Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive 17

message: The January 2003 issue (Volume 12, Issue 1) of the journal Child and Adolescent Psychiatric Clinics of North America contains several high-quality articles about AS, that are all open to the public without subscription. They are a tad dated, but in some cases less dated than stuff we already cite, and it's nice to cite freely-readable articles. I've added citations to three of them, both in Asperger syndrome and in Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome. The articles I've read have been Klin & Volkmar, Fombonne & Tidmarsh, and Tstatsanis. Perhaps someone else can take a look at the others, as I'm starting to run low on time. Eubulides 07:27, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Child Adolesc Psychiatric Clin N Am special issue on AS 

message: Asperger syndrome uses the "seealso" template, which results in text that looks like this:
But other medical articles (e.g., Influenza) tend to use the "see" or "further" template, which looks like this instead:
Is there any reason this article uses "seealso"? Eubulides 22:22, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I have never figured out the difference is supposed to be, and I don't think it matters as long as we're consistent.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:59, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: My impression is that the "see" template is more common than "seealso" in Wikipedia and I'd prefer "see" unless there are some objections. No big deal either way. Eubulides 23:34, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Doesn't matter to me; the one that does matter to me is that we not use the "Main" template if we aren't using summary style to summarize a main article back to this one.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:37, 18 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, I made the change. Eubulides 20:20, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "See also" versus "Further information" style issue 

message: I'm not saying Aspergers doesn't exist, but a lot of the symptoms described in the article appear very vague. 
Some aren't so vague-- like the sort of savvant tendency to hoard facts in narrow and somewhat unnconnected areas of interest-- that does appear to point to some kind of legitimate issue or problem--  
But I'm wondering if the additional somewhat loose and not-so-clearly-defined symptomology may also lend itself to a whole lot of misdiagnosis beyond the people who really have this problem. 
Keep in mind that every new 'disease' creates a new industry for that disease, and there is a lot of money to be made in inflating the symptoms to 'increase the market'--  and each new 'patient' is worth $125 an hour to a therapist (not to mention the billions in potential drug money once a 'treatment' is developed. 
I just have a feel from reading this that there probably ARE people with a syndrome needing attention-- and yet the inflation of the list of 'symptoms' may serve to also inflate the rate of diagnoses beyond people who really have this thing-- all to the financial benefit of therapists, psychiatrists, academic researchers and perhaps eventually drug companies as well. 
Greater research into how people deceive themselves is probably needed in our society just as much as research into Aspergers may legitimately be needed.   —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.138.173.199 (talk) 18:52, 30 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe in the US. In the Netherlands, mental health care is free (well, we pay taxes obviously), and I'm not sure whether we have any fewer diagnoses of Asperger's syndrome than in the US. Even if we had, it would be OR to connect the incidence of AS in a country with the size of its (supposedly) biased 'psychiatric industry'. 84.53.74.196 22:54, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Symptoms Appear Very Vague

message: Had a quick run through and tweaked a few things. A few issues:
In History:
:diagnostic validity of Asperger syndrome is tentative - I am unhappy with the word 'tentative' here but 'disputed/questionable/equivocal/weak' are all a bit strong and I feel place too much of a negative spin. 'controversial'? but this is overused and not apt either. 'debated' ? 
:Stubby paras in some of the Characteristics subsections aren't a good look but the alternative of lumping them is tricky too. 
Anyway, just some thoughts. cheers,  Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:42, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I changed "tentative" to "unclear". Hope that works. The paras' stubbiness looks OK to me, but I don't mind stubby as much as others do. Eubulides 15:37, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Oh, and PS, thanks for the copyediting. More please! Eubulides 15:39, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Copyediting update

message: I think the article is good enough to pass FAR now, and have put in a "Keep" vote  in the FARC commentary. Another copyediting pass wouldn't hurt, if you have the time. My time to work on this has about run out. Eubulides 22:22, 19 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Stick a fork in it

message: First statement about 1944: does it need a reference, or is this covered in the body of the article? The caption says "in the 1940s" rather than "in 1944". Tony (talk) 10:40, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: 1944 is ref'd in the History section; I removed the confusing reference to the 1940s in general, since Asperger's work continued.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 20 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  little queries 

