Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 23:41, 22 January 2025

Ido Kedar

New to Articles for deletion (AfD)? Read these primers!

• How to contribute
• Introduction to deletion process
• Guide to deletion (glossary)
• Help, my article got nominated for deletion!

Ido Kedar (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) – (View log | edits since nomination)

(Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL)

Per the discussion on WP:FTN, there is an inherent issue here. While the claim to notability is of him as an author and autistic advocate, all of what he have from him is through the thoroughly discredited practice of facilitated communication - which basically means that none of this is actually him. While this would not be disqualifying if we had sources to address this, none of the sources do. It's impossible to write this article without implicitly giving credence to FC and violating WP:FRINGE. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the list of Psychology-related deletion discussions. PARAKANYAA (talk) 01:05, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Article creator here. The article is not about/endorsing facilitated communication or any fringe theory. The article is a biographical article and is backed by the sources provided. Also, for what it's worth, the article, as backed by sources, suggests the individual does not use facilitated communication, but rather types on a tablet computer. I don't think there's any violation of WP:FRINGE here. I see no reason not to keep. —siroχo 01:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  While the article itself is not about facilitated communication, it is remarkable that no source I can find has commented on whether or not facilitated communication is still being used by the person in question. This is especially concerning considering the video evidence that is out there that Ido Kedar does not offer tablet communication independent of those with whom he has had an acknowledged FC/RPM relationship.

  We are cautioned to look for WP:FRIND sources whenever questions that relate to WP:FRINGEBLP come up. And, like it or lump it, there is a significant part of this story (even including that the story exists at all) which is being driven by a fringe theory. I would like nothing more than for a third-party WP:FRIND source to appear that would evaluate and state with clarity what the situation is. Do we have a situation here where FC/RPM was used and then Ido Kedar transitioned away (if so, this would be the first documented case of this that I think would have ever been seen)? Or do we have a case where FC/RPM is still going on making a lot of this questionable.

  This is a WP:BLP, so we are tied by Misplaced Pages's rules to follow what reliable sources say about the subject. But given the problems of FC/RPM, it seems to me that we may be in a situation where literally no reliable sources have been written on this person. This includes sources from locations that would otherwise be considered reliable. When it comes for WP:FRINGE claims, we have seen some of the best publishing outlets fall flat on their faces and end up WP:SENSATION instead of reliability. Obviously, that is a huge risk here too.

  Getting a source which clearly indicates whether FC/RPM is still being used by Ido Kevar would be great. But I have found none which do so.

  jps (talk) 01:34, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  The article says "Kedar uses a tablet to communicate, on which he types without assistance" and provides 3 sources. The first one, an LAT article, has a video showing him (very briefly) typing on a tablet by himself. That article starts "Ido Kedar sits at the dining room table of his West Hills home. He fidgets in his chair, slouched over an iPad, typing. He hunts down each letter." So when you say "considering the video evidence that is out there that Ido Kedar does not offer tablet communication independent of those with whom he has had an acknowledged FC/RPM relationship," you seem to be implying that the video is misleading and the LAT article author is dishonest. Or did I misunderstand? If I didn't, what leads you to conclude that?

  Re: FC, it's certainly disputed, but it's not clear to me that it's "thoroughly discredited" (quoting PARAKANYAA), though some obviously believe it to be. As a counterexample, peer-reviewed reference 10 in the article says:

  peer-reviewed studies confirming autistic or disabled authorship of FC messages number over a hundred from the 1990s to the present (Cardinal and Falvey, 2014), and use varied methodologies including text analysis (Bernardi and Tuzzi, 2011), naturally occurring message passing (Biklen et al., 1995; Weiss et al., 1996), intensive video analysis (Emerson et al., 2001), inductive analysis (Broderick and Kasa-Hendrickson, 2001), and linguistic structural analysis (Niemi and Karna-Lin, 2002). This body of evidence speaks to the need to reassess FC, given that its validity and efficacy are not so unproblematically dismissed (Williams, 2020).

  The Author's Contributions section at the end says that one of the article's authors, Timothy Chan, "an FC-user, conceived the Perspective and researched with the support and guidance of WL and MH." Chan is either a masters or doctoral student at Australian Catholic University. If he's using FC, then I don't see how it can be thoroughly discredited. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:48, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  Has this been verified beyond what the section says? It usually just ends up being that it is true because we say it is true, and no we aren't going to be tested, how dare you even suggest it. The long and short of it is that Chan's facilitator is a masters student at the University. FC is completely discredited and harmful. The videos do not show him typing independently or without a facilitator nearby. Sgerbic (talk) 00:33, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  "Has this been verified beyond what the section says?" What is the referent of "this"?

  "It usually just ends up being that it is true because we say it is true..." What is the referent of "it"?

  "Chan's facilitator is a masters student at the University." No, Chan's facilitator is his mother, and I've now confirmed that he's a doctoral student rather than a masters student. The video I looked at showed Kedar typing independently; perhaps you and I have different meanings for "independently"? You're also ignoring the reporter's description. The video of Chan here shows him typing independently, as does this one. His mother is touching his shoulder/back, but she certainly isn't guiding his letter or word choice. Why does it matter if there's a facilitator touching the person or nearby? FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:38, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  The handlers are still present in that video. They can still prompt. jps (talk) 18:21, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  FactOrOpinion you are doing original research which is not allowed on Misplaced Pages, we do not need to convince you that FC is pseudoscience, all the sources show it is pseudoscience. I'm not sure why you are continuing to argue with editors in this discussion. If you are truly curious about what you are seeing vs what the sources tell you, then there is a wealth of information in written and video form that you can review that should explain what is going on. But as jps has said, the facilitator is within sight of the person, they can still be cuing the person. And with long practice it will look innocent to laypeople. If you know what to look for, it's obvious. Let me look at the videos you have linked, but remember, it is not up to you or I, it is up to the consensus of science, which says FC is pseudoscience. Sgerbic (talk) 23:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  The video from his website ... reframautism that you first linked to has no video of him typing independently. It has a still frame of him pointing at a keyboard that is propped up with a woman's arm on his shoulder (9:31). That is classic FC prompting. In the TEDx talk video, the woman's hand is on his shoulder and at 1:02 he isn't looking at the keyboard as he points to the keyboard. At 3:28 again he is looking up while his finger is pointing at the keyboard. And at 4:17, 4:26, again at 5:17. It's all though this video, very obvious at 11:10, his finger hits several keys as he looks elsewhere. When you watch these videos, do so with the sound off and it becomes more obvious. They are long practiced at this, and if you watch her fingers you can see her pushing and pulling and pinching his shoulder. Look at frame 17:58 she has over an inch of fabric in her fingers which is unnecessary other than she is prompting him. Sgerbic (talk) 00:13, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  No, I'm not doing original research, and for the record, the NOR policy is very explicitly about articles, not about statements made on talk pages, etc. It even says "This policy does not apply to talk pages and other pages which evaluate article content and sources, such as deletion discussions or policy noticeboards." FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:23, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  Or did I misunderstand? If I didn't, what leads you to conclude that? The skeptics who have commented at the Clever Hans blogpost noted that the videos include the FC prompters in range. The problem has been that prompting can be very subtle. The only way to verify it is not going on is to test it under controlled settings which, apparently, FC practitioners steadfastly refuse to do.

  FC is discredited precisely because it has never been shown to work. And this is not for wont of trying. The technique was subject to multiple attempts to verify it, and each time it has failed. This means that now FC practitioners refuse categorically to allow the technique to be studied in a controlled fashion. Compare parapsychology.

