Talk:Asperger syndrome

"Stereotyped"

A lot of people don't know what this word means and aren't going to bother going to the page to find out. To casual readers (which most users are), this will give out a completely wrong perception of the condition. Clearly another word can be used here which promotes plain English, first of all, and avoids the obviously incorrect perception that the word "stereotype" will give 99% of readers. Sure, we can still link to the Stereotypy article, but this word should be altered. 88.109.58.184 (talk) 22:11, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

OK, but altered to what? Can you propose a specific wording change? Eubulides (talk) 22:19, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps you could sir, simply because I'm not the greatest wordsmith in the world. Surely we could lift the summary from the autism article, where the condition is well explained without the use of "stereotyped". 88.109.58.184 (talk) 22:31, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Why not change "stereotyped" to "repetitive patterns of behaviour", while retaining the link? "Repetitive" is used on the autism article. 88.109.58.184 (talk) 22:34, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Done. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ted Dryburgh (talk • contribs) 23:16, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, well, the sources are pretty strong on saying "stererotyped", in addition to "repetitive", and they don't seem to equate the two. In addition to the cited sources, DSM-IV, the definition of Asperger's, says "Restricted repetitive and stereotyped patterns of behavior"[1], and ICD-10, the international definition, says "restricted, stereotyped, repetitive"[2]; both standards indicate that one can't simply substitute "repetitive" for "stereotyped". Autism uses both terms. It would make sense for this article to use both terms too, following ICD-10 and DSM-IV, so I did that. Eubulides (talk) 23:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that stereotyped is the correct term. But the people who read Wikipedia are not doctors, for the most part. They have a completely different perception of what "stereotyped" means, thus rendering the article as a disservice to people with the condition. Also, plain english is coming back into fashion. I again contest that a link should be retained to "stereotypy", but with different wording. 88.109.58.184 (talk) 02:08, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

• OK, well, let's give it a shot. One option is to use "stereotypies" rather than "stereotyped", as most non-expert readers have never seen the word "stereotypies" and therefore will be less likely to interpret it incorrectly. Something like the following:

"Asperger syndrome is an autism spectrum disorder (ASD), and people with it therefore show significant difficulties in social interaction, along with stereotypies and other restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests."

• A nice property of this paraphrase is that it makes it clear that a "stereotypy" is one of the forms of "restricted and repetitive patterns of behavior and interests", thus explaining something about "stereotypies" without spending a lot of extra words to do it.
• Another option would be keep the current lead, except inserting the parenthetical remark "(that is, voluntary, repetitive and apparently purposeless)" after "stereotyped". This would also explain "stereotyped". However, I wouldn't favor this approach, as it would make the lead sentence too long and convoluted to satisfy WP:LEAD.

Eubulides (talk) 06:01, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Altered to suggested version. 88.109.53.33 (talk) 16:47, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Drug treatment

Some people with Asperger do not respond well with SSRI's and the article suggests instaed they are on older tricyclic antidepresents such as Imipramine. Should that be mentioned in the article Natche24 20:41, 31 May 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natche24 (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I'm lost. The Asperger syndrome article does not suggest that some people with AS are on older tricyclic antidepressants such as Imipramine; it doesn't mention tricyclic antidepressents, or Imipramine, at all. Could you please explain? The article does mention some SSRI downsides, for what it's worth. Eubulides (talk) 22:04, 31 May 2009 (UTC)

While medicinal treatment tends to be for the linked disorders which are symptomatic of Asperger's syndrome, it would be useful some references to articles on trends in atypical medicine responses by people with Asperger's syndrome with regards to treatment of accompanying disorders and/or specific symptoms. This would give an interesting insight. --Robert Wm "Ruedii" (talk) 08:37, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

What I am saying is that some people I know with Asperger's do not respond well on SSRI's because they are too narrow focused on Seritonin. Where as other drugs are more broadly focused on other Neurotransmitters. Some people are also taking drug combinations which area Tricyclic drug and another such as Abilify.Natche24 03:13, 7 June 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Natche24 (talk • contribs)

