Talk:Asperger syndrome: Difference between revisions
No edit summary |
→DSM V will be deleting Asperger's: Revert bad faith archival per WP:NPA |
||
Line 92: | Line 92: | ||
==DSM V will be deleting Asperger's== |
==DSM V will be deleting Asperger's== |
||
{{resolved|1=Something Awful trolling archived}} |
|||
{{archivetop}} |
|||
Released proposed changes for DSM V include deleting Asperger's and continuing to classify afflicted people as part of the autism spectrum. As such this article will need to be redirected to autism or have the language changed to a more historical tone referring to a previous disorder once the DSM V is officially released. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/98.201.175.87|98.201.175.87]] ([[User talk:98.201.175.87|talk]]) 03:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
Released proposed changes for DSM V include deleting Asperger's and continuing to classify afflicted people as part of the autism spectrum. As such this article will need to be redirected to autism or have the language changed to a more historical tone referring to a previous disorder once the DSM V is officially released. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding [[Wikipedia:Signatures|unsigned]] comment added by [[Special:Contributions/98.201.175.87|98.201.175.87]] ([[User talk:98.201.175.87|talk]]) 03:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> |
||
:The DSM-V is not the sole authority for mental health conditions and diagnoses. Asperger Syndrome remains a diagnosis outside of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, (i.e., ICD-10 code F84.5) so it remains a (present-tense) condition.[[Special:Contributions/68.230.53.193|68.230.53.193]] ([[User talk:68.230.53.193|talk]]) 13:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC) |
:The DSM-V is not the sole authority for mental health conditions and diagnoses. Asperger Syndrome remains a diagnosis outside of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, (i.e., ICD-10 code F84.5) so it remains a (present-tense) condition.[[Special:Contributions/68.230.53.193|68.230.53.193]] ([[User talk:68.230.53.193|talk]]) 13:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
Line 175: | Line 173: | ||
so does the DSM V mean nothing here [[User:Zisakuzienn|Zisakuzienn]] ([[User talk:Zisakuzienn|talk]]) 05:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC) |
so does the DSM V mean nothing here [[User:Zisakuzienn|Zisakuzienn]] ([[User talk:Zisakuzienn|talk]]) 05:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
:Per everything said both above and below, I'd say ask again in 2013. In the meantime, there's no reason this article can't be edited to incorporate pertinent news. [[User:Doniago|Doniago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 05:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC) |
:Per everything said both above and below, I'd say ask again in 2013. In the meantime, there's no reason this article can't be edited to incorporate pertinent news. [[User:Doniago|Doniago]] ([[User talk:Doniago|talk]]) 05:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC) |
||
{{archivebottom}} |
|||
==Closing 'Merge with Autism' section== |
==Closing 'Merge with Autism' section== |
Revision as of 22:10, 12 February 2010
![]() | There have been attempts to recruit editors of specific viewpoints to this article, in a manner that does not comply with Wikipedia's policies. Editors are encouraged to use neutral mechanisms for requesting outside input (e.g. a "request for comment", a third opinion or other noticeboard post, or neutral criteria: "pinging all editors who have edited this page in the last 48 hours"). If someone has asked you to provide your opinion here, examine the arguments, not the editors who have made them. Reminder: disputes are resolved by consensus, not by majority vote. |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Asperger syndrome article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find medical sources: Source guidelines · PubMed · Cochrane · DOAJ · Gale · OpenMD · ScienceDirect · Springer · Trip · Wiley · TWL |
Archives: Index, 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20, 21, 22, 23, 24, 25Auto-archiving period: 14 days ![]() |
![]() | Asperger syndrome is a featured article; it (or a previous version of it) has been identified as one of the best articles produced by the Wikipedia community. Even so, if you can update or improve it, please do so. | |||||||||||||||||||||
![]() | This article appeared on Wikipedia's Main Page as Today's featured article on April 17, 2004. | |||||||||||||||||||||
|
![]() | This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
|
![]() | This page is not a forum for general discussion about Asperger syndrome. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about Asperger syndrome at the Reference desk. |
Toolbox |
---|
I've read somewhere that this illness sometimes (not always) is slightly linked (in some cases) to people having this are sometimes attracted to the same sex. Is there any link? Are there alot of LGBT people with this illness? 10:39, 9 January 2010 (UTC) Some people who had or have been thought to had the illness are gay, ie. Daniel Tammet, Michaelangelo 24.188.204.121 (talk) 07:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)
- Again, diagnosing anyone dead is pure speculation. Similarly, diagnosing someone outside of a clinical setting (without meeting them) is speculation. As to the supposed "link": Yes, there are people who are LGBT and aspies. There are also people who are LGBT and have the flu. There are people with broken arms who are aspies. Are any of those "links"? - SummerPhD (talk) 01:40, 12 January 2010 (UTC)
- I think what we're seeing here is simply the fact that gay people and people with Asperger's share some stereotypical personality characteristics in common (such as being intellectually inclined, "clumsy" or unusual mannerisms, less "macho" in the case of men, etc.) When we're talking about dead people for whom only anecdotal evidence is available, this could potentially lead some people who were gay (but didn't have AS) to be misidentified as having AS. This kind of "stereotype overlap" (different groups sharing a lot of the same qualities in stereotypes) is also found elsewhere (for example, people with Asperger's also share some of the stereotypical qualities historically ascribed to Asians, Jews, the British, among others). Some of these stereotype overlaps may have a basis in fact (for example, Asperger's is more common in Japan than in most other countries); most of them probably do not, however. Stonemason89 (talk) 04:50, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Kizcat (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- Excuse me! As a mother of a daughter with Asperger's Disorder I have NEVER heard of there being any connection between having A.D. and being a homosexual. What does your sexual orientation have to do with A.D.? This is my opinion only, I think that the gay & lesbian lifestyle is caused by a sexual brokenness. I don't believe that you are born gay. I believe that it comes from a brokenness (sexually) caused by sexual abuse at a young age, or relationships that were not nurtured by the mother or father. Something caused this brokenness in your life. kizcatKizcat (talk) 08:15, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
