Talk:Asperger syndrome/Archive 25

Archive 20

←

Archive 23

Archive 24

Archive 25

Major update needed

• PMID 29167722
• PMID 25655905
• PMID 30736970
• PMID 30416116
• PMID 27812341
• PMID 27556112
• PMID 26834663
• PMID 26735321

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 03:20, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Eubulides rescued this article at FAR over 12 years ago, but has not edited for ten years now. All I could do was keep out vandalism and poorly sourced edits or bad writing, but I too stopped watching this article five years ago. Unless someone is capable of a complete update, this article should go to FAR again. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:03, 16 January 2020 (UTC)

Should we relate Asperger Syndrome with Savant Syndrome?

As above. Dominic3203 (talk) 06:53, 3 February 2020 (UTC)

• No. Not even remotely supported by sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:06, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
• No. They're clearly exclusive of each other. To see any room for overlap implies that you've misunderstood at least one of them. Andy Dingley (talk) 16:24, 3 February 2020 (UTC)
• Agreed. Aspies are, by definition, of average to above-average intelligence. Are some of them autistic savants? No doubt, but the two are not the same. There may be other people with or without autism who are not considered aspies, but who are savants: "About half of the cases are associated with autism and may be known as "autistic savants"." -- BullRangifer (talk) 02:56, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

OTOH, plenty of people with Asperger's are calendrical savants, as a simple acquired skill. It's just not as heard as one might think, so it's learnable. Andy Dingley (talk) 22:57, 4 February 2020 (UTC)

Restricted Interests is too restricted thinking

That boy who plays only with the molecule model might not be finished yet exploring it. Imagine you introduce him to a 3D model or a folded protein model. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.125.226.42 (talk) 16:01, 13 March 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 7 June 2020

Change the caption of the topic photo from

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.

to

Restricted interests or repetitive behaviors, such as this boy's interest in playing with stick-and-ball magnets, may be features of Asperger's.

The item pictured is NOT a molecular model kit, it is a stick-and-ball magnet set. No aspect of the toy's design is meant to mimic the features of molecular structures, as model kits are. 98.221.153.30 (talk) 21:12, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. The file description (File:Riboflavin penicillinamide.jpg) says a boy looking at a molecule model. {{reply to|Can I Log In}}'s talk page! 22:04, 7 June 2020 (UTC)

Confusing sentence phrasing & example

In the sentence fragment "Individuals with AS experience difficulties in basic elements of social interaction, which may include a failure to develop friendships or to seek shared enjoyments or achievements with others (for example, showing others objects of interest)", I'm having trouble understanding whether this example is of seeking shared enjoyments or achievements with others, or a failure to do so? I don't understand how this would be an example of either case... (In other words, is a child showing others objects of interest an example of normal behaviour or Aspie behaviour?) JavaRogers (talk) 10:59, 9 June 2020 (UTC)

the difficulties may include

a failure to develop friendships &c.

a failure to seek shared enjoyments &c.

HTH

86.130.154.80 (talk) 05:13, 27 July 2020 (UTC)

Watching brief

This seems to have been somewhat neglected, so a few more editors keeping an eye on it can only be a good thing. I've had a further run-through and weeded-out a little imperfect phraseology, but it's a complex subject with ample scope for confusion. In due course there may be an argument for folding this into Autism spectrum, but for the meantime it carries the title of a European individual who carried out his research in Europe and so should be written in European English (i.e. 'EngVar B'), and that's an end to it.Perry Pat Etic Poleaxe (talk) 14:09, 26 July 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet 74.73.230.173 (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

The article was written in American English about a worldwide condition, and has used American English for over a decade. Please refrain from changing WP:ENGVAR without consensus, for the avoidance of unnecessary disruptive editing. There are more important issues to address in this dated article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:38, 26 July 2020 (UTC)

I'm sure there are other more important issues than that one, and indeed they are what drew my attention. The mention of British English may be a red herring, though - the point is rather that the doctor the condition is named after was European, so there is a perfectly plausible reason to use European English, while a preference for transatlantic spelling and grammar looks harder to defend other than from a first-come-first-served principle. I'd tend to agree it's not a hill worth dying on, nevertheless. Perry Pat Etic Poleaxe (talk) 18:20, 30 July 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet 74.73.230.173 (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

By the same logic, you would have us switch every Charcot-related article (French) to BrEng? Conditions that are internationally recognized do not have strong ties to one language, and we are better served to focus on the more serious issues in medical articles. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:42, 30 July 2020 (UTC)

Actually, not 'British English' at all, Sandy - but I have already agreed that it's not the most important issue here :) Perry Pat Etic Poleaxe (talk) 13:59, 3 August 2020 (UTC) Blocked sockpuppet 74.73.230.173 (talk) 04:41, 17 September 2020 (UTC)

Why still have this article when Asperger's isn’t a thing anymore?

