Talk:Asperger syndrome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Featured article Asperger 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 trophy This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 17, 2004.
          This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
WikiProject Medicine / Medical genetics / Neurology (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine, which recommends that medicine-related articles follow the Manual of Style for medicine-related articles and that biomedical information in any article use high-quality medical sources. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Medical genetics task force (marked as High-importance).
Taskforce icon
This article is supported by the Neurology task force (marked as High-importance).
 
Note icon
This article was selected on the Medicine portal as one of Wikipedia's best articles related to Medicine.
WikiProject Neuroscience (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Psychology (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Disability (Rated FA-class, High-importance)
WikiProject icon Asperger syndrome is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 High  This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
WikiProject Autism (Rated FA-class, Top-importance)
WikiProject icon Asperger syndrome is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and Autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the project's quality scale.
 Top  This article has been rated as Top-importance on the project's importance scale.
 
Wikipedia Version 1.0 Editorial Team / v0.5 (Rated FA-class)
WikiProject icon This article has been reviewed by the Version 1.0 Editorial Team.
Featured article FA  This article has been rated as FA-Class on the quality scale.
 ???  This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.
Toolbox

Lead image[edit]

Why is this lead image in use? File:Autism-stacking-cans 2nd edit.jpg

  • It's described as "boy with autism", not someone with Asperger's.
  • It's an 18 month old toddler. Although autism is sometimes diagnosable this early, Asperger's isn't.
  • It's captioned here as, "People with Asperger syndrome often display restricted interests, such as this boy's interest in stacking cans." So some get to be obsessive physicists, but WP is just going to present perseverations or hyperfocus as simplistic mechanical behaviours, such as stacking cans.

This image should go. It is unrealistic and prejudicial to people with Asperger's. Andy Dingley (talk) 21:42, 7 April 2016 (UTC)

The caption states that "People with Asperger syndrome often display restricted interests, such as this boy's interest in stacking cans.". Don't todlers in general enjoy things like stacking cans, regardless of whether they have Asperger syndrome? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ezrabuo (talkcontribs)

