Talk:Éric Fombonne

Reliable sources
I have several concerns about this edit, among them: Sideshow Bob Roberts 02:27, 20 July 2007 (UTC)
 * It's marked as a minor edit, even though it clearly does not meet the criteria at Minor edit. ("If you think there is any chance that another editor might dispute your change, please, do not mark it as minor.")
 * You state that "The National Autism Association has pointed out flaws in a study by Fombonne published in 2006 by the journal Pediatrics" but you fail to cite a reliable source to back this up. Fombonne's article was published in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.  It is entirely inappropriate to cite an unpublished letter to the editor by a fringe group as "pointing out flaws" in a peer-reviewed scientific journal.  If their argument has merit, they should have no problem finding a reliable source to publish it.  Until their claims have been published by a reliable source, Wikipedia has no business quoting them.
 * You claim that "His data indicates the prevalence of autism has increased between 600% and 3400%". This is a highly controversial claim, but again you fail to cite a reliable published source.  It's clear that Fombonne does not believe his research indicates this.  Again, please find a reliable published source or remove this claim.

Bob - the minor edit (which basically amounted to a revert except the addition of a cite) was labeled as such because the edit summary basically just seemed to be asking for a citation, rather than expressing a desire to engage in a dispute. Also, the National Autism Association is not a fringe group. Ombudsman 02:45, 20 July 2007 (UTC)


 * Please read Minor edit and note the following:
 * "A check to the minor edit box signifies that only superficial differences exist between the current and previous version: typo corrections, formatting and presentational changes, rearranging of text without modifying content, et cetera. A minor edit is a version that the editor believes requires no review and could never be the subject of a dispute."
 * "Reverting a page is not likely to be considered minor under most circumstances"
 * "If you think there is any chance that another editor might dispute your change, please, do not mark it as minor"
 * "Marking a major change as a minor one is considered poor etiquette"


 * It's clear from your edit history that you frequently mark as minor edits that are far from superficial, like the one I just pointed out to you.


 * Please also read reliable sources, especially this part. It's clear that the sources you cite do not have "an established structure for fact-checking and editorial oversight".  You may not consider the NAA to be a fringe group but when it comes to critiquing scientific articles, they're certainly not highly respected.  Fombonne's paper received a very high profile so, if there are serious methodological flaws, you should have no problem finding a reliable published source that points them out.  A letter from a lobby group (which the publisher appears to have rejected) certainly does not meet Wikipedia's verifiability standards.  And do you seriously believe that this website meets the criteria set out at reliable sources?? Sideshow Bob Roberts 03:20, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

I'd like to back that up. The National Autism Association is exactly that: a LOBBY group. They are the brainchild of concerned parents, not scientists, who are desperately looking for an answer in a terrible situation where we know very little. Fombonne is not the apparatus of pharmaceutical companies, but a lifetime academic who has sought to find a cure for autism, and nothing more than that. The NAA has a couple of rogue psychiatrists working for them, but the majority of their opinion comes from a woman who has spent her life in PR, not science. Please find serious research to contradict Fombonne's claim, and do not mark this as a minor edit. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.207.88.138 (talk) 00:18, 3 November 2007 (UTC)

WikiProject class rating
This article was automatically assessed because at least one article was rated and this bot brought all the other ratings up to at least that level. BetacommandBot 03:11, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Quote on the right-hand side
Could someone more wikimarkup-savvy than me please put the quote on this page into a box? The only code I know for boxes isn't working in combination with the quotes. Right now it looks incredibly sloppy, there are lines going through it, and it just hurts the eyes. Alternatively, we could get rid of it or integrate it into the body of the article, but until someone's willing to put the effort into doing that it should at the very least be put in a box. --Luai lashire (talk) 22:31, 24 July 2008 (UTC)
 * Is this better? Polemarchus (talk) 01:45, 25 July 2008 (UTC)