Talk:Asperger syndrome

For older discussion, see
Archive 1 (May 31 2005)
Archive 2 (August 23 2005)

Proposal to rework or remove 2 passages

"Aspy" or "aspie" is an affectionate term used by some with Asperger's syndrome to describe themselves. Others prefer "Aspergian", "Asperger's Autistic" or no name at all. Many who feel there is no significant difference between Asperger's syndrome and autism due to the spectrum analogous variances in autism may prefer the term "autie" or just "autistic" as a more general term.

Already on the autistic culture page and explained better there

Recently, some researchers have speculated that well-known people, such as including Albert Einstein and Isaac Newton (cf. BBC News, Einstein and Newton "had autism", 30 April 2003), have or had AS, as they showed some Asperger's related tendencies, such as intense interest in one subject, and social problems. A chapter of the aforementioned Gillberg book is devoted to this subject, including a detailed case study of the philosopher Ludwig Wittgenstein concluding that he met the criteria for the disorder. Such diagnoses remain controversial, however.

Wild speculation (maybe it should be reworded a bit?)

If anyone has any better ideas on how to go about this please do tell :) --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 11:40, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

For reasons given right in the above text, the part about Wittgenstein at least seems reasonably well-supported. Attwood seems to think the phenomenon is very widespread indeed, but I wouldn't include more than a passing reference precisely because he does not go into the multiple pages of detailed case studies that Gillberg does.

Against Einstein: Patent office (and he didn't stay there, it was merely incidental). 24.22.227.53 22:45, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Joe Mele of Aspies for Freedom

Hi RN this is Joe Mele of Aspies for Freedom. I am very upset of some of your decisions. First I think the autistic comunity should have more of say than the NT community. It is very insulting to hear that autistics.org isnt high quality enough. It is the message that counts. It is also incorrect to autisticprideday.com merely a daughtersite of AFF cos it is truly a community effort.

Is there any opportuniy that we at AFF can have a dialogue with sysops over what has been happening? via email or IRC?

thanks

Joe please don't edit my user page - also please discuss here. I think autistics.org may be able to stay but in order to remain a featured article we have to keep the number of links down in this article and limit them to only HIGH QUALITY links of major organizations/sites etc.. Also, why on earth would you want to get the sysops involved? You have not even attempted to contact me before this. --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 16:59, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Joe, please stop injecting all those links into the page - at the very least they completely mess up the formatting there. Please discuss with me which sites you think should be included, or at the very least put a few of the ones you think are very quality in the article without messing up the format there, thanks --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 17:09, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Joe, there is no "NT community". Despite what it sometimes seems like, there no gigantic rift between an "autistic community" and a "neurotypical community". Most "neurotypicals" are too busy with their own passions, drives and goals to even know there is an "autistic community" in the first place. Also, realize that the "autistic community" is made up of not much more than a smattering of individuals on the spectrum who either met on the Internet or, perhaps, through ASA or similar organizations. Most of this "autistic culture" is imported and emulated. I understand what's going on, because I used to be one of you guys, but then I grew out of it. Go walk out in the forest sometime and sit against a tree and admire the beauty of nature. Forget all about there being any sort of "autistic community" or how those gosh-darn neurotypicals are planning to oppress you. Then walk back into town, stop, take a deep breath, and see all the people in front of you going about their daily lives minding their own. The "autistic community" is a pile of crap. It really is. You don't need to fight for freedom and rights under the proud banner of the "autistic rights movement", which is an idea you got from the Internet. You already have the same freedom and rights we all have. It's all right, man. Just chill. Even though it may seem like it isn't sometimes, we're all just the same and just as different as they are. I understand where you're coming from, and it's a typical Aspie thought process, but it's flawed in the same ego-centered way that Tern's is. I still get trapped by my own isolated Aspie thought loops, too, but I've achieved a beautiful peace with the world. --24.94.57.93 09:00, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

That above comment was a great comment Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:48, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

