Talk:Center for Autism and Related Disorders

Article issues (tagged May 2011)

This article seems to be little more than minimally-sourced (the portions regarding the Center itself are sourced only to their own website) fluff. Additionally, the "recovery" terminology may be considered offensive. I have removed the claim that ABA is "scientifically-proven", as it is not cited, and I do not see that terminology either on Wikipedia's own article on the subject or even the Center's website. However, it seems to me that even with this removal the article is far from being fixed. MaxHarmony (talk) 17:52, 7 June 2011 (UTC)

I agree with MaxHarmony. There is no information on the page that is not also on the page for the documentary except that it was sold to BlackRock and their results were doubted by Bolte. The pages should be combined at the very least, and possibly neither should exist on account of notability. Gershonmk (talk) 00:21, 5 February 2021 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Center for Autism and Related Disorders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20060927085710/http://www.abainternational.org/aba/newsletter/vol281/card.asp to http://www.abainternational.org/aba/newsletter/vol281/card.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070330121810/http://www.learningtolearnsydney.com:80/CARD.htm to http://www.learningtolearnsydney.com/CARD.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:40, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Center for Autism and Related Disorders. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090326040117/http://www.reelheart.com/2009/ to http://www.reelheart.com/2009/
• Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.learningtolearnsydney.com/CARD.htm

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 22:16, 1 August 2017 (UTC)

Article content (March 2022)

Most of this article's original content has been removed by editors who claim copyright infringement. The article is now a small shell compared to earlier versions. Whether CARD therapy is valid or not, CARD, in business for 20+ years, played an important role in the history of Autism treatment. Further CARD continues to play a substantial role in Autism treatment. Therefore I believe removing most content from this article is unfortunate.

My edits were claimed to be vandalism, but I attest that my intentions were honorable and intended to serve readers who want to know what CARD is and what role it played in this history of Autism treatment. Further, the source references I added, including the Los Angeles Times, were removed. I believe the Los Angeles Times source material was relevant to CARDs role and historical significance. Since I have no desire to be banned from Wikipedia, I'll refrain from getting involved in a contentious debate. I plan no further edits to the CARD article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarsTrombone (talk • contribs) 17:22, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I don't know what triggered the other editor's use of the word "vandalism" for your contribution. I haven't investigated it so as far as I know it wasn't justified. However, as I just explained in my response to you on my talk page, you can't simply copy in material that's found elsewhere. Providing a citation doesn't change that, it's just that not providing a citation makes it even worse. While one may violate copyright restrictions without realizing that they're doing so, it's important that they be informed as to the seriousness of the problem. Largoplazo (talk) 20:12, 21 March 2022 (UTC)

I mentioned the same on @Largoplazo's talk page. I reviewed the 'TheStarAcademy.co.za' text in detail. TheStarAcademy is actually infringing on Wikipedia's copyright. The site linked is 100% verbatim, copy of the CARD Wikipedia's article text I directly wrote on Wikipedia sometime in 2021. You can tell it is a Wikipedia copy by noting that the html hyperlinks actually reference back into Wikipedia!! This is all original text which I authored. MarsTrombone (talk) 01:03, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

Content has been restored to a known good state, which was 2021. Editors - if any disagree please discuss here first. MarsTrombone (talk) 01:17, 1 April 2022 (UTC)

p.s. After some detective work it was discovered that an external web site copied the Wikipedia article verbatim. An editor then wrongly accused this article of copyright infringement when in fact it was the web site which had copied Wikipedia. MarsTrombone (talk) 17:15, 19 April 2022 (UTC)

For the record, since one editor has accused me of both vandalism and conflict-of-interest. This accusation is distasteful. I edit a lot of articles. I only took an interest in CARD because I have relatives with Autism. However I'm not employed by CARD nor do I have any financial or any other association business or otherwise with CARD or any related entities. I believe CARD serves a useful purpose in treating Autism, but further CARD has historical relevance since CARD is one of the very first Autism treatment providers. Further CARD provides evidence-based care and is endorsed by numerous government and private organizations.MarsTrombone (talk) 01:21, 15 May 2022 (UTC)

Almost everybody who repeated inserts unsourced promotional content on wiki has a COI. If you have family CARD clients, you need to be careful to stay objective. "I believe . . ." Your beliefs are not worthy of Wikipedia, only reliable sources are. Reliable sources say there is no cure for autism and CARD has never produced any evidence. It is not endorsed by any government organizations, or at least you never put any real citations indicating that on the page. GordonGlottal (talk) 02:55, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@GordonGlottal The article has nine unique reference sources. It also has unique external source links. The article never states that ABA is a cure for Autism. In fact the word "cure" is never even used in this article. ABA is simply one therapy used to treat autistic behaviors in very young children. The Wikipedia page on ABA therapy is quite extensive - Applied_behavior_analysis Please read it. MarsTrombone (talk) 07:47, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

For the record nobody in my family is a client of CARD. I have stated that I have no financial or any association with CARD. MarsTrombone (talk) 07:51, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Sources which describe or endorse ABA but do not mention CARD cannot be used to advertise CARD's practices in this article. Please see WP:SYNTHESIS. I will 100% report you if you revert again, and you will definitely be blocked, because I have warned you several times and you keep inserting the same material despite knowing other editors have objected. This is the SIXTH time. I hate to do it but you are in absolutely flagrant violation of the rules. GordonGlottal (talk) 08:05, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@GordonGlottal You state that ABA is not endorsed by "any government agencies". The United States Center for Disease Control (CDC) directly endorses ABA therapy on their web site - https://www.cdc.gov/ncbddd/autism/treatment.html. Quote from the CDC site "A notable behavioral treatment for people with ASD is called Applied Behavior Analysis (ABA). ABA encourages desired behaviors and discourages undesired behaviors to improve a variety of skills. Progress is tracked and measured." MarsTrombone (talk) 08:06, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I will repeat exactly what I said before, and please read it this time. Sources which describe or endorse ABA but do not mention CARD cannot be used to advertise CARD's practices in this article. Please see WP:SYNTHESIS. GordonGlottal (talk) 08:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Reference (2) directly documents the history of CARD and CARDs use of ABA. MarsTrombone (talk) 08:18, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@GordonGlottal Instead of arbitrarily deleting 95% of the articles content you should put in the editorial effort to read the source material and write content which is worthy of an encyclopedia. Simply deleting somebody else's content just because you disagree is not good. It appears you have your own agenda and POV you are using to justify deleting almost the entire article. MarsTrombone (talk) 08:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I have reported you. Every single reference must be about the topic of the article and not a synthesis. Every single reference which is not will be removed. You cannot use the general reputation of ABA to put promotional language in this article. GordonGlottal (talk) 08:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@GordonGlottal I'd be happy to go through this article sentence by sentence. Every sentence and every paragraph is factual and justified by the referenced source material. I stand 100% behind any edits I personally did. But I stand by the entire article too. Nothing justifies simply deleting all content based solely on your opinion. And what is truly odd is that you delete references too. Could this article be better? Of course it can be better. It would be great if additional editors would contribute and make the article better. MarsTrombone (talk) 08:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Obviously that's exactly what I did. Every sentence I removed was removed because it was improperly sourced. Granpeesheh is not a reliable source, and we cannot pretend any positive description of ABA must be true of CARD. GordonGlottal (talk) 08:57, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@GordonGlottal I think reporting this to the Edit Warring page is an attempt at bullying and intimidation. I'm more than willing to go through and review every sentence. We can do that here in the Talk section. Why didn't I engage with you previously? Because I have a day job and other commitments and I don't spend all my time on Wikipedia.

In terms of the accusation, you are the editor who has repeatedly reverted my changes without justification. These deletions included deleting references I added, rather than actually reading the reference.

