Talk:Facilitated communication

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Welcome to the Facilitated Communication Talk page.

• /archive1: September 2004 - January 2006

Contents 1 Independent typists 2 "Oh yes he does" 3 observations 4 "Independently" means "without physical support" 5 Good job on the independent typing! 6 "Concerns" section 7 "Pov problems" 8 Response to so-called POV problems 9 Beukelman and Mirenda 10 independent typists 11 my last edit 12 article still inadequate 13 Definition of Independent Typing 14 Broderick and Kasa-Hendrickson, 2001 15 what is an independent writer? 16 comment to last edit: "a smaller number of controlled studies have shown authentic instances of FC" 17 Dispute over citations 18 Frugone cite 19 structure of the article 20 Response to Frontline (Borthwick et. al.) 21 Changes to Introduction 22 "Naturalistic" vs "Clinical" Settings 23 General Comment 24 chat cleanup and POV stamp

[edit] Independent typists

Last April I have seen two of the three so-called independent typists, that are referred to in the text. J. Burke, does not type independently, but with physical support. He is verbal and he is able to read aloud the text, after he had typet it together with his facilitator. That is not exactly what you would imagine under the label "independant writer." The other, Sue Rubin, is only able to type when her mother supports her physically or moves the keyboard in front of her.

Allmuth 17:39, 5 February 2006 (UTC)

I just noticed this from Allmuth: "The other, Sue Rubin, is only able to type when her mother supports her physically or moves the keyboard in front of her." This statement is a false one for several reasons. Sometimes Sue types with physical support, and is much faster that way, but she very often types without anyone touching her. In "Autism Is A World", she is shown typing without physical support, and with someone other than her mother holding the keyboard in front of her. And the person holding the keyboard doesn't move it in front of her, either. That's obvious both from the video and from meeting Sue (I sat beside her and we conversed for awhile at the Autcom conference in September 2005). Sue very deliberately and laboriously selected the keys, and her assistant didn't move the keyboard. Sue has also been observed doing this by respected doctors like Margaret Bauman of Harvard, also featured in the video. -Jim Butler 07:16, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Oh yes he does"

I met Jamie Burke too. I agree that he types "with physical support" in the sense that he types best if his mother puts her hand on his shoulder to encourage him, or holds his lightwriter in front of him. I think it is inaccurate to say he is a "so-called independent typist" and assert that he does not type independently. In my view it is far more accurate to say that he does type independently. My credentials? I am a Professor in the physics department at the university of cambridge, and am always a firm sceptic about "minority" views (such as homeopathy, water memory, etc). But I think, friend Allmuth, that you are misrepresenting Jamie Burke's genuine abilities. He communicates. I have conversed with him: I spoke to him. He typed back his responses and read them to me. I also witnessed Jamie Burke having direct verbal conversations with his mother. He often speaks directly to her now, rather than doing the typing-then-reading it routine.

131.111.48.116 01:34, 9 February 2006 (UTC) David MacKay

[edit] observations

As you see, you did your observations, I did mine, and we saw different realities. To decide about the nature of the phenomena, we need an evaluation under controlled conditions. As far as I know Mister Burke has not been tested. You are right in the obervation that he can speak. I heard him talk too. But he reported (typing) that the "high quality words" only appear when he is facilitated by his mother and afterwards reads aloud the text he has produced with her help.

Allmuth 15:03, 9 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Independently" means "without physical support"

The article is clear on that definition. When hundreds of people observe these individuals typing without physical support, and anyone can do so at any time, that should suffice as evidence that they are indeed typing without physical support whether or not Allmuth, or Gina Green, etc., has personally observed it. Jamie doesn't always need a hand on the shoulder; hundreds of people have seen him type independently at conferences, including the ICDL conference in the Washington, DC area in 2003, where I met him. He answered questions quite eloquently in front of an audience of several hundred. If Jamie does even better with physical support, that doesn't invalidate what he does without physical support: rather, it fits in with what Jamie and others say about apraxia, anxiety and the importance of touch.

As for Sue Rubin, she types without any physical support, and needs someone (not only her mother) to hold the keyboard in front of her, as shown in "Autism Is A World" and observed by many people (me included). Sharisa Joy Kochmeister needs her father or someone she trusts standing next to her. Sharisa has been tested many times; I'll try and find citations to those tests, and to tests that other now-independent FC users have taken. (See my page http://www.geocities.com/acujames/indep.htm for more on the issue of independence. For the record, I'm both a scientist and the parent of a child with autism and apraxia who FC's, points independently at words, and has done message-passing.) -Jim Butler 00:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

re my edits at 05:30, 10 February 2006: I just rewrote much of the article's Independent Typing section, clarifying what independence means in this context, and incorporating the concerns expressed by a recent editor (Allmuth?). I eliminated the objection regarding "independent and objective verification" because independent typing has been widely observed, and acknowledged in a mainstream AAC textbook by authors who are hardly FC partisans (Beukelman and Mirenda). The article ought to present arguments from both sides, but not specious arguments, by which I mean those that aren't founded in logic or observable fact, or that misunderstand or misrepresent facts or the statements of others. -Jim Butler 05:32, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

Allmuth writes above "To decide about the nature of the phenomena, we need an evaluation under controlled conditions." That isn't necessary in order to verify whether certain phenomena exist or not. It's a specious objection made by a "fringe" minority of overtly biased individuals like Gina Green who have repeatedly had, and declined, the opportunity to meet and observe FC users, including those who have become independent.

Using the "control" standard, we can't be certain that any number of phenomena really exist, like theatrical performances or sporting events. By any reasonable standard, repeated observation by a large number of diverse people is sufficient to establish the occurence of simple phenomena like a pitcher throwing a no-hitter, or a person typing without someone touching her. Understanding subtler details, like message-passing and facilitator influence, indeed require controlled conditions. But not something as basic and widely attested-to as "so-and-so types without physical support". As Beukelman and Mirenda note, there is serious debate over much of FC, but not over the simple fact that some users now type with little or no physical support. -Jim Butler 05:58, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Good job on the independent typing!

I think the independent typing section is good now. Well done. Even if 99% of "FC" were wishful thinking and hokum, the skeptics should not be allowed to tar with the same brush the genuine 1% where FC has worked and transformed lives. I edited the opening paragraph of the article to remove the assertion that "the majority of scientists are skeptical". I think that assertion was too woolly. What are they sceptical about? If they are sceptical about a particular case of FC they saw on the TV, fair enough. I don't think any responsible scientist would ever say "I believe every single claim of FC is hokum". 131.111.48.116 21:07, 10 February 2006 (UTC) David MacKay

Thanks David; excellent points. For awhile, the "majority view" seemed to be that FC wasn't valid at all (based on the negative message-passing studies that showed cueing), and that was reflected in some of the "position statements" that came out from organizations like ASHA. But the emergence of independent typing, and studies since 1995 (e.g., Weiss, Cardinal), have changed things, Mostert's misapprehensions (2001) notwithstanding. I'm not sure there is a single "majority view" these days, but maybe it could be said that the majority of informed views (as opposed to those that parrot outdated concensus statements) cluster around something like: "FC sometimes is valid, but proceed cautiously given that cueing can occur". The debate has shifted to how often is "sometimes", and IMO unraveling that will depend on doing new studies informed by intelligent analysis of existing studies and by what we are learning about autism and dyspraxia in general. But yes, hardline dismissal of all FC is not consistent with the evidence, and appears to be more of a fringe view. -Jim Butler 22:00, 10 February 2006 (UTC)

[edit] "Concerns" section

On 28 January 2006, user 68.42.137.133 added this:

Critics of FC question why people who can give speeches in public and go to college cannot answer a series of simple questions under controlled conditions. Critics also point out that positive results are typically obtained using so-called "qualitative research methods" in which standard experimental controls for bias and subjectivity are weak or non-existent.

I have problems with both of these criticisms as phrased. It's not accurate to say that FC users "cannot answer a series of simple questions under controlled conditions" when many of them reportedly have done so, even if those tests were not published in the peer-reviewed literature. (Children in schools take and pass standardized tests all the time, and are presumed to have done so despite these accomplishments not appearing in the literature.) And while a majority of the positive studies may be "qualitative", one cannot say that all of them are, so that critcism is also misleading. Comments? -Jim Butler 07:30, 11 February 2006 (UTC)

OK, I just revised the Concerns section fairly extensively:

• I deleted the above comments; the first is premised on an unproven assumption and the second is redundant.
• Do non-autistic FC users in fact not look at the keyboard? I haven't seen that referenced anywhere.
• The Chomsky stuff is entirely peripheral and I deleted it; it all goes back to the question of authorship.
• The stuff recently added on naturalistic, non-confrontational settings is very good.
• The dyspraxia hypothesis would explain FC working in people with CP and Down's as well as autism.
• The central issue of concern is authorship, which the rewrite highlights.

-Jim Butler 06:51, 14 February 2006 (UTC)

If you are working on the Concerns Section, then this paragraph Needs to go or be signifcantly revised: Recent research partially addresses some of the concerns initially voiced about FC. With regard to FC users not looking at the keyboard, one possible explanation is that some autistic people have difficulty looking at objects directly, and use greater peripheral vision to compensate. A recent study suggested that some FC users first scan the keyboard and then type while looking elsewhere . With regard to claims of sexual abuse, untrue allegations are also seen among typically-communicating children. In an evaluation of claims of sexual abuse from children using FC, some children did indeed show evidence of abuse, and the pattern of abuse paralleled the patterns seen in the nondisabled, speaking population .

There are quite a few problems with it. It makes an undocumented assertion that Autistics have problems looking at objects directly and that they possess "greater" peripheral vision. Link 11 Points to a page that promises a paper on the subject in the future, and does not site the supposed studies that the paper will be written on(nor does it even give a possible date when said paper will be available) Link 12 points to a study in which the first sentance in the conclusion is:"These results neither support nor refute validation of facilitated communication." All that stuff needs to go. I would delete it, but I don't want to mess up the flow of the section. So, please, fix it up or delete it.

Good point on the "greater" peripheral vision; I deleted that term. Grayson's results are from research is in progress, and I don't see a problem with citing it as long as that is clear, so I fixed that. You missed the point of Link 12 (this one), which wasn't that the results validate or refute FC, but rather that they show that some allegations of sexual abuse obtained via FC actually are true (as with such allegations by speaking people). Thanks, and btw you can sign your posts with a name a/o by typing four tildes, i.e. "~ ~ ~ ~" but unseparated by spaces.) regards, Jim Butler 07:15, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Thanks for being willing to make changes. Unfortunatly, I don't feel the changes made are nearly enough. The thing is that none of it addresses the concerns voiced about about FC,as I understand it(I understand the main point of contention to be that the facilitators are actully the ones doing the talking. if I am inccorect in this please let me know)Let me go into greater depth about my objections, so you can unseratand where I am coming from. My objection with the Periphrial vision austsic sentance is not that it contained the word "greater", but that it is an completly undocumented asertion. I could equally assert that it is impossible to type with just ones Peripheral vision, with equal corberating evidence(that is to say, none). As for the link 11 sentance, I don't think pointing out that it is on-going research does it. if the on-going research is science, then the research will not yet arived at a conclsuion. Only bad science starts with a conclusion first. If this is good science, I think we can either link to studies already finished or wait for the researchers to reach their concluions in their on-going research. As for link 12, I did not miss the point that it makes, you missed the point that I was trying to make. The point is that it could just as easily be the facilitator making those claims. They could make the claims for the facilitated speakers becuase: They noticed signs of sexual abuse, they saw the person being abused, they where the abuser, or they just gussed(again, I am assuing that this is a response to the facilitators being the actual speakers). As far as I can tell, none of this paragrapgh adresses concerns about FC. Of course, as I have already indicated, I may not understand that issues that this particular section addresses. if so I sincerly appologise. 71.135.102.35 10:00, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi, looks like we're online at about the same time. First, you're 100% correct that the main controversy in FC is authorship, i.e. who's really doing the typing. The article is explicit about that issue from start to finish. But there are other concerns as well, and the article needs to deal with them. Thus, the first paragraph in the "Concerns, Research" section raises some of them, and the third partly addresses them. If you're interested in the issue of authorship, I would direct your attention to the longer second and fourth paragraphs, which are almost entirely devoted to that issue.

