Editing Eurovision Wiki:Fringe theories/Noticeboard (section)

== Naoki Higashida ==

I've been editing the article on [[Naoki Higashida]], a Japanese man with severe autism to whom more than twenty books have been attributed, most notably ''[[The Reason I Jump]]''. The article is the subject of an ongoing dispute on the talk page about how to handle the authorship question.  The full discussion is at [[Talk:Naoki_Higashida#Recent_rewrite]].

The core issue: Higashida's earlier communication methods ("hand-supported writing" and "letter-tracing") involved physical contact with a facilitator, which is characteristic of [[facilitated communication]] (FC), widely rejected as pseudoscience. He later transitioned to an alphabet grid with no physical contact, but this method still involves a transcriber present and has not been independently validated. Several researchers (Fein & Kamio 2014, Lilienfeld et al. 2014, Beals 2022, Simmons et al. 2021) have questioned whether Higashida is the actual author of the works published under his name. On the other side, some academics (Heyworth et al. 2022 in Frontiers in Psychology, Woodfield & Freedman 2021 in Philosophical Inquiry in Education) assert he has demonstrated independent authorship, though neither conducted controlled testing. Temple Grandin, writing in a peer-reviewed journal, concluded the book was his own work but noted there should have been more documentation.

Of course, just because a journal is peer-reviewed does not mean that it ''must be'' reliable for Wikipedia.

The editorial question: Many mainstream non-academic reliable sources (The Economist, NYT, Time, NHK, Japan Times, Forbes Japan) treat Higashida straightforwardly as the author without evaluating the communication method. [[User:FactOrOpinion]] reverted my changes and raised concerns on the talk page, arguing among other things that the "attributed to" framing throughout the article violates NPOV by removing everything that accepts any statement as coming from Higashida.  I believe that given the scientific consensus against FC and the lack of independent validation of his current method, the article should use more cautious language throughout (e.g., "attributed to" rather than "written by"), consistent with how a similar article on Amy Sequenzia was handled at [[Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amy_Sequenzia_(2nd_nomination)]] (that article was ultimately deleted for BLP concerns related to FC-based communication; [[User:Alsee]]'s response there is particularly relevant).

Looking for input on how [[WP:FRINGE]] applies here - specifically, how much weight the non-academic RS treatment of Higashida as author should carry given the scientific concerns about the communication method. [[User:Sfdlkgj|Sfdlkgj]] ([[User talk:Sfdlkgj|talk]]) 19:47, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

:Absolutely agree. If this article should remain, then it should do so with the verbiage you previously used before FactOrOpinion reverted everything.[https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Naoki_Higashida&oldid=1338025129<nowiki>] Yes, I understand that rs has claimed that Higashida is the author, but those rs are not understanding that what they are witnessing is Facilitated Communication. It is like when JAMA reported that Havana Syndrome was a real phenomenon, completely ignoring the experts explaining that it had all the hallmarks of mass psychogenic illness. For months, editors went with the targeted microwave machine (which there was no evidence existed) and not the clearer explanation. With Higashida, the media reporting his authorship are making the same mistake JAMA did, there has been no previous user of FC that has gone on to become an independent communicator, if it were to happen, the world would know. It would be in science and medical journals around the world. For a rs that has no expertise of FC and a motivation to report feel-good narratives to the public to have more weight than the world of experts on FC is unconscionable. </nowiki>[[User:Sgerbic|Sgerbic]] ([[User talk:Sgerbic|talk]]) 22:52, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
::Thank you, I agree if your points as a whole. I will contribute more tomorrow. [[User:Sfdlkgj|Sfdlkgj]] ([[User talk:Sfdlkgj|talk]]) 02:50, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
:Some of the issues involved:
:* Did Higashida ever use FC? AFAIK, no researcher has said this. Fein and Kamio asked that question, but did not give a firm answer, though they did say that the method was "strikingly reminiscent" to FC without describing the similarities.
:* Re: "Higashida's earlier communication methods ("hand-supported writing" and "letter-tracing") involved physical contact with a facilitator, which is characteristic of facilitated communication (FC)," an adult cupping their hand around a child's hand while the child is learning to write is also characteristic for lots of kids who are beginning to learn to write. In addition to "He later transitioned to an alphabet grid with no physical contact, but this method still involves a transcriber present," there is video with Higashida (1) using an alphabet grid with no physical contact or transcription, where he voices the sound of the letter he's pointing to as he spells out a word, (2) using an alphabet grid with no physical contact and where he is transcribing, and (3) typing on a computer with no physical contact and no transcription is needed. [https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x3hy0ao Here] is video from an hour-long documentary showing these, from ~5:56 through ~12:39 (admittedly, not a great video for our purposes, as it spends a lot of time on his face or without a wide angle). A bit of this is also excerpted in English [https://vimeo.com/498860739 here]. Is all of this equivalent to FC? I don't think so. 