Is it for the people who were diagnosed and refused to let go of the label?

But what about the psychologists in developing countries who didn’t get the memo. I lived in Peru so I can talk from experience. Some of them really think that Asperger's is still a valid diagnosis.

At least there should be a proper indication that this is an outdated diagnosis. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 5.100.193.91 (talk) 20:37, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

It is no longer a DSM diagnosis, but it is still an ICD diagnosis, as stated in the article. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:51, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

And regardless of diagnostic terminology, it's still a real condition affecting many people and their families. -- Valjean (talk) 20:57, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Well, yes, but on Wikipedia we still put the content about the condition under the name of the condition. If ICD had dropped it, the content would have had to be merged to what it is now called. We have a unique situation here because ICD retained it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:59, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course. Call it lazy or whatever, but in our family we still use the term because it's handy and doesn't require a lot of explanation. -- Valjean (talk) 21:03, 13 October 2020 (UTC)

Clarification of Characteristics section

A.S. isn't something I have much knowledge about, so I'm not able to expand on the Characteristics section, but this line could use some clarification:

"Intense preoccupation with a narrow subject, one-sided verbosity, restricted prosody, and physical clumsiness are typical of the condition, but are not required for diagnosis."

Although it's helpful that there are links to the Verbosity and Prosody pages, "one-sided verbosity" and "restricted prosody" don't have clear meanings. It would be helpful if someone articulated what was meant by the 'one-sided' and 'restricted' modifiers in these listed characteristics. I looked at the cited paper,Link text and I'm not sure exactly what is meant. NeuroPanda (talk) 20:23, 24 November 2020 (UTC)

A somewhat negative article

While it is a "disorder," why does this page need to focus on the troubles of having aspurgers? Many times, these repetitive interests can become extremely good hobbies. Interests in things like music production, coding, and mechanics / design can even become professions for most people with AS. Is there another article with information like this? One with Aspurger's as a reason for success rather than something to be sad about? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.130.214.254 (talk) 16:42, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

Aspergers syndrome

Instead of calling them clumsy, it’s called proprioception. They have difficulty in the sensory sense understanding their body within space. 24.44.25.52 (talk) 06:10, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

It's saying that clumsiness is sometimes shown by those with Asperger. That covers a wide variety of reasons, including poor proprioception. Thanks. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 11:37, 26 March 2021 (UTC)

Photo labelled wrong

The boy isn't playing with "molecular" model - he is playing with geomag which is a kids magnetic construction kit, and nothing even slightly neuro-atypical about this. It would be like showing a kid playing with lego and saying "Ooh looks here's an AD kid playing with an architectural modelling kit". — Preceding unsigned comment added by 79.141.43.130 (talk) 08:59, 11 February 2021 (UTC)

both pictures of boys are mildly obnoxious. They don't help the article at all, and they promote stereotypes. --2607:FEA8:D5DF:1AF0:AD20:B600:FF9E:4E34 (talk) 00:21, 7 May 2021 (UTC)

Ambiguous Claims

Who exactly are these people of "left-wing persuasion"? That bit seems entirely unnecessary. Jkolosky (talk) 04:02, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Good catch. I just removed it. --Guy Macon (talk) 04:08, 12 May 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 June 2021

change Autism spectrum disorder is diagnosed in males more often than females, and females are typically diagnosed at a later age. to Autism spectrum disorder is diagnosed in males more often than females. Jamesgog8 (talk) 13:13, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

 Not done for now: Why remove the information on age? ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 13:20, 16 June 2021 (UTC)

Conflicting info about date of inclusion in DSM?

I think this has been confused but I haven't had an account long enough to edit- it says it was included in the DSM in 1992 in the first section, but says that the DSM it was included in was published in 1994 further down, and seems to have been confused with the date of its inclusion in the ICD, which was 1992. Can someone correct this? thanks Iridophore (talk) 23:10, 5 July 2021 (UTC)

I saw this request after my edit, but this has been fixed now. :) Adveloq (talk) 09:26, 17 July 2021 (UTC)

Why no mention that the diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome no longer exists in the USA?

This seems important enough to mention. Asperger's Syndrome "no longer exists as an official diagnosis according to the American Psychiatric Association. In 2013, it was reclassified as autism spectrum disorder. And so today, you can't receive a diagnosis of Asperger's Syndrome in the United States. It remains an official diagnosis in other countries that go by the World Health Organization's standard, but even that is being reclassified because it's seen as indistinct from other criteria for autism." https://www.npr.org/2018/05/12/610716324/doctor-behind-asperger-s-syndrome-subject-to-name-change 2.28.151.214 (talk) 21:33, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

What part of...

"Asperger's was removed from the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual of Mental Disorders (DSM-5), with the symptoms now included within the autism spectrum disorder along with autism and pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS). It remains within the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) as of 2021 as a subtype of autism spectrum disorder."

