Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive 15

message: I've caught all the wikilinks I could, but I may have missed some.  Per WP:MOSLINK and WP:CONTEXT, the first occurrence of technical, important or relvant terms should be linked, and common terms known to most English speakers shouldn't be linked.  Overlinking should be avoided.  Because there's a lot of jargon in this article, I've linked a couple of words not only on the first occurrence, but also on a few subsequent instances.  If fresh sets of eyes can check the wikilinking, that would be great.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:34, 31 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Wikification 

message: The talk page is at 150KB again, and hopefully we're now going to begin the next phase of nitpicking and final tweaking and refining of the text.  Is anyone opposed to archiving everything up to this stage, so that continuing work can begin on a fresh page?  I'll wait until tomorrow at least, in case anyone disagrees, and have no problem if anyone does disagree, just trying to make our work easier. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Erm, OK. I just stuck something above so give a little time but should be ok by tomorrow. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:36, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Everything up to "something I think I should say", (until the issues are established on course for resolution, which is only reasonable) is fine by me whenever. --Zeraeph 14:42, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: We should probably also leave the section above that (Wikification), since I'm not sure anyone else has reviewed that.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:18, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Totally fine by me :o)--Zeraeph 17:34, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ditto. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:16, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Archive again?

message: Please add specific examples here of information from reliable sources that has not been included, and please provide the source with enough specificity that others can locate it (for example, saying B-C's second paper referenced fifteeen sections above this one is a bit hard to sort out).  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:50, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: *Also, McPartland p. 780 says that the gold standard consists of a parent interview, the Autism Diagnostic Interview-Revised, a semistructured conversation/play-based interview, and the Autism Diagnostic Observation Schedule.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 2 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Missing information

message: I restored the  that has been in place here since March 21; considering there is a history of tension on this page, it doesn't hurt during a FAR (when things can get even more tense) to keep a reminder of Wikipedia:Etiquette, talk page guidelines, assume good faith, use appropriate edit summaries to describe your edits, answer questions when asked, stay on topic, debate the topic not the person, don't type in all caps which is the equivalent of HOLLERING, etc.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:02, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Sandy, what I think is this, that the calmtalk template probably serves to incite more conflict than it prevents. As you probably know, a well known exercise to demonstrate the concept "cognitive control" is to instruct the audience NOT to think of pink elephants...with the inevitable result that the only thing they CAN think of is pink elephants. In this way, I feel the template may very well have the opposite effect to that intended. But If you are so very uncomfortable with trying my way for a couple of weeks, of course you can keep it. :o) --Zeraeph 11:42, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, now I understand why your emoticon's nose is round -- it's full of beans!  Poindexter Propellerhead 18:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You got it :o) (Though beans might not be everybody's first choice of word for what I am full of?) --Zeraeph 18:48, 3 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Restored calmtalk 

