Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive 24

Archive 20

←

Archive 22

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Is anyone watching this article?

I feel like I'm the only one. Anyway, this guy has been running amok all weekend adding poorly written text, linkspam, and other irrelevant content to the article. He doesn't respond to communications or reasoning. Can I get some help please? Does anyone other than AspieNo1 favor this content? --Laser brain (talk) 00:36, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

This article has 1,250 page watchers.

—Wavelength (talk) 00:47, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Have reverted. Someone has posted at ANI. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 00:50, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

My time is limited this week but disagree that the changes that were made were improvements and support their reversion. Zad68 00:52, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Agree with Zad. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:54, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Concur with Zad and Dbrodbeck. I know very little about the condition and hesitate to correct any but the most blatent vandalism. htom (talk) 16:37, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

origin of the "aspie" term

So after some interactions with a user (AspieNo1) that appear to be, at least in part, about the origin of this term, I did a little digging on google groups. the oldest example I was able to find of the term was this post from 1995. While it's not "in print", the fact that it appears a full four years before the cited date is interesting. furthermore, there are nearly 2000 uses of the term on usenet before 1/1/1999. Although these are primary sources, I wonder if this is might be usable in the article, to at least suggest that the term was in some use before the publication of the book in question. -- [ UseTheCommandLine ~/talk ]# ▄ 03:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

I found Google Ngram Viewer, showing use of "aspie" in 1801, but evidently with a sense unrelated to Asperger syndrome. The article says that Hans Asperger studied the condition in 1944, but that "Lorna Wing popularized the term Asperger syndrome" in 1981.

—Wavelength (talk) 14:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Pre-1999 references

In 1993 Damon Matthew Wise first used it when talking to Autism and public bodies and used it on air on Radio, to distinguish people with Aspergr's, Tourettes, High Functional Autism and PDD-NOS from classic type of Autstic Spectrum Disorder. A search engine of the term Aspies will show some verbal and documentary recorded use on Radio before 1995 and in print, leaflet an support groups in 1994 and 1996, but appeared on AUTINET.ORG, where some of the between 800 and 1500 members in the first 2 years used it and from there proliferated through Mindspring.com and Worldnet. It became a self-identification of the label of the Asperger's self advocacy and Independent living communities, after Damon Matthew Wise used it in the first 2 or 3 years and became reasonably common use worldwide well before the claim of first print appeared in private and underground use within the Aspie Communities. Although mostly in closed and private groups (because of the problems with Neurotypicals or Mundanes as often jokingly referred to by us Aspies), it proliferated before 1999. We are willing to accept that some people used it in commercially available print copies afterwards, as long as they accept it had already been in use years before when Damon Matthew Wise first used it at the start of Ireland and International Self-Advocacy Networks which sprung up around AUTINET - the first world-wide group, which originally started with www.heanet.ie/ hosted at Trinity College Dublin. — Preceding unsigned comment added by AspieNo1 (talk • contribs) 07:01, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

References, we need references. And I am using 'we' meaning editors. I still do not know how you are using 'we'. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:48, 18 August 2013 (UTC)

Bibliography on some topics related to this article's topic

Not all the references in the Wikipedia user bibliography of Intelligence Citations fit this particular article, but the bibliography is posted for all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human brain function and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 20:36, 9 September 2013 (UTC)

prevalence in lead

First of all, I'm impressed by the quality of the page. It's a complicated topic that some people take very personally. Second, I like to improve leads by summarizing material that's in the body. This lead is already really good, but I added some prevalence data from the body. Hope that sits well with everyone. Leadwind (talk) 22:25, 7 October 2013 (UTC)

I guess it doesn't sit well with everyone. If we talk at some length in the body about prevalence, we should summarize that information in the lead, per WP:LEAD, but I know when I'm outnumbered. Leadwind (talk) 14:34, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Please review the lead again (along with WP:AGF); an accurate summary of the article text about prevalence is, indeed, in the lead.

There is doubt about whether it is distinct from high-functioning autism (HFA);[8] partly because of this, its prevalence is not firmly established.[1]

Anything longer than this in the lead would be misleading and incomplete, IMO. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:19, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

rm strange estimate of prevalence

I took out a long, difficult sentence that included inaccurate math and that concluded with a prevalence estimate 1/10 what the other sources say. Leadwind (talk) 00:14, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

Here's the suspicious text:
with the ratio of autism to Asperger syndrome ranging from 1.5:1 to 16:1;<ref>{{cite journal |journal= Child Adolesc Psychiatr Clin N Am |year=2003 |volume=12 |issue=1 |pages=15–21 |title= Epidemiologic data on Asperger disorder |author= [[Eric Fombonne|Fombonne E]], Tidmarsh L |pmid=12512396 |url=http://www.childpsych.theclinics.com/article/PIIS1056499302000500/fulltext |doi=10.1016/S1056-4993(02)00050-0}}</ref> combining the geometric mean ratio of 5:1 with a conservative prevalence estimate for autism of 1.3 per 1,000 suggests indirectly that the prevalence of AS might be around 0.26 per 1,000.<ref>{{cite book |chapter= Epidemiological surveys of pervasive developmental disorders |author= Fombonne E |pages=33–68 |title= Autism and Pervasive Developmental Disorders |edition=2nd |editor= Volkmar FR |publisher= Cambridge University Press |year=2007 |isbn=0-521-54957-4}}</ref>

The math is wrong. Since the 5:1 ratio has only one significant digit, the result should be 0.3 instead of 0.26. Who says you can take the geometric mean of the maximum and minimum in a range in order to approximate the average? How big was each study? Do we really think that autism is five times as common as AS? The final result is one-tenth the more commonly reported prevalence figures. This is beginning to look like OR, a well-meaning editor trying some math to generate a prevalence estimate. When I first got here, I accepted these figures and even wrote them into the lead. On second thought, I reversed myself. Can anyone vouch for this sentence? I think it should go. Leadwind (talk) 05:20, 14 October 2013 (UTC)

I have reverted Leadwind's prevalence changes, which replaced a high quality secondary journal review with data from two advocacy organizations (Ontario Autism Network and Asperger's Association of New England). Please review WP:MEDRS. I have also removed an addition made to the lead, as the body of the article makes it evident that prevalence data widely varies (and prevalence was already mentioned in the lead). If there is a more recent secondary journal review than those in use here (Baskin, McPartland), an update can be made. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:09, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

No prevalence data in the lead. That's an unfortunate turn of events for our reader, especially since the lead is supposed to summarize the topic. Anyway, does anyone have anything to say in defense of what appears to be original research and what is certainly wonky math? Leadwind (talk) 14:32, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Please re-read the lead carefully; prevalence is mentioned, and the mention is a correct and adequate summary of the article text. (Related, as I was doing the first pass at updating for DSM5, I was impressed at how carefully Eubulides had crafted the text so that relatively little updating seems to be needed now ... a different case than autism spectrum, which will need a full update to reflect DSM5.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:28, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Regarding the original question at the top of this section: I believe the text was written by Eubulides (who is no longer with us). I have now had time to consult my files, and while I do not have the book with the Fombonne chapter, I do have the McPartland & Klin paper cited frequently in our article (PMID 17030291) and I also have the Volkmar paper, PMID 18563474. Both specifically discuss the 2.6. For example, Volkmar has:

Examining six other studies that ascertained the prevalence of AS alongside autism [26, 27] leads to a median prevalence estimate of 2.6/10,000. Of particular note is that these surveys consistently found the rates of AS to be lower than autism, with autism on average five times as common as AS (median prevalence for autism 13/10,000).

And McPartland Klin say (about Fombonne and Tidmarsh),

... statistically and theoretically accounting for measurement error and variation among studies, the authors suggested a working prevalence rate of 2.6 per 10,000 for AS.

Knowing how closely Eubulides stuck to sources, I have a difficult time imagining that his quote of the Fombonne paper included any original research, but if someone can access that source, they might check. Other than that, I am having a hard time understanding the concern; in fact, it seems that the sources support our text, while some original research is being done here in the discussion of the math, without consulting the sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:15, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

DSM5

I made a preliminary, first pass at updating for DSM-5, but I'm not sure I got it all. I am assuming that the WHO still defines AS as it did, but I am actually unsure if that is the case. What will need an extreme and significant rewrite now is autism spectrum (which also needs to be renamed to autism spectrum disorder ... or something ... to account for DSM5). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:30, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Citation style changes

Way back in 2011, someone bot-altered the established citation style, chunking up the text with unnecessary parameters.[1] I have restored the original citation style; see WP:CITEVAR. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 06:49, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes that author1 syntax is something only a bot could love. Colin°^Talk 07:41, 18 October 2013 (UTC)

Thanks, Sandy. I'm no expert on citation style, so I'm glad you're on the job. Leadwind (talk) 16:18, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

extreme male brain theory

Since EMB theory gets treated on other ASD pages, I'm sure no one will object to it being added here. This page already references SBC on other topics, so if he's regarded as an expert, his EMB theory ought to be welcome here, too. Maybe Sandy or someone else can add a reference to EMB so that it doesn't look like EMB is my personal pet topic. Leadwind (talk) 16:17, 19 October 2013 (UTC)

Is it really mainstream enough? I thought pure speculation was only allowed on pages like Causes of autism. Though I'm not sure it's really a "cause" per se. I'm not saying no, but it's good that you're asking here because I wouldn't think it's right to say "no one will object". —Soap— 01:53, 21 October 2013 (UTC)

It's a bit of a misstatement to say that speculation would be allowed at the Causes sub-article... any article should follow WP:MEDRS, WP:NOT, WP:RECENTISM and WP:UNDUE, but in daughter articles we can explore more topics within the other policy constraints without breaching due weight. Here, giving undue weight to an individual theory would be a problem if secondary, recent, high-quality reviews don't mention those theories. In featured articles, we must additionally follow WP:WIAFA with respect to high-quality sources.

As has already been stated, in this article, if there is a secondary, high-quality, recent review that is an independent review, coverage of those theories can be included according to the weight given them in high-quality, independent sources. To date, no secondary review of Simon Baron-Cohen's theories has been provided (there may be one, but if there is, please list it here). Leadwind, if you have a source, it is up to you to bring it forward for discussion of text you want included, as User:Colin explained to you elsewhere; I am not aware of a secondary review that would work for the purposes of this text, but I do not have university-level journal access. The EMB theories that are included on other pages here are WP:UNDUE, as pointed out, as they rely on sources related to the proponent of those theories (the author himself) rather than independent secondary reviews; see WP:OTHERSTUFFEXISTS (and we need to fix that in other articles). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:36, 22 October 2013 (UTC)

Apraxia v DCD

@Dolfrog:, I have the McPartland Klin review article that Eubulides used when writing this text, and it specifically says "apraxia". What to do? Do you have an alternate, newer secondary review that we can use for your version? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:47, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Hi Sandy Apraxia is the acquired form of these issues which results from brian injury, stroke, or progressive illness, and Developmental Coordination Disorder, which has been called Developmental Dyspraxia is the genetic form of these similar issues. Same problems but different causes, I will dig out the research papers. This follows Alexia (acquired dyslexia), Aphasia, and the various other acquired issues which have corresponding developmental issues such as developmental dyslexia, and auditory processing disorder, etc; similar or same symptoms but different underlying causes dolfrog (talk) 16:09, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

so, you feel like it's OK in this case to change the wording used by the authors? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:14, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Sandy, the paper you are using was from 2006, the recognition of the different causes of the motor planning issues between Apraxia and Developmental Dyspraxia as some call prefer to call Developmental Coordination Disorder happened from 2010 on have a look at Toward a Narrower, More Pragmatic View of Developmental Dyspraxia And if you have a look at the Developmental coordination disorder the first block of citation are about the concensus name from 1994. So your sources terminology is only slightly dated, but the motor planning issues are correct. dolfrog (talk) 16:35, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

got it-- thanks! SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:48, 28 October 2013 (UTC)

Changing "Disorder" to "Condition"

Aspergers is not a disorder, if you have it, there is nothing "wrong" with you, because it is simply a different way of thinking, and hence, it was officially changed in psychologist handbooks and the similar. Please change it to say Autism Spectrum Condition instead of Autism Spectrum Disorder, and anything that states Aspergers as a disorder. Thankyou. AFJGIRL (talk • contribs) 05:35, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

You are certainly welcome to your opinion. My son is an aspie, and it's definitely a disorder, as well as a different way of thinking. (See Temple Grandin's great talk at a TED (conference).) Concerning the title and content, reliable sources will determine those matters. We cannot change them unless RS do it first. -- Brangifer (talk) 06:21, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I am sensitive to AFJGIRL's concern, so just did a search on every occurrence of the word disorder in this article. There is not a *single* instance where this article uses the word disorder other than in the description of disorders as defined by diagnostic manuals. That is, the original poster has no case, whatsoever. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:40, 20 November 2013 (UTC)

I am an aspie. For me, the syndrome is indeed a "disorder". Wiktionary defines the word (in this context) as "A physical or psychical malfunction." Aspergers' is arguably physical (some bits of the brain not working) - but most certainly psychical...so the question boils down to whether it's a "malfunction" or not.

Again, Wiktionary: "malfunction" (in this context) means "faulty functioning" - and while there are certainly upsides to Aspergers', it most certainly has downsides that can be described as "faulty brain functioning". We have referenced statements, right up there in the lede of our article that says that (for example) Hans Asperger described the condition as producing people who are "physically clumsy"...which is pretty clearly a "physical malfunction". "Poor communication skills" is another common symptom - and I can't see how that's anything other than a malfunction. Delayed speech onset in children and all of the other linguistic oddities are also, quite clearly, brain malfunctions.

I'd be the first to agree that there are also benefits - the ability to concentrate on some specific task for long periods of time is incredibly useful. But we can't allow the benefits to be traded against the deficits to come up with terminology that says "it's not a disorder" because the good somehow balances the bad. If my car does 0-60 in 5 seconds - but won't start in the mornings - you'd say that it was malfunctioning. Same deal with my brain.

I celebrate the joys of being an aspie - and I would refuse treatment if a magic blue pill were to be made to cure it...but we mustn't sugar-coat it. There are hugely significant downsides for most aspies. While I'm one of the lucky ones - there are people who go to the support group that I attended for a while who are unable to hold down a job, unable to form relationships with other people and live lonely, solitary existances. People whom even I find it painful to be around for their appalling lack of social graces. Some are easily overwhelmed by specific sounds or smells - all sorts of problems come up because of Aspergers'. How can you not call those symptoms "malfunctions"?

So it's definitely a "disorder".

I'll agree that it's also a "condition" - again, looking at the appropriate Wiktionary definition, we get: "A particular state of being" or "the health status of a medical patient" - well, I'd agree that Aspergers' is certainly both of those things - but is that the most appropriate word here to use here? A car is an "object" or an "artifice" or a "product" - but that doesn't mean that we shouldn't call it a "vehicle" - which is a more useful word to describe it.

SteveBaker (talk) 15:52, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

one-sided article

why is this article so one-sided about as? it only talks about the negative traits of this state of mind. "they CANT do this" "this have difficulty with that"

It doesnt describe the positive qualities in depth as much such as "people with AS will quite often be more intelligent than most others" or "people with AS comminicate through expansive and creative artistic means such as music or art, rather than the limiting verbal languages most have become accustom to"

It is not just this article, but most "disorders" or "neurological conditions" just becuse people will function at different (and sometime better) levels than your "average" person, that means you have to write all these negative things about it? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.196.187.34 (talk) 00:26, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

You will need WP:MEDRS sources to back up any claim. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:38, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

We should have an FAQ; this query has been answered scores of times in archives. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:44, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Indeed Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:46, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

As one who has lived with one of these "disorders" or "neurological conditions" all of my life, I understand what 69.196.187.34 is saying, but unfortunately it is a sad reflection on society and researchers lack of interest, that the alternative skills and abilities we acquire and develop to work around our deficits is usually ignored, or too much trouble to investigate. dolfrog (talk) 17:05, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

somewhere in archives, I am sure I pointed to some secondary reviews that might be useful in generating some text. I do not have full journal access, or I'd check those articles, and do it myself if I find any useful text in sources. I am not doing it for the numerous editors who come here to complain but don't go find sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:21, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

I will look too myself, (I was the anon user). But now that I know where to look for sources I will try and find ones that provide a more neutral viewpoint on the article Adgeo9090 (talk) 20:20, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

A word of advice, please read up on WP:MEDRS and propose any changes here first. This is a pretty mature article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:00, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Welcome, adgeo ... Wikipedia:Wikipedia Signpost/2008-06-30/Dispatches may help you better understand how to find secondary reviews complaint with our medical sourcing guidelines, and in this case, high quality sources complaint with our sourcing standards for featured articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 00:09, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

It is possible, if there are about 2-3 sources for presenting the positive. OccultZone (talk) 06:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

There is no denying that there are up-sides to being an aspie.

The difficulty is that this is an article about a medical condition and we need a very specific kind of medical reference in order to add any non-obvious/non-controversial fact to it. So this question boils down to: "What medical research has been done on the upsides of Aspergers?" - and the problem with that is that researchers are generally out there trying to help people get better - and they don't generally have the funding to discover why people are performing above-average in certain ways. So this may just be one of those articles where Wikipedia's guidelines produce an off-balance (or at least, incomplete) result. It's unfortunate - but the only way we're going to be able to redress this clearly "wrong" situation is to dig into the medical journals and find some that describe these "positive symptoms". If we can't find any, then anything we come up with is anecdotal, original research and so forth - which is not encyclopedic and isn't appropriate here.

I could tell you that in my line of work (I'm in the video games business), companies specifically want high-functioning aspies to work for them - and maybe 70 to 80% of people in their software engineering departments are either diagnosed aspies or "obviously" showing aspie symptoms (both positive and negative). I could point out that I can comfortably write computer code for 18 hours straight without being sleepy, distracted, bored or otherwise disinterested...and that's definitely a benefit to me. Aspies will often seek to learn an incredible amount of stuff about specialized subjects that happen to catch their interest - I became a leading expert on the Mini Moke in order to write our article about it. Once the subject became caught in my "aspie radar", I was obsessed to learn everything about that stoopid little car. I bought every single book, 20 year old magazine, toy or model of the Mini Moke over a period of 3 months - and learned an insane amount about it in a short time.

However, I have no proof of those statements - and it's only my opinion that they are benefits and not more deficits...so it's useless to us in writing this article.