On peripheral vision, it's well-known that many people with autism avoid direct gaze, and those who are able to communicate frequently note that using peripheral vision is easier. I've lost count of how many people have made that point, but I'll be happy to dig up a cite nonetheless. On Grayson, the implication that he might be doing bad science just because he presented his research at a conference before publishing it is completely unfounded; scientists of course present unpublished stuff at conferences all the time. Grayson is legit and has been studying related issues for at least a decade.

On the sexual allegations, no disrespect intended, but you're still missing the context. Please read the first paragraph in the section, which says that allegations of sexual abuse emerged via FC and not all of them were true. Largely on that basis, FC was pilloried (cf. Frontline). What that argument neglected to note was that kids who communicate typically also make untrue sexual allegations, and they do so for all kinds of reasons (including being influenced by adults questioning them). That's the context for what follows in the third paragraph regarding the study by Botash et. al., which refuted the implication from Frontline that FC was generating a disproportionate number of sexual abuse claims. The truth is that such claims happen all the time, and the study showed that they weren't happening any more in FC than with speaking kids. (It's ironic that some critics of FC, choosing to ignore this study, have continued to harp on anecdote when it suits them. It shows how political their approach is). -Jim Butler 21:40, 1 March 2006 (UTC)

Okay, great. If we can get a citation on autistics using their Peripheral vision, then I think we can wrap that part up.

As For Grayson, I was not Implying he was doing bad science. I have no idea who the man is. What I was saying, and I stick by it, is that if he has reached a conclusion before he finished his research, then he engaging in bad science, and that is what, by stating this research even partialy awnsers the skeptics concerns, implies. What evidence do we have that this on-going research even exists? a Small paragraph promising a paper in the future located on a indisputibly Pro-FC website. We just don't know that this research says what you claim it says. That is not acceptable for what is supposed to be an encyclopedia article. Look at it this way. What if this Citation said the exact opposite thing(i.e; On-going research shows that Autisic persons are not looking at the keyboard when they type Using FC)? What if when you clicked on the link it went to a poorly made and obviously anti-FC biased website, where didn't actully cite any research that you could look up. would you be okay with that? I'm not saying that it is bogus science. I am saying that with ciatation as it stands, we don't know whether it is bogus science or not, and even assuming it's not, there is no way to refute any points it may make, becuase we have no idea what they are or how they where obtained. Basicly, it needs a vastly better ciatation, or needs to be deleted.

In regards to the Sexual abuse claims, I beleive I understand what the issue is. However, You a drawing a conclusion from it that I don't see.To be Clear: I beleive the conclusion that you are drawing from this study is that FC Users do not disproportianly make sexual abuse claims in comparision to non-FC Children .The summary says that some FC aided sexual abuse claims are true. We both seem to agree that this does not nessacarly mean that those claims where obtained via FC legitimatly or illegitimatly. It was based on 13 cases, and four turned out to be true. The article does not mention proportions other then that. 13 is not even close to a large enough sample size to draw any sort of statsical conlsuion , and the Paper does not seem to. (if it does, It is not included in the summary) Am I Missing something?"71.135.102.35 10:33, 2 March 2006 (UTC)"

I understand your point about Grayson needing a better citation and promise to fix that within a day or so. However, I hope you understand that his presenting unpublished research at a conference is no basis AT ALL for questioning his scientific intregrity. It doesn't mean his research "isn't finished", nor would anyone at all familiar with how scientists work ever assume such a thing.

On the sexual abuse, I'm not drawing any conclusion. I'm just reporting what the authors themselves concluded. The part about prevalance of claims wasn't in the abstract, but it is in the paper. Sure it's a small study but it's the only one of its kind, and I think it's appropriate to cite it given that anecdotal reports of this kind are also mentioned (which they should be since they were a big part of the controversy). I'll change the wording a little to clarify this and will fix Grayson soon. -Jim Butler 09:00, 5 March 2006 (UTC)

I would like you to notice that I have never said the word conference. Insuating I have is a straw man, unless you are anticipating I will complain about your new ciatation. On that count you are probably correct, unless you use a verifiable source(good luck), as per wikipedia standards(as an aside, about 90% of sources on this page do not qualify as verifiable, and I plan on making it my mission to fix it).

On the sexual abuse section, I honestly don't beleive that any scientist would conclude anything statistical based on 13 cases. Furthermore, This link(http://www.advocatesforyouth.org/PUBLICATIONS/factsheet/fsabuse1.htm, with a coraberating ciataiton says:"One study found less than 2 percent of abuse reports made by children and 6 percent of those made by adults were judged false" Every study I found reported false claims landing between 2-8%. According to you, the FC study cited in the article conculdes that approx. 70%(!) of sexual abuse claims made by speaking children are false. No matter how you cut it, that is a HUGE disparity, and we only have your word that the study claims what you say it does. One might think that if a study made a claim that out of whack with both previous studies and basic statistics it might mention it in the abstract. I also noticed in your edit you didn't mention the fact that this study apperently only used 13 people to draw a statisical conclusion, and furthermore you didn't actully change the meaning of the statement in any meaningful way.

I don't belive you are acting in good faith. You have yet to add a ciatation on the autisim thing, and every edit you have made hasn't changed anything.If it was just this paragraph, we could probably hammer it out, but it isn't. The whole article is filled with uncited assertions, weasly language and un-verifiable sources. Here is what I'm gonna do: I'm going to add a npov tag, add ciatation tags on the uncited assertions,and delete the truly agrigous ones,including the paragraph we've been discussing. I am not a writer(as if you couldn't tell)so I will not be adding any content. It's gonna be ugly, but it will be a sight better then what we have now. I have checked the wikipedia offical policy, and I don't think that anything I'm doing would fall outside it.To be sure, I will only add the pov tag and tag the uncited assertions for the moment. Below, I will layout my objections and planned deletions. I will await your response, if any, there."71.135.102.35 12:07, 5 March 2006 (UTC)"

On sexual abuse allegations, the prevalance of false allegations varies widely depending on all sorts of factors. The source is from a peer-reviewed journal and is entirely verifiable. I told you I would make the other changes soon, and I did, so you have no basis for accusing me of bad faith. I don't think you're necessarily acting in bad faith, either, but I do think you continue to suffer from misunderstandings.

On Grayson, you're the one who insinuated he was doing bad science, not me. Don't blame me if by pointing that out I make you look like a fool. But then, you seem pretty unconcerned with factual accuracy: you say 90% of the cites in the article aren't verifiable, when that's clearly not the case; of 22 in the version you refer to, 10 alone are from peer-reviewed journals. That speaks for itself. Your judgement and comprehension leave much to be desired; the jury is out on your intentions.

Also, I'm replacing the "TotallyDisputed" tag with the "POV" tag, in accordance with your stated intention above, unless you have a supportable reason for using the other. -Jim Butler 04:40, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I see you have moved the sexual abuse studty back into the article, so I will respond to this thread, Insetad of our most current one(if this is not correct procedure, feel free to correct me). Let me do a quick run down of where we stand: The article says:"a study of allegations of sexual abuse in central New York did not find that such allegations were disproportinately made by FC users", as a source, you have provided a study of 13 people who went to one hospital which you claim draws this conclusion in the body of the article(but not the abstract). I have provided a study that shows a false claim rate of 2%, and the FC study has a false claim rate of up to 70%. In turn, you have said that the prevalence of false allegations varies wildly(a claim for which you provided no evidence). So, let me ask you, if that is indeed the case, how on gods green earth did the stuides writers possibly come to this conlusion? If false claims vary so greatly, there is no pattern to fit! Even if there was a pattern to fit, there is just no way one can fit 13 people into it. disgredarding that, the pattern is so large as to be make this study absolulty meaningless(who cares if the claims fell between 2 and 70%? what if I told you this about something else? Like football. hey, did you hear the 49ers won between 2% and 70% of their games? Amazing!). Two quick requests: 1:Can you post the text of the claim? You seem to of seen the study. 2:failing that, can you at least posty a peer reviewed study that shows sexual abuse claims even in the ballpark of 70%? Otherwise, take it out. It's just silly.

I took out the comparison claim until I can dig it up, but left the cite in as an example of some true FC claims, which I hope you'll agree is OK. -Jim Butler 08:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

yeah, I'm cool with that, But I am going to change the text to indicate that these where not the same people involved in the frontline show, which it now indicates."71.135.102.35 10:06, 8 March 2006 (UTC)"

[edit] "Pov problems"

this is mostly about the sources, but I also belive that this page is attempting heavily biased towards FC. it does note cite many studies that have found FC to be lacking, and the trend of the page is to lay out the skeptical argument in a sentance and then spend a paragraph responding. Also, since Fc apears to lack much(if any) coroberating evidence, the article spends alot of time citing anticdotes or appeals to emotion. I will be glad to elaborate, but these things need fiing first and formost.

Introdcution However, recent controlled studies have shown authentic instances of FC, and a few FC users can now communicate without any physical support at all.(Unattributed)

History in 1979 one of Crossley's students, Anne McDonald, left the hospital after successfully fighting an action for Habeas Corpus in the Supreme Court of Victoria(unattributed)

Link 1: appears to be an Obituaray and is thus not a verifyable source. DOes not mention: "His son was later able to type with just a hand on his shoulder, via gradual "fading" of physical suppot" that was attributed to this source

3rd paragraph and the assertions therin are not attributed to any source.