There are some studies that indicate that people with Asperger's are more likely to be asexual, butno study that I'm aware of has turned up a statistically significant surplus of homosexuals. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 15:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)- Just to stay on the safe side, I'm crossing out the first part of what I wrote because I cant find the study I read that in and cant be sure it's a reliable source. Someone else may be able to help here. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 15:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- From what I have read, males with Asperger's syndrome may actually be less likely to be gay; there was a study I read about in which they "randomly" selected 100 or so men with it for a study, and mentioned specifically that none of them were gay; this is interesting given that between 5-10% of the general male population is believed to be gay. Of course the results of that study could just have been a coincidence; nonetheless, it strongly implies that there is not a positive correlation between Asperger's syndrome and being gay. If there is any correlation at all (and there might not be), it is likely a negative correlation (men with AS less likely to be gay). I am not sure about women with AS, in any event. They have not been studied as extensively. As far as the asexual thing goes, I have AS and I strongly doubt it. I think they may be perceived by the outside world to be asexual due to their social difficulties (which would make any form of dating or romance extremely difficult, since those relationships are far more difficult to maintain than simple friendships, and even simple friendships are often hard for people with AS to maintain.) This difficulty with dating (some people with AS have been known to become frustrated and give up altogether) could be misconstrued by "well-meaning" psychologists as a lack of interest in romance or sexuality altogether. Hence the "asexual" rumor. People with Asperger's are, unfortunately, widely misunderstood according to what I have observed.
- Just to stay on the safe side, I'm crossing out the first part of what I wrote because I cant find the study I read that in and cant be sure it's a reliable source. Someone else may be able to help here. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 15:38, 1 February 2010 (UTC)
- I also happen to believe that the "people with Asperger's syndrome lack empathy" thing is a myth; it is my experience that people with AS do have empathic feelings, but usually do not know how to express them "properly" and so keep them bottled up inside. Or they may feel empathy for some people, but not others; I myself am like this. Mostly I feel empathy for people I get along with or who are nice to me, but I have a very difficult time having empathy for people who are mean to me (or who are racist, bigoted, etc.), since it seems, after all, that these people don't deserve empathy from me! Stonemason89 (talk) 04:39, 8 February 2010 (UTC)
Article fails to address the following
- What are the parts of Asperger syndrome?
- What things are not compared to Asperger syndrome?
- What things are not connected to Asperger syndrome?
- What things do not affect Asperger syndrome?
- What forms are not of Asperger syndrome?
- What things do not qualify to substitute Asperger syndrome?
- What things do not require Asperger syndrome? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 210.212.249.50 (talk) 03:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)
Excellent points, all. --Nerd42 (talk) 15:24, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- I do not understand any of the above points. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:36, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- Regarding points 2, 3 and 4, I've never heard of cheese and bacon sandwiches ever being compared or linked to Asperger syndrome in any way. However, I don't have a source for that, it's just a personal observation. Tim Vickers (talk) 18:23, 15 January 2010 (UTC)
- I at least think I understand most. A lot is in the article but embedded in deeper areas as they should be. This is Wikipedia and not a Q&A... I guess one could spinoff an article on "public misunderstanding of AS" since it's been coming up more as of late in the media and those are all oft-confused bits, but is likely still a stretch. "Not connected" might be indirect possible medical complications caused from having AS but not a part of it proper? Depression and bi-polar disorder would be my guess on the editor's questions. "Do not qualify" would I think relate to social problems. "Do not affect" is already covered on the most assumed answer of medication as there is no chemical treatment. ...I'm at a loss about "do not require", though. Are there things one does not qualify for if they have, or special prizes in some kind of lottery? I'd feel bad if I've been missing out. ♪ daTheisen(talk) 14:18, 30 January 2010 (UTC)
New article in need of attention
I've created a new article (stub) for Yale's Ami Klin, a fairly high-profile autism/Asperger's researcher. As this is rather out of my field, I'm looking for any assistance in expanding the article. Thanks. - SummerPhD (talk) 21:09, 8 January 2010 (UTC)
Add Link Asperger Czech Republic
Hello, my Name is david, I tried add a link about the single organization in Czech about the Asperger Syndrome, that is the link: Organization Asperger Czech Republic but the Wikipedia Robbot delete this links, can you something explain me please what I can do for register this link in this topic: Asperger Syndrome Thank You —Preceding unsigned comment added by Davidcz1989 (talk • contribs) 04:52, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
- It was me not a robot... Anyway, please check your talk page there is a link there to the external links policy. Dbrodbeck (talk) 04:55, 2 February 2010 (UTC)
Genetic contribution
If there is a genetic contribution to AS does that means that children from parent(s) with AS will also have some form of ASD ? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 200.55.135.211 (talk) 05:41, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Things are not that simple. Please see Heritability of autism. Eubulides (talk) 07:01, 6 February 2010 (UTC)
- Genetic issues never are. However I seem to remember that Simon Baron-Cohen's group had recently identified something like 34 genes involved in the autistic spectrum. Soarhead77 (talk) 12:25, 10 February 2010 (UTC)
DSM V will be deleting Asperger's
Released proposed changes for DSM V include deleting Asperger's and continuing to classify afflicted people as part of the autism spectrum. As such this article will need to be redirected to autism or have the language changed to a more historical tone referring to a previous disorder once the DSM V is officially released. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.201.175.87 (talk) 03:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- The DSM-V is not the sole authority for mental health conditions and diagnoses. Asperger Syndrome remains a diagnosis outside of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual, (i.e., ICD-10 code F84.5) so it remains a (present-tense) condition.68.230.53.193 (talk) 13:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- It may not be the sole authority to you or to the people that desperately want to have a special affliction but not one that makes people lose the higher functioning sympathy towards them, but to the rest of the medical community and indeed the leading edge of the mental health academic circles it's THE book with well thought out, well studied and well justified decisions. Autism it is and any article relating to Aspergers will have to refer to it being a diagnosis seperate to autism as a historical fact with a mention that other older publications (like the one you've just mentioned) have not yet updated themselves to show this fact. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 203.59.89.78 (talk) 15:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
This should probably be marked for deletion or redirected to Autism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.246.96 (talk) 16:09, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- DSM-V won't come out until 2013, though. Should this be redirected before it's officially released, even though they've leaked the information that it will be changed?
- I changed the article to reflect the change in tone about aspies. 70.70.128.20 (talk) 16:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Your revision was, to put it mildly, inappropriate without consensus and has been reverted. Doniago (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Your revision to the revision was, to put it mildly, inappropriate without consensus and should be reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.55.13 (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Most of the articles on this proposed change mention that there is a comment period before the change will take effect in the DSM. I think it is safe to say that the Aspie community at large will play a significant role in forming any final change, if there even is one. It is much too soon to change this article, lableing Aspergers as Autism. And I think all the people saying Aspies should not be able to edit this article are biggots. Should civil war reenactors not be able to edit the civil war article? If anything you should be reaching out to the Aspie community to help in creating a complete article on this afflictment. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.239.48 (talk) 19:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Your revision to the revision was, to put it mildly, inappropriate without consensus and should be reverted. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.237.55.13 (talk) 16:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Your revision was, to put it mildly, inappropriate without consensus and has been reverted. Doniago (talk) 16:27, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Oppose redirect. The subject is still notable, regardless of the reclassification. Grundle2600 (talk) 17:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
At the very least, it shows how ridiculous an article of this depth and length is on a condition that doesn't really exist. It's a spectrum of autism, not a separate disorder. It deserves, at most, a sub-section in the autism article. This article should be seriously pared down and the redundant information between it and the autism article should be removed. 74.12.50.21 (talk) 17:25, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- If you feel that way I recommend proposing a merge. Just talking about it here won't accomplish your goals, and without consensus a merge/redirect isn't appropriate. Doniago (talk) 17:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not dumb enough to think a proposal for merging the aspergers article by an anonymous user has any chance whatsover of happening. IMO this article is edited by far too many interested parties who self identify as "Aspies". Frankly I think they should be blocked from editing the article because of significant bias. 74.12.50.21 (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm sorry you feel that way. If you're of the opinion that a merge/redirect isn't going to happen yet you feel that the article as-is needs improvement, I'd recommend adding sourced material that supports your views. Doniago (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm not dumb enough to think a proposal for merging the aspergers article by an anonymous user has any chance whatsover of happening. IMO this article is edited by far too many interested parties who self identify as "Aspies". Frankly I think they should be blocked from editing the article because of significant bias. 74.12.50.21 (talk) 17:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree that those who identify as "aspies' should be blocked from editing, as I feel that some amount of bias will always be present in such users. I would propose that the pages autism and aspergers syndrome be merged into the page autism spectrum disorder, with that page becoming the main article on autism and aspergers. Immunize (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Sounds reasonable! Luckz (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Not really. Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines don't advocate blocking users just for having a bias, provided they can maintain neutrality in their edits. It would be a real failure of the assume good faith policy to preemptively block users because they have a bias that -might- influence their edits.
- If I wanted to agree with him agreeing with blocking, I would have just replied to the first user suggesting this. But no, I mainly agreed with his additional suggestion.Luckz (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ah, misunderstood you then, sorry. Thank you for the clarification, though I still disagree. Doniago (talk) 21:45, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- If I wanted to agree with him agreeing with blocking, I would have just replied to the first user suggesting this. But no, I mainly agreed with his additional suggestion.Luckz (talk) 21:38, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Also, exactly how would one implement this? Have any potential editors take a psych test? Doniago (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Not really. Wikipedia's conflict of interest guidelines don't advocate blocking users just for having a bias, provided they can maintain neutrality in their edits. It would be a real failure of the assume good faith policy to preemptively block users because they have a bias that -might- influence their edits.
- Perhaps a good guiide would be if the editor has one of those "This person has aspergers syndrome" then they should be expected to refrain themselves from it. Perhaps someone could make a aspergers barnstar as a reward for their restraint. Duckmonster (talk) 19:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- (blinks) How would you prove someone has chosen not to edit an article, and why should someone be prohibited from editing an article as long as their edits are reasonable? If their edits aren't reasonable, by all means sanctions should be considered, but again, AGF works for me. Also, the thought of a barnstar sounds almost, to me, like "Good little Aspie leaving your article alone. Here, have a cookie!"
