Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive 6

message: Shouldn't the characteristics section be right after the definition section, just before the causes section?  --Dubhagan 14:56, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sections in order now, except diagnosis moved up due to differing diagnostic criteria.  Sandy 11:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Theoretically, yes.  I originally moved it there, but when I realized it was mostly speculative and unsourced and in disagreement with the DSM, I moved it to the bottom.  DSM criteria should be covered, and then divergent criteria (admittedly necessary and used in practice) should be covered in a separate section, IMO.  (By the way, DSM is pretty serious about its copyright, and does not like to be reproduced exactly:  someone needs to paraphrase the entire thing.) Again, I recommend a review of the sections and headings used in other featured articles for medical, psychological or neuropsychiatric conditions at WP:MCOTW.  For example, causes must be included in the AS article, and it is completely glossed over.  I hope some people who really know the AS research and literature will spend a few days in PubMed, citing their sources.  If you need an example of how to cite PubMed research, you can find it on Tourette syndrome.  Almost none of the references, books, or inline citations used in this article are cited correctly, and almost all need to be corrected.  Hope this helps,  Sandy 16:21, 27 June 2006 (UTC)

text: PS - glad to see someone asking about actual work on the article, rather than engaging in unfruitful discussions bordering on personal attacks :-)  Sandy 16:22, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PPS - I also hope that someone who knows where to find the data will add the infobox used at the top of TS to the top of AS, and the image of Hans is not a good one:  isn't there a better quality image available anywhere?  Sandy 16:25, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Order of subsections 

message: Gillberg's criteria are as follows (all six criteria must be met for confirmation of diagnosis) [3] [4],
This is really bloating the article size, and gets into a level of detail that is too much for the main article, especially since it diverges from the DSM criteria (which also shouldn't be quoted verbatim in the article).  Can't someone wikify who Gillberg is, and add his criteria in a separate article, so that it can be wikilinked here, for brevity ??  (And, doing it without violating copyright.)  Sandy 18:31, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: BTW, I do think it's important to mention Gillbert's criteria, and I plan to cite an article that comparse with DSM-IV and shows there's a huge prevalence difference between the two. Neurodivergent 18:35, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found him:  Christopher Gillberg.  This article badly needs someone to go through and wikilink everything, after the more important work is done.  Can't his criteria be listed there, and then wiki-linked here ?  Sandy 18:38, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't aware of the scientific misconduct allegations. It's amazing how common scientific misconduct is in neuropsychology. Anyway, I wonder how this impacts the relevance of Gillberg's criteria for Asperger's, considering there's already DSM-IV. Neurodivergent 21:57, 27 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've been following the debate between Kärfve and Gillberg. I don't know if he had forged data or not, but apparently, he distroyed all the data after courts had forced him to give the data to Kärfve and Elinder. Officially, he did it because of privacy issues, but I don't know. Anyway, this was research on DAMP, a dx somewhere between ADHD and AS. DAMP is increasingly less used these days in Scandinavia, probably somehow due to the Kärfve - Gillberg conflict. --Rdos 06:16, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Sandy and feel like Gilberg dignosis need to be moved to Christopher Gillberg article.Natche24 03:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added a TOC to the Gillberg article, so that you can now link directly to the criteria there, and not have to use them here.  Gillberg Criteria Sandy 04:03, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gillberg's criteria

message: You can find a LOT of guidelines here about how to improve the article.  In particular, the headings that should be employed are listed here.  Wikipedia:WikiProject Clinical medicine/Writing medical articles.
Sandy 13:04, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can someone/anyone please reorganize and orient the text that's there according to the suggested heading?  It will make it easier to do the work.  What should be covered in each section is discussed in the Wiki link above. Sandy 04:34, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Writing a medical article

message: * "It is thought that most people with Asperger syndrome learn to cope with their social impairments later in life."
:I haven't found anything on PubMed about Asperger outcome or progress. Note that the diagnosis of Asperger did not officially exist until 1994. There are several studies on the outcome and progress of Kanner autistics, from which you might infer something similar to the above. I vote to just remove the sentence. Neurodivergent 15:57, 28 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, I found this: . Anyone have access? Neurodivergent 16:15, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I don't think it can be quantified as a minority opinion. I'm aware of some studies, however, that say there's essentially no difference between HFA and Asperger's. Neurodivergent 16:21, 28 June 2006 (UTC)

text: I have found no credible evidence by medical sources of poverty and Aspergers. In fact I know people with Aspergers who are adults and none of them are in poverty. I also checked the PubMed article that was cited by the person who put it in the article  and the abstract speaks nothing about poverty. Please note that I do not take issue with the Depression only the part that has to do with poverty. Natche24 02:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: "Depression and poverty are often associated with Asperger syndrome"? RN 03:49, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: RN, we might wait a reasonable amount of time for all statements to be referenced, and then start removing unreferenced statements to the talk page ??? Sandy 03:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, that it what I would do as well :). RN 10:51, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: This is an example of something clearly true and commonly known which might nevertheless not be citable. Neurodivergent 18:14, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That is just silly.  There are references to similar statements all over the literature about Tourette syndrome, and I'm sure there are to AS as well.  Do you all know how to use PubMed and Google scholar?  You can locate an article on google scholar, and get directly to it with the excellent new advanced search abilities on PubMed. What are the authoritative medical tomes on AS?  Have you looked at the extensive citing on Tourette syndrome?  I'll go see what I can find.  This is explained in the writing medical articles link I've cited here several times.  Sandy 19:11, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Here is what Google scholar coughs up.    Next, I'll be back with a PMID.  Sandy 19:13, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Clearly there's an increase in the administrative prevalence of autism. There's a whole Wikipedia article about it. But is there something about the prevalence of Asperger's syndrome specifically? Neurodivergent 13:23, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Here's a   Now, I don't know the research, and I don't know if that's a high quality study, but every statement in this article should and can be referenced, and you can tell by the times that it took me seven minutes, and I don't even know the AS literature well.  Sandy 19:19, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statements at issue 