SteveBaker (talk) 16:20, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I think you mean that companies want folks with characteristics typical of high-functioning aspies, no? I'm sure that there are many individuals quite good at programming that are not diagnosed as aspies. Also, many people can do as you state, but are not aspies, but I'm wondering if you would classify them as such because of resemblance on that subset of traits? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 184.19.74.89 (talk) 21:43, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

Companies that selectively hire Asperger Syndrome Employmees

Sirs;

I am aware of at least four companies (three in US 1 in Europe) that preferentially hire Asperger syndrome staff because they can de-bug code better / at all given some of the level of code being worked. I will note that the companies specifically ask for Asperger Syndrome in their employment advertising (and from comments they are not the only ones who look, even if not specifically enough to put it in their job adds!)

I am probably low as the data is several years old. I heard the story on CBC morning (9 - 12) news / talk show in 2010 - 2011, it was winter. I also sent the name of the company in Chicago that Advertises for Asperger Syndrome to become staff to a friend in 2011/2012.

This fact is not recorded in your article, and may be critical for any number of individuals.

It also occurs to me that this fact may represent a deliberate if unconscious change in the pattern of human evolution by making Asperger sufferers better mates (They are employed and well paid). This is what happened in southern England with the founding of Cambridge University in the 1200’s.

Yours truly,

70.72.157.79 (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Edward B. Wilson, P. Eng., M. Sc., P.E.

70.72.157.79 (talk) 22:54, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

After some research I found: They include Aspiritech, a Chicago-based tech start up, is a software testing firm (http://aspiritech.org/); BOAS (http://www.boasspecialister.dk/) in Europe also software testing.

I found a blog post about Bell Labs hiring a PhD with Aspergers http://www.askamanager.org/2012/03/ask-the-readers-job-searching-with-aspergers.html Links to employers looking for you are a great source of hope, an extremely valuable commodity at times.

Yours

Edward B. Wilson, P. Eng., M. Sc., P.E.

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ironwood.Edward (talk • contribs) 19:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

I found German software firm SAP plans to hire hundreds with autism - Business - CBC News (posted on May 22, 2013).

—Wavelength (talk) 19:24, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

Autism ≠ AS ----> Sociological and cultural aspects of autism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:51, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

DSM and WHO

Let99 inserted the words "United States" to describe changes to the DSM, and introduced repeat wikilinks to the WHO.[2] I corrected the text. The DSM is not only used in the United States, we should define acronyms on first occurrence, and not overlink (link the same term twice).[3] Let99 reverted my corrections and reinstated the text without discussion; I warned him/her of 3RR. The incorrect text is still in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:42, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

I agree with you and have reverted. Let's hope (s)he comes here to discuss any changes. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:43, 21 November 2013 (UTC)

We'll see. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:27, 22 November 2013 (UTC)

The DSM-5 is a US publication, and I think that that should be made more clear in the article. Some non-US countries may go by this new definition in the DSM-5, but if so, the names of the countries should be individually listed. I'd like to hear more opinions in this discussion thread from people who are not from the US. Let99 (talk) 19:41, 25 November 2013 (UTC)

I'm not from the US. I am, coincidentally, a psychologist. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:03, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Famous People with Asperger's Syndrome

Albert Einstein, Bill Gates, Alfred Hitchcock, Dan Ayckroyd, Daryl Hannah, Woody Allen, Al Gore, Bob Dylan, Michael Palin

Sources:

Cedricwikki (talk) 22:30, 23 February 2014 (UTC)

Please review WP:RS and WP:MEDRS, and see List of people with autism spectrum disorders. (Do not add these people there without a MEDRS-compliant source and BLP-compliant source ... from your list, there are few for whom this claim can be based on reliable sources.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

Screening

Under the heading Screening, I would suggest changing the age of detection from 30 months to 2 and a half years.

Thanks,

Rremus10 (talk) 20:53, 26 February 2014 (UTC)

DSM-5

Since Asperger is no longer considered a valid diagnosis, souldn't the article's headline reflect this (such as "Asperger.... was considered an autistism spectrum disorder...." Dan Gluck (talk) 16:34, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

The DSM-5 isn't the end all and be all of mental health diagnostic guidelines. DonIago (talk) 18:29, 20 May 2014 (UTC)

Exactly. Asperger syndrome is still considered to be a part of the autism spectrum. DSM V merely formalizes that. With your phrasing readers would assume that people who are labelled "Asperger" are no longer considered to be on the autism spectrum - which is quite the opposite of what DSM V did. SteveBaker (talk) 01:44, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Duplication

Under Classification heading, the second sentence and the last sentence in the first paragraph are exactly the same. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 162.203.55.30 (talk) 01:08, 25 May 2014 (UTC)

Thanks – fixed. DoctorKubla (talk) 07:56, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

Suggested merger with "high-functioning autism"

It has been suggested that the page high-functioning autism be merged with this one. Please continue the discussion at Talk:high-functioning autism. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Muffinator (talk • contribs) 20:04, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Assburgers redirects here

Searching Wikipedia for assburgers redirects to this page, even though assburgers is not mentioned on the page. Perhaps someone should add a note that this is a common derogatory term for Asperger's used on the trashier Internet forums and IRC; otherwise, the redirect would make no sense to the uninitiated. ThVa (talk) 20:18, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source for that claim? HiLo48 (talk) 20:53, 17 June 2014 (UTC)

DUDE, that is very rude and inappropriate, as it is degrading to anyone who may have the disability (myself included). May you please remove that feature? GUEST — Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.239.62.143 (talk) 01:19, 26 June 2014 (UTC)

Many people do not know how to spell Asperger. That is why the redirect exists. Redirects aren't comments endorsing derogatory terms; they're just a way to help people find what they're actually looking for. Muffinator (talk) 19:21, 6 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd still like to see a source. HiLo48 (talk) 03:01, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Here are a bunch [4] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 03:35, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

Thanks. I just realised it's an American thing that doesn't work in Australian English, which is my version. I think we pronounce "Aspergers" pretty much the same, but in Australia, the part of me that I sit on is pronounced differently. So the insult wouldn't work here. So it isn't used. So I've never heard of it. Now I have! Thanks again. HiLo48 (talk) 03:57, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I had never heard of it either before seeing this thread but than am to old I think. Google books is amazing though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 04:06, 7 July 2014 (UTC)

I think we have a dual-standard here.

The question is, do we (as an encyclopedia) endorse putting in redirects from derogatory terms to the corresponding politically correctly titled article?

I don't think we do that.

For example, would you advocate a redirect from "Nigger music" to "African American Music" or from "Redskin languages" to Indigenous languages of the Americas? That's analogous to what's being proposed here I think. I'm pretty sure you could find a handful of decent sources where those terms are used - which is more than you have for "Assburgers"...so the absence of those redirects isn't a matter of notability or reliable sources because I'm quite certain that "Nigger" is both more notable and more reliably sourced than "Assburgers". The only times I could find when the word "Nigger" or other derogatory terms were used in an article title was as the title of an actual article about the origins and history of the word itself or where it's the literal, verbatim title of a book or music album or the name of a person or something. "Nigger" doesn't redirect to African American or Black people. You could (I suppose) argue for writing an article about the word "Assburgers", just as there is one for "Nigger" - but I doubt that would survive a notability test.

"Assburgers" is also a neologism...and we have rules about those too.

I conclude that this redirect is inappropriate and should be deleted. SteveBaker (talk) 05:11, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

I agree. A derogatory pun that doesn't even work in all versions of the English language doesn't belong in Wikipedia. HiLo48 (talk) 08:06, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

This was discussed several years ago, but a new consensus might emerge if someone wants to nominate the redirect at redirects for discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 19:19, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

Yeah...so the previous discussion was for a group of redirects - some were kept and some deleted. "Assburger" was a keep by the closing admin on the grounds that it's a common misspelling. I kinda doubt that's why the redirect was created. SteveBaker (talk) 20:12, 26 July 2014 (UTC)

As someone who argued above for keeping the redirect, I find this argument compelling. Although it's not a perfect comparison since "nigger" is not a homophone of "African" or "black", I think this discussion warrants some formal attention such as a listing on redirects for discussion or a request for comment on this page. Muffinator (talk) 00:56, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

I have started a discussion of whether the redirect should be kept at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2014 July 27#Assburgers. Please comment there. - 2/0 (cont.) 14:16, 27 July 2014 (UTC)

Treatment and intervention

Under the Management section, I wonder if we could list both common interventions used in educational and home settings, and also list schools and programs that are specifically set up to help students with Asperger's. This seems to be a resource that families are often looking for. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Troolium (talk • contribs) 17:47, 16 August 2014 (UTC)

Not a disorder

Asperger syndrome is not a disorder. It is, to some extend, actually the opposite. People with it actually have much better geographical skills. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 110.175.40.89 (talk) 09:14, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

You will need WP:MEDRS sources if you want to include such a statement in this article. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:59, 6 October 2014 (UTC)

Indeed - but in any case, it's a spectrum condition. My Asperger's has more benefit than downside - but I've met plenty of sufferers who have a very hard time of it. SteveBaker (talk) 02:25, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

Asperger Syndrome and other "conditions" within the Autism spectrum are not considered a disorder by members of the Autism rights movement. Such individuals are part of a new brand of social movement, promoting neurodiversity. The idea of neurodiversity is that people who are wired differently (like those on the Autism spectrum) tend to suffer most because of the poor way they are treated by their environment and that society should embrace the strengths that come with Autism rather than stressing its weaknesses.

Merging Page With Autism

Remind me again why wikipedia is not doing this. The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders has recently concluded Aspergers Syndrome is- for all intents-and-purposes- the same condition as autism.Ordessa (talk) 12:27, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

It's complicated. Semantics mostly.--Auric talk 17:56, 16 February 2014 (UTC)

Because Asperger syndrome still exists in the WHO ICD scheme. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:29, 24 February 2014 (UTC)

The Autism article is already far too long - the spectrum of autism is conveniently (if arbitrarily) divided into several different segments (of which Asperger Syndrome is one) - and currently each has it's own article. If we merged them all back together then the very next thing we'd have to do would be to figure out how to split the resulting gigantic article up again - and the present division is as good as any.

The changes in DSM V don't alter the fact that we have special names for various sections of the Autism spectrum - all it does it to make clear that from a diagnostic perspective, these are all shades of symptoms from what is presumed to be a common cause or set of causes.

SteveBaker (talk) 01:41, 26 May 2014 (UTC)

As an adult person who appears to have Asperger's and has been diagnosed with bipolar disorder and depression, it is vital for me to have been able to begin my search for answers here in this wonderfully real Wikipedia universe; merging these articles would do a disservice to those who need this information for the information that it is. That's the point: Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, not a diagnostic tool. Whether the American Psychological Association classifies Asperger's as a separate diagnosis or not has no bearing here, other than as a noted piece of information in the article(s). I agree that the Autism, and even the High-Functioning Autism articles are already so heavily informative that it/they cannot absorb the additional information in the Asperger's article and be functionally serviceable for a reader; it would amount to one of Wikipedia's books, which is what I did with these and related pages - put them into my own "book". It is wise to keep Wikipedia the information resource it is by not politicizing or medicalizing information. Anniecan (talk) 18:26, 10 July 2014 (UTC)anniecan

Asperger's and high level autism are two different subjects. The fact that DSM cannot figure out how to deal with them does not mean that Wikipedia should necessarily add to the confusion. As someone who has been diagnosed with Asperger's, the ability to look specifically for Asperger's rather than a generic "autism" article provides the reader with a lot more direction. Where is the benefit from merging? Does it disenfranchise a group of people who identify with Asperger('s) Syndrome? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.173.9.167 (talk) 07:44, 15 July 2014 (UTC)

Would someone please explain the difference between "Asperger's" and "high functioning autism"? As a practicing psychiatric social worker, I do not know the difference. Granted ASDs are not an area of my expertise. But going by current definitions in professional literature, there is no difference.Dstern1 (talk) 20:53, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

The article High-functioning autism explains the differences, though not everyone agrees on them or their clinical significance. I think this talk page needs a big banner stating that just because DSM-V has merged their diagnostic categories doesn't mean that a syndrome thousands of people are diagnosed with and is part of common culture will suddenly disappear. These requests are like saying that just because The Beatles split up, we should no longer have that article. -- Colin°^Talk 09:19, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Great analogy. Maybe we should put it on all psyc related article talk pages. The world does not revolve around the DSM even though some seem to think so. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) (if I write on your page reply on mine) 17:24, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

By no means would I ever suggest that all reference to the term "Asperger's" be excised. I also see merit in the argument that it would be inadequately concise if the 2 articles were merged. None-the-less, I question the existence of differences. Yes, this is a complicated and controversal issue.Dstern1 (talk) 17:58, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

The diagnosis of Asperger syndrome is scientifically and culturally significant despite being deprecated, since notability is WP:NOTTEMPORARY, but the article will need to be rewritten from a historical perspective. Muffinator (talk) 20:57, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome is currently only deprecated in the DSM. Asperger diagnosis is not historical if many countries which rely more on the ICD (including here in the UK) are still diagnosing it. Wikipedia is about more than just the US... ChiZeroOne (talk) 23:15, 25 July 2014 (UTC)

As I noted on the HFA talk page, there is a huge problem with the other article. The problem is with terms and definitions. It defines HFA as "autism without mental retardation" and references a journal article in Portuguese as the source. I had expressed frustration as I do not read Portuguese; however, I have been fortunate to obtain an English translation. The article as translated never uses the term "High Functioning Autism." It differentiates between people with autism and mental retardation and without MR. Unquestionably, people without MR are functioning on a higher level than those with MR. But the cited article does not report upon less impaired people with autism per se. Hence, I propose that the HFA article be deleted and a redirect here for those searching for "High Functioning Autism." Dstern1 (talk) 00:52, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

Can people from India get aspergers? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 64.134.165.120 (talk) 05:20, 25 September 2014 (UTC)

I have worked with Aspergers for a long time and they are such different levels they are like night and day, I would greatly caution against including them in one article. the article would be very very long. Jinandtonicpark (talk) 14:12, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Autism rights movement

Further information: Autism rights movement

The rainbow-colored infinity symbol represents the diversity of the autism spectrum as well as the greater neurodiversity movement.

The autism rights movement (ARM) is a social movement within the neurodiversity movement that encourages autistic people, their caregivers and society to adopt a position of neurodiversity, accepting autism as a variation in functioning rather than a mental disorder to be cured. The ARM advocates a variety of goals including a greater acceptance of autistic behaviors; therapies that teach autistic individuals coping skills rather than therapies focused on imitating behaviors of neurotypical peers; the creation of social networks and events that allow autistic people to socialize on their own terms; and the recognition of the Autistic community as a minority group.

Autism rights or neurodiversity advocates believe that the autism spectrum is genetic and should be accepted as a natural expression of the human genome. This perspective is distinct from two other likewise distinct views: (1) the mainstream perspective that autism is caused by a genetic defect and should be addressed by targeting the autism gene(s) and (2) the perspective that autism is caused by environmental factors like vaccines and pollution and could be cured by addressing environmental causes.

The movement is controversial. There are a wide variety of both supportive and critical opinions about the movement among people who are autistic or associated with autistic people. A common criticism leveled against autistic activists is that the majority of them are high-functioning or have Asperger syndrome and do not represent the views of all autistic people., even though some prominent figures in the movement (such as Amy Sequenzia) are nonverbal and have been labeled as low-functioning.

References

Cultural references

The TNT show The Bridge and the same named Danish-Swedish show on which it is based are without a doubt the most important cultural references to AS that have ever occurred. Therefore, I can only consider removing reference to them from the article as vandalism and will report it as such. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 19:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

I in fact provided an edit summary. As discussed at WP:IPC, when adding cultural references you should provide third-party sources as a means of establishing their significance. DonIago (talk) 19:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Completely agree with DonIago. Third-party references are a must. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:45, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

Have either of you ever watched the show? Chuck Hamilton (talk)

Have you read WP:V? "Wikipedia does not publish original research. Its content is determined by previously published information rather than the beliefs or experiences of its editors. Even if you're sure something is true, it must be verifiable before you can add it." --NeilN ^{talk to me} 22:59, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

It's not original research. In fact, Sonya Cross' AS is what got me interested in the show in the first place. Both those Wikipedia articles clearly and prominently referenced it. I can't believe no one has referenced the show here before. Sonya Cross isn't a minor character; she's the lead character. Marco Ruiz is the other main character, but Cross, the AS character, is more prominent. The Jerry Espenson character played by Christian Clemenson on Boston Legal was given AS by the writers, but they failed to consult with someone who knew anything about it and wrote him with symptoms of Tourette's instead. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:27, 10 October 2014 (UTC)

The trouble with "Cultural References" sections is that they accumulate junk at an alarming rate. There are hundreds of cultural references for this syndrome out there. Flooding the article with a L-O-N-G list of them is objectionable - and picking and choosing among them is ripe territory for WP:RECENTISM. See Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Trivia sections for further guidance. But in these cases, it's utterly vital to have solid references. SteveBaker (talk) 03:00, 12 October 2014 (UTC)

In this case, a hugely successful and accurate TV show has the top-billed of its two protagonists with Asperger's, and that is most definitely relevant. Where would you put that if not in a "cultural references" section? Chuck Hamilton (talk) 00:21, 13 October 2014 (UTC)

Removed again ... this information does not belong here. I have linked to it in Sociological and cultural aspects of autism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:06, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Asperger and autism present very different symptoms, and the show in question specifically states the character of Detective Cross has Asperger's. Since I supplied several references and since the section includes a Wikilink to the main article on cultural references to AD, I can only assume the removal earlier today was part of the ongoing campaign to merge this article with the one on autism. As for concensus, there isn't one here,but the editor with whom I was in disagreement thanked me for my last edit of the section that you removed. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 23:47, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

Asperger is on the autism spectrum and Sociological and cultural aspects of autism has other pertinent info on the syndrome. That's a much better article for the content. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 02:05, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Yes that would be an appropriate place for it. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:20, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

And now I have removed it. We need not add such trivia, and this article is about a medical diagnosis, not about trivia. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:52, 6 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm curious as to why you seem to want to hide the fact that persons with AS are represented, often positively, in the media. I did not create the section "Cultural references", I added the information about The Bridge because what was already there was almost completely irrelevant while The Bridge is directly relevant and accurate in its portrayal, at least according to its AS consultant who has AS. The other material got eliminated,btw, in one of the revisions. That show, in fact, was the very reason I looked at this article in the first place, and I see no reason to make persons with AS invisible by pretending such representations do not exist. Chuck Hamilton (talk) 07:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

The material is better suited to another article. We do not list the many positive pop culture portrayals of people with a developmental disability. This does not mean we're "hiding" facts. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 08:02, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

