User talk:Eubulides/Archive 1

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Daylight Savings Time

Not at all, I was unaware of those consequences. I figured all time zone related articles could benefit from that template. I'll revert it now. Just H^{editor review} 11:22, 24 February 2007 (UTC)

You're correct about the capitalization issue on the DST reference. I changed it back. SimpsonDG 15:18, 5 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your recent change to Daylight saving time. We don't need all 420 combinations, just the ones used for major holidays. Good catch! --Uncle Ed 18:11, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Daylight Savings Time-Clocks

As I mentioned in my description of the edit, I think that the connection to daylight savings time is weak, and seems unlikely. I think that, unless the artist said so himself, this should be removed.Dragon guy 01:17, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Re: Do we really need "Red" next to a red diagram

Re recent change to Daylight saving time: I think it's helpful to have color words in the legend too because not all browsers in current use support the unicode characters used in the legend. The colored boxes do not display properly in such browsers. hajhouse 06:06, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Re DST

You're welcome for the review. If you're going for FA, I might suggest you wait a week or so for some more peer review comments, and maybe try for WP:GA first. No rush. :) On the other hand, the worst that happens (the article fails FAC) is that you get more suggestions for improvement -- and I think the potential for success is there, so don't take this as dissuasion. It's up to you, of course. -- bcasterline • talk 21:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Good changes, although there will be others who think the wikilinks are too random. I think there is something in the WP:MOS about exactly what "should" be wl but I haven't looked at it in a while. One relatively major change I can suggest without getting into the details is to review WP:LEAD. Your intro does a vg job of providing an overview of the "benefits" sections of the article but totally ignores the "history." I would put either as sentence #2 or para #2 something like, "first mentioned in a satirical essay in the 18th Century, DST was not actually implemented until 1908, when the UK experimented w/DST as a means of combating the coal shortages caused by WWI..." The intro will be more comprehensive then. Interesting subject, keep it up, I will add more comments if/when I get a minute. Kaisershatner 00:46, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for your comment about history in the Daylight saving time lead; I added a sentence along the lines of your suggestion. I hope the revised wikilink ratio is good enough for most people; I realize you can never satisfy everybody but I hope the revised ratio satisfies MoS:L. Eubulides 05:19, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Willet should go in the intro as well. Someone coming to this article after googling DST or whatever should learn in the first few sentences what it is, who invented it, when, and how it works. You have most of that in there, but from reading your article it seems to me Willet deserves a prominent mention. Kaisershatner 13:42, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, Willett's in the intro now. Eubulides 19:09, 27 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for GA review

Thanks for your thorough GA review of Owen Gingerich. You've brought up a lot of points I hadn't recognized before but which should improve the article, especially the holes that you mention. I'll start making the improvements. Thanks for your review and for dropping me a note. Jacob1207 17:27, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Your GA nomination of Daylight saving time

The article Daylight saving time you nominated as a good article has been placed on hold. It hasn't failed because it's basically a good article, but there are some minor changes or clarifications needed to be addressed. If these are fixed within seven days, the article will pass, otherwise it will fail. See Talk:Daylight saving time for things needed to be addressed. King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 19:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

dst grammar

sorry, you're right; I misread it & botched the sentence. However, I'm still not sure what the sentence actually means. It's pretty unclear. Are you trying to say that people under DST tend to follow the DST schedule, even if they don't like getting up earlier personally? (often this is not under people's personal choice). Or are you trying to say that people tend to like the DST schedule?

Currently, it reads like this: "General agreement about the day's layout confers so many advantages that a standard DST schedule usually outranks ad hoc efforts to get up earlier, even if you personally dislike the schedule."

What about: "There is general agreement that the DST schedule confers many advantages, even among those who personally dislike the schedule."

or: "Most people follow the DST schedule when it is in effect, even if they personally dislike the day's layout."

If you want to keep the sentence as-is, it should probably read as follows to be grammatical: "General agreement that the day's layout confers many advantages means that a standard DST schedule usually outranks ad hoc efforts to get up earlier, even among those who personally dislike the schedule."

I've not read the reference that's cited, so I'll leave you to make any changes. Best, -- phoebe/(talk) 01:01, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

WP:MoS

I commented on your change on the talk page. Quadzilla99 22:15, 2 May 2007 (UTC)

Another TS

Eubulides, you seem to know a thing or two about epidemiology and have access to medical journals. I wonder if you could have a look at the epidemiology section in my neglected pet article: tuberous sclerosis. My "present" figure is getting on for 10 years old. BTW: I've just noticed it may not meet the official threshold for "rare disease" but is actually listed on the NIH Rare Diseases website.

If you really want to get your teeth stuck into some serious epidemiology, you could look at autism and related articles. The sources used are awful (TV and tabloids). It shouldn't be hard to improve on what's there, though you need to have a thick skin to work on those topics.

