This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
My 5 year old son has something going on and I think it may be Aspergers, however there are many general traits that he definitely does not share. He will start Kindergarten in the Fall and has been accepted into the Special Ed department and I am getting him back into regular therpy as well. One of the problems I have had in getting him help (I have always known something was different and tried to get a diagnosis at age 3, although I had no knowledge of Asperger at the time) is that people dont thing there's anything wrong with him other than being a little "odd." Do any of you have experiences of early diagnosis you could share?
I wikified the article a little - many links were then removed by User:Hapsiainen. I've reverted to reinclude them; please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links). Proto 09:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Recently, some researchers have speculated that many well-known people including Andy Warhol, Andy Kaufman, Craig Nicholls, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Glenn Gould, Gary Numan, Erik Satie, Nikola Tesla, Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Friedrich Nietzsche, Theodore Kaczynski, William James Sidis, Bobby Fischer, Steven Spielberg and Bill Gates have or had AS, as they showed some Asperger's related tendencies, such as intense interest in one subject and social problems.
I think these researchers may be exaggerating just a bit. Just because someone has an intense interest in a subject doesn't mean that they have a mental disorder. They're probably just extremely dedicated to their work, and their work is appealing to them. → JarlaxleArtemis 19:45, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
I've reverted the changes made by 172.215.166.84. This user changed all instances of autistic to autist. Autistic is a far more common term than autist: autist gets 41,800 hits in google, and many of these are non-english sites; autistic gets 1,300,000. While I accept a search for autistic will have picked up many uses of autistic as an adjective, I've never heard the word autist used in everyday speech. Is there any reason to prefer the word autist rather than autistic? I have no problem with the use of other autism-specific terms on the page, like neurotypical. They are fully explained, and solid reasoning is given for using them. I don't find any solid reasoning to use autist though. Graham 03:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the following speculative diagnoses of Asperger's from the "gift and curse" section, since no references were provided for them. Please feel free to add them back once you have found a reputable reference (i.e. not just the web page of some random non-specialist) to support their inclusion:
Andy Warhol, Andy Kaufman, Craig Nicholls, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Glenn Gould, Gary Numan, Erik Satie, Nikola Tesla, Lewis Carroll, Friedrich Nietzsche, Theodore Kaczynski, William James Sidis, Bobby Fischer, Steven Spielberg and Bill Gates
Remember that Wikipedia is not for original research. Thanks. —Steven G. Johnson 21:06, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
I removed the following:
Um... the site itself says that it is for informational value only... it could go in the informational section
This is duplicated from Autism Research Center: Other Tests
-- Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
The bit about the persecution of aspie child authors whose careers are ruined by too much homework is the well-known perseveration of a particular fellow, Maurice Frank, the maintainer of Spectrum Fairness and author of this Young Authorship article. He is known for posting at length on this topic in many, many AS forums, and sometimes getting banned for flaming when others don't agree, etc. The Spectrum Fairness site itself could probably be well-described as a site that exists solely to harass those who have banned him or otherwise angered him, though on the surface it may appear more innocent. (This is why I am editing anonymously, to avoid drawing his attention.) At any rate, there is no indication that Frank's child authorship issue is a common concern among Aspies, so I deleted that sentence from the article, and the Spectrum Fairness link description misrepresented the actual content there, so I did delete that for now as well. Unless we are going to link to the blog of every Aspie with a grudge, Spectrum Fairness shouldn't have a link. If there is evidence that the child author issue is more than one Aspie's perseveration, that should be included, but it seems not to be, as the links I find in Google to this topic all end up pointing back at Mr. Frank (who is most likely the editor known as Tern, who added the Child Author content to this article).
Another note -- the item added by Tern to the Luke Jackson reference, "with the book's structuring and editing done by his mother according to the Times's review of 16 August 2002," is another typical Frank remark, as he often comments that Jackson didn't complete his book by himself. This might be considered for deletion too, as whether Luke had any help at all is not exactly relevant to the context of this page, but I'll leave that decision for someone else for now. Anonymous 10:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
You know all this is rather interesting and reminds me of something that happened recently when I was programming stuff for one of the projects I was involved with. Quite often people would critisize me for my work, and I would try to respond. Eventually people stopped accepting my work and responding to me. Later, when I asked why they didn't want to deal with me anymore, they said its because I was taking criticism on my work as a personal attack, rather than something to be fixed that had nothing to do with me personally. Distressingly I never could change the opinions of those people about what I did, as I had pretty much solidified the image that I took everything personally. Hopefully this can enlighten someone. -- Ryan Norton T | @ | C 10:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Disagreement is when you talk about the content of what is written, regardless of its source. Prejudice is when you personalise it.
tern
12:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Asperger%27s_syndrome&curid=37556&diff=21374471&oldid=21372891
"A recent suggestion has been that it is camouflaged in girls: the obsessive calorie counting of an anorexic may belie some kind of autism."
If there isn't a reference for this it should be reverted/removed....
-- Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I removed the following:
This appears to me to be an unattributed POV. -- 80.168.224.108 10:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
The unprovability of you being the same person as has committed this act of vandalism before, is the only reason for not putting this page under a neutrality dispute right now, as I would do if it was him who had done it. The statement is factually sourced, and is a medical concern about serious child harm. To call it unattributed is an elementary lie. It can't be a POV unless you can present an argument that wrecking a child's opportunity is not an axiomatic "terrible injustice". If there is an alternative medical view of the issue, then you add it in a following sentence of your own, you don't vandal-delete the original sentence. Don't destroy this featured article's reputation by forcing an edit war whose entire basis is personal spite and criminal medical censorship. Tern 12:45 Aug 20
Graham and Pianoman87, same person, says in his user-page that he's blind. Sorry to hear that, but of course I have to ask, because of it: can he read that a site link is attached to the words "chance to achieve child authorship"? and can he check this discussion page frequently enough to see the last legal notice I wrote to 24.19.0.114 ? Tragically I am now forced to mark this site as disputed neutrality, because of an obsessive vandal who has tagged onto 24.19.0.114's personal libels instead of reading my answer to them, as even if he has a disability he is responsible to do before spoiling a featured page with the worst type of personality-based edit war? Tern 14.46
Answer directly what I said about CHILD CRUELTY, or else your lack of answer to it will associate you with it. That's logical. On what grounds directly do you deny that your medically biased personally preferential censoring of this page IS A DIRECT ACT OF EXACERBATION OF THE CRIMINAL ABUSE OF MY CHILDHOOD, and therefore also a direct criminal act against present children in the same situation? You have to answer directly and committally. I am putting a repeat of the question onto Spectrum Fairness, where you have an absolute right to reply.
You can find no evidence that this CONCERN ABOUT CHILD CRUELTY, NOT A "VIEW", is not shared by "even a small minority of the autistic community", AND the neutrality of a Wiki article has got nothing whatever to do with the numerical quantity of people who back or oppose a view. That is the whole nature of factual neutrality. "I agree with" and "I find no evidence" ARE POINTS OF VIEW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have not up to this moment deleted the link referring to Luke, because he is not to blame for any of this at all. But now, if all mention of an already wronged group of children is going to be terrorised by a mob conspiracy every few seconds, then for balance's sake all mentions of an unwronged child author come under the neutrality dispute too. Him but not us is not neutrality, it is hate crime and liable child abuse, literally and demonstrably. Tern 15:49 Aug 20
The spectrum fairness site is a hate site directed at members of the autism community, including luke jackson. It should not be linked to, and the child author thing is just a way to further attack luke. The extreme obsessive nature displayed by tern/frank does not make any valid argument as to why a very important page should be disrupted and vandalised. Such an important issue to millions around the world should not be put in jeopardy because of one persons obsession and hate crimes. I hope wikipedia can remain firm on the issue, and remain relevant and factual as ever.
Grady - 20 August 2005.
Spectrum Fairness's entire purpose is to OPPOSE hate. Exactly like the organised hate campaign being committed here, which exposes how much fraud and ruthlessness is going on in the aspie scene.
Grady commits a hate crime by his post here,a position of total selfishness and not wanting to believe in others' suffering. To wit: child authors' chances get ruined by the crimes of the adults in their lives, nobody conceives that Luke is involved in the process,e.g.in my case it happened long before Luke was born. Therefore there is no logic in calling the issue an attack on Luke - and anyone who does so reveals that they unscrupulously want to gag other people's suffering to prevent anyone else being equated with Luke. They want deliberately to keep the crime's effects in place. A deliberate confession of wanting to stuff the public with manipulative fantasises. Here in Grady's post is an open confession of the selfish and deceitful motives behind this HATE CAMPAIGN. The EXTREME OBSESSIVE NATURE of ganging up like a baying mob to suppress medical facts from a page meant to be impartial, also speaks for itself as an organised crime, willing to destroy anyone and anything including Wikipedia. They are disrupting the page, nobody before this outbreak of crazed hate crime began conceived that the addition of a balancing sentence about a cruelty to children was adisruption.
I have substantiated the hate crimes I accuse you of. You have not substantiated the hate crimes you accuse me of.
As for 24.19.0.114, you can all see that he has come here and actively recorded his choice neither to answer my question nor refute its premise. In order to accuse me of losing perspective, you must demonstrate that another perspective exists, and not one that says cruelty doesn't matter or should be ignored. You have not refuted my arguemtns of balance and neutrality in the article's content that prove Wikipedia is appropriate for this: because all portrayal of AS without it is unbalanced and biased. and what I have put on Spectrum Fairness is an exposee that a mob seething with hate is organising a hate campaign to silence medical facts and distort public knowledge of AS. Anyone reading here can see that is the whole truth. Tern 09:29 Aug 21
Who put the neutrality disupute tag on, and why? Is this part of Tern's vendetta, or is there some serious reason for it?
Tern/Frank has done 3 rv's in a day of the same link, doesn't that qualify for a 24 hour ban? he has used his name as tern, and just his ip number for anonymity for this today. 21 August 2005.
No I haven't - they were far from identical, because unlike my persecutors I'm following where possible the Wikipedia principle of trying different adaptations of text when it's under dispute. The mob lusting for rejections and bannings shows clearly the character of group prejudice that is involved in this crisis. Replies to Wikipedia are sometimes jumpy,or if you have been thinking a long time becasuse you are angry or have a lot to do you might reply after your log-in has expired, or in your concentration on the subject you may just forget to log-in when you start. I have experienced all 3 of these accidents on occasion, as producing non-logged-in actions, and one of them happened today. It's nobody's business which one. Also, you knew it was me and my editorial comment line made clear so, so there was no attempt at anonymity. See how the seething mob are looking for excuses to sling mud at me without reasoned thought? Such personal stuff is quite against the rules, you know. Also, my IP number is not solely mine: that gets you, doesn't it, you can't try to discriminate against my IP number without catching another innocent party in the process, or (except today's) know who wrote anything coming from that number, see? Tern 18:17 Aug 21
Your lurky anonymity is a typical crank tactic suggesting you don't believe you belong here. If you want to be taken seriously, put a lid on the personal attacks and the vendetta to get rid of one person, and start citing sources. Sources that establish that child author destruction doesn't or can't happen, or is an inocuous or even beneficial contribution to aspie kids' development.
