Talk:Asperger's syndrome

Article Checklist for "Asperger's syndrome"

Workgroup category or categories	Health Sciences Workgroup [Categories OK]
Article status	Developing article: beyond a stub, but incomplete
Underlinked article?	No
Basic cleanup done?	Yes
Checklist last edited by	-Versuri 07:47, 23 March 2007 (CDT)

To learn how to fill out this checklist, please see CZ:The Article Checklist.

---

G'day,

Imported this from WP. It has received a fairly high rating, bronze star or something like that. However, it does need paring down and many of the sources remain to be checked out. Meanwhile, I would like some help on the info box in the upper right hand corner. At this time, I have made quite a few small changes and rewrites. I will put it on CZ:Live status today. Let me know if you think this is jumping the gun. Thomas Simmons 12:21, 21 March, 2007 (EPT)

One hope I have for this article is that it can ultimately lose the undue emphasis on "controversy" and "criticism" that seem so common in wikipedia articles. For example, the section which is titled "History" includes summaries of disputes over diagnostic criteria and whether AS and HFA should be differentiated. These sorts of things certainly need to be discussed somewhere in the article but I don't think that the reader needs a constant reminder of the controversy.

I have a small library of (reputable) books on Asperger's and autism and am going on nine years of raising an Aspie. I'd be happy to help improve and "Citizendifying" this article. Jacob Jensen 12:38, 5 April 2007 (CDT)

Re: Jacob Jensen reworks of History " I don't think that Asperger was named to "honor" Asperger". Agreed. She pointedly says that his original terminology was misleading and simply named the syndrome to avoid the ambiguity that resulted.

Re: deletion because "Wing and DSM-IV classification were redundant." Also effective.

With regard to "undue emphasis on "controversy" and "criticism". It should be discussed at length, I agree. Was not really tuned into the emphasis but see it now. Believe it to be the work of multiple authors who were not writing the article as a whole, simply adding bits and pieces with their own motivation as it evolved (or devolved) as the case may be. The disputes over nomenclature are real. I am in the process of reviewing thousands of abstracts on PubMed and the terminology is diverse as are definitions and diagnostic instruments. On first glance, the criteria for diagnosis and the means by which this is done indicates a great deal of divergence in definition and methodology.

Additionally, I for one welcome insights from those who are personally involved in this matter. Thomas Simmons 15:43 6 April, 2007 (EPT)

Good, it sounds like we are on the same page. As a parent, Ifound it very difficult in many cases to get straightforward information about AS until I started diving into the primary sources. In my opinion, the appropriate tone for most of the article should be similar to the introductory paragraphs of the medical/psychological literature - providing adequate depth regarding generally accepted knowledge before dredging up the dirty laundry of the research community. There is considerable controversy surrounding diagnostic criteria, standardized test methods, where AS fits on the "spectrum" (if at all), and what sorts of biomedical or behavioral supports are appropriate. This should all be discussed at length but shouldn't pervade every aspect of the article.

I look forward to working with you on this. I checked out your user page and you seem to have an excellent breadth of experience to do this topic justice. I will be traveling for much of next week but might start moving some of the "controversy" talk to the talk page. Also, feel free to argue with me over changes. I enjoy the collaborative nature of these wiki things and thing that a back and forth between multiple authors usually creates better articles. Jacob Jensen 12:42, 6 April 2007 (CDT)