Talk:Applied behavior analysis/Archive 3

This article is not written from a neutral point of view. Its edit history has included persistent removal of criticisms of ABA from a disability, LGBT, and autism rights perspective. It does not give due weight to those perspectives per WP:NPOV guidelines. Some embodiments of ABA have historically included the use of electrical stimulation devices (ESDs).

• In its ruling on ESDs, which banned ESDs, the FDA stated that "medical literature shows that ESDs present risks of a number of psychological harms including depression, posttraumatic stress disorder (PTSD), anxiety, fear, panic, substitution of other negative behaviors, worsening of underlying symptoms, and learned helplessness (becoming unable or unwilling to respond in any way to the ESD); and the devices present the physical risks of pain, skin burns, and tissue damage."^[1]

• In 2013, Juan Mendez, the U.N. special rapporteur on torture, asserted that “the rights of the students of the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center subjected to…electric shock and physical means of restraints have been violated under the U.N. Convention against Torture and other international standards.”^[2]

• Disturbing Behaviors: Ole Ivar Lovaas and the Queer History of Autism Science^[3]

• Comments made to FDA from Cameron Michael a JRC-affiliated psychologist ^[4]

Furthermore, there are 'weasel' phrases within the article such as "It is also the gold standard treatment for that diagnosis as it is considered to be most effective according to the American Academy of Pediatrics." What exactly is a 'gold standard treatment'? The terms 'gold standard treatment' are not defined in the citation given.

Kdbeall (talk) 16:39, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

It is recognized by all I think that the article needs improving and there is an attempt above to decide on the best sources to use, as preparatory work for that. OTOH there has also been, across Wikipedia, something of an over-focus on what is apparently one rogue institution in America, which has had its own POV problems. Please add any great sources on ABA that you know of to that growing list ... Alexbrn (talk) 16:49, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Alexbrn (talk) 16:54, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

I have undone your removal of my edit. The phrasing makes sense in scope. Please explain your reasoning within this talk page. Thanks.

Kdbeall (talk) 16:59, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

First of all, don't WP:EW as it is disruptive, and we've had enough drama on this topic recently already. When we're discussing ABA we should use sources which discuss ABA. Mentioning the JRC here seems off-topic, and savours of WP:COATRACKing, worsening the article's POV problem rather than improving it. (And I should say, the wider discussion on this is taking place at Talk:Discrete trial training, including how this topic space is partitioned - please participate if you can!) Alexbrn (talk) 17:05, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Alexbrn (talk)

Regardless of your personal opinion of "drama" within this page, ignoring material facts about some controversial historical embodiments of ABA and its usage does not support WP:NPOV. My inclusion of references to JRC, in a limited and appropriate scope, supports WP:NPOV. I also saw you edited my personal talk page in regards to WP:EW. I am aware of the 3R rule. It's not good practice to, as WP:EW states, post a "generic warning template if you are actively involved in the edit war yourself; it can be seen as aggressive. Consider writing your own note to the user specifically appropriate for the situation, with a view to explicitly cooling things down."

Kdbeall (talk) 17:38, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Okay, so you've shown yourself as an edit warrior and POV pusher, unwilling/unable to engage with the points raised, good for that to be clear. The drama was at WP:ANI, not here. On edit-warring, you have been warned. Alexbrn (talk) 19:33, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Could you explain your comment "we've got another one" within the edit summary? I object to being described as an "edit warrior and POV pusher, unwilling/unable to engage with the points raised." WP:PERSONAL. My edits have been made in good faith to improve the article. Could you explain your position on adding the following to either the "Use of aversives" or "Controversy" section? The edit reverted had the sentence, "In regards to the usage of ESDs, the FDA stated that "only one facility is using these devices in the United States, the Judge Rotenberg Educational Center (JRC) in Canton, Massachusetts, and estimates between 45 and 50 individuals are currently being exposed to the device." WP:COATRACKing does not apply because my reference to JRC was limited in scope and preceded by a valid context for a brief mention of JRC. WP:COATRACK states that "It would be reasonable to include brief information of the background behind a key detail." This is a key detail because it establishes the scale of use of ESDs. Thank you. Kdbeall (talk) 20:26, 9 October 2020 (UTC)

Another edit warrior, as you are repeatedly forcing your text into the article when the WP:ONUS is to achieve consensus. The source is not about ABA so irrelevant here. So far as I can tell what went on at the JRC was some kind of home-brewed aversion therapy dreamt up by the guy running the place. Alexbrn (talk) 06:42, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

"Home-brewed aversion therapy dreamt up" marginalizes the issue. The JRC is a multi-million dollar facility founded by a Harvard educated psychologist. In comments made to the FDA, a JRC-affiliated psychologist asserted that "all textbooks used for thorough training of applied behavior analysts include an overview of the principles of punishment, including the use of electrical stimulation." See the "Aversive comments - part 1" section. Kdbeall (talk) 16:58, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

