Talk:Bridget Taylor

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Please see Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons for further development of this article. It'd also be good to justify this page via the criteria of Wikipedia:Notability (people) to avoid a nomination for deletion. Also, there needs to be links to this page that aren't just thrown into articles on autism (i.e. the links to this page must avoid removal).

WLU 16:35, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

Contents 1 Plagiarism 2 Nitpicking 3 Evidence of Editorial Bias 4 Unbelievable 5 R.E.S.P.E.C.T. 6 Minor note

[edit] Plagiarism

Ok, the fact that her bio information was originally plagiarised word-for-word from here means this article could be deleted as per Wikipedia:Copyright problems. Do not paste information from webpages. WLU 17:02, 17 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Nitpicking

With all due respect, this is the subject's biography. It is not only included on the page referenced but on the Alpine Learning Group's website and any other place a biography is used for this person as well as their written materials. It was not cut and pasted from a website, it was taken from printed materials on the subject. A biographer could do better than citing a subject's own biography? I question the editor's agenda. There are hundreds of wikipedia articles on fictional television characters which are, apparently, more important than a leading expert in the field of ABA and someone who is pioneering advances in ABA therapy. Every breath Lance Armstrong takes is cited on wikipedia. As if it is relevant. Lance's missing right testicle has a wikipedia page as if it is of more importance than a medical researcher cited heavily in Google Scholar, Time Magazine, The New York Times, and many many other international educational instutions that can get her to speak. Taylor is most obviously and clearly one the most important figures in the field of autism treatment, pioneering many new treatment techniques. This editor simply chooses to ignore that. I have a problem with the editor's personal bias against this subject. If an editor's agenda was to make Wikipedia a more comprehensive encyclopedia, I believe they would assist in getting important subject matter into wikipedia not spend their time trying to eliminate by finding any minor infraction. They would assist in making the article acceptable to wikipedia's guidelines. That is if they had no personal agenda in keeping the article out.

You talking about me? I don't make the policy, I just cite it. Pasting plagiarised text can get articles deleted. Not my problem, not my fault. WLU 18:17, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Nope, no bias against the subject. If anything I'd rather see her on wikipedia than that guy doing chelation therapy, but that's not my call. If you seriously would like this page to remain on wikipedia, I suggest you read Wikipedia:Notability (people) and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons and Wikipedia:Notability (academics). If the article is not brought up to quality and concrete evidence is given of notability, it will be deleted. Again, not my policy, I just think it's a good one. Lance Armstrong's testicle is not the reason this page wobbles on the verge of being deleted, that would be the policy. Like it or not, Mr. Armstrong (and his testicle) meet notability requirements. Bridget Taylor, not so much. WLU 18:40, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Evidence of Editorial Bias

As the author of this article, I note for the record that initially there were many many references, all deleted by this editor. Further, the editor claimed to have been an ABA therapist for 18 months and had never heard of Bridget Taylor (therefore she could not be a notable person, I assume). She deleted my references to one of the most important books ever written on autism and ABA therapy, Let Me Hear Your Voice by Catherine Maurice. As a graduate student Dr. Taylor was the therapist who along with the author's two children was the subject of this book. The editor later admitted to having read the book but having no knowlege of Bridget Taylor, who is mentioned by name on almost every page of the book. The book is considered an important groundbreaking publication of a journey into the effectiveness of "good" ABA therapy. The author's two autistic children are now considered "indistinguishable from their peers." As the therapist who implement the therapy and techniques to enable these children to learn, Bridget Taylor's name is mentioned no less than 200-300 times in this book (and that's a conservative estimate). The editor has read the book yet claims to never have heard of Bridget Taylor. Everyone in the world who has read this book comes away remembering one thing: Bridget Taylor. Yet, this completely unbiased, neutral editor claims the name Bridget Taylor did not "ring a bell." Well it rings a bell for me: editorial bias against the subject of my article, editing which made the subject seem less notable by deleting affiliations and references, editing out the reference to the book itself. Neutrality is a two way street. If an article when written must be neutral, editors should be held to the same standards. They should leave their preconceptions at the door lest wikipedia becomes the sole property of the whims and personal preferences of its editors, which it is very close to becoming when editors do not help an author to meet the criteria that is wikipedia, but rather egocentrically delete artcles they believe are not important because they've never heard of them. This is censorship, it is dangerous, and there is no place for it in a "encyclopedia." I do believe that if an editor can claim to have read a book that cites a particular parson over 200 times yet claim to have no knowledge of that person, bias is clear.

