Talk:Asperger syndrome

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum

Wikipedia is not a discussion forum; talk pages are for discussing improvements to the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:31, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

Full-text journal-published AS articles, freely available

• Klin A, Volkmar FR (2003). "Asperger syndrome". Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 12 (1): xiii–xvi. PMID 12512394.
• Klin A, Volkmar FR (2003). "Asperger syndrome: diagnosis and external validity". Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 12 (1): 1–13, v. PMID 12512395.
• Fombonne E, Tidmarsh L (2003). "Epidemiologic data on Asperger disorder". Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 12 (1): 15–21, v–vi. PMID 12512396.
• Towbin KE (2003). "Strategies for pharmacologic treatment of high functioning autism and Asperger syndrome". Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 12 (1): 23–45. PMID 12512397.
• Tsatsanis KD (2003). "Outcome research in Asperger syndrome and autism". Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 12 (1): 47–63, vi. PMID 12512398.
• Attwood T (2003). "Frameworks for behavioral interventions". Child Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 12 (1): 65–86, vi. PMID 12512399.
• Paul R (2003). "Promoting social communication in high functioning individuals with autistic spectrum disorders". Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 12 (1): 87–106, vi–vii. PMID 12512400.
• Krasny L, Williams BJ, Provencal S, Ozonoff S (2003). "Social skills interventions for the autism spectrum: essential ingredients and a model curriculum". Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 12 (1): 107–22. PMID 12512401.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
• Myles BS (2003). "Behavioral forms of stress management for individuals with Asperger syndrome". Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 12 (1): 123–41. PMID 12512402.
• Tantam D (2003). "The challenge of adolescents and adults with Asperger syndrome". Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am. 12 (1): 143–63, vii–viii. PMID 12512403.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:39, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

absence of delay ?

Under CHARACTERISTICS it is now stated that AS is characterized "by absence of delay in cognitive development". Formally this would mean that there is no delay in cognitive development, that people who suffer from AS reach there cognitive potential instantly. This cannot be what was meant by the writer. What should the article say? --Etxrge (talk) 14:52, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

The article is not a formal mathematical document; it assumes that the reader has some common sense and can infer that nonsensical interpretations are not intended. Here, the phrase "absence of delay" is derived from the cited source, which says "There is no clinically significant delay in cognitive development", again assuming that the topic is delay as compared to the typical development rate. Is there some other sensible interpretation of "by absence of delay in cognitive development", other than the intended interpretation? If so, could you please explain what it is, so that we can remove the ambiguity? Eubulides (talk) 20:13, 5 December 2007 (UTC)

Perhaps the "clinically significant" term should be introduced. Whilst introducing a level of subjectivity itself it leans in the right direction. Perhaps also one needs to consider what sort of audience the article aims at: I would suspect a dual one, of medical people needing to bone up quickly on AS, and also people who have some initial suspicion that they may have AS needing some clarification. Perhaps since one of the known characteristics of people with AS is that they lack some notions of common sense, removal of any ambiguity might from this perspective be important. Soarhead77 (talk) 15:29, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, fair enough, I added "clinically significant" here. Eubulides (talk) 17:52, 6 December 2007 (UTC)

Referred mood

Removed, non-reliable source, hard to follow and I can't make heads or tails of the relevance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Children with AS may be extremely sensitive to the moods of other people, especially when they are in close proximity.The effect of other peoples' moods seems to wash over ASD children, and it evokes a differing response in each child called referred mood;e.g. For the referred emotion of anger,the children with AS may get angry themselves, or they may withdraw within themselves, and internalize the anger, or feel the anger is directed at them-and think it must be their fault.Whichever way they experience referred moods, its a confusing and exhausting experience.Referred moods happen with most emotions such as agitation,anxiety,excitement.[1]

DSM IV

I was wondering what the DSM IV number is for AS. Like, OCD is Axis I: 300.30. What is it for AS? I know it would be in Axis II, but that's about it. The article should state what the specific number is in the classification table. That's all. ForestAngel (talk) 03:54, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

DSM = ICD9; it's in the infobox. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:57, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Well, could someone add that it's referring to the DSM? I mean, I only know the classification for DSM IV as Axis I and Axis II. Is there a way to change the template so that an average person reading it would understand? ForestAngel (talk) 04:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I've seen this issue raised at WP:MED before, I've not followed closely, I don't understand the logic of using ICD9, and it bugs me too. Perhaps you can raise it on the talk page there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:22, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Asperger Syndrome (299.8) but it is on axis I and not II. --Fenke (talk) 22:49, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

Blanket revert of earnest edit

I am somewhat befuddled by this revert. In the edit summary SandyGeorgia writes, "I cannot decipher the new footnote, self-care is overlinked, pls discuss on talk." There were four separate changes made in the edit which was reverted. Firstly, I added a link to the Nobel Laureate which is mentioned in the text. I think it's unnecessarily reserved to omit the name of the person when Wikipedia does in fact have an article on him. Secondly, the "overlinked" self-care wikilink. I cannot understand the reasoning behind removing this wikilink. Again, I find the reverting editor asserting a too reserved position. Thirdly, the footnote which I added to the article's information about "5,484 eight-year-old children in Finland found 2.9 children per 1,000 met the ICD-10 criteria for an AS diagnosis, 2.7 per 1,000 for Gillberg and Gillberg criteria, 2.5 for DSM-IV, 1.6 for Szatmari et al., and 4.3 per 1,000 for the union of the four criteria." This is hard stuff to absorb for many people with a low level of numeracy, so I added this as a didactic footnote: "16, 15, 14, 9, and 24 individuals respectively." Is this footnote harder to decipher than the original statistics, and does this apply generally or merely to a few among whom SandyGeorgia finds herself? And lastly, I moved a comma according to standard English orthography rules as I believe them to be. All of this was reverted. Now I discuss this change, and I pose the question whether perhaps this discussion should have been unnecessary, or if my edit should have been left in place and the other editor instead should have been making initial remarks here on the discussion page? __meco (talk) 23:05, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

