Revision as of 19:43, 10 March 2008 editAppto (talk | contribs)112 edits →Potential COI← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 17:07, 15 September 2024 edit undoTheZoodles (talk | contribs)Extended confirmed users929 edits →More blogs used by Mel Baggs: ReplyTag: Reply | ||
(196 intermediate revisions by 81 users not shown) | |||
Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
{{ |
{{Talk header}} | ||
{{Old AfD multi | |||
{{WPBiography | |||
|living=yes | |||
|class=start | |||
|priority= | |||
|politician-work-group=yes | |||
}} | |||
{{oldafdmulti | |||
| date = 13:19, 15 March 2006 | | date = 13:19, 15 March 2006 | ||
| result = '''No consensus''' | | result = '''No consensus''' | ||
| page |
| page = Misplaced Pages:Articles for deletion/Amanda Baggs | ||
| date2 = 13:43, 3 March 2007 | | date2 = 13:43, 3 March 2007 | ||
| page2 = |
| page2 = Amanda Baggs (2nd nomination) | ||
| caption2 = discussion | | caption2 = discussion | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{WikiProject banner shell|class=Start|living=no|listas=Baggs, Amanda|1= | |||
{{WikiProject Psychology |importance=Low}} | |||
{{WikiProject Biography|politician-work-group=yes|politician-priority=low}} | |||
{{WikiProject Autism |importance=Low}} | |||
{{WikiProject Disability }} | |||
{{WikiProject LGBT studies |person=yes }} | |||
{{WikiProject Internet culture}} | |||
}} | |||
== Sources? == | |||
The page so far is a summary of a citizen's's blogging topics and self-published videos, plus citation of a couple of interviews given by her to mainstream media, consisting of a rehash of the same self-published material with some added "puff". Substantively the page remains at the level of a self-presentation or at best citation, but not biography: biographical information is notably sparse. Each referenced source ultimately cites Ms Baggs herself as its source & authority for information about Ms Baggs. As biography, so far it's uncorroborated autobiography: unverifiable as it stands. <small><span class="autosigned">— Preceding ] comment added by ] (] • ]) 00:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)</span></small><!-- Template:Unsigned --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
I would have to agree. I fail to see the impact this individual has outside of small groups of internet fans. Perhaps this could be explained? Has she published anything? ] (]) 18:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC) | |||
This is one of the best known nonspeaking autistic bloggers on the internet. I wouldn't say it's a small internet fan group. (I'm not affiliated with Baggs in any way). ] (]) 21:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC) | |||
==Organizations?== | |||
Within which organizations does Amanda Baggs hold influential or leading positions? Which organizations is she involved with? What online psuedonymns has she used in the past? <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 04:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
: And this is relevant how? '''<span style="border: 1px Blue solid;background:cyan;font-family: Tahoma">]]</span>''' 06:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
And this is NOT relevant how? Misplaced Pages articles are not supposed to be mere publicity vehicles, they are meant to be informative, to explain who people are, what they do and why they are considered important or famous. <span style="font-size: smaller;" class="autosigned">—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 05:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)</span><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
: And that has been done. You're proposing unneccessary embelishment. '''<span style="border: 1px Blue solid;background:cyan;font-family: Tahoma">]]</span>''' 07:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC) | |||
She doesn't hold leading positions in any organizations as far as I know. She's mainly famous for her videos and writing that she has posted online.] (]) 02:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
: Her main claim to notability is her appearances on CNN. That makes this pathetic organisation argument irrelevant. '''<span style="border: 1px Blue solid;background:cyan;font-family: Tahoma">]]</span>''' 09:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC) | |||
== Cleanup ? == | |||
there is a cleanup tag in the article - why ?? - I do not understand the reason - it is referenced and gives basic information. please remove or comment the tag. ] (]) 19:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC) | |||
== Allegations of Misrepresentation == | |||
Has this issue been dealt with at Wiki. Now, I know that because of the living persons policy, any such claim would have to pass a certain level of credibility, but what is the status on the allegations of Amanda Baggs misrepresenting herself as autistic, and are the claims in any way encyclopedic? --] (]) 21:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC) | |||
:This should meet ] http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2013/01/autism_neurodiversity_does_facilitated_communication_work_and_who_speaks.html --] (]) 18:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC) | |||
Non-expert criticism of a living person's integrity is not appropriate on Misplaced Pages without a detailed discussion of the credibility of the claims made and the sources available. There is for good reason a high onus of credibility on criticism made of living persons, which I do not believe has been satisfied here. Having viewed the original document which Slate refers to, it appeared to me highly invasive and libelous, and unsurprising that threat of legal action was made through Baggs's lawyer. Libel is still libel, even if perpetuated through a mainstream magazine, but should not be continued here. This is only a high-profile instance of the kind of personal attacks which are commonplace in the work of autism rights activists, due to pervasive stereotypes about how autistic people present in public and in private, and mainstream insistence that all autistics are the same. It would be tasteless here to privilege such meaningless gossip of non-experts as of Encyclopedic value, especially as appearing "normal" only indicates the ability (temporary or not) to pass as such. While expert opinions are included in the Slate article, they are based on non-expert observation, and only suggests that Baggs's clinical progression is atypical. Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) are associated with high co-morbidity with other mental health conditions, which can interact in complex ways and account for a vast diversity of clinical trajectories. The reference made to the controversy was poorly worded, did not present a neutral-point of view, and therefore was removed as inappropriate and potentially libelous. ] (]) 04:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC) | |||
The Slate article doesn't say that her progression is atypical - it says it's UNPRECEDENTED. I'm pretty sure that's a nice way of saying "probably not true". ] (]) 12:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
:The Slate article is written by a person (parent?) with an ax to grind against autism rights activists, not by an expert, so I wouldn't put too much stock in what it says. Baggs is infamously targeted by vile Internet trolls, notably the notorious harrassment site KiwiFarms, as a canonical, prototypical, early example of what they call a "social justice warrior". Baggs is clearly hated by a ton of people for no compelling reason. Even if Baggs were not really autistic, that would not make everything written by Baggs about disability rights and activism automatically wrong. What we see here is a transparent ''argumentum ad hominem''. A lot of people act as if the whole autism rights movement hinged upon whether a single proponent, Baggs, is really autistic or not. Every activist who is pro-autism-rights and cure-criticial is doubted to be "real" or "autistic enough" (i. e., "low-functioning"), and "low functioning" autistic people cannot speak or write, let alone eloquently defend themselves, so the only people left who are allowed to speak for them are not autistic themselves. How convenient. | |||
:Check the comments , , and . Anonymous attack sites are not credible evidence. All of Baggs's enemies hide behind anonymous or pseudonymous identities, and the whole controversy (or manufactroversy) has essentially died down after 2008, which is telling. --] (]) 15:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC) | |||