You make accusatory statements such as "This is the page for an autism treatment provider that claims to cure autism in children.". Nowhere in this article does it state a "claims to cure autism". I have never read any material in a news article or otherwise that makes that claim.

You claim "This editor has inserted promotional language with irrelevant or misleading citations six separate times" None of the material I've edited includes "promotional" material. The source material is newspapers such as the LA Times. I have enough integrity not to reference promotional sites; I reference legitimate news articles. MarsTrombone (talk) 09:00, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I warned you four times. You can't just keep reverting, it doesn't work that way. I have explained every single revert. I left messages on your talk page. I left edit summaries. I have engaged here. The LATimes article, for example, is entirely about their claims of a cure. I quote from your version: "Recovery from autism exists". The claim that it is the largest in the world is sourced to nobody except Granpeesheh, like the claim that she worked on the Lovaas paper and extensive descriptions of CARD's technique. Promotion language includes "a pioneer in autism studies" "seminal study" "one of the only autism treatment providers in the nation to offer intensive ABA interventions" etc. none of which is sourced to anyone outside the organization itself. GordonGlottal (talk) 09:13, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@GordonGlottal I don't believe you sufficiently explained your reverts. If you are going to revert my edits, then please explain the rationale in the Talk section.

You are cherry-picking from the article's sentences. It does not state "Recovery from autism exists". The full statement:

CARDs philosophy and behavioral approach summarized:

Recovery from autism exists but there is currently no guarantee.

and

she states there is currently no way to predict the outcome of treatment for any individual.

In any case, nothing in these sentences mentions "cure" and it is cleanly stated that this is CARD's own philosophy. It is perfectly relevant to summarize CARD's philosophy in the article, especially since the philosophy or approach is documented in news articles about CARD. Simply deleting all this content, simply because you disagree with ABA or CARDs philosophy or whatever your disagreement is not a valid reason to delete content from an article. Otherwise you are introducing your own POV.

The claim that CARD is the "largest in the world" is supported by news reference sources.

Other sentences you state are promotional are in fact supported by the referenced news sources. Again, we can go through this sentence by sentence. If any wording is not supported by the reference source material, then I'm fully in favor of changing the wording. MarsTrombone (talk) 09:31, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

You need to self-revert. You are in flagrant violation of the guidelines. If you want to discuss proposed additions when you have I'm very willing. Reliable sources say that recovery from autism does not exist. Treatment which leads to recovery = cure. My personal opinions are totally irrelevant. ABA has some support in reliable sources. CARD has none whatsoever. GordonGlottal (talk) 09:39, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@GordonGlottal The BHB source reference directly contradicts your statement:

Quote from the BHB article: "After about two and a half years, researchers found that nearly 50% of the children in the intensive treatment test group “recovered” from their autism symptoms, seeing drastic IQ test score increases and gaining the ability to integrate into the normal educational system."

You state there are "reliable sources" which state otherwise. Then please reference those sources here. MarsTrombone (talk) 10:03, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

BHB is not a reliable source. It has none of the characteristics of one as defined in WP:RS and especially WP:RS/MC. This article is part of a series which BHB describes as "[getting] insights from behavioral health leaders on the issues they’re facing." They don't do any research besides interviewing the executives at the companies they're promoting and so don't provide any external proof of authenticity. GordonGlottal (talk) 10:33, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

The BHB reference article is well-written, researched and does include a lengthy interview with Granpeesheh. The reporter Bailey Bryant has a Masters degree in Journalism from Columbia and is therefore a legitimate journalist. MarsTrombone (talk) 14:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

That's not how any of this works. Sources are reliable if they undergo professional editorial review, including investigation, fact-checking, etc., and are vouched for by an institution with independent credibility (like a medical journal). For medical content it's especially important that all sources are highly reliable. BHB C-Suite does promotional interviews with company executives. It does not do reporting, investigation, or analysis. Content is not peer-reviewed. Please read WP:RS and WP:MEDRS. GordonGlottal (talk) 15:58, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

This article's content is a set of facts. Each fact is verifiable. I'm fully prepared to go through each statement in the Article Review section below. Each statement has multiple reference sources validating that it is factual.

Wikipedia guidance states "When you find a passage in an article that is biased, inaccurate, or unsourced the best practice is to improve it if you can rather than deleting salvageable text." Simply deleting text you don't understand or disagree with is not a standard practice on Wikipedia. The best practice is to improve it.

Wikipedia guidance states "If an edit is too complex to explain in an edit summary, or the change is contentious, add a section to the talk page that explains your rationale. Be prepared to justify your changes to other editors on the talk page. If you are reverted, continue to explain yourself; do not start an edit war." @GordonGlottal In many cases I rewrote or updated changes based on newer and added references. You seem to confuse and conflate my edits and updates with reverts. You claim there exists negative news or information about CARD yet you have not posted any legitimate news references. Further I'm not the only editor here. Over the past ten years, there have been at least Whatever your rationale you need to explain it in the Talk section.

Wikipedia guidance states: "once sustained discussion begins, productively participating in it is a priority. Uninvolved editors who are invited to join a dispute will likely be confused and alarmed if there are large numbers of reverts or edits made while discussion is ongoing." Inviting your friends to revert changes to this article is not a good practice. There must be discussion and consensus before text is deleted. Deleting 95% of the article's content over an extended period, as you did, is not acceptable.

I suggest we follow Wikipedia best practice and discuss the article, validate facts and reach consensus before further wholesale deletes of content are undertaken. MarsTrombone (talk) 17:19, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

If you look at my contributions it'll be clear that I haven't involved anyone else. I (as I repeatedly warned you I would) reported you for edit-warring, which (as I repeatedly warned you it would) resulted in you being blocked. To avoid edit-warring myself, I left your version up until someone responded to the ANI, which of course included reverting you. Accept that this is the natural result of your own actions, of objective administrative oversight, and not a conspiracy. It's best to leave all that in the past now anyway. The block is an opportunity to cool down and reset.

I really hated to report you. I didn't want to. I rarely have before. I'm not going to take advantage of your block by making further changes without posting here for consensus. For example -- I'll leave one suggestion in a new section right now.

There is a recommended format for requesting edits to a page. Please see WP:EDITREQ and be specific. It's easiest if you request one at a time and each is in its own section. I promise I'll take any requests seriously, as will other editors here, and you can post to the relevant project pages or WP:RFC if you feel there aren't enough editors involved. GordonGlottal (talk) 17:40, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

About one edit summary

User:GordonGlottal, in your edit summary for this edit, you wrote to User:MarsTrombone "I spent months leaving warnings on your talk page, to no response". For the record, you left two warnings on MarsTrombone's talk page within 24 hours, and that's it, unless you mean to say that MarsTrombone had previously been editing under another account. Can you clarify? Largoplazo (talk) 22:00, 16 May 2022 (UTC)

I guess it was only ten days apart from the first edit, but I did keep checking to see if he'd responded. I also included detailed edit summaries, which he completely ignored. He said on talk that he would stop, but he didn't, and put exactly the same language back in a couple of weeks later. I apologize for getting the timescale wrong but there are serious issues here.

