Talk:Mel Baggs/Archive 1

Created page

I pretty much just adapted the Jim Sinclair article here; hope it's off to a good start. cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 08:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, there already was an article about Amanda Baggs March or April 2006 and it was deleted. In addition, Amanda Baggs stated on her blog that she didn't want her article to exist. I think she said she had privacy concerns. Q0 08:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

The last thing I'd want to to is to violate any privacy concern or otherwise create unwanted stress. I only thought the CNN citation was a good source that made the article notable, and I was careful not to include anything that wasn't in CNN or Youtube. I'll leave the issue up to Amanda Baggs, who has all my respect. Jim Butler^(talk) 08:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)

unsourced statement

There's an unsourced statement saying that I am "entirely nonverbal" and communicate by typing independently. I'm not sure what "entirely nonverbal" means. I'm (currently, at this time in my life, not to be extended to all other times please) able to produce words but not for conversational purposes, wouldn't that be "functionally nonverbal" if the word "nonverbal" had to be used at all? And what would be the source for that, since I'm the one mentioning this about myself? I'd think it'd make sense to say "...is unable to use speech for conversational purposes" or something like that instead of "is entirely nonverbal", but I'm not exactly about to edit an article about myself or come up with a source for that. Silentmiaow 21:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Amanda -- I changed it, and your blog could be used to reference this. It's also OK for you to edit your own article, within reason. Cf. WP:BLP#Sources. regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 20:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)

year of birth

It says "year of birth missing". I was born in 1980. I again don't know any sources for that statement, unless you count the medical records referenced on my website. Silentmiaow 00:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Including a quote from CNN's article about Amanda Baggs in this article

HiEv, can you support your removal of well-sourced, substantive, neutral material with any WP policy or guideline? While I agree that it's good not to have too high a proportion of quoted material in articles, there are several reasons why it's not a problem here, and in fact why it should be retained.

• First, the article is still just a stub. I agree that we can flesh it out and perhaps "cannibalize" (i.e., rewrite in a non-copyright-infringing way) some of the CNN material. But that doesn't mean we should remove relevant information in the meantime.
• Second, WP:QUOTE was rejected as a policy or guideline, so having a significant amount of quoted material (especially in stub articles) is not a big deal.
• Third, according to WP:BLP, the material you deleted is in fact exactly the kind of thing we should have in the article. Your edit summary said "the article should be about her, not her opinion of her video". That's dead wrong. Wp:blp#People_who_are_relatively_unknown says:

"Wikipedia also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability."

Amanda Baggs is primarily notable as an autism advocate who was interviewed by CNN after her YouTube video become something of an internet sensation. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate, and necessary, to base the article mostly on available secondary sources (i.e. the CNN pieces by various journalists) as well as on primary-source material (i.e. the subject's own writings, within what is allowed by WP:SOURCES and WP:BLP).

It should be self-evident, then, that having the article's subject comment on what her video meant is topical and useful, just as Thom Yorke's comments on the creation of Radiohead albums is considered suitable. Restoring. If you disagree, please show me the policy or guideline I'm missing, or file an article RfC. Thank you. Jim Butler^(talk) 03:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I am neither the first, nor the only person to remove that quote, so there is no reason to address this to me alone. SandyGeorgia removed it a couple of days ago (for sounding like an advert for the video), then you restored it, and then I removed it again, then you restored it again.

As I indicated in my edit summary, the article should be about Amanda Baggs, not her opinion of her video. I don't see how a long quote where Amanda Baggs emotionally talks about who else the video is for adds to what is supposed to be a neutral article about Amanda Baggs.

And speaking of neutral, it looks to me like the quote fails Wikipedia:Neutral point of view. It is her opinion of her video, and it does it in a vaguely promotional tone, so that is probably not neutral, as you claimed above. Yes, she may have really said that, but quoting other people is not a method to bypass restrictions on adding bias to articles.

Besides that, even if material satisfies all of Wikipedia's sourcing guidelines, if that material is irrelevant or only slightly relevant to the article, then it does not belong in that article. I honestly don't think the quote tells us anything about Amanda Baggs. The article should neutrally discuss what is notable about her and what she's done, instead of serving as a soapbox for her views.

Think about it this way, if you were to summarize the quote and include a reference to the quote instead, the footnoted text would end up looking something like this:

While she made the video about her autism, she says it is also for anyone else who has an "unusual" form of communication.

Now, that is much more neutral version and it summarizes the quote, but it doesn't really tell us facts about Amanda, it tells us about her video.

I don't think WP:NPF supports you on this because it says "include only material relevant to their notability" (emphasis in original), and I don't think this quote is particularly relevant to her notability either, since it doesn't say anything significant. Since this is the "Amanda Baggs" article, and not the "Amanda Baggs' video" article, I think it's just clutter that should not be included. Stub or no, "fleshing out" an article with clutter is just a bad idea. (And, as a minor note, two huge quotes in a row just looks awful and un-Wikipedia-ish.)

Finally, regarding Thom Yorke and Radiohead, he is clearly a notable person, and not someone who is relatively unknown like Amanda Baggs, so as WP:NPF notes, there are different requirements for what gets included in their articles. Also note that Radiohead has its own article, while Amanda Baggs' video does not. So you're comparing apples and oranges there.

