(February 8, 2017 at 1:54 pm)Violet Wrote: I certainly wouldn't pin my PHD on it, SteelCurtain. I remember back when teachers were utterly unwilling to allow wikipedia as a source.
I daresay that is still the correct course of action. As a source amalgamation it is fine, but too many citations lie behind paywalls. Academic articles doing that is pretty absurd to me.
Okay, disregard the wikipedia part of what I posted... despite there being several academic sources cited in it... if you want, but that still leaves out the bolded part. It sounds to me like you made an assumption about this situation without reading the whole article. The kid was diagnosed by psychiatrists, just like you agreed they should be. Certainly if this was a case of doing it for attention as you claim, a medical professional(s) would have seen it for what it is?