message: This really needs to come earlier in the article, not right at the end (in the hope nobody sees it, perhaps? :o) ). As it really is such a tiny section I would almost go for popping it right under "classification"? Any other ideas? Can we decide and execute this in the next 24 hours please? It would be another "one move" address to the POV issues of the article, and, in the right place it would break up the dry stuff and keep the reader interested. --Zeraeph 00:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Placing wider cultural aspects of AS before a full description of what it is (ie. before classification, characteristics, diagnosis, prognosis, comorbidities etc.) would make the cultural aspects more difficult to appreciate. Also, I don't understand your comment that this is required because of a "POV issue". Unless a beneficial reason can be given I vote for cultural aspects to remain where it is. Soulgany101 00:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't really see how that would "make the cultural aspects more difficult to appreciate"??? Are you sure there isn't a typo or something in there? --Zeraeph 01:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Sandy, in YOUR opinion there is no POV, other opinions differ, and have equal weight with yours (see WP:CON) and people have just as much right to express those differing opinions as you have to express yours, until there is resolution. This is what we have a talk page, and discussion for. Every time people produce WP:RS and quotes and you dismiss them out of hand.  --Zeraeph 01:53, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Third, why on earth are people here so worried about the order?  It's as if you honestly think people only read the lead. Sorry that statement left me gasping. Of course most people only read the lead, if that. Ask any newspaper or magazine editor what gets read. Very few "casual" readers will get past the first paragraph. Anybody writing an article and believing that a gem buried in the last paragraph is going to get read is kidding themselves. I've got more to say, just got to find time. --Michael Johnson 02:57, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Its a bit of a leap to suggest that newspapers where there are multiple subjects covered about which I might not be interested, is somehow the same as an internet subject I have specifically searched for. I would guess that people would be more inclined to read something in its entirety if they had gone looking for it. Soulgany101 03:19, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Exactly.  Either they care enough about the topic to read the entire article, or they have a specific interest and they go straight to that section, which is why the lead is supposed to be a summary of what is contained in the body, and is supposed to be compelling to encourage them to read further.  We see a misplaced emphasis here on cramming POV into the lead, as if nothing else will be read, and that misplaced emphasis helps assure the article won't be worth reading.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:25, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Obviously I disagree, and believe you are being unduly optimistic. Netherless, I think the lead to this article has two problems. Firstly it is difficult to read. The language is unnecessarily dense and complex. Reading one of the most commonly referenced sources, here, I was struck by how easy the "background" section was to read. Struck because it is aimed at a professional audience, while this article should be aimed at a general audience. Secondly, and this I believe is may be the POV point other editors have been getting at, is that the prognosis for aspies in this article, at least as it reads in the lead, comes across as extremely negative. Reading that I would be lead to believe only the rare aspie can hope to function "normally" in society. By contrast the impression I am left with reading the eMedicine article introduction is that there are problems, but they can be overcome, and there may also be advantages. I just don't get that from this article. --Michael Johnson 03:56, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Michael, WebMD is a commercial site and the article is not peer-reviewed, even if written by psychiatrists.  The site even has a disclaimer at the bottom of the page to not rely on what is read on their site, that it cannot be guaranteed to be correct or reliable.  But as you are using it at this point, its accuracy is neither here nor there. Kiwi 09:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Michael is using that link as an example of the more readable and accessible style this article needs so desperately, as it stands it is just a gruelling slog to read. I don't believe people should be made to wade through that for their information. I also note that, incidentally, that article has a far more positive focus than this one. As it is written by a Professor of Psychiatry, that is worth consideration on the POV issues. --Zeraeph 12:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Yes, (Michael - added for clarity), language can be simplified.  Right now, it seems that major work is being done to eliminate uncited and unverifiable text.  Once that is done, then the simplified language can be incorporated into what remains without wandering away from what has been established as encyclopedia worthy.  You (Michael) can probably be very valuable once that stage is reached by helping simplify the presentation.  But right now, trying to do both at the same time could lead to you working hard on things that will be deleted or vastly rewritten - and that is both frustrating and disappointing.   (talk • contribs) 09:14, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I am rather afraid that any attempt to tidy it up does seem to get reverted. --Zeraeph 12:03, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: You're working on a deeper level than we've been able to take this article (yet).  Three weeks ago, the article was riddled with factual inaccuracy, unverified text and undue weight.  We now at least have a starting place of text that is true to reliable sources and we are now in a phase where it should be possible to tweak and refine the text to make it shine.  Instead, negativity abounds and there's an apparent lack of willingness to dig out a book, put some text in a sandbox, stay true to the reliable sources, and develop consensus on how to make the text brilliant. It was a long struggle just to get recognition here of what a WP:LEAD is according to Wikipedia guidelines, and I'm not sure it's understood yet; there's quite a push to get particular points of view up front, rather than summarize the article according to guidelines in WP:LEAD.  Although all of the text was developed in sandbox with time for other editors to review and comment, several chose not to; belated criticism is ironic considering no text was brought into the article that wasn't first developed in sandbox with consensus.  If you're willing to give it a try, how about grabbing what's there, putting it in your sandbox, working your ideas, and letting the rest of us review?  If you write something that is true to reliable sources, doesn't violate WP:LEAD or WP:UNDUE, summarizes the entire article, and shines with brilliant and compelling prose as well, that's gravy. Or, if it's easier, I'll be glad to put it into a section of my sandbox for you, and you can work there.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've heard of sandboxes, but am not sure how they work, let alone how to access them, but will certainly try to contribute when I can. I have been a little bit reluctant to date, because as I said I don't have a professional background in this area. --Michael Johnson 04:52, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Michael, you don't need a professional background in this area (be that AS or editing).  You are able to recognize easily understood text.  That is all it takes.  I hope you give it a try! Kiwi 09:23, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: I support Zeraeph's proposal to move the cultural discussion nearer the top of the page to ensure a more balanced, neutral point of view. There is more to Asperger's syndrome than the potentially disabling aspects traditionally covered in medical journals.--NeantHumain 19:42, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Cultural Aspects 1