  Sure, there are academic backwaters which will accommodate this and any other form of pseudoscience under the sun. No, that does not mean we have verification. WP:FRINGE requires extraordinary sources--not students at obscure Australian universities. jps (talk) 01:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  "FC is discredited precisely because it has never been shown to work." The peer-reviewed paper I quoted disagrees with you. Maybe they're wrong, but you should actually show that rather than assume it. "The only way to verify is not going on is to test it under controlled settings which, apparently, FC practitioners steadfastly refuse to do." Then the appropriate conclusion is that you don't know whether prompting is or isn't occurring. And while Australian Catholic University isn't a research 1 institution, but it's hardly "obscure" or a "backwater." Why on earth would you choose to characterize it that way? FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  The peer-review paper actually does not disagree because it admits that FC practitioners as a rule do not allow independent testing of the method. I am fine characterizing the institution as being an irrelevant aside to the major point. FC is a pseudoscientific unvalidated method. jps (talk) 16:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  It absolutely does disagree: "This perspective article presents an analysis of the research arguing for—and against—the use of FC, combined with the lived experience knowledge of autistic adults who utilize FC, to rehabilitate its current standing as discredited and unevidenced" (emphasis added). And I've allowed myself to get distracted from the actual issue in this AfD: does or doesn't Ido Kedar meet GNG. He does. If you want to argue that the RSs used to substantiate his notability actually aren't reliable for the content sourced to them, that discussion belongs on the article's talk page, not here. If the talk page discussion concludes that they're not RSs and should be removed, then the article can be renominated for deletion in light of that. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  The paper acknowledges no controlled studies. jps (talk) 18:17, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Again: the actual issue in this AfD is whether Ido Kedar meets GNG. Take the discussion of FC to the article's talk page. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  GNG is only one facet. An important issue that is yet unresolved is whether this WP:FRINGEBLP can be written according to our guidelines. jps (talk) 19:06, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  If you think some part of WP:FRINGEBLP indicates that this article should be deleted, please quote it, because I'm not sure what you have in mind. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:27, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Notability can be determined by considering whether there are enough reliable and independent sources that discuss the person in a serious and extensive manner, taking care also to avoid the pitfalls that can appear when determining the notability of fringe theories themselves If this standard is not met, the article may not be able to exist. jps (talk) 19:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  And as I already pointed out: If you want to argue that the RSs used to substantiate his notability actually aren't reliable for the content sourced to them, that discussion belongs on the article's talk page, not here. If the talk page discussion concludes that they're not RSs and should be removed, then the article can be renominated for deletion in light of that. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:47, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  No it doesn’t? Why would a notability problem be discussed on the talk page? PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  But so far, you haven't presented any real argument for his not being notable. Your argument boils down to your claim that "It's impossible to write this article without implicitly giving credence to FC and violating WP:FRINGE." But his article is not about FC. Look at the criteria for GNG, and ask yourself where it fails, and then specify it here. For example, are you claiming that there is no significant coverage in independent secondary sources? Are you claiming that the sources aren't RSs for the text sourced to them, and if so, can you quote the text in question? Is the article inconsistent with some part of WP:NOT, and if so, what part? Are you claiming that it's inconsistent with WP:FRINGEBLP, and if so, how? FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  The argument is simple. If there are no reliable sources, then notability is not satisfied. We argue there are no reliable sources. You disagree. What you additionally are trying to do is claim we can't even have the conversation about whether there really are reliable sources. Tough cookies. We're going to have the conversation. jps (talk) 21:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  You're claiming that there are no reliable sources, but so far, you haven't presented any evidence that any text that's actually in the article (i.e., a quote) is sourced to a source that is not reliable for that specific text. As for 'What you additionally are trying to do is claim we can't even have the conversation about whether there really are reliable sources," please don't make false claims about me, as I've done nothing of the sort, and false claims are counterproductive. I support your having a conversation about it on the talk page. I support your having a conversation about it at RSN. I believe that those are both appropriate venues for such a discussion. But if you nonetheless insist on having it here, then please start presenting the kind of evidence you'll need to present. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:13, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes, he has presented evidence, by showing that the outlets haven't done due diligence regarding the claims of FC and his independence from that, making them unreliable. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  No, he hasn't. He hasn't quoted any text from the article, much less shown that the cited source(s) are not RSs for the quoted text. (From what I can tell, I'm the sole person who has actually quoted text from the article.) You assert that "the outlets haven't done due diligence regarding the claims of FC," but FC is only mentioned in a single sentence in the article. There are three citations for that one sentence, and evidence would mean showing that the sources don't actually support that sentence. But let's say that they don't, and you can't find a source that does. Then you delete the sentence and citations. That leaves the rest of the article and all of the other sources. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:40, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Sources which uncritically argue that Ido Kedar is communicating are completely suspect. So far, I haven't seen any of the sources in the article deal with this fundamental point. If they don't deal with this fundamental point, it is questionable whether they can be used to source anything at all. This is sticky because when sources fail to do basic fact checking it calls into question everything being written and the entire basis for notability. See WP:SENSATION, for example. jps (talk) 22:44, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Looks like the Frontiers in... piece has been impeached. See below. jps (talk) 22:26, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  By the way, Frontiers in... is generally considered a somewhat problematic outfit for publication. They have been implicated in pseudoscience publishing scandals in the past. This one looks like another. The testing that would aid in verifying that FC works is straightforward. And yet, FC boosters will not allow such testing to occur. Instead of dealing with that, the article in question falls back on dubious claims that unverified methods such as "text analysis" somehow show that controlled studies aren't needed. jps (talk) 01:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  If you have evidence of Frontiers in Psychology having published pseudoscience then present it. If you have evidence of this particular article containing pseudoscience, present it. Trying to tar the article or the journal by pointing to other journals published by the same publisher is a form of ad hom. I get that you want a certain form of research to occur. However, your desire for that research to be conducted does not imply that potential subjects have to agree to participate. That's not a matter of "boosters." That's a basic tenet of human subjects research. As for "the article in question falls back on dubious claims that unverified methods such as "text analysis" somehow show that controlled studies aren't needed," no, the article didn't do anything of the sort. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  This paper is itself pseudoscience. Your arguments amount to WP:PROFRINGE at this point. jps (talk) 16:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

• Note: This discussion has been included in the deletion sorting lists for the following topics: Academics and educators, Authors, Disability, and California. WCQuidditch ☎ ✎ 02:23, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep. Meets WP:GNG per coverage significant coverage in the Los Angeles Times, NBC Los Angles, CBC, and others. Moral panic about the possibility of the dreaded WP:FRINGE!!! is not a criterion for deletion (good heavens, what if some people believe the wrong thing!!!??). If there is relevant, reliable, BLP-compliant coverage poo-pooing this man and his works, by all means cite it as well. But until then, there appears to be enough secondary, independent, reliable coverage of the subject to warrant a brief, respectable biographical article. --Animalparty! (talk) 03:36, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  If a guy manages to convince some news outlets that he has psychic powers, or that he was an alien, and they cover his psychic powers with limited credulity, and there is no source debunking said psychic powers with respect to the individual, we would be forced to have an article that says in wiki voice that a man can do things that are impossible, because we have no source that says otherwise with respect to this individual. This is why an article that violates WP:FRINGE is sometimes a problem worthy of deletion - if it can be fixed, then yes, if not, no.

  I say this in jest but I would honestly bet if I scraped mid twentieth century newspapers enough I could probably find something like that. Even further, this is worse, because every single word and everything about him is potentially suspect because if he uses FC he didn't even say it! This is therefore not an actual article on him. PARAKANYAA (talk) 04:44, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  good heavens, what if some people believe the wrong thing!!!?? I am amazed that this argument is being made. Our first commitment before anything else should be to present the best information according to the best sources. If we cannot verify even the most basic of facts about a person (such as whether they are communicating what some claim they are communicating or not) because literally every word attributed fails verification as being said by them, then it is highly irresponsible of Misplaced Pages to WP:ASSERT anything about the person beyond such points as "this person exists". This is a biography which is based almost entirely on works that are not independently verified. To be clear, yes, there is obvious and considerable doubt that the journalists at The LA Times, NBC Los Angeles, and the CBC actually verified that they were communicating with Ido Kedar and not his handlers. This kind of "public interest story" rarely gets the attention necessary even in erstwhile reliable outlets (we see this again and again with fringe-adjacent subjects). How do we write an article on a topic when we cannot even verify the most basic facts about the topic? jps (talk) 12:41, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Delete. An inspiring story, but there is too much doubt about the reliabilty of the sources: WP:Fringe. Xxanthippe (talk) 04:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC).
• Delete If this is someone trained by the founder of the Rapid prompting method Soma Mukhopadhyay and is now an independent communicator, then he is the first one ever and the main stream news should be beating down his door with coverage of this amazing miracle. Since that has not happened we know that this is just another story from the FC community offered up with no proof of independence. We must treat this as we would any other claim of a miracle with no evidence such as someone who is dead communicating with a medium and we are supposed to believe them because they say so. We do not need to have a R/S to disprove mediumship. I would be fine with keeping this article if we were to give the authorship to the person who is facilitating Kedar. As Animalparty states, there is R/S but the authorship is not Kedar. Sgerbic (talk) 04:47, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Delete. Someone grabbed his fingers and moved them on a keyboard to type a lot of stuff. That does not make him notable. --Hob Gadling (talk) 07:54, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• keep. The sourcing indicates that he is notable, and gives us something to write about him, and that is all we need. What we write doesn't actually have to be "true", it just has to reflect what our sources said about him. Even if his words are not his own, and "someone grabbed his fingers", he would still be notable, because sources have chosen to report - that's core Misplaced Pages policy (in other words, we verify that reliable sources said something, not that they got it right). If there are documented doubts about his communication, they can go in the article (and if not, not). Elemimele (talk) 14:17, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  What we write doesn't actually have to be "true". !!! WP:TRUTHMATTERS. jps (talk) 15:28, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep easily passes WP:GNG for a BLP with WP:SIGCOV. As per our policies and guidelines, we simply document all the significant views that have been published by reliable sources on a topic. We don't delete articles because you are unable to find any sources to discredit a topic. Isaidnoway (talk) 17:33, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  When there is no proof the person as discussed in the article does not actually exist that is, quite different. If there was the same amount of coverage about a medium talking with an alleged person from the afterlife we would have to give the same amount of coverage if the news do? Absurd. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:03, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  You haven't' provided any reliable sources that explicitly state "that none of this is actually him"; and we don't delete articles because "none of the sources do". If you want to challenge any of the sources used in the article based on the argument that they don't say what you want them to say, then please go ahead and do that, otherwise this living person easily passes our criteria for a stand-alone article. Isaidnoway (talk) 19:49, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Isaidnoway The reliable sources say he uses or used facilitated communication, which no one has ever moved on from and is basically a ouija board when it comes to the process and accuracy of stuff coming from him. Unless all these sources are wrong and he never used FC, nothing about this person is actually from him. Again, see medium example. PARAKANYAA (talk) 19:52, 16 January 2025 (UTC)

  In my comment above, I noted a graduate student, Timothy Chan, who co-authored a peer-reviewed paper that's cited in the WP article, where the authors say that Chan uses FC. How do you reconcile that with your claim that it's "basically a ouija board"? FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:09, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Maybe this article will enlighten you, Facilitated communication or this one Rapid prompting method? If someone proved that there was scientific integrity to FC then it would be used by all the reputable agencies that work with these individuals. But alas they have position statements against using FC or RPM. Sgerbic (talk) 00:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think that is also probably bunk. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  So the way that you reconcile your claim that FC is "basically a ouija board" with the existence of a co-author of a research paper using FC is to call "it" bunk? It's unclear what "it" refers to. For example, are you claiming that the article is bunk? If so, the journal editor and reviewers disagree. Are you alleging that the authors' claim is bunk (i.e., they're lying about it)? If so, what's the basis for your allegation? FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think the co-author, if any work was done and it is not merely an honorary inclusion, in this case is the facilitator, as words produced through FC actually come from the facilitator. The basis is that FC does not work. It has been proven to not work. PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not sure why you'd say "if any work was done and it is not merely an honorary inclusion," given that the authors said it wasn't an honorary inclusion.