:I am sorry Ryan but you speak as an ignorant NT.  There is a difference between NTs and aspergians. That above is probaby tom from FAM. Just because he says he was on of us doesnt mean much. for one thing it is anonymous any troll can say that.  As fafar this peace he found is such bunk. it sounds like the gibberish that comes from any recent convert to a religion. I expereinced many forms of haraament from NTs cos of my difference. And to be little it is to belittle me and the millions of other autistics who suffer it on a daily basis from NT prejudice. Ryan you dont walk in our shoes so please. There is a track record in human history of expunging differences. People were killing until recently for minor differences in skin color and religion. And in some places they still do. Can you imagine , the outrage and the indignantion of encountering people who have a different social instinct?? they are perceived are dumb, possibly rude, not right in the head. All very subtle. So Please Ryan Raise your consience and awareness. JoeMele 06:05, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

post script Why is there a box on every edit I do????JoeMele 06:08, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Ryan

Fair enough. I am new to the wiki. so if i violated "wellknown" guidelines. sorry. to business why I am here.

Ryan those links are important. It gives autistics a voice in world that by and large silences them. They are never asked or rarely on the question is autism or asperger really a diseease or difference. Autistics.org is part of that chorus. Autistic Pride Day is the expression by the community at large that we are valid human beings in our right. Until Maurice franks aka aspieknee aka tern came here. this article was featured and those links was THERE. n There was no issue, It is time to let us have say as a community how we are portrayed and not people who are diseased. - Joe Mele

Thanks for responding Joe - if I was mean or something please disregard - its been a bit hectic on this page lately :). As for the links there before - the problem is that now since the this is up for removal it needs to conform to the newer standards for featured articles which are higher (I'd argue MUCH higher) than before and that includes keeping the links down to a reasonable level. I do say I emphathize with your cause (as do most editors here, I'd imagine) - also I had to evaluate each link and it really was not easy - so if you have any specific ones that you want to bring to my attention please do so. As for now I think I'll add autistics.org back. --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 20:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Ryan- I am not talking about the article. But I am talking about the external links. We can have a separate discussion on the article. but I am merely talking about links that should not only back up the article but offer opposing views or interpertations of the article.

Autistic Pride Day is important. and a community effort AFF is the "caretaker". The only reason AFF is a caretaker of sorts is to prevent it being co-opted into something else than the original intent. - Joe Mele

No offence, Joe, as it's clear your intentions are good, but this reads like you only read the first sentence or two of RN's previous reply. He addressed most of the points you made here before you made them! Are there specific links you feel should be added, and why? Keep in mind that this article could lose its Featured Article status if too many are included. 24.77.97.3 22:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Ryan Why are you dropping aff now??? when it was clear that you thought it was ok. I am taking charge here now.

Joe, please revert. First of all, Wikipedia is not a soapbox for causes - second of all the site is in see also since there wikipedia page for it, and the autistic pride day link is not notable - please read wikipedia guidelines Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:28, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Ryan. you are wrong. It is notable. Ithas been featured in places like the New Scientist. So i am sorry but that is your POV. Joe Mele 12.222.69.144

You don't understand - its already referenced from the AFF page here. If you really think it deserves inclusion here then please put it in see also, not external links. Thank you Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:37, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

One more thing - please don't revert my changes on the rights movement page without reading my responses to Amy at

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:AmyNelson first. Thanks Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 15:39, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

intro

Like other conditions classified as Autism Spectrum Disorders, Asperger's syndrome is considered to be rather gender biased, with males comprising approximately 75 percent of the diagnoses. Some clinicians argue that females are more exposed to social situations and thus have more of a chance to learn to imitate the non-autistics and behave "normally", and therefore the actual incidence among females may be higher than these figures suggest.

more info that should probably be sourced, and should be narrowed down is considered to be rather gender biased should be changed to refer to who considers it, people with asperger's syndrome, doctors, researchers? Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 20:59, August 23, 2005 (UTC)

See above under "social exposure". I'll see if I can get that paper through my university library and maybe include more detail.

Are both of those sections from the same source? Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 02:25, August 24, 2005 (UTC)

I'm not sure what you mean. It's the same text from the article being discussed in both cases (albeit a reworded version in this case); I was surprised you started a new category for your comments instead of just putting them there.

