Talk:Deej

Facilitated communication

This documentary promotes the idea that this pseudoscientific technique works.

Per the FC article: "There is widespread agreement within the scientific community and multiple disability advocacy organizations that FC is not a valid technique for communicating with those with autism spectrum disorder.[3] Research indicates that the facilitator is the source of the messages obtained through FC (involving ideomotor effect guidance of the arm of the patient by the facilitator)… Facilitated communication has been called "the single most scientifically discredited intervention in all of developmental disabilities".[8]...there is a scientific consensus that facilitated communication is invalid and a pseudoscience, and its use is strongly discouraged by most speech and language disability professional organizations.[3]

Therefore, I hope to see criticism of this documentary by the science and medical community added to this article! RobP (talk) 18:01, 14 August 2019 (UTC)

Let's not shit all over an article because you've determined it's pseudoscience. Martin Wisse (talk) 15:02, 25 August 2019 (UTC)

Interesting that you describe the suggestion to add valid scientific criticism of what is presented as fact in this documentary in the crudest terms. RobP (talk) 01:40, 26 August 2019 (UTC)

The criticism section appears to be written by someone with a heavy anti FC bias, there are articles both about and by autistic's who use FC to communicate which points towards it not being a pseudoscientific technique. Imanautie (talk) 15:30, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Wikipedia does not give pseudoscience extra weight. You obviously aren't paying attention, read the FC Wikipedia page. People who use FC/RPM say it works because they are not the ones "speaking" the words are coming from the facilitators. You have some better articles to use, present them here. Sgerbic (talk) 17:48, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Indeed, with WP:PSCI being policy. —PaleoNeonate – 23:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Endorsement section

I've not seen a endorsement section for a Wikipedia page before. Who are these endorsers? Are they Wikipedia notable? Sgerbic (talk) 04:29, 16 February 2020 (UTC)

Thanks, I've removed the section as undue promotion, it also only cited its own material (WP:ABOUTSELF, WP:SPS, etc). It reminded me of the testimonial shows for multilevel-marketting companies. —PaleoNeonate – 23:33, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

Oh dear! I guess I should have just removed it myself, but thought maybe this is a normal "thing" that I haven't seen here before. Thanks Paleo. Sgerbic (talk) 23:54, 18 February 2020 (UTC)

I want to preface this with a clear note that I do not think this section should be brought back. ("Endorsements" in this kind of situation are probably best addressed in well-sourced prose within the context of a more broadly encompassing reception-type section, which this was not. I simply know of its contents because I was interested in improving this article but wanted to explore its history to make sure I didn't accidentally rehash anything, unless it happened to be worth rehashing, which this isn't.) But I did want to say just for the record: I think the majority of the list was not easily verifiable as notable, but a handful of people (for instance, Ari Ne'eman and Julia Bascom, former and current directors, respectively, of Autistic Self Advocacy Network, alongside one or two others whose names stick less firmly in my head after a night of sleep) were in fact notable. - Purplewowies (talk) 15:40, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Axes to grind regarding facilitated communication

Criticism of the film's depiction of facilitated communication (FC) is welcome, and is covered in the "Criticism" section. But what I saw and corrected (and then got reverted on) went way beyond discussion, suggesting that the film is *about* FC, that it's an advocacy film for it, and including a long introduction that misrepresented the film itself. This film is about FC is the same sense that The Wizard of Oz is about shoes. I'd argue that the "Alternative Medicine" topic is also unwarranted, as -- again -- that's not even close to the topic of the film. I find it hard to believe the critics have seen the film itself. Tone down your obsessions. --tgeller (talk) 15:31, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I went through it again and found a deceptive junk reference. It claimed that an article by subject's father (about DJ's early education) is a "scientific stud[y that] raised questions about facilitated communication". Regardless of anything else, that's just scummy. --tgeller (talk) 15:46, 12 June 2021 (UTC)

I only did a cursory search last time I watched the documentary (wanting to know more about it and what people thought) and at the very least I think the focus on FC here feels WP:UNDUE given that it's half the article, because that level of focus on the criticism doesn't feel due with the amount I came across when doing a casual search. I'm also not sure the alternative medicine series template is warranted. (Also, though this is a personal note more than a discussion of the content: I worry that people who are so focused on how apparently all facilitated communication is "always" the "facilitator's words" or whatever may be letting that bias leech into how much focus they think should be put on it in articles that tangentially are related to facilitated communication, though I may be biased myself from anecdotes I've heard from people who now type mostly or completely independently (i.e. without someone touching them, even if someone may be present) who have expressed disappointment at their communication being maligned because it started as FC.) - Purplewowies (talk) 22:08, 28 July 2022 (UTC)