::The opinions of neurotypical people - especially those who think "she spoke, attended classes, dated" is in any way in conflict with "in a wheelchair, rocking, smacking herself in the head, flapping her hands, and making unintelligible noises" - | |||
==Created page== | |||
on who is and isn't autistic should not be considered credible in any way, shape or form. ] (]) 22:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC) | |||
== Pronouns == | |||
I pretty much just adapted the ] article here; hope it's off to a good start. cheers, ]<sup>(])</sup> 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. ] 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 ] that made the article ], 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. ]<sup>(])</sup> 08:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC) | |||
A few days ago in , an anonymous user changed the article from ] to ]. While I understand that Amelia prefers the use of sie/hir, it's also my understanding that singular they is just as gender-neutral as sie/hir, with the added benefit of being widely understood, even by nonnative speakers. However, I'm not aware of any proscriptions specifically against the use of sie/hir in articles, so I didn't want to simply undo the edits. Should they be reversed, or are they okay? <span class=nowrap>「]]」<sup>] · ]</sup></span> 00:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
==unsourced statement== | |||
On that note, Baggs goes by Mel now. ] (]) 21:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC) | |||
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. ] 21:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC) | |||
: |
: Prove it with a reliable independent source. According to the note below - there isn't one. ] (]) 08:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC) | ||
== |
== Reverting move == | ||
== Requested move 14 September 2015 == | |||
<div class="boilerplate" style="background-color: #efe; margin: 2em 0 0 0; padding: 0 10px 0 10px; border: 1px dotted #aaa;"><!-- Template:RM top --> | |||
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. ] 00:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC) | |||
:''The following is a closed discussion of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a ]. No further edits should be made to this section. '' | |||
The result of the move request was: '''moved'''. ] (]) 11:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
==Including a quote from CNN's article about Amanda Baggs in this article== | |||
---- | |||
HiEv, can you support your 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, ] 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 ], 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. ] 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 ] and ]). | |||
It should be self-evident, then, that having the article's subject comment on what her video meant is topical and useful, just as ]'s comments on the creation of ] 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. ]<sup>(])</sup> 03:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
] → {{no redirect|Amanda Baggs}} – There are no independent and verifiable sources to confirm that Amanda has changed her name to Amelia. Tumblr is not a reliable source and there is no way to tell if that Tumblr blog belongs to her or not. This is actually something that a hater could so easily have done (and I wouldn't put it past them either with their history) so it is not reliable and should not be used. Other information added is highly controversial and potentially defamatory and therefore goes against ] until such time as independent verification and sourcing of the name change and so forth can be obtained. No one who knows Amanda should try to change this as that would be a COI violation. ] (]) 04:44, 14 September 2015 (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. ] 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. | |||
: '''Support''' moving the article back to the original title. I have not been able to find a ] that supports the name change. — ] <small>(]'''·'''])</small> 16:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC) | |||
: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 ]. 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. | |||
:''The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a ]. <span style="color:red">'''Please do not modify it.'''</span> Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a ]. No further edits should be made to this section.''</div><!-- Template:RM bottom --> | |||
: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 ] 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 ] 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?) -- ]] 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. ]<sup>(])</sup> 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. -- ]] 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, ]<sup>(])</sup> 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! -- ]] 02:16, 13 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
:::::P.S. Why in your reversion (see ) did you say that you undid my comment "per ], etc."? My removal of content in no way violated WP:BLP guidelines, or any others that I'm aware of. -- ]] 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 (), 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 ]. 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, ]<sup>(])</sup> 03:34, 13 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
== External links modified == | |||
=="Controversial" diagnosis== | |||
Hello fellow Wikipedians, | |||
I just that I believe violates ] guidelines. It lacks NPOV and fails to provide any reference to the so-called "controversy". - ] 16:59, 12 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
I have just modified one external link on ]. Please take a moment to review . If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit ] for additional information. I made the following changes: | |||
::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? | |||
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150614025042/http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/a-thing-for-things/ to http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/a-thing-for-things/ | |||
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs. | |||
::Also, please point out the NPOV language so that I can remove it. | |||
{{sourcecheck|checked=false|needhelp=}} | |||
::Thanks. | |||
Cheers.—] <span style="color:green;font-family:Rockwell">(])</span> 06:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC) | |||
::] 17:12, 12 November 2007 (UTC)oddmountain | |||
== "Category:Genderqueer people" ? == | |||
:::As a rule, blogs and forums are not acceptable per ], 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. -- ] 17:56, 12 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
There's no source given for Amanda identifying as genderqueer or anything similar, so I'm removing the category for now. - ] ✿ (]) 23:45, 6 November 2018 (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. | |||
== Facilitated communication == | |||
::::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. | |||
As her purported method of communication is not real.<ref>{{cite journal |last1=Schlosser |first1=Ralf W. |last2=Balandin |first2=Susan |last3=Hemsley |first3=Bronwyn |last4=Iacono |first4=Teresa |last5=Probst |first5=Paul |last6=von Tetzchner |first6=Stephen |title=Facilitated communication and authorship: a systematic review |journal=Augmentative and Alternative Communication (Baltimore, Md.: 1985) |date=December 2014 |volume=30 |issue=4 |pages=359–368 |doi=10.3109/07434618.2014.971490 |url=https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/25384895 |accessdate=30 May 2019 |issn=1477-3848}}</ref> this article is going to need some reworking. --] (]) 22:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC) | |||
{{reftalk}} | |||
While I agree about the dubious nature of FC, I don't think we can verifiably say she's a user of it, especially considering that saying someone's an FC user could really damage their credibility. It sounds to me like she types on her own using a software. From what I was able to find, she says she uses a communication device and picture symbols <ref>{{cite web |last1=Baggs |first1=Amanda |title=About |url=https://ballastexistenz.wordpress.com/about-2/ |website=Ballastexistenz |accessdate=2 June 2019 |language=en |date=11 June 2010}}</ref>. I also found this CNN reader email exchange<ref>{{cite web |title=Baggs: Live on an autistic island? Not me - CNN.com |url=http://www.cnn.com/2007/HEALTH/02/22/autism.emails/index.html |website=www.cnn.com |accessdate=2 June 2019}}</ref> where she talks about how she learned to type, describing it as a pretty solitary experience and never mentions a facilitator. She also contrasts herself with other autistic people who might need more "physical assistance" to type, which to me implies that she doesn't need that assistance and can do it by herself. | |||