What NeilN said. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:57, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

• Agree with the others, without an independent reliable secondary source that provides significant coverage the social aspects of Asperger generally and discusses how this particular show is particularly important, adding this mention is questionable. A brief interview with the actress playing the part or entertainment-related blogs aren't sufficient for inclusion here, although they might be for the actress's BLP or the article on the TV show itself. Zad68 13:08, 7 November 2014 (UTC)

Wrong information

There is wrong information on this page. It clearly says on here that there have been no genes found linked with autism or Asperger's. This could not be more false if it tried. Autism, and therefore also Asperger's being a form of autism, have already been identified with ten gene mutations. The Autism Speaks group, with millions of dollars in federal funding, conducted a study to find just that. All the genes are related to nicotinic acetylcholine, adenosine, NMDA, and AMPA in the brain. There is also one gene mutation in some called the CHD8 gene. Although it does not affect all but actually a fairly small fraction, it is still very significant. "In their study of 6,176 individuals with ASD, the researchers found 15 who had a mutation in the CHD8 gene. All 15 shared distinctive physical characteristics and health issues. They looked strikingly similar, with broad foreheads and wide-set eyes. They also shared a history of gastrointestinal problems (severe constipation) and disturbed sleep. Sleep problems and constipation are common but not universal among individuals with autism. - See more at: http://www.autismspeaks.org/science/science-news/study-links-specific-gene-autism-subtype#sthash.YgQLToDh.dpuf" This error and lack of information needs to be amended by someone willing to link together all the pertinent data and who understand HTML well enough to properly edit the article. Under medications Clonidine HCl, Memantine HCl, and Ketamine HCl need to be added. This is a rather thoughtless omission. Do not delete this I have proof for every single claim, legitimate proof from scientific journals. I will provide proof to any specific claim requested of me. This will deeply improve this article, which is at this time horribly lacking. A disruption in adenosine results in the inability to properly ionize the Mg2+ ion at the glycine site at the NMDA receptor, resulting in overactive calcium expression, resulting is racing and repetitive thoughts. The data is overwhelmingly obvious to anyone with any basic understanding of neurology. Let us actually share useful information; the article the way it is is quite frankly utterly unacceptable. There is also no mention of the issue of co-morbid suicidal ideation which is markedly higher in the population with Asperger's than any other population. Look at this article. http://sfari.org/news-and-opinion/news/2014/suicidal-thoughts-alarmingly-common-in-people-with-autism Thank you and have a nice day. Also how can I be the first person to suggest this on here, that seems odd to me. Memantine and clonidine are already being prescribed off-label by many doctors for Autism. Again I have proof for every single claim, I just need a little time to organize them all for use on wikipedia. This is why I am posting this here on the Talk page for now. Once I get all the referenced data properly organized, I will post it here on the Talk page and allow someone with HTML experience to merge it into the current article. Thank you, this information is very important and needs to be made public knowledge. There is also no mention of the fact that autistic patients experience reduced REM sleep than the average person, again another issue I have proof for. Look here http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3111973/ Here is an article for adenosine http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0028390812004492 . Here is an article for memantine and NMDA antagonists for both Autism and Asperger's. http://www.nature.com/nbt/journal/v31/n5/fig_tab/nbt0513-367_T1.html Here is a reference for Nictotinic Acetylchloine antagonism as a useful treatment in Autism. http://utd.edu/~mxa049000/lessons/research/literature/Autism/super%20new/Lippiello%20nicR%20blockers%20for%20autism%20MH%2006.pdf Ketamine and memantine HCL are both potent NMDA antagonists, as well as Nicotinic Acetylcholine antagonists- therefore the effectiveness couldn’t be more obvious, and I have personally seen its effect in patients. Dr. Craig Erikson of Cincinnati Children’s hospital is currently running clinical trials where he uses an intranasal ketamine spray to treat autistic patients. Here is a reference of proof of this. http://www.psychiatrist.com/_layouts/PPP.Psych.Controls/ArticleViewer.ashx?ArticleURL=/jcp/article/Pages/2014/v75n08/v75n0810.aspx I will continue to add more references for things I mentioned in time, I have an insanely large amount of data too add. I have dedicated the last two and a half years of my life to this research, and have so very much to show for it, so please please listen to me. For now though I need to go to sleep, I have been very sick and need my rest.

Sincerely, Alexander Charles Lewis (talk) 05:30, 20 October 2014 (UTC) an Autistic patient, researcher, and advocate.

Thank you for your interest in improving this article. We would certainly be interested in any helpful corrections or additions. Be aware, however, that any information in a medicine-related Wikipedia article must be based on reliable, third-party, published secondary sources and must accurately reflect current medical knowledge. In particular, primary sources should generally not be used for medical content. See the content guideline on "Identifying reliable sources (medicine)", via the link WP:RSMED (or WP:MEDRS). Also see the subsection of the "No Original Research" policy called "Primary, secondary and tertiary sources" (WP:PSTS). In brief, what these pages say is that we need to be extremely careful about using a "primary" source (such as an article in a medical journal) — it's far, far better to find a high-quality secondary source which reviews and evaluates the available primary sources. We are required to be especially wary of leading/bleeding-edge material, or material from a researcher who is promoting his own research results, or material which appears to contradict the mainstream. This may mean that Wikipedia will be somewhat behind the times when brand-new breakthrough claims are involved, but that's just the way we need to be. — Richwales (no relation to Jimbo) 06:43, 20 October 2014 (UTC)

Signs and Symptoms

Would you mind if I started a signs and symptoms section. Many of the other pages have this and I find its good to have a list like format for this part. Let me know what you think and I'll start one, likely starting with those listed by the Mayo clinic http://www.mayoclinic.org/diseases-conditions/autism-spectrum-disorder/basics/definition/con-20021148 Thanks Jinandtonicpark (talk) 14:16, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

New posts go at the bottom of the page. This article already has that section, under the alternate name of "Characteristics" (some people in the autism community don't like the terminology of symptoms). Please see WP:MEDMOS. Also, this is a Featured article, and Mayoclinic is not the highest quality source (please review WP:MEDRS). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:56, 19 November 2014 (UTC)

Asperger's in Women

It is a massive oversight to miss out at least a mention that the typical classification of Asperger's is based on largely male-derived research, which really ought to be mentioned. It is also worth mentioning that as time goes on it is appearing that many women go un-diagnosed as they often do not present with the stereotypical symptoms, as a result of this gender discrepancy is research data. Please see National Autistic Society website and various other bodies which offer resources explaining the Asperger's gender gap. As Wikipedia is such a wide-reaching resource, it really is important to not spread outdated and potentially misleading information. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.158.159.223 (talk • contribs) (UTC)

You are welcome to find reliable sources about this and write up some content using them. Just place it here with your request. -- Brangifer (talk) 16:38, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. — {{U|Technical 13}} ^{(e • t • c)} 16:59, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

I'm no expert - but Asperger Syndrome has no known cause (not genetics, virus, bacterium or fungus), no method of physical diagnosis (blood test, biopsy, brain-scan, X-ray) - it's defined ENTIRELY as a cluster of co-morbid symptoms.

Now, if you say "women have different symptoms" - then how can you possibly say that they have Asperger syndrome? They have some condition - which also has no known cause and no solid method of diagnosis - but by what means can you say that their cluster of symptoms is the same syndrome? It just doesn't make sense. Doubly so because there are small numbers of women who exhibit the exact same symptoms as men who have Aspergers.

It would be different if we could point to a particular genetic cause for Aspergers and find the same defective gene in these women with the different symptoms - or if both were infected with the same virus or something.

However, I'm not an expert - so we need a WP:MEDRS-quality source to confirm any of these claims before we can write about them here. SteveBaker (talk) 01:20, 20 December 2014 (UTC)

I have been an editor here at Wikipedia since 2006. Wikipedia is biased towered mainstream thought. This does not represent some sort of conspiracy to stifle thought, but it is the result of the strict sourcing rules. Specifically mainstream sources such as the New York Times or peer reviewed science are deemed reliable. With the exception of web sites created by said reliable sources, blogs and forums sourcing is not considered unreliable. There is good reason for the rules. One does not know who is writing these blogs or posts, what there credentials are, what if any fact checking was done. A lot of the postings in these online sources are kooks, quacks and conspiracy theorists. A dilemma arises because these "unreliable" online sources are becoming the primary means of communication for younger generations. One also must remember that most mainstream thought was at one time though of as quackery. Wikipedia's answer to this dilemma is "it's to complicated" to sort out the reliable and unreliable new media, let's stay with the tried and true. So what readers get is a verifiably accurate partial information on topics

Aspergers traits were first observed and defined in in boys. The original definition informs diagnosis and treatment of females "Aspies" to this day. Females on the spectrum are often not diagnosed or misdiagnosed, their Aspergers presents differently and they have more effective, but more stressful coping/masking techniques. The claim presented in the first sentence of this paragraph has plenty of reliable sourcing reliable to back it up. The claims in the following two sentences are nearly universally accepted in the blogs and forums that cater to Aspies/People with Aspergers, ie the people who have the most experience with the syndrome. But they are considered "unreliable" by Wikipedia standards so the readers of this article have not receive this information.

Hopefully the sources I provided while not optimal below will be enough to say this the above is a school of thought

Overlooked and Underdiagnosed: Distinct Expression of Asperger Syndrome in Females. http://www.yale.edu/yrurp/issues/Yurkiewicz%20(2009).pdf

Women and girls on the autism spectrum National Autistic Society http://www.autism.org.uk/About-autism/Autism-and-Asperger-syndrome-an-introduction/Gender-and-autism/Women-and-girls-on-the-autism-spectrum.aspx

Females with AS: Aspergers Autism network of New England http://www.aane.org/about_asperger_syndrome/asperger_syndrome_females.html

Tony Attwood website: http://www.tonyattwood.com.au/index.php/about-aspergers/girls-and-women-who-have-aspergers

Thanks Aspie-Autistic 1957

We would need WP:MEDRS sources. Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:54, 21 December 2014 (UTC)

By analogy:

• Steve's syndrome: A large bruise on your left knee with no known cause.
• You: There are a bunch of people with Steve's syndrome who have bruises on their right elbow instead of their left knees!
• Me: But that's not Steve's syndrome.
• Medical Science: Let's call it "Technical 13's syndrome" instead.

Then:

• Future history A: We've found that bruises on all limbs and elbows are caused by the same thing! Steve's syndrome and Technical 13's syndrome are both special cases of the exact same thing!! Wow! We'll have to call it "Technical-Steve-13 Syndrome".
• Future history B: We've found that Steve's syndrome has a genetic cause and Technical 13's syndrome is caused by a virus...thank goodness we didn't assume they were the same thing!!

This is not like Marfan syndrome - which is defined by misfolding of fibrillin-1 - there could (hypothetically) be a wide range of different sets of symptoms or gender or race differences in the presentation of Marfan. But Aspergers isn't defined by a cause - it's entirely defined by a cluster of comorbid symptoms. If you have different symptoms, then you don't have Aspergers - even if the cause is the same. It's not some kind of sexist thing - it's just how the words "Asperger Syndrome" happen to have been defined. Right now, without knowing the cause, that's the only sane way to define it. SteveBaker (talk) 03:47, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

Link removed

Why should this article link to Asperger syndrome and neuroscience? That article is a complete mess, and contains no cited info that isn't included in multiple other articles already linked here. AS and neuroscience should be simply redirected to here, because there's nothing there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:41, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

Because, correct me if I'm wrong, whether or not an article is a "complete mess" does not mean that the subject is not relevant and should be linked to from its main article on AS. Otherwise, Asperger syndrome in popular culture and Asperger syndrome and neuroscience should be either linked here in the hopes of them getting actual traffic from a nearly-orphaned state or be nominated for deletion off the bat. 9³ 02:48, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Please read my full message above (you seem to have missed everything after the first clause about it being a mess): there is nothing in that article that isn't already linked here in other articles. That article should be a redirect to somewhere; it is a mess, it duplicates content already contained elsewhere, there's not even anything worth merging. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

You missed my whole point, because I agree with you that it is a terrible article and if it isn't deserving of links or capable of improvement, it should be deleted to reduce redundancy. I'll try to nominate them for deletion soon. 9³ 05:14, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Have deleted some copyright issues. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:31, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I've redirected the article to here. An article theoretically could be written, but the one that was there had no content that wasn't duplicated in many articles, poorly sourced, or cited to primary sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:17, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Patient UK deadlink in infobox

The correct link appears to be http://www.patient.co.uk/doctor/Asperger%27s-Syndrome.htm, but I can't find the correct field anywhere in the article. 9³ 02:56, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

I don't understand what you are asking, but I can't see any reason to link that page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:22, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Have fixed it. It is at Wikidata. https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q161790#sitelinks-wikipedia You can delete it there is you wish. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:27, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

New NEWS today, for future editing

This is the 'top of the news' today; everyone covers it. Headline-1: Pentagon study from 2008 claims Putin has Asperger's syndrome

• http://www.foxnews.com/world/2015/02/05/pentagon-study-from-2008-claims-putin-has-asperger-syndrome/

QUOTE: "A newly released Pentagon report from 2008 claims Russian President Vladimir Putin has Asperger's syndrome, "which affects all of his decisions," according to USA Today. The report, which was obtained by the news outlet, was created by a Pentagon think tank and theorizes that Putin's "neurological development was significantly interrupted in infancy."" -- AstroU (talk) 00:05, 6 February 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for future editing.

Headline-2: Vladimir Putin suffers from Asperger’s syndrome, Pentagon report claims

• http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/vladimir-putin/11392680/Vladimir-Putin-suffers-from-Aspergers-syndrome-Pentagon-report-claims.html

QUOTE: "The study from 2008, which was based only on videos of Putin, claimed that the Russian president’s mother had a stroke whilst pregnant with him that left lasting damage. As a result his "neurological development was significantly interrupted in infancy," the report says. Putin’s authoritarian style and obsession with "extreme control" is a way of overcompensating for his condition, the researchers concluded Putin’s actions have been under particular scrutiny since last year when he ordered Russian troops to annexe eastern Ukraine." -- AstroU (talk) 00:09, 6 February 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.

Headline-3: Pentagon thinktank claims Putin has Asperger's – has Putinology gone too far?

• http://www.theguardian.com/world/2015/feb/05/vladimir-putin-aspergers-syndrome-pentagon-studies

QUOTE: "In 2012 the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention found that the rate of autism diagnoses rose 20% between 2006 and 2008. Experts have warned against the dangers of grouping people who struggle socially with those who have genuine disorders. The label of Asperger’s, in particular, has been tossed in the direction of many accomplished people, including Mark Zuckerberg and Warren Buffett. In 2012, the American Psychiatric Association decided to change the way it defines the disorder." -- AstroU (talk) 00:15, 6 February 2015 (UTC) -- PS: FYI for additional future editing.

Not appropriate for this article (see WP:MEDMOS#Notable cases, WP:NOT news, and Moscow has denied the claim). See centralized discussion at:Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Medicine#Vladimir_Putin_Asperger. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:18, 6 February 2015 (UTC)

Yeah - I agree. This certainly doesn't belong in this article. No way. You might want to add it to the article about Putin - but WP:BLP almost certainly disallows it. Adding long lists of famous people who may or may not have Aspergers is not productive...it's cruft. SteveBaker (talk) 03:20, 7 February 2015 (UTC)

However, the take-away is: "Experts have warned against the dangers of grouping people who struggle socially with those who have genuine disorders." -- AstroU (talk) 00:23, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Autism rights movement

This article should contain a section on the Autism Rights movement. The following is an excerpt from the Autism Rights movement article. ADeviloper (talk) 16:20, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The rainbow-colored infinity symbol represents the diversity of the autism spectrum as well as the greater neurodiversity movement.

The autism rights movement (ARM) is a social movement within the neurodiversity movement that encourages autistic people, their caregivers and society to adopt a position of neurodiversity, accepting autism as a variation in functioning rather than a mental disorder to be cured. The ARM advocates a variety of goals including a greater acceptance of autistic behaviors; therapies that teach autistic individuals coping skills rather than therapies focused on imitating behaviors of neurotypical peers; the creation of social networks and events that allow autistic people to socialize on their own terms; and the recognition of the autistic community as a minority group.

Autism rights or neurodiversity advocates believe that the autism spectrum is genetic and should be accepted as a natural expression of the human genome. This perspective is distinct from two other likewise distinct views: (1) the mainstream perspective that autism is caused by a genetic defect and should be addressed by targeting the autism gene(s) and (2) the perspective that autism is caused by environmental factors like vaccines and pollution and could be cured by addressing environmental causes.

The movement is controversial. A common criticism leveled against autistic activists is that the majority of them are high-functioning or have Asperger syndrome and do not represent the views of all autistic people.

Pubmed articles

Pubmed is a standard source for scientific articles in the medical community.

Articles on Autism in the context of neurodiversity:

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21311979
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22731976
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/19142310
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/22545843

This 2004 article, published in Nature, argues that Label of 'autism' could hold back gifted children:

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15152222

Two more articles on the correlation of Autism and genius:

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20630121
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11916333

Articles arguing that intelligence is typically underestimated in individuals with Autism:

• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25308198
• http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17680932

—ADeviloper (talk) 18:35, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

More sources

• https://soc.kuleuven.be/web/files/11/69/orteganeurodiversitybiosocieties.pdf
• http://emmashopebook.com/2014/06/17/an-argument-against-pathologizing-autism-what-others-had-to-say/
• https://autismandoughtisms.wordpress.com/2012/07/13/two-versions-of-pathologizing-normal/
• http://autismmythbusters.com/general-public/famous-autistic-people/
• http://www.nydailynews.com/life-style/health/autistic-boy-genius-iq-higher-einstein-article-1.1340923
• http://judgybitch.com/2013/07/21/aspergers-syndrome-is-it-just-another-way-of-pathologizing-creativity-and-genius-especially-male-creativity-and-genius-lets-get-on-our-tinfoil-hats/
• http://www.iidc.indiana.edu/index.php?pageId=598

—ADeviloper (talk) 18:19, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Some of those sources are independent. The Autism rights movement article actually has many. Not responding here further. Jytdog (talk) 18:37, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

comments

We need to use independent sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:30, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The content in question originated from the Autism rights movement article and provides essential knowledge for people on the spectrum.

What sources would you define as "independent" and would -- in your opinion -- qualify? — Preceding unsigned comment added by ADeviloper(talk • contribs) 16:09, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Well, something not from an autism rights group. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:11, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

Like the Huffington Post, you mean?! -> http://www.huffingtonpost.com/william-stillman/autism-the-last-human-rig_b_267266.html

Why don't articles written by Autism rights groups apply as a credible source on Autism rights groups? That's like saying the LGBT movement isn't a credible source on the LGBT movement, which — IMO — sounds ridiculous.