:* Is FC a fringe theory or is it instead a minority theory that is still researched in the field? A [[Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ido Kedar (2nd nomination)#c-Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan-20260210042900-~2026-78471-2-20260208135000|quote]] from @[[User:Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan|Ó.Dubhuir.of.Vulcan]] in a recent AfD on [[Ido Kedar]], another autistic author who used RPM and now types without contact with anyone on an iPad: {{tq2|I am an autism researcher [...] I think it is a big exaggeration to say that assisted typing methods such as FC/RPM/S2C are clearly established as pseudoscience in this field...  On the contrary, it's something that is very much actively debated by many of my colleagues.  While there is indeed plenty of evidence of FC messages being authored falsely, there's also a variety of sources of evidence suggesting that assisted typing methods can sometimes be effective.  Some of those lines of evidence are discussed in this very recent article: Jaswal, V. K., Prizant, B. M., Barense, M. D., Patten, K., & Stobbe, G. (2026). Why We Need to Study Assisted Methods to Teach Typing to Nonspeaking Autistic People. Autism Research. https://doi.org/10.1002/aur.70176 <br>So, clearly FC at least - and quite possibly all of these methods - are dangerous and there's good reasons to be hesitant about endorsing them as ideal practice, but that doesn't mean that they never work or that they never have worked...  Very different questions. <br>Also, who says that Kedar only communicates via RPM?  I was under the impression that he has been able to communicate independently for many years, which would obviously make it much more difficult to argue that his communications are invalid.  ASHA did specifically note that its position statement doesn't apply to people who can type independently, as then no question of facilitator influence arises. <br>So, there seem to be several questions here: <br>1. Does Kedar only communicate with RPM (or other kinds of controversial assisted typing methods)? <br>2. If Kedar only communicates with RPM, could we safely conclude from this that his communications are definitely invalid? [...]}}
::He asks a third question that focuses more on deletion and then gives his answers. Here's the excerpt from the ASHA position statement on FC that he referenced: "This position statement on FC does not pertain to independent typing without 'facilitator' influence." I realize that that comment was about Kedar, but I think if you replace Kedar with Higashida and RPM with FC, his comment touches on relevant issues. Much of the research has been limited (e.g., I don't think any of it followed participants longitudinally, I don't think any of it researched anyone who was typing without physical contact), and when blind tests were carried out with FC, a small number of participants did pass the test. Could they be false positives? Sure, but they could also be true positives and indicate that FC can be effective for a small minority of people. Or perhaps there are other differences in the two groups (passed vs. failed) that weren't explored by the researchers.
:* Re: "independent validation," is Higashida responsible for seeking out a researcher to test him, or are researchers responsible for asking him to participate in research? Is it reasonable for WP to require independent validation of someone's writing if they ever used a method that has some relationship to FC?
:[[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]] ([[User talk:FactOrOpinion|talk]]) 23:37, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
::Facilitated Communication, Rapid Prompting Method, Spelling to Communicate and so on are all established by scientific consensus to be pseudoscience. The burden of proof is on these people who say they are doing something impossible, not on the science community to disprove. Higashida cannot seek out a researcher to test him, he is not independently communicating. 
::If a psychic medium says that she is communicating with Albert Einstein and has new insight into his personal life, and the media picks up that story and relays it as fact. Then using your argument we should change the Einstein Wikipedia article to reflect what the medium said. [[User:Sgerbic|Sgerbic]] ([[User talk:Sgerbic|talk]]) 23:59, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
:::"Facilitated Communication, Rapid Prompting Method, Spelling to Communicate and so on are all established by scientific consensus to be pseudoscience." Is the "and so on" supposed to address Higashida's methods of communication, which are none of FC, RPM or S2C? I dare you to cite any research claiming that the methods Higashida is actually using are pseudoscience.
:::I continue to find it a clear BLP vio for you to analogize this to "psychic mediums" (and elsewhere to Clever Hans). I've said so before. Do I really need to gather all of your comparisons together and go to AE with it? Stop already. 
:::You haven't presented a single example of "a psychic medium says that she is communicating with Albert Einstein and has new insight into his personal life, ''and the media picks up that story and relays it as fact,''" so don't pretend that it's analogous, much less that the consequent in your conditional is "using [my] argument" as that's BS. There are lots of media who are reporting him as the author, and in many cases, they've met with him.
