Talk:Ido Kedar

This article should be deleted without dispute, based on consensus from many years ago

I am surprised that most of the following was not brought up in the previous discussion, Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Ido Kedar.

Rapid Prompting Method, the way he allegedly communicates, is scientifically discredited. Regarding consensus, see this blog post for an in-depth explanation: https://corticalchauvinism.wordpress.com/2019/06/26/a-triple-victory-three-wikipedia-articles-promoting-facilitated-communication-are-deleted/

From Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Amy Sequenzia (2nd nomination), "Reliability is always evaluated in terms of a specific work from that publisher and in terms of the specific information being cited, in relation to the current article."

Also see

• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Amy_Sequenzia_(2nd_nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Sue Rubin,
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Benjamin Alexander (writer),
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Tito Mukhopadhyay,
• Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Lucy_Blackman_(2nd_nomination)
• Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Birger Sellin (2nd nomination)

AfD request at Wikipedia_talk:Articles_for_deletion#AFD_request:_Ido_Kedar

~2026-78471-2 (talk) 13:33, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Of course he is not authoring the books listed on the Wikipedia article. But there is so much opposition to altering the article that even making slight changes are impossible and weeks of back and forth with no decisions happen. I can't see this article being deleted until Kedar is tested showing that he is not the author, and because they have nothing to gain by conducting controlled testing, and everything to lose. Testing will not happen. It's the same as people who claim they are communicating with dead people. Supporters want to believe that one of these mediums is able to communicate, and until all mediums are tested and proved to not have that ability, they want to continue saying that it's possible. The issue with Kedar is also that reliable sources continue to support the claims of his authorship, without evidence other than eyewitness reports by people who are not trained to look for FC. Because of all this, I can't see wasting months on getting the article deleted, when editors in support of FC becoming independent communicators are going to drive opposition. Sgerbic (talk) 01:42, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

@Sgerbic: WP:BEBOLD! We have deleted so many articles that promote WP:FRINGE, and Naoki Higashida is also heading this way. Let's stand up for what is right. I encourage you to voice your concern on Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion/Ido_Kedar_(2nd_nomination). I watch this when I want to be motivated in the face of difficulty: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I5Zqo36bZr8 ~2026-88582-5 (talk) 19:33, 9 February 2026 (UTC)

You be bold. I've stated my reasons why I don't think this article will be deleted and I don't want to go though weeks of my time being wasted with back and forth from editors who do not understand what FC is. Why aren't you starting the AfD? I edit using my real name and am not keen on someone pushing something on me they aren't willing to do themselves. I think you have stated that you want to remain private, fine, remain private, but open up an account, learn the rules, develop an edit history that is robust and diverse and when I see something that I want to weigh in on at an AfD, I'll do so.Sgerbic (talk) 19:38, 10 February 2026 (UTC)

I don't want an account because this could enable chronic abuse from temp accounts/IPs. I've seen it many times before.

Also, I started the AfD before I pinged you, and have chosen to be bold. Unfortunately, I can't create it because I don't have an account. It seems that many people today don't understand the fundamentals of how logical analysis actually works. You are right about the "slippery slope", btw 🙂. ~2025-40641-16 (talk) 03:14, 11 February 2026 (UTC)

Recent rewrite

@~2026-11595-77, you made some significant changes as a single edit, and before I revert it (in that the one edit introduced multiple problems), I figured we could discuss some of the problems; that is, I'm choosing to place DISCUSS before REVERT in the hopes that we can come to consensus about text that will work. Here are a few problems to start with:

