Wikipedia talk:High-functioning autism and Asperger's editors

Some Concerns

Errrrrr....I have a few problems here, which I will make in point form (sorry to rain on yer parade but I don't think this essay is a Good Idea)

1. IRL, the diagnosis of autism is based on behaviours, and the treatment is generally based on addressing behaviours, hence......the actual label does not impact on how one would help/remedy/fix issues...one would be practical and find solutions based on the deficits and goals.
2. I've seen editors label themselves as having aspergers' or autism yet not display anything in their interactions suggestive of this...and other editors not labelled who do.
3. Given point (1), what we should be concentrating on is how an editor interacts with others - strengths and weaknesses will become clear, regardless of whether there is a label attached. I am concerned that focussing on a label complicates this and might influence others in pre-judging too harshly or too leniently on an editor with a problem interacting with others.

I do think this page is well-intentioned, but am just concerned about the end result. Wikipedia is amazing in how it allows us to review our interactions with others over and over (almost like having a recording of a therapy session really). I'd be happy to be proven wrong on this one or needlessly pessimistic so fire away....Casliber (talk · contribs) 13:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I don't mind you raining on my parade (I shall forgive you!) I'm focussing (obviously) on high-functioners here, and (as you almost certainly know!) the whole thing is a greyscale, with a huge mass of variation. It's just that several people have asked me (on wiki, in IRC, by email, etc.) if I could write something up, no matter how basic, which might help out in any way. Being an HFA myself, having family members on the spectrum, and having professionally taught Aspies and auties as well, I just jotted down some of the stuff I've found works for me both as an HFA and as a teacher. I found the drawing-of-parallels, using sound or vision-based metaphors, often worked very, very well.

I think possibly the most important statements in the whole thing are "...being on the autism spectrum is no excuse for unacceptable behaviour" and "Being on the autism spectrum does not give you carte blanche to be a dick as well." I don't care whether people have the label but don;t choose to reveal that information, or are A-spectrum but never diagnosed, so unlabelled, or whether they're neurotypical (or neurotypical and wrongly-self-labelled for whatever reason); I'm just hoping that there may be things there which give people of all kinds a few ideas on tweaking communication strategies.

Many thanks for your input; we'll see how it goes! Pesky (talk) 17:11, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

I guess where I am coming from is wikipedia is great for being judged on one's edits alone, without Real World factors coming into it. It's just amazing what sort of folks interact - the ultimate melting pot and (hopefully) level playing field. To that end, one's strengths or weaknesses in interacting with others will lend themselves to solutions from other editors, and diagnosis or lack thereof will not change how that goes. For mine, the fewer labels the better really. Casliber (talk · contribs) 04:23, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

In fact, we can all be as anonymous as we choose on Wikipedia. —MistyMORN 21:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Oh, really? I'd never have guessed

"we have some excellent autism-spectrum admins here"? I resemble that remark, sir or madam goodman or goodwife as the case may be! --Orange Mike | Talk 18:09, 6 April 2012 (UTC) (mildly Aspie, he believes)

I think "Badass British Eccentric Granny" maybe sums it up best. People should never think of Autism-spectrum stuff as a disability or disorder unless it's the sort with real difficulties. It's not "abnormal", when it's high-functioning, it's just "less usual". Just like some hair colours and eye colours and blood groups are "less usual". It's only a difference, and it's not necessarily a bad difference in many cases. Pesky (talk) 21:05, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Cite needed

Rather than mar the beauty of your essay, I thought I would ask here for a cite for "(and it's estimated that most humans use less than 90% of the wired-up potential of their brains!)". I have seen this claim debunked, and could probably find a cite for its not being true... Good work otherwise. --John (talk) 20:07, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Hah, we even have an article on how it's an urban myth! Isn't Wikipedia wonderful... --John (talk) 20:13, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Y'know, it's odd how much stuff there is in that encyclopedia thingie ... I shall remove that bit! One story (I cannot for the life of me remember where I read it) which amazed me was of a woman who had no apparent centre to her brain - just a large, non-brain-filled gap, with all the brain tissue in a layer around the inside of her skull. Pesky (talk) 20:58, 6 April 2012 (UTC)

Not so sure about that one either, Pesky. ;-) —MistyMORN 21:01, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

Thanks!