Edit warring and technical violations are one thing, but this editor is being intentionally dishonest and after assuming good faith for too long it's time to stop. Some citations he added to the page were misleading or irrelevant to the claims they were applied to, and conveniently behind paywall for most editors. I told him this and he put exactly the same content back several times. Content about ABA in general was abused to advertise this particular company and its claims and techniques, which have never undergone scientific review. He removed the one actual peer-reviewed study on CARD's results because it disproved CARD's claims. The rest of the page was based on Granpeesheh's own promotional claims, which is not appropriate for wikipedia. The reality is that claims of a "cure" for autism have never been substantiated. This encyclopedia should not be a platform for opportunists to sell false hope. GordonGlottal (talk) 02:46, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@GordonGlottal I did put my comments in the article Talk page, which I guess you didn't read. In any case, lets move forward and discuss any article issue you have. My only motivation here is to make this a better article and I'm sure with your collaboration we can do that. MarsTrombone (talk) MarsTrombone (talk) 05:42, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@GordonGlottal Most of your comments are incorrect. These were good faith edits on my part. I've actually gone through the article several time and found fairly recent source references which validate the content. Back in 2011, I would agree it was difficult to find source reference material aside from the LA Times. More recently journalists have reported on this company, including some good recent articles. In several cases the content has also been updated. The companies claims have undergone scientific review and in general ABA therapy is approved by insurance companies and government agencies alike for many companies aside from CARD. CARD just happens to be the one of the first companies to provide ABA services and therefore it has unique historical significance.

Nothing in the article claims ABA is a "cure" for Autism. ABA therapy is actually used and funded by insurance for treatment of thousands of children with Autism. You may not know this, but if ABA is used early in a child's development it can help mitigate behavioral problems which cannot be treated in any other way. This therapy must be done early, between the ages of three to twelve. Beyond a certain age, ABA therapy is in-effective and certainly it is not effective for adults. It is therefore crucial for parents to get valid information on this topic. Autistic children often have severe behavior problems such as banging their heads against walls. So for many parents ABA therapy can literally be a life saver. MarsTrombone (talk) 06:09, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Gonna repeat what I said above, ABA is not CARD. Sources about ABA belong on the ABA page only. CARD may utilize ABA but conflating the two is improper synthesis. CARD, which claims to cure autism, is not endorsed by any government organization, even if they claim to follow research which is. GordonGlottal (talk) 08:12, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Article Review

I suggest we review each and every sentence. Starting with the first three sentences:

The Center for Autism and Related Disorders, Inc. (CARD) is among the largest autism treatment organizations in the world. Founded in 1990 by Doreen Granpeesheh, CARD provides a range of services for children and adults on the autism spectrum. These services include home-based, early intensive behavioral interventions based on the principles of applied behavior analysis (ABA), as well as diagnostic and psychological assessments.

The LA Times article validates that CARD was founded in 1990 by Granpeesheh. However the LA Times articles was written in 2011, so it is dated for current research. But it confirms that Granpeesheh did found CARD and that CARD provides autism services to children. The Behavioral Health Business (BHB) article is much more in-depth. The sentence states "is among the largest". But the BHB article actually claims CARD is the largest "currently the largest autism treatment provider in the world, with 235 locations across 27 states. But the 30-year-old company wasn’t always the behemoth that it is today." The third sentence is accurate based on the source material.

Are there any objections to the opening paragraph? MarsTrombone (talk) 09:56, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

You need to self-revert. There's no hostage-taking on here. You can't add the same content six times after being reverted, ignore other editors until you're brought to ANI, and then demand the page stay the same until you decide otherwise. The rules are not optional and they do apply to you. I won't participate in a circus. We are all the same on here. GordonGlottal (talk) 10:43, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

@GordonGlottal You extensively deleted both content and references that have been on this article for ten years. You didn't provide a rationale in the Talk section or make any attempt to improve the content. Your approach is not a best practice. Discussion is a best practice. MarsTrombone (talk) 17:25, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I've noted that you persuaded your friends to delete all the article's content and leave this single statement which you wrote:

"Methodological shortcomings, including unclear validity of the initial ABA diagnosis, limit any conclusion that can be made from CARD's published work.[3]" with the reference:

Your reference is dated 2014. It is outdated research summary and it doesn't reference CARD at all. In any case, this article you reference states:

"Today, ASD is generally not curable, although it is treatable to a varying degree to prevent worse outcomes."

The original article text (before your edits) never stated that Autism is "curable", however it did suggest that Autism is "treatable" in order to "prevent worse outcomes". So the original article's content (before your radical edit) was consistent with the reference you added.

The way the article is now phrased, to an uninformed reader, it appears that CARD is using discredited therapy and should be avoided by consumers. At the minimum you've modified an article to fit your own person POV. At the worst the article text now appears to be defamation against the company, without any news references to back the accusations. MarsTrombone (talk) 17:41, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

One last time: Wikipedia administrators intervened, not "my friends", and they did so because you broke the rules. I didn't directly ask any editor, I just followed guidelines for dealing with an editor who was acting that way by reporting to ANI. I warned you again and again -- what did you think I was talking about? You can make edit requests below, but editors are only likely to implement them if they're very specific and individually limited in scope. I quote: Edit requests are requests for edits to be made to a page where editors cannot or should not make the proposed edits themselves. Is your request specific? Any edit request must be accompanied by a detailed and specific description of what changes need to be made. Clearly indicate which sections or phrases should be replaced or added to, and what they should be replaced with or have added. Examples: Change X to Y; Insert X after/before Y; Remove X. See some sample edit requests that demonstrate how to be specific and detailed in your edit requests.

__ GordonGlottal (talk) 17:59, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

References

CARD CEO

The article says Granpeesheh is CEO, which is the latest information available from reliable sources. However, press releases by CARD and other primary statements show Anthony Kilgore served in this role from 2019-2022, until he was replaced by Jennifer Webster this past February:

• https://www.yahoo.com/now/center-autism-related-disorders-commends-200000419.html
• https://bhbusiness.com/2020/10/22/bolstered-by-recent-tech-investments-card-gears-up-for-growth-in-2021/
• https://bhbusiness.com/2022/02/02/autism-care-provider-card-names-new-ceo-president/#:~:text=The%20Center%20for%20Autism%20and,and%20resigned%20for%20undisclosed%20reasons.

I suggest including this information in this article. IMO the company can be trusted to accurately name its own leadership even if this information has not been included in a source which is considered generally reliable.

Suggested language: ". . . Granpeesheh remained the CEO until December 2019, when she was replaced by Anthony Kilgore and moved into the role of executive director. In February 2022, Kilgore resigned for undisclosed reasons and was replaced by Jennifer Webster." GordonGlottal (talk) 17:50, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Well, you have managed to block my edits for 30 days. Kudos to you. So the ball is in your court. You'll have to make any edits concerning the current CEO. My assessment is that in it's current state the article is very poorly written. MarsTrombone (talk) 18:29, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

Do you agree with this proposed edit? If you want to contribute, you still can, here on talk. If you want to leave this page, also OK and I won't bother you anymore. I advise you against just waiting 30 days and then making the same edits again, which will lead directly to a much longer block. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:02, 17 May 2022 (UTC)

I think this type of minutae discussion avoids the core disagreement between us. Should the article be updated to that the founder Granpeesheh is founder, but no longer CEO? Of course, the article must be factually correct. But seriously, nobody cares who the CEO of CARD is. This is an irrelevant insignificant detail and adds nothing notable or of encyclopedic value. It completely misses what is important.

What I disagree with is an article which makes one statement about "clinical outcomes" which is quite misleading. No context, background or explanation. It no longer includes any of the historical narrative for why CARD is a notable company, i.e. Granpeesheh worked under Lovaas and it no longer includes any mention of CARD's early role in the history of ABA treatment. All these facts are historically relevant, regardless of whether you agree with ABA treatment or not. MarsTrombone (talk) 01:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

OK, I will implement it. Opinions of ABA, and all facts about ABA, are irrelevant to this page because this page is about CARD, not ABA. ABA can be sunshine and rainbows and CARD could still be a poor practitioner of it or one which wildly exaggerates its potential. The simple fact is that CARD published one study, which a third-party secondary source in a medical journal (the ideal type of source according to WP:MEDRS) concluded could not be trusted. When they publish real data showing their treatments have the effects they claim, and other experts review their evidence and conclude it is satisfactory, we can put their claims on this page. If a reliable source and not just a CARD employee says something about CARD in the history of ABA, we can put that thing on this page. If a reliable source says Granpeesheh deserves credit for Lovaas's published work, we can put that on this page. Not until. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:16, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@GordonGlottal - Your writing is misinformed. The section your wrote "Clinical Outcomes" seem to completely misunderstand ABA itself, who endorses it and how it is used.

