Talk:Facilitated communication/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Please note: this is an archive page. New content should be added at the active Talk:Facilitated_communication page.

Changes to Introduction

I made changes to the last 2 paragraphs of the Introduction to more clearly indicate what the controversies - research and ethical - really are here.

In the second to last paragraph the previous language gave the impression that if, say, 10-25% of FC users were authentic writers, it would provide a basis for practitioners to use it. This is not correct. Even if 15% of FC led to authentic writing, it may not be clinically useful if the harm done to the other 85% were significant - especially if there was not easy way for the practitioner to distinguish authentic from non-authentic writing. A lot more could be said here to explain the concept of clinical validity, but I tried to keep it short and communicate the basic idea as fairly as possible.

In the third to last paragraph the previous language implied that practitioners were in an ethical dilemma essentially because they could not prove that FC never worked. Thus, as long as the possibility existed that at least one Autistic person could benefit from FC, practitioners should somehow feel free - or even obligated - to try it. This of course is not a dilemma for any ethical practitioner. I tried to reframe this to again express more fairly the actual dilemma.--Gogh 04:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I don't think the potential risks or the potential benefits have ever been quantified. That is, the prevalance of false sexual abuse claims isn't known, etc. (though there is one references that estimated it; I'll have to look at the original because the abstract didn't quite make sense). thx belatedly, Jim Butler^(talk) 09:32, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

"Naturalistic" vs "Clinical" Settings

In the Research Section you currently have the following sentence: "In the opinions of proponents of the method (Biklen et al, 2005), positive results were generally seen in more naturalistic settings, and negative results in more clinical settings." I have not changed this, since I do not have the cited reference at my fingertips, but do you really mean "clinical" here? From the context it sounds like you mean to contrast the positive findings about FC in "natural" settings with the negative findings about FC typically reported in laboratory or experimental settings. As it reads, if I were forced to find some distinction between "naturalistic" and "clinical" I guess I would go with home uses of FC by parents vs school or hospital based use of FC by professionals. I doubt you intend this distinction however, especially as I am unaware of any evidence suggesting that positive findings are reported more often in schools or hospitals vs at home. I suggest replacing the word "clinical" with something like "experimental". --Gogh 04:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Agree that this and lots of the article needs rewording. The basic issue (as I understand it per peer-reviewed sources) is whether the controls introduced other variables that would confound communication. IOW, people with severe communication impairments aren't necessarily going to be able to perform well under unfamilar conditions. Jim Butler^(talk) 09:24, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

General Comment

This is my first time taking a careful look at this page. I have read through all of the current Discussion, but not all of the Archives. Even so, I can see this has been a difficult subject. I do recognize an attempt to be fair here, which is a relief given the warfare that goes on. However fairness does not mean not hurting people's feelings, or giving equal weight to all positions. The controversy in FC is not, for the most part, within the scientific literature, and this should be made very clear up front. The controversy is between those who believe professional interventions for individuals with medical or mental disorders should be controlled by the rules of science, and those who believe that, at least in some cases, those rules can and ought to be ignored in order to give individuals every possible chance.

I think what you really need is to link to a separate article on the professional and ethical issues involved in limiting interventions to scientifically based interventions. I also think you want to be real careful in this article, as I suspect it is one of the common topics people will use to judge the objectivity and accuracy of wikipedia.--Gogh 04:21, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The controversy exists also among scientists, not just between scientists and non-scientists. Just go to Pubmed. I don't disagree that some people who advocate FC do so without regard to the scientific method, but that's not true of all proponents, and verifiable sources like Bauman, Biklen etc. have made this clear. (As Biklen said when FC-doubters criticized Syracuse for appointing him as Dean, he's had to get his stuff through peer-review just like everyone else.) See also more recent research on intelligence testing and autism. The position that FC has validity is a significant minority view, not a fringe or pseudoscientific view. I do agree that there may still be some undue weight problems in how the article depicts the controversy. I very much agree with your last sentence, however.

Also, I think it's important that as editors we distinguish between the scientific view that something is not proven and the view that it is disproven. There is disagreement over study design and interpretation of data, not a rejection of "the rules of science". NPOV requires including such arguments. Article does need general cleanup and I will try and do this. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 09:31, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

chat cleanup and POV stamp

Can someone clear the chat up. it's a compete mess! Also I've taken the POV stamp off and replaceed it with a clear up stamp. Kjhf 12:00, 1 November 2006 (UTC)

Categorization

removed category:pseudoscience. Truncated edit stummary here[1]. Meant to say that a sig minority of scientists see some validity in FC and say so in peer-reviewed pubs. Biklen, Bauman, etc.; see article. See WP:CG which says "Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category." thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 07:02, 20 January 2007 (UTC)

Widely and clearly consider pseudoscience. I see no diference between classifying this the same as AIDS reappraisal. Jefffire 11:12, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Hi Jefffire. I know you're strongly committed to NPOV and are a level-headed editor, so I'm glad to be having this disagreement with you rather than any number of other editors. My response is straightforward: please provide evidence for your claim that FC is "widely and clearly" considered pseudoscience. Not just among skeptical societies, but among scientists, with consensus evident.

I can think of at least three arguments against categorizing FC as pseudoscience on WP, even if it does have some pseudoscientific elements. First, the APA statement does not say FC is pseudoscience in the commonly-accepted sense of the term (something that is misrepresented as being scientific). Second, the APA statement is outdated, with peer-reviewed disagreement transpiring after its 1994 publication. Third, and most importantly, peer-reviewed debate and prominent proponents of FC exist, which establish that their view is a significant scientific minority view, not a fringe view. Unpacking these ideas a bit:

(1) The APA statement says, among other things, that "facilitated communication is a controversial and unproved communicative procedure with no scientifically demonstrated support for its efficacy". That may appear to be in the ballpark of pseudoscience, but there are important criteria for PS that are not met here. Imagine the following scenario. A scientific society publishes a statement saying that astrology is pseudoscientific, and includes the following passage:

• "The experimental and unproved status of the technique does not preclude continued research on the utility of astrology and related scientific issues. Judicious clinical practice involving use of astrology should be preceded by the use of fully informed consent procedures, including communication of both potential risks and likelihood of benefit."

That would be a little incongruous in the middle of a condemnation of a pseudoscience, right? We don't see biologists speaking of ID in such measured, nuanced terms. They just come right out and say it's BS, incompatible with the scientific method, unfalsifiable, etc. Yet the passage above is exactly what the APA said about FC in 1994. They are indeed saying FC is controversial and unproven, but that's not synonymous with "pseudoscience".

(2) If you read the article carefully, and the peer-reviewed literature it cites, you'll see that scientific debate exists on FC and related issues such as measuring the intelligence of autistic people. The APA statement came out in 1994, but several important papers and textbook citations have appeared since (Weiss et al, 1996; Beukelman and Mirenda, ca. '98; these are cited in the article).

(3) My choice of the word "prominent" to describe some of FC's proponents was not borne of enthusiastic POV-pushing. By any standard, a Nobel Laureate (Arthur Schawlow) or a Harvard neurologist known worldwide for research into differences in the brains of autistic people (Margaret Bauman) are prominent among their peers. Per Jimbo's early statement about NPOV, the existence of prominent proponents of an idea is sufficient to establish that idea as a significant minority view. And in this case, it's a significant view within the scientific community. There are plenty of less notable FC proponents, but there are (or have been: Schawlow died in 1999) at least three world-class ones. Readers deserve to know that disagreement isn't a "fringe" thing in this case.