Finally, you might like to have a look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Reliable sources. These proposed guidelines are at a very early stage of development. I'm looking for folk to add some words of wisdom, rather than to refine what's there (expansion rather than contraction). Oh, and of course, there's the new guideline at Wikipedia:Manual of Style (medicine-related articles) which may interest you. I'd welcome your input there too. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 16:00, 27 May 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking at TS. I've replied over there. Colin°^Talk 10:41, 28 May 2007 (UTC) I wonder if you have a view on the name of the article? Colin°^Talk 11:03, 28 May 2007 (UTC)

RE DST (images)

Response. Timneu22 00:36, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Another response Timneu22 10:16, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Yet another response. I'm befuddled that you have not seen this formatting error. Timneu22 22:44, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Another response. Looking for some clarification so my work wiki renders correctly. Timneu22 10:02, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

No need to download firefox. I used a co-worker's pc with firefox. It is weird. In my two examples, Example 1 showed "b" with a large space after it, but this didn't occur through a firefox browser. That's strange indeed. Oh well, it is good we had this discussion as a learning experience for both of us! Timneu22 23:10, 6 June 2007 (UTC)

I'm back

Well, I've gone and done it and the Aggie Band article is up for Featured Article status. Any feedback (especially support) would be greatly appreciated. — BQZip01 — ^talk 08:48, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Autism

Wow, you're just taking it on the nose, aren't you? Here's a balm for your wounds, and an award for your recent efforts on Autism pages:

		The Original Barnstar
		For Eubulides recent (14:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)) efforts at improving the Autism article and bringing it in line with the Manual of Style, I hereby award him/her/it/them with the Original Barnstar because fundamentals are important. Put it on your user page, print it out and have it for lunch, brag with friends, but whatever you do, know your efforts are appreciated and you can brag about them :) WLU 14:45, 29 June 2007 (UTC)

Taking it on the nose? Wounds? I don't think that content was added by Eubulides to begin with, and I was just checking on the talk page so that he could update it if needed; I don't really understand that comment, WLU.

Anyway, I really stopped by to add another comment: the reason I suggested you might want to go the full route (peer review, GAC, before FAC) is to cover all bases in the event some of the editors who made it hard to work on autism-related articles should show up at FAC. I've been surprised at how far you've been able to get without resistance! Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:11, 9 July 2007 (UTC)

I added a link to the peer review on a couple more talk pages. In case you don't have it in your watchlist, you're getting praise over at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Clinical medicine#Autism. Colin°^Talk 19:29, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Hey, a few words from me as well—I've got guests due soon, so can't do much today, but quickly for now ... the MCOTW announcement page should link directly to the peer review, and we should remove the link to the review from the medical FAR page, because that page is for review of featured articles, not review for featured article candidates. Also, NCurse set that page up long ago, and I've maintained it ever since, but I'm pretty sure no one pays attention to it anyway. I'm so relieved to see that RN popped up—I dropped him a note weeks ago and was worried that we hadn't heard from him. He has the same concerns I have (as apparently does JFW), but WP:BEANS should be taken into consideration on comments. That's why I wanted to make sure you develop broad support for the considerable work you've done. Also, I hesitate to tweak the wording (per all my talk page comments) since I don't have the sources and I don't know the subtleties of ASD as I do TS, so my talk page notes were only areas for your perusal. Good luck—it's looking good ! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Eubulides, I do plan to continue reviewing Autism. I'm trying to fit this around both the real world, and progressing some of my own writing. Colin°^Talk 17:54, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I just love this edit summary: I thought I was the only one who cared about that :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 15 July 2007 (UTC)

Eubulides, I understand that you have made significant contributions to the Autism page, and you have done a great job. In no way did I want to step on yor toes. I just was adding more information including a body of work exclusively on the subject with 179 references. I did not include the whole idea. I only gave a reference for those who may have an interest in what you call too much detail. My contribution was only a simple short paragraph not the details. I thought it was a free encyclopedia not a briefopedia. If you are unbiased, please show me where else this reference to Kennedy's work is given in wikipedia. It just seems like you either have something against his information, or are too attached to your property (the autism article) and don't want others intruding in your turf. Thanks for reading. Sep 6 2007 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.121.162.9 (talk) 14:38, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Kennedy's article is mentioned in Robert F. Kennedy, Jr., Thiomersal, A-CHAMP, and 2000 Simpsonwood CDC conference. Thiomersal controversy would be a better place to mention it. Autism already addresses the issue of vaccines and autism with peer-reviewed journal articles; Kennedy's article isn't a reliable enough source to make the cut there and adding that paragraph would run afoul of WP:UNDUE. The article would be fine for Thiomersal controversy since Kennedy is part of the controversy. Eubulides 15:54, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Main page

Congratulations on making the main page. I see it is keeping you busy today :-). Colin°^Talk 19:10, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

WP:LEAD

Hi E. I'm afraid I think this was ill-advised (although I do agree with you). Better to get it all thrashed out on the talk page before changing the policy page, rubs people up less, that way I find. A self revert always shows class :-) --Joopercoopers 16:23, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

DST

Very nice article about Daylight Saving Time. Now it has a Spanish twin ;). Chabacano 05:40, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Sorry

Oops, sorry that was a mistake. Thanks for fixing it. Cheers. Tarif from Bangladesh 07:21, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

all that I have done was a mistake (linking Autism to Bengali Language Movement]]. Now I am having this message. Can you help? Thanks in advance. Tarif from Bangladesh 12:03, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but as I turned onto edit I received a message saying you have been blacklisted or something like it. Anyway it seems ok now. Thanks for the reply. --Tarif from Bangladesh 17:40, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Autism

I'd be happy to review it. Don't worry about if this happens as part of the GA process, I'll try to comb through it and catch anything that might be a problem in a FAC. That would be a much more thorough review than GAC - which this article should pass easily whoever the reviewer is. Tim Vickers 23:49, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

The smooth river-ride is about to hit the rapids. More eyes, more conflicting edits. You may be about to find out the true meaning of "edited mercilessly" [see bottom of the page when editing] :-) Colin°^Talk 21:34, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Trying to catch up with Autism again. Hopefully do some more reviewing tonight. I saw your link to Ben Goldacre's excellent article. I try to read all his columns but am a bit behind. They should be required-reading for anyone who thinks newspapers make good sources for medical articles. Colin°^Talk 13:10, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Fairly sure it was you? Colin°^Talk 17:29, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for sorting out stimming and stereotypy; I've long known it needed to be done, but didn't have the resources. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Eubulides, I can't find the place at the Medicine Project that should link to assessment but doesn't. Are you able to work your way back to the dead link you found and add Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine/Assessment? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:26, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks! I don't know how to work on that page either; it was all set up by NCurse. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:02, 30 July 2007 (UTC)

