Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive 22

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Archive 21 Archive 22 Archive 23

Apergers Syndrome and Fragile X

Many of the signs and symptoms of Aspergers Symdrome are also present in Fragile X Syndrome. Fragile X can be tested for by a genetic blood test. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 23:15, 12 October 2011 (UTC)

Again - we'd love to write about this - but we need some reliable sources/references that say that (a) there are symptoms that are common between the two syndromes, (b) that this implies some connection beyond coincidence. SteveBaker (talk) 17:12, 13 October 2011 (UTC)
Fragile X syndrome is a common cause of autism or some degree of autism. I suspect someone with fragile X wouldn't be diagnosed with Asperger syndrome but could be considered as being on the autism spectrum. Colin°Talk 16:26, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

Considering that Fragile-X often causes mental retardation and by definition someone with Aspergers can't have mental retardation Fragile-X and Aspergers are very distinct. However there is quite a bit of co-morbidity between Autism and Fragile-X. — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 04:42, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Yep - the whole co-morbidity thing is a pain to deal with here. We have a spectrum condition where not everyone has all of the symptoms - then all of these extra symptoms that are not a part of AS at all, but merely co-morbid. How the heck you sort out one from the other is anyone's guess. SteveBaker (talk) 14:53, 9 November 2011 (UTC)

Asperger's Syndrome and eating disorders

I have been told by a clinical psychologist I know that there is a researcher who believes that eating disorders such as anorexia nervosa are actually a form of Asperger's syndrome. I know the psychologist who told me this expressed some skepticism about the idea, but it reminds me of how the Radio Four series All in the Mind said, in an early episode of the series being broadcast in the spring of 2011, that anorexia nervosa may be related to autism. I do not know a lot about this theory myself, and I do not even recall the name of the researcher who proposed it, but if any one is well-informed on this issue, perhaps it could go in the article. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 19:46, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

It seems really unlikely that one is a form of the other (ie that they are different sides of the same underlying condition) - I've come to know a LOT of aspies over the past few years - and I've never met one with an eating disorder. "A researcher who believes..." is not a well recognized scientific finding! We'd certainly need "peer-reviewed scientific journal" levels of evidence before we could say anything like this in the article. Also, a connection to Autism doesn't necessarily imply a connection to Aspergers. Consider this: Aspergers is mostly associated with how sufferers see others - Anorexia is all about self-image. Aspergers is most commonly prevalent in boys (at least 2:1, maybe 4:1 boys to girls), Anorexia is almost entirely a girl thing (9:1 girls to boys). Anorexia appears to relate to a failing of the endocrine system - if this were present in Autism and Aspergers' we'd have a MUCH better handle on those conditions than we currently do. You can cure someone of Anorexia - you can't fix, or even lessen the symptoms of Aspergers'. Anorexic patients will frequently recover - over a matter of one to two years. Only 20% of Asperger patients ever "grow out of it" - the rest are stuck with it for their entire lives.
Having said that - there is considerable evidence of comorbidity of Anorexia and Autism. (ie, the two conditions happen together more often than is suggested by chance). But that can be said of a number of essentially unrelated conditions (ADHD, for example). Our Anorexia article has a section on the comorbidity issue with Autism - which has a bunch of references. But comorbidity can suggest no more than a common set of environmental factors - or that the symptoms of one condition worsen the symptoms of the other. SteveBaker (talk) 20:11, 18 May 2011 (UTC)

Thank you for your comments here. I did say in my above comment, that I am not too well informed on this theory, so there was no way that I personally wished to edit the article to say anything on this ! It is just something I heard, and I wondered whether any one reading this knew anything of this. I appreciate that edits here would need specific citations and appropriate names of theorists. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 09:59, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

Well, here is an article called "Is anorexia the female Asperger's?"

