Talk:Savant syndrome

older entries

This is not a paper encyclopedia. Unlike them, you do not have to redirect (especially when the terms aren't identical).--24.22.227.53 01:54, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

"See also" seems to be the standard, according to Wikipedia:Manual_of_style#.22See_also.22_and_.22Related_topics.22_sections. Reverting from "See More At" back to "See also". LisaCarrol 03:39, 29 July 2005 (UTC)

Recognized diagnosis

Aetoss, since you've deleted this text, can you please provide a source that explains the official diagnosis of Savant syndrome, for example, in ICD10 or DSM-IV ? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

About.com

About.com is not a reliable source (anyone can write for them), and the source added here merely cites Treffert, so he should be cited directly. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:21, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

Tags

This article is based on one source. There are sections that have no sources. We have an nameless editor who keeps deleting these tags. I wish that s/he would explain why. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Sprotected until issue resolved. JFW | T@lk 19:01, 10 April 2008 (UTC)

Essay

Aetoss, a lot of the content you're adding is veering away from an encyclopedic tone and towards an {{essay}} and {{or}}, which is asking for more tags on the article. Please read through some of the links at WP:OR and the essay tag to understand better how to write an encyclopedic article, and avoid WP:SOAPBOX. This article is turning in to a soapbox, original research, essay. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:43, 11 April 2008 (UTC)

Actually it appears that this is actually a fork of Autistic savant created on 28 March, 2008, by Aetoss reverting a very old (August, 2005) redirect to Autistic savant. I've reverted to a redirect for now. Perhaps Aetoss will explain why the fork is necessary. --Anticipation of a New Lover's Arrival, The 23:06, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Aetoss appears to hold the view that not all savants are autistic savants. Since neither are recognized medical conditions, I'm indifferent. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:10, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason I removed the link to autistic savant is because that article sucked and because not all savants are autistic (you would know that if you read the article). --Aetoss (talk) 22:19, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

Neither condition is a recognized medical diagnosis, and you haven't provided sources; you will need to add and discuss sourcing of both articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:22, 14 April 2008 (UTC)

What on earth does the "diagnosis" have to do with it? I never said it was a diagnosis, its more of an occurance(if that makes sense). And as for the sources as you know there is an obvious problem there, BUT even without it the article is at least 10x better than that autistic savant article. And furthermore when people type in "savant syndrome" and see autistic savant pop up they will get false impressions and a severe lack of information. EVEN WITHOUT THE SOURCES it is way better and I would please ask people not to fight me on this. You can help me, and I appriciate the assistance so far, but to sever that article from the publics eye and replacing it with that bogus article is to shove garbage into their heads instead of valuable information. Its a safe bet out of all the people to edit, or write anything on savant syndrome on wikipedia no one knows more about it than me (boastful but true). So replacing an article written by knowledgable person in the subject for a article written by someone who has no clue what they are talking about is clearly illogical. --Aetoss (talk) 06:50, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

We need something besides one author to base the distinction on; you were building an uncited essay, but never brought forward additional sources. I don't necessarily disagree that two articles may be warranted, but I need to see more sources to form an educated opinion. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:55, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Yes, this is definitely a case of WP:V trumping WP:TRUTH. WhatamIdoing (talk) 18:32, 15 April 2008 (UTC)

Well one factor you have to realize is that in all honesty there are not too many savant specialists world wide and there are even fewer good ones. Dr Treffert is simply and undeniably the greatest savant researcher alive today, that guy is brilliant. He has done more for savant research than all the other specialists combined. The bulk of what we know about savants comes from him, and the other even worth mentioning one (Dr Alen Snyder) is already in the article. I will admit this; This article is having trouble concerning sourcing that is true. But what is better an article with preschool level information (some of which is not even true and will create misconceptions) that has citations, or an article with 100% correct information that is 10x better with less citations? I really do appologize for the citation trouble. But why do you people feel like you need to fight me on this? --12.155.227.162 (talk) 04:44, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

The reason that this matters is because Wikipedia's verifiability policy is not optional. Ever.

Furthermore, just because two experts have an opinion about something, and you agree what that opinion, that does not make it the only, or common, use of a term. As SandyGeorgia pointed out above, there's no medical diagnosis here. That means that there's no recognized international body that agreed the boundaries of the condition. Instead, we have two experts that have expressed an opinion that you like, and many other people and groups that have expressed opinions that you don't like. Some of the people in the latter group consider themselves to be experts, too, BTW, but you don't, specifically because their opinion is different from your point of view. WhatamIdoing (talk) 15:01, 16 April 2008 (UTC)

Given the persistent removal of tags and inability of the editor in question to clarify his/her behaviour I have now {{sprotected}} the page for 2 weeks. As WhatamIdoing indicates, asking for sources is not automatically an indication of disagreement. JFW | T@lk 20:51, 22 April 2008 (UTC)