Concerns, Research FC proponents responded with criticisms of negative bias(what is negetive bias? The wikipedia link dosen't define the term. is it finding that FC is not legit? That's not "negative", that's a "conclusion". Link 5 Is a personal homepage(and a rant) and not a verifyable source(http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dealcc/FrontA.htm)

not all such allegations were proven true.(unattributed, and weasly use of lanuage)

general, positive results were seen in more naturalistic settings, and negative results in more clinical settings.(Unattributed)

FC proponents argue that in most of the negative studies, the laboratory setting could itself be the confounding variable: i.e., communication is inherently very difficult for autistic people, so they can't necessarily be expected to replicate their successes under unfamiliar or even hostile conditions (e.g., those in which continuance of access to FC was contingent upon passing or failing the test).(Unattributed)

Sue Rubin, an FC user initially diagnosed as mentally retarded but who now attends college and types without physical support (see below), has described her own experience with facilitator influence(since she has never typed without a facilitator ,This should at the very least say allegedly discribed. it should probably be deleted. you may ask if I Can find a source that questions the if Sue Rubin has the abilites that are claimed of her? yep: http://www.baam.emich.edu/baamnewsarchive/BAAMbnaautismmovie.htm . You can argue that this source should not be included. You may be right. But it is at least as attributable as the SUe Rubin article, and should be mentioned as a rebutle if the sentances stands(which it shouldn't))

By the late 1990's, FC had been discredited in the eyes of most scientists and professional organizations; it retained acceptance in some treatment centers in North America, Europe and Australia.(Unattributed)

Independant typeing

FC user Alberto Frugone has eloquently described the emotional and physical hurdles involved in working toward independence(This makes an emotional judgement.((eloquently). it does not belong here. plus, the ciatation is unverifable, as it is a personal webpage)

Link 16 is not a verifiable source(http://www.breaking-the-barriers.org/stories_jamie.htm) Link 17 is a personal homepage and not a verifyable source(http://hometown.aol.com/sharisajoy/myhomepage/profile.html) Link 18 is an anecdote and not an acceptable soruce(http://soeweb.syr.edu/thefci/9-1hen.htm) link 19 is a personal homepage and not a verifyable source(http://www.sue-rubin.org/) Link 22 is a personal homepage and not a veryfiable source(http://www.geocities.com/acujames/frugone1.htm)

The facilitated communication digest is probably not an acceptable source((Bauman 1993,8,13,20,21)except for the FC training standerds. I can't be sure though, I suspect this should be solved by a 3rd party. Regradless, the Aleged stories written by FC users should not be used as primary sources, regardless of where they come from.

as an aside, I anticipate the argument that elsewhere on wikipedia people an be attributed as the authours of works without people questioning wheather they were in fact written by the author. However, I beleive that since the primary question FC is authorship, then questioning the authorship of any document written via facilitated communication is a vaild question, unless there is a attributable source who verifies that the attributed author produced or is capable of producing independent Writing. No such source exists in this article, for Sue Rubin or anyone else. "71.135.102.35 12:51, 5 March 2006 (UTC)"

[edit] Response to so-called POV problems

Hello 71.135.102.35. Your difficulties with facts, logic and written communication make it somewhat difficult to address the points you raise. However, I certainly understand that these things are difficult for some people and will try to address your points on their merits as best I can. Your comments below are italicized.

>this is mostly about the sources, but I also belive that this page is attempting heavily biased towards FC. it does note cite many studies that have found FC to be lacking,

In fact it cites several, including a review by Jacobson.

> and the trend of the page is to lay out the skeptical argument in a sentance and then spend a paragraph responding.

I disagree; others readers can judge for themselves.

>Also, since Fc apears to lack much(if any) coroberating evidence, the article spends alot of time citing anticdotes or appeals to emotion.

Not so. It cites several controlled studies. The "anecdotal" mentions of independent FC users are verifiable, and several of these people are mentioned in a textbook on AAC (Beukelman and Mirenda).

> Introdcution - However, recent controlled studies have shown authentic instances of FC, and a few FC users can now communicate without any physical support at all.(Unattributed)

That sentence is from the introduction and refers to sections in the article that are well-referenced (Concerns and Independent Typing).

> History in 1979 one of Crossley's students, Anne McDonald, left the hospital after successfully fighting an action for Habeas Corpus in the Supreme Court of Victoria(unattributed)

That same paragraph refers to the book, Annie's Coming Out, in which these events are described.

>Link 1: appears to be an Obituaray and is thus not a verifyable source.

Obituaries of famous scientists on websites of major universities are plenty verifiable.

>DOes not mention: "His son was later able to type with just a hand on his shoulder, via gradual "fading" of physical suppot" that was attributed to this source

True. I changed the text to reflect this.

>3rd paragraph and the assertions therin are not attributed to any source.

I'll dig one up. No one seriously disputes these things, however.

>Concerns, Research - FC proponents responded with criticisms of negative bias(what is negetive bias? The wikipedia link dosen't define the term. is it finding that FC is not legit? That's not "negative", that's a "conclusion". Link 5 Is a personal homepage(and a rant) and not a verifyable source(http://home.vicnet.net.au/~dealcc/FrontA.htm)

What's so hard to understand about this? FC proponents charged that the Frontline show was biased. The site linked to that you call a "rant" in fact was published by FC proponents in response to Frontline, and gives their reasons. It's what is called a "primary source" and it stays.

>not all such allegations were proven true.(unattributed, and weasly use of lanuage)

It's accurate and fine as is.

>general, positive results were seen in more naturalistic settings, and negative results in more clinical settings.(Unattributed)

Fixed.

>FC proponents argue that in most of the negative studies, the laboratory setting could itself be the confounding variable: i.e., communication is inherently very difficult for autistic people, so they can't necessarily be expected to replicate their successes under unfamiliar or even hostile conditions (e.g., those in which continuance of access to FC was contingent upon passing or failing the test).(Unattributed)

The arguments of FC proponents are referenced throughout the article, e.g. here. I added Moore as an example of a study "in which continuance of access to FC was contingent upon passing or failing the test".

>Sue Rubin, an FC user initially diagnosed as mentally retarded but who now attends college and types without physical support (see below), has described her own experience with facilitator influence(since she has never typed without a facilitator

Yes she did, and does.

>This should at the very least say allegedly discribed. it should probably be deleted. you may ask if I Can find a source that questions the if Sue Rubin has the abilites that are claimed of her? yep: http://www.baam.emich.edu/baamnewsarchive/BAAMbnaautismmovie.htm . You can argue that this source should not be included. You may be right.

It's factually wrong. Sue didn't write the script with FC. She did so by typing as she does now, without physical support. The documentary shows her typing without anyone physically supporting her.

> But it is at least as attributable as the SUe Rubin article, and should be mentioned as a rebutle if the sentances stands(which it shouldn't))

I've tried, but I can't figure out what that sentence even means.

>By the late 1990's, FC had been discredited in the eyes of most scientists and professional organizations; it retained acceptance in some treatment centers in North America, Europe and Australia.(Unattributed)

DEAL and the FCI are examples, as is clear enough from the article.

>FC user Alberto Frugone has eloquently described the emotional and physical hurdles involved in working toward independence(This makes an emotional judgement.((eloquently). it does not belong here. plus, the ciatation is unverifable, as it is a personal webpage)

"Eloquently" is very mild POV and within Wikipedia standards. The cite is from a printed newsletter. Verifiability allows for personal testimonials when the article is about such individuals. Of course an article about FC should have some statements by FC users.

>Link 16 is not a verifiable source(http://www.breaking-the-barriers.org/stories_jamie.htm)

A personal account on a major disabilities website from Jamie Burke, a young man who lectures around the country, is plenty verifiable.

>Link 17 is a personal homepage and not a verifyable source(http://hometown.aol.com/sharisajoy/myhomepage/profile.html)

See comments under Frugone.

>Link 18 is an anecdote and not an acceptable soruce(http://soeweb.syr.edu/thefci/9-1hen.htm)

It's a review of an autobiographical account from an FC user who eventually typed on her own. It's fine.

>link 19 is a personal homepage and not a verifyable source(http://www.sue-rubin.org/)

See comments under Frugone.

>Link 22 is a personal homepage and not a veryfiable source(http://www.geocities.com/acujames/frugone1.htm)

This is Frugone again.

>The facilitated communication digest is probably not an acceptable source((Bauman 1993,8,13,20,21)except for the FC training standerds.

It's fine. The article is about FC. Why shouldn't the website of one of the major training centers be referenced for certain things? It contains accounts of debate and personal accounts, both of which are entirely acceptable in the article.

>I can't be sure though, I suspect this should be solved by a 3rd party. Regradless, the Aleged stories written by FC users should not be used as primary sources, regardless of where they come from.

Accounts by people who now type independently are generally considered to be beyond dispute, except by people who lie or are misinformed, like the BAAM site above. Since the article lays out caveats about authorship, but also cites independent typists and controlled studies validating FC, FC cannot be dismissed so easily, nor can accounts from every user.

>as an aside, I anticipate the argument that elsewhere on wikipedia people an be attributed as the authours of works without people questioning wheather they were in fact written by the author. However, I beleive that since the primary question FC is authorship, then questioning the authorship of any document written via facilitated communication is a vaild question, unless there is a attributable source who verifies that the attributed author produced or is capable of producing independent Writing. No such source exists in this article, for Sue Rubin or anyone else.

Wrong. See my comments just above. Likewise, see Beukelman and Mirenda. A leading textbook in AAC is about as verifiable as one can get, and a quote from it closes the article and mentions independent typists. Yet you claim that "no such source exists".

Your errors continue to speak for themselves. The majority of your criticisms have no merit, and those that do are minor, and most of them I've fixed. Thanks for pointing out a few needed fixes, and no thanks for wasting a lot of my time on the rest. -Jim Butler 08:39, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

What we have here is failure to communicate. You seem to think that the definiton of Verifiable is somehow debatable. It is not. I will direct your attention to the Wikipedia:Verifiability page(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Verifiability) Let me just toss out a few quick quotes from it:

"Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy. For academic subjects, the sources should preferably be peer-reviewed. Sources should also be appropriate to the claims made: outlandish claims beg strong sources."

"Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, and then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason, self-published books, personal websites, and blogs are largely not acceptable as sources."

I do appologise for wasting your time, but please go over this document and then check the arguments you have written for the inclusion of your sources. I beleive you will find them lacking. If you do not, here is what I suggest we do. I will edit and pare out the poor sources, and then you can do a revert(and probably throw in some adhominim attacks on me here in the talk page for good measure), and we'll call in a moderator. Who's edit do you think will come out on top? I have been more then fair, and you have done nothing other then attack me personaly."71.135.102.35 10:09, 6 March 2006 (UTC)"

I am aware of the Wikipedia standards for verifiability. They qualify the "largely not acceptable" by including the standard that "Self-published sources and other published sources of dubious reliability may be used as sources in articles about themselves". This plainly applies in the realm of disabilities self-advocacy, including FC users. Besides, Beukelman and Mirenda qualify as an independent, third-party source for the independnent typists.

You have not responded specifically to any of my other comments above. Instead you accuse me of ad hominem, when in fact I've criticized your comments for very specific reasons, e.g.:

• Gratuitously insinutating that Grayson is doing bad science
• Falsely asserting that 90% of the references are unverifiable
• Falsely asserting the absence of a third-party source for independent typists (Beukelman and Mirenda)

Please take responsibility for your own errors and address my above responses substantively. If instead you propose to edit the article with the same lack of rigor and precision that you've shown in this discussion, then I'm not too worried about what a moderator might say about any ensuing disagreement. -Jim Butler 21:03, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

""Self-published sources and other published sources of dubious reliability may be used as sources in articles about themselves"This plainly applies in the realm of disabilities self-advocacy, including FC users."It is facinating that you cut out The following sentance in that quote:"For example, the Stormfront website may be used as a source about itself in an article about Stormfront,so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by other published sources."

