Talk:Retrospective diagnoses of autism/Archive 1

message: Bill Gates an autistic genius? How about a socially akward nerd.
, 10 September 2005 (UTC)I don't understand why this article is not considered neutral.  I checked on the Internet and included a great deal of information for and against the claim that Newton and Einstein may have been autistic.  Isn't that what neutrality is about?  Since I wrote the article I have been given evidence that Autistics can have a sense of humour.  I followed the Scientific method and modified the article to include this evidence.  I hope Wikipedians are now satisfied.
:The argument against is filled with disputes ("this claim is disputed") and such (who disputes that claim? Just saying "this claim is disputed may not be neutral... saying "some people dispute this claim" is much more neutral... it might also help to point out who those "some people" are or give an example). If you're going to have disputes in one side you should consider having it in the other also (which really means that its probably best the way it is currently organized to have the disputes in the opposite section or someplace else etc.).  Hope that helps :). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 04:42, 13 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Bill Gates

message: This is both redundant, since he's the only one we're citing, and defensive as if his opinion was automatically invalid.... Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:57, 14 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "This claim is his own opinion." 

message: I think the article still needs some work. I went through and cleaned up some typos, some awkward phrasing, etc., but this is not yet up to a high standard, I think. There are too many "weasel words" like "There is speculation that..." Who speculated? And when citing Frank Klein... well, who is Frank Klein and why should we care? 
:Barbara Shack 18:28, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Barbara, I just added indents to your post above to clarify that this was your comment, not mine, since it was placed in the middle of my post and was sort of confusing. :) I didn't change anything else, though! I will post a link to the reference. It is not too hard -- How to edit a page includes information on various ways to link to refs, if I recall correctly. ManekiNeko | Talk 21:36, 21 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Barbara Shack 18:51, 22 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I noticed the new refs! Thanks for adding those! ManekiNeko | Talk 20:22, 22 September 2005 (UTC)

text: OK, I have added references and cleaned up a bit. In reading the referenced articles I noticed that the text in this article seems way too close to the text in parts of the BBC and New Scientist articles, and I think that is also an issue that needs to be addressed, to avoid copyright violation. I would like feedback from other editors on this. ManekiNeko | Talk 22:37, 21 September 2005 (UTC)

text: That is my point -- it is there to support a POV, but not as a reference for anything on the page, and its topic is not related to the topic of the page. It's just, as I said above, "a random funny page by an autistic, and as so, it's both a non sequitur and something that was placed on the page to serve a POV." It really is leaning toward original research IMHO. Also, one other thing... could you sign your posts at the end of the post instead of the beginning? I'm finding it a little confusing to read the way it is now. Thanks. ManekiNeko | Talk 19:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: A merge might be good.  The title of this article bothers me, altho I can see that the speculation is sourced in some cases.  Friday (talk) 19:03, 16 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I think the articles should be merged. The title of this one bothers me too. ManekiNeko | Talk 19:54, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: OK, I have added templates to the two pages in question so people will discuss a possible merge. I also removed the humor link again because I do still firmly believe that it is a POV link that isn't directly related to the subject of this page. I would like other editors to contribute their thoughts on this matter, please. Thanks! ManekiNeko | Talk 20:09, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: Yes, it's a POV link and close to original research too. i.e. what should be done in this case is linking to a site that argues why the POV humor site is funny, rather than simply assuming its funny. I hope that makes sense :\ (it's a bit confusing, I know - also, it should be ref/noted rather than an external link). Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:22, 16 September 2005 (UTC)

text: The article is not speculative. It reports the speculation that others have done outside Wikipedia. Therefore, I do not believe the article needs to be renamed and the article is not original research. Q0 20:26, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

text: I agree, the title is not what it should be. But I am having trouble formulating a solid idea for how the two articles should either merge or link together at this point. I would really really like to see more feedback. ManekiNeko | Talk 19:52, 20 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Needs fixing up 

message: I have merged the article. Moved Blind Tom Wiggins to historical list even though he died in 1908, it was before the official classification of autism. And put the historical list in alphabetical order. Also made a few other changes. I'd like to hear people's feedback. rjwd 01:59, 23 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Merged Article 

