Talk:Autism rights movement/Archive05

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Ethical challenges

I've redirected the former ethical challenges to autism treatment main page, over to this page, in the section of the same name. The previous page wasn't about ethics, was virtually unsourced, contained considerable WP:OR, and was basically empty once these issues were addressed by removing the OR and unsourced text. I've no prejudice against re-spawning the page, but as is, the current page already has a section and it's very short.

I also removed the mention of the Auton v BC in the same section, since it's about a court case that's attempting to force the government of British Columbia to fund autism treatment. If Michelle Dawson has a challenge, that should be sourced independent of the court case. WLU (talk) 19:51, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

The canonical reference for her challenge of ABA on ethical grounds is The Misbehaviour of Behaviourists, but she has written more on this subject. --elmindreda (talk) 21:28, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
that's a self-published piece...can it be used as a source? Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 21:31, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
I would say yes; she's her own wiki page, which makes her a notable source in my mind. WLU (talk) 21:42, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
ok then -- what about her blog, etc.? Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 21:48, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
She's usually very careful about providing references for her statements on The Autism Crisis, so provided references to it are made with care, I see little difference between the two, i.e. I don't see it becoming less verifiable solely due to the information being on a blog instead of a homepage. They're both self-published, heavily referenced sources by a notable person. --elmindreda (talk) 22:00, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Well -- i suppose if the statements that are being sourced by her blog are prepended with 'In Dawson's opinion,' or 'Dawson states' -- I'd be ok with that. However, if a statement is made in the article without that, I think it would be spurious. Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 22:30, 3 January 2008 (UTC)
Both her blog and her sourced independent pieces could be used, but it would be better if her opinions were corroborated by other sources as well - a careful use of WP:IAR could allow judicious use of well-viewed blogs and web fora to report widely-held opinions. There would have to be consensus though. Also, constantly saying 'In Dawson's opinion' makes it look like a content fork and a violation of WP:NOT, so at least one further source for some or all of her opinions would be good. Though I think you're right in acknowledging it's sourced to a single person's opinion, I also think there's merit in not being too apologist or portraying it as 'just an opinion'. Temple Grandin might also have some things to say, and she's also notable enough to have weight behind her blog/essays. WLU (talk) 13:46, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced Bullocks....

I'm looking through this article -- and according to wikipedia standards, its rubbish!! We need to source these things, or remove them...I'm putting tags throughout to point you to where you'll need sources. After a few days, I'll start relieving you of the duty by removing the unsourced content. Please hurry -- that way we don't have to do fun reverts to put your sources in. Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 07:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I suspect some of the unsourced content has once been cited, but the citations have been removed. I think some of the reasons for this are that links have become broken, or URLs have changed, so people removed the citations instead of finding new links or archived links; text moved around without citations moved with it; text being reworded so it no longer fits what was stated in the citation. If you are going to remove something, I wonder if you could at least paste the deleted text to the talk page, in case someone might be able to find citations for it in the future. Q0 (talk) 10:44, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
No, please slow down. There is no deadline. You are editing at a pace where I can't keep up, thus making it very difficult for me to contribute properly. --elmindreda (talk) 11:58, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Dead links can be easily replaced, so if they can be dug up, they can probably be put back in. Q0's a good point, another solution would be for Josh to draft a version on a sub-page with a link to it on this talk page - he could edit as quickly as he wants while still allowing for feedback and vandalism reverts. Once a version on the sub page exists that is acceptable to other editors, it could be pasted wholesale onto this page. I'd also venture that a better title for this section could have been chosen... Bollocks it may be, it's still the product of many well-intentioned editors. Not that I can criticize, as in the last two weeks alone I think I've produced at least three sections entitled 'gutted the page'. WLU (talk) 13:51, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
If he's willing to go sub page, I think that sounds like a good idea, and it'd be quite useful to have a conservatively edited version available. --elmindreda (talk) 15:37, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Ball's in your court Josh. Though it means not editing the main page, it also means having a stable version here while we can all hammer out a better version on your sub-page. WLU (talk) 16:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I've created a /subpage...I'm going to remove EVERYTHING everything[1]unsourced so that you can see what the page should read. I think there is a lot of opinion (which is in opposition to SOURCED sourced[1] statements) -- I think that is bullocks...I like to hear SOURCED sourced[1] differences...but not someone's thoughts as to how Einstein was autistic, and we wouldn't have the theory of relativity without autism. If we follow that logic, then schizophrenia, depression, etc. is good too -- as he has been labeled as all of those. [1] Note I said I'm giving you days no deadlines[1]...during those daysno deadlines[1], you should either a) find a source b) indicate that you have a source that you're getting, or c) discuss and get consensus why that unsourced piece should remain. To allow contentious, controversial unsourced content seems very unencyclopedic. Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 19:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I had thought sub-pages like this were only for user pages, but it seesm to be allowed per WP:SP. Cool! I've tweaked it to be in line with WP:SP - mostly to the templats and cats. WLU (talk) 19:15, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Brilliant, go for it. Looking forward to seeing the result. As for those conditions, you may want to have a look at for example Mad Pride, but that's getting off topic. Thank you for striking out the "days". I absolutely agree that unsourced controversial material needs to be dealt with. I'm not asking you to wait indefinitely, but sorting through all of these sources (and I'm still finding more) and gathering offline ones is going to take a little while. --elmindreda (talk) 23:22, 4 January 2008 (UTC)


Anytime public/government funds are used to research, develop, analyze anything, ALL people are burdended with the expense. These are taxpayer dollars. A state or federally funded university/college that does research costs the taxpayer for any research that they do. Autism research specifically is not being funded soley by private industry. It is being funded by state and federal government, burdening all of us with its expense. (E Gleason 17 July 2008) —Preceding unsigned comment added by (talk) 13:26, 17 July 2008 (UTC)

