Jump to content

Talk:Anne McDonald

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is the current revision of this page, as edited by Cewbot (talk | contribs) at 13:17, 19 February 2024 (Maintain {{WPBS}}: 4 WikiProject templates. Keep majority rating "C" in {{WPBS}}. Remove 4 same ratings as {{WPBS}} in {{WikiProject Biography}}, {{WikiProject Australia}}, {{WikiProject Disability}}, {{WikiProject Women writers}}.). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this version.

(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)

Skepticism

[edit]

The article appears to present McDonald's authorship of the papers as a fact. There should be a place for some mention of the skepticism of McDonald's independent communication.

Sufficiently serious issues arose to provoke formal statements of concern from professionals and parents in 1988, and a government-sponsored investigation in 1989. Despite Crossley's resistance to objective testing (on the basis that FC users refused to cooperate when their competence was questioned), some small-scale controlled evaluations were conducted in the course of that investigation. When the facilitator's knowledge about expected messages was well-controlled (more on this later), and the accuracy of messages was evaluated objectively, the effect disappeared. The disabled individuals were unable to communicate beyond their normal expectation. Instead, it appeared that the facilitators were authoring most FC messages, apparently without their awareness. These early studies suggested that FC was susceptible to a somewhat unusual kind of abuse: Allowing others to impose their own wishes, fears, hopes, and agendas on nonspeaking individuals. http://web.archive.org/web/20021217224216/http:/www.skeptic.com/02.3.green-fc.html Ordinary Person (talk) 23:04, 13 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly agree. I've come here from following links on and editing a series of other facilitated communication related Wikipedia articles that did an inadequate job capturing the actual weight of scientific evidence on the topic, and this definitely fits that pattern. I'm editing the article now to bring it more in line with the views of experts and the valid sources out there, and I've used that link as one of the citations. Thanks for sharing it.]. BreakfastJr (talk) 09:39, 5 June 2017 (UTC)[reply]
[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Anne McDonald. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

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) 21:18, 14 October 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Anne McDonald. 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:

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) 18:14, 6 July 2017 (UTC)[reply]

Habeus corpus

[edit]

I went and actually looked up R v Health Commission of Victoria; Lipton, George; Maginn, Dennis; ex parte Anne McDonald since everything I can find about it simply refers to a section of Annie's Coming Out (though that has multiple quotes from the judgement and more).[1] A section that seems relevant is part of Patricia Margaret Minnes' affidavit:

However in my opinion the results of this assessment cannot be considered objectively reliable and valid until such time as Anne is shown to perform at a similar intellectual level under experimentally controlled conditions. In my view there are at least three variables which need to be controlled, namely – (a) the nature of support to Anne's arm, (b) the amount of information available to the supporting person regarding the response requested of Anne, and (c) the nature of Anne's responses. In my opinion these factors can be controlled and until the assessment is made under objectively reliable experimental conditions in my opinion the results of Mr. Healey's assessment cannot be taken as conclusive.

Of course, they didn't actually do that because of time pressure, and the judge concluded:

While the possibility must be recognized that Miss Crossley is misleading observers into the mistaken belief that it is the mind of the applicant which finds expression in the selection of letters, either by reason of intentional deception on the part of Miss Crossley, or in consequence of less reprehensible and more obscure psychological processes, that possibility cannot in my judgment be regarded as at all probable.

Anyway, it may be of some use. --tronvillain (talk) 18:36, 6 December 2018 (UTC) [reply]

References

  1. ^ R v Health Commission of Victoria; Lipton, George; Maginn, Dennis; ex parte Anne McDonald [1979] VicSC,(17 May 1979), Supreme Court of Victoria 104118-1001

Public Trustee Act 1958

[edit]

Also potentially useful may be In the Matter of Anne Therese McDonald, a protected person within the meaning of the Public Trustee Act 1958.[1] It was preceeded by this and this. It was the ruling in which "Anne Therese McDonald, an infirm person (certified as such on the ground of physical infirmity), was desirous of making a contract with Penguin Books Australia Limited, whereby she and Rosemary Crossley as joint authors would write a story of her hospital experiences and Penguin Books would publish the book." It also mentions J. Jenkinson's earlier order that the Health Commisioner of Victoria and Drs. Lipton and Maginn should, "not hinder the departure of the applicant from the premises known as St. Nicholas' Hospital Carlton in the company of Rosemary Crossley." Anyway, on the basis of an 11 page report by a "Senior Master Jacobs" on McDonald and Crossley, Justice Murphy concludes:

I formally order that pursuant to s.39(d)(ii) I will order the Public Trustee to sign and seal a certificate in the form in the Fifth Schedule to the Public Trustee Act 1988 that Anne Therese McDonald has ceased to be an infirm person for the purposes of the Public Tree Act 1958.