At this point ABA is a standard form of therapy, endorsed by the U.S. CDC and endorsed by the United States Surgeon General, David Satcher, MD, PhD, who recommended intensive behavioral intervention for individuals with autism, stating, “Thirty years of research demonstrated the efficacy of applied behavioral methods in reducing inappropriate behavior and in increasing communication, learning, and appropriate social behavior.”

Other endorsements: American Academy of Pediatrics, American Academy of Occupational Therapy Association, American Psychological Association, American Speech-Language Hearing Association, Society for Developmental and Behavioral Pediatrics, Autism Society of America and the National Institute of Child Health & Human Development.

Here is a list of U.S. schools offering ABA training

Pepperdine University

Arizona State University

Saint Joseph’s University

University of Dayton

Capella University

Simmons University

CARD does not use their own form of therapy, CARD uses standard ABA therapy. CARD states this directly on their web site:

https://www.centerforautism.com/about/approach/

You have worded the following under Clinical Outcomes:

"Methodological shortcomings, including unclear validity of the initial ABA diagnosis, limit any conclusion that can be made from CARD's published work."

I read the reference you posted. Nowhere in that reference does it say this. This sentence is not supported by the source reference. Further it appears to be your personal opinion, which is a Wikipedia POV rule violation.

This section "Clinical Outcomes" must be completely removed.

MarsTrombone (talk) MarsTrombone (talk) 20:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I don't know how many times I can say this. IT DOES NOT MATTER WHO ENDORSED ABA. It does not matter. It does not matter. It may matter on the ABA page, but it does not matter here. None of those organizations have endorsed CARD, which is the subject of this article. Quotes from 1999 about the efficacy of ABA will never belong on this page. I quote: However, methodological shortcomings in the ABA study designs and risk of bias, such as the unclear validity of the initial ASD diagnosis and the IQ assessment in the young low-functioning children, statistical regression, lack of comparability of experimental and control groups, and lack of active control groups make it difficult to judge the significance of these findings in terms of recovery from ASD after treatment.

I'm going to remind you again that if you want to propose edits they have to be specific and suggest replacement language. GordonGlottal (talk) 20:54, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Yes. I am specifically proposing that you remove these lines:

== Clinical outcomes ==

Methodological shortcomings, including unclear validity of the initial ABA diagnosis, limit any conclusion that can be made from CARD's published work. MarsTrombone (talk) 21:24, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@GordonGlottal Also, this reference (with it's associated sentence "Methodological shortcomings, including unclear validity of the initial ABA diagnosis, limit any conclusion that can be made from CARD's published work") does not mention CARD at all. The reference only discusses ABA research, not CARD at all. Based on your comments above, neither the sentence or the reference belong in this article. Please remove them. MarsTrombone (talk) 21:31, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I've removed that section now on the rather obvious WP:SYNTH problems it causes. Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:52, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

No. It's not an article about "ABA research" in general. It specifically reviews the paper Retrospective analysis of clinical records in 38 cases of recovery from autism which was published by CARD staff about the results of their treatments. The specific conclusion the article critiques is "Over the past 18 years of providing treatment at the Center for Autism and Related Disorders (CARD), we have observed numerous cases of children with clear-cut ASD diagnoses achieving nonimpaired functioning across all aspects of their daily lives after receiving EIBI." GordonGlottal (talk) 21:57, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Are you sure you're talking about the right source here @GordonGlottal:? The one that was in that section, makes only a short reference to the work of Granpeesheh of no more than half a paragraph in length. Is there another article you're thinking of here? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:02, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

It reviews that paper among others, but the quote I'm referencing clearly applies to that specific paper and conclusion, which is to date the only attempt by CARD at substantiating their claims.Granpeesheh et al. reviewed the clinical files of 38 children with autism who had participated in ABA trials for whom such optimal outcomes had been reported. Interestingly, the authors confirmed optimal outcomes in those individuals after intensive ABA services. However, methodological shortcomings in the ABA study designs and risk of bias, such as the unclear validity of the initial ASD diagnosis and the IQ assessment in the young low-functioning children, statistical regression, lack of comparability of experimental and control groups, and lack of active control groups make it difficult to judge the significance of these findings in terms of recovery from ASD after treatment. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:06, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Hmmm. I don't know if that is due for inclusion to be honest. If the criticism of Granpeesheh's work was longer, or in more detail it might be due for inclusion, and for the sake of clarity we would also need to mention that this criticism is based upon a specific paper released by Granpeesheh. The section as I removed it reads as criticism of all of CARD's research, without giving much if any context as to what that research was, and unless they've only released one paper, it would be erroneous to apply the conclusions of Bölte to all works produced by CARD.

If there are other authors who have reviewed the work of Granpeesheh, then restoring that section may be in order, however some reference to the original paper that these criticisms are made upon would also be required. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:20, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I agree that there should also be content summarizing the original claims and study. It's a shame that this whole discussion turned into such a mess. But I don't think it's better to have nothing at all than a section which summarizes both the original claims and the conclusion of a third-party secondary source in a reputable journal. CARD's claims are much easier to access than the academic article. Wikipedia has the power to bring reliable but esoteric sources into the public eye when otherwise a search for "CARD recovery" would lead to nothing but page after page of promotional releases. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:46, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@GordonGlottal Similar to other company and org profile pages. This information about Blackstone and the CEO does not belong in the Intro summary. It should be moved to a == History == section. MarsTrombone (talk) 21:38, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I'm open to this but I'm leery of breaking up what is right now quite a short article unnecessarily. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:09, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

In case this provides any clarification: Friendly's restaurants serves Hershey's ice cream (or they still did the last time I visited one). If the Hershey's article lists accolades from reliable sources, that's fine. If the Friendly's article mentions (based on reliable sources) that the restaurant serves Hershey's ice cream, even that it highlights the Hershey's brand in their restaurants, that's fine. If the Friendly's article starts to talk about the accolades received by Hershey's ice cream, that isn't fine, because then we're no longer talking about Friendly's, we're off-topic (see WP:COATRACK). Unless, that is, one were to argue that it's on-topic because the point is to make Friendly's sound good by association with Hershey's accolades—. But that would also be bad. (The same goes for criticisms as for accolades.) Largoplazo (talk) 21:44, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

References

Notability concerns

I've been reading the talk page, and the article history to try and get up to speed on the state of the article. In doing so, I have a rather major concern. Is this organisation actually notable? Even when reading the longer version which I agree has major issues, there seems to be a distinct lack of significant secondary source coverage on this organisation. So is this organisation actually notable? Sideswipe9th (talk) 21:48, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Notable for exactly one reason IMO: Their repeated and much-publicized claims about having cured hundreds of children with autism. There was nothing salvageable on this subject in former versions so I removed it and it turned into a circus before I could add a good section, but IMO this should be the main focus of the page, because it is their only argument for notability. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:00, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

If that is their sole claim to notability, then I suspect they fail the WP:GNG, at least at present. Leaving aside the issues from MarsTrombone, (in brief) what content are you proposing to add to the article? Will that address the GNG issues, or would it perhaps just be more expedient to nominate the article for deletion? Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:12, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

This company is notable. Granpeesheh took ABA therapy as an entrepreneur and made it scale to serve thousands of patients. This was very innovative. Saying otherwise is sexism, given that Granpeesheh is one of the few female founders in this field. MarsTrombone (talk) 22:19, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

That is not how notability is established on Wikipedia. I would strongly suggest that you read WP:N and WP:NOT, with particular attention paid to WP:PROMO. Sideswipe9th (talk) 22:22, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your edit! It is very much appreciated. MarsTrombone (talk) 23:35, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I've always said that Wikipedia's use of the term "notability" is unfortunate because people understand it in ordinary English in the way you seem to be interpreting it: "worthy of note". Unfortunately, as you'll find if you read the notability guidelines, Wikipedia uses "notable" to mean something closer to "having achieved note" (as demonstrated primarily in reliable sources). Arguing that the organization is worthy of note, as you're doing, is unproductive.

