Talk:Naoki Higashida

Facilitated communication

I'm bad at wikipedia but someone should take a look at this article. I don't know how to draw attention here but Facilitated communication is not considered scientific, therefore it is VERY unlikely that Higashida has written any of the works on his name. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.250.3.250 (talk) 12:35, 25 February 2017 (UTC)

This is a very important point, as 'facilitated communication' by holding hands would undermine the credibility of Naoki's works. I see no reference for 'with the help of adults who assisted by guiding his hand'. David Mitchell has clarified that Naoki uses an alphabet grid alone and has now also learned to vocalise characters. I'll add those references in. --Cedders^tk 20:02, 29 October 2017 (UTC)

Returning to this 2017 thread just to say that he doesn't use Facilitated Communication.

There has been extensive Wikipedia debate about this over the last eight years or so, but multiple witnesses (and video evidence) say that he communicates independently. Oolong (talk) 18:18, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

He used a form of facilitated communication when he was first learning to communicate. See the second paragraph under Communication (starting with "Higashida started to communicate via what he calls 'hand-supported writing' or 'letter-tracing' ..."). That is the basis of the debate: absent proof in the form of a controlled trial, some editors do not believe that it is possible to move from FC to independent communication. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:02, 19 September 2025 (UTC)

He still uses FC. No one has moved from FC to independent communication. This is Sky is Blue. Sgerbic (talk) 02:01, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

@Sgerbic citation very much needed.

Even the communication he first used doesn't seem to have ever been Facilitated Communication as such, just something that vaguely resembled it.

Again, he has repeatedly been filmed, and witnessed by entirely credible people, communicating independently. Explaining these observations in any other way relies on something akin to telepathy. Oolong (talk) 09:47, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Oh telepathy huh? I'm sure that is the answer. Anyway, it is still FC. Sgerbic (talk) 17:03, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

AFAIK, no researcher has ever tested whether anyone has moved from FC to independent communication, which is likely why Oolong asked you for a citation. You haven't provided one. Here's another possibility: some people (e.g., Higashida, Hari Srinivasan) have moved from FC to independent communication, and you don't accept it because it lacks the kind of evidence that you're looking for. If the only kind of evidence that you'll accept is from a controlled study, then you become entirely dependent on whether researchers do/don't ask them to participate in such a study, and—if researchers do ask them—on whether they agree to participate. AFAIK, no researchers have asked them to participate in a controlled study. If you have evidence that Higashida and Srinivasan have, in fact, been asked to participate in a controlled study but were unwilling to do so, please do present it. Otherwise, your statement that "No one has moved from FC to independent communication" is simply too strong relative to the research. (And if your response is that there's no controlled study evidence of FC being effective even without moving to independence, that's not true. There's some controlled study evidence of this sort. But there's more controlled study evidence of ineffectiveness. Which leaves various possibilities, including that it's effective for minority of people and ineffective for a large majority.) FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:01, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

You can't ask the people mentioned to do a controlled study, they are being facilitated and their answers are not "their" answers but that of the facilitator. Sgerbic (talk) 21:35, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

Of course you can ask them to do a controlled study, just like researchers have asked other autistic people to do controlled studies. BTW, it's not clear to me that Srinivasan always has an assistant with him. FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:39, 20 September 2025 (UTC)

A new paper strongly backing up my impression that people have greatly over-interpreted the evidence on all this from a couple of decades ago, and calling for more research: https://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/aur.70176 Oolong (talk) 13:52, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

No this isn't a study, just an opinion piece saying more tests should be done. The scientific community that opposes this pseudoscience has been saying for years to conduct carefully controlled tests and they keep refusing. This "study" is also from the pro-FC community. This is newly released but it isn't what you think it is. Sgerbic (talk) 22:00, 20 January 2026 (UTC)

@Sgerbic I didn't call it a study. Oolong (talk) 12:36, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Okay, what is your point about suggesting it? Sgerbic (talk) 23:51, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Nobody has produced a study showing the opposite, either. There is no evidence that Naoki Higashida is incapable of communicating independently, and many reliable sources attesting that he does. Oolong (talk) 17:44, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Are we going back to this again? They are using FC on him. No one has ever stopped using FC and become independent, if this is the one person that has, then we are going to need extraordinary evidence proving that.Sgerbic (talk) 18:03, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

I think Oolong's point was clear: they're under the "impression that people have greatly over-interpreted the evidence on all this from a couple of decades ago," and "more research" would be good. Some of what I value about the paper: it discusses some weaknesses in existing research and proposes specific kinds of research that would start to address those weaknesses. As for needing "extraordinary evidence," if you have a problem with what the article says, either edit it, or propose an edit for discussion. Just follow normal WP standards (e.g., RS, NOR, V).