::::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. | |||
I think people are overlooking the fact that not all AAC is FC. There might be something I missed verifying she uses it, but she doesn't seem to mention a facilitator anywhere in her writing and I think it's important to be careful before we say someone communicates in a sketchy way when we're not positive that's what they used. | |||
::::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.) | |||
] (]) 17:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
:I think you're right. Sorry about that. There are a bunch of articles misrepresenting facilitated communication users and this one got caught in the crossfire. --] (]) 18:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
{{reftalk}} | |||
:'''Comment:''' I don't see anywhere in the text of this article that it says Baggs uses FC. The article cites one news story which mentions faciliated communication in its headline, but that article only says that "Sue Rubin, Larry Bissonnette, and Tracy Thresher lives were transformed when they were introduced to Facilitated Communication (FC)"; the article mentions Baggs multiple times, but never suggests that ''she'' uses FC. Googling around, the only page I spot that says Baggs uses FC is a wikia page, not reliable, whereas e.g. James C. Wilson's ''Weather Reports from the Autism Front'' (2010, {{ISBN|0786482222}}), page 119, says "Like Rubin, other autistic children have started with Facilitated Communication and then progressed to computer-assisted or independent typing. Two of the most prolific autistic writers, Cal Montgomery and Amanda Baggs, use a variety of computer-assisted technologies. In one post, Baggs lists all the reasons why, when many people see her, they refuse to believe that she could have written the intellectually rigorous material on her blog. ", which also doesn't say Baggs has used FC (and implies that she does ''not'' use it). If the article already does not say Baggs uses FC, and these multiple sources do not either, then the tag has no purpose, as there is nothing to change or clean up. ] (]) 17:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
::::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. ] (]) 20:11, 18 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
Okay, cool. I just didn't want to delete the tag while the whole FC conflict was still going strong on other pages without discussing it here first. | |||
::::If there is a reliable source citing notable controversy that doesn't violate ], it is a violation of ] 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. ] should also be kept in mind. -- ]] 02:48, 13 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
] (]) 02:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC) | |||
:'''Comment:''' This is not suitable for the article, but as background my wife Kathleen and I have known Baggs personally for about 15 years. We've both spent time with them IRL, and my wife has traveled with them, shared hotel rooms and assisted them at conferences. Neither of us have ever known them to use FC. They are capable of typing and use a standard computer keyboard and also an electronic picture board. - ] (]) 11:48, 3 June 2019 (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 ] in general, and the personal nature of the issues in specific (which revolve around medical and psychological diagnoses), the bar must remain high, and ] is a must. - ] 03:14, 13 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
== Which is the complaint, the autism or assisted communication? == | |||
:::::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 ]. Is it a "reliable, third-party published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy", or is it (as 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 as non-reliable. That makes sense in WP terms, since per ] "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, ]<sup>(])</sup> 03:22, 13 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
This is odd. The subject describes the diagnosis of her autism bluntly in several statements enough so to convince legitimate sources at CNN and The New York Times of her diagnoses (of which one is her autism), but is apparently being challenged now because the "diagnosis is controversial." What?!? How so? | |||
::::::Thank, Jim, excellent points. According to the American Chronicle's , 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? - ] 04:10, 13 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
Apart from her self-written references which are quoted from her blog and other less legitimate sources, the few deadlinks (which might shed light on this if found) and all other sources are sterling. So, the claimed autism diagnosis should be accepted by WP if its rules about legitimate sources still exist. | |||
:::::::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. -- ]] 13:32, 13 November 2007 (UTC) | |||
Now, there are other references to her support of "the use of facilitated communication and other scientifically discredited alternative therapies." I wonder if this is the actual reason for deleting the WP ] categorization yesterday. Whether she uses an AAC or not, let's others assist her use of it, or tosses it like a Frisbee, how does that affect her diagnosis of autism? | |||
==Potential COI== | |||
Several former classmates, friends, and school administration have come forward to testify that Amanda Baggs was not autistic, in any sense, during her time attending Simon's Rock College in 1994 (13 years old) through 1995, and afterward to 1998 (18 years old). These people have come forward in response to their shock in seeing the CNN and other media coverage that Amanda has made aggressive efforts to obtain through publicizing herself on Youtube and to the media. At Simon's Rock College, she was observed for years by hundreds of people to be fully functional: (1) Fully verbal and speech communication abilities; she spoke fluently and entirely normally, (2) Full social abilities, as she had many friends, engaged in extensive social activities, etc, (3) Normal behavior, as she did not engage in stimming or stereotyped movements (rocking etc), (4) Normal emotion, as she was able to normally express and exchange emotions with her large number of friends, faculty, and acquaintances. | |||
The categorization was accurate throughout so long as legitimate sources say so. If the reason of the categorization getting deleted was, in fact, her multifaceted use of an AAC, that has nothing to do with the diagnosis of her autism.] (]) 16:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC) | |||
At these two blogs, the blog owner has made considerable effort to organize the mounting proof and evidence against Amanda Baggs, including letter-testimony from several former Simon's Rock College classmates of Amanda's, each of which live in different areas of the country, and each of which are independent witnesses that have consistent testimony. Further letter-testimony and links to the sources of the letters are being prepared. | |||
: I'm refering to this source from the article: | |||
:: A ], ] native, Baggs went to ] summer programs as a child and, in the mid-1990s, was a student at the ] in ]. Several classmates of Baggs have found the presence of her alleged impairments to be unusual, subsequently claiming that Baggs "spoke, attended classes, dated, and otherwise acted in a completely typical fashion." Baggs does not dispute those details online, but claims a loss of all functional speech in her 20s.<ref name="slate1">{{cite web|author=Amy S.F. Lutz |url=http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2013/01/autism_neurodiversity_does_facilitated_communication_work_and_who_speaks.html |title=Autism neurodiversity: Does facilitated communication work, and who speaks for the severely autistic? |publisher=Slate.com |date=2013-01-16 |accessdate=2013-09-29}}</ref> | |||