The cost on society is a proven fact -- treatment of those with autism is costing tax payers X amount of dollars...this sentence seems to try to represent that in a different light...I'm not saying we shouldn't support those with autism...but I am saying that indicating that a 'typical' person also incurs these costs is a would need to be phrased as a person receiving governmental support or somesuch...please check this again and reword it to be accurate. Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 08:02, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the cost of autism is more an opinion than a fact. I am autistic, and in my experience, people spent money on things that were not helpful (such as when I was in school, people would be paid to "help" me by sitting in my classes and not doing anything, including classes I was doing very well in). I have seen other autistic people report difficulties with those supposed to assist them. In addition, one of the opinions cited is that people like Einstein and Newton might be autistic and contribute to society, so (according to this opinion) autism is not just costing money but is also contributing money. Q0 (talk) 10:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
The difference in opinion seems not to be whether money is being spent on people with autism, but on whether most of it needs to be spent at all. For someone who opposes intensive ABA or research for prenatal testing, that would be money wasted, meaning that it's not autism itself costing people money, but the reaction to autism. From that perspective, it would be the pro-cure movement that's costing tax money, not autism itself. I've seen it argued on a lot of ND blogs and web sites that increased acceptance of autism, including a more flexible education system, would allow many more autistics to enter the work force, possibly balancing out the reduced cost of educating and caring for those who can't work. (talk) 19:50, 21 June 2008 (UTC)
I've had a go at re-writing it. I'd say the reference to Newton and Einstein is unnecessary (sp) at this point, given the other, more explicit discussions of the topic. And strays towards WP:OR. As is, I cringe when hitting the save button because I think there are some near, if not blatant OR sections and sentences that I myself have contributed, but again if consensus supports the statements as acceptable, then they can remain. Though naturally I'd like to have sources linking the ideas and avoiding a synthesis if possible. WLU (talk) 16:14, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Ok--just because treatment wasn't helpful doesn't mean that it didn't cost tax payers. Those are facts and figures -- they're not saying that that money helps or anything -- it is just what it is costing tax payers. I would also contend that EVEN IF even if[1] Einstein had autism -- the burden of proof would be that the autism HELPED helped [1]him in his discoveries...just because someone has autism doesn't mean that their accomplishments are due to it -- many times that I've seen, its been in spite of the disabilities, not due to them. Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 19:03, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Edits above indicated by [1]added to clarify meaningJosh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 19:40, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Hum. I think I see your point. I think what's objected to by the ARM is that autism is treated (and labelled) a disease rather than a different way of functioning. I don't dispute that there's more to the controversy than what is there, or that treating autism costs money, but it's verifiable that there's objections to viewing it as a disease and that's important. How about removing the last half of the last sentence? I think that's where the problem you're addressing is most contained. There was a big discussion over at Asperger syndrome over whether AS gave unique abilities, and it ended up with a 'perhaps, but there's no proof' conclusion on the talk page and nothing on the mainspace page - it's not a barrier to functioning, but there's no evidence its a help. I think the rest of the paragraph reads OK to me, but I could definitely see the one section being removed. WLU (talk) 19:11, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I agree that it is a fact how much a particular therapy costs, but I think it is an opinion as to whether or not it should be considered part of the "cost of autism". It is a fact how much money is being spent, but I think it is an opinion that autism is what is costing the money. I think the view of some in the autism rights movement is that some treatments are either not helpful or even harmful, and don't think it is right to consider the cost of actions that are harmful to autistic people as part of how much money autistic people are costing society. I also think that some in the movement feel that those who are supposed to help them are not helpful because they are uncooperative, so it isn't autism that is costing the money, it is the lack of cooperation that is costing the money. Q0 (talk) 19:56, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent>If our tax monies are being spent on it, it is a cost of that condition. I think a better argument would be that while folks with autism may cost XX folks that have mental retardation cost XX and folks that are neurotypical but unemployed cost XX amount. I think that this argument would be more fruitful and logical. I think that the quote, however, is arguing that without support, folks with autism cost XX amount...but if we provide early intervention for XXX amount, we will save XX amount in the future...again, all speculation -- but my 2 cents. Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 20:10, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

I think the controversy comes from a difference of perspective. There is one perspective that autism is a disorder. Let's say someone goes to the emergency room to treat a medical problem, and let's say the treatment failed. Even though the treatment failed, the hospital still had to pay the doctors to attempt to treat the patient, so it still costs money. Even though treatments sometimes fail, if we never tried the methods that end up failing, we would never be able to distinguish failed methods from successful methods, so failed methods should still be considered part of the cost. Although this might make sense to someone who supports the disorder perspective of autism, it would not make sense to someone who supports the ARM's view of autism. The ARM thinks that autism is not a disorder, and sometimes makes analogies to something homosexuality. In the view of the ARM, attempts to "cure" people of homosexuality is abusive towards people who are gay and are analogous to attempts to cure autism. I think some in the ARM consider attempts to cure autistic people as being 'abusive', and don't think it would be right to consider the cost of 'abuse' towards autistic people (at least, what is 'abuse' in their opinion) as part of the cost of autism. Q0 (talk) 20:21, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Logic usually = OR, and as Q0 says, it's more the idea of a cure than the cost of a cure that people object to. The cost of the cure would probably come from the opposite camp, those who think autism is a crippling disability that should be cured. But this is all part of the ARM and neurodiversity dicussion in general. WLU (talk) 20:24, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I think logic is OR only if the logic is not worked out from within the citation. I think if logic is worked out inside the citation, then it is not OR. Q0 (talk) 20:30, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Naw, it's just sneakier :) Though this is an example of something that could be included if there's consensus that it's as kosher as ham-style chicken. Plus it looks like a soft-sell criticism of either treatment, or autism, depending on how it's spun. You make good points that I thnk very ably demonstrate what the controversy about treatment is, but it'd be better if we had sources. If it's a common opinion, it should be easier to find. Then, rather than discussing about how far we can take the argument and where it's logical conclusion is, we can discuss how to best represent the source. WLU (talk) 20:50, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
Oh, I wasn't saying we should move anything from my explanation here on the talk page to the article. I was simply trying to explain my understanding of the controversy. Of course, anything added to the article would need to be sourced. Q0 (talk) 21:00, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
I think it's an excellent summary of what the controversy is, and what we should say, if it can be sourced. Josh - Q0's position is what I understand the central issues to be. Incidentally, I may have misunderstood the issue above regards logic - if a source explicitly says something, it's not logic, it's sourced. Then the issue is if the source is reliable enough to be cited. WLU (talk) 23:29, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