FYI, [1]. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:11, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

So you see, I've reviewed your nomination, and I am happy to tell you that my objections have been addressed or explained. Now, I don't know if you'd like, but I also have a nomination, Bratislava (ten sections down) and I'd like to ask to review and comment it on the nomination page, so we would be one on one when it comes to reviewing. MarkBA ^t/c/@ 22:34, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

British English

You're right about that. Must have missed the quote marks. Cool Hand Luke 08:31, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Autism

I answered your questions/remarks on my talk page. Maybe if you want to discuss those further it is better to move it all to the autism talk page? Thanks. --WS 23:58, 9 August 2007 (UTC)

Regarding early diagnosis

Not putting this on the talk page for obvious reasons. :o)

Good deal, Eubu. My grandson was not diagnosed until his parents became concerned at his impoverished vocabulary at his second birthday in mid-August. Reading extensively at educational websites, even two is a bit late to start. The earlier, the better the outcome.

Once diagnosed as needing special help by the school system's special education diagnostic program (and after a long period of multi-faceted testing over the next months), he immediately had an in-home therapist come in twice a week by the following spring for work and parent education on how to reinforce the needed work. Also, he qualified for a twice-weekly morning class at a public school. Since that fall, at the qualifying age of 3, it became a 5-day a week program and he adores riding the bus like his sister.

It was only after a while that the school definitively diagnosed him autistic. They focused on working with obvious deficits, motor and social, in class. It was never a snap judgement.

With very early intervention, I repeatedly read that children can achieve much more. I have been advised by a public-school autism teacher with 20 years of experience that mainstreaming is often ill-advised because of possible teasing and bullying. This is, of course, not a universal belief of educators and/or parents. The drive to mainstream and "normalize" the environment is strong.

A lot of these types of citations will not come from medical journals, but from special-ed research journals, so it will take a bit more digging as relatively few universities have PhD programs in special education with good autism research departments.

There are a lot of differing theories of what works best, so there will be (I suspect) NO definitive information available, so this part may not ever become any part of this autism article, but eventually comprise a different type of topic article (if it does not already exist). The fact that autism seems to have a variety of paths of development also seems to indicate that one solution will never work for every child.

This is just what I have learned reading only at professional sites. I found no argument at those sites regarding early intervention. Kiwi 02:34, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

re: Halfbeak comment strikeouts

Sorry! Mea culpa. Will undo. I don't know about the dashes. Will check. Have a nice weekend, Neale Neale Monks 17:18, 10 August 2007 (UTC)

DAT Rewrite

Nice work on the rewrite of the therapy section of the dolphin article! Only a short little section, but it's much better now. BabyNuke 18:16, 11 August 2007 (UTC)

Next?

It's a mess out there. I've been clicking around in the PDD template, and there's not much healthy. Conditions comorbid to autism spectrum disorders looks like the only easy cleanup. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:15, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

I suspect autism will pass soon; wherever you want to work next, I'll be glad to help out. They are all in such awful shape, it's a disgrace. Yes, I agree about merging incidence, epidemiology and comorbids into one coherent article. Causes is good, therapies is a wreck, and heritability is in between. I'm all in favor of making hay while the sun is shining on the topic. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:56, 12 August 2007 (UTC)

Autism linkspam

Saw your note on User talk:71.168.113.55, and I reported both users to AIV. Dreadstar † 08:55, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Autism Barnstar

		The Barnstar of Diligence
		In recognition of your diligence in restoring Autism to featured status. Onward and upward! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:33, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Congratulations, a job well done. Tim Vickers 16:07, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome

Are you interested in looking at AS? It had gotten way out of hand in the year since its last FAR (which wasn't stellar to begin with); I put in a few hours on repair work yesterday, but it's still not great. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:58, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

It is *enormous*, and it's bad wherever one looks. If you're strapped for time, I'd say let AS go for now. I, also, will be somewhat limited due to upcoming travel until mid-September, so it might not make sense to take on anything big right now. I guess, wrt AS, that just trying to keep it from sliding further is all I can do for now, along with sporadic, small improvements to the other articles. I get frustrated each time I look at the lists, because so much needs to be merged or AfD'd. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:36, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Also, FYI, you've probably seen references to this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:47, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

That review of AS that you offered might help; my restoration of a summarizing lead (in lieu of one that focused exclusively on controversial aspect) is being met with resistance. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:27, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

hmmmm ... now I remember why I stayed away from that article for a year. I left a message back in May that it needed work; all I can do now is tag it and bring it to FAR if the deficiencies aren't corrected soon. Dialogue doesn't seem effective there; regular editors have overpowered every FAR, so that only marginal improvements are possible. Thanks for the effort, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:54, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have time, can you weigh in on this question about acronmyms, as well as overall adjustments needed in that section? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 20 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm working now on Diagnosis in my sandbox, where I'll define the four sets of criteria. From recent talk page entries, it doesn't appear that the regular editors are going to dig in. I added a sentence or two to Epidemiology from the Mattila comparison of the four sets of criteria, and I've done all I can do with comorbids, so you might want to operate on epidemiology now, if you have time. Later I'll ask Tony to run through the whole thing; poor fellow did me the favor last year of completely copyediting the entire article, and I feel badly that most of his work was lost. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:02, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

