1749:
public mind. Rather than simple stern denials or silence, cumulative address of questions/fears properly deposed, analyzed, weighted, cited and balanced is a more informative, useful way. On an individual level, there are a lot of issues that ordinary citizens/parents want to see discussed in real time with some detail. They are not looking for mere repetition of what government position has been adopted, often with varying degrees of ex cathedra stmts, "official science" or finally some accurately detailed article (oops) after multigenerational studies, if ever. I think the technical, actuarial article would suffer less dilution and edit warring while the ongoing speculative subtopics could be better addressed, individually with more reassuring detail, on a cumulative basis in an "epidemic" article. Can this be abused? Yes, of course - the forking issue. But it actually addresses two overlapping audiences with much different objectives and might avoid some of the vitriolic confrontation in a struggle for priority from different perspectives. "Is too" - "is not" arguments often involve multiple factors and (as yet) unknown facts/data that turn out differently anyway (i.e. 5% is the economic rise of superior programmers rather than 5% vaccine damage, vice versa or both, with 20% - 80% definitional and xx% "we still simply don't know").
1259:"It has been suggested that increased substitution of autism for mental retardation3 and/or language impairment27 diagnoses might be accounting for some of the apparent increase in autism prevalence. If this substitution occurred with special education classifications, then increases in autism prevalence with subsequent birth cohorts would be accompanied by decreases in mental retardation and/or speech/language impairment prevalences. As shown in Fig 1, mental retardation prevalence shows no birth cohort effect; in other words, there is no suggestion that prevalence is decreasing (or increasing) among younger cohorts. The cohort curves overlap to reproduce faithfully the shape of a cross-sectional curve of prevalence according to age (curve not shown). Trends with age are as expected for mental retardation, with prevalence increasing steadily through age 8 and then leveling."
1621:
breakdowns that have continuely occurred over outside doubts about the compelling net benefits of vaccines & public policy, as some previous editors here will recall. In Autism (Incidence), the hypotheses of causation (list of causation topics still incomlete?) are deleted en masse - I think they should remain, be discussed and edited at length until some kind of NPOV construction and agreement is reached, even if the article looks bimodal/bipolar in some places ("agreed disagreement") Even if the autism count is a combination of artifacts and fads. And appropriately sourced may be different than "verified" in the opinion of some editors. --
1442:(adj.) has been in there from the start, and is as much as you need really, why take a page over a word when you can put numbers in instead and let people know what the incidecen is? Even if the deletion was over-enthusiastic (and I think the reverse is true, that I was too conservative in not throwing out stuff that should be, fortunately collaboration has followed and improved it) there is nothing actually different to merge in. It is in fact a fork, although it is the sort of fork that involves picking out one topic from a collection in an article, and discarding all the others in order to leave a focussed and leaner article.
1262:"Similarly, the curves for speech/language impairment indicate no cohort differences. The patterns with respect to age are as expected. At young ages, speech/language impairment prevalence is many times higher than that of autism; however, prevalence decreases dramatically from age 7 to age 17 years. The decrease in the prevalence of speech and language impairment is likely a result of children losing this disability category classification, which is expected to occur to a greater extent for this category (ie, in cases of articulation disorders and dysfluency that resolve with time), compared with the other categories."
1116:
nomination. There is absolutely nothing to substantiate your assertion that I "own" all of autism. I too have expressed reservations about the title of the article, but the remedy for that is that we rename/move it. The article you want to delete is full of source citations, goes to great lengths to outline the controversy, and presents both sides of the controversy fairly. I find your assertion that you have a slight, impersonal, and entirely netural point of view laughable. I would like to propose that if this article is deleted, then you'll join me in nominating
1265:"The curves for other health impairments are notable for 2 reasons, ie, because this is the disability classification that typically includes children with attention-deficit/hyperactivity disorder (ADHD) and because there are strong cohort differences. Prevalence is higher for successive birth cohorts, with the greatest annual increases occurring between the 1980 and 1984 birth cohorts. Within cohorts, the prevalence of other health impairments increases sharply through 11 years of age, with the rate of increase gradually decreasing in successive years."
1515:, so why not to incidence ? Issues of incidence are critically important, especially with how concerns have been raised over whether the introducion of some vaccines is partially contributable. The topic is too large to include in one Autism article and has too much interesting info on rates in different countries. However all that information by area makes for a very long list - would reformating some of the smaller entries into a table (or least a bulleted list) rather than the padded paragraphs separated by sub-section headers, neaten the article ?
1471:& some rewording/restyling & POV balance (not keep as is, nor delete). - current article contains arguments cited for & against possible increasing rates and that evidence inconlusive re cause (e.g. Russia banned thimerosal yet still increase). However I don't think the majority accept an "epidemic" either in terms of absolute incidence or of rate increasing numbers. NPOV requires fair inclusion of the minority, but that does not have to take precidence over the majority. As in wikipedia's own article
980:. The edit was to remove the quote marks making it clear the order of events, and thus substantially adding to the possibility someone reading it would be misled as to what I meant. The edit summary was "minor refactoring". In every rfa I recall which has both Ombudsman's and my comments in it, Ombudsman has edited someone else's comments. Taken to extremes this would render the cooperative process unworkable. In this instance it is highly objectionable.
1799:. I don't agree with the idea of having one article for the scientific/medical-establishment and one for the others. The article you seem to desire, with its "deposed, analyzed, weighted" would necessarily contain original research. Knowledge is not the place for investigative journalism. People come to an encyclopedia for the established facts, not speculation or opinion. If I want to read the latest ungrounded speculation, I'll buy a newspaper.