...are you having trouble understanding? --Guy Macon (talk) 22:09, 13 June 2021 (UTC)

Well, where to even start? "Symptoms", to begin with, aren't even mentioned in the main body of the article, since there they are "characteristics". It's not a disease. In the boxout "symptoms" are crudely generalised as "Problems with social interaction, non-verbal communication, restricted interests, and repetitive behavior" - these could apply to everyone from the Queen and Prime Minister of the United Kingdom on down, and are utterly valueless as "definitions". I think it is fairly clear that the reason the USA has removed the classification is that it is pure fantastical speculation and demonstrably nonsense - cod psychology and pseudo-science of the worst kind. 2.28.151.183 (talk) 21:17, 21 August 2021 (UTC)

Naming of the syndrome

Of course it is offensive that it is named after Hans Asperger. And yet, I can almost guarantee that if you dig into the history of Grunya Sukhareva that you will find skeletons in her closet as well and find out about all the horrible things that she did. Instead it should be named after the first officially diagnosed case of the syndrome, who was most likely a victim of medical researchers poking and prodding them or irritating them in other ways. Nothing frustrates me more than a bunch of assholes who attempt to bully a person online because of a phrase they are using when no better terminology exists. Especially when it is likely the case that I myself have "Asperger's" syndrome. Can you fix this or at least fuck off and stop shaming me for using the only available term that makes sense at the present moment. Telling me it is "ablest" does not fix the damned issue. And it only contributes to bullying of people who have no other available term to use as an identifier. Which is, in and of itself, ablest. 69.47.208.85 (talk) 01:16, 29 May 2021 (UTC)

The first diagnosis was given to an anonymous individual under the pseudonym "Fritz V." so that really doesn't help what you are suggesting.--Mr. 123453334 (talk) 22:55, 1 September 2021 (UTC)

How is it pronounced?

How is "Asperger" pronounced? Hard g or soft g? It's not clear to me. 66.241.130.86 (talk) 17:46, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

In English it's with a hard G. -- Valjean (talk) 17:58, 17 November 2021 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 16 January 2022

Asperger's syndrome combined with schizoaffective disorder is not the reason for violence. The reason behind the affect in schizoaffective disorder is the voices. With the advent of voice technology as well as information technology. The local understanding of voices has to be corrected. 2401:7400:C80A:E2D5:C80E:5093:4DF0:7C11 (talk) 07:58, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 14 September 2020 and 17 December 2020. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): BYUIBlair.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 14:52, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 23 August 2021 and 8 December 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Delaney555. Peer reviewers: Sydanne7, Cfarmer4.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 17:36, 17 January 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 27 January 2022

"the entrenchment of some of these groups opinions"

groups > groups'
2600:8800:2C0B:FB00:ACC8:EC07:9475:F782 (talk) 06:52, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

 Done Zippybonzo (talk) 07:30, 27 January 2022 (UTC)

Discussion at WikiProject Autism

Please see the discussion at WikiProject Autism. --Xurizuri (talk) 03:28, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit: "No longer an official diagnosis" date

Hi,

I don't meet the requirements for editing semi-protected articles, but I wanted to suggest editing the intro to include when Asperger's lost its status as an official diagnosis, just for ease of access. The information is currently available in a subsection of the "History of Asperger's page" but it might be more convenient to put in the intro of this article too. Suggested edit would be:

"As of the DSM-V, published in 2013, Asperger's Syndrome is no longer an official diagnosis, instead subsumed under Autism Spectrum Disorder (ASD)." or something like this. I think this would be more specific and informational.

Thanks :) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Seamus.mf (talk • contribs)

Already stated in the last paragraph of the lead. DonIago (talk) 01:47, 23 March 2022 (UTC)

MNS

I am considering completely removing the section on MNS for two reasons: the factual accuracy apparently may be compromised, and the section is, in general, confusing and difficult to read. Is there any opposition to removing the paragraph? Cassie Schebel, almost a savant. <3 (talk) 19:32, 22 March 2022 (UTC) Hi Cassie Schebel, almost a savant. <3 which country are u in pls? Here in uk we are currently going through having a lot more MRI & some more fMRI machines installed. It’s been recommended for me to have a fMRI & mns has come up in medial discussions. Therefore I will aim to update the MNS section with more recent studies. It’s proposed that some people (20%?) can be diagnosed by MNS studies as having ASC . Therefore this paragraph could be very helpful for future patients & study. Off to bed now… — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eco-climber (talk • contribs) 22:52, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Severity

There appears to be an edit war as to whether we should use "more severe forms" or "other forms" of autism. It's called autism spectrum disorder; I believe the consensus is that there is no such thing as severity of autism, just different levels of societal acceptability. Cassie Schebel, almost a savant. <3 (talk) 18:07, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