ADeviloper (talk) 17:42, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

please see WP:INDY - and yes, it would be stronger with more independent sources. It is not bad to use some sources from the group, but those are WP:SPS and the article is stronger with independent sources like the NY Times one that you do use. We tend to nomimate articles for deletion, that rely too much or only non-independent sources. See WP:NOTABILITY and in particular WP:GNG. I am not saying that ARM is not notable; what everyone here is saying is that you should use more independent sources. Jytdog (talk) 17:50, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

The Autism Rights Movement is notable within the Autistic community. It is not very well-known outside the Autistic community. As such, you'll find that articles dealing with the Autism Rights Movement are almost always written by staunch supporters or opponents of the movement.

In a world where objective articles have become increasingly rare, the amount of independent objective articles is rarely a strong indicator for the notoriety of a movement.

The same applies for many other social rights issues.

Two examples:

• The vast majority of articles about the LGBT movement are written by either staunch supporters or opponents of the movement.
• The vast majority of articles about the Gamergate controversy are written by either staunch supporters or opponents of the movement.

—ADeviloper (talk) 18:01, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

You have had feedback from other editors, and you will do as you will do. Jytdog (talk) 18:08, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

I added some articles

—ADeviloper (talk) 19:12, 8 February 2015 (UTC)

In Popular culture would be nice

A section dealing with this in popular culture would be nice per film Adam.--Inayity (talk) 22:38, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Please review WP:MEDORDER, and see the links in this section. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 22:46, 19 February 2015 (UTC)

Asperger's Syndrome language and Cognition

The diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome in the DSM 4 was not a good description saying that people with Asperger's Syndrome have no significant no clinically significant delay in cognitive development or general delay in language. There are records of significant delays in cognitive development and language in people with Asperger's Syndrome as well. The diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome should allow significant delays in cognitive development and language. In the Wikipedia site under characteristics it says that people with Asperger's Syndrome have no significant no clinically significant delay in cognitive development or general delay in language. That should be removed from the Wikipedia site about Asperger's Syndrome. Could or will that happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.18.195 (talk) 22:52, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

I believe I made a mistake in saying that there are records of significant delay in cognitive development in people with Asperger's Syndrome but there are records of people with Asperger's Syndrome who have had difficulty with cognition. It is true that there are people with Asperger's Syndrome who have language delay. The diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome should allow language delay.203.59.18.195 (talk) 10:50, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Asperger's Syndrome language and Cognition (Final Copy)

The diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome in the DSM 4 was not a good description saying that people with Asperger's Syndrome have no general delay in language. There are records of people with Asperger’s Syndrome who have had general language delay. The diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome should allow general language delay. In the Wikipedia site under characteristics it says that people with Asperger's Syndrome have no general delay in language. That should be removed from the Wikipedia site about Asperger's Syndrome. Could or will that happen? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.18.195 (talk) 04:59, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

You will need to find references for that, or, anything else for that matter. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:25, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Would you please stop posting duplicates of the same text to this page? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:49, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Yeah there's that too..... Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:28, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you delete some postings

Could you delete the oldest posting titled Asperger's Syndrome Language and Cognition which is not the final copy. Could you also delete the paragraph below it that starts with I believe I made a mistake. Then could you delete this posting. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.69.139.19 (talk) 14:39, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Could you delete another posting

Could you also delete what I posting that I posted titled Asperger's Syndrome Language and Cognition (Final Copy) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.69.139.19 (talk) 14:46, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Asperger’s Syndrome Language Delay References

Asperger’s Syndrome: A Clinical Account, Case 6, by Lorna Wing: He did not speak till the age of four.

Gillbergs Diagnostic Criteria for Asperger’s Syndrome: 4.Speech and language problems (at least three of the following) (a) delayed development (b) superficially perfect expressive language (c) formal, pedantic language (d) odd prosody, peculiar voice characteristics (e) impairment of comprehension including misinterpretations of literal/implied meanings.106.69.179.113 (talk) 10:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Nothing Has Changed

not about improving article content. WP:NOTFORUM Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I had to give up trying to remove the garbage from this article literally years ago, because so many liked the garbage and kept doing gang-reversion, and that this article has Featured status is a symptom of many of the reasons Wikipedia is regarded so poorly by so many. Cultural bigotry, giving expert status to "authorities" without actual scientific standing, insulting terminology toward people suffering under the syndrome, group editor elitism -- this was, frankly, fecal before and is still fecal now. I'm angry because I know I can't make changes which won't result in an editorial gang-assault any less than than before. This article helps nobody and damages many. As an article about a medical condition it is both rank and quackery, and every single one of you who feels no shame about it is either so ignorant you shouldn't be writing about medical issues or are quite possibly sociopathic. (And before any of you accuse me of violating AGF, I tried good faith back then -- my direct experience with this article was that good faith was non-existent on the part of others, so yes, I think you continue to write in bad faith, and that's why I'm so godsdamned angry.) -- Davidkevin (talk) 03:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC) your "direct experience" was nine years ago and your comments here offer no concrete suggestions to improve the article. i debated replying to you at all. Jytdog (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC) Then don't -- go back to the creation science and holocaust denial articles you think are so important. -- Davidkevin (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC) Do you have a change to propose backed by sources or are you just here to complain and attack editors? Because, if it is the latter that is not the point of this page. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC) I had tried to input documented evidence of possible fraud on the part of one of the biggest names in the field, that he let publicly slip that he made diagnoses based on which television programs people liked, but his apparent fan club would not let it stay in the article despite a reliable source. Misdiagnosis of this syndrome affects people's lives -- it prevents security clearances, it disqualifies people from certain professions, it hangs a "disabled" label on people who are not. Yet editors blithely decided that evidence that one of the biggest names in the field had no actual training in diagnosing the syndrome wasn't allowed; rank speculation that historical figures had it was allowed, that current notable people had it was allowed (written by editors only knowing them by reputation, and with no professional qualifications to make such a judgment even in person); that people had it based on what winter coats they wore, or if they liked to relax by watching trains go by. This is medievalism of the basest sort, no more valid than the attitude that the elderly woman in the hutch next door could be a Witch because your cow's milk soured. When based on a liking for a certain kind of book or television program, it becomes cultural bigotry, "culturism", if you will, and no evidence of this was allowed in the article, and it is clear that no evidence of it is allowed now. As I said nothing has changed. And yes, it still angers me that truth is not allowed and falsehood has continued to be allowed in an article which is purported to be accurate, sourced, and encyclopedic, and even mis-labeled as exemplary. -- Davidkevin (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Censoring in the Name of Editing

WP:NOTFORUM Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To answer the question last asked of me, I had tried to input documented evidence of possible fraud on the part of one of the biggest names in the field, that he let publicly slip that he made diagnoses based on which television programs people liked, but his apparent fan club would not let it stay in the article despite a reliable source. Misdiagnosis of this syndrome affects people's lives -- it prevents security clearances, it disqualifies people from certain professions, it hangs a "disabled" label on people who are not. Yet editors blithely decided that evidence that one of the biggest names in the field had no actual training in diagnosing the syndrome wasn't allowed; rank speculation that historical figures had it was allowed, that current notable people had it was allowed (written by editors only knowing them by reputation, and with no professional qualifications to make such a judgment even in person); that people had it based on what winter coats they wore, or if they liked to relax by watching trains go by. This is medievalism of the basest sort, no more valid than the attitude that the elderly woman in the hutch next door could be a Witch because your cow's milk soured. When based on a liking for a certain kind of book or television program, it becomes cultural bigotry, "culturism", if you will, and no evidence of this was allowed in the article, and it is clear that no evidence of it is allowed now. You have proved my very point -- your action says in effect "Even reliably sourced information of this kind must not be allowed to stand." As I said nothing has changed. And yes, it still angers me that truth is not allowed and falsehood has continued to be allowed in an article which is purported to be accurate, sourced, and encyclopedic, and even mis-labeled as exemplary. -- Davidkevin (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Global Burden study

Doc James, the Global Burden study looks like it says Asperger syndrome affects an estimated 31,100*1000 people to me, i.e., 31.1 million, rather than 29 million. Am I reading that correctly? KateWishing (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

Thanks. I mistyped. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:56, 5 July 2015 (UTC)

DSM-5 vs ICD-10

There is a substantial distinction between the American subsumption of Asperger's into "autism spectrum disorder" and the international, ICD-10 practice of maintaining the distinction. American medical accounts are billed under the ICD, not under the DSM. Accordingly, there is a substantial dispute among bureaucrats as to whether Asperger's is indistinguishable from "autism spectrum disorders." This issue needs to be written into the article. Are there any objections to my doing so? Svend la Rose (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

You'll need sources that comment on the issue. As this is a pretty mature article, maybe bring it here first for comment. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

New wikipedian category for us aspies ....

I have created this new category for us bunch that have Aspergers: Category:Wikipedian aspies

It is in the same format as:

• Category:Wikipedian chefs
• Category:Wikipedian psychologists
• Category:Wikipedian pianists

But we already have: Category:Wikipedians with Asperger syndrome - shouldn't this just be a redirect or something? (Can you have redirected categories? I have no idea.)

Anyway - it's a duplicate - and we shouldn't have it. SteveBaker (talk) 05:47, 9 August 2015 (UTC)

The vaccine thing has been

...put to bed and debunked as junk science at this point, right? --RThompson82 (talk) 01:18, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

Yes. Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:47, 14 August 2015 (UTC)

content to consider adding: differential diagnosis and flat affect

There's a section in the main diagnosis article with a more comprehensive differential diagnosis - might need a better source:

Other problems to be considered in the differential diagnosis include selective mutism, stereotypic movement disorder and bipolar disorder as well as traumatic brain injury or birth trauma, conduct disorder, Cornelia De Lange syndrome, fetal alcohol syndrome, fragile X syndrome, dyslexia, Fahr syndrome, hyperlexia, leukodystrophy, multiple sclerosis and Triple X syndrome.

I also understand that many people with AS and HFA present with flat affect without necessarily being depressed etc - mentions of limited facial expression in this article don't seem to sufficiently cover that. Something to consider looking into considering the significance of affect in social communication and differential diagnosis.--Humorideas (talk) 09:51, 11 October 2015 (UTC)

Listen.

WHY THE HECK is this page in WikiProject Disabilities!??! This is NOT A DISORDER, A DISABILITY, OR ANYTHING AT ALL IN THAT AREA. OmegaBuddy¹³_{find me here} 20:46, 26 October 2015 (UTC) (P.S I have AS, and whoever put this in WikiProject Disabilities, I'm mad at them.)

First off, no need to shout. Secondly, multiple reliable sources call it a disorder. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:27, 26 October 2015 (UTC)

The image is bullcrap, and I have the reasons why

Let me explain why that entire freaking infobox image needs to be completely replaced

• That is a toddler. Toddlers are too young to be diagnosed with asperger's, as they do not yet display most of the symptoms.
• As someone who regularly works with toddlers, I can tell you normal toddlers do this crap. He's building a tower, like any other toddler likes to do. Maybe later he'll even knock it over. When he gets older, he'll probably try to build a castle or house instead of a toddler. This is normal behavior for toddlers.
• As someone with Asperger's who has taken multiple psychology classes and interacted with people on all ends of the autistic spectrum, I can tell you stacking things is not an example of a "restricted interest" in any way, shape, or form. Not even close. Restricted interest is being obsessed with trains and cars or reading all they can about Ancient Egypt. Stacking cans is not an interest. Suggesting it is one is an extreme insult to the intelligence of those with Asperger's not to mention extremely ableist.

In other words, GET YOUR S*** TOGETHER, YOU MORONS. This article is insulting to people with asperger's everywhere, and extremely misleading. It has caused me to go into a depression in the past because of how bad the bullcrap in this article is. --50.106.250.204 (talk) 02:04, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

• Toddlers are diagnosed on the spectrum.
• Children on the spectrum can and do get fixated on building towers. And stacking things. There's nothing wrong with the photo.
• When you've met one child with autism, you've only met one child with autism. It's not best practice, nor is it appropriate, to say "They all do <this>" or "None of them do <this>".
• The attitude you are displaying along with the name calling will get you nowhere in Wikipedia. As an editor who also has Asperger's, I will say the following: if what's in the article causes you to become depressed, don't read it.

-- WV ● ✉ ✓ 02:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

According to the mom who took the pic, the kid has autism. Maybe the caption for the pic is too "restrictive" and should include, repetitive and other symptoms. My first thought when looking at the pic is lots of kids stack blocks and cans. Maybe someone looking at this article may jump to conclusions because their kid likes to stack blocks/cans? Raquel Baranow (talk) 02:49, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Maybe. But look very close at the photo. The kid isn't just stacking cans, he's stacking them perfectly. And I doubt anyone will jump to conclusions by looking at the photo. There's a whole article to read, after all.  :-) -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 03:34, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I have to say, I'm not a fan of the new image either. It was added to the article without explanation a couple of days ago, replacing this image of a boy building molecular structures out of Geomags, which seems to me to be much more relevant and appropriate. As the OP says, toddlers like to stack things. There's nothing necessarily autistic about that. DoctorKubla (talk) 12:09, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I also agree that the image does not necessarily represent Asperger's, nor any other part of the autism spectrum, in part because it is difficult for a still image to demonstrate repetitive behavior. Perhaps we need a video that shows repetitive behavior, instead of a still image. Also, it is important to keep in mind the WP:BLP issues inherent in stating that any particular individual in an image has Asperger's. Etamni | ✉ | ✓  12:21, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I have no idea why the image was changed, it was changed without discussion and while I find the OP's behaviour unacceptable he/she has a point. (Oh and IP you could have made that point without calling everyone 'morons'). I think we ought to change it back as the old image had been there for a very long time, showing consensus. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:17, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

As someone with Asperger Syndrome, I guess I'm finding these comments somewhat amusing. Exactly what preconceived notion do you all have of what a child with Asperger's does? Why not include the previous photo as well as the new one? The new one doesn't bother me (and Aspie) one bit. I see children on the spectrum doing what that one is doing all the time. Like I said, he's stacking them perfectly as a spectrum child would do - and, it is a child on the spectrum, so, what's the issue? The only point the OP has is that he also has a preconceived notion of what kind of photo represents a child with Asperger's (and incorrectly states that toddlers are not diagnosed, which is summarily wrong). As I said above, if you've met one child with autism, you've only met one child with autism. They are cookie cutter examples nor are they all savants as the photo of a boy building molecular structures out of Geomags could suggest to editors and readers alike. I reject that photo as the top of the article photo for that reason alone. Both photos can be in the article, problem solved. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 17:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I don't really have much of an issue with having both. As an aside, I have a son with autism, and, I have read much of the literature and I have a PhD in psychology, that though is not important. I guess the question comes down to this, do two images do a better job of illustrating the topic than one? Dbrodbeck (talk) 17:38, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

I'm certain they do. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 20:11, 30 December 2015 (UTC)

Are you suggesting that neither image should be in the infobox, but they should both instead be in the body of the article? The problem with that is that the only appropriate place in the article to put them would be the short subsection entitled "Restricted and repetitive interests and behavior", and cramming two pictures into that section would be a little awkward. I don't see any reason to include two pictures basically illustrating the same concept, and since the original picture was in the article for years without complaint, and the new one generated almost immediate controversy, we should consider the original to have the weight of consensus behind it. DoctorKubla (talk) 11:07, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

I think that the image is fine. Having AS myself, I like to have things like pens lined up perfectly, so this is an example of how some of us are perfectionists (and that isn't a negative thing).

Personally, I say keep it there on its own. It was better than the other one, as perfectionism applies to more people with AS than scientific interests. Chesnaught555 (talk) 18:32, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

If we were to keep two then we would have to decide the one for the infobox. This makes things more complicated. I have no idea why the other one was changed. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:45, 31 December 2015 (UTC)

We don't need to keep both of them, because of a) this and b) what another editor and I have said previously in regards to the "autistic savant" impression and scientific interests. Chesnaught555 (talk) 15:02, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

EDIT: I agree that the OP's approach to this matter is unacceptable. Good Wikipedia editors should be WP:CIVIL when dealing with anything on here, let alone controversial topics like this. Chesnaught555 (talk) 15:21, 1 January 2016 (UTC)

Existence of Asperger's

Myriad writers have doubted the existence of Asperger's, and see it as an excuse for poor behaviour and/or parenting, and even a fashion statement. I would like to see more about this within the article. 5.69.3.92 (talk) 15:12, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Unless you can find reliable sources to cite, this would be WP:FRINGE, and WP:UNDUE. Boomer Vial^Holla 15:16, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

A little itty bitty Google search does the job. 5.69.3.92 (talk) 15:22, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

Then feel free to find the sources, and add your additions with the cites. Boomer Vial^Holla 15:23, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

So much of this is outdated and wrong

It's extremely obvious that no people with Aspergers are allowed to edit this page. Many sources are outdated and proven to be incorrect. The page still refers to Aspergers as having a lack of empathy, which is beyond incorrect. No mention of the Intense World theory anywhere, and a general complete misunderstanding on characteristics altogether. This Wiki page is embarrassing. Microbat98 (talk) 15:43, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Nobody is prevented from editing based on their being on the spectrum, or not being. We go by sources, provide some and suggest an edit please. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:57, 10 January 2016 (UTC)

Please change the hilariously outdates 'Asperger's have no empathy' mentions on the page. Even if the Intense World theory is wrong, it's been very clear that we have empathy for a long time, and most sources on this in the article are outdated. http://journal.frontiersin.org/article/10.3389/fnhum.2010.00224/abstract https://www.psychologytoday.com/blog/feeling-too-much/201407/kids-autism-live-in-intense-world http://wrongplanet.net/interview-henry-and-kamila-markram-about-the-intense-world-theory-for-autism/ Microbat98 (talk) 11:41, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

The Frontiers paper is a decent source. It has been cited 154 times, and could probably be added under 'mechanism'. Let's see what others think. I wonder if it could be integrated into our article. The other two are not (see WP:MEDRS). The stuff you want removed is referenced. Not liking something is not a reason to remove it. Indeed the Frontiers paper mentions empathy once, followed by the word 'defects' Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:12, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

I thought I would reply here to say that I have also been a little perturbed by two things about the article as it is. Firstly, as Microbat98 infers, the article and its sources need ot be refreshed. Secondly, the DMOZ page provided under external links, or rather the 25 sites listed there, is quite antithetical to the intention of providing guidance when it comes to external sources as per WP Policy. Broken sites, repetitive link mononopoly, and personal commercial offerings. I am a relative newcommer to Wikipedia, and am very slow, tending to work on original or major expansions of small articles, spending around a month on each one. I have also never worked on an article that has been 'featured' before. However, I am just finishing a major update of another article that I intend to post in the next 48 hours. I would like to take on the challenge of dilligently updating the Asperger Syndrome article and would welcome input. Anyone can edit it Microbat98, so I do not agree with your statement about being obvious that no people with Aspergers are allowed to edit this page, but I do empathize with your frustration, I do agree that the article is out of date, and I am sufficently familair with the subject and 'perhaps' now brave enough to take a previously featured article on. So speak up, and try to identify in a little more detail the areas of the article you believe need amending and how. I think if you do that you'll get a lot of support from editors. Thanks for your courage in speaking up! Prolumbo (talk) 23:01, 11 January 2016 (UTC)

While I agree that empathy is present, just not well expressed or reduced in Aspies, please note, that I have done edits on this page and many others, So your statement about, "People with Aspergers not being able to edit this article", is just wrong. You, me and anyone/everyone with and without having Aspergers can and do edit this page. I think the lack of people with Aspergers editing this page to your liking-if that is what you are concerned about-as the real problem, could be rectified by some editing/fixing/rejigging yourself, to adjust the imbalance. I would also like the article fixed-up, my problem is, that I'm just too busy with other things right now. There is always room for improvement. However, Cheers!Read-write-services (talk) 22:56, 2 February 2016 (UTC)

I originally came across this page before I was formally diagnosed with Asperger's. I have since also been diagnosed with ADHD and Gender Disphoria. A lot of recent research regarding Asperger's needs to be added to this page because many experts in this field are resisting change. This is not a balanced view of Asperger's and it is quickly becoming an article which is misguiding. JuniWebb (talk) 18:07, 13 December 2016 (UTC)

Why only pictures of children?