:::You're the one claiming "they are doing something impossible". You cannot even bring yourself to address the fact that in the controlled tests of FC, a small number of people passed the test. Were they doing the impossible too? [[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]] ([[User talk:FactOrOpinion|talk]]) 00:27, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
::::The question isn't whether Higashida's current method is literally FC, RPM, or S2C, it's whether it has been ''independently validated''.  His earlier methods were clearly FC-adjacent (physical contact with a facilitator), and his current method still involves a transcriber present. The fact that no named technique maps exactly onto what he does now doesn't mean the scientific concerns about facilitator influence disappear.
::::Regarding the controlled tests where a small number passed, that's a fair point to raise in the scientific literature, but 2 out of 8 in a single study is not strong enough evidence to overturn the broader consensus. And more to the point, Higashida himself has never undergone such testing, so we don't know which group he'd fall into.
::::Finally I agree with you that the psychic medium analogy might be going too far. [[User:Sfdlkgj|Sfdlkgj]] ([[User talk:Sfdlkgj|talk]]) 03:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::No, the question is whether there's any research at all on the methods he actually uses, instead of assuming "oh, it's close enough to FC, so let's just use the FC research to make assumptions about his communication." As I noted above, among his forms of communication: typing on a computer with no transcriber, using a letterboard with no transcriber, and using a letterboard where he then transcribes what he said himself. 
:::::Whose responsibility is it to independently validate his communication? Researchers. Has any researcher ever asked him to let them test him? AFAIK, the answer is no. Has any researcher even looked at all of the video evidence? AFAIK, the answer is no. Fein and Kamio explicitly noted that they never met with him and give no indication that they tried to meet with him. Beals claims that "There is, however, no evidence that any of the above-cited individuals is able to communicate without a facilitator within cueing range," but she is totally silent about how she went looking for video evidence. She also says nothing about having contacted him to see whether he'd be open to a test. 
:::::Re: "2 out of 8 in a single study is not strong enough evidence to overturn the broader consensus," I'm not trying to overturn the consensus and didn't suggest otherwise; I was pointing out that if the claim is: no one in the world has ever passed a message under controlled conditions, and if they had, researchers would be flocking to them, then that's not the consensus and is clearly false. Also, I didn't say that that's the only study, only that it was an example where not all participants failed in blind message passing. [[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]] ([[User talk:FactOrOpinion|talk]]) 03:55, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::On the video evidence: Fein and Kamio explicitly reviewed video of Higashida.  That's how they observed his mother touching his shoulder, back, and leg during his communication. So "has any researcher even looked at all of the video evidence? AFAIK, the answer is no" isn't accurate. You could argue they didn't review enough video, but that's different from claiming no researcher has looked at it.
::::::On whose responsibility it is to seek validation: I understand the frustration, but that's not the Wikipedia question. We write articles based on what reliable sources currently support, not based on what research should have been done. [[WP:FRINGE]] says "if proper attribution cannot be found among reliable sources of an idea's standing, it should be assumed that the idea has not received consideration or acceptance." The absence of controlled testing may not be Higashida's fault, but it's still the state of the evidence, and the article should reflect that.
::::::On the controlled tests: fair enough, I misunderstood your point. [[User:Sfdlkgj|Sfdlkgj]] ([[User talk:Sfdlkgj|talk]]) 20:03, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::Fein and Kamio don't say what video they looked at, but the date couldn't have been any later than 2014. They do not say what it was comprised of, only that it was "him with his mother" (interacting with any other people? we don't know; taken by whom? we don't know; filmed in what year? we don't know; ...). We do know that that omits all of the video of him from 2015 onward, including the videos I've referred to / linked to above. So they couldn't possibly have looked at all of the video evidence. Did they look at all of the available video of him from 2014 or earlier? Almost certainly not. For example, if they'd looked at the video of him in Wretches & Jabberers (released in 2011), they likely would have identified the film by name; nor would I describe the video of him in that film primarily as "him with his mother," even though she was one of the people present.
:::::::"You could argue they didn't review enough video..." Right. When I wrote "has any researcher even looked at '''all''' of the video evidence?", I meant what I said: all. I did not ask whether any researcher had looked at some unspecified subset of existing video, as it's clear that Fein and Kamio did so.
:::::::Re: whether it falls under FRINGE, you still haven't addressed the central issue: did he ever use FC? If so, is he still using FC? Again, the ASHA position statement clearly says "This position statement on FC does not pertain to independent typing without 'facilitator' influence." What is your evidence that he is being influenced by his mother? Has there ever been any FC research that only involves touch on the back or leg? AFAIK, the answer is no; if I'm wrong about that, just cite the research. If not, we shouldn't presume that such touch is able to cue the creation of complex text; moreover, there's plenty of video evidence of him where there is no physical contact. Please explain why you do not consider that "independent typing." [[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]] ([[User talk:FactOrOpinion|talk]]) 22:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::The core issue is that someone diagnosed with severe, non-verbal autism is claimed to have authored complex literary works - essays, fiction, poetry - in over twenty books. This is an extraordinary claim by any measure. As the old saying goes "Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence."  Uncontrolled video, regardless of how much of it exists, does not meet that standard.