This is broadly correct, yes. 'Severity' as applied to autism is unscientific, extremely vague and arguably ableist. See e.g. Bottema-Beutel et al (2021) [1]. Also, and this is important, 'severity' as such was never a defining feature of Asperger's vs other variations of autism. The assumption that it is 'less severe' is not supported by the text of diagnostic manuals. The closest the old DSM-IV comes is this:

"(PDD-NOS)

This category should be used when there is a severe and pervasive impairment in the development of reciprocal social interaction or verbal and nonverbal communication skills, or when stereotyped behavior, interests, and activities are present, but the criteria are not met for a specific pervasive developmental disorder, schizophrenia, schizotypal personality disorder, or avoidant personality disorder."[2]

For more discussion of the idea of 'severity' of autism from a solidly medical-model perspective, see [3]: "within ASD, there are dimensions (social communication and repetitive/restricted behaviors) that can be considered separately in terms of severity". Oolong (talk) 19:00, 4 April 2022 (UTC)

@Oolong: I wish not to start another lengthy conversation. Look, no matter how accurate your wording is, you must find a source and attach it to the claim. I do not oppose your wording, you just have to find a source. You cannot just change the wording and make it contradict what the current source says as that would be WP:OR. Also, please make sure you always acquire consensus before altering the status quo if it is challenged by someone. Thank you - Wretchskull (talk) 08:32, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

There is no source currently attached to the claim that it is more severe. It is a bare assertion, nothing more. Removing the word would not contradict anything, would not create any controversy, except that you are apparently determined to revert by default. I provided three references here; it would not make sense to include one in the text of the entry, because an absence of words is generally not something that requires a citation.

If you wish to challenge the consensus that otherwise exists here - that calling other manifestations of autism 'more severe' is inaccurate - please bring your citations. Oolong (talk) 17:06, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

The status quo was editorialized and was not supported by the source; you can now change it to your wording. Also, remember that consensus is not majority vote. It's coming to an agreement after discussion, and the status quo is kept until discussion is complete, so please refrain from edit wars in the future. Thank you - Wretchskull (talk) 19:18, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Please refrain from reverting edits without explaining a coherent reason. WP:ONLYREVERT: "In the case of a good faith edit, a reversion is appropriate when the reverter believes that the edit makes the article clearly worse and there is no element of the edit that is an improvement."

This edit did not clearly make the article worse, and you provided no reason for anyone else to believe it did - just asserted it was 'removal of sourced content', apparently without checking if the content was in fact sourced in any meaningful sense.

It looks from the outside like you are simply reverting edits that you disagree with on sight, and the manner in which you approach it makes me wonder if you are deliberately setting out to do the opposite of Wikipedia:Encourage the newcomers when the newcomers in question don't share your perspectives.

It's true @Eco-climber didn't make a particularly strong case for their first, small edit, but they did note (accurately) that it was an objective correction. It was your job to check if that was true before reverting. Oolong (talk) 06:42, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

I believe a good citation is a reasonable substitute for consensus. Cassie Schebel, almost a savant. <3 (talk) 19:24, 11 April 2022 (UTC)

I started this edit back at 07:01, 4 April 2022‎. I agree that I am not an authority. But my actual point is that the word change is because it’s a subjective & not objective statement AND the words ascribed to the source is from 2006, prior to diagnostic changes for both forms of autism. Also those words don’t appear in the original referenced article linked to them. One link is is a different language & link is broken. Another version does work, but does not say the words ascribed to it. It is also an outdated medical reference from 2006. Biomedical information must accurately reflect current knowledge. WP:MRDS Thx for your input & assistance. Eco-climber (talk) 08:43, 4 April 2022 (UTC) [Wretchskull please stop deleting my Talk entries. It is a talk page & I am aiming to be transparent & TALK. not have u delete my attempts at transparency…] — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eco-climber (talk • contribs) 21:31, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for this, @Eco-climber. You're absolutely right that this page needs to be brought up to date. If someone is preventing this based on the assumption that it's all correct until proven otherwise using multiple MEDRS citations, when the original text relies on sixteen-year-old references, in a fast-changing field, as interpreted by some random editor many years ago... I really think they're doing Wikipedia:Biomedical information wrong.

@Wretchskull why would you delete another user's comments from the Talk page? How could you think this action fell under any of the allowable reasons set out in WP:TPO? Oolong (talk) 19:48, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I have deleted "more severe" in line with biomedical best practice of 2 more recent medical studies. SEE 2016. In line with a prior study(85) and DSM-V (86), we do not further divide ‘ASD group’ into ‘high-functioning autism’ and ‘Asperger’s Syndrome’ subgroups. We use the terms ‘autism’, ‘on the autism spectrum’, ‘autistic,’ and ‘autism spectrum disorder’ to refer to the ASD group as these terms are preferred by this population (87).

