Talk:Applied behavior analysis/Archive 4

ABA is a controversial practice. Going by polls, and statements made by a large number of representative organisations, it appears to be highly unpopular with its main target population, autistic people; on the other hand, it is backed up by research (also controversial) and forms a multi-billion-dollar industry supported by various governments. It is sometimes described as the 'gold standard in autism treatment'.

How best to reflect these controversies, in the lead section and elsewhere? References elsewhere on this Talk page.

Oolong (talk) 08:24, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Comment Oolong, I think the most helpful advice I can give would be how and why to scrap this RFC and possibly work towards a new one.

Alsee (talk) 13:10, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree with Alsee. Additionally, most RfCs give a couple options for the responsders to choose from. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:25, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks @Alsee. I've never tried to raise an RfC before. The RfC guidelines emphasise brevity and neutrality, so I tried to prioritise those, but I guess I erred too much on the side of brevity!

Some of the complications here are that as far as all evidence I can find shows, autistic people (the vast majority of ABA subjects) are overwhelmingly opposed to ABA, for a number of very serious reasons (based on polls and statements by Autistic People's Organisations, as well as newspaper and magazine articles). My sense is that the lead really ought to recognise this, and attempt to summarise those reasons? The short version currently in the article absolutely doesn't represent the depth or gravity of the issues, and from my perspective reads as if it is deliberately minimising them. We're discussing a set of practices widely seen in autistic communities as unethical, poorly-evidence, harmful and even inherently abusive.

One problem here is that the views of autistic people are systematically under-represented, and the views of 'autism professionals' over-represented, in 'reliable sources'. This is due to systemic power differentials and incentives; there are financial incentives for ABA proponents to do research get published, while it is generally difficult for autistic people to get heard - especially if we start from an assumption that representative organisations are not considered reliable sources(?). When "84% of studies had at least one author with this type of [conflict of interest], but they were only disclosed as COIs in 2% of studies" for example, how does Wikipedia deal with that? Are they still considered reliable sources on account of being published in peer-reviewed journals, or should we disregard them wholesale? Or something else?

As noted elsewhere I am an experienced Wikipedia editor, but I have preferred to stay clear of controversies for most of my time here (they're stressful!) - so I'm still trying to get a sense of how we attempt to weigh up this kind of thing. Oolong (talk) 14:36, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

The talk of “power differentials” and the like is inherently a subjective topic that has no place in being worked out in a Wikipedia article, in my belief. Wikipedia is not meant to be an activist website, so writing the article from a certain autistic advocate perspective does not seem to be prudent. Also, the idea that “ABA proponents” and sources from them are somehow distorted and therefore somehow mean less than blogposts from autistic rights advocates is completely wrongheaded, as it is not up to Wikipedia editors to do their own original research in discrediting sources that are widely seen as credible. You may disagree with these sources but to cast aside these sources because you see their views as less important than autistic rights advocates (who I may remind you, are not always representative of the whole autistic community), is not a valid reason for radically altering the lead. Keep in mind that no one has said you cannot discuss these sources in the relevant section of the article pertaining to autistic treatments. As someone concerned with impartiality and as an autistic individual myself, I support the shortened lead and feel it both adequately describes ABA practices, uses, and how it can be considered controversial in certain spheres. Barbarbarty (talk) 12:15, 15 January 2023 (UTC)

Hi @Barbarbarty, I certainly haven't suggested or implied that this entry should be written from 'a certain autistic advocate perspective', or suggested that the views of ABA proponents should be cast aside. I am concerned with finding a fair and accurate way of expressing the views held by people in different groups.

We're not in a position where 'blogposts from autistic advocates' are in the slightest danger of determining the contents of these entries. We are far closer to a situation where the views of autistic communities are almost totally disregarded, and that's what I am concerned to guard against - when these people constitute the vast majority of those directly affected by ABA, should an encyclopaedia make an effort to accurately note the perspectives of this community?

In my view, large representative organisations for autistic people should be considered credible sources on the views of autistic people, rather as the UN Convention on the Rights of Persons with Disabilities mandates that they must be in decision-making about autistic people by state parties. This is particularly true when seemingly every autistic-led organisation that has put out a statement (of which there are many) broadly agrees. I would also argue for the credibility of substantial polling of autistic people - where at least several thousand have been consulted, say, and efforts have been made to reduce selection bias.

You are correct, of course, that it is difficult to show how representative any given organisation or advocate is, but in the absence of any evidence to show a substantial body of autistic people disagreeing about (for example) ABA, I think we have good reason to work with the best evidence available.

As far as discrediting sources goes, I defer to Bottema-Beutel and Crowley, who found that undisclosed conflicts of interest are pervasive in ABA research. I also note that as others have pointed out, the article as it stands relies heavily on primary sources. Given the medicalised nature of the claims made by practitioners, I would think there is a strong case for demanding the level of sourcing for these claims ought to be up to the level demanded by Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and particularly WP:MEDBIAS. I wonder how many of the claims made for ABA in this article live up to this, at present? Oolong (talk) 17:08, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

It is obvious you are passionate about this, but nothing you have written has shown that autistic advocate perspectives are “totally” disregarded. If anything, they are actually overrepresented in this article given the myriad of applications for ABA outside autism. I fail to see how the fact that ABA is controversial among some with autism has been glossed over, as it has been made incredibly clear in the lead and in the relevant section that some have raised concerns for it. Also, well-meaning surveys of autistic people are still just that, well-meaning but not authoritative. No credible established polling agency has done polling about this subject, and Wikipedia should not follow a policy of just resorting to the “next-best” option to fulfill some perspective if there is an absence of credible sources. I fail to see how what the UN says is relevant to this matter, as there are no decisions being made on autistic people in this article, as well as the fact that Wikipedia’s articles are guided by this site’s guidelines, not anything related to the UN. Also, there is no evidence of sources supporting ABA being somehow noncredible and requiring an extra level of scrutiny because of a separate primary source. This would require immense original research on the part of individual editors that is not acceptable according to Wikipedia guidelines. As @Alsee said, Wikipedia editors are not allowed to write “truth.” You may feel that the “truth” of ABA-supporting research is bunk and they are compromised, but it would be unacceptable to simply cast every ABA-supporting primary source into question and remove it from the article because someone else has raised concerns about CoI. Raising CoI concerns should not be used as a trump card to invalidate sources one happens to disagree with.

Barbarbarty (talk) 13:43, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

I fail to see how what the UN says is relevant to this matter: As I reffed below, NBC news considers the UN's position relevant. I doubt they are the only major news source to do so. I expect many readers will consider it significant in understanding the topic as a whole, and in understating what significant viewpoints and controversies exist. The article is too heavily reliant on primary source research. It's a problem when editors attempt to duel each other using primary research. We need to know what secondary and tertiary sources say. I don't have the answer to that, but that is what's needed to bring the article to more stable ground. Alsee (talk) 23:48, 17 January 2023 (UTC)

@Alsee I was mainly referring to the contention that because the UN said that autistic people’s views should be prioritized in topics relating to autism, that the article should similarly “prioritize” a certain perspective. That was how I interpreted the statement I was replying to, of course my perspective may be mistaken. I definitely agree that secondary and tertiary reporting on UN statements regarding such practices like electric shocks that have sometimes been used in certain ABA and ABA-adjacent therapies historically should be included in the article (if they not already are). I truly do not have any issue with the content of the article - my main contention is that the objectivity of the article should not skew too heavily towards one side or “truth” as you have said, and I believe as the article stands it does a good job describing ABA while also referencing controversies associating with it without being to prejudicial. I agree that the preliminary write up you wrote below is one way that both sides of the issue are adequately given weight and covered without being overly prejudicial. My apologies if I seemed like I was attempting to dispute what you said about secondary and tertiary sources. Barbarbarty (talk) 15:13, 18 January 2023 (UTC)

"Given the myriad of applications for ABA outside autism": you've repeatedly insisted on including a long, poorly sourced list of these right in the lede, despite none of them being elaborated on at all in the body. Where is the evidence for these myriad applications? How commonly used are any of them? You're aware that more than 72% of BACB registered practitioners specialise in autism, right, and that's excluding other specialisms which are also likely to mean working mainly with autistic subjects?

The UN believes it is important that state parties (and this extends to everyone funded by the state) should 'closely consult with and actively involve' Disabled People's Organisations in everything about disabled people. I just think it's valid to cite them as sources on the views of the communities they represent.