You can see it the Times Online - hardly an academic source. I think it is Carol Gilchrist who linked the two conditions, and also a psychologist called Jacobi. I can let you know if I discover more information on this. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 10:08, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

That's an interesting possibility - but if the difference is sex-linked genetics then you'd probably want to classify them as completely separate conditions for that reason. SteveBaker (talk) 15:20, 19 May 2011 (UTC)

If I may interject, I'm a professionally diagnosed female aspie, and I actually think that any relation between anorexia and AS wouldn't be genetic. I've never felt the temptation to starve myself, or to indulge in other eating disorders. However, I'm speaking primarily from experience as an aspie, so I would appreciate an explanation. If anything, a relation between AS and anorexia would have to be psychological, with the former causing the latter. As the wikipedia article mentions, people with AS still like social interaction, of a type. Failure to befriend normal people in this kind of interaction may prove frustrating, which could eventually lead to desperation for acceptance, and therefore anorexia. Teach267 (talk) 14:34, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

This is all very interesting, but please see WP:MEDRS for the level of sourcing required on medical articles, particularly an FA. Until/unless secondary review articles discuss this, it doesn't belong here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:47, 29 May 2011 (UTC)

About the sex-based differences mentioned above. I have been informed that males with Aperger's syndrome outnumber females with the condition by ten to one. However, the source who informed me of this pointed out that becaue autism spectrum disorders manifest themselves in different ways in males and females, the figure may only be four to one. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 14:35, 8 June 2011 (UTC)

I know that what I'm about to say is virtually unrelated, but what are your thoughts on a connection between Asperger's and Obsessive Compulsive Disorder? Aspies have been noted to posess an abnormal interest in order and in repeated behaiviors. My father and I, aspies both, have been told that we exhibit this characteristic. Is there a point at which insistence upon routine and organization can become OCD? Teach267 (talk) 18:21, 6 October 2011 (UTC)

I can certainly see how they can co-exist, and I think that, as some one who was diagnosed with Asperger syndrome earlier this year, I have long displayed tendencies towards obsessive checking disorder. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 20:48, 19 October 2011 (UTC)

There are certainly tendencies towards those behavior patterns. I don't know that this would meet the clinical classification of OCD though. We have to be a bit careful about this kind of thing. Asperger symptoms are notoriously hard to categorize for several reasons:
  1. There are a number of comorbid conditions - such as that people who have Aspergers often also have ADHD. But ADHD isn't a part of Aspergers - it is is a separate condition with separate causes and symptoms that just happens to commonly occur in the same population. (For example: High blood pressure and Lung cancer are commonly found together because both are caused by smoking - but they are totally unrelated diseases with different underlying causes). Comorbid conditions are not a part of Aspergers - they merely tend to occur in aspies at a rate much higher than chance would predict.
  2. Aspergers is a spectrum condition - so not everyone has all of the symptoms. I don't have the common aspie symptom of dislike of being touched, for example. That's still an Asperger symptom - but we don't all have it.
  3. There are symptoms (such as that "abnormal interest in order") that are common to both Aspergers and other conditions. That does not imply that Asperger sufferers actually suffer from that other condition. Do Asperger sufferers with that abnormal interest in order also suffer from (say) "intrusive thoughts that produce uneasiness, apprehension, fear, or worry" - well, no, they don't. I have the obsession with order - but there is no uneasiness, apprehension, fear or worry associated with it - so I don't have OCD. If I'm standing in WalMart and a display of soup cans has one or two cans with the labels pointing the wrong way, I may well go and straighten them up - but I'm not uneasy, apprehensive, fearful or worrying about the soup cans. So clearly I share one of the symptoms of OCD - but I certainly don't have OCD.
  4. Aspergers manifests itself in a huge number of small 'quirks' that appear to be separate symptoms. For example, aspies tend to walk on their tip-toes (especially when young)...a very weird quirk. Some of these are a consequence of other symptoms - some are a learned response to help us compensate for other symptoms. A combination of such symptoms can often get summarized with an overly-broad brush. Aspies are often accused of being 'weird' or 'unsocial' or 'emotionless' - none of which are true symptoms, but the result of social adaptation to true underlying causes. This makes listing the symptoms all very complicated and confusing.
Those four issues mean that we have to be exceedingly careful about how we write this article. Especially if we do so on the basis of anecdotal evidence from sufferers like myself and ACEOREVIVED. Such anecdotes are useful in so much as they highlight the issues - but they don't provide information that we can put into the article without considerable backing from reliable sources. SteveBaker (talk) 14:30, 20 October 2011 (UTC)

That makes a good deal of sense. I might add to the list of diagnostic problems that many people are now misdiagnosed with Aspergers, which could create the illusion of other facets of the condition. Teach267 (talk) 04:21, 19 November 2011 (UTC)

Reference Problem

The reference by McPartland and Kiln is used extensively through this article (about 40 times I think). The article was published in the final issue of its journal, and I've been unable to get a copy of it. I've tried to access it via two different university networks, i.e. two different universities, and neither of them have access to that journal or that article. Fly by Night (talk) 20:35, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

