Talk:Asperger syndrome

; Archives
	December 2002 – May 2005; June 2005 – August 2005; August 2005 – September 2005; September 2005 – May 2006; June 2006; June - July 2006 - Major review; July 2006 cont - still very important and vital!;

Template:Featured article is only for Wikipedia:Featured articles. Template:Mainpage date Template:Wikipedians This template must be substituted. Replace {{FAR ...}} with {{subst:FAR ...}}.

Splitting the article

Whatever you all decide, but in my mind, the hardest obstacle to overcome right now is 2b) comprehensive. In the minds of outside reviewers, who may vote, 2d) POV and 2e) stability may take on greater importance, so that's in Rdos' court, since I think he is the only one contributing to those concerns on FAR.

On a technical note, and I really don't know the answer to this, I don't think you can change the name of the article and retain the featured status? I really don't know: I've not seen it done before, since doing that inherently implies the article is not 2e) stable. One way you may get around that (and I'm really not sure on this either), is to include something like a dbalink at the top (disambiguation) which says, this article discusses the clinical view of AS, for <whatever> view, see <name of article> ... Sandy 13:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That shouldn't be a problem...after all, I feel sure you will have a free hand with Asperger syndrome (clinical) (which is best "clinical" or "medical"?), and with your special interest in FA I feel certain you will not have the slightest difficulty in achieving FA status for it at the first opportunity.

The best way seem to be:

create Asperger syndrome (clinical) using the existing text
revert this page to the last featured version
delete all none clinical text from the new Asperger syndrome (clinical) (copy any that seems relevant back here)
start reviewing the medical information here for synopsising and seeing what else needs adding. There are SO many other features of AS that need sourcing and adding it's unreal, like "aversion to children" (fact/fiction/both), gender ambiguity (fact/fiction/both). Misconception debunking...

That way this article can stand or fall in the current FARC in accord with the wishes of the community (I warn you, it will probably fall, but can always re-submit, but are we really that bothered?) and the Asperger syndrome (clinical), which is, essentially, a new article, will have a clean sheet upon which I feel certain it's submission will ultimately be accepted.

HOWZAT??--Zeraeph 13:46, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

A very good idea. --Rdos 13:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I couldn't support that, because of concerns about changing the name of a featured article, which has to be comprehensive, stable, and NPOV. That will create an uncomprehensive (leaving out medical fact), unstable (demonstrated by changing name), and POV article (biased by not including medical consensus) Sandy 13:54, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Nobody plans to leave out medical hypothesis (no such thing a "medical fact" yet on this) far from it, you synopsis the Asperger syndrome (clinical) article in one plain language section to reference it.

The article will initially be reverted to last reviewed article, which is what earned the featured article status currently under discussion in the first place. This is currently as POV as all get out as a generic AS article (but not as a specifically clinical one) ande if it's curerntly stable, then Gallipolli was a picnic on the beach.

I will go one further and state that I pledge my support for any section of this article presented for FA status under Asperger syndrome (clinical) or similar, because I believe it is warranted, but NOT as Asperger syndrome(generic), because it isn't.--Zeraeph 14:09, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do not support the notion that the main article should be a medical article with non-medical daugther articles. There is already a autism community article, which deals with what happens there, but this is separate from providing balance in a featured article which is floating around everywhere on the Internet. I think we should simply keep to the concept that was practised here before, to put controversial topics in daughter articles. That includes causes, therapies, prevalence / epidemy and similar topics. The main featured article should describe what AS is and shouldn't dwelve into controversial research by anybody. This way it can be both featured, balanced *and* referenced. --Rdos 13:22, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Same here, I think Asperger Syndrome (medical) should be the daughter article, and Asperger Syndrome should cover all aspects of the phrase in use, NOT just culture and community.

One reason for wanting to do it this way is that people seeking information on Asperger Sydrome most usually need an accessible, readable explaination of what it actually is, not a lot of far less accessible, or relevant (TO THEM) medical information from academic sources, which, of course would have to be linked. --Zeraeph 13:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

See above: I'm really not sure you can change the name and retain your star: it might be good to work this out with a disambiguation link at the top of the current article. And, what would you DBA to? There's no good article out there: every single autism article I've seen is tagged. Sandy 13:37, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