Squeaky2 19:34, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Note that you are not the author of the article, you are the creator but anyone can edit, and each edit rests upon its own merits. To see why I deleted them, see WP:RS. Seriously, I'm not doing this out of spite, I'm following proceedures, proceedures which exist in order to improve the quality of Wikipedia. And I may have read LMHYV, but that doesn't mean I remember names. I remember the therapists involved in the case, but I'm not so good with the names 2 years later. And why do people keep assuming I'm a girl? I'm not.

The statement that LMHYV is one of the most important books every written on autism and ABA therapy is an opinion, see WP:NPOV. You've got the welcome links on how to write a good article on your talk page. They are handy and will go a long way towards your edits being acceptable to other editors. Anyway, I'm leaving you with the links about notability. If you want this page to lose the orphan tag, and if you want it to not get nominated for deletion, read the guidelines and make sure they apply. As I've said elsewhere, the decision to delete or not is based on the consensus of the community whether it meets the criteria of WP:N. It's not a vote and it's not a personality contest. It's the merits of the page versus the criteria of notability. WLU 20:25, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Unbelievable

I'd just like to note my astonishment at the moment that the editors of Wikipedia have actually edited the discussion entries on this subject. So essentially, a record of even a discussion of issues is skewed by the editorial team of wikipedia. This censorship is unacceptable. If you don't have enough power over what is deemed important and what is not, you always have the opportunity to delete parts of the discussion that are relevant. So the contributor of an artcle looks like they are angry and upset over nothing a wikipedia editor did to provoke. Just make it all disappear. The more I learn about wikipedia, the more I realize that it's nothing more than a joke, an exercise in egghead power trips for those whos egos live and die on the internet. It's really sad. I thought it was an encyclopedia.

Not quite the diabolical censorship you were thinking, I was moving a discussion over from a user talk page to the appropriate talk page. The discussion you are referring to is below this one. I took a bit of time to reply to comments while I was moving it. WLU 19:23, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] R.E.S.P.E.C.T.

You know what...I'm not trying to help my case. It's not my case. I don't care if the article gets deleted or included anymore. I have not been anything less than civil. I've been honest, from the start. You accused me at least 20 times of having an agenda. Well it looks like one of us has an agenda, and it's not me.

"I'm not helping my case..." that's an interesting choice of words. It implies that if I do what you say and be really really nice and say thank you, can you delete more of my references, can you disrepect my research a little more, and if I just say thank you sir may I have another, somehow you'll actually deem my article acceptable???????

It's kind of serious when you imply that by challenging your agenda it hurts the chances of my article being included in wikipedia. What do they call that? Nazism?

Godwin's Law. Incidentally, I'm not the one who decides if an article is deleted or not, it's consensus of the community and it's based on the merits of the case. So sucking up to me and insulting me are irrelevant because ultimately it's going to come down to a bunch of anonymous people saying "Delete as per..." I'm only one opinion of however many would be involved in it and it is decided on the basis of WP:N WLU

So then why did you try to use it like weapon if it's not? And if makes a more valid point, let's just delete "Nazism" and call it a more sanitized word like...say....facism.

Uh... didn't try to use it as a weapon. Did I say 'change the article to say BT is a baby-eating monster or I'll AFD it"? The reason I'm suggesting the changes and pushing notability is 'cause if it does get nominated for deletion, it stands a better chance if the people editing the article have read the criteria and guidelines that determine if it gets deleted or not. And really, facism isn't much more sanitized than Nazism. Also check out WP:COOL btw. Anyway, read the criteria or don't, if it does get nominated for deletion, it stands a better chance if you've read the policy. The page'll also be better too. WLU 21:31, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

You already nominated it for deletion so what are you talking about. "if" it gets nominated for deletion. You've nominated it for deletion. There's a huge box on the top of the page, so what exactly are you saying? There is no "if" in question anymore. You as an editor of wikipedia have nominated the article for deletion. And I will add at this point again, just as you have spent considerable time and effort tearing the article apart you could have used probably less time and effort to ensure that the article complies to standards of wikipedia. By not doing so, I suggest that you are doing a great disservice to the users of wikipedia and to those people who would find info on BT extremely important in their search for information and assistance when faced with the enormous task of finding proper education for their children.