This is gold! You are spot on in several points about Wikipedia being a honey-trap for such people, they can do the most amazingly thorough and detailed accurate work, and they can be a right pain to deal with.

I speak as someone who is more on the "pain to deal with" than the "thorough work" end of the spectrum. :)

The best part of your essay is the suggested strategies to aid communication. One of the most difficult aspects of dealing with such people is that they are often quite unable to admit that they are wrong about something, and when they are presented with good evidence to show that they are, in fact, incorrect, there is the most spectacular emotional storm. This doesn't help anyone, but obviously in an encyclopaedia we can't be presenting misinformation as if it were true, no matter how attached an editor is to it.

Catching and correcting these things before they reach a climax is something well worth aiming at. I've often felt like a complete bully trying to find some way to get a message across to someone who just won't accept it. I know that if I press too hard, it's going to hurt, but on the other hand it's often something that can't be left to fester.

Now, I don't want to go labelling anybody as a problem editor in this way, but sometimes they present as just an egocentric jerk, and by the time the truth becomes apparent, there is a history of conflict and wikistress, mediation and bans and so on. When one of these people gets to be an admin, it can be a disaster.

I wonder if there is some way that editors, especially new editors, who are moving along that path can be warned and directed to your essay before things get too far. New editors are presented with a very steep learning curve already and just giving them a list of really useful stuff to read when all they want to do is get to work just means that the pile of good stuff is set aside and forgotten about.

Anyway, good to see something happening in this area. Keep up the good work! --Pete (talk) 01:50, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Thank you so much! Speaking as a high-functioning autistic myself, I've found over and over again that in so may situations, it's plain and simple misunderstanding, each of the other, that causes such a lot of potential difficulty. Idiomatic language where we're not speaking quite the same idiom, or people expecting you to read between the lines (or people reading between the lines of something I said / wrote, and reading something which was never there in the first place, lol!) The real key to problem-free communication is absolute clarity. Say exactly what you mean, and accept that the Aspie/autie has (almost guaranteed) done the same thing. There's an awful lot on our policy and guideline pages which could really do with being re-worded in the most simple, most clear way possible, just to avoid misunderstandings, or the wrong emphasis being read into the wrong things. In most ways we can't generalise about A-spectrum people, because there's as much variety within that group as there is within the neurotypical group; but just getting inter-editor communications to be clear, even if we say the same thing using three different parallels to cover all the bases where necessary, would do such a lot. And tolerance, each of the other, when it comes to basic communications glitches (note, I'm not saying "tolerance of incivility" or anything), and lashings and lashings of straightforward kindness and patience. Of course this really applies to all our WikiCommunications, we should all strive to be like that anyway, but especially so when we have groups with such differing thought-processing methods. Pesky (talk) 04:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Ooooh, I've got to add a bit about the "emotional storm" thing! I don;t know if this holds true for all A-spectrum people, but it seems to have done for the vast majority of those I've known, and it certainly does for myself. If we discover that something we were taught turns out to be wrong, it feels like the most incredible betrayal – it's like "the world lied to me, how can I trust the world?", or "that person told me a lie, how can I know I can trust anything else they ever said again?" It's as if you've been "living a lie" for all the time you believed that fact, and reality was unfaithful to you. It can be totally devastating; it can seriously undermine our emotional foundations.

Finding out that what used to be believed true has just been investigated with better techniques, though, or the information is updated, and understanding (if we can!) that the place we originally got that information wasn't deliberately lying to us, to "set us up", is different. But it really can shake our whole world to discover that what we believed was the truth turns out to have been "a lie" all along. I think one of the reasons why A-spectrum people can get on so very well with animals (when they do) is that animals never tell lies. And they never pretend to be feeling something which they're not really feeling. Animals are straight with you, all the time.

