This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Pakaran (talk | contribs) at 17:18, 5 December 2003 (I have it, feel free to ask me.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.
Revision as of 17:18, 5 December 2003 by Pakaran (talk | contribs) (I have it, feel free to ask me.)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)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)
I think it would be neat to list some of the historical figures that are suspected of having Asbergers, such as Newton Einstein and Bill Gates...
- I don't, because that would be idle speculation and a bit too gossip-like. -- Olathe November 22, 2003
- The list is interesting but some justification might be in order. Phil 15:21, Dec 4, 2003 (UTC)
- "Due to their success via unconventional means, fitting into the symptoms of Asperger's?" Before I put that up, does that all work for you as justification?Leumi
- Sorry, what I meant was that we need to quote a reasonably reliable source rather than just posting WAGs and hoping nobody gets cross. Just saying "We think this guy has/had Asperger's because he's a geek" won't cut the mustard. Remember we're writing an encyclopædia here, not a gossip column. </RANT ;-> Phil 09:15, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)
- I suppose you're right. I'll work on a more comprehensive version. Sorry about that, I certainly didn't mean for it to be offensive or gossipy, considering my intimate knowledge of the condition. I do see your point though and will work on a more comprehensive justification. Leumi 16:25, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)
- Oh I'm not offended, I usually sound like that (did you like my hastily improvised smiley? :-) If you have some sort of qualification, or (as you say) intimate knowledge, and it wouldn't be embarrassing, maybe you could note such on your User page. Unfortunately my personal knowledge is not in a context which I am able to make public right now, which is kind of frustrating. Phil 17:15, Dec 5, 2003 (UTC)
- I have it, as well as unipolar depression, and have some of the good effects (like intelligence, absolute pitch), if you have any questions feel free to ask me. I had a special-ed monitor until tenth grade, and was in special classes until third. I'm watching this article. --Pakaran 17:18, 5 Dec 2003 (UTC)