I don't know how to interpret "Also, there is no evidence of sources supporting ABA being somehow noncredible and requiring an extra level of scrutiny because of a separate primary source." 84% of the studies Bottema-Beutel et al looked at found the authors had undisclosed conflicts of interest. Meta-analyses regularly point out that the evidence for interventions like ABA is 'weak' or 'very weak'. I'm not talking about Wikipedians doing independent research here! I'm saying that when it comes to biomedical claims, Wikipedia:MEDRS requires us to defer to secondary sources like the aforementioned, and look critically at claims made by primary sources. Oolong (talk) 07:48, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

It is completely incorrect that I have “repeatedly insisted” on anything when there is a properly sourced list in the lead of applications of ABA outside autism. I simply have asked that it not be removed before any consensus is there to remove it. The lead itself states that ABA is “overwhelmingly” used for autism, so I fail to see how you can say that the other listed applications are given undue weight when it is made perfectly clear that ABA is primarily used for autism. No one has disputed that fact. Second, no one has said that the opinion of the UN on consulting with disability rights advocates on issues relating to issues relating to disabilities should jot be included, but when it comes to editing an article, it is not really relevant to what should and should not be included in a Wikipedia article. Wikipedia has no requirement that sources should have due diligence in consulting with autism rights advocates when it comes to the inclusion of sources relating to autism. Again, you are perfectly free to include perspectives such as those of the UN in the article and in fact, secondary sources such as that should be included, but the perspective of the UN is no reason to exclude a pro-ABA source. Third, as states before, this source you have found about CoI is very interesting, but again unless you have compelling evidence for each individual source you want to exclude that it is bunk because of some CoI, then I fail to see why the Boutema piece should be used as a trump card to discredit and remove any source you consider to be pro-ABA. You are perfectly free to mention the fact that this piece of research found these CoIs in the article, and if I recall, past versions of this article have discussed the Boutema piece in the body. There is no reason that this piece cannot be included in the section of the article relating to autism, so I fail to see what your point of contention is. Lastly, with regards to “evidence being weak,” no one has disputed that certain analyses have found that to be the case, and that is why in the section of the body relating to autism, this is repeatedly stated. It is already mentioned in the article repeatedly that a number of research articles have found that evidence for ABA may be weak, so it is not like this fact is obfuscated. As for connecting this to sources, again, there is no harm in including sources supporting ABA just because another research piece says the evidence is weak. What would be “original research” would be to unilaterally remove any sources supporting ABA without actual compelling evidence that the individual source is discredited or wrong. One should not assume that research stating one finding somehow automatically discredits and dismisses every piece of research that came before it which stated the opposite. Even if you feel that the sources have a “wrong” finding, which you are perfectly free to believe, there should still be a balanced perspective in the article and especially the lede, as I’m sure that you can agree the topic of ABA is still very much debated and contested. I would suggest what @Alsee suggested and run this by users at Project Med who specialize in these articles directly, and try to gain a consensus before making drastic changes to the lede. However, you are more than free to include all of this research you have cited in the relevant sections, including information on the UN and CoIs. Barbarbarty (talk) 10:10, 22 January 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I withdraw my claim that you have repeatedly insisted on the inclusion of this list, which is inadequately cited and does not belong in the lead because it is not in any sense a summary of key points. What you have done is merely to put this list back in, in an insistent fashion. Apologies for mis-speaking.--Oolong (talk) 09:35, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I don’t know what to say again that I haven’t said, but I fail to find merit in your claim that the “list” is inadequately cited, when it is clearly stated and supported by an article in an established medical journal. I find it strange how you have insisted that advocacy blogs be included as authoritative sources but information from medical journals should not be just because they are pro-ABA. The list functions as a summary of applications ABA is used in but makes explicitly clear that ABA is used “overwhelmingly” for autism. I am only “insistent” that you have a consensus for altering a non-problematic and sourced summary of ABA applications without consensus. Barbarbarty (talk) 12:00, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

The talk of “power differentials” and the like is inherently a subjective topic that has no place in being worked out in a Wikipedia articl

I don't really agree with this, though agree that such material should be kept away from more scientific claims about effectiveness in a sort of "water doesn't mix with oil" way. Wikipedia deals with lots of subjective topics for which scientific certainty is difficult, and there are a bunch of reasonable sources like: interviews with service users, staff, parents, nurses and practictioners; philosophical texts; independent reports often carried out by lawyers, statements by patient groups, sociological theories, research into gender disparities and predictors inn outcomes etc. One can write about the murky and uncertain without descending into WP:OR or forum territory. Talpedia (talk) 18:11, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

@Talpedia I agree that if sources talk about power differentials, i.e. research done by neurotypical people vs. neurodivergent people, then that should be discussed in the place where subjective analyses of ABA by sources are written about in the article. I was mainly talking about an assertion that I interpreted as Wikipedia having some form of “duty” to “correct” a perceived power indifference, which was what I was disagreeing with. For instance, just because there is a common assumption by a number of researchers in the past that support ABA, that somehow this article should act as a counterweight to those findings in the name of advancing some sort of “real truth” about ABA by including more negative sources. I agree that multiple perspectives of the practice should be included, and in fact I believe many already are, but of course I would have no problem including more. Barbarbarty (talk) 15:31, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

Yeah, I agree that a duty to correct power indifference risks undermining good summaries of sources and could create false balance throughout articles. At the same time I think it's important not to push out such considerations, if well sourced and in the correct place, based on a kind of pseudo consensus. Talpedia (talk) 09:13, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

@Oolong avoiding controversial topics is a wise way to protect your sanity and avoid stress, chuckle. I'm not smart enough for that. I deal with conflicts between the community and the Wikimedia Foundation. Foundation staff can spend months or even years stonewalling. I relax and de-stress by preforming RFC closures or hopping controversial articles to drag warring parties back to policy.

RFCs: The most common problem is someone making an overlong/biased rant pushing a specific outcome, which explains the prominent guidance for RFCs to be short and unbiased. It is a sign of a good editor that you are inclined in the opposite direction, to be careful and unbiased.

The short version currently in the article absolutely doesn't represent the depth or gravity of the issues - leads don't do depth or nuance. When everything is important, nothing fits. But sometimes it is possible to convey gravity.

I notice the lead is reffed just like regular article content. Ideally the lead should summarize the article, then the article refs implicitly support the lead. It's usually preferable to remove lead-refs or move them to the body of the article. Lead content likely to attract objections may still warrant ref(s) to ward off complaints or drive-by edits.

I still don't feel up-to-speed on the content and sources here to add to the lead content, but I did try rewriting what already exists: There has been significant controversy among some professionals and members of the autism rights movement over the methods and approaches used in this field. There are concerns that ABA emphasizes normality instead of acceptance, and the use of aversives such as electric shocks in some cases has been described by the United Nations as torture.^[1] I'm sure the 'torture' mention will raise complaints that not all ABA does that, but that is a brief and efficiently way to inform the reader of a significant and peak aspect of controversy in this subject area. There might be other "concerns" worth mentioning, but remember this briefly summarizes the body. Just identify prime points.

how does Wikipedia deal with [84% study authors conflict of interest]: First, as HalFire3344 and I mentioned, the article is too heavily reliant on primary sources. What does the rest of the world say about the subject? Secondly, refer back to the collapsed paragraph beginning Wikipedia articles do not contain truth or facts. (Pause here and re-read it.) It may be more clear if I explain why Wikipedia policy was made that way. We get evolution denialists, climate denialists, astrologers, homeopathy professionals, members of every religion showing up saying what you said. "The sources are biased or wrong", they want to fix the article to contain "truth". Nope, not allowed to write truth in Wikipedia. Not allowed to waste time arguing truth on Talk. Can't use Wikipedia to fix the world. We ban people who persistently try to write or argue truth, after being wanted that it is against policy. That is how we prevent unending 'truth' arguments from terminally disrupting controversial topics. Alsee (talk) 12:46, 16 January 2023 (UTC)

Thanks again @Alsee! This is helpful. I think your rewrite would be a significant improvement, but it still wouldn't do justice to the breadth of the controversy. As you say, secondary sources should be given greater weight than primary ones. In this category we have this Cochrane review where the key message is summarised as "The evidence supports the use of EIBI for some children with ASD. However, the results should be interpreted with caution, as the quality of the evidence is weak; only a small number of children were involved in the studies, and only one study had an optimum design in which children were randomly assigned to treatment groups."

The weak evidence base seems highly salient to me? This shows up again and again in independent reviews of the evidence for ABA.

Mye reading of the meaning of 'secondary sources' is that this would also apply to the citations given for researchers' failure to investigate possible harms^[2][3] and disclose conflicts of interest.^[4][5][6]?

There is also the issue that - as Wikipedia's entry on it correctly notes - 'In the second half of the 20th century, behaviorism was largely eclipsed as a result of the cognitive revolution.' The whole conceptual foundation of ABA is on shaky ground, at best, as any history of psychology in the 20th century will confirm. There is an excellent Boston Globe article about why this is important. Oolong (talk) 07:25, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

@Oolong Maybe I wasn't clear enough, I tries to indicate that my rewrite attempt was strictly limited to revising what was already there. I don' feel I've looked at this topic and sources well enough to consider whether anything warranted being added for breadth.

It looks like at least some of the refs you just gave are Review articles, which I believe is considered particularly good my Project Med. I again suggest trying to get some input from there - I almost never deal med articles. Alsee (talk) 11:40, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• After reading just the last section, I preliminarily support the shortened lede. There is no doubt that the long version is pretty biased. I agree with Barty's sentiment that the sources don't show a mass controversy outside the autism community, which is what the long version implies.Aaron Liu (talk) 14:38, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  I quick-read all of Talk, but I didn't catch the short and long versions? If was article history, I didn't investigate that far. I could take a look if someone pings me and points out (or links) the two versions. Alsee (talk) 15:14, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  The long version I was referring to was before this edit and the short version was after. It isn't actually referred to as short and long Aaron Liu (talk) 15:28, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks. I took a look, but it looks like it would require a lot of time getting into the general sourcing. I also noticed that the entire article appears heavily cited to primary sources, which can raise difficulties. I suggest seeking help from Wikiproject Medicine - they can probably be a big help here. They have a lot of experience in this kind of situation, and human-med articles have special sourcing standards as well. I have little experience in this specialized area. Alsee (talk) 17:45, 14 January 2023 (UTC) p.s. I'm no longer following this page. Further comments to me will need a ping to get my attention. Alsee (talk) 19:18, 14 January 2023 (UTC)

• Hi Aaron, you assert that 'There is no doubt that the long version is pretty biased' but I'm not sure this is true. Would you like to elaborate on that? Are you suggesting it's inaccurate, or giving undue weight to the controversies?

  I note that several of the citations in the longest version are to secondary sources, for what that's worth.

  Thanks! Oolong (talk) 07:09, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

  Yeah I think it was undue. Alsee's fixes do look much better. I don't have much time to form a full opinion rn though. Aaron Liu (talk) 13:17, 20 January 2023 (UTC)

• I support a combination of the shortened lede and the longer lede. Aspects of the current wording of the short version (like "considered controversial by some within the autism rights movement" and "in some embodiments of ABA and its predecessors") can be incorporated into the longer version, resulting in something that's more neutral while also reflecting what the reputable sources we have say, along with the important reasons why so many autistic people oppose ABA. A big problem right now is that this article relies way too much on primary sources, and we need more sources discussing the vast community of anti-ABA autistic people. The longer lede is neutral, better summarizes the controversy, and has reputable sources. HaiFire3344 (talk) 01:27, 16 January 2023 (UTC)
• Note: I've posted WT:WikiProject Medicine#Applied behavior analysis - assistance requested. Alsee (talk) 08:46, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks, I couldn't quite figure out the protocol for that! Oolong (talk) 21:06, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

• Having had a look at the article, lead, some of the recent edits, and a quick search on google scholar, my opinion is along the lines of lets read some more sources and use them to improve the material within the articles! There seem to be quite a few well written papers that might add to the material in a technical way and then make these questions simpler. Though most of these do seem to be behind pay walls. Regarding "Wikipedia articles do not contain truth or facts" I find such comments tiresome, glib, presumptuous and disingenous (along with references to WP:RGW). Of course wikipedia is intended to approximate the truth and people edit thigs that they think interesting or important. This needs rules to be done collaboratively at scale, and for this reason verifiability and due weight are used as proxies for truth, and that's fine, but it's a rule not an aspiration.Talpedia (talk) 18:39, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  note: lots of paywalls can be circumvented with wp:twl. Aaron Liu (talk) 19:21, 25 January 2023 (UTC)

  Thanks for this. I certainly think much of the material within the article could stand to be improved!

  I also think that the lead as it stands is not an accurate or balanced summary of the existing contents of the article. I hope you don't mind me expanding here on why I think so - this is not really targeted at you, @Talpedia!

  The lead includes the claim that ABA is a 'scientific discipline', which strikes me as... odd. Its claim to being scientific at all is contentious (I see that conversion therapy, which shares the same theoretical underpinnings, is flatly described here as 'pseudoscientific') - but even if we accept its scientific credentials as generously as possible, it's surely not a scientific discipline any more than, say, physiotherapy, which nobody would describe as a scientific discipline. Right?

  The lead also includes an exhaustive list of claimed applications, for which the only source is an editorial by someone employed in ABA. I don't believe that any of these are common uses, and there is nothing at all about most of them in the body of the article - to me, the list looks as if it's there to add an air of legitimacy, not to inform.

  Finally, the short section on controversies is written in such a way as to minimise both the controversies themselves, and how widespread ABA's unpopularity is (particularly within the autistic population, its main target).

  'ABA is considered controversial' - oh, only considered controversial? - 'by some' - just a few, then? - 'within the autism rights movement' - what, so it's not controversial at all outside of the autism rights movement? - 'due to a perception' - just a perception? - 'that it emphasizes normality instead of acceptance, and a history of, in some embodiments of ABA and its predecessors, the use of aversives, such as electric shocks.' Only that, then?

  I think if you have a glance at the sections on efficacy, criticisms views of the autistic community and use of aversives, it's pretty clear this strongly downplays both the breadth and the intensity of the criticism (even though all of those sections could stand to be expanded further). But hey, as noted elsewhere in this discussion, I'm obviously passionate about this! I certainly don't think that excludes me from contributing, but it does mean we could do with more people looking at this page who are invested enough to care, but have an outsider's perspective... Oolong (talk) 21:29, 26 January 2023 (UTC)

  by some probably should be removed but not controversial at all outside of the autism rights movement is pretty reasonable when the controversy outside the movement is questionable and up to debate. Only that, then? I thought these were the main reasons it is controversial? And I don't see how "perception" and "considered" are downplaying it, sure they could be removed without much problem but they don't have problems, they're just applying neutrality without downplaying anything. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:06, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

  I'm not really following how 'controversy outside the movement in questionable'. Here's a pro-ABA review paper remarking 'controversy and division remain among researchers, clinicians, and within the autism community': https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s40474-021-00237-x#Sec2

  Various sources I've cited mention controversy outside of the autistic population, particularly among parents, and several papers questioning its methods and the validity of ABA research are by non-autistic researchers. Also, the idea that the only autistic people who oppose ABA are part of the 'autism rights movement' is dubious and unsourced.

  Did you read the sections I mentioned within the body, on the controversies?

  To recap: ABA is controversial because the evidence for it is weak, with longitudinal studies almost entirely absent, and pervasive, undisclosed conflicts of interest in the studies which support it; researchers have never adequately investigated the many reports of harm caused by these practices; behaviourism itself is largely rejected by psychologists; even without explicit aversives, ABA relies on removing positive reinforcement, to cause aversion, which many consider traumatic; it trains people to mask their visibly autistic behaviours, which there is considerable evidence harms mental health; it systematically overrides children's refusal to do what an adult asks them to, teaching them that their consent is not required and they have bodily autonomy only if adults in authority positions allow it; ABA's regulatory and professional bodies do not require practitioners to have any knowledge of autism, meaning they are not equipped to understand the purpose or meaning of behaviours they seek to change; these bodies have never acted against literal torture done in ABA's name, and ABAI actively invited JRC representatives to their yearly conferences, many times, to defend their use of electric torture machines, before finally voting last year to declare that they weren't okay after all.

  So... are the couple of things listed really the main reasons it's controversial? I wouldn't have said so, and while these certainly feature in many of the statements made against ABA by autistic-led organisations and researchers, I'm not sure they're top of the list - and they certainly don't summarise them adequately. Hence the longer version, with references. Perhaps we could distill it down to something shorter, like 'ABA is controversial, especially among autistic people, due perceptions that it is often harmful, not well regulated, and poorly evidenced'?

  Just to brieflly address your final point, "perception" and "considered" are ways of telling the reader that what is being reported is merely subjective opinions. But ABA is objectively controversial, especially but not exclusively among autistic people. Many versions of it absolutely have and do emphasise 'normality', and few emphasise acceptance. In both cases, this is like adding 'some say' before any objectively verifiable fact: Some say the Earth is round. There is a perception that blue light has shorter wavelengths than red. Water is considered to contain hydrogen and oxygen atoms. Oolong (talk) 08:57, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

The evidence that ABA is controversial outside the autistic community is considerably poor, and what you have cited as “ABA” is incredibly subjective and describing it as “torture” seems incredibly problematic for any article - as I believe this description from the UN was limited to electric shocks, not ABA as a whole - when there is no evidence that ABA is practiced commonly and in every form of it in a way that would be close to that. The idea that ABA bodies endorse torture somehow is an incredibly subjective statement that is likely false and I cannot see how that would belong in a Wikipedia article that is meant to be an objective description of the practice. There is still not much evidence that such controversy exists outside the autistic community and a few research articles written by neurotypical people does not really qualify as a “movement against ABA” in my opinion. Claims such as “ABA overrides bodily autonomy” are also wildly problematic for similar reasons. These are all assertions that you are making individually, and these are valid beliefs, but I would not feel that these are proper descriptions that belong in a Wikipedia article. Second, many of the sources mentioning “controversy” almost exclusively talk about the autistic community, specifically members of autistic advocacy groups. Those that do mention individuals such as parents talk about how it is because of the outcry from such groups that they are reconsidering ABA, not because of any injury on their part. Your description of ABA is simply wildly uncharacteristic of what most sources describe ABA to be, so it is pointless to argue that ABA is some discredited disgraced practice when it simply is not. You have still not given any reason as to why you feel the lede currently “downplays” anything other than your own personal belief that ABA is overwhelmingly negative. So far, there has been no demonstration as to why the lede as it stands is “inadequate,” and the only reasons that you have provided seem to resolve around one’s personal belief that it is insufficiently negative towards ABA rather than any shortcoming in the format of the article. This is a valid belief to hold, but it is completely irrelevant to the article that is perfectly adequate as is. Barbarbarty (talk) 10:41, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

You keep arguing against things I have not said, implied or done. You said you're also autistic, so I'm sure you're familiar with how stressful it can be for people to determinedly misunderstand what you have stated literally and with care. I would thank you not to do this.

Please read the section where I mention torture again.

I didn't state that all ABA is torture, and it's a stretch to summarise what I did say as 'ABA bodies endorse torture'. I did state that 'ABAI actively invited JRC representatives to their yearly conferences, many times, to defend their use of electric torture machines'. This is verifiably true. Their conference schedules are all on their awkward-to-navigate web site. JRC representatives are have their affiliations listed, so you can search for them that way if you find the right section, and you can see the topics of the talks they were invited to give: repeatedly, these included defending their use of machines condemned by the UN and many others as torture. They were also listed as sponsors. As I say, you can directly verify all this with your own eyes on the ABAI's own web site. You could also refer to ASAN's statements on this, from 2015, 2019 and 2022, as well as their statement when ABAI finally voted to stop doing this.

I've provided many links to the controversy outside of the autistic community, and your assertion that it doesn't exist is a big part of the reason why I am calling for outside opinions, so that we're not just playing ping-pong here. You are obviously sold on ABA. Not everybody is.

What I am doing is simply outlining the nature of the controversy. Much of this is already described and carefully referenced in the body of the entry. As you know, I have never attempted to make the lead provide this level of detail on the controversy. Talk pages are not required to be written in an encyclopaedic style, but none of my assertions are original, and nearly all of them are backed up by published research, if you care to look. Anderson (2022) for example states: 'Many of the participants recalled having little bodily autonomy during ABA'. None of these things are merely my personal opinion. Oolong (talk) 09:04, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

I am not “sold” on ABA and reject any assertions stating such. I have repeatedly stated my position as being that any information on autistic perspectives on ABA should be included in the article, in the relevant sections. I have never advocated *removing* any information from autistic advocates on ABA from the article. My position is that this type of information should not over-inundate the lead in a way that implies to the average reader that ABA is some discredited practice that is akin to Conversion Therapy when most reputable sources, both in academic articles and secondary news sources, state that it is very much up for debate, with reputable and good-faith advocates on both sides. I will concede that perhaps I did misinterpret your statement on ABA associations “endorsing torture,” as I was not aware you were referring to certain autistic advocacy groups’ statements on the matter regarding the JRC. I feel this is information that should be included in the article, but my interest as always been in making the lead as neutral as possible without any possible violation of WP:UNDUE or similar guidelines. It is obvious that you feel that the evidence backing up ABA is not as strong as the evidence critiquing it, and that is perfectly valid and acceptable to hold. My only point of contention is that I feel it would be more appropriate in the already-detailed section of the body of the article relating to ABA within the sphere of autism. All of the points you have made about shortcomings you see with ABA are perfectly acceptable to include in the body of the article, as long as you can find authoritative sources stating as such, and you definitely do have some sources that look to be both credible and authoritative. I simply feel that the “long version” of the lede that you have pointed to as being overly prejudicial, when the lede as it currently stands is one I believe to be both concise and clear enough in summarizing what ABA is AND where it is contentious. I agree, that as someone who is neurodivergent, it is often hard and confusing to be misunderstood. Please know that it is not my intention in the slightest to come across as antagonistic or pedantic, but I simply feel we are at a polite disagreement on what parts of the article actually need addition and improvement. You contend that the lede is inadequate, and I am of the view that it is not. I feel these are both valid beliefs to hold, so I agree with what you states elsewhere that this article needs more eyes on it for a consensus to be reached. If I have come across in a way where you feel attacked somehow or misinterpreted, please know that is not my intention, as it is obvious you are passionate about this article, and I will be the first to say that you have brought good information that could definitely be included in the article. I am simply sharing a concern about maintaining a balanced and neutral perspective in the lede. You made cited for instance a study backing up a point on bodily autonomy as reporter by a number of people who undertook ABA. This appears to be a credible source and I would have no problem with it being in the article. I would only suggest that it would be done in a fashion that does not overly prejudice the lead, Or it could be better suited for the body of the article in the section pertaining to autism. I had a suggestion for how this could be done in a previous edit, as an effort to find a compromise between the two positions. (https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1131620760)Barbarbarty (talk) 08:08, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

You have not taken on board any of the evidence I have cited for the fact that ABA is controversial, especially but not exclusively among autistic people. Even the outright statement, in a review article that is overall very favourable to ABA, that 'controversy and division remain among researchers, clinicians, and within the autism community' has not swayed you to accept this. I don't know what else to say.

I have argued that the lead, as it is currently written, very deliberately minimises the controversy and goes out of its way to paint ABA in a positive light. I have carefully laid out exactly how it does this, and you have not persuasively countered any of the points I have made about this.

My aim here is to ensure this entry follows Wikipedia guidelines, by ensuring that the lead is a balanced summary of the key points of the article.

I am keen to hear other people's views on this. Oolong (talk) 17:38, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

To recap:

"The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic. It should identify the topic, establish context, explain why the topic is notable, and summarize the most important points, including any prominent controversies." Oolong (talk) 17:46, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

You have not given convincing evidence, in my view, that the evidence for controversy outside the autistic community is significant. Mere mention of vague controversy that is not elaborated on or discussed by secondary sources outside of listening to concerns from people with autism does not merit it having mention in the lead. Such an inclusion would imply that this controversy is significant when it is unclear that any controversy is significant outside of autism rights advocates. This article already relies much on primary sources, so unless you can bring secondary sources that there is significant controversy outside the autistic community, which you have repeatedly failed to do, I fail to see how it merits inclusion in the lede which is supposed to summarize the main points of the article. The body of the article does not discuss at much length, if at all, of controversy outside the autistic community. You have repeatedly failed to express convincing or realistic viewpoints on why the lede “minimizes” ABA, or how it portrays it in an overly-positive light. It comes across more that the fact that the lede is not overly-slanted towards portraying ABA negatively that you feel it is minimized, rather than accurately portraying a balanced perspective of debate. I have repeatedly made suggestions on how it could be possible to include more on the nature of the controversies in both the lede and the article, which have have made a point to ignore and never address for reasons unbeknownst to me. There is no evidence that you have provided for how the lede as it stands does not follow Wikipedia guidelines, and no one else has brought up any concerns with the lede to my knowledge. I have repeatedly expressed that you are free to add any sourced information to the body of the article which has a lengthy and detailed description of ABA related to autism and controversies involved in such practices. You have not made convincing or persuasive arguments in my view, and have repeatedly misconstrued points I have made to make it seem I am somehow trying to slant the article one way, even saying without evidence that I am “sold” on ABA. You are perfectly free to be personally against ABA, but that is nearly here nor there when it comes to the objectivity of the article. Barbarbarty (talk) 13:31, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I feel that Oolong has expressed convincing viewpoints on why the lead minimizes the controversy, like issues with the wording. For example, with regard to saying that ABA is "considered controversial", I still think "considered" can be omitted, as the term controversial is not necessarily subjective; the Fortune source supports the objective existence of a controversy. MOS:LEAD says the lead should summarize "any prominent controversies", and I feel there is room in the lead to discuss more aspects of the controversy surrounding ABA. As I previously expressed, aspects of the longer version of the lead can be incorporated into the current version, and I feel this can be done in a way similar to what you expressed in Special:Diff/1131620760.

Honestly, I would've preferred for the entirety (or close to that) of the longer lead to be restored, as it had good sources and summarized the controversy better, but it's looking like a compromise is necessary at the moment. HaiFire3344 (talk) 20:30, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I agree now that we should remove the needlessly neutral words such as considered. Aaron Liu (talk) 22:51, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

After reading what other users have said, I can support the move to remove the word “considered” from its current place in the lead. While I feel it does not make a substantial difference with regards to subjectivity versus objectivity, I can see that it would not be detrimental nor vastly alter the meaning of the lead to remove it. Barbarbarty (talk) 23:23, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I don't agree completely that the longer version has good sourcing. (1) The Autistic Not Weird survey is not representative of the entire autistic community. I don't even think the author of the survey believes it is. "Large" doesn't mean "representative" when there's sampling bias. (2) I may have missed it, but I can't find anything in the two Sandoval-Norton references that say ABA practitioners are not required to learn about autism in order to gain certification, though one of those sources does mention that courses required to become a BCBA do not include neuroscience. But this leads me to... (3) I have grave misgivings about the Sandoval-Norton review. The first red flag is that it was published in an academic journal with a citation index of slightly *less than* 1. I realize that citation index isn't the final word on judging the quality of journals, but I question the quality of the peer review it went through since there are factual errors, which have been pointed out by Gorycki et al. (2020). In fact, a general review about the evidence behind ABA (Anderson & Carr, 2021) went as far as to say that the Sandoval-Norton paper was presenting misinformation. The review by Sandoval-Norton et al. and their response to critiques should not be used as a source.

One topic that's missing from the shorter version and definitely should be added is the relative weak evidence base supporting ABA (although there's nuance that needs to be added to the main body, not the lead). This has been demonstrated in several meta-analyses, and it's standard practice to describe the effectiveness of interventions in the lead. CatPath ^{meow at me} 23:45, 29 January 2023 (UTC)

I forgot to add that (4) the Bottema-Beutel 2020 study doesn't mention ABA. It would be better to replace it with or add the Rodgers et al. 2020 study: https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/books/NBK559599/ CatPath ^{meow at me} 00:15, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Thank @CatPath.

(1) The enormous survey is not fully representative, no; no survey can ever be. However, many other surveys have also shown strong opposition to ABA in autistic populations, and practically every major autistic-led organisation has made statements against it. Still, I would settle for 'controversial, especially in the autistic community'. (2) I cited the BCBA directly for evidence that no knowledge of autism is required for their certification, but yes, you must have missed this in Shkedy, Shkedy & Sandoval-Norton: "it is unethical to make an arbitrary decision on what is an appropriate behavior without understanding the long-term ramifications of attempting to change that behavior. At its core is an inherent requirement that necessitates a therapist’s understanding of the internal processes and abilities of the patient before designing a treatment plan, as well as the training to recognize when the treatment is detrimental. ABA therapists are not required to take even a single class on autism" (they cite the same BCBA documents as I did to back this up). (3) Shkedy et al (2021) responded directly and I think quite persuasively to the claim of factual errors in their earlier paper. In any case, the concern that the lack of knowledge of autism could lead practitioners to fail to realise they are causing harm is not one mentioned in Anderson & Carr, and has been expressed elsewhere; it seems like a pretty obvious danger, and we should be able to find another source for that. (4) Which paper are you referring to? Sandbank et al (2020) on which Bottema-Beutel does mention ABA: "Together, these interventions are sometimes loosely described as Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA)"? Bottema-Beutel (2020), "Adverse event reporting in intervention research for young autistic children" doesn't explicitly mention ABA by name, but it is clear (for example by referring to the previous paper) that a good proportion of the research discussed is indeed on what is generally referred to as ABA. No objections to substituting Rodgers et al (2020) but I'm not convinced it's necessary; as Dawson & Fletcher-Watson (2021) put it, "Bottema-Beutel et al. follow Rodgers et al. (2020), whose systematic review of early intensive applied behavior analysis (ABA)–based autism interventions also found a pervasive failure to consider harms." Oolong (talk) 09:25, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• My take is that we may well be able to find scholarly that say things like "X% of people with autism who experienced ABA in the US described it as a such and such, they felt that A, B and C" and then a whole bunch of the discussion becomes moot and complicated decisions about WP:DUE go away. Talpedia (talk) 09:27, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

  I earlier added a citation to one of the largest surveys of autistic people ever done - I would say it's by far the largest such survey, but the same author's 2018 survey was slightly larger still:

  This survey had 7,491 autistic respondents (11,212 respondents altogether) and found that less than 5% endorsed ABA, although the figure is 18% among the 341 respondents who had been through it personally themselves (62% of whom strongly disagree with its use).

  However, this survey was not run by or with a university, and has not been published in a peer-reviewed journal. I consider it a reputable source, given the scale and the details of the methodology, and the fact the author is a well-respected (and not particularly radical) autistic advocate and writer. Others disagree.

  As far as I'm aware, the research talking directly with ABA recipients has all been relatively small-scale - more qualitative than quantitative - but also damning.

  The vast majority of information on autistic experiences of ABA has been published on blogs, on sites like Neuroclastic and Thinking Person's Guide to Autism, and by autistic-led organisations like Autistic Self Advocacy Network. Will Wikipedia consider such sources sufficiently reliable? As noted elsewhere, ABA researchers and practitioners themselves have notoriously failed to conduct any longitudinal studies, or investigate reports of harm. Oolong (talk) 09:23, 28 January 2023 (UTC)

As I said above, having a large sample size doesn't mean the sample is representative of the target population. The author may be well-respected, but I doubt the members of his group would be accepting of autistics who are pro-ABA. Also, only half the survey participants came from his group. I was a member of several militantly anti-ABA groups, and I saw requests in those groups to take the survey back when it came out. Undoubtedly, many of them did. These same groups prohibit any pro-ABA views and are dismissive of autistics who had a positive experience with ABA, saying they're experiencing internalized ableism or that they were brainwashed by their ABA therapist. CatPath ^{meow at me} 02:53, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

Also, advocacy groups are not neutral, reliable sources. That means no blogs from Neuroclastic , ASAN, or Thinking Person's Guide to Autism. Or Autism Speaks. CatPath ^{meow at me} 03:19, 30 January 2023 (UTC)

I'm not sure how relevant it is right now, but Wikipedia does not have a blanket ban on citing advocacy sites, as a quick scan of Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Perennial sources makes clear.

Sources do not have to be neutral in order to be reliable on matters of fact.

Again, though, if we were to rule out advocacy sites as a matter of course, we should be a lot more careful about pro-ABA advocates than we have so far on this page. Oolong (talk) 15:31, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires reliable sources to have a reputation for accuracy and fact-checking, as well as a policy of not including questionable sources as authoritative sources on “institutions,” such as ABA. The survey you are imploring to include does not meet the standards of a peer-reviewed, accurate, reliable source that Wikipedia requires for reliability, and there is no evidence that it is even reliable for matters of fact, especially considering the blog itself states that it is not a scientific study that is representative of the autistic community at-large. I also am confused on how you would define “pro-ABA” advocates considering how most of the sources that “support” ABA in this article are from academic and research articles, and not any third-party interest organization such as blogs which are written by activists, not scientists. Barbarbarty (talk) 01:06, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

WP:BLOGSs are classic example of an unreliable source. Anyone put up a blog saying anything. Alsee (talk) 02:10, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

There is a difference between just a blog, and a blog writing about a survey with several thousand respondents! But I do take the point about sampling bias.

One thing I'm wondering about, @CatPath - are you also a member of any militantly pro-ABA groups? I wonder if any such groups exist, with majority-autistic membership? Oolong (talk) 09:28, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

How would that be relevant to the discussion? Aaron Liu (talk) 12:44, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

• I just came across . abainternational officially opposed use of electric aversives. I don't know of there are other aba-professional orgs, but if that does pretty much represents the formal position of the field, and if pretty much the only place using such methods is Judge Rotenberg Center, then I question whether it even merits a place in the lead. I also see that Applied_behavior_analysis#Use_of_aversives doesn't note this ABAI position, it probably should. Alsee (talk) 02:34, 1 February 2023 (UTC)

  Yes, I noted this earlier - you're right, it absolutely should be in there somewhere. It is long overdue, and very welcome, after many years of ABAI being sponsored by the JRC and persistently inviting its representatives to their conferences to defend the use of electric torture machines. Oolong (talk) 09:30, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

If the problem here is simply that autistic-dominated groups are consistently strongly opposed to ABA, then it's not clear why that would be a reason to assume that any survey is unrepresentative of autistic opinion. Oolong (talk) 15:34, 3 February 2023 (UTC)

I'm going to try to summarise here what's wrong with the way the closing paragraph of the lead has been written, with some pointers to how it could be rewritten to better summarise and give due weight to key points. I regret that the discussion has been somewhat derailed by side-points.

'ABA is considered controversial'

ABA is controversial. Uncontroversially so.

'by some within the autism rights movement'

As various articles already linked make clear, the controversy is not limited to the autism rights movement, and the modifier 'some' is actively misleading. Controversy is widespread throughout the autistic community, and also prevalent among relevant scientists, family members and so on. Here is an article from the journal History of the Human Sciences that traces the controversies going back to the 1990s and even earlier: https://journals.sagepub.com/doi/full/10.1177/0952695117702571?journalCode=hhsa

'due to a perception that it emphasizes normality instead of acceptance, and a history of, in some embodiments of ABA and its predecessors, the use of aversives, such as electric shocks.'

This is not a balanced summary of the nature of the controversies. The article just linked goes into some depth on the scientific criticisms, which mainly centre on the continuing lack of high-quality evidence for effectiveness; it also considers the many other critiques, largely but not exclusively from autistic people.

This chapter from the Handbook of Autism and Pervasive Developmental Disorder (2022) looks at the controversy around ABA under the headings of 'efficacy, normalisation/social control, trauma/wellbeing, and autonomy'. They conclude that 'a significant element of contemporary ABA practice requires abolition or reform, and suggest that whether or not ABA can be rehabilitated in the eyes of its critics remains to be seen.' One of the authors, by the by, is historically one of the UK's leading behaviourists, largely responsible for bringing ABA to the UK, although she has somewhat shifted her perspective since then.

Even just looking at the sections in the article on efficacy, criticism and the views of the autistic community, it is very clear that the existing summary of the nature of the controversy in the lead is far more restrictive than it ought to be. It should be possible to give a fairly balanced sense of the breadth of the controversy concisely, but I would appreciate it if somebody else would attempt this. Oolong (talk) 17:50, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Again, many of the articles you have listed still talk about controversy mainly being within the autism rights movement. I dispute the idea that just because research on ABA has been done by neurotypical people means there is “significant” controversy outside the movement, so I am concerned that it would be WP:UNDUE for it to merit mention in the lead. As for your point about other controversies, I and other editors have repeatedly made suggestions on how this could be alleviated, and offered ways on addressing these controversies in a manner that would not jeopardize the neutrality of the article, but to my knowledge you have not responded to any of these suggestions so I am not sure what else can be offered. You yourself have states over and over again that the lead is meant to be a summary if the article, which is why I have suggested that articles that go in-depth on controversies and responses should be included in the body of the article in the relevant section. What the lead should not be used for is an in-depth description of the controversies, since the proper place for them to be elaborated on is in the body. As of right now, most reliable sources point to significant controversy within the autism rights movement over ABA, and that is something mentioned clearly in the closing paragraph in the lead. Barbarbarty (talk) 13:04, 6 February 2023 (UTC)

Your objections are straightforwardly contradicted by multiple reliable sources and Wikipedia guidelines, and I have no interest in discussing this further with you. Oolong (talk) 11:42, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

Wikipedia guidelines and your own sources disagree with you. I have repeatedly made suggestions for compromise and you have stubbornly refused to engage with them. Your proposals would undoubtedly be a detriment to the article and you have even cast improper accusations on other users who have disagreed with you. I have told you repeatedly how the sources you have provided do not say what you say they do, and how you have misinterpreted Wikipedia guidelines repeatedly and deliberately, and you have not countered a single one of these critiques other than finding articles saying ABA is bad, which is not the basis of my criticisms for what you propose for the article. You can refuse to engage with my detailed critiques, but it is clear you have failed to build a consensus and have derailed the talk of improving the article time and time again. Barbarbarty (talk) 10:39, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

I see. Well, since you insist on discussing further regardless...

It seems to me that you are the only person objecting to the contention, widely supported by my sources as anyone can verify for themselves, that ABA is controversial not just within but also outside of the autistic community.

I remind you that 'Consensus on Wikipedia does not require unanimity (which is ideal but rarely achievable), nor is it the result of a vote. Decision making and reaching consensus involve an effort to incorporate all editors' legitimate concerns, while respecting Wikipedia's policies and guidelines.'