<undent>I'm having a really hard time finding reference to the autistic rights movement outside of Wikipedia...all that is a clearinghouse of links...these links comprise multiple views (including autism as a disorder and autism as a gift) there anywhere that claims to posits the autism rights movement goals? Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 02:00, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

Remember that we don't have to fix everything right away. Another option is soliciting previous contributors for their input, as well as trying for postings on web fora for links or non-web resources. Pro-autism newsletters, paper publications, you could even try e-mailing Michelle Dawson, Temple Grandin or other notable people on wikipedia, if you can track down their e-mail addresses. They might also be able to snowball sample other contributors or resources. It doesn't have to be perfect right away. The page and sections can be reduced to the sourced information then gradually re-introduced, or we can add the sourced bits, then discuss on the talk page what represents the controversy according to various other's experience. WLU (talk) 02:35, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I'm not in a hurry -- I'm just amazed at how little out there is findable about the topic...I mean, there are tons of personal opinions, but they aren't really cohesive enough to fit into what the stated goals here are...for instance, it says that the goal is to challenge the science and ethics of ABA...I haven't found anyone that says that and also fulfills the other 3-4 goals...its just weird to'd think there'd be at least one website kind of dedicated to the movement Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 02:39, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I suspect that there's mission statements out there, position papers, even notable blog entries. It's just a matter of finding them. Wonder if Dawson is an editor as well as a subject... The people section of Template:Autism rights movement seems to have useful resources - try looking through their external links sections, or using their names in web searches. WLU (talk) 03:11, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I suspect part of the reason for this (putting on my self-advocate hat for a moment) is that you're not seeing one movement in the regular sense of the word; rather what you're seeing is a multitude of smaller movements with partially overlapping memberships, values and goals. It is a movement in the sense that the environmental movement is one, it's profoundly bottom-up with no official leaders (more like tribal elders) and even less official hierarchy, and with a number of organisations, forums and conferences (ANI, ASAN, TAAP, CIBRA, APANA, AFF, Autism Hub,,,, Autscape, Autreat, etc., etc.). Networking, debate, communication and cooperation all work somewhat differently, at least partly because we are different than non-autistics. Debate is ongoing over nearly every part of the goals except "improve the conditions for autistic people" and even for that one I can list half a dozen different interpretations of who and what is intended. I'd agree that anti-cure sentiments are shared by the vast majority of the movement, but then one needs to figure out what do to with self-advocates like Sue Rubin, who is pro-cure. For more specific shared values, you can look at some petitions signed by a lot of familiar faces. Of course, my samples may well be skewed, because I'm an insider tending towards the view. I could go on, but I have to run. This has been your daily dose of OR, and I'm going back to being a wikipedian (here). --elmindreda (talk) 10:42, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I think this article is specifically about the anti-cure movement. I think it could be worth creating an article like Autism cure movement. There is a Template:Autism cure movement. Q0 (talk) 11:23, 5 January 2008 (UTC)

SubPage Discussion

Ok -- so I'm going to try to source somse of this myself...but am uncertain -- seems very POV...however, the autism rights movement is a point of view -- so as long as I indicate that ' states, etc.etc.' and source it from there -- is that good enuff? Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 20:20, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

Watch out for X person/org says, too much is a bad thing in my opinion. Multiple sources saying the same thing, or even 'some groups', if sourced to, works better I think. WLU (talk) 20:25, 4 January 2008 (UTC)
What do you think of the lead on the subpage -- I found it in the Internet/Autism page -- it is pretty well sourced, and sounds much less POV/controversial, to me. Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 18:30, 5 January 2008 (UTC)
I think the lead on the subpage is just fine. Q0 (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Is everyone ok with replacing the lead on the current mainpage with the subpage's lead then? Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 21:31, 9 January 2008 (UTC)
Ick. Sorry for not weighing in sooner. I've a couple suggesetions:
The lead starts right off by saying 'what it does', but not 'what it is'. I've tried looking at other leads for a good wording, but it's not it is.
Right now it talks only about autism, what about asperger?
It's pretty specific - stimming and hand flapping? That seems like body rather than lead stuff. The use of quotes is also unusual - appropriate for the body, not the lead. WP:LEAD basically says make the lead as broad and non-specific as possible while still summarizing the salient points. Citations can be in the lead, but they should be in the body - which makes their presence in the lead redundant.
Jim Sinclair has his own wikipage, so reference to him and his website should be linked with "| authorlink = Jim Sinclair" in the template I've tried to tweak.

The autism rights movement (ARM) is a social movement encourages autistic people, their caregivers and society to adopt a position of neurodiversity, accepting autism as a variation in functioning rather than a mental disorder to be cured. The ARM advocate a greater tolerance of autistic behaviors, teaching autistic individuals skills that allow them to better cope with the non-autistic world rather than forcing them behave like their neurotypical peers, and objects to goals like extinguishing harmless stimming, forcing eye contact and breaking routines.

The ARM is controversial among those whose lives are affected by autism. Objections to the movement include an overstatement of the 'gifts' associated with autism and the movement's potential impact on the funding for autism research. Parents of children with autism state that the therapies used to 'cure' autism help in caring for children with aggressive or dangerous behaviors, and that autism exacts a toll on the entire family. These parents have also criticized the movement for representing a minority of high-functioning autistics rather than the majority of lower-functioning individuals who comprise the bulk of those diagnosed with autism and Asperger syndrome.

