Talk:Epidemiology of autism
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
[edit] NPOV and deletion of talk page
To not mention possible environmental factors and to question whether it is uncertain that actual prevalence has increased; is grossly misleading. And who deleted the Talk page? --Leifern (talk) 21:17, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Nobody deleted the talk page, as far as I know. I think Epidemiology of autism got renamed to some other page (sorry, I don't know which; it was before my time), so the old talk page probably moved with it. As for environmental factors, good point, I'll add something. Eubulides (talk) 21:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
Looking at the recent changes:
- "Reported incidence" is ambiguous; are we talking incidence rate, cumulative incidence, research-reports, administrative incidence? Better to use something less ambiguous such as "the number of children known to have autism".
- The reported rate of new cases of autism is what I'm getting at. As the diagnostic criteria are based on psychiatric rather than neurodevelopmental criteria, it's a little much to say that any kids are "known" to have autism.
- "Some speculate". Several reliable sources agree that some of the reported increase is due to changes in diagnostic practice. Putting in "Some speculate" is out of place here.
- To the extent that the etiology of autism in general is unknown, and the composition of causes for the rise is unknown, there certainly is speculation.
- "Others assert that environmental factors must play a role". Let's leave the discussion about the disputants in the controversy page; this page should use less-charged wording.
- So less-charged wording is to attribute it all to non-environmental causes?
- "Some researchers have found that". Likewise, this wording should go; the article should be about autism, not about autism researchers.
- That makes no sense. It is common to attribute a finding to those who claim it.
I made this change accordingly. Eubulides (talk) 22:05, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- Your edits are improvements over the first version, but the article still reads like a crude propaganda piece. The controversy should be mentioned, and though several people find support for the changing diagnostic criteria view, the support for this is tenuous at best. I appreciate your effort, but suggest that you read up on all sides of the controversies rather than accepting one side uncritically. --Leifern (talk) 22:20, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
- I added a new section Epidemiology of autism#Autism and its causes which mentions the controversy. No doubt further improvements could be made; suggestions are welcome. The article does not say that all the changes are due to diagnostic criteria, only that some of the changes are. I don't know of any reliable sources that disagree; if you know of any, please let us know. Eubulides (talk) 22:30, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
[edit] Merge from "Autism (incidence)"
Currently Epidemiology of autism#Frequency of autism lists Autism (incidence) as a subpage. There is considerable duplication, and Autism (incidence) is small enough that it should be merged into Epidemiology of autism. Eubulides (talk) 21:19, 19 December 2007 (UTC)