I'm not sure what point you're making or what question you're asking, but I may have a copy of it on an old computer, if that helps. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:40, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
Haven't located PDF, but did find my hard copy, in case you have specific questions. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:43, 28 November 2011 (UTC)

DSM-5 Changes Aspergers to mere area on the Autism Spectrum

Someone needs to keep track of the DSM-5 progress as the anticipated publication date is summer 2012. Aspergers becomes an area along the spectrum from the most severe form of autism to schizophrenia. Need to be ready to deal with all this. The DSM-5 has been online for some 18 months now. Someone may want to begin sandbox prelims to update this article. (talk) 13:16, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Well, yes - we've known that this was likely to happen - so it's hardly a surprise. We even talk about it in the article - with references to the new DSM. Most people's knee-jerk reaction is to say that this article should be merged into Autism or retitled or something. However, the Autism article is already far too long and so is this one - so a merged article would immediately need to be split up again - and the present split is by far the most logical. Remember - Aspergers' isn't the only condition along the spectrum that already has a separate article. Autistic Disorder, Asperger's Disorder, Childhood Disintegrative Disorder, Rett's Disorder are all along that same spectrum - we can't possibly talk about all of them in one article just because DSM-V says that they are closely related condiditions.
Also, just because DSM merges several of it's sections into one also doesn't mean that people will stop calling it "Asperger syndrome" - there are thousands of Asperger support groups, papers written about Aspergers, etc, etc. WP:TITLE still requires us to use the WP:COMMONNAME for the article - so the title won't change either. In fact, the only thing we're likely to need to do is to acknowledge the DSM-V recategorization and check that the things that we say that are backed up by DSM-IV are still claimed to be true in DSM-V. It doesn't seem like a big deal to me - at least as far as Wikipedia is concerned.
For us aspies it's a mixed blessing. DSM-V is used by lawyers, law-makers and health-insurers for lots of benefits and other rights of sufferers. If Aspergers is now "Autism spectrum" then there are going to be a few million people who might now be classified as Autistic - at least formally. How does that change our ability to get jobs - to access health care for our condition? That's an interesting question. It's also a question for people on the more autistic end of the there a risk that their very serious mental problems are going to be lumped into Aspergers and as a result presumed to be a much milder condition than it truly is for them.
These things are interesting questions - but until something happens as a result of DSM-V, we can't speculate on that in our article here. In the end, there are still a few million people (in the US alone) who exhibit these symptoms. The people and their symptoms haven't why does the article have to? DSM-IV is just one reliable source amongst the 108 others that we've referenced. We use that reference in five places in the article - we'll have to check to see whether those specific facts are no longer supported by DSM-V - and update our references accordingly - but since the facts of this condition have not changed, that shouldn't be a huge deal.
So what else do you think needs to change? Not much IMHO...but you evidently expect some much greater change to ensue. In particular, we don't have to panic about this - we can take our time, make small changes add up to big changes. If we make a new version in a sandbox someplace then you're going to need a gigantic !vote consensus debate to replace the current article with the sandboxed version. Better to make incremental changes over time using more normal editing approaches.
This just isn't a big deal. SteveBaker (talk) 13:56, 16 November 2011 (UTC)

Also, bear in mind that the proposal to remove Asperger Syndrome from DSM V has been quite controversial. ACEOREVIVED (talk) 00:04, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

According to, the publication date is May 2013.
See also Change detection and notification.—Wavelength (talk) 00:24, 7 December 2011 (UTC)
When the time comes, we should be more accurate and change it when the diagnostic manual is actually updated. Because, for example, ADD and ADHD was changed in 1994 to ADHD (Predominately inattentive (formerly ADD), Hyperactive-impulstivity (formerly ADHD), and the combined type.) Then again...that is in the near future and it would be incorrect to do now. ATC . Talk 21:42, 9 December 2011 (UTC)

Do you think there's enough need for a paragraph on AS with visual/hearing impairment?

Rather than start a talk page, it seemed more appropriate to ask this here first, and someone else can start such a discussion if it seems warranted.

The reason I ask it because I probably have very mild Asperger's, it appears, but there are two things that impact whether it's definite or not, based on my having 20/800 vision since birtha nd also hearing handicaps (hearing aid needed in left ear, right ear so bad an aid won't help enough).

