Talk:Asperger syndrome

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)

Agreed. Us autists and many others see it as a 'unique difference' rather than a Disorder. Keep in mind that everyone, especially people with AS, also have their say on how Autism is shaped. In addition to this, I believe this article requires a serious clean-up, as it is currently a mess, slightly one-sided and is written like it reflects the interests of members of the general community rather than facts and science. --Billsta1 (talk) 22:00, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Empathy and One-Sided-ness

In response to Andrewlp1991's relatively immediate revert of text added (06:17, 18 July 2009) for an other-side view of the AS empathy debate (claiming "unsourced essay-like ranting"): 1) Why was it deemed "ranting" — that seems to be a rather harsh adjective for this case; 2) If you wanted a source (I'm including it below) I would have expected the more usual response of tagging it requesting a source rather than an immediate revert, and/or modifying it to be more "acceptable" (do moderators of this page follow slightly different rules from the rest of Wiki?). A couple sources for the previous text would be [1] (an old one), and [2] (although not a link to the actual study or its abstract, I'll try to find a one soon).

Also, I am in agreement with the section pointing at one-sidedness to the article — this is one of the reasons why I added the text that I did (to give a different view than the typical clinician "aspies don't have empathy" view, which just about any Aspie would disagree with). It often seems that people have a view that everyone with AS is like Rainman (Perhaps the movie coming out this year on Temple Grandin might help change people's perspectives) not realizing most Aspies live normalish lives, sometimes undiagnosed, and that there are many aspies — by no means "all" — falling at the genius level. That was a rant, BTW, even aspies get annoyed when people seem to be acting rudely. :( Would you prefer a different way of expressing the thought? Feedback appreciated. — al-Shimoni (talk) 03:20, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

• Two sources are mentioned in the previous comment.

• The first, Rogers et al. 2007 (PMID 16906462), is a primary study that (as far as I know) has not been reviewed. Its results seem to conflict with those of Minio-Paluello et al. 2009 (PMID 18814863), and those of Shamay-Tsoory 2008 (PMID 18161015), the only two on-point primary studies that I could find that cite it. In contrast, we have several reliable reviews agreeing on the topic of limited empathy, including Baskin et al. 2006 (PMID 16596080) and McPartland & Klin 2007 (PMID 17030291). It could be that more-recent research will overturn this consensus, but given the primary studies mentioned in this paragraph it seems unlikely, and in the meantime we can't really be emphasizing one primary study (Rogers et al.) to argue with reviews, particularly when other primary studies disagree.
• The second, Szalavitz 2009-05-14, is a popular-press article that refers to "a groundbreaking study" that, as near as I can make it out, is Markram et al. 2007 (PMID 18982120). This is a theory about autism in general, not about Asperger syndrome in particular. Possibly the actual "groundbreaking study" is not published yet; either way, we can't cite it here.

• "Unsourced essay-like ranting" was a bit harsh, but the text in question did have serious problems that warranted immediate removal. The most important problem was that it was original research, which is against Wikipedia policy (see WP:OR). Wikipedia articles are supposed summarize what reliable sources already say: it is not for summarizing our own theories.
• Please see WP:MEDRS for a summary of the sort of sources that we are looking for in this article when discussing medical facts and figures. Briefly: the strongest biomedical sources are reviews published in peer-reviewed scholarly journals, and Wikipedia articles should not attempt to use weaker sources in order to debunk or contradict stronger sources.

Eubulides (talk) 06:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Watson

Could someone assist me in adding section to the Cause section of Asperger syndrome. In 2009 James D. Watson (Nobel prize winner for discovery DNA was a double helix) announced hs discovered patients with Asperger syndrome had significant loss of DNA as compared with the parents DNA.

R.R. Roberts (talk) 00:39, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

This information sounds incorrect to me. Please cite a source. Eubulides (talk) 01:20, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Naming and abbreviations

A recent edit made this change to the lead:

"Asperger syndrome (AS) is also called has also been referred to as Asperger's syndrome, Asperger (or Asperger's) disorder, or just Asperger's."

and tagged the sentence "[citation needed]", with the edit summary "These terms appear outdated." I looked into this and found that the terms are definitely not outdated. Also, while doing this I was reminded that a reliable source said that there's no consensus over whether the name should end in "syndrome" or "disorder".