The use of the Internet has made it possible for autistics to present their perspective when they do not have the communication skills to do so offline. These autistics do not desire a cure, but rather to be given opportunities to use their autistic strengths to to cope with their autistic difficulties.

Sorry for coming into this so late, I've tried to keep the ideas of the lead (which look great) while removing the quotations, using a slightly more wiki-friendly wording, and leaving the references (also great, fantastic job on finding better sources!) for the body. I think it could still use some wording changes and I don't really like the wikilink to mental disorder in the first sentence. Feel free to improve my prose. My above version also puts a lot of space and emphasis on the controversy - this is somewhat appropriate because it is controversial, but I think it's also an artefact of me being able to come up with a less wordy substitute.
Again, a great job on getting what I understand are the relevant ideas onto the page, great job with references. I hope I'm not stepping on toes with my suggestions, seeing as I'm just prettifying what's already been done! WLU (talk) 20:18, 10 January 2008 (UTC)
I like it -- I've put the new and improved lead in. Josh.Pritchard.DBA (talk) 06:50, 11 January 2008 (UTC)

I put a copy of this page in my user space at User:Q0/sandbox, removing unsourced material. I didn't want to use the subpage on this talk page because I didn't want to disrupt what someone might be using that page for, so I used my user space to make sure I didn't disrupt anything. Q0 (talk) 21:10, 13 January 2008 (UTC)


Would anyone mind if I archived the talk page, since it is well over 32K (53K)? A lot of discussion happened a few weeks ago, and I didn't want to interrupt that, but it has been a bit of time since anything had been added to those discussions, so I wondered if now might be a good time to archive. Q0 (talk) 17:55, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

It's not a particularly long talk page; I would say to archive through 2007, leaving 2008 entries on the page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:14, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Essay removed from "Issues" section for citation

Adult issues

Adult inclusion

Some in the autistic rights movement believe the status quo of autism issues focuses too much on children and parents, and tends to exclude autistic adults. They point to various autism organizations like Autism Society of America that have a child as a logo and they feel parents have more power than autistic adults in autism organizations. Michelle Dawson believes that the Autism Society of Canada excludes autistic adults.[2] Autistic people oppose this because they feel autistics, not non-autistic parents, should be the primary focus of autism organizations. They also believe there are more services for autistic children and their parents than for autistic adults, and some advocates of adult inclusion believe that some services and resources for autistic children are actually more for the parents.

Adult diagnosis

Autistic adults claim that the definition afforded in an autism diagnosis is designed for children and not for adults, which makes the parameters unworkable and difficult in maintaining or obtaining a proper diagnosis.[dubious ] Because people change as they grow to adulthood, they may no longer fit the official model of an autistic individual. In addition, autism diagnosis may be taken less seriously when it is made in for an adult rather than for a child, the idea being that if a person were really autistic, it would have been noticed in childhood. Some autistic adults respond to this by citing the relative ignorance about autism on the part of professionals and the general public, even ten years ago, compared to what is known in the present, and that autistic children were often misdiagnosed as learning-disabled, lazy, or as having a thought disorder. Even in the 1980s, professionals specializing in autism contributed to a peer-reviewed journal called the Journal of Autism and Childhood Schizophrenia.

Services and accommodation

The autism rights movement desires more services and accommodations for autistic adults. They also desire autistic adults to have equal opportunity in employment and in education.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:03, 8 February 2008 (UTC)


The following statement has been tagged as needing to be clarified:

The owners of say that when their critics say that anti-cure autistics are different and higher functioning than their children, that the critics' descriptions of their children sound very similar to how they were as children, or currently are as adults.

This is a version of the following statement which used to be in the article, that I edited for length:

The owners of say that they receive e-mails from parents of autistic children in which parents claim their own children are different and have more difficulties than them. The people at argue that when the parents describe their children's difficulties, they are describing the children to have difficulties that range from very similar to their own difficulties that they had as children, to very similar to their current difficulties as adults. also says that their claims that they don't want a cure, see autism as a part of who they are, and don't want attempts at help that may actually be harmful are wrongly perceived by their critics as not wanting help with anything and living under entirely positive circumstances.

It is from the reference, mostly in the paragraph that starts with, "The messages about how different various ..." Q0 (talk) 01:43, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

I haven't yet figured out what it's trying to say, but I'll put the original text here (from, which isn't really a good source, doesn't Harmon or a more reliable source have something better?) while I try to decipher it:

The messages about how different various children are from us can range from darkly amusing to frustrating for many of us. The children being described, depending on the context, range from similar to how we have been to similar to how we are now. Some parents tell us their children's lack of certain abilities means that all parts of autism need to be fixed, when we may have less of those abilities than the children being described. But they dismiss our views, and dismiss us as anomalies or liars.

SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:54, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

What happens in debates about the movement is a critic says, "You are different from my child because you can do X and Y and my child cannot," and a supporter of the movement says, "Actually, I can't do X, and even though I can do Y as an adult, I could not do Y as a child." I think the statement is basically trying to describe things like that. As for finding a better source, I did look at User:Elmindreda/Autistic_rights_sources a bit and found [2] which says:

"Some parents will say 'If you can express yourself you're not autistic,'" says Ms Dawson. "They say to me: 'My child can't live independently.' I tell them I couldn't either when I was six!"

I think this is somewhat similar to the statement in the page. Q0 (talk) 01:04, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

It would probably be best to craft something from that article instead and use it to replace what's there now: I still can't make any sense of the first one. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:05, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed section

I have removed the following section from the article because it is mostly unsourced. I replaced it with the section titled "autistic traits". Q0 (talk) 01:56, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Misconceptions of autistic traits

Some autistic rights activists believe some characteristics described as being autistic traits are actually misconceptions[3] and desire to educate the population about what they believe are the real reasons these alleged misconceptions occur.