Given that we have a sig minority sci view, I don't see how inclusion in the category is NPOV. As WP:CG says:

"Categories appear without annotations, so be careful of NPOV when creating or filling categories. Unless it is self-evident and uncontroversial that something belongs in a category, it should not be put into a category. A list might be a better option."

Of course, mention of such criticisms can and should be made in, e.g., List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, and fully covered as due weight requires in the body of the article. It just isn't appropriate in WP's category namespace, where it's misleading.

Additionally, my argument is strongly supported by the the last four principles passed by the ArbCom in their recent decision on pseudoscience:

Obvious pseudoscience

15) Theories which, while purporting to be scientific, are obviously bogus, such as Time Cube, may be so labeled and categorized as such without more.

Passed 7-1 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Generally considered pseudoscience

16) 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.

Passed 8-0 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Questionable science

17) 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.

Passed 8-0 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

Alternative theoretical formulations

18) Alternative theoretical formulations which have a following within the scientific community are not pseudoscience, but part of the scientific process.

Passed 7-1 at 02:28, 3 December 2006 (UTC)

The existence of a significant scientific minority view (w/ prominent proponents and peer-reviewed debate) puts FC into one (or perhaps both) of the latter two categories. A majority of scientists may consider FC not valid (or even pseudoscientific), but majority is not the same as consensus, and not sufficient for categorizing as pseudoscience.

Jefffire, you may also wish to read and chime in at recent discussion at Talk:List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts regarding difference "tiers" of acceptable sources. regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 10:06, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

OK, I edited the article in accordance with my comments above, keeping some of Jefffire's improvements[2], and adding some material to address his concerns. Since I too am an NPOV kinda guy, I added List of pseudosciences and pseudoscientific concepts, since FC is included there, as well of mentioning such criticism in the article body. Still needs a V RS, but OK to have it fact-tagged for awhile. Per the aforesaid list's talk page, I suspect the V RS will be "second tier", i.e. not an Academy of Science or scientific specialist group (which are much more reliable for scientific consensus), but a source such as the Committee for Skeptical Inquiry (less VER, but still appropriate as a sig POV). cheers, Jim Butler^(talk) 23:11, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

BTW, the comparison of AIDS reappraisal with FC is grossly flawed since there is vastly more research on the former than the latter. The only question is by how many orders of magnitude does the number of peer-reviewed articles on HIV/AIDS exceed that on FC: two or three, based on a glance at Pubmed. The fewer scientists examine something, the less likely there is to be consensus. Likewise, compare the weight of views expressed in the respective bodies of literature. AIDS reappraisal represents perhaps a fraction of a percent. FC proponents' views are on the order of at least 10%, and in addition, quite a few articles express an agnostic view, which of course one doesn't see much of with regard to the idea that the HIV virus causes AIDS. If I'm missing something here, please tell me. -- Jim Butler^(talk) 06:48, 21 February 2007 (UTC)

Lucy Blackman

Contributors to this page may be interested to know that Lucy Blackman is up for deletion. You may vote and share your thoughts on the matter at that article's entry on the Articles for deletion page. Flapdragon 11:33, 27 April 2007 (UTC)

False abuse accusations by practitioners

I watched a documentary video on facilitated communication in my psychology class a while ago. The video was about the practitioners typing for the disabled children and then making it seem as if the children were sexually abused by their parents. Then there were several court cases and some adults were wrongfully jailed. Later it turned out that the practitioners were making up all this stuff. I think this is worthy of adding to the article.—The preceding unsigned comment was added by 72.196.126.117 (talk • contribs) 6 July 2007.

Hi, sorry for the belated reply: that material is actually already in the article, under the "History" section, 5th paragraph:

A concern arose when some of the communications accused the parents of autistic children of severe sexual and/or physical abuse. Not all such allegations were proven true. However, numerous sexual abuse allegations made via FC have been found to be valid[3].

regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 03:51, 29 July 2007 (UTC)

Removed broken links

I removed the broken links from the external links section 10/15/2007.Trilobitealive 02:17, 16 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks. I found updated links for some and restored. regards, Jim Butler^(talk) 03:37, 13 November 2007 (UTC)

In Serious Need of NPOV

At minimum, this article needs a "Controversy" section. As it stands, there is a minor nod to the controversy, claiming that most of the controversy is related to the skill of the "Facilitator," when the actual controversy revolves around the argument as to whether the communication is from the handicapped person, or is being typed totally by the "facilitator" (intentionally or otherwise).

Some links to skeptical articles need to be added as well. As it stands, the article makes FC seem like an accepted, mainstream thing, when in fact, it is largely dismissed by the scientific community as well as the bulk of major associations for the disabled.

Before someone says "Well then, you do it," I have neither the time nor the experise necessary. But I wanted to comment here regardless. 65.89.98.21 (talk) 20:38, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Major rework

I just completed a first pass to a major rework of the article. What I did, for the most part:

• Rewrote lead;
• Removed weasel wording where obvious;
• Excised all self-published sources used as references (those are not reliable sources);
• Elided assertions supported only by those sources for the most part— some might remain; and
• Cleaned up the external links to remove self-published material.

There are still a lot of iffy claims that need better support from sources or to be removed altogether. I didn't clutter the lead with refs given that everything there is supported in the main prose. That's strictly a stylistic preference, if someone wants to move refs around to cite in the lead, I'd find it ugly but understand.  :-) — Coren ^(talk) 16:27, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

The article could use a picture to show what facilitated communication is in practice, but I don't have one on hand. Surely there is one we can use somewhere? — Coren ^(talk) 16:29, 30 March 2008 (UTC)

Nice job pruning the article, Coren; it needed it badly, and you did a good job. I added back in a little nuance, based on good sources. Will keep an eye out for a picture. cheers, Jim Butler (t) 07:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Nice catch, you're right that the claims of independent typing needed to go in the lead too. — Coren ^(talk) 12:33, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi Coren -- regarding this edit, the number of peer-reviewed scientific studies finding evidence of communication coming from FC users is on the order of a dozen, and several are cited in the article. (Some examples: Cardinal et. al. 1996, Weiss et. al. 1996, Sheehan & Matuozzi 1996, Simon et. al. 1994. Note that the last one showed both cueing and real authorship; they are not mutually exclusive). AFAIK, the total number of peer-reviewed studies on FC is on the order of several dozen (see Pubmed). So the studies showing real authorship constitute what I think we call a "significant minority view". I'm cool with the use of "concluded" instead of "reported" as long as we use similar language for the ones showing real authorship, since the latter are every bit as peer-reviewed as the former. (Of course, reviewers have critically discussed the study design of both the former and the latter, and we report that too...) BTW, I'm going to restore a reference regarding dyspraxia (it got dropped prior to your revisions), since that's as much a central tenet of FC as literacy. cheers, --Jim Butler (t) 05:44, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

Indeed it is. As to the other point, I suppose that even with poor methodology, they still quality— feel free to reinsert "most". But "conclude" is the correct term, however. — Coren ^(talk) 12:18, 17 April 2008 (UTC)

External links

I recently cleaned up this article's external links to comply with our guidelines and there were some reliable sources which didn't belong in the external links section, but because they can be cited as references, they could be of use to anyone looking to build up the article. I'll leave them here for convenience if anybody wants to use them to cite material.