Your 'suggestions for compromise' have revolved around leaving the lead exactly as it is and just expand on the controversy in the body of the entry (where most but not all of the controversy is already covered more-or-less adequately). To do so would be to ignore the Wikipedia guidelines on leads summarising major controversies. I am not 'stubbornly refused to engage with' this suggestion, I am outright rejecting it, on solid grounds. I do appreciate that after much argumentation, you conceded that 'considered' in 'considered controversial' (by some in the autism rights movement) did not make for a more balanced summary.

You evidently have very strong opinions about ABA, and it is not 'casting improper accusations' to say so. Your statements have repeatedly indicated that you do not believe this about yourself, but at one point you attempted to remove the key statement about a Cochrane review, from the section of the entry on efficacy, that 'noted that the evidence for this is weak', claiming this was 'editorializing' - despite this being stated unambiguously in the review being referred to. If you believe yourself not to be 'sold on ABA' as I put it earlier, please step back and reflect on your actions here.

Yes, you have insisted 'repeatedly how the sources you have provided do not say what you say they do', but the issue here is that they do say what I say they do. It is unambiguous in multiple sources that ABA is controversial outside of the autism rights movement, and indeed outside of the autistic community. You have simply asserted the opposite. Yes, most of these sources focus on the autistic community, because collectively (not unanimously!) the autistic community is outraged and horrified by ABA practices, and coverage tends to focus on the people with strongest feelings and most investment in a topic. This is not material to the question of whether ABA is also controversial outside of the autistic community, to which the answer is clearly still yes.

As far as I can see, I have countered every meaningful critique you have shared. I would ask you to clarify, particularly with respect to the claim that I have 'misinterpreted Wikipedia guidelines', but this process is exhausting, and as @Aaron Liu says, we are arguing in circles. Oolong (talk) 09:08, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

You have continued to make glib and insulting comments about other users and myself, and your points have already been clearly refuted elsewhere. Your sources, as you have admitted, do not “focus” on any controversy outside of the autism rights movement, so it would seem wildly improper to use the lead to frame there being massive controversy outside the autism rights movement when there is little evidence to back it up in a fashion that would merit its inclusion in the lead. I have seen the sources before when you first posted them, and my opinion has not changed since then that they provide a weak foundation for including “controversial outside the autism rights movement in the lead.

As for your jibe about the Cochrane review, I do not have to “explain” anything to you, as that edit was reverted quickly and I left a note on the talk page of the user who reverted it to explain I misread the article and I agreed with re-inserting the information in question, as seen here: https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:Dovepaste&oldid=1134947535. This is openly available if you want to look up my edit history. Wikipedia is not the place for attempts at psychoanalysis. You are free to believe I am some über-partisan ABA hack, and you would continue to be absolutely wrong in that belief, but I will only engage with this in a few short sentences since it seems very apparent to me that you are making this accusation in bad faith. I do not have “strong opinions” on ABA and again, I implore you to stop accusing others of having an agenda to favor ABA simply because your improper and inappropriate edits to the article have been disputed. The lead is not meant to be an essay on every controversy you feel is not talked about enough for ABA.

I am highly in doubt that you are familiar with the guidelines in question since you have repeatedly misinterpreted it time and time again in order to claim you have standing to remove pro-ABA sources and any information in the lead that you feel is too friendly to ABA, specifically how you keep on mentioning “summarizing important controversies” as a reason to remove the list of applications of ABA in the second paragraph of the lead, ignoring the fact that the lead is also meant to identify the subject and establish context. I also dispute the notion that “summarizing controversies” means that a detailed description of each controversy should be discussed on the lead, as many of the controversies you have cited are exclusively discussed in primary sources, and I believe that something classifying as a “significant” controversy would have multiple secondary sources discussing the particular controversy as well. From what I have seen, other significant controversies would include the weak evidence basis, and a history of emphasizing “masking” behavior. My “suggestion” is one I linked multiple times, where I stated that one could list the controversies in the same manner as “use of electric shocks” is mentioned. I will link it again here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1131620760. In your stubbornness to bring about the “truth” of ABA you appear to have ignored it.

In this regard I feel the controversies cam be listed concisely, and segue into elaboration on them in the body. I do appreciate that after several responses you have made clear to me you are not interested in any alternative other than a lead which appears on its face to be biased and poorly-written, due to the lack of conciseness and clarity that is asked of the guidelines. Other users have also brought up concerns that it would violate neutrality standards, so this is not a concern that I solely hold.

On your note about consensus, yes it does not require unanimity, but you have not even attempted to build one, let alone consider suggestions from other users and take them in as a whole. You have accused me of being “sold” on ABA, accused another individual of being part of “militant” ABA groups, and in other talk topics you have openly stated that you feel that users who disagree with you are part of the ABA industry. You have even been pointed to discuss the topic with Project Med, which as of me last checking you have not engaged with. You are clearly and actively hostile to any suggestions for the article that do not paint ABA in a universally negative light. The point I am making about your sources is that they still do not focus on controversy outside the autistic community as much as you say they do, and especially not to the point where they merit inclusion in the lead, as this article itself mainly discusses controversy among individuals with autism. Thus I advocated for their inclusion in the body of the article. Not once have I advocated for actively removing any information from the article that could be seen as anti-ABA, and up to this point the only person that has actively fought to *remove* sections of the article has been yourself. I am not interested in engaging in any attacks on my character or assumptions about my own personal beliefs, which are frankly quite irrelevant to my perspective on what the article should look like. I am free to discuss reaching a compromise along with other users, but you have shown no willingness to reach any. I can agree on us talking in circles however. I feel this article needs more perspectives from other users and hopefully a compromise can be reached. Barbarbarty (talk) 05:02, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

The recent edit made by User:HaiFire3344 is something I believe fits in what I was proposing, in mentioning significant controversies in a clear and concise manner. Barbarbarty (talk) 12:31, 8 February 2023 (UTC)

Can we please step it back a little? This debate has devolved into ad hominem and some name-calling, please step back a bit both of you. Aaron Liu (talk) 01:22, 9 February 2023 (UTC)

Thanks, Aaron. I'm up for stepping back for a while, but the fact remains that I am clearly correct that ABA is controversial, as is demonstrated unambiguously by multiple reputable sources, and the user above is making a whole serious of vague and/or unfounded accusations in their defence of the status quo.

I resent being personally attacked in this way, and it became clear long ago that exchanges between this user and I are unlikely to be productive. This is why I created this RfC, and why I supported @Alsee's attempt to engage WikiProject Medicine; obviously we need more editors on this who are capable of viewing this topic with at least some dispassion. It looks like a Dispute Resolution is going to be the only way forward at this point, but I will leave it until I have a little more capacity to deal with this kind of stress. Oolong (talk) 17:31, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

My apologies if you have felt personally attacked, which is not my intention. But you have repeatedly made insinuations on my beliefs and character despite me asking you multiple times to refrain from such language. I have never denied that ABA is controversial, quite to the contrary, I have acknowledged it is controversial among certain populations. What I and others have disputed is the scope to which it is controversial, which you have argued is far more expansive and the sources you have provided give a relatively weak foundation for the changes you have sought. I have repeatedly stated my position that more users should be looking at this article as well, which is why I have expressed apprehension in unilaterally making decisions without consensus. I admit this is very stressful and I am regretful if this discourse has contributed to that, but also know that I have also been fatigued by this, and especially when I am accused of supporting or believing things that I do not support or believe - it is very exasperating. All I ask is that compromise can be reached. Barbarbarty (talk) 14:07, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

We can't DRN until the RfC ends anyways, which is in at least 2 days. Aaron Liu (talk) 18:47, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

That’s good to know Aaron, thank you for your level-headed voice. I do not feel the concerns I have raised about changes from the user above are unfounded, though I must emphasize it was not my intention to sound confrontational. I must chalk that up to the stress of keeping up with this discourse, but I want to make clear I do not intend to come across as being obstinate. My main source of “grief” are the accusations against me that I have somehow chosen a “side,” which are accusations I am uncomfortable with. I certainly feel we have made progress in other areas with this RfC, such as changing language in the lead as well as edits adding language involving weak evidence related to ABA, so this RfC did bring about positives, in my opinion. Barbarbarty (talk) 14:17, 11 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I'm going to aim for de-escalation here, but I am going to need to refute a few points along the way.

I'm sorry that I expressed inferences about your beliefs. I know that I have occasionally found myself arguing in defence of things I actually disagree with, because the people I was arguing with were wrong on the specifics of their objection to the thing - so I am aware that there are other reasons people find themselves arguing vehemently in defence of things, other than belief in the things themselves.

I hope you can understand why I made this inference about your beliefs, though, based on both your edits and your comments here?

You state that "Not once have I advocated for actively removing any information from the article that could be seen as anti-ABA" but you have, in point of fact, directly removed information that could be seen as anti-ABA - chiefly, but not exclusively, from the lead - and have persistently argued against its inclusion in the lead.

I'm not sure where you think I have made any insulting comments to you or anyone else, but I will hold up my hands to the accusation of being glib once or twice.

As for your complaint that I "feel that users who disagree with you are part of the ABA industry", my statement was that "It would be interesting to know how many of the editors involved are in the ABA business."

I stand by that. This is a huge industry, in which most of the people involved were required, until recently, to sign up for a Code of Ethics that specifically required them to promote ABA. Wikipedia has rules that are intended to prevent people editing articles when they have a significant conflict of interest; we have discussed such conflicts of interest with respect to ABA elsewhere.

