Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive 1

message: I've temporarily protected this page because of persistent vandalism, now going to the point of moving the page. Can we discuss how to approach this issue? For now, please suggest changes on this page. Cecropia 22:22, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: This seems to be the "Rishartha" vandal (Wikipedia:Vandalism in progress). One of the logged out vandalism edits they've made is from 67.1.38.104 (0-1pool38-104.nas2.eugene1.or.us.da.qwest.net Qwest dial-up in the Eugene, Oregon region). If this continues blocking the IP range is an option, although it may block legitimate contributors from the ISP so I'd prefer not doing that. Maximus Rex 22:50, 24 Apr 2004 (UTC)

text: In this context, "disease" is used more as a general term than as a specific description of the condition.  Additionally, given that there are other syndromes and non-disease medical conditions in the category, like Philadelphia chromosome and Down syndrome, it's entirely appropriate for that specific category. - jredmond 16:30, 13 Aug 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  <S>Protected because of persistent vandalism</S> 

message: Ive been working lots on the autism page with some friends, not long ago we branched a topic reguarding its controversies to its own page, a page I personally am quite proud off. 
Well werve done it again, and this time werve included the aspergers page, all werve done is branch the stuff on comorbid conditions into a seperate shared page, here.
 Thank you all, and have a great day. memzy
:Any actual reason for that? -- Schnee 23:52, 9 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title: Important

message: This is a good article. I have made minor corrections to spelling, punctuation, and the like. In particular, I have gone with Asperger's syndrome throughout; two or three other forms had been used, and the effect was rather sloppy.
It might be nice to regularise the use of autist and autistic as nouns. The reader may find the use of two terms confusing. Shorne 03:28, 30 Sep 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Minor changes 

message: That new paragraph on incorrect diagnoses of Asperger's syndrome should not have been deleted. Perhaps its POV could have been toned down, but it was certainly not "nonsense". Shorne 02:44, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: It was overexaggerated and not NPOV. A disclaimer that historical diagnoses are speculation is enough. Gerritholl 07:23, 3 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted material 

message: Does this section serve any purpose?  I would just as soon delete the whole thing.
The paragraph about Luke Jackson is worth keeping, but that's all, and it can either be folded into "A gift and a curse" or the References section.
Kundor 23:43, Oct 5, 2004 (UTC)
:If there are no objections by this weekend I'll remove it.  Kundor 07:24, Oct 7, 2004 (UTC)
::What about Martin in Grange Hill? PMA 14:42, 28 Oct 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  Portrayals of Asperger's in the media 

message: I think this word should be used as little as possible (like once) in this article. For one thing, I find it offensive. For another, its unbelievably uncommon. For a third, its POV. Vote Sam Spade for Arbiter! 00:03, 18 Nov 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: I personally find the term less offensive however would also have to aggree that it is POV, after all neurotypical is similar to the term normal which is defined by ones relative definition of normality to a large degree, excessive usage of the term is also I feel not really required to make the point MttJocy 11:49, 1 Apr 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Neurotypical is a neat term but I think it has all the problems that normal has.  For our purposes here, though, it's a useful word to have when dealing with the struggle to fit in, for a person with AS or something similar.  Normalcy is essentially just a contract between people who don't want to (and don't have to) stand out, and it is helpful to have a term to describe the beneficiaries of that contract, for those of us who do stand out.  — FJ | hello
As a neurotypical person who is the parent of an autistic person, I don't find the term offensive whatsoever, but merely descriptive. --DaveSeidel 02:18, 2 Apr 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  neurotypicals 

message: I have shortened the intro, which for some reason made many repetitive references to the word disorder, which could give people the wtong impression from the start. The info is still mentioned later in the article. --Rebroad 20:46, 26 Nov 2004 (UTC)
thread_title:  over emphasis of "disorder" 

message: Isn't the correct term Asperger, and not Asperger's?  Guettarda 21:16, 9 Dec 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a re-direct at Asperger syndrome (with an existing history) - does that mean an administrator needs to move it?  As far as I know (not having a copy of the DSM IV) it's the "official" name, so I think the page should sit there and this should be the re-direct.  If anyone disagrees, please say so.  Guettarda 19:49, 14 Dec 2004 (UTC)

text: Thanks for the info.  I did use "official" in quotes for that reason.  So it comes down to common usage - either using the "official" Wikipedia standard of Google (tongue-in-cheek because I disagree with the extent to which it's used to solve disputes): 179,000 hits for "Asperger's syndrome", the top hit being a page titled "Asperger Syndrome"; 311,000 for "Asperger syndrome", or, usage by medical journals (which, you say also leans toward Asperger).  Guettarda 18:37, 12 Jan 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Asperger's Syndrome or '''Asperger''' Syndrome? 

message: The text says: "When a teacher asks a child with Asperger's, "Did the dog eat your homework?","
Well, what would a non-aspie child answer if she was unfamiliar with the idiom?
I was an intelligent child, and they thought I was aspie (even a couple of years before that became a fashionable diagnosis in my region), and one of the reasons was that I always questioned idioms like that. I would answer "No, I don't have a dog" and the NT teacher would balk at that. I still don't know if I was/am aspie or not, (I've got a diagnosis that says I am, but I don't have any problems "reading other people"), but I wonder what a non-aspie child would answer, and I think it's a weird example.
Not everyone (especially children!) has heard that expression or would make sense of it.
: I think a better example of an idiom would be "I don't bite."  It's commonly used as a slightly disparaging thing to say to somebody perceived as "shy", and might be something most aspies have heard directed at them at one time or another, and had no idea what it meant.  Kaibabsquirrel 04:59, 11 Mar 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dog eating homework idiom 

message: One section of the page makes pains to distinguish being a "geek"
from having Asperger's. There is no black and white distinction
here, its all shades of grey. Ask "geeks" about there childhoods,
you'll find that Asperger's/autistic childhoods arn't all
that uncommon. Even amongst the many "geeks" who never fully
fit the current diagnostic criteria, you will find many autistic
traits.
The question shouldn't be "do I meet the DSM criteria?" but rather,
"are these my people?". Believe me, you'll know pretty damn fast when
you walk into a room full of Aspie's and/or autistics if you belong
there. Or maybe you partly belong there, but whatever the case you
don't need a doctors note to know what you are.
Imagine how far the gay culture and gay rights would have gotten if you
needed a doctors diagnosis of homosexuality to identify as gay. Regrettably
Asperger's is a label which we do not define for ourselves. I
honestly wish there was another word for "us" which isn't up to the
experts to define.
Entropy888 05:28, 10 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Geek vs. Asperger's