You have "heard from from people who now type mostly or completely independently... " really? And "tangentially are related to FC?" The entire reason Deej is "writing" is due to the use of FC. Sgerbic (talk) 03:28, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Yes, but that's not what the film is about and the back and forth on this talk page shows that it's controversial enough that it's worth leaving out of the short description specifically, even if facilitated communication as a concept is a fringe viewpoint in Wikipedia parlance (what also suggests it's controversial is the template on the facilitated communication talk page specifically labeling the topic as controversial). The film 100% indisputably features an autistic high school student preparing for college, so I thought it would be more in line with avoiding controversy per WP:SDJARGON's advice to "use universally accepted facts that will not be subject to rapid change, avoiding anything that could be understood as controversial or judgemental" when I changed the short description to cover the most uncontroversial facts of this. I didn't change any of the article text, just took mention of controversial aspects out of the shortdesc. Also, this may be a rash reaction on my end and I'm willing to accept that possibility, but the commanding "your bias is showing, take it to talk" on what I felt was a fairly face value edit felt less than civil--I acknowledged my own biases in this very talk section before I made a single edit to the article (so it wasn't like I was unfamiliar with taking it to the talk page), and even though I described desire to do more than I actually did within the talk message in which I also acknowledged my bias, I only made bold edits to the article for changes I thought would be fairly uncontroversial.

Regarding the "heard from people" bit I used as an example of where I may be biased, since you responded to it, I was going to link a piece of writing I was thinking of but am having trouble finding it (I don't know if the person who wrote it took it down or if I am thinking of the wrong person), so unless/until I do find it, all I can point to that is tangible regarding times I've seen it is that DJ himself is seen typing independently in a few chronologically later scenes in the documentary, which logically cannot be construed as a facilitator putting words in his mouth. But given for the most part that was just a statement of where my own perspective stands, it has little to do with the actual article discussion I was bringing up and is probably not worth zeroing in on (even if the fact I just now mentioned it happened in the film establishes something related to the article if only in an OR-y sort of way). - Purplewowies (talk) 06:02, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. I do not wish to disagree with you, we have seen much vandalism and bias on the FC pages over the years and I am quick on the button to changes that seem to be leaning towards an editor's opinion of FC as a valid communication. Especially if the editor is in communication with someone that practices FC or RPM. In my experience, a person who can type independently is just someone who types. There is no need to qualify an individual as not needing FC any more than you are I need FC to type here on talk. If you are in communication with people who complain that they are not taken seriously because they use FC, then that is an odd statement. You either use FC and are dependent on your facilitator, or you are an independent communicator and never use FC or RPM to communicate. How can someone use FC and be independent?

Your opinion that DJ has been seen typing independently on the video as evidence shows that you have not read the actual articles cited here in the article. You know as well as I do that we editors do not get to interrupt the film for ourselves, but must rely on the secondary sources. The secondary sources that are used here are critical of the methods of FC and there is no ambiguity that what you see on the video is independent communication. Therefore this Wikipedia article must reflect that.

About the short description. This is not the story of just some random autistic teen getting ready for college. The entire story from beginning to end relies on the supposed communication method which the notable sources show as controversial. The description should remain as is unless there is discussion here to change it. You may not be aware of the rules of FRINGE on Wikipedia which this article clearly falls into. FRINGE topics do not shy away from making it clear that it is controversial. If this were the flat earth page we wouldn't say that because some people actually think the earth is flat we should be cautious and take out the criticism.

Again I apologize if I seem blunt. As I said FRINGE pages including all the FC and RPM pages have had possibly well-meaning editors try to remove criticism for reasons of their own without understanding that these pages have had years of work and contain strong citations explaining that FC is a discredited pseudoscience and not a credible communication method. I keep few pages on my watchlists these days, but this is one of the few that remains. Sgerbic (talk) 07:04, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

My mentioning DJ typing in film independently was not meant to be a comment on what content should be in the article (which is part of why I called my own comment out as OR-y when I brought it up--like, sure, I watched it happen, but at best that'd be synthesizing info from a primary source); it was meant as a... for lack of a better term... "consolation prize" for my not being able to find that piece of writing by someone who has used what they called facilitated communication who primarily types independently now (and I use "independently" here mostly as juxtaposition with the specific types of facilitation/supports that are characteristic of facilitated communication; I don't usually use that descriptor in almost any context). It's about as usable in-article as if I casually mentioned I attended a webinar that happened to include the doc subject on its panel (something that I did do once, without realizing)--it has little to do with the article content, and in the places where it does overlap, it's OR.

