Untitled

If you want to leave a message - and especially if it's obnoxious, identify yourself. --Leifern 22:09, 2005 Apr 16 (UTC)

Another terrible POV article on autism

I suppose it would be possible to make this article the main article on Biomedical intervention, but given the participants it would probably be better to nominate it for deletion instead. I suppose I await the response here before I nominate it for deletion. --Rdos 12:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I second the mortion

Rdos, you have to learn to tolerate articles that contain content you disagree with, or are even offensive to you. I personally think the term "autism" is overused and covers a large array of conditions with differing etiologies. But you have to understand that by claiming that "autism" is not a disorder, you are offending thousands and thousands of parents who try - and often succeed - in treating their kids and bringing them back into the mainstream. --Leifern 15:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I do tolerate it if differing opinions are presented. This was not the case when I first visited this article. Also note that I created Causes of autism and Autism therapies and I did allow causes and therapies that I don't accept or believe in. The major concern of this article is that it is basically a POV fork. --Rdos 17:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Liefern, you have to learn to understand that a site presenting itself as an authority needs to be neutral. Your dogma regarding offending parents who try - and often succeed - in treating their kids and bringing them back into the mainstream is unverified speculation and should be presented as such. You should be aware that you are offending thousands and thousands of autistic people and their parents who merely want scientific accuracy to prevail - not baseless conspiracy theories. (unsigned message left by User:81.187.175.66) 09:51, 20 April 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, I am presenting the case for biomedical intervention as it is presented, not as the truth. Presenting it as "speculation" is false - there are plenty of verifiable cases of this actually happening. Your contention that the article is a POV fork seems to stem that biomedical intervention exists at all. --Leifern 12:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that it is not presented 'as it is presented'. It is simply a series of unreferenced statements. Malangthon 03:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Some say ...

Line 1: "and some say curing". Some say that the phrase "some say" should not appear in articles, and I am one of them. Appearing in line one is a little unfortunate. It may be my day to day activity doing what I suppose can be described as biomedical interventions (except when they are psychological, social or whatever) that makes me uncomfort able with any article that declares it is about them. "Treatment of autism" I could settle for. Midgley 21:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Grammatically it should be "in" rather than "for", no? Midgley 21:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)[reply]

What are you talking about? --Leifern 18:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I reworded this to eliminate the 'they say' cliche but the point is still valid. In an opening statement an unreferenced synopsis of the article is common in WP but there should be follow-up in the article. There is none. Malangthon 03:11, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Merger

This article overlaps with a huge chunk of Autism therapies. I'm not sure why the merge tag was removed, because it seems pretty clear that the section of that article needs to be merged with the entirety of this article. Whether the result ends up on that page or this one, probably depends on the resulting length. -- Beland 17:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This is a subset of such therapies. There is nothing wrong with such overlaps, and they are quite commonplace in Wikipedia. Unless you can provide some other explanation than this, the merge tag should be removed. --Leifern 18:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)[reply]

it's a complement therapy, it belongs to the therapies article.If all the redunduncies are merged thers not that much that would be added in therapies.Besides i don't think that the subject can be expanded substancielly.--Pixel ;-) 10:03, 12 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

If you don't think the topic can be expanded substantially, you are hopelessly ignorant about this issue. There is an overwhelming amount of alternative, supplemental, and other therapies for this condition. Merging it is just an attempt at burying the information so that parents never hear about it.--Leifern 16:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The merger would, in my opinion, eventually require a fork into two separate articles anyway, given the vast amount of information out there. So I disagree with Pixel ;-). Better leave it the way it is with synoptic overviews in each article.

By the way, ignorance is never 'hopeless,' since it can be educated. Stupidity, though, lasts forever. I do not see why we should be slamming each other. Shall we get back to the business of making a decent article and keep the personal abuse out of it? Malangthon 02:36, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]

Citations

This article has so few citations for its statements it could very well be a personal opinion of one person. I have added the temple for reference requests. Malangthon 03:04, 16 March 2007 (UTC)[reply]