One, of course, is that I often wondered growing up if I just couldn't see all these parts of nonverbal language others talked about, and felt maybe it was also why I coudln't recognize faces. I went from 27 all the way to 37 on the Asperger's Quotient test when I chose to take into account anything that could be a problem with my sight or hearing, for instance. I have since learned that people with such challenges normally do pick up nonverbal cues and such, do my physical handicaps were not a major factor there, it appears.

The second involves the myriad visual and audio stimuli that come at people that Aspies just can't sort out as easily. Someone with visual or hearing difficulties would have an easier time in some situations, wouldn't they? Or not?

So, a few sentences on how physical handicaps both impact the learning of the things people with AS can't pick up and also discuss how being able to pick up fewer stimuli might impact one's ability to function with AS. These would be beneficial ina separate section or a separate article. (Likely the former, it could go here, too, perhaps.)

Or, would there not be enough need? I suppose part of the question is, how many of the people with AS have such handicaps?Somebody or his brother (talk) 19:49, 6 December 2011 (UTC)

The question isn't whether this is a real phenomenon or not (although it's interesting) - the question is whether we can find reliable sources in the medical literature that discuss this. I'm not aware of any such studies (although they may exist). SteveBaker (talk) 04:26, 7 December 2011 (UTC)

Sexuality and Partnership in Adult Aspergers

I was unable to find good sources on this topic, does anyone have information? It seems like there are many asexual aspies but also those who are hypersexual. Aberration from "normal" sexuality seem to be more frequent then in NT's. Also partnership poses many problems, some decide to never try, while others are succsessfull — Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 18:48, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

This document from the Aspergers' syndrome foundation talks about relationship issues with Aspies and it kinda indicates that the common symptom of a dislike of being touched would be a definite downer for sex. However, not all Aspies have that symptom - and even with the symptom, this might not restrict sexual activity if the Aspie only dislikes the touch of strangers and is happy with the touch of their partner, which is certainly the case for me. Obviously the almost universal symptom of emotion-blindness is a significant problem for Aspies in this regard - but it's not really a sexual matter so much as a generalized relationship issue. Aside from those things, I don't see any aberrations from the norm reported anywhere. As usual, we can't write anything about this without a decent source on the subject - which is presumably why we haven't written about it here. SteveBaker (talk) 22:05, 3 January 2012 (UTC)

Minor Corrections

The pronounciation guide has no closing parenthesis, and the each suggested pronounciation is for the incorrect usage. Also the first name given is Asperger's syndrome which is incorrect. That should be corrected, and then labelled as an incorrect usage.


Asperger's syndrome (/ˈɑːspərɡərz/, /ˈæspərɡərz/ or /ˈæspərdʒərz/, also known as Asperger syndrome, Asperger disorder or simply AS


Asperger syndrome (/ˈɑːspərɡər/, /ˈæspərɡər/ or /ˈæspərdʒər/) also known as Asperger disorder, (often - incorrectly - Asperger's syndrome) or simply AS

— Preceding unsigned comment added by BlackwellNik (talkcontribs) 18:02, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

The lead was recently changed, wrongly, to begin with the possessive form, which it shouldn't as that is not the form used for the article title. The possessive form is common and is not "incorrect", just different. Another change was to add "AS" as an alternative. The abbreviation AS is never used unless previously defined or obvious from the specialist context of the text. Thirdly, recent changes increased to four the number of pronunciations. The lead sentence needs to be readable. I'm no fan of the inserting pronunciation or the etymology in the lead sentence. This is not a dictionary. The list of alternative pronunciations was a joke. Basically, pronounce this how you want to. I've simplified the lead in this edit. Colin°Talk 19:58, 12 January 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 15 January 2012

Please allow edit, it is urgent to correct the record. Following statement is false!: "Many environmental factors have been hypothesized to act after birth, but none has been confirmed by scientific investigation.[44]"

There are dozens of US and international scientific investigative studies that DO confirm this! Here is one such study: "Thimerosal exposure in infants and neurodevelopmental disorders: an assessment of computerized medical records in the Vaccine Safety Datalink."