message: User:Tony1 had some questions and suspicions about the Internet-based survey of mothers (). I just now took the time to read that paper for the first time, as well as Little's earlier letter about it (), along with a followup paper based on the same survey (). With all that in mind, I think the survey doesn't deserve so much space in Asperger syndrome. It was not a random survey, and as Little & Clark say, it "cannot be considered a representative sample of families of children with AS/NLD." I therefore removed the details and left only a pointer to Tsatsanis's summary of the situation. Tsatsanis writes "there is more evidence to suggest that children with AS occupy the role of victim rather than victimizer", which sounds like a fair summary, so I rewrote the text to match that better. Eubulides 17:50, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Peer victimization is an important aspect of AS, Little's survey gives insight into it's prevalence, others (Hay, Tantam) have published on it's impact on the victims.  On Little's research, (1) How is this research not random enough and (2) what is the wiki policy on evaluating research? Fenke 23:28, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Victimization is certainly important, but the issue is already summarized in the article now. The detailed numbers in Little's survey are unreliable compared to the other items in the article; the article shouldn't emphasize those numbers at the expense of the other, better-attested items. In response to the query "Asperger victimization" Pubmed lists only Little's survey (, , , all of which are about the same Internet survey) along with an incomprehensible (to me) Japanese-language review (). Can you please cite the other reliable sources you mention? It would be most helpful to have a reliable comparison of victimization rates for those with AS compared to other ASD or to neurotypicals. Thanks. Eubulides 01:53, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Concur, completely.  Both Tantam and Tstasani have enough to say that is not from a biased survey, that we can stick to higher quality sources.  We've got more peer-reviewed, high quality literature to work with now, and we don't need to use literature that is non-random and with such a strong disclaimer.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:52, 21 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well done and thank you, Eubulides. Tony (talk) 08:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: Eubulides 19:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with Little's survey 

message: It is a shame that WikiLinks don't cause a new window to open, making it easier to get back to the original article - maybe to the Wiki-dictionary?  I think there is one?  It would be cool if they were small pop-up windows.  For all I know, they are. 
* spectrum (from "autistic spectrum").  Even the article Autistic spectrum fails to enlighten anyone as to what spectrum means in defining this or any other disorder.  What it means is "spectrum means that autistic disorder range from very severe disability where they will never be able to do a lot to in-between, yet differing kinds of problems and then to where the person can function in society with less problems and less need of support.  
:* Thanks, I tried to improve that here and here. Eubulides 05:27, 22 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: * Thanks, I fixed that here and here. Eubulides 05:39, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: * Good point. I added a comment to its talk page at Talk:Theory of cognitive development #Dreadful lead paragraph. Eubulides 05:44, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: * It means unusual use of language, along with unusual development of language, but it's a bit too long to say that. I tried to reword it here. McPartland says "atypical", for what it's worth. Eubulides 05:54, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: * Motor skills disorder is a weak article, but I fixed its first sentence along the lines you suggested. Eubulides 05:59, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: * OK, thanks, I fixed that problem here. Eubulides 06:24, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: * There should be an article for broader autism phenotype. We can put it on our to-do list. In the mean time, wikilinking to phenotype may be the best we can do. Eubulides 06:26, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: * Prosody is laced with jargon, isn't it? I tried to fix the intro here. Eubulides 06:35, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: * I added a wikilink here. Eubulides 06:41, 22 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *It's simpler to remove the highfaluting words "intellectual and linguistic", which I did here. Eubulides 10:01, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *Thanks, I replaced "adherence" with "sticking" here. Eubulides 10:07, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *Thanks, done (without the "vast"). Eubulides 10:10, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *Thanks, fixed. Eubulides 10:15, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: *Thanks, fixed. Eubulides 10:24, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: * "Pedantic" doesn't really mean "sounds like a teacher", but I fixed the article's first sentence here. Eubulides 10:42, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: * The first sentence of Intonation is OK, though, right? That should be enough to explain the usage of the term in Asperger syndrome. Eubulides 10:46, 23 September 2007 (UTC)