  This BBC article (published a few months ago) says that his facilitator is his mother. If everything he types actually comes from his mother, why do you think she chose to put herself in a situation where she has to complete a doctorate (but with the credit going to her son)? If she's the one making the choices, I'd expect that she'd choose something easier than a doctoral program. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Because she really, really wants to believe it - as is the case with all the FC cases. People have done much more absurd things. And if you think it isn't discredited well then our main page for it is rather out of balance then, no? PARAKANYAA (talk) 03:56, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  FactOrOpinion - why are we explaining that FC is a pseudoscience? This is an established fact and this talk page is not the place to discuss it. You can't communicate with the dead and the earth is not a hollow place where tall people live and FC is not science. Sgerbic (talk) 04:15, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Whatever one thinks of FC, you're right, this AfD discussion isn't about FC, and I'll stop discussing it. This AfD discussion is about Ido Kedar's article. He meets GNG. As Elemimele wrote above, "If there are documented doubts about his communication, they can go in the article (and if not, not)." That means documentation about him specifically, not about FC in general. FactOrOpinion (talk) 12:46, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  We are arguing that the sources included in the article right now have not verified that the subject of the article can actually communicate. If there are no sources, there can be no article. jps (talk) 18:22, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  If you think that source X has been presented as a RS for the content sourced to it, but it's actually not reliable for that content, that's something to discuss on the article's talk page. Unless you have consensus that it's not a RS for the content sourced to it, you cannot presume that it's not a RS here. As for your last sentence, your conclusion is an opinion, not a fact; Elemimele already pointed out why it's not true. I recognize that you objected to Elemimele's comment, and you pointed out an essay that disagreed. But an essay is not policy. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Unless you have consensus that it's not a RS for the content sourced to it, you cannot presume that it's not a RS here. We are allowed to discuss the fact that the sources do not deal with the pseudoscientific nature of FC in our evaluation of whether the article should exist. There is no requirement that we discuss things in silos. jps (talk) 19:57, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  The talk page is not a silo. You could also ask for input at the RSN, which also isn't a silo. As WP:RS notes "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made in the Misplaced Pages article and is an appropriate source for that content" (emphasis added). I suggest that you start by identifying and then quoting article text that you believe is sourced to something that is not a reliable source for the quoted text. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:01, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  We'll have the conversation here whether you want to have it or not. You cannot stop conversations on Misplaced Pages just because you want to. jps (talk) 21:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Again: I'm not trying to stop the conversation, only asking you to take it to a more appropriate venue. This is the second time that you've made this false claim about me, and you should stop. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:24, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  This venue is perfectly fine. jps (talk) 22:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  As recently as 2022, Katharine Beals stated that there is no evidence that Kedar is able to communicate without a facilitator within cueing range.

  • Excerpt from source – Additionally, the authors (Heyworth, Chan & Lawson) – citing Kedar (), Rubin (), Sequenzia (), Higashida (), and Mukhopadhyay ()—repeat the claim, popular with FC proponents, that many facilitated individuals no longer need physical support and, in some cases, have graduated to full independence. There is, however, no evidence that any of the above-cited individuals is able to communicate without a facilitator within cueing range.

  Additional sources:

  • Beals, Katharine (3 May 2020). "Review of Communication Alternatives in Autism: Perspectives on Typing and Spelling Approaches for the Nonspeaking". Journal of Evidence-Based Social Work. 17 (3): 361–367. doi:10.1080/26408066.2020.1729284.
  • Travers, Jason C.; Tincani, Matt J.; Lang, Russell (September 2014). "Facilitated Communication Denies People With Disabilities Their Voice". Research and Practice for Persons with Severe Disabilities. 39 (3): 195–202. doi:10.1177/1540796914556778.
  • Vyse, Stuart; Hemsley, Bronwyn; et al. (2019). "Whose words are these? Statements derived from Facilitated Communication and Rapid Prompting Method undermine the credibility of Jaswal & Akhtar's social motivation hypotheses". Behavioral and Brain Sciences. 42. doi:10.1017/S0140525X18002236.

  Also for consideration

  • Katharine Beals (author above) is a contributor to the website below, but it is a blog, so the reliability status would fall under WP:BLOGS and whether they (Beals & Boynton) are subject-matter experts, and whether it is DUE for inclusion for making claims about a BLP
    • How “non-speaking” and those who call themselves “non-speakers” muddy the waters in facilitated communication by Katharine Beals
    • Clever Han(d)s Skepticism and “Ido in Autismland” by Janyce Boynton, master’s degree in education, recipient of the 2023 James Randi Educational Foundation award for her work in the field of skepticism, to date, she is one of the few facilitators world-wide to publicly acknowledge her role in producing FC messages and speak out against its use, she was featured on Frontline's Prisoners of Silence.

  Regardless of what you or I think about Ido Kedar, per our guidelines, in my view, Kedar easily passes WP:GNG for a BLP with WP:SIGCOV, and I don't believe we are giving "credence to FC and violating WP:FRINGE", since there are wikilnks in Kedar's article to Soma Mukhopadhyay and Facilitated communication – which clearly states in the lead sentence, it is a scientifically discredited technique. Isaidnoway (talk) 02:50, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  SPS, even from experts, can never be used in BLPs. We also cannot rely on wikilinks to provide context to fringe content; the context should be with the fringe claims themselves. JoelleJay (talk) 04:23, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Well the context issue is an easy fix, for example, where the wikilink is used in the article - In his work Kedar is critical of dismissal of autistic voices and thought, especially of those who use facilitated communication, which is a scientifically discredited technique. It's not like there isn't multiple sources that can provide that context.I'd also note that per WP:NTEMP - Notability is not temporary; once a topic has been the subject of "significant coverage" (which is the case here), in accordance with the general notability guideline, it does not need to have ongoing coverage. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:42, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  The quoted sentence with the modification you suggest would be SYNTH. However, you can use the journal articles (not the blogs) to add an appropriate statement to the article. FactOrOpinion (talk) 13:03, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  No, it would not be SYNTH, the existing refs go after the comma in the sentence, and then additional refs to support "scientifically discredited technique". The point of an inline citation is to allow readers and other editors to see which part of the material is supported by the citation; that point is lost if the citation is not clearly placed. Or in the alternative, a new sentence can just be added with the needed context. It's unclear why that context wasn't already in the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 16:07, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  It is absolutely synth to juxtapose statements in such a way that implies a conclusion not present in the cited sources. You can't just tack on that disclaimer to sentences about Kedar if the sources about Kedar do not discuss RPM (not FC) being discredited. That's the whole point of this AfD. GNG does not overrule NPOV issues. JoelleJay (talk) 18:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  You absolutely can add a new and separate sentence providing context for FC. The fact it is discredited is a significant viewpoint, and it would violate NPOV not to include the context. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:16, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  If one reliable source says A and another reliable source says B, do not join A and B together to imply a conclusion C not mentioned by either of the sources. This is the major reason so many editors are objecting to basing the article on what would ordinarily be RS. The SIGCOV sources do not adequately contextualize his communication approach in particular with the mainstream consensus, and it would violate OR to insert what we think that context should be (e.g. a statement about FC) as if the connection had been published. That's why I posted the Katharine Beals sources despite their not being substantial enough to count toward BASIC: they would at least serve to contextualize a very pared-down summary of Kedar directly, such as in the merge target I proposed. JoelleJay (talk) 07:01, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  Thank you, Isaidnoway, for this source which satisfies WP:FRIND and further devastatingly impeaches the Frontiers in... source. I note that while the source cites Kedar parenthetically, unfortunately there is not much to go on for the purposes of the Ido Kedar BLP beyond that. jps (talk) 21:55, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  The only other source which I think might be usable from your list, @Isaidnoway: was the other published article by Beals which points out, rather alarmingly, that RPM uses predictive text to augment the tablet communication. I added some sections to the article to see if there might be a way to incorporate some of these sources into the article responsibly. jps (talk) 22:49, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  He uses an iPad for communication, any user of an iPad can use predictive text, I don't find that alarming. In fact, I find it encouraging, if he is able to make choices for words and/or information that he'd probably type next, then he has the ability to communicate. Isaidnoway (talk) 23:34, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  If you allow predictive text to operate on randomly selected letters, you can get coherent sentences. jps (talk) 01:26, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  The other work I introduced in my !vote might have more, unfortunately there's no preview of those pages. JoelleJay (talk) 07:07, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