In addition, recent news exposes scandal to hide the facts: "Scandal Exposed in Major Study of Autism and Mercury" "...Documents obtained via the Freedom of Information Act (FOIA) show that CDC officials were aware of Danish data indicating a connection between removing Thimerosal (49.55% mercury) and a decline in autism rates. Despite this knowledge, these officials allowed a 2003 article to be published in Pediatrics that excluded this information, misrepresented the decline as an increase, and led to the mistaken conclusion that Thimerosal in vaccines does not cause autism..."

Please change statement to: "Many environmental factors have been hypothesized to act after birth, and confirmed by scientific investigation." Yankhadenuf (talk) 15:09, 15 January 2012 (UTC)yankhadenuf

Please review WP:MEDRS; none of the sources you provide qualify, and the scientific consensus is that thiomersal does not cause autism or autistic spectrum disorders. Yobol (talk) 18:35, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

These are scientific research investigations I have provided, there are hundreds. User Yobol your premise is false and is not backed-up by scientific research and autism community. I have restated my edit as follows: "Many environmental factors have been hypothesized to act after birth, and specifically Thimerosal in vaccines has been researched by scientific investigations.[5][6][7]" — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankhadenuf (talkcontribs) 18:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Please read WP:MEDRS before reverting further. The bar is pretty damned high. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:02, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

If the bar is so "pretty damned high", then why is original false statement without references allowed to stay? The false statement is perpetuating against hundreds of scientific investigations, and simply repeating coverup rhetoric Yankhadenuf (talk) 19:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)yankhadenuf

You are quite simply incorrect, and removing the reference does not help you. Please do not edit war. Please restore the article. THank you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 19:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I am "quite simply incorrect" based on what criteria? My edit provided at least three scientific investigative references (one of which contained a list of scientific investigations.) There are many, many more scientific investigations out there. I am not engaging in edit war, I simply will not tolerate or restore original false statement. Yankhadenuf (talk) 19:59, 15 January 2012 (UTC)yankhadenuf

I simply will not tolerate application of the policies here makes your stance sound like that of someone who doesn't understand sourcing on Wikipedia. Please read:
  2. An explanation of how to find reliable medical sources can be found at Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches
and refrain from edit warring. If you are aware of a secondary peer-reviewed source that sources text you want to add, please bring it forward. Thank you, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:04, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

Now you are completely misrepresenting what I stated (slander)! I stated I will not tolerate original false statment. Is it an application of policy to tolerate original false statement? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankhadenuf (talkcontribs) 20:12, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

You should read WP:3rr WP:MEDRS WP:CIVIL and now that you are using the word 'slander' you might want to read WP:LEGAL. I will not tolerate people editing against WP:CONSENSUS (another page you might want to read) and people violating policy, not to mention using this page as a WP:SOAPBOX. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:18, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

I stated I will not tolerate original false statement. If someone takes first part of my statement out of context and places it in a completely different context with totally distorted meaning, what do you call it? The end of statement under Causes heading in Asperger's Syndrome: "Many environmental factors have been hypothesized to act after birth, but none has been confirmed by scientific investigation.[44]" is a blatantly false statement. There are many, many scientific investigations, both US and international, so in the interest of TRUTH, I please request the following false portion of the statement: "but none has been confirmed by scientific investigation.[44]", to simply be removed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Yankhadenuf (talkcontribs) 20:40, 15 January 2012 (UTC) Why was I even given editting privileges after I stated my case for editting request if it was going to be removed a nano-second after I posted it? Clearly someone saw that I provided enough information & scientific investigations to meet the criteria to be cleared for my edit. Who is that blessed individual? Yankhadenuf (talk) 20:58, 15 January 2012 (UTC)yankhadenuf

You really should find out how stuff works around here. Nobody approves you. Well, unless I am mistaken. Here is another policy to read WP:TRUTH. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:10, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

"Nobody approves you." Based on what criteria? Did everyone take a vote? I respectfully requested for editting privileges after providing criteria, which I was granted. Yankhadenuf (talk) 21:41, 15 January 2012 (UTC)yankhadenuf

Sorry, you misunderstood I think. I meant that anyone can edit. Perhaps things have changed since I started, or, perhaps I am forgetting as it was a long time ago for me. Either way, please read up on the policies people have been pointing out to you. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:44, 15 January 2012 (UTC)

No, Asperger's Syndrome was a locked article, I had to ask permission and provide information to unlock it to do my requested edit, which I was granted. I wasted half a day trying to edit a false statement Yankhadenuf (talk) 22:00, 15 January 2012 (UTC)yankhadenuf PS Who is a contact person that I can snailmail about this? Mr Wales?