I was befuddled by the footnote :-) I couldn't make the numbers in the footnote match up with anything to the "respectively", and I don't think casual readers can/will. To glance between text above and note below to match up numbers is a stretch. Yes, I also simultaneously in one edit got 1) the footnote, 2) a vandal edit), 3) the self-care WP:OVERLINKing (only link to articles that provide context for this article and aren't common terms known to most English speakers), and 4) what I thought wasn't necessary text added to a footnote. If the nobel laureate needs to be mentioned in the footnote, that would probably mean he needs to be mentioned in the text; we should talk about whether that's the case. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 9 December 2007 (UTC)

To take the four changes one by one:

• I don't think the Nobel laureate's identity is that relevant to this article. What matters is that at least one laureate has AS. If we were talking about a really famous laureate like Kipling or Einstein or Gorbachev it might be another story, but the vast majority of readers won't know who Vernon L. Smith is and mentioning his identity weakens the article (by making it a trivia repository) rather than strengthening it. Certainly his identity shouldn't be mentioned in the footnote; anybody who cares who it is can click on the link.
• I don't see the need to wikilink to self-care. If we're going to do that, why not also wikilink to romantic, cognitive, marriage, and organization (all terms used in the same sentence)?
• The "16, 15, 14, 9, and 24" is unnecessary and adds confusion to the article rather than subtracting it. Nobody will care what the absolute numbers were of the Finnish study. What people care about is prevalence per 1,000, which is already reported.
• As for the comma, Wikipedia uses logical quoting (see WP:PUNC) so the article does not need a change here.

Eubulides (talk) 00:57, 10 December 2007 (UTC)

Wiktionary vs Wikipedia wikilinks

This is just a minor style question. A recent edit wikilinked the word idiosyncratic to its Wiktionary definition rather than to the Idiosyncratic article. Normally I prefer to stay within Wikipedia, as is already done for words like pedanticic in that same sentence; is there some reason to use Wiktionary here? Eubulides (talk) 23:57, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

To me, those links are external content, highly unreliable, and should never be used. I'd remove them all. If something needs to be defined, it should be defined within the article, or on Wiki; you shouldn't have to start an account on another service, and watch entries there, to assure accurate content for this article. I don't think we should have external jumps in the text, and those are external jumps. But I don't know if that answer is grounded in guideline or policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:50, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

It's a sister-project, linked from the main page, and probably at least as reliable as wikipedia itself, but I understand that 'internal links only' would be a guideline that leaves little need for discussing the reliability of such wiki-links. Fenke (talk) 07:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Fenke, just to follow up on why this is a concern: because of the Stuttering FAR, I discovered that our articles had links to sister project articles that are SO bad (serious POV and COI) that we would never accept them as external links in the EL section of an article. My thinking is that if they don't rise to the level of what we accept as External links, we shouldn't use them at all, even if they are sister links. The Stuttering and Anti-stuttering devices COI report made me very suspicious of ever using sister links. HTH, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:41, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, I understand this could be a concern. Fenke (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I have no problems with internally linking it, I choose the wiktionary description because it is brief and explains the word, basically what I expect what might be required when reading the article. --Fenke (talk) 07:39, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

OK, thanks, I did that. Eubulides (talk) 10:42, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

One way to avoid would be to re-word with a simpler word instead. I'm inclined to agree with SG that wiktionary is unreliable content, and further, there's no real need to link the word at all. It's a common enough word, and if someone is unfamiliar with it in this context, they should look it up in an actual dictionary. Individuals w/AS have unusual prosody and use of language. No need to link it, it's a simple enough concept. WLU (talk) 18:49, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Incidentally, isn't prosody (linguistics) sufficient to cover all the aspects of speech in that particular clause? Prosody seems to cover loudness, pitch, intonation and rhythm, thus rendering either prosody, or the remaining four words as redundant. WLU (talk) 18:55, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

I like the idea of using simpler words, but simplifying the text by saying only "prosody" sounds a bit much. I suspect that most casual readers of this article will not know what prosody is. Perhaps we could reword it by mentioning prosody (wikilinked) first and then briefly explain prosody in terms of loudness, pitch, intonation and rhythm (not wikilinked, since the wikilink to prosody should suffice). Eubulides (talk) 19:07, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

Prosody doesn't cover idiosyncratic, as I understand them the latter would involve uncommon uses (combining) of words, the meaning of words, while prosody is about the auditory aspects.

The 'psychiatry' subsection of idiosyncrasy is about (idiosyncratic) language that is sometimes used in psychiatry (by psychiatrists) about patients, as well as the uncommon reactions of patients to events. As such it links to a confusing explanation of the word since in this article it is used for the uncommon use of language (it's primary meaning) by people with AS. --Fenke (talk) 21:59, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

British vs American spelling

User:85.11.183.199 is attempting to change the article from American to British spelling, without discussion. I assume that this can be reverted; it's not vandalism per se, but WP:ENGVAR suggests we should just leave it American. Eubulides (talk) 19:04, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

WP:ENGVAR is clear that the original spelling should be left, but I'm not certain where this falls wrt WP:3RR and vandalism; if it persists, we may need to ask somewhere. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:08, 13 December 2007 (UTC)

It's hardly vandalism. Older versions of this article used english spelling, that would suggest it should be in english spelling now. --Fenke (talk) 09:01, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

The oldest version of this article that used the word "behavior" used the American spelling, not the English. Which isn't too surprising, since it's quoting the DSM. Eubulides (talk) 16:53, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Dreams of a system rather like the one for date and time which alters the spelling depending on ones preferences on logging in... Soarhead77 (talk) 13:17, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