::::::::Fein and Kamio reviewed available evidence and raised concerns. The fact that additional video exists from after their 2014 paper doesn't invalidate their analysis. If newer evidence resolves the question, that would be welcome... but it would need to come through the kind of rigorous evaluation that hasn't yet occurred. [[User:Sfdlkgj|Sfdlkgj]] ([[User talk:Sfdlkgj|talk]]) 13:13, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::First, I already pointed out that Fein and Kamio likely ignored existing video <small>(that is, video that existed at the time)</small>. Second, you have no idea what kind of video they looked at; in all likelihood, it was just as "uncontrolled" as the rest of it. So why are you accepting the video they looked at while rejecting other video? [[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]] ([[User talk:FactOrOpinion|talk]]) 14:05, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::{{u|FactOrOpinion}}, what are your best source(s) for this, ones affirmatively stating Higashida is the author. Just the two article sources mentioned in your initial post? There are some very good reasons to question the reliability of those two. Got anything else? [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 14:36, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::I assume you meant Sfdlkgj's initial post. I'd probably choose the documentaries ''What You Taught Me About My Son'' and ''What You Taught Me About Happiness''. If it weren't for the fact that it's not an independent source, I'd also choose this [https://www.rnz.co.nz/national/programmes/saturday/audio/2018805360/david-mitchell-new-documentary-a-window-into-non-verbal-autism interview] with David Mitchell (the full audio, not the abbreviated written version). There are lots of reviews that state he's the author, including reviews in professional or research journals (e.g., The Lancet), but I assume that's not what you're looking for.
:::::::::::I don't know that the research is strong on either side. None of it draws on all of the relevant evidence that was publicly available at the time of publication, and much of it seems to assume that he's using some variant of FC, which videos show isn't accurate. Fein and Kamio draw on video and a lecture in uncontrolled settings, so if you reject other uncontrolled data, you have to reject the data they drew on too, and vice versa: if it's OK for them to use data from uncontrolled settings, then others should be allowed to too. Same with Simmons et al. Beals barely mentions Higashida, only to note that there's "no evidence that any of the above-cited individuals is able to communicate without a facilitator within cueing range," but with no evidence that one ''can'' cue complex text visually, and no info about how she searched for relevant evidence. Lilienfeld et al. falsely claimed that there was no video evidence available in 2014, even after noting that he appeared in Wretches & Jabberers, falsely calling his appearance a "cameo," when it's about 1/3 of the film. They even say "The book asserts that Higashida has since learned to type independently using a computer and letter board (assisted by a 'helper' who transcribes his communications), but these claims are difficult to evaluate without videotaped footage, which is unavailable as of this writing," ignoring the videotaped evidence in W & J. [[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]] ([[User talk:FactOrOpinion|talk]]) 01:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
{{od}}
My essay at [[WP:YWAB]] says "* We are biased towards [[augmentative and alternative communication]], and biased against [[facilitated communication]]." If anyone here thinks that is wrong, please explain why at [[User talk:Guy Macon/Yes. We are biased.]] This is a widely quoted essay, I want to make sure I am getting it right. --[[User:Guy Macon|Guy Macon]] ([[User talk:Guy Macon|talk]]) 00:46, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

:But is he using FC, and what is the basis for your answer? [[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]] ([[User talk:FactOrOpinion|talk]]) 00:54, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
::What "controlled tests" are you talking about? Are these tests controlled and not run by supporters of FC? Seriously, let's see these controlled tests. [[User:Sgerbic|Sgerbic]] ([[User talk:Sgerbic|talk]]) 01:33, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
:::An example:
:::Crews, W. D., Sanders, E. C., Hensley, L. G., Johnson, Y. M., Bonaventura, S., Rhodes, R. D., & Garren, M. P. (1995). An evaluation of facilitated communication in a group of nonverbal individuals with mental retardation. ''Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders'', 25(2), 205–213.
:::No, not run by FC supporters. 6 of the 8 participants failed message passing; 2 of the 8 succeeded with some message passing. False positives? I don't know. You don't either.