text: * That paragraph already explains that, no? It says, "Speech may convey a sense of incoherence; the conversational style often includes monologues about topics that bore the listener, fails to provide context for comments, or fails to suppress internal thoughts. Individuals with AS may fail to monitor whether the listener is interested or engaged in the conversation. The speaker's conclusion or point may never be made.…". Perhaps the paragraph could be worded better; any suggestions? Eubulides 10:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Eubi, thank you for all your work in reviewing, working on and commenting on all my suggestions.  I'm pretty drained right now and will have to leave my full review til later, but I am anxious to see them all.  From the few I have glanced at the other evening and one of your arguments since do not please me.  It is both allowed and even encouraged to use a brief explanation within following parentheses and this, I think, might address a few of the terms in a more helpful manner.  As for the rewordings, I say YEAH!  But more later.  I promise they will all be critiqued again -- doesn't that just warm the cockles of your heart? (smiling) Til later. Kiwi 15:54, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples I found

message: *Neutral point of view (NPOV)
1) Wikipedia:Neutral point of view contemplates that significant points of view regarding a subject shall be fairly represented in an article concerning that subject. Wikipedia:Neutral_point_of_view
Passed 6 to 0 at 18:28, 21 June 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: And let me point out again, that "Main Article" and "See Also" child articles are pointed out prominently at the very beginning of each sub-topic directly under each heading, not ignored or hidden from the view of those who are seeking to find out all aspects of what is known about AS.   If this were not done, this page would become overly long.  Currently, a paragraph mentioning the existence of all these other topics and links is, I understand, in the works so it can be introduced into talk, discussed, reviewed, gain consensus, then polished & tightened.  
Kiwi 19:05, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: List of Relevant Wiki Policy in recent debate

message: Before this gets any bloodier (or becomes a lifetime vocation for anyone) I suggest the wisest course would be to bring this to WP:MC, and have all the issues here formally mediated once and for all. For myself I am concerned about:
*WP:UNDUE
*WP:NPOV
*WP:OWN
*WP:GAME
But I am sure others can add to that list. Until this is properly resolved it will just crop up over and over again. --Zeraeph 19:49, 23 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Suggesting Formal Mediation

message: SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:32, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Frith Emanuel Miller lecture

message: In many places in the article, we make statements which are based not on studies of AS, but rather of studies on people with various sorts of autism. While many researchers consider AS and HFA to be so similar that there is no point in even distinguishing between them, there is at least a significant minority who have championed the continuing existence of AS as a distinct diagnosis. If we treat studies on persons who were diagnosed with autistic disorder as if they had been diagnosed with AS, we implicitly bias the article in favor of the one viewpoint. So, even though I happen to believe that AS and HFA are the same in most important aspects, I intend to go through this article and weed out the bias. AS may not be very well researched, but there is not such a dearth of information that we are compelled to introduce large amounts of material on arguably different topics. Poindexter Propellerhead 20:42, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Certainly any study or review that is about ASD or AS+HFA, and is not just about AS, should be clearly cited as such. Whether these other studies should be mentioned at all is a judgment call. In some cases (e.g., teratogens, or overdiagnosis) there is little evidence specific to AS but it is quite plausible that similar mechanisms are in effect, so it may still be worth mentioning these studies. Admittedly this is a judgment call. Eubulides 21:45, 24 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Implicit emphasis on AS as synonymous with Autistic Disorder 

message: There is a huge difference between Autism and Asperger's and this seems to not be adressed in this article. The Causes of Autism Link should not be included in this article.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.245.154.56 (talk) 11:30, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Is your complaint that AS is not (as is commonly believed) a condition on the autistic spectrum, or is your compaint that you believe that not everything on the autistic spectrum should be called "autism"? The Wednesday Island 15:31, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't want to put words into anyone else's mouth, but I think that both of those are valid points. This is an article on AS, which is currently not defined as a subset of Autistic Disorder. Arguments for keeping the distinction from HFA are based mainly on age of language development, and language-based IQ scores relative to performance IQ. Whether those distinctions are meaningful enough to keep treating them as different conditions is debatable, but until the revision of DSM and/or ICD, they are officially not the same. If they ever become officially the same, this article will probably disappear. Poindexter Propellerhead 22:03, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autism/Asperger's 