This image appears to have been introduced to the infobox relatively recently, so given the arguments listed above I allowed myself to remove it. Was the previous version a lot better? --glossologist (talk) 04:23, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I found this in the archives. -- ChamithN (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
The discussion happened right after the introduction of the image I mentioned above with no clear consensus. I'd say keep it blank. --glossologist (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I am curious as to what was wrong with the other image. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • I'd be happy to have the boy-with-molecular-structure image restored if for no other reason than it seems to go better with article content "Diagnosis is most commonly made between the ages of four and eleven." So I'd rather have an image of a child in that age range, and the toddler picture doesn't fit it. Zad68 12:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Well before we remove it we should have consensus. I think the current image is better than nothing. Do you have something better to propose? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Nothing would indeed be better than this image. This image is simply wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Been here for a long time. I do not see it a being a significant issue. It is representing a common symptoms of the condition. Start a RfC if you wish to get consensus for removal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
I started a talk: page discussion. Consensus was to remove it, so it was removed.
There is little need for an image here. People with Asperger's do not have horns and forked tails which need to be illustrated. They certainly don't need to be portrayed as toddlers capable of little more than block stacking. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
No, there never was a consensus to remove the image. You initiated a talk page discussion, then Glossologist hastily removed the image, without letting the discussion to progress. I don't think just two people can reach a consensus concerning a page with 1,506 page watchers; that would be inequitable. You might want to RFC as Doc James suggested. -- ChamithN (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
  • Remove. Doesn’t belong in the lead (see WP:LEADIMAGE). It does not clearly illustrate or further my understanding of the subject. It shows a kid doing something all kids might do, so if anything, this image is confusing. Its only relevance is that it has the word autism in the caption. As Glossologist and ChamithN mentioned above, the stacking cans image hasn’t been there that long (Dec) and it replaced the previous image without consensus and despite contention. Back in December, the argument for keeping it was, “The kid isn't just stacking cans, he's stacking them perfectly.” Developmentally, we’d expect a kid to be stacking things by this age[1] and advanced stacking is not a feature of Asperger’s as far as I’m aware. How does this one image show his fixated interest? To me, it shows a kid who was bored waiting for dinner to be ready. I’d also like to note that this same exact image was inserted into a number of articles in the past few months. It’s currently the lead photo on Autism and I removed it from the OCD article in February (See discussion on Talk:OCD). PermStrump(talk) 20:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
Replace the picture of the boy with one of Ignatius J. Reilly and we'll be all set. Motsebboh (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)
Remove As a person with Asperger's, I think that this does not represent most people with it. This is probably a picture of a kid with autism, so just put a picture of Hans Asperger on the lead and it will be fine. [[User: ]]
Not sure what happened to the signature above, but from the edit history, looks like it was ThePlatypusofDoom. IMHO this is the best suggestion for a picture so far. What are other people's thoughts? Pinging other people who commented since this thread is getting old: @Andy Dingley, Glossologist, Zad68, Doc James, and ChamithN:. Sorry if I missed anyone. PermStrump(talk) 01:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
It'd prefer an image with a child of diagnosis age exhibiting a characteristic. The image of Asperger is a second choice, but it does appear to have a child of the right age in it. Hard to tell. Probably better than the boy with cans... I don't feel strongly in favor though. Zad68 02:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Hans Aspergers, boy looking at a molecular structure, leaving the box blank—anything would be immensely better than the photo of a toddler copied from the Autism page without providing any reason. However, I would frankly give preference to no photo, since, as one user mentioned above, the page is overwhelmed with children (all three pieces of media with people—lead image, ASD explanation video, Autism Awareness photo—have children in it), as if the syndrome doesn't affect adults. The child's photo also equally to the one of the toddler makes a poorly informed reader think that Aspergers is a disorder akin to intellectual disability (like Down syndrome) or, in other words, that people with Aspergers are of that "mentally retarded" kind of people. --glossologist (talk) 07:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
The photo of Asperger has a disused NFC FUR on it, suggesting that it was here once but was removed - possibly by the NFC police. There is one, very active, editor to whom this would be like a red rag to a bull. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
Although Asperger is the best choice, in my opinion, there are a multitude of famous scientists believed to have Asperger's, such as Paul Dirac. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
What image are we discussing? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)
  • no to pictures of anyone speculatively diagnosed. the pic of Asperger is the least objectionable but a) it still is a picture of a kid instead of an adult with aspergers (if the kid has aspergers); b) maybe more importantly,, it kind of "institutionalizes" the condition by having the white-coated doctor, so for those reasons it is still objectionable. I don't understand how the riboflavin image is relevant. i did a google image search and found nothing useful, and scanned the NIH and found nothing useful. my preference would be no image.
  • Comment Due to all the pictures being of kids, if we do not put an adult on the lead image, we still need to show some adults with Asperger's. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Images under discussion[edit]

Image from a few weeks ago
Current image (also at Autism)
Lead/Infobox images under discussion

Moving forward[edit]

So, what's the verdict? At the moment, we all seem to agree NOT to have the current image with a toddler. --glossologist (talk) 17:53, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