So, does all/most of that sound reasonable? (An RfC is jumping the gun, can't we settle this here?) -- HiEv 07:45, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry if you think two huge quotes in a row look "awful", but we've gotta collaborate based on WP policy, not anyone's subjective aesthetic judgements. Neither you nor Sandy offered a valid reason to delete. Your argument about the "Amanda Baggs article" vs "the Amanda Baggs video article" goes nowhere, because it's the video that made her notable in the first place, so of course her commentary on it is appropriate. (Nor is it POV in an article about herself.) I see no reason at all to delete her words, though summarizing them a bit could be OK -- but why are you so hot to get rid of her opinion? It's the article about her, and she's an autism advocate, so of course it's about her views -- and in V RS's, too. Consider: should an article about a liberal politician omit that politician's description of her own views because of "NPOV"? That's not what NPOV means. Jim Butler^(talk) 08:05, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

My comment about how it looks was clearly the least important point in my argument, so it's odd that you bring that up first. Ignore that point, it's irrelevant. Now, you say that we haven't given a valid reason, but clearly we disagree. Furthermore, just because she's notable because of the video does not make any and all comments she makes regarding the video into material worthy of inclusion here. The article should talk about her and the video, not the video and other people, the latter of which is what the quote actually discusses. If you want to cite her views when relevant to notability, fine, but a quote about who else the video is for just seems off-topic in this article. Regarding your "politician" example, you're making the same apples and oranges comparison you made earlier, since such politicians are usually clearly notable, unlike Amanda Baggs. The article should be about what makes her notable, and who else she says the video is for is not one of those things. Think about it this way, if she had said that the video was dedicated to her parents, would that be relevant to notability? I don't see how it would be. So why is saying it's dedicated to cats and such any different? Finally, the reason why I'm "hot" to get rid of it is the same reason why I'm "hot" to get rid of any other apparent clutter in Wikipedia articles: I think it will make the articles better. -- HiEv 11:01, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the fact that she's notable because of the video does not automatically make her every comment about the video worthy of inclusion. However, I still don't understand your argument about why the quote in question is not worthy of inclusion. The quote isn't tangential to the video's content; it's about the central message of the video. It's about understanding and respecting different forms of cognition and communication, of which autism is one aspect. In the video, she makes clear that she is talking about "autistic people and other cognitively disabled people" (6:43), so the quote is obviously in line with the video's message.

I guess I could see your logic if, for example, we were talking about a long quote describing in detail each course of a five-course meal she ate just before creating the video. But that's not the case here.

Anyway, the energy we're expended so far on the talk page could be better spend working on the article. What I'd like to do is add some more CNN stuff (paraphrased rather than quoted) to the article, abridge the quote in question (you summarized it well above), and add a quote from the video itself. What do you think? thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 04:16, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Sounds like a reasonable compromise. As for the energy expended here, I thought it was better to discuss it here than begin an edit war, which is what was beginning to happen. I am doing some research to improve the article, but I keep getting distracted by other Wikipedia stuff, plus I have other things I need to work on. Whee! -- HiEv 02:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

P.S. Why in your reversion (see here) did you say that you undid my comment "per WP:BLP, etc."? My removal of content in no way violated WP:BLP guidelines, or any others that I'm aware of. -- HiEv 02:23, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Sorry about any confusion over my edit summary, which said "per WP:BLP, etc.; see talk page". That was in response to your previous edit summary, which said "the article should be about her, not her opinion of her video". I was referring to my comments above (diff), in which I tried to explain that, if anything, the article should focus on her video and her opinion of it as opposed to other areas of her life, per WP:NPF. IOW, you weren't violating BLP; rather, I read BLP as specifically encouraging and allowing material that you were suggesting was off-topic (her opinions about her video). Anyway, HiEv, it seems we are back in good-faith land, and I look forward to working more on this (I'm quite busy too; full-time parent of a child with so-called Kanner autism). Thanks for your patience and understanding. regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 03:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

"Controversial" diagnosis

I just removed a passage that I believe violates WP:BLP guidelines. It lacks NPOV and fails to provide any reference to the so-called "controversy". - DaveSeidel 16:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

The article cites American Chronicle article references her "harsh critics" who dispute that she is a low functioning autistic. Her background to the contrary has been discussed in several autism community forums and blogs as well as a recent mention at randi.org. It is my understanding that forums and blogs are not good references, but perhaps they would fit here better than the American Chronicle article? How many forums/blogs would I need to include to have this accepted as a controversy?

Also, please point out the NPOV language so that I can remove it.

Thanks.

75.13.45.198 17:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)oddmountain

As a rule, blogs and forums are not acceptable per WP:RS, so your question of "how many I would need to include" is irrevelant. Wikipedia is not about hearsay or unfounded opinion. If you wish to discuss a "controversy", especially one in reference to a living person, only a reliable source is acceptable. I don't see any problem with referencing the American Chronicle article in and of itself, but this entry is entirely one-sided in a negative sense, and thus NPOV, since no balancing views or references are provided. There is also no reference to any source for the Simon's Rock information, nor to the fact that she left after one year and was institutionalized after she left there. -- DaveSeidel 17:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC)

Additionally, I had no major there. The classes I took were two art classes, one music class, two freshman English classes, one physical education class, two foreign language (same language), and one science (which I did not even pass). Contrary to some of the gossip, I had to leave after spending one year there, and never returned. I have never hidden, including from CNN, my classification as a gifted student for part of my school career, or the part that played in setting expectations that led to serious burnout.

Despite popular opinion, autism diagnoses do not depend on IQ test score (although it should also be noted that I've been given IQ tests three times and only the first time been able to test in the gifted range, due to acquiring some skills rapidly that look impressive in young children but not so impressive in teens and adults, a phenomenon that has happened to several other autistic people I know, including some who, like me, were put in college early), and there have been other autistic students attending that school (I think there is one who is open about it attending right now). The discrepancy between my apparent intellect and my ability to function in everyday life was in fact one of the things that pointed to an autism diagnosis, and that has been noted in the autism field since autism was originally discovered by Leo Kanner.

When I attended this school, I had already been given a neurological exam because of skills I was beginning to lose before I even got there (and had an abnormal EEG that pointed to "underlying structural pathology" according to the report), and a neuropsychologist had to write a note to the school at one point to explain my unusual behavior which included periodic inability to speak.