More on topic: I am quite aware of WP:FRINGE, yes (I can't say this now since I don't always have the best memory, but at one point long ago I knew it "cover to cover"). But I also think that in the interest of the fact that WP:SDJARGON mentions avoiding things understood as controversial within short descriptions specifically, I thought it made more sense to focus on the cold hard facts rather than the interpretation that the film's intent was to promote facilitated communication. That felt like something it made more sense to address in the article content for that reason, even if I've raised concerns here about whether the current weight on that information is due in the context of the film. Similar to how Modern flat Earth beliefs does not remotely shy away from describing them in the frame of generally-accepted science (that is, that it's pseudoscience/fringe/conspiracy thinking), but its current (longstanding) short description describes the topic using language that does not get into these aspects but describes it using the core description of what it technically is: "Modern-day beliefs concerning the shape of the Earth". An article can directly address controversy or fringe beliefs while having a short description that doesn't attempt to address that controversy in that limited space. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:06, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

So with this logic if the controversy is removed the short description for Simone Gold would be "Short description|American doctor" and not what it currently is "Short description|American doctor, anti-vaccine activist, and founder of America's Frontline Doctors" and Flat Earth would be "short description|Earth's shape as a plane or disk" not what it currently is "short description|Archaic conception of Earth's shape as a plane or disk" or Homeopathy as "Short description|medicine created by Samuel Hahnemann" and not what it is currently "Short description|Pseudoscientific system of alternative medicine". NOTE that I just copied and pasted the flat earth short description and it is not what you stated "Modern-day beliefs concerning the shape of the Earth". Sgerbic (talk) 04:19, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

It's a bit late so I'm not sure this reply to you will cover or respond to enough of your message to actually further discussion (even though your reply not very long and even though this reply is inexplicably very long XP) and so I may look at/address more of the "meat" of it later if I think I need to, but I noticed it on my watchlist before I was about to close the tab and wanted to clarify something.

I pulled that "modern-day beliefs" description from the page I linked in my prior reply, Modern flat Earth beliefs, because I figured when you were talking about flat Earth you were talking about the more recent surges of conspiracy theory type beliefs, so I actually went over there to see how they phrased it because I wanted to know if and how they addressed it being a pseudoscience in the short description and found the fact it didn't try using the short description to address that at all (despite very clearly addressing it in the article text) interesting/a-tad-surprising enough to bring up here.

I did also look at Flat Earth before I went to the modern beliefs article (because it's what first comes up when searching "flat earth" on here) and noted that it used the "archaic conception" language (which doesn't come across as controversial or judgemental to me, as it just means "old" and the article is about ancient cultures), but I wikiladdered on over to the modern article because I figured that you were talking about modern day pseudoscience/conspiracy beliefs and not that article which largely discusses since-debunked historical conceptions that would have been considered some level of mainstream when they were conceived. - Purplewowies (talk) 06:38, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

So you have addressed the flat earth short description but not the others. We are getting off the subject of Deej. Sgerbic (talk) 08:51, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

Honestly, I felt that your bringing the "if this were the flat earth" page into this (and honestly the other short descriptions) felt a tad WP:OTHERCONTENT but I decided to follow the rabbithole originally because you made a claim about what should or shouldn't be happening in the flat earth description but had not referenced what said description's content might actually be, so I was interested in looking into it (even if that could be a bit OTHERCONTENT itself). Then my comment last night was mostly intended to clarify something it seemed you misunderstood, though I took a lot of words to get there. I would go back and address the full comment, but as your most recent reply seems to be criticizing both my incomplete addressing of your previous reply as well as the fact that I addressed it at all, there's not really a "winner" path I can take here regarding further discussing any of the rest of your comment about other short descriptions, so I'll be going the path of "let it go" and dropping that tangent of this discussion.