message: This paragraph is sort of bothering me:
:'In any case Glen Elliott only claims that Einstein could not have had what he sees as "severe Asperger's syndrome". If this is true it does not preclude the possibility of Einstein having had different autistic traits or a different type of autism. Others also are unconvinced and believe the two scientists’ personality quirks could have been caused by their high intelligence.'
I see the "in any case... if it is true..." bits as sort of trying to build a case against Elliott, which of course is not what we are trying to do here; we should just be reporting what he said. I would like to hear feedback from others on this. (Also, "others also are unconvinced"... what others?)
If it seems like I worry about this stuff a lot, well, I write academic papers, so I am always worried about this in the real world, too. :) ManekiNeko | Talk 20:53, 24 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: That list has no value whatsoever. It's a list of names with no discussion or explanation and many of the suggested names are simply absurd. Taz, the Tasmanian Devil? Mark Twain? Bertrand Russell? Henry Thoreau? George Bernard Shaw? Tony Benn? Keith Olbermann? Al Gore? John Motson? All utter nonsense and most of the entries are equally preposterous. Ben-w 00:08, 3 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Man, I wish we had Taz on one of these lists. -Silence 00:46, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: I agree the list shouldn't be included. It has next to no evidentiary value. I wish it actually cited sources for its info, or had some commentary.ManekiNeko | Talk 08:35, 3 November 2005 (UTC)

text: The whole bloody article is ridiculous beyond words. Ben-w 17:00, 23 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV issue? 

message: The nonsensical page that I previously deleted references to was restored. I have deleted references to it again because it has no value whatsoever. It is a four-year-old webpage on a free hosting service that provides no evidence, discussion, or details of the speculation. It just lists names, many of which are as out of place on it as they would be on a list of Liechtenstein tennis players.
It is not acceptable to list a series of names and say "people have speculated" that so-and-so is autistic. Nor is it acceptable to point to one dubious source such as that and claim that as evidence of speculation. To list a name, provide evidence that there has been serious speculation by someone whose opinion on the subject carries some weight. The examples given under the first heading do this. The discussion of Einstein, Newton, and Gates make it clear who is speculating and why. But by listing everyone in the world -- including the laughable examples of Bob Dylan, Stephen Fry, Mark Twain, and Michael Palin -- this page loses all semblance of credibility. Ben-w 23:29, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Evidence of Speculation

message: I am concerned that original research is being done on this page. People should not add their own speculation. Even if people add arguments, I still think it is against Wikipedia's rule against original research. Entries should only be added if there is an external source where speculation takes place. Q0 07:19, 4 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original research 

message: I noticed the tense of the article's title is in the past as opposed to the present: it is people speculated to have been autistic instead of people speculated to be autistic. Is there any reason for the title to be past tense instead of present tense? It seems like present tense should be the default tense. If there are no objections, I'd like to consider changing it. Q0 01:26, 16 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Tense 

message: I think the title needs to be renamed to remove the word 'speculated' in the title. I think that word is confusing people into believing that the article itself is intended for speculation, when it is actually intended that it report speculation that has been done by autism professionals, journalists, the autistic community, etc., and the controversy that has been generated by this speculation. I would like to suggest a new title that has the word controversy in it instead of a varient of speculation; Perhaps a new title like Controversy about autism status in famous people. Q0 19:56, 19 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Remove word 'speculative' in title 

message: I am having trouble including the following refernce in the article: http://www.cqc.state.ny.us/Danweb/pastissues/oldissues/2000/Asperger's Syndrome.htm . It needs a space in the URL, and when I tried replacing the space with a plus sign http://www.cqc.state.ny.us/Danweb/pastissues/oldissues/2000/Asperger's+Syndrome.htm it did not work, even though it seems to be convention to use the + instead of a space in URLs. When I try to include a space in the URL with wiki markup it doesn't come out right, see my tests in the Wikipedia:sandbox: . Q0 10:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Try using http://www.cqc.state.ny.us/Danweb/pastissues/oldissues/2000/Asperger's%20Syndrome.htm. Shadowoftime 17:07, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That worked. Thanks. Q0 23:04, 24 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  URL markup 

message: I have a thought that John Lennon may have been autistic or AS. According to the book John Winston Lennon Volume 1, 1940-1966 by Ray Coleman, Lennon struggled at school and was obsessed with disabled people. He was also known for his eccentric behaviour patterns and had dyslexia.--Percussion
:Your personal definition of autism is, then, meaninglessly broad enough to include every single person on the planet. Ben-w 20:09, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: John Lennon