Additionally, it does not make sense to manufacture controversies where none exist (or to cite manufactured controversies as meaningful) by "revealing" information about someone that they have never hidden. I have told anyone who has ever interviewed me about my general history that I was identified as gifted during parts of my childhood, some have chosen to use that information as part of what they said about me and some have not. I have also mentioned it a number of times in public. People who claim this is something controversial that I've been sitting around hiding are counting on people not to actually read what I write in much depth, or to know what I have told reporters, and they are also counting on people to be unaware that academic skills don't negate an autism diagnosis. Anyone who has read my writing knows that I have mentioned it often, and anyone who has studied autism in much depth knows that autistic people often have a striking discrepancy between academic achievement and other skills. (I suspect many of the same people gossiping about my year at that college to be the same ones who teased me there for failing to bathe, change my clothes, wash my clothes, or organize my materials well enough not to have to carry several large bags everywhere I went. And for my periods of shutdown to complete or near-complete unresponsiveness, unusual reactions to my surroundings, poor social judgment, unusual gait, monotone chatterbox mode, and unusual mannerisms. Because of my social naivete I thought this was friendship. My psychiatrist and many others saw right through the situation and warned me and my parents to avoid everyone I had met there, which is why you won't see me advertising the place right and left.)

While little to none of this is a matter of public record, there are private medical records and school transcripts that verify everything I am saying, many of which have been shown to people privately when necessary to verify such things (Dave Seidel's wife in fact once spent all day scanning a large stack of these records for me so I could send them to someone on a CD-ROM), and perhaps these things, and the people who have actually seen them, ought to be trusted over random gossip by people whose intentions might not be what people imagine they are. Silentmiaow (talk) 20:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC)

If there is a reliable source citing notable controversy that doesn't violate WP:BLP, it is a violation of WP:NPOV to not include it simply because it's negative, since then you are biasing the article in favor of the subject. Yes, this can be a tricky balancing act in some situations. He did cite the American Chronicle article, and while some of his text was not substantiated by that source, the rest, with some editing, should probably be included, or another reliable source should be added to support the other claims. WP:UNDUE should also be kept in mind. -- HiEv 02:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree with your reasoning, but I would point out that while the American Chronicle interview uses the words "controversy" and "notoriety", there are no references for these or for any other assertions made by the author. In fact, controversy may indeed exist, but because of WP:BLP in general, and the personal nature of the issues in specific (which revolve around medical and psychological diagnoses), the bar must remain high, and WP:RS is a must. - DaveSeidel 03:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

For HiEv and others: I agree that appropriately verified material should be included when summarized properly and adequately weighted. However, I'm not sure that AmericanChronicle.com meets WP:SOURCES. Is it a "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", or is it (as this article, http://www.associatedcontent.com/article/108854/wanna_get_listed_on_google_news_use.html, suggests) more of a republisher of material, e.g from blogs?

Regarding the Donna Williams interview reprinted at American Chronicle, I noticed that the original piece (from Ms Williams' blog) had been previously cited in the article, but deleted as non-reliable. That makes sense in WP terms, since per WP:SOURCES "Self-published sources should never be used as third-party sources about living persons, even if the author is a well-known professional researcher or writer."

If Ms Baggs posts the interview on her own site, then we can use it (in this article, involving claims only about Ms Baggs herself and no one else). Otherwise, it appears that we can't, unless we can agree that AmericanChronicle.com is a reliable source, i.e., that it has the resources to vet the accuracy (and not merely to boost the google ranking) of material it republishes. regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 03:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Thank, Jim, excellent points. According to the American Chronicle's Author Agreement, they rely entirely on the author's word that "[t]he Content is based on true facts and diligent research"; nothing there (or in any other part of the site that I've been able to find) about any editorial oversight or fact-checking whatsoever. IOW, they don't even claim to be a reliable source -- how can we treat them as one? - DaveSeidel 04:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Yup, then "American Chronicle" is out as a reliable source. I also note that Tim Langmaid, a managing editor at CNN Medical News, commented on the questions about her diagosis and mentioned in general some of the resources they checked to verify her story.[1] -- HiEv 13:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

I think it's important for this controversy to be in the article. Amanda Baggs has posted a lot of good responses to the aspersions people have cast on her autism, and it would be nice if people who heard about the controversy could then come to the article and get a balanced view of it. Personally I think the controversy is really dumb, and I wouldn't want people to read something like that and take it as fact because there isn't a reliable source about the issue.Gorramdoll (talk) 22:04, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

I don't think it's possible to get a balanced view of a issue that is essentially spurious and defamatory, and serves only to damage the person at whom these unfounded allegations have been made, especially when the claims lack foundation and are made by an apparently very small group of people. That violates WP:BLP. WP is concerned with notability and facts. A campaign of slander is neither notable nor factual. It's just destructive gossip. WP relies upon reliable sources, trying to use it to create a reliable source is probably a variation on original research. - DaveSeidel (talk) 14:04, 11 November 2008 (UTC)

A campaign of slander is notable if it has an effect on people. It wouldn't be damaging to post a summary of what Amanda said in the "arbitrary break" section, to show why "Amanda Baggs isn't autistic, she went to college/talked/etc." is misleading, and maybe a quote about how performing some more high-functioning behavior at some point doesn't mean a person is faking it if they seem more low-functioning later. I don't post on Wikipedia very much so I understand if this would be against the rules, I just really feel like it would be helpful.Gorramdoll (talk) 15:56, 23 November 2008 (UTC)

A campaign of slander is only notable if it reaches legal proceedings. This has not. The matter is closed. GetDumb 06:28, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Potential COI

<removed a lot of content per WP:BLP concerns> SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC) Appto 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Wikipedia requires that the sources used to verify content in its articles are reliable enough (see WP:RS). Blogs are not reliable enough sources. In addition, special care needs to be taken to make sure articles do not contain potentially damaging information about living persons (see WP:BLP). This information is potentially damaging so cannot be included with sources as poor as blog entries. Also, I have looked through the sources you gave on this talk page and they did not even verify this information. In the final four URLs you gave in your post, the first three made no reference to Baggs, and the fourth gave no information about who the author of that "letter" was. That is only the beginning of the problems with those sources that makes them unreliable. Q0 (talk) 04:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