• Merge and redirect to RPM. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary sources. As essentially all of this biography constitutes an extraordinary claim, we need much better fringe-contextualizing sources in order to present anything in wikivoice. I found some mentions of Kedar's book in Controversial Therapies for Autism and Intellectual Disabilities: Fad, Fashion, and Science in Professional Practice, though I don't have access to the full chapter. There are also a few mentions in Review of Communication Alternatives in Autism: Perspectives on Typing and Spelling Approaches for the Nonspeaking by Katharine Beals that appropriately characterizes the facilitation methods he uses as "especially worrying". I don't think these are enough for a biography, but they could support a paragraph in the RPM article. JoelleJay (talk) 21:04, 16 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: this subject passes WP:GNG and has WP:SIGCOV. His mere presence here is not fringe, but his biographical contents should duly reflect that, per Isaidnoway's discussion above. Cheers. JFHJr (㊟) 03:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Merge unless we can find appropriate sources that follow the mainstream consensus and specifically discuss this case for a ground-up non-WP:FRINGE rewrite. Otherwise we have a problem with WP:INUNIVERSE. (Yes, that is about works of fiction. As appears to be most of this article.) —David Eppstein (talk) 06:20, 17 January 2025 (UTC)
• Keep: there are videos of him quite clearly communicating independently (e.g. 1, 2), and multiple credible sources backing this up. Misplaced Pages has a problematic history of erasing the contributions of anybody who has ever used anything resembling FC/RPM. It is absolutely not okay to do this with people who communicate independently, whether or not they have used FC in the past. Studies on FC/RPM have shown that it can be used fraudulently (or with unconscious control) dangerously easily, not that every single instance of anything resembling it is completely fake. Oolong (talk) 08:18, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Those videos do not show him communicating independently. Crucially, his handlers are present when he is producing the communication in exactly the problematic way criticized above. jps (talk) 16:25, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  It strikes me as a BLP violation to refer to someone's facilitator as a "handler." This is the second time that you've used that word in this discussion. Please stop. FactOrOpinion (talk) 17:35, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  It's not a BLP violation. jps (talk) 18:19, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  If you would like to propose an alternative word to use, I am happy to use it. But I see no problem with the word "handler" to describe those who are prompting Ido Kedar in the videos. jps (talk) 18:30, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  You're assuming that they're prompting him. I already pointed out the word "facilitator." Yes, it's a BLP violation: Do not label people with contentious labels, loaded language, or terms that lack precision, unless a person is commonly described that way in reliable sources. That policy applies to all living persons on all WP pages. I already linked to the definition. Kedar is not a "something," and he is not an "animal" (in the sense that distinguishes between humans and animals rather than treating the former as a subset of the latter), nor do the boxing or manager uses apply. So I'm going to ask you again to stop. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:54, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  I am using "handler" in the sense of boxing, spy, or manager use, for sure. jps (talk) 19:08, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  No, you aren't. He isn't a boxer, so you cannot possibly be using it in the boxing sense. He isn't an agent of an intelligence agency, so you cannot possibly be using it in the intelligence agency sense. His facilitators are also not acting as "a manager of a political or public figure or campaign" in any of your sentences, so you're not using it in that sense either. I've already given you an acceptable term to use. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:02, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  I would say "manager of a public figure" to be appropriate here? I mean, it's basically what they're doing. Handler is a reasonable word in this situation. PARAKANYAA (talk) 20:05, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  He doesn't meet the dictionary definition of a public figure. I already linked to M-W's, and here are a couple of others: "a famous person who is often written about in newspapers and magazines or is often on television or the radio" (Cambridge), "A famous person whose life and behavior are the focus of intense public interest and scrutiny" (American Heritage). He's not often in the news or a focus of intense public interest. Before this AfD, I'd never heard of him. He doesn't meet the legal definition of a public figure either (in defamation law, let me know if you want some relevant caselaw). What definition of "public figure" are you using? FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:45, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  It's analagous clearly. You're quibbling at definitions - you claimed that JPS was analogizing him to an animal by calling the person a handler, when we have already established that it is a word used in a variety of situations that in no way mean we are reducing him. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:43, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  You don't get to decide what my state of mind is. I told you the sense in which I used the term "handler". Like it or lump it. jps (talk) 21:36, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  By the way, if you cannot understand that examples given in definitions are not categorical, then you probably shouldn't be editing Misplaced Pages. When examples like boxers or people under management or spies are offered, it's to show the sense in which the word "handler" is used to refer to someone who handles another person. It's absurdly jejune to propose that the only people that the term handler can be applied to are those in the context of boxing, etc. Competence is required. jps (talk) 21:39, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  You're an experienced enough editor to know that you shouldn't be breaching the WP:NPA policy, especially when you've already made false claims about me above. I suggest that you stop. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  WP:KETTLE. jps (talk) 23:00, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  I haven't insulted you or made false claims about you. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:52, 17 January 2025 (UTC)

  Okay people, knock it off please. The correct word is actually facilitator or a descriptor like "his mom" or "the woman" but can we not quibble about this and get to the discussion at hand? Sgerbic (talk) 00:17, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

  The faq video has been critiqued many times, the facilitator to the left is making hand signals and using verbal prompts to direct typing. These prompts, in concert with an extensive behavioural drills over a number of years, can give the impression of independent typing, but is FC in the form of rapid prompting. 2A02:C7C:9B04:EA00:1C8E:155B:9FF5:792F (talk) 17:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment I'm concerned about some of the comments posted above. A reminder re: some relevant parts of WP:BLP:

  Editors must take particular care when adding information about living persons to any Misplaced Pages page, including but not limited to articles, talk pages, project pages, and drafts. ... Contentious material about living persons (or, in some cases, recently deceased) that is unsourced or poorly sourced—whether the material is negative, positive, neutral, or just questionable—must be removed immediately and without waiting for discussion. ... the possibility of harm to living subjects must always be considered when exercising editorial judgment. This policy applies to any living person mentioned in a BLP, whether or not that person is the subject of the article, and to material about living persons in other articles and on other pages, including talk pages. ... Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the subject of the article.

  (emphasis in the original) That policy clearly applies to this discussion. I believe that some of the comments here contain unsourced contentious statements; some clearly refer to blogs, which are SPS. I will be looking through my own comments to see whether any violate the BLP policy (in which case I will remove them in whole or in part), and I encourage others to do the same. I have asked for guidance at WP:BLPN, and it may be that some comments will be removed by another editor if they judge them to be contrary to the BLP policy. Please keep this policy in mind for any new comments made here. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:11, 18 January 2025 (UTC)

So, this is a wide-ranging discussion, but it seems like there's a few questions here. First, is Kedar notable? It seems yes, given the media coverage etc. Second, is FC reliable generally? Here, there is a clear consensus that it is not, with multiple studies clearly showing that at least some users of FC are not authoring the communications attributed to them, but as several people point out, this might not necessarily mean Kedar is not communicating independently. So that leaves several questions - is Kedar communicating independently? Indeed, is it possible for ANYONE who has historically used FC or other methods that may depend on the presence of a facilitator/prompter/communication partner/assistant to type independently? And if Kedar is not communicating independently, does that mean the article should be deleted?

As noted, there is definitely evidence that FC users can communicate without directly having their hands manipulated etc. The foregoing discussion cites several videos of Kedar doing this. Peer-reviewed scholarly sources point this out, albeit not about Kedar specifically to my knowledge:

"First, in the solo typing condition, given that the participant is typing alone without any physical support, his authorship on the messages is undoubtable. In this condition, the typing speed is faster, and the amount of acceleration is bigger, than in all the three other support modalities, i.e., he types rapidly and vigorously, which is probably due to the fact that the verbal content of the typed words is limited to single words belonging to his restricted interests’ and words’ repertoires, so that he is used to typing these words."

Faure, P., Legou, T., & Gepner, B. (2021). Evidence of authorship on messages in facilitated communication: A case report using accelerometry. Frontiers in Psychiatry, 11, 543385. https://doi.org/10.3389/fpsyt.2020.543385

And debates about FC inevitably blend into discussion about RPM and S2C, since essentially the same issues about prompting from mere presence of a facilitator/communication partner/whatever come up there. We have this paper describing the case of an RPM user communicating apparently independently:

Bonneh, Y. S., Belmonte, M. K., Pei, F., Iversen, P. E., Kenet, T., Akshoomoff, N., … Merzenich, M. M. (2008). Cross-modal extinction in a boy with severely autistic behaviour and high verbal intelligence. Cognitive Neuropsychology, 25(5), 635–652. https://doi.org/10.1080/02643290802106415

Other relevant evidence comes from the Jaswal group's studies - in good quality peer reviewed journals one might note - suggesting that some S2C and/or RPM users are showing signs of valid communication:

Jaswal, V. K., Wayne, A., & Golino, H. (2020). Eye-tracking reveals agency in assisted autistic communication. Scientific Reports. https://doi.org/10.1038/s41598-020-64553-9

Jaswal, V. K., Lampi, A. J., & Stockwell, K. M. (2024). Literacy in nonspeaking autistic people. Autism. https://doi.org/10.1177/13623613241230709

At the same time, as noted already in this discussion, other scholarly sources - especially the inveterate skeptic Beale - argue that the mere physical presence of the facilitator is sufficient for prompting to occur. In the Jaswal, Bonneh, and Faure et al. studies, I believe some kind of facilitator or assistant was always physically present. To the strongest skeptics, the only sufficiently persuasive evidence would be if somebody is communicating validly in the complete absence of a facilitator, or communicating about information that the facilitator could not have access to (e.g., something the person was told while the facilitator was not present). Now there are some non/minimally-speaking autistic people who can do this - Hari Srinivasan comes to mind - but I don't see any clear evidence as to whether Kedar can do this?

However, one very relevant consideration is that the videos of Kedar communicating do not appear to show him looking at the facilitator in the background - he often seems to just be typing on the iPad while completely ignoring the facilitator. Jaswal et al. used a head-mounted eye tracker to show that their participants very rarely looked at their communication assistant and 92-99% of the time were looking at the letterboard, which seems generally consistent with Kedar's communication in the video clips, from what I saw. So that would seem to make it difficult for the facilitators to prompt such complex utterances.

So ultimately, although there does seem to be a scientific consensus that FC/RPM/etc. are bad methods generally speaking and vulnerable to being misused, it seems like there is still an active, unresolved, and legitimate scholarly debate about whether specific individuals - like Kedar, or the people in Jaswal's samples. etc. - are communicating independently or not. On the one hand, we don't have blinded studies showing that communications don't depend on facilitator knowledge, so we don't have totally decisive evidence that the communications are definitely valid. On the other hand, there is evidence that communications can happen even when participants spend little or no time looking at the facilitator/assistant, which would seem to cast serious doubt on the skeptical argument that every such communication is influenced by prompting from the facilitator/assistant.

So based on all of this it seems very premature to draw conclusions that Kedar's communications are definitely false. Moreover, it seems like nobody is arguing he's not notable as such, just about whether his communications are real. So from all of this I have to say it seems like the proper course of action would be to keep. Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan (talk) 00:43, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Let me restate my early message here that probably you missed. If Kedar can communicate independently after being through FC and RPM with Soma as it is noted in the Misplaced Pages article, then he is the first to ever do so. The media would be these feel-good stories that we now have. It would be an amazing story that would fill science journals. Because this does not exist, I think it is safe to assume that science and serious advocacy groups know that this is pseudoscience hopeful wishing. To keep because you are doing original research on a topic that is clearly new to you is not helpful. Sgerbic (talk) 19:39, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Sgerbic, I highly doubt that it's a topic that's new to Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan, given that he is an autism researcher (as you'll find if you click on his user page). There is zero reason to conclude that Kedar would be "the first to ever do so" or that media and science journals would be flocking to him. How on earth do you think you'd be able to assess the efficacy of FC for every single non-verbal autistic person in the world using it (which is what you'd need to know to determine who "the first" is)? As Oolong noted above, "Studies on FC/RPM have shown that it can be used fraudulently (or with unconscious control) dangerously easily, not that every single instance of anything resembling it is completely fake." Are you assuming that because FC is ineffective for many autistic people, it cannot be effective for any autistic person? FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:23, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

I think that is exactly what I'm saying. Pseudoscience is pseudoscience and FC has not been proven. BTW I don't look at editors profiles to size them up before making comments. I reply based on the conversation. If someone was really communicating with the dead or someone claimed they are able to live without food or water and just sunshine I would say the same thing. I can remember one of my early edits here when I found a Misplaced Pages article for a yogi whose infobox said he was 300+ years old. The citation if I remember correctly was from a reliable source, mainly that the yogi had said that he was 300+ years old, so that is what the article said. In your argument we should allow that impossibility because it is a good RS? And because maybe it's possible for someone to live that long, we should allow the article to remain with that age? Sgerbic (talk) 02:25, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Re: editors' profiles, I wasn't talking about about sizing people up, only noting that you made a false assumption in this case (re: "a topic that is clearly new to you"). I find your analogies to be pretty flippant, though I accept that you believe the situations to be analogous. Re: "In your argument we should allow that impossibility because it is a good RS?," why would you assume I'd argue that some unknown source is reliable? But instead of focusing on your analogies, I think it would be more productive to focus on the subject of this WP article that's been nominated for deletion.