1035:. Ombudsman removed, as I wrote above, quotation marks from my comment. "followed" is different from followed, particularly when it is pointing out that the order of events is the opposite of what was suggested. It is perfectly clear from the edit history, and Ombudsman begins to look as though he is not asking for help finding it, but rather lying about having made that alteration. I repeat, that
387:, or rename article to something like "Claims of an autism epidemic". Current title is by definition POV: to have an article titled "Autism epidemic" is to assert that an autism epidemic exists. The preponderance of the evidence indicates that this assertion is incorrect. I don't have a problem with including evidence to the contrary, but it needs to be labeled more accurately. --
354:. Second, while the natural "background" rate of autism is really not known, what inferences we can make are certainly important. But it feels like the article has got off on the wrong track, and not to put down the work that's been put into it, but starting over with some (verifiable!) facts about autism statistics and the conclusions made by professionals might be the best.
509:. It is fueled by conspiracy theories, supposed "research" by discredited and rogue doctors, and by non-medically qualified alternative medicine practitioners and marketers of their products. Knowledge is not the place to publicize or launch theories that are not recognized by the scientific community. Only verifiable concepts should be allowed in articles here. --
1395:. Autism is a terrible disease. When I was growing up, a neighbor had a severely autistic daughter, so I've seen now horrifying it can be, and I have enormous sympathy for anybody who has an autistic child. Still, it is clear that wikipedia is being used as a soap box. I'm not exactly sure what cause is being promoted, but the number of articles contained in
1008:... if it did then a more reasonable response would be along the lines of "I'm very sorry I inadvertently copied your previous omment over your current one". That is not the meaning offered as explanation. Out of band, would anyone care to join in an RFC that Ombudsman be enjoined from ever editing any comment by anyone else again? It seems proportionate.
1273:
arguments nor can you deal with the facts and issues. The end result is that you do your best to suppress the facts and here the usual people can be seen working hard at it on
Knowledge. People are turning off allopathic medicine in droves. Trust is earnt and here distrust is being earnt instead. I note the usual individuals appear here as always
1229:
because it has become so important with so many
Americans now seriously affected. Also early on the paper states "The purpose of this article is to make a contribution to the development of policies to address the autism epidemic". This paper is all the more significant because it is sceptical of the autism/vaccines/mercury neuro-toxin connection.
1586:"a work in progress," I think this AfD topic is of large public concern and should be kept. Generally, I would prefer a more concise and focused main Autism article anyway by having this separate article. I also view the alternate late starter, Autism (incidence), coupled with an AfD request, an ugly form of POV pushing. --
205:. Note that the clock times I get are an hour different from those recorded on this page, and that around midnight this can change the date. I'm not convinced that the comments interspersed here are making the development of the afd discussion more clear, or bearing strongly on the actual merits of the article discussed.
269:: Article has been relatively stable with the same basic outline for a long time. The article is largely a statistical overview of the skyrocketing epidemic that medical authorities pretend doesn't exist, along with assessments of potential causes that have survived and been refined since the article was created.
78:. As it is, it is a brawl, hath little of structure or consensus and is not - looking at the long history in the talk page - getting better over time. There is actually a topic worth writing an article about, but that isn't the topic and this isn't the article, and it never will become that from here.
1232:
This paper says in no uncertain terms "Autism is NOW a big problem. What the hell are we going to do about it?" and sets out to address the policy to be adopted to what it refers throughout as the autism epidemic. And it does so whilst acknowledging what is becoming a rear-guard fight to downplay the
1446:
the epidemic article with the article on incidence - viewed as a candidate rewrite for it from the start along with its renaming - has always been a perfectly good possibility, if people want to do it, but they are two separate articles at present, this is an rfa on one of them on its merits, and we
853:
into someone else's entry, it looks like the person who made the comment put them in there. It's considered a hostile act, much like deleting comments on your Talk page or impersonating another user, or sockpuppetry. The nerd theory is probably the most speculative theory I have heard about autism -
1599:
But of _what_ point of view? I can see why the epidemic article and various others have languished, if any attempt to produce a large improvement receives such hostility. I do not think that making those edits in place would have met with appreciation either, so they had to be somewhere else. If
1585:
and possibly rename, or add redirect, for
Epidemiology of Autism, per JFW. This article can help keep a massive load of speculation off of the autism article and yet allow exploration and development of the reasoning and data, pro & con, about various possible causes of the "explosion". Clearly
1244:
Craig J. Newschaffer, PhD*, Matthew D. Falb, MHS* and James G. Gurney, PhD - Center for Autism and
Developmental Disabilities Epidemiology, Department of Epidemiology, Johns Hopkins Bloomberg School of Public Health, Baltimore, Maryland Divisions of Epidemiology and Clinical Research, University of
1003:
I see no possible explanation for the edit with summary as above and explanation given here other than as I said, Ombudsman edited my comment. In the same edit he added "comment" to
Leifern's ... comment ... which I can't see any reason for any of us to object to, except on principle, but he also
1604:
should be in a different namespace then they should put it there. If anyone thinks it should not exist then the remedy is to afd it. As I've written before, if it is pushing a POV, then, given that the starting point was the verifiable content on incidence, what POV is it that is supposed to be
1483:. So stating that autism is an epidemic is "subjective" (1 in 86, to 1 in 150, figures seem quoted in article, which at approx 1% seems to me significant, but not an epidemic). No one can dispute that autism has an incidence, nor that this incidence has increased since autism was first described.