: The subject claims to have begun displaying symptoms of autism in her 20's, and that's just not how autism works. It must be present no later than 5. That makes her diagnosis sketchy, to say the least. Actually it invalidates the diagnosis, but we may only have the sourcing to say it's controversial. This doesn't have anything to do with her method of communication. --] (]) 16:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC) | |||
::: According to the ''Slate'' article, she claims that she was diagnosed when she was 14, not in her early 20s. Regardless, I don't think the controversy over her diagnosis should be in the lead. As far as I know, this is the only source that raises questions about her diagnosis, and the source was written by a well-known opponent of the neurodiversity movement, which raises questions about the neutrality of the source. ] (]) 19:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC) | |||
:::: {{re|CatPath}} I see that you are correct about the age at which she was diagnosed. The article says she was diagnosed with autism at age 14, but lost all functional speech in her 20s. This is extremely odd, because none of her diagnosis explain this. When she is described as as having non-verbal autism, I think we all just assumed she was non-verbal from a young age due to autism. | |||
:::: also recognizes the existence of a controversy over her diagnoses. I have read some non-rs sources that suggest she has Munchausen's. We certainly can't add that to the article, but it ''is'' possibly the best explanation for how she inexplicably lost the ability to speak. --] (]) 01:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC) | |||
:::::It is certainly possible, even common, for autistic adults to lose "functionality" and coping skills at some point, and to "regress" and become "more autistic" as a result, which is also discussed in the context of "autistic burnout" (given that "masking", or "pretending to be normal" and playing the role of a neurotypical person, erecting a façade of "normality", or "passing" as neurotypical takes a lot of energy, energy that tends to be exhausted when people reach middle age, or even earlier). I can't speak to this particular case, but it just sounds like a more extreme case of this phenomenon. See, for example, written by Baggs themselves. --] (]) 20:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC) | |||
::::::You're correct that it is possible for autistic adults to lose "functionality" and coping skills at some point, and to "regress" and become "more autistic" as a result, but this does not include loss of speech in an autistic adult who has typical speech ability. Take it from someone who knows. I'm autistic and have undergone a slow regression ever since adolescence, but my ability to speak is as good as most people's despite a slight delay when I was a toddler. ] (]) 14:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
{{reftalk}} | |||
== Cause of death? == | |||
The source of the following letter can be obtained through the above listed blog, and the writer of the letter, Ophelia Austin Small, who was a close friend of Amanda from 1994-1998, and who is a doctoral candidate in Psychology and who is very knowledgeable about autism science, diagnosis, and treatment. She was shocked to find the Youtube and CNN segments on Amanda, and has concluded that Amanda is ] autism. | |||
] | |||
9 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
Are there any reliable sources for this?--] (]) 03:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
:Misplaced Pages requires that the sources used to verify content in its articles are reliable enough (see ]). 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 ]). 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. ] (]) 04:39, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
I would like to know hir legitimate cause of death, but I can't find it anywhere. Mel Baggs has always profoundly inspired me with hir activism. We lost someone whose influence in this world was much needed and will always be appreciated. Therefore, I hope that hir legacy will live on and that sie is never forgotten. Mel made an honest difference in the world and I am proud to say that I'm one of those whom hir efforts have greatly impacted. ] (]) 03:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC) | |||
::The last three links are to the person herself who wrote the letter, and who will verify this. the fourth link is her letter, that she sent to the blog owner, and he and she will confirm it was her letter. I believe the blog owner will shortly be discussing this and making this issue more clear - who sent it, that this person was a former close friend of Amanda's from 1994-1998, that this person is a Ph.D student now in Psychology and as such is knowledgeable of autism, and that this person, like dozens of other people from Simon's Rock College, with no uncertainty, observed Amanda Baggs to be not autistic in any sense from 1994-1995 especially, and also so continuing to 1998. These are direct witnesses, and my posts here are to simply alert others to this matter and it is being pursued at this time in various science spheres, and we will post the outcome here, which could take considerable time.]9 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
I'd like to know hir cause of death, also. It's very important information, as sie has devoted hir life to activism for not only Autism and Autistic culture, but a variety of medical conditions, some of which were potentially very life-threatening. Mel was ill. I think sie would have wanted everyone to be aware of what went wrong, in order to better help others in need. We can't let others suffer the same fate. We lost a truly great individual who has inspired and will continue to inspire so many others through hir writings and videos. 40 is way too young of an age to die. While I didn't know hir personally, sie had such an incredible impact on my life and I feel blessed. Sie is truly one of the most important figures in the history of Autistic culture, which I am proud to be able to claim as my culture as well. Thank you, Mel. You will forever be loved and missed. May you continue to be immensely treasured as the icon that you are. ] (]) 04:21, 17 April 2020 (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? ]9 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
== More blogs used by Mel Baggs == | |||
::::You can dispute the article by writing <nowiki>{{NPOV}}</nowiki> at the top of the article. ] (]) 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 ]). I have read the blog in question and I highly doubt that anything reliable will ever come from it. ] (]) 07:44, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
I received a warning from the editor because I just added links to blogs. I believe these links improve the quality of the article. The many different websites may be difficult to find for someone who hears of Mel Baggs for the first time. Misplaced Pages is a natural starting point for finding further ressources. --] (]) 08:58, 21 February 2021 (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.--] (]) 17:43, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
::::::] has written comments here on the ''talk page'', but has not made a single edit to the ] article. ] (]) 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?--] (]) 17:42, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::::::: Every article has a "history" tab: see It was started by Jim Butler. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 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. ] (]) 17:50, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
::Consensus can change; there is just no content here except quotes. ] (]) 17:51, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
:::I can't find a AfD page to add discussion. I agree with ] that there is nothing but quotes from a CNN blog and there is apparent lack of notability. Moreover, the CNN coverage, and more recent coverage, has been sought out by Amanda herself for publicity, and there is growing and intensive debate about (1) the legitimacy of her diagnosis (see my first notes above in this Talk section) and (2) her motivation in seeking media publicity so aggressively, and (3) especially, the multitude of witnesses who knew her for years at Simon's Rock College and beyond who have recently been coming forward to testify that she was in 1994-5, especially, and continuing to 1998, to not have autism in any sense as she was a fully verbal communicator (she now claims she is totally non-verbal and she uses a keyboard communicator to communicate her typed words), and she was in 1994-5 especially fully socially interactive, made normal eye contact, took part in social activities, did not report being autistic to anyone, (etc as I noted in my first entry above). A senior editor at Wired Magazine (which did a recent article on Baggs), and which is now linked in this wikipedia article on Baggs, has responded to the presentation of the controversy about Baggs's diagnosis - this editor interviewed a source for the controversy in a 30+ minute interview via telephone and is taking the matter under advisement at this time. It was requested to the editor that the matter be investigated.--] (]) 18:07, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