• In your edit summary, you said that you "Rewrote to be WP:FRINGE compliant," but you made a lot of changes that aren't required by FRINGE. In particular, WP:FRINGEBLP says "Fringe views of those better known for other achievements or incidents should not be given undue prominence ..." He is best known as an author, not as a promoter of FC or RPM. Only the latter might be considered fringe, though even there, whether it is/isn't is disputed within the field and would more appropriately be considered minority.
• You wrote "Kedar's communication method involves facilitated communication (FC) and the rapid prompting method (RPM)," but provide no source that he is still using FC or RPM. There are sources that describe him and/or show him typing independently (e.g., NBC News).
• You changed "Kedar uses an IPad on which he types without physical contact from a facilitator" to "Kedar has been reported to type on an iPad without physical contact from a facilitator." There's news video of him doing so (e.g., here), so it's not just "reported." And that's not the only time you changed active to passive voice, as if to cover up who is saying this. If you're going to say "reported," say who reported it. Same thing for "have been attributed"―attributed by whom? "has been described as"―described by whom? More generally, unless an RS is itself describing the communication only as "reported" or "described" or some synonym, we shouldn't be describing it that way either.
• Re: "Katharine Beals has pointed out that nonverbal autistic individuals such as Kedar who require a nearby facilitator to communicate ...," Beals doesn't say that he requires a facilitator, only that there is one in visual cuing range. Don't make her claims out to be stronger than they actually are.

FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:58, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

This is FRINGE BLP compliant, do NOT revert. Sgerbic (talk) 21:21, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

You think I should take orders from you? How about you engage with the problems I raised? FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:29, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

If you look at the last few months of talk pages I and others have been engaging. Sgerbic (talk) 00:04, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

The problems I identified above only came into existence a few days ago in this edit, and unless you can time travel, comments you made months ago can't address the wording/content of this days-old edit. FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:45, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Seems like you've been actively not engaging and refusing to actually try to improve the article whatsoever in the past few months, despite multiple attempts to actually have you address things specifically. If you can't actually address FactOrOpinion's statements about issues with the changes to the article, then your opinion is irrelevant. Silverseren^C 00:59, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

I think you should individually fix the issues you've raised, FactOrOpinion, since there doesn't seem to be any actual specified objection to the issues you've noted. Silverseren^C 01:06, 6 March 2026 (UTC)

One question: If the facilitator is not required, then why are they present whenever he types (if this the case. Until today I was under the impression that Kedar had graduated to typing without the presence of a facilitator).

BTW, the video does decidedly not show him producing any meaningful text, not even a single word. We see his fingers pressing one or two keys without seeing what is happening on the screen, and later on there is a still of the screen that shows a full sentence. The video is almost certainly heavily edited, so we cannot say if there is any relationship between the two. Johannes Rohr (talk) 08:09, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

We don't know whether someone is always present with Kedar when he types. We only know that in videos where some news organization is reporting on him, there's someone else present, and that could easily be because he still needs help remaining focused (he is still severely autistic, whether or not he can type independently), so someone is there when he's at school and when he interacting with people he doesn't know (e.g., a reporter). As for "we cannot say if there is any relationship between the two," you are suggesting―without evidence―that the news organization is misrepresenting what occurred. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:52, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

The news organization in question gave no indication one way or another. Neither should we. jps (talk) 18:31, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I disagree that news organizations give no indication. The Wall Street Journal identified him as the author of an article they published and said he also "publishes a blog." Other news organizations have said things like "he wrote" / "he writes" text and "he published" a book (L. A. Times 1, 2, 3), "Ido talked to us using his iPad" (Canadian Broadcasting Corporation), "Ido said through his iPad" (NBC News L.A.), "he uses an iPad to communicate ... the iPad reads out what he's written" (NBC 4). Why do you believe that they are not "indications" from these news organizations? FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Because there are sources which question whether he can author things, so these organizations and journalists, none of which are experts in how AAC or FC or RPM work, are not reliable sources for identifying proper authorship. jps (talk) 22:00, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

You're moving the goalposts from your claim that "The news organization in question gave no indication one way or another," and from my actual question, which wasn't about whether they're RSs. If you think they're not RSs, you should take that up at the RSN, given that we're currently using some of them as sources (or in the case of the WSJ, listing it as one of Kedar's publications). FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:37, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Nope. I am insisting that we don't have substantiation. To substantiate, you need WP:RS. jps (talk) 04:56, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Indication ≠ substantiation. And again: if you think that they're not RSs, you'll need to take that up at RSN, because you do not have consensus about it here. FactOrOpinion (talk) 11:14, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Substantiation capability is what I consider to be the standard by which we determine WP:RS. Sorry. jps (talk) 16:14, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Did you mean to say something about substantiation when you wrote about indication? I also don't understand what the "sorry" is for. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:05, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I think I have been clear. You can ask others since it seems you don't understand the way I'm putting it. jps (talk) 21:46, 9 May 2026 (UTC)