And, what would you DBA to? Obviously, we would have to get to work, either way (they should be fixed up anyhow!). However, I cannot see promoting the clinical side over the cultural dissent or vice versa. It's really two sides of the same coin, if you get my drift and really seems like it should be addressed in completion in the same article. It's cross-relevant. --Keyne 13:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, I see the dilemma. I don't know how long FARC will last, and the admin closing it can sometimes be convinced to leave it open if work is ongoing and progress is demonstrable, so I do hope everyone here will put their heads together, come to consensus, and just get it done. I was previously willing to help with the actual editing, but have decided I'd best leave it alone, considering fingers which have been pointed at me :-) Sandy 13:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Regardless of finger-pointing, the medical nature does need pointing out and fewer of "us" have been willing to doggedly drive that issue home as much as it should (it's somewhat unpopular, as if you couldn't have guessed!). However, we really should find a compromise to complete the integrity (better) of the article/situation :) --Keyne 14:01, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I still believe it's possible to do it all in this article: I don't think those arguing POV here have spent enough time in the actual research, to find that it is possible to present all sides of the story in this article, using reliable sources. Some recent examples have been uncovered. It can be done; it just can't be written in a speculative tone ("some say ..." "some argue ... " "some think ..." the "autistic community says" ...) that existed in the previous versions. Sandy 14:06, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

There's another factor you all are overlooking here: WP:FA?, criteria 3, about headings and conforming to WikiProjects. RN and I re-oriented the structure of the article so that it would be comprehensive. All of this info needs to be in the featured article. If you split out the basics, you're no longer meeting 3) for FA. Cultural aspects is not what was awarded a star: the featured article must be the comprehensive one, with splits to other sections. Sandy 13:43, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even by your own admission this is currently clinical rather than comprehensive, which is why it needs, not "purging" but respectfully moving to a new article with a more appropriate name that neutralises the POV aspect here. I feel sure you will have no problem steering that to FA, but, if you will pardon the pun, the point here is AS, NOT FA.

Let this article here jump off from the last reviewed article and seek to tie together ALL strands of the AS article (and yes, when we all have time I WOULD like to see a "sociological and cultural aspects" article some day) --Zeraeph 14:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Even by your own admission this is currently clinical rather than comprehensive, which is why it needs, not "purging" but respectfully moving to a new article with a more appropriate name that neutralises the POV aspect here. No, I think you can better accomplish it by building on what's here. There is nothing POV about the title: the current title is Asperger syndrome. Changing it to include (clinical) could be viewed as a POV fork, leaving out other aspects. The featured article needs to be comprehensive. And again, if the decision is to lose the star, that's not a problem, it's a choice. I can't "steer" FA: it's a community vote. Sandy 14:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Why change it's name? By purging speculative, biased sections and providing summaries of daughter articles, we pretty much end up with a good primary article. --Rdos 13:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What you are calling speculative and biased is information that enjoys reliable source references and widespread medical consensus. Rdos, everyone here is working their hardest to get the work done: if you are determined to see the article lose its featured status, should we just get on with it, save everyone the work, and vote to remove? Sandy 13:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

...and that is why it needs moving to Asperger syndrome (clinical), a context in which, I feel sure, even Rdos would not call it speculative or biased, as he rightly does here. I repeat, the point of this article is AS, NOT FA. --Zeraeph 14:00, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Purging isn't the answer. The medical community has just as valid a viewpoint as the "community" in opposition. --Keyne 13:51, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. That's why I think your efforts will be better oriented by making this article conform to FA criteria, getting through FARC, and then beginning work on a new article, that will be a disambiguation link at the top. There isn't time to do both at once. Fix this article, then work on the dba link that will eventually be added at the top. Sandy 13:57, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, lets call it summarizing rather than purging. The current causes section contains detailed information about speculative causes from a medical standpoint. Most of the cites are actually not even causes, but observations done in studies that have not in any way been confirmed to be causative. About the only claim that enjoys some consensus is the genetic nature, although not even that is left undisputed. --Rdos 14:12, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't had time to look at the article this morning, but last time I checked, Causes said nothing (two sentences). All of your objections can be addressed in Causes: you don't address Causes by saying nothing, and you can't give equal weight to all possible causes, when there is good evidence (strong evidence) for a genetic underpinning with environmental influences. Sandy 14:15, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

OK, so let me refresh your memory then. It says "The cause of AS is unknown. Since Asperger's Syndrome was officially defined in the DSM-IV, several possible causes of AS have been investigated by researchers. These possible causes include: genetics,[36] epilepsy,[37] folic acid,[38] a serotonin dysfunction,[39] cerebellar dysfunction,[40] an enlarged amygdala and hippocampus,[41]and other brain problems.[42][43][44]". It speculates about epilepsy (a comorbid), folic acid (I have on idea about this cause), serotonin (serotonin is a "status" substance), cerbellar dysfunction (speculative), enlarged brain parts (what is the causative effect?) and various other brain problems, which no doubt have not been proved to be causative either. --Rdos 14:23, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

