Epstein Files Full PDF

Archives

1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10 11, 12, 13, 14, 15, 16, 17, 18, 19, 20 21, 22, 23, 24, 25, 26, 27, 28, 29, 30 31, 32, 33, 34, 35, 36, 37, 38, 39, 40 41, 42, 43, 44, 45, 46, 47, 48, 49, 50 51, 52, 53, 54, 55, 56, 57, 58, 59, 60 61, 62, 63, 64, 65, 66, 67, 68, 69, 70 71, 72, 73, 74, 75, 76, 77, 78, 79, 80 81, 82, 83, 84, 85, 86, 87, 88, 89, 90 91, 92, 93, 94, 95, 96, 97, 98, 99, 100 101, 102, 103, 104, 105, 106, 107, 108, 109, 110 111, 112

This page has archives. Topics inactive for 20 days are automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III if there are more than 4.

These are sources used for many articles, i.e. Nehor to provide the official church interpretation of doctrine. Should we keep these? ~2026-60139-9 (talk) 02:36, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why not? We have tons of articles on various spiritual and religous figures, personages and other things. What does it matter if it's part of a church's doctrine? We keep plenty of Catholicism errata too. Because it's Mormon doesn't mean anything (what the religion is never does). — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 03:26, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Because they are owned by the church, they aren't independent? ~2026-60254-7 (talk) 03:33, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

By definition, the dependent source is the most reliable source for the subject's own views. So a BYU-affiliated source or actually the BYU itself would be the most reliable source for the BYU's own statements/views. Independence is a criterium for determining WP:DUE and WP:NPOV-related matters, not reliability. Jo-Jo Eumerus (talk) 12:39, 28 January 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Its a statement of what Mirmons believe, not what BYU believes. ~2026-10026-82 (talk) 04:22, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Background:

As far as I can tell, the Ayurveda article is correct in claiming that ayurvedic therapies include herbal medicines, special diets, meditation, yoga, massage, laxatives, enemas, and medical oils. Although of course surgery existed in ancient India[1], the concept of Ayurvedic Surgery as part of Ayurveda appears to be a recent addition[2] and the idea of allowing someone with only Ayurveda training to perform surgery is a hot issue in India.

The edit:

In this edit[3], an editor added the claim "Ancient ayurveda texts also taught surgical techniques, including rhinoplasty, lithotomy, sutures, cataract surgery, and the extraction of foreign objects."

The added references ([4][5][6]) might be the result of an all-too-common editing pattern, which is to start with the conclusion and then search for citations supporting it.

The first ref[7] (hit the English button if you get the wrong language) is just a publishers description of a book (available at [8]). Indeed there was surgery in ancient India, and indeed Ayurveda claims to be an uninterrupted medical tradition going back thousands of years, but the second ref[9] and the third ref[10] (Read it here:[11]) appear to be using the term as a description of a period in history (example: "...the ancient Egyptian, Babylonian, Alexandrian, Greco-Roman, and Ayurvedic periods") as opposed to ayurvedic medicine.

In fact, the only mention of Ayurveda in the text of the third ref[12] (again using the term "the Ayurvedic system" to refer to "the system in place during the the Ayurvedic period in history") is this:

"It is quite true that the Ayurvedic system has its faults. It has been remarked that "it consisted of erroneous doctrines founded upon a most fanciful anatomy physiology and pathology. Much indeed could hardly be expected of a science based upon an anatomy which taught that the navel 'constituted a centre from which a vascular system, including 40 principal vessels originated, upon a physiology which declared that these vessels were destined to convey blood, air, bile and phlegm to all parts of the body, and upon a pathology which maintained that disease depended either upon derangements of one or more of these humours or "upon the influence of good or evil spirits' It must however be remembered that this criticism refers to a theory elaborated some 3000 years before."

So my question is this: is adding material about surgery in ancient India a reasonable addition to our Ayurveda article, or is it a stealth way of supporting the controversial idea that people with no medical training other than Ayurveda should be allowed to perform invasive surgery? I could go either way. What say you? -Guy Macon (talk) 18:01, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If it's part of the historical record that it was 'a thing', it should be there, regardless of present political, social, MEDRS or pretty much any other consideration. History is history.

Promotion by exposure/simple presence in-wiki is an (no offense) overblown radical interpretation of 'fringe' I wish would shuffle off forever. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:08, 10 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think the dispute is over whether or not its real. The dispute is over whether it is really part of the Ayurvedic system, or if that's a modern ret-con for more-or-less political reasons. ApLundell (talk) 17:02, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It should be easy to tell. What's the oldest available good reference by year, what year? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:54, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

source 18 is the oldest, it was published in 1913 and is more primary than anything at this point, an interesting snapshot of how british anthropologists probably viewed any non-western science.

all the other sources are from 2017 onwards, likely pushing hindutva ideas. i think its an obvious retcon, especially if sourcing is from Journal of Ayurveda and Integrative Medicine. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:00, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

i dont think the edit in question, if its this one [13], is particularly offensive. the reference from heidelberg is academic sourcing and heidelberg university is accredited and all that.

not sure ayurvedic texts teach surgery, so much as document it. the practices appear to be fairly different. for example, the cataract surgery in ancient india was Couching (ophthalmology), which was apparently widespread in the ancient world from babylonia to ancient egypt. User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 18:07, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The problem is that proponents of Ayurveda claim that pretty much every ancient medical practice in India is "one of the foundations of Ayurveda" and is thus is claimed to be a legitimate part of Ayurveda in 2026.