<removed content per WP:BLP concerns. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:17, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to "contest" or "dispute" this article on Amanda Baggs. How can I do so formally, and have this noted in the Article? Appto9 March 2008 (UTC)

You can dispute the article by writing {{NPOV}} at the top of the article. Q0 (talk) 07:16, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

However, I really don't think there is any grounds for a dispute. Right now the only sources to support these allegations is one blog, which is not a reliable source anyway. Wikipedia's NPOV policy does not require including the opinions of everyone who puts up a blog. In addition, I don't think there is grounds for a dispute when someone believes information will be published in the future (per WP:CRYSTAL). I have read the blog in question and I highly doubt that anything reliable will ever come from it. Q0 (talk) 07:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Note that Amanda Baggs herself has been actively involved in constructing this wikipedia article, and in editing it. She makes many comments in the Talk area under "Controversial Diagnosis" and can be verified as the user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Silentmiaow who in the History section was an active participant in the construction of this article. I find it inappropriate that she took part in the writing of an encyclopedia article about her - she is not an objective or third-party source. Also, user http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:DaveSeidel is not an objective source, as he has been engaged in a discussion on www.autismspeaks.org and elsewhere (let me know if you'd like the specific links and posts...there are about 20 posts) in defense of Amanda that is highly personal in nature - he persistently engages in personal attacks and is belligerent toward those who try to present the astounding case (see my notes above for a introduction to the case) against Amanda. Dave Seidel is very much personally connected to Amanda Baggs, and is not an objective or impersonal source. He was a core part of the construction of this article, and actively took part in editing and this Talk section. I would like to request that all additions and editing of this article by Amanda Baggs and Dave Seidel be removed due to bias and lack of objectivity.--Appto (talk) 17:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

User:Silentmiaow has written comments here on the talk page, but has not made a single edit to the Amanda Baggs article. Q0 (talk) 17:00, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Where is the editing history of this article, which would allow me to see who started the article, who did the contributions, etc?--Appto (talk) 17:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Every article has a "history" tab: see here. It was started by Jim Butler. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, please note that the main article and the talk page have separate histories. If you click the history tab while viewing the talk page, you will see the talk page's history, not the main article's history. Q0 (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, if it came to AfD again, I'd be a "delete"; the entire article is nothing but quotes from a CNN blog, and I don't see notability here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

During the AfD, it was decided that Amanda Baggs being interviewed by CNN counted as non-trivial media coverage. Q0 (talk) 17:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Consensus can change; there is just no content here except quotes. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Until concensus changes on WP:N, it's notable. Using too many quotes may be bad style, but has nothing to do with WP:N. At least three journalists, including Anderson Cooper and Sanjay Gupta, are cited. Those put the subject well over the WP:N threshold. (Likewise, the format -- blog, TV show, paper -- doesn't matter; CNN is a reliable source.) --Jim Butler (t) 01:40, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

I can't find a AfD page to add discussion. I agree with SandyGeorgia that there is nothing but quotes from a CNN blog and there is apparent lack of notability. <removed content per WP:BLP concerns> It was requested to the editor that the matter be investigated.--Appto (talk) 18:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

By the way, something's off in the talk page history here: both of the old AfDs are supposed to be listed on the talk page. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Yes, please post the relevant AutismSpeaks threads here to the talk page; they can't be used to source the article, but they are relevant to COI issues. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC) <removed BLP violations and problematic blog links>

I thought the Dispute of Neutrality would remain until the matter was fully discussed and resolved. Some contributors of this article, especially Dave Seidel, are not neutral. Note in the above linked threads that Dave Seidel is a highly personal supporter and defender of Amanda Baggs, and not an objective reporter of information, and has a highly biased interest in the promotion and defense of Baggs. Also, as moderator SandyGeorgia noted "By the way, if it came to AfD again, I'd be a "delete"; the entire article is nothing but quotes from a CNN blog, and I don't see notability here. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)"--Appto (talk) 18:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Appto, slow down. First, I am not a "moderator" nor am I an admin. Second, please stop including my sig in your posts, as that makes it appear that they are my posts. Third, there is not a neutrality dispute here; you are confusing WP:NPOV with WP:COI. Please take some time to learn policies and guidelines; this isn't an "emergency", and the rest of us will catch up as soon as we have time. Post reliable sources here to the talk page, and we'll deal with it. Also, take time to read WP:BLP, lest you post here info which is not based on reliable sources; if you do, we are obligated to delete it. I'm still trying to catch up with your posts, as you are altering old AfDs. Please slow down. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please note: livejournal.com and autismspeaks forums are not reliable sources. We can't write an article based on what they say. That info is relevant to notability and conflict of interest, but please take care with WP:BLP. Those are NOT reliable sources by WP:RS and WP:V policy; they are self-published sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