message: Per [medical sections], I agree with RN's revert to External Link.  The article on how to write a medical article gives some EXCELLENT guidelines, which should be very helpful in re-working the AS entry.  I just reorganized Tourette syndrome according to the headings suggested, which helped make it very clear to me where I still needed to do work.  The external links should all be in DMOZ, if they are significant, and if they're not in DMOZ, the webmasters should be encouraged to add them.
*See also: Links in this section should be used sparingly. If two topics are truly linked, it should be possible to define that relationship with a sentence in the main article, and provide the wikilink there. 
*External links: Links in this section should be used sparingly. If an external link is provided, it is better to tie that link to an assertion in the article, and then use the Reference section instead of the External links section. 
**Significant international and (English-speaking) national organisations may be included here if they contain useful material to supplement the article. However, their number should be kept in check –Wikipedia is not a collection of links. This is an encyclopedia, not a promotional tool for charities however worthy, nor is it trying to be resource for those seeking help.  Further guidance is available at Wikipedia:External links.
Sandy 03:56, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, maybe someone will paraphrase them, and then just include a link.  Sandy 04:05, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've included the link and started paraphrasing, though I need help.  --Dubhagan 04:26, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just did it as a sample, but you'll have to tweak my wording.  Sandy 04:31, 29 June 2006 (UTC)

text: The link is good I used it in the Definitions and diagnostic criteria section of the article. Natche24 05:38, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Excess External Links, and work still needed

message: What a wonderful idea! Now we can eventually end the edit-wars in this section of the article as well. I've submitted my site there. ;) --Rdos 06:08, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You can credit User:FrancisTyers for that one.  We ended up in mediation over external links on Tourette syndrome, and he gave us that solution, duh !  Gets the little stuff out of the way, so you can do productive work on the article.  I've also found help here in the past:  Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine/Collaboration of the Week.  You all might go there, explain that AS is at risk of losing its featured status (where it's listed on their MCOTW page), and see if folks there will help out or give suggestions.  Also, if you all can begin to reference statements, I am willing to help convert them to a correct and complete referencing style.  Right now, most of the inline citations and references are done incorrectly, and the sections still need a major, major revamping.  Sandy 13:07, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Using DMOZ instead of external links 

message: Just a suggestion:  feel free to ignore me, or to toss around the idea for a few days.  I've been trying to help clean up this article, but the more time I spend in it, the more I realize there is very little medical, reliable, verifiable content.  It has really deteriorated and isn't encyclopedic.  I was wondering if our efforts would be better oriented if you reverted to the last Featured Article verion, more or less this, and then worked on rebuilding and bringing new content into that version?  It would be far easier to reference and update the old version, than to continue trying to fix the new version.  Just an idea:  it might help keep the FA status, and it seems to provide a much better starting place than the mess of the current article.  Any valuable changes made to the newer version could be added to that older version after the revert (things like DMOZ).  I'm trying to help with the references, but I'm finding that a lot of the references aren't actually reliable, medical, peer-reviewed sources. Sandy 22:47, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Would it not be better to correct the current edition, rather than moving forward from out-dated contexts?  If you do not wish to correct it, then I'm sure someone else will. --Keyne 23:28, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have no vested interest either way, but the content is so highly speculative, that it doesn't provide a good foundation from which to build.  Almost none of the foundations of a medical article are even present at all, and most of the article deals with speculation and controversy, rather than adding speculation and controversy to the end of established views and practices.   The last FA version seemed to afford a better starting place. Sandy 23:58, 29 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Then, we reorg away, I would imagine.  Building from what we have is the foundation of how an article is built.  I just cannot see restarting from an older version as being a viable option.  It might take work, but I believe it'll be better off if we continue to build, rather than [de+re]construct.  I'd advocate a rewrite over other options. --Keyne 13:47, 30 June 2006 (UTC)

text: But, if you go back too far, you have to reconstruct almost everything:  wikilinks and stuff like that.  That's why I was thinking of the '05 version, if you all decide to go that direction. Sandy 00:25, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, sorry, I went back to when it was first a featured article.  You should have been more specific.  When was it a featured article in '05?  --Dubhagan 00:35, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure, but User:RN reported that it was also featured as of this date:    Sandy 00:40, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is the 2nd time it has been on FARC - last time it survived, but standards are higher now. The link I gave was just an approximation :). Even with the '05 version speculation and references are going to be a problem, but in some ways it does provide a better foundation. What I'd do is be merciless in removing the speculation - but often when I've tried to that and/or make it more of a proper medical article I seem to run up against a large amount of advocacy. So I have my doubts... RN 00:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, I'll support whichever is the consensus of the means to getting the article fixed as quickly as possible, whether reverting, deleting massive chunks of what's there now, doing a major rewrite, or whatever is felt will get the job done, but I think aiming for the structure and organization mentioned in the "writing a good medical article" link is the way to organize the work.  I wish I could help more in the writing, but I don't know the territory.  I can help in doing the reference work, if people just stick in the PMIDs, I'll fix 'em. Sandy 01:42, 30 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: An idea