The study was approved by the local Ethics Committee (University of Vienna) and conducted in accordance with the declaration of Helsinki. Both study ethics references come from: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4810325/#b85 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eco-climber (talk • contribs) 21:26, 6 April 2022 (UTC)

@Eco-climber: I've reverted your edit on the social traits as they do not meet WP:MEDRS. When adding sources, please stick to reviews, meta-analyses, and systematic reviews of the past 4 years. Therefore, I recommend you save this link. Thank you - Wretchskull (talk) 07:41, 7 April 2022 (UTC)

Hi @Wretchskull, can you spell out your rationale for considering the manifestation of empathy in autistic people to be a biomedical topic requiring MEDRS-standard references?

Thanks. Oolong (talk) 19:30, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

@Oolong: Here we go again... I won't argue, but just know this: EVERYTHING that has to do with medicine MUST fulfil WP:MEDRS - Period. This has been pointed out to you numerous times and it is frustrating seeing the same reply every time. If you fail to understand this you won't be allowed to expand articles regarding medicine for long, as Wikipedia is stringent on reliable secondary sources, especially if it's medicine. You can only summarize what reliable medical sources state, hence why I recommended that the link (update: better one be saved. Wretchskull (talk) 21:20, 8 April 2022 (UTC)

I'm just going to quote Wikipedia:MEDRS directly on this:

"

Biomedical information

requires sourcing that complies with this guideline, whereas general information in the same article may not.

For example, an article on Dr Foster's Magic Purple Pills could contain both biomedical and non-biomedical claims:

• Dr Foster's pills cure everything. A biomedical claim! Strong MEDRS sourcing is definitely required here (see WP:MEDASSESS)
• The pills were invented by Dr Archibald Foster and released onto the market in 2015. This is not biomedical information, and it only requires ordinary RS
• They are purple and triangular, packaged one to a box,^{[citation needed]} as no-one ever manages to swallow a second one.^{[medical citation needed]"}

So, no, it's very explicitly not true that 'EVERYTHING that has to do with medicine MUST'.

The question you need to answer is is this biomedical information? 'Biomedical information is information that relates to (or could reasonably be perceived as relating to) human health.' Biomedicine is 'a branch of medical science that applies biological and physiological principles to clinical practice.'

Is empathy a health issue? Is it having biological and physiological principles applied to it here?

You seem to think it's obvious that it is. It's not obvious, and you haven't made, or pointed to, a case for it. That's why I keep making these same points. Oolong (talk) 06:23, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

@Oolong: Although general information could definitely be non-MEDRS (but still WP:RS), empathy is absolutely reliant on MEDRS; it's an issue directly related to this neurodevelopmental disorder and is always highlighted in MEDRS sources on the Autism spectrum. Don't bother replying because, as I said, I have no interest or time to keep beating a dead horse. If anything expandable is covered by MEDRS, definitely use them, and if there is a mild non-health claim, use any reliable source; but, if it is a health claim (i.e. in this case symptoms of AS) then it definitely requires MEDRS. Wretchskull (talk) 09:15, 9 April 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for conceding the obvious point that it's simply not true that everything relating to medicine has to fulfil WP:MEDRS, and for making a token effort to justify why this would fall into the category of things that would. Obviously, observations of empathy differences in autistic people don't come anywhere close to meeting the definition of biomedicine 'applying biological and physiological principles', and it's questionable at best that they fall under the heading of biomedical sciences at all, given the haziness of the biological differences associated with any of this. Presumably you would have a similar reaction to trans people citing non-medical literature to correct misconceptions about themselves, given that gender dysphoria is in the DSM. Fortunately, this is not the direction Wikipedia as a whole has chosen to go in.

Still, I'm not particularly interested in arguing the toss on this particular aspect; I can see that you can make a case that this is about 'attributes of a condition' as per Wikipedia:Biomedical information, and regardless, there is strong enough evidence in the secondary literature to make the changes that need to be made to bring this aspect of Wikipedia's autism coverage up to date.

More important here is that you have been applying MEDRS wrong in a more general sense. The point is supposed to be to ensure that biomedical claims are backed up by reliable sources. That means keeping up to date, and routinely checking whether existing claims are backed by reliable sources. It doesn't mean that every edit needs to have citations from the secondary and tertiary medical literature. Oolong (talk) 07:32, 12 April 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request: "Some of them" -> "Some"

In this snippet:

However, not all individuals with Asperger syndrome will approach others. Some of them may even display selective mutism, not speaking at all to most people and excessively to specific others.

I think the phrase "some of them" unnecessarily emphasizes a distance that would not be there if the sentence just said "Some may even ...". That's also faster to read. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.237.135.135 (talk) 21:26, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Agreed, and  Done. A. Randomdude0000 (talk) 22:09, 14 April 2022 (UTC)

Society and culture

This bit badly needs work. For anyone genuinely acquainted with the relevant debates, it's darkly hilarious to see Simon Baron-Cohen presented as the pro-neurodiversity extreme of the discourse, with Jonathan Mitchell at the other end. Oolong (talk) 08:07, 15 April 2022 (UTC)

"learning disabilitie" /can we merge it?