:To be honest, I think some Misplaced Pages editors just don't like links to strong evidence. In response to a request for a source, I added a link to a non-deprecated source regarding what is required for an autistic person to be deemed 'low functioning', only for my edit to be reverted. ] (]) 16:21, 12 September 2024 (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. ] (]) 17:52, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
::1. if you do not agree with the revert, please bring it up directly instead of making passive-aggressive comments about it on an unrelated thread. | |||
::2. I reverted your sources because I think a source that lists the criteria for low-functioning autism but otherwise does not mention or relate to Baggs is not an appropriate source in this case. I think it requires original research to go from "these are the criteria of low-functioning autism" to "this supports the fact that Baggs did not meet the criteria of low-functioning autism." Additionally, the second source added (AngelSense), is a promotional blog post, which I believe makes it unfit as a source in general. | |||
::The statement requiring a source is "Additionally, other autism advocates have also questioned the validity of their diagnosis, given that Baggs did not meet many of the requirements of low functioning autism". After this, I took a cursory look through the page history and it seems like this statement just got separated from its sources throughout time. I put the original sources back with the statements they belong to, though I concede they still are not of high quality. ] (]) 17:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
== Personal life section - unsourced claims == | |||
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. ] (]) 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. --] (]) 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 ] 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. ] (]) 17:46, 10 March 2008 (UTC)"--] (]) 18:28, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
I've noticed that the 'personal life' section of this article is lengthy and gives the impression of bias. The following claim is made: 'In addition to autism, Baggs had also claimed to have been diagnosed with and wrote about numerous other syndromes and disabilities, including bipolar disorder, dissociative disorder, psychotic disorder, obsessive–compulsive disorder, Tourette syndrome, post-traumatic stress disorder, craniofacial abnormality, synesthesia, schizophrenia, bronchiectasis, hypermobility, Irlen syndrome, asthma, and gastroparesis.' This statement is unclear (is it saying that Baggs claimed all of these diagnoses, or that they claimed some of them but wrote about all of them?) and is supported with one source, which is about Baggs' gastroparesis and is from Baggs' personal blog. I could not find mention of Tourette syndrome or psychotic disorder in the source. The inclusion of the quoted sentence reads as supportive of the idea that Baggs was lying about the medical conditions they had. This does not seem impartial, considering the lack of substantiation for the assertion that Baggs actually said they were diagnosed with all those things. What's more, there's already plenty of material in the 'personal life' section that reads as critical of Baggs. Obviously, the article should not be a hagiography, but I do think undue weight is being given to information that isn't even well-supported by the one citation provided for it. Other opinions would be appreciated. ] (]) 00:21, 24 November 2021 (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 ] with ]. 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 ] here to the talk page, and we'll deal with it. Also, take time to read ], 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. ] (]) 18:35, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
:I completely agree, but I don't know what to do this issue. At the very least, I think ] should be added back to the article. CNN and Wired say that Mel Baggs is autistic. Slate seems to question some things about Mel but doesn't explicitly say they are not autistic. ] (]) 23:46, 13 July 2022 (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 ] and ], but please take care with ]. Those are NOT reliable sources by ] and ] policy; they are ]. ] (]) 18:37, 10 March 2008 (UTC) | |||
:Also, I think ] should be removed. The idea that Mel has factitious disorders seems to be based on gossip. ] (]) 23:47, 23 July 2022 (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. <small>—Preceding ] comment added by ] (]) 19:20, 10 March 2008 (UTC)</small><!-- Template:UnsignedIP --> <!--Autosigned by SineBot--> | |||
::As I recall, Baggs hirself stated that sie had been diagnosed with factitious disorder imposed on self by a psychiatrist at Stanford University Hospital, so that is based on hir own words and not on gossip (I would link to the evidence, but I've already had a link to a reliable source reverted). ] (]) 14:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC) | |||
::::::I removed the entry made here by ] 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.--] (]) 19:36, 10 March 2008 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 17:07, 15 September 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Mel Baggs article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This article was nominated for deletion. Please review the prior discussions if you are considering re-nomination:
|
This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Sources?
The page so far is a summary of a citizen's's blogging topics and self-published videos, plus citation of a couple of interviews given by her to mainstream media, consisting of a rehash of the same self-published material with some added "puff". Substantively the page remains at the level of a self-presentation or at best citation, but not biography: biographical information is notably sparse. Each referenced source ultimately cites Ms Baggs herself as its source & authority for information about Ms Baggs. As biography, so far it's uncorroborated autobiography: unverifiable as it stands. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jistaface (talk • contribs) 00:34, 28 November 2011 (UTC)
I would have to agree. I fail to see the impact this individual has outside of small groups of internet fans. Perhaps this could be explained? Has she published anything? Nerflet (talk) 18:49, 15 June 2015 (UTC)
This is one of the best known nonspeaking autistic bloggers on the internet. I wouldn't say it's a small internet fan group. (I'm not affiliated with Baggs in any way). 2601:200:C000:B815:A175:AA1:489C:84E3 (talk) 21:23, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
Organizations?
Within which organizations does Amanda Baggs hold influential or leading positions? Which organizations is she involved with? What online psuedonymns has she used in the past? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.65.5 (talk) 04:08, 28 February 2009 (UTC)
- And this is relevant how? GetDumb 06:34, 2 March 2009 (UTC)
And this is NOT relevant how? Misplaced Pages articles are not supposed to be mere publicity vehicles, they are meant to be informative, to explain who people are, what they do and why they are considered important or famous. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.169.155.5 (talk) 05:07, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
- And that has been done. You're proposing unneccessary embelishment. GetDumb 07:30, 23 March 2009 (UTC)
She doesn't hold leading positions in any organizations as far as I know. She's mainly famous for her videos and writing that she has posted online.76.19.230.7 (talk) 02:19, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
- Her main claim to notability is her appearances on CNN. That makes this pathetic organisation argument irrelevant. GetDumb 09:09, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
Cleanup ?