My focus within the context of this chunk of thread has been and continues to be that I believe it's possible to not shy away from accurately representing some of the criticisms that seem to have been levied against this documentary/its controversial aspects in the article prose without hashing them out in the limited space of the short description, which to my understanding of WP:SDJARGON is discouraged. But perhaps with the centripetal force produced by the way this discussion seems to be going in circles, the focus is having a hard time staying in "orbit" as it were. I hesitate to say this but it's beginning to feel in this one-on-one between us as if The Rock and The Hard Place are trying to find a consensus they may never reach. - Purplewowies (talk) 16:05, 31 July 2022 (UTC)

I have placed a tag on the first source in the criticism section as it does not support the sentence it is attached to. It's an article by the documentary's subject and discusses facilitated communication but it contains no information about the documentary or its contents, which makes sense as it was published several years before the documentary was even filmed. I'm curious as to what logic was used to have it support that sentence. Unrelatedly, I've looked into the alternative medicine series template and its documentation says it should be used "articles that are included in [it]", which this film is not. I'm sure the rationale for its inclusion is "facilitated communication exists within this film", but to me that rationale is about like, say, putting the Elon Musk sidebar on the Twitter article, or putting the human growth and development sidebar on every BLP. Part of me wants to boldly remove it but I figured I'd more thoroughly detail my concerns here first because at least that way there might be some chance at discussion. - Purplewowies (talk) 02:10, 30 July 2022 (UTC)

Autism rights movement template removal

Per WP:BRD I'm bringing my concern about this undo here. Sgerbic, is there a specific reason you removed this template, since you didn't provide a summary on your undo? I was bold with the edit since I figured the template was relevant; this article mentions the documentary being related to the neurodiversity movement (so a connection with the topic of the sidebar) and the template even contains links in its issues section to other topics that this article discusses, like facilitated communication and augmentative and alternative communication. It seems as if the article is clearly related to the template's topic. I'm mostly just confused with the removal in conjunction with its unexplained nature and thought it was better to follow BRD than to, say, potentially edit war by reverting an unexplained removal. Thanks. - Purplewowies (talk) 19:39, 28 July 2024 (UTC)

You have been making lots of edits to the Deej's article, as if the communication is real. There are many R/S that show that Deej is not communicating though FC and did not graduate from school, the facilitator did. The autism rights movement you added is added as if FC is pro autism. I'm sorry I didn't add a summary, I realized I forgot as I was doing something else at the time. I think we need to look at the changes you have already made to the article before making more. Sgerbic (talk) 04:55, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I've made four edits (not a number I would categorize as "a lot", even though all have been made in the past week or so) to this article in the past two years, not counting the one to add that template; I had actually been avoiding editing the article until seeing someone else make edits because it felt two years ago (and now, frankly) like you had been approaching edits I make with some sort of assumption of bad faith on my part. Heck, part of me was even a little scared to make edits for the past two years until I saw someone else do it; it feels as if my edits are being squashed into a slide that you have to accession before I can be "allowed" to edit the article. (Last time this happened, it translated into me backing off for fear of starting an edit war or protracted dispute, trying to figure out if I could draft some edits and then bring them to the talk page for discussion/your approval before actually making them, and then ultimately not doing that, because I got sick and then got too busy.)

Not counting the template addition, the edits I've made to the article recently were to: a) remove a sentence that was tagged as using a dubious source two years ago, which never received focus or discussion on this talk page after the initial time it was brought up and had thus become stale (plus move a nearby sentence so that its content still made sense in the context of the paragraph once the dubiously sourced one was removed), b) add what I tried to make sure was neutrally-phrased context about who one of the reviewers was, c) change the short description slightly (the entire short description has been rewritten by someone in the shortdesc Wikiproject since then), and d) removing what I believed to be very clear synthesis of something no reliable sources appeared to say. A number of other edits have been made recently by Blobs2; are you conflating their edits with mine?

The sources on the article merely state that he graduated college; is there a reliable source you can provide that says that his facilitator graduated and not him? From the sources provided, the assertion that was removed (item d in my list of edits) seemed to be drawing its own conclusion based on sources that state he was conferred a degree and sources that state he uses/used FC (i.e. "source A says he used FC, and because FC is not legitimate, source B must mean that a facilitator got/did the degree and not him" when neither set of sources actually says that). This kind of thing would be synthesis/original research on its own, but I did note in my edit summary for that removal that another reliable source cited in the article (added by Blobs2) states DJ can communicate independently.