Why does it have category "learning disabilities" and Low-functioning_autism not? Is there any reason if DSM-5 states that Asperger's, and the other diagnosises for Autism are now all under the umbrella term ASD (Autism Spectrum disorder)why we cant merge them all? Recommendation: Merge Asperger_syndrome,Low-functioning_autism,High-functioning autism, Pervasive_developmental_disorder_not_otherwise_specified with the article Autism_spectrum. All of the mentioned articles could become an own category inside of Autism spectrum. Nobody not even in Europe uses "Asperger'" or Kanner autism anymore. 2A02:8388:4501:1F00:ACE4:E365:4D03:8781 (talk) 23:42, 24 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 6 June 2022

Please add mention of Hans Asperger's Nazi collusion. I already edited the articles under his name and "history of Asperger's syndrome," and added reference links. That information can be easily copied to this page. Rachelkrislov (talk) 17:36, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

 Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:46, 6 June 2022 (UTC)

I think they could be referring to adding a small section, or mention of the controversy surrounding Hans Asperger, having to do with Hans Asperger's affiliation with Nazis.

This controversy is one of the reasons some people may not want to use the term "Asperger's Syndrome", instead opting for the more generalized terms "autism" and/or "autistic". XeonBionic (talk) 12:07, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 August 2022

I have Asperger Syndrome and for some reason it really annoys me that the onset is around “2 years after birth so maybe change it to “at birth however no symptoms appear until around 2 years of age.” i wont throw a hissy fit if you don't but i am 12 so i don't know. Pufferfish2009 (talk) 22:39, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

 Not done for now: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit semi-protected}} template. That does not look to be an improvement. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 22:54, 12 August 2022 (UTC)

This would be an improvement. It is generally believed that people are born autistic, and it only becomes obvious later. Oolong (talk) 08:46, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Correct. I am a 60-year-old female from a family with multiple neurological disorders who "fell through the cracks" because (1) my second brother's Tourette and executive-function disorder (then called "learning disability") were more obvious; (2) in past years, autism was thought to only be present in boys; (3) my parents were both clueless; and (4) my mother was also probably on the spectrum. Instead, in the 1970s, I was slapped with a "gifted" label that only meant being placed in a class with other "gifted" students. There was no tailoring of resources for me until fifth grade.

And it was only in late 2021, at age 59, that I recognized the symptoms of my own HFA and did enough research to start self-advocating.

Of course, this is irrelevant as applied to WP article standards, but I think it's important for people to know that Pufferfish2009 and Oolong have valid points. You may want to check the following links to see if they qualify as WP sources:

https://www.nhs.uk/conditions/autism/what-is-autism/

https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5789210/ 68.198.85.24 (talk) 17:15, 3 September 2022 (UTC)

Intense World Theory

The wiklink Intense World Theory is a redirect to Asperger syndrome#Mechanism. Yet, in that section (and on the whole page), this theory is not discussed. That doesn't seem right, as User:Epa101 mentioned before on 8 December 2018. I think this theory deserves its own page, and should be described shortly on the page about Asperger syndrome and on the page Autism spectrum. This was also previously discussed in 2010. I hope someone will help me with this! Laurier (talk) 05:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

Intense World Theory

The wiklink Intense World Theory is a redirect to Asperger syndrome#Mechanism. Yet, in that section (and on the whole page), this theory is not discussed. That doesn't seem right, as User:Epa101 mentioned before on 8 December 2018. I think this theory deserves its own page, and should be described shortly on the page about Asperger syndrome and on the page Autism spectrum. This was also previously discussed in 2010. I hope someone will help me with this! Laurier (talk) 05:57, 5 September 2022 (UTC)

in the first image is the thing really a molecule?

i had one of these toys when i was younger and i was wondering if it was really accurate for this to be a toy of a molecule.

"Restricted interests or repetitive behaviors, such as this boy's interest in a toy model of a molecule, may be features of Asperger's." Idespisethefrench (talk) 17:18, 2 November 2022 (UTC)

It is the model of a molecular-type structure. ButterCashier (talk) 13:36, 7 November 2022 (UTC)

It's not actually a model of a molecule, though, no. It's a magnetic construction toy.