• Message-Passing: Part Of The Journey To Empowered Communication, by Mayer Shevin and Annegret Schubert
• Learning About Independent Typing From People Working To Achieve It, by Douglas Biklen, with comments from Lucy Harrison, Larry Bissonnette and Sharisa Joy Kochmeister
• Independent typist: Lucy Blackman
• "Prisoners of Silence": Frontline show on FC aired October 19, 1993
• Facilitated communication advocated in CNN-funded documentary - Critical review of "Autism Is A World" from Behavior Analysis Association of Michigan
• Pseudoscience in Autism Treatment - Critical review of "Autism Is A World" from Pasadena Weekly

ThemFromSpace 02:23, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

People-first language

Editors will inevitably have varying preferences over whether to use people-first language, i.e. phrases such as "people with autism" as opposed to "autistic people". A couple of recent edits [4][5] inserted people-first language throughout the article, sometimes to awkward effect. Since there are good arguments both for[6] and against[7] people-first language, and Wikipedia has no particular guideline on the matter, I suggest we simply use whatever language flows best in context. Hence this edit. (Personally I feel the debate over people-first language is a rather peripheral one in the overall movement for disability rights.) regards, Jim Butler (t) 01:22, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

Same here. --Jim Butler (t) 22:06, 21 November 2008 (UTC)

who cares? is this some political correctness nonsense? just use what sounds better, duh. (i'm autistic and really don't give a f*ck one way or another) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.244.117 (talk) 21:49, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

any proof? anything at all?

so has there ever be any real proof that's even slightly convincing? i'm thinking along the lines of f.e. showing the handicapped person a picture or some such. then letting the facilitator back in the room and see if he can made the handicapped person describe the picture. done at a few different times and locations to circumvent the 'he was nervous/asleep' argument. asking them to describe events from their childhood is obviously not be reliable: to much risk of vague always-right descriptions, and even more crap along the lines of 'you have sexually molested your child and now it confides in me' whenever the facilitator feels frisky and her mind starts to wander to sexy-times. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 80.127.244.117 (talk) 22:07, 18 December 2010 (UTC)

yes; just look at the studies cited in the article that reported evidence for it. There aren't very many peer-reviewed studies, only four dozen or so, about a dozen of which find evidence for FC. Each side of the debate criticizes the others' methodology. This is an instance where the majority of scientists and doctors don't buy it, but a "significant minority" (to use Wikipedia terminology) do. Read the introduction to "Autism and the Myth of the Person Alone" for a review by a scientist sympathetic to FC. In daily life, users find evidence for is when users disclose information unknown to the facilitator, or when they ask for something and are visibly relieved when that thing is provided. Ideally, FC shoudn't be used alone; other forms of communication should be used, ideally ones that aren't so prone to error.

Also, on sexual abuse cases, it's gone both ways: there have been allegations of abuse that turned out to be incorrect, but there have also been some that turned out to be true. There's no easy way to deal with sexual abuse allegations involving people with impaired or otherwise highly atypical communication, whether FC is involved or not. --Middle 8 (talk) 08:49, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

Primary sources

Per WP:MEDRS, wikipedia is meant to be based substantially on secondary sources - for peer reviewed articles, that means systemic reviews, meta-analyses, etc. Articles like this one which concluded that it is still nonsense. We do not summarize the literature, we summarize the review articles - and it appears the latest review article has little positive to say on the topic. If I make the time, I may edit the article in light of this. Based on an extremely cursory glance at the page, I'm guessing there is substantial misuse of primary sources. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:17, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Note the APA's stance [8]. WLU (t) (c) Wikipedia's rules:^simple/_complex 12:24, 3 February 2011 (UTC)

Intro section

The new intro section had a much more positive tone than the rest of the article. I tried to match the its tone to the rest of the article. I also removed the reference from a book, which didn't seem like it belonged alongside the findings from peer-reviewed journals (since books are not peer-reviewed). Axlrosen (talk) 03:31, 18 January 2011 (UTC)

Certainly a reasonable edit. Some of the references in the material you removed had gotten corrupted over succeeding edits, but I'm pretty sure you are right that none were peer-reviewed. Still, they can be good sources, as when a respected researcher offers his or her opinion about a germaine topic (e.g., Margaret Bauman commenting on dyspraxia in the quarterly newsletter of the Autism Society of America; source is not online but it's discussed and quoted here). This doesn't need to be in the lead but I'm making a mental note to myself to make sure that dyspraxia ia adequately referenced in the article somewhere, since it's of fundamental importance to the topic. --Middle 8 (talk) 09:05, 22 January 2011 (UTC)

and a comment about sources generally

Continuing the above thread from my post on 09:05, 22 January 2011: oops, actually, going back to this, I see that the book was "Autism and the Myth of the Person Alone", ed. Doug Biklen. That's published by a university press and is part of a series that has two named editors. Certainly a MEDRS per WP:MEDRS#Books. I've been meaning to add some material from that anyway, so I'll restore the edit removed above. Also, I don't see why the mention of independent typing was removed from the lede since it's mentioned in its own section. Some of the sources look dicey, but the basic point (that independent typists exist) is referenced to high-quality sources. There are a few of blog-like or newsletter-ish sources, but some are by well-known authors who have gotten stuff through mainstream peer-review, so they're acceptable per WP:BLOGS. I'll have a look at the "Independent Typing" section and prune out any sources that aren't ok. And then we need to do the same with the whole article, as WLU mentioned below awhile ago. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 09:06, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

Category:Pseudoscience?

An editor recently added category:pseudoscience to the article; I removed it for reasons that I hope were clear in my edit summary: per WP:PSCI WP:FRINGE/PS (note: see my reply below re shortcuts) and WP:RS#Academic_consensus, we need a proper source showing FC is "generally considered pseudoscience" by the scientific community. Such a source would be on the order of a mainstream scientific academy, such as those found in List of scientific societies explicitly rejecting intelligent design and Scientific opinion on climate change. Lacking such a source, per WP:PSCI WP:FRINGE/PS, FC is an "alternative theoretical formulation" and/or "questionable science", and as such "should not be described as unambiguously pseudoscientific while a reasonable amount of academic debate still exists on this point" (emphasis mine). That means we shouldn't use the category, since inclusion in the category is a binary condition, ergo unambiguous. However, it's fine to cite reliable sources within the article who do consider it pseudoscience, just as it's fine to cite reliable sources who don't.

One other note: the body of scientific literature on FC is relatively quite small; according to PubMed it's on the order of a few dozen, with something like 10%-25% (including some prominent academics) stating that there is more than just ideomotor, ouija-board stuff going on. 10%-25% is what WP considers a "significant minority view" (see the boxes at the top of this talk page). So, it's not as it we're talking about a tiny minority that is widely discredited. cheers, Middle 8 (talk) 01:25, 27 February 2010 (UTC)

You write, "Lacking such a source, per WP:PSCI..." I believe this isn't a correct summary of what PSCI says. Can you quote the full source? I think that nowhere in WP:PSCI does it say this. Edit reverted. Dogweather (talk) 08:25, 6 June 2010 (UTC)

Very late reply: I see the problem; someone changed the shortcut. The page to which I was referring is Wikipedia:Fringe_theories#Pseudoscience (shortcut WP:FRINGE/PS, not WP:PSCI). For readability, I'm crossing out the "WP:PSCI" above and inserting "WP:FRINGE/PS". I think that should make sense now. Such logic has been used in a number of other pages to demarcate when category:pseudoscience should be used. I understand Dogweather's revert above because the incorrect shortcut made my comment make no sense. Having fixed it, I'm going to remove the category again. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 05:58, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

There was already a source from American Psychologist, concluding that it's pseudoscience and not anti-science. The source appears to have been cited in a lot of other papers (I keep stumbling upon it while searching in google scholar).