Reorganization

I'm thinking of reorganizing the material about how the symptoms present. Right now we have

• a somewhat rambling "Characteristics" section that could be improved simply by putting the paragraphs in a different order (maybe sorting into subsections),
• a "Social interaction and cognitive patterns" section that just repeats stuff from Characteristics in slightly more detail,

and,

• an Effect on Relationships section that is partially redundant with both and WAY in the wrong place - it should perhaps be a subsection of Characteristics.

I am going to go for a walk, then work on my thesis for a bit. When I get back to Wikipedia, probably late tonight (Winnipeg time), I will work on converting these three sections into one, probably excising some material along the way. Unless, of course, there are any objections. (Or someone else does it for me, of course!) PLEASE feel free - more than free! - to post any thoughts you have on this here. I will check them before I change another word.

I will also include a mention of Tern's concerns, though strictly as an example, in an effort to ensure a relatively quiet life once he is unblocked.

(I ignore for the moment the Social Stories & Comic Book Conversations stuff, which definitely needs to at least be a lot shorter. As I suggested last night, this would be better off somewhere else entirely.) 24.77.97.3 21:15, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

I mostly agree - I think if somehow we could seperate the life experiences somehow from the characteristics that would be good - but that may take too much work for now so I think your proposal is definately the best--Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 23:23, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

The stuff that's more about life experiences and less about presentation at least deserves to be in seperate subsections. (That may have been the motive for the current organization, but right now it does seem to be a bit of a mess.) I'll come back in a few hours, as promissed earlier, and start pecking away at it. 24.77.97.3 23:46, 23 August 2005 (UTC)

Just want to add that I noticed a hopeful sign earlier. I saw on Tern's talk page that he would consider RN's Proposal C an acceptable compromise. Since my own idea for mentioning it was along similar lines, we may be able to keep any edit warring when he gets back into circulation down to a dull roar. 03:30, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

UPDATE - I have been working on the promissed edits for about two hours now, and am getting close to done. The "Effect on relationships" section will soon disappear. The "Characteristics" section will sprout four subsections. The "Social interaction and cognitive patterns" section will be renamed "Living with Asperger's Syndrome", with a change of focus to what RN called the "life experiences" stuff as per his suggestion. This should result in an article that is more readable and feels tighter. I am leaning towards ditching the Social Stories stuff entirely; I'll probably move it to the Talk page for easy reference in case anyone wants to add it back in some (SHORTER) form. 24.77.97.3 08:40, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

DONE - I have done all I promissed in this section. Please scour my version mercilessly for anything I might have messed up; it looks good to me but it's nearly 5 AM where I am so I could well have missed something. Among MANY other things I replaced the dog eating homework example with another one from Attwood, though there may yet be room for improvement there. There's also a nod to Tern, though it's not in the same place he put most of his edits.

The new version goes through the commonly accepted symptoms much more systematically than the old version. I noticed that something is still conspicuous by its absence - information on the overall prevalence of AS. Sometime tomorrow (well, today actually) I'll get the Ehlers & Gillberg paper from my school and put something about this at the beginning of the characteristics section; I also hope to improve the information on the gender split at that time. 24.77.97.3 10:06, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Very nice work! And I think your "nod to Tern" is excellent. Whether he will find it acceptable, I don't know, but I think it does a good job of making the issue relevant to the article.

I still have a concern about the section "Tony Attwood ... remarked 'Perhaps the child could be given a creativity prize for lateral thinking that produces a novel word, phrase or description, and incorporate their unusual words or phrases when writing a story book'". I can't find my copy of Attwood to check the context of the quote, but someone mentioned that this quote might be suggesting a therapeutic technique to encourage lateral thinking rather than a remark about the child's existing wordplay skills, and if so, the quote is probably misused here. But I can't find the book, so could someone look into this?