I'll change the description. Oolong (talk) 08:02, 10 November 2022 (UTC)

Potentially incorrect terminology

As someone who has high-functioning autism, I think this article should be renamed. The classification "Asperger syndrome" has fallen out of use recently, because autism is a spectrum. This signifies that this is somehow different from normal autism. I wouldn't say I'm offended, but I'm certainly surprised that this terminology is being used on Wikipedia. My apologies if I am incorrect. I don't want to seem hostile, but sometimes it comes off like that, since one can't hear one talk when reading posts online. This might be a drastic measure, but I think it'll pay off in the long run. Also, I'm using a school account. Keep that in mind. Good day, fellows! (talk) 16:51, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I think an article on the former "Asperger('s) Syndrome" is useful for historical reasons. The article ought to clearly state that the term is outdated and no longer used, but understanding what exactly the term was used for is extremely useful given its previous widespread use. Dovepaste (talk) 13:56, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

I could see how the phrasing 'is a former neurodevelopmental disorder' was a bit confusing, so I have edited it to read 'was previously considered a neurodevelopmental disorder'. I think that's a little clearer?

Does this entry still need the 'outdated terminology' warning at the top? Oolong (talk) 14:52, 31 January 2023 (UTC)

The difficulty I have with cancelling the phrase "Asperger('s) Syndrome" is the alternative. If you tell somebody, "I have ASD Level 1", you aren't really telling them anything. It's hard to see how the conversation doesn't proceed "What is that?" "It's condition formerly known as Asperger Syndrome."

"Asperger's" is a term still in wide use among older folks like myself, and also outside Autism circles. It is no longer the clinical diagnosis. But everybody knows what a heart attack is, even though the clinical term is "myocardial infarction". Is there something so wrong with using a word that everybody understands to describe a particular condition? 142.33.224.121 (talk) 18:42, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

Asperger's Syndrome has become "incorrect" in a number of ways.

Firstly, it is no longer a category in the American Psychiatric Association's Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, so Americans can't use it to get cover from their health insurance. Outside the USA, that is irrelevant.

Secondly, Asperger himself has become "incorrect" as we discover more about his collaboration with the Nazi regime in war-time Austria. That will continue to matter for a century or so, until Hitler becomes a remote historical figure like Napoleon.

Thirdly, we have the question of whether psychological terms should be used in a categorical or a dimensional sense. At present, diagnostic schemes yield quantitative scores which are used to make a qualitative diagnosis of a syndrome: they have to do that, because the question to be answered is usually, "Do we pay for this person to have that treatment/training or not?"

Fourthly, should there be an apostrophe and "s" at the end? A meeting of editors of American medical journals decided sometime in the 1990s that syndromes were in future going to be have a bare name with no possessive marker attached. That may work for American English, but might not be so great for other languages. Cultural imperialism at work! NRPanikker (talk) 20:05, 2 March 2023 (UTC)

It's a reality that many people were diagnosed as having Asperger syndrome in the past, and this provided a useful explanation of that person's behaviour, and led to particular ways such people were "managed" in school and in other situations. This is a significant aspect of the history of such people. We cannot ignore that reality. HiLo48 (talk) 00:11, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

The amended lead sentence is very confusing. A lead sentence should indicate what something is, rather than what something "was previously considered". OK, so "was" might be appropriate therein for a person who is deceased or a company or television show (for instance) that no longer exists. But surely Asperger syndrome does still exist, even if it is no longer formally recognised as a distinct condition. And in any case, "was previously considered" is confusing as a way to open an article. The second sentence of the lead paragraph does, I think, an adequate job of saying what the change to the first sentence was trying to say.

Furthermore, we should avoid using the word "disorder", as it's inherently POV. Except where the word occurs as part of the formal names of specific conditions and categories thereof. There's a whole school of thought that people with AS – or on the autistic spectrum generally – are not disordered. — Smjg (talk) 12:26, 6 March 2023 (UTC)

Past tense

I think this edit is correct, because, as it says on the page, with valid sources: "however, with the publication of DSM-5 in 2013 the syndrome was removed, and the symptoms are now included within autism spectrum disorder along with classic autism and pervasive developmental disorder not otherwise specified (PDD-NOS). It was similarly merged into autism spectrum disorder in the International Classification of Diseases (ICD-11) as of 2021." Laurier (xe or they) (talk) 11:39, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

I think the question is whether AS no longer being considered a diagnosis in and of itself means that it effectively no longer exists. I'm not a mental health professional, so I'm leery of making assumptions regarding this. This is an inexact analogy, but what comes to mind is that on Wikipedia we refer to TV shows in the present tense even after they've been canceled, because they do still exist (for instance, on DVD), even if they're no longer being produced. DonIago (talk) 13:40, 21 July 2023 (UTC)

First of all, AS is still a diagnosis in countries that follow ICD and are yet to transition to ICD-11, which will take a couple of years since it came into effect in 2022. Further, AS does not cease to exist just because it is no longer given as a diagnosis. People diagnosed with AS keep that diagnosis and the concept of AS does exist independently of ICD-10 and DSM-IV.