:::It's the reason that you see Fein and Kamio say "In ''virtually'' every case in which the facilitator was blind to the questions posed to the individual, the individual was unable to answer the questions independently" (emphasis added) instead of "In every case ...," or Mostert say "Facilitated Communication (FC) had ''largely'' been empirically discredited as an effective intervention for previously uncommunicative persons with disabilities, especially those with autism and related disorders" (emphasis added) instead of something like "completely empirically discredited." [[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]] ([[User talk:FactOrOpinion|talk]]) 02:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)

* Personally, I think [[Temple Grandin]] has more authority than any of y'all here. [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color: dimgrey;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color: blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 02:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
*:She does, but only because we have absolutely no authority beyond any that comes from the reliable sources we cite. Being autistic does not make her infallible. [[User:Phil Bridger|Phil Bridger]] ([[User talk:Phil Bridger|talk]]) 22:30, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
*::Her autism has nothing to do with the issue. Temple Grandin, as a published academic on the topic of the book and its authorship, is of high authority in regards to reliable sources. It sounds like those above are trying to use the existence of the generally lower quality news sources to claim unreliability for the article, while actively ignoring the already noted in article fact that there is a legitimate rift in the academic community on the topic of this person and their book. It is that disparity in opinion that should be properly represented. To try and purposefully bias the article toward one side of that academic split (and to make claims about the subject that even that side isn't stating, as noted by FactOrOpinion) is to violate both NPOV and our reliable sourcing policies and guidelines. This is clearly a situation of editors trying to input their personal opinion into the article instead of following what the reliable sources say. [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color: dimgrey;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color: blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 23:40, 27 February 2026 (UTC)
*:::We're out of step though, aren't we? On all our pages about FC we stress that it is absolute fringe science and nothing produced through it is actually from the person in question, but then we have an article on a person who uses FC and we treat it like it is a valid communications process. One of these is wrong. [[User:PARAKANYAA|PARAKANYAA]] ([[User talk:PARAKANYAA|talk]]) 00:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
*::::As repeatedly brought up by FactOrOpinion, what sources even confirm the subject was using FC? There were concerns raised about the possibility of that, even by Grandin, but she explicitly went and confirmed otherwise. If anything, FC seems out of topic for this subject outside of the original questioning being noted and the refutation of the claim being made by multiple academics. [[User:Silver seren|<span style="color: dimgrey;">Silver</span>]][[User talk:Silver seren|<span style="color: blue;">seren</span>]]<sup>[[Special:Contributions/Silver seren|C]]</sup> 01:09, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
*:::I think that if editors were strictly following our reliable sourcing policies and guidelines then at least two of the sources supporting authorship (Heyworth, Chan & Lawson 2022;Woodfield & Freedan 2021) would be removed from the article. Grandin is probably the best of a bad lot and she is an animal behavior specialist publishing a short review in a magazine intended for a general audience. [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 03:16, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
*::::That makes sense to me! [[User:Sfdlkgj|Sfdlkgj]] ([[User talk:Sfdlkgj|talk]]) 12:56, 28 February 2026 (UTC)
I don't like saying that things are fringe but Facilitated Communication is fringe. For as much as we can say within the field the scientific debate is over. done. Overwhelming weight of reliable sources. There are two pro-fringe sources cited in the article: they do not examine the question of authorship but simply assert such and use Higashida as an example to promote FC.

But this is a different article and there is no scientific debate, there cannot be, but we manufacture one in the article. It's the usual product of NPOV and RSN: "some ''researchers'' say this and some ''researchers'' say that." Cherry-picking quotes and it is OK because we've attributed them in-text: never mind reading, understanding, and summarizing the sources. Unless there is something i haven't seen no one has ''researched'' the question.
{{quote|Although it is impossible to answer this question with certainty, there is sufficient reason to doubt that Naoki is in fact the independent creator of the book’s eloquent prose.}}
{{quote|It would be extremely easy to provide assurance that Naoki has the capacity to write prose of this level of sophistication}}
Both quotes from Fein & Kamio. Sufficient doubt for them to tell of the dangers to children and families, the whole purpose of their article which we've neglected. But why can't the extremely easy thing be done? It's not that it would be difficult to answer or have potentially ambiguous results with different interpretations. We don't need further video evidence, or more interpretations of existing evidence. They don't lack the ''ability'' to answer the question, they lack the ''opportunity'' to answer it. There is a moral assertion from our fringe sources and briefly in what i've seen from Mitchell. Something along these lines: Higashida is a human being, not a test subject. We should assume competence. It is an injustice to demand a test. Also further assertions which implicate fringe issues with autism. Can of worms.