Any help you can give will be immensely appreciated; I don't know AS like I know TS and am just grabbing the sources and regurgitating. Epidemiology needs a total rewrite, we need images, and all of the sections I've written need thorough review. Causes is still in my sandbox, Cultural aspects, History, Prognosis, Comorbids, Diagnosis and Treatment have been rewritten so far. I hesitate to work on wikilinking or copyediting too much until we determine if the article will be stable. I left an Image question on the talk page if you have a chance to look, and I'm tracking work to be done in the To Do box. I'd love whatever help you can give; I'm just trying to get as much done as I can before some pending travel. If you find more problems like the one you just found, it's not likely I'll have the resources to fix it (I'm using everything I've got :-) and I'm not sure anyone else will, so delete what you must. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

It's starting to feel manageable, although we've yet to tackle the hardest part (Characteristics). Tony left some inline queries on the ABA text that I cribbed from autism, in case you have time to look at and resolve them. [2] Thanks so much for the help, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 25 August 2007 (UTC)

I'm glad you lost the extra citations at autism: much prettier lead. I see you used EQ SQ theory in autism; I need help with this question if you have time. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:43, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I punted on Theory of Mind, moving it out of Chartacteristics work in my Sandbox and summarizing it from the abstracts only; if you have a chance, would you mind reviewing the last paragraph at Asperger_syndrome#Causes? Thanks for all the leads, moving on to the rewrite of Characteristics. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:59, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

I've got travel Monday and Tuesday, and a pretty full calendar the rest of the week, which is why I've been pushing so hard to get the basics in place, knowing we can always go back and tweak and refine. I barely got started on User:SandyGeorgia/Sandbox2#Characteristics when I got distracted by comments on the FAR; it's pretty rough and now it doesn't look like I'll finish before I leave tomorrow (unless I pull an all-nighter). This is really bad timing for everyone, but I try to remind myself that when I came to Wiki a year and a half ago, I found four appalling featured articles to guide my work on Tourette syndrome—Autism, Psychosis, Schizophrenia, and Asperger syndrome—each one worse than the next. I think we can hold out hope with 3 solid FAs now (TS, autism and schizophrenia) to set the standard, and I hope we can get the job done on AS. If there are any pieces you can work on while I'm gone, I know you're as busy as I am, but it will be appreciated. I never did get to rewriting AS/HFA, and there are still various loose ends to tie up from talk page commentary I haven't yet attended to. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:41, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

By the way, I'm having a heck of a time with Characteristics. Because I don't know the topic well, and I'm not that conversant in autism or AS, I'm finding it hard to rephrase the text from the sources and my prose is coming out awkward, stilted, not at all crisp and clear. I'm hoping Tony will dig around in there while I'm gone. In the event you have any time (I know :-), please feel free to operate on that text in my sandbox, and even move any pieces you think are ready to the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:06, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I finished 3 of the 4 sections in Characteristics, pending Tony's smoothing out of the prose. Here's a biggie in case you speak neuropsych and eventually have time to look at it (it's over my head): on the neuropsych profile mentioned in Other, I'm troubled at how often McPartland and Klin cite themselves to support their view. I'm concerned as to whether other views are available or accurately represented. That's all I can do for today. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 12:47, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

My empty suitcase is beckoning, but as I read through all of this, I'm noticing something I hate to admit. I intensely dislike them, but the Tourette Syndrome Association has done a better job than I recognized—not so much their work, but they've really pulled in all the best medical minds across the USA and the world (and contributed to the development of research expertise), and gotten lots of diverse researchers busy nailing down the necessary pieces of the puzzle. Autism research seems to be on the one hand too "concentrated" and on the other hand too "fractured", probably by the different advocacy groups pulling things in different directions (CAN, DAN, NAAR—I give them money in the interest of close friends, but these orgs are all over the map), while TS seems to have benefitted from the strong, single advocacy voice (allowing for the blip in the late 90s when the Tourette Spectrum Disorder Association briefly flared up and flamed out, thankfully). Autism has attracted lots of funding, but I suspect the TSA has done a better job of putting what money it gets (which includes none of mine) to good use. That's my meta-thought for the day, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:14, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

If you have a chance, can you look at the lead discussion and the proposed version in my sandbox? I've tried to work in the text to keep others happy. It's not "there" yet, but I don't want to ask Tony to copyedit it unless it's generally within the realm of what we're after. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:56, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Great commentary, thanks, ready for a new look. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:01, 30 August 2007 (UTC) By the way, I'm going to have limited access between the 5th and 10th of September. Once we move the lead in, we need to do the final smoothing/reconciliation of the text. Any chance you'll be more available during that time frame when I'll have limited and slow dialup access? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:15, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for that source; I haven't looked at it yet, but I'll try to buck up again today and dig back in to the task at hand. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 11:36, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