I personally think there's a huge issue with people, therapists and the like infantilizing people with Asperger's/autistic people in general, especially considering that those people grow up to be autistic adults. So I don't think it's much help to have only pictures of children on this Wikipedia article. Wikipedia is a site where many, MANY, people look up information, most of which don't bother to look at any other page or website for information. So I wanted to post this here to hear other editors' thoughts about this. --Markhoris (talk) 18:42, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

Sure. are you aware of any public domain pictures of adults with AS? If so feel free to add them. This is a good idea. Jytdog (talk) 19:18, 9 March 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Asperger syndrome. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://www.autismresearchcentre.com/docs/papers/2006_BC_Neuropsychophamacology.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 14:54, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

Objection to clumsiness content

User:Thetruthwater856870321868 has now twice removed a bit of content discussing clumsiness, here and again here after it was restored Please tell us your objection to this. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 23:19, 1 April 2016 (UTC)

April 2 - United Nations World Autism Awareness Day

Thought this was valuable to mention in the article, but it got removed. Maybe you can improve and insert it without being removed. Grtz --SvenAERTS (talk) 00:28, 5 April 2016 (UTC)

The United Nations holds a calender with observances - days, weeks, months, years and decades. With resolution - A/RES/62/139 - the United Nations General Assembly unanimously declared 2 April as World Autism Awareness Day to highlight the need to help improve the quality of life of those with autism so they can lead full and meaningful lives as an integral part of society. The day is supported by several of the Sustainable Development Goals and its main slogan "Leave no one behind". Every year, the day is dedicated to different topic important to Autism and spreading knowledge about a specific aspect of autism into the worldwide society. In 2016, the lead topic was "“Autism and the 2030 Agenda: Inclusion and Neurodiversity”. As usual a dedicated session was organised in the United Nations Headquarters in New York - in 2016, it was from 10 am to 18 pm and also as usual the Secretary General Ban KI-MOON left a video message. − − More: http://www.un.org/en/events/autismday/index.shtml

References

Semi-protected edit request on 17 June 2016

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

Please discuss the merge at Talk:High-functioning autism/Archive 1#Merge discussion. This section was about the edit request that placed the template on the page. Thanks. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 00:12, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

---

Because I have proposed a merge with High-functioning autism, the merge to template should be added. 67.166.200.75 (talk) 18:01, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose anyway Andy Dingley (talk) 18:42, 17 June 2016 (UTC)
• Done as a satisfaction of a technical request. @Andy Dingley: looks like the discussion needs to happen at Talk:High-functioning autism. — Andy W. (talk · ctb) 23:15, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

• Strong oppose and it is disruptive to tag a featured article for merger, since a Featured article can only "go away" via a Featured article review. Furthermore, this discussion has been had many times, for instance, at Talk:Asperger_syndrome/Archive_24#Merging_Page_With_Autism. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 23:38, 17 June 2016 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section.

Genetic basis

The lede states there is likely a "genetic basis". This is ridiculous and I demand an authoritative reference which specifically says the basis is likely entirely genetic. Almost certainly, the basis is partly environmental - whether in utero or post natal is yet to be determined. Not only is part of the "basis" likely to be environmental, but it is also possible that there are contributions from epigenetic factors. The lede needs to be changed to say that it is likely that differences in genetics (whether inherited or random mutations is unknown) contribute to the syndrome, not that they form the basis for it. (It goes without saying that genes are part of the necessary basis for a human being to reach adulthood, hence form part of the basis for any human behavior or dysfunction (or anything alive for that matter)).Abitslow (talk) 19:57, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Every sentence in the lead has a reference. You can click on the references to see what the supporting source says. Here you are https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16721407 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:23, 18 June 2016 (UTC)

Simplified?

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

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

Lead image

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

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

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

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

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

I found this in the archives. -- ChamithN (talk) 04:57, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

The discussion happened right after the introduction of the image I mentioned above with no clear consensus. I'd say keep it blank. --glossologist (talk) 05:05, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I am curious as to what was wrong with the other image. Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:09, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• I'd be happy to have the boy-with-molecular-structure image restored if for no other reason than it seems to go better with article content "Diagnosis is most commonly made between the ages of four and eleven." So I'd rather have an image of a child in that age range, and the toddler picture doesn't fit it. Zad68 12:16, 11 April 2016 (UTC)
• Well before we remove it we should have consensus. I think the current image is better than nothing. Do you have something better to propose? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:26, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Nothing would indeed be better than this image. This image is simply wrong. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:36, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Been here for a long time. I do not see it a being a significant issue. It is representing a common symptoms of the condition. Start a RfC if you wish to get consensus for removal. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:38, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

I started a talk: page discussion. Consensus was to remove it, so it was removed.

There is little need for an image here. People with Asperger's do not have horns and forked tails which need to be illustrated. They certainly don't need to be portrayed as toddlers capable of little more than block stacking. Andy Dingley (talk) 15:50, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

No, there never was a consensus to remove the image. You initiated a talk page discussion, then Glossologist hastily removed the image, without letting the discussion to progress. I don't think just two people can reach a consensus concerning a page with 1,506 page watchers; that would be inequitable. You might want to RFC as Doc James suggested. -- ChamithN (talk) 19:22, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

• Remove. Doesn’t belong in the lead (see WP:LEADIMAGE). It does not clearly illustrate or further my understanding of the subject. It shows a kid doing something all kids might do, so if anything, this image is confusing. Its only relevance is that it has the word autism in the caption. As Glossologist and ChamithN mentioned above, the stacking cans image hasn’t been there that long (Dec) and it replaced the previous image without consensus and despite contention. Back in December, the argument for keeping it was, “The kid isn't just stacking cans, he's stacking them perfectly.” Developmentally, we’d expect a kid to be stacking things by this age[5] and advanced stacking is not a feature of Asperger’s as far as I’m aware. How does this one image show his fixated interest? To me, it shows a kid who was bored waiting for dinner to be ready. I’d also like to note that this same exact image was inserted into a number of articles in the past few months. It’s currently the lead photo on Autism and I removed it from the OCD article in February (See discussion on Talk:OCD). PermStrump(talk) 20:49, 11 April 2016 (UTC)

Replace the picture of the boy with one of Ignatius J. Reilly and we'll be all set. Motsebboh (talk) 02:42, 12 April 2016 (UTC)

Remove As a person with Asperger's, I think that this does not represent most people with it. This is probably a picture of a kid with autism, so just put a picture of Hans Asperger on the lead and it will be fine. [[User: ]]

Not sure what happened to the signature above, but from the edit history, looks like it was ThePlatypusofDoom. IMHO this is the best suggestion for a picture so far. What are other people's thoughts? Pinging other people who commented since this thread is getting old: @Andy Dingley, Glossologist, Zad68, Doc James, and ChamithN:. Sorry if I missed anyone. PermStrump(talk) 01:44, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

It'd prefer an image with a child of diagnosis age exhibiting a characteristic. The image of Asperger is a second choice, but it does appear to have a child of the right age in it. Hard to tell. Probably better than the boy with cans... I don't feel strongly in favor though. Zad68 02:27, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Hans Aspergers, boy looking at a molecular structure, leaving the box blank—anything would be immensely better than the photo of a toddler copied from the Autism page without providing any reason. However, I would frankly give preference to no photo, since, as one user mentioned above, the page is overwhelmed with children (all three pieces of media with people—lead image, ASD explanation video, Autism Awareness photo—have children in it), as if the syndrome doesn't affect adults. The child's photo also equally to the one of the toddler makes a poorly informed reader think that Aspergers is a disorder akin to intellectual disability (like Down syndrome) or, in other words, that people with Aspergers are of that "mentally retarded" kind of people. --glossologist (talk) 07:01, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

The photo of Asperger has a disused NFC FUR on it, suggesting that it was here once but was removed - possibly by the NFC police. There is one, very active, editor to whom this would be like a red rag to a bull. Andy Dingley (talk) 09:00, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Although Asperger is the best choice, in my opinion, there are a multitude of famous scientists believed to have Asperger's, such as Paul Dirac. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 13:55, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

What image are we discussing? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:52, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

• no to pictures of anyone speculatively diagnosed. the pic of Asperger is the least objectionable but a) it still is a picture of a kid instead of an adult with aspergers (if the kid has aspergers); b) maybe more importantly,, it kind of "institutionalizes" the condition by having the white-coated doctor, so for those reasons it is still objectionable. I don't understand how the riboflavin image is relevant. i did a google image search and found nothing useful, and scanned the NIH and found nothing useful. my preference would be no image.
• Comment Due to all the pictures being of kids, if we do not put an adult on the lead image, we still need to show some adults with Asperger's. ThePlatypusofDoom (talk) 18:36, 27 April 2016 (UTC)

Images under discussion

Image from a few weeks ago

Current image (also at Autism)

Lead/Infobox images under discussion

Moving forward

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

The one on the left was there for a very long time, years. Dbrodbeck (talk) 20:31, 9 June 2016 (UTC)

Perhaps a famous person with Aspergers should be placed there...I think that the toddler/young person photos are almost irrelevant. As someone said earlier-most kids do those activities anyway, what is the image supposedly trying to show/prove? Perhaps a photo showing a more mature person (adult with Aspergers) might be a useful addition? cheers Read-write-services (talk) 03:19, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

Consensus seems to be that no picture is better than the current picture of the toddler stacking cans. I like Read-write-services's suggestion of a famous person with Aspergers. Or someone's suggestion from a few months ago to use a photo of Hans Asperger. —PermStrump(talk) 07:01, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

We had a photo of Hans a few years back, the problem is we can't find one that is free to use. If someone could find one that would be outstanding. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

How about a photo of John Elder Robison? He has Aspergers, and he's a prominent autism activist. It sounds like he would be willing to have his picture be posted, according to his comments near the bottom of this page: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/John_Elder_Robison. CatPath (talk) 17:59, 10 June 2016 (UTC)

@CatPath: Great idea. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 20:34, 13 June 2016 (UTC)

I'm just going to WP:BEBOLD and fix it. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 10:53, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

Let's keep this one until we decide on a photo. ThePlatypusofDoom (Talk) 10:58, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I just uploaded this photo of Robison onto Wikipedia Commons. CatPath (talk) 21:32, 15 June 2016 (UTC)

I originally replaced the image a while ago. An image of a boy interested in molecular structures implies that people with Asperger's generally have constructive specialized interests, when there is no evidence to indicate so. Additionally, there are many people with constructive specialized interests that do not have Asperger's, including people at the top of their fields. Overall, it would make sense to put a picture of Hans Asperger and to WP:BEBOLD, since the syndrome was named after him. Ylevental (talk) 02:49, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

I am not a big fan of the picture of Hans Asperger's for the lead image. Therefore restored the prior one. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:14, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Concur with Doc James. Image is blurry. Ylevental, please do not use the summary "WP:BEBOLD" when consensus has determined the image as unfavourable. --PatientZero ^talk 18:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

• Now that I have seen doctor asperger image that Ylevental implemented, I like it. It anchors the article in history, is not controversial in relevance, and is actually illustrative of something. it is the best option I have seen for this. I ask others to reconsider. Jytdog (talk) 18:45, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Just to let others know, if the previous pic was too blurry, then also look at this one. Ylevental (talk) 18:53, 22 June 2016 (UTC) File:Hans Asperger.jpg

• I like it. —PermStrump(talk) 19:13, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Ylental that image is better. But please do be patient and let consensus develop. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 19:31, 22 June 2016 (UTC)

Would be useful to have a RfC to clarify consensus as this has been a controversial subject. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:13, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

sounds good to me. Jytdog (talk) 06:35, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Done. Someone with a stronger opinion may want to chime in soon. —PermStrump(talk) 06:55, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Non-free historic file version of image

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

Images for discussion

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

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

I'm not sure I understand your new proposal. Are you suggesting a different image? —PermStrump(talk) 20:19, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Technically, it's the same image, but it's hosted on en.wikipedia.org under a different file name, not commons.wikimedia.org. This is because it's most likely a non-free historic image, which I tried uploading on commons.wikimedia.org, but Wikimedia Commons doesn't accept non-free historic images. Hopefully, this makes sense. Ylevental (talk) 20:25, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

Ylevental please wait until we figure out to work with this image and its licensing. Slow down. Jytdog (talk) 00:13, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Please do not display File:Hans Asperger Vienna.jpg on this page. It is marked as a non-free image, and WP:NFCCP#9 is clear: "Non-free content is allowed ... only in article namespace. (images are linked, not inlined, from talk pages when they are a topic of discussion.)" --Redrose64 (talk) 23:55, 25 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Redrose64 can we put that image in the article at all? To show you how we would use it minimally, I have added it to the history section. I understand that the image has to actually be used in order to remain in WP. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 00:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Use in an article satisfies WP:NFCCP#9, but there are nine other criteria which must also be met. In particular:

• How is WP:NFCCP#1 (no free equivalent) satisfied?
• How is WP:NFCCP#8 (contextual significance) satisfied?

None of the criteria are optional. --Redrose64 (talk) 00:37, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I have updated the description at the image, here, to more explicitly address the criteria; I think the uploader did not do such a good job of that; I have also cut the resolution in half. User:Redrose64 would you please review and let us know whether in your view the use of the image is justifed? Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 01:09, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

As you realised, most of the criteria are demonstrated by filling in the various parameters of the {{Non-free use rationale 2}} template. However, there seems to be a misunderstanding of the term "minimal use", both in the |Minimality=This image will only be used on the article Asperger syndrome. parameter of that template and in the comment above posted by Jytdog at 00:11, 26 June 2016 (UTC). WP:NFCCP#3 has two sub-criteria, neither of them concern the number of different articles that the image is used in. Criterion 3a is concerned with the number of different non-free images that are used in the same article; criterion 3b is concerned with the presence of unnecessary detail in the image. These are expanded upon at WP:NONFREE#Meeting the minimal usage criterion. --Redrose64 (talk) 09:41, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I am done trying here; others can take this forward. Jytdog (talk) 10:06, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

I tried updating WP:NFCCP#3, hopefully this works Ylevental (talk) 13:51, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Ylevntal you removed the image of the history section. If the image is not actually used in the article, it is subject to deletion. I reverted. Jytdog (talk) 22:05, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

Discussion at help board

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

• In my opinion, the non-free image cannot be put into the infobox because of WP:NFCC#1; pictures of autistic people with special interests - with or without physicians - can easily and reasonably be created as free images. Even if the current infobox image is not illustrative enough - something I'd contest, as an aside - free image equivalents for the non-free image scene are not impossible to create. As for using the image in the history section, does the image illustrate a specific scene of historic importance? If so that would make the inclusion there much more justifiable in terms of both WP:NFCC#8 and WP:NFCC#1. Final thought: Has someone tried to clarify the copyright status of the image? Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 22:22, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• However, the intended purpose of the non-free image isn't to show an autistic child (If I'm reading what you are saying correctly). The intended purpose is to show a picture of Dr. Hans Asperger, who first documented symptoms of Asperger syndrome and whom the condition was named after. The physician in the pic is Dr. Asperger.

