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)