My explaining that to you has nothing to do with sexism. And calling people sexist based on no evidence that the outcome would be different if the person in question were a man is reckless and objectionable. See the admonition to assume good faith. (Some of the most absurd discussions I've had here are with people who've attributed my words and actions to homophobia or antisemitism, which is a real laugh riot considering I'm gay and Jewish.) Largoplazo (talk) 22:33, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I stand corrected. The organization has both a full length book and documentary movie, along with multiple news articles and is mentioned in more than twenty (I didn't count beyond that) academic research papers. It is notable. MarsTrombone (talk) 23:17, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

These claims have been discussed in the LATimes twice:

• https://www.latimes.com/local/autism/la-me-autism-day-three-html-htmlstory.html
• https://www.latimes.com/health/la-xpm-2013-jan-17-la-heb-outgrowing-autism-diagnosis-20130117-story.html

And in that academic paper I linked to. They also put out a documentary on successfully cured kids, which received some local coverage of showings and is I think how I initially came to this page.

I wouldn't strongly object to a deletion I guess, but I generally think pages like this are OK so long as they remain tightly focused on what's in RS. It doesn't hurt anybody and it makes this information easier to access. GordonGlottal (talk) 22:32, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@GordonGlottal You keep stating this "Their repeated and much-publicized claims about having cured hundreds of children with autism.". Why do you perseverate on this "cure" word. It is easy to use Google's advanced search and scan CARD's entire web site. The word cure is never used in CARD's materials or site. They do use the word "recovery" but they carefully explain this has a specialized clinical meaning.

The word "recovery" is even used in the reference which you misquote. The actual quote directly from your own reference is "Today, ASD is generally not curable, although it is treatable to a varying degree to prevent worse outcomes. Some reports indicate the possibility of major improvements or even recovery in ASD." CARD uses the word "recovery" in the same clinical sense as this reference, which is mischaracterized in your sentence. Further, as recent as 2021 academic meta research do support the efficacy of ABA therapy in the "recovery" sense. MarsTrombone (talk) 23:28, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

(It's never been included on the page in any version I edited. I haven't proposed including it. It's easier than "treated-to-the-point-of-recovery".) If you read closely, in your quote he's actually using them as synonyms. The key is the lack of agency. They "recover" instead of being "cured" to avoid specifically crediting the treatment, which obviously CARD does. Quote from later in that paper: "Another claim for cure that has received major attention in the ASD community is recovery after early intensive behavioral intervention using the Lovaas model and applied behavior analysis (ABA)." GordonGlottal (talk) 23:41, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

This is an out-dated research reference. Why even discuss it? Later academic research papers have clearly shown that ABA therapy is clinically beneficial to autism patients. Your negative view on ABA is your own biased opinion. MarsTrombone (talk) 23:51, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

I think I and several other editors have told you this already but: personal attacks and accusations are not going to get you anywhere here. Nor are tangents like "is ABA generally good", which have no relevance to this page. I take it the "cure" matter is closed. GordonGlottal (talk) 23:59, 18 May 2022 (UTC)

@MarsTrombone: Please read again the text at Wikipedia:No personal attacks, with particular attention to the avoiding personal attacks subsection. Claiming that an editor's bias is causing problems on an article, especially without evidence, can be seen as a personal attack. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:35, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Core Facts

The following is a set of basic, core facts about CARD. The facts were gathered by carefully reading the references. They are not presented in any particular order and exact wording is not final and when added to the article, references must be added. These facts are not opinions and are neutral POV. To achieve consensus, if there any disagreement, dispute or objections please discuss in this section below. Please give logical rationale and source references for any objections. If any additional facts can be added please list them.

This section is only about basic facts. There may be aspects of ABA treatment of children which are controversial and/or unknown and/or lack scientific research. These should be discussed separately.

(1) As of 2021, CARD is currently the largest autism treatment provider in the world, with 235 clinics across 27 states.

(2) In 1987 as a psychology graduate student Granpeesheh studied under Psychology Professor Ivar Lovaas.

(3) Ivar Lovaas, a pioneer in autism studies, credited with first applying applied behavioral analysis (ABA) to autism treatment.

(4) The principles of ABA are based on operant conditioning psychology principles discovered by B.F.Skinner who is well known by students of psychology.

(5) Before Lovaas's study and the existence of CARD, Autism was considered an untreatable debilitating, severe, lifelong disorder. Before Lovaas and CARD very little research existed on Autism.

(6) In the 1970s Autism was rare with a prevalence of 1 in 15,000 children. Today Autism affects 1 in 58 children.

(7) Increased demand (6) has led to increase in CARDS business.

(8) The Lovaas study on Autism, with participation from Granpeesheh, initially took place in 1979 with severly self-injurious children at the Autism Unit at Camarillo State Hospital with the Young Autism Project sponsered by UCLA. The project involved experimenting with behavioral procedures to find a way to reduce severaly self-injurious behaviors in the clinic's autistic children. The Young Autism Project clinic was the setting of the 1987 seminal study Behavioral Treatment and Normal Educational and Intellectual Functioning in Young Autistic Children (Lovaas, 1987). The study proved children with autism can learn and also can overcome symptoms of autism.

(9) The 1979 ABA study Lovaas (published 1987) did is titled Behavioral Treatment and Normal Educational and Intellectual Functioning in Young Autistic Children. CARD bases it services on this research study.

(10) The 1987 Lovaas study is linked here https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/3571656/

(11) In the ABA study, Lovaas and his colleagues and graduaate students developed intensive one-on-one behavioral interventions for children with autism. Those in the test group received 40 hours per week of treatment, along with 10 to 15 hours of home-based intervention led by their parents.

(12) In the ABA study control group, one group lived too far from UCLA and received only 10 hours rather than 40. The second control group received different types of treatment from doctors.

(13) After about two and a half years, researchers found that nearly 50% of the children in the intensive treatment test group “recovered” from their autism symptoms, seeing drastic IQ test score increases and gaining the ability to integrate into the normal educational system.

Comparatively, in the other two control groups, only 2% of children were able to complete first grade on their own.

(14) Aside from proving that ABA works to address Autism symptoms, the study showed that the intensity of ABA treatment mattered. CARD adopts this intensity of treatment in its therapy for children.

(15) Lovaas's ABA approach broke down the basic skills of life into thousands of drills, such as pointing, identifying colors and reading facial expressions. For 40 hours a week on average, the therapists use rewards and punishments, ranging from food treats to slaps on the thigh, to instill those abilities in children between four and eight. CARD adopts this ABA approach.

(16) At UCLA Granpeesheh did graduate work on the seminal ABA study with Lovaas. Granpeesheh studied with Lovaas for 12 years. She attended the university until 1990, obtaining her bachelor’s, master’s and doctoral degrees there.