Where exactly - source your quote! - did I call this a "well-known" medical issue? Asperger's itself is still not well known. Everyone in forums says they find, as I find too, that most people have never heard of it unless it has crossed their paths. Nothing has stuck in their minds from all the Jacksons' fame games. As long as this issue has been in here, it has been a [ sourceable] fact that the medically serious aspie community in my region recognised and cared about the issue, as a child development issue, and it was in their knowledge as a pre-existing source outside Wikipedia. The only things I equate with child abuse are (i) the crime of author destruction itself (ii) saying it doesn't matter (iii) saying it doesn't matter for the public not to know about it, when knowing things leads to stopping them. Given that this whole argument began with 24.19.0.114 posting a ranting personal attack on me against the rules, that exposed my name without consent and repeated lies he has swallowed from a notorious hate site, and argued for suppressing page content on a basis of prejudice against a person, there is no behaviour by me except in defence. Tern 23:28 Aug 21
I direct you to the page itself. To - the archive of the most recent unvandalised version you can find.
Tern Aug 22,09:56.
It seems there's something screwy with the page history - it takes me back to Asperger if I go through the diffs. Is this a page cache issue, or do other people see the same thing? Guettarda 06:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
In a recent change, quotes were made from Tony Attwood and Mark Segar. Can someone provide citations for these quotations. The first is from a book, so this only needs the name of the book (possibly edition number), and page number, and the second details of the source of the quote, preferably a web-based source if one exists. Silverfish 17:45, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
Attwood - Asperger's Syndrome, p82. Segar - Loving Mr Spock by Barbara Jacobs, p99. Tern 23:28 Aug 21
Wow, the last couple days of this article has been interesting, for sure. Anyway, the geeksyndrome link A) I removed it before because it is NOT a reliable test - in fact the site said so that it was for entertainment purposes only B) Now the link refers to a store where you can by darth vader-related merchandise - so its a simple advert - removed for the 2nd time
I also removed the nonsense about there being a "great injustice" because of school or whatever - if you are going to claim that you better have a good source, not some random 14-year old ranting about how he couldn't get published or something.
Anyway, keep up the good edits guys and have fun! -- Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually that would be a good source, and it is only prejudice to say otherwise. By what you have just said you admit that this really happens to a non-zero number of people. That automatically immutably makes it a great injustice, by the nature of the experience, and automatically a premeditated act of malicious child harm to delete it. And what sort of mind sides with the mob, instead of the individual in struggle to stop a medically serious great injustice getting hushed up? Not an aspie independent-thinking mind. Rather, the archetype of every force in the human animal that aspies regualrly get hurt by. Tern 23:28 Aug 21
Comment here -- Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
The page clearly states that the 3RR rule does not apply to restoring pages from "simple vandalism",and a hate campaign like this most obviously is that. Here is a copy of the defence I have filed to this malicious charge:
Comments by Tern Hi, I'm Tern. I require to report that I am being hounded by a personally vicious hate campaign whose like I have never seen on any other Wiki page's history. Content that originally amounted to a single sentence, that referred to facts already known outside Wikipedia, that personally attacked no one, and that is medically important on the scale that it refers to a form of child cruelty, is being targetted for suppression by an organised campaign who vandalise the page every few hours. The vandalisms are so personally malicious that they include deleting reference to the hurt children while leaving in reference to unhurt ones, and fraudulent in that they include removing the neutrality dispute label. All their arguments in discussion consist of libellous personal insults of me and exclusion of material on grounds of personal prejudice, or arguing that the issue should not be counted as mattering if they personally don't believe many people care about it (though I quoted a list of communities that do), and that neutrality matters less than this. When 1 individual being flagrantly bullied by a mob who don't care what they destroy including Wikipedia, and who are committing medical censorship and biasing a page in a way that would associate Wikipedia with child cruelty, it is common sense that the defending side can't be forced to sit passively for a day after the bullying side have pursued their illegal campaign 3 times in a few minutes or hours. Wikipedia must ban this hate campaign, to show the public it has effective ethics. Also, the use of the IP address was not an attempt to dodge the rule at all, as there was no anonymity or hiding of my identity involved, and I answered that malicious charge fully in discussion.- Tern, 09:53 Aug 22.
I have attempted to resolve this dispute to the best of my ability, I am considering asking for page protection. By the way, an alleged hate campaign is not simple vandalism, and people should be extremely cautious about removing NPOV flags. PatGallacher 09:09, 2005 August 22 (UTC)
I've answered all this elsewhere here, except "idiosyncratic". That's a new label. So you define how you think it is compatible with neutrality to care more about avoiding "idiosyncracy" than bias or imbalance? If you think it's NPOV -which I don't, I'm saying what to do if you do - your responsibility is also to disprove that it forms part of the overall NPOV balance, or to add the contrary point of view you think exists. I've challenged eveyone to do that, repeatedly: if you think there is a countering point of view, add it. That nobody does, is proof that what you are all after is medical censorship, not Wikipedia balance at all. Tern 14:06 Aug22
Why is the Spectrum Fairness site now listed twice in external links??? With two different descriptions??? How is this informational, and the fact still remains that it is a hate site and shouldn't be listed even once.
22 August 2005
O lurker, that was me. I didn't notice during the edit that there waas another mention in a different place, requiring removal because it contained the word "hate". Tern 14:06 Aug22
Tern has again removed a link giving accurate information about his site, and replaced it with incorrect information and added his link. Why is he constantly allowed to ignore wikipedia rules, and continually rv and add his site?
