Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive 2

message: I've reverted the changes made by 172.215.166.84. This user changed all instances of autistic to autist. Autistic is a far more common term than autist: autist gets 41,800 hits in google, and many of these are non-english sites; autistic gets 1,300,000. While I accept a search for autistic will have picked up many uses of autistic as an adjective, I've never heard the word autist used in everyday speech. Is there any reason to prefer the word autist rather than autistic? I have no problem with the use of other autism-specific terms on the page, like neurotypical. They are fully explained, and solid reasoning is given for using them. I don't find any solid reasoning to use autist though. Graham 03:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  autist vs. autistic 

message: I removed the following:
*The Geek Syndrome Reliable self test for Aspergers Syndrome creared by adults with Aspergers.
Um... the site itself says that it is for informational value only... it could go in the informational section
*Autism Research Center: The Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ) — A self-administered test for High-Functioning Autism (HFA): S. Baron-Cohen, S. Wheelwright, R. Skinner, J. Martin and E. Clubley, (2001), The Autism Spectrum Quotient (AQ) : Evidence from Asperger Syndrome/High Functioning Autism, Males and Females, Scientists and Mathematicians. Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders 31:5-17.
This is duplicated from Autism Research Center: Other Tests
--Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some links removed 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asperger%27s_syndrome&curid=37556&diff=21374471&oldid=21372891
"A recent suggestion has been that it is camouflaged in girls: the obsessive calorie counting of an anorexic may belie some kind of autism."
If there isn't a reference for this it should be reverted/removed....
--Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  wild speculation? 

message: I removed the following:
:"Asperger's is associated with child authorship, and hence terrible injustice if the chance to achieve child authorship is wrecked by the high-handed demands of school."
This appears to me to be an unattributed POV. -- 80.168.224.108 10:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: See #The "Child Author" content removed for more on this. Graham 11:01, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

text: After edit conflict: Yes, I *can* read the link, I can access almost all the features of this site that sighted people can. Can you sign your user name with  "~~~~"  in future though? The link to the tern article is confusing. As for your addition to the article, I agree with what 24.19.0.114 said above. wikipedia is not a soapbox, and it does not exist to represent the views of just one writer. I find no evidence that your views are held by even a small minority of the autistic community. Therefore, they do not belong in the article. For your information, I have aspergers syndrome as well, and also have strong views about what could've been done to make my childhood better. I have not written about them, but even if I did, there would be no way I'd put them in this article. Graham 14:02, 20 August 2005 (UTC)

text: The accusations and requests in your comment are morally and logically flawed: "Answer directly what I said about CHILD CRUELTY, or else your lack of answer to it will associate you with it. That's logical." Um... not so much. At any rate, there is no evidence that the Child Authorship issue is a concern in the Aspie community. All citations can be sourced back to you.  Wikipedia is not appropriate for this. I sympathise with your feelings that you have been mistreated, but it is my belief that you have lost perspective on this issue. (For those reading along -- it's clear now why I wanted to stay anonymous, since Maurice has now added this dispute to his Spectrum Fairness site.) 24.19.0.114 21:30, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unattributed POV 

message: It seems there's something screwy with the page history - it takes me back to Asperger if I go through the diffs.  Is this a page cache issue, or do other people see the same thing?  Guettarda 06:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page history 

message: Wow, the last couple days of this article has been interesting, for sure.  Anyway, the geeksyndrome link
A) I removed it before because it is NOT a reliable test - in fact the site said so that it was for entertainment purposes only
B) Now the link refers to a store where you can by darth vader-related merchandise - so its a simple advert - removed for the 2nd time
I also removed the nonsense about there being a "great injustice" because of school or whatever - if you are going to claim that you better have a good source, not some random 14-year old ranting about how he couldn't get published or something. 
Anyway, keep up the good edits guys and have fun! --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  unencyclopedic nonsense and advert links 

message: Comment here --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not sure that the removal of Tern's sentence is a "hate campaign"; rather, it's a simple editorial conflict. From my point of view, and apparently those of several other editors, the sentence in question is an non-NPOV editorial in the middle of an otherwise NPOV article. If Tern could phrase this in a more NPOV way, and attribute this point of view and demonstrate that it is not idiosyncratic, it might be more likely to stay in the article. -- Karada 12:20, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Not an answer to your question, but 196.40.45.126, please sign your comments here with  "~~~~" . Otherwise it is quite confusing since your comments on the Talk page aren't signed at all. Tern has been requested to do this as well... (Admittedly I didn't do this in my first post in this page, under my old IP address, either. It had been so long since I posted on a Talk page I forgot the protocol.) :) 66.235.6.229 19:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  3RR filed against Tern 