- Again, IMO - there's no reason to block or otherwise discourage anyone from editing any article, regardless of bias, provided their edits are free of said bias. If not, the editor should be dealt with appropriately. Frankly I trust the editors who would make some of the earlier comments (and the ones who attempted to summarily delete/merge/redirect this article without discussion, much less consensus) a lot less than I'd trust an anonymous editor who may or may not have Asperger's. Doniago (talk) 20:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- So should we also ban baseball players from editing the baseball article or ban scientists from editing the science article? Perhaps you should encourage those of us who truly understand Aspergers to contribute to creating a complete well rounded article. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.239.48 (talk) 20:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Your comparison is flawed at best. If a person is a scientist or a baseball player, then at some point they have undergone training and have, one would think, a fundamental understanding of their field. A person born with Aspergers does not. What next, are you going to suggest all black people intrinsically know all there is to know about Africa? --Sothicus (talk) 20:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Well it would depend on whether or not the black person was from Africa or perhaps from the Caribbean, or America, or just a person of a different race with a Skin pigmentation disorder. I see your point though. However I would say that an article about Africa written by a black man would be more likely to convey the reality of life "down under" than one written by a white or European man. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.43.239.48 (talk) 20:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- "Down Under" is Australia. Luckz (talk) 21:30, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
At the very least, it shows how ridiculous an article of this depth and length is on a condition that doesn't really exist. It's a spectrum of autism, not a separate disorder. It deserves, at most, a sub-section in the autism article. This article should be seriously pared down and the redundant information between it and the autism article should be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.176.181 (talk) 20:08, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Athiests and many scientists say God does not exist. Biologists generally agree that the Loch Ness Monster does not exist. Few besides small children believe that Santa Claus, the Tooth Fairy and the Easter Bunny exist. Government studies have concluded that there is no evidence for Flying Saucers. Existence versus nonexistence is not a guideline or policy for having article. Notability is. If Aspergers has significant coverage in multiple reliable and independent sources, then it satisfies the notability requirement. One document like DSM does not set Wikipedia policy. Edison (talk) 20:35, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
I would have to beg to differ, your logic seems to work against your argument user 'Edison'. I would urge you to consider this statement;
"A casual stroll through the lunatic asylum shows that faith does not prove anything." Friedrich Nietzsche German philosopher (1844 - 1900)
You are insisting that your FAITH in this "syndrome" supersedes the AGREED UPON FACT of the matter at hand. unsigned comment - must be another sock huh. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 96.236.176.181 (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Exact same comment (about how ridiculous the article is) was made by a different anon user earlier. Brings to mind WP:SOCK. Doniago (talk) 20:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Zomg, two people without accounts disagree with you, they must be them puppetz of sockz. Luckz (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- You'll have to forgive me if I find two anon IP's using -exactly- the same block of text somewhat unusual. Also, it would have been nice if you could have responded without belittling me. Doniago (talk) 21:48, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Zomg, two people without accounts disagree with you, they must be them puppetz of sockz. Luckz (talk) 21:31, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
The proposal to remove Asperger's from the DSM-V is certainly notable. It was mentioned in the article already, but it deserves to be summarized in the lead as well, so I just now did that. As for merging into Autism, that's not appropriate: even if Asperger's is removed from the DSM, the existence of the diagnosis for decades will mean that the article will continue to be important, even if it's an article about a historical rather than a current diagnosis, just as Vapors (disease) should continue to exist as a separate article even though vapors is no longer a current diagnosis. It would make more sense to merge Autism spectrum into Autism, though, as those two articles will essentially overlap once the new DSM is out. Eubulides (talk) 20:53, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- You're comparing a pretty huge article to one that's barely two lines. Not much of a fitting comparison. Nobody said there can't be a similar two-lines stub reminding the world that there once was a great article here, before it was all merged into a) Autism b) Autism spectrum c) soemthing entirely different.Luckz (talk) 21:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- (Shrug.) OK, if you want a longer article, how about Demonic possession? This is a diagnose that was formerly used for cases of autism. But we shouldn't remove the Demonic possession article, or shrink it to two lines, simply because that diagnosis is no longer standard. Eubulides (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Just wondering whether any of the pro-move/merge people are going to formally propose such, or just continue making arguments here that would be better served by making such a proposal... Doniago (talk) 21:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Merging isn't really practical, as Autism is already too large. If anything, Autism needs to be split, instead of being made larger. Eubulides (talk) 21:57, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- If you're expecting me to disagree, you're going to be disappointed. :) Doniago (talk) 22:23, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
User 'Doniago' it seems as though someone has already made such a proposal, for your -astute- consideration I waded through four whole paragraphs of text to bring it to the light, -just for you-;
I agree that those who identify as "aspies' should be blocked from editing, as I feel that some amount of bias will always be present in such users. I would propose that the pages autism and aspergers syndrome be merged into the page autism spectrum disorder, with that page becoming the main article on autism and aspergers. Immunize (talk) 18:28, 11 February 2010 (UTC) 96.236.176.181 (talk) 22:00, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Very kind of you, but it appears you missed the part where I said -formally- propose, not just bring it up on the Talk page. See WP:MERGE.
Unsigned comment disagreeing with me, brings to mind WP:SOCK. (/sarcasm) 96.236.176.181 (talk) 22:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Of course there is some bias on the part of someone with Asperger's, but there is also bias on the part of people who do not have Asperger's. Should we ban them, too (effectively banning everybody)? The proposal to ban Aspies from editing is like a KKK member saying blacks should be banned from editing the African-American article because they are biased on account that they were born black — which is totally ridiculous. The negative vehemence of the anti-Aspies should be an indication that there is bias going-on on the other side of the aisle. What is your hatred (so it appears to me from what is written) toward Aspies or Aspie designation come from?
- The article should not be deleted, either, as Asperger's will still remain a significant designation for these people, even if the medical community abandons the term (as many other terms still remain in use among the non-medical community, even though the medical community no longer uses them, or even never used them to begin with). Wiki policy states that just because a topic is no longer in vogue does not, in itself, kill its eligibility for an article, other factors are involved in that decision (such as notability).