Of course the organization itself is going to try to claim legitimacy. But we know from our cited sources that the use of aversives has been long deprecated within the mainstream. You're going to need to show source explicitly tying ABA to the FDA ban to avoid WP:SYNTHESIS. Alexbrn (talk) 17:14, 10 October 2020 (UTC)

@Kdbeall: Don't let his dismissal of your opinion get on your nerves. He doesn't have a monopoly on how to interpret these sources, and the JRC's use of electric shocks was certainly not "some kind of home-brewed aversion therapy dreamt up by the guy running the place". Matthew Israel borrowed the idea from Ivar Lovaas (who is sometimes called the father of ABA), and initially implemented if with the SIBIS, which was an FDA approved device. When the SIBIS proved not to be powerful enough, he invented the Graduated electronic decelerator, which was also cleared by the FDA. The JRC is a large and powerful organization with influence over major behavioral groups like ABA International, not some marginal fringe group. They get their licence to operate from the state. As you have pointed out (and sourced in the article) all textbooks on ABA discuss the use of punishment. This should not be whitewashed from the article. Wikiman2718 (talk) 12:45, 11 October 2020 (UTC)

The current image near Applied_behavior_analysis#Reinforcement (File:ABA_2.png) is extremely alarming to me. I am not familiar with the current use of aversive stimuli in applied behavior analysis; is the use of bleach and hot peppers commonplace today? If this is the case, I think such a practice should be listed under the Controversies section along with the already-mentioned history of electroshock and physical striking as aversives. clonk bonk 02:48, 20 August 2021 (UTC)

I've never heard of bleach or hot peppers being used in today's ABA. It's certainly not commonplace. The image appears to be original research. IMO, the image should be removed. CatPath ^{meow at me} 22:11, 25 August 2021 (UTC)

I was looking through this article under the efficacy section it fails to cite decades of research indicating the effectiveness of ABA which overwhelming support and out number any articles stating the opposite. Instead this article cites a couple of the few articles that states ABA is not effective. As such this article is extremely misleading and such be changed in order to display a clear majority of the research which is in support of the effectiveness of aba. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2603:3015:150C:C000:D1A2:E85E:6807:C2EB (talk) 00:16, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

List of reliable medical sources supporting your claim about decades of research and their conclusions welcome. The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 01:43, 14 January 2022 (UTC)

There have been a number of issues with the material added to the article since late last year. A lot of it came from an IP here and here , but subsequent edits by others have added to the problems. In short, (1) advocacy sites and blogs are cited rather than secondary academic sources from experts; (2) when appropriate sources are cited, the content of the sources are mischaracterized; (3) interpretations are made that are not made in the sources cited (WP:OR); (4) one entire section is made up almost entirely of quotes from a single paper; (5) new information is being added to the lead, which is supposed to be a summary of the body, not a place to add new material not found in the body.

Some of these issues are easy to catch and revert. For others, I may end up reading the entire source only to find out that nothing was said about what was claimed or that the source was misinterpreted, such as here: .

These inappropriate edits are ongoing. I just reverted this recent addition to the lead: . This is typical of the recent edits. 90% of the edit has to be reverted, but you have to wade through the 90% to find the 10% that should remain in the article.

CatPath ^{meow at me} 00:12, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

The first sentences have some problems.

A minor gripe; ABA is not a "scientific technique" any more than biology or chemistry are. ABA is a scientific discipline, the techniques are within it (e.g., DRO, desensitization, extinction, shaping, etc.).

It looks odd to me to refer to the other two forms as "radical behaviorism" and EAB. In the Wikipedia entry for Radical behaviorism I do see a quote referring to radical behaviorism as Skinner's philosophy, so I guess this is where it is coming from, but in reality, practitioners of ABA and EAB are also "radicals" in that we are not methodological behaviorists (like Watson). Instead, it would be more accurate to refer to simply the 3 branches of "radical behaviorism"; the philosophy of behaviorism, ABA, and EAB, or even add a 4th: the practice of radical behaviorism, Cooper, Heron, and Heward would be a sufficient reference for this as well. (I also would skeptical you could extract support based on that reference (#3) that was given, but ill look again.)