Summing up: it's not "discovering you were wrong" which causes that total upheaval; it's "discovering" that "the world lied to you". When you come across it again, think of it as being like you were the person who just told a six-year-old that there's no Santa Claus. Pesky (talk) 05:15, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

There's no Santa Claus!?! - whaaaat??? Oscar Bravo (talk) 08:05, 14 November 2014 (UTC)

That's a useful way of looking at it. I think of Rain Man and The Curious Incident of the Dog in the Night Time as rough guides. The anguish suffered is very real, and yet avoidable with the right tactics. Your example of hearing different parts of the same spectrum is a good one too. I'll try to be more clear in my expression here - I tend to leave a lot to be inferred and of course it will quite often be taken the wrong way. Anyway, thanks again. Let's hope you spark some love and understanding all round. --Pete (talk) 05:57, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

I really hope so. It will feel like such an enormous achievement to make a real difference. And definitely try to remember to avoid leaving things to be inferred; A-spectrum people are often heavily into information-sharing (another reason why Wikipedia is a honey trap). The concept of leaving something to be inferred can be a very foreign one – it's a bit like "deliberately hiding something", and then wondering why someone can't find it! Pesky (talk) 06:19, 7 April 2012 (UTC)

Grauniad

Hi Pesky, Did you see the article in yesterday's Guardian: "Autistic workers: loyal, talented … ignored" ? Might be of interest. PamD 07:44, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

I try tro avoid reading / watching news (it's usually so depressing, and I reckon that anything which happens that is likely to affect me, personally, I will probably get to hear about anyway ...) I shall go and read that one now. Pesky (talk) 22:30, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Excellent article; Im going to add that in the Further reading section. Pesky (talk) 22:38, 8 April 2012 (UTC)

Agree. —MistyMorn (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

Problem With This Essay

After giving this a read, I can't agree with it and I have been diagnosed with Aspergers. It's bad enough people with Autism or Aspergers are treated differently in the real world, I don't think we need to be treated differently (or have a label on our heads) here on Wikipedia as well. As long as we follow the rules already laid out, both those on the spectrum and the neurotypicals (the "normal" people), we all should be fine. There is no need for a while new set of rules (or an essay) for people with Autism or Aspergers. - Neutralhomer • Talk • 04:21, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

FWIW, that insight helps me understand some of your edits a bit more. —MistyMORN 21:10, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

That echoes with what I said above - diagnosis should be irrelevant to someone's ability to edit. Casliber (talk · contribs) 06:28, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

You are right, it does pretty much echo what you wrote. :) Well, that's what I get for not reading the entire talk page before posting. :) - Neutralhomer • Talk • 07:11, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm attempting to address the problem where certain editors seem to define Autism-spectrum editors as equivalent to "Retards and spazzes", for example. I have posted to the relevant editor's talk page about this. I do appreciate the perceived problems with the essay, but it's such a huge subject that one can't hope to cover it all, just a few bases which are the ones which seem to have most in-Wikipedia effect. I'm not trying to create a new set of rules, just to highlight a particular area where WP:AGF seems regularly to fall flat on its face. We're getting problems in here caused by mutual misunderstandings between "types", which could so easily be avoided with a tad more insight. Neutralhomer's userbox at {{User:Neutralhomer/Userboxes/AAAwareness}} is also a good one. (Ta!) my bit of self-revelation covers how (and under what circumstances) I managed to work out some communication things. If only more people were prepared to go the extra mile for understanding, instead of just attacking and dismissing ...

Pesky (talk) 08:33, 28 July 2012 (UTC)

I found this whole situation to be pretty amusing. Evidently all those involved needed/need to take a hike and stop being so offended about something they read on the internet. It should not impede your Wikipedia editing. This is just as dumb as YouTube arguments. My brother is Autistic...I'm a fiery bitch, but hey we can all edit here and there's nothing no one can do about it. As long as our edits follow the rules and guidelines. IGNORE it. --Τασουλα (talk) 14:51, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

• I think the issue is a delicate one. I'm sure if I had received some sort of an AA diagnosis (or someone close to me had) then that experience would inevitably colour my perceptions on initiatives such as this in one way or another. As others have remarked, the AA spectrum is very varied, and it's difficult to make generalizations which always make sense on an individual level.