Anyway, thanks for the hard work, 24.77.97.3! ManekiNeko 10:37, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The person who said that was me. It turns out I overstated the case; Attwood suggests it as a way of using AS characteristics to the child's advantage and attaining peer recognition, but not as a therapeutic technique per se. It's not badly out of place there, though it could perhaps be dispensed with without undue harm. (It is true is that Tern was taking it out of context, but I'm nevertheless embarassed about that. When pointing out such an error on someone else's part, I really should be extra-careful to make sure my own house is in order, and in that case it wasn't quite.)

And I've got to get a proper account. I'm sure it's easy, I just haven't bothered, and then just when I was about to the business with Tern made me decide to put it off for another few days. But being called by a number just doesn't seem right. For now you can start calling me Jeff. 24.77.97.3 10:45, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification on the quote. Yes, I think it could be dispensed with, or maybe that bit could be slightly rephrased to make it clearer what is going on in the context. I would do it myself if I wasn't up about 4 hours later than I ought to be -- better sleep first. And tomorrow I might find my copy of Attwood anyway. Thanks, Jeff! ManekiNeko 11:24, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Amazing work Jeff! I'm going to go through and finish copyediting this when I get a chance :) --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 11:26, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

The 3RR rule does not work 1 -sidedly and can be abused if a page comes under an organised hate attack from a group who outnumber the defence or target one person, and who don't talk about an issue on any other basis than hounding for its total suppression. It was that situatioon here that caused there to be an edit war. Accordingly, it's urgently necessary to put to the entirety of Wikipedia,based on this expereince, a reform proposal to keep Wikipedia ethical by preventing this.

I don't mind the block being used to see if it cools the situation, if it's applied to both sides equally. But - if 1 person gets a block and a group behaving personally hatefully don't get a block because no single one of them has committed 3RR, then bullies are rewarded and their attack on the page gets protected and encouraged. My edits were not even simple reversions but new adaptations, retaining any made by others. How then is Wikipedia to guard against having its ethic of neutral content destroyed by the 3RR rule working in favour of bullying campaigns and organised frequent attacks on pages? Simply enact this:

(i) the 3RR rule to apply when different people make the same revert, exactly the same as when 1 person does. (ii) When a 2-sided high-frequency edit war is happening, if a 3RR block is made it must be made simultaneously on every person on both sides who took part during the preceding day. Admins with discretion whether to apply a 3RR block or not, shall not have discretion to apply one to only 1 side of such a dispute. (iii) Except as part of a 2-sided parity, a reverter who does new adaptations not simple reverts to past content can't be given a 3RR, unless: there is a discussion in progress that is about content not personal attacks, and is about factuality not an insistence to simply delete an item on grounds of not thinking it important.

Without these rule changes, Wikipedia can be dragged into giving non-neutral positions with content censored by a group attack's agenda, including on medically serious issues. On the evidence of this case, Wikipedia visibly owes to its members to make this rule change. It happening as a moment in Wiki history will keep this bullying remembered + the unbullied survival of this article's balance under more special watch than it would have got otherwise!

I actually don't contest the use of a block to make non-aggressive users feel able to use a period of calm to reassess. I only contest that it should have been applied to both sides: on equal terms to every person who had taken part in the edit war on its other side. Now you have to show you have used the calm to say "gosh, we'd better get a bit more serious about this" as a couple of you have. Have you come to discuss this with proper neutralist thought not personal attacks on character, no more saying an item should be excluded because of who it comes from and the lies 24.19.0.114 had heard about me and shouldn't have repeated here, but all users counting each other as meriting of civility? That's the way to prevent edit wars becoming necessary for standing up for yourself and for forcing a return from hate to reason.

Jeff not shown any error on my part re Attwood, as I've already answered it before.