1219:
The following peer reviewed papers demonstrate there is such a thing as an "autism epidemic" even if the allopathic lobby on
Knowledge want to suppress all reference to it. Such a term has a place in Knowledge as an article in its own right. If people want to refer to the "autism epidemic" this
1172:
has any slight merit will note that their opinion is dismissed. Leifern's description of the process of production, as well as the motives, is incorrect - I have noted the times which were in the histories near the top of this rfa. Some of the comments here are directed at the rfa, and some are
993:
Rubbish. Midgley somehow has two almost identical versions at virtually the same moment, and an edit conflict resulted in a simple cut and paste of
Midgley's earlier version. Generally speaking, responding to Midgley's relentless, cacophonous, dubious assertions only causes more problems, as is
1748:
I think this latter "epidemic" article is important beyond the ever lurking (and clashing) medical controversies and public policy questions. Of course the "epidemic" part presumes a real nonzero rise in incidence but the subject is also a reflection of the unanswered questions and doubts in the
1533:
applications in biophysics and biological sciences, has relevance to the theory objected to, and this would delete real discussion of PEP and other CERN physical sciences interests in such items relevant to medical education, and scientific applications and contributions to the entirety of human
1228:
The
Steuernagel paper very early on quotes the AAP "there is no disputing the fact that autism now affects a significant number of people in this country (American Academy of Pediatrics, 2001)" and refers throughout to autism as epidemic. The paper commences by quoting Time magazine on the issue
1740:
On reflection, I see possible merit to two specialty articles under a stable Autism parent article, one article a hard quantitative and definitions article (epidemiology or incidence of...), the other article more directly addressing individually listed social concerns, hypotheses, speculation,
1021:
and an extra indent to distinguish two contrasting comments that looked like they were running together. Leaving a tab open for a half hour and then re-examining is hardly unusual; the inadvertant removal of extraneous and not easily noticed noticed formatting is not a molehill that an average
1620:
A *calm*, serious discussion in the article that compares and contrasts disputed facts, interpretations and speculations about a high stakes, ill defined area where an authoritative answer is way premature. Spirited, tedious, even annoyed talk pages are likely. Need dialogue without the total
1308:
because the appearance of a user ID he presents is in fact a cover over an IP address. It may be the same user and there is some consistency, but it is I understand established that IP addresses do not normally get a vote counted. (Oh! He didn't cast a vote, just abused three users and some
1745:. There may be significant utility in two complementary (ahem, even if antagonistic) articles: one a "straight" discussion of definitions and epidemiogy/incidence of autism, the other "epidemic" article including the implications and hypotheses of causation - sliced, diced and utterly minced.
174:
I see what happened here - Midgley and one of his buddies start an article that is completely redundant to this one, but conforms to their opinion, then put this one up for deletion. The decent and reasonable thing to do would be to edit the existing article and possibly rename it, but nah...
1272:
The issue here is nothing to do with the autism epidemic. This is the allopathic medical lobby on
Knowledge trying yet again to delete anything that shows how their version of medicine is causing great harm. Keep on doing this because it demonstrates very clearly that you cannot answer the
1115:
Midgley, you throw around accusations of policies and rules but have nothing to back up these accusations with. Autism/incidence was written just around the time this article was nominated for deletion, and I don't think it's a coincidence - you cited it yourself in the opening hours of this
839:
Remind us ... (I've just produced an article about the incidence of autism which last time I looked said it had increased ten fold in
America, and includes suggestions that breeding from nerds might account for the clusters in high tech areas, so I'm wondering how one reads them thus). Any
218:
You may be too kind there, I think it is not a very good article and still needs a great deal ripped out of it, paraphrased, tabulated and generally made into a crisper shorter more focussed page on its single topic (I can be as critical of it as I like for the obvious reason). But thanks.
924:
The mainstream literature is just catching up with what is known. There are a couple of studies, Laidler (2005) and Shattuck (2006). But even the staff of California DDS is aware of certain characteristics in the data very suggestive of a lack of epidemic. Additional details can be found
610:
to something with a less inflamatory title (this seems to be the consensus amonst both the keep and delete votes here). If the editors can work towards consensus rather than just bickering, then there may be content worth keeping and a better article can emerge.
1654:
I don't think this is a good idea. Since autism is not a disease, and epidemiology implies a disease is present, the whole concept is incorrect and POV. The term incidence or prevalence is much better. Additionally, there is already another article,
1359:
dispute, it seems that the title may be driving part of the dispute. Whether or not an epidemic actually is occurring (v. better appreciation/awareness of the disorder leading to new diagnoses) is worth mentioning, but the title does implies a POV.
1004:
removed the quotes which I felt it necessary to add, half an hour before that edit. I am unable to understand how "virtually the same moment" and an edit conflict resulting in a simple cut and paste could account for this single individual instance,
705:
has an article, but it is also clearly identified as a novel. Nobody is deceived into believing that it is legitimate history. By contrast, this article is even strongly associated with anti-vaccination viewpoints, which actually do cost lives. It is
476:
if you wish, but the reasons for increased reports and diagnoses of autism (such as reclassification of improperly diagnosed individuals and more awareness of the disorder among the medical community) could be, should be, and already are discussed in
1163:
Leiferns description of my opinions is incorrect. It is unclear what it might be based on and I note that fact (tag)s should not be inserted and have been removed. The rest of the editors who have indicated they see deficiencies in the article -
1741:
politics and policy trends ("epidemic"). The definitional effects of naming are important here - epidemiology and incidence don't quite have the scope right for "epidemic". One recurring point is that Autism (incidence) is consistent with a
1022:
editor would try to build a mountain with. Then again, just ask John, Leifern or the original invisible anon if the above is typical of Midgley. Please, try to concentrate on building the Wiki instead of constantly stirring up rubbish.
799:, the nomination is a blatant and shameless POV-pushing. Although I don't know what the use is of voting - Mark Sweep or one of Midgley's other admirers will close it with a delete whether or not there is anything approaching consensus. --
1233:
problem by the medical profession (the seeming overseers of the epidemic, if, as many believe, it is caused by vaccinations). It is also scholarly, well-read and evidence-based, quoting evidence and other authority for the proposition.
1338:
There are several users behaving badly here, and I'm not one of them. I do think considerable licence has been extended over a period and a range to those others, and that this has accompanied a worsening. But I'm not an admin.
1254:
The drastic increase in the prevalence of the autism classification presents a major challenge to the nation’s special education service systems and is one that has already triggered responses from federal, state, and local
1552:
Perplexed: Welcome. Thank you for that very interesting contribution which, having looked at the page given as a link, I find I do not understand. I'm actually wondering if this comment is in the wrong rfa discussion.