I added a book by Terence Hines. People with journal access should check Science and Pseudoscience in Communication Disorders.

I am also adding Science, Skepticism, and Applied Behavior Analysis. "Claims regarding the effectiveness of sensory integration therapy, facilitated communication, and inclusion qualify as pseudoscience"

An article in Behavioural and Social Issues slams the scientific evidence, and, while it doesn't say "pseudocience", it was originally published in Skeptic (magazine)'s issue of "pseudoscience in psychology. Book Destructive trends in mental health: the well-intentioned path to harm lists FC under the chapter "Pseudoscience, Nonscience, and Nonsense in Clinical Psychology". Also " These treatments share many of the features of pseudoscience described earlier."[9]. "[Gina] Green contrasts science with pseudoscience (...) She uses the research on facilitated communication as a good example of pseudoscience that led to (...)" Controversial therapies for developmental disabilities: fad, fashion, and science in professional practice. From the same book in page 436 "Today, despite ample evidence that facilitated communication is an ineffective, pseudoscientific technique (Herbert et al., 2002; Jacobson, Mulick, & Schwartz, 1995), several Web sites are (...)". Also from the same book in page 70 under chapter "Historical approaches to developmental disabilities" "(...) facilitated communication (...), which is both dubious and pseudoscientific in nature.". In Response to disaster: psychosocial, community, and ecological approaches Chapter "The sale of pseudoscience" p 310 gives FC as an example of pseudoscience that gets sold via persuasive marketing. Behavior Analysis Association of Michigan has a signatory against FC "The promotion and use of facilitated communication and other pseudoscientific interventions for developmental disabilities (...)"[10].

And this one appears to be a textbook, p 56 "Facilitated communication meets many of the criteria of pseudoscience because demonstrations of benefit are based on anecdotes or testimonials"Abnormal Child Psychology

I think that these are sources enough for the category. --Enric Naval (talk) 13:53, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Enric -- I don't think you have read the section of WP:RS that I linked in the thread-starter. See WP:RS/AC, which couldn't possibly be clearer (including the statement about OR). We can have 100 V RS giving the opinion of various peoples' (or statewide public organizations, like BAAM), and that doesn't suffice on WP to establish what the scientific community thinks. We've been over this before, and the logic has been accepted on other pages. Either a source meeting the threshold exists or it doesn't. There may be one for FC, but it hasn't been found yet.

Respecting the integrity of sourced scientific consensus is what allows Wikipedia to identify egregious, obvious, widely-agreed-upon areas like intelligent design, climate change denialism, AIDS denialism, etc., as unambiguous pseudoscience. So the policy cuts both ways, and topics like this where there is no consensus are treated accordingly. That is, we cite RS's according to their weight, and we'll have a fair amount saying it's pseudoscience; we can't use the category, but the point is still made in the article. I trust this is all obvious stuff? We have to go with sources and WP policy, not our own opinions about what is pseudoscience. Unless you find a source within the next few days, would you mind reverting? There's no point edit warring over lack of a source. regards, --Middle 8 (talk) 09:52, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

The article doesn't assert a scientific consensus for FC=pseudoscience, which means that WP:RS/AC is irrelevant here.

WP:FRINGE/PS is the correct page here, and it says that "generally considered pseudoscience" is enough for inclusion in the category. I listed several good-quality mainstream sources explaining why FC is objectively pseudoscientific, or directly classifying FC under pseudoscience. FC has no substantive evidence backing it[11], so, we are not talking about an evidence-supported science that happens to be bad-mouthed by a few vocal critics.

The strongest source comes from American Psychologist, the second journal in psychology by impact factor. The first journal by impact factor is Psychological Bulletin, and the only article mentioning "facilitated communication" seems to be debunking FC among other techniques Revisiting a century-old Freudian slip--From suggestion disavowed to the truth repressed. You haven't presented any good-quality RS saying or implying that FC is "generally considered established science", you are just using your own original research on percentages of papers. On the other hand, I have presented high-quality mainstream RS saying that FC is pseudoscience. --Enric Naval (talk) 16:57, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

And it's not listed in List of topics characterized as pseudoscience *sigh*. --Enric Naval (talk) 17:24, 6 July 2011 (UTC)

Hi Enric, you wrote: The article doesn't assert a scientific consensus for FC=pseudoscience, which means that WP:RS/AC is irrelevant here. I have no idea what you mean by this, but let me reword so you can show me where I'm wrong.

If you want to use Category:Pseudoscience because you say it's "generally considered pseudoscience", you have to show that the topic is "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community". You need a source to show that. That's why WP:RS/AC is relevant. It tells you the kind of source you need. The sources you give are (for the most part) adequate RS's to cite, but not to categorize. Journal articles don't show what the sci community thinks, nor do a collection of them; your apparent assumption that a collection of them suffices is OR. WP:RS/AC is completely clear on that. You are listing sources, so you obviously believe sources are necessary to use the category. But your sources don't suffice to show that the topic is "generally considered pseudoscience by the scientific community". Where is that logic incorrect?

One more thing: You wrote: You haven't presented any good-quality RS saying or implying that FC is "generally considered established science". I don't need to. I'm not trying to call it generally established science. You're trying to call it generally considered pseudoscience. Per WP:BURDEN, you need to show why you're right, and that requires a source meeting WP:RS/AC. A topic can be in between, as WP:FRINGE/PS notes. To summarize, we use WP:FRINGE/PS for demarcation and WP:RS/AC for what kind of source is needed. If scientific academies are parsimonious in calling things pseudoscience -- and they are, preferring to use the term for particularly flagrant, potentially harmful instances -- then that is what we follow on WP. regards, Middle 8 (talk) 02:06, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

P.S. It would be acceptable to put this topic on List of topics characterized as pseudoscience. The criteria for inclusion in lists are looser. Lists can be annotated and we can show who says a topic is pseudoscience. The best sources should be used, and I wish that the article were clearer (in the body, not the footnotes) about which topics have stronger sources. (But I'm done trying to get that accepted, since a number of editors there seem to think CSICOP and the Institute of Medicine are equally wonderful for demarcation, and that's so absurd I won't even bother to address it.) Anyway, the way the list is, you can put this topic there with (some of) your sources above. --Middle 8 (talk) 02:21, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

There is a lot of mainstream RS saying that FC is pseudoscience. I am finding:

• Teaching of Psychology journal "(...) pseudoscientific psychological beliefs are harmful in several ways (...) Therapists who use facilitated communication (Mulick, Jacobsen, & Kobe, 1993) in an effort to

elicit language from autistic children are instilling false hopes in parents." FC is listed as "Questionable or unsubstantiated psychotherapies", in class 11 of their "Courses in the Science and Pseudoscience of Psychology: A Model Syllabus", in a list of websites "This site features useful articles and resources concerning questionable and potentially pseudoscientific psychological treatment procedures, including (...) facilitated communication for infantile autism".