69.132.49.55 (talk) 21:26, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

I understand that ABA therapy has been criticized for being seen as "dog training" humans with autism but that is simply not true. ABA therapy is a scientific-method based therapy to help remove negative and harmful behaviors often associated with ASD.^[1] Since this stigma has been disproven, after the criticism section should be statements on why these criticisms are outdated and false. Kbischoff99 (talk) 06:05, 22 January 2022 (UTC)

The sentence about "dog training" probably doesn't belong in the lead, but I'm not sure why you cited the source from the psychology group to counter the claim that ABA is like "dog training." The webpage says nothing about dog training. If you're using the site to claim that ABA is effective, then you should seek better sources, specifically secondary sources in the academic literature. This website sells ABA services - of course they're going to put ABA in a positive light and ignore the meta-analyses that demonstrate the low quality of the randomized clinical trials that support ABA. CatPath ^{meow at me} 10:45, 23 January 2022 (UTC)

The scientific evidence for ABA is weak, riddled with undisclosed conflicts of interest, and has systematically failed to investigate harms, for which there is nevertheless significant evidence which demands further research. ABA is also conceptually based on behaviourism, which is not a widely supported paradigm in modern psychology. I strongly question the claim that it is 'scientific method-based'. Oolong (talk) 15:20, 3 March 2022 (UTC)

Just leaving this here as a helpful source of (mainly peer-reviewed) sources on the evidence that ABA can be harmful, and the weakness of the evidence for benefits:

https://www.katiesellergren.com/autism-resources Oolong (talk) 15:14, 21 April 2022 (UTC)

Just dropping in to add another study backing up the finding that autistic people with personal experience of ABA tend to strongly disapprove of its use, which is key salient information backed up by multiple reputable sources. "The findings include: Autistic adults remember traumatic events from applied behavior analysis, do not believe that they should be made to behave like their peers, gained some benefits but suffered significant negative long-term consequences, believe that applied behavior analysis is an unethical intervention, and recommend that applied behavior analysis practitioners listen to autistic people and consider using interventions in place of applied behavior analysis."

• "Professional concerns" was moved ahead of "Views of Autistic community" with no reason given for the change in ordering. @CatPath:, can you explain why you moved it? 'Moved "Professional concerns" section up' doesn't help much with that.
• "RBT (Registered Behavioral Technician)" is a subsection of "Views of Autistic community", but the quotes in it sound more like professional concerns to me. Should it be moved under it or up at the same level?
• "Use of aversives" includes the 2020 FBA ban citing poor outcomes and harm or injuries, which to me read like efficacy concerns. I'm also unconvinced that its position at the very end is due weight for it, and thus would favor moving it under Efficacy (which I agree should be first).

The Crab Who Played With The Sea (talk) 00:26, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

• I moved "Professional concerns" up because it seems to fit better after "Efficacy," the content of which also comprises analyses carried out by professionals and academics.
• I agree that the content in the RBT subsection should be placed inside "Professional concerns." However, the RBT content is based on a single paper, so it shouldn't be its own subsection, and the quotes should be removed. I've been intending to make these changes, but I haven't gotten around to it.
• I'm not opposed to placing "Use of aversives" inside "Efficacy."

CatPath ^{meow at me} 18:37, 25 March 2022 (UTC)

Any thoughts on the overall structure of the article? It strikes me that when it's overwhelmingly used on autistic people, and this use is highly controversial (among scientists, practitioners, autistic people and families) it might be good to get into that a little bit sooner, rather than holding off until seventeen screens down.

My general thought is that material of interest to a broad readership should usually come before getting into highly specialist details.

What do you think? Oolong (talk) 16:00, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

https://www.reuters.com/legal/litigation/dc-circuit-overturns-fda-ban-shock-device-disabled-students-2021-07-06/#:~:text=A%20federal%20appeals%20court%20has,school%20for%20the%20developmentally%20disabled.

Just mentionin this if anyone else wants to properly update it; i dont have the time and also wanna make sure it gets done right rather than just done fast Shardok (talk) 04:13, 30 March 2022 (UTC)

Thanks for pointing this out. I've updated the section on the use of ABA in autism to bring it up to date on the legal use and promotion of torture in the USA, in the context of ABA. Oolong (talk) 21:08, 11 May 2022 (UTC)

Reuters is not a valid source. Unless anyone is able to provide a valid resource to refute this otherwise, the FDA banned the use of electric shocks in 2020 (as disclosed in The New York Times; see here: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/03/06/us/electric-shock-fda-ban.html), and the Judge Rotenberg Center is no longer allowed to use them. ATC ^{. Talk} 22:29, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Why is Reuter's not a valid source? It's one of the world's major news agencies, with reports from it often being syndicated to other major and minor news outlets, and consensus at WP:RSP and WP:RSN is that it is generally reliable. This overturn was also reported by NBC, NY Times, and CNN to name another few reliable sources. Sideswipe9th (talk) 02:09, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 9 May 2022 and 6 August 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Kbaird17 (article contribs). Peer reviewers: Arleenicolee, BrookeCarr01, Hannaheb2016.

— Assignment last updated by Zuleidaguirre (talk) 19:37, 17 June 2022 (UTC)

The introduction to this article is essentially a mish mash of quotes from non academic sources that have an ideological opposition to ABA. Further, they are all overwhelmingly critical opinion articles. It does not give an accurate overview of the topic at all as a result, instead it gives the anti ABA take in extreme, partially building it as a strawman (focus on negative reinforcement like electro shocks which is a holistically rare approach that only happened in American backwaters) to mischaracterize it as torturing ASD people to make them behave which is really not true 203.40.87.19 (talk) 02:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree. I have to keep reverting edits due to WP:POV, and I might need to contact an administrator to get this article locked. ATC ^{. Talk} 22:18, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Could you elaborate on this, perhaps? Nearly all of the points being made are backed up by peer-reviewed research, and I'm not seeing any quotes in the current version of the introduction. I can see the case for removing the section on electric torture machines, even though these are actively supported by one of the major professional organisations for ABA practitioners and evidently permitted by the BACB's code of ethics; but the grave concerns about undisclosed conflicts of interest, systematic failure to investigate harm, lack of autism training for practitioners who overwhelmingly work with autistic people, and the overall weakness of the evidence base are surely key information for people to be aware of? Oolong (talk) 14:57, 5 June 2022 (UTC)

Important news: Association for Behavior Analysis International has recently voted to STOP approving of the use of electric torture machines on vulnerable children! Presumably this professional body will no longer be inviting representatives of the JRC to advocate for the use of electric shocks at their conferences. This should probably be reflected in the article somewhere. Oolong (talk) 11:34, 19 November 2022 (UTC)

Whoever tagged the intro with "weasel words" and "who?" is pretty biased if you ask me. It is stated in the sentence who is criticizing ABA and gives a reference. There are plenty of other examples of criticism too, so I suggest the bias has in fact been reversed. I bet if I remove the tags someone with a vested interest will just put them back. WP has overwhelmingly a pro-industry bias.--Sanjam da prdnem na tebe (talk) 05:40, 29 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, people keep swooping in to ensure that the article maintains a systematically pro-ABA bias. Removing extremely salient and well-referenced information, usually providing little or nothing by way of rationale for doing so.

It would be interesting to know how many of the editors involved are in the ABA business. Oolong (talk) 16:58, 1 August 2022 (UTC)

BTW, I kept trying to describe accounts and concerns regarding possible/uncertain risks of promoting camouflaging - then someone kept removing that part. My claims are well-supported by several peer-reviewed articles. I am *not* against ABA, and I am OK/open towards NDBI (a type of ABA broadly defined - https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s10803-021-05316-x). But it is sad that many practitioners within ABA industry, other professionals, and many parents aren't familiar with the rapidly growing camouflaging-mental health literature... Adding such information is important. 42.2.235.119 (talk) 05:28, 6 August 2022 (UTC)

Yes, it's deeply irresponsible to practise ABA without a good understanding of the nature and dangers of masking. This, again, sounds like someone is deliberately removing salient and well-referenced information because they are invested in downplaying the negatives of this approach. Oolong (talk) 08:49, 18 August 2022 (UTC)

Incredibly biased against ABA. No article should highlight the level of controversy surrounding a concept before it has even objectively outlined and defined the details of the concept. Is there controversy? Place that under the header of controversy. Social agenda is not an acceptable lens through which to define any concept and discredits the information from being in any way credible or even useful. This needs a major overhaul. 2603:7081:2901:BE00:21A5:5DB2:B0DF:E890 (talk) 00:28, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

I strongly disagree; in fact, I would argue that the article as it stands, as a whole, still very much plays down the controversy. See Wikipedia:Controversial articles and Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section for guidance on dealing with controversial topics on Wikipedia. You might also like to refer to how Wikipedia covers conversion therapy, which as you are probably aware, shares much of ABA's history and methodology, and some of its goals. Miracle Mineral Supplement is another useful point of reference.

We're talking here about a practice where fewer than one person in five who's been through it endorse it; where every major organisation run by and for the population it's supposed to help is opposed to it; where the evidence base is weak[7][8][9], riddled with undisclosed conflicts of interest[10][11], and has systematically failed to investigate harms[12], for which there is nevertheless significant evidence[13][14].

A paper published in Advances in Autism in 2021 identified five major themes in recipients' experience: "(1) ‘Behaviourist methods create painful lived experience’, which explores the methods and impact of early experiences of behaviourist approaches; (2) ‘Erosion of true actualizing self’ which recognises the gaslighting impact of ones developing self; (3) ‘Lack of self-agency within interpersonal exchanges’ which recognises longer-term impact living with experience; (4) ‘Self-healing and compassion’ which recognises the journey of recovery; and (5) ‘Hear my angry voice’ which explores activist message"[15]

I agree that this article needs a major overhaul. It is nowhere close to accurately representing how strongly opposed ABA is by the people it's supposed to help, the lack of quality evidence to support its use, or the harm people who've been through it say they have suffered.

It's going to be challenging to reach a consensus on this, obviously. Oolong (talk) 16:11, 20 November 2022 (UTC)

Starting this discussion in relation to the content removed in this edit. IPv6 editor, if you could please explain why you think the version you are reverting away from, as supported by both Oolong and myself is not compliant with NPOV, thanks.

As for my view, I believe the longer version of the text more accurately and neutrally describes the significant controversy surrounding ABA within the autistic community. While this may be disputed by APA practitioners and their supporters, on balance I believe the sourcing is stronger with regards to the scope of the controversy and why it is objected to by the autistic community in the longer version of the text. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:16, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

It is my view that while there is heavy controversy regarding the use of ABA in the autistic community, Wikipedia should not gear articles towards the perspectives of certain audiences, even if the subject of the article is relevant to them. It is perfectly acceptable and in fact I encourage detailed discussions of ASD perspectives on why ABA is controversial in the section related to perspectives of the autistic community, but I am concerned that putting the long version in the lead as it stands would be incredibly prejudicial to the average Wikipedia user, who it could be assumed would be neurotypical and therefore not familiar with the experiences of someone with ASD. I am autistic myself, and I feel it would be more apt to reserve autistic perspectives of the controversy to the already detailed section in the article. I also must note that I have seen User:Oolong accuse other users who have disagreed with their edits of having stakes in the ABA industry, which I feel is particularly uncalled for and unhelpful. Again, I am not at all opposed to this information being included in relevant sections of the article, but I believe the shorter version clearly states the controversy surrounding ABA without having any prejudicial slant. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3330:9b60:194c:32c6:9a02:ae36 (talk • contribs)

Note that WP:NPOV states:

Generally, do not remove sourced information from the encyclopedia solely because it seems biased. Instead, try to rewrite the passage or section to achieve a more neutral tone.

If you believe the content simply belongs in another section, then please move it to that section. Additionally, please sign your talk page comments in the future. Dovepaste (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

The thing is is that information in the “long version” of the intro is already in the sections I cited. Specifically the perspectives of the ASD community and why they find ABA controversial. Much of that has already been added, so I feel that the coverage has already been adequate, and did not need a possibly prejudicial lead. I was alluding to the idea that if there is any more info about the controversy from the ASD perspective that any user may want to add, to add it to those detailed section and not turn the lead into a laundry list. I believe the short version in the present version of the article is more than adequate as it stands. Also please excuse my issues with formatting, I am accessing the site on mobile and am having some difficulties.2600:1700:3330:9b60:194c:32c6:9a02:ae36 (talk 23:17, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

As Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Lead section specifically states, the lead "should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." My goal here is to adequately summarise prominent controversies, nothing more. The shorter version does not do that. It is good and correct that any controversies are described in more depth within the article; if they were not, that would be a valid criticism (the correct response would be to add that detail within the body). Oolong (talk) 14:13, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

The short version does it just fine, I fail to see how it would be inadequate for the average reader. For instance, the short version mentions the use of aversives. You are not tasked with “summarizing” controversies. That is not what the guideline says. Even the Wikipedia pafe for Conversion Therapy, which you have compared ABA to, does not go into detail in laying out the controversies surrounding it other than mentioning it in a few sentences. It mentions that there are controversies around it, and then has sections in the article that go into these controversies at length. You yourself admit that these controversies are already extensively detailed in the article, so I fail to see the need for a lead that is excessive and possibly prejudicial. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2600:1700:3330:9B60:0:0:0:5DC (talk) 16:43, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

I would add that it is not just within the autistic community that ABA is controversial; this is important. There have been a substantial number of peer-reviewed papers strongly suggesting that it lacks efficacy and generalisation, pointing out the lack of evidence for its use in non-speaking populations and the generally low quality of evidence for its use at all, and so on. There is substantial controversy among parents and family members, as well as researchers, only some of whom are autistic themselves. The citations I added reflect this.

Indeed, within the autistic community, it's hardly controversial at all; as far as anyone can tell, the autistic population is overwhelmingly opposed to its use. Oolong (talk) 14:31, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

Full disclosure I have had to sign into my account after formatting issues flagged my unsigned account. But to address your point, the peer-reviewed sources you have cited are still disputed by other articles as posted in the article, and while family members may also care about this issue, that is still not a sizable demographic for it to be considered typical for the average Wikipedia reader. These are all rhetorical points and have little to do with the formatting of the article. There are also few sources that cite this demographic, as the vast majority of sources in the article cite “the autistic community,” and no other demographic. I must also object to your generalization of the attitudes of autistic people towards ABA. It is clear through your edit and talk page history that you are against it, which is valid, but that should have no bearing over what one feels should be in the lead of an article. There are already sources that state in the body that ABA is considered controversial by the community, which is mentioned via summary in the lead. I am also autistic, but I am far more concerned with the presentation of the article then any personal issues with ABA. Again, you are free to add at length the issues that you feel have been found with ABA, but the subject right now is if such a deluge of information belongs in the lead and in my opinion it is better reserved for the body. Barbarbarty (talk) 12:00, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

It's not just autistic people and family members concerned about it - many non-autistic scientists and practitioners are deeply concerned too. A whole series of peer-reviewed studies have cast serious doubt on its evidence base and ethics. If you think these have been persuasively contradicted anywhere, I would be interested to see it.