The one on the left was there for a very long time, years. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
Perhaps a famous person with Aspergers should be placed there...I think that the toddler/young person photos are almost irrelevant. As someone said earlier-most kids do those activities anyway, what is the image supposedly trying to show/prove? Perhaps a photo showing a more mature person (adult with Aspergers) might be a useful addition? cheers Read-write-services (talk) 03:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Consensus seems to be that no picture is better than the current picture of the toddler stacking cans. I like Read-write-services's suggestion of a famous person with Aspergers. Or someone's suggestion from a few months ago to use a photo of Hans Asperger. PermStrump(talk) 07:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
We had a photo of Hans a few years back, the problem is we can't find one that is free to use. If someone could find one that would be outstanding. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
How about a photo of John Elder Robison? He has Aspergers, and he's a prominent autism activist. It sounds like he would be willing to have his picture be posted, according to his comments near the bottom of this page: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Elder_Robison. CatPath (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
@CatPath: Great idea. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)
I'm just going to WP:BEBOLD and fix it. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 10:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
Let's keep this one until we decide on a photo. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 10:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)
I just uploaded this photo of Robison onto Wikipedia Commons. CatPath (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC) John Robison, individual with Asperger syndrome, autism activist, May 2011
I originally replaced the image a while ago. An image of a boy interested in molecular structures implies that people with Asperger's generally have constructive specialized interests, when there is no evidence to indicate so. Additionally, there are many people with constructive specialized interests that do not have Asperger's, including people at the top of their fields. Overall, it would make sense to put a picture of Hans Asperger and to WP:BEBOLD, since the syndrome was named after him. Ylevental (talk) 02:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
I am not a big fan of the picture of Hans Asperger's for the lead image. Therefore restored the prior one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Concur with Doc James. Image is blurry. Ylevental, please do not use the summary "WP:BEBOLD" when consensus has determined the image as unfavourable. --PatientZero talk 18:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Now that I have seen doctor asperger image that Ylevental implemented, I like it. It anchors the article in history, is not controversial in relevance, and is actually illustrative of something. it is the best option I have seen for this. I ask others to reconsider. Jytdog (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Just to let others know, if the previous pic was too blurry, then also look at this one. Ylevental (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC) File:Hans Asperger.jpg
Ylental that image is better. But please do be patient and let consensus develop. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)
Would be useful to have a RfC to clarify consensus as this has been a controversial subject. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
sounds good to me. Jytdog (talk) 06:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Done. Someone with a stronger opinion may want to chime in soon. PermStrump(talk) 06:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge with High-functioning autism[edit]

Because Hans Asperger's Nazi ties have been revealed and Wikipedia has changed most other medical terms with Nazi ties to their new names, I think that this article should be merged with the High-functioning autism article under that title. --67.166.200.75 (talk) 17:53, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

Hans Asperger's Nazi ties? You should read the review on Steve Silberman's book "Neurotribes" in The Guardian: https://www.theguardian.com/books/2015/aug/23/neurotribes-legacy-autism-steve-silberman-book-review-saskia-baron (Herbert Raab) 1:44, 14 July 2016 — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2003:72:4F28:8D14:15DB:869C:1CB4:F1F7 (talk)

Asperger's syndrome and HFA are very different, fact. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:C7D:7AEC:EB00:DC47:F3A3:FAC4:3619 (talk) 01:31, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Simplified?[edit]

This edit by Doc James removed about 1000 words of sourced material, with the edit summary of "simplified". I think removing several sections requires discussion. --A D Monroe III (talk) 17:02, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

It was an error on my part User:A D Monroe III. Have restored. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:10, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Proposal to change lead image to photo of Hans Asperger[edit]

The proposal is to change lead image to photo of Hans Asperger

Images for discussion
Current: Boy with Asperger's and a restricted interest in molecular structures

File:Hans_Asperger_Vienna.jpg Proposed: Hans Asperger

PermStrump(talk) 06:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

  • Support changing to the image of Hans Asperger. It has been difficult to come to any consensus about a lead image and IMO the image of Hans Asperger is good enough. PermStrump(talk) 06:54, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support agree with Permstrup's motivation. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 09:14, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. It's hard to get a simple picture of AS, since it primarily exhibits social issues. The eponymous doctor is good, and the children in are indicative of AS patients without assuming much. --A D Monroe III (talk) 13:09, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support. Like others said, the defining feature of Asperger's is lack of social skills, so the best picture would be of Dr. Asperger. Ylevental (talk) 15:19, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Support - Again, deciding on what to use as an image to encompass Asperger syndrome is tough so the best solution is to provide an image of Asperger himself. Meatsgains (talk) 21:37, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC on pause pending outcome of c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hans Asperger.jpg. PermStrump(talk) 22:00, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The image has been deleted. I have reuploaded it under a non-free historic file license if you want this discussion to continue. Ylevental (talk) 13:54, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion[edit]

