Talk:Autism Research Institute/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Consensus?

My opinion is this organization and its DAN! project are mentioned in 7 out of 10 books on autism and have been covered in the press and the blogs of some notable authors. I think presenting what they do/have done, when and the scientific consensus on the approaches they promote and the promotion of them is worthwhile. The books above can provide secondary, third party description of the activities of ARI and the approaches they promote. Most of the references needed to present the current medical/academic consensus on these approaches and their promotion are already in the article. I think this is a fairly important article.

However. if consensus is against that (seems to lean that way), I would not object to a major trim leaving essentially a stub. It seems most involved have an understanding of FRINGE and MEDRS to handle it appropriately. I would then add the appropriate secondary references. If someone thinks a batch of editors should be pinged, do so. - - MrBill3 (talk) 06:21, 28 July 2014 (UTC)

Hi MrBill. Do you mind pointing me to where the consensus was obtained? Just interested in seeing the discussion. I was surprised to see the AfD end up with no consensus. Out of the three books you added here, the only one with a link where I could verify the source seemed heavily focused on the founder Bernard Rimland, where the discussion was initially leaning towards a merge. However, we do have a lot of perfectly excellent 1-2 paragraph stubs on marginally notable subjects. In a similar case user:Atama was suggesting some cleanup of anything un-sourced/poorly-sourced would give us a better view of what's left and I would think there would be consensus that (putting notability aside where ARI needs to be the subject of the article) that an acceptable source should at least mention/say something about the subject of the article we're covering and not be primary in most cases. I've also started a discussion on the Extant Organizations Noticeboard here. CorporateM (Talk) 18:41, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Greetings CorporateM. I was not meaning to indicate a clear consensus had been reached. I was acknowledging that although the AfD led to no consensus, it seemed to lean against support for the article (at least in it's present state). I agree the source with the most on ARI did focus heavily on Rimland. The others do provide some substantial discussion of ARI. I have/had access to the full text. Other than Rajan 2012 (which is actually a chapter by Silverman in an edited book) most of the others discuss ARI in the context of the Autism parent advocacy or in discussions of various treatments or focus on DAN!. While this makes extracting content on ARI involve some level of work, I do not think it is synth. For example the GFCF diet is discussed in a dozen books, 8 of them discuss it's origination with, promotion by ARI or discuss ARI's recommendations giving them as a source for additional information. Then there is chelation 10 books that discuss chelation point to ARI, discuss chelation in relation to DAN! etc. Some books discuss five or six alternate treatments that ARI advocates mentioning them each time and sometimes discussing their development, promotion or information on them. If your wondering how I come by this information, I spent an afternoon at the library and sat at the section on autism and perused 15 or so books. A google search of any of the alternate treatments for autism will lead you to dozens of sites that cite ARI, when filtering it down to more RS returns antivax, chelation and diet treatments discussed in reliable sources almost always mention ARI and/or DAN!.

I don't think there is much that needs to be added to the article, in fact a trim and restructure would help. Most of the facts in the article can be supported by secondary sources that specifically mention ARI or DAN! When trimmed down the presentation of the current medical understanding of subjects introduced can be brief. I would continue to insist if biomedical information is presented that such current medical understanding must be presented. For example ARI contends(ed) that vaccines cause autism once that contention is presented the mainstream scientific consensus that they do not must be presented. Likewise the contention that special diets help with autism and should be used, the major consensus paper by a medical organization must be cited on the subject (whether they say anything about ARI or not in that paper). Similarly chelation as a treatment for autism (in this case the sources do discuss ARI's promotion of it sometimes when presenting the medical consensus).

I see consensus as not necessarily an agreement reached but the best interpretation of the field of views in terms of following policy. I realize this may not line up directly with the consensus policy and acknowledge the risk that an individual editor making such an interpretation is declaring consensus by fiat. I'd hope that a well intentioned editor would be employing common sense and actually improving the encyclopedia when sizing up the gist of community views, interpreting policy and editing boldly.