• interview in Association for Science in Autism Treatment "Q: What lessons should advocates of scientifically-validated treatments learn from the resilience of so many pseudoscientific treatments? (...) pseudoscience will pop up in the most unexpected places—like in your otherwise clever colleagues' verbal behavior. (...) [names two scientists who have "fallen" for FC]" [12]
• American council on science and health "Pseudoscientific Treatments. Many current treatments for autism and certain other psychiatric disorders are reasonably describable as pseudoscientific. It is generally held in the scientific community that there are no hard and fast criteria for discerning pseudoscience from science. Nevertheless, pseudoscientific treatments have common distinctive features.(...) Below we describe four examples of dubious treatments for autism that we regard as pseudoscientific. (...) Facilitated communication (...) The Bottom Line. Health claims favoring novel, undertested, and/or pseudoscientific treatments for autism should be taken with a large grain of salt."[13]
• The Clinical Psychologist, A Publication of the Society of Clinical Psychology, vol 51 issue 4, fall 1998. "Pseudoscientific Practices in Modern Clinical Psychology. (...) As clinical psychologists in turn-of-the-century America, we are confronted with the specter of pseudoscience in many guises. The past decade alone has witnessed (...) a proliferation of demonstrably ineffective treatments for infantile autism and related disorders (e.g., facilitated communication), (...) The recent fiasco regarding facilitated communication for infantile autism serves as a much-need reminder of the serious damage that can result when novel psychological treatments are disseminated without adequate critical scrutiny – and, on the positive side, of how the research and writings of academics can play a crucial role in falsifying dangerous and pseudoscientific claims (see Jacobson, Mulick, & Schwartz, 1995)."Pseudoscience in Contemporary Clinical Psychology: What it is and what we can do about it
• The Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice "FC is a scientifically discredited technique that nonetheless continues to be widely promoted in the United States by Dr. Douglas Biklen (...) Additional information on pseudoscientific treatments for autism can be found (...)", then quotes a news piece from Pasadena Weekly called "PSEUDOSCIENCE IN AUTISM TREATMENT", then a letter from the Commission for Scientific Medicine and Mental Health "Their appointment of Dr. Biklen as Dean is a major step backward in the vitally important effort to promote science and combat pseudoscience in mental-health care.".
• Material for college-level course. Psychology and Scientific Thinking Study Guide. "According to your authors, why can pseudoscience lead to harm? Consider the facilitated communication fiasco. Describe several different types of harm that resulted from people using facilitated communication prior to its being tested."[14]
• material for university course "Pseudoscience in Mental Health Practice (...) Autistic children can communicate their thoughts through “facilitated communication” via a keyboard" (lecture #2) Science and Pseudoscience in Clinical Psychology, Part I PSYC 4500: Introduction to Clinical Psychology
• another textbook. Beginning behavioral research: a conceptual primer, Prentice-Hall "Jacobson et al. argue that a recent example of the reliance on pseudoscientific research practices to establish the efficacy of a therapeutic intervention is the controversial case of facilitated communication. (...) You may also want to [make your students] discuss whether treatments that have become popular based solely on pseudoscientific evidence are really that detrimental"[15]
• advice for students in Journal of Pedagogy, Pluralism, and Practice "Essays centered on science studies might ask: Why is Facilitated Communication considered a pseudoscience?" A Student’s Guide to Studying Weird Things
• Child and adolescent development: a behavioral systems approach "Box 15.1 Science, Pseudoscience and Antiscience in Autism Treatment (...) One pseudoscientific treatment for autism that was popular in the 1990s is called "facilitated communication."[16]
• Popular psychology: an encyclopedia, Greenwood "``As with most instances of Pseudoscience in psychotherapy, unfortunately, the story does not end there. The Facilitated Communication Institute at Syracuse University, (...)``"[17]
• Psychotherapy as religion: the civil divine in America University of Nevada Press. "Lilienfeld et al. (2003) clearly identified the characteristics-"subjective and unreliable methods" (p. xiii)-that define pseudoscientific clinical interventions such as (...) facilitated communications (...)" [http://books.google.es/books?id=76u5JeJAHZQC&pg=PA3&dq=pseudoscientific+%22facilitated+communication
• Navigating the Mindfield: A Guide to Separating Science from Pseudoscience in Mental Health "[despite the confi]dence that facilitated communication is an effective, pseudoscientific technique (...)" [18]
• Teaching critical thinking in psychology: a handbook of best practice, Wiley-Blackwell "a recent German review of the literature concluded that FC "has failed toshow clinical validity, shows some features of pseudoscience, and bears severe risks of detrimental side effects" (Probst, 2005, p. 43)"
• Introduction to scientific psychology, Springer, "Like other, more recent pseudoscientific theories, such as facilitated communication (see Chapter 3), alien abduction, repressed memory syndrome, and ESP, to name a few, phrenology"
• The positive side of special education: minimizing its fads, fancies, and follies, R&L Education, "Jacobson et al. (1995) discussed FC in terms of pseudoscience (...) and antiscience (...) and concluded that "FC is a pseudoscientific procedure serving antiscientific ends""[19]
• The research basis for autism intervention, Springer, "In spite of the lack of research evidence, FC called for a redefinition of autism as motor apraxia rather than (...) This example of pseudo-science was leveraged to new heights when FC promoters used it as evidence for accusing parents or caretakers of physical or sexual abuse (...)"[20]
• Science and ethics: can science help us make wise moral judgments?, Prometheus books, "facilitated communication (...) many of these treatments fall under the broad rubric of pseudoscience, meaning that they possess amny of the superficial trappings of science but precious little of its substance"[21]
• Autism spectrum disorders: identification, education, and treatment, Routledge, "[Park in Voodoo Science] explores the general process by which some well-meaning persons are unintentionally drawn to promote pseudoscientific or even antiscientific treatments. (...) The rush of enthusiasm that accompanied the practice of Facilitated Communication can be offered as a fairly recent example of this phenomenon in autism."
• Language disorders in children: an evidence-based approach to assessment and treatment, "Facilitated Communication: Beacon of Hope or Pseudoscience at Its Worst?"[22]
• Start with a story: the case study method of teaching college science, National Science Teachers Association NSTA Press "The public is infatuated with pseudoscience. Our tabloid newspapers and television produce a steady stream of alien abductions, ESP, UFOs, and facilitated communication—all of them treated seriously" [23]
• Echoes and reflections: on media ecology as a field of study, Hampton Press, "It is for this reason that facilitated communication has been labeled a pseudoscience and charlatanism by some (see, for example, Maurice, 1993a; Siegel , 1996; in contrast, Cohen, 1998, is willing to wait for more evidence before"
• Allegations of sexual abuse by nonverbal autistic people via facilitated communication: testing of validity, journal Child Abuse & Neglect "what prevented the many sceptics in the field from outrightly rejecting FC was its pseudoscientific mantle through (...)"[24]
• invited paper in 2006 ASHA annual convention "We have been burned before. In the 1990s many SLPs inappropriately embraced Facilitated Communication (FC) as a treatment approach because they thought they observed that it worked. Once it was tested using scientific methodology, it was found to not work. Pseudoscientific methodologies can persuade clinicians to provide the wrong treatment." [25]
• Facilitated Communication in America: Eight years and counting, Skeptic magazine, 1998, "Hopefully, the FC story will remain an aberration to academia. (...) For the time being, FC, unlike Cold Fusion, lives on with the blessing [of] one of the nation's largest universities. (...) Thus, FC remains a tool for raising money at Syracuse despite its rejection by the scientific community, and thus stands as a classic example of pseudoscience in the service of emotion."
• "[Gina] Green said that, despite its utter failure in controlled tests and having been dubbed a “classic example of pseudoscience,” FC has succeeded as a “social movement.” " [26] (That was probably (Thompson, 1993) Thompson, T. (1993). A reign of error: Facilitated communication. Kennedy Center News, 22, 3-5. It was cited in a 1995 review of evidence [27] That review also cites Green herself a few times.)