I have reverted to the last version by JRedmond for these reasons:-
1. I'm not very happy with people saying "do not revert".
2. I'm also not happy with people saying "see discussion" without putting anything new in the talk page.
3. People should avoid making controversial changes anonymously, this leads to suspicions of sockpuppetry.
4. I've had a brief look at the website in questions, it does look controversial, I do not yet have a view about whether we should link to it, but it is not obviously a hate site. PatGallacher 17:13, 2005 August 22 (UTC)
If you think that is practical, then you can get rid of the SF link without committing bias by it.
- Tern 00:21 Aug 23
The Attwood/Segar citations Tern added were awkwardly phrased and needed attribution, so I attempted to fix them (also adding the reference material to the References section and cleaning up format there). I did also delete the text claiming that these citations support Tern's child author issue. But when Tern reverted, he not only added back the deleted content, but now the text of the citations is poorly written again. (See this for my version and his.) I would change it again, but I am afraid it will get muddled in the ongoing dispute, as any change I make -- even ones attempting to improve style, etc. -- is liable to be reverted by Tern. I also do not want to accidentally end up in a 3RR situation over something that is peripheral to the main dispute. :) Could other editors look at this? Thanks! 66.235.6.229 20:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- Tern, 00:21 Aug 23
I added this to Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates#Asperger.27s_syndrome since it no longer meets the guidelines for a featured article canidate.
Stability: This article isn't stable by any criteria, it is repeatedly being edit warred and most edits are reverted on sight no matter how well intentioned.
Accuracy: the accuracy of this article is greatly disputed as is the point of view.
Readability: the writing appears to be all over the place and seems to jump from one place to another which makes it hard to read.
This is just my opinion mind you and I'd be all for rewriting this to conform to what is expected but it seems that at the moment any such attempts would be futile since they'd be reverted on sight, at this time however the article at this time does not conform to Wikipedia's standards for featured article.
Jtkiefer
T |
@ |
C ----- 22:10, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Tern is adding his own link, and removing those of other important sites with no valid reason or explanation. Whilst editing his 'child author' thing, he is also deleting important external links too. Very improper way to edit. AmyNelson 23 August 2005 (BST)
I protected this page before I realized Zscout had blocked Tern, so protection may not be needed, or it might be best to leave it locked for a few days until a consensus can be worked out on talk. Perhaps editors could say here which they'd prefer. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Ok. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, I rewrote the intro paragraphs a bit (which could probably be improved upon) -
Also, Tern's passage... here are some proposals
These things illustrate how AS might be associated with child authorship, and one person even claims to have suffered a "terrible injustice" when the chance to achieve child authorship is unfairly wrecked by high-handed school pressures.
Some believe these things illustrate how AS would be associated with child authorship, and claim the chance to achieve child authorship is unfairly wrecked by high-handed school pressures.
If anyone has anything to add or edit please do so :).
-- Ryan Norton T | @ | C 06:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree rather strongly but the problem is that in order to remain a featured article it must be stable and obviously with Tern (or others) editing it like that it won't be for long - not sure at the moment what to do about that. My previous editing disputes all involved more than one person who had at least a somewhat valid reason for the content they were pushing and eventually I just put in a small variation of what they wanted, so I'm not an expert in this area. A few more things -
For now, maybe the best thing is to say that they are often discrimated against because of social skills or other characteristics and maybe have a brief side mention of the author thing (I don't really even know if its a good idea to even link to either of those two sites though)? -- Ryan Norton T | @ | C 06:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds like a good idea. -- Ryan Norton T | @ | C 06:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
This figure may not be completely accurate, as females are arguably more exposed to social situations and thus have more of a chance to learn to imitate the non-autistics and behave "normally".
I am having trouble finding a source to support the contention that girls are more exposed to social situations in boys. Apart from the probability that such gender differences in social structure must vary widely across cultures, can anyone cite a basis for the contention about the sample population from which the 75% figure was deduced (and identify that sample)? — Theo (Talk) 17:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Also I will add the 75% is troubling as while I've heard of statitistics on it, I don't know if its referenced here - maybe just say is generally considered to afflict boys more than girls or something -- Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Some people, including some people diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, argue that Asperger's syndrome is a social construct. Professor Simon Baron-Cohen of the Autism Research Centre has written a book arguing that Asperger's syndrome is an extreme version of the way in which men's brains differ from women's. He says that, in general, men are better at systematizing than women, and that women are better at empathizing than men. Hans Asperger himself is quoted as saying that his patients have 'an extreme version of the male form of intelligence'.
The only thing I can dig up for now was a reference from a link on the Autism page
Mindblindness: an essay on autism and theory of mind, Simon Baron-Cohen, MIT Press/Bradford Books, 1995
Is this the book in question? Can anyone verify? -- Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Sounds great - please do! :) -- Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Awesome - thanks! -- Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 | Archive 2 | Archive 3 | Archive 4 | Archive 5 |
My 5 year old son has something going on and I think it may be Aspergers, however there are many general traits that he definitely does not share. He will start Kindergarten in the Fall and has been accepted into the Special Ed department and I am getting him back into regular therpy as well. One of the problems I have had in getting him help (I have always known something was different and tried to get a diagnosis at age 3, although I had no knowledge of Asperger at the time) is that people dont thing there's anything wrong with him other than being a little "odd." Do any of you have experiences of early diagnosis you could share?