I apologize for the length of my reply. I should have gathered my thoughts and composed a concise presentation. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 20:12, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Yup, I didn't mean to throw around the magic word "consensus", which rarely exists in a completely pure form anywhere. A chapter of a book where the entire chapter is on ARI would certainly count as one of the two sources required by WP:CORP and I'm happy to do the same (go to a library) to verify. Stubbing the article seems appropriate. I do not protest to preserving well-sourced criticisms of their views, though they should be held in balance with more mundane information (funding, foundation date, growth, etc.). A good starting point would be to clean up any blogs, primary sources, or sources that do not mention ARI and their corresponding content, whether critical or promotional and there is plenty of each. I would guess there may be about 10 sources worth keeping. We could also work on it together top-down if you like. In the past I have had several pages of discussion with an editor who had a very negative viewpoint about my client and we were able to work it out up to GA through a thorough discussion, plenty of AGF, hard work and patience. Whatever you are most comfortable with. CorporateM (Talk) 20:52, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

I think a top down as a fresh creation on a sandbox page is probably going to result in the best article. I've always felt the structure of the article was wonky. It should present the basics of the organization, explain it's activities and positions and summarize the reaction/response. With some discussion of the current medical understanding of the approaches it promotes. If you are willing to set up the bones, I am willing to try and hang some flesh. I wouldn't go so far as to say the entire chapter in Rajan is on ARI, you can get a good feel with the google books preview. I think Eyal provides adequate coverage and the best volume of data for an outline. Outside of that there are over a dozen sources that provide some discussion of ARI so I don't think there is any question on meeting WP:CORP. I will argue for some of the blog sources as comments of recognized authorities carry weight but if we keep it basic that may be less of an issue. I hope you decide to start a sandbox version and look forward to working with you. I don't see working with your COI as an problem as you are well versed in WP standards and I am pretty fierce in my stance on unsupported medical treatments. Despite impressions otherwise I hold the principles of WP above my POV. My position is also tempered by my belief in the sincerity of many involved in autism and the knowledge that although it hasn't attracted as much attention as previous controversial statements ARI has adopted a more nuanced view, not to mention the science is still emerging. Best. - - MrBill3 (talk) 21:55, 4 August 2014 (UTC)

Draft

user:MrBill3 encouraged me to go ahead and take a shot at draft stub(ish) article as a proposed replacement and I have put one together for consideration at: Talk:Autism Research Institute/draft. The proposed trims a lot of promotional content, primary sources, original synthesis, etc. as previously discussed. It still explains quite clearly that the treatments encouraged by the now-discontinued DAN program are not accepted by the mainstream medical field. It also states that doctors said the treatment plans were dangerous and misleading. There might be a few things to hammer out still (I've asked ARI for a high-rez logo image and any historical newspaper clippings on their early history + Bill may have some edits but said real-life beckons for now), however this should provide a substantial improvement over the current and a viable starting point for future discussion. CorporateM (Talk) 17:35, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

Have they abandoned the vaccine theory or not? The ending of the DAN! "campaign" suggests such a change of heart may have occurred but it isn't explicitly stated. Roger (Dodger67) (talk) 18:37, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

On their website under "Advice for parents" it says "Autism appears to be due to a combination of genetic and environmental factors." Their FAQ says they "support safe vaccinations". My conversation with someone that works there sounded very similar to the mainstream information at the autism page. I'm not their spokesperson and cannot confirm on their behalf, but it definitely looks like they are not advocating against vaccines or anything like that nowadays. CorporateM (Talk) 20:17, 6 August 2014 (UTC)

The draft looks pretty acceptable to me. Once CorporateM posts here that they are done working on it I think a page move/merge/cut paste with link would be acceptable. Further editing could then be done in mainspace. Comments, objections? - - MrBill3 (talk) 08:08, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I'm done editing. Thanks BillCorporateM (Talk) 13:54, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Proposal

I propose blanking the current article and pasting the contents of Talk:Autism Research Institute/draft (the draft) into Autism Research Institute with a link to the draft in the edit summary (to maintain history per policy). The link in the edit summary and this discussion provide disclosure of the author of the draft's declared COI and participation in editing.