What is the copyright status of the pic of Hans? Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:22, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Hm, yes this is dubious... Jytdog (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Oh no. (In reference to myself) you know what they say when you assume... Mind explaining what makes it dubious? Tbh I've always let other editors bother with that, because I don't know what I'd be looking for. PermStrump(talk) 14:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
The person who uploaded it said it was his "own work" and there is no way that is true. Also if you do a google image search you will see an uncropped version here for example with a note "Courtesy of Maria Asperger Felder" and more worryingly it is in the NeuroTribes book which published in august 2015 (the image was uploaded t was uploaded 8 September 2015) and the image was widely used in news pieces about the book, like here (no attribution) and here (again Courtesy of Maria Asperger Felder") So the uploader lied and it is not clear to me who owns the copyright, but it wasn't the uploader's to license. Jytdog (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
this version has much more appropriate uploading/licensing information. Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Hans Asperger.jpg is now under discussion at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hans Asperger.jpg. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I believe that the file can stay under Template:Non-free_historic_image guidelines. Your thoughts? Ylevental (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I just uploaded it using the rationale Ylevental (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
File:Hans Asperger Vienna.jpg
You put |Date=August 2015 which is blatantly false. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
My apologies, I thought that they meant the date of publication, not the date of creation. The sources say it was taken in the 1930s. But I have a clearly labeled source. Ylevental (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

We might want to look at this old discussion [2]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The Commons has views on copyright and licensing that I don't understand and I try to avoid getting into discussions of what they will do over there (which is why I didn't nominate it myself for deletion); in my view it is a waste of time for us to discuss here. We should probably put the RfC on hold until we know whether there is an image that we can use. Putting an image through file deletion over there is one way to get that community to validate or remove it and once they have done that, we could resume... Jytdog (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
I reuploaded it on Wikipedia using Template:Non-free historic image under File:Hans Asperger Vienna.jpg, not sure if it qualifies or not Ylevental (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
If you are going to use any non-free image you must ensure that all ten WP:NFCCP criteria are complied with. I draw your attention in particular to WP:NFCCP#9 which shows that usage outside of article space - such as on this discussion page - is prohibited; but I should also point out WP:NFCCP#1: non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Therefore, before you can contemplate using a non-free image in the article Asperger syndrome, you must be able to demonstrate that there are no free-use images that could illustrate the topic. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Permstrump the only thing helpful in the answer above is "before you can contemplate using a non-free image....." Please terminate the RfC until people who have the patience to deal with this byzantine shit can figure out if we should take up the community's time asking about this image. Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Do NOT call me a "byzantine shit". You want to be taken to ANI? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC) OK. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
      • In his defense, I think he was talking about the Wikimedia commons process but I'm not sure if its appropriate to use this language regardless. Ylevental (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
User:Redrose64 please strike. I came no where near calling you anything. If you see the comments I made in this subsection, I am obviously commenting on the way images are handled here and in the commons - that is the "byzantine shit". Not you. I am sorry you thought that, as that was not my intention. I did say that the only thing helpful in what you wrote is that we "should not contemplate"; we are no closer to knowing if we can use the image but hey at least we won't waste the community's time while we try to figure that out. I wish that when folks knew stuff they would pitch in and help actually answer the question but at least you saved us from wasting people's time. that is better than nothing. Jytdog (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
Jytdog: Before you said this, I had made a comment at the bottom of the RfC saying it was paused pending the outcome of the file deletion discussion on commons. Should I actually delete the template? I wasn't if that would break something. (I never started an RfC before if you can't tell.) PermStrump(talk) 04:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
Yes to terminate the RfC you just delete the {{RFC}} tag, which kills the broadcast - nobody put the person who starts the RfC has the right to do that. :) Jytdog (talk) 04:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

