Jump to content

Talk:Asperger syndrome

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by 74.76.142.137 (talk) at 18:49, 12 June 2008 (Self-diagnosis problems: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Featured articleAsperger syndrome is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 17, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 10, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
September 5, 2005Featured article reviewKept
August 1, 2006Featured article reviewKept
September 24, 2007Featured article reviewKept
Current status: Featured article

Template:MedportalSA Template:Archive box collapsible

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)[reply]

Full-text journal-published AS articles, freely available

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

ASD in males & females

I'm moving the following material here from the article. It's about ASD, not about Asperger syndrome, and so isn't that relevant in the article. The topic is an important one, but the citations here are not the best and the claims are not well supported. Eubulides (talk) 23:30, 30 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Austism Spectrum Disorders in Males & Females

The majority of ASD referrals and diagnoses are for males. However, epidemiological research suggests that females with ASD are largely under-diagnosed. Researchers including Tony Atwood, a regarded expert on Asperger's and author of several books on the subject[1] have attributed this phenomenon to several factors. Although every person on the spectrum is different, the tendency of ASD girls is to withdraw and try to blend in. Conversely, boys on the spectrum "act out," sometimes violently, calling more attention to themselves.[2] The public misconception of savant males obsessed with train schedules and computers doesn't help matters. Females on the spectrum often become entranced with animals, words, and writing.[3] Arguably, the most famous person ever confirmed of being on the Autism Spectrum is the female author Temple Grandin.[4][5]


You can check the links to see that these are all actually about Aspergers but it applies to ASD as well so I made it ASD to cover both bases but you're right, it shouldn't say ASD here. I am reposting with AS.

Drewhamilton (talk) 13:48, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid that simply replacing "ASD" with "AS" doesn't suffice. First, the citations are weak; they do not, for example, support the claim that females with AS are largely under-diagnosed, nor do they support the claim that Temple Grandin is the most famous person with ASD. Please take a look at the rest of Asperger syndrome to see the sorts of citations we are looking for: preferably articles published in peer-reviewed journals (please see WP:MEDRS for details). Also, please try to read the whole article and see where any new material would go; this material is about diagnosis so surely it belongs under Asperger syndrome #Diagnosis, or better yet under Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome. Also, please see WP:MEDMOS for other important issues, e.g., whether and how notable cases like Grandin should be cited. I'm not saying the topic is unimportant (it is an important one); it's just that it needs to be covered neutrally and with good citations. Thanks. Eubulides (talk) 16:38, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Asperger syndrome

<copied from User talk:SandyGeorgia>

Hi. I noticed that you reverted my edit to Asperger syndrome. As per the MoS, my understanding is that abbreviations should be pluralised by adding an S, which would seem to apply there because the abbreviation is of autism spectrum disorders. Cordless Larry (talk) 18:40, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Referring to this edit. Notice the example given in MoS (They produced three CD-ROMs in the first year; The laptops were produced with three different BIOSes in 2006) applies to subsequent usage of the acronmym in the plural form; the initial definition of the acronym should be singular, I believe. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:56, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, I'm not sure, but I'm happy to leave it be. Cordless Larry (talk) 19:20, 1 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Label "aspie" considered derogatory by some

I have Asperger syndrome and consider the term "Aspie" derogatory. There are others with and without Asperger syndrome that share my views and think this should be noted in the article if it does not already have such a notation. I have seen discussion on some message boards to confirm this but think some established scources would appear more relaible for a citation --Ted-m (talk) 15:33, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