message: I think to assess who are the globally authoritative sources on AS, a bit of history may be helpful.    The diagnostic category was first suggested by psychiatrist and physician Lorna Wing at the University of Cambridge in 1981 in her paper, Asperger's syndrome: a clinical account.   She based her paper on the 1944 thesis published by Hans Asperger.
Having taken the lead in identifying AS, U Cambridge has since formed the  Autism Research Centre, which maintains a full-time staff of 30 scientists, doctors and support staff.    By any measure, the ARC ranks among the world's most prominent and productive research centers on AS; arguably it is the #1 research center in the world.
In 1981, Wing was thesis advisor to two graduate students :  Simon Baron-Cohen and Tony Attwood.    Baron-Cohen remained at U Cambridge to pursue research into AS and is now director of the ARC.   Among Baron-Cohen's numerous achievements : He coinvented the  Theory of Mind hypothesis, invented and verified the now standard Cambridge Screening Test (AQ) ... he is currently looking for a "mathematics/autism gene" as well as proposing a new dx standard to replace the DSM.    
While Tony Attwood has not pursued research in this field, as a secondary source,  his book "A Guide to Asperger's syndrome" has been a standard text for clinicians for decades.  
About 10 years later,  The Yale Child Study took the lead in Autism research in America, comprised of 30 physicians, scientists and researchers under the direction of Fred Volkmar.    (The YCS also studies Tourette's, OCD and other disorders.)     Volkmar is especially notable for being the coordinator of the International Field Trial for Autism and Related Disorders, which developed the definition of AS used in the DSM-IV.     
Very recently a new voice has emerged in a joint Canadian/American effort.   The collaboration of the Pervasive Developmental Disorders Specialized Clinic at the University of Montréal and the University of Wisconsin-Madison has begun to make major waves with their recent publication of The Nature and Level of Autistic Intelligence.
In summary, Baron Cohen at Cambridge and Volksmar at Yale are founding authorities on the subject.   Also notable is Attwood, while the Montreal/Wisconsin group seems worthy of attention.   Of course, Hans Asperger himself is worthy of note as well.   I am quite sure this overview is not exhaustive by any means, and welcome any additions to it.
updated CeilingCrash 20:44, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Cambridge and Yale are way up there of course, but you can find citable experts at lots of other places. I'd add experts at Autism Genetic Resource Exchange, Autism Speaks, Boston University, Columbia, Cornell, Harvard, King's College London, Massachusetts General, McGill, McMaster, Stanford, Sydney University, University College London, UC Davis, UCLA, UC Santa Barbara, UC San Diego, U of North Carolina, U of Pennsylvania, U of Pittsburgh, U of Texas, U of Utah, and U of Washington. I'm not really up on non-English-language research, though they are less important for an English-language article. Undoubtedly I've missed some as well. Eubulides 21:10, 25 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I just want to know what the *heck* Swedo ever did in autism to warrant that position on the DSM-V panel. DSM-V Task Force (PDF) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:58, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Well, she's a big cheese at NIMH, and recently won an award for her prominent role in some high profile, dubious science. To take a failure like that and turn it into a crowning triumph is no mean feat, so I think she must bring a lot of skills to the research community. Schmoozing and brown-nosing come right to mind. The person who titled the DSM-V assignment PDF "Repetitive transcranial magnetic stimulation is less effective than electroconvulsive therapy for depression" was probably a close relative of hers. Poindexter Propellerhead 07:07, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I see "you all" are as impressed as "we all" are, particularly by the recent turns into certain areas (perhaps PANDAS didn't pay out well enough, but now it may make it into DSM after all). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:54, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Yea.   On the other side of the coin, Baron-Cohen laid a few stinkers himself, especially the "theory of extreme maleness."  It should be noted that Michelle Dawson of "The Nature and Level of Autistic Intelligence" fame is also a fervent political activist and autistic herself.   While her work is done in concert with a team of NT folk, and to dismiss it on these grounds would be unscientific and discriminatory, she does have an ax to grind and I'd like to see her work replicated by disinterested researchers.  CeilingCrash 16:30, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: But "extreme maleness" and "theory of mind" are vague hypotheses which don't specify an exact mechanism, and are therefore resistant to sudden and complete refutation. I'm no expert on PANDAS, but my impression is that it's headed the way of thimerosal. Poindexter Propellerhead 17:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The strength of the NIMH, coupled with internet-armed parents desperate to believe their children's tics aren't genetic and were caused by a bacteria and can be cured with antibiotics, versus a hypothesis that is very hard to prove or disprove ... will science prevail? I guess we'll find out when DSM-V is written. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text: While Eubulides is quite correct about there being a number of citable experts, my personal inclination would be to use caution with studies from AGRE (affiliated with Cure Autism Now) and Autism Speaks (or any other advocacy groups, of whatever stripe) until they can be independently confirmed by other researchers. They may be no more agenda-driven than some universities, but there's the matter of appearance. I might also drop studies by the Mottron/Dawson team from the list of undeniably credible researchers for the same reason, as there will be some who (rightfully or wrongfully) will look askance at autism studies in which an autistic participated. It shouldn't be any more of a conflict of interest than having non-autistic researchers is, but nobody's accused the human race of being overly rational. Poindexter Propellerhead 18:08, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I disagree that we should worry whether reliable sources have ASD themselves; Wikipedia editors should be rational. I see your point about advocacy groups, though; I mentioned AGRE and Autism Speaks more for brain study data, where the worries about axe-grinding are less. Eubulides 18:18, 26 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  It'd be absurd to reject reliable sources because just they had ASD. And then it would ridicule the Wiki Policies on reliable sources and npov and all that. But you would certainly prove some of the points Michelle Dawson's makes in her advocacy writings. --Fenke 22:21, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I wasn't suggesting that Mottron and Dawson should be considered discredited, not at all. Merely whether they belonged on the extremely short list of "world's most eminent authorities." I consider the Mottron/Dawson team to be on the same level as many solid researchers out there. I think that they may, one day, have earned the right to be lumped together with people like Wing and Baron-Cohen, but right now they're still a (promising) new team, which has to prove that they deserve to be thought of that way. And hopefully, a few papers from now, they will have established their academic credentials to the point where Ms. Dawson will be thought of as an expert and unbiased researcher, rather than as an advocate. Poindexter Propellerhead 00:42, 27 September 2007 (UTC)