I was wondering if there was a tag you can put on the top of the article saying that the entire article has a lack of references. Because all the "mini tags" make it look really crappy. And I think I found out who was removing the tags so that should stop now. I am all for the article having more credibility, but right now it just looks downright ugly. --Aetoss (talk) 01:48, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

The entire article is not unreferenced: it was a referenced article when you started working on it, and those sections are referenced. The way to solve the ugliness is to stop adding uncited text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:25, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Two months is long enough to have waited for citations to be added: I deleted text cited untagged since March, tagged new uncited text, and removed the text which was only copied from other articles while adding links to those articles. Basically, there is no new cited text in this article except that which was copied from autistic savant; in fact, there is no reason for this article to exist, since savant syndrome is not a recognized condition and the article is all uncited or single-source speculation. Unless reliable sources are added soon, this should again be re-directed to the cited, autistic savant article. Wiki is not a webhost, and is not the appropriate place for uncited essays. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:44, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

A savant syndrome article is needed, look up savant syndrome and you will see that it is pretty popular. Also the articles on the savant themselves need to have a link to a page which describes savant syndrome itself. And that Autistic Savant article will not suffice because not all savants are autistic. Another reason is because of the severe lack of information the autistic savant article has, compare it to mine and you will see a big difference. There is absolutley no informaion in the article I wrote that can be called incorrect, it can be called uncited, but there is nothing that is incorrect. You said yourself SandyGeorgia that you are not educated in the topic so why are you even in this discussion? Why are any of you people fighting me? I have yet to see anyone but myself put in any new information. If anything we just need another person who is at least half as educated as myself in the topic to find references, I would have put references while I typed the article but I wrote the whole thing from memory. Feel free to add references everybody but there is no sense in deleting an article that needs to exist and has 100% correct information. You can tear apart my article and reword the whole thing but the article does need to exist. --Aetoss (talk) 13:40, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Why was the section about the different savant categories removed? I can see why the other stuff would need revision, but don't you think that knowing that there are different "degrees" of savant syndrome is important? Otherwise everyone will think they all have the same level of skill. Can someone please help me understand why? Thanks. --Aetoss (talk) 16:26, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

Aetoss, you've been editing now for several months, yet it doesn't appear you have taken the time to read policies like WP:V and WP:OR, nor the links in the tags at the top of the article. The article is an uncited essay, based on one person's opinions and speculation, about an unrecognized condition. Wiki is not a webhost for one person's opinions. It's time to diversify the sources, find more than one reliable source that discusses this alleged syndrome, and cite the article. Uncited text can be removed; waiting two months is long enough. Also, the vandalism from the Utah Educational Network should stop. If all of this doesn't happen soon, this article should be (again) redirected to autistic savant. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:30, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

If that is what it comes to, so be it. I can't control you people. But I would ask you if it came to that to make sure that there is a seperate article from autistic savant called "savant syndrome" because to spread misconceptions like that is wrong, especially to those who are effected by it firsthand. I wrote the article because of how offended I was when I typed in savant syndrome and had autistic savant come up. It made me see that wikipedia was truly in the stone age concerning savant syndrome and so I tried to help. If you people think a bunch of citations are that important, and are not willing to put add any yourselves, go ahead, get rid of it. I quit. I applaud your efforts to further the stereotypes, misconceptions, and ignorance of savant syndrome. --Aetoss (talk) 22:12, 2 May 2008 (UTC)

I have done some work to show you how to write the article in an encyclopedic tone and how to cite sources.[1] I can't solve the fact that this syndrome isn't a recognized condition, and this article is still based on one source. Please add citations to indiate where you found the text that is tagged as needing citation, and please try to add only cited text from here on. Uncited text may be deleted; Wiki is not a webhost for Treffert, so please try to diversify the sources and cite any new text. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:08, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Aetoss, I'm sorry that you're unhappy about this, but Sandy's right. Wikipedia publishes what is verifiable, not what is True™. If you can't, or won't, provide suitable references, then it will be deleted from Wikipedia. Deletion is not necessarily permanent; you could always come back some time in the future and re-write it with suitable references. In the meantime, "I wrote it from memory" is insufficient. I'm sure you wouldn't want me to write an article on this subject based on my memory (which, BTW, tells me that Treffert's book was a lot of unfounded speculation and cherry-picking the data to fit his preconceived notions).

I'd also like to add that Wikipedia is not the only possible place to publish your essay. You could get your own website and write whatever you want on it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:42, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

I've now found and added enough independent sources to establish notability for the term and article, but the article is currently nonetheless basically parroting Treffert's opinions, in an essay. The challenge now is to represent the other sources and get away from over-reliance on Treffert's website. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:41, 3 May 2008 (UTC)

Merge Autistic savant into Savant syndrome

The articles Autistic savant and Savant syndrome are on essentially the same subject. Formally, autistic savants are a subset but in practice the material on the latter is essentially the same as the material on the former. Let's merge the two articles. The more-general name Savant syndrome is the better one; Autistic savant can be a redirect to it. Eubulides (talk) 06:03, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• Yes, keep it in one place, this place works. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:04, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Quick review