Michelle Dawson has disputed the belief that 75% of autistic people have low intelligence.[4]

As of 2006, some people have begun to subscribe to the belief that autistic people lack a "theory of mind"; that is, they are unaware that others do not necessarily think or know the same things that they(autistics) do. Some autistics have suggested that they are only perceived to lack a theory of mind because autistic people do not necessarily communicate with others in the same ways people who are not autistic do. This would prevent others' knowing whether autistics have a theory of mind or not. Some autistics who have difficulty with sensory input might be less likely to be able to interpret other people's thoughts and knowledge through observation. Some autistics have observed that non-autistics are insensitive to their perspectives, and write parodies based on this, addressing non-autism as a mental disorder characterized by lack of "theory of other minds".[5][6]

Although some people believe autistic people have no emotions and no sense of humor{{Fact}} (despite the existence of comedians with the condition),{{Fact}} some autistic people reject this and report that they do experience a range of emotions, and indeed have a tremendous sense of humour, but just one that a neurotypical cannot relate to—just as the autistic cannot relate to the neurotypical's humour.{{Fact}} This again comes down to a majority perception of 'the norm', when there may not be one. Autistics with Asperger's Syndrome may actually be more emotionally sensitive than a neurotypical, but because of different expressions of emotion, they often come across as rude, abrupt and emotionless. The perception that autistics are emotionless may come from the fact that autistics may be more likely to keep their emotions to themselves—for example, not laughing when they find something funny. Autistics may also have different emotional reactions from what people without autism may expect. Noting a different reaction than they were expecting may prompt people without autism to perceive a general lack of emotion in autistic people. Autistics may also be amused by things that non-autistics would not find funny, such as absurd, Monty Python-type humor such as eating roads or flowers growing on a telephone.

Lenny Schafer said that the autism-like lack of empathy of anti-cure activists prevent them from seeing what is in the hearts of pro-cure advocates.[7]

Rain Man

I removed the following paragraph from the article because it is mostly unsourced and not relavent to the autism rights movement. It would fit better in the Rain Man article (if sourced). Q0 (talk) 10:28, 9 February 2008 (UTC)

Some people are also irritated by the perception created by Rain Man that all autistics have savant abilities, although the reality is that the psychiatrist in the film said that Dustin Hoffman's character Raymond Babbitt was very high functioning, unlike many other autistics, who are unable to speak.{{Fact}} A countercriticism of this Rain Man defence is that the film was clearly made at a time when understanding of autism was less developed, and is not reflective of the reality.{{Fact}} Raymond Babbitt is not considered high-functioning by people in the autism rights movement,{{Fact}} who point out that Albert Einstein may have met the diagnostic criteria for high-functioning autism.

Citation needed in the intro

I noticed that someone put a "citation needed" flag in the intro. The intro used to have citations in it, but was since rewritten without citations. From looking at some of the past discussion on this talk page, it looks like it was felt that the intro does not need citations. Should the intro be cited? Q0 (talk) 01:07, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

I don't usually cite leads unless there is something highly surprising or controversial in the lead that demands a cite. In a well written lead, everything in the lead will already be cited elsewhere in the article (that may not yet be the case for this article). Someone had placed a strange superscripted citation needed there, so I changed it; I'm indifferent if you want to delete it. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 01:13, 10 February 2008 (UTC)
I'll delete it. If the person who originally added the "citation needed" tag with the superscript instead of the template thinks something in the intro is controversial enough to require citation, I'd suggest to that person to explain why on the talk page since citations in the intro are unusual. Q0 (talk) 01:29, 10 February 2008 (UTC)

Weasel tags on opposition to eliminating autism

I noticed the "opposition to eliminating autism" section was tagged as having weasel words, and that someone removed a "weasely" sentence in this edit [3]. Although I think there are some more mild weasel words still in the section, I think the tag might have mostly been referring to the removed sentence. Is the tag still needed? Also, the whole article is tagged, so unless that section is worse than the rest of the article, it seems more appropriate not to tag that section. Q0 (talk) 04:30, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I agree it can go. Little by little :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 04:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Unsourced statement about Michelle Dawson and ABA

I've been trying to look for a source for this statement:

Some critics of the movement believe Michelle Dawson played an important role in Auton v. British Columbia and is responsible for Canadian children not receiving applied behavioral analysis, which is considered an important therapy by the people who make this criticism.[citation needed]

In this source [4] I found the following statements:

Because of her frequent and detailed critiques of ABA, Dawson says she often receives hate mail. She's been accused of being a fraudulent researcher. Some ABA supporters claim she's lying about her diagnosis. Some parents claim she's trying to destroy their children.

and found the following statements from this source [5]:

This in turn led her to intervene in a landmark 2004 autism Supreme Court case. BC parents of autistic children had won an appeal to force the province to pay for applied behaviour analysis (ABA) therapy; Ms Dawson wrote to the Supreme Court arguing there was no hard evidence supporting the intensive therapy. "I tried to intervene and I succeeded," says Ms Dawson. The higher court overturned the appeal; this pretty much made her public enemy number one of many parent groups, but she stands by her interference. "The case wasn't science or ethics-based."

I have thought about rewording the statement in the article based on those two sources, but I'm not sure how to do it with some of the emotional language used in the sources. If I were to write, "Some critics consider Michelle Dawson to be their number one public enemy and think she is trying to destroy their children," but that seems a bit too loaded and I'd have WP:NPOV and WP:BLP concerns about it. I havn't found any less loaded language in the references that cites the needed sentence, but am not sure how to tone down the language while not misrepresenting the content of the sources. Q0 (talk) 05:04, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

When in doubt, quote 'em directly :-) (Which means it's late and I'm too tired to help you sort it out :-) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:09, 15 February 2008 (UTC)
By the way, I'm pretty sure I was the person who added the multiple issues tag, and a lot has been done since then; if you want to review and remove any of the individual items within the multiple issues, go ahead. I just wanted something to start happening with all of these uncited autism essays. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 05:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Weasel words