I started from the bottom, working up, and got as far as I could tonight through your comments on Talk:Asperger syndrome. My concern is simple; if you can't copyedit this article and fill in the missing pieces, no one else can or will. I'm not going to wade back into that mess and try to do it alone again, I don't have most of the sources, and I don't know autism or AS as I know TS. If you're available to help, it's doable. If you're not, it's not going to happen, because with only a few days of not watching the article, it quickly deteriorates to unsourced POV. I'll wade in again if you have time to help, but if not, I fear it's not a good use of time. As far as any specific changes, I'll check the stereotypy vs. stim wording when I'm home, I wasn't sure what you meant about the Comorbid section, but on everything else I got through, I concur with all of your suggestions. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:38, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Edit away; I'll be able to catch up starting tomorrow (Wed), but I can't imagine you'd make any changes I wouldn't agree with. My first pass was simply to get the unsourced speculative info out and get sourced info in (to the extent I could), but it certainly didn't hang together well, as I'm not well enough versed in autism to smooth out all the wrinkles. I assumed someone more knowledgeable (like you) would need to tweak and refine the text, so I just packed as much sourced info in as I could. I'm still unclear whether it can be restored to featured status, but I know it can't without your help; attribution to reliable sources, undue weight, POV and stability are factors as big as the final copyedit needs. Regardless if it retains featured status, the article is now in the best shape it's ever been in. I'd like to not lose the mention of tics vs. stereotypies (I'll dig that source out tomorrow) and some of the differential diagnosis and comorbid info, as Kurlan stated once at a seminar that 1/3 of the TS subjects in tertiary TS clinics were autism misdiagnosed as TS because of lack of recognition that tics, stims and stereotypies are all part of the autism spectrum, while tics are often confused with stims/stereotypies. I've not found a hard print source for Kurlan's 1/3 (just the conference tape), and I don't know if the converse is true (that most AS misdiagnoses are TS), but many TS misdiagnoses are autism. There was a tendency in TS groups to mix the words stim and stereotypy, and I wasn't clear on the difference until you sorted out the two articles. I haven't followed as closely as I'd like, but I think (hope) that Diagnosis was the only section that got really munged from the sourced version, so extra care is needed there, and I don't speak "Mechanism" at all, so that section will need a lot of work, and I've always been concerned that Classification didn't hang together well, and that I wasn't able to include any info on screening. Thanks for pitching in. More tomorrow, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:33, 11 September 2007 (UTC)

Question You've mentioned the need to discuss under or overdiagnosis in the Diagnosis section. The only statement I've found (from Klin) is now included in Epidemiology:

• Advocacy and parent support organizations have proliferated around the concept of AS, and there are indications that this has resulted in more frequent diagnoses of AS, which may be given as a "residual diagnosis" to children of normal intelligence who do not meet diagnostic criteria for autism but have some social difficulties.

Does that belong in Diagnosis or Epidemiology? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:01, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Darn, I'm finding it hard to pare down; if I borrow more text from autism, it's going to grow again. Still working. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Good gosh, how do you expect me to get that down to two paragraphs ? Do you want to have a go at my Sandbox version of Diagnosis before we turn it over to Talk:Asperger syndrome? Feel free to edit my sandbox directly. I pared the differential diagnoses down to the most recognizable, since the more rare ones are summarized at Diagnosis of Asperger syndrome. I summarized DSM and ICD, and mentioned the other two (Gillberg and Szatmari) since they are referred to elsewhere in the text. I am completely ignorant if the phrase "several different screening instruments" is supposed to refer to the different sets of diagnostic criteria as well as the diagnostic screening tools, so I'm not sure if I linked it correctly. I didn't need to use your Volkmar text from autism on screening tools, since McPartland says the same thing. I can't find anything on adults; I included the direct quotes of what I did find in the event you can do anything with it, to turn it into meaningful text. I'm not sure if the info I did include on Screening instruments belongs here or in a separate screening section. I'm not much use, huh? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

Extreme works for me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 12 September 2007 (UTC)

It looks *great* so far—two questions:

1. By shortening the sentence Advocacy and parent support organizations have proliferated around the concept of AS, and there are indications that this has resulted in more frequent diagnoses of AS, which may be given as a "residual diagnosis" to children of normal intelligence who do not meet diagnostic criteria for autism but have some social difficulties. its current form appears to endorse overdiagnosis, as if it's saying "may be given" is an "endorsement" as a correct thing that is done.
2. If we lose mention of Gillberg and Szatmari criteria in Diagnosis, we have to also lose reference to them elsewhere in the text (which is fine with me, or can be done by linking to the sub-heading on the Diagnosis page). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

Much better. I'm going to be busy this afternoon, so whenever you think it's ready, maybe you can post it over to Talk:Asperger syndrome, or just add it to the article, whichever you think appropriate. It passes my muster. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 13 September 2007 (UTC)

I see from your posts that you're starting to run out of time on AS again; I really appreciate the effort, and it couldn't have been done without you. I think it's broadly within FA criteria now (or should I say, I think you've restored it to FA status, minus images, which other editors refuse to allow). Unless you can identify anything else that still needs significant work, I'd rather not spend too much more time on it for two reasons. First, Colin and I began talking last winter about bringing History of Tourette syndrome to featured status. I put it off, saying I'd have large blocks of free time over the summer, but we never got to it. I think the time we've invested in autism articles was better spent, since the TS articles are all good enough, while all of autism needed a lot of work. But I'm not interested in investing more time (other than vandal and troll watching) into one article when the entire subject area still needs so much work. Second, it remains to be seen if AS will stabilize. Past experience (this is the third FAR) indicates that a) there is off-Wiki canvassing and recruiting to use the article as an advocacy instrument and return it to a poorly sourced essay, and b) the article reverts to unsourced original research and synthesis after the light of FAR being shone upon it is removed. In other words, how much effort should be invested into making an article "perfect" until we know if it will stabilize? If you think it's close enough, it may be time to opine on the FAR as to whether it's restored to featured status or not. If you think particular areas need work in order to be within FA guidelines (but not to the level of perfection we personally expect of TS or autism), let me know if I can be of any use in working on those areas. It's hard for me to try to help polish AS to the level I expect on TS, since I don't know the topic as well. Regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:10, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

The trend at FAR is to try to save as many articles featured status as possible, even if the review must be extended. FAR is loathe to strip stars conferred by the community as long as there are ongoing efforts to improve the article, and no glaring issues. If you think the remaining issues are glaring, you can opine Remove at FAR. If you enter no opinion, in the absence of glaring issues, the default trends towards Keep. I'm not yet sure what I'll do, as it's the stability I'm most concerned about; I hope the annual AS FAR doesn't become the bi-annual AS FAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:16, 18 September 2007 (UTC) PS, a third option is to ask that the FAR be extended if you think it's salvageable but more work is needed; FARs have run beyond two months. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:17, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