I hope you see the problem. 1: This is not a article about Sue Rubin, The Facilitated Communication digest, or anything else you might like it to be about. It is an article about the tecnique Of Facilitaed Communication. Thus, the exception does not apply. you cannot self-reference something that dosen't have a "self"(person, place, orginazation). FC is an act and an idea. It has no home base, thus, it has nothing to reference.

2:Even supposing the exception did apply, those sources still do not belong here, becuase they are not self-referencing. The sources are instead being used to support assertions and statements of fact(or outright opinions and rants). For instance, Link 6, I beleive, is a link to a rant about how the PBS FC show is wrong. It is on a personal webpage, and it identifies the author as speaking for all FC proponents.

As for your other statements that don't deal with verifiablity, I'm not sure how I could respond. You say things like "except by people who lie or are misinformed", "It's fine.", "Yes she did, and does.". You seem to be missing the point here. If you have (verifiable)evidence of these things, Awsome, Let's put it in the article. But you don't seem to have any. You just make assertions(It's true, it's beyond dispute,It's factually wrong, cannot be dismissed so easily)and refuse to back them up with anything other then your word. And that is the truly strange thing. If FC is as real as you say it is, it should be the easiest thing in the world to come up with verifiable sources that nobody could dispute. Take independant typing. Your only 3rd party source is a quote from a book that(as noted below by someone else)is just the opinion of the author. If these people can actully type independantly, why isn't there a scientific test to prove it? If someone was to give me a double blind test to see if I could type without anyone elses help, I would pass(barely,perhaps) and it could be written up in a peer-reviewed Journal that no one would question. Of course, no one cares if I can type by myself, but we do care if these people can. Someone must of done a test on an independant Typist. Where is it?"71.135.102.35 23:43, 6 March 2006 (UTC)"

On self-referencing sources, yes, I did see the additional sentence you noted. Citing personal accounts of FC users is entirely consistent with that, and with Wikipedia's policies. FC doesn't occur in a vacuum. It's a procedure that (at least in some cases) helps people communicate. In an article about walking on the moon, there are inevitably going to be some references to personal accounts of people who walked on the moon. In an article about any technique or procedure, there are going to be references to people who develop and apply that procedure, hence the FCI. And it is appropriate to link to the FCI for coverage of the controversy as well. On Frontline, that show and the response to it are important parts of the controversy on FC (I added them both to the article), and deserve coverage. The page you keep calling a "rant" is a collection of responses from prominent FC proponents, including several featured in the show. That site (which is the website of Chris Borthwick, a longtime FC advocate and trainer who works with Crossley) is the venue in which they chose to respond. As such it is a primary source.

On verifiable sources, please be specific. The only example you mention so is for independent typing. And you're right, there are (as far as I know) no peer-reviewed, controlled studies of independent typists. It would be nice if there were, I agree, but peer-reviewed, controlled studies are not the only standard on Wikipedia for verifiability or reliability. I believe that Beukelman and Mirenda meet the criteria for a neutral secondary source. I will try to find some primary ones as well. -Jim Butler 23:37, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

You seem to have completley ignored my primary point, that being that FC foes not have 'self' to reference. I am not currently addressing what the source is, I am questioning WHERE the source is. The wikipedia editorial guidelines are very clear: peer reviewed Journals and news sources with a reputation for fact checking. Your sources are neither, and since FC is not a person or orginization, it cannot be self-referenced. "71.135.102.35 00:07, 8 March 2006 (UTC)"

I will reiterate my response to your objection: "FC doesn't occur in a vacuum. It's a procedure that (at least in some cases) helps people communicate. In an article about walking on the moon, there are inevitably going to be some references to personal accounts of people who walked on the moon. In an article about any technique or procedure, there are going to be references to people who develop and apply that procedure, hence the FCI. And it is appropriate to link to the FCI for coverage of the controversy as well." The FCI does training in FC and participates in the debate, so they are appropriate to cite in those contexts as a primary source. However, your point may be valid in terms of individual FC users. Perhaps they need their own Wikiepedia pages where self-referencing is allowed? -Jim Butler 00:49, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Your argument has grown rather confused. Are you arguing that the sources That I have questioned above are acceptable becuase they are self-references, or primary sources? I'm just not picking up what your putting down. Regardless, I will try one more time. To address your primary source claim first, here is what wikipedia has to say on the matter of primary sources:" Wikipedia articles may rely on primary sources so long as what they say has been published by a credible publication. For example, a trial transcript that has been published by the court. We may not use primary sources whose information has not been made available by a credible publication." Seems pretty clear cut to me. The sources in question are not credible publications. I beleive that you agree with me on this point, since you envoked the self-reference rule previously. As for that rule, I think we both agree that for this article to have a self-referenced source, FC must have a 'self'. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but you are arguing that some of these sources constitue that 'self', that they ARE in some way FC. The problem with that is that we are forced into using your defention of FC's self. Why can't we use mine? Or how about my Mom's? Where does it end? Can I just toss up a web page, claim I have a first person account of how I personally witnessed FC not working and have it included as a self-reference? Why not? What's the diference?"71.135.102.35 06:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)"

Which references specifically do you object to and why? Some of these people really are experts and represent participants in the debate. -Jim Butler 06:34, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

What do you mean what references do I object to and why? hasn't this entire thread been about exactly that??? don't you see that big long(badly written) list of sources that I object to and my reasons for doing so at the top? What was that whole long argument about self-references and Primary sources? were you defending hypotheticals? If so, I wish you had told me and saved me the trouble. and whether these people are Experts on FC is irrelavant. The sources that are they are published in are not verifiable. For the purposes of this thread, that is my only objection. "71.135.102.35 07:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)"

I disagree that the FCI and Borthwick aren't verifiable for the stuff they're cited for, i.e. primary sources on positions of proponents/experts in the field. I added verifiable references for the independent typing, keeping a user's home page or two because they're within Wikipedia's criteria (not excessively self-aggrandizing), and these people are as cutting-edge in their field as Helen Keller was a century ago for deaf-blindness and therefore worth a mention. The link to Frugone's essay is an online version of an essay that appeared in a published newsletter of Autism Network International, which I would consider verifiable. Anything else? - Jim Butler 07:51, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Let me ask you a question. You see up a couple posts where I made a rather long point about self-referencing and Primary sources(points you had brought up to argue for these sources inclusion)? how did you respond? you didn't. You moved the goal posts by asking me a question that I had already awnsered(that in fact had started the thread) What do you except me to do here? I've already adressed these points. FCI and Borthwick aren't verifiable becuase they aren't news orginizations or peer reviewed Journals. They have no reputaion for fact checking. The Borthwick rant is in fact self published, and that is pretty much it. Self-published sources are not allowed in wikipedia. as for the personal home pages, the self-agradizing quote is from the self-referencing exception. Self referencing requires a self. The people linked are not facilitated communication as an entity. They are people who practice faccilitated communication. Thus, they cannot be self-referenced. It does not matter that you think they are cutting edge or that you think they're worth a mention. They are not verifiable, and they aren't self-referencing, so they're out. Frugones essay, even if it was published in the newsletter of autism network internatinol it dosen't matter. The ANI newsletter is not known a reputable news source with a reputation for fact checking. It is not a peer reviewed Journal. and no evidence exists that it was even published there other then a geocities web page, which requires about 2 seconds flat to create. What else is there to say? You need to defend your sources if you would like them to continue to be included. You are not doing that. Your retreading old arguments that you have already abandoned. becuase you consider something to be does not make it so. You need credible, verifiable sources. Where are they?"71.135.102.35 10:35, 8 March 2006 (UTC)"

The "self-referencing" rule is phrased differently in two places and I think I've figured out why:

Verifiability: Self-published sources in articles about themselves says "Self-published sources and other published sources of dubious reliability may be used as sources in articles about themselves. For example, the Stormfront website may be used as a source about itself in an article about Stormfront, so long as the information is notable, not unduly self-aggrandizing, and not contradicted by other published sources." If you scroll up on that page, you'll see that this guideline falls under the topic of "Sources", which says: "Articles should rely on credible, third-party sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy." This is pretty plainly talking about secondary sources like newspapers, peer-reviewed journals and so on. Here, self-published pages don't count, other than to provide data about that person or organization.

Reliable Sources: Personal websites as primary sources says: "A personal website or blog may be used only as a primary source, i.e., when we are writing about the subject or owner of the website. But even then we should proceed with great caution and should avoid relying on information from the website as a sole source. This is particularly true when the subject is controversial, or has no professional or academic standing." Here we find a similar mention of self-reference, but not restricted to articles about X, only writing about X. Under this standard, a self-published site is OK if it provides a good primary source for the article, e.g. Walter Cronkite's blogging his opinions on trends in the media, or the American Chiropractic Organization stating its educational guidelines and beliefs about chiropractic. Presumably these self-publishers have already "fact-checked" that their sites indeed accurately reflect their opinions. And of course there are hundreds of articles in Wikipedia citing exactly such cites in these situations, and I think most Wikipedians would agree that it would be rather absurd to rescind that policy.

If the internet had existed over a century ago, Annie Sullivan would have blogged about Helen Keller's progress, and Helen Keller herself would have used some form of AAC to write her own blog. Those sites wouldn't be appropriate for presenting as fact claims about Keller's communicative abilities without those claims being independently verified. However, they would be ideal primary sources as to Keller's and Sullivan's opinions about education and disabilities and such. It would be insane for a Wikipedia of that era not to include such things in articles like "education of the multiply-handicapped" or "society's acceptance of the deaf-blind" and so on.

I argue that the same situation applies to the FCI and sites of prominent people involved in FC, both in Sullivan- and Keller-like roles. The former guideline above explains why we cannout rely on those sites alone for factual claims that require third-party verification, like "so-and-so types independently". At best we can say that such claims are made but have not been verified (except those few cases where they have been corroborated by reliable third parties with the capacity for fact-checking). However we can and must rely on them for what only they can provide: primary sources for a vital point of view in the debate on FC. The purpose of the second guideline is to allow for that. And not only with the FCI, but individuals who know first-hand what it is like to use FC in the context of their disability. The Helen Kellers, if you will, of FC. Of course the question the authorship arises, e.g. (for our purposes) with Frugone, but I would suggest that this could be handled by saying that "Frugone, who attends college and reportedly types nearly independently, is reported to have authored this" and then leave it in. Why? Because the claims here are not extraordinary ones, but they are interesting and relevant: they are rather powerful descriptions of life in a body very "differently-wired". They don't differ that much from those made by Sharisa Joy or for that matter Tito Mukhopadhyay, who doesn't FC but writes independently and says much the same thing. But if you and others here still find Frugone unpalatable, I'll put in similar stuff others whose independence is on firmer verifiable ground (not controlled-studies, but observed by enough credible folks to sway some third-party authors and editors). Anyway, that's my take on how this all fits into Wikipedia standards. Good night! -Jim Butler 09:28, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

My this thread is getting long. You said This:"only they can provide: primary sources for a vital point of view in the debate on FC". Since we both agree that these sources are not verifiable, how do we decide what is vital? Don't you think my Defenition of what is a vital point of view might be different then yours? I asked earlier what would stop me under your interpritation from tossing a webpage up on geocities, proclaiming myself an expert in FC and then Detailing a first person account of how I had personally seen FC was a crock, and then cite it as a source in the article. You didn't respond. Since this seems to be what it's come down to, I think it's time for you to awnser."71.135.102.35 11:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC)"

Respnding to 71.135.102.35 11:12, 9 March 2006 (UTC), I'm moving the indents back for some breathing room! I read the Wikipedia guidlines as saying that the FCI or DEAL (Borthwick is with the latter) are reliable as primary sources for their own opinions and can therefore be cited when writing about them. (These kinds of citation do and should go on elsewhere on Wikipedia; cf. the article on Baraminology.)

