Talk:Facilitated communication

Where's the neutrality?
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, with the majority of sources being around thirty years old. 80.193.98.150 (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)


 * "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view." does not mean what you pretend it means. It means obeying WP:PSCI, WP:GEVAL, WP:ECREE, and WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
 * I'm not the one pretending that "neutral" has more than one definition, you are. Now stop being disingenuous and contributing to the ableist silencing of autistic voices. 80.193.98.150 (talk) 12:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 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?
 * I'm not a scientist, so I didn't ruin your pet theory. I simply record the fact that the scientific community has ruined your pet theory. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)
 * 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)


 * 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)
 * "That article is little more than an opinion piece."
 * Opinion pieces don’t contain links to research papers. Check out the article at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/oct/02/simon-baron-cohen-autism-neurodiversity-brains-money if you don’t believe me. Now stop getting in the way of the fulfilment of autism rights. 80.193.98.150 (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * 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.
 * If you want to take a step back and propose changes based on Wikipedia policy, go for it. But demanding we conform to what you think is right or wrong is not going to work. &mdash;  The Hand That Feeds You :Bite 17:18, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
 * Opinion pieces don’t contain links to research papers I see no reason why they shouldn't. --Hob Gadling (talk) 12:18, 22 January 2024 (UTC)