Even our 1913 source says

"Eighthly, we must enquire whether the medical practice of ancient times is still resorted to by the physicians of the present days. The Hindu system of medicine is still being practised all over India, more or less in its original form, and so can still be studied at first hand. But for our present purpose, we derive little or no help from the Vaids of the present generation. They know practically nothing about anatomy and surgery which began to decline during the Buddhist era, and finally all vestiges of the science became lost during the Mahomedan rule."

and one of the Pro-Ayurveda pages[14] (2025) claims "approximately 330 Ayurvedic surgeons trained annually". That's a tiny number compared to the 1.9 billion people in the Indian subcontinent.

In my opinion the words "Ancient ayurveda texts also taught surgical techniques" and the fact that the claim is in the Ayurveda article is based upon the unwarranted assumption that pretty much everything ever written about disease or medicine in ancient India is an "ancient ayurveda text". If that was true, why does our 1913 source says that anatomy and surgery something that disappeared from "the Hindu system of medicine" before the Muslim period in the Indian subcontinent?

I say it belongs on History of India or History of medicine, not Ayurveda, because the modern revival of Ayurvedic Surgery dates to the 1950s at the earliest. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:03, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

yeah, could be convinced of that,

seems ayurveda as a modern hindutva phenomena is clearly a form of scientific apologism. don't know if i saw any reliable literature say anything about couching or any of these ancient surgical practices being part of ayurveda naturally.

i'm generally unconvinced that the 1913 source itself proves or disproves anything either tbh, anthropologists back then took very biased views of any non-western culture, and academia generally should have updated views.
should be enough to point out that extraordinary claims that ancient peoples did stuff better than modern folks must deal with WP:ONUS User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 23:56, 11 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that the 1913 source us useless for many things, but the claim that the author looked around India and found a bunch of people taking Ayurvedic potions and following Ayurvedic diets but nobody doing Ayurvedic surgery seems sound. Plus we have a 2025 source that says that Ayurvedic Surgery (if it can be called Ayurvedic, which is dubious) disappeared well before 640 CE and was revived with limited acceptance at first around 1950 CE. --Guy Macon (talk) 05:15, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is an AfD with regard to this book by Gad Saad that may be of interest to the frequenters of this noticeboard. Simonm223 (talk) 13:14, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An editor is edit warring over the removal of critical information about the film in two articles. More eyes would be appreciated. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:56, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What an editor is not doing is promoting a fringe theory or determining whether anything is a fringe theory. The discussion literally involves whether or not a source substantiates a statement, which is a discussion on whether or not a statement involves original research.

Sincerely, the unidentified "editor". MjolnirPants if you mention me here you should at least have the courtesy to ping me and mention me by my name. Jay-GH 18:16, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Ben Stein is a promoter of fringe theories. Expelled is propaganda for a fringe theory. Your objection here is worthless. And I generally do not try to 'name and shame' editors on this forum. You're welcome. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:21, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. Do not ping me in discussions I'm already involved in. It's annoying and rude. If someone is involved in a discussion and they did not request to be pinged, then you may safely assume that they are aware of it and able to respond without the notification. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:23, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

And I generally do not try to 'name and shame' editors on this forum. You're welcome. - The belittling remarks of this message and in your other messages is unwarranted. It is indeed a courteous thing to do to notify another editor that you've mentioned them on a noticeboard. Jay-GH 18:35, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Stick to editing by our usual methods and holding yourself to a reasonable standard of accuracy and honesty and you'll find that my tone becomes a lot more congenial. Sarcasm is my reflexive response to silliness. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:42, 12 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Is the procedure here to simply claim that things are fringe theories? I don't think Ben Stein is a promoter of fringe theories. I assert the contrary. Can you bring an issue to this forum simply because it is your personal opinion that Ben Stein is a promoter of fringe theories? And what if, indeed, many people disagree with you? This is all very strange. Larry Sanger (talk) 02:08, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Oh do be quiet. Simonm223 (talk) 13:00, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

He's allowed all the opinions he likes , obviously they're irrelevant unless backed up by reliable sources and so it's just best to ignore hime -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 17:48, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, he's allowed to have his opinions and I'm allowed to have the opinion that he would be better keeping such silliness to himself. Simonm223 (talk) 15:18, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

+1 and I would also add that adding one's opinions to a discussion can absolutely be a disruption to our usual processes here. If Larry has a sourced argument that ID isn't a fringe theory or that Stein isn't a promoter of that theory, those arguments can be raised on that page, instead of coming here to resurrect a thread that had been dead for a week and ready for archiving by making some (frankly, utterly ridiculous) claims that he and the rest of us know will never be taken seriously here. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:37, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Promoting false balance, often arguing it is necessary per WP:NPOV
• Promoting fringe theories or sources
• Arguing endlessly about the neutral point of view policy and particularly trying to undermine the due weight clause
• [...]