All the restructuring and clearout of the page has been good progress is establishing what everyone wants. Now here is my proposed response to the present edit. Comment, on the content's merits not the former personal basis, in order not to return to fighting. I have kept to your desire to class the disputed issue as an example. All that needs adding to the present edit is a few words to mention thwarting an achievement, and I have kept them within the edit's spirit in this proposal -

" For example, a child with Asperger’s Syndrome may be a gifted writer for their age, this correlates with the language and wordplay skills mentioned above and the appearance of child authors in Asperger awareness raising. The teacher may insist that the student pay attention to the lesson or work on assigned homework assignments instead of their own writings. A non-spectrumite child in such circumstances may be mildly upset, but would probably reluctantly go along with the teacher; but for an aspie child, such an experience can be extremely traumatic and leave the teacher and the rest of the class wondering why the normally withdrawn child is suddenly angry or upset seemingly out of proportion to the situation. Dismissing the child’s concerns at such a juncture – perhaps by characterizing these as immature or disrespectful in a moment of weakness – can be a serious blow to the child’s self-esteem which may already be somewhat fragile. Also, the child is factually right in realising that a sustained pattern of adults casually feeling entitled to impose their own priorities in this way could do deeply wounding unjust damage to the child's life by thwarting an achievement, e.g. if homework load stops the child writing a book. "

On the links edit war: neutrality requires that if we don't link to Spectrum Fairness then we don't link to Aspies For Freedom or its offshoot Autistic Pride Day either. AFF is not entitled to call itself "prominent". You can find our from Fellowship of the Aspergian Miracle how "dozens" of us have experienced AFF as a hate site. I had not before approached this by deleting AFF's link in case it was taken as censorship, but after seeing how others have asserted an entitlement of personal taste to say they don't like SF, I have deleted AFF's link on ethical grounds so that a justification of AFF's ethics must be given by anyone who reinstates it. Nor must we link to diet or education groups associated with the Jacksons, or "Asperger Friends Family and Support". tern 02:30, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Tern, if you have a problem with AFF then please go to that page (Aspies For Freedom), and add a criticism section et al. --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 02:49, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• I won't comment on the proposals regarding 3RR since they are completely off-topic for this page, except to say that you appear to completely misunderstand the role of consensus, and that I'm pretty sure you'll be told the same thing if you make this proposal through the proper channels. The rule that 3RR does not apply to groups is quite explicit and is there for good reasons. But don't take my word for it; go ahead and make the suggestion. I certainly won't do anything to try to stop you (even if I could), except possibly vote against it if it comes to that. I will also point out that you were as guilty as anyone (and more guilty than most) of going into the previous discussion with guns already blazing. I appreciate the effort you seem to be making to get things going on a more level-headed plane.
• Regarding the Attwood quote, you may have attempted to address what I said, but you certainly have not done so to my satisfaction or that of any other editor who has commented on the matter. At most, you have shown that there is vague, peripheral relevance, but it's outright misleading to claim, or try to imply, that Attwood agrees with your position, and if that's not what you were doing then one wonders what the Attwood line was doing there at all.
• Now, let us discuss your proposed rewording of the paragraph in question.
  • For example, a child with Asperger’s Syndrome may be a gifted writer for their age, this correlates with the language and wordplay skills mentioned above and the appearance of child authors in Asperger awareness raising.
    • This seems awkward and redundant. Writing is already mentioned in with the previous section you refer to. Admittedly it's kind of swamped by the humour stuff - perhaps that could be rewritten slightly. (Does the list of types of humour really need to be there?)
  • The teacher may insist that the student pay attention to the lesson or work on assigned homework assignments instead of their own writings. A non-spectrumite child in such circumstances may be mildly upset, but would probably reluctantly go along with the teacher; but for an aspie child, such an experience can be extremely traumatic and leave the teacher and the rest of the class wondering why the normally withdrawn child is suddenly angry or upset seemingly out of proportion to the situation.
    • Your changes here are pretty minor; I question the need for them. In particular, you're adding what some of the other editors called "aspie-speak" (spectrumite, aspie) at a point in the article where these terms have not yet been introduced, something I deliberately avoided (even though it drove me nuts to do so). This will probably be confusing to those not already familiar with these terms.
  • Dismissing the child’s concerns at such a juncture – perhaps by characterizing these as immature or disrespectful in a moment of weakness – can be a serious blow to the child’s self-esteem which may already be somewhat fragile.
    • Unchanged, of course
  • Also, the child is factually right in realising that a sustained pattern of adults casually feeling entitled to impose their own priorities in this way could do deeply wounding unjust damage to the child's life by thwarting an achievement, e.g. if homework load stops the child writing a book.
    • "Casually", "deeply wounding", "unjust", and arguably "impose their priorities" and "damage" are all POV. I realize you have said above you don't agree, but that simply isn't how Wikipedia (or much of anyone else) interprets neutrality, sorry. "Unjust damage" is about as POV as it gets; any admin who came by and saw such language used would change it or slap an NPOV flag on the article, and rightly so. What you can try to do is say something about what sorts of damage it might cause. Be explicit and specific, but try not to use loaded terms like unjust.
    • Here's a comparison that's often used: Go to the page on Adolph Hitler. You won't find anything like "Hitler was an evil man" (though it does talk about the fact that he is seen as such) or "The Holocaust was unjust" there. Instead, you'll find clear, well-researched information on what he did to deserve that reputation. It doesn't need to say he was evil; the facts speak for themselves. On a note closer to home, I imagine that's why the bit about imaginary friends is on the AS page. You don't have to say it's a sad or unfair situation; the reader is inexorably drawn to that conclusion already. PurplePlatypus 03:02, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I went into the discussion, excuse me, with its start having already consisted of a gratuitous slur on my character, posted here out of nowhere. What would you expect me to do? and everyone knows Attwood wasn't writing explicitly about author destruction, but that the reference was a source on the AS-writing correlation. It was the correlation it was being cited to source.

