This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neuroscience, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Neuroscience on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.
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)
Doc James, the Global Burden study looks like it says Asperger syndrome affects an estimated 31,100*1000 people to me, i.e., 31.1 million, rather than 29 million. Am I reading that correctly? KateWishing (talk) 02:54, 5 July 2015 (UTC)
There is a substantial distinction between the American subsumption of Asperger's into "autism spectrum disorder" and the international, ICD-10 practice of maintaining the distinction. American medical accounts are billed under the ICD, not under the DSM. Accordingly, there is a substantial dispute among bureaucrats as to whether Asperger's is indistinguishable from "autism spectrum disorders." This issue needs to be written into the article. Are there any objections to my doing so? Svend la Rose (talk) 00:03, 13 July 2015 (UTC)
You'll need sources that comment on the issue. As this is a pretty mature article, maybe bring it here first for comment. Dbrodbeck (talk) 00:07, 13 July 2015 (UTC)