I'm sure I've seen all this mentioned somewhere, but apparently we're all pretending that we can't read what someone writes or says elsewhere on the internet. -- LCU ActivelyDisinterested «@» °∆t° 20:58, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You know, now that you mention it, I think I've seen that before... ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 21:10, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think Ben Stein is a promoter of fringe theories The article Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed has lots of sources written by competent people saying that the film contains anti-science falsehoods. They do not use the word "fringe" but for everybody with a clue, it is very clear that Ben Stein is a promoter of fringe theories. It does not matter that there are people for whom it is not clear. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:34, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I just noticed this, and... Le sigh... Larry, you should really learn to figure out the distinction between a personal opinion and a fact. You'd probably still have a place in the WMF had you done so a long time ago. It is a fact that Ben Stein promotes fringe theories. It is not a 'personal opinion', no matter how much you may dislike that fact. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:34, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Expelled: No Intelligence Allowed is an anti-evolution film; denial of evolution is perhaps the iconic WP:FRINGE theory - as I recall, people trying to push it across Wikipedia was one of the major things that initially prompted our current WP:FRINGE policies. There's room to argue over how and where, precisely, we cover a fringe theory, of course, or how we cover figures connected to them, but it's extremely well-established from previous discussions going all the way back to the start of WP:FRINGE as a policy that intelligent design, creationism, and skepticism of evolution are all firmly fringe positions, with no serious academic or scientific grounding whatsoever, and the sourcing on evolution backs this up. --Aquillion (talk) 21:06, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The guideline at the top of the page does say "if you mention specific editors you should notify them", I don't think it's unfair to say that you mentioned specific editor. You didn't name them, but the guideline doesn't say "name", it says "mention". ApLundell (talk) 16:29, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I said above, I don't name editors at this board as a matter of course, because naming someone here is tantamount to accusing them of POV pushing (the edit warring was unquestionable).

However, you're right that I should have notified Jay when I posted this. I'll be better on that in the future. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:33, 13 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Jay Bhattacharya (edit | visual edit | history) · Article talk (edit | history) · Watch

The wording "physician-scientist and health economist" found in each and every RS cited could well be citogenesis. In fact, he never did any science and never worked as a physician. We should not have misinformation, especially in an article about a leading misinformation agent. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:31, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We would do well to emulate something less dishonest / higher-quality e.g. the matter-of-fact description given by The BMJ:

Bhattacharya, 55, was born in India and is a naturalised American citizen. He received his medical degree and degrees in economics from Stanford University. He is now a professor of medicine, economics, and health research policy at Stanford and director of Stanford’s Center for Demography and Economics of Health and Ageing. He does not practise medicine but focuses on the economics of healthcare.

• Tanne JH (December 2024). "Trump nominates Jay Bhattacharya to head US National Institutes of Health". BMJ. 387: q2695. doi:10.1136/bmj.q2695. PMID 39622556.{{cite journal}}: CS1 maint: article number as page number (link)

Bon courage (talk) 13:42, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

It would also be good to know just what White whirlwind thought they were playing at with this[15] edit, adding a straight-up untruth to a BLP which it seems has caused quite a lot of damage. Bon courage (talk) 14:08, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

As I recall, I was trying to summarize what information was present. If the wording is inaccurate, then fix it and move on. I haven’t the slightest interest.  White Whirlwind  17:22, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Perhaps you shouldn't be editing then. Bon courage (talk) 17:30, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't touched his page since. Your wish has been granted. White Whirlwind  02:53, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Weird, that is someone else's NPI, Is there some effort at misinformation going on here? He's certainly an MD, no residency so non-clinical physician might be appropriate. Economics isn't a science? fiveby(zero) 18:13, 14 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I strongly oppose the removal of reliable sources published by actual experts based on surmising about a correlation made by one editor who has asserted citogenesis with no evidence at all. Bhattarcharya is a fringe scientist who promotes conspiracy theories. And we follow what RS say and can call highly educated fools what they are: highly educated fools. The "physician-scientist" descriptor is supported by Scientific American, Politico, and the Association of American Cancer Institutes, and has been in the article for months before Hemiauchenia only recently began warring to remove it based on the citogenesis hunch, which obviously goes against valid efforts to WP:PRESERVE it:

• President-elect Donald Trump wants Jay Bhattacharya, a physician-scientist and economist at Stanford University, to lead the National Institutes of Health. -- Steven M. Albert (University of Pittsburgh), The Scientific American [16]

• Bhattacharya, a physician-scientist and health economist, says... -- Politico [17]

• As a physician-scientist and health economist, Dr. Bhattacharya brings... -- Association of American Cancer Institutes [18]