The meaning of "Spectrumite" follows from "autistic spectrum" which has been given earlier in the page. The definition of aspie could be moved to an earlier position, thus making the rest of the page expressible in a smoother way than "person with AS" all the time.

The "this correlates" section you find redundant, is certainly optional. I thought it made the para more balanced. I want to keep the list of types of humour, it illustrates word skills. No, "casually" and "impose their prirorities" refer to the picture the preceding sentences have described, not to a real-life case,and are clearly what was depicted. Explain how "deeply wounding" is POV, how it's not axiomatic to the nature of thwarting an achievement. For it to be POV, a plausible case that it's not deeply wounding (from which "unjust" then follows) would have to exist. The suggestion that the child's reaction is out of proportion needs to be totally separated from this particular example, but I don't like proposing the deletion of someone else's point to fit mine, it's better to change the seriousness level afterhis point in the way the words you call POV do. Why aren't you calling "serious" from "serious blow to the child's self esteem", POV on the same grounds? tern 03:47, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

yes you just edit-conflicted with me trying to do that. Why the hell does accidentally leaving a space-character at the beginning of a line produce these blockquotes that make you tear your hair? tern 03:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I've just reinstated SF's link because someone else had reinstated AFF's. I wouldn't have done it unilaterally otherwise. The logic he has reinstated AFF's on is identical to what mine used to be in reinstating SF during the edit war. It's both or neither. tern 04:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality does not have anything to do with this kind of tit-for-tat, both-or-neither reasoning you're using. AFF, whatever you personally think of it, is a clearly notable site that has been recognized as such by many experts in the relevant fields, including Attwood. While some people may disagree with some of its actions, view or policies, it is not even remotely a hate site by any reasonable definition. SF is for the most part a series of poorly-written rants by one person about the various ways he feels he has been mistreated - a view that, as your reception here and in various other places demonstrates, is not widely shared to say the least. I would not call SF a hate site either, but parts of it border on conspiracy theory in the worst sense. Certainly it does not meet Wikipedia's criteria for being sufficiently notable to include. PurplePlatypus 05:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Neutrality has everything to do with opposing SF just on a personal view of it. You can find much wider sourced eveidence than on SF, that AFF is a hate site, by joining a Yahoo group called FAMSecretSociety where hate-victims have supported each other, and that AFF leaders were banned from only 2 months ago for going there to harrass these ex-victims further. Just in case you are the type of wishful thinker that most opponents of SF are and you refuse to go to FAMSS to check this out, I'm putting excerpts on your user talk page. You will remember that harsh words in these excerpts were not written addressed to you but are being copiedto you from another place for information. You seem to make up Wikipedia's criteria as you go along. To disprove that, reason from quoted criteria in an itemised way. 83.67.65.99 09:05, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