text:  Agree with both PP and Fenke, I guess I am trying to get a handle on the "top ten" researchers in the field in terms of acceptance and credibility.   This is not to imply that new research - which almost by definition hasn't yet been widely accepted, or that research by advocates or ASD ppl shd be excluded by any means.   In terms of getting a sense of the state of knowledge of AS, I expect it would be a balance of the "top 10", dx manuals, and more recent research, in roughly that order.  FWIW, I am ASD so my reservation on AS-advocates-as-sources is not personal.  208.49.146.130 15:48, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Who's who of AS 

message: Poindexter, we had a problem with these dates about five talk page archives ago, and never sorted it out. It was definitely added to DSM in 1994, but some sources said ICD in 1992, another said 1993; I don't think any source said ICD in 1994.    That's why we left it vague.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:39, 26 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah. I just accepted the WHO's version of events as correct: authorized in May 1990, distributed in 1994. But I do remember the discussion you refer to. Was there some reason to doubt the WHO's statement? Poindexter Propellerhead 00:18, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: No reason to doubt any particular source, just never sorted out why they all said something different, so thought it best to be vague.  I would think WHO would be authoritative in this case, but don't know why others reported 92 and 93.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:40, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: From what I've been able to piece together, it seemed as if they voted to approve the text in '92, with maybe some last-second revisions in '93, but don't quote me on that. Poindexter Propellerhead 00:46, 27 September 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  ICD and DSM dates 

message: It doesn't help people with Asperger's when people see on this page that treatment of autism is the same as treatment for asperger's. I posted this complaint as I know many people with AS and I can tell you it's completely different to Autism, and I have Psychologists to back this up. Asperger's has a bad rep already, let's not make it worse by making people think it is like Autism because it isn't. I remember about 5 weeks ago on Channel 10 (Australia), they said that Lisa Nowak (astronaut) had "Asperger's a form of Autism". This completely ridiculous and shows the ignorance people have on the topic. Win43
:I don't have any data on this, but the standard treatment for AS as I understand it is - no treatment, as none is necessary.   I have heard repeated mention, however, of the 'cocktail' used to treat the comorbids of depression, anxiety and ADHD : An SSRI, a benzodiazepene, and an amphetamine, respectively.  My personal experience is that most of the problems that result from AS are a consequence of NT rigidity in its social norms, and reflexive denial of special talents.   CeilingCrash 18:27, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ignorance!  

message: Readers of and contributors to this article might be interested in Parallel Play, author Tim Page's description of his life as an Asperger autistic. --Bluejay Young 01:38, 2 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Tim Page

message: It's scarcely the entire show, but might lead to something of value to a daughter article as a jump off point to further investigation. 
Wired Science  (New)  7:00 PM CST, 8:00 EST - may show at a different day and/or time in your area - go to pbs.org and look for your own local channels
 