695:: The idea deserves short mention, but not an article. If it were labeled "pseudoscience," "conspiracy theory," or "misguided ramblings," it would be another matter, because it would not violate Knowledge's policy
1771:
I have to disagree to this idea. This would be a one-sided POV fork in that case. If people allow a speculative article of an autism epidemic, which has been described as OR, it also must allow the existence of
1309:
unidentified admins and sopaboxed). The issue here, for those in doubt, is writing an encyclopaedia, full of good articles encyclopaedic in nature if not in spelling ("encyclopedic") and to the standard of
1097:
is an article containing only (I hope) material about the incidence of autism, a problem of some difficulty and interest about which my interest is slight, impersonal and entirely neutral. I dislike the
787:
Some of the content could be rewritten as an epidemiology section of autism, but the current content is far too POV and speculative, and doesn't provide a good starting point for a merge into autism.
683:
I don't think anyone is suggesting that there should not be a mention of the idea, just that it is very well-encompassed within discussion of the incidence - which itself is part of the epidemiology.
74:
This article has a name which gives a clue to its troubles. If it had been called "Autism (Incidence)" or "Autism (Incidence and reporting)" then it could have been a discussion on a sub-topic of
595:
I may have acted hastily, but I thought I'd see if there was actually an incidence article there. There was. I've no emotional investment in it, not least because I created it by reduction.
302:. Would it be reasonable to say that there is something about the Talk page of a stable article which is different in quality, and possibly in quantity from an unstable article's talk page?
1409:
These data suggest that improvements in detection and changes in diagnosis account for the observed increase in autism; whether there has also been a true increase in incidence is not known
1093:
for the whole of autism. The content of the article a rather large proportion of those expressing an opinion propose to delete is, rather than undermined, erected upon a shaky pedestal.
1529:
From James D. Christiansen, a new member of Knowledge, noted this article under consideration for deletion, should be kept, as I believe from review of other documentation related to
759:
and rename — The topic is notable and encyclopedic. The sections I read seemed to possess some neutrality balance, so perhaps it has been edited following the AfD nomination? —
1491:
is perhaps more literally what the article covers; i.e. both measured rates and discussion/disagreements over their interpretation & significance. I think a merger into
112:
Well, it's contentious, unstable, hopelessly POV, filled with original, unreliable, or unverifiable research, highly speculative, and very political. It should probably be
1120:
for deletion, which has all the cited shortcomings in this article, and then some. I mean, that would speak really well of your intellectual integrity, wouldn't it? --
722:: The Centers of Disease Control has changed its official incidence statistics - that's pseudoscience? Please read the article and the citations before voting. --
1399:(this being just one of them) make it clear that somebody has some agenda that they're trying to push. Here's an example of a typical agenda-pushing statement;
1039:
This is not regarded as generally acceptable. Ombudsman, are you about to tell us that you failed to either remember or see the alteration now? Or apologise?
667:: In my opinion, there is no autism epidemic, but it is the opinion of enough people that there is an epidemic to make it a noteworthy topic for Knowledge.
298:. Would it be reasonable to say that a stable article will probably not have had POV tags applied for much, ideally any, and none of its recent history?
1199:
I have deleted the second vote. It was made after I'd presumed the first one had gone unsaved due to problems with the wiki. Thanks for pointing it out.
1151:
Autism/incidence seems to be much less specific and a lot less POV than the idea of and "epidemic", which is not supported by any reasonable research. --
994:
likely to happen again here. The option of severe moderation in responding to Midgley and Jfd has been adopted as the guiding principle of choice.
880:
Further and better information please. You state an opinion and ascribe it to me above - - demonstrate it to be mine. The innuendo is undoubtedly
1477:
a disease that appears as new cases in a given human population, during a given period, at a rate that substantially exceeds what is "expected",
867:, an article of which Leifern is one of the editors and clearly is interested in. I agree that it is speculative. A mention of it survives in
1403:. If you're going to assert statistical significance, show some math (if my recollection of statistics is correct, I think we're talking the
82:, and start from scratch, and get someone to volunteer to write it who is noted for NPOV, before the rest of the editing process gets going.
559:
is relevant here. The article's content fails all three content policies. The title is POV and offensive to certain groups. I disagree with
1451:
any moment now. I've been tempted to copy a few remarks out of here and put it up for rfa myself, but instead I think I'll propose it for
294:
I lack a metric for "stability". Would it be reasonable to say that a stable article has few edits recently, and those simple additions?
1081:
This has been repeated now; is now more specific and extensive; is an assertion; is incorrect; is unknowable by its author and therefore
1761:, hopefully better renamed, to track hypotheses, fears, speculation, trends, policies as the story evolves. (I already voted, above) --
1773:
1659:, and if such reasoning should be made in conjunction with autism incidence, it should be there and not in a separate article. --
1776:. The latter article enjoys just as much support among autistics as the vaccine / toxin / epidemic view enjoys among parents. --
775:. This is still a notable topic that should be documented even though it is quite clear a real autism epidemic has no occurred.
336:
it's not going to get "altered" - any attempt at altering it just gets reverted, including moves. Right now it is basically OR.
17:
128:
if unaltered. Otherwise, major weeding out of junk, non-verifiable stuff, speculation, POV etc could make it a basic article.
1495:
would be quite wrong - that article is already quite long and is better as an introduction to the topic and related issues.
247:
Ok, I should have written: Fine with me to move the relavant content to that article. Not that the content is fine yet. :-)
1795:
have aspects of content forking. About half of the epidemic article is already covered (albeit with a different slant) on
1396:
926:
1245:
Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota - Pediatrics Vol. 115 No. 3 March 2005, pp. e277-e282 (doi:10.1542/peds.2004-1958.)
