Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autism epidemic

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was no consensus. – Sceptre ^(Talk) 08:56, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Autism epidemic

• 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 Autism. 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. Delete, 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. Midgley 22:49, 5 April 2006 (UTC)

This from someone who is writing Anti-vaccinationist? --Leifern 00:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Well, it's contentious, unstable, hopelessly POV, filled with original, unreliable, or unverifiable research, highly speculative, and very political. It should probably be deleted. That said, I don't think you'll get a consensus to delete. Brian G. Crawford 23:20, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete if unaltered. Otherwise, major weeding out of junk, non-verifiable stuff, speculation, POV etc could make it a basic article. KimvdLinde 01:39, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment: Autism (Incidence). Midgley 02:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• Fine with me. KimvdLinde 02:12, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

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... --Leifern 01:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Autism (Incidence) first saved at 02:51 on the 6th according to this PC [1] "followed" by the afd here at 23:49 hours on the 5th[2]. I have not yet had the pleasure of meeting KimvdLinde of whom I have no reason to assume anything but good faith. 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. Midgley 01:26, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• 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. Midgley 08:04, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Take that advice to Anti-vaccinationist, Midgley. --Leifern 01:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Ok, I should have written: Fine with me to move the relavant content to that article. Not that the content is fine yet. :-) KimvdLinde 16:48, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

• keep: 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. Ombudsman 01:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Actually, it was stable until the people who wanted to delete started to destabilize it. --Leifern 01:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Analysis I lack a metric for "stability". Would it be reasonable to say that a stable article has few edits recently, and those simple additions? Fail. 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? Not a pass. 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? Subjective judgement there - one has to look at it. I'm not going to offer a view here. Midgley 12:04, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep. Possibly merge. For great justice. 03:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete it's not going to get "altered" - any attempt at altering it just gets reverted, including moves. Right now it is basically OR. Just another star in the night ^{T | @ | C} 05:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Weak Delete: First, it's not the correct medical use of epidemic. 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. Peter Grey 05:09, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I am not excited about the term "epidemic," either, but the remedy for that would not be to delete but to rename. --Leifern 01:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merge into Autism (Incidence), 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. --Arcadian 06:41, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Autism (incidence) was created to subvert this article. --Leifern 01:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Suggestion rfa that article. Or shut up. I'm tempted to rfa it myself citing this discussion as the reason. Midgley 08:35, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Rename to the more neutrally titled epidemiology of autism, consider trimming down to smaller size and merge with autism. At present the article presumes there is an autism epidemic, which is disputed. JFW | T@lk 06:51, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. Equivocal use of the term "epidemic". In the absence of any evidence of a real epidemic, to allow an article to be named as such based on one interpretation of epidemiological data is misleading and decidedly POV. Create Autism epidemiology 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 Autism... that is where data on prevalence and incidence belongs. -AED 06:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep. There is one. john 08:00, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. The whole idea of this article is without merit. It is a very speculative theory in violation of No original research. 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. Wikipedia 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. -- Fyslee 08:20, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has not adopted an SPOV policy and is committed to NPOV. Read up about it. --Leifern 01:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Wikipedia has as one of the pillars alongside NPOV V. And the other key one. Midgley 18:39, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete. Much of Wikipedia:Content forking is relevant here. The article's content fails all three content policies. The title is POV and offensive to certain groups. I disagree with john's justification for keeping the article - ones opinion of the truth is irrelevant here. In keeping with autism becoming a summary style article, I have no problem with a NPOV Autism (Incidence) or Autism (Epidemiology) daughter article, though I think it would have been best to wait for this to be resolved before creating one. Colin°^Talk 12:27, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

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. Midgley 15:26, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

I've reconsidered my vote now to Merge/Rename 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. Colin°^Talk 17:51, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Rename to epidemiology of autism (it is contentious whether there is an epidemic at all). Consider stripping down to a NPOV core and merging with autism. JFW | T@lk 15:52, 6 April 2006 (UTC) accidentally voted twice due to wiki saving issues at time of first vote JFW | T@lk 21:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep: 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 Wikipedia. Q0 16:06, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment 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. Midgley 16:44, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: 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 Wikipedia's policy No original research. For example, The Da Vinci Code 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 potentially dangerous pseudoscience. -- Fyslee 18:43, 6 April 2006 (UTC)

