This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative medicine, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Alternative medicine related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Alternative medicineWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative medicineTemplate:WikiProject Alternative medicineAlternative medicine articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Alternative views, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of significant alternative views in every field, from the sciences to the humanities. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion.Alternative viewsWikipedia:WikiProject Alternative viewsTemplate:WikiProject Alternative viewsAlternative views articles
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Autism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of all aspects of autism and autistic culture on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.AutismWikipedia:WikiProject AutismTemplate:WikiProject AutismAutism articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
Facilitated communication is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles
This article has been given a rating which conflicts with the project-independent quality rating in the banner shell. Please resolve this conflict if possible.
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.
Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience
Serious encyclopedias: Serious and respected encyclopedias and reference works are generally expected to provide overviews of scientific topics that are in line with respected scientific thought. Wikipedia aspires to be such a respected work.
Obvious pseudoscience: Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more justification.
Generally considered pseudoscience: Theories which have a following, such as astrology, but which are generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community may properly contain that information and may be categorized as pseudoscience.
Questionable science: Theories which have a substantial following, such as psychoanalysis, but which some critics allege to be pseudoscience, may contain information to that effect, but generally should not be so characterized.
Alternative theoretical formulations: Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.
Latest comment: 9 months ago15 comments5 people in discussion
In the article about Wikipedia, a claim is made that "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view." However, this article puts the lie to that assertion because it has a completely anti-FC slant, with absolutely no sources pointing to its veracity as a method of allowing non-speaking autistic people to communicate by typing when variables are controlled,[1] with the majority of sources being around thirty years old. 80.193.98.150 (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)Reply
I'm not the one pretending that "neutral" has more than one definition, you are. [2] Now stop being disingenuous and contributing to the ableist silencing of autistic voices. 80.193.98.150 (talk) 12:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Those SJW accusations don't get you very far as far as WP:FRINGE is concerned. You have an extremely high burden of evidence to clear.
You're actually arguing that the WP:RULES of Wikipedia aren't the WP:RULES of Wikipedia. Isn't that a preposterous argument?
That link does not even contain the word "blind" (or "blinded"). It was not written by competent people who know how to test such things. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Why does it matter that the test wasn't blinded (singly or doubly) when what was being tested was not the entire intervention, but just one aspect of it? Please try not to be disingenuous. 80.193.98.150 (talk) 11:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Now it is you who has to explain their point. I don't understand what you mean above. I mean: I can parse the words, but I don't detect any meaning germane to our article. Nor to what Hob stated. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
Now it is you who has to explain their point. I don't understand what you mean above. I mean: I can parse the words, but I don't detect any meaning germane to our article. Nor to what I stated. 80.193.98.150 (talk) 12:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
I saw that you're trying to refute Hob's argument. But your own argument is garbled beyond recognition.
E.g. I don't see why "what was being tested was not the entire intervention, but just one aspect of it" would be a valid argument against performing blinding. If there is a reason why, please state that reason. Maybe there is a reason which I don't know. Otherwise it isn't a cogent argument. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
If my argument is "garbled beyond recognition" to you, then maybe it is in you that the fault lies. You said: "I don't see why 'what was being tested was not the entire intervention, but just one aspect of it' would be a valid argument against performing blinding."
Basically, what was being tested was whether the people using FC were actually communicating through it or if there was any facilitator influence. In this scenario, why would the testers need to have a "placebo" intervention against which to test that single aspect of FC? Stop throwing in unnecessary aspects to back your argument against the fulfilment of autism rights. 80.193.98.150 (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
maybe it is in you that the fault lies No, it is not. I do not understand what you mean either. Nothing you write makes any sense in a scientific context. But you should use reliable sources instead of your own reasoning anyway. See WP:OR. And FC has nothing to do with autism rights. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)Reply
That article is little more than an opinion piece. Not nearly good enough for a medical-related article.
And I also cannot understand the IP's attempt to explain why it should be considered more than that. I think it just indicates that the IP does not understand the objections. But if they don't understand that opinion pieces cannot be considered equal to double-blind scientific studies, then I don't know how to explain it better. ApLundell (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)Reply
"That article is little more than an opinion piece."
Alright, let me clear this up for you right now: WP:ADVOCACY is not allowed here. You are not going to change the article in a quest for fulfilment of autism rights.