message: I don't know much about David Blaine, but I was wondering if he has been speculated to be on the spectrum.  Two things stand out: - his stunt involving an ice block (many people with A.S. including myself are extremely tolerant of extremes of temperature) and his monotonous-sounding voice (another giveaway trait).
: The techniques that magicians use rely on precisely those empathic social skills which people with autism and A.S. lack. In general, if people would stop looking for one or two traits which may or may not correlate with autism and working from there, and ask instead whether the person displays the attributes which define it. Also, the idea that toleration of extremes of temperature may correlate with A.S. means nothing in this case as Blaine is a magician, doing a trick. Ben-w 20:23, 8 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  David Blaine 

message: Yeah, lots. 
To suggest that someone like Bob Dylan or John Lennon and so on, may have or had AS is not mere idle speculation..
I have read in newspapers, journals and so on, speculation as to the number of children who appear to have or have been diagnosed as having AS. The number appears to be increasing. the question is asked why?
It is my opinion that the simple explanation is that there is mauch better reconition of the syndrome than there was fifty or even twenty years ago. I am related to one patently autistic adult who doctors refused to diagnose as autistic because he spoke. In fact, his facility for language was brilliant. 
I now no that I am AS. It took me fifty years to discover that fact about myself. I am mildly AS, as may or may not be apparent from my communication. Yes, I do have a sense of humour. 
Looking around, and back to my school days, I see a long line of friends who to me, now, are obviously Aspies. Never diagnosed, but always at odds. I would defend the case for Newton, and Einstein and many many many more of the world's brilliant people as being AS. In fact I would go so far as to say that genius and Asperger's Syndrome probably go together more often than not. 
--Amandajm 08:30, 28 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a complete lack of evidence-based scientific rigour to this observation. Ben-w 16:52, 28 July 2006 (UTC)

text: There's a complete lack of evidence period. I just don't buy it. A few years ago, speculation was rife that all those people had Tourette syndrome. Then it was ADHD. Whatever happened to "intelligent person that just has a few quirks"?  Of course many autistics are passing for, or thought to be by others, intelligent people that just have a few quirks. But that doesn't mean all such people are autistic. --Bluejay Young 02:56, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AS, anybody? 

message: It says "Furthermore, at a recent conference of the American Association for the Advancement of Science, evidence was presented that suggested Simon Baron-Cohen's previously held "theory of mind" hypothesis for autism was incorrect." The word "recent" is vague and should be replaced by the year or date it took place. (I've never believed in theory of mind anyhow; I'm autistic, and I learned how people think by watching TV as a kid.)  --Bluejay Young 02:52, 23 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: When was the conference?

message: Gordon Brown was semi-sarcastically suggested to be autisitc.. Should this be included, and if so how? --Spencer "The Belldog" Bermudez  |  (Complain here) 08:52, 4 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gordon Brown 

message: The entire second half of the "case against" section doesn't seem to have many references, and often makes claims that any autistic person could tell you face to face is utterly untrue, for example: As the concept of "mind-blindness" in autistics originates in the idea that they have no "theory of mind" -a means of perceiving the existence of others - this would also seem to invalidate an argument against Einstein's alleged autistic tendencies. Autistic mind blindness does not mean they "cannot percieve the existance of others", that's the same kind of theory that co-existed with Refrigerator mothers. (What autistics lack is a lack of insight into the motivations of others, they're often acutely aware of the existance and feelings of others)
Other examples try and ride over the top of the arguement, for example  In any case, Glen Elliott only claims that Einstein could not have had what he sees as "severe Asperger's syndrome" - Assumes that removing severe Aspergers from the picture also removes any possibility he had mild Aspergers
Another prime example of poor and unsubstantiated logic is: Some researchers believe that one of the signals that a person is autistic is that they are "mind blind". That is, have difficulty inferring information about the intentions of others. In contrast, Einstein's views on politics were sensitive and sophisticated. - not only it is an unreferenced statement, but there's plenty of examples that show very sophisticated political discussion amongst Aspergers: ie.  
I'd rather not go making major edits since I'm unregistered at the moment, but I figured that someone may want to think about adding citations to the case against if there really are any good ones.
88.16.51.235 19:42, 19 October 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Case against section 

message: As if a single person here was qualified to make such judgements and even if they were its original research or at best repeating the speculations of other trivia fans. 210.239.48.141 05:47, 4 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  What a stupid article 