The link to Hating Autism should be left here <BLP violation removed>—Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.181.39.117 (talk) 19:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Sorry, blogs are not considered to be reliable sources. That blog appears to be nothing but hearsay. - DaveSeidel (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the entry made here by DaveSeidel due to unfounded allegations of a personal nature, and an untrue and unsupported reference to a particular person's name, and untrue and unfounded allegation that this person is doing something on the Internet, and a personal allegation about the nature of this person's website. I'd like to note that DaveSeidel does this peristently as shown in the above mentioned autismspeaks.org links and LiveJournal link (see my post above with the references), and I'd like to note that DaveSeidel is a contributor and editor of this article on Amanda Baggs, and reiterate my request that his contributions and editings be reviewed for neutrality, and be strickened due to his clear and intense personal involvement with supporting and promoting Amanda Baggs - he is not a neutral nor objective source.--Appto (talk) 19:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Appto, it is not OK to delete someone else's comment: Do not strike out the comments of other editors without their permission. You would benefit from taking some time to learn the policies around here. If you have a specific WP policy to invoke, then please do so, but you can't just invent your own. - DaveSeidel (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Appto, you are making unreasonable requests, not grounded in wiki policy. We delete items that violate WP:BLP or that aren't sourced to reliable sources. The last time I went through this article, it was reliably sourced. There is nothing to be deleted, and who added it is not relevant except to the extent that we need to be aware of future WP:COI editing. Seidel, attempting to out the real life identity of any wiki editor is a serious offense. If you do it again, I'll make sure it is dealt with. Both of you need to get some perspective and slow down; there is nothing urgent here. I'm going to post to an admin noticeboard to get some attention on this, as you both appear to be dragging an off-Wiki dispute on to Wiki, and that needs to stop. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:48, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Comment: User:Bettwice33 has identified himself both on-wiki and off-wiki, so "outing" him is not an issue and I believe Dave Seidel's comments were made in good faith. --Jim Butler (t) 00:54, 14 March 2008 (UTC)

I removed the name from my comment and reinstated it. - DaveSeidel (talk) 19:53, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

If Amanda Baggs' blog is relevant and can be used as a link, Hating Autism should also be allowed as a blog that, with Amanda's own words, disputes the veracity of everything that Baggs claims. removed BLP violation> ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettwice33 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Please read WP:SPS; blogs may be used to source one's own entry, insofar as they make statements about what one says about oneself. They may NOT be used to source other content. Seidel, yes it is acceptable under some circumstances to remove talk page posts, for example, personal attacks, attempts to out someone's real life identity, and BLP violations. Bettwice33, you are violating WP:BLP and WP:NPA; stop now or you can be blocked. I've removed part of your post. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:21, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to also refer the readers to the Talk page and recent entries at the article on Donna Williams [2] under "Controversial Diagnosis". There are several parallels between this matter and the matter with Amanda Baggs.

ABC Radio National[[3]]. The Health Report. From Australia (Williams lives in Australia). "Autism - a special report by Kathy Gollan" An investigation by Kathy Gollan. There is considerable proof and evidence undermining the legitimacy of Donna Williams's diagnosis of autism, as discussed by autism experts and others, including Donna Williams doctor, a former college professor, Yale's Fred Volkmar, a former friend, and others. The article is a serious investigative report. [Portion of comment removed by Q0 (talk) 19:43, 12 March 2008 (UTC) for WP:BLP concerns] --Appto (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

[Comment removed for WP:BLP violation by Q0 (talk) 17:21, 11 March 2008 (UTC)] --Appto (talk) 22:54, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

I've directed this page to the relevant policies.

* Please read WP:BLP regarding violations on biographies of living persons.

* Please read WP:RS, WP:V and WP:SPS regarding self-published sources like blogs.

* We must/should immediately remove any material that violates WP:BLP from talk pages and articles.

* Also see WP:TALK for talk page guidelines.

We do NOT repeat blog-sourced information that maligns a living person on either talk pages or in articles. If anyone here continues doing that, they can be blocked. Further, bringing off-wiki blog wars on to Wiki is not likely to be viewed well by uninvolved admins. Please keep your on-Wiki discussion confined to reliable sources. Blogs are not reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:49, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

Arbitary break

While I am of course the subject of this article, and as I have said many times, this is why I do not edit it, I would like to provide a few facts for people's reference:

1. When diagnoses for autism take place, the families, not the high-school or college classmates, are the main people interviewed. This is so much the case that many autistic people whose parents are dead or estranged are not capable of securing a diagnosis, because the parents' description of the autistic people's early life is absolutely key to diagnosis. Rather than being considered too close to be objective, a developmental history taken by interviewing the parents and other family members of an autistic person is part of the standard diagnostic process. It is not standard procedure to regard people who know someone well from infancy as too biased to take part in the diagnostic process, nor is it standard procedure to regard adolescent acquaintances as having more objective information than the family does.

2. Diagnosis of autism from a distance, over the Internet, is not ever considered valid, and teenage gossip is not considered objective by nearly any medical professional.

3. Even when things like this happen in good faith, teenagers are not qualified to diagnose autism, and a person cannot base a diagnosis of autism on their recollections of a single year or two of being near a person in real life while the person is an adolescent. No matter how much of an expert they claim to be, and whether they happen to be a psychology student or not.

4. 1994-1995 is not two years of time, but one school year, that is, approximately 9 months.

5. I was not 13 in college, I was 14. My birthday is in the summer.

6. CNN, Wired, and MIT have all conducted their own investigations of my diagnosis, including reading and photocopying medical records, calling the doctor who diagnosed me, and speaking to my parents and other people who knew me in childhood, sometimes going into great detail and collecting stories and information about how I did or did not fit each of the diagnostic criteria for autism. They do not simply take a person's word for things like that, they have fact-checkers who deal with that information, to avoid legal problems. CNN stated on their website, in response to questions about my diagnosis, that they conducted their own investigation and were satisfied as to what they found: "We spoke with her health care providers and reported what they told us. Also, Amanda shared her medical records with us from various providers diagnosing her as autistic. We are not in the business of diagnosing people's medical conditions. But, as in all of our stories, we conducted our own independent investigation, spoke with expert sources and reached informed conclusions." They are fully aware of my other diagnoses, and misdiagnoses, in far more detail than the people who have never seen my medical records and who have therefore simply guessed as to which diagnoses I got, and when. I even have documentation from 1995, the year I was diagnosed, that describes what was at the time intermittent trouble with speech in which my ability to write was preserved. The documentation came from the psychiatrist who had diagnosed me.

