Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 20:17, 10 March 2008

Biography: Politics and Government Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. This article is supported by the politics and government work group.

This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination: Keep, 13:43, 3 March 2007, see discussion. No consensus, 13:19, 15 March 2006, see discussion.

Created page

I pretty much just adapted the Jim Sinclair article here; hope it's off to a good start. cheers, Jim Butler 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 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 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:

"Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages: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 Misplaced Pages'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-Misplaced Pages-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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 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. Misplaced Pages 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 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 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 "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. -- HiEv 13:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

Potential COI

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

Appto 9 March 2008 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages 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. Misplaced Pages'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/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/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)

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)

This LiveJournal article is done by a witness to Amanda Baggs' who knew her at 14 years old and testifies that she was not autistic in any sense then, and onward during their friendship. This is in the last sentence of the first paragraph...and there is other statements in this LiveJournal initial post. Then note the response posts by the author, and the often biased intense replies by supporters of Baggs, including Dave Seidel (who is it seems a major contributor to this wikipedia article on Baggs).

Some autismspeaks.org threads, the first of which has an introduction to the controversy, then 251 posts and 10,000+ views, which is many times the level of typical autismspeaks.org involvement; I note this just to indicate the level of interest and apparent importance of the matter. Other links which began to promote Baggs, and which ended in critical discussion about the legitimacy of her diagnosis per the testimony of a multitude of witnesses who observed her at Simon's Rock College in 1994-1995 and elsewhere, and continuing for one witness to 1998. --Appto (talk) 18:25, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

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 because it has a year's worth of discussion that, all together, shows unquestionably that Amanda Baggs is not autistic. —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)

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. Hating Autism elaborates on the disingenuous nature of Neurodiversity and Amanda Baggs.

Neurodiversity is simply an opinion, and a deranged opinion at that, that tries to dissuade anyone from trying to cure autistic children. Amanda Baggs is an actress who is playing a role that tries to dissuade parents from helping autistic children. This insanity has no business in any encyclopedia without opposition. Amanda Baggs and all that she claims is hazardous to the health and well being of autistic children. She is a complete and total fraud and that will become obvious upon reading all of the sections of Hating Autism that apply to her. ---- —Preceding unsigned comment added by Bettwice33 (talk • contribs) 20:08, 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 . There are seemingly several parallels between this matter and the matter with Amanda Baggs. ABC Radio National. 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.--Appto (talk) 20:12, 10 March 2008 (UTC)

• Start-Class biography articles
• Start-Class biography (politics and government) articles
• Unknown-importance biography (politics and government) articles
• Politics and government work group articles
• WikiProject Biography articles