I note your concerns about "generalization of the attitudes of autistic people towards ABA", but the largest up-to-date survey to look at this found that 88% of 6,576 autistic respondents disagreed with the statement "I support the use of ABA for autistic children" - most of them strongly. Less than 4% - 1 in 25 - agreed. Again, that is overwhelming opposition.

Elsewhere in the lead we read that "ABA has also been utilized in a range of other areas, including applied animal behavior, schoolwide positive behavior support, classroom instruction, structured and naturalistic early behavioral interventions for autism, pediatric feeding therapy, rehabilitation of brain injury, dementia, fitness training, counseling, substance abuse, phobias, tics, and organizational behavior management."

If there's space for all of that, there's space to give an outline of the nature of the controversy, which is all I have ever done. In fact, I would suggest that none of that is anywhere close to the nature of the controversies in terms of importance. Again, Wikipedia guidelines specifically say the lead should "summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies". This version falls way short of doing that: "ABA is considered controversial by some within the autism rights movement due to a perception that it emphasizes normality instead of acceptance, and a history of the use of aversives, such as electric shocks." Oolong (talk) 16:16, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I have seen little evidence that “many” practitioners have raised concerns or are speaking out against ABA, and no, a smattering of articles does not mean that there is a serious movement against ABA outside the autistic community. If there have been prominent neurotypical neuroscientists or psychologists, preferably those that Wikipedia have named notable, that have spoken out against ABA, those would be incredibly useful to include in this article, but I have not seen such a body of sources pertaining to this area in particular. I again must note, the survey you are citing was done by a blog that is not seen as an authoritative source by Wikipedia, and it states itself it is not a scientific study and has not undergone rigorous peer-review that is expected from quality journals. I have seen the articles that bring up concerns about ABA, but the lack of any mainstream controversy outside the autistic community would not merit having an overly prejudiced lead especially when most mainstream sources still consider ABA a valid method of treatment for many disorders, even outside of ASD. I fail to see how it would be detrimental to simply put all of this information in a dedicated section to controversies and autistic perspectives, which is present in the article already. I see no reason this section cannot be expanded if you feel that discussion of ABA controversies is not already sufficient. Barbarbarty (talk) 15:48, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

I'm puzzled that you seem to be denying there is serious controversy outside of the autistic community. Here are just a few articles about it. They're not hard to find.

I've already linked to some peer-reviewed journal articles by non-autistic researchers (not that we should take autistic researchers any less seriously, but we're focusing here on evidence that the controversy is not just among autistic people).

ABA is a controversial practice. It's controversial in various spheres, and overwhelmingly unpopular in autistic communities. These are statements of fact.

The introduction should not downplay these realities. Neither should it minimise the bases for the controversy, as the current wording does; we're talking about a practice that is seen by many as unethical and lacking in efficacy. Oolong (talk) 16:01, 3 January 2023 (UTC)

Again, most of your sources are talking about outcry from “adults with autism” who are active in the autism rights movement. This is a small subset of autistic individuals as most autistic individuals, such as myself, are no involved in active autistic rights activism. Your more recent sources talk about private equity corps being involved in providing ABA therapy, which does not have direct standing with the methods and techniques of the therapy itself. Again if you feel this merits mention, there is a lengthy section if the article dedicated to ABA controversies where this can be mentioned. I fail to see how the lead “downplays” anything, as it clearly and flatly mentions that ABA is controversial among a number of autistic individuals. There is also a very clear dispute among whether it is inefficient, as seen in one of your articles you just posted which links to a post by the Autism Science Foundation which supports the use of ABA. I know in the past you have compared ABA to Conversion Therapy, but the truth is that there is still heavy dispute over ABA unlike conversion therapy, so to create an impression in the lead that ABA is some abusive and discredited system when it is still the de facto form of autism therapy in many developed countries throughout the world would be malpractice. I have never disputed that non-autistic researchers have documented concerns about ABA, but there is still no mass movement outside of adults with autism against ABA that can be seen as notable. On top of that, my issue has never been that such information should not be included in the article, but that it should not have extensive negative text in the lead for a topic that is still much in reputed use throughout the world. There is already discussion about ABA controversy in the lead that does not “downplay” any controversy, and I see no reason that any issues you have with it cannot simply be added to the relevant section of the article.