7. CNN, Wired, and MIT are all fully aware of the supposed controversy over my diagnosis. Each one of them has directly communicated to me that they do not take it seriously, because they have so much hard evidence to the contrary, in many forms that have nothing to do with simply taking my word for it. When they investigate things, they do it in the interest of accuracy all around, and their investigations have not left out the numerous challenges to my diagnosis. My medical records actually deal extensively with some of the reasons behind the unusual behavior used by some as "evidence" that I am not autistic, and come to the conclusion, among other things, that I was talked into behaving in certain ways, and that I had a habit of using elaborate fantasy to cope with stress, which is a habit documented by Tony Attwood as being present in many teenage autistic girls in particular. It is not lack of knowledge of these points that keeps them continuing to say I am autistic, it is the fact that all genuine evidence points to the diagnosis being accurate. The fact that I have or had additional psychiatric and medical conditions does not make me non-autistic.

8. Of the people who claim to have known me from 1994-1998, most people from that college did not know me well. There is documentation in a legal document from the district attorney that I was so non-social that it would be hard to find witnesses to certain abuse against me. This was stated by my roommate in college. Only about three or four of the people who claim to have known me in that time, even met me past the school year. They only spent brief amounts of time with me, and none of them saw me in person after 1996. They were not privy to my medical records, nor my developmental history, nor was I even privy to a lot of the information being collected about me by the medical profession, nor always able to pass on what I did know. One of the people involved dated my brother and unsuccessfully sued him, which should be a matter of public record, and which would tend to make a person less objective about me or my family. Two of them, including that same person, linked to and otherwise used (in one case, posted various places, with comments about how insightful and interesting it was) my autism-related writing for years without ever claiming that I was not autistic, and one of them hosted my autism-related website without ever claiming that I was not autistic. In my yearbook, one of them described me as "odd, abnormal, and slightly crazy," and the other one said I "had the same psychotic eppisode (sic)" as the writer. The second one was referring to a time when my ability to speak or communicate much in body language had shut down in front of this person.

9. Nobody claiming to have known me that whole time saw me in person very often or for very long after college, and they were not capable of directly observing the increased trouble I had with speech and certain other aspects of movement and perception. This was a gradual increase that took place over time. People who saw me at one time and then another time several years later would describe a vast change in me, but people who knew me the whole time almost did not see the change because it was slowly happening right in front of them.

10. My medical records from immediately after college, describe college as the first time I ever had a group of friends. This indicates a pretty vast social delay. My IEPs contained such goals as "Amanda will initiate and sustain X number of interactions with X number of peers, for X amount of minutes, in a day." That IEP goal is taken almost word for word from the diagnostic criteria for autism, and indicated an area I had trouble with.

11. My school records in college describe me as disorganized when it came to figuring out classwork, to the point where one teacher wrote, accompanied by an F in the midterm grade slot, "While the situation is not yet hopeless, it is approaching dire." They also note that my writing focused entirely on narrow areas that I happened to be interested in, and that I ignored sections of the reading that were broader than that. I was described as having difficulty with certain social aspects of two-way conversation in class discussions. I received a disciplinary warning from the college for not understanding a particular rule about social boundaries, namely not to simply open the door and walk into someone's private room early in the morning while they were asleep. My neuropsychologist had to write to the school when I was found lying on the floor in the student union, looking disoriented and unable to string a sentence together. I had not at that point done any drugs, this was the intermittent difficulties I have talked about before.

12. At the age of 15 or 16, the residential facility I lived in had my parents buy me a rocking chair because they wanted me to learn socially-acceptable ways of rocking. This contradicts the idea that I acquired autistic mannerisms in my twenties. In fact, a good deal of effort was put into training and drugging me out of as much such behavior as possible, but I retained a number of repetitive mannerisms even so. I have had repetitive behavior since infancy and this is documented in written accounts of my childhood by people who were there.

13. When the SSA investigated my claim of autism, the two doctors they spoke to included a doctor who had known me since prior to my time at college, and a different doctor who knew me just after college. They described me as autistic, and one of them added that I had a strong propensity for dissociation, meaning my fantasy worlds and imaginary friends that I used to deal with stress, as well as some things like autistic shutdown that are not true dissociation but that can look like it. I was also investigated by an independent psychiatrist for renewal of my SSI, and found autistic then as well. My family members had to be interviewed for this as well. This process also occurred with the Regional Centers in California, and the developmental services agencies in Vermont. A number of people have independently verified information about me with information from both my family and professionals, for purposes like this. I have never been denied SSI, Regional Center services, or Vermont's developmental services, even once.

14. So, basically, just because I do not post every single one of my HIPAA-protected medical records online, does not mean that the media does not investigate them, including full hardcopies rather than the edited-for-privacy pictures I have online, before coming out with a story on me. While I admit closeness to the issue, I consider being described, despite all this evidence to the contrary, as "malingering autism," to be a damaging statement accusing me of deliberate fraud, without basis in the records. Claiming that CNN does not vet their stories for accuracy beyond "taking people's word for it," goes against CNN's explicit published statement about what they investigated and how they investigated it. Independent investigations by organizations who have a strong interest in denying services to people in order to save the state money, have also shown me to be autistic. There is a very high standard of information and proof that has to take place before potentially damaging statements against living people can be made on Wikipedia, and those standards have not been met here. I would like to respectfully request that such damaging accusations be removed, both from here and from the talk page for Donna Williams. I will, as usual, not remove them myself, because I am close to the matter. Nor will I speculate as to the motives of the posters who keep saying these things. But I would like to request that someone do so, given that it is damaging and given that there is so much objective evidence, not simply my word, that it is false, and given that the information itself describes me as doing something serious and illegal that I have not done. Silentmiaow (talk) 17:00, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Also, just to note as far as autism-related diagnoses, I was, from what I remember, diagnosed with CNS disorder NOS at one point in 1994 at age 13, prior to college, and before a full developmental history could be taken. Pretty close to immediately after college, my highest global assessment of functioning in the past year (i.e. including my time at college) was described as 60, which is "Moderate symptoms OR any moderate difficulty in social, occupational, or school functioning", rather than no impairment. During that time period, my parents were told that I was autistic. As far as what was written down, I counted (I could have counted slightly wrong, but not too far off) 13 diagnoses of central nervous system disorder NOS (with descriptions of it as dating back to early childhood, and including descriptions of many of my autistic traits), 7 diagnoses of PDD-NOS (a form of autism, and often used as a way of writing that something is autism-related without telegraphing a message of hopelessness, as described by Roy Grinker in his book Unstrange Minds, whose daughter was diagnosed during the same time period despite being said to really fit the criteria for "autistic disorder" as well), and 1 diagnosis of developmental disorder NOS, as well as many long descriptions of assorted difficulties both then and in earlier childhood. All of those diagnoses are from the ages of 14 and 15. I found a description of me as "low functioning" on a page in the same records for that time period, without an explanation given as to why. I believe my school records described me as having had multiple diagnoses including the developmental ones as well as psychiatric, but I do not have those handy, those would have been from the ages of 16 and 17. After some other diagnoses and misdiagnoses, I was rediagnosed with PDD-NOS again in 1999 at the age of 18, and later that year, at the age of 19, diagnosed formally with "autistic disorder" after an autism specialist suggested that there was no longer a need to avoid that terminology if I fit the criteria. I have had that diagnosis of autism written down on multiple occasions since then, and autism and central nervous system disorder NOS remain my official diagnoses, verified several times over as described earlier. Silentmiaow (talk) 21:40, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to add the following about this article on Amanda_Baggs and request a {{POV}}.