message: And there are many other names that are missing from this list. 
Tesla was identified as autistic in this piece by a professor of psychology:
Gernsbacher, Morton Ann (2007) A conspicuous absence of scientific leadership: the illusory epidemic of autism. 
http://jepson.richmond.edu/academics/projects/ESSAYGernsbacher.pdf
Has Asperger is the subject of this paper:
Lyons V, Fitzgerald M (2007). Did Hans Asperger (1906–1980) have Asperger Syndrome? (letter). Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Volume 37, number 10, November 2007. p. 2020-2021.
http://www.springerlink.com/content/n00w0xl46510v681/?p=4cff7f36c3b2461b918cf2bf081aabcd&pi=18
Robert Boyle, William Rowan Hamilton, Daisy Bates and Samuel Beckett are in this book:
Walker, Antionette and Fitzgerald, Michael (2006) Unstoppable brilliance: Irish geniuses and Asperger’s syndrome. Liberties Press. 2006.
All of these famous people are in Prof Fitzgerald's latest book: 
Archimedes, Charles Babbage, Gregor Mendel, Thomas "Stonewall" Jackson, Gerard Manley Hopkins, Nikola Tesla, David Hilbert, H.G. Wells, John B. Watson, Bernard Montgomery (of Alamein), Charles de Gaulle, Alfred Kinsey, Norbert Wiener, Charles Lindbergh, Kurt Godel, Paul Erdos.
Fitzgerald, Michael, and O’Brien, Brendan (2007) Genius genes: how Asperger talents changed the world. Autism Asperger Publishing Company, 2007.
Paul Erdos is also in this paper:
Fitzgerald, Michael (1999) "Did "The Man Who Loved Only Numbers", Paul Erdos, Have Asperger syndrome?" Nordic Journal of Psychiatry. 53.6 (1999): 465-466.
There are probably more ...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.77.207 (talk) 16:55, 21 February 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: And the rest...

message: Come on, guys.  Can we really cite a single blog entry as evidence of valid speculation?  Especially when the blogger in question seems to have very little evidence to support their claim.  Clearly she has some experience in the area, being autistic herself, but her opinion alone is hardly concrete enough to warrant Colbert's inclusion in this entry.
:Correct, I removed it. Garion96 (talk) 21:33, 27 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stephen Colbert

message: I just tried to fix this section, but it is still desperately in need of citations. 
Furthermore, half of this putative case against involves repudiation of the case against. This leads to an appearance of extreme bias and non-NPOV. Those counter-arguments should not dominate this section.
I think the Case For section also needs cleanup, but at least it has citations. 
I went into this article with an open mind and was disappointed by how unbalanced and non-NPOV it is. I improved it, but it still needs cleanup.
Aroundthewayboy 19:42, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Problems with the case against Einstein/Newton having AS

message: I also removed the following unsourced entries on the list. Feel free to reintroduce them if and only if you can cite a reliable source.
* Lewis Carroll, English writer, mathematician, logician, Anglican clergyman, photographer and inventor 
* Bill Gates: founder of Microsoft
* Emily Dickenson
* Ludwig Wittgenstein - major philosopher. Noted as possible or likely by philosophers; noted explicitly by Christopher Gillberg
Aroundthewayboy 19:59, 26 June 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the list could do with a further culling - even the title makes me cringe, 'People speculated to have been autistic'?  WP:BLP?  WLU 18:44, 30 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Does anyone else see this list as wishful thinking on the part of autism researchers?  It reeks of "hey, look, Famous Person X was ONE OF US so we're not that bad."  Not to make light of autism, but seriously... it is possible to be utterly brilliant and yet still be socially clumsy without being autistic...  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.84.19.246 (talk) 13:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's exactly what it is.  It's also part of the bill of goods sold to parents of the diagnosed kids.  This article should be deleted.  216.125.196.2 (talk) 16:19, 29 May 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Disagree. The article is entirely valid: it is indeed notable that respected researchers have identified certain individuals as displaying AS traits. We are only reporting this. Malick78 (talk) 22:45, 9 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Removed for Lack of Citations

message: Since when is a webmaster a source for anything (other than possibly his field of being a webmaster)? I think this seriously needs to be removed. We could also add speculations by pie salesmen if we keep this. --DanielCD 16:30, 7 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Webmaster?