- Asperger's isn't a separate designation from Autism Spectrum, it is a sub-division of it. This is similar to Heavy Metal being a genre of music, specifically a sub-genre of Rock. Like Asperger's, it does exist. Heavy Metal is Rock, but it has its own characteristics just as Asperger's is a form of autism, but it has its own characteristics as well. — al-Shimoni (talk) 22:44, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
You can't compare something that is or is not a medical diagnosis to racism, that is a knee-jerk reaction and a logical fallacy. 96.236.176.181 (talk) 22:49, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Logically sound in that blacks are born by what some people term as "black" (it is their genetic/medical situation). Aspies are born by what some people term as "Asperger's Syndrome (it is their genetic/medical situation). People argue that "black" is now a no-longer acceptable term, but yet it is still an accepted term (more so among the older African-American community). People argue that "Asperger Syndrome" is now a no-longer acceptable term, yet it is still an accepted term. People are prejudiced against blacks. People are prejudiced against Aspies. Where is the logical fallacies. Both groups are dealing with how they were born. — al-Shimoni (talk) 22:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Also, could you do the Wiki community a kindness and register. It's good for both you and us. :) — al-Shimoni (talk) 22:59, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
It is an 'apples and oranges' argument from antiquity. If you happen to decide to, you know, actually research and understand the terms you are trying to invalidate my use of. 'Negro' is argued to be an unacceptable term, if you want to continue illogical arguments, yet people still call other people the arguably worse version of the term, which rhymes with 'nagger'. The fact that a term is still in use by the 'common man' does not equate to it's continued FACTUAL VALIDITY, which you are implying by continuing to support the term's related article. 96.236.176.181 (talk) 23:02, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Umm... actually, a terms popular use does equate to its "continued factual validity". Additionally, that is part of what Wikipedia considers when considering a topic's notability. — al-Shimoni (talk) 23:10, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
No. Popular use indeed equates to 'notability' however popular use does NOT equate to factual, scientific VALIDITY, that being what I believe a respectable source of information should hold as it's first concern. 96.236.176.181 (talk) 23:19, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Total sperglords. 96.236.176.181 (talk) 03:28, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
so does the DSM V mean nothing here Zisakuzienn (talk) 05:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Per everything said both above and below, I'd say ask again in 2013. In the meantime, there's no reason this article can't be edited to incorporate pertinent news. Doniago (talk) 05:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Closing 'Merge with Autism' section
No consensus to merge closing discussion Gerardw (talk) 03:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
How can it concluded that a consensus wasn't reached when the discussion was only open for 10 hours? Hardly enough time for everybody to weigh in on the subject. This should remain open. Wreckus (talk) 14:21, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
A consensus cannot be reached if you close the discussion in 10 hours see:WP:There_is_no_deadline. If you feel that it should be close please discuss it here, until then re-opening discussion. Wreckus (talk) 17:50, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Merge with Autism
Oppose - Reason: http://www.cnn.com/2010/HEALTH/02/11/aspergers.autism.dsm.v/index.html?hpt=C1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by Twolves14 (talk • contribs) 23:22, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
^ So your only argument is "Wah they took away his feeling of being special"? If Wiki desires to ever become a reputable CITE-ABLE source then SCIENTIFIC FACTUAL VALIDITY must become it's first concern, not "Aww it made that aspy feel bad :-(". 96.236.176.181 (talk) 23:26, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Oppose - Only brought up proposal due to lengthy discussion above. Let's get consensus and move on. Doniago (talk) 22:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Super King Kamehameha Support - The 'syndrome' was ONLY brought up BECAUSE of it's inclusion in the DSM, and given it's merger with the Autism spectrum the articles MUST reflect this. You CANNOT pick and choose based on what suits your ideals and what does not. 96.236.176.181 (talk) 22:46, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - per some of the arguments I made earlier. To previous person's argument that it was brought up because of it's inclusion in the DSM, an idea or term may originate with one thing, but over time it can grow beyond its original source, independent from the original source. — al-Shimoni (talk) 22:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
^Ridiculous and also a logical fallacy, there was ONE reason for the 'syndrome' to be given it's own article, and now that medical, peer reviewed support has now vanished. Your argument is on par with Jenny McCarthy insisting vaccines cause autism, ANECDOTAL EVIDENCE A CORRELATION DOES NOT MAKE. 96.236.176.181 (talk) 22:55, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Extreme Badass Mega Support - Wikipedia's classification of things should reflect the scientific consensus. 24.4.168.91 (talk) 23:05, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Support I belive that Wikipedia should include only current scientific information, and that now that Asperger's disorder is an obsolete term, it should be merged with the autism, the current diagnosis in use. Immunize (talk) 23:15, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- It's NOT an obsolete term - that's complete and utter nonsense! Do your education a favor and look up the meaning of "obsolete" in Wiktionary: Actually - I'll save you the trouble. It means: "no longer in use; gone into disuse; disused or neglected". How can you possibly call a medical term that's right there in the premier guide used for diagnostics and by governments around the world for setting criteria for special education, disability funding, "obsolete"? (Yeah - the actual, published, current DSM IV - not an unpublished first draft of a hypothetical future edition). The term is mentioned in 3.7 million web pages - that hardly qualifies as "no longer in use" does it? So how about you dial the rhetoric a bit? It might (might) be grouped into the same section as Autism in the DSM in 2013 - but in the meantime, someone suffering from the set of symptoms described by DSM IV will be completely unable to claim benefits that might be due to someone with Autism. That means that the term is very far from obsolete. Even after terms are merged in DSM, they will still be considered as distinct conditions - governments aren't going to run away from the unfortunate individuals with full-on Autism - and they aren't going to start giving the same benefits to multi-millionaire software geeks who are just far enough down the spectrum to get the benefits without suffering too badly from the downsides. So even if this does eventually become the official language in the DSM, that's still not a reason to merge a Featured Article that refers to a term that many millions of people are identified with and confuse an awful lot of people. SteveBaker (talk) 00:46, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Oppose Are you supporters even aware that the new DSM is currently only a draft, and won't be finalized until 2013? Until then Asperger's remains an officially supported diagnosis. Looie496 (talk) 23:18, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Support per Immunize, it's clear the scientific consensus has changed. 