I wikified the article a little - many links were then removed by User:Hapsiainen. I've reverted to reinclude them; please see Wikipedia:Manual of Style (links). Proto 09:44, 16 Jun 2005 (UTC)
Recently, some researchers have speculated that many well-known people including Andy Warhol, Andy Kaufman, Craig Nicholls, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Glenn Gould, Gary Numan, Erik Satie, Nikola Tesla, Albert Einstein, Isaac Newton, Friedrich Nietzsche, Theodore Kaczynski, William James Sidis, Bobby Fischer, Steven Spielberg and Bill Gates have or had AS, as they showed some Asperger's related tendencies, such as intense interest in one subject and social problems.
I think these researchers may be exaggerating just a bit. Just because someone has an intense interest in a subject doesn't mean that they have a mental disorder. They're probably just extremely dedicated to their work, and their work is appealing to them. → JarlaxleArtemis 19:45, Jun 18, 2005 (UTC)
I've reverted the changes made by 172.215.166.84. This user changed all instances of autistic to autist. Autistic is a far more common term than autist: autist gets 41,800 hits in google, and many of these are non-english sites; autistic gets 1,300,000. While I accept a search for autistic will have picked up many uses of autistic as an adjective, I've never heard the word autist used in everyday speech. Is there any reason to prefer the word autist rather than autistic? I have no problem with the use of other autism-specific terms on the page, like neurotypical. They are fully explained, and solid reasoning is given for using them. I don't find any solid reasoning to use autist though. Graham 03:11, 13 July 2005 (UTC)
I have removed the following speculative diagnoses of Asperger's from the "gift and curse" section, since no references were provided for them. Please feel free to add them back once you have found a reputable reference (i.e. not just the web page of some random non-specialist) to support their inclusion:
Andy Warhol, Andy Kaufman, Craig Nicholls, Rainer Werner Fassbinder, Glenn Gould, Gary Numan, Erik Satie, Nikola Tesla, Lewis Carroll, Friedrich Nietzsche, Theodore Kaczynski, William James Sidis, Bobby Fischer, Steven Spielberg and Bill Gates
Remember that Wikipedia is not for original research. Thanks. —Steven G. Johnson 21:06, July 24, 2005 (UTC)
I removed the following:
Um... the site itself says that it is for informational value only... it could go in the informational section
This is duplicated from Autism Research Center: Other Tests
-- Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:59, 10 August 2005 (UTC)
The bit about the persecution of aspie child authors whose careers are ruined by too much homework is the well-known perseveration of a particular fellow, Maurice Frank, the maintainer of Spectrum Fairness and author of this Young Authorship article. He is known for posting at length on this topic in many, many AS forums, and sometimes getting banned for flaming when others don't agree, etc. The Spectrum Fairness site itself could probably be well-described as a site that exists solely to harass those who have banned him or otherwise angered him, though on the surface it may appear more innocent. (This is why I am editing anonymously, to avoid drawing his attention.) At any rate, there is no indication that Frank's child authorship issue is a common concern among Aspies, so I deleted that sentence from the article, and the Spectrum Fairness link description misrepresented the actual content there, so I did delete that for now as well. Unless we are going to link to the blog of every Aspie with a grudge, Spectrum Fairness shouldn't have a link. If there is evidence that the child author issue is more than one Aspie's perseveration, that should be included, but it seems not to be, as the links I find in Google to this topic all end up pointing back at Mr. Frank (who is most likely the editor known as Tern, who added the Child Author content to this article).
Another note -- the item added by Tern to the Luke Jackson reference, "with the book's structuring and editing done by his mother according to the Times's review of 16 August 2002," is another typical Frank remark, as he often comments that Jackson didn't complete his book by himself. This might be considered for deletion too, as whether Luke had any help at all is not exactly relevant to the context of this page, but I'll leave that decision for someone else for now. Anonymous 10:43, 18 August 2005 (UTC)
You know all this is rather interesting and reminds me of something that happened recently when I was programming stuff for one of the projects I was involved with. Quite often people would critisize me for my work, and I would try to respond. Eventually people stopped accepting my work and responding to me. Later, when I asked why they didn't want to deal with me anymore, they said its because I was taking criticism on my work as a personal attack, rather than something to be fixed that had nothing to do with me personally. Distressingly I never could change the opinions of those people about what I did, as I had pretty much solidified the image that I took everything personally. Hopefully this can enlighten someone. -- Ryan Norton T | @ | C 10:55, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
Disagreement is when you talk about the content of what is written, regardless of its source. Prejudice is when you personalise it.
tern
12:11, 25 August 2005 (UTC)
http://en.wikipedia.org/?title=Asperger%27s_syndrome&curid=37556&diff=21374471&oldid=21372891
"A recent suggestion has been that it is camouflaged in girls: the obsessive calorie counting of an anorexic may belie some kind of autism."
If there isn't a reference for this it should be reverted/removed....
-- Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:30, 19 August 2005 (UTC)
I removed the following:
This appears to me to be an unattributed POV. -- 80.168.224.108 10:55, 20 August 2005 (UTC)
The unprovability of you being the same person as has committed this act of vandalism before, is the only reason for not putting this page under a neutrality dispute right now, as I would do if it was him who had done it. The statement is factually sourced, and is a medical concern about serious child harm. To call it unattributed is an elementary lie. It can't be a POV unless you can present an argument that wrecking a child's opportunity is not an axiomatic "terrible injustice". If there is an alternative medical view of the issue, then you add it in a following sentence of your own, you don't vandal-delete the original sentence. Don't destroy this featured article's reputation by forcing an edit war whose entire basis is personal spite and criminal medical censorship. Tern 12:45 Aug 20
Graham and Pianoman87, same person, says in his user-page that he's blind. Sorry to hear that, but of course I have to ask, because of it: can he read that a site link is attached to the words "chance to achieve child authorship"? and can he check this discussion page frequently enough to see the last legal notice I wrote to 24.19.0.114 ? Tragically I am now forced to mark this site as disputed neutrality, because of an obsessive vandal who has tagged onto 24.19.0.114's personal libels instead of reading my answer to them, as even if he has a disability he is responsible to do before spoiling a featured page with the worst type of personality-based edit war? Tern 14.46
Answer directly what I said about CHILD CRUELTY, or else your lack of answer to it will associate you with it. That's logical. On what grounds directly do you deny that your medically biased personally preferential censoring of this page IS A DIRECT ACT OF EXACERBATION OF THE CRIMINAL ABUSE OF MY CHILDHOOD, and therefore also a direct criminal act against present children in the same situation? You have to answer directly and committally. I am putting a repeat of the question onto Spectrum Fairness, where you have an absolute right to reply.
You can find no evidence that this CONCERN ABOUT CHILD CRUELTY, NOT A "VIEW", is not shared by "even a small minority of the autistic community", AND the neutrality of a Wiki article has got nothing whatever to do with the numerical quantity of people who back or oppose a view. That is the whole nature of factual neutrality. "I agree with" and "I find no evidence" ARE POINTS OF VIEW !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! !!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! I have not up to this moment deleted the link referring to Luke, because he is not to blame for any of this at all. But now, if all mention of an already wronged group of children is going to be terrorised by a mob conspiracy every few seconds, then for balance's sake all mentions of an unwronged child author come under the neutrality dispute too. Him but not us is not neutrality, it is hate crime and liable child abuse, literally and demonstrably. Tern 15:49 Aug 20
The spectrum fairness site is a hate site directed at members of the autism community, including luke jackson. It should not be linked to, and the child author thing is just a way to further attack luke. The extreme obsessive nature displayed by tern/frank does not make any valid argument as to why a very important page should be disrupted and vandalised. Such an important issue to millions around the world should not be put in jeopardy because of one persons obsession and hate crimes. I hope wikipedia can remain firm on the issue, and remain relevant and factual as ever.
Grady - 20 August 2005.
Spectrum Fairness's entire purpose is to OPPOSE hate. Exactly like the organised hate campaign being committed here, which exposes how much fraud and ruthlessness is going on in the aspie scene.
Grady commits a hate crime by his post here,a position of total selfishness and not wanting to believe in others' suffering. To wit: child authors' chances get ruined by the crimes of the adults in their lives, nobody conceives that Luke is involved in the process,e.g.in my case it happened long before Luke was born. Therefore there is no logic in calling the issue an attack on Luke - and anyone who does so reveals that they unscrupulously want to gag other people's suffering to prevent anyone else being equated with Luke. They want deliberately to keep the crime's effects in place. A deliberate confession of wanting to stuff the public with manipulative fantasises. Here in Grady's post is an open confession of the selfish and deceitful motives behind this HATE CAMPAIGN. The EXTREME OBSESSIVE NATURE of ganging up like a baying mob to suppress medical facts from a page meant to be impartial, also speaks for itself as an organised crime, willing to destroy anyone and anything including Wikipedia. They are disrupting the page, nobody before this outbreak of crazed hate crime began conceived that the addition of a balancing sentence about a cruelty to children was adisruption.
I have substantiated the hate crimes I accuse you of. You have not substantiated the hate crimes you accuse me of.
As for 24.19.0.114, you can all see that he has come here and actively recorded his choice neither to answer my question nor refute its premise. In order to accuse me of losing perspective, you must demonstrate that another perspective exists, and not one that says cruelty doesn't matter or should be ignored. You have not refuted my arguemtns of balance and neutrality in the article's content that prove Wikipedia is appropriate for this: because all portrayal of AS without it is unbalanced and biased. and what I have put on Spectrum Fairness is an exposee that a mob seething with hate is organising a hate campaign to silence medical facts and distort public knowledge of AS. Anyone reading here can see that is the whole truth. Tern 09:29 Aug 21
Who put the neutrality disupute tag on, and why? Is this part of Tern's vendetta, or is there some serious reason for it?
Tern/Frank has done 3 rv's in a day of the same link, doesn't that qualify for a 24 hour ban? he has used his name as tern, and just his ip number for anonymity for this today. 21 August 2005.
No I haven't - they were far from identical, because unlike my persecutors I'm following where possible the Wikipedia principle of trying different adaptations of text when it's under dispute. The mob lusting for rejections and bannings shows clearly the character of group prejudice that is involved in this crisis. Replies to Wikipedia are sometimes jumpy,or if you have been thinking a long time becasuse you are angry or have a lot to do you might reply after your log-in has expired, or in your concentration on the subject you may just forget to log-in when you start. I have experienced all 3 of these accidents on occasion, as producing non-logged-in actions, and one of them happened today. It's nobody's business which one. Also, you knew it was me and my editorial comment line made clear so, so there was no attempt at anonymity. See how the seething mob are looking for excuses to sling mud at me without reasoned thought? Such personal stuff is quite against the rules, you know. Also, my IP number is not solely mine: that gets you, doesn't it, you can't try to discriminate against my IP number without catching another innocent party in the process, or (except today's) know who wrote anything coming from that number, see? Tern 18:17 Aug 21
Your lurky anonymity is a typical crank tactic suggesting you don't believe you belong here. If you want to be taken seriously, put a lid on the personal attacks and the vendetta to get rid of one person, and start citing sources. Sources that establish that child author destruction doesn't or can't happen, or is an inocuous or even beneficial contribution to aspie kids' development.