Given the earlier exchanges, when you say "Pseudoscience is pseudoscience and FC has not been proven," my sense is that you mean something like "a fair number of small-sample controlled trials have been conducted, and in those trials, subjects were never able to respond correctly when the facilitator was blind to the relevant information, and therefore FC is pseudoscience." Is that correct? If not, please correct me. But if so, three comments:

• In the very limited reading I've done, I've found statements like

  Schiavo et al. (2005) (Italian). This study included five individuals with autism aged 13– 28 years. Participants were read an illustrated historical story or shown a magazine picture and asked to comment in writing. In the blind condition, the answers were written with support from a facilitator who had been out of the room when the experimenter presented the materials. In the non-blind condition, the facilitator was in the room when materials were presented. Results indicated that the answers were more appropriate in the non-blind condition, but also about half of the answers were acceptable in the blind condition.

  Quoted from p. 364 of Schlosser, R. W., Balandin, S., Hemsley, B., Iacono, T., Probst, P., & von Tetzchner, S. (2014). Facilitated communication and authorship: A systematic review. Augmentative and Alternative Communication, 30(4), 359-368, who then discussed some shortcomings in the study and concluded "The results along with the appraised shortcomings in this study do not support FC as a valid method." But Schlosser et al. didn't conclude something like "the half of the answers judged to be acceptable in the blind condition were all clearly faulty; the number of acceptable answers in the blind condition was actually zero."
• Studies of this sort cannot tell us that FC will never be effective for anyone.
• Although controlled trials are an important form of scientific research, they're not the only kind of scientific research that's legitimate.

I agree with Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan's analysis, and his conclusion that "it seems very premature to draw conclusions that Kedar's communications are definitely false." FactOrOpinion (talk) 04:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Hey thanks for the terrific example of a Misplaced Pages editor doing original research that influences their comments in a AfD! No one cares what you think about this subject and you write "In the very limited reading I've done". As I keep saying, the science is already decided on this topic. Have you read the Facilitated Communication article? The Rapid Prompting Method article? Put a fork in it, it's done. We don't need to keep rehashing the topic. I don't need to play pretend, FC is NOT science and I don't think it's a good idea for Misplaced Pages to allow others to put words in someone's mouth as it is clear that Kedar did not write the articles they say he did. His voice is being stolen. Sgerbic (talk) 06:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The science is clear, FC is always the voice of the facilitator. There are no examples where FC has worked for any person. Many FC users can communicate independently but are prevented from doing so in FC sessions, as per FC policies. FC is heavily promoted to parents and it’s not surprising many fall for it, that promotion should not be continued here.

The quoted review goes onto say that the methodology in the shiavo study does not indicate whether items were new to all facilitators. This is a common issue in FC studies, the materials are prepared or used in previous tasks and therefore known to the facilitators. The original study that the review is commenting on says the photos are of “Hitler” “genghis khan” and “soldiers”, the theme of which would make them reasonably easy to guess. The study also indicates that they coded some incorrect answers as correct due to anxiety issues and difficulty pointing. 2A02:C7C:9B04:EA00:1C8E:155B:9FF5:792F (talk) 11:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It is also worth noting that the lead authors on the Italian FC study are an ESP researcher who has previously authored papers on brain-to-brain communication & how heart rate can predict the future and, perhaps more bizarrely, a painter who died in 1948. 2A02:C7C:9B04:EA00:1C8E:155B:9FF5:792F (talk) 13:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

You seem confused about what "original research" means. Reading published research and quoting from it is the opposite of OR. (FWIW, the research paper that I quoted from is cited in the FC article. Do you think that it's not an RS and should be removed?) You said earlier that you agreed with "because FC is ineffective for many autistic people, it cannot be effective for any autistic person", and now you say "the science is already decided on this topic," but no, science has not "decided" that FC cannot be effective for any autistic person. I dare you to quote from a single scientific source that you value which says or implies that. You also seem to be defining "science" so that it includes CTs but excludes scientific research that you object to, which is a misinterpretation of what science is.

Frankly, I'm uncertain why everyone here considers the form of communication that Kedar is currently using to be FC, given that the tablet is fixed, no one else is touching him or the tablet, and no editor here has been able to point out any cuing from others occurring while he's using the tablet. I haven't even been able to find a source confirming that the definition of FC includes a situation where no one else is touching the person who is typing, nor touching the tablet; the sole claim about that in WP's FC article is the statement "In some cases, patients learn to give specific responses to cues from the facilitator, such as in cases where the facilitator only touches their shoulder or does not touch the patient at all," which gives the following reference: Riggott, Julie (Spring–Summer 2005). "Pseudoscience in Autism Treatment: Are the News and Entertainment Media Helping or Hurting?". Scientific Review of Mental Health Practice. 4 (1): 58–60. But if you look up that reference, the SRMHP editor says "This issue’s Media Watch article is an adapted version of a piece originally published in the Pasadena Weekly (May 19, 2005) by staff writer Julie Riggott." Julie Riggott was the arts editor at the Pasadena Weekly. Her article does say "Sometimes, the influence of the facilitator is less obvious, because the facilitator might not hold the person’s hand, but support an arm or touch a shoulder—or even simply observe the typing," but she doesn't cite any source for that claim, and I don't see any reason to assume that an arts editor's assertion about it is necessarily a reliable source for that statement. Do you have a scientific source that defines FC in this way? FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:24, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

FC has been proven to be the voice of the facilitator in every properly designed test. It does not work. FCed voices are that of autism parents and neurotypical facilitators. There’s no debate in this. 2A02:C7C:9B04:EA00:1C8E:155B:9FF5:792F (talk) 14:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Do you have a scientific source that defines FC as simply sitting next to an autistic person while that person uses a tablet by themself? Is Ido Kedar currently using FC? FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:14, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Yes, Ido Kedar is currently using FC, specifically RPM. There are multiple scientific sources that describe RPM.

https://www.reachjournal.ie/index.php/reach/article/download/46/199

https://pmc.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/articles/PMC3280620/

https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/17518423.2012.749952

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/287216044_The_Only_Study_Investigating_the_Rapid_Prompting_Method_has_Serious_Methodological_Flaws_but_Data_Suggest_the_Most_Likely_Outcome_is_Prompt_Dependency 2A02:C7C:9B04:EA00:1C8E:155B:9FF5:792F (talk) 20:30, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't care to download the two articles that require downloading. The second and third articles say nothing about someone simply sitting next to an autistic person using a tablet. The second one says things like "The technique aims to develop a means of interactive learning by pointing amongst multiple-choice options presented at different locations in space ... RPM demands selection from a limited repertoire of choices." But there isn't a limited repertoire of choices on a tablet, unless you consider a full keyboard to be a limited repertoire, and choosing letters or words to be a multiple choice situation. Once he starts typing letters, the tablet uses predictive text to suggest possible words (as is totally common on smaller electronic devices these days), but it's up to him to choose a word if he wants or continue spelling out a word. The third article says "RPM ... involves the facilitator holding and moving the letter board while the individual with autism moves their own hand." Kedar is not using a letter board. He's using a tablet. The tablet is sitting on a table. No one is holding the tablet much less moving it. So I'll ask my questions again: Do you have a scientific source that defines FC as simply sitting next to an autistic person while that person uses a tablet by themself? And given that he's been using a tablet for years where he's the only one touching the tablet and no one is touching him, why do you say that Kedar is currently using FC? FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I have his first book next to me and it says it was written with RPM. All of the brief and heavily edited video evidence that I have seen shows him using RPM.

There’s more discussion of RPM here, with pictures, though it may not pass as a scientific source.

https://www.researchgate.net/publication/254907410_Limitations_and_Transformations_of_Habitus_in_Child-Directed_Communication 2A02:C7C:9B04:EA00:1C8E:155B:9FF5:792F (talk) 21:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

His book was published in 2012. It's now 2025. I'm not asking whether he used RPM when he was younger. I'm asking whether he's currently using it, or if he was using it in the video segment I specified. Your new article is irrelevant to the situation I'm asking about. That article discusses things like letterboards moved by a facilitator, not a tablet in an unmoving position on a table, where the only person touching the tablet is Kedar, and no one is touching him. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:33, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The simple answer is yes. 2A02:C7C:9B04:EA00:1C8E:155B:9FF5:792F (talk) 21:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Yet you haven't presented any sources that substantiate that a tablet in an unmoving position on a table, where the only person touching the tablet is Kedar, and no one is touching him, is FC/RPM. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:50, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I have sent you multiple sources and cannot control how you interpret them. Rapid Prompting can be - and is - done on a steady iPad, this technique relies on intense ABA alongside prompting that starts on letterboards. In the film Spellers, nearly all of the spellers use this technique. 2A02:C7C:9B04:EA00:1C8E:155B:9FF5:792F (talk) 21:58, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

I don't know about the two articles that required downloading, but the other sources you linked to didn't say anything about the situation I asked about. I cannot control how you interpret them either. I haven't seen the movie you refer to, but I just watched the trailer, and it almost exclusively showed either use of letterboards or use of a keyboard held in someone else's hand, which are irrelevant to the situation I described of a tablet sitting on a table, where no one is touching the autistic person, and only the autistic person is touching the tablet (including the tablet keyboard, which is not separate from the tablet). One person in the movie trailer did show something analogous, ~1:21 into the trailer. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

You have commented elsewhere that you read the Misplaced Pages article on FC and it states that FC does not always require touch, so you are aware of this already.