You are drawing conclusions about my reasons for adding the template that do not actually reflect why I added it. I don't think an article's topic even has to be pro-autism to be relevant enough for the autism rights movement template to be added (and its transclusions would seem to support this; it's on articles for a few people I know are not pro-autism or at least not pro-neurodiversity). To be worth transcluding, I just think the article has to be sufficiently relevant to the topic. I added the template because the article relates the film to the neurodiversity movement; in particular, it states "The film depicts Savarese as an activist with the goal of promoting communication access for nonspeaking autistic people as part of the neurodiversity movement." I added the template because the article seemed related enough to the template's topic that it was worth including. In the absence of an edit summary (though thank you for explaining why one was not included), the removal was confusing given my own rationale for adding the template, though looking back, maybe I could have included the "I think it's related" reasoning in my own edit summary instead of just saying I was adding the template. I was making a quick edit before needing to do something else at the time myself and probably could have stood to spend more time writing that summary. - Purplewowies (talk) 07:40, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

I'll join the discussion here, since I added the source saying that Deej communicated using AAC, not FC. For convenience, the source I cited is here: https://thinkingautismguide.com/2019/09/distorting-deej-deconstructing.html. Sgerbic, since you seemed confused about the past several edits to the article, you might consider reading this source, then deciding what your stance is after that. Blobs2 (talk) 15:11, 29 July 2024 (UTC)

Sgerbic has boldly removed content related to this source, calling it unreliable, though not explaining why it is. I considered just doing a WP:BRD (i.e. the removal was bold, I'd revert it, and then it'd get discussed here) but I'm sick (and in a LOT of pain--I think I pulled a muscle coughing *sigh*) and really don't feel like ending up in the potential other situation a BRD could result in if the D doesn't happen (edit war) so I figured I'd just jump to discussion without the revert so maybe they could elaborate? In my experience that source is typically reliable. What's your rationale it isn't? - Purplewowies (talk) 19:53, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Sorry to hear about your pulled muscle Purplewowies. The thing is, thinkingautismguide is a blog. Wikipedia does not use blogs as reliable sources. The author of that blog Shannon Des Roches Rosa is not Wikipedia notable. Wikipedia does not allow websites, blogs or opinions of whomever to be used as a citation. Hope you feel better. Sgerbic (talk) 23:05, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

In my experience the things that separate it from a typical random blog (editors who check the entries, not just a group of people writing, as well as (in my experience/understanding) thorough fact checking) are the kinds of things that suggest to me it's RS (blogs overall aren't even blanket unacceptable, just usually unacceptable), at least for something like a film review. (Also worth noting that individual writers of a website don't have to necessarily be notable for a source itself to be reliable, unless the intent when saying that was "I don't think this reviewer is notable enough to include"... but by that logic I'm not sure at least one of the other people in that section would fit the bill either.) On the other hand, I kind of don't really feel like hashing it out beyond sharing my opinion on the matter, so... *vague gesturing and just walking away now that I've said my bit because I actually don't know how to end the sentence* Thanks for the well wishes. - Purplewowies (talk) 23:37, 4 December 2024 (UTC)

Coming back to this discussion. I would agree with Purplewowies, that blogs can appropriate sources for some topics, such as film reviews. Sgerbic, I'll tag you here as well, since we briefly exchanged messages on your user talk page. Anyway, let's break down the general argument that Deej "did not legitimately graduate high school or college," because in my opinion, there are 2 separate subarguments:

1. FC is not a viable method of communication.
2. Deej uses/used FC.

I have no doubts about the first subargument, so let's focus on the second. The thing is, scientific journals usually document the techniques in general, not who uses what. In this case, there likely aren't scientific articles stating that Deej uses AAC, but there likely aren't scientific artiles stating that Deej uses FC either. On top of that, it can be seen directly inside the film what methods Deej uses to communicate; this only needs someone who knows what FC vs. AAC looks like, not an entire scientific article dedicated to Deej. I cannot make the judgement call myself, because I watched the film years ago, and I don't know enough about AAC to recognize it with 100% certainty. However, anyone who does know how to recognize AAC would be able to watch Deej and confirm that he uses AAC, not FC.