message: I have reverted to the last version by JRedmond for these reasons:-
1. I'm not very happy with people saying "do not revert".
2. I'm also not happy with people saying "see discussion" without putting anything new in the talk page.
3. People should avoid making controversial changes anonymously, this leads to suspicions of sockpuppetry.
4. I've had a brief look at the website in questions, it does look controversial, I do not yet have a view about whether we should link to it, but it is not obviously a hate site. PatGallacher 17:13, 2005 August 22 (UTC)
:Pat, please pay more careful attention to the history.  As for (1), I don't really agree with that language either, but on (2) we've discussed with Tern what he needs to do for his edits - if he wants to do something specific he needs to explain more clearly, and (3) the only reason anonymous people are stepping in is because most of the normal users have already reverted this page several times, and others like me reaching their three reverts for the day while Tern continues to break the 3RR rule, and (4) obviously we should not look at it.  --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:10, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree that anon users generally should avoid controversial changes, however, Tern has a history of posting personal information on his website of those who disagree with him. As someone who has been the subject of a harrassment/stalking situation in real-world context, I did not feel comfortable in posting publicly in an agreement with Tern. I imagine some others may feel the same. But I have attempted to be upfront about this, so hopefully it's OK. 66.235.6.229 19:54, 22 August 2005 (UTC)

text: After some thought I decided that instead of posting from the IP address I should just go ahead and make an account for this. So I did. ManekiNeko=66.235.6.229. Sorry for any confusion. ManekiNeko 20:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Coming as a neutral party, I looked at the website in question. IMHO, I do not think we should have a link to there. Also, in fairness, we could start trimming other links to various forums and other websites. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:28, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Note, my suggestion for removal of the links is due to the page, to me, sounding like a forum. And, there are countless of those dealing with this community. While if there are sites who oppose the community in a way that is scientific, we should have a link. But, overall, there could be a bunch of links that could be removed. I suggest, as a community, figure out what should stay and should go. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 21:44, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with Zscout370. There are *way* too many external links on this page. See Wikipedia:External links: only the top few most informative sites should be listed here, and the disputed site can safely go. Mindspillage (spill yours?) 21:52, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Why I reverted

message: I added this to Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates#Asperger.27s_syndrome since it no longer meets the guidelines for a featured article canidate.
Stability: This article isn't stable by any criteria, it is repeatedly being edit warred and most edits are reverted on sight no matter how well intentioned.
Accuracy: the accuracy of this article is greatly disputed as is the point of view.
Readability: the writing appears to be all over the place and seems to jump from one place to another which makes it hard to read.
This is just my opinion mind you and I'd be all for rewriting this to conform to what is expected but it seems that at the moment any such attempts would be futile since they'd be reverted on sight, at this time however the article at this time does not conform to Wikipedia's standards for featured article. Jtkiefer T | @ | C  ----- 22:10, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
:Personally, I think this was from the Brillant Prose crop of articles. Most of the articles from there have went to FARC and usually are delisted. So, until we get this figured out, I support the removal of the FA status. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 22:12, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: For those who want a good article I spent an insane amount of time getting Autism to FA status and I think it sets the standard for an article like this --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:25, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  featured article removal canidate 

message: Well, I rewrote the intro paragraphs a bit (which could probably be improved upon) -
* Go through links and keep only about 15 of them that are HIGH quality links
** Down to 15 --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 11:13, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: "Some" implies more than one, or at least one person with some sort of authority. No-one besides Tern has yet been found who has clearly stated that they think it's an important issue. I say delete everything after the Attwood quote (that was added by Tern too originally, but it's a nice illustration of a point that isn't disupted). 24.77.97.3 06:30, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree; my concern, and the reason for my original edit to delete it, was that it there is no evidence that the issue is significant to anyone but Tern, and he uses such harsh POV to express it besides. If it really was an important aspie-community issue, I wouldn't have had an issue with anything but the writing style.  ManekiNeko 07:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Actually, come to think of it, isn't that whole section on social interaction somewhat rendundant with the Characteristics section? Perhaps the two could be merged, with a few paragraphs worth of it removed outright (mostly from the Social Interaction bit). The social stories stuff, which Attwood for one seems to think is important, could be briefly discussed in a new section on treatments, perhaps. 24.77.97.3 06:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I find that whole Comic Book Conversations and Social Stories section to be a bit odd in context. It's almost like an ad for the technique in the middle of the article. A section discussing treatments might be a good place to mention it, but I am not sure "treatments" is a good word for it -- it implies curing a disease, and many aspies will say that AS is not a disease, and "treatment" isn't necessary. "Coping strategies", maybe? I don't know. ManekiNeko 07:27, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plans to keep a featured article 

message: Some people, including some people diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, argue that Asperger's syndrome is a social construct. Professor Simon Baron-Cohen of the Autism Research Centre has written a book arguing that Asperger's syndrome is an extreme version of the way in which men's brains differ from women's. He says that, in general, men are better at systematizing than women, and that women are better at empathizing than men. Hans Asperger himself is quoted as saying that his patients have 'an extreme version of the male form of intelligence'.
:I was wondering if possibly the book title should be mentioned or sourced since the quote says he's written a book but no source or title is listed for this. Jtkiefer T | @ | C  ----- 18:09, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
The only thing I can dig up for now was a reference from a link on the Autism page
Mindblindness: an essay on autism and theory of mind, Simon Baron-Cohen, MIT Press/Bradford Books, 1995
Is this the book in question?  Can anyone verify? --Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: No, that's not it. I am looking up the book right now (I own it but can't recall the title). I'll post it in a minute. ManekiNeko 20:21, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, here it is. Baron-Cohen, Simon (2003). The Essential Difference: Male and Female Brains and the Truth About Autism. New York: Basic Books.  -- Should I add it? I am going to clean up some of the formatting for Further Reading anyway. ManekiNeko 20:24, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

text: Done. ManekiNeko 21:02, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticisms