Talk:Biomedical intervention for autism

message: I suppose it would be possible to make this article the main article on Biomedical intervention, but given the participants it would probably be better to nominate it for deletion instead. I suppose I await the response here before I nominate it for deletion. --Rdos 12:20, 11 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Rdos, you have to learn to tolerate articles that contain content you disagree with, or are even offensive to you. I personally think the term "autism" is overused and covers a large array of conditions with differing etiologies. But you have to understand that by claiming that "autism" is not a disorder, you are offending thousands and thousands of parents who try - and often succeed - in treating their kids and bringing them back into the mainstream. --Leifern 15:23, 18 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I do tolerate it if differing opinions are presented. This was not the case when I first visited this article. Also note that I created Causes of autism and Autism therapies and I did allow causes and therapies that I don't accept or believe in. The major concern of this article is that it is basically a POV fork. --Rdos 17:56, 19 April 2006 (UTC)

text: First of all, I am presenting the case for biomedical intervention as it is presented, not as the truth. Presenting it as "speculation" is false - there are plenty of verifiable cases of this actually happening. Your contention that the article is a POV fork seems to stem that biomedical intervention exists at all. --Leifern 12:24, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem is that it is not presented 'as it is presented'. It is simply a series of unreferenced statements. Malangthon 03:13, 16 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another terrible POV article on autism 

message: Line 1: "and some say curing".  Some say that the phrase "some say" should not appear in articles, and I am one of them.  Appearing in line one is a little unfortunate.  It may be my day to day activity doing what I suppose can be described as biomedical interventions (except when they are psychological, social or whatever) that makes me uncomfort able with any article that declares it is about them.  "Treatment of autism" I could settle for.  Midgley 21:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Grammatically it should be "in" rather than "for", no?  Midgley 21:27, 30 May 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: What are you talking about? --Leifern 18:36, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some say ... 

message: This article overlaps with a huge chunk of Autism therapies.  I'm not sure why the merge tag was removed, because it seems pretty clear that the section of that article needs to be merged with the entirety of this article.  Whether the result ends up on that page or this one, probably depends on the resulting length. -- Beland 17:16, 21 July 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a subset of such therapies. There is nothing wrong with such overlaps, and they are quite commonplace in Wikipedia. Unless you can provide some other explanation than this, the merge tag should be removed. --Leifern 18:33, 21 July 2006 (UTC)

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

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