(17) Granpeesheh used the ABA concepts Lovaas pioneered and Granpeesheh had studied at UCLA to found the CARD company in 1990.

(18) Dr. Granpeesheh created a treatment curriculum for individuals diagnosed with autism described in her book as the CARD® Model. The CARD company, under Grahpeeshel, trained thousands of treatment therapists on this ABA model.

(19) in 1990 CARD was the first and only autism treatment provider in the nation to offer intensive ABA interventions. CARD's first clinic was opened in Encino CA.

(20) From 1990 to 1993 the CARD business grew from 5 children to 25 children.

(21) 1993, the mother of two children Granpeesheh had worked with published a book. Titled Let Me Hear Your Voice and authored by Catherine Maurice, it detailed how the author’s children overcame the symptoms of autism with ABA techniques, and it called out Granpeesheh by name. As a result, demand for CARD's services increased.

(22) In the mid 1990s a group of families formed an internet group named the "ME-List" taking the name from Lovaas book "Teaching Devepmentally Disabled Children - The Me Book" 1981. One parent from this group contacted Granpeesheh and asked CARD to open a clinic in San Jose, CA. The man posted those terms online in an autism chat room.

(23) From 1993 to 2003 CARD opened 10 clinics.

(24) CARD's cost for a child's ABA treatment is $50,000 or more per year.

(25) In 2014, CARD had 1500 families in treatment and employed close to 2,000 employees, including therapists, care coordiantors, case managers and directors.

(26) CARD is the third largest non-governmental organization contributing to autism research in the United States.

(27) PhD Researchers employed by CARD have published 20+ academic papers.

(28) CARD treats individuals with ASD using the principles of applied behavior analysis (ABA), which is empirically proven to be the most effective method for treating individuals with ASD and recommended by the American Academy of Pediatrics and the US Surgeon General.

(29) CARD's treatment of children with autism normally consists of intensive, 40 hour per week treatment, along with 15 hours of parental home-based intervention starting at age four and continuing for two or more years.

(30) Applied behavior analysis (ABA) is a well-established treatment for ASD, which involves the application of behavioral principles to reduce challenging behaviors and promote skill acquisition. CARD primarily provides ABA services to families and children.

(31) The Blackstone Group, a private equity firm, acquired CARD in 2018 for $700 million in equity. Blackstone owns 75% of CARD. Some of CARDs equity was gifted to long-time CARD employees who helpfed found CARD. Granpeeshe retains signficant equity, but plans to retire when CARD reaches 500 to 1000 clinics.

(32) Similar Autism ABA deals: In July, 2021 Cerberus Capital Management has agreed to buy Lighthouse Autism Center from Abry Partners for a reported value of more than $400 million. Based near South Bend, Indiana, Lighthouse provides center-based applied behavioral analysis (ABA) therapy to children ages 2 to 18 out of more than 20 centers across Indiana and Michigan.

(33) CARD defines measurable clinical outcomes of its ABA treatment programs.

(34) CARD defines "Recovery from Autism": the individual no longer displays clinically significant impairments related to autism.

(35) CARD measures "Recovery from Autism" as - The individual scores in the average range or higher on valid standardized tests of intelligence, language, socialization, and daily living skills - The individual is earning passing grades in a regular education classroom, with no specialized supports, whatsoever - The individual is evaluated by a medical doctor or psychologist who is an expert in diagnosing autism, and the clinician’s conclusion is that the individual no longer qualifies for any diagnosis on the autism spectrum

(36) Specializations within ABA treatment for children with ASD include Pivotal Response Treatment, the Early Start Denver Model, Incidental Teching, the Picture Exchange Communication System and The Verbal Behavioral Approach. CARD describes the CARD treatment model as comprehensive and as a customized mix of specialized ABA treatments that meets individual needs of children. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarsTrombone (talk • contribs) 20:03, 22 May 2022 (UTC)

The onus is on you to provide specific sources for any claim you want to insert. No one can evaluate your claims until you do. Promising that actually there are sources and you'll provide them later won't work.GordonGlottal (talk) 19:03, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

Items 3, 4, 5, 8, 10, 11, 12, 13, 14, most of 15, and 16 are not about CARD. Item 27 isn't about CARD unless all those papers were written on CARD's behalf, otherwise, it's just reflected glory that amounts to advertising. A number of the items after that are just repetitions of things you already said. "CARD follows ABA. CARD follows ABA. CARD follows ABA." A portion of what remains would amount, if included in the article, as advertising. And all of what might be admissible following my just-mentioned eliminations requires suitable sources. Largoplazo (talk) 21:10, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

The facts above are sourced from multiple references. The references were actually included in previous iterations of the article. I'm not here to do anybody's homework; you can follow and read the source references yourself. In any case, they will be included again.

Item (27) should actually state that PhD researchers while employed by CARD published 20+ papers. It is a bit unusual to have academics publish peer-reviewed articles while employed by a private company. Large companies such as Microsoft and famously Bell Labs do have R&D departments where papers are published by employees, but it is unusual for a small private company to do R&D.

I take it there are no objections to the above items as facts? If there is any disagreement or even skepticism that any item is "advertising" or otherwise non-truthful or an exaggeration, please state so. Otherwise I'll assume the listed facts can be organized into a cohesive article. MarsTrombone (talk) 09:07, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

You have obtained no consensus and piles of objections. Your response to that is "I take it there are no objections ..."? Your assumption is mistaken and your notion of what belongs in the article has been opposed.

It looks like you're conflating "advertising" with "non-truthful". True facts can be used to advertise something. I've already explained how going on at length about the wonders of ABA in this article would be advertising. I didn't mean they aren't true, I meant that it would amount to promotion. Largoplazo (talk) 09:22, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Which facts are contentious? I'm missing that... MarsTrombone (talk) 15:29, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

What you're missing is every explanation that's been put before you that something being factually true is not the sole criterion for deciding whether it belongs in an article. Largoplazo (talk) 16:48, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Maybe we are actually making some forward communication progress now. From what I gather some of the "facts" listed above are perceived by some editors, any maybe yourself, to be "promotional". I'll grant that, for example, items (1) and (25) could be perceived as promotional, even though they are facts. Is this a just a difference of opinion or is there some Wikipedia guidance on facts that are considered promotional? Or can the fact be written in a manner which is non-promotional

Promotion avoidance guidance - WP:IBA amd WP:ADS

Nobody want the tone to be promotional. If there any suggestions to change the tone to be non-promotional that will be helpful. MarsTrombone (talk) 00:05, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

@Largoplazo "I've already explained how going on at length about the wonders of ABA in this article would be advertising. I didn't mean they aren't true, I meant that it would amount to promotion."

No intention on my part to be promotional in any form. I've personally never stated anything about the "wonders" of ABA. Some Autism patients have legitimate disagreements with the effects ABA on them. I'll note though that ABA is currently the only known and insurance and credential approved treatment for adverse Autism behaviors. For an uninformed reader attempting to understand CARD, Autism therapy and what CARD does it is helpful and I believe necessary to have some explanation about what Autism ABA therapy is. This is not intended to be promotional in any sense. Further Autism ABA treatment is not a placebo or an over-hyped therapy. It has evidence-based benefits to Autism patients. So again, explaining the benefits is not promotional for an uninformed reader.