It is true that "AS was a diagnosis in the DSM-IV and ICD-10" but it has existed as a concept before that (arguably, according to Wing, since the 1940s) and will continue to exist as an idea.--TempusTacet (talk) 15:30, 22 July 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure people would react the same if we were talking about a physical disease. If I had a diagnosis of a chronic physical illness in one country, and later found out they used old medical information, and according to the latest scientific theories, it was something else altogether, with a different cause and different treatment etc., I'd want to know that, and would't want to 'keep' the old diagnosis. I think Wikipedia would reflect this new information and change the page to the past tense, AND mention it was still a current diagnosis in countries that use the older system. Laurier (xe or they) (talk) 12:44, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

It seems to me that if AS is still considered a diagnosis in some countries but not others then the most appropriate way to represent that is to retain the present tense while giving due weight to the point that in other countries it is no longer considered a diagnosis. As AS isn't no longer considered a diagnosis universally, to me it would be inappropriate to put it in the past tense as though it's ceased to exist.

To continue with my earlier analogy, just because a TV show may no longer be availble in any form in certain markets wouldn't mean that we would say it no longer existed; we'd just say it wasn't available in those markets. DonIago (talk) 14:50, 23 July 2023 (UTC)

@Laurier: It's not about what people call their diagnosis but about how the healthcare system treats it. Many/most people once diagnosed with AS will call themselves autistic and might reject the term AS but they'll still have an AS diagnosis in their records that will usually not be updated/renewed, although the DSM-V explicitly specifies that an established DSM-IV AS diagnosis can be updated to an ASD diagnosis without additional diagnostics. Note that the US is also still working with ICD-10, the 2023 ICD-10-CM still contains AS (code F84.5).

Echoing what @DonIago said, the article should (and does) reflect the fact that the diagnosis will disappear and that the term has been discredited, not just for medical/scientific reasons, with a majority of people diagnosed with AS, clinicians, and researchers embracing the ASD/autism label.

Note that there are still voices calling for a re-introduction of a diagnostic category similar to AS for a purportedly "mild" part of the autism spectrum, although no convincing definition and criteria have emerged.--TempusTacet (talk) 10:45, 25 July 2023 (UTC)

What about my analogy with a physical disease? If I was treated for X, but in countries that use the latest scientific medical evidence that it's actually Y, I'd wanted to be treated for Y. I'd want to know the country in which I received diagnosis X used a system that is formally outdated. I'd want that to be very clear on Wikipedia as well. So in the first few lines, I should read that X WAS (...), and in some/many countries, this diagnosis is still current. Laurier (xe or they) (talk) 13:50, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

Do you have an example of an article that supports this? Even the ones you linked to in your first post in this thread use present tense. DonIago (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2023 (UTC)

No, I don't. It is my personal POV, and as such not enough as a convincing argument; if many editors would support my ideas we could change the page accordingly, but it is now clear that not many editors agree, so I'll just let it be. :-) Laurier (xe or they) (talk) 14:32, 24 October 2023 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 December 2023

Asperger’s syndrome being called a disability is offensive and incorrect. I would like to reclass it as a diversity. Aspergers123 (talk) 17:20, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Where is it called a disability? I briefly checked the page and I don't see that. DonIago (talk) 17:22, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: likely WP:CENSOR violation Shadow311 (talk) 18:06, 11 December 2023 (UTC)

Factual inaccuracy in article?

"...formerly described a neurodevelopmental condition"? It still does describe a neurodevelopmental condition, in that people that were diagnosed with it before the criteria merged it with autism spectrum disorder are not, at least in the UK, having their original diagnosis changed.aspaa (talk) 04:11, 04 November 2023 (UTC)

Also, it is only the usage of DSM-V that has changed it, ICD-10 still has it (F84.5), so its not "removed" except for in one manual Rilmallion (talk) 18:25, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

The ICD-11 does not list Asperger's syndrome as a separate diagnosis anymore; is it merged under ASD. --WikiLinuz (talk) 18:40, 22 January 2024 (UTC)

Introduce myself and request for editing this article

Hello, I am a master student enrolled at Uskudar University in Istanbul, Turkey. As part of my course, "Brain, Neuroscience, and Biotechnology Edit-a-thon," I've been assigned with editing an article on "Asperger syndrome". I successfully completed the Wikipedia training modules to improve my editing skills. Your support in this work would be greatly appreciated. Thank you in advance. Best regards, Fadel111 (talk) 09:13, 9 January 2024 (UTC).

You should indicate the changes you would like to make. Horep (talk) 14:24, 28 January 2024 (UTC)

ICD-10 and 11

Please keep in mind when updating the article to aline with ICD-11 definitions that implementation of the newest ICD revision may in some countries take many years/a decade and the ICD-10 definitions will be used for many years to come. If anything, an update should contain both ICD definitions and a discussion on how and why it has changed. 2A02:2121:60C:6E14:14A3:EECC:AD08:F67F (talk) 08:45, 14 February 2024 (UTC)