There are obvious other fringe issues which i think Sfdlkgj tried to address in his edit such as how far to trust Mitchell in describing Higashida's abilities. But if the article continues to address the question of authorship as a question which can be answered by gathering more sources and more evidence from supposed "researchers" i think we are leading the reader astray. Also, if that's the case, then FactOrOpinion is correct to point out deficiencies in Fein & Kamio, unexamined evidence and no answer to whether this is FC or not. I think the article should go no farther than our best source, can't answer the question but some very good reasons to doubt. Present those reasons and the foreseen dangers. Stop there. Going further does not inform the reader as to Higashida's ability to have written these works. Our best source has told us the scientific way to do that, and it's probably not going to happen. [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 15:42, 1 March 2026 (UTC)
:By "stop there" i did not mean to exclude Grandin tho, present her opinion and the basis for her saying that. She relates the book to her own experience which is probably valuable.[[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 15:56, 1 March 2026 (UTC)

'''Overall thoughts:''' I think {{ping|fiveby}} has laid this out well. Based on the discussion, here's what I plan to do in a rewrite:
* Use Fein & Kamio as the anchor for the authorship dispute section, where I present their reasons for doubt and the dangers they identify, without trying to definitively resolve the question
* Keep Grandin's assessment and its basis
* Remove Heyworth et al. and Woodfield & Freedman as insufficiently rigorous sources on the authorship question
* Use cautious but not blanket "attributed to" language - I'm open to suggestions on exactly where this framing is and isn't appropriate
* Keep the article readable as a BLP
I'll give this a few days for feedback before editing. [[User:Sfdlkgj|Sfdlkgj]] ([[User talk:Sfdlkgj|talk]]) 02:29, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

:I think it's unfortunate that no one here has really engaged with the question of whether Higashida is using FC (even if he once did, which is itself an open question―as best I can tell, no one has researched his actual means of communication using an English alphabet to sound out and spell Japanese words), or if he is instead typing independently / independently using an alphabet grid. ASHA is clear that independent typing is not FC, and I've linked to video of him typing independently.
:If you're going to remove Heyworth et al., then you need to remove Beals, which is a response to Heyworth and only devotes two brief sentences to several people including Highashida. I'd also remove Lilienfeld et al., which is vague about what they mean by "scientific documentation," and falsely claimed that no videotaped evidence of him typing independently was available at the time of publication. For the remaining two (Fein and Kamio, and Simmons et al.), I'd make it clear that they're commentary pieces, not research studies, and that Fein and Kamio focus entirely on the question of whether he wrote ''The Reason I Jump'' and do not address authorship for any of his other books (which include picture books for kids, there is also video of him drawing one of the pictures). I think Grandin also focuses entirely on whether he wrote ''The Reason I Jump''.
:If you're going to use "attributed to," then you should make clear who the attribution comes from (e.g., the publisher, the translators, lots of book reviewers, interviewers).
:Re: Fiveby's statement, "They don't lack the ability to answer the question, they lack the opportunity to answer it," AFAIK, they have never asked to meet with him. So I put this on the researchers; they're not going to have the opportunity if they don't ask. And from what I've read of Mitchell, his primary response is that he's spoken with Higashida in person more than once and seen him communicate independently, and that there is video of Higashida doing so, so he doesn't understand why people are so doubtful; he's read about FC and notes that no one is touching Higashida when he types / uses the letter grid, and he dismisses the claim that Higashida is using FC. [[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]] ([[User talk:FactOrOpinion|talk]]) 21:18, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

::Some fair points here. I agree that the article should be clear that Fein & Kamio and Grandin focus on The Reason I Jump specifically, and that the commentary/research distinction should be noted.
::On source removal: removing Heyworth et al. and removing Beals aren't symmetrical situations. Heyworth et al. is being used to support an extraordinary claim (independent authorship) without rigorous evidence. Beals aligns with the broader scientific position on FC. Per [[WP:PARITY]], the standard for sources supporting fringe-adjacent claims is higher than for sources aligned with mainstream consensus.
::On Lilienfeld: a factual error about available video is worth noting, but doesn't invalidate their broader observation about the lack of scientific documentation. I'm open to qualifying how they're cited rather than removing them.
