` ::::* I agree that there is a sourcing problem, just as there would be a sourcing problem for the criticism that Autism Speaks is yet another charity that fleeces unsuspecting donors and diverts large sums of money into its own pockets (another criticism that can easily be found among unreliable sources). But a Wikipedia article on X is not supposed to be a dumping ground for all criticisms of X, no matter how poorly supported. (If that were the case, the Barack Obama article would be overwhelmed by material supplied by critics of every stripe and persuasion, no matter how fringe.) We need to have reliable sources that talk about the topic and place criticisms in context. ::::* The paragraph that discusses Autism Speaks is the final and concluding paragraph of ``Living Googles?`` (PDF). Baron-Cohen's position that autism's causes are mostly genetic is clearly the mainstream position, and it is not at all inconsistent with his (less-mainstream) position that autism should be viewed as a difference and not a disease. ::::* I don't understand the last sentence of the previous comment. The first paragraph of Autism Speaks #Portrayal of autism accurately summarizes the source. If it could be written more clearly, could you please propose a specific wording change to do that? ::::  `