Talk:Mel Baggs

Speedy deletion nomination of Amanda Baggs

A tag has been placed on Amanda Baggs requesting that it be speedily deleted from Wikipedia. This has been done for the following reason:

Article does not show importance

Under the criteria for speedy deletion, pages that meet certain criteria may be deleted at any time.

If you think this page should not be deleted for this reason, you may contest the nomination by visiting the page and clicking the button labelled "Contest this speedy deletion". This will give you the opportunity to explain why you believe the page should not be deleted. However, be aware that once a page is tagged for speedy deletion, it may be removed without delay. Please do not remove the speedy deletion tag from the page yourself, but do not hesitate to add information in line with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. If the page is deleted, and you wish to retrieve the deleted material for future reference or improvement, then please contact the deleting administrator, or if you have already done so, you can place a request here. MrAlanCD (talk) 17:31, 23 February 2016 (UTC)

2007-2008 Talk Page Archive

Talk page archive (February 2007-October 2008) for this article.

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)

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? Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia 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)

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？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 00:20, 11 September 2015 (UTC)

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.