| Revision as of 16:40, 24 August 2003 editMartinHarper (talk | contribs)Autopatrolled, Pending changes reviewers, Rollbackers24,927 edits : ''What is Acapedia -> see talk:Acapedia''← Previous edit | Revision as of 15:49, 30 October 2003 edit undoJredmond (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users9,178 editsm note about restorationNext edit → | ||
| Line 8: | Line 8: | ||
| :Besides that question, this article needs a lot of work -- too many long chunks of text. -- ] | :Besides that question, this article needs a lot of work -- too many long chunks of text. -- ] | ||
| ---- | |||
| I just restored the page after an anonymous user blanked it, and probably missed some small piece of formatting somewhere. Please fix anything you spot. -- ] 15:49, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 15:49, 30 October 2003
I'm deleting a large chunk of text - however, since I wrote the text originally, no one should be concerned. :) I asked a friend knowelegeable about such matters to contribute some text, which I consider far superior to my initial entry and am thus putting in wholesale. -- April
Quick question about the following sentence from near the end of the article: The Diagnostic and Statistical Manual's diagnostic criteria have been roundly criticized for being far too vague and subjective. Is it the DSM's Asperger's diagnostic criteria that have been criticized, or *all* of the DSM's diagnostic criteria for all the disorders it tries to cover? I don't know, but I think the sentence or paragraph could be reworded a little to remove that confusion; as it is, I could read it either way. Wesley 17:07 Dec 18, 2002 (UTC)
- Both. Some people think that all or the vast majority of the DSM-IV is nonsense. A slightly larger number of people think that the specific entry for asperger's is nonsense. The former is arguably off-topic, though. -Martin
- What is Acapedia -> see talk:Acapedia
- Besides that question, this article needs a lot of work -- too many long chunks of text. -- Zoe
I just restored the page after an anonymous user blanked it, and probably missed some small piece of formatting somewhere. Please fix anything you spot. -- Jim Redmond 15:49, 30 Oct 2003 (UTC)