• During his own Senate confirmation hearings, Bhattacharya, a physician-scientist and health economist known for opposing lockdowns during the Covid-19 pandemic, stated he does not "generally believe" there's a link between vaccines and autism. -- Barron's

  barron's link

• Co-author Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, health economist and epidemiologist at Stanford Medical School, responded in a Newsnight interview. Meghna Chakrabarti, WBUR-FM [19]

No offense Hob Gadling (citogenesis is interesting to think about no doubt) but its more likely that someone like Steven Albert publishing in Scientific American knows what they are talking about rather than just picking up points from the Wikipedia article. Jay-GH 01:11, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This argumentum ad verecundiam is just an invalid thought-terminating cliché. Even the best RS do get stuff wrong or use misleading words, and we know that this "physician-scientist" never did any physician-sciencing. Albert, as an academic, is more interested in the nonsense coming from Bhattacharya than in his credentials. Credentials are for laypeople. There is no need to cling slavishly to a wording just because RS use it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

An argument from ignorance is just as cliché and that is precisely what the citogenesis claim is. It would be absurd to say that "well, we have no actual proof that these experts copied from Wikipedia, but we're just going to assume that they did and disqualify them from there." There is no actual evidence to back up the citogenesis claim, and in the absence of evidence we WP:STICKTOTHESOURCES and what they say. I would be more inclined to adopt the descriptor that Science journal uses:

• Jay Bhattacharya is a physician and economist who during the pandemic... -- Science [20]

• The Journal of the Academy of Public Health (JAPH), announced on Wednesday, is the brainchild of Jay Bhattacharya, a physician and economist at Stanford University -- Science [21]

• Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford physician and economist... -- The New York Times [22]

• Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford University-trained physician and economist, is now the presumptive favorite to be selected... -- The Washington Post [23]

• Dr. Jay Bhattacharya, a Stanford physician and economist, is considering a plan to link a university's likelihood of receiving... -- The Wall Street Journal

  WSJ link

Jay-GH 17:53, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

M.boli showed below that the first occurrence of "physician-scientist" in the article was unsourced. That was November 24, 2024. Your sources are from November 23, 26 and 27 of the same year, from 2025, but they do not say "physician-scientist" but "physician and scientist". The sources that use "physician-scientist" linked on the talk page, [24] December 2024, [25] February 2026, [26] March 2025 and [27] April 2025. That looks like evidence of citogenesis to me. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:33, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Correlation does not imply causation. A health science professor doing his own work is more likely than he deciding to copy from the wiki -- which is what you are implying. Also, "physician-scientist" isn't perfect by any means; I would change it to "physician and economist" along with the appendix above or Math-ghamhainn's suggestion of: health economist who trained as a physician. Jay-GH 19:02, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Correlation does not imply causation I responded to that on the talk page of the article.

If you agree with what your opponents want, why are you still arguing against them? --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm arguing against baseless citogenesis claims, which you support if you want to use the "opponent" term in your above comment. How to phrase the sentence is a different thing which I already pointed out. Jay-GH 19:35, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"Does not meet GuardianH's high standards for evidence" is different from "baseless". And the citogenesis hypothesis is just one reason to remove the dubious "physician-scientist" wording. Fighting against it with spurious reasoning is a waste of time when nothing article-relevant hangs on it. --Hob Gadling (talk) 09:03, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Economics isn't a science? If economy is a science, the word "scientist" is redundant, and adding "physician-" to it is misleading. The combination "physician-scientist" suggests that he did scientific research in medicine. Which he never did. So, Economics isn't a science? is a bad reason for keeping the "scientist" part. I suggest something like "health economist with an education as a physician". --Hob Gadling (talk) 08:31, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

We could check physician-scientist:

A physician-scientist (in North American English) or clinician-scientist (in British English and Australian English) is a physician who divides their professional time between direct clinical practice with patients and scientific research.

Or we could check with the Johns Hopkins Physician-Scientist Training Program: Who are physician-scientists?.

The term is used for people who are doing medicine and also doing medical research. Which isn't J.B.

Spot-checking the citogenesis hypothesis, it seems "physician-scientist" was added as a category in November 2024. And then soon added to the lede with the edit comment "per category". Neither of these edits are referenced. Note that all the references above using that term are subsequent to the term appearing in this article. If people are describing J.B. that way, it very well could be as Hob Gadling suggests. -- M.boli (talk) 14:41, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I don't quite understand what the source of the controversy here is. Dr. Bhattacharya has an M.D., which makes him a physician. (And, sure, earning an M.D. means one has a great deal indeed of medical experience.) He might not be practicing, but then that is why "practicing" is sometimes added to "physician" for clarity. Perhaps "physician-economist" or maybe better "health economist" would fit better, but economics is a branch of social science and so "physician-scientist" is really not incorrect, especially when the focus of economic study is the practice of a branch of science (medicine). All that said, I tend to agree that "physician-scientist" is not the best short descriptor.

I would concur that "Ph.D. health economist trained as a M.D. physician" (or verbiage that conveys the same data) would acknowledge his training and be least confusing.