67.9.133.14 (talk) 23:21, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Oppose No matter what the DSM says, this is still a notable topic, and, the new DSM is not out yet. Dbrodbeck (talk) 23:24, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
^"No matter what that "Science" says. Harumph" (smugface goes here)" This is why we cannot cite Wiki in any uni paper, people like you. 96.236.176.181 (talk) 23:29, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- No - that's not the reason. The reason is the same reason you can't cite Encyclopedia Britannica - you're supposed to cite primary sources - not secondary or tertiary sources like encyclopedias. (Also - too many idiot kids cut and paste entire sections from Wikipedia and call that an "Essay"). Besides, the DSM is more about politics and funding for people with disabilities than it is about science. The science says that there is a continuous variation from "Normal" to the terribly sad kids who are completely cut off from the world at the most extreme end of the Autism spectrum. However, there are many things that are a continuous spectrum (from pebble, through asteroid to dwarf-planet to planet, for example). Should we merge "pebble" with "planet"? Because that's what you're saying. Sure it's a spectrum - but that's not a reason to avoid providing a convenient term covering some region of that spectrum. How about another example: Should we merge "Red" into "Yellow" because there is a continuous spectrum through "Orange" between them? Is it unscientific to attach names to things that blur together and overlap? No! SteveBaker (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Actually it is people like me that stop people from citing wikipedia at University. Most of us (professors) do not like the use of an encyclopedia for the reasons listed above. by SteveBaker.Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- No - that's not the reason. The reason is the same reason you can't cite Encyclopedia Britannica - you're supposed to cite primary sources - not secondary or tertiary sources like encyclopedias. (Also - too many idiot kids cut and paste entire sections from Wikipedia and call that an "Essay"). Besides, the DSM is more about politics and funding for people with disabilities than it is about science. The science says that there is a continuous variation from "Normal" to the terribly sad kids who are completely cut off from the world at the most extreme end of the Autism spectrum. However, there are many things that are a continuous spectrum (from pebble, through asteroid to dwarf-planet to planet, for example). Should we merge "pebble" with "planet"? Because that's what you're saying. Sure it's a spectrum - but that's not a reason to avoid providing a convenient term covering some region of that spectrum. How about another example: Should we merge "Red" into "Yellow" because there is a continuous spectrum through "Orange" between them? Is it unscientific to attach names to things that blur together and overlap? No! SteveBaker (talk) 01:04, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Support - The medical opinion of Aspergers has changed. Why should wikipedia continue to relect an outdated classification? Obviously a lot of people have their self identity wrapped up in a (usually) self diagnosis of Apserger's but that's no reason to not keep in line with mainstream medical practice. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.233.246.96 (talk) 23:34, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- United Kingdom of Great Britain and Ireland has changed its name to United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland when Republic of Ireland became independent. Did Wikipedia delete the former article? Pluto was a planet but now a dwarf planet. But did it affect the status of the article? I can give you hundreds of such example. Btw, where did you get this argument that changing of an opinion would lead to deletion or merger of an article? -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 23:43, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- PLUTO WAS EDITED TO REFLECT IT'S CHANGED STATUS. Your argument is null, void and logically reprehensible. 96.236.176.181 (talk) 23:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Who stopped you to edit reflected status? Why are you spending your time in this silly debate? -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 00:02, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Support - Same. --Sothicus (talk) 23:39, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - I am sick and tired of viewing such funny merger proposals on Wikipedia, specially from anonymous IPs who behave like one-night-stand on a single article for a very specific period of time but good enough to produce huge pain for the real editors who are spending their valuable times to improve quality of WP. Come on guys! This is an FA!!! This article is notable on its own merit. Btw, I am having a feeling that anonymous IPs in the discussion have close relation with DSM, thus they are trying to establish its view on WP. Cheers. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 23:36, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Personally I'd think that anyone who actually works in psychiatry or understands the DSM would realize that the change they're proposing is really not all that big a deal, and would oppose the deletion. But I can only speak for myself. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 01:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
^Wooo-oooo "strong" opposition. Because your opinion is much more valid than mine for the simple sake of your wiki-badges and your registered account? Oooobviously. I can't physically roll my eyes any harder at that statement, else they would spin back into my skull. I would insist that viewpoint would suggest YOU are the one trying to establish your own views on WP. Lose the conspiracy theory, gain some scientific insight. Thanks in advance, some day I would like to see Wiki as a cite-able reputable source, and your views are not conducive to that wish.