message: I've just started trying to source this article a bit, please forgive me if I leave some things in an ugly state while in the process. I did remove John Draper from the list, because I didn't feel that the WSJ article which it was cited to said explicitly that he might have a touch of autism, it just kind of hinted at it. (I also happen to know Mr. Draper, and while I wouldn't rule it out, my speculation doesn't satisfy BLP either).
Anyway, I'll be continuing with the sourcing, and occasionally deleting things which aren't reliably sourced, just yell if I do anything which seems unwarranted. Poindexter Propellerhead 00:58, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, there are now 28 cited statements in this article, using reasonably reliable sources (as reliable as speculation can be, anyhow). There is still a lot to be done in turning dozens of inline URLs into proper citations. I removed the article's unreferenced tag, but would recommend that anyone interested in maintaining this article start paring back some of the statements which are still tagged, there is a lot of questionable stuff left unsourced. I may yet whack a paragraph or two. Poindexter Propellerhead 04:09, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Make that 40-some cites. And I did whack some stuff which had been tagged for months. We now return you to our regularly scheduled programming. Poindexter Propellerhead 05:16, 8 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Sourcing

message: I've removed the following uncited speculative text; perhaps some version of this can be sourced and added back:
*However, some with AS would dispute the claim that they have usually have lack of sense of humour: there is commonly a good understanding of humour, especially in a setting where it can be adequately processed (such as when watching a TV show or movie) and use of humour in certain settings. People with AS expecially seem to appreicate the humour of characters who have social impairment themselves, such as Mr. Bean or David Brent in "The Office". Perhaps the studies examining humour in AS have examined the more severe end of the spectrum, exaggerating the significance of this trait.
SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:03, 28 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Uncited text

message: You people can't be bothered keeping this article up to date with the latest books and papers (by professors, academics etc), but you are too small-minded to cite a link to the one document on the internet that does attempt to keep on top of this subject. You Wikipedians really are pathetic. It's no wonder that people choose to do their own things and not contribute. There is a difference between being scholarly and having high standards, and being small-minded and mindlessly critical. I can't believe you people couldn't find any citations to documents about Wittgenstein or Lewis Carrol having AS. I think it's a case of not wanting to find information. How come one writer has been able to dig up 92 dead famous people, all of them undisputedly famous and many geniuses, who have been the subject of speculation or well-argued professional diagnosis of AS, each name supported with a reference to a published document, while this article has a piddly little list of thirty-odd famous names? 
I think the undue emphasis on the writing of Professor Fitzgerald may be an attempt to depict this whole area of scholarship as the invention of one clinician, which it most certainly is not.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.199.35 (talk) 12:44, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You seem to be referring to the removal of a non-reliable blog, which erroneously claimed by the way that Mozart had Tourette syndrome, a point on which no reputable scholar agrees.  If you have reliable sources that can be used to replace Fitzgerald, by all means suggest them, but we don't cite articles to blogs on Wiki.  Please see WP:V, WP:RS, WP:NOT and WP:EL.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:36, 10 December 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: External Links

message: Are there any famous people who have officially been diagnosed as autistic or is it all speculation? And are there actually any LIVING famous people with autism or have they all died out in this lifetime?
:Well, autism and especially Asperger's were not that very commonly diagnosed until the 1990's, and most people who are famous today were already adults by that time.  It would probably not benefit anybody to go in and get themselves diagnosed with AS ... e.g. if you were a multibillionaire whom people looked to for sound financial advice, and then they found out you had AS, they would be less likely to come to you for advice in the future.  So it isn't in their best interest to get a diagnosis.  <FONT COLOR="#800000"><B>Soap</B></FONT> Talk/Contributions 23:09, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Another way to put it might be to say that there are few or no famous people with autism living today who are famous for something other than being autistic.  <FONT COLOR="#800000"><B>Soap</B></FONT> Talk/Contributions 16:09, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Officially Diagnosed?

message: Seriously though? I find it baffling that an article that even has the term "speculated" within it would ever be in an encyclopedia! Does it actually get any more unencylopaedic?  If I were a proper Wiki editor instead of just a person who dips in and out, I'd be considering nominating this garbage for deletion. The main pillars for this reasoning are (a) it's speculation (b) many of the the speculations are based upon extremely insubstantial reasoning or evidence; and (c) if Wikipedians believe that there is worthy evidence suggesting autism in a historic person then this can be placed in context within that person's own Wiki article. It seems to me that having a page like this gives license to insubstantial claims so as to justify the pages' very existence. Roobens (talk) 15:59, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already been through one round of deletion discussion before and survived.  Not to say it won't happen again, but if you read that page you can see (in my opinion) some good reasons for letting it stay.  <FONT COLOR="#800000"><B>Soap</B></FONT> Talk/Contributions 16:05, 3 December 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: What's the point of this article?

message: There was disagreement between Dr Sale and Professor Mullen in their findings as to whether Bryant is on the Autistic Spectrum or not. The citation that I included clearly showed this.
How was my citation unreliable?
114.76.80.160 (talk) 10:18, 1 April 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: See WP:MEDRS, WP:RS, and WP:BLP.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 14 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: What are the objections to Martin Bryant being included here?