  Pesky's initiative to raise awareness and facilitate a friendlier environment (for AA people, but not only) is, I think, relevant the Wikipedia community as a whole. Especially given: 1) the attraction that various Wikipedia tasks are likely to hold for people with characteristics commonly found on the AA spectrum; and 2) the common pitfalls we're all exposed to in online communication with nicknamed anons we have never met in the flesh, and in the absence of many the normal social (eg visual) cues. As noted above, nobody here is obliged to reveal their identities or records of any type, so I feel there is no reason to feel any individual to feel exposed to unwanted attention or positive discrimination. Pesky's initiative is aimed at improving the environment for all of us. An obvious example is her plan to encourage use ofplain English in WP policies and guidelines. —MistyMorn (talk) 17:10, 30 July 2012 (UTC)

I completely agree with your observation, I came to this page because some person randomly linked it to an editor they assumed to be autistic simply on the basis of one of their edits being disruptive, articles like this further the stereotypes that autistic people seek special treatment (while from my observations this article has only been used as an "attack page"), and no editor should be judged on anything else than their edits, it's bad enough that a double standard applies to editors who have been here for a long time, for example in the Microsoft articles sphere we have one editor who is blatantly inconsistent in their edits and deliberately laughs at anyone who dares to point out "other stuff exist" and will claim the exact opposite of what they claimed on another talk page simply "to be right", or another editor blatantly reports others after they themselves start using curse words and they get away with it because there basically is a syndicate of editors who back each other's edits up, these people seem to call out wiki-policies only when it suits them and to use them against them and their edits will immediately be met with a dismissal for the fact that they've simply been editing for a longer time, I hate double standards and another one that annoys me is that Wikipedia actively tries to appeal to female editors claiming that "Wikipedia is sexist" solely based on the fact that most editors are male, let me say this for the record here No one is above anyone else, and edits should be judged, not people I don't care if one person makes their first edit and the other has been an editor for years, if the previous' edit was right and the latter was wrong then we shouldn't excuse the latter because they're more experienced, though this behavior has even become a rule in the Wikicommons site it shouldn't become a rule here, and this article claims that some autistic people will do something like "don't revert my vandalism, I'm an Aspie" or something, believe me you'd literally never see that and ThePeskyCommoner is right, autistic people are discriminated enough in real life if you live in the Dutch tyranny they'll sabotage any chance of you getting a proper education, meanwhile this discrimination doesn't exist in allegedly "less developed" countries like Indonesia, there they only look at results and how someone performs at a test, we at Wikipedia should be more like Indonesia and less as the Netherlands, and so far I've seen this "essay" being used more as a form of personal attacks on other editors, I'm not arguing for its deletion but I don't get why it should have "Wikipedia:" in front of it almost making it a set of rules. --58.187.228.171 (talk) 01:48, 5 August 2015 (UTC)

Autism as a disability?

I suppose this is more of a philosophical comment. This essay goes to some lengths to stress that autism should not be considered a disability, saying 'please don't equate autism with disability'. Having read it, I can see why: people on the autistic spectrum aren't necessarily 'inferior' compared to neurotypical types, they just have different specialities. But it's arguable that this view comes from a misunderstanding of what 'disability' means, and that it's somehow a pejorative description, which it shouldn't be. Under the social model of disability, autism would certainly qualify; that doesn't mean there's anything 'wrong' with them, it means there's something wrong with society, which is set up in such a way as to put them at a substantial disadvantage. That's the modern approach to disability; understood in that sense, describing autistic people as 'disabled' isn't saying anything negative about them, only about the society that fails to properly accommodate them. Robofish (talk) 14:49, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

That is a good point; in general terms, you're right. The real problem lies with people's attitudes to the word "disability". An awful lot of people who know nothing about autism-spectrum disorders equate all kinds of autism as "severely impaired", in their own minds. There's a bit of a nasty undercurrent of "Auties and aspies are disabled; disabled means incompetent; we shouldn't have to be hand-holding the incompetent here, they should just not be editing if they have a problem", and so on. They're using the word "disability" as a pejorative term when it comes to editing. Sad, but true.