I am about to close the discussion at Wikipedia:Files for discussion/2016 June 27#File:Hans Asperger Vienna.jpg. The picture is going to be deleted, because it does not meet our criteria for non-free content. I have read the discussions here and elsewhere about the picture in your infobox, and appreciate the amount of concern that you as a community have for each other and for that image. I wish that more pages on Wikipedia had a caring community watching out for them like this page does. Between this picture and the one on Dr. Asperger's page (Image:Asperger-Vienna-clinic.jpeg) it appears to me that his daughter, Dr. Maria Asperger Felder has multiple pictures of her father that she has been willing to license for use. If one or more of you were to write her a heartfelt or more formal letter based on one of the ones at Wikipedia:Example requests for permission asking her to license a picture of him under one of the free licenses that Wikipedia uses, she might agree. If she did, we could host that picture on Wikimedia Commons for use on Wikipedias of various languages, and it could be used on any page that anyone wanted, including in the infobox here, if you chose. The downside for her is that the image would then be under a free license and any author, publisher, newspaper, et cetera, could use it without paying her for it. I don't know how important that would be to her. I hope that this paragraph is helpful to you, and I am happy to do my best to answer questions about our image policies anytime.  ★  Bigr Tex 19:04, 20 July 2016 (UTC)

Non-free historic file version of image[edit]

The proposal is to change lead image to photo of Hans Asperger (Non-free historic file version). I am not sure if we should wait for the other RfC, as it seems that the uploader is not Maria Asperger Felder, who originally took the pic as linked on the description page.

Images for discussion
Current: Boy with Asperger's and a restricted interest in molecular structures

Ylevental (talk) 19:37, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your new proposal. Are you suggesting a different image? PermStrump(talk) 20:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Technically, it's the same image, but it's hosted on en.wikipedia.org under a different file name, not commons.wikimedia.org. This is because it's most likely a non-free historic image, which I tried uploading on commons.wikimedia.org, but Wikimedia Commons doesn't accept non-free historic images. Hopefully, this makes sense. Ylevental (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
Ylevental please wait until we figure out to work with this image and its licensing. Slow down. Jytdog (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Please do not display File:Hans Asperger Vienna.jpg on this page. It is marked as a non-free image, and WP:NFCCP#9 is clear: "Non-free content is allowed ... only in article namespace. (images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)" --Redrose64 (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)
User:Redrose64 can we put that image in the article at all? To show you how we would use it minimally, I have added it to the history section. I understand that the image has to actually be used in order to remain in WP. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Use in an article satisfies WP:NFCCP#9, but there are nine other criteria which must also be met. In particular:
  • How is WP:NFCCP#1 (no free equivalent) satisfied?
  • How is WP:NFCCP#8 (contextual significance) satisfied?
None of the criteria are optional. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I have updated the description at the image, here, to more explicitly address the criteria; I think the uploader did not do such a good job of that; I have also cut the resolution in half. User:Redrose64 would you please review and let us know whether in your view the use of the image is justifed? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
As you realised, most of the criteria are demonstrated by filling in the various parameters of the {{Non-free use rationale 2}} template. However, there seems to be a misunderstanding of the term "minimal use", both in the |Minimality=This image will only be used on the article Asperger syndrome. parameter of that template and in the comment above posted by Jytdog at 00:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC). WP:NFCCP#3 has two sub-criteria, neither of them concern the number of different articles that the image is used in. Criterion 3a is concerned with the number of different non-free images that are used in the same article; criterion 3b is concerned with the presence of unnecessary detail in the image. These are expanded upon at WP:NONFREE#Meeting the minimal usage criterion. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I am done trying here; others can take this forward. Jytdog (talk) 10:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
I tried updating WP:NFCCP#3, hopefully this works Ylevental (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
Ylevntal you removed the image of the history section. If the image is not actually used in the article, it is subject to deletion. I reverted. Jytdog (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at help board[edit]

