| Revision as of 20:30, 10 July 2006 editDaphne A (talk | contribs)402 editsNo edit summary← Previous edit | Revision as of 21:02, 10 July 2006 edit undoDenis Diderot (talk | contribs)656 edits →Intro: further explanationNext edit → | ||
| Line 15: | Line 15: | ||
| The article in BMJ doesn't support these claims at all. Gillberg was accused of fraud by a sociologist. The accusations were dismissed by the investigation committee as being without merit. | The article in BMJ doesn't support these claims at all. Gillberg was accused of fraud by a sociologist. The accusations were dismissed by the investigation committee as being without merit. | ||
| :Did you read both the BMJ links? The investigation is still ongoing and Gillberg now has criminal convictions. Your approach to editing this article is ill-considered. I have again reverted your changes. Your way of acting is inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. —] 20:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | :Did you read both the BMJ links? The investigation is still ongoing and Gillberg now has criminal convictions. Your approach to editing this article is ill-considered. I have again reverted your changes. Your way of acting is inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. —] 20:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | ||
| :: Yes of course I've read these articles. The conviction had nothing to do with accusations of scientific misconduct. It was for refusing to comply with a court order. A lower administrative court had ordered Gillberg and his colleagues to hand over patient data to the sociologist and her friend (in their private capacities). (The decision was based on the .) Gillberg and the others refused to comply in order to protect the privacy of their patients. There is no ongoing investigation of misconduct. There has in fact never been any such investigation since the accusations were found to be without merit. Perhaps you should be a bit more careful with your own accusations? | |||
| ::] 21:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC) | |||
Revision as of 21:02, 10 July 2006
I would like if this guy's name was mentioned in more pages, but perhaps he isn't that important? The only proper article page linking here is : Autism rights movement.
--Fred-Chess July 1, 2005 10:15 (UTC)
Lanced?
Should it say "launched" instead of "lanced"? It's not too clear from the context. To me, "lanced" would mean skewered, i.e. decisively defeated; this seems to be the opposite of what the article is saying, and is also the opposite of what I get out of his book on Asperger syndrome. If nothing else it's unencyclopedic, and the whole sentence in which it appears could be a great deal clearer.
(Speaking of Asperger's, the above person who complained about Gillberg not being mentioned enough will be pleased to know that he is prominently mentioned on Asperger's Syndrome in at least two different contexts.) PurplePlatypus 21:11, 6 September 2005 (UTC)
- This change has (correctly) been made previously. "Lance" in English is here a faux ami to the Swedish word "lansera," which means to launch or introduce. --Tkynerd 19:20, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
Intro
The article in BMJ doesn't support these claims at all. Gillberg was accused of fraud by a sociologist. The accusations were dismissed by the investigation committee as being without merit.
- Did you read both the BMJ links? The investigation is still ongoing and Gillberg now has criminal convictions. Your approach to editing this article is ill-considered. I have again reverted your changes. Your way of acting is inappropriate for Misplaced Pages. —Daphne A 20:30, 10 July 2006 (UTC)
- Yes of course I've read these articles. The conviction had nothing to do with accusations of scientific misconduct. It was for refusing to comply with a court order. A lower administrative court had ordered Gillberg and his colleagues to hand over patient data to the sociologist and her friend (in their private capacities). (The decision was based on the Principle of Public Access.) Gillberg and the others refused to comply in order to protect the privacy of their patients. There is no ongoing investigation of misconduct. There has in fact never been any such investigation since the accusations were found to be without merit. Perhaps you should be a bit more careful with your own accusations?
- Denis Diderot 21:02, 10 July 2006 (UTC)