People are much more accommodating of other disorders (such as borderline personality disorder, bipolar disorder, and all the rest), and view them as disorders rather than disabilities. Small change in word, big difference in perception. If we could flick a switch in people's minds and stop them thinking about it that way, there would be a sea change in approach! Pesky (talk) 02:32, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

I have to say I'm far from convinced that the community as a whole is functionally accommodating in a whole host of dimensions to "the other". While many members, probably a substantial majority of members of the community are widely accomodating, the first mover advantage means that people are "getting in trouble" for the most ridiculous things (spelling for example, or failing to provide references), which are lumped under COMPETENCE or IDIDNTHEARTHAT when what is actually needed is to operate synergistically. Moreover those who enjoy causing low level trouble and distress get a free pass if they find a policy based niche under which to do it. Rich Farmbrough, 18:31, 25 August 2012 (UTC).

Why is this here

WP:NOTFORUM, WP:NOESSAY — it looks like a user essay written nearly entirely by one user that even goes so far as to link to their talk page, thus WP:NOTFORUM. Even the talk page has entire sections dedicated to communicating with the author.

Proposing WP:USERFY 173.219.77.134 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 20:56, 31 July 2012 (UTC)

It started off as a user essay, and then (on recommendation from other editors) was moved into mainWikipediaspace. I guess possibly that the major reason I'm pretty much the only contributor is that it was basically complete before being moved. Pesky (talk) 02:34, 1 August 2012 (UTC)

If this discussion is still relevant, I would note that this essay is very helpful in explaining the problems related to interaction of A-spectrum editors and the rest of us. The fact that it was written nearly entirely by ThatPeskyCommoner only means that she is good in writing essays; several editors already expressed their endorsement of this essay, and I'm pretty sure that quite a lot of potential proponents are simply not aware of it yet. — Dmitrij D. Czarkoff (talk) 00:17, 14 August 2012 (UTC)

If it still needs to be said, this is a wise essay and deserves its place here. Fiddle Faddle 10:48, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

How we get the tags?

WP:ASPIE WP:AUTIE WP:ASPERGERS WP:AUTISM

AspieNo1 (talk) 08:58, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Template:Shortcut is responsible for displaying these links on the page. Does that answer your question? --SoledadKabocha (talk) 23:05, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Specific content areas

This essay doesn't seem to give much guidance on specific types of content, e.g.:

• Aspie editors sometimes add unnecessary information to disambiguations and hatnotes, because their idea of "any possible confusion" disagrees with a neurotypical editor's idea of "reasonable doubt"
• More generally, attempted "uncontroversial maintenance" edits sometimes violate a style guideline and get insta-reverted. The Aspie, with an irrational(?) expectation that everyone will follow 0RR or 1RR, proceeds directly to the reverting user's talk page and then gets surprised when the other user is slow/unwilling to discuss.

Is any of this stuff worth mentioning somehow? This is based on the experience of myself and a handful of friends ... sorry if I'm not explaining as well as I possibly could. --SoledadKabocha (talk) 23:14, 27 August 2013 (UTC)

Communication

"The ultimate honey-trap" for attracting "high-functioning autistics" - how well put! Wikipedia is what it is, not because of the rules, but because of the many people who have contributed to it. The purpose of the rules is to improve the contributions. I suspect many more would be contributing if they hadn't been put off by editors with robot-like knowledge of the rules, but who are lacking in empathy and communication skills. - Oniscoid 09:14, 23 January 2014 (UTC)

Where now?

I'm just directing a new aspie editor to this page, but I wonder where they can go for further help, given the sad fact that ThatPeskyCommoner (talk · contribs) has not edited in over a year. Is there another aspie-friendly space for them? PamD 08:48, 30 June 2014 (UTC)

offensive

I have aspergers adhd ocd and depression.this article is ableist in the extreme. I am disabled its not a dirty word, and intelligence as some sort of litmus on respect is staggering. So no editors with downs? I cannot belive you used words used to denigrate and humilliate people. I ha e always put my intelligence up as a shield, but to do that is to leave vulnerable those who dont conform to it.178.155.204.92 (talk) 01:02, 2 July 2014 (UTC)

I wholeheartedly agree with user 178.155.204.92. This page is offensive. Could someone put up a page about how to deal with editors who are inner-city educated black people, or how to deal with Chinese editors who are non-native English speakers? This is a bizarre contribution. IAmBecomeDeath (talk) 06:34, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