There are sources that describe him and/or show him typing independently NBC News et al. is not qualified to judge that he is communicating independently. Nor are we set-up to analyze the claimed evidence to that effect. See WP:OR. We know that he used RPM/FC in the past. We have no sources indicating that he is not still using that. We shouldn't comment at all as to whether there was any "graduation". jps (talk) 14:42, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

There's news video of him doing so (e.g., here), so it's not just "reported." Using this footage to claim independence is textbook WP:OR. jps (talk) 14:43, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

OR is allowed in Talk discussions. It's not allowed in articles. It is OR for the article to describe works as "attributed to" Kedar in wikivoice when most RSs are not describing it that way. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:44, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

"Attribute to" is a fact. jps (talk) 18:30, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

There are plenty of facts that would be OR if they were introduced into articles; let me know if you need an example. In all articles about authors, should we change "written by" to "attributed to", and see what response we get from other editors about that fact? The fact is: most RSs themselves are not describing it that way. You know damn well that phrasing it that way introduces a level of doubt that the cited RSs do not express. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:34, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

I think that this is the best we can do. Sorry. jps (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Ableism and slander with financial motivation. Delete the vandalised article immediately

A lot of famous people are hiring guest editors and shadow writers for their own books, yet their Wikipedia pages are not massively attacked and vandalised with denyels of their authorships. The only person who was attacked this way is the person with a motorplanning disability preventing him from expressing his thoughts without help from the outside, while all his activism is dedicated to agitating for providing the same help for the people like him for them to be able to communicate and to get controls ower their lives as well. The way how Ido Kedar wrote his books is the same way how he always communicates and reveals his thoughts and therefore his personality. Denying the authorship through denying the method they also deny the authentity of all his other communications, therefore denying his personality revealed. Using someone's disability to deny them having their personal values is ableism proven long ago. Those are also similar to the presecutions with financial motives and ideologocally motivated presecutions by a destructive cult. As when other people with similar disability are loked inside of their bodies without ability to comunicate (which they will never get, as the propaghanda and mislead against assistive technologies for communications is too strong), without control over own lives and being in a horrible emotional state due to the said unability to communicate, they can be implied to be whatever, and used for gaining income for the "daycares". ~2026-14233-39 (talk) 13:45, 5 March 2026 (UTC)

This isn't about "denying" his personality, this is about authenticating his communication, given that FC and RPM have been shown to be invalid methods. If he is able to express himself, he should easily pass the message passing test and thus put any doubt to rest. Johannes Rohr (talk) 06:28, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

Does Kedar still require the presence of a facilitator?

I thought, Kedar's case was special because he graduated to fully independent typing. Did he ever undergo a message passing test that could put doubts to rest? Johannes Rohr (talk) 06:21, 27 April 2026 (UTC)

No. His family refuses to let him be independently tested. jps (talk) 14:40, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Refusal = saying no to a request. What is your evidence that someone asked him and he/his family said no? AFAIK, no one has ever asked him to participate in research. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:36, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Katharine Beals asked. jps (talk) 18:29, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Please provide a citation and/or a quote. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:24, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

You can talk to her on your own time. jps (talk) 21:59, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

It's your job to substantiate your claim, not mine. FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:27, 5 May 2026 (UTC)

Nope. I'm on the talkpage, remember? jps (talk) 04:55, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

I'm well aware that we're on a talk page; that doesn't change your burden of proof for your claim. If you insist that it does, I'll keep that in mind and refer you back to this in the future whenever I see you ask anyone on a talk page or noticeboard for evidence of a claim they've made. FactOrOpinion (talk) 11:34, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

Try not to threaten other users, okay? jps (talk) 16:13, 6 May 2026 (UTC)

It's not a threat. I have to admit that I'm surprised that you don't take burden of proof more seriously, given that you're a scientist, but c'est la vie. It's too bad, as I'd be happy to learn that Beals did actually ask Kedar to participate in research, and having a citation for it would enable us to improve the article. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:59, 6 May 2026 (UTC)