It is my opinion that the draft is a reasonable presentation of the subject. While changes may be appropriate I think the draft is an acceptable alternative to the current article. This notice/discussion affords interested editors the awareness and opportunity to make edits to the article after the cut and paste. If someone feels extensive discussion is needed they may add Support, Oppose and Discussion subsections below. I don't think this will be opposed so I intend to proceed fairly soon. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:04, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

• Support as above. - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:31, 9 August 2014 (UTC)
• Support Much better than what we have now. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:12, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Oppose

• The draft, as of August 6, uses a lot of medical terminology, reflecting an overt point of view. I have to put my name in as opposed until this issue is addressed. Muffinator (talk) 20:50, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Do you consider the draft an improvement over the existing article? What content in the draft does not reflect NPOV? As ARI conducts research into "biomedical treatments" for autism and medically based causes, the article will logically contain medical terminology in discussing those treatments and theories of causes. ARI also was into applied behavior as a treatment which is included in the draft. As this article is about ARI not autism in general, their approach and beliefs and the response and evaluation of the mainstream academic community is what the article should cover. What do you propose changing in the draft? And more importantly as I asked Bhny, should the draft be revised or should changes be made before doing a cut and paste? - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Remember that WP:POV means we describe points of view without endorsing them, even if the article is entirely about a particular point of view. So while things like ARI's self-identification and mission statement are probably easier to understand if we use their original terminology, the entire article about ARI should not be written from ARI's perspective. Any article that is written like that necessitates an {{Advert}} tag. Particular passages of the draft that stood out to me as POV:

• "The Autism Research Institute (ARI) is a non-profit organization that promotes alternative treatments for autism." - this might actually be anti-ARI at the same time, as ARI would probably not consider (all of) their practices "alternative".
• "DAN! promoted that vaccines were a cause of autism and that it could be treated by removing heavy metals from the body;" - this can be kept, as it is stating what DAN!'s opinion is.
• "It now focuses on nutrition and reducing the patient's exposure to toxins." - automatically referring to disabled people as "patients" is one of the specific examples used in the WP:POV guideline.
• "Bernard founded the organization in order to promote alternative treatments to autism, especially megavitamin therapies that he witnessed hospitals experiment with as a treatment for schizophrenia." - this rides the line. It is stating Bernard's opinion without being clear that it's his opinion. By the way, shouldn't this say "Rimland" instead of "Bernard"?
• "DAN! advocated for alternative treatments for autism and maintained a registry of doctors that were trained by ARI to perform them." - like the Bernard statement above, this implies that it's an opinion but is not clear about it.

I think the structure is an improvement, which was the whole reason for making a separate draft instead of editing the article incrementally. One thing we definitely don't want to overwrite is the references. The current page has 44 of them compared to the draft's 14. Some of them may be deemed unnecessary or even unreliable, but let's first review them to determine that, and add as many in-line as we can. Muffinator (talk) 03:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Thank you for a thoughtful reply. If the involved editors agree to work on the draft to get it up to snuff I think we can go that way. I was just concerned with losing editors' contributions in either draft or mainspace. I personally prefer to work in mainspace but have no problem with others getting the draft to an acceptable state before moving it.

Point by point: I think the content will support the fair summary characterization as "promotes alternative treatments" if there is some contention (by ARI) otherwise the due weight is minor and can be covered in the body. A copy edit to reflect people instead of patients is a good idea. Clarification that the positions of ARI, DAN! and Rimland are their positions is also appropriate. If you have an idea how to accomplish that I encourage you to edit the draft. I wholeheartedly agree that good references and the content they would support should be "restored" to the draft. Again my approach would be to edit after a move to mainspace, but if other editors think the draft should be substantially improved first that seems like a perfectly good idea to me. - - MrBill3 (talk) 13:43, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I don't think we'll find a source explicitly saying that ARI's views on nutrition are not accepted by the medical field, however if the article is renamed/refocused to DAN, we could just remove that point entirely, which is only cited to an About.com interview anyway. I think the practical way to address the feedback is to rework it into a shorter DAN article, which would remove a lot of low-quality sources that emphasize ARI's POV and address others items being discussed. CorporateM (Talk) 15:03, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Oppose I think I commented in the deletion discussion that a lot of information here is self published. In this draft the same is also the case. I would support this draft if all the content backed by citations to autism.com were removed, then whatever remains could be posted. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:47, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Comments