I find it amusing that this question is being discussed on this noticeboard. Like...why? Larry Sanger (talk) 02:22, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

economics is a branch of social science and so "physician-scientist" is really not incorrect This has been responded ato already.

Like...why? Because Bhattacharya is a promoter of fringe theories. See [28]. --Hob Gadling (talk) 10:38, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The combination "physician-scientist" suggests that he did scientific research in medicine. Which he never did. -- this is contradicted by his profile in Stanford Medicine, which states:

Dr. Bhattacharya’s peer-reviewed research has been published in economics, statistics, legal, medical, public health, and health policy journals. [29]

Articles like that one he wrote in the New England Journal of Medicine [30] being an example. Even so, I would suggest adopting the descriptor that Science uses (linked previously), namely "physician and [health] economist" over "physician-scientist and health economist". Jay-GH 18:02, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

How does "Cost Implications of Reduced Work Hours and Workloads for Resident Physicians" count as medical research? This is getting more and more ridiculous. --Hob Gadling (talk) 18:17, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The New England Journal of Medicine is a medical journal and the article is a medical research article. Have we reached the point where medical research is only what a Wikipedia editor thinks it is? Consider these more conventional articles: [31] [32] [33] Jay-GH 18:47, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The subject is clearly health economics. It's about labor costs, work hours, and cost-effectiveness. WP:SKYBLUE. --Hob Gadling (talk) 19:09, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This seems to be internal medicine (as labeled in the link), not health economics. But this exercise seems fruitless because there is no one with expertise here to determine this. Jay-GH 19:37, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

According to the abstract it was "a retrospective analysis of a commercial database containing claims for more than 75 million enrollees in the USA." Brunton (talk) 20:47, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That is medical research. Katzrockso (talk) 04:46, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Not sure if you mean by "here" as among editors in this thread. But I am a professor at an NCI-designated comprehensive cancer center (PhD in Biophysics, not an MD). Many of my colleagues are MD-PhD trained. They care for patients and have a laboratory studying the properties of cancer cells. I would call them physician-scientists because both of those things are their day job. The paper you cite is an analysis of claims data. It's important but not exactly "internal medicine" in the sense that the authors did not see patients or manage their care as part of the study (i.e. practicing medicine). Since the paper does not give any information on contributions by the authors (as some journals do), it is not clear what JB contributed. As a health economist, he is probably knowledgeable about how to handle claims data relevant to this paper.

I still think "health economist, trained as a physician" is the most accurate description of JB. The sentence after that clarifies that he has a PhD in economics and an MD. Math-ghamhainn (talk) 00:51, 16 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Why post on ftn and not npovn?

bhattacharya has pushed fringe ideas but this would be more relevant to npov? User:Bluethricecreamman (Talk·Contribs) 22:51, 15 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Take a look at figure one in this paper:[34] (Caption: "The data show a broad trend of increasing cooling time with increasing initial temperature, with the notable exception being the data of Mpemba & Osborne.")

Key quote:

"We show that for two samples of water, identical except for a difference in initial temperature, cooled under the same conditions to a prescribed temperature (for example, the freezing temperature of water) the initially hotter sample will take longer to cool"

Related: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=v9n9b_hYBOc

--Guy Macon (talk) 16:44, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I mean, if material scientists are studying it, then it's part of the mainstream, kinda by definition. The fact that tests have produced inconsistent results simply means that more testing is needed.

I do think that it's arguable that the position that it's real could be argue to be fringe, but when considered as a question of whether it's real or not, it seems mainstream. I'm pretty good with the current state of the page, in the sense that I don't think it needs any significant amount of editing in order to comply with WP:FRINGE.

If further experimentation debunks it (and provides an explanation for those experiments which seem to confirm it), then I think it would be best to consider it a fringe topic, at that point. Because at that point, even asking the question of whether or not it's true means stepping outside of the mainstream. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:00, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Because at that point, even asking the question of whether or not it's true means stepping outside of the mainstream.

It's fringe to research hard to prove topics? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:25, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

No, what I meant was that, if the phenomenon can definitively be proven to be untrue or if the scientific consensus comes to be that it's untrue, then continuing to research it would be fringe at that point. It may be fringe in the sense that it's on the fringes of legitimate science, or it may be fringe in that it's based on crackpot logic. It would be comparable to cold fusion, which has one foot in either type of fringe science. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 17:41, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

If this effect is real, then it should be very easy to prove. Even I (whose only degree is in pure mathematics) could design an experiment to do so. Phil Bridger (talk) 20:48, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

it should be very easy to prove Just a wee nitpick here. Empirical data cannot prove any theory or hypothesis, the data can "only" support or, more powerfully, disprove it. JoJo Anthrax (talk) 14:30, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Well, then, I could design an experiment to disprove its negation. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:47, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

A theory treated by mainstream science as legitimate cannot later become 'fringe'. If it is later shown to be invalid, continuing to promote it might be fringe, but not the theory itself. 'Fringe' isn't a synonym for 'outdated', or 'wrong'. Fringe theories are those not taken seriously by the relevant experts in the first place. AndyTheGrump (talk) 21:03, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I do not believe that the Mpemba effect has never been treated by mainstream science as legitimate. It appears to be one of many cases in science where one person reports an effect and multiple carefully controlled experiments are unable to replicate the results. In my opinion, it appears to be in the same category as the Dean Drive, Energy Catalyzer, EmDrive, Cold fusion, Energy Catalyzer, N-rays, and Polywater -- but far easier to attempt to replicate. I think our present article fails to treat it as the interesting but discredited theory that it is. --Guy Macon (talk) 22:46, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I think our present article fails to treat it as the interesting but discredited theory that it is.