Again, I'm not sure what this discussion has to do with the article. For what it's worth, there is a recent high-quality study saying that citalopram, an SSRI, is ineffective for treating repetitive behavior in autistic children (see King et al. 2009, PMID 19487623), and this matter is discussed further in Autism therapies #Prescription medication; but that source is about autistic children in general, not Asperger syndrome in particular. Does anyone have relevant, reliable sources on the topic of SSRIs and Asperger's other than what's in the article now? If not, perhaps we should move on to the next topic. Eubulides (talk) 06:16, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Strongly one-sided article, need of re-write

The current article gives a very one-sided view that many (most?) "aspies" would be in very strong disagreement with. In particular, it paints the syndrome as a strong deficiency, and uses a lot of suggestive language. Only at the very end, the typical "aspie" view is presented in a few paragraphs. I very strongly urge that this article be completely re-written by someone actually diagnosed with the syndrome. Until this has been done, I further urge that its status as "featured article" is revoked.

Compare e.g. http://isnt.autistics.org for a satirical take on with the tables turned.

I have added the tags misleading and POV. Beware that there are strong interest groups (notably "autism speaks") that are very highly critizied by autists for acting against the best interest of the autists, and that this article plays strongly into the propaganda of these groups. (Think of a PETA for autists.)

A similar critique may apply to the article on autism, which I have not reviewed.

88.77.188.152 (talk) 00:53, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

Please supply sources that conform with Wiki policies and guidelines WP:V, WP:RS, WP:UNDUE, WP:NPOV, and WP:MEDMOS for any text that you feel is missing. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:18, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with SandyGeorgia. We'd need reliable sources to present any alternative viewpoints in this area; this article cannot rely on opinions of Wikipedia editors. Another relevant Wikipedia guideline is WP:MEDRS for reliable sources on medical facts and figures. Eubulides (talk) 05:40, 10 June 2009 (UTC)

The general point is that the presentation of the article has a one-sided focus on "Asperger's is a decease", "Aspies need to be cured", etc. This is an attitude that the corresponding communities consider offensive, unfair, and/or just plain stupid. This should be likened to the hypothetical claim "Negroids need to be cured": I doubt that my protest against that attitude would meet resistance.

Notably, this is not a question about medical facts (or other easily referenced issues), e.g. whether Aspies and NTs are neurologically different, but whether the attitude taken towards Asperger's is the analogy of racism or a similar phenomenon.

In addition to the link already provided (the contents, btw, are not by me), I would encourage you to read corresponding forums, e.g. http://www.wrongplanet.net/forums.html. (I note that http://www.wrongplanet.net is already linked from the article page.) 94.220.242.34 (talk) 05:26, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

Self-published sources like http://www.wrongplanet.net/forums.html are not reliable in the Wikipedia sense for this sort of thing; please see WP:SPS. Personal opinions supplied via IP addresses are not sufficient to support a claim about POV; we need reliable and verifiable sources. Because these are lacking, I have removed the tag. To improve the article (as opposed to merely tagging it) I suggest getting a Wikipedia account (see WP:LOGIN for why) and supplying some reliable sources. Please don't continue to tag the article against consensus; that won't help the encyclopedia. Eubulides (talk) 06:15, 14 June 2009 (UTC)

I am not going to go into an edit war over this. However, I maintain my position, and point out that