The first-season opener of the technology-science magazine examines technology that helps children with Asperger's syndrome. Kiwi 02:22, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: PBS Wednesday Night - WIRED

message: I do not see anything about how often people with AS (like me)get married. I've heard in the past that they usually that few get into romantic relationships, and even fewer get married. For me, this my greatest fear. Could somebody put up statistics on this please.--Lionheart Omega 23:32, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It'd be nice if statistics like that existed, but I'm afraid they may not. The text currently says "Adolescents with AS may exhibit ongoing difficulty with self-care, organization and disturbances in social and romantic relationships; despite high cognitive potential, most remain at home, although some do marry and work independently." It cites McPartland & Klin 2006 () but that source doesn't have any more details. If anyone knows of a reliable source with more details, please let us know. Eubulides 23:42, 3 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just to reassure you, Lionheart Omega, I will say that my experience is that people with AS do often get married, although it can take longer to find a partner they want to stay with, and more difficulties do emerge.  But I will also say that the only evidence you will be able to find to bakc this up is anecdotal; we just don't have enough data on adults with AS- or autism- to say much of anything about them, which is why it's not in the article.  If you're interested in this, there are books out there about what it's like getting into a relationship with an aspie or what it's like to be aspie in a relationship; just be careful because there are some books out there that only exist as an excuse to further badmouth someone's ex-spouse.  --Luai lashire 01:39, 4 October 2007 (UTC)

text: Statistics can not say (predict) a lot about any outcome for an individual. You can know all there is to know about the statistics of rolling dice but that knowledge will not tell you what the outcome of the next roll will be.--Fenke 06:22, 4 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  An enormous amount is missing from this article: the characterization of Asperger's in any context outside treatment of symptoms.    To answer your question, there is no evidence to suggest people with AS have lower incidence of romantic relationships; if you visit various AS forums you will find that most are involved romantically.   This is an interesting issue especially with regards to 'assortive mating', AS ppl seem prone to mate up with other AS ppl.   The quotation by EU is puzzling, " ... most remain at home, although some do marry and work independently."   They're adolescents - they live at home! Long story short, there is no clinical data to suggest AS's will be less successful romantically, professionally, or in terms of independence.   CeilingCrash 07:22, 7 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Lionheart Omega take it from me, a fellow aspie on the inclusion of this info, I personally do not think this is nessesary information. Don't worry so much, Ok? 99.230.152.143 00:43, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: This makes sense.  I doubt there is information on the other syndromes pages about marriage rates. There wasn't on the three that I checked. Plus, if marriage rates among "aspies" hasn't ever been published in anything, then technically it's not missing from wikipedia. See Wikipedia:No original research Fredsmith2 01:06, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Something's missing... 

message: Law & Order: Criminal Intent - Episode Propability contains a very good depiction of an adult with asperger's syndrome.
I saw many similarities to a young patient (age 9) with AS, I recommended to his family that they viewed the episode together so that my young friend could see that he was not alone, and to get a feeling for how his AS could develop.
I believe that AS is underrepresented in popular culture and that we need more depictions of AS in film and TV. This will help caregivers and teachers to recognize AS earlier and thus create better understanding and treatment options.
I believe that this Episode of Law and Order is a good first step. And I warmly recommend it to friends and Family of AS.
I would like to have a reference to this episode of Law and Order on the main page, but I don't know if a popular culture reference if the right way to do it. I will tentatively add a "Cultural Reference" section to the main article and then let the expert community around this page edit it to pieces. :-) Jesper Jurcenoks 15:51, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The usual rule is that popular culture is kept separate from the main page on the medical condition. See, for example, Sociological and cultural aspects of Tourette syndrome and Tourette syndrome, or Sociological and cultural aspects of autism and Autism. Possibly you might want to create a new section in the latter page. Please see Wikipedia:"In popular culture" articles for more information on the general issue of cultural references to a Wikipedia topic. Eubulides 16:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cultural Reference 

message: There have been studies in the past of how excessive computer game playing, often called by the media Nintendo Kid Disorder, can afftect kids. When I saw this article and the symptoms, I recognized them right off. However, I do not have the material to use as referance material. Can anyone provide anything, since I think it would be interesting to have this possible sub category of Asperger Syndrome pointed out. ~~  —Preceding unsigned comment added by Corrupt one (talk • contribs) 23:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Nintendo Kid Disorder 