To Purplewowies's other point that individual writers don't need to be explcitly notable, I agree with this too. Yes some writers out there might accidentally or intentionally post false information, but the vast majority won't. If Wikipedia kept an exhaustive list of "notable" writers, this would seriously restrict information that the site can document, simply because it is written by people off the list, and not because it is actually false. To sum things up, a scientific article is unlikely to say that Deej uses FC, and we have no good reason to believe that he does, so we should go ahead and say that he uses AAC. Blobs2 (talk) 22:07, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

He clearly is being facilitated ... that is FC. The burden of proof is on the person making the claim of the miracle. If someone said you were able to beam yourself to the moon and back for lunch, that requires quite a bit of discussion, you can't just claim that and we all have to accept it just because there is no evidence that you can't beam yourself to the moon for lunch. The consensus of science right now says that FC is pseudoscience. All the testing of it says so. What is being done to Deej is FC. The doc isn't going to say "we are using FC with Deej" they are not going to use those words because they know that FC in the world of science is considered pseudoscience. Sgerbic (talk) 22:27, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Here in the trailer at :55 you can see someone holding his hand and making it point to letters on the pad (see Deej trailer as I can't post the link here) . And seconds later at 1:05 his mother is holding his hand again and "helping" him point to things on the keyboard. This is classic FC. There are carefully tightly edited bits where he is hitting one key on the laptop, but nothing with him doing so without help for more than one key. If he can communicate without the facilitator knowing the answer, then it is easy to test so everyone knows that he is doing so independently. Oddly there is no evidence of that happening. Sgerbic (talk) 22:36, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Just watched the trailer, and I can see what you're talking about (his mom holding his finger, and only briefly typing on his own). I seem to remember reading that he previously used FC but doesn't anymore, but I don't remember where I saw this. In any case, I can return to this discussion once I have more information. Blobs2 (talk) 23:46, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Well you and me both. When he is communicating without using FC and going to college classes, then we will hear it on the front page of all the news. No one has ever "graduated" out of using FC. They just quietly go away and we don't hear from them again. Sadly probably because their mother who is usually the main facilitator is unable to maintain her involvement. Sgerbic (talk) 01:51, 13 July 2025 (UTC)

Response re: Shannon des Roches Rosa

This is in response to @Blobs2 who left the following on my talk page. I think it is better discussed on the article's talk page. "I'm several months late, but I saw you removed some information from the page because the source "wasn't reliable." Could you please explain why it isn't reliable, and how I might be able to find reliable sources on the matter?"

Thank you Blobs2 for reminding me that I should be more clear when reverting edits, this was some time ago and I think I thought the reason for the revert was obvious, so I didn't explain. Now that I see your talk message I see that I should have been clear.

So, not all citations are equal, just because it is on the Internet or in a book or a newspaper, it may not have the same "weight" as another article published in a different place, by a different author. The Wikipedia rules for FRINGE topics are a bit different than in other areas of Wikipedia. When a claim is made that goes against the consensuses of mainstream science, we need a different type of citation, and probably a discussion about the change should be had on the talk page (here). We can't just give equal weight as if science and pseudoscience were equal matters. I mean the word "pseudoscience" is basically saying "outside of science". The Deej movie falls under FRINGE ... pseudoscience and therefore we must have special kinds of citations if we are going to try to add pro-Facilitated Communication content.

To be specific, the link that was added, from Shannon des Roches Rosa and her website thinkingautismguide.com are not considered reliable for use on Wikipedia, and even more so on a article about a FRINGE topic. This is the content I removed "On September 14, 2019, neurodivergence advocate Shannon Des Roches Rosa published an article stating that Deej did not, in fact, use facilitated communication. Rosa argues that Foster, the scientist who first criticized Deej, mistook augmentative and alternative communication for facilitated communication. She further criticized Foster’s article as an example of confirmation bias and scientific ableism, drawing attention to Foster's failure to contact or interview relevant parties before presenting his allegation professionally."

Firstly, Shannon des Roches Rosa is not an noted expert on the topic, she might say she is on her website, others might say so, but if she is someone who can give her opinion on the topic, then I think someone (maybe you) should write a Wikipedia article proving her credentials. I tried looking to see if she would be considered Wikipedia notable, but I found just general things, her website, linkedin, not notable websites, Facebook, Amazon, that kind of thing. I did find an opinion piece by her on WaPo, so that would be (1) of the (3) needed citations. And it's weak because it is her opinion.

So, let's address the next question, can someone who is not Wikipedia notable be quoted on Wikipedia? Yes! They sure can. But they would need to be quoted in an independent reliable source. So if WaPo wanted to write about her opinion of Foster's article about Deej, then that would probably work. What we are trying to avoid Blobs2 is just anyone with a website or blog writing up something with no editorial control and then attempting to use that on Wikipedia. It isn't allowed anywhere on Wikipedia, we don't allow self-published websites or blogs. Otherwise Wikipedia would go to hell in a handbasket with every opinion allowed. Wikipedia would turn into social media ... dog forbid!

In a nutshell, des Roches Rosa is not a expert according to Wikipedia, so her opinion on Wikipedia is not allowed. Her article published on her website with zero editorial oversite is not allowed. Remember, if she was allowed to be added, everyone would be allowed to do so. Foster is not Wikipedia notable, but where he is publishing, is a reliable source. It has editorial control and oversite.

Lastly, "how I might be able to find reliable sources on the matter?" No idea. If there was evidence that Deej was breaking the laws of science and really communicating with his own voice and not that of his facilitator, then the world would already know of that source, it would be all over the world of science and people who work in this area would be thrilled, a break through in communication! The lack of this media coverage and the attention of science might tell you something. Scientists have loved ones that are in the same position that Deej is, and they would love to see Facilitated Communication work as it is claimed, but alas, that is not so. My suggestion to you Blobs2 is to learn the rules of Wikipedia when it comes to FRINGE topics, read more about FC and it's cousins of pseudoscience. If you think you can write des Roches Rosa's Wikipedia article, go for it. If she comes out with content that is not an opinion piece and it is published in a notable place, then that possibly might be usable.

Thank you for allowing me to elaborate, if you have other questions that are general in nature, please reach out on my talk page, I'm happy to help. Sgerbic (talk) 22:19, 12 July 2025 (UTC)

Revisiting Facilitated Communication

I finally had a chance to re-watch the film. As far as I could tell, Deej did indeed use FC throughout high school. I cannot confirm or deny that he used FC while in college, as there isn't enough footage of his college. However, there is a scene when a high school counselor asks if he would have an assistant in college, or if he would type on his own, and he responds that he would type on his own. Again, I can't say for sure that he followed through with this. I was not satisfied with this re-watch alone, so I recovered a web page I had found some years back. This page was made by Ralph Savarese, Deej's father, and it's from an analysis on a book he wrote. I'll link it here, so other users can draw their own conclusions. I'll highlight a few key points from the page.

• Ralph first states that there actually are (new) sources supporting FC. I haven't looked into such sources, but we would ideally cite at least one in this article. Ralph emphasizes that FC works for some people, not all, and one must carefully check that the facilitatee is actually the one communicating. In particular, if the person isn't literate themself, FC can't work. Some people might argue that if the person is literate, they shouldn't need a facilitator, but this isn't necessarily true, due to the huge variation of disabilities. In Deej's particular case, he mentions near the start of the film that his nervous system makes his hand unstable, which is why he has someone stabilize his hand. Again, this only works if Deej is guiding his own hand on the keyboard once it is stable.

• In the second paragraph, Ralph implies that Deej eventually learned to type on his own. He acknowledges that "some critics have suggested that we should have waited to publish this story after DJ had achieved independence." He then explains why this was not done: "I would respond that independent typing can take years to accomplish and, moreover, that some might never be able to accomplish it for reasons that are still unclear. The idea of waiting for total independence at the keyboard before one accepts the communication of people with classical autism is both cruel and unfair. At the same time, one has to be very careful about facilitator influence." As far as I can tell, this reasoning is solid, especially since he addresses the main issue with FC.

• So far, I've stated that FC can sometimes work, but I haven't given compelling evidence that it works in Deej's particular case. Ralph addresses this in the third and fourth paragraphs. Deej has had many different facilitators throughout his life, and by analyzing speech style, one can compare words produced through different facilitators. In other words, if Deej is communicating, he would have similar style accross facilitators; if the facilitators are communicating, each would have thier own style. Deej apparently shows the former, and on top of that, he communicates in a style unlike neurotypicals: for example, he uses the word "fresh" unusually often, and in unsusual contexts. This is probably the clearest evidence one can hope for; while some studies could show that FC works for some people, no study will ever show that it works for everyone (because that is blatantly false), so it must be verified case by case.