The problem with showing a alleged special interest is that it is not known if a special interest display is the best way to visualize Asperger syndrome, as many people without the condition have special interests and not all autistics have defined special interests (the percentage is unknown). Ylevental (talk) 23:33, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

• Jo-Jo Eumerus: Thanks for the explanation. As Ylevental said, the priority is showing an image of Dr. Hans Asperger in the lead as lengthy discussion over several months (years?) has not led to consensus about other images, mainly because it seems next to impossible to find an image of someone with Asperger's disorder that is illustrative of all, or even most, people with the disorder, or that enhances understanding of the topic without reinforcing stereotypes. There are several editors who specifically don't like the current lead image for the reasons Ylevental already mentioned and various other reasons. Does the fact that we like the non-free image because it features Dr. Hans Asperger change whether it's justifiable to use in the infobox? Jo-Jo asked, "Has someone tried to clarify the copyright status of the image?" How would one go about that? —PermStrump(talk) 02:42, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

  I don't know if displaying a non-free photo of Hans Asperger in the lead infobox would meet WP:NFCC#8 - does his image significantly increase the understanding of the article topic? I don't feel so. As for the copyright question, Maria Asperger Felder - according to the filepage the author/copyright holder does currently live in Switzerland.Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk, contributions) 09:53, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

• User:Jo-Jo Eumerus thanks very much for applying what you know. That is so, incredibly valuable. That is enough for me, on the infobox issue. One more question - is the image OK in the History section, in your view? If so, then we can move on from this issue and go back to looking for a better infobox image. Jytdog (talk) 10:14, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

Merge with High-functioning autism

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

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

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

RfC: Proposal to change lead image to photo of Hans Asperger

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

Images for discussion

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

File:Hans_Asperger_Vienna.jpg Proposed: Hans Asperger

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

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

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

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

Discussion

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

Hm, yes this is dubious... Jytdog (talk) 12:25, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Oh no. (In reference to myself) you know what they say when you assume... Mind explaining what makes it dubious? Tbh I've always let other editors bother with that, because I don't know what I'd be looking for. —PermStrump(talk) 14:45, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The person who uploaded it said it was his "own work" and there is no way that is true. Also if you do a google image search you will see an uncropped version here for example with a note "Courtesy of Maria Asperger Felder" and more worryingly it is in the NeuroTribes book which published in august 2015 (the image was uploaded t was uploaded 8 September 2015) and the image was widely used in news pieces about the book, like here (no attribution) and here (again Courtesy of Maria Asperger Felder") So the uploader lied and it is not clear to me who owns the copyright, but it wasn't the uploader's to license. Jytdog (talk) 15:41, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

this version has much more appropriate uploading/licensing information. Jytdog (talk) 15:44, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Hans Asperger.jpg is now under discussion at c:Commons:Deletion requests/File:Hans Asperger.jpg. --Redrose64 (talk) 16:36, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I believe that the file can stay under Template:Non-free_historic_image guidelines. Your thoughts? Ylevental (talk) 17:29, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I just uploaded it using the rationale Ylevental (talk) 18:06, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

File:Hans Asperger Vienna.jpg

You put |Date=August 2015 which is blatantly false. --Redrose64 (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

My apologies, I thought that they meant the date of publication, not the date of creation. The sources say it was taken in the 1930s. But I have a clearly labeled source. Ylevental (talk) 20:42, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

We might want to look at this old discussion [6]. Dbrodbeck (talk) 16:50, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

The Commons has views on copyright and licensing that I don't understand and I try to avoid getting into discussions of what they will do over there (which is why I didn't nominate it myself for deletion); in my view it is a waste of time for us to discuss here. We should probably put the RfC on hold until we know whether there is an image that we can use. Putting an image through file deletion over there is one way to get that community to validate or remove it and once they have done that, we could resume... Jytdog (talk) 21:46, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

I reuploaded it on Wikipedia using Template:Non-free historic image under File:Hans Asperger Vienna.jpg, not sure if it qualifies or not Ylevental (talk) 21:56, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

If you are going to use any non-free image you must ensure that all ten WP:NFCCP criteria are complied with. I draw your attention in particular to WP:NFCCP#9 which shows that usage outside of article space - such as on this discussion page - is prohibited; but I should also point out WP:NFCCP#1: non-free content is used only where no free equivalent is available, or could be created, that would serve the same encyclopedic purpose. Therefore, before you can contemplate using a non-free image in the article Asperger syndrome, you must be able to demonstrate that there are no free-use images that could illustrate the topic. --Redrose64 (talk) 22:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

• User:Permstrump the only thing helpful in the answer above is "before you can contemplate using a non-free image....." Please terminate the RfC until people who have the patience to deal with this byzantine shit can figure out if we should take up the community's time asking about this image. Jytdog (talk) 23:15, 23 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Do NOT call me a "byzantine shit". You want to be taken to ANI? --Redrose64 (talk) 23:17, 23 June 2016 (UTC) OK. --Redrose64 (talk) 08:08, 24 June 2016 (UTC)
    • In his defense, I think he was talking about the Wikimedia commons process but I'm not sure if its appropriate to use this language regardless. Ylevental (talk) 23:27, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

User:Redrose64 please strike. I came no where near calling you anything. If you see the comments I made in this subsection, I am obviously commenting on the way images are handled here and in the commons - that is the "byzantine shit". Not you. I am sorry you thought that, as that was not my intention. I did say that the only thing helpful in what you wrote is that we "should not contemplate"; we are no closer to knowing if we can use the image but hey at least we won't waste the community's time while we try to figure that out. I wish that when folks knew stuff they would pitch in and help actually answer the question but at least you saved us from wasting people's time. that is better than nothing. Jytdog (talk) 23:34, 23 June 2016 (UTC)

Jytdog: Before you said this, I had made a comment at the bottom of the RfC saying it was paused pending the outcome of the file deletion discussion on commons. Should I actually delete the template? I wasn't if that would break something. (I never started an RfC before if you can't tell.) —PermStrump(talk) 04:04, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

Yes to terminate the RfC you just delete the {{RFC}} tag, which kills the broadcast - nobody put the person who starts the RfC has the right to do that. :) Jytdog (talk) 04:17, 24 June 2016 (UTC)

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

RfC: Proposal to remove lead image altogether from the article

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

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

I was going to suggest Temple Grandin too. If we have a usable image of her, we can try another RfC. What do other people think? —PermStrump(talk) 20:28, 27 June 2016 (UTC)

I skimmed this too quickly the first time and overlooked the section title. TBH, I can see an argument for every image that's been suggested except the little boy with the cans, so I'm trying to be agreeable to get something settled. My strongest support is for no lead image since I think it's impossible to find one that everyone will agree meets the criteria in WP:LEADIMAGE. It seemed like we might have had a majority of editors supporting the use of the Hans Aspergers photo for lack of a better option, but in the end, it doesn't seem it was representative of the topic or I think we would have been able to use the non-free image. In my limited experience, it doesn't seem like editors tend to agree on going from having a lead image to having no lead image, so if we can't get consensus on that, maybe there's a good chance of agreeing on an image of Temple Grandin with a carefully worded caption to make sure its relevance is explicitly clear. I assume we'd be able to use one of the images from her BLP? —PermStrump(talk) 03:40, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Dr Grandin, as a well-known declared AS person influential in the field, will do. --A D Monroe III (talk) 14:33, 28 June 2016 (UTC)

Should we begin with gathering pictures people think are appropriate? And than set up a RfC with support / oppose for each? The one with the most supports we use. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 16:45, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Seriously? Remove the image from the lede altogether? A temper tantrum move coming from Ylevental as he can't have a picture of Hans Asperger within the article. This RfC should not be opened: the image we have right now is absolutely fine. --PatientZero ^talk 18:41, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• No to removing the image and definite 'No' to replacing the image with one of Dr. Grandin. why on earth would anyone want to replace a neutral image of an unknown individual who represents part of what having Asperger's is about to an image of someone recognizable who doesn't identify as having Asperger's, rather, identifies as someone with Autism? This is a phenomenally bad idea that defies logic. At least the photo that's there is representative of something Asperger-ish. Temple Grandin is not the face of Asperger's and she is not Dr. Asperger, so -- I see no reason why her photo should be in the infobox at all. Infobox photos are supposed to represent the article at first glance to the reader. Temple Grandin's photo would not only be inappropriate per policy on infobox photos but extremely confusing to readers. Resounding no. -- WV ● ✉ ✓ 18:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)
  • Agree we should not have a mostly unknown person in the infobox. IMO the current image is fine aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 19:26, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

• However, there is no evidence that most people with Asperger's necessarily have complex interests, and this picture does not indicate a visible difference between Autistic-style special interests and non-Autistic special interests. This could imply that everyone with a deep interest has Aspergers. I am still not convinced on that.

To add, Dr. Fred Volkmar of Yale says "The trouble for many of our folks is they just engage in an endless acquisition of facts, without doing anything productive". I don't think analyzing a molecular structure is productive, but it isn't an "endless acquisition of facts" at least from my personal experience. He cited interests in the Titanic, deep fat fryers, ancient religions, refrigerators or plate tectonics. I guess this is what I was aiming for but didn't know how to explain it. Ylevental (talk) 23:11, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I don't think Temple Grandin should be used. Besides wasn't she diagnosed with autism and not precisely Aspergers? Anyway I agree with WV and James. --PatientZero ^talk 19:51, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

No and especially no, as per Winkelvi. Temple Grandin does not have Asperger's, she is no expert on Asperger's, she is regularly mis-quoted [sic] as supporting this whole "Asperger's is just autism" viewpoint so beloved of WP. Andy Dingley (talk) 19:53, 29 June 2016 (UTC)

Ylevental: You got me to finally pull out my old DSM-IV-TR... It says (my emphasis), "The essential features of Asperger's Disorder are severe and sustained impairment in social interaction and the development of restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, and activities...Many adults learn to suppress repetitive behavior in public...Diagnostic criteria may be met when restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities were clearly present during childhood or at some time in the past, even if symptoms are no longer present." (The same is also true in the DSM-5 in order to be diagnosed with ASD–mild.) So we actually know that 100% of people diagnosed with Asperger's displayed at least one form of restricted interest or repetitive behavior during childhood, if not also as an adult. So the current image is sounding pretty representative of the disorder to me since it illustrates a child performing one of the essential features of the disorder in children.

Maybe the caption should be updated though. Instead of the current version: "People with Asperger's often display restricted or specialized interests, such as this boy's interest in molecular structures", it could say something like this (give or take the underlined part): "Restricted interests, such as this boy's interest in molecular structures, and/or repetitive behaviors are essential features of Asperger's in children that many people learn to suppress in public by adulthood."

The DSM gives a lengthy explanation and a lot of good examples of the different types of behaviors that would qualify in the restricted interest/repetitive behavior category, so here are some quotes if you or anyone else is interested:

Extended content

Criterion B: Restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, and activities, as manifested by at least one of the following: preoccupation with 1 or more stereotyped and restricted patterns of interest that is abnormal either in intensity or focus inflexible adherence to specific, nonfunctional routines or rituals Stereotyped and repetitive motor mannerisms (e.g., hand or finger flapping or twisting, or complex whole-body movements) Preoccupation with parts of objects ...restricted, repetitive patterns of behavior, interests, or activities show a range of manifestations according to age and ability, intervention, and current supports. Stereotyped or repetitive behaviors include simple motor stereotypies (e.g., hand flapping, finger flicking), repetitive use of objects (e.g., spinning coins, lining up toys), and repetitive speech (e.g., echolalia, the delayed or immediate parroting of heard words; use of “you” when referring to self; stereotyped use of words, phrases, or prosodic patterns). Excessive adherence to routines and restricted patterns of behavior may be manifest in resistance to change (e.g., distress at apparently small changes, such as in packaging of a favorite food; insistence on adherence to rules; rigidity of thinking) or ritualized patterns of verbal or nonverbal behavior (e.g., repetitive questioning, pacing a perimeter). Highly restricted, fixated interests in autism spectrum disorder tend to be abnormal in intensity or focus (e.g., a toddler strongly attached to a pan; a child preoccupied with vacuum cleaners; an adult spending hours writing out timetables). Some fascinations and routines may relate to apparent hyper- or hyporeactivity to sensory input, manifested through extreme responses to specific sounds or textures, excessive smelling or touching of objects, fascination with lights or spinning objects, and sometimes apparent indifference to pain, heat, or cold. Extreme reaction to or rituals involving taste, smell, texture, or appearance of food or excessive food restrictions are common and may be a presenting feature of autism spectrum disorder.

What Volkmar said doesn't contradict the DSM. A few of their examples are basically equivalent to his. Does that make sense? —PermStrump(talk) 04:27, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Permstrump: This was really helpful. I see now that restricted and repetitive interests during childhood are an essential part of Asperger syndrome, but the DSM-IV-TR didn't imply that they were only specialized. But with regards to the profile picture, is an interest in molecular structures necessarily restricted and repetitive? Not necessarily, as many molecular structures are complex in design and contain a wide variety of arrangements. Also, the interaction between and within molecular structures is widely varied and complex.

I'm probably getting too off-topic for the original purpose of this RfC, but the best solution would be a picture of child or person engaged in an interest which is clearly and visibly restricted and repetitive. Something like an endless acquisition of discrete facts like Volkmar mentioned. Ylevental (talk) 11:09, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

I never really paid attention to the caption before, but I don't like the use of the word "specialized" there either. That's not in the DSM-IV-TR or the DSM-5 and was never part of the symptomatology for Asperger's or ASD. It makes me wonder if the person who wrote the caption either picked that word carelessly or still thinks "idiot savant" is a thing. Now that I noticed it, it rubs me the wrong way too, but that's not necessarily to do with image. "is an interest in molecular structures necessarily restricted and repetitive" There's no behavior that's "necessarily" restricted and repetitive, so whatever image we use, the reader is always going to have to take our word for that to some degree. It doesn't have to be "restricted and "repetitive" though, just one or the other, and those two descriptors are even just an abbreviation of 4-5 words used to describe criterion B in the DSM, so that's part of why I pasted the whole thing. I think if the caption is worded appropriately, this image could believably demonstrate a kid with an intense preoccupation with one specific interest (molecules), an intense preoccupation with a specific part of objects (right down to the molecular level), or a repetitive pattern of behavior where he's constantly playing with or talking about how he wants to be playing with this toy model of molecular structures It shouldn't imply that he necessarily making accurate molecular structures or that he has any kind of specialized knowledge in science or molecules, just that he's fixated on talking about, hearing about, and/or looking at them to an excessive degree. How about... "Different types of restricted interests and/or repetitive behaviors, such as this boy's perseverative interest in playing with a toy model of molecules, are essential features of Asperger's in children and some adults." I can't think of an action that would be illustrated more clearly in a still without a caption to explain it, so unless someone else has a new picture suggestion, IMO, this one is as good as anything else. Since from the responses so far, I imagine it's not going to be worth the effort to argue we should remove the lead image all together. —PermStrump(talk) 13:48, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

Wow! I never thought about it like that. I usually tend to think to the extremes about things. However, to be fair, also in popular culture and even some professional settings, the "special interest" criterion for Asperger's is extensively applied to just about any interest when it doesn't necessarily work like that. Ylevental (talk) 17:45, 30 June 2016 (UTC)

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

Am happy with it aswell. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:11, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Asperger syndrome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20131101015957/http://www.imh.liu.se/avd_halsa_samhalle/filarkiv1/1.264263/JaarsmaWelin2011Autismasanaturalvariation.pdf to http://www.imh.liu.se/avd_halsa_samhalle/filarkiv1/1.264263/JaarsmaWelin2011Autismasanaturalvariation.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 23:57, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

Audio version

I have recorded this article. An audio file is attached just before the References section. Paul Robinson (Rfc1394) (talk) 02:43, 20 October 2016 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 October 2016

Add {{merge to|High-functioning autism|discuss=Talk:High-functioning autism/Archive 1#Merge discussion |date=June 2016}} to reflect the merge from tag on the High-functioning autism page

TheDracologist (talk) 07:46, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

 Done JTP ^{(talk • contribs)} 18:31, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

There is no consensus to merge so no we do not keep the tags forevers. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:05, 23 October 2016 (UTC)

General comments, IG and AS

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

The general tone of the article, is off-putting, even offensive, and seems inaccurate or at least incomplete to the extreme. I am referring here first to the characterisations as disorder and normal intelligence implying an expectation of lower than normal intelligence. There is clearly more to it than that.

There are many examples of people who share a significant number of asperger like social competencies or incompentencies, have tics, and so forth, and yet are of extreme intelligence. Indeed the converse may very well be true that such, along with ADD (attention different) like characteristics, is common among people of extreme intelligence. There are many examples to back this up and I would challenge this group to come up with a list of great geniuses in say physics and/or mathematics, who do not have some of these characteristics.

Generally, the term spectrum may also be inaccurate, though admittedly of common usage. The term collection may be more accurate. We do not know enough about the mechanisms that produces these characteristics to say much about whether the differences among people who share these characteristics are a matter of level or etiology, and there is assuredly more to the subject than implied by the focus on socialization-related deficits.

I would vote to strike the entire article and start again. Lets have a more balanced description.

MN 24.45.13.150 (talk) 16:45, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Thanks for your notes but in Wikipedia, articles follow what reliable sources say. Reliable sources for this topic are defined in WP:MEDRS. Jytdog (talk) 18:04, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Well, it took less than 30 seconds to find this: https://tip.duke.edu/node/701. Here is another, http://www2.education.uiowa.edu/belinblank/pdfs/pip.pdf. It is pretty clear that giftedness is important in the study of Aspergers, and vice versa. Yet in this article in Wikipedia, we only learn about aspergers as a developmental disorder and that they may achieve normal intelligence. 24.45.13.150 (talk) 19:37, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

Any review articles on the topic? And what change are you proposing? That their is typically normal intelligence is not only accurate but positive as many conditions have lower intelligence. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:06, 16 October 2016 (UTC)

The change that I am proposing is to include a section on Aspergers and giftedness and adjust the comment on intelligence to reflect that it is known in gifted people. The point of the 30 second comment is that the subject (Aspergers and giftedness) is well known and aught not be omitted. Both of the cited sources are suitable to make that point for purposes of a discussion and the second lists some refereed work on the subject. Admittedly it is one thing to suggest the task and another to take it on. I feel it would be done best by an active researcher in the topic.

The comment that "there is typically normal intelligence" might be taken as implying that the statistics are known. Is there a cite for that? Keep in mind that there are two aspects to look at, the distribution of intelligence within Aspergers, and the distribution of Aspergers within the gifted. The comment is pejorative in that intelligence in Aspergers clearly spans a range that includes giftedness, as noted in both of my cites.24.45.13.150 (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

Working in Wikipedia requires rigor; please read WP:MEDRS about the kinds of sources that are OK here. What a thirty second google search finds doesn't get there. Jytdog (talk) 00:50, 17 October 2016 (UTC)

First, WP:MEDRS describes sourcing for an article. This is a discussion. Second, the cites are on a similar level as many others that you find in wikipedia and even in this very article. I appreciate your point however and will try to remember to review the applicable standards if I choose to contribute to the article.24.45.13.150 (talk) 14:12, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

If you want to make a change you'll need MEDRS cites. The two you have provided don't meet MEDRS I don't think. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:24, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

The purpose of this talk page, is to discuss actual changes to the article. This page is not for general discussion of the topic. If you don't have MEDRS sources we are done here... Jytdog (talk) 16:17, 21 October 2016 (UTC)

As noted several times, the point here is that the article omits any mention of the widely known topic of IG with ASD. The discussion topic perhaps should have been more appropriately titled. Regarding rigor, if the article's references 1,2 or 7 meet Wikipedia standards, then the publications from the Aspergers research groups and clinics at Duke and U Iowa probably do also.24.45.13.150 (talk) 05:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

A connection between IG and ASD was described as early as 1944, by Asperger, as translated in "Autism and Asperger", U. Frith, 1991, Cambridge University Press. "Superior" and "Very Superior" scores on the WISC-III are reported in 20% of AS subjects in G. Barnhill, T. Hagiwara, B.S. Myles & R. L. Simpson, F. Aut. O. Dev. Dis., 15(3), 146-153 (2000). There is a review of co-occurrence of giftedness and AS in A.E.J. Burger-Veltmeijer, A.E.M.G. Minnaert & E.J. Van Houten-Van den Bosch, Educational Research Review 6, 67–88 (2011), doi:10.1016/j.edurev.2010.10.001. There is also a helpful review of the subject in the doctoral thesis "Educating Gifted Students with Asperger's Syndrome...", by B. S. Horn, 2012, UCF.

