Talk:Autism Research Institute

This edit request by an editor with a conflict of interest has now been answered.

I had a COI with ARI about six months ago and wrote most of the current article-text. I noticed that a new consensus has emerged to make the page about ARI, rather than DAN! exclusively. As I mentioned here last month, I originally wrote an article about ARI last year, that I trimmed back to focus on DAN! based on prior consensus for a DAN! page. Now that consensus has shifted back to an ARI article, I think this original draft, while still heavily focused on DAN!, might be more reasonable as a general ARI page. It doesn't make sense to have an ARI page, that's really exclusively focused on DAN!, though it may make sense to have one heavily focused on it if it is the main thing they are notable for. CorporateM (Talk) 18:53, 25 February 2015 (UTC)

•  Done. Really doesn't seem to be controversial. — Crisco 1492 (talk) 15:27, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

I have some concerns about this article after reading this. I put a tag for now. Karlpoppery (talk) 03:48, 23 April 2017 (UTC)

This article is the subject of a discussion on the Fringe theories/Noticeboard. KarlPoppery (talk) 20:47, 22 May 2017 (UTC)

I would like to see the article restored to its April 2017 form, which I think was much more informative. This article is not just about DAN. The editor who trimmed it seems to be mostly inactive lately, so I want to see if anyone else has thoughts to share. Thanks, —Soap— 19:51, 4 July 2020 (UTC)