There are reviews on topics like "distinguishing pseudoscience in psychology", textbooks, psychology university courses, scholar books on psychology.... I had trouble finding any positive evaluation of FC at all. You, on the other hand, have shown zero sources for FC being a valid science. Removing the category would be plain disruptive, since you would be asserting that FC is not "generally considered pseudoscience", despite the huge amount of scholar RS calling it so. --Enric Naval (talk) 05:59, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The point being: you are asking for an unreasonably threshold of sourcing, while at the same time providing zero sources that contradict the already provided sources. --Enric Naval (talk) 06:17, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Why do you continue to list same type of references -- several of which aren't even RS, let alone MEDRS -- rather than address my reasoning based on WP policies & guidelines? Please, let's stick to reciprocal discussion and not talk past each other.

You say that I'm setting an unreasonable threshold, but all I'm doing is citing WP policy, as I explained. I also explained that WP:BURDEN places the burden of evidence on your side. Nonetheless, to address your concern about sources supporting FC: you might start with the article, which includes some primary sources (probably OK in an area with only a few dozen actual studies), secondary sources, and mention of some heavy hitters who are pro-FC (cf. WP:WEIGHT: "If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents"). I've got some stuff to add. But this isn't about who can find the most links to individual opinions.

Flooding the article talk page with lots and lots of Google hits (again, some not RS's, let alone MEDRS's) does nothing to advance your position. It's the same illogic that a pseudoscientist uses when he cites dozens of testimonials in lieu of a single decent source. It's apples and oranges. Some of your sources are V RS or MEDRS for individual opinion, but that's all they can be cited for. They are not a random sampling, and we have nothing close to a sample size, so any science major would tell you that we can't use them as a barometer for the views of the greater scientific community. (And even if we did have a random, valid sample, the effort would be OR here.)

It's sensible to require different types of sources depending on the assertion made. It's WP policy and also common sense. Yes, Googling will give you the general idea that a substantial number of people don't buy FC, but it's not a scientific approach, and it's not encyclopedic.

It would be nice to see a reply to the substance of my comments rather than another list of extraneous sources.

regards, Middle 8 (talk) 00:43, 8 July 2011 (UTC)

I see no rebuttal for over 10 days, so am removing the category. --Middle 8 (talk) 06:47, 20 July 2011 (UTC)

Repetition

I have multiple problems with the line "Around the same time, controlled studies were done on the method, most of which reported that it was the facilitator who was unconsciously producing the communication. By the late 1990s, FC had been discredited in the eyes of most scientists and professional organizations, with some calling it pseudoscientific.[16][17][18] FC retained acceptance in some treatment centers in North America, Europe and Australia." One is repetition; the point that the majority of controlled studies failed to replicate the phenomenon is also made here - "since most peer reviewed scientific studies conclude that the typed language output attributed to the clients is directed or systematically determined by the therapists who provide facilitated assistance. However, some peer-reviewed scientific studies have indicated instances of valid FC," and here -- "However, in the majority of controlled studies, practitioners were unintentionally cueing the facilitated person as to which letter to hit, so the resulting letter strings did not represent the thoughts of the students but the expectations of the facilitators. Similar responses to possibly unconscious cues were seen in the "Clever Hans" case, where a horse gave correct answers to math problems by watching the reactions of its owner. However, some studies did report positive or mixed results, i.e., valid authorship by FC users,[24][25][26] and much debate ensued among scholars and clinicians.[27]"

The next is exaggeration; to say that "FC had been discredited in the eyes of most scientists and professional organizations" is plainly bombast, as most, say, biologists would never have heard of FC and those who had would know it only from press reports (ditto for most professional associations - do peak accountancy bodies really deliberate on AAC issues?). The line is simply a roundabout way of saying that FC is unscientific, which is exactly the issue that people - that scientists - dispute.It is not a matter of scientists v. the rest; even leaving Arthur Schawlow out of it, the qualifications of researchers on each side are fairly well matched.

I certainly wouldn't deny for a moment that after the controversy so far FC is now widely regarded as a fringe therapy, or that critics have called it pseudoscientific, but that's roughly how the passage should state the history. Unless I hear further argument on the matter I'll change it. Epistemo (talk) 12:22, 22 April 2012 (UTC)

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris.borthwick (talk • contribs) 03:52, 22 April 2012 (UTC) 

'Most' and 'All'

"FC proponents argue that in most of the negative studies, the laboratory setting was itself the confounding variable: i.e., communication is inherently very difficult for autistic people, so they cannot necessarily be expected to replicate their successes under unfamiliar or even hostile conditions (e.g., those in which continuance of access to FC was contingent upon passing or failing the test). However, not all negative findings were obtained in clinical settings only; some tests were smoothly embedded in familiar surroundings and daily activities[29][30] in which participants sometimes did not even know they were tested. In their 1997 book, Contested Words Contested Science, Biklen and Cardinal (and others) attempt to shed light on why some controlled studies support FC while others do not.[31]"

I have to say that I can't see enough contradiction here to justify the word 'however", which implies that there the data after the word refutes the words before the word. It's entirely possible for the laboratory setting to be a problem in most cases and for some tests to be embedded in familiar surrounds.

I'll rewrite the sentence to remove negative overtones from the factual content. Epistemo (talk) 12:24, 22 April 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris.borthwick (talk • contribs) 11:35, 9 April 2012 (UTC)

Bias

FC proponents responded with criticisms of negative bias.[11] The reference is to ^ Arthur L. Schawlow. "Is facilitated communication real?". Retrieved 2007-12-31. original location: suedweb.syr.edu/thefci/2-1sch.htm

Schawlow in fact described certain experimental efforts to investigate facilitated communication validity as analogous to looking for a ping pong ball on the floor of a dark room by shuffling your feet around. If you touch it even slightly it is not there anymore (A. L. Schawlow, 1993). That isn't an allegation of bias, it's an allegation of unsuitable experimental procedure.

Unless someone comes back either with a citation where someone other than Schawlow puts forward bias as an explanation of low rate of confirmation in accusations of abuse or with a definition of bias that covers what Schawlow is talking about, I'm going to change 'bias' to 'unsuitable experimental procedures'. Epistemo (talk) 12:25, 22 April 2012 (UTC)— Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris.borthwick (talk • contribs) 04:07, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

Opinions

There's a section under 'Research' where a number of people are lined up to give their opinions of facilitated communication, and I can't really see that opinions are worth the space - at least, if we're letting opinions in then there needs to be more balance.

The most egregious example is perhaps "Stephen von Tetzchner, the author of another leading textbook on Augmentative and Alternative Communication has done theoretical research about facilitated communication.[42] In his opinion "The existing evidence clearly demonstrates that facilitating techniques usually led to automatic writing, displaying the thoughts and the attitudes of the facilitators."[43]"

von T is certainly the author of a rather out-of-date textbook (Introduction to Symbolic and Augmentative Communication, 1992) which says nothing about FCT, but he hasn't done any actual research (is there such a thing as 'theoretical research'? I wouldn't have thought so) on FCT - his writing on the topic has been his opinions based on other people's research. He did write a historical article on FC in Denmark, but if we're bringing that in that would involve a detour.