• TO ALL, INCLUDING BUT NOT LIMITED TO TERN:

I will be too busy today to properly deal with this. The text Tern refers to is on both my Talk page and Tern's; I invite all with an interest in doing so to visit mine and go over it. Joe, if you're still here, this might be especially relevant to you. I would prefer if any extended discussions about it took place elsewhere, but if people put them on my Talk page it's not like I can do anything about it :-). (Well, I can delete it, but promise not to for a period of at least one month.) Warning: there are multiple messages reproduced there, some by Tern and some by others, and it's not always clearly delineated where one ends and the next begins; this would be less of a problem if not for the fact that it's long, multiple screenfuls of stuff.

More specifically at Tern: I do plan on visiting FAMSecretSociety to see if it matches your description. Given the gulf between some of your other descriptions (say, of what's gone on here) and reality, I am sceptical - it seems to me you are far too ready to percieve persecution against you and not terribly open to other people's views - but I will check the facts rather than dismiss your claims outright. As far as making up policies as I go along, though, I have to point out that this is very much the pot calling the kettle black; you have pulled all kinds of things out on this page and elsewhere about who is required to refute what, almost none of which has any basis in any published Wikipedia policy. PurplePlatypus 20:35, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I am raising an objection against lies that Tern is posting here, there are only 2 admin (called by Tern 'leaders') of AFF, that is myself and my husband, I have never been a member of the FAM group, and as such could not ever have been banned. Sadly we have been the target of hatred and malicious comments from Tern for over a year, he attacks myself, my husband and our group AFF. That is clear to see from his site, and his comments here, and on his talk page. I would be grateful if his lies about myself and my husband could be removed from this page and I cannot see what on earth this has to be do with wikipedia, and he is simply using this facility as a further venue to harrass us. AmyNelson 00:38 26 August 2005 (BST)

Asperger Adults of Greater Washington notable?

OK, this group has been putting the international asperger's year passage into every asperger-related article, which the group itself coined. The group itself does not seem notable - I mean the site itself is a yahoo group. Someone please correct me if I'm wrong on this. I mean the history of the page http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Asperger_Adults_of_Greater_Washington&action=history is just Willardston who I'm guessing is the founder, and if so this probably breaches original research or vanity or something --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:04, 24 August 2005 (UTC)

Ryan

  I never heard of them before.
           Joe Mele AFF

Thanks again Joe :) --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 03:23, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Great job + whats left to do

Great work everyone! The last edit by Jeff was excellent! I went ahead and copyedited it, although my changes were extremely minor.

The only thing left is the "Possible causes and origins" since it duplicates a lot of stuff from Autism... many we could just have a very brief summery there, link to the Autism article, and go into anything that's specifically been done for Asperger's syndrome? Thoughts? --Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:00, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

That seems to be the standard practice. I support this suggestion. I will not, however, go ahead and do it as the causes are not something I feel knowledgable about (or, to be honest, very interested in - it's the effects that concern me). (This is Jeff in case it's not clear, getting my shiny new proper account off the ground) PurplePlatypus 04:14, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I copyedited some of the copyediting :-), though only in the very early parts of the article - the rest was quite good. PurplePlatypus

Neurotypical

"To refer to people who are non-autistic many people with Asperger's syndrome will use the term "Neurotypical", or the abbreviation NT, which comes from the fact that Asperger's syndrome is thought of as a neurological disorder by professionals."