message: What it eventually comes down to in the context of this article is things that are well-known in the autistic community and virtually unknown or ignored in research circles. That many issues are deemed as original research only gives an indication of the quality of peer-reviewed research in the area. In virtually any real medical article original research would be incredibly unusual and very likely totally misinformed, but not here. I'll refer to Wikipedia in 10 years time when most of these issues are instead of "original research" refered to common sense! --Rdos 19:47, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd believe that argument, except that the same can be said about TS, and I still managed to write and reference the article, including the controversial statements.  If you want to write a personal essay on Wiki, there will always be a tag at the top of the article, and no one will read it anyway. So, by putting out original reseach, you're shooting the article, yourself, and Wiki in the foot. You can spin the controversial and speculative parts into a daughter article (if you can reference the statements to reliable sources):  they don't belong in the main article, which doesn't even cover the basics.Sandy 20:14, 2 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd be more content with an article that is "unreliable" than a medical article that reads as if AS was an terrible disease. I think it is preferable that readers don't bother to read it, and thus search for autistic community sites instead, instead of walking way with a totally biased idea of AS. I'll expect the same thing can be said about TS, but it doesn't seem like there is any strong community fighting for a non-disorder-view of TS. You could learn from the autistic community, you know ;-) --Rdos 06:22, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: but it doesn't seem like there is any strong community fighting for a non-disorder-view of TS.  You're wrong.  In fact, a chapter of one of the most authoritative tomes on TS covers that issue, and it is mentioned in the TS article.  The TS article still has to cover the basics.  The discussion happens where it belongs:  on websites, not in an encyclopedia.  An encyclopedia is not an advocacy organization.  Can you please point out examples of where the article on AS is now reading like a "terrible disease"?  Please feel free to introduce verifiable, reliable information which combats any negativism you see.  Sandy 12:34, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  I'm starting to like the words "Original research" 

message: *AQ is used throughout the article, but never defined.  Sandy 03:43, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Do they really need to be defined?  This is the Asperger's page, not the PDD page.  Can't you simply just link those names to the respective articles?  --Dubhagan 21:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you can link them, but right now, the reader who knows little about AS (like me :-) doesn't even know what the five are or why they are mentioned.  I'm referring to all the confusion in terms of the 299.8 diagnsosis, mentioned below in other talk sections.  I don't understand how it all hangs together. Sandy 16:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Terms not defined

message: The controversy section says: nothing.  If there's nothing concise or citable to say, it should be a brief summary of what the main controversies article includes.  Sandy 05:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Controversy section

message: *There are two references to the Gillberg 2002 book, which are missing page numbers.  Sandy 05:02, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Page numbers on refs

message: There is no section discussing comorbidity, and comments on comorbid diagnoses are interspersed throughout the article.  Those mentioned under characteristics are not referenced.  Comorbids need to be pulled together and referenced.  On a similar note, I separated the comment about depression and poverty:  depression is a comorbid, while poverty is a social or issue of living with the condition, which belongs in a separate section.  Sandy 05:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I disagree. Depression is as much a "social issue" as is poverty. --Rdos 06:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is classified medically:  poverty is not.  Poverty is not classified as a "comorbid condition", while depression is.  You can get into what may have caused the depression or what impact it has on social issues in another section, if you can reference the statements.  Sandy 12:29, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sandy's right, depression is a medical term, it is something that gets diagnosed by a doctor, so it is not a "social issue" like you believe.  --Dubhagan 21:15, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Comorbids

message: There appears to have been a pretty strong rebuttal to the speculation of Glenn Gould having AS.  The article by Mesaros is still in Google's cache, but is no longer online. I suggest dropping him, since the case was strong against it, and there will be no reference for it.  Sandy 05:40, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Glenn Gould notable

message: :Some people feel that much of the social difficulties in Asperger Syndrome are more accurately characterized as "mutual misunderstanding", in that neither the autistic nor the neurotypical understands each other. Some autistics assert that they have a much easier time reading body language of other autistic people, and that neurotypicals have difficulties interpreting autistic body language. Comparing the nonverbal communication problems that often occur between people from different cultures is a common support given for this theory.
I don't think this is published in any peer reviewed sources and smells of original reasearch. It certainly isn't backend up by our current sources AFAIK. If someone can prove me wrong, then please do so but please give an inline cite for that paragraph. RN 05:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I concur that with pulling it, until/unless someone can reference it.  But I noticed you also took out the reference to neurotypicals ?  Even I've heard that one, and I've seen it in reliable sources ?  Sandy 05:52, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good now.  Sandy 06:11, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: This is another finding of the autistic-community, but probably isn't part of "published research". Most of peer-reviewed research is only about negative aspects anyway, so by excluding "original research" we once more end up with a terribly biased article that autistics will not be content with and thus will change back to how it is now sooner or later. --Rdos 06:17, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reinstated both graphs, found and added citations. Pokey2006 04:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's likely some of that content has been mentioned or studied somewhere.  You might try to stop being so negative and resistant, and actually go and look for some references to the information among the many examples listed above of where/how you can find data, so that the information can be included.  Several times, when editors have indicated that something couldn't be referenced, I've found a reference in five minutes.  I suggest starting with the Yale link given above, as they seem to have a TON of information covering many different sections, and they also give the journal cites.  Sandy 13:03, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I have reinstated both graphs, found and added citations. Pokey2006 04:53, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  paragraph in social imparments 

message: There is no treatment section at all.  It is surprising that, for a condition often diagnosed in childhood, this article appears written entirely from an adult perspective, overlooking issues impacting upon pediatric populations.  Treatment options (which doesn't only mean medication) need an entire section. If no one can write it, I'll have to resort to again paraphrasing the NINDS or other articles.  Sandy 12:48, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Actually, there is no specific medication for Asperger's itself, but rather for some of the "side effects" (can't think of a better word), like depression, anxiety, and others.  There was a Therapies section that linked to the page about the different therapies, but someone must have removed it.  The therapies are highly controversial, which is why they were moved to their own article.  But your right, a treatment section should be established, touching on the therapies with a link to that article, an mentioning the medication stuff I said here.  Like I said, I'll be picking away at it throughout the week, maybe even establishing a sub-page in my userpage first before adding to this article.  --Dubhagan 21:12, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Treatment does not encompass medication only:  the NINDS article above gives a good sample.  Sandy 16:09, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: No treatment section

message: Here are the DSM codes: 
*299.00  Autistic Disorder  
*299.10  Childhood Disintegrative Disorder  
*299.80  Asperger's Disorder  
*299.80  Pervasive Developmental Disorder NOS  
*299.80  Rett's Disorder 
Are these the five pervasive developmental disorders referred to in the text?  Why do AS, Rett's, and PDD-NOS have the same DSM code?  This all needs to be covered in a section called "Classification", where the similarities/differences/controversy with ASD's can also be covered (and ASD still needs to be defined in the article).  
The database used in the Wiki infobox for AS does not include the code 299.80 -- it uses 299.8.    And, it leasts even more codes for diagnosis 299.8 (Atypical childhood psychosis and Borderline psychosis of childhood).  This needs to be resolved for the reader.  This is exactly the kind of discrepancy one expects to resolve by reading an encyclopedia.  The article often refers to schizophrenia, and the reader doesn't know what the connection or relevance is. Sandy 13:00, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Classification

message: This section is very interesting, and it would be a shame to lose it because it's simply not referenced.  How about some discussion of signs and symptoms and characteristics from the DSM point of view?  That seems to be completely missing?  I just did a quick pass, and it looks like a lot of what is there may come from Attwood's book.   Does someone have that book, and can someone adequately cite the entire section?  I found one example of unreferenced info which I know has been studied:  there is a good, quantitative study of the content of the narrowly-defined interests in AS, as it has been contrasted with the obsessions of TS.  Here is some info which should be incorporated.  
*   (Please note at the top of the page, you can click on related articles and find a WHOLE lot more !!)
* http://www.autism.org/stim.html and http://www.autism.org/tunvsn.html (these have some good info which is not cited - we would need to find PMID cites).
* http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=1872620  If someone can listen to this, it may contain some information sources.
* http://www.udel.edu/bkirby/asperger/aspergerpapers.html An entire listing of AS papers, may contain a lot of sources
* http://www.udel.edu/bkirby/asperger/karen_williams_guidelines.html This paper contains references at the bottom, which may prove useful
* http://www.cpa-apc.org/Publications/Archives/CJP/2003/september/tidmarsh.asp This looks important and recent:  someone should get hold of it and use it here.
Honestly, if I can find these resources on Tourette syndrome webpages, you all must have an even more extensive list of sources you can cite.  Sandy 14:25, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Characteristics section

message: Can anyone please take a shot at writing a History section, which should be included in medical articles?  Here's a sample.  Sandy 14:47, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: History

message: Another unsourced paragraph, looking like original research, removed from the article.  There should be something salvageable in this paragraph, if it can be sourced.  If this paragraph can be re-phrased and referenced, let's add it back in.  If it can't be sourced, it belongs on a website, not on Wiki.
:The social contributions of autistic people are believed to have contributed to a shift in perception of autism spectrum disorders as complex syndromes rather than diseases that must be cured.  Proponents of this view reject the notion that there is an 'ideal' brain configuration and that any deviation from the norm must be considered pathological.  They demand tolerance for what they call their neurodiversity in much the same way physically handicapped people have demanded tolerance for theirs. Views such as these are the basis for the autistic rights and autistic pride movements.
Sandy 15:14, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is well-known thought within the autistic community, hence not original research. Maybe you won't find it on PubMed, but that seems like a restrictive source of knowledge. You might find some books on the subject, most notably Jasmine O'Neill's. Some caveats: (1) The anti-cure perspective is not dependent on social contributions. In fact, Temple Grandin has been criticized for using the 'social contribution' argument to divide the autism spectrum, as if only those who are able to contribute to society are worthy of existence. (2) Autistic rights is the movement (also called autism self-advocaty movement; autistic pride is part of that and not a separate movement really. Neurodivergent 15:41, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Again, your time would be better spent in sourcing the information, than arguing that it is "well-known thought".  If it is, in fact, "well known thought" it should not be hard at all to find a source for it, and work on writing it in a way that can be sourced.  The entire section is very well written, and it came from someone/somewhere, so please try to find the source.  I'm going to stop removing paragraphs (after the one below), because the entire section is unsourced and needs to be deleted.  Sandy 15:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: However, Asperger syndrome does not guarantee one will have a miserable life.  The intense focus and tendency to work things out logically, a characteristic of Asperger syndrome, often grants people with the syndrome a high level of ability in their fields of interest.  When these special interests coincide with a materially or socially useful task, the person with Asperger's often can in fact lead a profitable life.  The child obsessed with naval architecture may grow up to be an accomplished shipwright.
Sandy 15:45, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sociological and cultural aspects

message: Someone has apparently deleted a statement that explained that the DSM-IV prevalence of AS is 3 in 10,000 (lower than autistic disorder). This is notable information. I just hadn't gotten around to sourcing it. Whoever deleted it, please explain yourself. Neurodivergent 16:07, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: NVM, the statement had been reworded elsewhere. I corrected "incidence" as the sentence described "prevalence". Neurodivergent 16:24, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Glad you found it.  The sooner we can get all of the correct sections set up, the easier this work will be :-)  Sandy 17:06, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Statements deleted for no reason 

message: Sandy, please fix deleted text. . Neurodivergent 18:09, 3 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm heading out for 4th July prep, and will review all of these, and address the text, later tonight.  Sandy 18:37, 3 July 2006 (UTC)

text: At a cut-off of 26, it's useful for ruling out AS. That is, if you score 26 or lower, the odds that you have AS approach zero. Now, at a threshold of 32, it appears to be sensitive, but this is based on only one study that I know of. That is, if you score higher than 32, the odds that you meet diagnostic criteria seem to be about 60%. (In my personal experience, Aspies tend to score around 36-38). Neurodivergent 00:08, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Well, is there literature that says the AQ is not reliable? Clearly, there's literature that says it is. You have a point that most of the research that says "AQ yay!" is by Baron-Cohen and collegues; but if you care about authority, there's not much more authoritative than Baron-Cohen in autism research. About the scores of mathematics students, note that they were interviewed afterwards and diagnosed with the DSM-IV. Neurodivergent 00:15, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That paragraph is fine. I questioned a different paragraph, the one about the "Geek Syndrome" article being printed along with the AQ questionnaire, and how "geek" is not known to be related to AS. It's probably fine as it stands now. Though I'd say that since mathematics students tend to score higher in the AQ, at least being a math geek is likely associated with AS. Neurodivergent 01:33, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm, do you agree that the sentence is not right? "It promoted the notion that "Geek Syndrome" is the same as Asperger syndrome, in part because it was printed alongside the Autism Spectrum Quotient questionnaire"~. Neurodivergent 01:35, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sorry, I haven't caught up with you:  how do you want to fix it?  The problem that I see is that not all "geeks" are "aspies", in spite of the AQ.  Sandy 11:52, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: What I mean is that it's probably true that the article argued that "geek syndrome" is the same as AS. But the reasoning that it's "because it was printed alongside the AQ Test" is speculative. The question of whether "geek" is the same as AS is non-answerable really, because there's no formal diagnostic criteria for "geek". Neurodivergent 12:32, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ah, OK, now I understand.  Yes, it is a speculative statement.  Should we delete the entire sentence, or do you have a proposed fix?  Sandy 12:45, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I removed the phrase. Another issue with that paragraph is that, while the article does claim that AS is prevalent in the Bay Area, in the California DDS data, prevalence is much higher in the Los Angeles area. Even though engineers have higher odds of having kids who are autistic, the numbers are just not sufficient to result in a noticeable prevalence difference. Neurodivergent 12:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  AQ Test is a sensitive instrument 

message: This link provides details on the DSM-IV definition, the ICD 10 definition, and definitions set forth by Tony Attwood, Christopher Gillberg and Peter Szatmari (all word for word, no summary).  These separate definitions should each be summarised separately in this article.  I am currently working on it myself separately, though that could take a while before I get it to the point of putting it in this article.  If someone else wants to attempt it, go ahead.  --Dubhagan 20:56, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I added the link in several prominent places.  We link to the Gillberg criteria.  Rather than list all the different criteria in the article, I think it would be better to add, for example, the Szatmari criteria in an article about him, and link to it ?  Sandy 11:54, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Diagnostic criteria 

message: I removed this section because it's not needed here.  I've moved the two main article links down to see also section.  This article is about AS, not people with AS.  --Dubhagan 01:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Examples are inappropriate? --Keyne 13:09, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Notable cases are a recommended section per the guidelines to writing medical articles.  I'll be adding it back in, since what was there before was appropriate and was referenced.  Sandy 15:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Additional note:  not sure who added Geek Syndrome to the definition of AS at the top, but it has to go.  It's not a medical term, and the previous section was fine.  Sandy 15:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Note also that those sections contain information that is likely not yet in the full articles. I went and looked for some references to add to those sections myself. Neurodivergent 00:27, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Notable cases 

message: :"The Ehlers & Gillberg study[5] found a 4:1 male to female ratio in subjects definitely suspected of having Asperger's, but a lower 2.3:1 ratio when merely suspected or otherwise borderline cases were included."
This strikes me as a very awkward way to word this ("definately maybe" vs "maybe maybe"?), but I don't know enough about the study to make a substantive alteration.  Any idea on how to clear this up a bit? --Keyne 13:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just had a look at the study, and will try to clear it up.  "Definites" met G&G criteria, others were suspected or possible.  Sandy 15:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Reworded: pls have a look.  Sandy 11:55, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Much more clear.  --Keyne 12:59, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Ehlers & Gillberg study mention in the Epidemiology section

message: Progress has been encouraging, and the article is much improved!  But, it is still largely unreferenced as the two week Major Review period approaches its end.
The following sections have still not been written:
*Classification
*Symptoms and signs Moved characteristics here, they are still unreferenced
*Treatment/Management
*Prognosis
*Screening - saw the addition, thanks Natche24.  Can anyone expand on the different screening instruments in use?  I've now read about the AQ quotient, but are there others?  If so, we can turn it back into a section. Sandy 11:43, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Lots to do still

message: The basic structure recommended in the Wiki "How to write a medical article" link (above) is now in place.  The article is in bad need of:
*extensive Wiki-linking (can folks please begin to work on that)?
*a thorough copy edit
*references.
I can try to drum up someone to help with a thorough copy edit, but there is no point in asking for that help until the article is Wiki-linked and referenced.  It would be really stupendous if those of you who know the territory would help reference the article.  Then we can drum up some of the Wiki physicians to look at the article, and finish tweaking it. Sandy 19:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sandy, I cn probably help with the wikilinking if I have a better idea of what we're looking for, in that regard.  Just a bit more information (relatively new to the whole process; yes, I know how, just not "what"), lest I just link the whole thing. ;)  --Keyne 13:02, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Structure complete

message: For missing references, let me suggest:
* Mindblindness: . Criticism: 
* Body language: 
* Something interesting about Asperger's being an "impossible diagnosis" in children: . (Probably wrong and simply due to low levels of recognition).
* Analisys of Hans Asperger's clinical records: 
* Kanner's criteria as recounted by Lorna Wing: 
* On the difference with HFA: . Attwood says "similarites are greater than differences" .
Neurodivergent 00:44, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Possible references to use 

message: These two are missing page numbers:
*Christopher Gillberg (2002). A guide to Asperger Syndrome. Cambridge, UK: Cambridge University Press. . p. number missing. 
*Gillberg, 2002, p. number missing.
;I found approximate page number for the Gillberg book better and exact page numbers need to be found
This ref lists page numbers that are much too broad:  the reader needs to be able to find the relevant text in the book.Natche24 02:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I reasearched the article and it is a long article the page numbers are correct.Natche24 02:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing refs

message: Why has this section gotten such a POV-name? Patho- directly implies that AS is a disease, which has not been confirmed. I'd suggest changing back to only "Causes". --Rdos 18:46, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: That terminology was taken from the medical writing article:  I have no objection to leaving it as "Causes" only.  Sandy 19:41, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Rdos, every statement there is referenced.  Try clicking on the reference and reading it.  The NINDS/NIH is where PubMed resides. Sandy 22:04, 6 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It is not referenced in actual research. It is speculations on the part of the people that wrote the summary and is reflecting their agenda that AS is a disease. You did talk about reliable resources before didn't you? Biased opinions by NUH hardly can be considered reliable. --Rdos 05:36, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rdos, you may not be familiar with the research, but it exists.  Period.  Yes, the article has a weakness in that people here never written the sections citing the actual PubMed abstracts, so I had to summarize from the NIH.  Perhaps that is because the article has been a repository of original research for so long that editors didn't realize that they should be citing real research.  If you would stop complaining and obstructing progress on the article, and spend some time in PubMed, you would find that the NIH doesn't report anything that isn't based on journal-published research.  I'm trying to help you keep your featured article:  I'm not going to do every bit of work for you.  The NIH does not publish speculation:  they publish a summary of journal-published research, and are accepted as a reliable source (the same can't be said of some of the books used to cite some of the speculative content).  Sandy 12:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If they publish things that are journal-published research and whatnot, then, should it not be relatively simple to back it up with proper citations?  --Keyne 13:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, it should.  I've been asking editors who know the most reliable sources in this area to do it for over a week.  I don't know the good research from the bad in AS, as I do in TS.  I don't know which research is refuted, which is controlled, which is replicated, etc.  People who follow AS should know that, or should have access to authoritative tomes on the topic which give references to the research, summarizing the strength of each statement and what kinds of studies it's based on.  I've given multiple sources of finding that kind of research above, and places where the work could start.  Again, I think the problem is that folks here might not have realized how much of a repository for original research this article had become, or how little referencing of actual, journal-published research is done in the article.  Most of the article is currently referenced to non-peer-reviewed books and articles.  I don't know if that will get past FAR or not. Sandy 13:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, it is not easy to backup. NIH takes a POV point on AS but the opinions that differ from their perspective are hard to find, especially in peer-reviewed research. --Rdos 13:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Any opinion or speculation that is not available from reliable sources has no place in Wikipedia, period.  Get a blog or a website.  Sandy 14:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Causes and pathophysiology 

message: Well, everything has a reference now.  However, the tag at the beginning of the article mentions inappropriate citations.  Which ones are inappropriate?  --Dubhagan 02:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure:  User:RN added that particular tag.  I believe it means the refs need to be checked:  I've found some lately that don't say what they claim they say, so s/he could be referring to that?  Sandy 02:11, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just did a quick spot check, and saw entire paragraphs with vague, unreferenced statements under the Narrow interests section. Sandy 02:17, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Next most important thing is to get the article wikilinked.  Sandy 02:15, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I just added the fact tag to a few more paragraphs I thought needed citations - feel free to remove them if inappropriate. Super great job on the article everyone! It is getting there very quickly :). You all deserve barnstars :). RN 03:22, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I think parts of the article reads like NIH propaganda. For now, I only tagged some specific sections POV, but the whole article is quickly getting totally biased again. --Rdos 06:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  And as often as you tag it, someone will remove the tag, as long as the article is based on referenced information from reliable sources.  Rather than being obstructionist, why don't you write a well-referenced section, using reliable sources, which substantiates your POV, without being original research ?  Sandy 12:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see, but the POV tag is not about reliable sources but about leaving out criticism and differences in opinion. I'm sure such differences do not only exist in the autistic community, but also in some other circles, but as I've said before, I don't know their publications well enough. --Rdos 13:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  You are welcome to write criticism and differences and controversy, if you can cite reliable sources.  But don't tag the article just to make a point, particularly if you've not done the work.  Sandy 14:29, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  References 

message: The weakest, most vague, and most unreferenced part of the article is the whole section that used to called "characteristics", now under Symptoms and signs.  Most of it really should just be cut, because it's enough to keep the article from retaining its FA status.  It's just too vague for an encyclopedic entry, and also way too long, speculative and unreferenced.  It needs a serious pair of editing shears.  Any other ideas for how to fix it?  Sandy 03:30, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I was just working on that section (sensory issues). Check it out. What remains to be fixed?Pokey2006 03:33, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I saw lots of tags RN added there ... and I saw some other problematic statements.  Do we have exact page numbers for the long paragraphs?  I'll go look again.  Sandy 03:50, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: ack.  too much to tag.  When books are used to reference an entire paragraph, page numbers for each statement are needed.  An AOL member webpage as a reference ????  Referencing is still too weak to get by FA:  every sentence has to be looked at, and if the entire paragraph is covered by one ref, it needs to very specific as to how to find that reference.  Sandy 03:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Okay, I'll go through it systematically. I have about half a dozen AS books in front of me as I write so I can look up each reference as I go. I have already found stuff on mindblindness from the Oasis guide. Pokey2006 03:58, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks so much, Pokey, you're doing a great job.  I wish I could help more, but I just don't have the books and resources on AS.  Sandy 04:03, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  It's my pleasure. It's a labor of love for my son who has AS.(I would do anything for my angry yet adorable little 6-year-old 45-pound bunny). I've done a general cleanup of the section. I cut out a fair bit of vague, rambling stuff. Please continue to point out stuff that needs citation and I'll try my best to find it over the next few days. Pokey2006 04:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: During the school years, many are perceived as highly intelligent underachievers, clearly capable of outperforming their peers in their field of interest yet persistently unmotivated to do regular homework assignments (sometimes even in their areas of interest). Others, in contrast, may be overachievers who are hypermotivated to outperform peers in school. This adds to the difficulties of diagnosing the syndrome. In more serious cases, the combination of social problems and intense interests can lead to unusual behavior, such as greeting a stranger by launching into a lengthy monologue about a special interest rather than introducing oneself in the socially-accepted way. Pokey2006 04:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I have restored one of them, about Asperger culture, difference not disability etc. with citatons to two articles in a reputable, recent academic book aimed at clinicians. (Stoddart)I will try to get to the other one soon.Pokey2006 04:41, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Okay, done. What next? Pokey2006 04:55, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Another idea

message: Once more ABA and all the rest of this crappy stuff is back here. It has been moved to a separate article because there is so much controversy around this topic. I suggest keeping this minimal here. Already the stuff brought back is terribly POV. Both the Causes and Treatment sections should be tagged POV. --Rdos 05:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that it should be kept minimal.  It should basically be a brief overview.  Also, the fact that the treatments are controversial should be mentioned, along with a citation.  --Dubhagan 06:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I added a line about the controversy, linked to the article I mentioned above, and used a couple of links provided by said article for citation.  --Dubhagan 19:31, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Treatments 

message: *  This appears to address race (black-white, but not Hispanic and others) in autism but not Asperger's. Since it comes up on an AS search, someone might want to find the full text of the article, as it may also address AS. Sandy 17:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Full study here: http://www.naar.org/news/pdfs/JAMAcdc.pdf.  --Dubhagan 17:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: That would be geo-racial, would it not?  Racial studies using appropriate qualifiers in a region would be just as valid, if different than what you're suggesting.  It'd certainly be interesting to see how AS prevalence in various regions around the world would be, but it should have little bearing on prevalence within accepted racial bounds, unless you are suggesting that a non-significant racial mix is present in the cities in question.  --Keyne 19:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Those studies only looked at Blacks and Whites, they didn't look at any other races (Hispanics, East Asians, South-East Asians, Middle Easterners, Pacific Islanders, Natives...).  --Dubhagan 19:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, yes.  I didn't say they were good; rather, that a proper racial study need not be geo-locationally based (though, that, too, would be interesting). :)  --Keyne 20:08, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Studies found

message: Currently, the causes section is a nearly word-for-word duplicate of the referenced article.  Shouldn't we be summarizing and not merely duplicating/lifting their wordings? --Keyne 13:24, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Because the NIH source is in the public domain (see the info at the bottom of their page), it is OK to use it verbatim.  I had originally summarized it, but since RDos disagreed with my summary, I substituted the exact wording.  Since there appears to be some controversy here, I thought it best to stick with the exact wording from the reliable source: if you can better reword it, that works for me, but if it gets too far away from the NIH wording, it will need to be referenced from other sources.  Sandy 13:27, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I'll take a crack at it a little later today, as I don't think it completely appropriate regardless of ability to do so.  Parroting a single source for an entire section is something I find a tad questionable as well, so I'll poke around for some additional references in the process.  Keep in mind that even peer-reviewed referenced material can be strongly biased.   --Keyne 13:32, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Keyne, I really regret that editors here never wrote the sections, and hope you can come up with some other reliable sources backing up original wording.  It's a real shame when a Wiki article has to resort to copying other sources, since no one did the work.  Sandy 14:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Strongly biased is a good word! --Rdos 13:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Causes section

message: And, it's pretty scary that every link in the Main section is to an article which is tagged at the top.  Sandy 03:11, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a way to cut this down so that each individual source is only listed once. The list is now so overwhelming I get the idea I'd better do it? --Zeraeph 17:04, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that should not be done.  Every single statement in the article should be referenced if you want to be a featured article.  More references is a good thing.  Please do not remove references.  Sandy 17:25, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Zeraeph, I reverted your removal of carefully inserted references, which included the mandatory page numbers.  YOu cannot simply reference entire books without page numbers, and hard print resources are preferable to websites.  The reason some of the references are repeated is because they include specific page numbers for locating the text.  If you remove that, the article will not pass FA.  A Further Reading section is also recommended on FA. Sandy 17:31, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: FA articles must have complete citations, including page nos, and must include a Further reading or references list.  If you want to take the risk of losing your star, it's your risk.  RN follows FAC as I do, and she can tell you, as I have, that they have become much much more strict on this.  If you remove the citations, and further reading, it will be a problem on Featured status.  Please do not compare to *old* FA articles, as the standards have changed. Sandy 20:00, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Page numbers are fine when you only have 30 seperate citations anyway, but there comes a point when you have to use common sense. Currently the article length is way over recommended on citations alone. --Zeraeph 20:21, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: No, you are wrong.  Both the article size and the prose size are well within limits.  I've been checking both all along.  Citations do not count in prose size.  I suggest that you review the number of citations on the latest medical featured article, cystic fibrosis.  I repeat, if you delete citations, you jeopardize the FA status.  IN fact, more citations are still needed.  Sandy 20:26, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: More importantly, on closer examination of the most recent featured medical article, cystic fibrosis, you will see that almost every single reference is to a journal-published medical study from PubMed (PMID).  Medical studies published in journals don't require page numbers:  books do.  The MOST preferred reference for any medical article is the actuual PMID study.  We already have a real weakness in that this article almost never cites actual research, and cites too many books, which may contain content that has not been subject to peer review.  Sandy 20:38, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: New template didn't need to be created, replace with PDD template which should have been here to begin with.  --Dubhagan 08:59, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You're welcome.  The AS template I created included all of the previous "See also" entries, as well as everything linked to in the AS article.  The PDD template you added does not contain that info, so I added back the new AS template.  If you want me to re-do the new AS template to include some sections from the PDD template, I can do that.  Sandy 13:53, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: PDD template is SUPPOSED to be there, as this article is on it.  That template is on every other article listed on said template.  Also, the last link on that template shows a list of ALL related topics, including ALL the topics included in the template you created, so I removed yours.  Besides, if an AS specific template needed to be created, then the same should be done for Autism, which it shouldn't, because EVERYTHING can be found through the PDD template.  --Dubhagan 20:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: And need I remind you that templates like that go at the BOTTOM of the page.  --Dubhagan 20:22, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: And before anyone gets into an argument about it please note that I am indeed the author of the PDD template and propogated it around the articles back in the day. RN 21:32, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: You liked the template?  Uh,oh, I submitted it for speedy deletion, and it's probably already gone. Do you want me to try to salvage it? Sandy 21:33, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's already gone.  Sandy 21:36, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: If it got nixed already I can ask for undeletion later, so it is no big deal :). RN 21:37, 8 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK.  In case you need it later, I had merged it with all the articles in the PDD template.  It was at Template:Topics related to Asperger syndrome Sandy 21:39, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I was thinking of trying to expand the template to include newer articles that are important to  Autism but not listed such as Christopher Gillberg, Peter Szatmari and others.Natche24 06:00, 14 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Created template to replace See also