::I'll incorporate the constructive suggestions - specifying who attributes, clarifying the scope of Fein & Kamio and Grandin, and noting that these are commentaries rather than research studies. [[User:Sfdlkgj|Sfdlkgj]] ([[User talk:Sfdlkgj|talk]]) 17:23, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
:::I've read [[Naoki Higashida]] with the edits you made earlier today, and feel comfortable with that compromise, thanks. That said, re: Beals ("There is, however, no evidence that any of the above-cited individuals is able to communicate without a facilitator within cueing range") and Lilienfeld et al. ("there is at present no scientific documentation of Higashida's achievements"), it's hard for me to trust people who say that there's no evidence for X but are absolutely silent about how they searched for evidence of X. We have zero way of knowing that their search was comprehensive. It's routine for people writing a review of research, for example, to present their search terms and search spaces, and this deserves as much forthrightness/detail as that. Also, for Beals, I know of no research that shows that it's possible for someone within range to visually cue someone else to write complex text in the absence of an actual sign language, and I doubt that this is broadly accepted in the field. Are you aware of any such research? [[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]] ([[User talk:FactOrOpinion|talk]]) 23:26, 8 March 2026 (UTC)
::::This sign language thing keeps coming up but is a red herring. Sign language are well understood as languages and anyone who knows the specific sign language can understand what the person signing is saying. In fact nowadays there does not need to be anyone in visual range. If we're talking about one way communication, the person communicating can sign what they're communicating with absolutely zero feed back from anyone else in front of a video camera and anyone who understands the specific sign language can at any time understand what the person communicating said. By comparison FC generally (not commenting about Higashida since I know too little about his case) need a facilitator with experience with the specific individual to be able to relay what is alleged being said. The interpreter cannot simply train someone to read the FC communicator without the FC communicator being involved, such a thing doesn't even make sense since we're not talking about a language that anyone can use. So it's not possible someone simply trained to understand what the FC communicator is saying without relying in the interpreter. It's not possible for the FC communicator to communicate without them being able to also at least do one of see, hear or feel the interpreter I.E. there does need to be two way communication for it to work. [[User:Nil Einne|Nil Einne]] ([[User talk:Nil Einne|talk]]) 02:43, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::I disagree that sign language is a red herring, but to some extent it's also beside the point. You claim "It's not possible for the FC communicator to communicate without them being able to also at least do one of see, hear or feel the interpreter," and I'm asking for research showing that it's possible to communicate long-ish full sentences through sight alone (no oral communication, no touch, not using a sign language of the sort you describe, which is what I meant by "an actual sign language," e.g., ASL).
:::::Even ignoring whether there's research, how are you proposing that a facilitator could visually communicate complex text to the autistic person doing the typing? For that matter, if Frank Friend and I were trying to do this, and we were both in on it, how are you proposing that Frank could visually communicate complex text to me? That is, what specifically could Frank and I work out so that Frank could then get me to type a random (not pre-arranged) sentence? [[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]] ([[User talk:FactOrOpinion|talk]]) 03:37, 9 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::There's lots of trivial ways it ''could'' be done. For example, if the facilitator is holding the keyboard they might be moving it so that the patient's random movements land where it makes the most sense to the facilitator.  They might even do this honestly thinking they were helping in a neutral way.  [[User:ApLundell|ApLundell]] ([[User talk:ApLundell|talk]]) 00:18, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::I'm talking about a situation where Frank Friend isn't touching anything (not me, not a keyboard, not a letter board). I'm also not talking about something obvious, like signing an alphabet. I'm talking about a situation where it doesn't look to a casual observer that anything is happening, but an observer looking for it will be able to find/decipher it. I'd be interested in hearing your other "trivial" ways. [[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]] ([[User talk:FactOrOpinion|talk]]) 01:25, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::FC is not science YouTube channel has many examples. Have you checked those videos out? It is not just someone holding a hand or arm, there are many ways to control the conversation. Remember, most of these teams are parent/child and have been doing FC for years. They might "graduate" to no touch, but the parent is still within view. [[User:Sgerbic|Sgerbic]] ([[User talk:Sgerbic|talk]]) 04:31, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::Oh you skeptics. Have to go out and prove every magician a fraud! The approach to FC and authorship from the science if very clear: {{tq|ensure that they are the authors of the messages generated using blind or double-blind procedures}}[https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/07434618.2014.971490] I think sometimes you allow the burden of proof to be shifted in order to educate those who did not get or ignored a basic education in science. Tough job. Sometimes leads to long talk page threads. [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 09:59, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::I have an education in science, and science demands that you prove it's possible for one person to control the production of complex text by another person without having any physical contact (not with the person, not with a letter board or keyboard), without the obvious use of a sign language or sign alphabet. Those who say it's possible need to prove it. So far, people like Sgerbic have provided zero evidence for it, and haven't even proposed a hypothetical way that it could work using two people who have agreed to do it. This is not a matter of shifting the burden of proof. This is a matter of proving that the repeated claims that it's possible have some evidence. Did you notice that the Schlosser et al. review that you linked to doesn't attempt to address this? They say {{tq2|Facilitated Communication (FC) (also described as “supported typing”) is a technique whereby individuals with disabilities and communication impairments allegedly select letters by typing on a keyboard while receiving physical support, emotional encouragement, and other communication supports from facilitators (CitationSyracuse, n.d.). Although it is acknowledged that FC also includes the pointing to pictures or objects, the focus of this review is on typing. According to the Institute on Communication and Community Inclusion (see CitationSyracuse, n.d.), the physical support may be provided at the index finger, hand, arm, elbow, or shoulder.