It is not nominated for deletion, it is orphaned (meaning few/no other pages link to it), which makes it more likely to be deleted if it is nominated. I have not nominated it for deletion, and I'm not likely to 'cause that'll just look like spite. Eventually however, it may be nominated for deletion. A deletion tag can be found at the top of Angie Phillips, as well as the reason for it being deleted (non-notability). You might actually want to look at the debate as well, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Angie Phillips

It would take a long time for me to bring the article up to speed considering how little I know of her, therefore how long it would take me to find reliable sources.

Again, knowing who BT is not good for parents, because it is extremely unlikely they will get her as a lead therapist or clinical supervisor. You can think I'm doing all the parents of autistic kids in the world a great disservice, but I've also edited the autism page and various ABA pages in an effort to improve them - far greater service in my mind than improving the article on a therapis they will never get. But all of this is irrelevant and you could be spending this time reading policies and improving the article. WLU 12:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I couldn't disagree more, knowing who Bridget Taylor is would be extremely useful to parents of children with Autism in figuring out what a proper ABA program is supposed to look like. Just because I cant get into Harvard doesn't mean that it isn't notable. Reading Let Me Hear Your Voice and subsequently reading the research papers of Dr. Taylor had enabled my family to implement a high quality ABA program as opposed to not so good program we had before and didn't even know it wasn't up to par. Just because Dr. Taylor is not available to all, her ABA methodology should be. Torobert 16:05, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

By your logic, the important thing would be to improve the quality of the ABA pages. That will give parents the idea of what an ABA program is supposed to look like. It's the methodology that's important, not Dr. Taylor. Reading the research papers let you implement ABA. LMHYV does not give sufficient detail to run an ABA program now, not with the changes that have occurred to the discipline and knowledge base since 1994. And I don't believe Taylor invented ABA, even if she was an early practitioner. WLU 19:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

In addition you cite Angie Phillips as a comparison and the notable difference is, Angie Phillips is a meteorologists reporting news. She has not invented a new way to determine what the future weather is. Bridget Taylor has helped change to way people with Autism are treated inventing new educational programs. She is a pioneer in the field of ABA the only treatment for autism that is scientifically proven to work. The Alpine Learing is cleary recognized as one of the very top (if not top) schools for children with autism and that is a direct result of the educational contribution of Dr. Taylor. 4.78.182.130 18:32, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

I cite Angie Phillips as an example of an article up for deletion, and the process of being nominated and debated for deletion. I'm not saying AP is more notable than BT. I have no idea, nor do I care. I could have cited Marc Fest, or Meatless Monday or Wedd's House or Thomas Hellman or Adult Swim Action Saturdays or Big Daddy's or Psyopus or Ermin Nurovic. The article is for instructive purposes, not comparison. And if you would read WP:NOTABILITY, then you could see if the article meets notability criteria and modify it accordingly, instead of spending your time trying to convince me that it's worth keeping. I don't care either way, all I'm saying right now is the article does not link to the rest of wikipedia and it may not meet criteria for deletion. If you would read the guidelines instead of arguing with me, you'd be ahead of the game and in a position to make sure it doesn't get deleted.

If it does get nominated, you might also want to read Wikipedia:Help, my article got nominated for deletion! You may want to read it right now in fact. A nomination for deletion, or any of the other tags serve to provide ways that the articles could be improved. If you are going to spend this much time debating the principles of wikipedia every time someone suggests an improvement, you have chosen the wrong medium to communicate with. If you read and followed the policy, if you took the statements more experienced editors make as suggestions rather than personal insults, if you spent all the time you did on this talk page reading the policies and improving the article, the page would be unequivocally better. You keep debating me as if I'm personally responsible for erasing pages or writing policy, I'm not. I've just seen many different articles on wikipedia, edited many of them, and have a general sense of problems.