message: Asperger syndrome #Epidemiology said this:
: Individuals with AS may also be diagnosed with oppositional defiant disorder, antisocial personality disorder, tic disorders and Tourette syndrome, general anxiety disorder, bipolar disorder, obsessive compulsive disorder or obsessive-compulsive personality disorder.
and cited  This source was added on 2006-07-20 here. I just now looked at the cited source, and its text does not mention oppositional defiant disorder, antisocial personality disorder, or general anxiety disorder. The source mentions that there is an association between tics and AS, between Tourette syndrome and AS, and between bipolar disorder and AS, but that is a different claim. The source also mentions there are many similarities between symptoms of OCD and OCPD and the repetitive behaviors typical of AS, but again, that is a different claim. I applied this change to make the article match the source better. Eubulides 22:05, 16 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source for oppositional defiant disorder etc. 

message: This seems close to selective mutism, or apathy, besides the interest thing.  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 207.157.69.190 (talk) 15:49, 24 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  what about? 

message: Another editor reverted this text; I'm copying it here for discussion.  First, it's not based on a reliable source.  Second, it was added to the wrong place.  Third, it places too much emphasis on the vanity aspects of who did the research.  Fourth, it engages WP:RECENTISM.  Perhaps Eublides can salvage something here to add to Causes, if there is any refereed published research in reliable sources.
:Because each case of autism differs in symptom severity and presentation, autism may arise for different reasons in different people. To get a handle on this diversity, researchers have been working to identify subtypes, known as endophenotypes, in autism. In a study using subjects and data from the Autism Genetic Resource Exchange (AGRE) and funded in part by the former National Alliance for Autism Research and by Cure Autism Now, the researchers analyzed numerous morphological, clinical, and biochemical features of 241 people with autism to see if any features co-occurred with macrocephaly. In addition to finding that head circumference was highly correlated with height and weight, they found that macrocephaly was associated with more impaired adaptive behaviors, but with less impaired IQ scores and verbal language development. Most surprisingly, macrocephaly was also associated with immune disorders in either the patient or their family. This finding adds to the growing body of research pointing to a role for the immune system in autism. http://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science_news/new_research_reveals_autism_subgroup_macrosomy.php
I can't find any PubMed record.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:05, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's well known that there's an association between macrocephaly and autism; this is currently covered in Autism #Pathophysiology, which cites the review article DiCicco-Bloom et al. 2006 (). I don't know what the new study's results are exactly, since we have no journal citation. Judging by the press release the new results give more detail but (if past results in this area are any guide) should probably be confirmed before being covered or emphasized in Wikipedia. At any rate the study doesn't seem to have been about AS and if so it doesn't belong in Asperger syndrome. Eubulides 01:04, 30 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removed text 

message: Please put just votes here, and discussion in the next section.  This may take a while, let's neither side canvas.  CeilingCrash 17:39, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  polling for formal arbitration 

message: I think it might be helpful to return to the principles of WP:LEAD which suggest it should be stand-alone summary of the entire article, covering all major topics (most important points). I can't see how a mention of maths and engineering in the lead constitutes a general overview or summary of the most important points, as it is too specific in the minor details it cites. These details are better covered in the article. If I'm understanding WP:LEAD properly, the mention of this issue in the lead might best be served by a more general or generic statement that AS may not be a barrier to achievement. 124.186.83.250 12:42, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That was, in a nutshell, what I suggested as well; let's get off the math in the lead, as it gives undue weight to one area, not supported by sources.  I'd rather see a generic statement somewhere, working in a link somewhere in the article to the List of people on the autistic spectrum#Asperger syndrome.  Math in the lead violates WP:UNDUE. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:57, 14 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Fine with me.  WLU 15:04, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I dunno. Of the first 3 people in List of people on the autistic spectrum#Asperger syndrome, one (Nikki Bacharach) is famous only for being the child of famous people, a child who recently committed suicide; and another (William Cottrell) is famous only for being a firebomber. This doesn't sound like a good list for a claim about AS and accomplishments. More important, I'm not sure what the reliable source for a generic claim would be. Eubulides 20:51, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