Is there disagreement with this? MarsTrombone (talk) 23:09, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

The article on ABA therapy is the place to explain at length what ABA therapy is. I already explained to you above, in my immediate response to your numbered list, what would be promotional about elaborating on it in this article. Your proposed content carries the implication "Here is lots of evidence that ABA is effective and here are reasons why you should be impressed with it. CARD uses ABA. We're telling you all this to lead you to the conclusion that CARD is effective." See WP:SYNTH. It is an effort to persuade the reader that CARD is good. That's promotional. Wikipedia does not attempt to lead readers to conclusions. Largoplazo (talk) 11:01, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

The history of Lovaas, early-intervention ABA, Granpeesheh and CARD are deeply intertwined. Lovaas supervised and mentored Granpeesheh during her education and while developing intensive, early-intervention ABA for children. The concepts were used to create the CARD therapy business. Discussing all topics together just makes sense from an encyclopedic POV. How is discussing these topics together promotional? MarsTrombone (talk) 01:05, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Read WP:SYNTH and find out. Also none of that is true on wiki until it is true in reliable sources, and you haven't provided a single one establishing that Granpeesheh was important to Lovaas or the development of ABA. GordonGlottal (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Everything Largoplazo has said is correct. I'll also re-up what I said above: I advise you against just waiting 30 days and then making the same edits again, which will lead directly to a much longer block. You have not obtained consensus. Using the expiry of your temporary block to make the same edits for which you were blocked is a surefire way to get non-temporarily blocked.

"I'm not here to do anybody's homework" You have to provide sources. You have to do it for every single claim and you have to do it here on the talk page and you have to wait for approval before adding them to the page proper, because other editors have already told you they object. If you want to use the page editing tools you can create a Sandbox version and post the link. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:56, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Correct, sources will be added for every single claim and/or statement. That is the Wikipedia way and that approach will be strictly followed. There is no disagreement on that point.

"You have to do it for every single claim and you have to do it here on the talk page and you have to wait for approval before adding them to the page proper"

This dictum is not technically correct, per Wikipedia guidelines. There are multiple methods to achieve consensus including the BOLD, revert, discuss cycle (BRD) Wikipedia:BOLD,_revert,_discuss_cycle

Aside from item (27) which I clarified, I have not heard any specific objections to above facts (which are all sourced and referenced in the actual article history). It would be helpful if anybody disagrees with any facts to voice their objections now, before we spend time in the BRD cycle. MarsTrombone (talk) 22:46, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

It would be helpful if you would pay attention to everything that's been said to you about how whether something is factual is not the only consideration, instead of focusing only on that one consideration. This is a clear case of WP:ICANTHEARYOU. Largoplazo (talk) 23:18, 23 June 2022 (UTC)

Likewise, it would helpful if you stated specific examples of the article's content in question. This is not about you or I. We're discussing the content of the article, right? Please be specific or else risk nobody understanding the point you're trying to make. MarsTrombone (talk) 01:00, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

You've already been reverted many, many times. You've already been blocked for edit-warring. Other editors have warned you not to add the content again without consensus. You know that you don't have consensus for any of your proposed edits. If you try a "BOLD" edit which reinserts content to which you know we object, you'll be reverted, reported, and blocked for a very long time. Stop threatening to just edit the page anyway. It's not a threat to anyone but yourself.

You need to respond to our critiques. You need (1) to provide sources for every claim (2) to limit your adds to content which is specifically about CARD (3) to limit your sources to RS and MEDRS.

You need to tell us exactly what you want to include, as you won't gain consensus for theoretical claims and sources. You need to post it here on the talk page and engage in good-faith discussion with other editors, because you know other editors object and you will have to convince them and/or others if you want to make your changes. You need to wait until you have consensus before adding it or you will be reverted, reported, and blocked. GordonGlottal (talk) 04:27, 24 June 2022 (UTC)

I was only reverted once. I was blocked for edit-warring because I didn't know about the 3RR rule and basically you arbitrarily deleted about 8 years of edit efforts and content (not just my edits but probably the combined edits of 15+ editors). Your blanket delete didn't even include a discussion on this Talk page. I've reviewed the guidelines and will follow them going forward. Please, lets move on...

You state I will be "reverted, reported, and blocked". This appears to be a threat based on edits I have not even made yet. MarsTrombone (talk) 01:15, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

As multiple admins have told you, you were not blocked because of 3RR so that excuse is nonsense. You were reverted 6 times, I think, plus 1 more when you tried to add the same content to Doreen Granpeesheh. There is nothing BOLD about adding the same content for the 8th time when every other editor here has told you they object. If you keep trying to edit war, it will keep leading to the same unpleasant destination. The guidelines are pellucid that you cannot just keep adding the same content which is currently under talk discussion after being reverted by different editors several times, not to this page and not to any other.

I warned you time and again while you were edit-warring last month where it would lead, and you completely ignored me until you were already blocked. Please, please, pay attention. You keep saying that "I have not heard any specific objections . . . before we spend time in the BRD cycle" and "Otherwise I'll assume the listed facts can be organized into a cohesive article" when you know you lack consensus. What I'm telling you is: do not make the same mistake a second time. If you truly have reviewed the guidelines, you'll agree. GordonGlottal (talk) 01:30, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

No, your statements are not truthful. In my reverts I asked you to state your objections in the Talk section. You never responded in Talk or made any objections of substance nor any specifics.

In any case, we are not going back to previous content. The content will be brand new going forward and you'll have the opportunity to make specific and substantive objections about the article's content and the edits. Lets hope your objections are reasonable and can lead to forward progress. MarsTrombone (talk) 02:51, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

As hopefully you are aware, you do not have the right to keep inserting your preferred content while demanding others present their objections for your approval on the talk page. Content which has been reverted must stay reverted until you have established consensus. GordonGlottal (talk) 12:25, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I also am not interested in relitigating. It is not given neither to you nor to me to decide these cases, and those to whom it is given have already ruled against you.

But you sound like you're going to do it again. So. GordonGlottal (talk) 12:27, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Sources

The section is intended to discuss CARD reference sources.

It is permissible to use the WP:BRD to make forward progress. Wikipedia guidelines advise that in the case of disagreement the disagreeing editor must provide substantive rationale and specifics for their objection.

1. No objections have been raised to the Elsevier's book. Elsevier even has their own Wikipedia article and as a respected publisher they employ fact checkers.

2. GordonGlottal added a reference to Behavioral Health Business. This is a news site specialized to health business, so as a subject matter expert the source is relevant to CARD's business and articles are written by journalist. The site is not flagged as not reliable WP:RS. I believe it is a legitimate source and it has an excellent interview with Granpeesheh

3. The Wall Street Journal is a WP:RS.

4. Los Angeles Times is a WP:RS. It has two good CARD articles including this on CARD.

Multiple books reference and discuss CARD or Granpeesheh: Elsevier and Let Me Hear Your Voice and Lovaas and Handbook of Dual Diagnosis and The Autism Industrial Complex and Ethically Challenged

Are there any substantive specific objections to these sources? MarsTrombone (talk) 00:48, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

1. Elsevier has not written a book. Three CARD employees (with Adel Najdowski, who did not contribute to the relevant sections) wrote a promotional book which was published by Academic Press, an imprint of Elsevier which does not detail its publication standards or peer-review process. The book is full of statements like "From the beginning, Dr. Granpeesheh's goals have always been to maintain the highest quality of treatment" and "At CARD, we believe it is important to be in front of the wave of innovation . . . the CARD approach to innovation includes innovating . .." and "the CARD culture in which we are determined never to stop learning" and "What's different about CARD? CARD staff have the benefit of mentors who have treated the symptoms of autism for nearly 25 years" and others that are explicitly marketing/promotional. It does not pass WP:RS or WP:RS/MC because it is a primary and a promotional source.

2. BHB is appropriate only for the narrowest bare facts when other editors don't object. I added information they republished from a press release after first asking on talk about the exact source, claims, and suggested language. The articles in question either summarize press releases or transcribe interviews with CARD employees. It is no better than citing the press releases or employees directly, and should never be used where that would not be appropriate.