1072:
Autism/incidence is an article created specifically as part of an effort to undermine the content in this matter. --
367:
I am not excited about the term "epidemic," either, but the remedy for that would not be to delete but to rename. --
1824:
1702:
1683:
633:(it is contentious whether there is an epidemic at all). Consider stripping down to a NPOV core and merging with
556:
36:
1168:
and/or that the wholly derivative ("before you write about it" therefore not applying) stripped down derivative
1823:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1701:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
1682:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
35:
Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a
830:
that there is no increased incidence of autism, that environmental factors can't possibly play a role, etc. --
579:
daughter article, though I think it would have been best to wait for this to be resolved before creating one.
325:
1806:
1780:
1765:
1727:
1663:
1645:
1625:
1609:
1590:
1575:
1557:
1547:
1519:
1459:
1418:
1387:
1364:
1343:
1295:
1292:
1209:
1194:
1177:
1155:
1136:
1124:
1110:
1076:
1065:
1043:
1026:
1012:
998:
984:
963:
933:
909:
888:
875:
858:
844:
834:
819:
803:
791:
779:
763:
726:
714:
687:
671:
659:
618:
599:
586:
568:
539:
526:
513:
497:
485:
452:
416:
404:
391:
371:
358:
342:
328:
310:
286:
273:
251:
240:
223:
209:
179:
165:
152:
132:
120:
103:
86:
61:
1539:
For links and related items by me on Gerlovin theory and jimjen coding, see my personal website on subject
1031:"Rubbish" twice, rather than some more civil response, followed by innuendo and a direct personal attack.
576:
1638:
630:
431:
117:
751:
563:'s justification for keeping the article - ones opinion of the truth is irrelevant here. In keeping with
473:
1544:
1762:
1622:
1587:
464:". In the absence of any evidence of a real epidemic, to allow an article to be named as such based on
1430:. For the avoidance of doubt let me say that at least until this evening* there was not one word in
248:
198:
162:
129:
1753:
is a better way forward. After my initial pique with Adrian, I may be validating his article, too.
1530:
1721:
1356:
1129:
1117:
930:
776:
747:
505:. The whole idea of this article is without merit. It is a very speculative theory in violation of
233:
96:
55:
854:
I would highly recommend that you study this matter before you start writing articles about it. --
560:
494:
412:
rfa that article. Or shut up. I'm tempted to rfa it myself citing this discussion as the reason.
1792:
1601:
1568:
1508:
1448:
1431:
1415:
1377:
1332:
now. The expressed judgements that the epidemic article is good have not met general agreement.
1321:
1204:
1169:
1094:
952:
902:
868:
772:
743:
654:
642:
572:
447:
384:
184:
145:
1695:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1500:
871:- in a sentence. The criticism above is aimed perfectly in the wrong direction! And uncivil.
788:
29:
The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below.
1796:
1656:
1504:
898:
1190:
has voted twice above for rename, even if the second vote is not completely highlighted. --
282:
Actually, it was stable until the people who wanted to delete started to destabilize it. --
1804:
1788:
1534:
knowledge and education, history of Science. Alumni, University of California, Riverside.
1516:
1512:
1455:. Or both? * Now there are a couple of boxes I like, they are by me, and are my work...
1435:
1384:
1325:
1320:
empty of bad articles. I'm pleased to say that the efforts of several other users on the
1301:
1289:
continues to behave as he has elsewhere no doubt the usual admins will bail him out again.
1165:
864:
616:
584:
355:
67:
1401:
The number of children diagnosed with autism has increased significantly in recent years
1572:
1023:
995:
974:
522:
Knowledge has not adopted an SPOV policy and is committed to NPOV. Read up about it. --
469:
270:
1412:
1361:
1278:
1200:
1187:
1099:
1090:
1086:
881:
701:
696:
650:
638:
506:
443:
388:
202:
1499:
quite rightly already directs to sub-topics that expand on individual themes, e.g.
1716:
1642:
1606:
1554:
1456:
1340:
1329:
1314:
1310:
1286:
1274:
1174:
1121:
1107:
1082:
1073:
1040:
1009:
981:
885:
872:
855:
841:
831:
816:
800:
723:
684:
596:
536:
523:
413:
401:
368:
307:
283:
237:
220:
206:
176:
149:
100:
83:
50:
1742:
1085:; does not relate to the merits of the article of which this is the rfa; violates
1037:
in several other afd discussions, Ombudsman has altered comments by other editors.
955:. The issue of an autism epidemic is POV. It should absolutely not be merged into
442:. At present the article presumes there is an autism epidemic, which is disputed.
1438:
was deleted from around it. The description of the risen incidence of autism as
1282:
760:
711:
510:
1481:
Defining an epidemic can be subjective, depending in part on what is "expected"
1800:
1404:
1381:
1372:
too POV (is it a POV fork?) and should be part of autism (actually there is a
1103:
1062:
612:
580:
1777:
1660:
1191:
1152:
1133:
960:
906:
1300:
Certainly there are many comments here which have nothing to do with (the)
1242:
National Autism Prevalence Trends From United States Special Education Data
1132:
doesn't contain unsubstantiated information about the nature of autism. --
1472:
649:
accidentally voted twice due to wiki saving issues at time of first vote
482:
461:
351:
1434:
which did not get there by being left behind when the rest of a copy of
1106:
irrelevancies which a small minority of respondents are bringing here.
668:
338:
1540:
1496:
1492:
1373:
956:
634:
564:
478:
439:
75:
306:
there - one has to look at it. I'm not going to offer a view here.
1817:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
1676:
The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate.
116:
d. That said, I don't think you'll get a consensus to delete.
1225:
It is accepted that autism is at epidemic levels in the USA .
1173:
disruptive, I suggest the closing admin takes note of both.
481:... that is where data on prevalence and incidence belongs. -
1452:
532:
815:
for information: What is the POV which is "being pushed"?
