Talk:Facilitated communication: Difference between revisions
Content deleted Content added
→Where's the neutrality?: Reply |
→Where's the neutrality?: Reply |
||
Line 43: | Line 43: | ||
:That article is little more than an opinion piece. Not nearly good enough for a medical-related article. |
:That article is little more than an opinion piece. Not nearly good enough for a medical-related article. |
||
:And I also cannot understand the IP's attempt to explain why it should be considered more than that. I think it just indicates that the IP does not understand the objections. But if they don't understand that opinion pieces cannot be considered equal to double-blind scientific studies, then I don't know how to explain it better. [[User:ApLundell|ApLundell]] ([[User talk:ApLundell|talk]]) 04:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC) |
:And I also cannot understand the IP's attempt to explain why it should be considered more than that. I think it just indicates that the IP does not understand the objections. But if they don't understand that opinion pieces cannot be considered equal to double-blind scientific studies, then I don't know how to explain it better. [[User:ApLundell|ApLundell]] ([[User talk:ApLundell|talk]]) 04:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC) |
||
::"That article is little more than an opinion piece." |
|||
::Opinion pieces don’t contain links to research papers. Check out the article at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/oct/02/simon-baron-cohen-autism-neurodiversity-brains-money if you don’t believe me. Now stop getting in the way of the fulfilment of autism rights. [[Special:Contributions/80.193.98.150|80.193.98.150]] ([[User talk:80.193.98.150|talk]]) 13:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC) |
|||
{{reflist talk}} |
{{reflist talk}} |
Revision as of 13:54, 14 December 2023
This article is written in American English, which has its own spelling conventions (color, defense, traveled) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other varieties of English. According to the relevant style guide, this should not be changed without broad consensus. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Facilitated communication article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1, 2, 3Auto-archiving period: 90 days |
This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information. |
Arbitration Ruling on the Treatment of Pseudoscience In December of 2006 the Arbitration Committee ruled on guidelines for the presentation of topics as pseudoscience in Wikipedia:Requests for arbitration/Pseudoscience. The final decision was as follows:
|
Where's the neutrality?
In the article about Wikipedia, a claim is made that "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view." However, this article puts the lie to that assertion because it has a completely anti-FC slant, with absolutely no sources pointing to its veracity as a method of allowing non-speaking autistic people to communicate by typing when variables are controlled,[1] with the majority of sources being around thirty years old. 80.193.98.150 (talk) 14:28, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- "Wikipedia is written from a neutral point of view." does not mean what you pretend it means. It means obeying WP:PSCI, WP:GEVAL, WP:ECREE, and WP:FRINGE. tgeorgescu (talk) 14:46, 30 November 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not the one pretending that "neutral" has more than one definition, you are. [2] Now stop being disingenuous and contributing to the ableist silencing of autistic voices. 80.193.98.150 (talk) 12:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- Those SJW accusations don't get you very far as far as WP:FRINGE is concerned. You have an extremely high burden of evidence to clear.
- You're actually arguing that the WP:RULES of Wikipedia aren't the WP:RULES of Wikipedia. Isn't that a preposterous argument?
- I'm not a scientist, so I didn't ruin your pet theory. I simply record the fact that the scientific community has ruined your pet theory. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- I'm not the one pretending that "neutral" has more than one definition, you are. [2] Now stop being disingenuous and contributing to the ableist silencing of autistic voices. 80.193.98.150 (talk) 12:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- That link does not even contain the word "blind" (or "blinded"). It was not written by competent people who know how to test such things. --Hob Gadling (talk) 06:21, 1 December 2023 (UTC)
- Why does it matter that the test wasn't blinded (singly or doubly) when what was being tested was not the entire intervention, but just one aspect of it? Please try not to be disingenuous. 80.193.98.150 (talk) 11:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- Now it is you who has to explain their point. I don't understand what you mean above. I mean: I can parse the words, but I don't detect any meaning germane to our article. Nor to what Hob stated. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- Now it is you who has to explain their point. I don't understand what you mean above. I mean: I can parse the words, but I don't detect any meaning germane to our article. Nor to what I stated. 80.193.98.150 (talk) 12:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- I saw that you're trying to refute Hob's argument. But your own argument is garbled beyond recognition.
- E.g. I don't see why "what was being tested was not the entire intervention, but just one aspect of it" would be a valid argument against performing blinding. If there is a reason why, please state that reason. Maybe there is a reason which I don't know. Otherwise it isn't a cogent argument. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:47, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- If my argument is "garbled beyond recognition" to you, then maybe it is in you that the fault lies. You said: "I don't see why 'what was being tested was not the entire intervention, but just one aspect of it' would be a valid argument against performing blinding."
- Basically, what was being tested was whether the people using FC were actually communicating through it or if there was any facilitator influence. In this scenario, why would the testers need to have a "placebo" intervention against which to test that single aspect of FC? Stop throwing in unnecessary aspects to back your argument against the fulfilment of autism rights. 80.193.98.150 (talk) 13:49, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
- Now it is you who has to explain their point. I don't understand what you mean above. I mean: I can parse the words, but I don't detect any meaning germane to our article. Nor to what I stated. 80.193.98.150 (talk) 12:13, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- Now it is you who has to explain their point. I don't understand what you mean above. I mean: I can parse the words, but I don't detect any meaning germane to our article. Nor to what Hob stated. tgeorgescu (talk) 12:09, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- Why does it matter that the test wasn't blinded (singly or doubly) when what was being tested was not the entire intervention, but just one aspect of it? Please try not to be disingenuous. 80.193.98.150 (talk) 11:58, 2 December 2023 (UTC)
- That article is little more than an opinion piece. Not nearly good enough for a medical-related article.
- And I also cannot understand the IP's attempt to explain why it should be considered more than that. I think it just indicates that the IP does not understand the objections. But if they don't understand that opinion pieces cannot be considered equal to double-blind scientific studies, then I don't know how to explain it better. ApLundell (talk) 04:15, 3 December 2023 (UTC)
- "That article is little more than an opinion piece."
- Opinion pieces don’t contain links to research papers. Check out the article at https://www.theguardian.com/society/2019/oct/02/simon-baron-cohen-autism-neurodiversity-brains-money if you don’t believe me. Now stop getting in the way of the fulfilment of autism rights. 80.193.98.150 (talk) 13:54, 14 December 2023 (UTC)
Categories:
- Wikipedia articles that use American English
- C-Class psychology articles
- Low-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- Start-Class Skepticism articles
- Mid-importance Skepticism articles
- WikiProject Skepticism articles
- C-Class Alternative medicine articles
- C-Class Alternative Views articles
- Mid-importance Alternative Views articles
- WikiProject Alternative Views articles
- Start-Class Autism articles
- High-importance Autism articles
- WikiProject Autism articles
- B-Class Disability articles
- WikiProject Disability articles
- Wikipedia controversial topics