text: Also fine with me.  WLU 16:47, 15 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm not entirely happy with this solution, but nobody has yet come up with a better one, and it does improve the lead, so I made the change. Eubulides (talk) 22:38, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Maybe we'll get lucky and someone will publish something soon we can use; things have a way of working out.  Perhaps we can archive in a few days.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

text: That is more in line with WP:LEAD even if not a perfect solution. SandyGeorgia sums up the situation for many editors with the suggestion that if/when new sources arrive on which due weight can be placed, then the article can be willingly and suitably amended. I'm fairly confident, based on my observations and on anecdotal evidence, that talentedness-in-AS will prove as clinically significant, though possibly tied with special-interest devotion rather than to the overgeneralized assumption by some that it is the result of superior neurological endowment. As Eubulides pointed out elsewhere, it is important to not weigh the scales too far in either extreme. Based on the current sources I believe we've achieved that balance by the present wording and weighting. 124.186.83.250 (talk) 03:55, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Lead

message: CC, you have a number of entries on the talk page where you forget to sign in; the discussion would be easier to follow if you could remember to sign in to your account and sign your entries.  Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:04, 7 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Please remember to sign in

message: I have AS and am unable to drive. Does anyone else have this problem with asperger's syndrome and not
being able to drive???? A special driving instuctor has told me that it will very difficult for me to
learn how to drive. He futher told me that I had visual perception problems as well and, at this very soonest I may drive when I'm 22. That was last year when I was seventeen. Does anyone have any comments on this. I would like to know if other people with AS. drive???  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.251.254.169 (talk) 05:23, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The best place to discuss this issue might be with other people who have the same problem, which as has been pointed out, is not uncommon. You can find such people at aspiesforfreedom or wrongplanet. Soarhead77 21:38, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I'm not sure what studies have been done on this, but you're not alone. I've heard of many people with AS having difficulty with driving. If this is a widespread phenomenon and someone has done research into the reasons behind it, it might be interesting to add to the article. --DearPrudence 06:13, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Tantam doesn't mention it.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:18, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Yeah - like I said, I haven't come across any research dealing with it. All the reports have directly from other people. I would be interested to know if there is a connection, though, and what causes it. --DearPrudence 07:04, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

text: I have heard the same, and a mother of another Aspie even went so far as to tell my mother that ('to avoid disappointment') it wouldn't be a good idea for me to take up driving lessons. 25 lessons later, I passed the first time (which is pretty good in the Netherlands, I don't know about the US). So it is certainly possible. You could try looking for others with your problem on the forum at wrongplanet.net 84.53.74.196 17:37, 10 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: I have AS and am unable to drive....

message: May be add this link to the article?
http://www.msnbc.com/modules/newsweek/autism_quotient/default.asp (alternative link - http://aq.server8.org/)  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 195.131.133.72 (talk) 20:39, 12 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That has an article, at Autism Spectrum Quotient.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Autism spectrum quotient test  

message: The Wikipedia is not a discussion forum posts seem to be escalating in spite of the talkheaders.  Perhaps we can wrap up the lead issues and archive this lengthy talk page, and then more aggressively enforce WP:NOT?  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:05, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: That sounds good. I started on the lead wrap-up by committing the change as discussed in #Lead above. Eubulides (talk) 22:41, 20 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Not a forum

message: This a lengthy cover story on the syndrome written in the Long Island Press for its 
November 7, 2007 issue as part of its "Our Children's Brains" series. As a article for the general public it would help with the "jargon" issues discussed above.
 Edkollin (talk) 04:39, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It's an excellent article, but I'm afraid it won't help the jargon issue directly, as we need someone to read our article with fresh eyes. As an external link it probably doesn't pass the WP:LINKS test. I did catch one "huh?" issue: it says that between 3 and 7 per 1,000 children have the syndrome, which is much higher than the range of 0.03 to 4.84 per 1,000 quoted by our source Fombonne & Tidmarsh 2003. I suspect they got those numbers from Ehlers & Gillberg 1993, which has several weaknesses as noted by Fombonne & Tidmarsh. Eubulides (talk) 06:10, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Also, per WP:MEDMOS and WP:MEDRS, it's important that we continue to avoid adding the popular press, or we'd have an External link farm on every medical article.  If this article needs help with the jargon, we need to help it here, not by adding an external article.  SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:53, 21 November 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed New External Link