The question you raise is how to distinguish real experts from phony experts. The answer is that there is historical evidence that these two entities have been major trainers and proponents of FC for well over a decade. Anyone familiar with FC already knows thus but I will lay it out here anyway, for now restricting myself to online sources even though there are plenty of citations in the peer-reviewed literature citing both groups, especially during the period of popularization, backlash and debate in the early 1990's. DEAL and FCI are the two major entities responsible for popularizing and disseminating FC in Australia and English-speaking North American respectively. DEAL in Australia (where Borthwick works) has been around since before the 1980's, and the FCI since the early '90's. See for example this mention of Crossley and Anne McDonald in the New York Times from 1985. See also the home page of Syracuse University's School of Education, and this article by Doug Wheeler (who supervised the first controlled study, which showed facilitator cueing). More on Borthwick: a search for "Borthwick C" on Pubmed returns seven hits, most of them on medical ethics; he's coauthored at least two peer-reviewed papers ([1],[2]) in refereed journals with Rosemary Crossley. Borthwick is also well-respected in the FC community for maintaining a comprehensive annotated bibliography on FC. Finally, Frugone for that matter has a chapter in the latest book edited by Biklen, so he's not just some made-up character. -Jim Butler 19:57, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

BRAMINOLOGY? You couldn't do better then that? Your example of a article that includes these kind of citations links to a Terribly written(an extreemly poorly sourced)pseduoscience article about a couple nut-jobs who are trying to define kind so that they can somehow cram millions of speices into a 450 ft. mythical boat that supposedly sailed 5,000 years ago?? Why couldn't you link to a well written and non-contriversial article? Something I couldn't possibly deny had validity? Perhaps becuase well written, non-psedoscientific articles don't have them?

This has gone on long enough. If I had any doubts whether your sources might stand up to an admin or moderator, I have them no longer. If you still beleive that they might, I would like you to look up at your original responses to my suggested purge. Do you see any resembalance To your argument then compared to your argument now? I hope not, becuase one dosen't exist. Your argument has gone from a very simple "these sources are verifiable" to an extremly technical and Symantical interpritation of The Self-reference Exception. Even if you still beleive that you are correct, you must see that any 3rd party is not gonna side with you on this one. Your argument is, at best, a technicality. So, I give you two choices: 1.help me purge the objectionable sources. 2.Call in a moderator and lets lay out the arguments. Either way, the sources will end up deleted. I leave choice of how to you."71.135.102.35 22:00, 9 March 2006 (UTC)"

While I am waiting for you to respond, I thought perhaps I should make it clear why I am so confident that any 3rd party will find these sources Unacceptable. Any person who is tasked with setting the question of the validity of these sources is not going to take the time to learn all about FC. They will not consider what facilitated communication is(in your or my eyes). They are simply going to look at the sources and see if they fit within wikipedias editorial policies,without any attention to their actual content. Your argument is attempting to provide an exeption to the verifibility rules based on the content of the sources(that they are experts, that they are modern day Hellen Kellers, That they are historicaly FC trainers and proponets, etc). The content is not going to be what is at issue, it will be what and where the sources are. On that count, your sources just don't fit. "71.135.102.35 00:30, 10 March 2006 (UTC)"

I deliberately mentioned baraminology because the real issue here is NPOV, whether or not you think FC is pseudoscience. The article should present the view of FC supporters along with other views. If you feel it's too slanted toward the supporters, fine, debate that, but you can't delete primary source material from supporters claiming "verifiability" problems when it's on their own site. Read NPOV: Objections and Clarifications. Arguments and opinions from the FCI and other prominent proponents of FC can be cited as primary sources and this has nothing to do with self-reference. Also, as the main training center for FC in North America, the FCI is a primary source on FC training standards. See ya. -Jim Butler 01:03, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

"Arguments and opinions from the FCI and other prominent proponents of FC can be cited as primary sources and this has nothing to do with self-reference." Please see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources . Here is the Quote:"An opinion is a view that someone holds, the content of which may or may not be verifiable. However, that a certain person or group holds a certain opinion is a fact, and it may be included in Wikipedia if it can be verified; that is, if you can cite a good source showing that the person or group holds the opinion." An opinion, you see, is different then a primary source. Borthwick and the vast majority of the other stuff are, as you yourself said, arguments and opinions. They ain't primary sources. So, have they gone back to being self-references now? Or How about secondary sources. You haven't tried that one yet. Anyway, I've put in a request for an informal moderator. I suspect that a 3rd party that lacks offical Powers won't do much to sway you, but We have gone around in circles long enough. It's gonna get fixed eventually. I promise. "71.135.102.35 07:00, 10 March 2006 (UTC)"

Hi, it looks like we posted a minute apart! See my longer reply below. I think your argument is rather semantic. Allow me to re-phrase: "Certain self-published materials from the FCI and other prominent proponents of FC can be cited as primary sources for views held by proponents of FC. This has little to do with the self-reference issue and much to do with the treatment of minority views in a way that reconciles the Wikipedia principles of verifiability and NPOV." IOW, I believe the FCI's site is both verifiable and reliable as a primary source for views of FC proponents, views that the article should cite in the interest of NPOV. The FCI is at freaking Syracuse University, for crying out loud, and has been there for years; it's not some crackpot job operating out of someone's basement. More below, but that's it in a nutshell, for now. Have I expressed my view clearly? -Jim Butler 07:24, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it's great that you are open to a 3rd party on the FCI, which is something that I've thought needs a 3rd party since pretty much the begenning. I do not, however, see any defense of the Self-published websites(ESCPECIALLY Borthwick). Are you dropping your claim that these are vaild sources? Added post err...post:Nevermind, I see the sentance now"71.135.102.35 08:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)"

I did argue for Borthwick and others below. I suggested a standard that self-published materials by folks other than the FCI, Biklen, DEAL and Crossley could also be OK if they are recognized by the FCI a/o DEAL as legitimately important advocates. Borthwick was a collaborator with Crossley back around the time of Anne McDonald getting free of an institution. [3] -Jim Butler 08:21, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Beukelman and Mirenda

> Besides, Beukelman and Mirenda qualify as an independent, third-party source for the independnent typists.

not unless they give any reason for their belief. As far as I know neither of them has done research about that subject. Only to claim that there are independent writers is not a valid argument.

• Falsely asserting the absence of a third-party source for independent typists (Beukelman and Mirenda)

If someone only claims that something is the case without giving reason why this is, than this is not a source, it is only an opinion. By the way, why only speaking of Beukelman and Mirenda and not mentioning that almost all other leading scientists in AAC do not believe that FC is a valid technique, for instance von Tetzcher and Lloyd. Nor do the scientists that research autism, cf. Frith or Howlin.

Allmuth 21:34, 6 March 2006 (UTC)

I don't know how Beukelman and Mirenda verified that claim. Perhaps the way many such claims are verified: by reliable eyewitness accounts? In any case, remember that as Wikipedians our concern is with verifiability, not "truth", and I'd argue that Beukelman and Mirenda do qualify as a neutral secondary source. Graduate-level texts like theirs are reviewed and fact-checked, and they are not FC partisans. -Jim Butler 23:40, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

hmm. I do not know either. Maybe we should ask them? What I did not like about the citation is the selectivity. In the field of AAC are so many critics of FC, besides the above mentioned I remember Howard Shane ... all well-known persons. But you only pick up the citation from Beukelman/Mirenda and this one comes without any information about how they got their knowledge.

Allmuth 23:58, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

On the quality of that text, again: Graduate-level texts like theirs are reviewed and fact-checked, and the authors are not FC partisans. The citation wasn't meant to be representative of what AAC experts say, but rather as an appropriate quote for the "Independent Typing" section, hence its inclusion there. Are there AAC people who deny the phenomenon of independent typing, or do most of them simply ignore it? I surmise the latter. -Jim Butler 01:17, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I think you assume that AAC-experts who do not acknowledge the existence of independent writers are adversarial or ignorant. This assumption might be wrong. It is not possible to acknowledge an evidence that is only stated by the proponents of the method and not corroborated by research from outside the FC-circle. In former times there had been such research, but now it is impossible to find clients. The FC-community simply does not allow to have a closer look on this people. All what you get are repetitions of the claim, very confusing Videos who often even does not show what is claimed and accusations of being an enemy of freedom of speech and of people with autism.

Allmuth 12:47, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] independent typists

even if there were independent typists (according to my observations Sue Rubin, Albert Frugione and Jamie Burke are not independent, but I know a german boy that according to the observations of a friend of mine whom I trust is), this would not tell us much about the efficacy of FC. No one knows the causal agent in changes that appear under naturalistic conditions. If a person gets FC-training and afterwards types independently, you do not know if this result was because of the FC-training or maybe despite the FC-training. You really do not know. Imagine that all autistic people get FC-training. As far as we know some autistic people are able to learn to write. If they achieve this under FC-training (because they get their education by FC, not by traditional means)you cannot be sure that this had been the reason. Because there is not a control group that got traditional training in literacy and scored worse. Post hoc is not propter hoc. In other words: If 20 of hundred autistic persons can learn to read and write (actually that transformation is my profession), and they only get the opportunity to learn it via FC, than it does not prove the efficacy of FC if they do. You need a control group. Imagine that literacy training would only be given to autistic people if they wear a red scarf. And then some would learn to write. In this case you cannot conclude that they had learnt to write because of the red scarf. You need a control group.