FARC has no hard and fast deadlines; the only thing guaranteed is that articles are there for *at least* a month, so the minimum time is a month from the nomination. You can say whatever you want; Marskell does a very good job of sorting it out, considering that the goal is to save stars unless there are still glaring issues and no progress. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 18 September 2007 (UTC)

Fine job; all we can do now is wait and see if it remains stable. "If I were a bettin' man ... " (never mind :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:12, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to tell you both (and all other hard workers) that I really like how this article reads now. Having so many child articles has helped this article funnel contentiousness and battlefield atmosphere elsewhere. I raise a glass to all of you - I was impressed with the level of editor cooperativeness and working in an atmosphere of assuming good and positive intent, and using the Talk page so much (even tho it necessitated so many achives! *smiling* I've never watched this process before, of bringing an article to featured status. It was quite an experience and I experienced a lot of learning. Thanks Kiwi 23:46, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Eubi ... I didn't know that about that page and I have added my opinions. I think the idea of the child articles is excellent as each child article will eventually come together and develop its own set of editors who will learn Wiki principles and learn to teach and implement.

I have a possibly high-functioning daughter (I was convinced when she was young that she was borderline autistic, and the more I have learned from this improved article, the more I am confusingly convinced). She is incapable of independent living without daily contact with a support person dedicated to her and has great difficulty maintaining employment past a few months at most, no matter how much praise she gets from her employers) I have a nephew, "diagnosed" by his first grade teacher as retarded and who is now in his third year of college. He still needs to be accompanied and helped to move in to the new apartment each year and his father visits him every few weeks as a source of socialization. Being disabled and attending a state-supported school receiving federal funds, he qualifies for whatever academic help he needs. My 4 year old grandson is autistic, diagnosed over 2 years ago and in full-time specialized schooling for the second full year now. So I, as you can see, have a strong and vested interest in this topic.

When my daughter was young, I attended a national conference where it was impressed upon us, as parents, that we would become elderly and eventually pass on -- but that many of us would have children that would always have needs that would fall to us during our lifetimes and how we would have to plan for after our deaths. My daughter has a trust that will support her in an independent situation (she is able to pay her bills and clean the house), but her emotional needs and supportive appropriate therapy is not availabe to meet her needs. Plus, even though she knows that she can only work while on meds, she immediately drops them when she quits a job because of her inabilities to relate to or understand the nons. Be she HFA or simply severely LD and otherwise emotionally disabled, she is in the same stew pot. Kiwi 02:12, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

So, Eubi --- anyone you know up to going searching thru the archived Talk pages for her saying whom it was that diagnosed her?

I didn't know of that comment/voting page until you let me know. Don't know if I scored any points besides becoming a nasty roach to be squashed beneath a shoe. It was funny and had me laughing so hard. Darn, I wish I had enough knowledge of search to track down those three quotes - I would love to post the links to them. Kiwi 03:21, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Woke up feeling a bit less fatigued and ill this morning, so LEARNED how to use Wiki search and posted the most needed apologies and corrections to the FARC page... but now my illness overcomes me again and I must beat a retreat to my meds and bed. Kiwi 14:31, 21 September 2007 (UTC)

Task force for WP:MED

I'm hoping for some help from someone familiar with WikiProject Medicine. I would like to create a Pregnancy and Childbirth Task Force. Does WP:MED have any task forces? Would I be better off creating a child (no pun intended) WikiProject? I'd rather avoid the bureaucracy involved in that if possible. I would appreciate any guidance. If you know of a person better able to help me, feel free to steer me that way. Thanks! --Ginkgo100^talk 19:37, 15 August 2007 (UTC)

Mercury poisoning & autism

Hi there. I left a comment on the Mercury poisoning article's talk page regarding the connection between mercury poisoning and autism. If you like, please look it over and reply when you get the chance. Thanks. ~ Danelo 14:45, 16 August 2007 (UTC)

Request for assistance

As someone with whom I have reviewed or worked with on an article or talk page, I humbly request your assistance in reviewing the Aggie Bonfire page for Featured Article status. Any/all constructive input is welcomed and appreciated on the FAC nomination page, but please read the instructions for reviewing before you make a comment. Thanks in advance for your assistance. — BQZip01 — ^talk 05:30, 22 August 2007 (UTC)

ABA

Hi,

Could you have a look at the following? Autism and applied behavioral analysis are closely intertwined. I'm fighting (for the third time) for the wording in Talk:Applied behavior analysis#Citations in violation of WP: UNDUE and WP:V regarding the use of wording on the article and am pretty tired of it. Would you mind putting in a comment? There's a chance I'm mis-interpreting WP:RS but I don't think so. However, I'm not going to be on-line for the next day to several weeks and I don't seem to be making a dent. I'm going to be posting this on SandyGeorgia as well as you both seem to be working on the autism stuff a fair bit these days. WLU 01:11, 30 August 2007 (UTC)

Could you look at the lead now (only first paragraph) -- I think it should be an approximation of what you were saying it should be.Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 22:05, 22 December 2007 (UTC)

Autism, AnnieTigerChucky

I suspect, based on the edit history, s/he is either very young or there may be a communication impairment. I put in a note at WP:AN/I asking how to handle this. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:37, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Date

Can you see the future? See Talk:Asperger Syndrome. Simply south 21:24, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

AfD for Controversies about functioning labels in the autism spectrum.