I don't understand Soarhead77's comment,but Eubulides's opinion makes sense. 99.230.152.143 (talk) 21:38, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Soarhead suggests a system - similar to the timezone system - that would show people with a preference for English spelling the articles in English spelling and people with a preference for US-English spelling the articles in US-English spelling. --Fenke (talk) 22:25, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I appreciate the help. :) 99.230.152.143 (talk) 18:06, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Prevalence of AS vs autism

The figures given in the article are WIDELY misleading and certainly not supported by the given references. The study that is referenced use young children where AS is not yet identifiable. AS is usually not diagnosed until much later than 6-7 years that these children are. I vote for an imidiate removal of these claims. --Rdos (talk) 13:21, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The first sentence in "Epidemiology" is fully supported by the reference and admits to the uncertainty in the figures. The source agrees with you that:

"To obtain more valid estimates, it will be important to focus on rates applying to slightly older age groups (ie, children aged 8–12 years) because children with AD are identified and diagnosed much later than children with typical autism and, as a consequence, estimates obtained in younger samples might underestimate the prevalence of Asperger disorder."

That review paper is five years old, so perhaps you could suggest a more up-to-date one? The second source (the book), is up-to-date and from a respected publisher. I can't read the book but I trust Eubulides's text matches this source; he's usually very careful in that regard. Colin°^Talk 17:51, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I suggest that Eubulides's cite the text he proposes validates these claims. Especially the age of the children participating in the study and where the sample is taken from. In this article http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=2485 my claim that AD is not diagnosed at 6-7 years of age but at an age of 11 years on average. Unless Eubulides's reference can present a group of children at least 11 years of age and not done in special education, it simply doesn't verify the claim and that is irrespectible if it is published or not. --Rdos (talk) 19:09, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I concur that the text was well cited and accurate, and disagree with this removal of cited text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

The figures in Asperger syndrome#Epidemiology all came from the cited sources. The article's "0.03 to 4.84 per 1,000" and "5:1" both came directly from Fombonne & Tidmarsh 2003 (PMID 12512396), which says "The prevalence rates for AD range from 0.3–48.4 per 10,000" and "the number of children with autism was on average five times higher than that for AD". The article's "combining this with a conservative prevalence estimate for autism of 1.3 per 1,000 suggests indirectly that the prevalence of AS might be around 0.26 per 1,000" comes directly from Fombonne 2007 (ISBN 0521549574), which says on page 42, "From these results, a conservative estimate for the current prevalence of autistic disorder is most consistent with values lying somewhere between 10 per 10 000 and 16 per 10 000. For further calculations, we arbitrarily adopted the midpoint of this interval as the working rate for autism prevalence, i.e. the value of 13 per 10 000" and on page 47, "This translates into a rate for Asperger's syndrome which would be 1/5 that of autism. We therefore used, for subsequent calculations, an estimate of 2.6 per 10 000 for Asperger's syndrome." There is no requirement to "present a group of children at least 11 years of age" in order to make these estimates. Eubulides (talk) 07:21, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Unless he have included some new studies of older children or adults I don't see the claim as substantiated. I've never seen a 5:1 relation between autism & AS on any web-forum. Autistics are a small minority-group. In Aspie-quiz, diagnosed autism vs diagnosed AS is 955 vs 3595, which translates to 1:3.7, which is far more credible than these claims. Since AS is a new diagnosis, one might suspect that many adults that are actually AS in Aspie-quiz was diagnosed with autism before the AS diagnosis was "invented". I suggest you either show his age group (and put a disclaimer about the age group in the text if it is still 6-7 year olds) or remove the claim. --Rdos (talk) 09:54, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

I assume "Aspie-quiz" is the online questionnaire you host. If so, your sample group assumes a level of computer competence, language ability, and a reasonable IQ. Only a small minority of those with Autism would be capable of participating. And your results would only be "credible" on Wikipedia if you can persuade a reputable publisher to print them.

I think Rdos makes a reasonable point that the current Epidemiology section concentrates solely on studies of young children. For balance, some effort should be made to find reliable studies on adolescents and adults. If they can't be found, then perhaps the text could at least be clearer that the studies to date have the weakness noted by the above-quoted text from Fombonne & Tidmarsh (2003). Rdos, you cite a source that claims AS is not generally diagnosed until 11, on average. There could be many reasons for this delay, and a population study of younger children might well find undiagnosed children, provided the test is sensitive and the characteristics are apparent at that age. But Fombonne & Tidmarsh (2003) agree with you that it is likely to be better to have data from an older population group.

I suspect the Fombonne (2007) chapter is as up-to-date as we can get, and that we simply lack the reliable data for older groups. Could we add something like "Most studies to date have examined children younger than the typical age of diagnosis, and might therefore underestimate the prevalence of AS." Colin°^Talk 12:17, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

There is a study from Williams that examines the effects of several factors on the prevalence estimate and age of the children in the examined groups was one of the factors that influences the outcome. --Fenke (talk) 12:44, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that (the full article is available with free registration), though it covers typical autism and ASD, not specifically AS. However, it does confirm age is a problem (as well as diagnostic criteria [which is mentioned in the article] and study location [urban/rural]). I quote:

"When including age in the model, an increase in the age of the sample by one year was associated with a fall in prevalence by a factor of approximately 0.85, taking the odds ratio as an approximation of a relative risk. Alternatively, when including study location, studies in urban areas gave rise to prevalence estimates over 2.5 times those in rural or mixed urban and rural areas."

and later:

"The age of the children screened was strongly associated with the prevalence estimates. Manifestations of ASD may be more obvious in younger children. Alternatively, some screening methods may be more sensitive for younger children."