there is a cleanup tag in the article - why ?? - I do not understand the reason - it is referenced and gives basic information. please remove or comment the tag. Plehn (talk) 19:06, 1 September 2010 (UTC)
Allegations of Misrepresentation
Has this issue been dealt with at Wiki. Now, I know that because of the living persons policy, any such claim would have to pass a certain level of credibility, but what is the status on the allegations of Amanda Baggs misrepresenting herself as autistic, and are the claims in any way encyclopedic? --Cornince (talk) 21:35, 15 September 2012 (UTC)
- This should meet WP:BLP http://www.slate.com/articles/health_and_science/medical_examiner/2013/01/autism_neurodiversity_does_facilitated_communication_work_and_who_speaks.html --Nbauman (talk) 18:42, 16 January 2013 (UTC)
Non-expert criticism of a living person's integrity is not appropriate on Misplaced Pages without a detailed discussion of the credibility of the claims made and the sources available. There is for good reason a high onus of credibility on criticism made of living persons, which I do not believe has been satisfied here. Having viewed the original document which Slate refers to, it appeared to me highly invasive and libelous, and unsurprising that threat of legal action was made through Baggs's lawyer. Libel is still libel, even if perpetuated through a mainstream magazine, but should not be continued here. This is only a high-profile instance of the kind of personal attacks which are commonplace in the work of autism rights activists, due to pervasive stereotypes about how autistic people present in public and in private, and mainstream insistence that all autistics are the same. It would be tasteless here to privilege such meaningless gossip of non-experts as of Encyclopedic value, especially as appearing "normal" only indicates the ability (temporary or not) to pass as such. While expert opinions are included in the Slate article, they are based on non-expert observation, and only suggests that Baggs's clinical progression is atypical. Autism Spectrum Disorders (ASD) are associated with high co-morbidity with other mental health conditions, which can interact in complex ways and account for a vast diversity of clinical trajectories. The reference made to the controversy was poorly worded, did not present a neutral-point of view, and therefore was removed as inappropriate and potentially libelous. Anyazelie (talk) 04:14, 11 April 2013 (UTC)
The Slate article doesn't say that her progression is atypical - it says it's UNPRECEDENTED. I'm pretty sure that's a nice way of saying "probably not true". Obticui (talk) 12:06, 17 February 2016 (UTC)
- The Slate article is written by a person (parent?) with an ax to grind against autism rights activists, not by an expert, so I wouldn't put too much stock in what it says. Baggs is infamously targeted by vile Internet trolls, notably the notorious harrassment site KiwiFarms, as a canonical, prototypical, early example of what they call a "social justice warrior". Baggs is clearly hated by a ton of people for no compelling reason. Even if Baggs were not really autistic, that would not make everything written by Baggs about disability rights and activism automatically wrong. What we see here is a transparent argumentum ad hominem. A lot of people act as if the whole autism rights movement hinged upon whether a single proponent, Baggs, is really autistic or not. Every activist who is pro-autism-rights and cure-criticial is doubted to be "real" or "autistic enough" (i. e., "low-functioning"), and "low functioning" autistic people cannot speak or write, let alone eloquently defend themselves, so the only people left who are allowed to speak for them are not autistic themselves. How convenient.
- Check the comments here, here (skip the spam), and here. Anonymous attack sites are not credible evidence. All of Baggs's enemies hide behind anonymous or pseudonymous identities, and the whole controversy (or manufactroversy) has essentially died down after 2008, which is telling. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 15:24, 7 January 2017 (UTC)
- The opinions of neurotypical people - especially those who think "she spoke, attended classes, dated" is in any way in conflict with "in a wheelchair, rocking, smacking herself in the head, flapping her hands, and making unintelligible noises" -
on who is and isn't autistic should not be considered credible in any way, shape or form. 82.132.241.115 (talk) 22:59, 30 January 2018 (UTC)
Pronouns
A few days ago in this series of edits, an anonymous user changed the article from singular they to sie/hir. While I understand that Amelia prefers the use of sie/hir, it's also my understanding that singular they is just as gender-neutral as sie/hir, with the added benefit of being widely understood, even by nonnative speakers. However, I'm not aware of any proscriptions specifically against the use of sie/hir in articles, so I didn't want to simply undo the edits. Should they be reversed, or are they okay? 「ディノ奴千?!」 00:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)
On that note, Baggs goes by Mel now. 2601:200:C000:B815:A175:AA1:489C:84E3 (talk) 21:26, 10 August 2016 (UTC)
- Prove it with a reliable independent source. According to the note below - there isn't one. 101.182.3.153 (talk) 08:02, 22 August 2016 (UTC)
Reverting move
Requested move 14 September 2015
- The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
The result of the move request was: moved. Jenks24 (talk) 11:15, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
Amelia Baggs → Amanda Baggs – There are no independent and verifiable sources to confirm that Amanda has changed her name to Amelia. Tumblr is not a reliable source and there is no way to tell if that Tumblr blog belongs to her or not. This is actually something that a hater could so easily have done (and I wouldn't put it past them either with their history) so it is not reliable and should not be used. Other information added is highly controversial and potentially defamatory and therefore goes against WP:BLP until such time as independent verification and sourcing of the name change and so forth can be obtained. No one who knows Amanda should try to change this as that would be a COI violation. 1.152.96.207 (talk) 04:44, 14 September 2015 (UTC)
- Support moving the article back to the original title. I have not been able to find a reliable source that supports the name change. — JJMC89 (T·C) 16:17, 20 September 2015 (UTC)
- The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
External links modified
Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on Amanda Baggs. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
- Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150614025042/http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/a-thing-for-things/ to http://www.frieze.com/issue/article/a-thing-for-things/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}}
(last update: 5 June 2024).
- If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
- If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:20, 3 July 2017 (UTC)
"Category:Genderqueer people" ?
There's no source given for Amanda identifying as genderqueer or anything similar, so I'm removing the category for now. - User:Brainy J ✿ (talk) 23:45, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
Facilitated communication
As her purported method of communication is not real. this article is going to need some reworking. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 22:17, 30 May 2019 (UTC)
References
- Schlosser, Ralf W.; Balandin, Susan; Hemsley, Bronwyn; Iacono, Teresa; Probst, Paul; von Tetzchner, Stephen (December 2014). "Facilitated communication and authorship: a systematic review". Augmentative and Alternative Communication (Baltimore, Md.: 1985). 30 (4): 359–368. doi:10.3109/07434618.2014.971490. ISSN 1477-3848. Retrieved 30 May 2019.
While I agree about the dubious nature of FC, I don't think we can verifiably say she's a user of it, especially considering that saying someone's an FC user could really damage their credibility. It sounds to me like she types on her own using a software. From what I was able to find, she says she uses a communication device and picture symbols . I also found this CNN reader email exchange where she talks about how she learned to type, describing it as a pretty solitary experience and never mentions a facilitator. She also contrasts herself with other autistic people who might need more "physical assistance" to type, which to me implies that she doesn't need that assistance and can do it by herself.
I think people are overlooking the fact that not all AAC is FC. There might be something I missed verifying she uses it, but she doesn't seem to mention a facilitator anywhere in her writing and I think it's important to be careful before we say someone communicates in a sketchy way when we're not positive that's what they used. Thrashunreality (talk) 17:06, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
- I think you're right. Sorry about that. There are a bunch of articles misrepresenting facilitated communication users and this one got caught in the crossfire. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 18:10, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
References
- Baggs, Amanda (11 June 2010). "About". Ballastexistenz. Retrieved 2 June 2019.
- "Baggs: Live on an autistic island? Not me - CNN.com". www.cnn.com. Retrieved 2 June 2019.
- Comment: I don't see anywhere in the text of this article that it says Baggs uses FC. The article cites one news story which mentions faciliated communication in its headline, but that article only says that "Sue Rubin, Larry Bissonnette, and Tracy Thresher lives were transformed when they were introduced to Facilitated Communication (FC)"; the article mentions Baggs multiple times, but never suggests that she uses FC. Googling around, the only page I spot that says Baggs uses FC is a wikia page, not reliable, whereas e.g. James C. Wilson's Weather Reports from the Autism Front (2010, ISBN 0786482222), page 119, says "Like Rubin, other autistic children have started with Facilitated Communication and then progressed to computer-assisted or independent typing. Two of the most prolific autistic writers, Cal Montgomery and Amanda Baggs, use a variety of computer-assisted technologies. In one post, Baggs lists all the reasons why, when many people see her, they refuse to believe that she could have written the intellectually rigorous material on her blog. ", which also doesn't say Baggs has used FC (and implies that she does not use it). If the article already does not say Baggs uses FC, and these multiple sources do not either, then the tag has no purpose, as there is nothing to change or clean up. -sche (talk) 17:30, 2 June 2019 (UTC)
Okay, cool. I just didn't want to delete the tag while the whole FC conflict was still going strong on other pages without discussing it here first. Thrashunreality (talk) 02:44, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
- Comment: This is not suitable for the article, but as background my wife Kathleen and I have known Baggs personally for about 15 years. We've both spent time with them IRL, and my wife has traveled with them, shared hotel rooms and assisted them at conferences. Neither of us have ever known them to use FC. They are capable of typing and use a standard computer keyboard and also an electronic picture board. - DaveSeidel (talk) 11:48, 3 June 2019 (UTC)
Which is the complaint, the autism or assisted communication?
This is odd. The subject describes the diagnosis of her autism bluntly in several statements enough so to convince legitimate sources at CNN and The New York Times of her diagnoses (of which one is her autism), but is apparently being challenged now because the "diagnosis is controversial." What?!? How so?
Apart from her self-written references which are quoted from her blog and other less legitimate sources, the few deadlinks (which might shed light on this if found) and all other sources are sterling. So, the claimed autism diagnosis should be accepted by WP if its rules about legitimate sources still exist.
Now, there are other references to her support of "the use of facilitated communication and other scientifically discredited alternative therapies." I wonder if this is the actual reason for deleting the WP Category:People on the autism spectrum categorization yesterday. Whether she uses an AAC or not, let's others assist her use of it, or tosses it like a Frisbee, how does that affect her diagnosis of autism?
The categorization was accurate throughout so long as legitimate sources say so. If the reason of the categorization getting deleted was, in fact, her multifaceted use of an AAC, that has nothing to do with the diagnosis of her autism.174.23.171.229 (talk) 16:46, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- I'm refering to this source from the article:
- A Campbell, California native, Baggs went to Center for Talented Youth summer programs as a child and, in the mid-1990s, was a student at the Simon's Rock College in Great Barrington, Massachusetts. Several classmates of Baggs have found the presence of her alleged impairments to be unusual, subsequently claiming that Baggs "spoke, attended classes, dated, and otherwise acted in a completely typical fashion." Baggs does not dispute those details online, but claims a loss of all functional speech in her 20s.
- The subject claims to have begun displaying symptoms of autism in her 20's, and that's just not how autism works. It must be present no later than 5. That makes her diagnosis sketchy, to say the least. Actually it invalidates the diagnosis, but we may only have the sourcing to say it's controversial. This doesn't have anything to do with her method of communication. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:53, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- According to the Slate article, she claims that she was diagnosed when she was 14, not in her early 20s. Regardless, I don't think the controversy over her diagnosis should be in the lead. As far as I know, this is the only source that raises questions about her diagnosis, and the source was written by a well-known opponent of the neurodiversity movement, which raises questions about the neutrality of the source. CatPath (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
- @CatPath: I see that you are correct about the age at which she was diagnosed. The article says she was diagnosed with autism at age 14, but lost all functional speech in her 20s. This is extremely odd, because none of her diagnosis explain this. When she is described as as having non-verbal autism, I think we all just assumed she was non-verbal from a young age due to autism.
- This source also recognizes the existence of a controversy over her diagnoses. I have read some non-rs sources that suggest she has Munchausen's. We certainly can't add that to the article, but it is possibly the best explanation for how she inexplicably lost the ability to speak. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 01:08, 16 September 2019 (UTC)
- It is certainly possible, even common, for autistic adults to lose "functionality" and coping skills at some point, and to "regress" and become "more autistic" as a result, which is also discussed in the context of "autistic burnout" (given that "masking", or "pretending to be normal" and playing the role of a neurotypical person, erecting a façade of "normality", or "passing" as neurotypical takes a lot of energy, energy that tends to be exhausted when people reach middle age, or even earlier). I can't speak to this particular case, but it just sounds like a more extreme case of this phenomenon. See, for example, this article written by Baggs themselves. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- You're correct that it is possible for autistic adults to lose "functionality" and coping skills at some point, and to "regress" and become "more autistic" as a result, but this does not include loss of speech in an autistic adult who has typical speech ability. Take it from someone who knows. I'm autistic and have undergone a slow regression ever since adolescence, but my ability to speak is as good as most people's despite a slight delay when I was a toddler. 80.193.98.150 (talk) 14:01, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- It is certainly possible, even common, for autistic adults to lose "functionality" and coping skills at some point, and to "regress" and become "more autistic" as a result, which is also discussed in the context of "autistic burnout" (given that "masking", or "pretending to be normal" and playing the role of a neurotypical person, erecting a façade of "normality", or "passing" as neurotypical takes a lot of energy, energy that tends to be exhausted when people reach middle age, or even earlier). I can't speak to this particular case, but it just sounds like a more extreme case of this phenomenon. See, for example, this article written by Baggs themselves. --Florian Blaschke (talk) 20:28, 27 August 2020 (UTC)
- According to the Slate article, she claims that she was diagnosed when she was 14, not in her early 20s. Regardless, I don't think the controversy over her diagnosis should be in the lead. As far as I know, this is the only source that raises questions about her diagnosis, and the source was written by a well-known opponent of the neurodiversity movement, which raises questions about the neutrality of the source. CatPath (talk) 19:48, 13 September 2019 (UTC)
References
- Amy S.F. Lutz (2013-01-16). "Autism neurodiversity: Does facilitated communication work, and who speaks for the severely autistic?". Slate.com. Retrieved 2013-09-29.
Cause of death?
Are there any reliable sources for this?--Malerooster (talk) 03:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I would like to know hir legitimate cause of death, but I can't find it anywhere. Mel Baggs has always profoundly inspired me with hir activism. We lost someone whose influence in this world was much needed and will always be appreciated. Therefore, I hope that hir legacy will live on and that sie is never forgotten. Mel made an honest difference in the world and I am proud to say that I'm one of those whom hir efforts have greatly impacted. 2601:98A:480:C080:789B:D59F:BF3D:CFE0 (talk) 03:56, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
I'd like to know hir cause of death, also. It's very important information, as sie has devoted hir life to activism for not only Autism and Autistic culture, but a variety of medical conditions, some of which were potentially very life-threatening. Mel was ill. I think sie would have wanted everyone to be aware of what went wrong, in order to better help others in need. We can't let others suffer the same fate. We lost a truly great individual who has inspired and will continue to inspire so many others through hir writings and videos. 40 is way too young of an age to die. While I didn't know hir personally, sie had such an incredible impact on my life and I feel blessed. Sie is truly one of the most important figures in the history of Autistic culture, which I am proud to be able to claim as my culture as well. Thank you, Mel. You will forever be loved and missed. May you continue to be immensely treasured as the icon that you are. 2601:98A:480:C080:789B:D59F:BF3D:CFE0 (talk) 04:21, 17 April 2020 (UTC)
More blogs used by Mel Baggs
I received a warning from the editor because I just added links to blogs. I believe these links improve the quality of the article. The many different websites may be difficult to find for someone who hears of Mel Baggs for the first time. Misplaced Pages is a natural starting point for finding further ressources. --Lllang (talk) 08:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)
- To be honest, I think some Misplaced Pages editors just don't like links to strong evidence. In response to a request for a source, I added a link to a non-deprecated source regarding what is required for an autistic person to be deemed 'low functioning', only for my edit to be reverted. 80.193.98.150 (talk) 16:21, 12 September 2024 (UTC)
- 1. if you do not agree with the revert, please bring it up directly instead of making passive-aggressive comments about it on an unrelated thread.
- 2. I reverted your sources because I think a source that lists the criteria for low-functioning autism but otherwise does not mention or relate to Baggs is not an appropriate source in this case. I think it requires original research to go from "these are the criteria of low-functioning autism" to "this supports the fact that Baggs did not meet the criteria of low-functioning autism." Additionally, the second source added (AngelSense), is a promotional blog post, which I believe makes it unfit as a source in general.
- The statement requiring a source is "Additionally, other autism advocates have also questioned the validity of their diagnosis, given that Baggs did not meet many of the requirements of low functioning autism". After this, I took a cursory look through the page history and it seems like this statement just got separated from its sources throughout time. I put the original sources back with the statements they belong to, though I concede they still are not of high quality. TheZoodles (talk) 17:07, 15 September 2024 (UTC)
Personal life section - unsourced claims
I've noticed that the 'personal life' section of this article is lengthy and gives the impression of bias. The following claim is made: 'In addition to autism, Baggs had also claimed to have been diagnosed with and wrote about numerous other syndromes and disabilities, including bipolar disorder, dissociative disorder, psychotic disorder, obsessive–compulsive disorder, Tourette syndrome, post-traumatic stress disorder, craniofacial abnormality, synesthesia, schizophrenia, bronchiectasis, hypermobility, Irlen syndrome, asthma, and gastroparesis.' This statement is unclear (is it saying that Baggs claimed all of these diagnoses, or that they claimed some of them but wrote about all of them?) and is supported with one source, which is about Baggs' gastroparesis and is from Baggs' personal blog. I could not find mention of Tourette syndrome or psychotic disorder in the source. The inclusion of the quoted sentence reads as supportive of the idea that Baggs was lying about the medical conditions they had. This does not seem impartial, considering the lack of substantiation for the assertion that Baggs actually said they were diagnosed with all those things. What's more, there's already plenty of material in the 'personal life' section that reads as critical of Baggs. Obviously, the article should not be a hagiography, but I do think undue weight is being given to information that isn't even well-supported by the one citation provided for it. Other opinions would be appreciated. Lemonpip (talk) 00:21, 24 November 2021 (UTC)
- I completely agree, but I don't know what to do this issue. At the very least, I think Category:People on the autism spectrum should be added back to the article. CNN and Wired say that Mel Baggs is autistic. Slate seems to question some things about Mel but doesn't explicitly say they are not autistic. Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 23:46, 13 July 2022 (UTC)
- Also, I think Category:People with factitious disorders should be removed. The idea that Mel has factitious disorders seems to be based on gossip. Nine hundred ninety-nine (talk) 23:47, 23 July 2022 (UTC)
- As I recall, Baggs hirself stated that sie had been diagnosed with factitious disorder imposed on self by a psychiatrist at Stanford University Hospital, so that is based on hir own words and not on gossip (I would link to the evidence, but I've already had a link to a reliable source reverted). 80.193.98.150 (talk) 14:08, 29 August 2024 (UTC)
- Start-Class psychology articles
- Low-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- Start-Class biography articles
- Start-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Low-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- WikiProject Biography articles
- Start-Class Autism articles
- Low-importance Autism articles
- WikiProject Autism articles
- Start-Class Disability articles
- WikiProject Disability articles
- Start-Class LGBTQ+ studies articles
- Start-Class WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies - person articles
- WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies - person articles
- WikiProject LGBTQ+ studies articles
- Start-Class Internet culture articles
- Unknown-importance Internet culture articles
- WikiProject Internet culture articles