In view of your contributions to the Autism article, would you please comment at this AfD (if you have not already done so). I'm looking to close that AfD, but it seems to need more comment. Thanks. -- Jreferee T/C 17:14, 24 September 2007 (UTC)

Mink, TSA, on tics and thimerosal

I don't know if you'll eventually need this (or a more official version of it, which I don't think exists yet), but I'm passing it along since I'm not sure where to park it. Mink is a good one. TSA on tics and thimerosal SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:20, 28 September 2007 (UTC)

Nice catch

Thanks for catching this, and for your solid work on improving and encyclopediafying a controversial group of articles. MastCell ^Talk 21:02, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Alexithymia in Asperger's

I'm wondering whether detail from this study is worth adding to the Asperger's syndrome entry: Levels of emotional awareness and autism http://www.informaworld.com/smpp/content~content=a782825045~db=all~jumptype=rss

121.222.133.213 08:03, 17 October 2007 (UTC)

TS edits

Thanks for adding the sources, Eubulides. I hate, hate, hate the cite templates because of how badly they chunk up the article size and make articles slow to load; I'd like to switch those to a manual format, consistent with the rest of the article, if it's OK with you. Best, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:44, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

No need ! You're right; I had brought over a few cite templates from the other Mozart articles, so it was a good reminder. I wish someone would write a script similar to the Diberri tool to generate manual citations. I'm going to be traveling until next Tuesday, so may not be able to weigh in much on the autism articles. Best regards, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:40, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Stable version Beta

If I'm reading it right, this is a beta version of the old stable versions idea:

• http://www.veropedia.com/vero/article.php?title=Asperger+syndrome
• http://www.veropedia.com/vero/article.php?title=Autism
• http://www.veropedia.com/vero/article.php?title=Tourette+syndrome

Not sure how it works, but I noticed it when Moreschi (talk · contribs) was digging around in TS. If it takes off, it could solve a boatload of issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:09, 27 October 2007 (UTC)

Mark Geier

I don't know where to start on this or if it's a BLP violation, but there are a lot of non-reliable sources and sources with copy vios (neurodiversity.com, etc.) Are you interested or able to do anything here? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:29, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

oops, checking what links here, I just discovered this article has a history (I've been removing non-reliable references to autism websites): Wikipedia:Suspected sock puppets/Justice2day. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:47, 2 November 2007 (UTC)

Assessment

Frustrated by my own hit-and-miss efforts to clean up the walled garden of autism articles, I was encouraged by Jdfwolff and Mastcell to assess the articles and enlist the help of WP:CLINMED. You may want to juggle some of this, but if I've more or less got it right, I see the priorities as:

1. Clear box V; those article should be at least brought to B-class standard.
2. Clear box R; ditto.
3. Clear box Q; ditto. (That is, bring all of the core articles as defined by WP:MEDMOS section needs to at least a B-standard.)
4. Box X is the worst of the worst in terms of essays, POV, uncited, non-reliable sources, questionable notability, and articles that need to be merged elsewhere. They aren't the most important articles, but cleaning them up will help contain the amount of ongoing maintenance needed. For example, autism community and autistic culture (and others) should probably be merged to Sociological and cultural aspects of autism. Adults on the autistic spectrum should be merged to List of people on the autistic spectrum.

Jdfwolff and Mastcell indicate willingness to help, and I suggested we need a focused approach. Please let me know your thoughts, or better yet, add to the topic already started on JDF's page. I don't want to bring this assessment to CLINMED until you've had a chance to look it over. Feel free to edit the assessment page yourself or, since the formatting is tricky, you can add your suggestions/changes to the associated talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Glad we're on the same page; is it OK with you then if I go ahead and run that assessment through CLINMED? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

"When you're up to your arse in alligators" and all that ... I'll post a summary later to ClinMed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:00, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I've been plugging my way through the list, cleaning up what I can, citing some, PRODding some, and AFDing a few. You can check my contribs for progress, or the sandbox page. Do you have or know of any free text sources I can use to clean up Regressive autism? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:45, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, I didn't know it was controversial. Depending on what I find in those sources, I may decide to leave it alone. I've already bitten off a big chunk, and don't want the fit to hit the shan. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:46, 8 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm stalled here; I really don't know what to do, but I don't think we can source people self-identifying as "savant" in their own publications or on their own websites, and likewise, I don't know how to handle "high-functioning" and "severe". SandyGeorgia (Talk) 02:00, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

Eubulides, are you able to help supply the missing citation (Jordan et al) at TEACCH? On cleanup, I had to delete most of the article as a copyvio, and on the cleanup of what's left, I can't identify that source. On the other hand, you may want to delete that segment? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:15, 16 November 2007 (UTC)

Merge proposals here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:08, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

The walled garden still growing: [3] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:35, 24 November 2007 (UTC)

WP:RFD = redirects for deletion

I noticed that you PRODded Autism and Aspergers Syndrome. There is a separate process to delete redirects: WP:RFD. I've relisted it there. Kind regards, Fayenatic (talk) 21:06, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Another Barnstar

Eubulides is hereby awarded the Tireless Contributor Barnstar in appreciation for excellent ongoing work to assure that issues related to autism are more completely referenced and well presented within the Wikipedia. Keep up the good work! --Ombudsman (talk) 21:20, 19 November 2007 (UTC)

Stereotypy

Eubulides, when you get a moment (no hurry), would you be able to look over the recent activity at Stereotypy (psychiatry)? This is not an area I understand well, but I suspect the mouse results were overextended. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:31, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Lulz

Eubulides, I do not consider my recent work adding lulz to articles such as Sherri Shepherd, Down syndrome, and Asperger's syndrome to be vandalism. I would appreciate it if you would cease from inhibiting my efforts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.181.219.43 (talk) 02:07, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