(1) Quote from the article: "Amanda Baggs (born 1980) is an autism rights activist." This is not objectively true; it is debatable; this is not a view that is held in science nor medicine; this view is not supported by any scientific or medical journal; there is no reference and no basis to support this claim that she is an autism rights activist; this claim of hers is mainly her own, and those who like her and support her, and from other people; no nationally or internationally respected and established organization will make a formal statement that she is an autism rights activist, nor will they formally support that she is.

(2) Quote from the article: "In January 2007 she published a video on YouTube describing her experience as an autistic person entitled In My Language which became the subject of several articles on CNN. She also guest-blogged about her video on Anderson Cooper's blog and answered questions from the audience via email. This is true, and is actually my point, and was I believe related to a point from SandyGeorgia above in this Talk section, which is that Amanda Baggs' YouTube video was the sole basis for the several articles on CNN, and the CNN articles, which are listed in this articles reference section, are entirely based on Baggs' YouTube video and her own testimony about herself. This is to say, this wikipedia article is entirely non-objective, biased, and non-neutral. Moreover, as has been discussed above by SandyGeorgia, blogs and similar personally oriented websites are usually not considered credible sources, and Baggs' blog is highlighted in the second sentence of this article, and also referred to as the major basis for the extensive CNN coverage. As a core part of this article, it makes the article non-objective and non-neutral and biased. As the basis for the CNN coverage, it makes the CNN coverage non-objective, non-neutral, and biased. As one of the references in the reference section of the article, it makes the article referenced by a non-objective, non-neutral, and biased source, and as such should be strickened. I also believe the CNN references should be strickened because they are entirely based on Baggs' YouTube video, as, again, is clearly stated in the second sentence of this article, and discussed above in this paragraph.

(3)The quotes in this article by Dr. Gupta and Baggs are of the quality indicated in #2 above.

(4) The external link give to Baggs' blog, in light of the above, seems inappropriate.--Appto (talk) 04:39, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I would like to also dispute the neutrality of the recently added template [[4]] at this article, on the following basis as discussed in the template's Talk section [[5]] The provided list of people and organizations is non-neutral and biased. The inclusion of this "Autism rights movement" section in this article on Amanda Baggs is biased, apparently intended to promote the views and philosophy of the "Autism rights movement." This section reads like an advertisement and promotional, and as such is not appropriate for an objective and neutral article in wikipedia.--Appto (talk) 06:56, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like to respond to your second point, that this article is biased because CNN must be biased. This is a common misunderstanding of the reliable source guidelines on Wikipedia. That is, because we are not allowed to use primary sources (blogs, personal interviews, original research, and the like) we should not use sources with use primary sources.

If we were to restrict ourselves in this way, we would soon have no sources. All secondary sources are, by definition, based on primary sources. Every newspaper article ever written uses primary sources, and we are able to use newspaper articles because we trust newspapers to determine what is newsworthy and to check their facts. We are not in a position to challenge the journalistic integrity of CNN, especially not on the basis of an anonymous blogger's claim.

Secondly, it is quite common in biography to use the subject's own words to describe themself. The subject cannot establish notability, but they can provide biographical details and Wikipedia is not really the place to challenge their claims about themself. Many biographies of figures more controversial than Amanda Baggs use the subject's own words, their official biographies, and the statements of their family members without question. Those who wish to challenge Baggs' account of her own life would be better served by making this challenge in a reliable secondary source - newspaper, magazine, CNN website, whatever. Once it has been reported by a reliable secondary source, we can include it here. Until then, this article needs to stick to reliable, published secondary sources.

As to your question about the tag on this article, I'm confused about which section of it reads like an advertisement to you. I really don't see the "advertisement" aspect of a list of related articles. As an infobox, it's not intended to promote the views of anyone - infoboxes simply group related article together in a convenient template form, which can be added to any applicable article. Similarly, the templates covering discrimination, birth control, or glbt issues don't promote any philosophy - they just help people find related articles. Natalie (talk) 13:31, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

<BLP violations removed> —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettwice33 (talk • contribs) 18:21, March 11, 2008 UTC

Bettwice, please sign your posts with four tildes ( ~~~~ ). Also, please read talk page guidelines at WP:TALK, and WP:NOTAFORUM. Wiki talk pages are not for chatting; they are for discussion of article improvements per reliable sources, not personal speculation. Please confine talk page discussion to reliable sources. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 18:26, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

