Talk:Asperger syndrome

Asperger’s Syndrome Language Delay References

Asperger’s Syndrome: A Clinical Account, Case 6, by Lorna Wing: He did not speak till the age of four.

Gillbergs Diagnostic Criteria for Asperger’s Syndrome: 4.Speech and language problems (at least three of the following) (a) delayed development (b) superficially perfect expressive language (c) formal, pedantic language (d) odd prosody, peculiar voice characteristics (e) impairment of comprehension including misinterpretations of literal/implied meanings.106.69.179.113 (talk) 10:12, 28 March 2015 (UTC)

Point Proven

You have proved my very point -- you won't even let me talk about that I have a reliable source for a phony-diagnosis-by-television-show, much less actually put it into the article. There is no good faith to be had here, it appears instead that you are, frankly, acting as a bully with a keyboard. -- Davidkevin (talk) 23:51, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Nothing Has Changed

not about improving article content. WP:NOTFORUM Jytdog (talk) 22:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
I had to give up trying to remove the garbage from this article literally years ago, because so many liked the garbage and kept doing gang-reversion, and that this article has Featured status is a symptom of many of the reasons Wikipedia is regarded so poorly by so many. Cultural bigotry, giving expert status to "authorities" without actual scientific standing, insulting terminology toward people suffering under the syndrome, group editor elitism -- this was, frankly, fecal before and is still fecal now. I'm angry because I know I can't make changes which won't result in an editorial gang-assault any less than than before. This article helps nobody and damages many. As an article about a medical condition it is both rank and quackery, and every single one of you who feels no shame about it is either so ignorant you shouldn't be writing about medical issues or are quite possibly sociopathic. (And before any of you accuse me of violating AGF, I tried good faith back then -- my direct experience with this article was that good faith was non-existent on the part of others, so yes, I think you continue to write in bad faith, and that's why I'm so godsdamned angry.) -- Davidkevin (talk) 03:50, 30 May 2015 (UTC) your "direct experience" was nine years ago and your comments here offer no concrete suggestions to improve the article. i debated replying to you at all. Jytdog (talk) 12:14, 30 May 2015 (UTC) Then don't -- go back to the creation science and holocaust denial articles you think are so important. -- Davidkevin (talk) 21:33, 31 May 2015 (UTC) Do you have a change to propose backed by sources or are you just here to complain and attack editors? Because, if it is the latter that is not the point of this page. Dbrodbeck (talk) 02:29, 1 June 2015 (UTC) I had tried to input documented evidence of possible fraud on the part of one of the biggest names in the field, that he let publicly slip that he made diagnoses based on which television programs people liked, but his apparent fan club would not let it stay in the article despite a reliable source. Misdiagnosis of this syndrome affects people's lives -- it prevents security clearances, it disqualifies people from certain professions, it hangs a "disabled" label on people who are not. Yet editors blithely decided that evidence that one of the biggest names in the field had no actual training in diagnosing the syndrome wasn't allowed; rank speculation that historical figures had it was allowed, that current notable people had it was allowed (written by editors only knowing them by reputation, and with no professional qualifications to make such a judgment even in person); that people had it based on what winter coats they wore, or if they liked to relax by watching trains go by. This is medievalism of the basest sort, no more valid than the attitude that the elderly woman in the hutch next door could be a Witch because your cow's milk soured. When based on a liking for a certain kind of book or television program, it becomes cultural bigotry, "culturism", if you will, and no evidence of this was allowed in the article, and it is clear that no evidence of it is allowed now. As I said nothing has changed. And yes, it still angers me that truth is not allowed and falsehood has continued to be allowed in an article which is purported to be accurate, sourced, and encyclopedic, and even mis-labeled as exemplary. -- Davidkevin (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Censoring in the Name of Editing

WP:NOTFORUM Jytdog (talk) 23:20, 5 June 2015 (UTC)
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
To answer the question last asked of me, I had tried to input documented evidence of possible fraud on the part of one of the biggest names in the field, that he let publicly slip that he made diagnoses based on which television programs people liked, but his apparent fan club would not let it stay in the article despite a reliable source. Misdiagnosis of this syndrome affects people's lives -- it prevents security clearances, it disqualifies people from certain professions, it hangs a "disabled" label on people who are not. Yet editors blithely decided that evidence that one of the biggest names in the field had no actual training in diagnosing the syndrome wasn't allowed; rank speculation that historical figures had it was allowed, that current notable people had it was allowed (written by editors only knowing them by reputation, and with no professional qualifications to make such a judgment even in person); that people had it based on what winter coats they wore, or if they liked to relax by watching trains go by. This is medievalism of the basest sort, no more valid than the attitude that the elderly woman in the hutch next door could be a Witch because your cow's milk soured. When based on a liking for a certain kind of book or television program, it becomes cultural bigotry, "culturism", if you will, and no evidence of this was allowed in the article, and it is clear that no evidence of it is allowed now. You have proved my very point -- your action says in effect "Even reliably sourced information of this kind must not be allowed to stand." As I said nothing has changed. And yes, it still angers me that truth is not allowed and falsehood has continued to be allowed in an article which is purported to be accurate, sourced, and encyclopedic, and even mis-labeled as exemplary. -- Davidkevin (talk) 22:24, 5 June 2015 (UTC)