message: I do not understand these reverts ? Can you please explain your rationale fully? --Zeraeph 02:51, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Do you mean that you missed the detailed discussion that we had yesterday, or that you want me to break down my edit summary piece by piece?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:26, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you referring to the discussion we had yesterday about run-on sentences and hyperbole versus professional editing standards? --Zeraeph 03:31, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Please keep my contribution to the lead. AS people are high functioning, and have above average to high IQ. I understand that you SandyGeorgia is an award winning Wikipedian and like to have a nice tidy article on Asperger Syndrome, there are other editors, and there is no need to attempt to monopolize the article. In the spirit Wikipedian freedom of cooperative multi-user editing, can you at least allow my contribution to the lead paragraph to remain. I may not be able to write like a technical author or bring up citations, but I consider my knowledge of AS to be sufficient to contribute to the article. Thank you. Kreb Dragonrider 16:17, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Kreb, will this citation do for you?  it's an impeccable WP:RS from the Royal Society of medicine, 2003. If you read it you might like to revise a little to cite it, or you might even like to add comments that cite it to the rest of the article? I think this article could use a little more consensus and co-operation too. --Zeraeph 16:28, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That source doesn't cite that text.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I did suggest that he might like to rewrite it to cite the text more directly...or perhaps you would like to do it...remember, a Wikipedia article is definately not supposed to be a compilation of quotations, that would be copyright infringement. --Zeraeph 16:36, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I will find a citation or two, will research later, have to go out now (karate class tonight), will come back later. You asked for a "little professor", you got it! ;)Kreb Dragonrider 16:55, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please explain the reverts

message: Please discuss additions to the lead on talk before making them; the current lead was developed in sandbox with consensus, and there are ongoing efforts to improve it but at least it was accurate.  Regarding this edit, please provide a source for your definition of "high functioning".  The rest of the text already delves into the controversy over AS vs. HFA, and this addition prematurely introduces the concept before it's discussed, and is probably based on an incorrect definition of "high functioning".  Further, none of the four sets of diagnostic criteria specify that AS has an average or above average intelligence; when they say anything on the topic, they define it as no delay in cognitive development, which can be otherwise phrased as no mental retardation, which is not the same as above average intelligence. Wing included mental retardation in her sample, so have some others, and the cutoff of 70 IQ is mentioned throughout the literature.  That many do have high intelligence can be mentioned in the text if sourced, but is not part of the defintion in the lead. The definition of the condition contains no mention anywhere of above average intelligence.  This article is never going to stabilize if regular editors don't read and digest Wiki's policies and guidelines on writing and attributing text in such a way that it is verifiable to reliable sources.  We can't move on to refining prose if we can't get past the stage of daily corrections (such as the section just above this one) to just keep the article factually accurate.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:29, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: So, in accord with WP:CITE are you challenging the statement "and with average and high IQ score, and high functioning (meaning that most AS people are able to live independently)" --Zeraeph 16:39, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

text: PS, can you cite me exact, WP:RS for the cutoff of a 70 IQ that supports your contention? --Zeraeph 16:49, 4 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsourced text addition to lead 

message: User_talk:Zeraeph/ASedit#Rewrite as summary Feel free to tweak, I feel it is very dry and boring as is, not FA worthy yet. --Zeraeph 00:12, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I tweaked a few things that stuck out at me. Have to go run an errand now, but will look at it more later. Poindexter Propellerhead 01:35, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Please do, because even though it is inoffensive, it's nothing special yet. --Zeraeph 01:49, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Flows well - the issue with DSM criteria and copyright is another headache which keeps me away from these type of articles :( cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 02:14, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh thank you...one day I must tell you my "apa story", it leaves Spanish Inquisition in SHADE. I have have popped this bit into article for now because Sandy is right about my weaselly attempt to fix the old section, they are embarassing, and it solves any "copyvio" issues. --Zeraeph 02:19, 6 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Will this do for now?