If we're including opinions, we have a very long article in prospect. As a beginning, I'm proposing to cut this paragraph. Anybody who objects should present an argument. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Chris.borthwick (talk • contribs) 12:45, 26 March 2012 (UTC) Epistemo (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

Botash and Babuts

An edit to a cite about the rate of accusations through Facilitated Communication that were found to be valid. The previous line said "A 1995 study of 13 allegations found only proof for 4 of them and couldn't validate or refute the validity of facilitated communication for discovering abuse." This wasn't, on checking, what the article said; there was conclusive proof for four, there was evidence not amounting to legal proof for another three, and the overall level of support was comparable to the general rate - that is, there wasn't a higher rate of unsupported accusations with FC cases than in other cases. Epistemo (talk) 06:10, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

'Most'

I'm not happy with lines like "Around the same time, controlled studies were done on the method, most of which reported that it was the facilitator who was unconsciously producing the communication." There seems here to be (a) an attempt to weight the rhetoric by including a statement of the negative position but not the positive, and (b)a suggestion that the issue should be decided on majority vote.

Leaving the second aside, I'm proposing to change that line to either "Around the same time, controlled studies were done on the method, with mixed results" or ""Around the same time, controlled studies were done on the method, some of which found valid communication through FC but many of which reported that it was the facilitator who was unconsciously producing the communication." Epistemo (talk) 01:59, 16 May 2012 (UTC)

Independent Typing

The article clearly points out that the phrase "independent typing" as used in the article is not really a description of typing without external help.
Instead it is meant to describe typing where facilitator is not holding the hand of the typist - but may be holding his/her shoulder, keyboard etc. or must be present in the room.
Because of that, "independent typing" or other phrases that may be used to describe what is actually "limited facilitating" should be put in quotation marks throughout the article in order to indicate the use of a generic phrase which actually has a very specific meaning. Specifically, as it is used here:

Some peer-reviewed scientific studies have indicated instances of valid FC, and some FC users have reportedly gone on to type independently.[2]

Right now, the use of the phrase gives appearance that "FC users" can actually communicate on their own, without any outside intervention - which is later explained not being so ("hand-on-shoulder support").
Alternatively, rewrite that sentence into something like:

Some peer-reviewed scientific studies have indicated instances of valid FC, and some FC users have reportedly gone on to type independently, i.e., without being touched by another person or with minimal support.

85.92.240.232 (talk) 19:09, 4 February 2010 (UTC)

It's always best to stick close to sources. I fixed [28] the sentence in the lead to reflect the exact wording of the source (Beukelman and Mirenda). Now it says: "Some peer-reviewed scientific studies have indicated instances of valid FC, and some FC users have gone on to type "either independently or with minimal, hand-on-shoulder support". Further discussion of the meaning of "independent" is discussed in the article. --Middle 8 (talk) 21:39, 10 February 2010 (UTC)

The sentence "Some peer-reviewed scientific studies have indicated instances of valid FC, and some FC users have gone on to type "either independently or with minimal, hand-on-shoulder support" should be removed entirely because it references a book, not the actual studies. This kind of indirect reference is not valid for scientific literature. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.52.103.144 (talk) 16:44, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

What policy on WP says books are bad sources? Actually, the book cited re independent typing is the kind of secondary source that is ideal on WP. See WP:RS#Scholarship. Whether every sentence in the lead needs a citation is a matter of stylistic preference as long as the body of the article includes adequate cites. --Middle 8 (talk) 20:35, 20 February 2010 (UTC)

I believe you've misunderstood what Middle 8 was saying. Books can be fine sources in general, but when a sentence refers to peer-reviewed studies, it's almost certainly necessary that the citation for that sentence be the actual studies, rather than a book which merely mentions them. The citation should be changed in this case. Nobody is implying that books aren't good sources in general. 69.118.137.231 (talk) 00:33, 3 July 2012 (UTC)

Definition of subject is vague

"Facilitated communication (FC) is a process by which a person referred to as the "facilitator" supports the hand or arm of a communicatively impaired individual while using a keyboard or other devices with the aim of helping the individual to point and thereby to communicate."

Who is using the keyboard? The facilitator? The communicatively impaired individual? Perhaps a drawing of the process would help.

50.164.139.121 (talk) 01:52, 13 September 2013 (UTC)

Page rewrite again

I think its come time to give this another Spring Cleaning, yet in the Winter. There have been many court cases, journal articles, lectures and what not on FC. Its time to take a stab at this. I'm going to be working on this in my own user space, and will check back from time to time to see if anyone has anything they want to add. Looks like the talk discussion is dormant, 2013 so I think I'm clear to make sense of this. Possibly wait to see what I come up with and then pick over what I come up with? Give me till the end of January I think.Sgerbic (talk) 04:47, 3 December 2014 (UTC)

Rewrite of page

I'm going to attempt to give this page a nice cleanup. There has been a lot of research and great quality articles about FC the last year and I think everything needs a nice going over. So if you will all be patient with me I'll give it a go. I also like the idea of trying to find some photos that can be uploaded to Wikimedia Commons for use. Please leave suggestions here on talk so I can incorporate into the article rewrite. Give me until late January and I should have finished by then or at least gotten pretty far. Sgerbic (talk) 05:28, 12 December 2014 (UTC)

Hello Sgerbic, don't know if I'm too late to suggest this, but I've recently created a page about Rob Nanninga, who wrote about FC in Dutch. Maybe there is material there you could use? I might translate some texts for you if you're interested. In any case, good luck improving this article. Nederlandse Leeuw (talk) 00:52, 2 February 2015 (UTC)

No Leeuw - looking into it. Just to update anyone who cares that the page rewrite is nearly done. It was a ton of work and reading. I think that it is going to be something that everyone can be happy with. I sure hope so. If not then at least it will be updated and current and everyone can start getting it into the right shape.Sgerbic (talk) 03:46, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I'm about to add in my rewrite. To be clear, I was unable to merge my rewrite into the current page as there were far too many changes. I spot checked various current citations and found a percentage of them to be unavailable or possibly not what was mentioned in the text. In other words, it was simpler to start over and be sure that everything was current and related. Also I have tried to use the most current articles possible, and the old article was just that "old". This new rewrite needs photos to show the reader what FC can look like. One more point that will explain why I could not use the current FC page, that is because there are far too many EL and See Futher for a the page to have, there were also a lot of "for" and "against" links that needed to be current, in science, positions can change when standards of evidence is produced and verified. Again it was easier to start fresh. I did not think it was in the best interests of the reader to see the page as Us vs Them, but to see the history and the secondary sources that show the case history of FC. I do not expect this to be the final say on FC, I fully expect and welcome discussions and tweeking of this page. I hope that this rewrite reflects the best of the best and satisfies the standards of evidence of science and of Wikipedia.Sgerbic (talk) 05:46, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Edited intro

Hi, I've tried to do a rewrite of the intro and added a picture. My basic aim is to try to summarise the article a bit more in the intro, so someone quickly reading it can get to the key points (double-blind tests fail, why it could be failing, what's actually happening) a bit faster. I felt that 'faciliatators are the source of messages obtained' doesn't really make it clear enough for someone who hasn't seen videos of the process, so I wanted to add a bit about how the facilitator is supposed to amplify the gestures and smooth the person's movements, but actually seems to be pulling the hand where they think it might go. Any thoughts let me know. Blythwood (talk) 11:48, 10 November 2015 (UTC)

When we were rewriting the page we looked all over for a photo. Would love to see more. Thanks.Sgerbic (talk) 04:02, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Yes, I wasn’t able to find one with a CC license, so I decided to use a reduced-size screenshot from the PBS documentary as fair use for commentary. I think, given that this article calls FC a pseudoscience, we have very little chance of getting one any other way since no provider is likely to give us one! Blythwood (talk) 08:57, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