So it may be that Fombonne's speculation that a low study age might underestimate the prevalence of AS could be wrong (though, again, this paper didn't look at AS specifically). Clearly the statement "Prevalence estimates vary enormously." is not kidding. Colin°^Talk 13:51, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Fombone 2007 is the most recent epidemiological survey I know of. It covers the same studies as Fombonne & Tidmarsh 2003, except that it also includes Chakrabarti & Fombonne 2005 (PMID 15930062). I can't easily see a way to write up the above discussion in the text of the article proper; that would be original research. However, it is reasonable to mention that the surveyed studies are of children, and that the measured ratios were also all over the map, so I made this change. I don't know of any reliable source claiming that AS is more prevalent than autism; I suspect that the results on Aspie-quiz are skewed by self-selection. Certainly the name "Aspie-quiz" alone would be more likely to draw respondents with AS than with autism. Eubulides (talk) 23:59, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

New reference for widely different views between organizations and Aspies

Published, reliable, source: http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a785919572~db=all Calls for recreating the balance. This article is the worst POV I've ever seen. --Rdos (talk) 13:25, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Wikipedia doesn't concern itself with blogs and non-reliable internet websites. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:08, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Huh? Wikipedia doesn't concern itself with the published literature? Haven't you been discarding everything that isn't published ever since you "took over" this article and turned it into a disease? Do you mean that there is differences between publications and publications and that you in fact only accept the literature you like yourself? --Rdos (talk) 16:39, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Once again, the article is about "blogs written by people who have been diagnosed with AS, as well as organizations devoted to the support of people with AS and their families", which has no relationship to Wikipedia articles or Wiki reliable sources. But you, Rdos, apparently have a point to make based on the off-Wiki canvassing and inaccurate statements made about me on those sorts of websites. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:32, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It is not the blogs that are cited but the research report that is published. It concludes that Aspies and organizations have widely different views of AS. If this article is supposed to be balanced and NPOV, it should incorporate this aspect and can use this published report as a reliable reference. --Rdos (talk) 19:26, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

It's certainly reasonable to mention Aspie bloggers under "Cultural aspects". Asperger syndrome already does so, but it gave an old citation (Dekker 1999) whose URL is no longer accessible. The paper you mention is a more reliable source, and has the advantage that it is accessible, so I made this change to substitute the new citation for the old. Thanks for bringing it to our attention. Eubulides (talk) 08:16, 25 December 2007 (UTC)

Journal abbreviations in citations, etc.

This series of changes did the following:

• Replace journal abbreviations like J Autism Dev Disord with spelled-out versions like Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders. Some of these replacements introduced incorrect spelled-out versions, so to this extent the replacement harmed the article rather than helping it. Anyway, I'd rather keep the abbreviations. Spelling out journal names doesn't help the typical reader, who doesn't know one medical journal from another, but it does consume valuable screen real estate and it slows down the expert reader. Novice readers can easily discover the full journal title by clicking on the DOI. The typical style in similar Wikipedia articles is to use the abbreviations.
• Hyphenate ISBNs. That looks good to me.
• It added a DOI for Rutter 2005, but the DOI doesn't work. I'd rather omit non-working DOIs.
• It added a DOI for Rinehart et al. 2002; thanks.
• For Dakin 2005, it avoided the "cite book" template and abbreviated the book title. I'd rather stick with full book titles and use the template; I don't see the advantage of handcoding this particular reference.

In short, I'd like to keep the ISBN hyphenation and the Rinehart et al. 2002 DOI, and omit the rest of the changes.

Eubulides (talk) 21:20, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

I utterly disagree with both "Spelling out journal names doesn't help the typical reader, who doesn't know one medical journal from another" and "The typical style in similar Wikipedia articles is to use the abbreviations." In the first case, the use of abbreviation tends to make the task (should one attempt to do so for whatever reason) of retrieving the article through any system other than direct link from Wikipedia (i.e. the PMID and DOI) far more complicated than needs be (I know this for a fact, having had several run myself with horribly ambiguous abbreviations in the past).

It is totally incorrect to write that "typical style in similar Wikipedia articles is to use the abbreviations." 90% of overall references don't use abbreviations; most medical articles have abbreviations because the references where added with them, not because the majority of articles outside medicine use them.

As a side note, this was a mild editing compared to what I normally do, i.e. full names, use of the last/first/coauthors fields etc. And even those reference cleanups usually go mostly unopposed. I cleaned up most of Bird while it was at FAC in that fashion without comments on it, and I'm currently revising Vampire in the same fashion at the demand of an editor. I expanded the references on a few of Samir (talk · contribs)'s articles, and he also never opposed it.

Regarding other bits (The DOI and book simplification), I don't mind them being reverted. I agree simpler book references are only truly necessary where they repeat by the dozen (cf. the above-mentioned Vampire, or Eadbald of Kent and other FAs from Mike Christie (talk · contribs)).Circeus (talk) 21:47, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Citation formatting is one of those areas where Wikipedia refuses to dictate and leaves it up to editors to come to a consensus per article. Even with a discipline such as medicine, WP:MEDMOS describes several styles and doesn't mandate. It explicitly says only that "Some editors prefer to expand the abbreviated journal name". It mentions two conventions for abbreviating author lists with et al but doesn't say you should use either. I think journal names are typically short on wikipedia for three reasons:

1. Many editors (such as Eubulides) are extremely familiar with them and can read the code. In fact, they may be more familiar with abbreviations like BMJ and JAMA than the full name.
2. Diberri's template-filling web site does not currently offer the option to expand the journal name. The information is there, in the XML data source, but there is no tick-box for asking for it. I'm sure if requested, he'd add it. Until/unless that it added, it makes the inclusion of full journal names a lot of work for any editor who likes to use this tool for "cite journal" templates.
3. Editors using the Vancouver style for citations would use NLM abbreviations. The full list can be found here.

This article uses Wikipedia's home-grown "cite journal" form. I have some sympathy with Circeus as I find the abbreviated form to be little more than a code. However, some journal names are extremely long. I don't think there is a right or wrong choice here as there are +/- aspects to either. While I appreciate WP:OWN, I also understand that making life difficult for the principle editor/maintainer of an FA with dozens of references isn't ideal either. Without support from Diberri's tool, adding new citations is going to be that bit more tedious. And knowing Eubulides, he's going to want to carefully check all 70-odd citations, if he hasn't done so already. Those are just time sinks.