Comment: The Centers of Disease Control has changed its official incidence statistics - that's pseudoscience? Please read the article and the citations before voting. --Leifern 01:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete: Merge into Autism (Incidence). Also add detail to conspiracy theories.81.154.178.113
• Keep 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? — RJH 17:17, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Merge with Autism (Incidence). This is still a notable topic that should be documented even though it is quite clear a real autism epidemic has no occurred. Neurodivergent 19:21, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete 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. Sandy 23:30, 6 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep, 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. --Leifern 00:16, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Request for information: What is the POV which is "being pushed"? Midgley 09:52, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Your opinion that there is no increased incidence of autism, that environmental factors can't possibly play a role, etc. --Leifern 10:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

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 procedural reason not to use fact tags in an rfa? Midgley 11:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

If you insert tags 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 - I would highly recommend that you study this matter before you start writing articles about it. --Leifern 15:11, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

(The nerd theory occupies 5 lines of Autism epidemic, 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 Autism (Incidence) - in a sentence. The criticism above is aimed perfectly in the wrong direction! And uncivil. Midgley 00:39, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

Further and better information please. You state an opinion and ascribe it to me above - ^{[citation needed]} - demonstrate it to be mine. The innuendo is undoubtedly WP:NPA and irrelevant to this rfa.Midgley 21:05, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Such things can be added to Causes of autism and Autism (Incidence) if found useful. --Rdos 10:59, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

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 here. Neurodivergent 14:29, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete, or merge into Autism (Incidence). The issue of an autism epidemic is POV. It should absolutely not be merged into Autism. --Rdos 04:45, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Interference with comments. user:Ombudsman has yet again edited my comment[3]. 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. Midgley 08:46, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

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 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. Ombudsman 19:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

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 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, but... 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. Midgley 20:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Rubbish. The minor refactoring simply prefaced comment 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 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. Ombudsman 23:42, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

"Rubbish" twice, rather than some more civil response, followed by innuendo and a direct personal attack. The response is simply untrue, and visibly so. 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 in several other afd discussions, Ombudsman has altered comments by other editors. 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? Midgley 00:29, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Delete/merge with autism(incidence) The title alone is POV Gleng 08:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Autism/incidence is an article created specifically as part of an effort to undermine the content in this matter. --Leifern 10:39, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

This has been repeated now; is now more specific and extensive; is an assertion; is incorrect; is unknowable by its author and therefore opinion; does not relate to the merits of the article of which this is the rfa; violates WP:AGF; suggests WP:OWN 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. Autism (Incidence) 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 personal attacks and ad hominum irrelevancies which a small minority of respondents are bringing here. Midgley 11:54, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

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 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 Anti-vaccinationist 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? --Leifern 15:01, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Anti-vaccinationist doesn't contain unsubstantiated information about the nature of autism. --Rdos 19:17, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

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. --Rdos 10:56, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

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 - Autism epidemic and/or that the wholly derivative ("before you write about it" therefore not applying) stripped down derivative Autism (incidence) 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 disruptive, I suggest the closing admin takes note of both. Midgley 17:14, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Note. JFW has voted twice above for rename, even if the second vote is not completely highlighted. --Rdos 19:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
  • 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. JFW | T@lk 21:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)
• Keep The following peer reviewed papers demonstrate there is such a thing as an "autism epidemic" even if the allopathic lobby on Wikipedia want to suppress all reference to it. Such a term has a place in Wikipedia as an article in its own right. If people want to refer to the "autism epidemic" this page is needed for them to see what it is all about.

It is accepted that autism is at epidemic levels in the USA [Increases in Identified Cases of Autism Spectrum Disorders: Trudy Steuernagel, Kent State University JOURNAL OF DISABILITY POLICY STUDIES VOL. 16/NO. 3/2005 138].

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 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.

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 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.

And here is a Pediatrics paper on the same broad point:-

National Autism Prevalence Trends From United States Special Education Data 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 Minnesota, Minneapolis, Minnesota - PEDIATRICS Vol. 115 No. 3 March 2005, pp. e277-e282 (doi:10.1542/peds.2004-1958.)

The authors say:-

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 agencies.32

"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."

"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."

"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."