message: Not sure what happened here, but something is wrong with these sentences:
Christopher Gillberg argues that although there may well be significant delays in some areas of language development. Gillberg's own set of diagnostic criteria emphasizes linguistic peculiarities that are not mentioned in the DSM-IV criteria.[6]  Sandy 04:18, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sandy I restored the prevous statement back to the original, I hope this clears up the goof. The page numbers are still necessary but are no where to be found on the internet etc. 69.242.106.254 04:57, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Can we find a similar statement from another source, or re-word around the missing page number somehow ???  Sandy 04:59, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Sounds like a good idea I will start looking ASAP have you found any sources yet that quote  Gillberg??Natche24 05:06, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I see someone added the page.
I saw another in-text comment regarding the Gillberg quote:
Christopher Gillberg argues that although there may well be significant delays in some areas of language development, AS children often show exceptional skills in other language-related areas. p. 34.. 
The comment may have been inserted by Tony.  Can someone (who has access to that book) list what those "other language-related areas" are ?  Sandy 21:16, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: I do not have the book but I found a Link that states the following from that book but does it does not give a page number I am assuming that it is the same that was cited page 34.
In A Guide to Asperger Syndrome (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press, 2002), Christopher Gillberg also criticizes the "no significant delay" clauses of the DSM, and to a lesser extent some of the others, and argues that the clauses represent a misunderstanding or oversimplification of the syndrome. He states that although there may well be significant delay in some areas of language development, it is often combined with exceptionally high functioning in other language-related areas, and he argues that this combination superficially resembles but is in reality very different from normal development in language and adaptive behavior. Natche24 21:38, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

text: It's making me nervous that we're including a quote from this book which it seems that no one here has access to, and which we really can't explain.  Can't we delete the portion we don't have complete info on, and just address the fact that his criteria call for language difficulties not included in the DSM?  Or, does anyone see a way to fix this?  Sandy 21:50, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I am having difficulty deciding what to do or how to fix it the only solution that I could think of is to delete the entire paragraph and cite the part that we know somewhere else. Is there anybody who agrees to delete the paragraph. Natche24 22:10, 9 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Gillberg goof

message: It was brought to my attention that there is no article on Peter Szatmari. I tried to create an article but it was quickly deleted by unnamed user. Can somebody create an article for him that includes his dignosic criteria for Aspergers. It is a needed article that can take place of that broken link for Szatmari. Natche24 21:03, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It's on my to do list.  --Dubhagan 21:27, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Szatmari suggests that AS was promoted as a diagnosis to spark more research into the syndrome: "It was introduced into the official classification systems in 1994 and has grown in popularity as a diagnosis, even though its validity has not been clearly established. It is interesting to note that it was introduced not so much as an indication of its status as a 'true' disorder, but more to stimulate research ... its validity is very much in question."
69.242.106.254 21:37, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Hmm, that reference is no longer there, but I remember it.  I thought the reference had specified the page number.  --Dubhagan 22:21, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Found the reference in an earlier version.  the reference says it's on page 239.  --Dubhagan 22:23, 11 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I contributed that quote from the Stoddart book. Any questions about any of my contributions can be left on my talk page. If people feel it should go into a Szatmari article, feel free to put it there. If anyone is starting an article on him, the Stoddart book contains a current article written by Szatmari himself that is excellent. That's where I got the quote. Pokey2006 03:00, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: As per a recomendation form one of the editors I moved the quote to the Szatmari article.Natche24 00:29, 13 July 2006 (UTC)

text: PS - it also could have been speedy deleted as non-notable.  You have to establish notability in a bio, so make sure your original structure gives enough information to explain why he is notable. Sandy 04:12, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

text: Very nice!  I did a little bit of cleanup, formatting, fixing refs, but you look to be in good shape!  Be sure to add a reference for his criteria, which we have on the main page here.  Also, for any questions on article structure, you can see the Wiki Manual of Style.  Sandy 05:06, 12 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Peter Szatmari Article 

message: This is a 2005 publication from leading researchers in the field:  if anyone has this book, it would be a far better resource for referencing the article than some of the websites used.  
http://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0471716987/ref=ase_autismfm-20/102-9746915-7996156?s=books&v=glance&n=283155&tagActionCode=autismfm-20
I just found this quote about this book, on the Yale site:
:Now in a fully updated Third Edition, The Handbook of Autism and Pervasive Developmental Disorders, edited by Yale Child Study Center faculty Fred R. Volkmar, M.D., Rhea Paul, Ph.D., Ami Klin, Ph.D., and Donald J. Cohen, M.D., has, since the first edition, become the most influential reference work in the field of autism and related conditions. In two volumes, this invaluable reference provides a comprehensive review of all information presently available about these disorders, drawing on findings and clinical experience from a number of related disciplines such as psychiatry, psychology, neurobiology, and pediatrics. For more information, visit our publications page. 
Once again, I encourage those who are concerned about the "medicalization" of this article to seek out sources that will help write the rest of the story.  The resources are out there:  they just have not been accessed.  I just discovered that Donald Cohen (now deceased) was one of the authors of this book.  He was the source of most of the text that allowed me to discuss the latent advantages and positive aspects associated with Tourette syndrome on the TS article. He was a unique individual with respect to his ability to write respectfully and about the positive aspects associated with neurological differences.  Again, I insist that the information is out there:  I hope others will look for it and finish writing the rest of the story, rather than tearing down the accurate information that is now in the article.  You can balance the article by introducing missing content, not by tearing down accurate content. Sandy 14:15, 15 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Handbook of autism and PDD