As for expansion to full person names, don't try it. The information just isn't generally available and a mix of initials and full names will look terrible. Colin°^Talk 15:30, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Full journal names are one click away on the PMID/DOI. In the interest of maintenance and ease of use of the Diberri tool, I don't believe the established citation method on an article should be changed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:13, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Ok, thanks, I changed it back. I had in mind a snarky comment along the lines of "Why don't we expand 'CNBC' while we're at it?" but Colin and SandyGeorgia summarized the arguments far better than I would have. Eubulides (talk) 17:04, 30 December 2007 (UTC)

Comment

Why did you delete my comment? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 199.223.19.24 (talk) 20:40, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

Needs citation, No personal attacks. The Wednesday Island (talk) 20:45, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

UK discrimination

Following section added to page. At mimimum, it requires a citation, for both discrim (possibly from an extant source?) and for both the UK act and attendant ET case. Also, I question the relevance of a single case in a single country to the whole page. May be more suitable for another page with a link to the AS page proper (possibly Sociological and cultural aspects of autism?) WLU (talk) 14:23, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

Individuals with AS also experience frequent discrimination at work and in other areas of life. In the UK at least, the Disability Discrimination Act 1995 provides some protection and an Employment Tribunal case was won by someone who was turned down for a promotion at work on account of his AS

This is the second time this editor has added something related to this text to the page, in May/07 [2]. In May, two citations were provided. The first citation doesn't appear to mention AS specifically (may be found with further digging into linked external pages) while the second does. WLU (talk) 14:30, 9 January 2008 (UTC)

UK Aspergers is now confirmed as being covered by the Disability Discrimination Act. This means that those with AS who get treated badly because of it may have some redress. The first case was that of Hewitt (sometimes referred to as Hewett) v Motorola 2004 [3] and the second was Isles v Ealing Council [4] From May, 2007, WLU (talk)

User:Ilesmark edited the above remarks in such a way that I couldn't follow what was meant. I restored the above remarks to what User:WLU originally wrote; normally it's better to leave people's talk-page remarks alone, and to add your own remarks in separate paragraphs. I attempt to collect User:Ilesmark's additions as follows. They were a wikilink to Disability Discrimination Act 1995, an external link, and the following remarks:

If readers can see that someone in the UK has succeeded in a case, this may at least prompt them to check whether similar laws exist in their own country eg http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Disability_discrimination_act

Now it does

http://83.137.212.42/sitearchive/DRC/the_law/legal_commentary/key_achievements_over_the_last.html - scoll down to Hewett v Mororola

Eubulides (talk) 07:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)

No mention of famous cases nor reference to info re

I see that this page makes no mention of the fact that many famous people have been formally diagnosed with AS or have been posthumously identified as having been autistic. I also didn't see anything on this page directing people to the page about famous people such as Newton and Einstein and whether they had AS etc etc. Are you trying to keep a secret or something? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.197.25 (talk) 16:11, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

WP:MEDMOS#Notable cases suggests that this sort of medical article should not emphasize notable cases, for several reasons. One of them is that the list of such cases becomes unreliable and controversial and distracts from the topic at hand. For more on this topic, please see People speculated to have been autistic. Eubulides (talk) 18:37, 13 January 2008 (UTC)

Interesting article just appeared on the BBC website about the link between AS and creativity - but really, who knows whether Einstein or anyone else would have been diagnosed with AS?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ndaisley (talk • contribs) 12:05, 26 January 2008 (UTC)

uh - does that mean that the signature button doesn't work any more? I did sign this! --Ndaisley (talk) 11:39, 27 January 2008 (UTC) worked that time!

Wot about Wrong Planet link

A link to www.wrongplanet.net would be in order I feel. Martinwguy (talk) 13:49, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

It's there. Asperger syndrome #Cultural aspects mentions Wrong Planet, wikilinks to it, and cites Clarke & van Amerom 2007 about it. Eubulides (talk) 20:24, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Aspies "should" take medication

"Deficits in self-identifying emotions or in observing effects of one's behavior on others can make it difficult for individuals with AS to see why they should take medication."
I suggest that we rephrase this for NPOV, as it implies that Aspies should in fact take medication. (Autistic pride / Neurodiversity advocates might argue that in fact Aspies are just fine the way they are and don't need to take medication.)
We should perhaps rephrase this as "can make it difficult for individuals with AS to see why taking medication might be desirable" or something along those lines. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 14:38, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

It's common for people to say things like "I don't see why I should pay higher taxes."; such a statement does not imply that taxes should be higher. I don't see why the proposed rewording is an improvement; it implies that Aspies are refusing to take desirable actions. Eubulides (talk) 17:07, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

How about saying that it is recommended by psychiatric professionals that the use of medication should be accompanied by counseling. Furthermore, since when is "autistic pride" a member or entity expert in treatment or diagnosis? Is this like gay pride? First amendment speech I respect their voice, but are we giving them a status of authority in the realm of science? --THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 23:24, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

Whether medication should be accompanied by counseling is a different issue; it might make sense to talk about that, but it won't resolve this question (also, the different issue would need to be sourced). The original issue is not about fact, it's whether a particular choice of words is biased. Word choice is not strictly a scientific issue, and can't be resolved purely on scientific grounds. That being said, I just now checked Towbin 2003 (PMID 12512397), the original source, and its wording is "should be required to take medication". I made this change to cause the article to better reflect the original source; I hope this helps to resolve the issue. Eubulides (talk) 23:47, 15 January 2008 (UTC)