The issue here is nothing to do with the autism epidemic. This is the allopathic medical lobby on Wikipedia 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 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 Wikipedia. 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 Midgley, JFW, Fyslee etc. etc. And if Midgley continues to behave as he has elsewhere no doubt the usual admins will bail him out again.

^Talk - The Invisible Anon22:06, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

Certainly there are many comments here which have nothing to do with (the) Autism epidemic. User above has no vote 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 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 WP:GA if not WP:FA and empty of bad articles. I'm pleased to say that the efforts of several other users on the incidenceblank I stamped out of the epidemic billet have turned it into something looking close to WP:GA now. The expressed judgements that the epidemic article is good have not met general agreement.

Comment on behaviour 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. Midgley 22:51, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. Reminiscent of the anti-vaccinationist 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. Andrew73 23:15, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• delete too POV (is it a POV fork?) and should be part of autism (actually there is a similar section). Alternatively merge some into Autism_(Incidence). David D. (Talk) 23:20, 7 April 2006 (UTC)
• Delete. 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 List of autism-related topics (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; The number of children diagnosed with autism has increased significantly in recent years. If you're going to assert statistical significance, show some math (if my recollection of statistics is correct, I think we're talking the chi-square test). One of the references' abstracts ends with 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. -- RoySmith (talk) 23:53, 7 April 2006 (UTC)

• Comment. For the avoidance of doubt let me say that at least until this evening* there was not one word in Autism (Incidence) which did not get there by being left behind when the rest of a copy of Autism epidemic was deleted from around it. The description of the risen incidence of autism as epidemic (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. Replacing 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 may well get the cahnce to debate an rfa on Autism (Incidence) 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 GA. Or both? * Now there are a couple of boxes I like, they are by me, and are my work... Midgley 00:00, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Rename & 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 Epidemic's definition: 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", and notes: Defining an epidemic can be subjective, depending in part on what is "expected". 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. Autism incidence is perhaps a little bland and Autism incidence debate 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 Autism would be quite wrong - that article is already quite long and is better as an introduction to the topic and related issues. Autism quite rightly already directs to sub-topics that expand on individual themes, e.g. Autistic spectrum, Autism therapies, Autistic community, autistic savant, 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 ? David Ruben ^Talk 01:05, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep From James D. Christiansen, a new member of Wikipedia, noted this article under consideration for deletion, should be kept, as I believe from review of other documentation related to I. L. Gerlovin 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 knowledge and education, history of Science. Alumni, University of California, Riverside.

For links and related items by me on Gerlovin theory and jimjen coding, see my personal website on subject here. Jim Christiansen 04:25, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

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. Midgley 09:02, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

Merge verifiable content into Autism (Incidence). --Limegreen 09:17, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• Keep 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 "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. --66.58.130.26 13:06, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

• 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 someone thinks that autism (Incidence) 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 being pushed in it? Midgley 22:21, 8 April 2006 (UTC)

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 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. --66.58.130.26 02:26, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

• Rename to epidemiology of autism per JFW, remove most of the vaccine scaremongering. Rhobite 04:10, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

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, Causes of autism, and if such reasoning should be made in conjunction with autism incidence, it should be there and not in a separate article. --Rdos 10:05, 9 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The following discussion is an archived debate of the proposed deletion of the article below. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.

The result of the debate was as of that above. – Sceptre ^(Talk) 09:21, 11 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Double vision

Additional comment 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, 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 POV fork. 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.

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 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"). Perhaps evolving two articles is a better way forward. After my initial pique with Adrian, I may be validating his article, too. Epidemiology of autism for solid definitional and data issues; autism "epidemic", hopefully better renamed, to track hypotheses, fears, speculation, trends, policies as the story evolves. (I already voted, above) --66.58.130.26 04:54, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

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 The Neanderthal theory of the autism spectrum. The latter article enjoys just as much support among autistics as the vaccine / toxin / epidemic view enjoys among parents. --Rdos 06:26, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

Both Autism epidemic and Autism (incidence) have aspects of content forking. About half of the epidemic article is already covered (albeit with a different slant) on Causes of autism. 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. Wikipedia 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. Colin°^Talk 08:56, 10 April 2006 (UTC)

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of the debate. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page (such as the article's talk page or in a deletion review). No further edits should be made to this page.