If you have any further problems from this user once their block expires please contact me immediately. Tim Vickers (talk) 02:54, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Collapsible archive boxes

I stole the idea from you; better follow this. I have no idea what it means. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:43, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Sister links

I'm becoming a pest :-) I wanted to make sure you knew why I had deleted links to sister projects from several of the articles. We need to take much greater care in this area, considering what came to light in Anti-stuttering devices. I'm not sure if there is any policy regarding those links, but if there is, I'll fight it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:55, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

Epidemiology (incidence)

Thanks for taking on Autism (incidence) Can I point at http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Autism_%28incidence%29#If_it_had_changed.2C_why_it_might_have and a couple of edits I made to keep the focus of the article? The US section is bad at present, really quite out of place in that article, and I'm puzzled by how Olmstedt COunty got removed - it may have been a wild swipe as was occurring around that time I think. Might we have that back in? Midgley (talk) 13:55, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Herpes zoster

Herpes zoster is currently at FAC. I have raised some concern about the way statistics are being expressed and know this is one of your specialities. Could you help improve the text in this regard? Thanks, Colin°^Talk 18:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

• We are very much in need of help with the incidence and prevalence data which is confusing folk at the moment. Any, help would be much appreciated!--GrahamColm^Talk 23:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for looking. I would still very much appreciate your help, even if delayed. Colin°^Talk 20:20, 15 December 2007 (UTC)

Eubulides, I noted issues with the stats in my original "Detailed review", the FAC, and also the latest comments about the lead. I'm sure you'll find them all in your methodical way. I am concerned at finding several places where the text isn't supported by the source (as you have also found). Sometimes this may be a result of textual rewording but not always. I'd feel much happier supporting the FAC knowing you've checked it over. In addition to incidence/prevalence of the disease, I also requested some figures for the likelihood of particular symptoms and complications (see the relevant section in my detailed review). I didn't want the prose to be a sea of ratios, but currently there are practically no numbers. Any further help you can give will be most welcome. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 07:58, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Sandy has stated that the FAC is not under time pressure, as long as we can show progress towards the goal. Colin°^Talk 08:57, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Because the article had strong support consensus before Colin uncovered the issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:03, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

FAC

Eubulides, you've had a chance to immerse yourself in the article and I'm very impressed how quickly you get up to speed. I wonder if I could ask you to give your honest opinion of its current state at FAC. I think it would help both me and anyone else watching that page, to know if I'm on my own. Could you additionally indicate if you think (a) the article is good enough and we are just polishing for the sake of it; (b) the article still needs work before promotion but this is achievable during FAC; or (c) the article needs a lot of work, best done under less pressure/glare. Thanks, once again, for your input so far. Colin°^Talk 21:10, 18 December 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for being so clear. I too am running low (negative, to be honest) on free time, and think I'll take a wee break from HZ. Perhaps we can continue afresh at a gentler pace later. Cheers, Colin°^Talk 00:12, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

New article

Fine work on your new addition. Because I'm not able to keep up with all of it anymore, please let me know when a merge discussion happens. Also, this may be of interest. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:03, 19 December 2007 (UTC)

ABA, FYI. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:07, 20 December 2007 (UTC)

Patterning and Autism

I've commented on the patterning edit...please read and respondJosh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 10:16, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

I got involved in editing The Institutes for the Achievement of Human Potential nearly two years ago. Never heard of it before, but a fellow editor went into battle with one of their evangelists and I attempted to mediate and produce a NPOV version. I was new then, so this was an early attempt at handling POV. WP:UNDUE prevents me from devoting the time needed to make it something I'm proud of. Anyway, I'd appreciate if you guys could watchlist it. The subject attracts edits from supporters and also the odd IP address within the IAHP. If this "therapy" is worth mentioning at all, perhaps it should be wikilinked to the IAHP article? Colin°^Talk 10:43, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Per your diff, I put a COI notice on the talk page; if it becomes a problem, that can be moved to the actual article. There's a lot to be watched right now, and I'm afraid my time is tight. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:17, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Claims of relative prevalence between AS and autism

I suggest that you cite the text you propose validates these claims. Especially the age of the children participating in the study and where the sample is taken from. In this article http://journals.cambridge.org/action/displayAbstract?fromPage=online&aid=2485 my claim that AD is not diagnosed at 6-7 years of age but at an age of 11 years on average is supported . Unless your reference can present a group of children at least 11 years of age and not done in special education, it simply doesn't verify the claim and that is irrespectible if it is published or not. --Rdos (talk) 19:14, 24 December 2007 (UTC)

Journal abbreviations

It's long been my belief that journal abbreviations, no matter how standardized they might be, are little else than a form of jargon specific to some branches or formatting styles of scientific writing (medicine being the strongest offender), as such I see it a a service to the "uneducated and unwashed" masses of Wikipedia users (myself included: more than once have I hit an impossible to readily analyse abbreviation) to convert them. Circeus (talk) 19:21, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

As a side note, I've found at least two errors while double-checking those so far, so I wouldn't consider it a complete disservice even if I ended up reverted. Circeus (talk) 19:23, 29 December 2007 (UTC)

Professional practice of behavior analysis

Eubulides, I've started the professional practice of behavior analysis article because it is the fourth domain of behavior analysis -- ABA is the third domain (research only) -- I plan to start an overarching article 'behavior analysis' which discusses the development of the science, and also discusses the distinctions between each of the four domains (behaviorism, EAB, ABA, and practice) -- as of now, ABA is similar to the practice page, but I am revamping it to be more accurate. I'll link to it shortly so you can see what I'm doing with it. Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 02:52, 31 December 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4