Talk:Mel Baggs

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? 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)

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？！」^{? · ☎ Dinoguy1000} 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)

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

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

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[... 's] 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 [Sue] 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 [Wikipedia] 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)

References

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. Wikipedia is a natural starting point for finding further ressources. --Lllang (talk) 08:58, 21 February 2021 (UTC)

To be honest, I think some Wikipedia 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)