Edge Rewrite
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a2569207cdd35aae

Jump to content

Talk:Autism Research Institute

Page contents not supported in other languages.
Add topic
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Latest comment: 1 month ago by DoItFastDoItUrgent in topic Restore?

ARI page versus DAN

[edit]

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)Reply

Not all view points

[edit]

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

Fringe theories/Noticeboard

[edit]

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

Restore?

[edit]

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)Reply

I agree that this article could have been improved without a wholesale reversion of the conflicted editor's changes (which had the effect of removing virtually all information about ARI not having to do with DAN). Instead of going in with a scalpel, the editor who performed the reversion went in with a chainsaw. I've restored some details about the organization not directly related to DAN and added some information about their recent finances. Unless there's some kind of consensus reached that DAN is notable and ARI is not, the article shouldn't focus exclusively on DAN. DoItFastDoItUrgent (talk) 10:20, 27 June 2026 (UTC)Reply