3. WSJ is RS but not WP:RS/MC. What article/claims do you want to add?

4. LATimes is RS but not WP:RS/MC. What claims do you want to add?

5. Some claims from Handbook of Dual Diagnosis, The Autism Industrial Complex, and Ethically Challenged may be appropriate, though the latter two are definitely not WP:RS/MC. IIRC, none of these were included in your previous edits. What do you want to add? GordonGlottal (talk) 01:06, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

What content will these sources support? In the section above you've posted a 36 entry numerical list, which is overwhelmingly in WP:TLDR territory. Here you've provided a bunch of citations with absolutely no hints as to what content it will support.

@MarsTrombone: can you please provide a single sentence or paragraph, and no more than that, that you wish to add or edit in the article, and the sources that will support that addition or edit. Once consensus can or cannot be found for that, then you can proceed onto the next sentence or paragraph. Sideswipe9th (talk) 01:07, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Yes, I agree and think the WP:BRD approach would be much more productive. I will add something soon. MarsTrombone (talk) 03:01, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

@MarsTrombone: nowhere did I suggest that BRD is the appropriate or productive way for this to occur. In fact a great many editors here have told you otherwise. What I asked for was for you to propose a single new or edited sentence or paragraph, complete with citations, here on this talk page. Sideswipe9th (talk) 03:04, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Added a proposed History section below. Note - according to Wikipedia Biography guidelines it is acceptable to use autobiographies, subject interviews and even self-published source material IF the material involves the subject, and as long as the material is not "unduly self-serving" and "does not involve claims about events not directly related to the subject". Portions of Elsevier may be considered auto-biographical where it narrates the history of CARD; this is acceptable. Portions of BHB involved an interview of the subject; interviews are also acceptable for biographies. In addition they are also acceptable sources because they are published by legitimate book and news publishers who were able to exert editorial review.

Where is a WP biography guideline which states otherwise? MarsTrombone (talk) 04:35, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

This is not a biographical article. Aside from everything else, very little information that would belong on a biography will belong here. GordonGlottal (talk) 12:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

You continue to harp on what you believe hasn't been objected to while ignoring what has been objected to—in particular, detailed coverage in this article of the wonders of CARD, whether substantiated or not. This article is not about CARD. See WP:COATRACK. Largoplazo (talk) 01:13, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

OK - you object to the "wonders of CARD". It is not clear what you even mean by this objection. Can you give specific examples? MarsTrombone (talk) 02:59, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

My apologies on this one, I was tired and had ABA and CARD switched around in my head. I've struck out my latest comment. Yes, of course (backed by proper sources) CARD is an appropriate topic of discussion in the CARD article. Largoplazo (talk) 10:00, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

History

After graduating from UCLA, in 1990 Granpeesheh, at Lovaas suggestion, took over the treatment of children who aged out of the Young Autism Project and used the ABA autism concepts Lovaas pioneered to found an autism treatment clinic in Encino, California named Center for Autism and Related Disorders (CARD). Initially, CARD was one of the only autism treatment providers to offer intensive early-intevention ABA treatments. From 1990 to 1993 Granpeehseh grew the CARD business from 5 children to 25 children.

In 1993, Catherine Maurice the mother of two children Granpeesheh had worked with published a book titled Let Me Hear Your Voicee. The book detailed how the author’s children overcame the symptoms of autism with ABA techniques, and it called out Granpeesheh by name. As a result of the book, demand for Granpeesheh's autism services increased.

In the mid 1990s a group of families formed an internet group named the "ME-List" taking the name from Lovaas book "Teaching Devepmentally Disabled Children - The Me Book" 1981. One parent from this group contacted Granpeesheh and asked CARD to open a clinic in San Jose, CA. Granpeesheh agreed to open a new clinic if 25 familes would join. The man posted those terms online in an autism chat room on Prodigy and soon after Granpeesheh opened a clinic in San Jose.

From 1993 to 2003 Granpeesheh opened ten more clinics all over the world including London and Australia.

By 2014, Granpeesheh's CARD business had expanded to 1500 families in treatment and employed close to 2,000 employees, including therapists, care coordiantors, case managers and directors.

CARD is now the third largest non-governmental organization contributing to autism research in the United States. Whille employed by CARD, researchers have published numerous academic papers.

The Blackstone Group, a private equity firm, acquired CARD in 2018 for $700 million in equity. Blackstone owns 75% of CARD. Some of CARDs equity was gifted to long-time CARD employees who helpfed found CARD. Granpeeshe retains significant equity, but stated she plans to retire when CARD reaches 500 to 1000 clinics. MarsTrombone (talk) 04:21, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

This contains no appropriately sourced content except that which is already on the page (the first line of the last paragraph). The whole thing sounds exactly like what it is -- one woman's personal success narrative designed to promote herself and her company. GordonGlottal (talk) 12:34, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Granpeeshe innovated in the field of autism and grew a business from zero to $1 Billion. Those are facts. She has already achieved success and does not need to "promote" herself as you repeatedly claim (without any evidence). Why is her narrative and her story less important than Bill Gates, Elon Musk, Larry_Ellison or any other successful male businessperson? MarsTrombone (talk) 16:40, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

No RS confirms those claims. Gates, Musk, and Ellison have been covered and profiled in thousands of RS articles. We don't get to decide who's important for ourselves. GordonGlottal (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Content in the Microsoft article does not heavily reference promotional writings by top members of Microsoft's staff or shareholders or customers while gushing about Bill Gates and explicitly attributing the company's success to him. There's a separate article on Bill Gates, which is where material more specifically about him is properly located.

The paragraph about Catherine Maurice might be reasonable if it didn't amount entirely, based on its sources, to Granpeeshesh talking about herself and about how Maurice's book brought her more business. Also, Maurice's book is cited despite not being a source for anything in that paragraph, other than a primary source serving as evidence of its own existence.

I believe I've said before that "Whille employed by CARD, researchers have published numerous academic papers" is out of place. Reflected glory, not about CARD. Largoplazo (talk) 18:54, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

Re: your first paragraph, which isn't entirely his fault -- I reverted this edit of his to Granpeesheh's page because it included mostly the same claims, and was based on the same sources, for which he had failed to find consensus on this page. I warned him that page-shopping before this discussion was over wouldn't work. Because the content was in fact so identical to what he was arguing for here, he just copy-and-pasted it as a proposal for this page, which is why some of it seems more appropriate to a bio. But I want to be clear that I don't think the solution is to use the sources and claims he doesn't have consensus for here to add content to that page. GordonGlottal (talk) 19:17, 29 June 2022 (UTC)

I agree with both GordonGlottal and Largoplazo. Aside from the content which was copied from the current article state, this whole thing reads like a puff piece, both for CARD and Granpeesheh. This is not appropriate content for this article, nor is it appropriate for Granpeesheh's. Sideswipe9th (talk) 23:16, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

References

Granpeesheh and Wakefield on related page

Advising all engaged editors here @Largoplazo @Sideswipe9th @MaxHarmony @CatPath that there is an ongoing discussion at the related page Doreen Granpeesheh (founder of CARD) which would benefit from wider input. It is over the inclusion of the following content to the page:

In 2016, Granpeesheh participated in Andrew Wakefield's Vaxxed, a documentary which pushes his widely-debunked theory that the MMR vaccine causes autism. Granpeesheh features prominently in the film, claiming autism is caused by children "not detoxifying from the vaccinations" and can be treated by detoxification. Granpeesheh had previously worked for Wakefield at his clinic Thoughtful House.

Thanks! GordonGlottal (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC) GordonGlottal (talk) 21:37, 30 June 2022 (UTC)

References