Where exactly - source your quote! - did I call this a "well-known" medical issue? Asperger's itself is still not well known. Everyone in forums says they find, as I find too, that most people have never heard of it unless it has crossed their paths. Nothing has stuck in their minds from all the Jacksons' fame games. As long as this issue has been in here, it has been a [ sourceable] fact that the medically serious aspie community in my region recognised and cared about the issue, as a child development issue, and it was in their knowledge as a pre-existing source outside Wikipedia. The only things I equate with child abuse are (i) the crime of author destruction itself (ii) saying it doesn't matter (iii) saying it doesn't matter for the public not to know about it, when knowing things leads to stopping them. Given that this whole argument began with 24.19.0.114 posting a ranting personal attack on me against the rules, that exposed my name without consent and repeated lies he has swallowed from a notorious hate site, and argued for suppressing page content on a basis of prejudice against a person, there is no behaviour by me except in defence. Tern 23:28 Aug 21
I direct you to the page itself. To - the archive of the most recent unvandalised version you can find.
Tern Aug 22,09:56.
It seems there's something screwy with the page history - it takes me back to Asperger if I go through the diffs. Is this a page cache issue, or do other people see the same thing? Guettarda 06:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
In a recent change, quotes were made from Tony Attwood and Mark Segar. Can someone provide citations for these quotations. The first is from a book, so this only needs the name of the book (possibly edition number), and page number, and the second details of the source of the quote, preferably a web-based source if one exists. Silverfish 17:45, August 21, 2005 (UTC)
Attwood - Asperger's Syndrome, p82. Segar - Loving Mr Spock by Barbara Jacobs, p99. Tern 23:28 Aug 21
Wow, the last couple days of this article has been interesting, for sure. Anyway, the geeksyndrome link A) I removed it before because it is NOT a reliable test - in fact the site said so that it was for entertainment purposes only B) Now the link refers to a store where you can by darth vader-related merchandise - so its a simple advert - removed for the 2nd time
I also removed the nonsense about there being a "great injustice" because of school or whatever - if you are going to claim that you better have a good source, not some random 14-year old ranting about how he couldn't get published or something.
Anyway, keep up the good edits guys and have fun! -- Ryan Norton T | @ | C 22:03, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
Actually that would be a good source, and it is only prejudice to say otherwise. By what you have just said you admit that this really happens to a non-zero number of people. That automatically immutably makes it a great injustice, by the nature of the experience, and automatically a premeditated act of malicious child harm to delete it. And what sort of mind sides with the mob, instead of the individual in struggle to stop a medically serious great injustice getting hushed up? Not an aspie independent-thinking mind. Rather, the archetype of every force in the human animal that aspies regualrly get hurt by. Tern 23:28 Aug 21
Comment here -- Ryan Norton T | @ | C 23:42, 21 August 2005 (UTC)
The page clearly states that the 3RR rule does not apply to restoring pages from "simple vandalism",and a hate campaign like this most obviously is that. Here is a copy of the defence I have filed to this malicious charge:
Comments by Tern Hi, I'm Tern. I require to report that I am being hounded by a personally vicious hate campaign whose like I have never seen on any other Wiki page's history. Content that originally amounted to a single sentence, that referred to facts already known outside Wikipedia, that personally attacked no one, and that is medically important on the scale that it refers to a form of child cruelty, is being targetted for suppression by an organised campaign who vandalise the page every few hours. The vandalisms are so personally malicious that they include deleting reference to the hurt children while leaving in reference to unhurt ones, and fraudulent in that they include removing the neutrality dispute label. All their arguments in discussion consist of libellous personal insults of me and exclusion of material on grounds of personal prejudice, or arguing that the issue should not be counted as mattering if they personally don't believe many people care about it (though I quoted a list of communities that do), and that neutrality matters less than this. When 1 individual being flagrantly bullied by a mob who don't care what they destroy including Wikipedia, and who are committing medical censorship and biasing a page in a way that would associate Wikipedia with child cruelty, it is common sense that the defending side can't be forced to sit passively for a day after the bullying side have pursued their illegal campaign 3 times in a few minutes or hours. Wikipedia must ban this hate campaign, to show the public it has effective ethics. Also, the use of the IP address was not an attempt to dodge the rule at all, as there was no anonymity or hiding of my identity involved, and I answered that malicious charge fully in discussion.- Tern, 09:53 Aug 22.
I have attempted to resolve this dispute to the best of my ability, I am considering asking for page protection. By the way, an alleged hate campaign is not simple vandalism, and people should be extremely cautious about removing NPOV flags. PatGallacher 09:09, 2005 August 22 (UTC)
I've answered all this elsewhere here, except "idiosyncratic". That's a new label. So you define how you think it is compatible with neutrality to care more about avoiding "idiosyncracy" than bias or imbalance? If you think it's NPOV -which I don't, I'm saying what to do if you do - your responsibility is also to disprove that it forms part of the overall NPOV balance, or to add the contrary point of view you think exists. I've challenged eveyone to do that, repeatedly: if you think there is a countering point of view, add it. That nobody does, is proof that what you are all after is medical censorship, not Wikipedia balance at all. Tern 14:06 Aug22
Why is the Spectrum Fairness site now listed twice in external links??? With two different descriptions??? How is this informational, and the fact still remains that it is a hate site and shouldn't be listed even once.