Scientific investigations: Mukhtarova ND. [Late sequelae of nervous system pathology caused by the action of low concentrations of ethyl mercury chloride]. Gig Tr Prof Zabol. 1977 Mar;(3):4-7. Russian. PubMed PMID: 323108. Yankhadenuf (talk) 04:30, 16 January 2012 (UTC)yankhadenuf

Please see WP:MEDRS. A primary study from 1977 does not trump recent secondary sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

Neurochem Res. 2011 Jun;36(6):927-38. Epub 2011 Feb 25. Integrating experimental (in vitro and in vivo) neurotoxicity studies of low-dose thimerosal relevant to vaccines. Dórea JG. Faculty of Health Sciences, Universidade de Brasília, CP 04322, 70919-970, Brasília, DF, Brazil. Yankhadenuf (talk) 04:50, 16 January 2012 (UTC)yankhadenuf

Why are you bringing up an article that not once mentions Asperger's syndrome, and explicitly does not address the issue of autism? You clearly have not read any of the articles you are bringing up, and I would support ignoring/removing any further additions by this user as clearly not helpful in improving this article unless they 1) specifically note what they wish to change in the our Wikipedia article, 2) cite the change to a specific MEDRS compliant source AND 3) quote specifically what part of the source they are using to justify the change, to prove they have read the source. Enough wasting of everyone's time. Yobol (talk) 05:32, 16 January 2012 (UTC)

See also and book addition

Copied from User talk:SandyGeorgia. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:44, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Hi SG. May we discuss your recent revert?

Personally, I think that the portal at the start of the References section looks a little odd. Usually it's in the See also section if one exists, I understand. Moreover, having it in the Refs section means each of the 200 lines that follow it are squashed to the left.

It doesn't look odd to me: Portals belong in See also unless there is none-- then they go in the first appendix. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)
One administrator takes a quite different view. This excerpt is from Wikipedia_talk:Portal/Archive_5#Question_relating_to_portals):
"[Given that] On the portal template and in the MOS it states that portals should be placed in the See also section. [Then] What if there is no see also section? Should a see also section be created, to solely house the portal links?
Yes if the portal is relevant enough to be there then it needs a section - as with any see-also link. There is no reason that a portal can't be linked to as a simple link though: Spaceflight portal. Rich Farmbrough, 23:13, 9 May 2010 (UTC).".
Hence I'll re-add a See also section for the portal, for now. Trafford09 (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2012 (UTC)
This is too trivial for me to address, but FYI, the opinion of one adminstrator means nothing relative to the consensus you should have gained here before re-adding that. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:18, 2 February 2012 (UTC)

Hence, why not have a See also section? I'm aware some may view having a See also section as a slight on the quality of an article, but that's not a view I subscribe to much.

If others want to add a "See also" section only for the purpose of housing the Portal, I wouldn't support, but I wouldn't object either-- it's a matter for consensus. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Now, isn't the idea of a See also section to bring to the reader's attention articles which relate to the article, but weren't mentioned on the page itself? I'd argue that a percentage of readers of the AS page may wish to follow the lead to the 2 articles I included.

A Featured article should be comprehensive, which typically means that anything worth mentioning in the article already is, hence See also isn't typically needed. There may be, in fact are, exceptions, but I don't think the book you are adding is one of those. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

You say there there are scores of books on AS. That may well be so, but there is just one notable enough to have its own WP article, with AS in its title. Unless there's a deluge of books being added, I think that the one book does some good - to a percentage of readers.

There are many books on AS, and many with AS in the title. We don't list them all here, and most of them are notable enough to have their own article (whether anyone has written them is another matter). We have sociological and cultural aspects of autism for such. This is a broad overview article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

I'd be interested to read your views, though.

BTW, which part of Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles did I not adhere to?

On notable individuals and other sociocultural aspects, we add content when it pertains to something that has made an enduring addition to, impression upon public perception of, etc the condition. That book, in this case, did not. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:50, 30 January 2012 (UTC)

Best wishes, Trafford09 (talk) 19:16, 29 January 2012 (UTC)

Re: myself... Oops. Sorry guys. Fortheloveofbacon (talk) 04:55, 4 February 2012 (UTC)
Meh - it happens - no problem :) Trafford09 (talk) 12:20, 4 February 2012 (UTC)