That's what I currently have. From that last point, it's pretty clear that FC does work for Deej, even if it doesn't work for a lot of people. Like I mentioned, we should probably look for sources that support FC (because Ralph said such sources exist). Ralph's post can guide us to better understand FC and how Deej uses it, and lead us to citeable sources, even if this post itself might not be citeable. I'll invite Purplewowies and Sgerbic to continue the discussion. Blobs2 (talk) 22:43, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

If someone could "graduate" from FC to become completely independent, not someone needing to be in the room with him, then we would know about that person. It is just that simple. You have watched a video made by supporters of FC and you have made the decision that FC works for Deej? Seriously? If it worked, it would be a major news story. Science would endorse it and it would be recommended. Sgerbic (talk) 23:04, 15 March 2026 (UTC)

I think the line of thinking here is, without any sources at least, trending somewhere in the area of original research (just because it feels like it's trying to draw or synthesize a conclusion not present in any one provided reliable source); just as WP:SYNTH that was in the article was removed (specifically a source that he was conferred a degree was being combined with the sentiment that he has used FC to try to support a statement that his coursework was done through a facilitator, which no individual source supported), this would also be in that ballpark but just in the other direction. I will say, though, that the linked page was actually being used as a source on this article at one point; however, it was removed in part because it did not support the sentence it was being used to cite.

I also want to raise the point that FC is not needing "someone in the room with" you or else every student I work with as a special education TA is using FC and also so am I sometimes. I was under the impression that FC required physical touching. (I had a little tangent here about what we do do in class there but it described a specific incident in a way that made it sound like I had a grudge against the school's BCBA (that is, it was excessively irrelevant to the discussion) so I've left it out here.)

(I also feel the need to say the sometimes dismissive tone that has cropped up from time to time in multiple sections of this talk page at this point really makes me hate the feeling I get whenever I'm tagged into a discussion on this page, sorry. It's just that I've always tried to come to these discussions in good faith and with an eye toward discussion and improving the article, but sometimes it feels as if there's no point to me doing that.) - Purplewowies (talk) 03:08, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

FC does not require physical touching. FC is not science YouTube channel shows examples of FC happening as long as the person is in the room. If you had a student sitting untouched within eyesight or earshot of someone who has practiced (sometimes for years) to give information, you would understand how messages are conveyed. Sgerbic (talk) 04:27, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

I first want to apologize, as I was not aware tagging would make you uncomfortable. Anyways, I admit that I am essentially doing original research. When I say that FC works for Deej, my main source is the page I linked. In particular, the page says that Deej's words through different facilitators was analyzed, compared, and concluded that he had the same style accross facilitators; if Deej's words were in fact the facilitators', then each facilitator would have had their own style. Unfortunately, one has to trust that Ralph did the analysis he described, and that his analysis is correct. To put this information in the article, one would have to find the aforementioned analysis. Ralph says in the same page that sources exist supporting FC, but these sources alone wouldn't be enough to prove that FC works for Deej; only analysis on Deej himself can prove that FC works for Deej. Blobs2 (talk) 18:53, 16 March 2026 (UTC)

Eh, not your fault on the tagging front; I don't think I'd ever really said anything like that and am not sure how much I even realized what was causing it until I was writing the previous reply and thinking to myself "why do I feel like I did right before I went on enforced wikibreak last month?". I think there's just something about this talk page that makes me feel as if I have to engage in discussion here sometimes, even when I... really don't feel good about doing it. (In an attempt to try to figure out how to make that better, I've hidden the talk page from my watchlist (though I haven't unwatched the article/talk page), and I think that's helped a little. Of course, that means if you want me to see something here, you'd actually need to ping or otherwise notify me now, ironically (though it's not like I wouldn't check this talk page if warranted, like if I saw an edit someone made and thought talk might have more context, or if I wanted to make some sort of edit for whatever reason but wanted to make sure it wasn't against some new consensus I wasn't yet aware of).)

I feel like I was a bit rash implying maybe no one should ever ping me here; I think after whatever pushed me over a line last night I'm still trying to "feel out" what parts of discussion here are actually causing me to recoil. *insert thinking emoji here*

At any rate, I do wish there were more reliable sources relevant to this article overall--I've always thought it was missing a bit of fleshing out, but it's the kind of fleshing out that's hard to do without access to sources that we could all agree are reliable... - Purplewowies (talk) 03:09, 17 March 2026 (UTC)