As a diagnosed Aspie I have been told by more than one doctor that medication in the form of anti-depressants may not be as beneficial for me as it might be for someone who is NT - I am not aware of any literature to back this up though. I am currently thinking that any depression I might have suffered in the past might be related to the failure by others and by myself to recognise that I did in fact have Asperger's syndrome. This is in the way of a personal experiment and I stand to be corrected on this! Soarhead77 (talk) 12:57, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Eubulides, thank you for your effort to improve this, however ...
Article currently reads: "Deficits in self-identifying emotions or in observing effects of one's behavior on others can make it difficult for individuals with AS to see why they should be required to take medication."
I'd say that if anything this is even worse, as the image of individuals being "required" to take medication (presumably despite their personal wishes in the matter) leads to various rather nightmarish scenarios.
I understand that this was in the original text cited and that we may want to keep it for that reason, but I don't like it much. -- 201.37.229.117 (talk) 14:04, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I agree with you about choice of wording and would welcome a better one that addresses the same point, if we can find a better one that is sourced. Eubulides (talk) 17:52, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I have a teenage son with AS, taking meds is not at all a problem and never has been (since 2). Getting him to do his homework, seeing how failure in school will adversely affect his life, and admitting fault at any level about anything are real problems we deal with every single day. He would play video games and watch cartoons until the day he dies with no problems. He's 17 years old and doesn't see the end of high school on the horizon, nor any concern about how bad grades will affect him down the road. Now whether some doctors think someone with AS should take meds or write it in a book, is really irrelevant, because for every book with one perspective there is always another with the opposite one. This article should be about things that help people with AS or family members who live with someone diagnosed with AS. If a professional comes to Wiki to learn about AS, what does that tell you?--THE FOUNDERS INTENT ^TALK 19:38, 19 January 2008 (UTC)

I've met several Health Care Professional type people who have known nothing or a very limited amount about AS, I suspect I would rather them read this article as an introduction so they understand what they are dealing with than not. This includes at least one (in UK terms) chartered psychologist who admitted to me that she knew *nothing* about AS. When one has AS and one tries to get some professional in the health care system to understand it, this I find is a good place for them to start. I suspect the situation is not much different in the US. Soarhead77 (talk) 15:11, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Could rephrase to "why the use of medication may be appropriate." Medication, for AS and other conditions including antibiotics for a cold, may be used but may be opposed because of side effects. Not all aspies are going to take medication, and not all who take it are going to resist, so I'd say phrase it as a conditional and avoid the controversy. WLU (talk) 16:18, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the suggestion; I did that. Eubulides (talk) 21:26, 25 January 2008 (UTC)

Why no mention of the high sucide rates?

Come on. — Preceding unsigned comment added by User:Casey QuestionMark (talk • contribs)

That would require a reliable source to verify. WLU (talk) 14:36, 30 January 2008 (UTC)

Pragmatics: understanding what is not explicitly stated

Interesting material at Pragmatics which bears on the difficulty of understanding what is not explicitly stated:

"Pragmatics is the study of the ability of natural language speakers to communicate more than that which is explicitly stated. The ability to understand another speaker's intended meaning is called pragmatic competence. ...

Suppose a person wanted to ask someone else to stop smoking. ... The person could simply say, 'Stop smoking, please!' which is direct and with clear semantic meaning; alternatively, the person could say, 'Whew, this room could use an air purifier' which infers a similar meaning but is indirect and therefore requires pragmatic inference to derive the intended meaning.

Pragmatics is regarded as one of the most challenging aspects for language learners to grasp, and can only truly be learned with experience."

-- Writtenonsand (talk) 12:17, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

Article would benefit from balance

There is a conspicuous absence of neutral and positive aspects of AS, will be making additions with DOI/PMID references. Sitadel (talk) 06:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Added a couple of sentences in paragraph 2 anyway, will return to add more. We need to be careful about negative aspects which have no clinical definition, like "motor clumsiness". There is also some discredited terminology involving "theory of mind" which, along with "central coherence", were simple hypotheses which studies did not validate.

In short I feel the article needs further balancing before it's safe to pull that tag off. The reader's interests are best served if s/he is made aware there are some important ommissions from the current article. It especially sensitive since AS applies to Living Persons, so policy urges us to err on the side of caution (actually, policy demands much more drastic action! But a tag suffices, I think. Back for more soon) Sitadel (talk) 07:58, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sitadel. Thank-you for your efforts to ensure NPOV and provide sources for your changes. You may be interested in reading some archived discussions. The positive/negative debate has been discussed extensively and passionately. Ultimately, it comes down to what is supported by the sources. This seems to be one aspect that is sadly lacking in high quality sources, but is important to a lot of people. As this is a featured article, we should be conservative in making radical changes too quickly. Controversial changes are best suggested on talk pages rather than being too bold. Also, remember that the lead section is a summary of the article—so really we should edit the rest of the article before then bringing the lead into line. Colin°^Talk 09:42, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the welcome, Colin! I won't make radical or rapid changes, and will work from the body first. (Today I'll follow up the material added in p. 2 in the body.) I'll also take great care with sources, holding them to a higher standard than those which report negative aspects (extraordinary sources, claims etc.) and citing them directly. The article as it exists now is very good but simply incomplete IMO. The balancing material is a) not that voluminous and b) readily verifiable from the sources (PMID only from major research centers) so hopefully things can go smoothly. Sitadel (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

The sources added don't appear to be specific to AS, but Eubulides will know better; that paragraph doesn't belong in the WP:LEAD per WP:UNDUE, so I joined it with the previous discussion of same. Also, Sitadel, please don't tag an article POV as your second edit to Wiki, without first attempting discussion and consensus over the text you want to add. If consensus-building fails, then tagging the article is more reasonable. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sandy, please read WP:NPOV_dispute#What_is_an_NPOV_dispute.3F which explains that the NPOV tag does not require discussion first , nor a high edit count. Also please do not remove or move well-sourced material as that disrupts work in progress. Sitadel (talk) 16:27, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sitadel, please read WP:LEAD and WP:UNDUE to understand how a lead is constructed, and please gain consensus for your edits once they've been challenged. Adding a POV tag as your second edit to Wiki, without discussion or attempts at consensus building, isn't the best way to display an interest in consensus building. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Again, WP:NPOV_dispute#What_is_an_NPOV_dispute.3F makes clear the tag belongs there. In the future I will work from the body first and then the lead, which I was about to correct anyway. As for WP:UNDUE, we need the sources first before we can balance them, so I will continue to add them - body first, then lead. I trust that, despite the controversy on this issue, nobody is about to remove well sourced material. Sitadel (talk) 16:34, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sitadel, a few points:

