporate or use as a reference.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:25, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Works for me. Isn't the definition of communication impairment quite an AS related issue in it's own right, or am I imagining stuff? --Zeraeph 04:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  DSM criticism (Diagnosis section) 

message: Dear all - I suspect my start above was too unstructured:
How about a structured plan to deal with everything systematically:
#.Order
#.Review each section and finally the LEAD.
#.Continue to get sources as we go along and add but each will be analyzed in detail when that section is done.
I can't see any other way of doing it without it being amazingly labour intensive. I have limited time - I chipped in as I am a psychiatrist but I don't do too much with child psychiatry these days. If you're all happy to go along with this plan above then sign below otherwise if you've developed a momentum and are happy I'll leave you to it..cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 21:36, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm concerned that we can't leave this lead up while we work, and that many people may have restricted time during August.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:45, 19 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I agree with Caliber.   I disagree with Sandy's expansion. CeilingCrash 02:04, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The lead and the multiple problems in this article can't stand in this condition as an example of Wiki's finest work:  I've tagged the article as the clear message is that editors here do not see the urgency to repair these issues, and aren't willing to compromise on interim fixes.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I see no need to deviate from WP:MEDMOS.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:35, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I do - guidelines are just that, as opposed to rules or policies,  they are intended as starting points from which to deviate.   Specifically, medical science studies pathology.   Asperger's has non pathological aspects. CeilingCrash 02:50, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry Sandy, I feel issues with the lead are the lesser of two evils at the moment - hopefully we'll get to it in a matter of days. We need to start somewhere so can everyone list preferred order below? I'll cut and paste PPs and mine and we can at least make a constructive start. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:18, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: CC that's what I am rtying to do  - can you give your preferred order of sections? :)cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree with the implication that a single editor (SandyGeorgia) is asserting their will over the group consensus. This article has severe problems that cannot be solved by a few minor edits. I just now reread the lead, and its current version is nowhere near Featured Article quality, for reasons similar to those I gave in my earlier review. Eubulides 03:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given how this talk page is going I was just trying to start teh ball rolling somewhere and at least get a bit of collaboarative spirit back into the thing by focussing on something less contentious first (i.e. order)...cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: New Game Plan

message: I support reverting the various tags, locking this article against further edits, and seeking formal mediation in order to proceed in a manner where disputes are resolved in Talk, not the Article, and no single editor asserts their will over the consensus of group working on this article.
CeilingCrash 02:59, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: CC that's what I am rtying to do  - can you give your preferred order of sections? :)cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 03:11, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

text: I disagree with the implication that a single editor (SandyGeorgia) is asserting their will over the group consensus. This article has severe problems that cannot be solved by a few minor edits. I just now reread the lead, and its current version is nowhere near Featured Article quality, for reasons similar to those I gave in my earlier review. Eubulides 03:20, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Given how this talk page is going I was just trying to start teh ball rolling somewhere and at least get a bit of collaboarative spirit back into the thing by focussing on something less contentious first (i.e. order)...cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:51, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Revert tags, lock article, request mediation 

message: Are we happy with this? Once this is done the gross order is largely settled (I'm not too fussed where epidemiology goes) and we can go section by section.cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:38, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh!  OK, with that plan in mind, sure. Poindexter Propellerhead 08:49, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks (I'm glad I sounded convincing... :) ) - right now onto sections.....cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 09:27, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Happy with Shift in View subsection to go into treatment?

message: OK - I spoke to soon; I was musing on order and feeling good when I noticed that currently causes is a subheading of research. Now research is fairly ubiquitous and vague and I'm not sure where and how it is in hte article is useful - surely research into particular aspects would go under those headings (causes/treatments etc). The first para is extremely general and the article would lose nothing by its deletion, while the second para pertains to diagnosis and would be good to go in that section.  i propose we lose the headnig and first para and place 2nd para in Dx and make causes a section. thoughts?cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 05:26, 20 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  First problem -research section