We do have to go where the winds of sources drive us. Do we have sources where the total of what we can say is what you've described? If so, go for it. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 16:30, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure I would say that science never treated it as a legitimate. The fact that controlled experiments were done suggests that, at least the question of its existence as a phenomenon was treated as a legitimate question. But I would roughly agree with your categorization here, as there was never a point when "The Mbempa effect is real" was a scientific consensus. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:21, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

So wouldn't you class homeopathy as a fringe theory? It was taken seriously by medical experts in the 19th century. Phil Bridger (talk) 17:57, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Fringe theories are those not taken seriously by the relevant experts in the first place.

Does that get tricky as some theories were treated in the past as fringe but were later validated and accepted? There cannot be a scenario where any theory is "eternally fringe" or "eternally not fringe". It depends on whatever we know when we know it. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 18:09, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Indeed, and there are fringe theories which used to be mainstream, such as the example of homeopathy that Phil gave above, and Phrenology. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:23, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Homeopathy was never mainstream, not even when the mainstream was another type of quackery (the four humors). --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:06, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Given its popularity among medical professionals in the mid-19th century, I would consider it mainstream, though perhaps I don't have a complete understanding of the attitudes at the time. Though I'm far from unfamiliar with it, the history of homeopathy isn't counted among my countless hyper focus subjects. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 16:45, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The rate at which something freezes isn't based off just simple thermodynamics, it will be controlled by kinetics. You have to look at nucleation sites (dissolved gasses, shape and smoothness of the surface of the container), heat transfer (material and shape of the container), etc. An effect like this could theoretically hold for some fluids, under certain kinetic conditions, but not for others. It's not trivial to determine. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 20:00, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Exactly right. That's why I focus on cooling from a temperature lower than boiling to a temperature higher than freezing. "Cools faster" is easy to disprove. "Freezes faster", not so much. I have some containers that I use to keep my freezer cold during a power outage. They are full of pure distilled water saturated with pure salt (no iodine). They sit in the freezer at well below freezing and stay liquid, but if you so much as touch them they instantly freeze solid. --Guy Macon (talk) 20:39, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Further thoughts: Unless I'm missing something, the Mpemba effect isn't a theory at all. It is an observation of a phenomenon that seems a little implausible. Attempts to reproduce it have met with limited success, and where the effect has been taken to be real, theories (or perhaps hypotheses?) have been offered as explanations, certainly, but that doesn't turn an observation (or miss-observation?) into a 'theory'. AndyTheGrump (talk) 22:56, 18 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This is correct. A theory would contain an explanation for some observed phenomenon along with a rigorous framework which describes how said explanation produces said phenomenon. This is just a proposed phenomenon one which seems unlikely to even exist. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 18:40, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The following is WP:OR (which is allowed on talk pages and often leads to finding reliable sources which say the same thing):

Consider two containers of water that are identical in every respect except temperature. They are covered to prevent evaporation (because that would make them non-identical; evaporation reduces the amount of water and cools it).

Everything else -- size of container, dissolved gasses, impurities, smoothness of the glass, etc. is identical.

The water is continuously stirred (because different stratification or convection currents might make them different).

The containers are placed on identical racks in the center of identical freezers that stay at exactly -20°C (-4°F) throughout the experiment.

Container A starts at 95°C (204°F)

Container B starts at 25°C (77°F)

The experiment ends when a container reaches 5°C (41°F)`

Assume that container A goes from 95°C to 5°C in less time than container B goes from 25°C to 5°C.

There must be an instant of time when both containers are at the same temperature - where one "passes" the other.

At that instant, switch the containers. Or switch the liquid without switching the containers. Or just mentally switch A and B. It shouldn't matter, because by definition they are 100% identical in every respect.