How do ASes get off calling non-ASes neurotypical when at least some of those non-ASes will have other neurological disorders???? Is this really how it's used (the profoundly limited sense)? Given other things mentioned in the article via the specific type of focus-limitations of Asperger's and Autism-spectrum disorders, it wouldn't surprise me. 24.22.227.53 20:51, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

We don't "get off" on it, it's just a convenient term. It's hard to tell what exactly people mean by terms, but in my experience,those with other types of nuerological disorders aren't considered 'NT', since they have some of the same problems with "normal" society. It's not meant offensively. And that's a hell of an awkward wording in the original article. - R, 25 August 2005

"Get off" as in allowed by others and themselves, not enjoy. I realized the rest after reading the Neurotypical article. 24.22.227.53 23:44, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

That part gets dicey and probably varies from person to person.... in fact the second paragraph there probably isn't needed. Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 22:21, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

Added the link brackets as I, a person who isn't -- and has no real sustaining interest in -- AS, etc... found it inately interesting. 24.22.227.53 23:04, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

It should be noted that, in lue of someone's comment to joe, these terms are only known by a very small subset of AS people (I or another person I know whose a professional in the field had never even heard of it until I visited here) Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:43, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Re: please reference in article itself

Given the others weren't, I didn't see the need to. Am unwilling to spend the time necessary to find the appropriate part in the book (or recall which of the books it was in). Feel free to edit my edit out if you wish (though you'll consequently be removing a more researched addition if you do so). The book would have been either "Understanding the Enneagram" revised edition or "Personality Types" both by Riso and Hudson (I think it was most likely "Understanding"). 24.22.227.53 22:03, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

My issue with it isn't the lack of a book reference so much as the lack of any context at all. "The introverted sensate personality type" -- what introverted sensate personality type? The INTP thing just above it says that it's Myers-Briggs and provides links, but the bit you added doesn't have that material to explain what an introverted sensate personality type is. I just did a Google search for "introverted sensate personality type" and got mostly links to Myers-Briggs anyway, and a couple of mentions of Jung, but I don't really feel comfortable calling it "Jungian typology" when I am only guessing from those links. And I don't want to post a book reference if we're not sure which book it was, either. Can someone please fill in a book reference and some context? Personality types are not really my area of expertise. ManekiNeko 04:32, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Tern's issues (continued from Reorganization)

The Reorg section was getting a little long (editing it was becoming a very awkward process), so I'm starting a new topic for discussion salient to it. I hope that's considered okay.

At any rate, Tern seems to have once again been blocked, this time for linkspamming. I played no direct role in causing this, but I have put a lengthy and firmly worded note on his talk page explaining what I see as the reasons for not including SF. Hopefully that is the last we will hear of that issue here, though I have no doubt his talk page will soon sprout a lengthy stream of spurious logic, gross mischaracterizations of Wikipedia policies, and personal insults, directed at me. Fine. If that's the level Tern wants to "discuss" things at, I'm more than happy to let him; sooner or later it will likely earn him more than just a 48-hour block, quite possibly without my having to lift another finger.

I have also reconsidered leaving the extensive quotes Tern put on my Talk page there at all. This material has been deleted. For one thing, one of the people being quoted has objected to having his words reproduced without his permission. For another, now that I've read it from start to finish, I simply can't see what Tern's point in putting them there was; there just isn't enough context. For a third, I'm a little miffed that he added them to the TOP of the page; it may seem like a minor thing, but it certainly wouldn't be acceptable behaviour on, for example, THIS talk page, so I don't see why it should be on mine. I will, however, be responding to it on Tern's talk page once I've had a look for myself at the Yahoo group in question (and no, Amy and Joe, I don't seriously expect anything Tern has said about you to be vindicated there - and in fact, even his own choice of quotes already shows that community to be guilty of some of the same sins he attributes to AFF - but I do wish to see it for myself nevertheless). PurplePlatypus 08:46, 26 August 2005 (UTC)

Fair enough PurplePlatypus. AmyNelson 13:43, 26 August 2005 (BST)

He's blocked for quite a while now Ryan Norton ^{T | @ | C} 04:44, 27 August 2005 (UTC)

Just an update, Tern has been perm banned for personal attacks, disruption, and legal threats. As such any edits by Tern IP's or socks can be reverted and sight and an admin can ban them as socks. Jtkiefer ^{T | @ | C} ----- 05:34, August 27, 2005 (UTC)