Some notes-

views that were not accepted by the medical field, but popular among many patients. This wording is misleading. It was quackery and dangerous. There are references for this.

In light of new research, the organization changed its views in the early 2000s and discontinued DAN! activities. It now focuses on nutrition and reducing the patient's exposure to toxins. Is there a reference for this apart from their web site? I searched a while ago and found nothing.

Some doctors have said the chelation treatments were dangerous -- No, chelation is dangerous and has killed people, no weasel words.

Dr. Bernard Rimland, passed away- he died. Bhny (talk) 18:29, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Bhny. I agree with these proposed changes. My question is can they be done after a cut and paste? Or would you prefer to edit the draft to an agreeable state first? Thanks for your input. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:40, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Fix the draft first, then it can be checked again. Frmorrison (talk) 22:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd invite Bhny to make the changes suggested to the draft. If other editors feel changes are needed of course they could participate. I was just trying to avoid the possibility of work being done on the existing article and being lost when the draft is adopted (if that's the way consensus goes). - - MrBill3 (talk) 23:45, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I would add that there are a number of changes I would also make, "were not accepted by the medical field; but popular among many patients" is vague. A clear description as unsupported, disproven or actual statements from MEDRS sources on these ideas and treatments are needed. Likewise focusing on nutrition and reducing exposure to toxins, what we are really talking about is the unsupported GFCF diet; toxins as a cause and detoxification as a treatment also both lacking evidence and support. Eyal also emphasized Rimland's desire to have a career outside mainstream medicine and academia as well as his advocacy of applied behavior analysis. The ARI involvement in the antivax movement is minimalized. The DAN! program was renamed, then disbanded in the last two years "changed its views in the early 2000s" seems off. The DAN! program is the most notable activity of ARI and a lot of relevant detail reported in RS is left out. The discussion of the ATEC seems a little misleading the single study doesn't exactly validate the instrument and Eyal also discusses it further. As I have said I prefer to edit in mainspace. - - MrBill3 (talk) 14:11, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

• Thanks Bill. Regarding the deletion discussion: While I did not find any sources that met WP:CORP, there were several sources that said DAN was "significant" "prominent" or "influential". When the sources themselves say a subject is "worthy of notice" that is in my opinion one of our common sense exceptions to notability requirements. However most of the strong sources appeared to be either on DAN! or on the founder Rimland. I had to use a lot of crappy sources to force the article into a page on ARI. I think it would be useful after getting a cleaned up interim stub in place to take a look at the strongest sources that are not interviews, primary, brief mentions, etc. and evaluate a rename to DAN! or a merge with Rimland depending on the primary focus of the total body of literature. From the top of my head, either seem equally valid. A rename to DAN! may be better, since the article could be summarized on the Rimland page anyway. CorporateM (Talk) 18:43, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I think a rename to "Defeat Autism Now!" is a reasonable proposal but a separate issue to be dealt with later. - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:56, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

I am one of the editors who participated in Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Autism Research Institute and was pinged below. It's probably not a good idea to make a formal proposal to implement the draft in Talk:Autism Research Institute/draft until the draft is static; however, this version, which appears to move the material to an article entitled Defeat Autism Now!, is acceptable to me. I still believe that this material could easily be merged and redirected to Bernard Rimland, which is line with my original opinion in the Afd, but I'm happy to see that it is presented in a much more neutral manner using secondary sources that actually discuss DAN! or ARI. Location (talk) 16:28, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Pinging editors

Involved in delete discussion: FreeRangeFrog, Davey2010, Alexbrn, Vanamonde93, Stuartyeates, Jinkinson, Location, Bluerasberry, Frmorrison, SmokeyJoe, Karzelek, Canyouhearmenow - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:17, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Editors commenting on this talk page: Andi1235, Jon m, 71.198.84.222, C.Fred, Alinoé, JzG, 73.35.136.13, Muffinator, Dodger67 - - MrBill3 (talk) 18:53, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Editors who recently edited the article: BoboMeowCat, Jmh649, Grafen, 65.101.151.142, 73.35.136.158, 99.181.128.163, 73.35.136.13, 104.34.71.167, Mangoe, 71.197.252.39, Jackfork, Mogism, ComfyKem - - MrBill3 (talk) 19:10, 9 August 2014 (UTC)

Second Proposal

The draft has been cut down even further. The new version is about the Defeat Autism Now! (DAN!) project. I now propose creating a new article, "Defeat Autism Now!" using the draft and making the current article a redirect (and creating a redir for DAN!). - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:37, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Support

• Support The draft is good to me. I think new article called "Defeat Autism Now!" be created, and this page (ARI) changed to a redirect to DAN!. Frmorrison (talk) 13:41, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

• I have trimmed the content about ARI that was sourced to primary sources and re-focused the article on the DAN! content that is supported by secondary sources for a Defeat Autism Now! page. There is still one primary source confirming the shut-down of the DAN conference, which is supplemented by a New York Times source that says the conference was "popular" in order to establish the conference's significance. I think this should address most/all of the feedback above as well. CorporateM (Talk) 16:36, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

I really don't think we should make a separate page for Defeat Autism Now! It was an activity with ARI as the host. The main article is Autism Research Institute and DAN! should be a subsection. Compare to the article Autism Network International which hosts Autreat. Muffinator (talk) 22:17, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

It seems to my the above comment by Muffinator would count as an oppose !Vote and the comment in the previous proposal by FreeRangeFrog would be a support !Vote. I am on the fence but lean towards oppose per Muffinator. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• It seems that the proposal has changed. I see a DAN page but not ARI page. This is fine, but as it appears, it seems the new proposal is to delete or redirect ARI to DAN because as I understand, this draft was to collect all good information about ARI and now nothing is left except DAN info. A move to DAN seems reasonable if that is the intent. Blue Rasberry (talk) 10:08, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

Sorry for the confusion - Bill and I had discussed this in other strings and I didn't realize nobody else was familiar with the context. I have not found any sources that cover ARI in substantial depth, only sources that cover its founder Rimland or DAN. ARI was founded in 1967 and has a wide range of activities/programs, but the only thing we have reliable secondary sources for is this one program that started in 1995, more than 25 years after ARI was founded (and the ATEC checklist, which seems to be a big deal and is used in a lot of autism studies). The idea was to rename the article to DAN, which is the only thing that is notable and for which we have strong sources, not to create two articles. It would be equally valid to merge it with Rimland as was discussed in the AfD, delete it for WP:CORP, or supplement it with a few primary sources to make an ARI page. An RFC or Merge discussion could be a good way to find consensus on what to do with it, but I am surprised an article-subject of such extremely marginal notability has so much interest and I think any half-decent stub should be fine. Anyways, I'm super busy with some other projects, but feel free to ping me if anything is needed from me. CorporateM (Talk) 15:39, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I agree it would be better to wait for some stability on the draft but I don't know how that could be achieved as it gets modified with input in these discussions. My first thought was to just cut and paste the rewrite boldly but as the author of the draft has a COI and I have been involved in editing and an AfD I thought it best to discuss first (definitely not my usual editing style BTW). To be sure before making a substantial change based on this edit request I would post a "speak now..." (result) section with a link to the version of the draft to be implemented. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

• The draft seems good to me. Should a new article called "Defeat Autism Now!" be created, and this page (ARI) changed to a redirect to DAN!? Frmorrison (talk) 20:05, 11 August 2014 (UTC)

