Talk:Asperger syndrome

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to navigation Jump to search
Former featured articleAsperger syndrome is a former featured article. Please see the links under Article milestones below for its original nomination page (for older articles, check the nomination archive) and why it was removed.
Main Page trophyThis article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 17, 2004.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
April 10, 2004Featured article candidatePromoted
September 5, 2005Featured article reviewKept
August 1, 2006Featured article reviewKept
September 24, 2007Featured article reviewKept
April 25, 2020Featured article reviewDemoted
Current status: Former featured article

Severity[edit]

There appears to be an edit war as to whether we should use "more severe forms" or "other forms" of autism. It's called autism spectrum disorder; I believe the consensus is that there is no such thing as severity of autism, just different levels of societal acceptability. Cassie Schebel, almost a savant. <3 (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is broadly correct, yes. 'Severity' as applied to autism is unscientific, extremely vague and arguably ableist. See e.g. Bottema-Beutel et al (2021) [1]. Also, and this is important, 'severity' as such was never a defining feature of Asperger's vs other variations of autism. The assumption that it is 'less severe' is not supported by the text of diagnostic manuals. The closest the old DSM-IV comes is this:
"(PDD-NOS)
This category should be used when there is a severe and pervasive impairment in the development of reciprocal social interaction or verbal and nonverbal communication skills, or when stereotyped behavior, interests, and activities are present, but the criteria are not met for a specific pervasive developmental disorder, schizophrenia, schizotypal personality disorder, or avoidant personality disorder."[2]
For more discussion of the idea of 'severity' of autism from a solidly medical-model perspective, see [3]: "within ASD, there are dimensions (social communication and repetitive/restricted behaviors) that can be considered separately in terms of severity". Oolong (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Oolong: I wish not to start another lengthy conversation. Look, no matter how accurate your wording is, you must find a source and attach it to the claim. I do not oppose your wording, you just have to find a source. You cannot just change the wording and make it contradict what the current source says as that would be WP:OR. Also, please make sure you always acquire consensus before altering the status quo if it is challenged by someone. Thank you - Wretchskull (talk) 08:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
There is no source currently attached to the claim that it is more severe. It is a bare assertion, nothing more. Removing the word would not contradict anything, would not create any controversy, except that you are apparently determined to revert by default. I provided three references here; it would not make sense to include one in the text of the entry, because an absence of words is generally not something that requires a citation.
If you wish to challenge the consensus that otherwise exists here - that calling other manifestations of autism 'more severe' is inaccurate - please bring your citations. Oolong (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
The status quo was editorialized and was not supported by the source; you can now change it to your wording. Also, remember that consensus is not majority vote. It's coming to an agreement after discussion, and the status quo is kept until discussion is complete, so please refrain from edit wars in the future. Thank you - Wretchskull (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Please refrain from reverting edits without explaining a coherent reason. WP:ONLYREVERT: "In the case of a good faith edit, a reversion is appropriate when the reverter believes that the edit makes the article clearly worse and there is no element of the edit that is an improvement."
This edit did not clearly make the article worse, and you provided no reason for anyone else to believe it did - just asserted it was 'removal of sourced content', apparently without checking if the content was in fact sourced in any meaningful sense.
It looks from the outside like you are simply reverting edits that you disagree with on sight, and the manner in which you approach it makes me wonder if you are deliberately setting out to do the opposite of Wikipedia:Encourage the newcomers when the newcomers in question don't share your perspectives.
It's true @Eco-climber didn't make a particularly strong case for their first, small edit, but they did note (accurately) that it was an objective correction. It was your job to check if that was true before reverting. Oolong (talk) 06:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I believe a good citation is a reasonable substitute for consensus. Cassie Schebel, almost a savant. <3 (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I started this edit back at 07:01, 4 April 2022‎. I agree that I am not an authority. But my actual point is that the word change is because it’s a subjective & not objective statement AND the words ascribed to the source is from 2006, prior to diagnostic changes for both forms of autism. Also those words don’t appear in the original referenced article linked to them. One link is is a different language & link is broken. Another version does work, but does not say the words ascribed to it. It is also an outdated medical reference from 2006. Biomedical information must accurately reflect current knowledge. WP:MRDS Thx for your input & assistance. Eco-climber (talk) 08:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC) [Wretchskull please stop deleting my Talk entries. It is a talk page & I am aiming to be transparent & TALK. not have u delete my attempts at transparency…] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eco-climber (talkcontribs) 21:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Thanks for this, @Eco-climber. You're absolutely right that this page needs to be brought up to date. If someone is preventing this based on the assumption that it's all correct until proven otherwise using multiple MEDRS citations, when the original text relies on sixteen-year-old references, in a fast-changing field, as interpreted by some random editor many years ago... I really think they're doing Wikipedia:Biomedical information wrong.
@Wretchskull why would you delete another user's comments from the Talk page? How could you think this action fell under any of the allowable reasons set out in WP:TPO? Oolong (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I have deleted "more severe" in line with biomedical best practice of 2 more recent medical studies. SEE 2016. In line with a prior study(85) and DSM-V (86), we do not further divide ‘ASD group’ into ‘high-functioning autism’ and ‘Asperger’s Syndrome’ subgroups. We use the terms ‘autism’, ‘on the autism spectrum’, ‘autistic,’ and ‘autism spectrum disorder’ to refer to the ASD group as these terms are preferred by this population (87).