- Buy a time machine and go where you wanna go, but leave us alone to work in a quiet environment. See you in the future. - Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 23:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Honestly the amazing part is this merger was formally proposed by a registered member, not as you personally describe; "[an] anonymous IP who behaves like a one-night-stand". 96.236.176.181 (talk) 23:41, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Anonymous IP can register to establish their one-night-stand. To protect them, we have IP check. - Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 23:47, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- I am starting to question if you even understand what you are writing, user 'Niaz'. An open source should not bias it's weighting of opinion based on if I decide I desire to register or not. 96.236.176.181 (talk) 23:50, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- I wish you could understand where are you discussing! - Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 23:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- You wish I could understand "where" I "are" discussing? Because your version of that sentence is incomprehensible. You wish I could understand 'WHAT' I 'AM' discussing? If that is what you mean, you wish I could understand a (now) non existent syndrome (now) recognized as a part of the Autism spectrum? If that is indeed what you mean then I believe I have a working understanding of the (now) non existent "syndrome", thank you. 96.236.176.181 (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Again I wish you could understand where are you discussing! -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 00:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Don't bite the newbies. --Sothicus (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ohh really??? -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 00:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, really. WP:BITE if you haven't read it. Or would you prefer that I ask you to assume good faith? You don't appear to be doing either at this juncture. --Sothicus (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- I read it before you joined WP, but read carefully who is biting whom! - Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 02:54, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Yes, really. WP:BITE if you haven't read it. Or would you prefer that I ask you to assume good faith? You don't appear to be doing either at this juncture. --Sothicus (talk) 01:37, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Ohh really??? -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 00:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Don't bite the newbies. --Sothicus (talk) 00:15, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Again I wish you could understand where are you discussing! -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 00:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- You wish I could understand "where" I "are" discussing? Because your version of that sentence is incomprehensible. You wish I could understand 'WHAT' I 'AM' discussing? If that is what you mean, you wish I could understand a (now) non existent syndrome (now) recognized as a part of the Autism spectrum? If that is indeed what you mean then I believe I have a working understanding of the (now) non existent "syndrome", thank you. 96.236.176.181 (talk) 23:58, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- I wish you could understand where are you discussing! - Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 23:52, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- Oppose; premature. The move proposal is obviously influenced by the proposed revision in the DSM-V, but as this revision is only in the draft stage at this point, a move would be premature. --Golbez (talk) 23:51, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Oppose until the actual new version is published. While it should no doubt be reflected in the article that this change is under consideration, I don't know whether it's really necessary to have it merged as soon as some slight information about the draft is found. 78.105.161.115 (talk) 23:54, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
Strong Support Mention the former diagnosis, the draft has never been edited significantly and few if any professionals will risk credibility making this diagnosis now Studmandudebro (talk) 23:56, 11 February 2010 (UTC)
- I would like to request an admin to check whether or not Studmandudebro and 96.236.176.181 are same person. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 00:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- That isn't an administrator's job; you'd need a checkuser and I don't believe you'd have a valid case here. Checkusers generally deny requests based on simply two people voting in the same discussion that don't have a lot of edits elsewhere. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 01:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Since neither account has ever been used to do anything other than post to this thread - neither has ever made even one single edit to either this article or to the Autism article - they don't carry any weight in a debate. Both seem to understand the rules for posting and signing and such - so it's highly likely that both of them are socks for some third account. You might try requesting a checkuser - but it's not likely that it would be accepted. Remember, this is not a vote - there has to be a near-unanimous consensus to do a merge and the arguments on the side of making a change have to be a hell of a lot stronger than those opposing it for that to happen. In reality there is something more like a 50/50 split here - this merge clearly won't happen - it's already over for the "Support" folks. SteveBaker (talk) 01:31, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- That isn't an administrator's job; you'd need a checkuser and I don't believe you'd have a valid case here. Checkusers generally deny requests based on simply two people voting in the same discussion that don't have a lot of edits elsewhere. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 01:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- I would like to request an admin to check whether or not Studmandudebro and 96.236.176.181 are same person. -- Niaz(Talk • Contribs) 00:08, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- I love how user Stevebarker makes a decision BEFORE the consensus has been reached, noted by the obvious posts after his, and also makes this decision AS IF he had the AUTHORITY to do so. Please. I can't physically roll my eyes any more, they will get stuck. 96.236.176.181 (talk) 02:09, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- I also love how ZOMG IP USER MUST BE A SOCK, you possibly have a persecution complex, please do a "usercheck". My IP is not associated with any account because I don't want to register. Simple as that. Perhaps you should see a mental health professional before posting again in a mental health related debate Thanks In Advance <3 96.236.176.181 (talk) 02:14, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Strong Oppose - While Autism and Asperger's are known to be related spectrum disorders, there are very distinct symptoms involved. If DSM V does change it's perspective on this in three years time, then we can revisit this - but it's certainly not the job of Wikipedia to pre-judge that. Quite the opposite, in fact. The current DSM IV is the authoritative document - an unfinished draft of a possible future edition is most certainly not. There is no urgency here - we don't have to jump at the smallest news item - we're here to take the longer, more considered route - and that means revisiting this when DSM V is actually published, and not a day earlier. SteveBaker (talk) 00:01, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Strong Support What the medical community believes should go. RobMasterFunk (talk) 00:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Why isn't Wikipedia taken seriously? *refuses to edit article to reflect current scientific and medical opinion becuase it contridicts pseudo-scientific personal beliefs*