Ref Improve Tag

Someone added a refimprove tag to this article but did not leave any reason on the talk page. This page has over 140 citations and yet someone wants more? I'm removing the tag, if someone has a problem with that, then lets discuss it here on the talk page. And I think we need to get specific.Sgerbic (talk) 04:06, 14 November 2015 (UTC)

I'm not sure where it is or why it was put there, but the Skepticism section needs a LOT of references and work in general. Even as someone who does not believe in FC, I find the skepticism section to be poorly written, in unencyclopedic tone, with poor grammar, and bereft of any citation. For someting with so much skepticism aimed at it, it should be easy to craft a coherent skepticism section. What is there really needs to be tossed out and remade.12.11.127.253 (talk) 19:28, 17 November 2015 (UTC)

New source from Slate

Facilitated Communication Is a Cult That Won’t Die --DSA510 Pls No Bully 20:58, 20 November 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to one external link on Facilitated communication. Please take a moment to review my edit. You may add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it, if I keep adding bad data, but formatting bugs should be reported instead. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether, but should be used as a last resort. I made the following changes:

• Attempted to fix sourcing for http://andromeda.rutgers.edu/~philos1/component/content/component/content/article/8-fac/7-anna.html

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: 18 January 2022).

• 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.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 07:08, 28 March 2016 (UTC)

RPM

A new article was published today on the closely related Rapid Prompting Method. It links to the FC article from a section comparing the two methods, so I "borrowed" the text from the comparison section there (along with the refs) and revised it to fit here, and included it in a corresponding comparison section which I added here. RobP (talk) 01:45, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Tries too hard

FC is unquestionably snake oil but this article tries too hard, smells too much of WP:RIGHTGREATWRONGS, and is way too long and detailed. Most obviously, we don't need a long exposition of every sexual abuse case, just an overview. EEng 01:28, 30 July 2018 (UTC)

I may disagree with above user's opinion of FC, but I absolutely agree that the article tries too hard. Also, despite there being a back-and-forth about pseudoscience and academic consensus on the Talk page here, someone seems to have put that back in the article. It still needs a citation WP:RS/AC. I also think that the first few references should be to actual scientific studies, rather than editorials from skeptics. It doesn't give a feeling of balance when the second link is called "Facilitated Communication is a Cult That Won't Die." lol. A lot of the rest of the article itself violates MOS:OPED and WP:NPOV as well (e.g., the entire Overview is biased; FC is discredited, but not debunked entirely.) --Anomalapropos (talk) 06:54, 16 May 2019 (UTC)

As long as the "actual scientific studies" are secondary and not WP:PRIMARY, they can be added - if you find any. Science tends to ignore things that are easily refuted. --Hob Gadling (talk) 02:30, 17 May 2019 (UTC)

• I have started a second article for the list of abuse claims. I have to disagree about NPOV: High quality research overwhelmingly supports the idea that FC is pseudoscience. There is no need to give credibility to both sides of the issue in such cases. Anyone wanting to reduce bloat in this article might focus on the "Critics" section. We have eleven paragraphs in that section, and we really don't need more than 3. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 01:26, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Good idea to split those off. --Hob Gadling (talk) 05:09, 31 May 2019 (UTC)

Deletion discussion regarding FC

There is a deletion discussion regarding a topic related to FC. Comments welcome. Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Annie's Coming Out --Wikiman2718 (talk) 16:38, 6 August 2019 (UTC)

Possible online campaign - heads up, page watchers!

Traffic on OTRS in the last day or two suggests that there is some sort of co-ordinated campaign to remove criticism of FC from this article; I haven't found the source yet but please be on the lookout for new accounts making edits to this page which remove negative material. Yunshui ^雲_水 06:09, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

Looks to possibly stem from this article. Deej is another target for this campaign. Yunshui ^雲_水 14:11, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Organizations that have made statements opposing facilitated communication

Since there are so many organizations that have made statements opposing facilitated communication, I recommend that we restrict the list to include only Wikipedia notable organizations. --Wikiman2718 (talk) 02:47, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

A teacher in special education defends Facilitated Communication.

Hello:

For three years, I worked with students in our public schools here in Albuquerque, who had disabilities that diminished their ability to speak easily or totally took away verbal communication skills.

Facilitated communication devices, whether a piece of technology that used pictures or words and letters, helped these students. They could use them independently. Teachers take a deep breath of relief when a non-speaking student finds a way or a tool to help them communicate. We consider these devices helpful and supportive.

Your Wikipedia page on Facilitated Communication is extremely biased toward negative views of facilitated communication devices. FC is not a "pseudoscience," it is a method of helping students communicate that sometimes, only sometimes, involves the assistance of another person.

Please amend the FC page as it is currently written on Wikipedia. I don't know who authored or edited the page as it is now, but they have a very limited, skewed view of what FC is.

I have had students, age five, age 18, who felt understood, seen, relieved, when they were able to type about needs, feelings, dreams, what they wanted to do for the day, etc.

Please amend your Wikipedia page about FC. Take into consideration opposing points of view. Why don't you speak with Ralph Savarese of Grinnell Collge. He has first hand knowledge about how these devices aid people with autism. His son's voice came alive because of FC, it was not silenced or overshadowed by the hand of another person.

Please reassess the point of view that you offer on your website. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.56.209.113 (talk) 07:49, 21 August 2019 (UTC)

First, your formatting does not work correctly on this site. You don't have to greentext.

Second, this article is discussing a specific pseuodoscience technique, not communication aids as the ones you describe. Completely different topic. This page is about people "helping" completely noncommunicative individuals by typing for them, which has been demonstrated to basically be a scam. What you're referring to are helpful tools for those who can communicate for themselves, just in a different manner than others.

The article you're looking for is here, Augmentative and alternative communication. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:30, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Maybe we should add a hatnote leading to that page. Daß Wölf 13:20, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

Good idea, duly implemented to avoid this sort of misunderstanding. Yunshui ^雲_水 18:23, 27 August 2019 (UTC)

"Facilitated Communication" is the name of a particular, very dubious technique. As much as it sounds like it should be, it is not an umbrella term for all communication that is facilitated. ApLundell (talk) 16:25, 22 August 2019 (UTC)

Facilitated or Supported Communication

I am a writer and thinker with a son who has autism. I work with supported communication every day with my son. His hand pushes against mine to select letters. After a year and a half of experience with this phenomenon, I can say it is happening. When he can't control his finger, hand and arm enough even for supported communication, then we come to a standstill. Everything stops. This happens a lot. Control of his body is extremely difficult for him. It seems to take enormous effort to stop his body from spinning away, yanking away, or returning to biting plastic, instead of writing. Autism is a prison of unwanted, unchosen behaviors. It is remarkable to me the huge campaign set up against a simple method of communication for a people imprisoned. Wystan Simons (talk) 10:21, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

Have you seen this article? RobP (talk) 10:40, 26 September 2019 (UTC)

See also

User:HandThatFeeds: You reverted the addition of two books to the "see also" section with the comment "Rv addition of books supposedly written with [FC]; the additional reading section should not include books promoting the practice". However, the addition of these books was actually to the "see also" section, not further reading. The other links in "see also" are about films and people the promote this debunked technique, so I think these books make a good addition here. I have added them back for now. --2600:1702:1BD0:6A00:9D9F:6734:5E72:4E1C (talk) 00:08, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Sorry, I mistyped which section they were in. However, I personally feel they should not be included in the "See Also" section (nor should any films promoting the technique), but I won't edit war about it. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:31, 23 July 2020 (UTC)