• Sandy isn't saying the POV tag can't be placed prior to discussion, merely that to do so might be considered impolite. There's a difference between behaviour that is required of editors and behaviour that is hoped for. There are plenty controversial subjects on Wikipedia, many of which have been discussed to death and have reached a good state of NPOV. A newbie slapping a POV tag on an article, especially a featured one (which the community has already agreed is pretty good), is bound to ruffle some feathers.
• Your request "please do not remove or move well-sourced material as that disrupts work in progress." isn't how wiki works. See Bold, revert, discuss. You've been bold. Some of that may be reverted. Now discuss.
• Earlier comments on our policy on living persons do not apply here. That policy addresses statements about specific living people, not population-groups. We all want to be sensitive but Wikipedia is not censored.
• You say "I trust that, despite the controversy on this issue, nobody is about to remove well sourced material." Having well sourced material is only the first vital step. The tone and quantity of text covering a particular POV may upset the balance. At the extreme, some opinions are held by so few people (even if eminent) that their presence in the article might not be warranted. This is what WP:UNDUE covers. So, yes, well sourced material might end up being removed or reworded.
• You will find that editing a highly controversial subject is best done by making suggestions on the talk page (for example, proposing some new or changed text, with sources) and then seeing what consensus develops. Too much bold-editing and reverting just makes everyone fall out.
• Remember that different editors are located in different time-zones, so be patient.

Regards, Colin°^Talk 18:08, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I'll second what Colin has said, and add that the material proposed by Sitadel (talk · contribs) is sourceable and relevant. There will inevitably be some back-and-forth about how to present the sources most accurately, but no one is out to get anyone and I think all of the people who have commented here (including Sitadel) share the goal of making this a better article, so let's work from there. One point of Colin's that deserves special reinforcement is that on an article like this, which has been the subject of extensive discussion and collaboration, it's often best to come directly to the talk page if one of your edits has been reverted, and discuss it. Often that will lead to a solution everyone's happy with, whereas reinserting the material without coming here just gets everyone worked up. MastCell ^Talk 18:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Some other general editing notes; please make sure sources added are specific to AS and not generalized to autism spectrum disorders (I don't believe the sources added are, but Eubulides will know better). Also, to maintain consistency in citation formatting, see the Diberri PMID template filler. The incorrect hyphenation of the new section heading will need to be fixed if that heading endures. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:51, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Current version is:

Some researchers dispute the notion that AS is necessarily a disability.[5] A number of studies claim areas of superior functioning in those with High Functioning Autism (HFA). The distinction, if any, between AS and HFA is unclear; some researchers consider HFA identical to AS, others consider AS a subset of HFA, a minority consider AS distinct from HFA.[24] Studies do report that people with HFA tend to out-perform the general population on certain neurological tests involving memory, visual discrimination, and other areas.[25][26]

This steps towards original research/WP:SYNTH in my mind - some people say HFA is the same as AS; people with HFA do better than the general population on some measures; (THEREFORE) people with AS do as well at these tests as well'. This seems inappropriate to me. Also,

Other problems I see:

1. The use of 'if any' seems weaselly to me
2. 'A minority consider AS distinct from HFA' - really? HFA is a stubby page compared to this one, if AS was the minority position, then the quality should be reversed. The HFA page doesn't support this link at all, and further states that HFA doesn't appear in the DSM or ICD-10. And the statement is linked to a book, not a journal, from 1998. If it was a minority in 1998, either the book is the minority position, there's been no publication on the subject, or they've all switched from the minority to the majority in believeing that the two conditions are separate. In general, this section needs much better referencing.
3. This section should be mentioned in the HFA page, as the 'guts' of the assertion of superior ability, references 25 and 26, discuss HFA and not AS. I very strongly feel that it is a WP:SYNTH to say that these articles justify people with AS having superior abilities based on the linchpin of a single 10 year old book (note that Klin has more to say on HFA/AS links, but the assertion is still suspect simply because 25 and 26 are not about AS). WLU (talk) 19:36, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Also, I don't think it's necessary to put the {{NPOV}} tag on the page if the sole consideration is this one point; the "difference rather than disability" distinction is in the lead and the "advantages of AS" is still tenuously sourced rather than unequivocally correct. There is discussion on the page, the tag seems unnecessary to me. WLU (talk) 19:38, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

I moved the POV tag to the disputed section, as a start. I agree that it probably ought to be removed, especially since we seem to be making progress, and restored if and when we hit a serious roadblock. But I'll leave that up to others. MastCell ^Talk 19:44, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Besides being incorrectly hyphenated, the section heading "non pathological aspects" is POV, as it implies the rest of the article sections focus only on pathology. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:31, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Sitadel, consensus can change, but most of your concerns have been well covered in archives, so it would be helpful to all, and a timesaver for you, if you would review all archived material beginning with August before undertaking changes against consensus; it will give you a better basis for knowledgeable discussion here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:39, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Agreed - this has been covered and you might find more sources that modify or temper your editing. Try here and here for previous discussions. And in addition to being problematically referenced, I also think it's an extremely ill-chosen section title. Further, since in your (Sitadel) opinion the POV problem is restricted to a specific section only, I think MastCell's suggestion of moving it to a section is better than placing it at the top of the article - unless you believes the entire article is in dispute. Sitadel - the polite thing might be to discuss this on the talk page or drafting a section on a sub page and work towards a consensus rather than insisting on the main page changing. A consensus-supported version will last far longer and be defended by more editors than one acceptable to only one editor, even if it does take a bit longer. The difference between getting a desired version right now versus permanently is the support of your fellow editors. WLU (talk) 20:46, 5 February 2008 (UTC)