The Spellers movie has multiple examples of use of fixed iPads. The issue is dependency on cueing and promoting, not what is being pointed at. 2A02:C7C:9B04:EA00:1C8E:155B:9FF5:792F (talk) 22:51, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

There's a reason that WP doesn't allow people to cite WP as an RS. That single sentence in the FC article is sourced to a Pasadena Weekly article written by the PW's arts editor. Is she a reliable source for her claim? That's not at all clear to me. It's certainly not an academic source. I already pointed out that I haven't seen the film, but the trailer (which I linked to and anyone can watch) doesn't say that they're all using FC. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:39, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Spellers the movie is a documentary on the spellers method, a form of FC derived from RPM via S2C. Almost all modern FC goes under a different name, likely since anyone can google and see FC is debunked. 2A02:C7C:9B04:EA00:1C8E:155B:9FF5:792F (talk) 23:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

This article by the Centre for Argumentative & Alternative Communication might finally answer your question Sgerbic (talk) 02:35, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. It says "What these methods have in common is that a trained supporter or facilitator gives some form of physical support to a person with limited speech who is pointing to letters on a board to compose a message. This physical support can be either on the person’s body (index finger, hand, arm, elbow or shoulder) as in the case of FC, or by holding the letter board in front of the person (in the case of RPM and S2C)." The situation I've repeatedly asked about does not involve physical support on Kedar's body, and it also does not involve anyone holding a letter board (or holding anything else, for that matter). FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:49, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

You can cue without touching. Have you not read about Clever Hans? Magicians and their assistants? These people being facilitated have been doing this with their facilitator for years and it looks very natural and if you don't know what you are looking for, you won't see it. Sgerbic (talk) 02:59, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Here you go, this video shows examples of Kedar being facilitated by his mother and she is not touching him. Tpe into YouTube if you want to see examples of how this happens. "Does No Touch Mean No Cuing? | Facilitated Communication | Rapid Prompting Method". But remember, it does not matter what you and I think, with fringe we have to go with what the science says. This video is only in response to people saying they want an example of someone being cued without being touched. Sgerbic (talk) 03:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

In example 3 of this video you can see the mother gesturing with her head. Sgerbic (talk) 03:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

WP:BLP applies to all WP pages, including this one, and as BLPSPS notes: "Never use self-published sources—including but not limited to books, zines, websites, blogs, podcasts, and social network posts—as sources of material about a living person, unless written or published by the person themself." Please delete that link, as that Youtube video is self-published. (The NBC video that I linked to above is not self-published.) As for the video, he wasn't looking at his mother. Not sure how someone can conclude that a hand motion is a cue if it isn't seen by the person it's supposed to be cuing. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:42, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

This is not a BLP violation. If you disagree, ask at WP:AN for admin oversight. jps (talk) 22:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

There was definitely a BLP violation when I wrote it. Sgerbic subsequently removed the link after I noted that BLPSPS applies on all WP pages and asked her to remove it. Arguably, it is still a BLP violation, as Sgerbic has made claims about both Ido and his mother, where those claims are sourced to an SPS not published by Ido or his mother. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:41, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The Misplaced Pages article on rapid prompting method describes how RPM works and will give you the answers you need. 2A02:C7C:9B04:EA00:1C8E:155B:9FF5:792F (talk) 10:22, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

What video are you referring to? And what do you mean by "no one ELSE is touching him or the tablet"? You mean beside the facilitator? This video shows he is not looking at the keyboard while his finger is touching the tablet, but the woman is clearly holding his shoulder and cueing him. see TEDx Talks "Turning impediments into opportunities". Sgerbic (talk) 19:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

This video for example. By "no one else" I mean that no one is touching him, and no one other than him is touching the tablet. No, I don't mean "beside the facilitator." No one is touching him as he types on the tablet. In the school segment, an assistant does touch the computer mouse, but I don't know whether you'd consider her a "facilitator" or not; there's only a brief clip, and she isn't even looking at the computer screen at one point. I'm not sure which video you're referring to when you say "This video." The TEDx video you refer to is of Tim Chan, not Ido Kedar. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:35, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

He can be seen being facilitated in this video. The floating letterboard is facilitation, as is the person moving his mouse. 2A02:C7C:9B04:EA00:1C8E:155B:9FF5:792F (talk) 20:41, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

The floating letterboard is from when he was a little kid. The bulk of the video I linked to is when he was 16. He's now 27 or so. I'm referring to the section of the video from ~0:58-1:46. For the bulk of the shorter segment in the school that follows, the aide is not using the mouse. I'm not asking whether he used FC as a child, but whether he is using it now (or even if he was using it in the segment of the video I just noted, when he was 16). FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

If he was using it, then he is still using it, because there has never been a case where someone moved on from FC to legitimate methods. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

You cannot possibly prove that "there has never been a case where someone moved on from FC to legitimate methods," as you have no way of investigating it with all people who've ever used FC. You reject that Kedar is such a case, for no reason other than your assumption that it's impossible. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

It would seem odd that if any user had had a breakthrough that led to independent communication it would not be recorded in the literature. 2A02:C7C:9B04:EA00:1C8E:155B:9FF5:792F (talk) 21:54, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

There's clearly scientific literature that refers to Kedar as the author of his writings. A few examples:

• White, B. J., O’Neill, C., & Griffin, C. J. (2024). A mask that eats the face: neurotypicality and autistic doctoral researchers. In Research Handbook of Academic Mental Health (pp. 64-77). Edward Elgar Publishing.
• Sterman, J., Gustafson, E., Eisenmenger, L., Hamm, L., & Edwards, J. (2023). Autistic adult perspectives on occupational therapy for autistic children and youth. OTJR: Occupational Therapy Journal of Research, 43(2), 237-244.
• Lebenhagen, C. (2020). Including speaking and nonspeaking autistic voice in research. Autism in Adulthood, 2(2), 128-131.

You apparently think these don't count as being "recorded in the literature." FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:04, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

None of these are accounts of moving from FC to independent communication. FC output is often included in research and leads to the neurotypical point of view being privileged over that of autistics. 2A02:C7C:9B04:EA00:1C8E:155B:9FF5:792F (talk) 23:15, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

And this is why we don't allow Misplaced Pages editors to give their opinion, we rely on experts and the consensus of science. I have seen the video you shared many times, and what you are saying you are seeing is typical of someone new to this subject. If you ignore the letterboard when he was a child, which I don't think we should as it is typical RPM. And we only focus on what that video shows of him as a teenager, then we don't see anything but him pushing a couple keys on a tablet with two people sitting quite close to him. Preemptive text and also prerecorded audio that can be played when needed with just a touch is much more likely than they sat there while he typed out that conversation.

FactOrOpinion you just wrote "In the school segment, an assistant does touch the computer mouse, but I don't know whether you'd consider her a "facilitator" or not; there's only a brief clip, and she isn't even looking at the computer screen at one point." Do you actually see him typing on his own in that clip? I've seen it many times and I can't see it. He is sitting behind a monitor and he has a mouse and he is touching the mouse. And? At 2:05 you clearly see the facilitator grab the mouse and move it. Then you see the monitor and something moving on the screen, you do NOT at any point see Ido moving the mouse connected to what is happening on the monitor. The facilitator could be making things happen at that point in the video.

This is typical FC propaganda, the few videos they release are filmed in such a way that you don't realize you didn't actually see what they claim is happening. Low angles or extreme closeups ect. You are filling in the missing areas, you didn't see what you just wrote you saw. This is like watching a magic trick filmed and edited by people who do not want you to learn how the trick is done. Sgerbic (talk) 02:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I looked up his newer book (2018) and that says he is still working on a letterboard. The FAQ video that’s been linked here twice shows RPM even with all the usual trickery and the video in the school shows him being physically facilitated. The issue appears to be that many people can’t discern FC when it is presented to them and that leads to stories of people being subjected to FC being presented credulously in media. I feel like we should not add to that here. 2A02:C7C:9B04:EA00:1C8E:155B:9FF5:792F (talk) 10:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, Bad AfD So, none of that has to do with notability. Literally none of it. You even seemingly acknowledge his notability based on the coverage. And that's the only thing that matters. Especially if you don't have the reliable sources to back up statements about how he communicates. If you had the reliable sources for it, then they'd be in use in the article anyways. Which, again, has nothing to do with notability. He is notable because of the extensive news coverage about his life, see Los Angeles Times (Page 2, Page 3), LA Times video even, NBC, and CBC, as just some examples. And that's before you get into the coverage of his books, which also includes a good amount of academic coverage, see this entire book chapter, The Education Digest, Journal of Literary & Cultural Disability Studies, Psicologia Escolar e Educacional, and even simply Kirkus Reviews, as some examples.

It's super weird to be in a situation where we're not dealing with BLPN being the ones trying to hide and cover up notable information about bad science and corrupt scientists, but instead FTN trying to delete articles on notable people because they don't have reliable sources to back up their claims of fringe. If you don't got sources, you don't got nothing, no matter how annoying that is. And, to repeat a third time, none of that has anything to do with notability. Notability is established, this is not an AfD issue, this was a bad AfD nomination from the get-go, because your issue was never with the notability. Silverseren 22:05, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Silver seren Things can be deleted for reasons other than notability, obviously, and with fringe that happens all the time. There is no way to have this article without violating either WP:FRINGE or WP:OR. This article is impossible to have without violating our guidelines. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:09, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Your reasoning is that because you don't have sources to debunk the claimed fringe content, the article subject should be deleted due to your lack of sources. It's nonsense. If you don't have sources, then you don't have sources to make any claim at all. This is just as dumb as the attempt to delete the astronomer's article because no news sources covered his arrest for pedophilia. Silverseren 22:14, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

@Silver seren Keeping this article requires us to write claims in contrary to modern science, violating WP:FRINGE. Keeping an astronomer's article would not be the same, because the information on the astronomy would still be correct. If we grabbed 10 news articles and book reviews from the 1960s that took credulously that an author was something that is impossible, we would have to say that in wikivoice in contradiction to our broader articles on the topics that demonstrate such things are not true - with this it is that the whole method of how Kedar communicates is universally viewed by science as originating from the faciliator, not him. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:20, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

"Universally" doesn't seem to be the case, considering the discussion above. And it's still irrelevant. If the issue is wikivoice, then change it to be attributed to the sources. Regardless, that has nothing to do with notability. And we're not talking news articles from the 60s, we're talking currently published both news and academic sources on him. If none of them discuss the claimed fringe issue, then you have nothing. If you do have sources, then add them to the article. Either way, none of that impact notability, which is based on the coverage of his life and the published books in his name. He is notable for all of that. Period. That's how notability works. This is not an AfD issue, this is an article content issue that should be happening on the article talk page. Silverseren 22:25, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

That you can cherry pick a few journals that go the other side does not mean there is not a consensus on the topic.