1. The given link is not a self-published source (but could conceivably be considered a primary or even "zero-ary" source): These are the direct statements and opinions by aspies. Anyone who bothered to look could within fifteen minutes convince himself of my statements.
2. It is not my job to prove that this article fails the NPOV criterion; it is your (respectively the authors) job to prove that it meets it. That is the way WP works: Claims have to be proven, and it is the claimers duty to prove them.
3. I stress again that I do not question the medical opinions, but the angle and way of writing: The language used is not NPOV, which does not require any verification (and is something that even a layman can often spot in various articles). Further, this is not something that can reasonably be supported by references. To take one specific example (the first I found) from the current introduction: "Most individuals with AS can improve over time[...]" This is a value-laden statement with too little qualification to be considered NPOV. In contrast, "Most individuals with AS can over time improve in areas where they have [...]" would be reasonably NPOV (although this can depend on the context).
4. You should be more careful about using formulations in your answer that can be (and in my case is) interpreted as patronizing. That I, for personal reasons, prefer to work without an account does not make a beginner it matters WP. I have hundreds of edits behind me, and I have read most of the policy documents at least once.
5. Your claim that I am tagging the article against consensus is unfounded. There was no proof of consensus provided between my first and second (resp. last) tagging.

88.77.128.233 (talk) 12:37, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm just going to respond to the second point. It isn't the job of either side to demonstrate NPOV or lack of it, it's a matter of consensus among all the involved editors. It isn't reasonable to say that an article must be tagged forever if a single implacable editor doesn't get their way. I personally hate to see articles tagged except in critical cases such as AfD and suspected hoaxes, because it defaces them for readers -- can I suggest that we discuss the POV issues here without resorting to tags? Looie496 (talk) 16:15, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

The neutral point of view on a topic is the point of view taken by the majority of reliable sources on a topic. This is distinct from the "equidistant point of view", which is the point of view that tries to balance two extreme views on a topic. If the reliable sources all tend to take a particualr view, this this is the view that the Wikipedia article will adopt. In this case the majority viewpoint is that AS is a disorder, and the minority viewpoint is noted, but not given undue weight. This tagging is therefore entirely unjustified, especially since no reliable sources have been presented that dispute the view presented by this article. Tim Vickers (talk) 17:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not sure I agree. If one depends totally on reliable sources that only see AS as a disorder then that's what you'll get in the article, but not all reliable sources see it that way. As a diagnosed Aspie I'm in agreement with 88.77.188.152. Myself and most Aspies that I know do not consider it a disorder, we consider it simply as a difference. It's very much like being gay. Gays can't be cured and neither can Aspies. All it is is a slight difference in our main wiring harness. So I agree, this article is rather one-sided and yes, as a long time editor, I understand that my opinion means nothing as far as the article is concerned. But there are sources out there that indicate that it's just a 'difference' rather than a disorder. They just need to be found and then added to the article to balance it out. --WebHamster 18:39, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• Such sources have been found, and have been added to the article. They include Clarke & van Amerom 2007 (doi:10.1080/09687590701659618) and 2008 (PMID 18551831), Stoddart 2005 (ISBN 1-84310-319-2), Molloy & Vasil 2002 (), Baron-Cohen 2002 (doi:10.1177/10883576020170030801), and Crawford & Krebs 2008 (ISBN 0‑8058‑5957‑8). However, as TimVickers writes, this is the minority opinion among reliable sources, and we can't rewrite the article to present the minority view out of proportion to what reliable sources do.
• The only specific suggestion in recent comments is the following change:

"Most individuals with AS can improve over time over time improve in areas where they have, but difficulties with communication, social adjustment and independent living continue into adulthood."

However, this would be ungrammatical, so I expect that this is merely an indication of the sort of text that 88.77.128.233 was objecting to, without being a specific proposal for a wording improvement. Possibly the existing text can be improved; it would be helpful to propose a specific wording change that works. Any such change should carefully reflect what the cited source (Woodbury-Smith & Volkmar 2008, PMID 18563474) says, which is this:

"By far the most informative studies are longitudinal in design that measure outcome and its predictors and correlates, and there are now several studies that focus exclusively on people with autism with IQs in the normal range, which indicate that although the majority improve over time, difficulties, in terms of communication skills, social adjustment and independent living, continue into adulthood."

• In rereading what the source says it is obvious that the "can" in the article's text is wrong; the source doesn't say "can". So I just now removed the "can".

Eubulides (talk) 07:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Criticism section

I propose a "criticism" section, where the arguments that Asperger Syndrome is not a legitimate disorder shall be discussed. 81.170.75.166 (talk) 04:15, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

This topic was discussed in on this talk page last month; please see Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive 19 #Overdiagnosis and legitimacy of the condition. It wouldn't hurt to read that thread to avoid undue repetition. WP:CSECTION is also a good resource. Eubulides (talk) 04:26, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

Some people appear to mistakenly think, perhaps from reading the article, that the debate in the medical community is whether or not Aspergers is a "normal" variation of personality that does not merit any sort of diagnosis. No, on the contrary, the discussion in medical community is whether or not Asperger's is a distinct kind of Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD) that merits its own diagnostic sub-category i.e. a debate between Lumpers and Splitters. I believe the section on Classification should emphasise that point more. --Diamonddavej (talk) 13:09, 15 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the "controversy" or "criticism" is more directed at if Aspergers even "exists", not if it belongs here or there. Much like the ADHD controversy. I think it would be a good section to add, as right now it seems to have a view that it without-doubt exists, when there are plenty that believe it doesn't.

It could of course include the other controversies, such as if it is a part of the autism spectrum, and so on.Avalik (talk) 04:53, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Again, please see Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive 19 #Overdiagnosis and legitimacy of the condition, as we seem to be repeating that discussion. As before, nobody has cited reliable sources on the topic, or made any specific proposals for improvements to the article's wording, and so the article hasn't changed. Eubulides (talk) 05:08, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Needs

I have asperger and my father, and I have noticed a few things missing from the article that could be added for the "symptons". First, I have noticed that ridalin (or however you spell it) is not a good thing for treatment. It caused me to have major mood swings, become extremly hyper (to the point of undesireble), sexually active to an extreme at 8yrs, depressed, and suicidle. Another is (and I talked to a others with it) my dad and I are extremely angered at something that would be considered too much (ie someone takes the last pop and I curse and hit someone) --Flynn M Taggart (talk) 12:45, 17 June 2009 (UTC) Oh, the sister didorder should be mentioned that.--Flynn M Taggart (talk) 12:46, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Methylphenidate (Ritalin) is not normally prescribed for Asperger's; I don't know of any reliable sources recommending it, or commenting on adverse effects in Asperger's, and we can't put anything into the article that is not supported by reliable sources. The other topic, aggression, is briefly discussed in the last paragraph of Asperger syndrome #Social interaction; specific wording suggestions (plus sources) to improve it are welcome. Eubulides (talk) 16:27, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

People with hyperactivity disorders are often calmed by what would cause a "normal" person to become hyper. Examples are caffeine and ritalin. Some doctors have diagnosed people with AS as being hyperactive when they are not. Being prescribed ritalin may indicate that your doctor believed you to have a hyperactivity disorder when in fact you did not. Thus, instead of calming you as ritalin would do for a hyperactive person, it instead threw you into hyperactivity. However, this is just non-medical speculation on my part (I am not giving medical advice). 71.196.135.148 (talk) 06:26, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

I have a friend wh has aspergers and he is giving alot of prescriptions that aren't normally recommended for people with that sort of thing.I think it is used to treat small portions of the symptoms. He is given Clondine, albilify, and some type of bi-polar medicine, even though he is not bi-polar and they seem to work. (205.134.216.18 (talk) 22:27, 26 June 2009 (UTC))

What you have to understand is that AS is a syndrome, ie it can consist of combinations of many differing symptoms. An Aspie is just as likely to have a bi-polar disorder as a 'normal' person. It doesn't mean that it is part of the condition. Even Aspies can mental health disorders that have no relationship to AS at all. --WebHamster 18:43, 5 July 2009 (UTC)