I have not accused any specific user of having undisclosed ties to the industry, but it is completely rational for an encyclopaedia that aims for neutrality to take account of the possibility that it is being edited by people with a financial interest in talking things up. Indeed, this is a known issue that I understand has come up repeatedly on Wikipedia, in a wide variety of contexts.

Your suggestion that I 'accused another individual of being part of “militant” ABA groups' is a straight-up misreading of what I wrote; I wasn't accusing them of any such thing. You might find it worth re-reading that. Oolong (talk) 15:40, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

I appreciate the understanding with regards to your first point about sometimes not always “defending” things you agree with. Again, I apologize if I came across as combative, but I want to make it known that I do not hold a strong opinion on ABA in regards to believing in its tenets or that it is some discredited practice. Other users have approached this through the lens of taking a middle-of-the-road approach which is what I believe best reflects the debate currently surrounding the subject. Of course, I make no intention of “overriding” the perspectives of anyone more directly involved or who have intense experiences with ABA, but I am merely trying to adopt the hat of the impartial Wikipedia editor, although perhaps some editors with more experience than me would have approached it with some more tact. I have no reason to doubt the reliability any of the sourced information currently in the article, which includes both “pro-ABA” and “anti-ABA” sources from medical journals or news organizations, including sources that you have added to the article in the past. This encourages myself to adopt such a centrist approach. To address your point about “removing information,” please understand it remains my current position that information that is sourced and considered reliable should not be removed from the article, although I feel more deliberation should be made on the precise language of certain parts and where these sources should be put. However the mere existence of this information are not aspects I feel should be removed. If you are referring to the edit that User:Dovepaste reverted, I have admitted and will affirm I made that edit in error, and my present position is that I agree with, and encourage the continued inclusion of that specific piece of information in the article. My main “issue” has more to do with language and placement, rather than any specific information in the article. This is why I have made the suggestion to place more elaborate information in the body, however I did not mean it to come across as me arguing for removal of the information, with regards to primary scientific articles or secondary news articles, from the article entirely. To address your last few points about the ABA industry, I can assure you that I have been made incredibly aware through personal experience how unapproachable and insular the psyche industry can be, so I know that there can be grounds for suspicion on how far their influence can reach. All I can do is say that I do not have any personal or professional connections to the ABA industry, either through myself or anyone close to me. I cannot speak for other users of course, though all I would say is to be just a bit more careful and delicate when making such statements. I admit I can and should follow this advice as well. As for the “militant” comment I brought up, I will say that it is possible I misinterpreted the statement and I would be wrong to assume any ill-intention on your part. However I feel the original statement you made did not contribute much and was sort of off-topic, in my opinion. Again though, I am perfectly willing to understand there was no malicious intent behind it. I agree with your sentiments that you have expressed regarding having more eyes on the article, as I feel this would only help bring about a proper and understanding consensus. I must also state again that I believe the edits recently made by User:HaiFire3344 to be a good step forward. Barbarbarty (talk) 11:26, 14 February 2023 (UTC)

Thank you for conceding that @HaiFire3344 and I were correct about the edits they have now made, which include almost everything I have actually argued for. Perhaps the outline of the controversies should still include one or two more general statements, but it's far closer to being a fair summary than it was when this process started.

For now, the only major outstanding problem is the list of applications, which still simply doesn't belong in the lead: as long as there is no detail of those applications anywhere in the body, they can not plausibly be considered key points of the article. Oolong (talk) 07:59, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

I most certainly did *not* concede that, and reject that assertion that the edits that User:HaiFire3344 made and what you have suggested are similar. Please reread what I wrote carefully. I have never said your edits in regards to that were correct, and indeed what I have suggested and what User:HaiFire3344 edited were far from what you have proposed. There is no consensus here. The “applications” list also stays, as it is crucial for establishing context. Barbarbarty (talk) 10:43, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Most of the edits I've made to the article involved things that Oolong suggested or brought up in some form (e.g., wording of the controversy section in lead, describing ABA in the first sentence). Describing the effectiveness in the lead was something that CatPath suggested, and Oolong did bring up the lack of high-quality evidence as well. I support Oolong's proposals. I'm not yet sure where we're headed in terms of consensus for the list of applications in the lead, but I've removed some of the listed applications that were unsourced. HaiFire3344 (talk) 16:57, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

It is my belief that the proposals of the other editor involved much more detailed and elaborate descriptions of controversies bith major and minor, i.e. the “long version.” You have added, in my view, more concise and “list-like” descriptions of major ABA controversies such as weak evidence or use of aversives, which is much more in line with the guidelines as well as something similar to what I proposed in an earlier talk page edit. Others have also brought up issues of wording so to credit it to one user is confusing, but also for issues such as removing the word “considered,” a la the “wording” issue, consensus was reached with others such as User:Alsee and User:Aaron Liu along with me, Oolong, and yourself. To avoid talking in circles, I echo the suggestion in others and ask for the input of users who have not been as involved in talk page discussions up to this point. However I support the continued inclusion of the list of applications, as one of the important aspects of a lead is to provide context surrounding the subject of the article and the “list” does that in my view. Barbarbarty (talk) 12:46, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Just for the record, User:HaiFire3344, I added back the applications to the “list” for the time being. I feel not enough users have interjected on this issue so I feel it is best to leave it for the time being. If other users can give input perhaps ot could be moved or removed again. I believe User:ATC was the one who originally added this info so I would hope he can put in a word as well. I added a citation needed tag to the info because I believe the info can be kept as long as a clearer source can be found with this info. Barbarbarty (talk) 14:04, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

The longest version I ever proposed was not all that much longer than what is now in place - it was, in fact, concise and "list-like" - and my entire purpose on this talk page has been to seek a compromise position.

You have perhaps mistaken my elaboration on the controversy with proposed wording for the page?? I have gone into detail here on the nature of the controversies because that is one side of what needs to be taken into account and distilled in a balanced way for the lead. I have never once suggested the lead should cover all of the controversies in detail!

Once again, the list of applications (in common with the list of controversies) should not include things that are not covered in the body of the entry. Wikipedia guidelines are really quite clear on this.

If these applications are important enough to be identified in the lead, they must be important enough to elaborate on in the body. If they're important enough to detail in the body, it should be easy to find secondary sources exploring their use, as well.

You can keep 'ABA has also been utilized in a range of other areas' - that's valid context. A long list of specific alleged biomedical applications, though, relying solely on an 'Opinions & Perspectives' article, which itself doesn't seem to cite any sources for most of these claims? I'm sorry to get combative again, but there is absolutely no way that belongs in the lead. Oolong (talk) 07:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, I guess none of us had ever actually gone and accessed the full text of the Dillenburger editorial, because if we had we'd have realised that it provides NO support for the claims it's being used as a source for.

I'd been assuming it at least asserted that ABA was used for all of these things, but it does not appear to.

So what we had was a list of biomedical claims, purportedly justified by a citation that doesn't back them up, to an editorial which wouldn't have been sufficient to support biomedical claims anyway, and which shouldn't have appeared in the lead anyway when none of these applications are described in the body.

I have removed the list completely.

If anyone is keen for a similar list to appear in future, please ensure that it is backed up by MEDRS compliant sources and everything in the list is described in more depth within the article. Oolong (talk) 17:40, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Please stop stating the list had biomedical claims. This is completely false. A list of applications is not a biomedical claim, as it made no note on efficacy or made evaluations. I am restoring the list as not only is the source reliable, but it is key for establishing context. Please provide a version of the source for other editors to read. One cannot claim it “doesn’t cite” these applications unilaterally. Plus, your point about it not belonging in the lead has already been effectively and definitively disproven, in my view.Barbarbarty (talk) 13:55, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

I have just accessed "None of the As in ABA stand for autism: Dispelling the myths" and I can confirm that it does not cite any of the applications mentioned in the lead. As it is not open access, you will have to take our words for it. I agree with the removal of this list of applications from the lead because it is almost entirely unsourced. HaiFire3344 (talk) 19:17, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

If this is the case then I have removed it. However I feel a list of ABA applications would serve the article well so I would encourage another user to perhaps find a more substantive source. I can see no reason why this type of source would not exist. I saw that Project Med mentioning textbooks as being a good source, and these have been underutilized in the article, so perhaps someone with access to those can find such information. However, I dispute the notion that such a list would equal biomedical claims, however this can be litigated if such information is added back to the article with another source. I would not be able to do this as I do not have access to such databases, but perhaps a user with familiarity with Med articles can provide assistance here. I have asked on the Project Med page for guidance on this matter. However, I must state that further major edits should be run either there or a DRN post, so we can get other users eyes on this. It is not clear that there will be any major consensus or compromise of it is just the few of us. I am not familiar with making such a post so I am hoping another user can initiate this. I would also like it if it is possible if an open-access version of this Dillenburger article can be made available not just to me but for other users as well, just for the sake of due diligence. But again, I must ask that a proper DRN can be set up in the hoped that matters pertaining to this article can be resolved. I have little appetite for running in circles further, though I know it is nobody’s fault.Barbarbarty (talk) 14:29, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

Okay, in light of your actions and words today, I have to conclude that the attempt at de-escalation has failed.

I'm astonished that you thought it was appropriate to unilaterally restore the list, for which there is absolutely no source. You are effectively accusing me of lying about the contents of the paper, with no evidence at all. On Wikipedia we are expected to assume good faith, in the absence of compelling reasons not to; I have done my best to afford you this respect: you have persistently misrepresented my positions and actions, but I have been working on the assumption that this was done out of misunderstandings and strong, unexamined convictions, not out of malice or dishonesty.