400:
Autism (incidence) was created to subvert this article. --
1238:
And here is a Pediatrics paper on the same broad point:-
978:
850:
195:
188:
1328:
billet have turned it into something looking close to
187:
first saved at 02:51 on the 6th according to this PC
1641:
per JFW, remove most of the vaccine scaremongering.
1220:
page is needed for them to see what it is all about.
1705:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1407:test). One of the references' abstracts ends with
840:procedural reason not to use fact tags in an rfa?
531:Knowledge has as one of the pillars alongside NPOV
39:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1827:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1686:). No further edits should be made to this page.
1017:Rubbish. The minor refactoring simply prefaced
201:of whom I have no reason to assume anything but
197:. I have not yet had the pleasure of meeting
1774:The Neanderthal theory of the autism spectrum
1033:The response is simply untrue, and visibly so
434:, consider trimming down to smaller size and
350:: First, it's not the correct medical use of
8:
1447:may well get the cahnce to debate an rfa on
194:" by the afd here at 23:49 hours on the 5th
466:one interpretation of epidemiological data
1757:for solid definitional and data issues;
571:article, I have no problem with a NPOV
863:(The nerd theory occupies 5 lines of
7:
1059:Delete/merge with autism(incidence)
24:
1376:). Alternatively merge some into
606:I've reconsidered my vote now to
95:This from someone who is writing
977:has yet again edited my comment
18:Knowledge:Articles for deletion
1487:is perhaps a little bland and
339:Just another star in the night
1:
1751:Perhaps evolving two articles
1710:The result of the debate was
1397:List of autism-related topics
460:. Equivocal use of the term "
430:to the more neutrally titled
44:The result of the debate was
897:Such things can be added to
710:dangerous pseudoscience. --
468:is misleading and decidedly
884:and irrelevant to this rfa.
535:. And the other key one.
1844:
1807:08:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
1781:06:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
1766:04:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
1728:09:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
971:Interference with comments
540:18:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)
62:08:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
1664:10:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
1646:04:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
1626:02:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
1610:22:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
1591:13:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
1576:09:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
1558:09:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
1548:04:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
1520:01:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
1460:00:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
1419:23:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
1388:23:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
1365:23:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
1344:22:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
1296:22:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
1210:21:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
1195:19:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
1178:17:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
1156:10:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
1137:19:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
1125:15:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
1111:11:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
1077:10:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
1066:08:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
1044:00:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
1027:23:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
1013:20:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
999:19:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
985:08:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
964:04:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
934:14:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
910:10:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
889:21:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
876:00:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)
859:15:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
845:11:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
835:10:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
820:09:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
804:00:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
792:23:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
780:19:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
764:17:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
727:01:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
715:18:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
688:16:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
672:16:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
660:21:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
647:15:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
619:17:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
600:15:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
587:12:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
557:Knowledge:Content forking
527:01:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
514:08:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
498:08:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
486:06:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
453:06:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
417:08:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
405:01:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
392:06:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
372:01:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
359:05:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
343:05:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
329:03:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
311:12:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
287:01:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
274:01:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
252:16:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
241:01:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
224:08:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
210:01:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
180:01:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
166:02:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
153:02:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
133:01:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
121:23:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
104:00:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
87:22:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
1820:Please do not modify it.
1698:Please do not modify it.
1679:Please do not modify it.
1567:verifiable content into
32:Please do not modify it.
1489:Autism incidence debate
1061:The title alone is POV
1755:Epidemiology of autism
1639:epidemiology of autism
1355:. Reminiscent of the
1306:User above has no vote
631:epidemiology of autism
432:epidemiology of autism
1324:I stamped out of the
746:. Also add detail to
577:Autism (Epidemiology)
1605:being pushed in it?
1600:someone thinks that
1336:Comment on behaviour
1293:- The Invisible Anon
697:No original research
507:No original research
304:Subjective judgement
232:Take that advice to
1357:anti-vaccinationist
1130:Anti-vaccinationist
1118:Anti-vaccinationist
905:if found useful. --
748:conspiracy theories
699:. For example, The
474:Autism epidemiology
234:Anti-vaccinationist
97:Anti-vaccinationist
1793:Autism (incidence)
1738:Additional comment
1602:autism (Incidence)
1569:Autism (Incidence)
1509:Autistic community
1449:Autism (Incidence)
1432:Autism (Incidence)
1378:Autism_(Incidence)
1285:etc. etc. And if
1250:The authors say:-
1170:Autism (incidence)
1095:Autism (Incidence)
953:Autism (Incidence)
903:Autism (Incidence)
869:Autism (Incidence)
773:Autism (Incidence)
744:Autism (Incidence)
709:
573:Autism (Incidence)
385:Autism (Incidence)
326:For great justice.
324:. Possibly merge.
185:Autism (Incidence)
146:Autism (Incidence)
1759:autism "epidemic"
1501:Autistic spectrum
1207:
707:
657:
645:
493:. There is one.