I looked over the article and found some glitches in this area:

• The article currently leads with "Asperger syndrome" and goes so far as to list "AS" as the abbreviation first thing. However, given the controversy over the name (including the use of "AD" as an abbreviation), this is a minor NPOV violation. Instead, the article should lead right away with both names, to indicate that there's not an agreement over the name.
• The abbreviations in the lead ("AS", "ASD") are confusing. They are useful in the body, for brevity, but they don't shorten the lead much, so they should be removed there. The lead is supposed to be more accessible than the body, and the abbreviations are jargon and a turn-off.
• There's no need for the lead to get into naming details such as whether it's "Asperger's syndrome" or "Asperger syndrome", or whether "Asperger's" is a noun in its own right. This relatively-unimportant detail about terminology can be put into the Classification section (in a new "What is the name of this condition?" paragraph) instead of taking up valuable space in the lead.
• The History section currently says "There is little consensus among clinical researchers about the use of the terms Asperger's syndrome or Asperger's disorder"; this material rightly belongs in the little "What is the name of this condition?" paragraph mentioned above.

I installed a patch that attempts to address the issues mentioned above. Eubulides (talk) 06:53, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Asperger's in UK and Asperger in USA surely ? Eric Partridge (talk) 09:25, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

I hadn't noticed that, but it seems to be the tendency. I expect that another factor is the conscious attempt by some to eliminate possessives from medical eponyms. See, for example, Jana N, Barik S, Arora N (2009). "Current use of medical eponyms—a need for global uniformity in scientific publications". BMC Med Res Methodol. 9: 18. doi:10.1186/1471-2288-9-18. PMC 2667526. PMID 19272131.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link) CS1 maint: unflagged free DOI (link) Eubulides (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The request for citation was frivolous. The article should confrom with WP:LEAD (as it previously did) by listing synonyms. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:17, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Good point. I changed the lead back to mention the five alternate names in common use. I agree that the request for citation was over the top, but to forestall further such objections I added citations for now. It's OK with me if someone removes these (in my opinion unnecessary) citations from the lead. Eubulides (talk) 15:42, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Much better. The citations are unnecessary, but they aren't doing any harm. A reminder to others that featured articles must conform to WP:WIAFA and meet a higher standard than other Wiki articles, so please discuss edits and develop consensus before reverting. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:07, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The sheer number of misspellings and misnomers used to describe Asperger syndrome is staggering, including those used as schoolyard taunts. Given this situation, requesting citations for titles and attempting to determine which titles are in common, current use seems reasonable to me. Whatever404 (talk) 19:20, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

The term Asperger's disorder comes from the DSM-IV, where nearly every condition is labeled disorder: e.g., Tourette's disorder, bipolar disorder, obsessive-compulsive disorder. The ICD-10 uses the wording Asperger's syndrome. The possessive is sometimes elided when the next word begins with an s, as is the case with syndrome, but Asperger disorder surely would sound funny. By analogy, the article really should be titled Asperger's syndrome just as it used to be.--NeantHumain (talk) 01:52, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Notables with Asperger's

Now then.. there is much conjecture about notable people from the past that are thought to have had the same psychological profiles now recognized as Asperger's Sydnrome [Jane Austen, Mark Twain, Thomas Jefferson, for example.] Does anyone else feel this should be added to the article, as well as a possible "In Popular Culture" section that would make reference to the new Hugh Dancy film "Adam", amongst other things? Let me know and I can get on it. Hrhadam (talk) 20:16, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

No. Speculation does not belong in an overview article. The article about speculative diagnoses is linked in the template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:18, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The speculation about Jefferson I'd heard of, but Austen and Twain? Why not throw in Goethe and Dante while we're at it? Anyway, I agree that this sort of speculation belongs in People speculated to have been autistic, not here. And please use reliable sources, not random websites. Eubulides (talk) 22:42, 2 August 2009 (UTC)