You're splitting hairs. Everything is currently speculative about the cause of AS, otherwise, there would be no "The cause of AS is unknown." statement prefacing the intro to the list of currently investigated triggers. If there is substantial proof to the contrary for any of the included, then change it for the better. If anything, we should possibly include the frequently speculated causes which have been debunked (like MMR shots/Mercury) in a sort of disclaiming function in either the Causes section or something similar, with appropriate references to that effect. --Keyne 14:35, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Just a reminder. It was *I* that added "The cause of AS is unknown". This was not originally part of the medical list of causes! I'd say it would feel more relevant to add information about MMR and sociological causes of autism than to dwelve into detail about speculative medical causes. --Rdos 14:42, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Back to basics. It seems to me that there is a clinical viewpoint on AS, it exists, right, wrong or various, so as far asd I can see it isn't POV to say that a clinical viewpoint, and clinical research, exists in it's own right?

What would be POV is to say whether that clinical viewpoint (or rather, any perspective on it, because some of them conflict too) was right or wrong, or even MORE right or wrong than any other.

It can be argued that AS is a case similar to deafness, where those affected are largely functional and intelligent people, and where it is almost impossible for those not affected to have any easy understanding of it, or perhaps full understanding at all.

Thus there are many more "non-clinical" aspects than clinical ones.

Thus it would be POV to suggest that the clinical aspects of AS are predominant over the others in any sense. It would also be POV to exclude the clinical aspects.

I think that the most important thing is to present ALL aspects of AS as fairly, accurately and effectively as possible. Until all points of contention and conflicts are resolved it is probably best NOT to have FA status. Who wants FA status for an unbalanced and inaccurate article that nobody is happy with anyway?

Perhaps it would be best to have an AS page that synopsies and links all the aspects of AS such as:

THEN request FA status --Zeraeph 15:13, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Would you all mind holding the discussion until we fix the premature talk page archive? Ongoing discussions should never be archived: I'd like to fix it, if Zeraeph agrees. Sandy 14:50, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I'll respond after the talk page is restored: it's a mess now (no TOC, formatting destroyed, and current, ongoing discussions archived against Wiki recommendations. Let's restore the talk page, archive closed discussions properly, and then continue conversation. Sandy 14:31, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Article and prose size

Back with size info: current overall size is 50KB, which is not a problem, so there's no need to even check prose size. No one lately objects to overall size of 50KB, since a well-referenced article will be at least 50KB. Some current FAs have up to 125 overall KB, because of all the references. Prose size looks only at the prose: that is, how much the reader actually has to digest. Since this article is only at 50KB overall (which includes references, templates, pictures, etc), it's content (prose) is undersized relative to many current FAs. The article content should be beefed up. Here is how you calcualte prose size: [1] Sandy 13:14, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Revert archive

Z, you prematurely archived the talk page, including comments made TODAY, in the midst of a FARC. Ongoing discussions should not be archived (read the archive link above). Not only that, you wiped out the table of contents, and did something to the page formatting. Please fix it, and bring forward current discussions from archive to the talk page. It is never appropriate to archive a current, ongoing discussion that others may not have had a chance to see. Please undo this. Sandy 14:29, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

S, I archived the page because I genuinely believe discussions should be accessible to the easiest possible participation by all users. This page was so long it was getting hard to submit, particularly at the current rate of comment.

I still believe that. So, if you want it done differently, you must do it yourself. --Zeraeph 14:44, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I corrected it, and you reverted it. Did you read WP:ARCHIVE, which says, "you should leave current, ongoing discussions on the existing talk page"? You archived comments added in the last hour! I would like to restore the talk page, archiving only the old, closed discussions, and readding your new comment (below). I will do the work, if you agree not to revert it. Let me know. Sandy 14:48, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Either revert, or do not revert; but either way, holding this minor decision up is wasting valuable discussion time. --Keyne 15:25, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Well, zereaph hasn't responded, and I can't revert without consensus. If you agree, and give me 20 minutes, I will restore the talk page, archive closed discussions, and bring forward all new comments made since the premature archive. I need consensus to do that, so let me know if you concur, and I'll proceed. Sandy 15:34, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

RFC

I have listed this RFC http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Requests_for_comment/Maths%2C_science%2C_and_technology#Miscellaneous it seems the best, most realistic, and civil solution.

Here is exactly what I said:

"This article is now FARC, there seem to be some serious problems with NPOV and consensus to which no immediately satifactory solution is presenting itself. It really needs all the impartial input it can get."

I'm not sure RFC is the best place to list it, but I am sure the article and possible solutions to it's difficulties, needs impartial input.

--Zeraeph 14:33, 18 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]