1- If you are offended by this essay, then you obviously don't get the need for it. 2- If you don't get the need for it, you likely don't have Asperger's or know someone who does. 3- If you don't have Asperger's or know someone who does, why are you reading this essay? 4- Now that we've established you have no need for this essay, feel free to leave this essay and find another. Or perhaps edit an article or two. 5- In case you still haven't figured it out, this isn't an article, but an essay. Here's a link for you to discover the difference WP:ESSAY. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 06:49, 27 August 2014 (UTC)

Reappropriating shortcuts

I recently created WikiProject Autism, currently as a draft at Wikipedia:WikiProject_Disability/WikiProject_Autism_(draft). I believe this would be a more appropriate target for WP:AUTISM, WP:ASPIE, etc. Can we get consensus on this? Muffinator (talk) 08:57, 12 July 2014 (UTC)

Changing these properly is not easy, changing a shortcut used elsewhere can be highly disruptive. Have you read Wikipedia:Shortcut#Changing_shortcuts? I suggest you make a list of all the shortcuts you want to reappropriate; see how many links there are; confirm whether there's a bot that can automate them; and then start an RFC. Stuartyeates (talk) 21:29, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Speaking with my WP:WikiProject Council hat on, do you have enough participants to justify a separate project or WP:TASKFORCE? Most WikiProjects fail quickly because of having only a handful of people involved. You might be better off sticking with the larger group. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:03, 23 July 2014 (UTC)

Perhaps a more germane question is whether this is a WP:POINTy fork of WP:MEDRS, or an attempt to establish one. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:12, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

I don't see how WP:POINT or WP:MEDRS are remotely relevant even categorically. Really, this question is as bizarre to me as the notion that the WikiProject may actually be a sandwich and not a Wikipedia page. As far as the WikiProject not having participants, that concern would be better addressed at WP:WikiProject Council than here. For what it's worth, autism is a massive subject with relevance to neuroscience, psychology, sociology, and disability. In addition to editors of those knowledge areas, the project is likely to attract editors who are themselves autistic and thus known for their obsessive diligence and commitment to tasks. Muffinator (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2014 (UTC)

It doesn't really matter how big or important the subject is. If you don't already have several people who agreed to work together, then (a) you do not have a WikiProject by definition and (b) creating pages is a waste of your time. The model of "build it, and they will come" has been repeatedly disproven with WikiProjects. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:50, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I've agree with Muffinator's proposal so long as all of the necessary precautions are taken to prevent disruptions. Coinmanj (talk) 03:51, 10 August 2014 (UTC)

Aspies and honesty/integrity

I'd love to see something added to this essay about the commonality among Aspies and those with high-functioning autism and honesty (sometimes being honest to a fault). It's extremely frustrating and hurtful to those of us on the spectrum to be accused of lying or being intentionally disingenuous here in Wikipedia. Here's just one online article (out of several to be found) on the subject: [1]. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 22:25, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

I'd be happy to add that information to the article, as soon as WP:reliable sources can be found for it. Stuartyeates (talk) 23:28, 31 July 2014 (UTC)

This is an essay, not an article. aren't the "rules" looser for essays (why isn't what I provided adequate)? -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 00:22, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

The piece you link to is an opinion piece on an advocacy site. For the kinds of sources I'm looking for, check WP:MEDRS. Stuartyeates (talk) 00:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

This essay is an opinion piece written by an advocate. See where I'm going with this? Nonetheless, I'll look for some sources. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:02, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Stuartyeates, 99% of this essay is without sources. Even so, here's on that should fit the bill as a start: [2]. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:45, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

And another: [3]. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 01:48, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

I suspect that Stuart is looking for something more academic in nature, like PMID 22065242. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:08, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

When it comes to ASD, you can't get much more academic and accurate than Attwood and Gray. -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 02:14, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

When I made my original comment I wasn't paying attention; I thought / assumed that this is was talk page of an article not an essay. My bad. As WhatamIdoing points out PMID 22065242 is an excellent source (one could quibble about it being self-reported; for those without access, the abstract fairly accurately captures the article boyd). As Winkelvi points out, 99 percent of the essay is without sources. Don't I look like a complete plonker. Stuartyeates (talk) 08:06, 1 August 2014 (UTC)

Maybe just 1% of a plonker. :-) -- Winkelvi ● ✉ ✓ 09:50, 1 August 2014 (UTC)