My comment above appears to have not been considered yet. It goes to the neutrality of this article. Again: (1) Quote from the article: Amanda Baggs (born 1980) is an autism rights activist. This is not objectively true; it is debatable; this is not a view that is held in science nor medicine; this view is not supported by any scientific or medical journal; there is no reference and no basis to support this claim that she is an autism rights activist; this claim of hers is mainly her own, and those who like her and support her, and from other people; no nationally or internationally respected and established organization will make a formal statement that she is an autism rights activist, nor will they formally support that she is.--Appto (talk) 19:12, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Your complaint has not been addressed because it's completely spurious. First and foremost, Wikipedia articles regularly define subjects according to how the subjects define themselves. Baggs defines herself as an autism rights activists, and it is not any of our place to challenge her. If a reliable source questions that self-definition, then it will be different, but as yet that has not happened. Secondly, this is not a view that is held in science nor medicine nor supported by any scientific or medical journal because that's not what scientific and medical journals do. Neither you, me, nor the man in the moon have been defined as anything by a scientific or medical journal - they are in the business of publishing peer-reviewed studies, not defining people's life work or business.

Your statement that "no nationally or internationally respected and established organization will make a formal statement that she is an autism rights activist, nor will they formally support that she is" suggests that she has asked for such a statement or support and has been denied. Unless you have a reliable source that indicates this, your complaint is again spurious. Non profit organizations don't run around declaring who is an activist and who isn't - they don't have the time or money, and I imagine they would find such an exercise useless. One does not have to be part of an organization to be an activist. Natalie (talk) 19:13, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I'd like an administrator to review your posts. They appear to miss the importance of the neutrality and objectivity of wikipedia content. You seem to argue that anyone can write anything about themselves here, in your last two posts. Secondly, the need for a reference for her claims about what she is and what she does is her obligation to wikipedia. It's not my obligation to provide a reference that undermines her personal claims about herself.--Appto (talk) 19:17, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Uh, I am an administrator. And administrators don't "review" posts unless they violate a specific policy, which mine do not. However, if you'd like to bring in the attention of other administrators or make an informal complaint, you can do so at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents.

If you have interpreted what I wrote as justifying anyone writing whatever they want here, perhaps you should read again more carefully. Only people who are considered notable by our standards get articles. Once a person is considered notable, claims they have made about themselves, whether that's on their blog, in a book, in an interview, or through other sources that are not Wikipedia can be used in the article. Baggs has absolutely no obligation to Wikipedia - she defines herself as an autism rights activist. What are you expecting anyway - some sort of activist ID card?

You are right that it's not your obligation to provide a source that undermines a person's claims. But if you want to remove those claims from an article, then the onus is on you to demonstrate that they are false, using reliable sources. You have yet to provide any reliable sources to substantiate your various attacks on this woman, so I suggest you drop it. Natalie (talk) 19:29, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Who created this "Arbitary break" section (and it is written as such above)? This discussion should be in the COI section of this Talk page. I believe it was Silentmeow who did this, and she identifies herself above as the subject of this article. Secondly, her long entry was allowed to remain, and it consists of many contentious allegations and other apparently non-wikipedia discussion, and, this type of discussion from other people about her has been edited or deleted. I ask that she be subject to the same rule - that the rule be consistently applied to everyone. I also ask that this "Arbitary break" section be removed and the original entries put in the COI section where they were. Also, this COI section is not an arbitrary break.--Appto (talk) 19:22, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

I created the arbitrary break section because that is what is routinely done on Wiki when a section becomes too long to edit; arbitrary break is chosen as a neutral title. Amanda Baggs, within reason, is fully entitled to defend herself on her own talk page, particularly considering the things being posted about her. She can say what she wants about herself; others can't say things about her that violate WP:BLP. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 19:25, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Appto, please use the history function to answer these questions before making baseless accusations. Every single edit a Wikipedia user makes is logged, thus it is a very simple matter to see who has performed a particular edit. Silentmiaow did not remove any content from this page - I did, because it violated out biographies of living persons policy. I read her entire response and saw nothing in it which violated that policy, which is why none of it was removed. The rule is being consistently applied. Natalie (talk) 19:32, 11 March 2008 (UTC)

Activist

I noticed that there has been some discussion above about whether or not Amanda Baggs should be called an activist in the article. Does anyone know if Amanda Baggs describes herself as an activist? The reason I ask about this is because Michelle Dawson used to be called an activist in her article and then someone found a blog entry by Michelle Dawson where she stated that she did not consider herself an activist, even though other people have called her an activist. Before this, I did not expect people labeled as activists to object to the term, but now that I see that one person has objected to it, I wanted to ask about it to make sure there were not objections in this case as well. Q0 (talk) 09:07, 12 March 2008 (UTC)

CNN Blogs

Just to clarify, the CNN blogs that are cited are considered good sources on WP. WP:V says that self-published blogs are generally unacceptable, but clarifies:

"Blogs" in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. (footnote, end of WP:V page)

Of course, Amanda Bagg's own blog may be cited in her own article per another section of WP:V, namely WP:SELFPUB. --Jim Butler (t) 01:45, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

"may be acceptable." That doesn't mean these specific ones are. The writers are professionals; as far as "full editorial control" goes, who knows.P4k (talk) 04:54, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Whether or not the blog is under full editorial control might be noted on CNN's website. I'll look. Natalie (talk) 14:00, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

Mississippi???

I was born in California, not Mississippi. So I changed it. I don't know why someone said Mississippi, I've never even been there. I figured this edit was straightforward enough that I didn't need to worry about a conflict of interest. Silentmiaow (talk) 19:44, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Citation templates

The citations given need to use citation templates. TwentiethApril1986 (want to talk?) 03:37, 16 October 2008 (UTC)

There is no requirement on Wikipedia to use citation templates of any kind; see Wikipedia:Citing sources. The citations in this article are in an acceptable format. Maralia (talk) 03:48, 16 October 2008 (UTC)