Allmuth 03:16, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

That is a valid point to some degree, and applies with any new procedure that is being tried (heart transplants; what Annie Sullivan did with Helen Keller). However, the hypothesis of causality is considerably strengthened if one takes the clinical history into account: i.e., emergence of reliable and characteristic communication during FC and fading, and independent users saying "yes that was me communicating all along and the FC really helped." Neglecting the clinical history makes it much easier to dismiss it all as post-hoc. -Jim Butler 23:45, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

I agree that it would be supporting evidence of the validity of the method if there were persons who first could only type while being facilitated, now can type without facilitation and declare they have been communicating from the beginning. But I do not agree to your claim that such persons have been found (in the published literature) yet. Allmuth 00:05, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Lucy Blackman in Australia published a book; Tony Attwood, not an FC partisan, met her and wrote the Foreword. Sharisa Joy Kochmeister is another, who has self-published prolifically and is attending college in Denver. Both are mentioned in Beukelman & Mirenda. I will contact them and see if they can point to 3rd-party verification of their abilities; I've had limited success finding such on the internet.

edit: I would also add that on Wikipedia, as in real life, controlled studies aren't the only standard for verifiability. Reliable eyewitness accounts also count; this is probably why people accept independent typing as a reality. In my own case, I had discounted FC based on the skeptical dogmas. Meeting Jamie Burke and seeing a presentation by Morton Gernsbacher on her son's FC and emerging literacy convinced me to look into it and the possibility of literacy in general. In my son's case, he demonstrated literacy by first pointing independently at words; we had been using cards for awhile with the word printed under the picture (e.g., "bacon"), and he loved and still loves watching (perseverating, even!) on Sesame Street and phonics videos. His pointing evolved into a method we still use wherein he will independently (no one touching him or holding anything in front of him) cross out the correct word. The FC came later as a way to expand his means of self-expression; with FC he's not limited to pre-chosen words or phrases. We've also played message-passing games (with some success); I strongly agree with the philosophy of message-passing elucidated by Shevin and Schubert. -Jim Butler 01:53, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

eye wittnesses: I strongly didsagree. Remember Robert Hare, remember the Pre-Pfungst-Committee. All trained experts.

Allmuth 13:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

By the way, what makes the issue even more confusing is the fact that there seem to be persons who can type in both modes: unfacilitated (according to there overall level of communication) and facilitated (the high quality words). For instance the girl in the Twatchman-Study and Mr. Burk. And the girl that has been studied by Patricia Howlin in 1996. I attach no sources, it is late now. But I can add them if you do not know the Howlin-Study. Allmuth 00:09, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Jamie and others have spoken of how confidence and dyspraxia interact; see for example Kurtz. -Jim Butler 00:54, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

I do not understand this point. I intented to say that it is very likely that there are persons who (a)can write on their own and (b)are trained to play a sensomotory-game, directing their index-finger toward letters that the facilitator selects by using the tactile (sometimes also auditory, visual, proprioceptive ones) signals. I gave examples, e.g. the girl evaluated by Howlin. If such a person types independently a shopping list, you cannot conclude from this evidence that she is the author of the sequence of letters she produces in the facilitated mode. As to your son: There does not seem to be a big difference in his unfacilitated and facilitated communication abilities, if I understood you correct. And of course it is possible to teach literacy via (subtle or not so subtle) hand guidance. There might be better ways, but hand-guidance works too.

Allmuth 13:15, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] my last edit

"anxit" should have been "anxiety" Allmuth 14:10, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] article still inadequate

I think the article is still very inadequate. A) Of course there are independent typists - how should it be otherwise if one does not claim that every person being touched while writing looses her ability to type. This is not the disput about FC. The question about FC is rather, if there are persons that type with FC above their non-FC-baseline. In the controlled studies were two types of FC-users: (1) the cued ones, that wrote their facilitator's thoughts (about 90 %) and (2)genuine writers that wrote their own texts, but the quality of the texts was not better or even worse than their unfacilitated texts. In (1) the use of FC did not lead to communication of the typists, in (2) it did so, the communication was real, but FC did not help in facilitating the communication. B) Even if persons that communicate better with FC than without could be found (there are no published cases but I am rather sure those cases exist), this would not prove anything about the efficacy of FC. Imagine that autistic students get their literacy teaching only in the facilitated mode (in some classes in Germany this is the case), then they will learn to type while being touched (they did not have the opportunity to learn it otherwise) and later on maybe stick to this touch and it could be difficult to fade it. Prompt-dependence. If you want to prove that FC works you need controls, not only descriptions of developments. C) If FC were valid, nearly all what we think to know about autism and about Down-Syndrome would be wrong and has to be reconceptualized. I think this is a very important aspect of the debate and it should not be missed. D) I think it is an evidence of incapacity to found one's arguments with the opinions of "leading persons". I would prefer to go back to the facts and report what is known about the effectiveness of FC and what is disputed and what is unknown. Ok. This are some of my thoughts about the article in the recent version and I would like to read some comments. Allmuth 22:46, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Allmuth.

(A) - On independent typists, I believe the relevant issue is that some people, via "fading" of support, have become able to type with little or no physical support, and the clinical history (cf. comments above) supports this. It is not proof of FC having worked for them, but it is a powerful argument. Would you ignore what all FC users, even independent ones, say? Would you apply that standard to people who use other forms of AAC? More under B re Bebko.

I would not ignore what FC users (or their facilitators, in case of automatic writing) say. I would ::treat it with the same caution I treat all utterances of my fellow human beings.

And of course do I apply the same standard to people who use AAC. Everyone deserves the right not to ::get words put in his mouth. It is an ethic question to prevent those peoble from identity robbery.

(B) - There are several separate issues that should not be confused.

One is authorship. There are studies that support this. Even von Tetzchner noted that FC "usually led to automatic writing" (emphasis mine), not always.

according to von Tetzchner the FC spectrum is divides in 3 types. There is false communication :::(=the facilitator advertently steers the finger) and these cases are very rare. Then there is the :::default mode, automatic communication. And then there is indeed real communication, but these cases :::are irrelevant, because they do not communicate above FC-baseline in a significant way. It is a :::trivial observations that e.g. an old grandfather with shaking hands writes somehow better when :::someone helps him steady his hands or not to loose the pen. But this is not what in FC happens

While the published data certainly raise cautions about FC, they do not unequivically refute it.  How would you explain the results found in Weiss et al 1996, for example?

I ask me: Why did I found the stories that Weiss declares to have invented shortly before the :::experiment in a Kohlbert textbook? Why did the condition where the facilitator was in a room :::together with the TV-man (who invented the last story presented) work and the condition with the :::unsupervised facilitator work, but not the one where the facilitator was under observation while :::the story was read? Why did Weiss change the experimental setting after the first (successful) :::trial? Where are the baseline dates? What happened to the second boy, that has been tested? Why are :::his dates not published? Weiss et al. announced a follow-up study. Why did this not happen.

Hmm..that are some of my questions, I have some more, but this would go to much into detail.

Another is in what percentage of people FC "works" in the sense of providing a means of reliable communication that did not exist previously. No one knows or has suggested a good answer for this.

Finally, there is the issue you raise, i.e. FC's comparative efficacy over other modalities, and studies showing that with some users' communication with FC was not superior to that without FC. I believe you're referring to the work of Bebko et. al. Much more work needs to be done here, and of course we can't generalize from that or any study to the entire population of FC users.

There are others, too. In Germany Hildebrandt-Nilshon examined some writers (unfortunately :::unpublished) and found some that wrote authentically, but on the same level, regardless :::facilitation or not. One girl was worse under the facilitation condition.

Further I did a re-analysis of the data of Olney and to my astonishment the result was that one of :::the subjects was really performing worse in the facilitated condition. Maybe I'll publish this :::sometimes, but I think I will not because no one is interested in this any more(the non-believers :::are no more interested in FC, it is history; and the believers refute or ignore every evidence that :::does not match their claims)

 But that, again, is separate from the issue of whether FC works for anyone at all (in terms of validated authorship).  Few people are prepared to deny that.  Again, even von Tetzchner doesn't go that far.  Why didn't he simply say FC "always" results in automatic writing, if it is all garbage?

(C) -

see above, FC does not always result in automatic writing. If you would facilitate me, I would proceed to write my own thoughts (unless you really intervene by force), but my writing would not be better :-)

Allmuth 13:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

FC challenges much of the dogmas about mental retardation and literacy, but doesn't deny a great deal of the other aspects of Downs, autism, etc. (Nor is FC something that we should assume works in every case, especially given the data on facilitator influence.) But yes, it does challenge the way people like Anne McDonald, Sharisa Joy etc have been diagnosed and treated, and raises questions about others with similar disabilities. Presuming MR can be very damaging and I'd like to see that default assumption go. And by the way, it's not just FC that challenges the idea that nonverbal autistic people with strange behaviors are "out of touch" and MR; are you familiar with Tito Mukhopadhyay?

yes. nevertheless thank you for the link.

Allmuth 13:55, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

So I think we would agree that these are indeed vital issues, but should be distinguished from what the evidence says.  Which leads to your final point:

(D) - Please be specific about where you believe the fallacy of "argument by authority" is made. Are you objecting to quoting experts like Calculator? Should the article not discuss the controversy and what people say about it? I think it benefits from having some such quotes, as do many other articles on this site. -Jim Butler 08:58, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Definition of Independent Typing

Hi Kevin! Do you have a reference for this statement you inserted:

"The phrase "independent typing" is defined by supporters of FC to include the facilitor holding the keyboard or placing a hand on the shoulder of the typist."

To the best of my knowledge, FC trainers and proponents consistently define independent typing as the previous version of the article had it: typing without physical support, i.e. without anyone touching the user. The caveats about other supports, like holding the keyboard, can stay but the article needs to be factual. I can reference this from the FCI and will change it unless you can point to something I've been overlooking. -Jim Butler 00:38, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, I just changed this along with some other edits to the section; please revert if you have a contrary reference. I put in a peer-reviewed article about Jamie that mentions his typing, so there are all verifiable now. Also removed the sentence that says "Critics say these cases have not been independently and objectively verified" because (a) no reference is given and (b) verifiable sources are now cited. Allmuth and others, I'm not averse to putting it back if it's clear that this really is a criticism that more than a couple of people are making. -Jim Butler 09:42, 8 March 2006 (UTC)

Yesterday I put the criticism back anyway because I'm pretty sure a citation exists somewhere. A number of things in the article still need references, mainly presentations of critics' and proponents' POV's. I don't think these things are disputed by Wikipedia editors who are relatively familiar with FC; they just need references. So I think it's better to leave them in, flag them (I'll get around to that) and dig up the references over time. -Jim Butler 21:11, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Broderick and Kasa-Hendrickson, 2001

Hi Jim! Have you really read this article? If you like, I'll send you a copy. In my opinion it does not qualify as a source for the claim that there are independent writers. It is a case description, stating that Mr. Burk has been trained in FC for long years and that he is able to read, that is to decode written text into speech. That is not the claim that should be supported. Therefore the reference is misleading. Reliable source: yes (on the level of anecdotical evidence, it is not a study in the proper sense), reference for the existence of independent writers (in the sense of the FC-paradigma): No

By the way: I preferred the summary before your edit. It was much more neutral. The debate about the independent writers belongs in the research/concerns section. Unfortunately I am away the next weeks, but after my return I will take my FC-Files out of the cellar and try to rewrite the research section in a more structured and balanced way. Allmuth 08:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, happy travels. Yes I've read it as well as Weiss. I appreciate your recent entries on this page and will add my replies an another day (bedtime!). I look forward to collaborating more on your return, e.g., I think the studies where other forms of independent AAC worked as well or better than FC are worth putting in. FCers also encourage independence and multiple modalities. The more independent the better. cheers, -Jim Butler 09:37, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] what is an independent writer?