message: The title seems a bit odd: "speculated to have been" is an awkward construction, to say the very least. Rumored or supposed might be an improvement on speculated, which can only be an intransitive verb, although the former sounds vaguely unencyclopedic and the latter introduces a new problem of double meaning. How about conjectured?  Conjecture v. (tr.): form an opinion or supposition about on the basis of incomplete information Rivertorch (talk) 04:30, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Perhaps a better title is "People proposed to have been autistic". Proposed is more often used in the scientific literature than speculated. Speculated is too suggestive of an unsubstantiated claim. --Diamonddavej (talk) 01:07, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that's better. Should we give it a little while or be quick and bold? Rivertorch (talk) 09:47, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Its not just the title that needs changing, all throughout the article Speculated should be changed to Proposed. Speculate is common in everyday speech but its not used in scientific literature. Leave the Title as is for a few days, if no one objects it should be changed. --Diamonddavej (talk) 22:53, 3 August 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title 

message: Autism is a spectrum of disorders including people with few if any autistic features to people who are profoundly handicapped.  It follows that everyone *can* be considered to be on this spectrum, even if they have negative values for autistic features.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Aebarschall (talk • contribs) 21:39, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: To be considered on the spectrum, you'd probably have to be autistic enough to be diagnosed. Doctors probably won't diagnose someone as "a little bit autistic". You wouldn't diagnose someone as antisocial for the one fist fight they've ever been in or someone as OCD (Obsessive-compulsive spectrum) or OCPD because they tie their shoes a certain way. Also, "Spectrum disorder in psychiatry is a term used to describe a mental disorder when there is thought to be "not a unitary disorder but rather a syndrome composed of subgroups" that can range from relatively "severe" to relatively "mild and nonclinical deficits".MichaelExe (talk) 19:34, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autistic Spectrum Disorders 

message: would be great. I haven't found anything, unfortunately. MichaelExe (talk) 20:19, 16 October 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Criticism Section 

message: What a worthless article.  It is just a list (already crap) of speculation.
You may as well put everyone remotely famous here, because if no one has *speculated* that they are autistic yet, just give tpeople time.
Sure every famous thinker is homosexual and autistic!  Ekwos (talk) 03:49, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: I take it you dislike the article, then. Do you have any constructive criticism? Rivertorch (talk) 04:39, 18 December 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah.  Delete it. Ekwos (talk) 23:51, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

text: Can someone explain how this article doesn't violate WP:SPECULATION? I took a look at the discussion for the last nomination for deletion and there wasn't any arguments for why this article should exist. Alpha9beta7 (talk) 00:39, 16 February 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Worthless 

message: The second sentence in this article uses the word 'diagnoses' incorrectly twice:
"several autism researchers speculate that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart had autism and other diagnoses"
and:
"other researchers say there is not sufficient evidence to draw conclusions that he had any diagnoses"
To diagnose an illness or condition is the act of looking at symptoms and drawing a conclusion as to the classification and nature of the underlying condition. Therefore one does not have 'diagnoses', one has an illness or condition. The diagnoses are assigned by others in classifying the condition.
These sentences should ideally be corrected to use the proper words for the intended meaning. I suggest something like:
"several autism researchers speculate that Wolfgang Amadeus Mozart had autism or another similar condition"
"other researchers say there is insufficient evidence to support a firm diagnosis of any such conditions"
Kevoreilly (talk) 14:20, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Error of meaning in use of word 'diagnoses' in second sentence. 

message: Elliott added that Einstein had a good sense of humor, a trait that is believed by some to be uncommon in people with severe Asperger syndrome
It is absolutely not true that humor is uncommon in Asperger's. From Heather Kuzniac to Clay Marzo, to Hannah,  to myself and other Aspies, There are plenty of Aspies who do have humor, and laugh, and I've provided these links.
Furthermore DSM-IV does not mention impaired humor in its diagnostic criteria. 
Either keep the references or delete the sentence as factually untrue. Is Elliot an ASD expert? Has he personally met those on the Spectrum? If not why even quote him?
—Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.241.37.140  (talk • contribs) 21:09, January 17, 2010 (UTC)
: A discussion of whether humor is or isn't part of AS doesn't belong in this article; I've reverted all the recent changes, as they were poorly sourced anyway.  See WP:MEDRS. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:25, 17 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Asperger and humor