The study was approved by the local Ethics Committee (University of Vienna) and conducted in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki. Both study ethics references come from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4810325/#b85 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eco-climber (talkcontribs) 21:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

@Eco-climber: I've reverted your edit on the social traits as they do not meet WP:MEDRS. When adding sources, please stick to reviews, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews of the past 4 years. Therefore, I recommend you save this link. Thank you - Wretchskull (talk) 07:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Hi @Wretchskull, can you spell out your rationale for considering the manifestation of empathy in autistic people to be a biomedical topic requiring MEDRS-standard references?
Thanks. Oolong (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Oolong: Here we go again... I won't argue, but just know this: EVERYTHING that has to do with medicine MUST fulfil WP:MEDRS - Period. This has been pointed out to you numerous times and it is frustrating seeing the same reply every time. If you fail to understand this you won't be allowed to expand articles regarding medicine for long, as Wikipedia is stringent on reliable secondary sources, especially if it's medicine. You can only summarize what reliable medical sources state, hence why I recommended that the link (update: better one be saved. Wretchskull (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I'm just going to quote Wikipedia:MEDRS directly on this:
"
Biomedical information
requires sourcing that complies with this guideline, whereas general information in the same article may not.
For example, an article on Dr Foster's Magic Purple Pills could contain both biomedical and non-biomedical claims:
  • Dr Foster's pills cure everything. A biomedical claim! Strong MEDRS sourcing is definitely required here (see WP:MEDASSESS)
  • The pills were invented by Dr Archibald Foster and released onto the market in 2015. This is not biomedical information, and it only requires ordinary RS
  • They are purple and triangular, packaged one to a box,[citation needed] as no-one ever manages to swallow a second one.[medical citation needed]"
So, no, it's very explicitly not true that 'EVERYTHING that has to do with medicine MUST'.
The question you need to answer is is this biomedical information? 'Biomedical information is information that relates to (or could reasonably be perceived as relating to) human health.' Biomedicine is 'a branch of medical science that applies biological and physiological principles to clinical practice.'
Is empathy a health issue? Is it having biological and physiological principles applied to it here?
You seem to think it's obvious that it is. It's not obvious, and you haven't made, or pointed to, a case for it. That's why I keep making these same points. Oolong (talk) 06:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
@Oolong: Although general information could definitely be non-MEDRS (but still WP:RS), empathy is absolutely reliant on MEDRS; it's an issue directly related to this neurodevelopmental disorder and is always highlighted in MEDRS sources on the Autism spectrum. Don't bother replying because, as I said, I have no interest or time to keep beating a dead horse. If anything expandable is covered by MEDRS, definitely use them, and if there is a mild non-health claim, use any reliable source; but, if it is a health claim (i.e. in this case symptoms of AS) then it definitely requires MEDRS. Wretchskull (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks for conceding the obvious point that it's simply not true that everything relating to medicine has to fulfil WP:MEDRS, and for making a token effort to justify why this would fall into the category of things that would. Obviously, observations of empathy differences in autistic people don't come anywhere close to meeting the definition of biomedicine 'applying biological and physiological principles', and it's questionable at best that they fall under the heading of biomedical sciences at all, given the haziness of the biological differences associated with any of this. Presumably you would have a similar reaction to trans people citing non-medical literature to correct misconceptions about themselves, given that gender dysphoria is in the DSM. Fortunately, this is not the direction Wikipedia as a whole has chosen to go in.
Still, I'm not particularly interested in arguing the toss on this particular aspect; I can see that you can make a case that this is about 'attributes of a condition' as per Wikipedia:Biomedical information, and regardless, there is strong enough evidence in the secondary literature to make the changes that need to be made to bring this aspect of Wikipedia's autism coverage up to date.
More important here is that you have been applying MEDRS wrong in a more general sense. The point is supposed to be to ensure that biomedical claims are backed up by reliable sources. That means keeping up to date, and routinely checking whether existing claims are backed by reliable sources. It doesn't mean that every edit needs to have citations from the secondary and tertiary medical literature. Oolong (talk) 07:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request: "Some of them" -> "Some"[edit]

In this snippet:

However, not all individuals with Asperger syndrome will approach others. Some of them may even display selective mutism, not speaking at all to most people and excessively to specific others.

I think the phrase "some of them" unnecessarily emphasizes a distance that would not be there if the sentence just said "Some may even ...". That's also faster to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.237.135.135 (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Agreed, and  Done. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Society and culture[edit]

This bit badly needs work. For anyone genuinely acquainted with the relevant debates, it's darkly hilarious to see Simon Baron-Cohen presented as the pro-neurodiversity extreme of the discourse, with Jonathan Mitchell at the other end. Oolong (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2022[edit]

Please add mention of Hans Asperger's Nazi collusion. I already edited the articles under his name and "history of Asperger's syndrome," and added reference links. That information can be easily copied to this page. Rachelkrislov (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I think they could be referring to adding a small section, or mention of the controversy surrounding Hans Asperger, having to do with Hans Asperger's affiliation with Nazis.
This controversy is one of the reasons some people may not want to use the term "Asperger's Syndrome", instead opting for the more generalized terms "autism" and/or "autistic". XeonBionic (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]

"learning disabilitie" /can we merge it?[edit]

Why does it have category "learning disabilities" and Low-functioning_autism not? Is there any reason if DSM-5 states that Asperger's, and the other diagnosises for Autism are now all under the umbrella term ASD (Autism Spectrum disorder)why we cant merge them all? Recommendation: Merge Asperger_syndrome,Low-functioning_autism,High-functioning autism, Pervasive_developmental_disorder_not_otherwise_specified with the article Autism_spectrum. All of the mentioned articles could become an own category inside of Autism spectrum. Nobody not even in Europe uses "Asperger'" or Kanner autism anymore. 2A02:8388:4501:1F00:ACE4:E365:4D03:8781 (talk) 23:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)Reply[reply]