Barbarbarty (talk) 4 January 2022 (UTC)

I believe a compromise could be that you can add a list of notable controversies to the sentence at the end of the lead that begins with “[ABA] is considered controversial by many in the autistic rights movement” in the same way that the “use of aversives” is already mentioned. However I believe that that would be sufficient enough and extensive discussion of the controversies in detail should be reserved for the relevant section pertaining to its use in autism therapy. The lead should not be used for in-depth discussion of these controversies as they, for the time being, are largely limited to discussions among those privy to autism rights advocates, but I see room for mentioning them concisely in reference to why it is controversial among those advocates, as the last sentence in the lead is describing. However I feel the intro as it stands can also continue to be seen as adequate, and the rest of the intro not pertaining to autism should stay as it is, as all of it is valid and cited information on the subject of ABA. Barbarbarty (talk) 19:35, 4 January 2022 (UTC)

One more thing in the sense that your subjective “sense” that other uses for ABA are not near in importance to merit mention does not seem relevant; if we are looking for a general overview, these uses merit mention just as much as the uses in therapy for ASD. There has also not been a compelling case for why the short version is inadequate, as it mentions that it is controversial to some and lists a few key reasons. There is no need for the lead to have a deluge of information when there are detailed descriptions of these controversies in the body. Barbarbarty (talk) 20:54, 18 December 2022 (UTC)

The lead is supposed to "summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight." I have removed the claimed uses of ABA that are never mentioned anywhere else in the article, or appear only in a second, very similar list - if they are significant enough to be in the lede, they are significant enough to be described in the body of the text!

Most of these claimed uses have no source listed backing up their use, besides a single editorial written by two professors of ABA, who have a vested interest in promoting its legitimacy. This does not appear to meet the required level of reliability for biomedical claims of this sort.

Even if the above were not the case, I strongly disagree that they merit mention 'just as much as the uses in therapy for ASD' when the overwhelming majority of ABA practitioners specialise in autism. Oolong (talk) 07:27, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I completely disagree with removing what you call the “laundry list” of applications for ABA. It is a useful summarization of applications for ABA and the fact that the source are practitioners of ABA perfectly meets biomedical claims of this sort. The fact that you feel that a primary source should not be included due to having a “vested interest” in promoting ABA does not make sense, especially as you have fought to include editorials in the article from people who oppose ABA. Much of the article is related to how ABA is practiced and its tenets, so therefore it stands to reason that issues where such practices are used should be clarified in the summary of the article, regardless of whether every individual issue is discussed considering that the tenets of ABA are said to be similar across all applications. If anything, this argument can open the door to the idea that the heavy focus on autism is undue weight for what ABA actually is, considering that there is only one section on autism. I strongly suggest that the lead as it stands is more than adequate. Barbarbarty (talk) 11:35, 21 January 2023 (UTC)

I honestly don't see how you can argue that this long list makes sense to "summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight" when there is nothing further on them in the body of the article. This is simply not how leads are supposed to work on Wikipedia.

None of the articles I've linked are from people who make money out of opposing ABA; a vested interest is not the same as an opinion. Oolong (talk) 07:30, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

We are talking about summarizing the subject of the article. If we are to give the reader an idea about what ABA is, there is no reason to exclude applications about what ABA can be used for in the name of an alleged “vested interest” that has been determined by absolutely no one except yourself. Again, you are perfectly free to believe that the source is bunk but unilaterally taking it out of the article for no reason other than a suspicion that the source is unreliable does not seem acceptable. One is perfectly free to believe that the opinion articles you are wanting to cite may also be unacceptable, as the fact that these writers may not be paid to write against ABA does not automatically mean they do not have a “vested interest.” Please try to gain a consensus on such changes before dramatically altering the lead. Barbarbarty (talk) 09:47, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

The source cited does not meet the criteria for a reliable source for biomedical information, which this is.

If you check the relevant guidelines, which I have already linked, this seems quite clear.

You'll also see that the lead is supposed to summarize the body of the article with appropriate weight, which you simply do not do by listing things which are not described in the body of the article.

I don't know what else to tell you! Oolong (talk) 19:09, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

The source you are describing does not make biomedical claims, as it is only describing the mere existence of applications of ABA. What would be a biomedical claim is if it spoke on the efficacy of ABA in such applications, and such information is not included in the lead of the article. Claims on the practice of topics such as Conversion Therapy also use secondary sources to describe how it has been used in the past. These are not biomedical claims. I would implore you to not misinterpret Wikipedia guidelines. Please also note that Wikipedia states that leads should also “establish context” for the subject of the article. As a whole leads should accomplish these things, which as it stands, it does. Barbarbarty (talk) 15:23, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I have repeatedly stated that if you feel subjectively that there is a problem with the information in the lead, you should try to gain a consensus before making dramatic changes, which you have failed to do. You cannot just state “it doesn’t follow the guidelines,” which is a finding I disagree with, and then unilaterally remove it. There is absolutely zero evidence the source is unreliable or that it gives undue weight when it is clear the emphasis is purely on that ABA is used “overwhelmingly” for autism. There is absolutely zero evidence that the source is unreliable, and vague assumptions of “vested interest” are not adequate for the exclusion of the source. I was not the user who added these applications to the article, so I am confused by your anger towards me, as if I have not clearly stated multiple times that I am not against the inclusion of sources that do not support ABA in the article, and that changes in the lead should have a consensus. I do not believe it is prudent to disregard certain sources just because one feels that sources supporting or describing ABA in anything other than an overwhelmingly negative fashion should be included. The source you are referring to is from the Journal of Applied Behavior Analysis, which is a peer-reviewed academic medical journal as classified by Wikipedia. I fail to how an article from such a journal applying to ABA would not meet Wikipedia’s standsrds. I strongly recommended the version that @Alsee wrote up as a good paragraph to include in the lede, but so far I have not seen a compelling reason as to why the lede is somehow inadequate. Barbarbarty (talk) 16:51, 23 January 2023 (UTC)