It is a deletion issue that it is impossible to write an article without violating WP:FRINGE yes. Many articles have been deleted for this same reason. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:28, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

By that argument, he could be the most notable person in the world, with dozens, if not hundreds of news and academic articles covering him and his works, but so long as there isn't any reliable source discussing your claimed FRINGE issues, you'd continue to argue his article should be deleted? You realize how incredibly dumb that sounds, right? Silverseren 22:41, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Is it not more stupid to have this article, which says that FC works and that this man was able to create whole works through it, and then for us to click through to the facilitated communication article which says that FC is a glorified Clever Hans or ouija board/ideomotor effect and it has been repeatedly debunked as useless and it has been shown that none of the words are actually from the FC client? The inconsistency is the thing that is incredibly dumb. PARAKANYAA (talk) 22:51, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

We have plenty of separate articles that have contradictions and inconsistencies between them. I don't think deleting one of the other is an appropriate way to resolve that in any situation. Altering some article content is. Using words like "claimed" or "according to" largely takes any such issues away. Silverseren 22:55, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Well, we shouldn't. That is a problem that should be rectified whenever it is brought up - and here, it cannot be rectified. I would agree with that in most cases, but the problem here is that this applies to everything he has ever done, not a thing he claimed or one deed, but everything PARAKANYAA (talk) 23:04, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Would you be making the same assertion for some astrology topic where the only coverage is in credulous but fully RS lay-media? You know full well that notability is not the only factor in whether a topic should have a standalone article. None of what you've said addresses the NOPAGE and NPOV arguments—unless what you're suggesting above is to remove all the inappropriate and uncontextualized statements. So, nothing from the book or otherwise attributed to Kedar himself and nothing implying that FC/RPM works, which leaves us with...what? JoelleJay (talk) 02:12, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

So, in short, you'd remove statements like "diagnosed with autism at age 2", because to you, that's made up too. You'd remove every review of the books because the reviews are made up and don't exist. Sorry, I'm not doing this with you. Your claims are nonsense, that is not how notability or article writing on Misplaced Pages works. You literally have no sources addressing Kedar as FRINGE and, if you did, then you'd put them in the article, where they would appropriately go. You're trying to SYNTH other articles onto this one. It sounds like y'all are just mad that there's no one debunking him or addressing him specifically despite having years to do so by every and any scientist in the relevant fields, so you're trying to trash Misplaced Pages content as a tantrum against that. Yes, FC is fringe, but I'm sorry that no one has written anything about Kedar in regards to it. I don't support deleting notable UFOlogy BLPs either just because no one has debunked claims by someone in that circle. Silverseren 02:26, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Who said anything about when he was diagnosed with autism? The entire article on Rapid Prompting Method and Facilitated Communication are saying that FC is pseudoscience. That is the the default. To make the argument that every single facilitated person should have personally written "this specific person is not the real author of the written works" is not necessary. In the same way we don't need to research every single person who claims to be 300 years old, or that they are from a planet near the Milky Way. Some things are pseudoscience and we don't have to test every dowser and every claim of flat earth or hollow earth to prove that ALL are not real. And let us remember, in this specific case, it isn't Kedar that is claiming anything. Kedar is an innocent person in all of this. Don't lose sight of that. Sgerbic (talk) 02:40, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Then you should be arguing to include content and sources in this article saying as such and get consensus for that on the talk page. But it's not an argument or deletion or of non-notability. Even if Kedar made none of the things attributed to him, the coverage both news and academic, of those attributed things and of his life, would still result in him being notable. Coverage of all of that being fake would just be additional coverage to make him even more notable. None of that is an argument for removal of the article. Silverseren 02:46, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Please read WP:NFRINGE. GNG is easily gamed when it comes to WP:SENSATIONal fringe claims such as the ones propping up this article. jps (talk) 16:31, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Kedar's tablet is fixed, no one else is touching him or the tablet, and so far, no editor here has been able to point out any cuing from others occurring while he's using the tablet. Can you help me understand why editors here are claiming that the form of communication he's using is FC/RPM? Thanks, FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:38, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Potential cueing is described in the Clever Hans blogpost. jps (talk) 22:26, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Can you provide even one example of a specific topic where one could "grab 10 news articles and book reviews from the 1960s that took credulously that an author was something that is impossible" (emphasis added), where there was not a single contemporaneous RS pointing out that this thing was impossible? I haven't seen editors here present a single source that states that it is impossible for FC to be effective for anyone. There is a difference between "rare" and "impossible." FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:38, 20 January 2025 (UTC)

Asking editors to prove that it's impossible for a fringe medical treatment to ever work is not really how WP:MEDRS is supposed to work. ApLundell (talk) 00:34, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Good thing that I'm not asking editors to "prove that it's impossible ..." PARAKANYAA's analogy was to a situation where sources "took credulously that an author was something that is impossible," and I'm asking them to either show just one RS that says it's impossible or to stop implying that it's impossible. They also shouldn't be claiming things like "universally viewed by science," when it's not a universal scientific view. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:05, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Astrology? UFO abductions? Mediumship? Have you never run into RS newspapers that love to go over these things? Of course with broad topics it becomes not an issue, but with specific UFO biographies I have encountered articles that are only recycling claims with no debunking. Even that is better than this, because at least you can qualify it with "claimed". Not so here. PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:06, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

You do understand that you haven't given an example of what I asked about, right? I very explicitly said "where there was not a single contemporaneous RS pointing out that this thing was impossible."

Your claim that "RS newspapers ... love to go over these things" suggests that you're not paying attention to what WP:RS actually says: "The reliability of a source depends on context. Each source must be carefully weighed to judge whether it is reliable for the statement being made..." That one newspaper article is RS for claim X does not imply that another article in the same newspaper is a RS for claim Y. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:47, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

When it comes to the specific person yes this has occurred with UFO abduction BLPs and more fringe topics. Of course when we get into the broader topics this is not a problem, but there are plenty that do not acknowledge the fringe when it comes to individual people, which is the same as the problem with this article. And yes, judging every source as to whether they are reliable for the statements being made are, none here are reliable for what we are using them for (overcoming the consensus that FC doesn’t work) PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:16, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment A couple other articles have been deleted at AFD because of concerns that all the sources attributed to the subject are written by the people exploiting an autistic person and not the autistic person themselves. There has been at least some consensus in the past that such sources, however notable, are not appropriate for BLP articles. That seems reasonable to me. Better than the alternative, at least. ApLundell (talk) 00:21, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• What does that have to do with this article subject? Those cases were because the authors were literally involved with the subject and thus weren't actually secondary coverage. This is not analogous to that at all. There's many news articles and many academic publications, all by people unrelated to the subject in any manner. Silverseren 00:57, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  I think ApLundell was referring to the problem of false attribution. jps (talk) 22:27, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• Comment – The rationale for deletion, in part states: It's impossible to write this article without implicitly giving credence to FC and violating WP:FRINGE. But FRINGE also states that: For writers and editors of Misplaced Pages articles to write about controversial ideas in a neutral manner, it is of vital importance that they simply restate what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality. So this article is in compliance with FRINGE, because it is clearly just "simply restating what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality", and appropriately gives attribution to who is saying it. By my count, there are at least seven peer-reviewed academic journals cited in the article, and numerous other news organizations that are recognized as having editorial oversight, that are again, simply restating what is said, so there is no violation of FRINGE in the article. Isaidnoway (talk) 06:59, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  @Isaidnoway If all the sources were giving credence to astrology or UFO abduction, even if they were otherwise reliable secondary newspapers, that would very clearly be a fringe issue, no? PARAKANYAA (talk) 07:03, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  I'm not aware of any sources used in this article giving credence to astrology or UFO abduction. What I see in the article is simply restating what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality, per the guidelines at FRINGE. If you think more attribution is needed, that can easily be addressed, and you can also challenge the reliability of sources at WP:RSN. Isaidnoway (talk) 08:36, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Yes but it's about FC which is about as discredited. If you were going to use astrology believing sources and nothing else to write a biography on astrologist that would be contrary to NFRINGE, as would be writing a biography on an FC user using entirely sources that believe FC is real with no questioning. PARAKANYAA (talk) 08:49, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Can you link to an RS that defines FC in a way that makes it clear that the form of communication that Kedar currently uses is FC? All of the claims here about FC are irrelevant if he is not using FC. Kedar's tablet is fixed, no one else is touching him or the tablet, and so far, no editor here has been able to point out any cuing from others occurring while he's using the tablet. Is that FC? FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:52, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Have you read the above discussion? It has been indicated multiple times that there is no proof he can communicate without a facilitator, the one video showed he is clearly being prompted, and there are a variety of such methods. PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:20, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  I've obviously read (and participated in) the discussion above, and I have no idea which video you're referring to by "the one video ..." I'm talking about this video, for example, in the segment from ~0:58-1:46, where the tablet is on the table, no one is touching him, and he is the only person typing on the tablet. And you didn't respond to my actual question: Can you link to an RS that defines FC in a way that makes it clear that the form of communication that Kedar currently uses —or was using in the segment of 2014 video I just linked to — is FC? FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:01, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Since sources admit that Kedar uses FC, the onus is on you to provide a source that says he doesn't use FC. jps (talk) 22:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  No, this article is about a living person, and this AfD discussion is about whether this living person meets the guidelines per WP:GNG to have a Misplaced Pages article written about him. There is no question that he does meet the qualifications for an article, and there is no violation of FRINGE as the article clearly restates what is said by independent secondary sources of reasonable reliability and quality. And your claim that the article is entirely written with sources that believe FC is real with no questioning is without merit as well. Isaidnoway (talk) 20:08, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Every single word ever produced by Kedar, which all coverage is built off of, whether it be in book review or newspapers, was given through either FC or RPM. If the method is not real, then we have nothing, and every single source that discusses it is unreliable by extension as it is working off of unreliable data. So FRINGE is not passed because all sources are recycling FRINGE, like if they were recycling claims about astrology or ufology that would not be suitable even if laundered through a third party source. How would that not be of relevance? PARAKANYAA (talk) 21:19, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

  Every single word ever produced by Kedar, which all coverage is built off of, whether it be in book review or newspapers, was given through either FC or RPM.