How do the containers "know" to cool at different rates after the instant where they become identical? Water has no memory of previous temperatures. If you do find that they cool at different rates (you won't), figure out what is different. They can't be identical. --Guy Macon (talk) 19:52, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

That's a good outline of why I never took this seriously; I can't wrap my head around a mechanism that would cause it, nor has anyone ever proposed one. Well, at least nobody's ever proposed one that didn't rely on a misunderstanding of physics. I seem to recall someone once telling me that the cooling had some kind of 'momentum', which I found funny. ᛗᛁᛟᛚᚾᛁᚱPants Tell me all about it. 20:01, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This makes me think of a weirder hydrological double-slit experiment. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 20:16, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Everything else -- size of container, dissolved gasses, impurities, smoothness of the glass, etc. is identical. The capacity to dissolve gasses depends on the temperature. The hotter water will contain less gas, unless one artifically makes them equal in spite of them "wanting to" be different. I don't know if that somehow can make the hotter water mpemba quicker than the colder one though. --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:13, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Naively, I would think thermodynamically the dissolved gas would lower the freezing point and make it take longer to freeze, but kinetically the dissolved gas could bubble out and form nucleation sites which would increase the rate of freezing. ເສລີພາບ (talk) 20:09, 23 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Max Lugavere is keto/paleo diet person associated with Robert F. Kennedy Jr.'s Make America Healthy Again campaign who promotes pseudoscientific views on nutrition. Recently Max has been using social media (X.com, Facebook, Instagram and Substack) to promote a conspiracy theory that vegan editors (mostly geared at myself) have highjacked his Wikipedia article to discredit him. The crazy conspiracy also seems to target Susan Gerbic and Jonathan Jarry. This stems from Ashley Rindsberg's Substack "NPOV" [35], [36], [37] that interviewed Max. There have been many conspiracies about Guerrilla Skepticism on Wikipedia but this is a new one. I would say the article would need more eyes as Max has been asking his fan base to edit it and remove sourcing from his article. Carrot juice (talk) 15:07, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

What now? I'm busy keeping UFO disclosure from happening, don't they read Twitter? Also keeping me busy is all the shopping I have to do for the outfits I will need as soon as they pull me in front of Congress to explain how it is I'm running Wikipedia and receiving multi-millions (apparently I'm not at the billion yet) from Soros or the CIA or wherever. I'm too busy for this! Sgerbic (talk) 16:39, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I'm busy keeping UFO disclosure from happening,

Stop it right now or we'll see you at Arbitration. Or shall we pull off your Scooby Doo mask? DOD or Alien underneath? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:04, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Soros? Does not everybody know yet that his real name is Emmanuel Goldstein? --Hob Gadling (talk) 13:01, 20 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This isn't WP:FRINGE, this is off-wiki harassment from the United States Federal government proxies and needs to be on WP:ANI and even WMF visibility. It should be on WP:ANI. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 17:03, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The OP made a perfectly reasonable request for more eyes on the article to protect the content. Evidence-free accusations of "harassment" and "proxies" for the feds are probably unhelpful and if true what exactly do you think ANI would be able to do about it? I'm sure the WMF would be very willing to aid editors where off-wiki criticism becomes actual "harassment", but what is your basis for saying that? And "proxies" is really quite an accusation. Eyes on the article and a little humor seemed like an adequate response, how are you helping? fiveby(zero) 18:40, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

There is some obvious pro-POV editing being done on the article currently [38], [39]. I knew this would be the case as Lugavere and Rindsberg have both been asking people to go to the page and edit it to remove certain criticisms. As for off-wiki harassment this has occurred but as far as I know neither Lugavere or Rindsberg have a Wikipedia account. WMF can only take action on site for those that have accounts. I do think this article should be watched because of potential canvassing and meat-puppetry based editing. Lugavere wants certain criticisms of his ideas removed and that is what we are slowly seeing today. Carrot juice (talk) 18:46, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Atm it appears to just be a dispute between you and another editor? If more start showing up, it's probably worth dropping a message at WP:AN for some admin eyes on the page Kowal2701 (talk, contribs) 21:18, 19 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

This noticeboard was likely notified because it's a fad diet based on pseudoscientific premises, commonly promoted on Wikipedia using non-WP:MEDRS sources. Some editors reading this board have experience with source quality evaluation. ~2026-10830-00 (talk) 21:47, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

... is, as far as I can tell, a writer, but not a trained scientist, and seems to be writing a book about Cosmological natural selection, although the website for the project is defunct (or rather the account associated with it has lapsed), so I don't know what the current state of it is. Yesterday, an account claiming to be him made a COI edit request to that page (which I reverted as overly verbose, page-breaking, chatgpt slop, so you'll have to look at the diff). Investigating a little more, I see that both the main CNS page, as well as his bio page seem to talk about this, and possibly a little too credulously. I wouldn't mind some extra eyes to help determine if these mentions are warranted, with or without any extra context. Thanks, –Deacon Vorbis (carbon • videos) 15:32, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Slogging through the first few references of the deleted edit, this seems to be an effort towards what i think is a common tactic. Combine sources which might be respectable and may even help improve article content, but do so in a way which highlights something like this:

• Pope, Conor (2025-04-24). "Beyond the big bang: Irishman's universal evolution theory challenges accepted cosmology". The Irish Times. Retrieved 2026-01-06.

by the Irish Times' consumer affairs correspondent and also cited in Julian Gough#Cosmological research. fiveby(zero) 16:37, 21 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard#Discovery Institute fiveby(zero) 18:07, 24 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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. Sfdlkgj (talk) 19:47, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Absolutely agree. If this article should remain, then it should do so with the verbiage you previously used before FactOrOpinion reverted everything.[https://teknopedia.ac.id/w/index.php?title=Naoki_Higashida&oldid=1338025129] 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. Sgerbic (talk) 22:52, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, I agree if your points as a whole. I will contribute more tomorrow. Sfdlkgj (talk) 02:50, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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. 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 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 quote from @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:

  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
  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.
  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.
  So, there seem to be several questions here:
  1. Does Kedar only communicate with RPM (or other kinds of controversial assisted typing methods)?
  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?