IG+ASD is thus a real and well known part of the Aspergers landscape and needs to be included in the article. MN24.45.13.150 (talk) 05:42, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Refs 1, 2, & 7 meet MEDRS standards, because they were issued by governmental health authorities and a professional medical association (see WP:MEDSCI and WP:MEDORG. —PermStrump(talk) 06:29, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I think the point regarding the deficiency in the article is now well established. Lets not quibble.24.45.13.150 (talk) 13:40, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm having some trouble finding those articles using google scholar for some reason. Anyway, do any of them say that the prevalence of giftedness is higher in people with AS than those without it? Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:01, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

OK, found Barnhill et al. It is a study of some kids with AS, it is not a review. So, it really shouldn't be used. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:16, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

I'm concerned it would be undue weight most of the citations above we can see that they're pretty out-of-date. The 2011 review noted above is a systematic review of literature on individuals with IG+ASD (not Asperger's btw), so it seems to be MEDRS and the authors say, "We did not find any prevalence figures of IG + ASD". The 2012 thesis, a case study of 3 students with IG+Asperger's. The others are pretty old and even without looking at them, we know they were written before the 2011 article which said that previous literature hasn't produced prevalence rates. —PermStrump(talk) 14:36, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Yeah, I just looked at Burger-Veltmeijer et al. It doesn't seem to say IG people are any more or less likely to have AS or vice versa. Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:38, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

There is a report where the intake was people with IQ > 130 and 65% were found to have ASD. I think I downloaded it, but in any case I am trying to find it again. Agreed that these are single reports and not reviews. 24.45.13.150 (talk) 15:07, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

Found it, in http://dx.doi.org/10.14204/ejrep.35.14109 (Burger-Veltmeijer 2015), counselling dossiers of a group of >130 (mean 138) IQ students in the Netherlands, were evaluated. It was found that many ASD characteristics were not assessed, and in the one area that is well attended to, inadequate reciprocal social interactions, the rate is 65%. I think we should not be ignoring the subject here, even if only to say that the IG+ASD association is long noted, but not well studied. 24.45.13.150 (talk) 15:46, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

You keep bringing primary sources. As mentioned above, we need secondary sources per MEDRS for this content. Please actually read WP:MEDRS, especially the definitions section. The purpose of this board is for discussing improvements to the article, not a general discussion of the topic. I am closing this for now. Please feel free to open a new section, when you have a MEDRS sources for this topic. Best regards Jytdog (talk) 16:52, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Notable people with Asperger’s?

Would this be a good addition? If so, then consider listing late science fiction writer Kage Baker – see here by her sister Kathleen, 2nd paragraph. – Tintazul ^msg 17:14, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

No. See WP:MEDMOS. Jytdog (talk) 22:01, 8 January 2017 (UTC)

A previous article, which was a list of people on the spectrum, was deleted per WP:COATRACK. Put simply, no, that is not a good idea. Patient Zero^talk 09:54, 11 January 2017 (UTC)

Odd question, but where can I find the full text of McPartland J, Klin A (2006). "Asperger's syndrome"?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome#cite_note-McPart2006-3

For this source, two links are provided. The first one leads to an error message, and the second one leads to the article abstract, but then the "full text link" does not work. I am asking because in addition to wanting to understand the "little professors" claim better, I see that this source is highly cited in the article. Does anyone have access to this article? I just want to verify some claims, and for anyone to have the ability to access the source.

Ylevental (talk) 05:40, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

The journal stopped publishing in 2006, per the NLM entry here. To get the full text you would have to request it via interlibrary loan through your local library. Jytdog (talk) 06:53, 29 January 2017 (UTC)

I have found the article at my library Ylevental (talk) 18:21, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

"Children with AS... have been colloquially called "little professors". Is the source really true?

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Asperger_syndrome#Speech_and_language

"Children with AS may have an unusually sophisticated vocabulary at a young age and have been colloquially called "little professors"". When I looked at the source, the source claims that Hans Asperger called the children he studied "little professors". But if the formal diagnostic criteria for Asperger syndrome didn't even exist yet at that time, is it possible that we could claim that they had AS? ETA: I looked up the wrong source.

Additionally, it is disputed whether Asperger himself even made that claim. It might have been from the Swedish psychologist Chris Gillberg, written in the book "In a Different Key" https://books.google.com/books/about/In_a_Different_Key.html?id=sdusCAAAQBAJ&printsec=frontcover&source=kp_read_button#v=onepage&q=%22little%20professors%22&f=false

Even then, this describes the people that Asperger studied, and not people that have been formally diagnosed with AS.

Ylevental (talk) 22:43, 28 October 2016 (UTC)

The last statement of your argument is utter crap, and quite possibly the most fatuous argument I have yet seen in a decade on WP. That the original cohort of patients studied by Hans Asperger did not have Asperger's because he hadn't yet named the condition? Thank Salk that you are not yourself an epidemiologist, or we'd all be dead. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:18, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Not what I said. We cannot claim that all or even the vast majority of them would meet the criteria for AS, because the criteria was developed much later after his study, and was most likely not entirely based on his study. Ylevental (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

In all honesty, there is no reason to remove the 'little professors' quote. It is sourced, and yes, they had AS, just because he hadn't named it yet is hardly a reason. I'm going to revert it back unless we get consensus to go the other way. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:17, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

In all honesty though, right from the article itself, it states "Fifty years later, several standardizations of AS as a diagnosis were tentatively proposed, many of which diverge significantly from Asperger's original work." From what I know, the "little professors" claim allegedly only applied to four children that he studied. And looking at the source for the diverging claim, it says only "Sixty-eight percent of (Asperger's) sample met ICD-10 criteria for AS". Even so, the converse may be much lower.

And then we would have to decide whether to include the "In a Different Key" reference. Ylevental (talk) 23:52, 29 October 2016 (UTC)

Popular press sources use that language. Am not seeing professional sources using it though. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 10:23, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

To be honest, I remember that, but the source currently linked is a professional source. Maybe we could replace it with a popular press source if it is okay? Ylevental (talk) 13:57, 30 October 2016 (UTC)

I created this a long time ago, and to begin with, when I looked for the article a long time ago, I stumbled on the wrong article online and built my assertion on that. I apologize for that, and could only find it at my local library.

Now that I have found the right article, on page 774, it says "Speech quality frequently is noted to be pedantic, and such children often colloquially are referred to as 'little professors'." Proof (fourth sentence) Ylevental (talk) 18:25, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Unable to see that ref. Would need a good statement for "often" but regardless often is not really needed. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 08:18, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Okay then, if you say so. Here is the file on Wikimedia Commons. But the article might be also saying only the children with AS who also have sophisticated vocabulary are called little professors, so I edited it to reflect that. Ylevental (talk) 16:15, 5 February 2017 (UTC)

Link

This is not closely enough related to deserve a link at the beginning of the article "For the South Park episode, see Ass Burgers." Ie it is undue weight IMO. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 07:13, 4 February 2017 (UTC)

Asperger's Syndrome is many times referred to as a "relationship disorder" characterized by the lack of empathy and the inherent inability of the AS person to put themselves "in another's shoes" and read emotional and social non-verbal (and many times verbal) cues. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Brandiamelia (talk • contribs) 22:09, 12 February 2017 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 March 2017

Please change "As a milder autism spectrum disorder (ASD), it differs from other ASDs by relatively normal language and intelligence.[2]" to "According to the ICD-10, it differs from autism primarily in the fact that there is no general delay or retardation in language or in cognitive development"

because the current text is factually inaccurate. Although the correct source has been given, (The ICD-10 F84 on Pervasive Developmental Disorders, reference[2] in the original article), the diagnostic criteria for Asperger's Syndrome have been incorrectly summarized.

According to the source [2}, a diagnosis of Autism rather than Asperger's must be given if you had delayed speech development i.e. that you were slow to learn to speak when you were a child, but this has nothing to do with a person's current abilities. It is perfectly possible to have excellent language skills as an adult and still have a diagnosis of Autism rather Asperger's. The original text implies that people with Asperger's, by definition, have better language skills than those diagnosed with other ASDs, but this is not the case.

The original text states that people with Asperger's differ from those with other ASDs because they are of "relatively normal .... intelligence". It is possible to have a different ASD and still be of "relatively normal... intelligence". There is no upper IQ limit for a diagnosis of autism, this can be verified by referring to the quoted source (reference 2).

I would like to list the following as my reliable source - The ICD-10 F84 Pervasive Developmental Disorders 217.45.100.164 (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC) 217.45.100.164 (talk) 00:19, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

"by relatively normal language and intelligence" means the same as "there is no general delay or retardation in language or in cognitive development" but is in easier to understand language. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:18, 7 March 2017 (UTC)

References

Related characterizations and words

The first two sentences of Nerd are:

A nerd is a person seen as overly intellectual, obsessive, or lacking social skills. Such a person may spend inordinate amounts of time on unpopular, little known, or non-mainstream activities, which are generally either highly technical, abstract, or relating to topics of fiction or fantasy, to the exclusion of more mainstream activities.

It may be in the interest of public understanding to reference words such as "nerd" that have popular definitions similar to the diagnostic criteria for Asperger syndrome, given that such words are more broadly understood.

104.228.101.152 (talk) 21:47, 14 May 2017 (UTC)

I think that would fall under synthesis unless reliable sources have made the same connection. DonIago (talk) 16:34, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Asperger syndrome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217140628/http://autismresearchcentre.com/docs/papers/2002_BC_ASDisability.pdf to http://autismresearchcentre.com/docs/papers/2002_BC_ASDisability.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20081217140624/http://autismresearchcentre.com/docs/papers/2005_Woodbury-Smith_etal_ScreeningAdultsForAS.pdf to http://autismresearchcentre.com/docs/papers/2005_Woodbury-Smith_etal_ScreeningAdultsForAS.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:34, 10 July 2017 (UTC)

Rates of Suicidality in the Those with Asperger Syndrome (Mild Autism Spectrum Disorder)

After having reviewed some of the literature surrounding the rates of suicidality within the Autistic Spectrum Disorder (ASD) population, I noticed that there appears to be discrepencies between the information given in the article, specifically where it says, "Suicidal behavior appears to occur at rates similar to those without ASD," and published research into the matter.

Peer-reviewed research has shown that suicide rates are seemingly increased in those with Asperger Syndrome and Autism Spectrum Disorders [7][8][9][10][11]. This could be due to a number of frequent comorbidities associated with ASD (e.g. depression[12] and anxiety[13]), however the causal relationship is largely uncertain (i.e. why people with ASD and depression are more likely to have higher levels of suicidal ideation). Nevertheless, the relationship is still important and, unless I'm overlooking something important, should be recognised as a cause of concern that should be featured in the article. Rippydippy28 (talk) 13:56, 20 September 2017 (UTC)

The one useful source there is PMID 28468556 (please see WP:MEDRS to see how we evaluate sources). i'l check that out...03:11, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

I see what you mean; it appears I misunderstood the term "secondary sources," and so it may be that I have wasted your time, and if so, I apologise. Rippydippy28 (talk) 11:52, 21 September 2017 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Asperger syndrome. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070607192022/http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/asperger.htm to http://www.behavenet.com/capsules/disorders/asperger.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:23, 6 October 2017 (UTC)

"Frequency" meaningless; need prevalence

The article as of 2017-10-11=We@12:54 says Asperger syndrome has a "frequency" of 37.2 million, but that number as stated is meaningless, because it compares (presumably) the number of people who *do* have the syndrome with some *unstated* other number of people who do not.

What is needed is the prevalence, which is the *explicit* portion of the population that has the problem, preferably qualified by specifically identifying the population in question.

The population matters partially because diagnosis of something like Asperger syndrome is affected by cultural norms, so it is probably much easier to get an accurate estimate of prevalence in the U.S, for example, than in the world. Another reason why the population matters is that the etiology of Asperger syndrome is not known; there's evidence for a genetic component to the etiology, but the etiology may also be partially environmental, and the identity of the population measured can affect both of those possible etiological components.

I'm in the middle of too much else right now to try to edit this myself; to do that, I need to find out where that "frequency" number comes from, what it's supposed to mean, what population it's compared with, and then I need to calculate the point prevalence. I see that there's already an epidemiology section suggesting that the prevalence of Asperger syndrome might be around 0.26 per 1,000, but that section helps to clarify how complicated estimating prevalence is.

If the frequency were intended to be the number of aspies among Earth's entire human population of about 7 billion (7e9), then it would equate to a prevalence of about 0.005, which is very different from the article's estimate of 0.26/1000 = 0.00026/1.

My copy of the DSM-5 says (page 55) "in recent years, reported frequencies for autism spectrum disorder across U.S. and non-U.S. countries have approached 1% of the population". Presumably "approached" means "from below", so it's saying that the prevalence is near 0.01 but a bit lower, and it's talking about all forms of autism spectrum disorder, not just Asperger syndrome. That's off by "only" a factor of two from the 0.005 I calculated above, whereas 0.00026 is off by a factor of 38.

You could help by following up with clarifications of what any of these data are supposed to mean, or whence they came. I looked at <https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q161790>, but couldn't afford the time to follow any of the many references.

Will Mengarini (talk) 20:42, 11 October 2017 (UTC)

It is the number of people with the condition and is supported by the reference associated with the statement in question. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:45, 12 October 2017 (UTC)

Image

How to add image? I have a good image to add. Not sure how to upload

WP:IMAGES is the starting point. It should probably be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons though, not here - presumably it's freely licensed? (It's unlikely to be acceptable unless it is.) If it's your own photograph, you can choose to do this - more difficult if it's someone else's. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:30, 5 January 2018 (UTC)

Osmosis video

I have removed the video File:Autism spectrum disorder video.webm. The video is not sourced per WP:MEDRS or WP:V.

Per WP:V "any material whose verifiability has been challenged or is likely to be challenged, must include an inline citation that directly supports the material." This video does not contain any sources, nor any means to tie sources to specific facts and claims made. Per WP:V, "The burden to demonstrate verifiability lies with the editor who adds or restores material" and "Any material lacking a reliable source directly supporting it may be removed and should not be restored without an inline citation to a reliable source"

This video is not exempt from citations or sources per WP:LEAD because it is not a lead, and it does not summarise the article. You can tell this from the first minute or so of the video -- totally different base material.

This material must not be restored as-is. Editors who repeatedly restore material that fails WP:V may be blocked. -- Colin°^Talk 19:31, 28 March 2018 (UTC)

Frontier journals

Have moved this here as the only support is from Frontier journals which are of concern. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:36, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

"The intense world theory hypothesizes that excessive functioning of neural microcircuits, the main symptoms being heightened neuronal reactivity and increased neuroplasticity. This may lead to a more intensely-perceived world for individuals with ASD and AS, which may be stressful and aversive if the amygdala and other parts of the limbic system are also affected. The intense world theory distinguishes itself from "deficit-oriented theories of autism" by proposing that autism is a result of enhanced brain functioning, such in perception, attention, and memory. This intensification of both internal and external experiences can be debilitating. For example, the lack of demonstrated empathy that is noted in individuals with ASD and AS may be due to an excess of empathy that leads them to avoid empathizing with others because it is too emotionally overwhelming, anxiety-inducing, and stressful."

As a high-functioning Aspie, I identify with that. I have the usual Freudian structures, but my ultraperception (I actually test with a fully-functional seer gift and Master-level Reiki) expresses as endoteric and esoteric skillset. I think in networks, not linearly, and then have to cut back to the main thread, so the extra facets add to the weave. I'm highly empathic, and sing at a high level. But as I indicated above, I'm high-functional - others are not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.123.173.109 (talk) 23:13, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

References

First sentence

We are not a dictionary and as such this stuff belongs in the body.

"Asperger's syndrome (AS, /ˈæspɜːrɡərz/ in British and American English according to the name Asperger, sometimes /-dʒərz/ in British English by confusion with the word asperge), commonly called simply Asperger's, often now called Asperger syndrome in scientific and medical usage,"

Have moved the pronunciations to the infobox. Other details could go in a section called "etymology and pronunciation" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:12, 16 May 2018 (UTC)

Primary reference?

@Doc James: I noticed you replaced the citation I provided here, calling the paper by Blankenship "primary literature." It was my understanding that the Blankenship article was a literature review. I love that you used a Cochrane review, so I think that your edit should probably stay, but was I incorrect to cite the Blankenship article? ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 14:40, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

User:Biochemistry&Love looking at it more closely and I agree I am mistaken. This is a secondary source. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:53, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Thanks! ―Biochemistry🙴❤ 18:46, 11 June 2018 (UTC)

Editing

I wanted to ask if I can add notable people with this syndrome. Do I have the permission to do it. If yes, how can I turn the vandalism mode off? Ddominator (talk) 12:52, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

The page is already semi-protected, so the real risk is people adding unverified claims rather than flat out vandalism. If we can keep on top of that, I don't think it's a bad idea. MutchyMan112 (talk) 17:06, 2 August 2018 (UTC)

We tried this a while back. We used to have a list of persons on the autism spectrum. It turned into a contentious issue when editors added famous people based on flimsy sources. It got really heated when unsavory characters purported to be on the spectrum were added. The list was eventually removed. CatPath (talk) 05:34, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Actually, I thought I had seen this list a long time ago, I seem to remember the heated discussion that ensued.Read-write-services (talk) 06:02, 3 August 2018 (UTC)

Yeah, it seems best we don't bring this list back. Otherwise we might have a repeat of the past. MutchyMan112 (talk) 13:01, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Please Add a separate section for Misdiagnosis, with pointwise explanation in layman's term.

Public awareness about Aspergers/ASD is little, even within the educated community; that often leads to misdiagnosis, wrong medication and wrong advisory. Therefore it is very important to explain everyone in layman's term why asperger/ASD is so important to diagnose, and what adverse effect can occur from misdiagnosis.

There are common instances of misdiagnosis Asperger/ HFA/ ASD/ Autism and NVLD/NLD which can be listed as follows.

1. The person with actually above spectrum misdiagnosed as something else:

• 1A. Lack of autism awareness and lack of practical knowledge about autism spectrum; in parents, teachers, doctors and even some psychologists and psychiatrists lead to ignoring or misinterpreting the symptoms.