There is a discussion about File:Hans Asperger Vienna.jpg at Wikipedia:Media_copyright_questions#Asperger_syndrome. You might be able to find people who will help at that board. Jytdog (talk) 22:08, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

  • In my opinion, the non-free image cannot be put into the infobox because of WP:NFCC#1; pictures of autistic people with special interests - with or without physicians - can easily and reasonably be created as free images. Even if the current infobox image is not illustrative enough - something I'd contest, as an aside - free image equivalents for the non-free image scene are not impossible to create. As for using the image in the history section, does the image illustrate a specific scene of historic importance? If so that would make the inclusion there much more justifiable in terms of both WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#1. Final thought: Has someone tried to clarify the copyright status of the image? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • However, the intended purpose of the non-free image isn't to show an autistic child (If I'm reading what you are saying correctly). The intended purpose is to show a picture of Dr. Hans Asperger, who first documented symptoms of Asperger syndrome and whom the condition was named after. The physician in the pic is Dr. Asperger.
The problem with showing a alleged special interest is that it is not known if a special interest display is the best way to visualize Asperger syndrome, as many people without the condition have special interests and not all autistics have defined special interests (the percentage is unknown). Ylevental (talk) 23:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for the explanation. As Ylevental said, the priority is showing an image of Dr. Hans Asperger in the lead as lengthy discussion over several months (years?) has not led to consensus about other images, mainly because it seems next to impossible to find an image of someone with Asperger's disorder that is illustrative of all, or even most, people with the disorder, or that enhances understanding of the topic without reinforcing stereotypes. There are several editors who specifically don't like the current lead image for the reasons Ylevental already mentioned and various other reasons. Does the fact that we like the non-free image because it features Dr. Hans Asperger change whether it's justifiable to use in the infobox? Jo-Jo asked, "Has someone tried to clarify the copyright status of the image?" How would one go about that? PermStrump(talk) 02:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
    I don't know if displaying a non-free photo of Hans Asperger in the lead infobox would meet WP:NFCC#8 - does his image significantly increase the understanding of the article topic? I don't feel so. As for the copyright question, Maria Asperger Felder - according to the filepage the author/copyright holder does currently live in Switzerland.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
  • User:Jo-Jo Eumerus thanks very much for applying what you know. That is so, incredibly valuable. That is enough for me, on the infobox issue. One more question - is the image OK in the History section, in your view? If so, then we can move on from this issue and go back to looking for a better infobox image. Jytdog (talk) 10:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

RfC: Proposal to remove lead image altogether from the article[edit]

It's probably unlikely we will have a lead image of Hans Asperger. Looking at articles for other mental conditions, an example article without a lead image is the Borderline personality disorder article, probably because the characteristics are too broad to be displayed in a lead image.