FactOrOpinion (talk) 23:37, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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. Sgerbic (talk) 23:59, 26 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

"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? FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:27, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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. Sfdlkgj (talk) 03:06, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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. FactOrOpinion (talk) 03:55, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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. Sfdlkgj (talk) 20:03, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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." FactOrOpinion (talk) 22:42, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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. Sfdlkgj (talk) 13:13, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

First, I already pointed out that Fein and Kamio likely ignored existing video (that is, video that existed at the time). 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? FactOrOpinion (talk) 14:05, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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? fiveby(zero) 14:36, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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 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. FactOrOpinion (talk) 01:18, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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. --Guy Macon (talk) 00:46, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

But is he using FC, and what is the basis for your answer? FactOrOpinion (talk) 00:54, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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. Sgerbic (talk) 01:33, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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." FactOrOpinion (talk) 02:23, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

• Personally, I think Temple Grandin has more authority than any of y'all here. Silverseren^C 02:57, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  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. Phil Bridger (talk) 22:30, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  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. Silverseren^C 23:40, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  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. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:49, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  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. Silverseren^C 01:09, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  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. fiveby(zero) 03:16, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

  That makes sense to me! Sfdlkgj (talk) 12:56, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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.

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.

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. fiveby(zero) 15:42, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

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.fiveby(zero) 15:56, 1 March 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I opened a BLPN discussion here. In her 2025 book she wrote about recovering memories of being sexually abused through the use of MDMA with an apparently non-professional "facilitator" acting as a therapist. --Hipal (talk) 01:16, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

WP:FRINGE mess made up by woo pro-UFO user who just disrupted another UFO related AFD this week which also requires eyes retroactively.

Hyper emphasizes grift fake claims of free propulsion and made up tech. Last AFD somehow failed.

Needs urgent eyes, page is a massive hot fire. ~2026-12997-95 (talk) 21:32, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

The only way to get "urgent eyes" on this is to tell us what the fuck you are talking about. Phil Bridger (talk) 21:39, 27 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

You should probably tag the person who your baseless assertions are targeted towards. @Very Polite Person. And I don't see how this is fringe at all. PARAKANYAA (talk) 00:43, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I had an editor forcibly "call me out" on WP:ANI for editing it and saying I was planning on improving it. I was already well into User:Very Polite Person/draft/Field propulsion at that point, and more lost edits on my sandbox. My local folders for this are stuffed. I'm easily nearing 1k+ actual edits to it. Fears of spooky "UFO stuff" apparently. Apparently a weird number of skeptics and scientists think modern/cutting edge/in development aerospace engineering... is bullshit? It's irrational. I have seen this almost exclusively from people in academic career tracks, like folks who worry about citation counts and such. My only theory is that since I have taken shit over this in the past as a "UFO" thing; I'll say it's irrational ignorance.

This is presumnably OP's hang up, is not and is in no way WP:FRINGE: Field propulsion#Field propulsion based on physical structure of space. It's an article about the evolving century-plus history of an entire domain of technology: "move stuff via energy without chemical fuel". It's 100% real, it's up in space as you read this; multiple types! So of course the article will mention at the end the heavy R&D stuff, which is a tiny section of the massive article. It would be a WP:DUE violation to exclude, and you'd be a buffoon to even call those things fringe today.No mention of aliens either... but yes, that'll be in the future Pop culture section (because the article even flat out says already that it appears in fiction).

Anyone's welcome to edit and read it.

It's (literally) not rocket science. Rocket science is 1000 years old. It's way fuckin cooler and newer. And in no way WP:FRINGE. — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 02:01, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

I have no idea what you think I'm doing, but you need to actually keep up with modern science. As in, like things being built right now in factories, plants, hangars, Jet Propulsion Labarotory and foreign equivalents. These "fake" things are in space right now, by the thousand. We launch more each week.

You're responsible to keep up with what is real or not. What are you, Tommaso Caccini? — Very Polite Person (talk/contribs) 02:04, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]

Less aggression, please. It can be frustrating working on fringe topics, but we need to treat everyone with civility and respect. Especially if they believe in fringe theories.

There are indeed fringe/pseudoscience methods of space propulsion that purportedly don't require any reaction mass. Examples include EmDrive and Dean Drive. But Electrodynamic tethers and Solar sails also exist and are not fringe. I only see the latter in Field propulsion. Not Fringe. --Guy Macon (talk) 03:18, 28 February 2026 (UTC)[reply]