I'd be inclined to consider this a support !Vote for the second proposal by Frmorrison. - - MrBill3 (talk) 01:59, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Auto archiving for this talk page

I think this talk page should be archived. I generally use ClueBot III, 90 days, 5 threads left, archive box. - - MrBill3 (talk) 02:02, 12 August 2014 (UTC)

Request Edit

There has been a good and robust discussion about what to do with this page dating back to early July. I think the discussion has reached its natural conclusion. There is (in my opinion) a reasonable consensus for renaming the article to "Defeat Autism Now!" and stubbing it using this draft. I wanted to formally request here that someone else make the edit, to avoid the appearance of impropriety that can occur from a conflicted editor making bold edits regarding contentious material (or give an editor an opportunity to speak up if they oppose). I have also provided some background on the discussion thus far below for reference, both for anyone reviewing my request and for reference as old discussion strings get archived.

Background

• An AFD discussion was closed on July 25 as "no consensus" but there was support for trimming
• An interim draft Autism Research Institute article was proposed on August 6th as a stubbish trimmed version, but the discussion had mostly opposes due to primary sources that emphasize ARI's point-of-view
• To address the opposes, the primary sources were trimmed, leaving an article that uses only high-quality, secondary sources, which are focused exclusively on the "Defeat Autism Now!" program. In the resulting discussion prior opposes seemed supportive of the new proposal for a stubbed DAN article.

CorporateM (Talk) 14:11, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

 Done It occurred to me only after I clicked the button that someone might consider me to be involved here... hopefully not. I think the discussion above is clear consensus on the rename. If someone has any concerns about my move, please let me know. I did not make content changes, other than to bold the mention of the ARI redirect as per the MOS. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 17:23, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

• Confirm outcome I have no opinion on FreeRangeFrog's involvement as I know nothing about it, but I confirm that the outcome seems to match consensus. Blue Rasberry (talk) 19:07, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

@Bluerasberry: Aside from having edited the article, I was the one that nominated it for deletion in the first place. Obviously I have it in my watchlist so that's why I saw CorporateM's request. Actioning it would have required an admin anyway, because it was moved over the old DAN! redirect. §FreeRangeFrog^croak 19:14, 18 August 2014 (UTC)

Requesting discussion of redirect

Hi Editors,

I have just left a request at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion, asking for editors to look at whether the redirect for Autism Research Institute can be moved from this article to the "Autism Research Institute" section of (ARI founder) Bernard Rimland's article.

Since I work for ARI, I want to be up front here and discuss this with editors. While I've edited this article in the past, I will not be doing so in future and recognize that such edits are inappropriate. Due to this, I didn't want to add the redirect for discussion template to the article myself, so I'd like to ask if someone here can do that?

Briefly, let me explain why I'm asking for this change for the redirect: essentially it comes down to the fact that DAN! was just one activity of ARI and is not ongoing, while the organization continues its work and has changed its position significantly compared with its views when DAN! was most active. It seems that it would make more sense to have a redirect for ARI directed towards an article that gives an overview of the organization, rather than focusing on one (admittedly significant) aspect of its history.

Bernard Rimland's article has a section focused on ARI, which he founded, and it seems more natural to have ARI redirect to that. Of course, there could be a "hatnote" or similar link on that section that would direct readers to this article. This article should link to Rimland's article, too.

I'm curious to hear others' thoughts about this and hope that you will consider this change for the redirect. Please reply here or at the Redirects for discussion entry. Difulton (talk) 21:58, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

 Done - I think it would have been ok for you to add the template yourself, since you were suggesting further discussion and not making changes to the content directly. But thanks for bringing this here. Ivanvector (talk) 23:14, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

Hi All. As disclosed, I have a former COI with ARI. Previously I had written this draft of an article on the Autism Research Institute, which I trimmed into the current article when it appeared there was consensus to rename it to focus exclusively on DAN!. If there is indeed consensus for the article to be called Autism Research Institute more broadly, rather than DAN specifically, than that version should probably be considered as it reflects a more general focus on ARI, such as its funding, operations and the non-DAN! related methodology for evaluating autism.CorporateM (Talk) 20:14, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

Suggesting information to add

As you can see above, I work for ARI and it was based on discussion of my redirect request that this page has now been renamed to "Autism Research Institute". Now that the page focuses on ARI, it seems like it would be helpful for there to be more information on what ARI actually is and does. Especially in the first line of the article, should this not be a description of what the organization is rather than stating something that it created?