Non pathological review

I looked at this version of the article and have the following comments about the new section:

• "The distinction, if any, between AS and HFA is unclear; some researchers consider HFA identical to AS, others consider AS a subset of HFA, a minority consider AS distinct from HFA." This is not a comment about non pathological aspects; it is a comment about classification. And it duplicates the comment "The extent of the overlap between AS and high-functioning autism (HFA—autism unaccompanied by mental retardation) is unclear" which is already in Asperger syndrome#Classification, a comment that is already supported by the exact same citation (along with two other citations). I removed this comment as being duplicative and out of place.
• "Some researchers dispute the notion that AS is necessarily a disability" is not a comment about characteristics; it is about whether one should view these characteristics as a disability or as a condition. This duplicates a much more extensive comment already present in Asperger syndrome#Cultural aspects, namely "Simon Baron-Cohen has argued that AS and high-functioning autism are different cognitive styles, not disabilities, and that a diagnosis of AS/HFA should not be received as a family tragedy, but as interesting information, such as learning that a child is left-handed. According to Baron-Cohen, 'people with AS/HFA might not necessarily be disabled in an environment in which an exact mind, attracted to detecting small details, is an advantage.'" This more-extensive comment is a more-accurate and more-extensive summary of the cited source. I removed the shorter comment, as it doesn't add anything and is not in the right section.
• "Studies do report that people with HFA tend to out-perform the general population on certain neurological tests involving memory, visual discrimination, and other areas." This new quote is duplicative of the following existing quote in Asperger syndrome#Other symptoms: "Many accounts of individuals with AS and ASD report unusual sensory and perceptual skills and experiences. They may have superior performance in tasks like visual search problems that require processing of fine-grained features rather than entire configurations." The citations in support of the new quote have problems, though. The first citation, Caron et al. 2004 (PMID 14728920), was about both AS and HFA, but results for AS are not broken out separately, rendering it difficult to draw conclusions about AS per se. The second citation, Beversdorf et al. 2000 (PMID 10900024), is about HFA, not AS, and has several problems (discussed in Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive17 #Detailed commentary on sources) that indicate some real questions in using it as a reliable source for a featured article in Wikipedia. That same discussion also covers Caron et al. The primary studies are somewhat contradictory and often don't seem to be replicated. In cases like these it's better to rely on reviews. I made this change to merge the duplicative quotes into a new paragraph under Asperger syndrome#Other symptoms, citing Frith's review instead of the two primary studies.
• I hope these changes address the issue of whether Asperger syndrome#Characteristics is neutral and therefore removed its POV-section tag.

Eubulides (talk) 08:29, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with your assessment. On careful reading, it appears the information was already there and had better sources. Colin°^Talk 09:01, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I am amazed and dismayed that this discussion was brought to a conclusion, and the material removed, without so much as waiting for me to respond . This material was well-sourced and accurately conveyed. I shall contact an admin. Sitadel (talk) 15:17, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Remaining POV issues

In reviewing the above and the change logs, I found one remaining POV issue: in this change log entry Sitadel writes "I dispute the neutrality of the lead and the entire article, as the lead makes no mention of neutral or positive aspects." Reliable surveys of all of AS, which include McPartland & Klin 2006 (PMID 17030291) and Klin 2006 (PMID 16791390), do not mention these "neutral or positive aspects" at all. Asperger syndrome is therefore going out on a limb somewhat by briefly covering this topic under "Other symptoms". It would be a severe case of undue weight to highlight the topic in the lead. The POV tag is therefore not justified, and should be removed. If the field evolves so that the topic becomes more mainstream it would be appropriate to mention it in the lead; but in medical articles Wikipedia should follow the standards instead of trying to set them. Eubulides (talk) 08:46, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Sounds good to me. Aforesaid tag removed cheers, Casliber (talk · contribs) 08:48, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree, though in gauging weight, one must be aware of wider media interest, not just the what the experts find interesting. I don't believe that AS is "going out on a limb" by attempting to cover this topic, but do agree that in doing so it must only use the very best sources (which may limit what can be said at present). Colin°^Talk 09:07, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Regards the wee paragraph from Asperger_syndrome#Other_symptoms this version "Some of the perceptual differences are surpluses. Individuals with AS often have excellent perception.[20] Individuals with AS and ASD have superior performance in tasks like some visual search problems that require processing of fine-grained features rather than entire configurations.[21]", I've two problems. First is it reads a bit choppily - could 'surpluses' be replaced with something a bit more descriptive? Could the second sentence be moved to the first, and integrated to make the surpluses more clear? And in the final sentence, given that [21] is, according to the abstract, 'proposing a model' rather than validating it, is 'Individuals with AS and ASD have superior performance...' a bit strong? Would it be better written as 'it is proposed by...' or 'Some individuals with AS and ASD may have...'? WLU (talk) 11:35, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

Agree with all, we exhaustively combed all secondary sources to cover all latent advantages and positive aspects (see archives), except one potential source that I've been suggesting for a year and a half. To my knowledge, no one has yet accessed this source. I suggest it may be the only remaining source that may include some latent advantages, as Cohen tended to write about positive aspects. If Sitadel wants to tag the article POV, we will need reliable, independent, secondary sources that have not been given due weight in the article; as of now, there are none. I concur with Eubulides' removal of the duplicated text and the text that didn't apply to Asperger syndrome. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:37, 6 February 2008 (UTC)

I am dismayed and amazed that this conclusion was brought to a close, and the material removed, without so much as waiting for my response to this discussion. That material was well-sourced and accurately rendered. This is not the wikipedia way, folks. Sitadel (talk) 15:22, 6 February 2008 (UTC)