The judgment doesn't contain the details of Jacobs' report. --tronvillain (talk) 19:31, 7 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

The website links, here, here, and here. --tronvillain (talk) 16:25, 27 May 2019 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ In the Matter of Anne Therese McDonald, a protected person within the meaning of the Public Trustee Act 1958 [1979] VicSC,(25 September 1979), Supreme Court of Victoria 96792-1001

Redirect/merge undone

[edit]

Hi all, i have undone the redirect/merge of this article as i believe McDonald to be notable enough for a standalone article. She was the subject of a book Annie's Coming Out and of an award winning film Annie's Coming Out. The newspaper references also show international coverage from independent sources. Coolabahapple (talk) 06:29, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

I fully support that action. McDonald's case triggered a massive shift in the treatment of people with conditions such as hers in Australia. HiLo48 (talk) 07:00, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
The book and film were written by Crossley (the merged article), so it's hardly independent coverage. ApLundell (talk) 07:03, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
That's a strange response. It's the newspaper references that were described as independent. HiLo48 (talk) 07:45, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Right, but those sources just cover McDonald via Crossley.
There's no coverage of McDonald that is distinct from the coverage of Crossley. All of McDonald's notability come from Crossley, and the fiction that McDonald is capable of speaking through Crossley.
So, since there's nothing you could put here that you wouldn't want to also put on the other article ... why not merge them?ApLundell (talk) 07:51, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I also oppose the redirect. The article seems balanced to me, and there are plenty more sources that can be added. As to "All of McDonald's notability come from Crossley", McDonald studied at and graduated from university without McDonald (with other assistants), and McDonald was given an award. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:24, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RebeccaGreen: ApLundell and myself support merging, you and Coolabahapple oppose it. It's tied for now. Ylevental (talk) 15:37, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Ylevental: You seem to have forgotten HiLo48. RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:40, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@RebeccaGreen: Okay, but it's still tied because now Wikiman2718 supports it Ylevental (talk) 15:49, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
@Wikiman2718: @Sgerbic: I would like to know your opinions on merging the article into Rosemary Crossley Ylevental (talk) 15:30, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
More pings per WP:MERGEPROP: @Rosiestep: @Becstarr: @Yazzledazzle: @Toploftical: @Amie.smith: @BreakfastJr: @Krelnik: @Tronvillain: @Maproom: RebeccaGreen (talk) 15:54, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Pinging Penny Richards as I value her opinion. --Rosiestep (talk) 16:46, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know about that, but if kept, the article should make it clear she was kidnapped/exploited given legal freedom under a false pretense by Crossley Ylevental (talk) 22:48, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ylevental: I have reverted your edit to the article in which you made these unsourced, libellous claims. RebeccaGreen (talk) 03:20, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RebeccaGreen: Sorry, I reworded it to sound more balanced Ylevental (talk) 12:35, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ylevental, that is factually incorrect. A court gave her the legal right to leave the institution, after accepting that McDonald could communicate independently. Saying "false pretences" is still libellous. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:42, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RebeccaGreen you meant to say "after falsely assuming that McDonald could communicate independently." Ylevental (talk) 12:48, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ylevental, no, I didn't, because that is not what the court said. The court tested her and were satisfied that she passed their test. You can't rewrite history. RebeccaGreen (talk) 12:54, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
RebeccaGreen, If the court said the earth was flat, they would still be wrong. Ylevental (talk) 13:07, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
Ylevental, in the unlikely event that a court said the earth was flat (or the more imaginable scenarios that a court accepted creationism or that climate change is not happening), Wikipedia would still have to report that a court based its decision on acceptance of proof of that theory. At most, we could say "A court gave McDonald the legal right to leave the institution, after giving her a test which they believed she passed, and therefore accepting that she could communicate independently using the later discredited method of facilitated communication". RebeccaGreen (talk) 13:14, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep McDonald's case triggered a massive shift in the treatment of people with conditions such as hers in Australia. That story is her story, not Crossley's. HiLo48 (talk) 23:33, 6 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep as two distinct articles. The subjects of these two articles are each notable in their own right. Article needs work but should not be merged. Netherzone (talk) 13:27, 7 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep since I didn't specifically !vote above. There is SIGCOV of Anne McDonald, and as HiLo48 said, she had a significant impact on how people with severe disabilities were perceived in Australia. RebeccaGreen (talk) 17:50, 10 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep I've not participated in one of these before (am still new to this) and so I'm not sure if this holds much weight, but Annie's Coming Out is a movie distinct from McDonald herself, and given Anne is a notable person, I am not sure why these would warrant merging. Pseudomugil (talk) 09:40, 17 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]
  • Keep - I think McDonald might have been notable without Crossley; but not the other way around. It's been nearly 11 years since I worked on the article (November 2007 after I gained my own copy of Annie's coming out)- putting in something of McDonald's pre-Crossley development [her early years in St Nicholas - 1964ish] as represented in Annie's Coming Out. If I had said something about 1972-1980 or post-1980 my position would have been different... And also the person who put the 1979 court cases in transcript has my gratitude - what about the Schools Commission and other things about the Whitlam Government and Fraser Government? --Bronwyn Gannan (talk) 04:56, 20 August 2019 (UTC).[reply]

Wait - this was never closed? This needs to have a final decision. Sgerbic (talk) 18:52, 10 May 2020 (UTC)[reply]

Rewording achievements of Anne McDonald

[edit]

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Anne_McDonald&type=revision&diff=909866022&oldid=909854877

If the article is to be kept, since she was allegedly communicating through the debunked FC technique, the article must be reworded so her achievements are in the passive tense. The only difference is that I would change "through the work of the fraudster" to "through the scientifically discredited work of". Ylevental (talk) 13:31, 8 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

That would certainly be a little more diplomatic, and less likely to lead to Wikipedia being sued. HiLo48 (talk) 04:10, 11 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

oops

[edit]

Sorry, my edit comment (see here) about spa ip refers only to the 2nd edit (although the rest is relevant:). Coolabahapple (talk) 12:33, 24 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Intellectual disability?

[edit]

Is there any source that actually confirmes that McDonald had an intellectual disability at all?

Surely the entire point of her situation was that she could not independently communicate, so that absent the at best dubious authorship of her 'facilitated' communications, she couldn't participate in any assessment so her level of cognition was a total unknown.

I'm a little concerned that the common presumption that someone without access to verbal communication has an intellectual disability has crept in here somewhere. If one sets aside FC, it's just an unknown.

FlyingMeeces (talk) 22:32, 10 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

I think it is documented (though I haven't read about her for sometime) that she had an intellectual disability and not just issues with being able to communicate. Sgerbic (talk) 02:09, 11 May 2022 (UTC)[reply]

How on earth can intellect possibly be assessed in someone without (proven authorship/independent) communication? My instinct says that the absence of proof of authorship can’t be used as proof of lack of understanding - it must just be a great big unknown. FlyingMeeces (talk) 18:56, 5 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

McDonald's family relationships

[edit]

For some reason, Sgerbic feels that it's relevant to include Anne McDonald's brother's later comment on having had family visits at the institution they had placed her in – "At age 16 she weighed 12 kilograms (26 pounds). Her brother Ewan remembers visiting his sister often on Sundays, the family taking her for outings and buying her treats.[2]" – despite the uncontroverted evidence that she was visibly starved in the institution and despite the fact that he is in this quote remembering events from forty years previously when he was a young child. OK, but if it is relevant then it is surely more relevant to quote the uncontroverted contemporary newspaper evidence that she had never been on outings and had not been outside the hospital in eleven years (The Age, Melbourne, 31 March 1975: "Anne McDonald... will leave hospital for the first time in 11 years tomorrow – because of the strike by psychiatric nurses. ... Anne's father, Mr. Angus McDonald, of Seymour, said last night... "we were told it would be distressing for her to leave the hospital environment."" Here, that is, Sgerbic is striking out, without any discussion on the talk page, clear evidence that his favoured source is, at best, mistaken. This is surely not permissible. I can see the argument for cutting Ewan McDonald's comment, but if Sgerbic demands that it be included it must surely be demonstrated to be in error. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rhondag (talk • contribs) 05:13, 13 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

McDonald's family relationships

[edit]

Sgerbic cut the disproof of brother Ewan's claim with the comment "I have asked you NOT to edit this page unless you discuss changes on the talk page first. Please refrain from giving your opinion of what the citations say." All very well, except that now that they are on the Talk page there is no discussion: Sgerbic does not attempt to defend his propagation of inaccuracies. Unless there is to be some actual reasoning involved, I can't see why I can't put the refutation back. 27.32.136.134 (talk) 04:49, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]

You just posted here an hour ago, so not sure how you think we had time for discussion.
So what you added (that I removed) was your opinion of what Ewan said. When I originally added the citation, I used what the citation said, not what my interpretation of what it was. Editors do not get to weigh in, we let the citation speak. Sgerbic (talk) 06:46, 16 February 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HiLo48 - what part of this is not opinion? "His recollections may be mistaken" Sgerbic (talk) 03:21, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
@HiLo48: Pinging you. Sgerbic (talk) 17:27, 1 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
I truly don't see your point. The re-addition quotes a reliable newspaper source. HiLo48 (talk) 05:10, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"His recollections may be mistaken" is what the editor wrote not was is in the source. The Wikipedia editor is saying "His recollections may be mistaken" that is opinion. Sgerbic (talk) 17:47, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Would you prefer "But his recollections were contradicted by other sources"? That would solve the problem just as well. ApLundell (talk) 18:19, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
"His recollections were contradicted by (name the source)" would be far better. Sgerbic (talk) 18:26, 2 April 2023 (UTC)[reply]
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Anne_McDonald&oldid=1208909346"