}} We're talking about "facilitation" ''without'' physical support. [[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]] ([[User talk:FactOrOpinion|talk]]) 12:22, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::I know! Isn't it hilarious! They've talked themselves into accepting your {{tq|prove it's possible for one person to control the production of complex...}} or whatever demands your making. They like to disprove the magic trick. Science can just say there is no such thing as magic. Forty or fifty years of autism research and all the initial work done to discredit FC places the burden of proof squarely in the camp of the FC promoters. Skeptics do phenomenal work around here but they use words like 'woo' so i like to make fun of the every once in awhile. [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 13:35, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::Who says that it's FC? Not Schlosser et al. Not the ASHA position statement on FC: "This position statement on FC does not pertain to independent typing without 'facilitator' influence." Not sure why you're assuming that it's FC despite that counterevidence. [[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]] ([[User talk:FactOrOpinion|talk]]) 14:18, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::I know! Ok, i was making a joke of it and should not have. I'm going from memory here as i've closed out all the tabs with the papers. There are a few reason we care about FC for Higashida. One is that some papers said the earlier communication methods looked like FC. I know you've been mentioning more evidence and later videos, but it is necessary content for the article. Fein & Kamio point out the same dangers to children and families in this case as that which was identified in earlier work on FC. Good content added to article. We had two fringe papers ''using'' Higashida as an example to promote FC. That content has been removed from the article. Fein & Kamio point out that accepting authorship in this case would call into question 40 years of autism research and extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence. With a little bit of OR on my part that is similar to FC's claims. Fein & Kamio clearly establish where the burden of proof lies for claiming Higashida has the capability for authorship: blind message passing test, same as for FC claims. And Fein & Kamio don't really even care so much if FC is involved or not. They doubt whether a 13 year old boy, FC or no, ''autistic or not'' could have written that prose. Someone could have just made it up. But the dangers to children and families are the same in either case.
:::::::::::::"Science" as in the autism and communication researchers have done their work. Except when someone pops up and gets published using Higashida as a case to promote FC. Then you get for example Beals 2022. Very clearly established where the burden of proof lies for both ''The Reason I Jump'' and FC. "Science" doesn't care a bit about later works, other videos which may be augmented communication of facilitated communication or whatever. Got other stuff on their plate.
:::::::::::::But skeptics i think are educators, and they often accept a shift in the burden of proof. Find the hidden wires, prove that wasn't a bigfoot track, prove this lump of rock was ''not'' dropped here by space aliens cause i think it looks kinda weird. And i think that is what everyone is still doing here, trying to prove this possible control or whatever when the burden of proof is on you.
:::::::::::::So why is this thread still going on when the article content has been taken care of? And that was the joke. Tough job. Sometimes leads to long talk page threads. I guess pretty lame if i had to type that much to explain it. [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 16:40, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::"Fein & Kamio point out that accepting authorship in this case would call into question 40 years of autism research" But they leave readers wondering what part of autism research they're referring to. "Fein & Kamio clearly establish where the burden of proof lies for claiming Higashida has the capability for authorship." Yet they didn't even bother to meet with him, much less ask him if he'd participate in a blind message-passing test. Whose responsibility is it to initiate that? Do you expect Higashida to go waving his arms, saying "test me, test me!"? The onus on researchers to contact him and ask, not on him to contact them. "Beals 2022. Very clearly established where the burden of proof lies" And she doesn't ask him to particpate in research either. It's so much easier for her to just say "There is, however, no evidence that any of the above-cited individuals is able to communicate without a facilitator within cueing range," without making any effort to gather evidence, and without providing a shred of research evidence that this kind of visual cuing is possible. And '''that''' is why this thread has continued: because some people want to include Beals in the article, and absent any research at all that what she's proposing is possible, I strongly object to that. [[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]] ([[User talk:FactOrOpinion|talk]]) 18:09, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
:::::::::::::::Well ''i'm'' pissed i can't get any physicists to come and look at my space alien rock or look at the evidence on my youtube channel. [[User:Fiveby|fiveby]]([[User talk:Fiveby|zero]]) 19:01, 16 March 2026 (UTC)
::::::::::::::::SMH if you think that's analogous. [[User:FactOrOpinion|FactOrOpinion]] ([[User talk:FactOrOpinion|talk]]) 20:27, 16 March 2026 (UTC)