This article contains statements that have what might be called "weasel words" such as "some people say ...," however, a number of these are sourced. Is there a problem with wording like this when the statements are sourced? Some examples of these statements are the following:

  • The article states, "Some autistic people have criticized therapy which attempts to remove autistic behaviors because they say that the behaviors that the therapy tries to remove are attempts to communicate." This is sourced at [6] from the statement, "'Behaviors are so often attempts to communicate,' said Jane Meyerding, an autistic woman who has a clerical job at the University of Washington and is a frequent contributor to the Autistic Advocacy e-mail discussion list. 'When you snuff out the behaviors you snuff out the attempts to communicate.'" Should the statement in the article be reworded? If so, should the statement be attributed to Jane Meyerding or Amy Harmon?
  • The article states, "There has also been concern that autistic children will be forced into ABA programs where they will not benefit," sourced from [7] by the statement, "'What's going to happen if the government legislates that all schools do ABA?' says Estee Klar-Wolfond, a Toronto writer and founder of The Autism Acceptance Project. 'Will my son be forced into an ABA program in which he won't benefit?'" Is it a weasel word the way the statement in the article says, "there has also been concern ..." instead of attributing that concern to a particular party? If it should be attributed to a party, which party should it be attributed to (Roger Collier or Estee Klar-Wolfond)?
  • The article states, "Critics of the movement argue that the autistic spectrum people opposed to a cure are high functioning autistic or have Asperger syndrome," sourced at [8], from the statement, "Parents argue that their antagonists are showing a typical autistic lack of empathy by suggesting that they should not try to help their children. It is only those whose diagnosis describes them as "high functioning" or having Asperger's syndrome, they say, who are opposed to a cure." In this case, the source does not attribute a specific party to the claim. Is it acceptable to leave the claim in the article as it is, or should it be attributed to someone? Should it be attributed to Amy Harmon? Both the source and the article follow with a specific person (Lenny Schafer) who has used a similar argument.
  • The article states, "Some autistic activists say it is not easy to distinguish between high and low functioning," sourced from [9] to the assertion, "But the autistic activists say it is not so easy to distinguish between high and low functioning, and their ranks include both." Here, the source only attributes the claim to "The autistic activists." Is it then acceptable for the article to attribute it to "Some autistic activists" or should it attribute the statement to Amy Harmon or someone else?

Q0 (talk) 20:03, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

It would be better to attribute opinions to the actual individuals or groups whenever you can. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:13, 19 March 2008 (UTC)


I removed the following section because it is largely uncited and because controversy sections are discouraged in Wikipedia. When the article was tagged as having a controversy/criticism section, I moved a lot of the material to other sections, but there was still a lot of uncited material that remained. Q0 (talk) 11:30, 4 April 2008 (UTC)

The text you removed did include one cited sentence. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:19, 4 April 2008 (UTC)
Thanks for pointing that out. I've reinserted that sentence into the article. Q0 (talk) 20:06, 4 April 2008 (UTC)


The movement has been criticized by autism professionals and parents of autistic children who believe the goals of the movement will not help autistic children. There are some critics of the movement who still support some of the movement's goals despite opposing other goals.

Responses from the movement

Further responses of the movement can be summarized as follows:[citation needed]

  • Being able to communicate well in writing is not inconsistent with a diagnosis of autism.
  • Autism does not disappear the moment a person learns to communicate. Successfully teaching to communicate is not the same as "curing" autism.
  • Autism rights advocates believe parents should take into account the self-esteem of their autistic children. Activists ask: "is it better to teach these children that they have a neurological disease requiring intensive behavioral training to correct, or that they have unique and special neurology they should cherish and accept for what it is?"
  • Some of the critics' own children have apparently learned to communicate already, so their position is confusing because they argue that the writing abilities of autistic activists is evidence that they are fundamentally higher functioning than the children of the critics.

Early origins and continuation of the debate

The debate is ongoing and critics have responded to the autism rights movement's responses to their original criticisms, and the autism rights movement in turn has responded to those.

The autism rights movement and its debates were collaborated online due much in part to usenet's group ( which had autistics and people without autism on various sides of rights, cure and treatment issues. Due to the lack of moderation and what they perceive to be the abuse of several autistics on that forum by possible cranks, many have taken up blogging in more moderated communities. Much of the current thought has evolved over time by discussions in these communities and groups. Over time, some internet meme has also resulted because of the autism rights movement, much of which is tongue in cheek criticism of the self-diagnosis issue.

Some of the debate continues offline as well. Autistics and people without autism of all ages participating in the autism rights movement may also be expressly excluded from their local autism organizations. Many have, however formed well-connected offline chapters to address the lack of this inclusion by some cure-oriented autism communities. Some groups, however, have been making efforts to include such families, groups and individuals in the movement to increase the level of communication and create mutual understanding.

Some of the most critical pro-cure advocates are non-autistic relatives of autistics, e.g. those represented by FAAAS, Families of Adults Affected by Asperger Syndrome.[8] Many such organizations have characterized those in the anti-cure movement as being mostly an adult with Asperger Syndrome phenomenon and object to the anti-cure message as a result of their own personal perspectives of living with autistic adults.

Disagreements within the movement

There are disagreements within the movement as well. Some autistics would prefer autism to be seen as a disability, meaning that it would have a status similar to blindness or deafness. Within this context, autism rights would fit within the broader movement of disability rights and autistic culture would be analogous to deaf culture. Those supporting this view are concerned that if autism was to be viewed as simply a way of being or as a non-disabled minority group, the needs some autistics have for aid and assistance would be overlooked.

Merge proposal for Autism Awareness Campaign UK

Setting up merge proposal to merge Autism Awareness Campaign UK to Autism rights movement SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Support merge; Autism Awareness Campaign UK has not been cleaned up or properly written, copyedited and cited for at least a year. It needs cleanup and only attracts poor quality and uncited edits. When written correctly, it could be summarized to one or two paragraphs here. Earlier arguments made on the talk page there against an earlier merge amount to nothing more than endorsement of a POV fork, against policy. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:09, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge: These are different movements and are different topics. I suggest merge to Sociological and cultural aspects of autism. Q0 (talk) 14:15, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    If the Autism Awareness Campaign is a "different movement, different topic", then one or both of these articles needs a POV tag. If this article excludes that topic, this article is POV. It sounds like we have an intentional POV fork here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    Autism Awareness Campaign UK is not relavent to the autism rights movement. I don't think either entity has even commented on each other. Q0 (talk) 14:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    Then Autism rights movement per this article is a POV definition, inherently. No one organization owns the claim to being *the* "autism rights movement", and no one organization speaks for them. We have a serious POV situation here. The UK Campaign is about autism rights; if that doesn't have a place here, it is a POV fork, and this article is POV. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:30, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    Is it considered POV to have articles about a movement with a POV? Wikipedia does have articles pro-choice and pro-life. Are those POV forks? Q0 (talk) 14:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    I am not understanding why one of the articles is a "POV fork", even though the Autism rights movement article excludes discussion of the autism awareness campaign UK. It also excludes discussion of Vitamin C, wood, or history of the Spanish language because those topics are not relavent to the autism rights movement. This merge proposal makes no sense to me. If the autism awareness campain UK criticized the autism rights movement, then I think that criticism should be discussed in the article, though that would not mean the two articles need to be merged. However, I am not aware of any such criticism. Q0 (talk) 14:34, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    See straw man regarding unrelated articles like wood. When a specific campaign for autism rights in the UK is excluded from a general article on autism rights on the basis of a claim (not verified to a reliable source) that it's a "different movement", then *this* article is biased towards one movement and is POV, excluding other movements/campaigns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    Is the problem the name of the article? If the problem is that the article is poorly named, then it can be renamed. This article is about a particular movement: one which sees autism as something not a disorder and consists mostly of autistic people. This appears to be a very separate movement from those with the desire to cure autism. I think it is better to change the title to fit the content, rather than the other way around. Q0 (talk) 14:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    Also, I have found nothing on the article for Autism awareness campaign UK that indicates it considers itself to support the rights of autistic people. It seems to be about awareness of autism. Q0 (talk) 14:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    More evidence of a POV problem in these articles. Take just one sample sentence from Autism Awareness Campaign UK: "The group campaigns on autism in the labour market, education, health, speech therapy, respite care, minority ethnic communities, as well as other areas where they believe there is a shortfall in public-service provision." There are many such examples; if you don't recognize them, it lends even more credence to the concern that this article is applying only one, perhaps biased definition of autism rights. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:06, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    I didn't recognize that sentence because it does not seem to necessarily say that they advocate the rights of autistic people in education, health, etc. I had guessed that they could want to make people who work in education or health aware of autism. Q0 (talk) 15:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    And how does one separate rights and awareness? How do you have rights if you're unaware of the issues? That article is about rights every bit as much as this article is. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:27, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Oppose merge: They are different, though related topics. Fenke (talk) 15:53, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    Can you please read the following sources to explain how the autism rights advocated in the UK are not part of autism rights overall; that is, based on what POV is that discussion not included here: SandyGeorgia 16:01, 20 July 2008 — continues after insertion below
You're shouting POV way too often, and in your last sentence, based on what POV is that discussion not included here you have already predetermined that whatever the response would be, it would be POV and by your predetermination, not valid. If this is your take on discussion, I am not going to participate, but rather wait and simply revert whatever you do. Fenke (talk) 18:04, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Fenke, please review WP:POINT, WP:CONSENSUS, and WP:AGF. If you're reverting good-faith edits based on WP:POINT, you might also review WP:3RR (which doesn't give license to revert three times). Thanks SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:56, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

It appears more and more that this article is espousing one biased POV on autism rights. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:01, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

  • Comment: If someone merges Autism awareness campaign UK into autism rights movement, I will not challenge it. I will still keep my "vote" as oppose, but I don't think it is worth this much debate, so I will accept it if someone else merges. Q0 (talk) 16:08, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Support merge. After looking at both articles, I see that the UK article does not have any references, and is substantially shorter than the Autism Rights Movement article, which is comprehensive and well sourced. It seems logical to merge the UK article into the general, and of course provide sources for all that will be included. Jeffpw (talk) 16:32, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
  • Clarification needed: This sentence at the beginning of the UK article The group campaigns on autism in the labour market, education, health, speech therapy, respite care, minority ethnic communities, as well as other areas where they believe there is a shortfall in public-service provision. needs clarification. The term "campaigns on autism" may be inherently understood in Britain, but it's unclear to me if the campaigning is done for funds, public services, or political recognition. Because all three of those sound to me like "rights". If that is the case, then I think the articles should be merged. If the campaigning is for something else, that should be clarified. --Moni3 (talk) 16:39, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    Part of the confusion here is that the sources *are* there on the other article: the article is just so poorly written and formatted that it's hard to realize that the sources are there. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:41, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
    I cleaned up Autism Awareness Campaign UK best I could; at least now it's possible to see what the article is about. It looks like autism rights to me. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Now that I've cleaned it up, it appears notable enough that it doesn't need to be merged here, but it does need to be mentioned in this article; if some types of autism rights advocacy is left out of this article, this article is POV. It looks like we have a setup on Wiki where all autism groups are classified (by what reliable source?) as either curebies or not: {{autism rights movement}} and {{autism cure movement}}. In the absence of reliable sources, this POV needs to be cleaned up and those templates possibly deleted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Fenke, since you removed the POV tag,[10] can you please justify the split in these two templates (and spread throughout Wiki) based on reliable sources? Every autism group on Wiki has been categorized as one or the other: based on what reliable sources has this been done? Thanks, SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:18, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
You could try jusitfying the tag and what's more justify the POV tag on every article that includes the template. Perhaps you hadn't thought of that consequence of tagging the template, but it's enough reason to remove the tag, in my opinion. If it's the categorization of articles in either of the groups, that represents a POV then this should be addressed, but not by tagging half of the articles as POV. If the contents of the templates, or rather the split of listed articles on the templates itself represents a POV, then a new set of templates oriented at navigating autism related articles, rather then an ideological categorization, could be thought out. That would retain it's usefulness in navigation, at least. Fenke (talk) 19:43, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
One way or another, a fix needs to be found; it appears that I inadvertently stumbled into a POV mess because of trying to clean up one article. Consequences of tagging the template, no I don't see that, but a temporary fix until someone locates some sources upon which those two templates are built, or builds another template that doesn't have a POV split, would be to remove them both from all articles. Otherwise, every article that includes them includes an unsourced POV. Yes, the tag is justified on every article that carries a POV template. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:47, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
The articles and the templates are distinct and independent, the articles do not use the template for their contents, hence the contents and status of the template can not determine whether the articles are POV or not. Fenke (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Considering we already have {{Pervasive developmental disorders}}, it looks like the other two could be submitted for deletion based on unsourced POV. (Or just removed from the articles and orphaned.) SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:52, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
If everything on the templates is on there, ported to it or easily reachable from there, it would be fine with me to phase these two templates out. Fenke (talk) 20:07, 20 July 2008 (UTC)