my observations: After much training, a small proportion of FC-users are capable of typing with only visual or auditory contact to the facilitator, especially if reduced selection sets (e.g. yes/no cards, use of the space key, use of the delete key) are used. Years of training are necessary to achieve this level of competency. In some of these cases, the hand of the facilitator "shadows" the hand of the facilitated person.In other cases, the facilitator sits beneath the individual who scans with his index finger over the keyboard and gives a verbal prompt, for example Push! when the finger is above the "right" key. my conclusion: it is not clear what "the existence of independent writers" really mean with regard of the validity of FC. It is disputable. Therefor it belongs in the research/concerns section, not in the summary. The latter would suggest that the existence of those people would be kind of proof of the validity of the method (the Beukelman/Mirenda-fallacy) Allmuth 09:01, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Message-passing is really quite easy to test and so should message-passing independently. I've seen it with my kid; it's part of everyday life: "tell Daddy what you saw at the zoo today". It's easy to set up controls: just don't have anyone else who knows the message-to-be-passed in the room with the naive facilitator. Anne McDonald reportedly had to message-pass in this way for the judge at her hearing determining whether she could leave the institution. Users like Sharisa Joy report doing this all the time to prove themselves to educators and so on. Scientists can conduct experiments on the fly. Direct observation and/or reports from people considered reliable is one way for acceptance to spread even without peer-review, perhaps even to people like Beukelman and Mirenda! I don't know if that's how they or someone they trust verified it or not but it wouldn't be implausible. Anyway, more later. -Jim Butler 09:45, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] comment to last edit: "a smaller number of controlled studies have shown authentic instances of FC"

Unfortunately this phrase has been reedited into the summary again. In my opinion this is misleading. The question is not, if people can communicate while being facilitated. The question is, if they can better communicate while being facilitated than while not being facilitated. This has to been shown. For example: In one of the controlled studies a person is able to identify some numbers while facilitated. In the baseline (condition without facilitating) she is also able to do this. The proponents interpret this as authentic communication (yes) and as a proof for the validity of the method (no). Allmuth 09:10, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

Even valid commincation is something that shows it's not all automatic writing. However, Weiss and others were done on people who pretty much only FC'd, right? Didn't you mention recently that Jamie reportedly communicates better with someone touching him? You can take that as influence, or you can take it as FC "working", right? -Jim Butler 09:48, 9 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Dispute over citations

71.135.102.35 (unsigned, but apparently posting from a different I.P address, above) indicated a desire to "call in a moderator" regarding a dispute with me over citations to the Facilitated Communication Institute at Syracuse University and other proponents of FC. I'm not sure which route of dispute resolution he proposes to follow, and I hope he clarifies this. A third party would be helpful, I think, and it's too bad Allmuth is away. As he said above, he and I seem to have difficulty communicating with each other (ironic, isn't it, given the topic).

IMO, the crux of the debate is reconciling the Wikipedia principles of verifiability and NPOV, particularly in the case of citing minority views. I think that the resolution is pointed to, if not stated outright, in the Reliable Sources: Personal websites as primary sources. Proponents of minority views are often forced to self-publish.

The FCI is an institute at the School of Education at Syracuse University, and is the locus from which FC was popularized in the early 1990's. It was founded by Douglas Biklen, who learned about FC from Rosemary Crossley, a teacher at the DEAL Institute in Australia who is generally credited as being one of the people who independently "discovered" FC. (No one has disputed these claims in the article, but I notice that they are not sourced, so I will find and insert one in a few hours.) Along with DEAL, the FCI has continued to teach and advocate for FC, and provide fora for its proponents, even after most scientists concluded it was, more or less, not a valid technique. Thus, the FCI is unquestionably a major proponent of the minority view that FC is a valid form of AAC, and are therefore citable as a primary source for that viewpoint. As advocates of that view, they are in a position to verify that material on their website is an accurate portrayal of that view, and have every interest in doing so. That and their academic location make them verifiable as a primary source for their minority viewpoint. I believe the FCI, DEAL, Biklen and Crossley are also therefore verifiable as sources for identifying other prominent individual proponents of FC, including "self-advocates" (i.e., people with disabilities who, whether purportedly or genuinely, communicate via FC). Therefore, I believe that certain self-published materials of such authoritatively -cited-as-prominent proponents of FC, including their websites, are also citable as primary sources advocating for FC. (I am flexible as to which such cites make the cut, but I staunchly stand by the appropriateness of citing material published on the FCI as primary sources in the context discussed here.) However, I have not advocated that they are reliable or verifiable as a secondary source for objective claims about the efficacy of FC and the article does not cite them as such.

OK. I hope I've outlined my side of the argument clearly. I invite commentary and suggestions from my worthy opponent 71.135.102.35 and from others. May cool heads, not to mention a wise reconciliation of NPOV and verifiability, prevail. -Jim Butler 06:59, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

Jim, While I have indeed gone to informal Moderation cabel, That was not me that made that Post. I have no idea who that was. a fan of mine I suspect ;). I beleive that the informal moderation section is Okay under the dispute resoultion guidelines. If there is a different route you would like to take, I'm cool with that too."71.135.102.35 07:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)"

Funny, a phantom (or fan-tom) troll. Good, I was going to suggest the informal moderation cabal as well. -Jim Butler 08:08, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I am Having a problem understanding something. Are you stating that the FCI is a Credible primary source, a self-published website primary source(the only wikipedia policy you linked to), a partisan primary source, or something else entierly? Sorry, but it's not enterily clear to me. I am prepared to respond regardless, but I don't want to misrepresent your argument, Which would just waste everyones time."71.135.101.199 10:49, 10 March 2006 (UTC)"

I think the FCI are a verifiable and reliable source for their POV, basically. I'm arguing that they are definitely a credible primary source for views of FC proponents. By definition we would cite some of these things using phrases like "FC proponents say....." and so on. Or "The FCI's training stadards for FC say X".

On self-publication, I gather that their site, as with any site associated with an academically-based institute, would be considered to be self-published, unless there is some technical Wikipedia definition of that term I'm unaware of. But they also publish stuff from other FC users and advocates who aren't directly associated with the FCI, so it gets murky: as a publisher of other people's essays, rants of whatever, are they a primary or secondary source? If an FC proponent, with not formal affiliation with the FCI, writes an essay and publishes it on the FCI's site, is that article self-published or not? Either way I would see the article as a verifiable reliable representation of the pro-FC POV. The FCI, as an established, academically-based institute, has the ability and motivation to make sure that what it publishes accurately portrays its POV. It's kind of like a think-tank or church with a publishing arm: you can bet that stuff they publish will accurately represent the POV of like-minded people, but not that they will necessarily fairly present other points of view. If you want to learn about Mormonism, for example, a publishing house devoted to proselytizing about Mormonism will give you a reasonable picture of what Mormons say about Mormonisn, but you can't rely on them to fairly portray other faiths. If you want to learn about what skeptics about global warming say, .... etc.

Yes, I believe they have some degree of partisanship, as do many of FC's critics, and thus they shouldn't be considered to be reliable as a secondary source for certain other information, such as views of FC critics, or objective claims about FC efficacy. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence, and objectively-validated instances of genuine authorship via FC are still relatively rare in the published literature. Therefore, I would not think a neutral observer would find the FCI credible as a sole secondary source for any claims about FC's efficacy. One could not say, solely based on claims on their site, that "X successfuly did a message-passing experiment". One would have to qualify such a citation by saying something like "FC supporters say that X successfuly did a message-passing experiment." Again, I think they are a verifiable and reliable source for their POV, but not for claims about efficacy that need objective validation. Does that make sense?

As an aside, I should point out that as a part-time self-employed, full-time parent of a kid with neurodevelopmental differences and unusual sleep cycles, my schedule is a bit irregular. So please presume good faith if I'm not online and able to respond during "normal waking hours" for my time zone (EST). -Jim Butler 19:02, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

I think understand what your saying. Before we delve any further into wikipedia policy, I think a couple things should be done. First, you need to document that the FCI is what you claim it to be. That being, major FC proponets. I don't think by virtue of them being located at syacuse is enough, since what you are agruing they do(Advocy) is not academic. If they are movers and shakers in the realm of Faccilitated communication advocay, then a 3rd party, independant, verifiable source should have mentioned them as such. This is not a difficult standerd to meet. For example, you could make this same argument about the Discovery institute in relation to Intelligent Design. It would be simple to document that the Discovery institute is a major proponent of the minorty view of Intelligent design(or abiogenisis? Evolution maybe?)

Secondly, you stated that The FCI are proponets is in the minority view on this subject. If that is the case, why is it that they are cited 8 seperate times? 8 out of 22. They are by far the number one single source cited in this article. 8 More cites in the article are uneqestionably pro-fc(Some verifiable, most not). that would be 16 out of 22. That seems to be vastly out of proportion with what you have stated is the minority view.

I also issue with your statement that the FCI is only used as a source for Fc proponets views. It is used several times, for instance to support That independant Typers exist. as an example:"Without exception, FC users who have achieved (or are close to achieving) independence in typing are affirm that the words they typed during facilitation were indeed their own, and that facilitation played a crucial role in helping them overcome their dyspraxia and achieve independence [21]". this citation is used to support Servral assertions, including: That FC users have dyspraxia, that there are FC users who have or are close to achiving independance, and that the words that they have typed are their own. These things are all issues in the debate, as you well know. They are all supported by a single ciatation to the FCI. The single Ciatations are also a problem. each and every time, single Ciatations are used, but the wikipedia Policy artilce states speficly that single ciatations of non-verifiable primary sources should be avoided.

That is all for now. I have other issues I would like to address with this, but these are the ones that need to be delt with first.71.135.101.199 23:53, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

OK, these are all reasonable things to address. I still think this discussion would benefit from one or more third parties, but let's see how we can proceed.

On documenting the FCI as the main mover and shaker for FC in the US: that is an entirely reasonable request. In all good faith I assure you that I understand the proposition to be true, but I'll probably need to go to an offline book or article for the best fit for verifying it. Online, I was able to find this Washington Post Article on "Autism Is A World" which says "....Doug Biklen, who heads the Facilitated Communication Institute at Syracuse University, is credited with introducing the method in the United States and remains its biggest champion." There are also two NYT articles from the early 1990's that cite Biklen in similar terms although neither mentions the FCI.

With regard to citations, your point is well-taken, but confounded by the fact that there are still a lot of unreferenced statements in the article. I suggest we compile and flag those first and figure the ratio accordingly. More material may well be needed from other POV's, but perhaps the issue is also that existing material needs citation and doing so will provide more balance. This point raises some interesting issues. As editors, we need to consider the relative size of minority POV's, and the correlation between said size and appropriate frequency of citation. (I'll add that when I first started editing this thing, it had little coherent represenation of the por-FC POV, and many of my edits were piecemeal and reactive. Mea culpa if the net result is skewed, but of course that is what we as editors can fix collaboratively.)

With regard to what the FCI is cited for, I agree that the citation you mention doesn't fit the statement; I kept the citation but changed the wording considerably to bring it in line. However, with regard to the single citation issue, I fear we may remain at an impasse, because I interpret Wikipedia's policies to mean a single citation is fine IF it is a verifiable primary source for the issue that is being cited. For example, if it is stipulated that the Discovery Institute is a verifiable and reliable source for ID/creationism, then they alone can be cited without having to verify every statement they make with another source. Or, if John Jones is a famous poet and he starts self-publishing some poetry or autobiographical material or something on his own website, then one can just cite that and be done.