Re: "They are using FC on him. No one has ever stopped using FC and become independent," you don't have evidence of this. Rather, you're assuming it and asking others to prove otherwise. And it's OK for you to say (paraphrasing my understanding of your thinking) "I'm unaware of any blind trial research showing that someone can start learning to communicate with FC and then become independent, and therefore, in the absence of that research, I'm going to assume that it's not possible, and assume that what we observe with Higashida is visually cued communication all coming from his mother," but you should then likewise accept when someone else responds "I'm unaware of any blind trial research that it's possible to visually cue complex speech in the absence of a fully developed sign language like American Sign Language, and in the absence of such research, I have no reason to think it's possible." I don't see the exchange having progressed beyond this in several exchanges, and I don't see the point of having this exchange yet again. FactOrOpinion (talk) 18:37, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

"I don't see the exchange having progressed beyond this in several exchanges, and I don't see the point of having this exchange yet again." And yet, here you are. Sgerbic (talk) 19:20, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

As are you. Apparently you see some point in it. What point do you see? FactOrOpinion (talk) 21:45, 25 January 2026 (UTC)

Oolong, I don't thnk it makes sense to use this paper in this article, but perhaps you want to create a subsection in the Facilitated communication article about other kinds of research being proposed (that is, other than blinded message passing)?

Sgerbic, re: "they keep refusing," researchers were able to find participants for the recent eye-tracking study. In what year did everyone start refusing to participate in the kind of study you're referring to? FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:24, 22 January 2026 (UTC)

Entirely credible people said Sharissa Kochmeister was communicating independently. Covert filming found she was being abused by her facilitator. Entirely credible people said deeman was communicating independently. A court found he was being abused by his facilitator. Entirely credible people have vouched for the independent communication of people who claim to have met god, angels and aliens. There are entirely credible people currently claiming the telepathy tapes are real.

It’s quite possible to be a ‘credible person’ and be completely wrong. Where a person is communicating by a technique that has failed every time it has been tested, the onus is on supporters to provide a citation, not the people who correctly point out that it is wrong. This is basic safety for autistics within an ecosystem that has repeatedly been proven abusive. 2A02:C7C:9B04:EA00:79CB:3B1C:77AC:1456 (talk) 05:24, 3 October 2025 (UTC)

Justification for deletion

This article should have not been restored, since this method of communication, very similar to facilitated communication, is questionable. See this blog post for numerous examples: 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)

One article, Anne McDonald, was kept, but the article is written to show that she is a victim of the discredited facilitated communication technique, rather than a self-advocate. ~2026-78471-2 (talk) 16:30, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

You should present your argument for deletion at the AfD discussion for this article, not here. As an aside, you shouldn't have prodded it in the first place, as it had already been prodded (see the note at the top of this talk page), and prodding should only occur once; see "PROD is one-shot only: It must not be used for pages PRODed before ..." at WP:PROD. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:35, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for the technical correction on PRODs. Since I am a temp account, I am following these instructions instead: Wikipedia:Articles_for_deletion#How_to_nominate_a_single_page_for_deletion. ~2026-78471-2 (talk) 16:37, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for letting me know that the process differs for unregistered users. I wasn't aware of that. FactOrOpinion (talk) 16:45, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

You're welcome ~2025-40641-16 (talk) 18:31, 4 February 2026 (UTC)

@~2026-78471-2

Naoki Higashida is very clearly notable by Wikipedia's criteria.

The fact the way he learned to communicate resembles a method widely (but not universally) considered discredited does not invalidate the many reliable sources describing him communicating independently (or indeed the videos).

The weight of opinion from reliable sources is strongly in favour of crediting him with the work attributed to him, as anyone can readily verify.

That is supposed to be our criterion here on Wikipedia, right? We represent all significant viewpoints published by reliable sources fairly, proportionately, and without editorial bias. Oolong (talk) 20:53, 7 February 2026 (UTC)

All sources at their core are evaluated based on WP:RELIABILITY. Even sources that are normally 90%+ reliable are WP:FRINGE if they claim that he can communicate independently without solid evidence. From the article:

>Scott Lilienfeld et al. say "there is at present no scientific documentation of Higashida's achievements", and that no videotaped evidence is available.