Once again: the list does not belong in the lead either way, because it is not in any sense a summary of key points in the article. The source given for these biomedical claims is an editorial, not a research article, let alone a review article, by authors who are incentivised to promote ABA because their livelihood depends on it. Keenan and Dillenburger were not only Professors of Behaviour Analysis, but also the President and Treasurer of the European Association for Behaviour Analysis. At the time of writing, they would also have been required by the BCBA code of ethics to promote ABA. They both had a very clear financial and professional interest in promoting the legitimacy of ABA. But one last time: this list does not belong in the lead regardless: this is not what a lead is for.--Oolong (talk) 14:39, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

You are ascribing illicit interests to scientific articles with no evidence besides vague gestures at partiality. The background of the authors of the article should only be used for gauging if they are credible to speak on the issue of ABA. Per Wikipedia’s guidelines, the two authors are undoubtedly and assuredly a reliable source on the topic of ABA, and the article is in an accredited medical journal at that. You have already been told that the list is a summary of applications for ABA and it plainly states that it is mainly used for autism therapy. It comes across more as attempting to prejudice the lead to somehow make ABA seem more like a one-sided debate than what is reflected in reality. The article is immensely more credible than the activist blogs you have tried to include in the article, in my opinion, and claiming that the authors would somehow provide a misleading or unreliable description of ABA based on one’s personal assumptions of their livelihood is inappropriate. The lead is more than adequate as it is in it being a summary of ABA and its applications, and I fail to see any issue with the inclusion of the article from an established medical journal. In this article, this source is used to establish uses that ABA is purported to be used for. I fail to see how an article written by practitioners of ABA cannot be used for this purpose. Editorials such as the Fortune article are used further on down the lead to establish a background for controversy among autism rights advocates, so I fail to see how the fact that it is an “editorial” would not be useful for establishing the differing perspectives on ABA with regards to its practitioners.Barbarbarty (talk) 11:25, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

I am doing no such thing. 'illicit interests' don't come into it, and this is not a scientific article.

These are biomedical claims, and Wikipedia demands a much higher standard of evidence for those than this editorial provides.

Regardless, this list does not belong in the lead, because it is not a summary of key points from the entry. Oolong (talk) 17:22, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

You have definitely implied that somehow the source is distorted due to the idea that they purportedly have an incentive to make distorted claims on applications of ABA, and have even to the point of accusing other editors who have disagreements with you of being a part of “militant” pro-ABA groups. There is no evidence that the source fails to meet a standard of describing applications for ABA, as both authors are experts on ABA and have tremendous expertise on the subject matter. Making vague gestures at bias does not prove to be a convincing way to discredit the source. The list belongs in the lead due to it being a summary of the topic of ABA, and does not detriment the article in any way, and so far you have failed to build a consensus or provide convincing reasons it should be removed. The lead should stay as it is. Barbarbarty (talk) 12:30, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

I believe it is worth noting that User:Oolong appears as, or very nearly as, a WP:SPA. Independent of the content quality, their neutrality seems questionable. Dovepaste (talk) 21:58, 13 December 2022 (UTC)

Excuse me? I've had an account here for more than seventeen years, and I've made edits to hundreds of articles on a wide variety of topics, perhaps predominantly in science. I have focused on autism entries in recent months because this is a major area expertise for me, and because Wikipedia's autism content needs a lot of work to bring it up to scratch. I am concerned about good science and human rights; if that violates your conception of neutrality, then okay, we have a problem. Oolong (talk) 14:09, 14 December 2022 (UTC)

@Dovepaste debate the content not the person, unless you are presenting an evidence-backed case that someone is not complying with policy. I suggest you avoid Ad hominem against other editors, especially when it is as frivolous as the SPA accusation here. I skimmed Oolong's history. While their last 200-odd edits have been almost entirely in this topic area, they have upwards of twelve hundred edits spanning any and all topics. They are clearly a highly experienced editor working to serve our public-service mission improving the encyclopedia as a whole. It seems reasonable to conclude that they have significant general knowledge of Wikipedia norms and guidelines for article-building. That doesn't necessarily mean they are right on this specific dispute, but it may be wise to use care before disregarding links or rationales they present. Alsee (talk) 11:35, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

@Oolong@Alsee

I apologize, it appears my statement was premature. Dovepaste (talk) 17:23, 14 January 2023 (UTC)