And your reliable source for this claim is? Silverseren 23:17, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

Because there never has been a case of someone using FC or RPM has become independent. If he is the first, then the media would be all over it and science would change to reflect that. Just as there has never been a case proved someone communicated with dead people, but there are thousands of media sources willing to say so, it does not make it true. Sgerbic (talk) 02:50, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The first LA Times article written about Kedar was published in 2013, so the media has had 10+ years to debunk his claims of communicating independently, and they haven't, and that without a doubt would make sensational headlines, exposing him and his family as potential frauds. So do you have any reliable sources we can use in the article to substantiate your claim he can not communicate independently? If so, now would be the time present them. Isaidnoway (talk) 03:11, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Kedar and the FC community has had 10+ years to prove the claims of communicating independently, and they haven't. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim. Have you seen the list of organizations that have opposition statements against FC? Facilitated communication has a list. Sgerbic (talk) 03:25, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

It’s taken me a while to find this, but there’s one video that isn’t edited by FC believers. At 1.17 one facilitator pulls his arm away from the screen, at 1.43 the same facilitator turns the iPad to herself and starts typing. From 1.26 he shows disinterest in typing, but is prompted over a dozen times using verbal, tactile, signal and pointing prompts by both facilitators until he eventually touches the screen at 1.40. He is also still using a letter board here.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?app=desktop&v=4uD8zbC8140 2A02:C7C:9B04:EA00:F4DB:8581:20E6:1A27 (talk) 15:46, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

This is not about FC in general. This is about Ido Kedar. Your argument is fallacious. Here is the structure:

1) "there never has been a case of someone using FC or RPM has become independent"

2) thus, if he is such a case, he would be the first

3) "If he is the first, then the media would be all over it and science would change to reflect that."

4) But you do not see that media or academic response, therefore he cannot be the first.

Notice that the logic of your argument rests on claim (1), a claim that you have never attempted to present evidence for. Not only have you not done so, but it would be impossible to prove, as there is no way to investigate this for every non-speaking autistic person in the world who has used FC. I pointed out this faulty assumption earlier in an exchange with PARAKANYAA.

As best I can tell, your belief about (1) is based on two things: (a) controlled trial research has concluded that FC is not effective, and (b) you're unaware of any scientific research identifying someone who started off with FC and is independent. Let's explore both of these. Re: (a) I asked you earlier "Are you assuming that because FC is ineffective for many autistic people, it cannot be effective for any autistic person?" and you said "I think that is exactly what I'm saying," adding "the science is already decided on this topic." I already pointed out a couple of flaws with your assertions. First, science has not "decided" that FC cannot be effective for any autistic person. I dared you to quote from a single scientific source that you value which says or implies that, and you haven't presented any. As I noted earlier, a few dozen small-sample CT research studies cannot tell us that FC will never be effective for anyone. Second, you seem to be defining "science" so that it includes CTs but excludes scientific research that you object to, which is a misinterpretation of what science is. Although controlled trials are an important form of scientific research, they're not the only kind of scientific research that's legitimate. Which takes us to (b). There are multiple peer-reviewed papers discussing Kedar as the author of his writing, but you reject them. So it actually isn't that you're unaware of these; it's only that you reject them.

For all of these reasons, your entire argument falls apart. FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:33, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The science has said FC is always the voice of the facilitator. The Telepathy Tapes also describe the people subjected to FC in their experiments as authors of their own writings. I do not accept that claim either. 2A02:C7C:9B04:EA00:F4DB:8581:20E6:1A27 (talk) 14:48, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Again, this is not about FC in general. This is about Ido Kedar. If you have evidence that there is a scientific consensus that he is not the author of his writings, cite it. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:08, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

The science is settled. The earth isn’t flat, vaccines don’t cause autism and FC is the voice of the facilitator. The burden is on you, as the person making the extraordinary claim that your belief must be an exception, to provide evidence for it. The same goes for the telepathy tapes.

I have just posted the most recent video that exists. It shows prompting and physical restraint. I don’t know why anyone would accept this. 2A02:C7C:9B04:EA00:F4DB:8581:20E6:1A27 (talk) 16:19, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

But I haven't claimed that he's an exception! I've claimed that the people who keep claiming that he isn't an exception have not met their burden of proof for it (and I discussed why in my response to Sgerbic above). I said above that I agreed with Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan's comment above, "all of this it seems very premature to draw conclusions that Kedar's communications are definitely false. Moreover, it seems like nobody is arguing he's not notable as such, just about whether his communications are real" (emphasis added). I agree that I have a burden of proof for my actual claims (e.g., when I said "There's clearly scientific literature that refers to Kedar as the author of his writings," I presented citations for literature that refers to him that way). But I have no burden of proof for things I haven't said. If you think I've said something that I haven't substantiated, nothing is stopping you from quoting what I actually said and asking me to either back it up or retract it. But don't pretend that I'm saying things I haven't said. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:54, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

FC is debunked. Kedar is subjected to FC, specifically RPM. If you believe that the FC that Kedar is subjected to is an exception to the scientific consensus that is your right, but, without evidence, it remains simply your belief. 2A02:C7C:9B04:EA00:F4DB:8581:20E6:1A27 (talk) 17:02, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

I genuinely don’t know where to put this, but is it worth noting at all that the subject of this article hasn’t been seen for around three years? Their social media and blog have not been updated in that time and the news articles being referenced here are older. 2A02:C7C:9B04:EA00:1C8E:155B:9FF5:792F (talk) 21:45, 21 January 2025 (UTC)

• Keep, per Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan, Silver seren, Isaidnoway and others above. I agree with Silverseren that this is a Bad AfD. Kedar clearly meets WP:GNG, and as best I can tell, the entire motivation for the deletion proposal (and some of the arguments above) is that because FC is generally ineffective for autistic non-speakers, it cannot possibly be effective for any autistic non-speaker, and therefore it was not effective for Kedar and the sources aren't actually reliable. This is fallacious reasoning. The people making this argument have presented zero evidence that FC cannot be effective for any autistic person, nor have they presented any RS stating that Kedar isn't actually the author of his written work. FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:10, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  The fact that FC is debunked is relevant here, it has been proven not to be effective for anyone. I would hope Misplaced Pages would not allow debunked antivaxxine stances with “just because vaccines generally don’t cause autism, you can’t prove vaccines don’t cause autism in any child” as reasoning. 2A02:C7C:9B04:EA00:1C8E:155B:9FF5:792F (talk) 09:43, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  That's a ludicrous analogy. Billions of people have been vaccinated against various diseases, and there are diverse meta-analyses. In one meta-analysis, there were over 1M combined subjects across the studies reviewed: Taylor, L. E., Swerdfeger, A. L., & Eslick, G. D. (2014). Vaccines are not associated with autism: an evidence-based meta-analysis of case-control and cohort studies. Vaccine, 32(29), 3623-3629. Another meta-analyses looked at hundreds of studies in the U.S. alone, some of which followed people over time, even as long as 15 years: Gidengil, Courtney, Matthew Bidwell Goetz, Sydne Newberry, Margaret Maglione, Owen Hall, Jody Larkin, Aneesa Motala, and Susanne Hempel. "Safety of vaccines used for routine immunization in the United States: An updated systematic review and meta-analysis." Vaccine 39, no. 28 (2021): 3696-3716.

  How many total subjects were in all of the FC controlled trials combined? How many studies are there altogether? What's the longest period of time that any of the subjects were followed? FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:58, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Antivaxx logic runs exactly as pro-FC logic does - my belief trumps the studies - and FC is used to propagate antivaccine claims. There are multiple meta analyses covering FC. 2A02:C7C:9B04:EA00:F4DB:8581:20E6:1A27 (talk) 20:07, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  Note that you switched to non-scientists' responses to the studies rather than the studies themselves. And whether it does or doesn't run "exactly" same way in non-scientists' responses to the studies, it's a ludicrous analogy for the studies themselves for the reasons I noted (number of subjects, number of studies, length of time followed), none of which have you disputed. Moreover, I've never asserted that my belief trumps the studies, so it's pretty irrelevant as a response to me. But feel free to present the meta-analyses you're referring to, perhaps they'll answer the questions I asked. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:55, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

  FC/RPM advocates refuse to allow their claims to be tested even while offering what they deem to be "evidence" in venues that allow for unvetted claims to be argued as such. This is similar to antivaccine advocates who claim that vaccines cause undue harm, but provide what they deem to be "evidence" for such in venues other than medical journals. jps (talk) 22:09, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

That is very interesting. But it feels like original research and should not be a part of this AfD. It's possible he is tired of the attention and retreated to a quiet cabin without Internet, or possibly his family figured out they were not in communication with their son using this method and decided to just let him be himself. No idea. Sgerbic (talk) 02:53, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

Thank you, sorry I’m not familiar with Misplaced Pages policies. 2A02:C7C:9B04:EA00:1C8E:155B:9FF5:792F (talk) 10:03, 22 January 2025 (UTC)

• AfD debates (Biographical)
• AfD debates