I am gobsmacked by your claim that my point about it not belonging in the lead 'has already been effectively and definitively disproven'. Where do you think this occurred?? I have seen no real attempt at any point to reconcile the existence of this list in the lead when there is no further information on any of it in the body, with Wikipedia's fairly clear guidelines on what to include in leads.

I think many ABAers would be offended by your assertion that applications of ABA are not a biomedical matter!

Your argument that this is 'not a biomedical claim, as it made no note on efficacy or made evaluations' holds no water. If I added a line to the entry on, I don't know, ground ivy, claiming that it is used in the treatment of psychosis or cancer, people would be absolutely correct to demand a MEDRS-level source for this claim. Asserting that A is used in the treatment of B implies a claim about its efficacy. Oolong (talk) 14:01, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

The issue surrounding biomedical claims is exactly why I have queried on Project Med to ask if such a list would merit a biomedical claim! I have not tried to make decisions unilaterally, but the “list,” which was not originally added by me, was a lengthy part of the lead and I was simply averse to removing it without any way to check if the source that was cited along with it supported the information that was written. This text had been there for a month and it was only yesterday that issues were raised regarding whether the source said what was in the lead. Being that I am unable to pass the costly paywall, I wanted to hear from other users first before it was removed, which I did, and thus it was removed. I am not trying to be confrontational nor malicious, so I would appreciate if you could do the same for me. It is perfectly acceptable to show passion for a subject, but I resent these accusations that have been lobbed at me, and politely ask you to desist from making them. This is precisely why I feel a DRN would be the best course of action. I am perfectly willing to admit that I may be wrong about the lead, or biomedical claims and what merits being labeled as such, or reliable sources and what can be labeled as such, if other, more experienced users than myself can help with such revelations, but this talk page has been shown that no such revelations can occur in this environment. Thus, an area with more users’ eyes on here can be useful. Personally, I am mentally exhausted regarding this whole affair, just as a whole. Barbarbarty (talk) 09:55, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

They already removed the list... I also fail to see how their words were offensive unlike yours. Aaron Liu (talk) 14:31, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I have now formally raised a DRN. @Aaron Liu I didn't name you, but you are more than welcome to participate.

== Notice of Dispute resolution noticeboard discussion ==

This message is being sent to let you know of a discussion at the Wikipedia:Dispute resolution noticeboard regarding a content dispute discussion you may have participated in. Content disputes can hold up article development and make editing difficult. You are not required to participate, but you are both invited and encouraged to help this dispute come to a resolution.

Please join us to help form a consensus. Thank you!

Oolong (talk) 15:21, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

I must also ask that you make a DRN to gain input for any future major edits you want to make. It is clear that continuing this already-ended RfC will not be fruitful as long as it is only me and Oolong questioning the direction of this article. However, many of the points others have been made seem to have been forgotten by everyone involved, so starting from the beginning again would be advisable. Again, DRN or running it by Project Med would be the way to go. I also must suggest that it is possible that the article may be have to be blown up entirely. Barbarbarty (talk) 14:02, 20 February 2023 (UTC)

You could also do it yourself. I'm a bit confused about the situation here so I can't write a proper summary, so I won't file the DRN, but anyone able to provide a proper summary can file a DRN. Aaron Liu (talk) 00:44, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

At some point one must also consider blowing up the article entirely and rewriting it majorly, as one user put it: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:MobileDiff/1139329138. It is saying something that bias and agendas have made this article so toxic that not even the Project Med users want to touch it. Barbarbarty (talk) 13:52, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

Re-writing contentious articles requires a lot of effort. You'd want to agree on the sources in advance (because all major re-writes should start with identifying high-quality sources), but when the subject is contentious, you expect other editors to accept or reject sources based on how well the source matches their own POVs, rather than based on how well the sources match up to our ideas of a good source.

The ideal solution might be to find a handful of reference librarians, give them links to WP:RS and WP:MEDRS, and ask them to each recommend the three best sources they can find. Whatever sources they recommend would be the sources that get used; whatever POV those sources have is the POV that the article presents (even though it would be the "wrong" POV according to some editors).

I don't think this has ever been tried, and I imagine that even if it were tried, editors who thought the "wrong" sources were being used to be the "wrong" POV in the article would doubtless reject it. WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:52, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

This was merely a suggestion that was made on Project Med that I found interesting, although I am unfamiliar with this method of article construction. Honestly, anything that is even a step closer towards resolving this debate would be a step forward. Barbarbarty (talk) 10:12, 21 February 2023 (UTC)

We're moving around in circles here, maybe we should move this to something like the DRN? Aaron Liu (talk) 13:05, 7 February 2023 (UTC)

That sounds like a functional idea. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:39, 19 February 2023 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 4 January 2023 and 3 April 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Haysax (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by Haysax (talk) 21:27, 1 March 2023 (UTC)

This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 17 April 2023 and 17 July 2023. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): FalconJo (article contribs).

— Assignment last updated by FalconJo (talk) 20:22, 14 June 2023 (UTC)

This is more or less an Advert for this therapy and not something I have seen on other similar articles. Its absurd that its here at all 97.118.124.225 (talk) 22:23, 13 December 2023 (UTC)

The Individuals with Disabilities Education Improvement Act (IDEA) of 2004 states that when a child whose behavior interferes with the child's learning or the learning of others the IEP (Individual Educational Plan) Team consider the use of positive behavioral interventions and supports. Typically a Functional Behavior Analysis (FBA) is conducted which results in a Behavior Improvement Plan (BIP). There is a lot more to it but this is a basic introduction to the idea that elements of Applied Behavior Analysis are routinely used in public schools and is governed by federal law. Joyandcaring (talk) 16:52, 10 February 2024 (UTC)

I saw that my edit was changed because there was no indication that the authors were practitioners, which is fair enough, that was poorly phrased on my part. However, the authors of the cited blog post do refer to behavior analysis as "our field" in post, so they're also not observers from outside the field. I think it's important to indicate who the criticism was made by, just as the preceding sentence indicated that the comparison was advanced by a "social worker and researcher", because otherwise the phrasing seems to imply that the criticism of that comparison came from parties with no stakes in the conversation - which is untrue. It's from a blog post by behavior analysts. Would "lecturers in the field of behavior analysis" be acceptable? 173.230.161.116 (talk) 01:52, 18 December 2023 (UTC)

Good catch on the ambiguous wording of the original passage, and thank you for going back in and making the eventual "lecturer" change, despite the reverter's non-response. Although there will be always be false neutrality in this article (e.g., portraying the opinions of ABA industry insiders as equally valid as those of ABA survivors and other critics), at least we can point out the bias of industry-written sources so the casual reader doesn't mistake industry propaganda for broader consensus. To be quite frank, sources like the one in question (a blog entry written by ABA lecturers that includes a self-citation) shouldn't be cited on Wikipedia to begin with. Any RBT or BCBA can write up a blog post feigning horror at the thought of an ABA practitioner ever doing anything unethical. It doesn't make their opinion noteworthy. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 21:31, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

I propose deleting the (grammatically incorrect and improperly punctuated) sentence in the History section that reads, "Lovaas' work went on to be recognized by the US Surgeon General in 1999, and his research were replicated in university and private settings."

Frequently, ABA practitioners will claim that the U.S. Surgeon General has "endorsed" or "recommends" ABA. Even this more neutral "recognized" wording distorts the facts.

Specifically, former U.S. Surgeon General David Satcher included a single paragraph in a 1999 report hundreds of pages long regarding the topic of "mental health," which praised Lovaas and his research. The paragraph in Satcher's report was written in a clearly promotional style and contained no substantive discussion or analysis.

The U.S. Surgeon General has never publicly mentioned ABA while in office before or since, and their office does not currently maintain any official guidance regarding its efficacy, ethics or implementation.

The fact that those practicing, teaching or studying ABA frequently bring up this talking point (including in the cited journal articles) does not make it any less misleading or promotional (or any more noteworthy). DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 02:21, 22 February 2024 (UTC)

That clearly sourced the Surgeon General's report endorsing ABA in 1999. You seem to want to leave out any source that goes against your viewpoint, and instead rely on biased newsources like Fortune to describe a science instead of many credible scientific journals describing both sides to the controversy. You seem to want to keep the ones the align with your opinion and leave out the ones that don't. Either way, 1999 was a very long time ago by now. ATC ^{. Talk} 04:00, 15 March 2024 (UTC)

You're right. The year 1999 was a very long time ago, yet, as I mentioned, ABA practitioners still, to this day, inflate the relevance of that single paragraph. I am not disputing that the paragraph in question exists. I am questioning whether it is of sufficient historical or scientific relevance to mention. Also, I think you're walking on thin ice accusing me of trying to wipe the article of pro-ABA sources when you still haven't given a thorough explanation of why you believe Fortune (or the specific Fortune article you keep deleting from the list of citations) does not meet Wikipedia's standards. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 09:19, 20 March 2024 (UTC)

The surgeon general's 1999 report was not the only source that endorsed it. Pediatrics—the official journal of the American Academy of Pediatrics—in 2007 wrote, "The effectiveness of ABA-based intervention for autism has been well-documented through 5 decades of research using single subject methodology and in controlled studies of comprehensive early intensive behavioral intervention programs in university and community settings. Children who receive early intensive behavioral treatment have been shown to make substantial, sustained gains in IQ, language, academic performance, and adaptive behavior as well as some measures of social behavior, and their outcomes have been significantly better than those of children in control groups." https://publications.aap.org/pediatrics/article/120/5/1162/71080/Management-of-Children-With-Autism-Spectrum?autologincheck=redirected