This dispute was already settled many years ago, based on all the deleted articles which were mentioned. ~2026-78471-2 (talk) 14:56, 8 February 2026 (UTC)

Maybe we need a note at the top of this Talk: page, along these lines?

WhatamIdoing (talk) 19:52, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

Dumb question re this on the 2nd AfD:

The WP:GNG argument is circular — the documentaries, Forbes listing, and translation statistics all derive from the premise that Higashida authored these works.

But we have articles on other folks who are plain old WP:GNG, if they were somehow frauds in their writing or performances? Even if the individual didn't author the works, they could be independently notable from aggregate press over time. That wouldn't be a deletion argument then - a rename or a content / tonal change in-article at most. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 20:26, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Everything in Category:Authorship debates? Category:Pseudonymous writers? Category:Anonymous writers? WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:48, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

Recent rewrite

@~2025-40641-16, you made some large changes as a single edit, and before I revert it (in that the one edit introduced problems and removed relevant text), I figured we could discuss some of the problems. Here are a few to start with:

• Is Higashida "non-verbal"? This is disputed. His ID card in Japan say that he is, evidence shows that he can talk in some situations but can't have spoken conversations, Fein & Kamio dispute that he's non-verbal, the reference used as support discusses how the situation is actually more complex, ... This is the reason that the earlier version said "described as non-verbal". You also deleted the fact that he sounds the letters out as he points to them, which is one of the ways that he verbalizes.
• Fein and Kamio's paper does not support "Facilitated communication (FC) and related techniques, including some of the methods Higashida has used, are considered pseudoscience by mainstream scientific and professional organizations, which hold that the facilitator rather than the disabled person is typically the source of the communication." For example, they say nothing about pseudoscience, and nothing about whether "methods Higashida has used" are condemned by these organizations. They stop short of that.
• Despite the fact that half of the researchers mentioned assess him as writing independently, you've removed everything that accepts any of statement attributed to him as actually coming from him (with one exception: you accepted his statement about his birthday). You've rewritten the entire article as "attributed," contrary to NPOV.
• You removed 1 of the 2 main ways that Mitchell found The Reason I Jump helpful.
• You added "The authenticity of Higashida's authorship has been the subject of significant debate, reflecting the broader scientific consensus that facilitated communication (FC) is not a reliable method of communication," cited to Fein and Kamio, though their paper doesn't support it (e.g., they don't cite anyone else debating his authorship).

There are also minor errors (e.g., "2009 video" ― F&K don't state the date of the video), but those are easy to fix. FactOrOpinion (talk) 19:30, 18 February 2026 (UTC)

I have been attempting to take this article off my watch list for months, but you FactOrOpinion keep drawing me back. The edits by 2025-40641-16 are the most accurate and reflect the consensus of science. I do not want to edit war but you can't just continue to assume competence by someone who clearly is not authoring these works. Sgerbic (talk) 19:43, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Your response hasn't engaged at all with the problems I noted above. I will follow what the RSs say. Most treat him as the author, and some don't. We do not defer to the latter over the former; we address both in proportion to their appearance in RSs. And the claim that he "clearly is not authoring these works" isn't true. It's not clear at all. FactOrOpinion (talk) 20:00, 25 February 2026 (UTC)

Thanks for keeping plugging away at this. I've found it too stressful to engage much with Wikipedia in recent months.

However much we might deplore and dismiss facilitated communication, reliable sources overwhelmingly support the contention that he is fully capable of independent communication!

As such, 'His authorship has not been independently validated through controlled testing' strikes me as highly questionable editiorialising. My authorship as not been independently validated through controlled testing either. Neither has the authorship of whoever inserted that! Oolong (talk) 11:04, 8 May 2026 (UTC)

@FactOrOpinion: I didn't see your message because the temp account keeps jumping around, so I have created an account for this purpose. Just allow me to gather my thoughts. Sfdlkgj (talk) 19:20, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

• Regarding him being non-verbal: I've already updated the article to say he is 'described as non-verbal' rather than stating it as fact. Additionally, I also restored the detail about him sounding out letters as he points to them on his alphabet grid. Sfdlkgj (talk) 19:33, 26 February 2026 (UTC)
• Actually: I believe future discussion should take place at Wikipedia:Fringe_theories/Noticeboard#Naoki_Higashida Sfdlkgj (talk) 20:02, 26 February 2026 (UTC)

  Thanks for engaging, and I've now posted a reply there. FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:41, 26 February 2026 (UTC)