OK, busy weekend ahead. Thanks and I'll be back in a day or two. -Jim Butler 08:32, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

I shall respond to your post as soon as I can. I wanted to let you know however, that I removed this sentance in your new edit:"the individuals discussed here have in fact been cited as independent typists (as referenced above) in independently-reviewed publications." This, as far as I can tell, is just not true, unless you consider the FCI(which, from this very article, I know you do not)to be an independant publication. Even if I just missed the source(it said as cited above. pretty much most of the article is above that sentance)I am pretty damn sure that the source, if it in fact exists, is not verifiable(Which this senatcne strongly implies) . Just thought I would let you know."71.135.105.26 10:20, 11 March 2006 (UTC)"

@ 71.135.105.26 Although I announced a break in my participation in this discussion (I am at a location where I do not have access to my library) - I really would like to add something: In my opinion the last revert is not justified. The individual discussed here have in fact been cited as independent typists, for instance by Beukelman and Mirenda and in the JASH-publication (sources in the text). The first is a standard book in the field of AAC and the latter is a peer-reviewed journal edited by TASH. As far as I know, Nancy Weiss, a proponent of FC, has been an executive director or something like that at TASH at the time of the publication.

Allmuth 11:26, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

addition: Neither of this two sources can serve as "evidence for independent writers", because the respective authors only report about the phenomen and do not discuss why they acknowledge it. They simply say that there are such writers without disclosing the observations that led them to this claim. And in my opinion (maybe I misinterpret the sentence, my english is not so good), this state of the affairs is exactly what Jim said "the individuals discussed here have in fact been cited as independent typists (as referenced above) in independently-reviewed publications", nothing more and nothing less. I really would like to see this sentence again in the article, although I do not share the opinion that there are independent writers in a non-trivial, clinical significant way.

Allmuth 12:06, 11 March 2006 (UTC)

The book you are refering to(Beukelman and Mirenda) is referenced below, not above, the Sentance in question. I took it at it's word. As for the TASH reference, I just don't see it. Doing a word search, I did find TASH under Position statements:TASH (1994)(http://soeweb.syr.edu/thefci/tashfc.htm). However, that is not a peer reviewed Journal. That's just the FCI again. I'm sure I have just misunderstood what you are refering to, but, it sure ain't easy to find(which is why it should of been really cited) In any case, the sentance was poor and not up to wikipedia policy. You agree that the authors are stating their opinions.This is fine, and should be included In wikipedia however, opinions are supposed to be quoted, not summerized and pigonholed, for exactly this reason. I agree that these opinions exist in independantly reviwed publications, and they should be included in the text. But let's include the opinons, not try to make them ourselves."71.135.105.26 22:47, 11 March 2006 (UTC)"

71.135.105.26, please refer to the history where Beukelman and Mirenda are in fact mentioned just above the sentence you removed. JASH is in fact a peer-reviewed journal; cf. http://www.tash.org/publications/rpsd/rpsd_policy.htm. Allmuth, I think your view on how to describe the situation is fair; the independent citations do exist but they are not the same as objective verification. I attempted to rephrase the section accordingly, and hope we can collaborate more on your return. Thanks! -Jim Butler 00:36, 12 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Frugone cite

I cited the original Autism Network International newsletter in which the Frugone piece appeared and from which the online copy was scanned and formatted. Full disclosure: the site on which it's hosted is my own. This isn't "original research", just a copying of a printed document to the Web; it wasn't done at the time with citing on Wikipedia in mind, and simply reflects my ongoing interest in FC. My thoughts on the value of Frugone as a primary source are above under "Dispute over citations". -Jim Butler 10:23, 10 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] structure of the article

I would like to change the structure of the article: Introduction: shorter and without naming single arguments from the debat (because now it contains two, the movement-disorder-hypothesis and the independent-writers-assumption. In my opinion both do not have their right place in the introduction because they are very controverse (minority opinions). I propose to locate this points in the research section. history: ok (maybe one should add information about the precursors of FC, Hansen etc.?) Concerns/research: I would like to rename this paragraph in "research" and then list the controversial issues (e.g. authorship, efficacy, movement disorder assumption, compatibility with current research in autism and literacy, gaze at the keyboard, and so on). Then present in each case (1) the assumption of the FC proponents (2) the position of the critics (3) the counter-argument of the proponents. This paragraph will include then the independent writer section as one of his sections. Then I would add a further paragraph "concerns", describing the concerns of the proponents if FC is not applied (e. g. refusing the possibility to communicate)and describing the concerns of the critics if FC is applied (e.g. attributing a false identitity and in such way impeding the communication) That's it. What do you think about this proposal? If I get positive feedback I will begin with the rewriting. I just see in the preview that I am not logged in. It is me, Allmuth. 84.175.58.17 07:11, 20 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Allmuth, glad to have you back. Most of this sounds reasonable. Right now my main concern is about the introduction; I think it is OK to mention some important controversial issues. The existence of controversy does not necessarily imply a single, majority view that dwarfs a single, minority view; a range of views exists as does a real debate in the literature and in clinical practice. Anyway, I would encourage you to "be bold" as Wikipedia encourages and we can refine the article from there. I'll have more later regarding our discussion above as well. Best regards, -Jim Butler 05:56, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jim, thank you for your comments. I suggest that I first try to revise the concerns/research section as described above. Anyway this will take some time, alone because of the language. If this section is done, we can look again at the introduction part. I think either it should contain all controversial issues in a nutshell (not only the two pro-assumptions), or - what in my current view would be better - only a remark about the controversial nature of the subject.

But now I have to hurry to go work (not the article, but my occupation outdoor). Best regards Allmuth 07:18, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Sounds good. I agree that the intro, whether brief or longer, should not be slanted toward mentioning only controversial issues that are "pro". Authorship is mentioned, and is certainly the main reason FC is criticized; that should probably stay if nothing else does. Efficacy is good to mention too, as long as we don't over-generalize from the studies. Looking at the keyboard is relevant, but really just a subset of authorship, isn't it? To the extent that these things are nuanced, I agree that we should refrain from mentioning them in the intro if we can't do so without oversimplifying.

So let's go ahead with the concerns/research section. Is the research you're planning to cite published in English? Per Wikipedia guidlines, that is generally desirable for English-language articles. If so I can help with the language, if by that you mean summarizing them in English (not that you need much help; you do a good job of getting your points across). I have quite a few articles and am planning a few more trips to the library. This looks like a good one on efficacy, from Bebko et al: [4]. best regards, Jim Butler 18:54, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

Hi Jim,

thank you for your offering of help. Indeed there are some studies, that are only published in the German language. But I will try to write my additions to the article without using these sources. My greater concern is my poor mastery of the english language (my German is much better :-) ), but maybe I can get corrections from you or from other native speakers.

I'm too tired today to edit. But I would like to report about my ideas about the structure of the research section. Maybe it should be divided into three sections (only an idea, I really do not know if it is the most appropriate approach): (1) Empirical evidence (2) theoretical issues (3) the two competing interpretations of the FC-phenomenon.

Then: (1a) outcome of controlled studies (the outcomes of the "negative" studies, the critic of Biklen and others, the reply by the authors of the studies, the outcome of the studies with mixed results, the interpretations by the proponents and the interpretations by the critics (1b) anecdotical evidence (I do not know whether this is a neutral expression. If it has a negative connotation, I must find a better word. I mean all this observations under uncontrolled conditions); (1c) features of the process (the gaze to the keyboard; the Grayson-studies; EPS); (1d) features of the outcome (sophisticated language, linguistic fingerprints). Here is the place for those finnish studies and for the critic to these studies(1e) testimony of independent writers (evidence; objections by the critics)

(2a) compatibility with current conceptions of autism (including the Theory of Mind controversy, e.g. Bara et al.; (2b) compatibility with current conceptions of literacy (2c) compatibility with current conceptions of movement disorders

(3a) the FC-process in the view of the proponents (the technique helps to overcome motor problems/emotional problems and thereby helps to reveal the thoughts of the subjects (3b) the FC-process in the view of the critics (the technique trains the subjects to use sensomotory cues of the facilitators to hit the right keys - without knowing the meaning of the words that are produced in this way). This would be the right place for the Kezuko-study, for reminding Pfungst and for mentioning the research of Wegner and Brugger.

and then no (4) conclusions, because I think this is according to the concept of wikipedia left to the reader. No conclusions, only presenting the evidence and the different views.

That's it so far. What do you think about this concept?

Best regards Allmuth 21:37, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

It sounds like a fine approach to me; we can refine the structure as we go, but I think that including all these things is great. "Anecdotal" is neutral, as far as I know, btw. Thank you! best, Jim Butler 21:46, 21 March 2006 (UTC)

I tried to restructure the first part of the article and as soon as I find time I would like to continue with the research part. Allmuth 16:24, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Thank you again for your work on this, Allmuth. - Jim Butler 04:56, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Response to Frontline (Borthwick et. al.)

I just double-checked the Response to Frontline to which editor 71.135.102.35 objected on the grounds that it was unverifiable and self-published, and guess what, it's not on Chris Borthwick's site as I'd assumed -- it's actually on DEAL's site [5], which uses the same host (home.vicnet.net.au) as Borthwick does [6]. DEAL is of course where Rosemary Crossley developed FC (aka FCT) as it is now known and practiced around the world, so their site is about as verifiable and primary as a source can possibly be for FC advocacy. (Borthwick has collaborated with Crossley on FC and related issues, and is well-known as an FC proponent and is cited as such on the FCI's page [7], so his self-published stuff is also fine in that regard.) -Jim Butler 05:51, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

[edit] Changes to Introduction

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

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

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

[edit] "Naturalistic" vs "Clinical" Settings

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

[edit] General Comment

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

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

I disagree with you about the controversy. If you look at the scientific literature that's cited in the article, you'll see that the position that FC has validity is a significant minority view, not a fringe or pseudoscientific view. I do agree that there may still be some undue weight problems in how the article depicts the controversy. I don't disagree that some people who advocate FC do so without regard to the scientific method, but that's not true of all proponents, and verifiable sources like Bauman, Biklen etc. make this clear. I very much agree with your last sentence, however. Thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 07:36, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Personal note. I'm the father of a kid who uses FC as one mode of communication. I'm also a scientist who has designed and run more controlled studies than I can remember. I've set up situations in which my son has had to message-pass, i.e. relay unknown information with a blinded facilitator. He's been able to do so. That's a result consistent with some of the peer-reviewed research like this. At this point in time, I doubt if he could do that with unknown people in an unfamiliar setting. However, rest assured that nothing is more important to me than getting him more independent and reliable with his communication in everyday life. Thanks, Jim Butler^(talk) 07:50, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Also, I think it's important that as editors we distinguish between the scientific view that something is not proven and the view that it is disproven. Some FC proponents say that those who hold the latter view are holding to conclusions that the data don't suppport (e.g., failure to validate FC under certain experimental conditions does not mean the technique must lack validity in general). That argument is an example of disagreement over study design and interpretation of data, not a rejection of "the rules of science". NPOV requires including such arguments. thx, Jim Butler^(talk) 19:45, 26 September 2006 (UTC)

[edit] chat cleanup and POV stamp

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