The only alternative I can think of to no lead image is a picture of Dr. Temple Grandin, but even her form of autism/Asperger's is very different from many other forms. Ylevental (talk) 19:34, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I was going to suggest Temple Grandin too. If we have a usable image of her, we can try another RfC. What do other people think? PermStrump(talk) 20:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)
I skimmed this too quickly the first time and overlooked the section title. TBH, I can see an argument for every image that's been suggested except the little boy with the cans, so I'm trying to be agreeable to get something settled. My strongest support is for no lead image since I think it's impossible to find one that everyone will agree meets the criteria in WP:LEADIMAGE. It seemed like we might have had a majority of editors supporting the use of the Hans Aspergers photo for lack of a better option, but in the end, it doesn't seem it was representative of the topic or I think we would have been able to use the non-free image. In my limited experience, it doesn't seem like editors tend to agree on going from having a lead image to having no lead image, so if we can't get consensus on that, maybe there's a good chance of agreeing on an image of Temple Grandin with a carefully worded caption to make sure its relevance is explicitly clear. I assume we'd be able to use one of the images from her BLP? PermStrump(talk) 03:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Dr Grandin, as a well-known declared AS person influential in the field, will do. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)
Should we begin with gathering pictures people think are appropriate? And than set up a RfC with support / oppose for each? The one with the most supports we use. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Seriously? Remove the image from the lede altogether? A temper tantrum move coming from Ylevental as he can't have a picture of Hans Asperger within the article. This RfC should not be opened: the image we have right now is absolutely fine. --PatientZero talk 18:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • No to removing the image and definite 'No' to replacing the image with one of Dr. Grandin. why on earth would anyone want to replace a neutral image of an unknown individual who represents part of what having Asperger's is about to an image of someone recognizable who doesn't identify as having Asperger's, rather, identifies as someone with Autism? This is a phenomenally bad idea that defies logic. At least the photo that's there is representative of something Asperger-ish. Temple Grandin is not the face of Asperger's and she is not Dr. Asperger, so -- I see no reason why her photo should be in the infobox at all. Infobox photos are supposed to represent the article at first glance to the reader. Temple Grandin's photo would not only be inappropriate per policy on infobox photos but extremely confusing to readers. Resounding no. -- WV 18:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
    • Agree we should not have a mostly unknown person in the infobox. IMO the current image is fine aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • However, there is no evidence that most people with Asperger's necessarily have complex interests, and this picture does not indicate a visible difference between Autistic-style special interests and non-Autistic special interests. This could imply that everyone with a deep interest has Aspergers. I am still not convinced on that.
To add, Dr. Fred Volkmar of Yale says "The trouble for many of our folks is they just engage in an endless acquisition of facts, without doing anything productive". I don't think analyzing a molecular structure is productive, but it isn't an "endless acquisition of facts" at least from my personal experience. He cited interests in the Titanic, deep fat fryers, ancient religions, refrigerators or plate tectonics. I guess this is what I was aiming for but didn't know how to explain it. Ylevental (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Yeah, I don't think Temple Grandin should be used. Besides wasn't she diagnosed with autism and not precisely Aspergers? Anyway I agree with WV and James. --PatientZero talk 19:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
No and especially no, as per Winkelvi. Temple Grandin does not have Asperger's, she is no expert on Asperger's, she is regularly mis-quoted [sic] as supporting this whole "Asperger's is just autism" viewpoint so beloved of WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
Ylevental: You got me to finally pull out my old DSM-IV-TR... It says (my emphasis), "The essential features of Asperger's Disorder are severe and sustained impairment in social interaction and the development of restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, and activities...Many adults learn to suppress repetitive behavior in public...Diagnostic criteria may be met when restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities were clearly present during childhood or at some time in the past, even if symptoms are no longer present." (The same is also true in the DSM-5 in order to be diagnosed with ASD–mild.) So we actually know that 100% of people diagnosed with Asperger's displayed at least one form of restricted interest or repetitive behavior during childhood, if not also as an adult. So the current image is sounding pretty representative of the disorder to me since it illustrates a child performing one of the essential features of the disorder in children.
Maybe the caption should be updated though. Instead of the current version: "People with Asperger's often display restricted or specialized interests, such as this boy's interest in molecular structures", it could say something like this (give or take the underlined part): "Restricted interests, such as this boy's interest in molecular structures, and/or repetitive behaviors are essential features of Asperger's in children that many people learn to suppress in public by adulthood."
The DSM gives a lengthy explanation and a lot of good examples of the different types of behaviors that would qualify in the restricted interest/repetitive behavior category, so here are some quotes if you or anyone else is interested:
Extended content

Criterion B: Restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, and activities, as manifested by at least one of the following:

  1. preoccupation with 1 or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus
  2. inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals
  3. Stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g., hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements)
  4. Preoccupation with parts of objects

...restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities show a range of manifestations according to age and ability, intervention, and current supports. Stereotyped or repetitive behaviors include simple motor stereotypies (e.g., hand flapping, finger flicking), repetitive use of objects (e.g., spinning coins, lining up toys), and repetitive speech (e.g., echolalia, the delayed or immediate parroting of heard words; use of “you” when referring to self; stereotyped use of words, phrases, or prosodic patterns). Excessive adherence to routines and restricted patterns of behavior may be manifest in resistance to change (e.g., distress at apparently small changes, such as in packaging of a favorite food; insistence on adherence to rules; rigidity of thinking) or ritualized patterns of verbal or nonverbal behavior (e.g., repetitive questioning, pacing a perimeter). Highly restricted, fixated interests in autism spectrum disorder tend to be abnormal in intensity or focus (e.g., a toddler strongly attached to a pan; a child preoccupied with vacuum cleaners; an adult spending hours writing out timetables). Some fascinations and routines may relate to apparent hyper- or hyporeactivity to sensory input, manifested through extreme responses to specific sounds or textures, excessive smelling or touching of objects, fascination with lights or spinning objects, and sometimes apparent indifference to pain, heat, or cold. Extreme reaction to or rituals involving taste, smell, texture, or appearance of food or excessive food restrictions are common and may be a presenting feature of autism spectrum disorder.

What Volkmar said doesn't contradict the DSM. A few of their examples are basically equivalent to his. Does that make sense? PermStrump(talk) 04:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Permstrump: This was really helpful. I see now that restricted and repetitive interests during childhood are an essential part of Asperger syndrome, but the DSM-IV-TR didn't imply that they were only specialized. But with regards to the profile picture, is an interest in molecular structures necessarily restricted and repetitive? Not necessarily, as many molecular structures are complex in design and contain a wide variety of arrangements. Also, the interaction between and within molecular structures is widely varied and complex.
I'm probably getting too off-topic for the original purpose of this RfC, but the best solution would be a picture of child or person engaged in an interest which is clearly and visibly restricted and repetitive. Something like an endless acquisition of discrete facts like Volkmar mentioned. Ylevental (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
I never really paid attention to the caption before, but I don't like the use of the word "specialized" there either. That's not in the DSM-IV-TR or the DSM-5 and was never part of the symptomatology for Asperger's or ASD. It makes me wonder if the person who wrote the caption either picked that word carelessly or still thinks "idiot savant" is a thing. Now that I noticed it, it rubs me the wrong way too, but that's not necessarily to do with image. "is an interest in molecular structures necessarily restricted and repetitive" There's no behavior that's "necessarily" restricted and repetitive, so whatever image we use, the reader is always going to have to take our word for that to some degree. It doesn't have to be "restricted and "repetitive" though, just one or the other, and those two descriptors are even just an abbreviation of 4-5 words used to describe criterion B in the DSM, so that's part of why I pasted the whole thing. I think if the caption is worded appropriately, this image could believably demonstrate a kid with an intense preoccupation with one specific interest (molecules), an intense preoccupation with a specific part of objects (right down to the molecular level), or a repetitive pattern of behavior where he's constantly playing with or talking about how he wants to be playing with this toy model of molecular structures It shouldn't imply that he necessarily making accurate molecular structures or that he has any kind of specialized knowledge in science or molecules, just that he's fixated on talking about, hearing about, and/or looking at them to an excessive degree. How about... "Different types of restricted interests and/or repetitive behaviors, such as this boy's perseverative interest in playing with a toy model of molecules, are essential features of Asperger's in children and some adults." I can't think of an action that would be illustrated more clearly in a still without a caption to explain it, so unless someone else has a new picture suggestion, IMO, this one is as good as anything else. Since from the responses so far, I imagine it's not going to be worth the effort to argue we should remove the lead image all together. PermStrump(talk) 13:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)
Wow! I never thought about it like that. I usually tend to think to the extremes about things. However, to be fair, also in popular culture and even some professional settings, the "special interest" criterion for Asperger's is extensively applied to just about any interest when it doesn't necessarily work like that. Ylevental (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

The current lead image is fine. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:10, 30 June 2016 (UTC)