I would like to suggest that this article be renamed. I had thought about doing this in the past, but recently I believe it has become problematic. I see that the gay rights movement has also been changed to LGBT social movements. I don't know if this should be a model for how this article should be renamed. Q0 (talk) 15:22, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

Rename to what (taking care that it doesn't become yet another POV fork). SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:26, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
I'm open to suggestions. Some ideas include:
  • Autistic self-advocacy movement
  • Anti-cure autism movement
  • Cure opposing autism movement
  • Autism neurodiversity movement
  • Autism cure debate
  • Autism social movements
  • Autism cure controversy
These names, however, suggest different things from each other in terms of what the content of the article should be about. For that reason, I'd like to ask here if it is POV to have an article about a movement with a specific POV? Do the articles pro-choice and pro-life voilate Wikipedia's NPOV policy due to their name or what the articles are about? Would LGBT social movements article violate NPOV policy if it were named Gay rights movement? Q0 (talk) 15:38, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Well, we don't just willy-nilly make up names on Wiki; they need to be based on reliable sources. Some of your names suggest that this entire notion and article is heading in a very POV direction, and perhaps the entire thing needs to be merged into Sociological and cultural aspects of autism. As long as it was a neutral article, relying on good sources like Harmon, it could be justified. If the idea is to create a "curebie vs. non-curebie" controversy article, it will feel more and more like POV is in play. Further, we already have neurodiversity, so those arguments can be made there, to the extent there are reliable sources. I'm becoming troubled that autism rights are being named and discussed in a POV fashion, when Harmon's article quite clearly examined all sides of the issues. Pro-choice and pro-life are terms and issues well debated and discussed by many reliable sources; that is another straw man. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:46, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
This discussion has me extremely confused. It is my guess that neither of us understand each other as we intend to be understood. Q0 (talk) 15:55, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
Agree this is confusing. If this article is intended to be about one aspect only of a broader issue, then 1) we must get back to arguments based on reliable sources, and 2) that debate probably belongs at Sociological and cultural aspects of autism. Issues have to be covered neutrally, not as POV forks that advocate or espouse only one side of an issue. Autism rights are autism rights for all people with autism and shouldn't take sides. I 'spose the only way forward now is for me to cleanup and re-write that mess at the UK Awareness article, so we can see what we're really dealing with there; it's never been cleaned up since it was written. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 16:11, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
These names point at specific idea's within the set of idea's that are associated wirh the ARM, yet none are broad enough to encompass them all. Fenke (talk) 18:21, 20 July 2008 (UTC)
If you're using gay rights movement title change to LGBT right movement as a comparison, I'm not sure it's apt. "Gay rights" was a term that came about in the 1970s to ensure basic civil rights for, well, gays, but the term LGBT suggests a broadening of causes and people affected. The main goals of the Gay rights movement was to allow gay men and women to pursue relationships between consenting adults without being arrested in their homes or in bars, for cross-dressing (which included women wearing pants), or being declared mentally ill and subjected to institutionalization. LGBT social movements has incorporated the needs of transsexuals and addresses equal treatment not only by legal entities, but insurance, employment, and state and civic government agencies. Their focus is more on family life, equal medical treatment, the right to marry and adopt, and gain custody of children, and claim insurance for a same-sex spouse. Using these examples, how would you compare the naming of these Autism-related articles? --Moni3 (talk) 18:17, 20 July 2008 (UTC)

I retract my suggestion to rename the article. The discussion has gotten too confusing for me. Q0 (talk) 07:27, 21 July 2008 (UTC)

  1. ^ a b c d e f g h edits
  2. ^ Dawson, Michelle (23 October 2003). "Autism Society Canada Speaks For Itself: An Open Letter". No Autistics Allowed. Retrieved 2007-11-07.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  3. ^ "What is NT?". Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typical. March 18, 2002. Retrieved 2007-11-07.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  4. ^ Roger Collier. The Ottowa Citizen. Published Saturday, December 01, 2007. web version accessed 04 January 2008; citation on page 3 of the web version
  5. ^ "The Sal and Anne Test: Implications, and Theory of Mind". Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typical. September 26, 1998. Retrieved 2007-11-07.  Check date values in: |date= (help)
  6. ^ "NT Theory of Mind". Institute for the Study of the Neurologically Typical. Retrieved 2007-11-07. 
  7. ^ Schafer, Lenny; "Response to Letters: Somewhere Over the Spectrum, Part 3." Volume 9 Number 5. January 12, 2005. (accessed 04 january 2008)
  8. ^ "Homepage". Families of Adults Affected by Asperger's Syndrome. Retrieved 2007-11-07.