Again, read the policies. If you really, really, really strongly feel that they are specifically prejudicial towards Bridget Taylor in some way, you could discuss them on the talk pages. I've created an article that was deleted. I was given the reason. I re-read the policy, it made sense, and I moved on. Read the policy. WP:notability. Wikipedia talk:Notability (academics). Wikipedia:Manual of Style (biographies). I guarantee you'll get a better understanding of what I'm saying, and you'll have a whole bunch of tools to improve the page. WLU 19:22, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

You seem to be taking this very personally. I thought my knowledge on the subject was welcome. I don't feel that way now. I didn't say Dr. Taylor invented ABA so I don't know why you are trying to ridicule me by saying so. my exact comment was "Bridget Taylor has helped change to way people with Autism are treated" what you did say about Let me Hear your voice was correct though it is not what is notable about Dr. Taylor but the what she has done in the 20 years since in the fields of ABA and Autism is. for the rest of it I don't know how any of those comments apply to me being this is my first entry into Wikipedia Torobert 20:42, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Re:personally - not really, I'm just amazed everyone's spending their time arguing with me, as if I somehow could magically make the problems with the page go away. At this point it's humorous, in a frustrating sort of way. I should keep track of the number of times I have to cite policy before people read it.

My comment re: BT inventing ABA was in response to your comment above, "...just because Dr. Taylor is not available to all, her ABA methodology should be." It's addressing the point that it's not her methodology. If she had invented ABA, she would totally be notable. I'm not trying to ridicule you (limitations of text-based medium, can't convey emotion without smileys). And the rest of the comments are not directed towards you, they are directed towards the two (possibly one?) other person who keeps arguing with me. And somewhat towards you as well. Your knowledge on subject matter is welcome, depending on the subject. Verifiable contributions towards notable topics are welcome, but there are limits to what is acceptable. These limitations are detailed in the policies of wikipedia, including WP:NOT, WP:NOTABILITY, WP:V, etc. Editing wikipedia in such a way that the content is of high quality is difficult. These standards and proceedures are in place so people don't end up posting things like 'Heavy metals are the reason autism exists, and chelation therapy is the cure.' Especially in biographies, verifiability and notability is key, to avoid vanity articles and teenagers putting up pictures of themselves talking about how great they are. These policies exist equally for all pages, subject to the limitations of manpower to edit them. WLU 21:17, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

We'll I thought the comments were directed towards me because they followed my comments. I was not referring to the problems with the wiki page. I was discussing (on the discussion page) what my personal experience was. This was designed to bring information to the discussion. You don't realize that "Dr. Taylor's Methodology" refers to the finest education being deliverd to individuals with Autism. You must recognize that it it totally different than the way ABA is practiced in other environments. Hence the Harvard comparison. You can get an education at an community college or at Harvard but it is clearly not the same education. I thought I made my points in a totally nuetral way. She is a major influence in the field of ABA used in Autism treatment.She is an innovator coming up with many new strategies for treatment. These strategies are documented in scientific journals (see wiki page) and are being copied throughout the ABA world. Did Lovass invent Behavior Analysis? no he made his contribution to the work of Skinner. Did Bridget Taylor invent ABA? no but she is making her contribution. Torobert 21:41, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

[edit] Minor note

A general comment to the frequent contributors to this page (main and talk). This kind of attention and back and forth is actually fairly uncommon on most pages. Lest this interaction give you a biased idea of wikipedia, barring very busy or controversial pages most edits will go unchallenged unless they are blatant vandalism (as is constant nagging by yours truly. Again, these comments are not to belittle Bridget Taylor or force changes, it is just my assessment of the realistic degree this page stands to remaining on wikipedia.

A second note - currently, because of the orphan status of this page, the only way anyone will reach it is through a direct search of the name, or the one in 1.6 million chance that the random page feature dumps someone here. To improve traffic on the page, it would be helpful to find ways to link other pages here. WLU 16:31, 31 January 2007 (UTC)