We can't really include opinion on Wiki. If you have a reliable source stating that Aspie is derogatory, that could be considered for addition at Autism rights movement or Sociological and cultural aspects of autism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Hmm, well, Asperger syndrome uses aspies twice without any hint of whether the word is considered derogatory; if a significant number of people are offended by the word then the wording should be reconsidered, regardless of what is done in other articles. Sources, please? Eubulides (talk) 16:20, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
It would probably be good general practice to eliminate the word anyway ... probably some embrace the term, while others reject it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:21, 2 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I agree. I also consider the term derogatory, and it would indeed be best to remove the word from the article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.169.244.28 (talk) 22:30, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
As another person diagnosed with AS I have looked into this and I suspect the term was first used by Aspies for Freedom as a soubriquet for people who campaigned for recognition and rights for people with Aspergers syndrome. It was also used in the document "Discovery of Aspie Criteria" written by Tony Attwood and Carol Gray. Its not as far as I know any kind of formally recognised medical term, but more of one used by campaigns etc. So I would be behind any attempt to purge the article of it for that reason alone.
I can't easily find a place to download this document from though (I think I have a reference at home but I'll have to look for that too!) It isn't a peer reviewed article, more one that attempts to draw a distinction between people with AS who passively accept it, and those who actively work against discrimination. Just as a matter of curiosity where does the idea of Aspie being derogatory come from? Soarhead77 (talk) 11:53, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is an encyclopedia article, not merely a medical article; if the terminology "aspie" is in common use then it's fair game as a topic for the article even if the use is outside of medicine. That being said, if "aspie" is commonly thought to be a derogatory term, care should be taken. We haven't yet seen any reliable sources on whether it's derogatory, though. Eubulides (talk) 14:38, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I recognise this and my comments were intended to be in accord with what you say. I am still curious as to why people think aspie is derogatory. Soarhead77 (talk) 08:40, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Support Group Listings by country

The page should include the support groups for asperger-adults and their websites. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tucko1 (talkcontribs) 10:59, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Please see WP:NOT; that kind of information is most likely available via the DMOZ link already listed in the "External links" section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:52, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

dinosaurs

i know someone with this, and he likes to run around like a dinosaur and make dinosaur lke noises, is this related to the syndrome or is he just very eccentric —Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.69.175.243 (talk) 12:21, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia is not a source of medical advice. That said, Wikipedia:Reference desk/Science is a better place to ask than here. The Wednesday Island (talk) 13:49, 7 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Discriminating vandals

I hate how people vandalize groups of people on Wikipedia for no reason. People can just be immature sometimes. As an AS-diagnosed teenager, I feel these vandals to this page is discriminating. Who agrees? 71.121.72.7 (talk) 04:08, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Everybody (except the vandals) agrees that vandalizing Wikipedia is a bad thing. Vandals attack all over the place, ranging from this article to Tourette syndrome to Indiana Jones and the Temple of Doom. Some of them are no doubt expressing discrimination; but most of them, I suspect, simply delight in destruction. Eubulides (talk) 16:50, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

No mention of skepticism?

I recall the Wikipedia Asperger syndrome article having at one time had a section labeled "controversy," or something similar. At the moment I'm trying to find arguments skeptical of the legitimacy of the diagnosis, and I wanted to reread that section. It's gone.

I was moved to comment on this partly because a similar section was at one time part of another Wikipedia article that I occasionally looked at--one on the author Dennis Cooper. Cooper is a writer known primarily because of the controversies that have attended his work; but someone pruning Cooper's Wikipedia entry commented that he had removed the section as it constituted a distraction. Hence the article became more promotional in nature.

Is this not deeply objectionable? And what are we to make when the discussion of a psychiatric condition seems itself to become promotional in nature?

Asperger syndrome involves as nebulous and subjective a diagnosis as I can personally imagine. We know when someone has a syndrome with definitely biological roots, such as Down's syndrome, because of the scientifically quantifiable debilities associated with it. The debility associated with Asperger syndrome, however, is lack of social adeptness, by a particular society's standards, at a particular cultural moment. This reminds me of now disgraced, once widespread diagnoses such as borderline personality disorder. Those who believe in the legitimacy of the Asperger syndrome diagnosis increasingly do little more, in their online and print polemics, than point out that licensed, educated authorities frequently make the diagnosis. Was the case much different with borderline personality disorder?

At any rate, this article has become more like an act of advocacy than it was when I last read it.