450:
341:
118:Brian G. Crawford
1835:
1822:
1797:Causes of autism
1724:
1719:
1712:as of that above
1700:
1681:
1657:Causes of autism
1545:Jim Christiansen
1505:Autism therapies
1485:Autism incidence
1205:
1100:personal attacks
899:Causes of autism
655:
643:
448:
337:
58:
53:
34:
1843:
1842:
1838:
1837:
1836:
1834:
1833:
1832:
1831:
1825:deletion review
1818:
1789:Autism epidemic
1735:
1722:
1717:
1703:deletion review
1696:
1690:
1684:deletion review
1677:
1513:autistic savant
1475:'s definition:
1436:Autism epidemic
1374:similar section
1302:Autism epidemic
1166:Autism epidemic
865:Autism epidemic
71:
68:Autism epidemic
56:
51:
37:deletion review
30:
22:
21:
20:
12:
11:
5:
1841:
1839:
1830:
1829:
1812:
1810:
1809:
1784:
1783:
1734:
1731:
1708:
1707:
1691:
1689:
1688:
1671:
1669:
1668:
1667:
1666:
1649:
1648:
1631:
1630:
1629:
1628:
1615:
1614:
1613:
1612:
1594:
1593:
1579:
1578:
1562:
1561:
1560:
1536:
1535:
1531:I. L. Gerlovin
1523:
1522:
1465:
1464:
1463:
1462:
1422:
1421:
1390:
1367:
1349:
1348:
1347:
1346:
1333:
1322:incidenceblank
1290:
1269:
1268:
1267:
1266:
1263:
1260:
1257:
1247:
1246:
1239:
1235:
1234:
1230:
1226:
1222:
1221:
1214:
1213:
1212:
1161:
1160:
1159:
1158:
1146:
1145:
1144:
1143:
1142:
1141:
1140:
1139:
1069:
1068:
1055:
1054:
1053:
1052:
1051:
1050:
1049:
1048:
1047:
1046:
988:
987:
975:user:Ombudsman
967:
966:
941:
940:
939:
938:
937:
936:
931:Neurodivergent
917:
916:
915:
914:
913:
912:
895:
894:
893:
892:
891:
878:
823:
822:
807:
806:
794:
782:
777:Neurodivergent
766:
754:
752:81.154.178.113
736:
735:
734:
733:
732:
731:
730:
729:
675:
674:
662:
622:
621:
604:
603:
602:
590:
589:
547:
546:
545:
544:
543:
542:
517:
516:
500:
488:
455:
424:
423:
422:
421:
420:
419:
395:
394:
377:
376:
375:
374:
362:
361:
345:
331:
318:
317:
316:
315:
314:
313:
277:
276:
263:
262:
261:
260:
259:
258:
257:
256:
255:
254:
244:
243:
227:
226:
215:
214:
213:
212:
169:
168:
161:Fine with me.
156:
155:
136:
135:
123:
109:
108:
107:
106:
90:
89:
70:
65:
42:
41:
25:
23:
15:
14:
13:
10:
9:
6:
4:
3:
2:
1840:
1828:
1826:
1821:
1815:
1814:
1813:
1808:
1805:
1802:
1798:
1794:
1790:
1786:
1785:
1782:
1779:
1775:
1770:
1769:
1768:
1767:
1764:
1760:
1756:
1752:
1746:
1744:
1739:
1733:Double vision
1732:
1730:
1729:
1726:
1725:
1720:
1713:
1706:
1704:
1699:
1693:
1692:
1687:
1685:
1680:
1674:
1673:
1672:
1665:
1662:
1658:
1653:
1652:
1651:
1650:
1647:
1644:
1640:
1636:
1633:
1632:
1627:
1624:
1619:
1618:
1617:
1616:
1611:
1608:
1603:
1598:
1597:
1596:
1595:
1592:
1589:
1584:
1581:
1580:
1577:
1574:
1570:
1566:
1563:
1559:
1556:
1551:
1550:
1549:
1546:
1542:
1538:
1537:
1532:
1528:
1525:
1524:
1521:
1518:
1514:
1510:
1506:
1502:
1498:
1494:
1490:
1486:
1482:
1478:
1474:
1470:
1467:
1466:
1461:
1458:
1454:
1450:
1445:
1441:
1437:
1433:
1429:
1426:
1425:
1424:
1423:
1420:
1417:
1414:
1410:
1406:
1402:
1398:
1394:
1391:
1389:
1386:
1383:
1379:
1375:
1371:
1368:
1366:
1363:
1358:
1354:
1351:
1350:
1345:
1342:
1337:
1334:
1331:
1327:
1323:
1319:
1316:
1312:
1307:
1303:
1299:
1298:
1297:
1294:
1291:
1288:
1284:
1280:
1276:
1271:
1270:
1264:
1261:
1258:
1256:
1252:
1251:
1249:
1248:
1243:
1240:
1237:
1236:
1231:
1227:
1224:
1223:
1218:
1215:
1211:
1208:
1202:
1198:
1197:
1196:
1193:
1189:
1185:
1182:
1181:
1180:
1179:
1176:
1171:
1167:
1157:
1154:
1150:
1149:
1148:
1147:
1138:
1135:
1131:
1128:
1127:
1126:
1123:
1119:
1114:
1113:
1112:
1109:
1105:
1101:
1096:
1092:
1088:
1084:
1080:
1079:
1078:
1075:
1071:
1070:
1067:
1064:
1060:
1057:
1056:
1045:
1042:
1038:
1034:
1030:
1029:
1028:
1025:
1020:
1016:
1015:
1014:
1011:
1007:
1002:
1001:
1000:
997:
992:
991:
990:
989:
986:
983:
979:
976:
972:
969:
968:
965:
962:
958:
954:
950:
946:
943:
942:
935:
932:
928:
923:
922:
921:
920:
919:
918:
911:
908:
904:
900:
896:
890:
887:
883:
879:
877:
874:
870:
866:
862:
861:
860:
857:
852:
848:
847:
846:
843:
838:
837:
836:
833:
829:
825:
824:
821:
818:
814:
811:
810:
809:
808:
805:
802:
798:
795:
793:
790:
786:
783:
781:
778:
774:
770:
767:
765:
762:
758:
755:
753:
749:
745:
742:: Merge into
741:
738:
737:
728:
725:
721:
718:
717:
716:
713:
704:
703:
702:Da Vinci Code
698:
694:
691:
690:
689:
686:
682:
679:
678:
677:
676:
673:
670:
666:
663:
661:
658:
652:
648:
646:
640:
636:
632:
628:
624:
623:
620:
617:
614:
609:
605:
601:
598:
594:
593:
592:
591:
588:
585:
582:
578:
574:
570:
569:summary style
566:
562:
558:
554:
553:
549:
548:
541:
538:
534:
530:
529:
528:
525:
521:
520:
519:
518:
515:
512:
508:
504:
501:
499:
496:
492:
489:
487:
484:
480:
475:
471:
467:
463:
459:
456:
454:
451:
445:
441:
437:
433:
429:
426:
425:
418:
415:
411:
408:
407:
406:
403:
399:
398:
397:
396:
393:
390:
386:
382:
379:
378:
373:
370:
366:
365:
364:
363:
360:
357:
353:
349:
346:
344:
340:
335:
332:
330:
327:
323:
320:
319:
312:
309:
305:
301:
297:
293:
290:
289:
288:
285:
281:
280:
279:
278:
275:
272:
268:
265:
264:
253:
250:
246:
245:
242:
239:
236:, Midgley. --
235:
231:
230:
229:
228:
225:
222:
217:
216:
211:
208:
204:
200:
196:
193:
189:
186:
183:
182:
181:
178:
173:
172:
171:
170:
167:
164:
160:
159:
158:
157:
154:
151:
147:
143:
140:
139:
138:
137:
134:
131:
127:
124:
122:
119:
115:
111:
110:
105:
102:
98:
94:
93:
92:
91:
88:
85:
81:
77:
73:
72:
69:
66:
64:
63:
60:
59:
54:
47:
40:
38:
33:
27:
26:
19:
1819:
1816:
1811:
1763:66.58.130.26
1758:
1754:
1750:
1747:
1737:
1736:
1715:
1711:
1709:
1697:
1694:
1678:
1675:
1670:
1634:
1623:66.58.130.26
1588:66.58.130.26
1582:
1564:
1526:
1488:
1484:
1480:
1476:
1468:
1443:
1439:
1427:
1408:
1400:
1392:
1369:
1352:
1335:
1317:
1305:
1253:
1241:
1216:
1183:
1162:
1058:
1036:
1032:
1018:
1005:
970:
948:
944:
827:
812:
796:
784:
768:
756:
739:
719:
700:
692:
680:
664:
626:
625:
608:Merge/Rename
607:
551:
550:
502:
490:
465:
457:
435:
427:
409:
380:
347:
333:
321:
303:
299:
295:
291:
266:
191:
141:
125:
113:
79:
49:
46:no consensus
45:
43:
31:
28:
1517:David Ruben
1479:and notes:
1255:agencies.32
1089:; suggests
851:insert tags
708:potentially
567:becoming a
348:Weak Delete
1405:chi-square
1104:ad hominum
555:. Much of
438:erge with
410:Suggestion
356:Peter Grey
300:Not a pass
249:KimvdLinde
203:good faith
199:KimvdLinde
163:KimvdLinde
130:KimvdLinde
1573:Limegreen
1444:Replacing
1024:Ombudsman
996:Ombudsman
629:ename to
472:. Create
271:Ombudsman
1743:POV fork
1473:Epidemic
1440:epidemic
1413:RoySmith
1382:David D.
1362:Andrew73
1326:epidemic
462:epidemic
389:Arcadian
352:epidemic
292:Analysis
192:followed
1643:Rhobite
1607:Midgley
1555:Midgley
1457:Midgley
1428:Comment
1353:Comment
1341:Midgley
1313:if not
1287:Midgley
1275:Midgley
1175:Midgley
1122:Leifern
1108:Midgley
1083:opinion
1074:Leifern
1041:Midgley
1019:comment
1010:Midgley
982:Midgley
886:Midgley
873:Midgley
856:Leifern
849:If you
842:Midgley
832:Leifern
828:opinion
817:Midgley
813:Request
801:Leifern
724:Leifern
720:Comment
693:Comment
685:Midgley
681:Comment
597:Midgley
537:Midgley
524:Leifern
414:Midgley
402:Leifern
369:Leifern
308:Midgley
284:Leifern
238:Leifern
221:Midgley
207:Midgley
177:Leifern
150:Midgley
142:Comment
101:Leifern
84:Midgley
1718:Sceptr
1635:Rename
1497:Autism
1493:Autism
1469:Rename
1416:(talk)
1411:. --
1393:Delete
1385:(Talk)
1370:delete
1283:Fyslee
1091:WP:OWN
1087:WP:AGF
957:Autism
945:Delete
882:WP:NPA
785:Delete
740:Delete
712:Fyslee
635:autism
565:autism
552:Delete
511:Fyslee
503:Delete
479:Autism
458:Delete
440:autism
428:Rename
334:Delete
126:Delete
114:delete
80:Delete
76:Autism
52:Sceptr
1801:Colin
1787:Both
1565:Merge
1330:WP:GA
1315:WP:FA
1311:WP:GA
1063:Gleng
951:into
949:merge
947:, or
826:Your
789:Sandy
771:with
769:Merge
613:Colin
581:Colin
383:into
381:Merge
16:<
1791:and
1778:Rdos
1714:. –
1661:Rdos
1583:Keep
1571:. --
1541:here
1527:Keep
1217:Keep
1206:T@lk
1192:Rdos
1184:Note
1153:Rdos
1134:Rdos
1102:and
961:Rdos
959:. --
927:here
907:Rdos
901:and
797:Keep
757:Keep
665:Keep
656:T@lk
644:T@lk
561:john
495:john
491:Keep
449:T@lk
322:Keep
296:Fail
267:keep
99:? --
48:. –
1637:to
1318:and
1304:.
1279:JFW
1201:JFW
1188:JFW
1006:but
973:.
761:RJH
651:JFW
639:JFW
575:or
483:AED
470:POV
444:JFW
148:.
1543:.
1511:,
1507:,
1503:,
1453:GA
1380:.
1281:,
1277:,
1203:|
1186:.
929:.
669:Q0
653:|
641:|
637:.
446:|
175:--
144::
1803:°
1723:e
750:.
627:R
615:°
583:°
533:V
436:m
190:"
57:e
Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.