Since it's best for me not to edit the article myself, here are a few initial suggestions for others to add. I've included links to sources to support each point:

• Autism Research Institute is a 501(c) organization focused on research to improve quality of life for adults and children with autism spectrum disorders.

• The organization was founded in 1967 by Bernard Rimland, PhD.

• ARI collaborates with organizations including Autism Speaks to provide continuing education on adult support issues, through its Autistic Global Initiative.

• The organization has also collaborated with The Cleveland Clinic Center for Continuing Medical Education on autism spectrum disorders.

• Along with the Blazeman Foundation for Amyotrophic Lateral Sclerosis (ALS) research, ARI co-funds the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development's Brain and Tissue Bank at the University of Maryland School of Medicine.

Thank you for considering these suggestions. Difulton (talk) 19:14, 12 January 2015 (UTC)

References

I definitely like where this is going. The current state of the article is....well....not up-to-date! That can be fixed, and this is the way to do it. The DAN! stuff will become part of the history section, while the newer content will fill in lots of gaps and newer info.

Difulton, I would appreciate it if you would do the work of formatting the references. Here is a simple citation template you can use. It has the basic elements we need. You are welcome to use other citation templates, if you wish. Just copy the template and use it: <ref name= >{{Citation |last= |first= |date= |title= |publisher= |url= |accessdate= }}</ref> Give each one a short "name" that is unique. I like to use the author's name, and if there is more than one source from an author, I add a key word or two from the title. That's just my own way, and there are about a million other ways . Don't leave any spaces in the "name". You can use dashes. The references will then appear where I placed the code above. -- Brangifer (talk) 05:23, 13 January 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, User:BullRangifer, this is really helpful. I have added in the citations above. Are you able to add in these details now? Let me know if there's other information that would be helpful for the article, I'd love to help make this a better page and hope you can stick around to help. Thanks. Difulton (talk) 18:02, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for doing the main part of that work. I have added some tweaks, mostly wikilinks, so now we can look at how to add this information. I'll start work on it later. Any others can also begin this work. There is no rush. -- Brangifer (talk) 04:18, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Most of those references are primary sources. If something is not notable enough for a secondary reliable source to publish it is clearly not notable enough for inclusion in an encyclopedia. The LA Times article is a good reference and provides a couple of key facts. Most sources I have found covering ARI discuss DAN! that is what the subject is known for and what reliable sources have published information about ARI in reference to, thus it is the appropriate focus of the article. If other secondary sources can be found then perhaps some of the suggested content would be appropriate. - - MrBill3 (talk) 05:04, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Yes, for some of the basic facts about ARI, primary sources are okay, but we'd need more secondary sources to flesh out the article. Until then, the DAN! material will make up the bulk of the content. What's missing is the basics about the current organization and its activities. Some of the above is good for that, since notability for ARI has already been established. The rest of the content need not be notable. -- Brangifer (talk) 07:25, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Some more information to add

As mentioned above, I work for ARI and earlier I mentioned a few initial suggestions for others to add. I’ve provided several links above – in addition, I’d like to suggest:

• Autism Research Institute is a San-Diego based organization.
• In January 2011, the organization announced it had ended its controversial Defeat Autism Now! (DAN!) project and an online practitioner registry was discontinued in January 2011.
• In 2012, the organization disbanded the ARI Conference, changing its focus to online resources.

Thank you for considering these suggestions. Difulton (talk) 20:29, 17 February 2015 (UTC)

References