• 1B. Lack of eye-contact often ignored or unnoticed or misattributed to a lack of confidence. Job or research interviewers may misattribute the lack of eye contact as telling lies or hiding something, but that is not the case. Also the lack of usage and the lack of understanding body language, facial expression etc may lead the job interviewers to think the candidate is arrogand, impolite, and careless about the interviewers' emotions. Lack in teleologic thinking, mistake in postures and repeatitive body movement may lead to a wrong impression that as if the candidate is impatiet, inattentive and atacking but that is not really the case.

• 1C. Psychologists and psychiatrists may become obsessed with "current" incidences, moods and behaviours; thus can miss the childhood details, how the situations "developed", and the neurobiological basis. After all ASD and its allies are developmental difference after all.

• 1D. ASD patients often don't come with complaints which are directly symptoms of autism. Often they themselves don't recognise they are biologically different. For example, an NVLD person might not recognise they are missing about 80% of the communication (which are nonverbal components such as body languages, facial expressions, teleological thinking, complex tonal cues, metaphors, pretentions, when to stop talking or when to start talking or respond, whether the said statement is a question or narration or a request or order etc) Rather, they consult the doctor with the "results" they suffer from their symptoms, such as bullying by other classmates, weird classroom-situations, misunderstanding with other persons, depression, anxiety, fear, etc.

• 1E. ASD symptoms are often misinterpreted (even sometimes by experienced psychologists and psychiatrists) as Obsessive Compulsive disorder (OCD), ADHD, anxiety, depression, inattentiveness, ordinary correctable mistakes in behaviour, mood problems, paranoid-fears, lack of self-esteem, etc.

• 1F. Sometimes an average or good or super-excellent academic records, hide the fact the person carries learning disabilities. Particularly in case of Aspergers, the good verbal skill and excellent semantic memory may hide the fact that the person could have so much problem in practical life. Performance discrepancies are often misattributed to lack of attentiveness or being over-ambitious in a wrong field of interest.

• 1G Sometimes, particularly in developing and underdeveloped countries; the autistic symptoms (such as sound sensitivity, smell-sensitivity, crowd fear/agoraphobia, social anxeity, distancing from cultural and religious rituals, distancing oneself from painful magico-religious self-torturing rituals, face-recognition problems etc) may be criticised culturally and socially so much, and from a so early age; that the autism may take a really different form. An early and repeatitive brainwash by practicing the kid to talk with and visualise god as an imaginary friend, social and magico-religious indoctrination process, forcefully participating the kid into social rituals etc ultimately develop into a really complex mental disorder, where it may be impossible to diagnose the autism. Many cultures in developing and underdeveloped countries, require an ability to very neat and tidy, with everything well arranged and heavily ornamented. So an early-age child lining-up toys and creating nice paatterns may be ignored, and the required help and support may not reach. Similarly an amazing mathematical ability (Such as in some HFA and Savant-syndrome) may be misinterpreted as an extra connection with god, and may be subsequently indoctrinated into astrology, may be forced to explain facts in terms of assumed meaning/symbolism etc and finding supernatural signs out of random. But that is not really the case within neurophysiology of the person. Similarly, prolonged training in cultural practices may hide or modify other autistic symptoms, such as a girl (or sometimes a boy) in a developing/underdeveloped country may get habituated in appearent "pretend play"; may be just a superficial imitation of social pretend play; where the girl (sometimes boy) actually set up a visual scene than to assign oneself into a social status.

2. Person with some-other disorder may be misdiagnosed with ASD spectrum.

• 2.A. A talented kid without any social interaction problem, may be misdiagnosed as ASD (Such as Asperger/HFA/Savant).

• 2.B. A person may avoid communication due to mood problems, or may be the person (usually talented) is habituated in overusing metaphors (that only he/she understands) and complex modes of communication demanding a teleologic understanding of listener; but the person actually have good social understanding and understand social positions, roles and other social concepts and having good understanding of body language. These situations may be misdiagnosed as autism spectrum which is not really autism spectrum; just superficially resembling few/many symptoms of autism spectrum.

• 2.C. Mental retardation of some other form (or low IQ), (but which is not autism spectrum) tend to be misdiagnosed as autism.

• 2. D. Sometimes a physical malformation/ teratogeny is misdiagnosed as autism; but there is no direct relation. That is completely different from autism. There are incidences Autism-spectrum person may be physically fit and even can become sportsperson and airforce pilots.

RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 05:45, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

We can't add information without reliable sources. If you want this information added, then you should provide such references. Cheers. DonIago (talk) 16:35, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

Asperger is no longer a valid reference, autism is

This page must be merged into autism as an historical background of the breakthrough knowledge of autism. This is confusing, and wrongful.  Preceding unsigned comment added by 176.87.88.226 (talk) 13:05, 5 February 2018 (UTC)

The confusion is in the terminology being documented, not in Wikipedia's documentation. It is true that the DSM-5 (2013) no longer defines Asperger syndrome, merging it into Autism Spectrum Disorder (DSM-5 code 299.00, ICD-10-CM code F84.0). However, ICD-10-CM (2018 United States edition) does maintain the distinction, coding Asperger syndrome as F84.5. AFAIK practically all U.S insurance companies require physicians to code diagnoses using ICD-10-CM; however, statutory requirements exist within the U.S to define mental illness according to DSM-5, e.g in the Washington Administrative Code (red link in Law of Washington (state)) at WAC 388-447-0040(5)(b). Note that the DSM-5 is a U.S-centric definition of mental disorders, whereas the ICD-10 (on which the various nation-specific ICD-10-CMs are based and which also includes Asperger disorder) comes from the World Health Organization (WHO). Will Mengarini (talk) 05:35, 25 March 2018 (UTC)

Speaking as someone who is diagosed with a very very mild Asperger condition, the reality as I see it is that there are indeed two closely-related conditions, which may overlap. From the inside, I find myself occasionally fixated on something, and that may be elaborated in minute examination to a quite remarkable degree. It's an expression of high IQ: I and others like me don't think particularly linearly, but in a network of interconnected memes. Our problem is that we lack the tools to decribe them, as language is linear. IF the subject is then rather abstract, we don't cut matters short. I have what may have been the top IQ in the baseline, certainly very close to it. Yet I also have a huge sense of humour, one of my jokes made the top 50 on one of the more recognised study groups. I'm very highly empathic, too, to an inhuman degree of ultraperception. It may actually be that two similar pathologies exist, one a low-IQ extension of autism, the other a high-IQ speciality. For example, the other Aspie in the family's the grandson of the Oxford Regius Professor of Mathematics: I'm the son of a top professional engineer, Director of R&D at the IMechE, who was also very likely an Aspie. We're related by marriage, not blood, as far as I know. If so, is it actually a syndrome at all, or simply an expression of the inability of the extremes to be normalised? OK, that's OR, but this isn't the main meme, it's permitted. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2.123.173.109 (talk) 23:04, 19 April 2018 (UTC)

Doc James This topic is worth revisiting since ICD-11 appears to no longer use the eponym and consistently uses the term autism spectrum disorder just like the DSM-5. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:14, 14 July 2018 (UTC)

The problem you're going to run into is that those in the Aspie community still do, and likely always will, refer to their section of the spectrum as Asperger's. Not to mention reliable sources still refer to it as such. It's not an antiquated or unused term/diagnosis. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 22:12, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

All the same, it's still worth discussion since the ICD is changing and the nomenclature is now becoming more consistent with the DSM-5's change. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 22:47, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

Bottom line: what are reliable sources saying? Keep in mind that's sources plural, not source singular (i.e., ICD). -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:07, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I would hardly call reliable (and influential) sources such as DSM-5 and ICD-11 "singular." I'm not suggesting I've done a thorough literature review of this yet to see if the change has been adopted (ICD-11 hasn't even been released yet) but per the previous discussion, an objection that was raised was ICD-10's use of the eponym. ICD-11 appears to be changing this and that's important (and the point). TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:09, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

My point is the DSM and the ICD aren't the only reliable references that talk about the autism spectrum. If there are reliable news sources still referring to it as Asperger's, as well as reputable/notable persons with Asperger's/autism and organizations that support those with it, then "Aspergers" is still valid, even if the official diagnosis has changed/is changing. We go with a wide range of sources, not just medical sources. Wikipedia isn't a medical journal. -- ψλ ● ✉ ✓ 23:19, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I'm not suggesting that Wikipedia is a medical journal nor am I suggesting that we go by ICD-11 and DSM-5 alone or that they are the only reliable references that discuss autism spectrum (they are more influential than many other sources and it's important to consider weight but I never said they're the only important sources). As I said before, I think it's worth discussion. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 23:45, 15 July 2018 (UTC)

I think at minimum you'd need to initiate a formal merge discussion on this rather than just a Talk page thread. DonIago (talk) 16:01, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

Well, it may be time for that soon given what I'm seeing on PubMed as well. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 16:41, 17 July 2018 (UTC)

This is the kind of page proving Wikipedia is occasionally biased by editors view. Op is right, Asperger is a discontinued diagnostic. An erratic model excused as a syndrome until scientists nailed it down properly as Autism. The remaining objections hereinabove are just an irrational (redundancy) tantrum. Let see how much the Wikipedia has to bear having wrong pages like this one, damaging its credibility, until someone does the right thing, and merges it, turning it into a proper subsection of the Autism page, as it is scientifically meant to be. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.27.91.97 (talk • contribs)

I'm no expert on this topic, but working in the education sector I can certainly confirm that in my country "Aspergers" still has very common usage. As does "Aspie". (What my particular country is is irrelevant.) I hope those wanting some sort of merge are taking a global view on this, and not wanting to deny how the "Aspergers" community uses the word. HiLo48 (talk) 22:48, 4 August 2018 (UTC)

It will take years before usage changes. A new recommendation does not mean that everything that goes before immediately gets drops.

Yes we should say that the condition is no longer recognized by the APA/DSM and we do. Does not mean a merge is required. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 12:55, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

ICD11 redirects to "6A02.0 Autism spectrum disorder without disorder of intellectual development and with mild or no impairment of functional language" https://icd.who.int/browse11/l-m/en#/http://id.who.int/icd/entity/120443468 Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:00, 6 August 2018 (UTC)

Like I said, not yet, but soon. The use of the term in the literature has also gone down quite a bit and that should also be taken into account, James. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 17:03, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

In future please preserve this page with due respect.

There are multiple debates 1. that merge with other Autism article, 2. that requests synonymisation of Asperger, HFA, and other mild autism spectrum disorders, 3. that request rename because of Professor Hans' Nazi eugenics tie-up controversy.

Still; the page content deserve great respect and archiving because:

1. Even if future research prooves the classification of Asperger, HFA, PDD-NOS etc are "artificial classification"; still that superficial differences indeed exist; and still can have the potentiality to serving the missing pieces of the puzzle of research.

2. The page itself carries a history of struggle and fight.

3. It is presumable that at least some of the contributors have the said difficulty; and in fact on harsh real world it seems mostly (if not always), an Asperger writes for other Aspergers. So they had to struggle a lot to type, edit, format, make appropriate/ acceptable sentences and collect references. So their labour must be treated with great respect and care.

RIT RAJARSHI (talk) 15:46, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

I'm unaware of any active debates about merging this page. DonIago (talk) 16:36, 11 September 2018 (UTC)

The term "asperger syndrome" is still frequently used. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 00:20, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

It's important to note that it's changed quite a bit in the last five years. It's true that some organizations have yet to phase out the old terminology but the literature's landscape appears to have changed quite a bit. For instance, a quick unrestricted PubMed search with the term "Asperger syndrome" yields 2,137 hits [14] but that drops to only a bit over 400 if restricted to the last five years (47 if we're talking about reviews). On the other hand, the same unrestricted search for the term "autism spectrum disorder" yields almost 32K results [15] with ~13.5K within the last five years and nearly 2K reviews. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 01:07, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Yah eventually we will want to write about the condition in the past tense. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 01:46, 14 September 2018 (UTC)

Perhaps it will but it is worth re-iterating that labels and taxonomies change but people still struggle with that which those labels represent. Let's be respectful and when the time comes we can slowly begin changing the page. Perhaps now just a reference is enough. Alex Jackl (talk) 16:14, 21 April 2019 (UTC)

Can someone with Asperger help?

Hello. I have asperger syndrome, and I'd love to contribute.

Just asking if I could (since this is semi protected)

GDanthonyYT (talk) 15:09, 1 November 2018 (UTC)GDanthonyYT

Intense World Theory

If one searches for Intense World Theory, it redirects to this page - yet this page does not discuss the theory. That doesn't seem right. Epa101 (talk) 21:09, 8 December 2018 (UTC)

Photo concerns

The first photo caption currently reads: "Restricted interests or repetitive behaviors, such as this boy's interest in playing with a toy model of molecules, may be features of Asperger's." The WM Commons description of the photo indicates that the child does actually have Asperger's, but it feels like the use of the term may on this page is a bit weasel-y. A complicated modeling toy is going to command a lot of attention and repetitive behavior from an interested kid in any case; that's what it's intended for. The second (can-stacking) photo is slightly less problematic for me, since the cans are not specifically designed to provoke such activity; however, I've certainly observed similar behavior in various non-Asperger young children. In the absense of finding better examples, I'd like to suggest interchanging the two pictures and adapting the captions to be more accurate. That way, we draw more attention to the (slightly irrational) can-stacking activity over the (fairly rational) molecule design game. Thoughts? jxm (talk) 02:20, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

I think the "may be features of Aspergers" is a bit badly worded. Also I don't see where on Commons it says the child does not have Apserger's. The images were discussed extensively in archive 24 of this page. I think the point is that "Restricted interests or repetitive behaviors" are aspects that may feature in people with Aspergers but aren't in themselves diagnostic or conclusive, and appear in other people too. Indeed, most of the symptoms appear individually in other people too. So that makes it hard for one picture to represent this complex syndrome, and I'm not sure one image is any better than the other: they both have some issues and benefits. -- Colin°^Talk 18:13, 20 January 2019 (UTC)

Asperger syndrome

ICD 11 has continued to use the term as of 2017.[16] Thus even though the DSM has dropped it, it still remains an independent condition per the global classification system. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 17:29, 26 January 2019 (UTC)

Still present as a subtype.[17] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:06, 12 February 2019 (UTC)

True, it does mention it as a narrower form/subtype on the page you referenced, but it is noteworthy that it states the parent term is autism spectrum disorder and seems to favor "Autism spectrum disorder without disorder of intellectual development and without impairment of functional language" (which is a mouthful to say the least). However, this is more in line with the medical literature than the eponym. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 04:52, 13 February 2019 (UTC)

WP:UNDUE concerns in the "Management Section"

It seems, at least to me, that the "Management" section is almost exclusively written from a point of view that it is a disease, which, as far as I know should be given an equal amount of respect to the just-as-well-publicised idea that it is not, which is definitely inappropriate for a featured article (although I know that that is the prevailing view, the section seems to have no mention of the other view at all). Particular quotes of concern:

"While most professionals agree that the earlier the intervention, the better, there is no single best treatment package." has some WP:WEASEL issues "Most professionals"

"No medications directly treat the core symptoms of AS". Especially "Directly treat".

"it is essential to diagnose and treat comorbid conditions"

"have been effective in treating restricted and repetitive interests and behaviors."

"Despite the popularity of social skills training, its effectiveness is not firmly established."

I should probably say that I have asperger myself and so am biased in this argument, however the issue still stands. ^{[Username Needed]} 11:31, 14 February 2019 (UTC)

Why is this even still a page

Asperger syndrome is just a milder autism,so it should be merged with the page on Autism... Banana555A (talk) 22:55, 5 April 2019 (UTC)

Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive 24#Asperger is no longer a valid reference, autism is. DonIago (talk) 17:02, 8 April 2019 (UTC)

Heritability

Article claims "it is probably partly inherited", but admits that "the underlying genetics have not been determined conclusively". Arguably, it has only been suggested by some researchers that it is "partly inherited". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.71.142.47 (talk) 06:54, 5 July 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 30 July 2019

I don't have an edit, but I do have an addition to the "Asperger Syndrome" page. I have Aspergers and I feel I'd like to contribute the following:

People with AS are sometimes unable to understand senses, for example, cold, pain or thirst. Thirst is a "strange feeling" that can be satisfied by drinking water. Extreme boredom can be described as a cold feeling. Often have specialized interests and can excel in that interest. For example, one person might love a certain kind of animal and work well with them. 99.23.168.31 (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

 Not done For the encyclopedia, discussion of these symptoms and sensations needs to be sourced to -- and supported with substantial evidence in -- a high-quality review in a reputable medical publication, according to WP:MEDRS. From a quick check of the medical review literature, I didn't find such a review. --Zefr (talk) 15:56, 30 July 2019 (UTC)

Identity-first vs. Person-first language

There is an ongoing discussion about person-first vs. identity-first language at the Autism article talk page. Interested editors are invited to participate. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 19:54, 3 September 2019 (UTC)

Wrongplanet

There is an inappropriate promotion of a specific website, 'wrongplanet.net', when there are many other websites that could be cited. Further, as noted by a Wikipedia article about 'Wrongplanet.net', this specific website is highly controversial and been reported to cause abuse, arbitrary actions against, and potential danger to vulnerable users. As a parent of one of these people, whose interaction with the site almost resulted in her self-harm, I would ask that Wikipedia refrain from promoting such websites. 83.240.219.210 (talk) 15:28, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

I don't know enough to make a decision about it. However, this certainly deserves attention. It might be too close to therapy advice for a Wikipedia article. BernardoSulzbach (talk) 19:13, 20 September 2019 (UTC)

 Done, this time, because this really did appear to be promotional, and because the claim wasn't supported by the source. But please be careful about conflicts of interest. –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 02:47, 21 September 2019 (UTC)

Meaning of sentence unclear

This sentence (apart from being an almost word-for-word copy from the reference, which I find rather odd and close to plagiarizing) does not seem clear to me: "The debate about distinguishing AS from HFA is partly due to a tautological dilemma where disorders are defined based on severity of impairment, so that studies that appear to confirm differences based on severity are to be expected." I'm usually quite a bit more intelligent than the average person, and yet I fail to understand this, so I wanted to make it more clear using a different wording. After all, we are supposed to write to the average lay person, so what we write should be readily understandable and straightforward. But as I fail to understand it myself, I cannot make it more clear. Does anyone understand it? --Jhertel (talk) 22:15, 22 September 2019 (UTC)

No; I removed it as likely irrelevant anyway, considering a major update is needed. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)