A quick review. The subject is real (albeit not well studied) but the article clearly needs a lot of work. Savant syndrome #Further reading gives some sources, but others should be used as well. The latest version of Treffert's work is the Wisconsin Medical Society article, as far as I know; I don't see any reason to cite earlier stuff. There is a real need to cite non-Treffert stuff. All of the "Treffert said"s in the text should be removed; this should be an article about savantism, not about Treffert. Eubulides (talk) 06:33, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

• The problem is that the text is currently all Treffert's opinions, so needs attribution (I don't have access to any other sources, so I can't take this article to the next level). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:05, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

Teffert is an expert in this area. Most academic articles that I found cite him. Does it help to include these? It feels slightly circular to me but if it helps readers understand why the article is heavily based on the Wisconsin Medical Society pages I will dig some of these up.

Although the "Treffert says" stuff is a little off, this page is a MAJOR improvement over the old "autistic savant" page which was so full of misinformation that it needed to be thrown out. It was clear that it had been written by people who had never known a savant and in many cases didn't even know what the term meant. In 2006 I suggested basing the article on the U of Wis pages as they are accurate and well written. I'm glad to see that someone tackled that project. I gave up arguing with the completely clueless.

I am not sure that Savant Syndrome is in the DSM. It's not a diagnosis per se but rather a phenomenon associated with a diagnosis. It was first identified in the 19th century but it hasn't had much study until recently. Margaretolson (talk) 03:48, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

I edited one section - the etiology of savant syndrome is very poorly understood. The existing text overstated one of Treffort's theories for some occurrences of savant syndrome, and in any case contradicted itself in the next paragraph. The Geschwind-Galaburda Hypothesis is applied to all kinds of things (in some cases inappropriately) and although U of Wis says "elsewhere on the site" for details on Treffort's application of this theory I couldn't find the relevant section of the U Wisc pages. It seemed better to leave it out than to misstate it or reference a page that says "see elswhere" where the "elsewhere" doesn't exist. I'll keep digging maybe we can put it back later. It would be good to get a round up of the theories into this section.(Even though none of them quite explain it). Perhaps also with a note "and this one fails here..." Margaretolson (talk) 04:45, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

There needs to be a mention of the different savant categories

This is important because without it, everyone will think that all savants have the same level of skill. The categories are: Splinter, Talented, and Prodigious. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 205.118.76.163 (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2008 (UTC)

Hmm, I don't know about that. Those categories strike me to have more to do with "interestingness" of the savant than anything else. How does including them illuminate the syndrome? Calendar calculations can be phenomenal but they are treated as "parlor tricks", whereas the art and drawing skills the rest of the world finds very valuable and interesting. It's not at all clear that these categories don't say more about us normals than it does about savant syndrome. Margaretolson (talk) 04:46, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

It is important because it will help raise public understanding. The amount of information in the article is VERY basic to the point it is not worthy of respect, the categories are considered essential information. This may be because the people who wrote it (or at least most of them) obviously lack proper education in the subject. I just think it is important. For example; I am classified as a talented savant (not kidding), when people hear this they misunderstand what it means. Having this information in the article could reduce the number of times I have to explain it to people, and could help other people in my situation. Well do what you want, I decided to quit wikipedia a long time ago so I will only recommend information rather than enter it myself. 205.118.76.163 (talk) 15:46, 27 May 2008 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.177.10.55 (talk)

You should have seen the page a year ago - it was WAY WAY worse. But, my problem with "splinter", "talented", "prodigious" is that they are (as far as I can tell) the categories of a single researcher (Treffert). Treffert is the leading researcher in this field but I am uncomfortable with categories and statements that only appear in his work and in references to his work. 70.88.254.65 (talk) 17:08, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Sorry I forgot to log in above, it was me at 70.88.254.65 Margaretolson (talk) 17:09, 3 June 2008 (UTC)

Kim Peek and use in popular culture?

Who is Kim Peek?

Could this article benefit from a 'Uses in popular culture' section? There are a few savants in movies and books, for example, in Cube (film), Kazan is a savant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.45.134.188 (talk) 00:26, 19 August 2008 (UTC)

Treffert has the savant syndrome

Treffert says the condition can be genetic, but can also be acquired, and coexists with other developmental disabilities "such as mental retardation or brain injury or disease that occurs before (pre-natal) during (peri-natal) or after birth (post-natal), or even later in childhood or adult life." That just means savant syndrome can happen to everyone and any time ! else there is no meaning. --Eurobas (talk) 10:11, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

ive heard on a documentary on them, a person became a savant when he got hit on the head with a baseball and remembered everything that happened on a certain date afterward.(not reccomending anyone to try that to increase their skills) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.84.133.253 (talk) 05:35, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Possibly something worth adding

I watched a show today on a set of twins with this disorder called Flo & Kay: Twin Savants. I can't find any "official" article about it and I don't know enough about wikipedia to know if I can use a video as a reference. Sean118 (talk) 06:54, 13 April 2009 (UTC)