JFC1978 (talk) 17:22, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't believe in Asperger's syndrome I think you need to talk to some of the other people affected by it. Read this article: Families Affected by Adults with Aspergers Syndrome

Soarhead77 (talk) 12:00, 21 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

As is usual with Wikipedia, the article attempts to give due weight to all significant viewpoints on a topic. If a significant viewpoint has been missed, by all means please suggest specific wording changes with reliable sources, preferably the sort of peer-reviewed journals that Asperger syndrome typically cites now. Eubulides (talk) 21:26, 11 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I'm not sure this is a significant viewpoint to be honest. It is an example of a viewpoint that perhaps was once held but is now diminishing interest in view of the evidence to the contrary. Would you argue for a section called "controversy" in cancer for example? Soarhead77 (talk) 08:43, 22 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Increased Intelligence in some AS

Perhaps this article should mention the Higher-than Average IQ some researchers have corallated with AS 98.169.244.28 (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)14 May, 2008[reply]

Sources, please? This topic was discussed at some length in Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive16 #The lead. Back then, we didn't find reliable sources on AS that mentioned higher-than-average IQ. Eubulides (talk) 22:51, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Famous people with AS section

Just a thought. There are a lot of important people who have or are theorized to have had AS 98.169.244.28 (talk) 22:35, 14 May 2008 (UTC)14 May, 2008[reply]

See List of people on the autistic spectrum and People speculated to have been autistic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:53, 14 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right amount of wikilnking

This change was labeled "Typo fixing + general fixes using AWB" but I didn't see any typos or general fixes there; all I saw was removal of wikilinks, I guess under the general principle that article A should never contain more than one wikilink to article B. That general principle is too strong: it's too much to ask a reader of Asperger syndrome to remember the lead's wikilink to Hans Asperger by the time they've waded all the way through the article to the History section. It could well be that some of the wikilinks are unnecessary, but I'd rather see them judiciously removed by hand, by someone who's reading the article, rather than removed automatically by a deterministic algorithm. As I was writing this I saw that the change was reverted; if the article does have too many wikilinks I suggest starting the stable version, with more links, rather than the AWBed version with fewer. Eubulides (talk) 21:59, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Right, same thinking here when I reverted. The corrections were almost all delinking, that appeared automatic based on an algorithm. I'm not a fan of WP:OVERLINKing, but all of those links were necessary and not overlinking, IMO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:10, 18 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Group For Teens With Asperger Syndrome

If anyone wants to join an online support group for Asperger syndrome then here is link to one on Blurtit it is called Group For Teens With Asperger Syndrome I an also adding it as an external link on the Asperger syndrome page. Miagirljmw14 (talk) 22:26, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for not adding it after all. It doesn't seem to meet the WP:LINKS guideline. Eubulides (talk) 22:40, 27 May 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Pronunciation

Is there evidence that the pronunciation /ˈæspɚgɚ/ is either the original or common, or is it just how the person who added it pronounces it? To me, it's always been /æspˈɜ:gɚ/. -- Smjg (talk) 14:41, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I've never heard anyone say /æspˈɜ:gɚ/, fwiw. But Dr Asperger's name didn't use English stress patterns anyway, so it's hard to say. The Wednesday Island (talk) 17:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
This is the English page, so it should give the English pronunciation. The OED gives ˈasˌpərgɘr for the U.S. and ˈasˌpəːgɘ for the British pronunciation, so I made this change to specify them. Eubulides (talk) 17:30, 10 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Dumb it down for me?

I was diagnosed with Asperger syndrome, and I had to go to all these humiliating classes. My friends didn't seem to think I was weird, and they eventually decided I didn't have it after all...

Anyway, I wish there were explanations on this page for some of the words used in this article, especially around Section "Speech and language". If anyone can help with this, or at least tell me to "go to school, kid", I would appreciate your time. Thanks

Tezkag72 (talk) 22:08, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment; we appreciate helpful advice like that. Could you please list here which words need explanations? That will help us improve the article. Eubulides (talk) 23:19, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
The user later wrote me: "Pedantic, prosody, and habituation were the main ones."[1]. These words are all wikilinked, so readers can get an explanation simply by following the link. Should they be reworded anyway? Eubulides (talk) 23:35, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]
I think it's alright as is. · AndonicO Engage. 23:58, 11 June 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Self-diagnosis problems

I'm wondering if something should be put into the "cultural" section about the pitfalls of self-diagnosis. It seems that these days anyone who is vaguely socially awkward and uses the internet is talking about how they have it, or they think they have it, despite not getting an actual doctor's professional diagnosis. Are there any sources for criticism of this behavior, or personality disorder self-diagnosis in general? The false diagnoses take away attention and care from those who actually have it and need it, yet among the internet crowd it seems like the "in" thing to have nowadays.