Oppose. Asperger syndrome is still an official diagnosis. The proposal to remove it from DSM-V has not been accepted. Even if it is accepted, it will still be an official diagnosis until the removal takes effect, which won't be for years. Even after it takes effect, it will still be an official diagnosis in ICD-10 (see the ICD-10 page listing it) and will be a valid diagnosis in countries that use ICD-10. Even assuming it is later removed from ICD-10, it will still be a notable historical diagnosis and will deserve an article in its own right. The proposal to merge it into Autism now cannot be taken seriously, particularly since Autism is already too large. Eubulides (talk) 00:58, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Strong Oppose Eubulides summarizes it perfectly. People, nobody's saying that Asperger's is going to be a synonym for autism. All they're doing is moving it from its own category into a sub-category of autism. Not a big deal, certainly not worth deleting the Asperger's article. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 01:11, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- I totally agree that this article should reflect the medical community's consensus, by the way, which is that Asperger's syndrome exists. Ask any psychiatrist if you want a truly informed opinion about this issue. -- Soap Talk/Contributions 01:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- No one has suggested a delete, but a merger is in order, Period. Again, NO ONE has suggested a delete, only a merger. Please get your facts straight before entering into a debate TIA <3 96.236.176.181 (talk) 02:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Support Wikipedia's classification of things should reflect the scientific consensus. The Bob Talbot (talk) 01:05, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Strong Oppose: per Eubulides above, the proposed merger doesn't make any sense. I'm [dʒæˑkɫɜmbɚ] and I approve this message. 01:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Super-Double Duper Oppose No Takebacks as per others, it really doesn't make any sense. When [[1]] became part of Spain, we didn't delete the article. Also, there's a very good chance it will remain in the DSM; it's only in the trial stage. I am thoroughly oppose to this.--Nog64 (talk) 01:33, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Oppose I don't see how anyone can think otherwise. Don't get your panties in a bunch; May 2013 is a long way from now. Even if Aspeger's loses its place in the DSM, I can't see the term losing much popularity, and there's also the ICD, which's new revision is set for 2015. If/when Asperger's syndrome is removed, we would still have to separate high-functioning/mild autism from low-functioning/severe autism (and then there's the moderate inbetween >.>), because of the evident differences and the reviews specific to each. MichaelExe (talk) 02:27, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Strong Support It's pretty obvious that Wikipedia should support the opinions of actual mental health professionals if it cares at all about having a reputation for being a legitimate source of information. There's absolutely no reason not to merge the two if the APA itself is doing so. Arguing otherwise is arguing against science. 64.17.82.34 (talk) 03:10, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Seems an appropriate place to remind people that all that I believe anyone's heard so far is that the APA is -considering- changing the DSM...in 2013. AS hasn't been removed from the DSM yet, and may never be. A proposal is not a certainty. Thank you for your time. Doniago (talk) 03:17, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, 1) per Eubulides; 2) it is and will always be a notable entry even if it disappears from the DSM; and 3) it hasn't happened yet. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Oppose, the draft DSM is incomplete and although we can revisit this discussion once it has been finished, Aspergers will still be a notable topic even if this does happen to be re-classified as a subset of autism, rather than one of a set of ASDs (which is quite a minor difference to be honest). Tim Vickers (talk) 19:24, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Oppose When homosexuality was removed from the DSM, its wikipedia article didn't get merged. Mental breakdown has its own article even though it's not in the DSM. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:49, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Should the article add some discussion about the Asperger community and historical figures who were most likely Asperger?
There are a lot of recent sources that support the theory that several important scientific figures were afflicted by Asperger - hard evidence is hard to obtain for obvious reasons, but can we add information about figures for which there is strong circmustantial evidence such as Einstein and Godel?
- That would be very much original research and not allowed. --Golbez (talk) 15:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- I think what you would consider strong circumstantial evidence, most people would consider pointless conjecture. Please post the evidence here though so the community can decide.72.43.239.48 (talk) 14:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
We should also discuss Asperger self-identification, as there is a sigificant community who identifies with the term. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 193.205.206.25 (talk) 13:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
I agree. There is strgon circumstantial evidence that Jesus Christ, Charlemagne, Christopher Columbus, Martin Luther King Jr., among others, had Aspergers syndrome. I support including this new research. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.73.61 (talk) 16:23, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
^^I agree, you should also include notorious aspies like Kanye West and Adolf Hitler. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.27.246.98 (talk) 17:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- It might be easier just to list who is not an aspie. 174.137.69.7 (talk) 18:19, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Deletion time, right?
It's just autism. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 174.130.194.109 (talk) 16:06, 12 February 2010 (UTC) Autism and aspergers syndrome are two separate disorders. In Autistic patients, language is limited, and mental retardation is often, though not always, present, while in the case of aspergers syndrome, language is age-appropriate and mental retardation is not present. However, there was recently a discussion over weather or not to merge this article with autism, as the DSM-V will be removing aspergers syndrome from it's text. However, it was decided that this article will not be merged with autism. I personally supported a merge, however, as I feel that wikipedia should reflect current scientific consensus. Immunize (talk) 16:22, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- I'm a little confused...you "feel that wikipedia should reflect current scientific consensus"...but you cite the DSM-V, which a) hasn't been released yet, and b) claim that said DSM will remove Aspergers when there's no proof of that yet...to date the strongest proof is a -proposal-. Could one not argue that "current scientific consensus", then, should be based on the current DSM rather than one that hasn't been completed yet? I would really appreciate it if you could elaborate on your reasoning. Doniago (talk) 19:32, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
What disorder do the so called self diagnosed aspies actually suffer from? I strongly support merging by the way since aspergers syndrome doesn't actually exist. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 188.27.246.98 (talk) 17:44, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- That issue is discussed in #Merge with Autism above; no point in starting a new thread on exactly the same subject. Eubulides (talk) 18:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Why not when people close the discussion after less than a day because they don't agree —Preceding unsigned comment added by 137.205.73.61 (talk) 18:53, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
When homosexuality was removed from the DSM, its wikipedia article didn't get erased. Grundle2600 (talk) 19:47, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
Semi-protection
A quick search found (link removed). Since the intent here seems simple disruption rather than anything constructive I've semi-protected the talkpage. Tim Vickers (talk) 19:30, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- No argument here...I considered requesting semi-protection myself, but wasn't sure there was sufficient disruption to justify it. Thanks. Doniago (talk) 19:34, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've removed the above link. My antivirus complained of Malware on the page, so let's not encourage anyone else to follow the link. Colin°Talk 20:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Your antivirus is mistaken. --Golbez (talk) 20:29, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- I've removed the above link. My antivirus complained of Malware on the page, so let's not encourage anyone else to follow the link. Colin°Talk 20:18, 12 February 2010 (UTC)
- Wikipedia controversial topics
- Wikipedia featured articles
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page
- Featured articles that have appeared on the main page once
- FA-Class medicine articles
- Mid-importance medicine articles
- FA-Class medical genetics articles
- Mid-importance medical genetics articles
- Medical genetics task force articles
- FA-Class neurology articles
- Mid-importance neurology articles
- Neurology task force articles
- Medicine portal selected articles
- All WikiProject Medicine pages
- FA-Class neuroscience articles
- High-importance neuroscience articles
- FA-Class psychology articles
- High-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles