Revision as of 03:27, 11 November 2007 editBackin72 (talk | contribs)5,347 edits →Look at what they are saying about her here.: reply← Previous edit | Revision as of 03:42, 11 November 2007 edit undoBackin72 (talk | contribs)5,347 edits →Including a quote from CNN's article with Amanda Baggs in this articleNext edit → | ||
Line 30: | Line 30: | ||
:Is the above-linked accusation—that Amanda Baggs isn't really autistic—true? No, it's not. Is it true that some people question whether autistics can really communicate in articulate, written language? Sure. Are such questions based on evidence and reason? No, they aren't, anymore than the ]'s accusations about John Kerry's military service were. Autism is defined (DMS-IV) by an ''impairment'' of communication, not its ''absence'', and it is generally the case that people withn autism communicate much better via written than oral language. So, yes, it's entirely possible for a person to be unequivocally autistic, and mainly or entirely nonverbal, and still communicate articulately via written language. Thanks for asking. ]<sup>(])</sup> 03:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC) | :Is the above-linked accusation—that Amanda Baggs isn't really autistic—true? No, it's not. Is it true that some people question whether autistics can really communicate in articulate, written language? Sure. Are such questions based on evidence and reason? No, they aren't, anymore than the ]'s accusations about John Kerry's military service were. Autism is defined (DMS-IV) by an ''impairment'' of communication, not its ''absence'', and it is generally the case that people withn autism communicate much better via written than oral language. So, yes, it's entirely possible for a person to be unequivocally autistic, and mainly or entirely nonverbal, and still communicate articulately via written language. Thanks for asking. ]<sup>(])</sup> 03:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC) | ||
==Including a quote from CNN's article with 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 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 ehr 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) |
Revision as of 03:42, 11 November 2007
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 |
Biography: Politics and Government Start‑class | ||||||||||||||||
|
Created page
I pretty much just adapted the Jim Sinclair article here; hope it's off to a good start. cheers, Jim Butler 08:39, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- Actually, there already was an article about Amanda Baggs March or April 2006 and it was deleted. In addition, Amanda Baggs stated on her blog that she didn't want her article to exist. I think she said she had privacy concerns. Q0 08:42, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
- The last thing I'd want to to is to violate any privacy concern or otherwise create unwanted stress. I only thought the CNN citation was a good source that made the article notable, and I was careful not to include anything that wasn't in CNN or Youtube. I'll leave the issue up to Amanda Baggs, who has all my respect. Jim Butler 08:59, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
unsourced statement
There's an unsourced statement saying that I am "entirely nonverbal" and communicate by typing independently. I'm not sure what "entirely nonverbal" means. I'm (currently, at this time in my life, not to be extended to all other times please) able to produce words but not for conversational purposes, wouldn't that be "functionally nonverbal" if the word "nonverbal" had to be used at all? And what would be the source for that, since I'm the one mentioning this about myself? I'd think it'd make sense to say "...is unable to use speech for conversational purposes" or something like that instead of "is entirely nonverbal", but I'm not exactly about to edit an article about myself or come up with a source for that. Silentmiaow 21:10, 12 June 2007 (UTC)
- Hi Amanda -- I changed it, and your blog could be used to reference this. It's also OK for you to edit your own article, within reason. Cf. WP:BLP#Sources. regards, Jim Butler 20:41, 15 June 2007 (UTC)
year of birth
It says "year of birth missing". I was born in 1980. I again don't know any sources for that statement, unless you count the medical records referenced on my website. Silentmiaow 00:54, 16 July 2007 (UTC)
Look at what they are saying about her here.
http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?t=438331
Is this true?? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.169.64.213 (talk) 03:06, 1 October 2007 (UTC)
- Is the above-linked accusation—that Amanda Baggs isn't really autistic—true? No, it's not. Is it true that some people question whether autistics can really communicate in articulate, written language? Sure. Are such questions based on evidence and reason? No, they aren't, anymore than the Swift Boat Veterans for Truth's accusations about John Kerry's military service were. Autism is defined (DMS-IV) by an impairment of communication, not its absence, and it is generally the case that people withn autism communicate much better via written than oral language. So, yes, it's entirely possible for a person to be unequivocally autistic, and mainly or entirely nonverbal, and still communicate articulately via written language. Thanks for asking. Jim Butler 03:27, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Including a quote from CNN's article with Amanda Baggs in this article
HiEv, can you support your removal of well-sourced, substantive, neutral material with any WP policy or guideline? While I agree that it's good not to have too high a proportion of quoted material in articles, there are several reasons why it's not a problem here, and in fact why it should be retained.
- First, the article is still just a stub. I agree that we can flesh it out and perhaps "cannibalize" (i.e., rewrite in a non-copyright-infringing way) some of the CNN material. But that doesn't mean we should remove relevant information in the meantime.
- Second, WP:QUOTE was rejected as a policy or guideline, so having a significant amount of quoted material (especially in stub articles) is not a big deal.
- Third, according to WP:BLP, the material you deleted is in fact exactly the kind of thing we should have in the article. Your edit summary said "the article should be about her, not her opinion of her video". That's dead wrong. Wp:blp#People_who_are_relatively_unknown says:
- "Misplaced Pages also contains biographies of people who, while notable enough for an entry, are not generally well known. In such cases, editors should exercise restraint and include only material relevant to their notability."
Amanda Baggs is primarily notable as an autism advocate who was interviewed by after her YouTube video become something of an internet sensation. Therefore, it is entirely appropriate, and necessary, to base the article mostly on available secondary sources (i.e. the CNN pieces by various journalists) as well as on primary-source material (i.e. the subject's own writings, within what is allowed by WP:SOURCES and WP:BLP).
It should be self-evident, then, that having the article's subject comment on what ehr video meant is topical and useful, just as Thom Yorke's comments on the creation of Radiohead albums is considered suitable. Restoring. If you disagree, please show me the policy or guideline I'm missing, or file an article RfC. Thank you. Jim Butler 03:42, 11 November 2007 (UTC)
Categories:- Start-Class biography articles
- Start-Class biography (politics and government) articles
- Unknown-importance biography (politics and government) articles
- Politics and government work group articles
- Politics and government work group articles needing infoboxes
- Misplaced Pages requested photographs of politicians and government-people
- Biography articles without infoboxes
- Misplaced Pages requested photographs of people
- WikiProject Biography articles