22 August 2005
O lurker, that was me. I didn't notice during the edit that there waas another mention in a different place, requiring removal because it contained the word "hate". Tern 14:06 Aug22
Tern has again removed a link giving accurate information about his site, and replaced it with incorrect information and added his link. Why is he constantly allowed to ignore wikipedia rules, and continually rv and add his site?
I have reverted to the last version by JRedmond for these reasons:-
1. I'm not very happy with people saying "do not revert".
2. I'm also not happy with people saying "see discussion" without putting anything new in the talk page.
3. People should avoid making controversial changes anonymously, this leads to suspicions of sockpuppetry.
4. I've had a brief look at the website in questions, it does look controversial, I do not yet have a view about whether we should link to it, but it is not obviously a hate site. PatGallacher 17:13, 2005 August 22 (UTC)
If you think that is practical, then you can get rid of the SF link without committing bias by it.
- Tern 00:21 Aug 23
The Attwood/Segar citations Tern added were awkwardly phrased and needed attribution, so I attempted to fix them (also adding the reference material to the References section and cleaning up format there). I did also delete the text claiming that these citations support Tern's child author issue. But when Tern reverted, he not only added back the deleted content, but now the text of the citations is poorly written again. (See this for my version and his.) I would change it again, but I am afraid it will get muddled in the ongoing dispute, as any change I make -- even ones attempting to improve style, etc. -- is liable to be reverted by Tern. I also do not want to accidentally end up in a 3RR situation over something that is peripheral to the main dispute. :) Could other editors look at this? Thanks! 66.235.6.229 20:08, 22 August 2005 (UTC)
- Tern, 00:21 Aug 23
I added this to Wikipedia:Featured_article_removal_candidates#Asperger.27s_syndrome since it no longer meets the guidelines for a featured article canidate.
Stability: This article isn't stable by any criteria, it is repeatedly being edit warred and most edits are reverted on sight no matter how well intentioned.
Accuracy: the accuracy of this article is greatly disputed as is the point of view.
Readability: the writing appears to be all over the place and seems to jump from one place to another which makes it hard to read.
This is just my opinion mind you and I'd be all for rewriting this to conform to what is expected but it seems that at the moment any such attempts would be futile since they'd be reverted on sight, at this time however the article at this time does not conform to Wikipedia's standards for featured article.
Jtkiefer
T |
@ |
C ----- 22:10, August 22, 2005 (UTC)
Tern is adding his own link, and removing those of other important sites with no valid reason or explanation. Whilst editing his 'child author' thing, he is also deleting important external links too. Very improper way to edit. AmyNelson 23 August 2005 (BST)
I protected this page before I realized Zscout had blocked Tern, so protection may not be needed, or it might be best to leave it locked for a few days until a consensus can be worked out on talk. Perhaps editors could say here which they'd prefer. SlimVirgin (talk) 02:44, August 23, 2005 (UTC)
Ok. Zscout370 (Sound Off) 04:03, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Well, I rewrote the intro paragraphs a bit (which could probably be improved upon) -
Also, Tern's passage... here are some proposals
These things illustrate how AS might be associated with child authorship, and one person even claims to have suffered a "terrible injustice" when the chance to achieve child authorship is unfairly wrecked by high-handed school pressures.
Some believe these things illustrate how AS would be associated with child authorship, and claim the chance to achieve child authorship is unfairly wrecked by high-handed school pressures.
If anyone has anything to add or edit please do so :).
-- Ryan Norton T | @ | C 06:22, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
I agree rather strongly but the problem is that in order to remain a featured article it must be stable and obviously with Tern (or others) editing it like that it won't be for long - not sure at the moment what to do about that. My previous editing disputes all involved more than one person who had at least a somewhat valid reason for the content they were pushing and eventually I just put in a small variation of what they wanted, so I'm not an expert in this area. A few more things -
For now, maybe the best thing is to say that they are often discrimated against because of social skills or other characteristics and maybe have a brief side mention of the author thing (I don't really even know if its a good idea to even link to either of those two sites though)? -- Ryan Norton T | @ | C 06:45, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Yes, that sounds like a good idea. -- Ryan Norton T | @ | C 06:57, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
This figure may not be completely accurate, as females are arguably more exposed to social situations and thus have more of a chance to learn to imitate the non-autistics and behave "normally".
I am having trouble finding a source to support the contention that girls are more exposed to social situations in boys. Apart from the probability that such gender differences in social structure must vary widely across cultures, can anyone cite a basis for the contention about the sample population from which the 75% figure was deduced (and identify that sample)? — Theo (Talk) 17:51, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Also I will add the 75% is troubling as while I've heard of statitistics on it, I don't know if its referenced here - maybe just say is generally considered to afflict boys more than girls or something -- Ryan Norton T | @ | C 19:52, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Some people, including some people diagnosed with Asperger's syndrome, argue that Asperger's syndrome is a social construct. Professor Simon Baron-Cohen of the Autism Research Centre has written a book arguing that Asperger's syndrome is an extreme version of the way in which men's brains differ from women's. He says that, in general, men are better at systematizing than women, and that women are better at empathizing than men. Hans Asperger himself is quoted as saying that his patients have 'an extreme version of the male form of intelligence'.
The only thing I can dig up for now was a reference from a link on the Autism page
Mindblindness: an essay on autism and theory of mind, Simon Baron-Cohen, MIT Press/Bradford Books, 1995
Is this the book in question? Can anyone verify? -- Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:11, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Sounds great - please do! :) -- Ryan Norton T | @ | C 20:38, 23 August 2005 (UTC)
Awesome - thanks! -- Ryan Norton T | @ | C 21:06, 23 August 2005 (UTC)