This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
RI, please don't return material that is sourced only to a blog, especially not when it's critical and can be obtained directly from the Guardian. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I reverted a wholesale replacement of the text by a user who claimed to be one of the founders of Brain Gym - he replaced it all with spam, complete with copyrights. However, on reading the article, it says little about what Brain Gym actually is, while dwelling on criticisms. Therefore, I've pov-tagged the article. Acroterion (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
In an attempt to accomodate some of Braingymer ( talk · contribs)'s edit ( diff1 diff2 diff3), I've modified the last sentence ( diff) and added another reference to it - both references now have quotes. How's that? -- HughCharlesParker ( talk - contribs) 15:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Apologies for my rough post - I'm not sure on the proper etiquette for Wikipedia discussions. I'd simply like to add that Sense About Science have just released a document called 'Sense About Brain Gym', detailing the pseudoscientific claims found in the BG Teacher's Manual alongside corrections/refutations by qualified scientists. The document is available online here: http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/233/
There are also links here to press coverage by BBC's Newsnight report on Brain Gym. Editors may find it useful material. best, Frank Swain 15:48 04 April 2008 (BST)
The quote from Dr Barry Beyerstein as cited is a quote of a quote from the Guardian which is itself uncited... It's not clear whether Beyerstein is talking about Brain Gym or just speaking generally... Not really sure what should be done about it though... Remove the citation? How do I document it so that someone doesn't see it as vandalism and add it back in? Remove the quote entirely? It's not clear right now if it's an incorrect quote or just needs proper citation... Heccy ( talk) 17:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
A good article has the following attributes:
1. It is well written. In this respect: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it: (a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout; (b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;[2] and (c) contains no original research.
3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it: (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;[3] and (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).
4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
5. It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversion, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
6. It is illustrated, where possible, by images.[4] In this respect: (a) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.[5]
In its current condition, I must fail the GAN because it requires more information that will likely take longer than seven days to acquire. Brain Gym is a psychological/medical technique, but it's also a business and needs to be written about like one—infobox? revenue? costs? number of patients/clients? etc. Article is not neutral, broad is coverage, or have any pictures. Hope to see this article in the GAN process on a future date. Best -- Eustress ( talk) 03:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The recently added "Popularity" section is flawed in at least two regards:
I've changed the last two words of the lead paragraph back from "heavily disputed" to "thoroughly discredited". There's not a single credible reference to support the idea that Brain Gym isn't bunk, and there are several extremely credible references to support the idea that Brain Gym is, in fact, pseudoscientific bunk. According to Wikipedia:Lead Section#Citations: "because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. ... The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." I think that, since this article's fairly short, repeating all the references in the lead paragraph is un-necessary. -- HughCharlesParker ( talk - contribs) 13:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Since these two words have been changed back and forth a few times, it seems to me we need to establish a consensus here on the talk page. So, two questions:
I can't find the line you are referring to. Has it been removed? Bt109 ( talk) 20:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I've put a new ending on the lead paragraph. Is everyone happy with that? -- HughCharlesParker ( talk - contribs) 15:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Since its last review, the article has been expanded to give more information about the gym, rather than just criticism of it. However, it is still not giving neutral presentation due to the conspicuous absence of any comment from the Brain Gym's clients. Specifically, the UK state school system.
If the Brain Gym system has been so thoroughly lambasted by the scientific community, the UK Department of Eduction must have published a response at some point, whether in favor of or against the use of the Brain Gym curriculum. Even if they haven't, then that fact has probably been mentioned in a reliable source, so we should at least be able to provide a cited claim that they haven't addressed the issue.
Feel free to renominate the page once this rather major issue has been cleared up, and good luck. -- erachima talk 23:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that some recent edits were not much of an improvement to this article and that they appear to push a POV which I suspect may be self-serving. I would still refrain from calling such edits "vandalism" even when reverting them. WP:BITE and WP:AGF and all that. Rl ( talk) 11:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the quote attributed to the Council was actually taken from Moore/Hibbert (2005), "Mind boggling! Considering the possibilities of brain gym in learning to play an instrument", British Journal of Music Education, 22(3):249-267, doi:10.1017/S0265051705006479. Rl ( talk) 11:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I placed the "advert" tag on this article but was reverted by another editor:
Could someone review this? I don't want to revert the IP, but the some sections of the article really do read like an ad. Look at the "History" section, for example. I don't think the edit summary "description of program is considered neutral" gets us there. It tells us that the IP thinks the description is neutral. The "History," "Claims" and some of the later sections of the article are just slightly overly deferential to Brain Gym. Saebvn ( talk) 03:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted the IP after additional consideration. However, then I read R1's comments here. The article needs work, but after hearing from my fellow editors, I'm removing the advert tag. Thanks for commenting. I will come back to this article. Saebvn ( talk) 04:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The following:
Undue weight?
DHooke1973 ( talk) 01:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I've read excerpts of Spark, and all those are about the new discoveries in aerobic exercises. I'd say the Brain Gym advocates are trying to create another bandwagon to jump on. Bt109 ( talk) 20:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Such a tag would be appropriate at the top of this (and other such) articles ... doesn't Wikipedia have anything to warn about these crackpots? -- 46.164.40.143 ( talk) 13:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I removed this addition after not finding Dennison with a search in the rest of the article. Obviously, something went wrong with the search, but I don't see it as appropriate for the lede. -- Ronz ( talk) 01:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)
This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
RI, please don't return material that is sourced only to a blog, especially not when it's critical and can be obtained directly from the Guardian. SlimVirgin (talk) 20:29, 19 February 2007 (UTC)
I reverted a wholesale replacement of the text by a user who claimed to be one of the founders of Brain Gym - he replaced it all with spam, complete with copyrights. However, on reading the article, it says little about what Brain Gym actually is, while dwelling on criticisms. Therefore, I've pov-tagged the article. Acroterion (talk) 20:19, 3 July 2007 (UTC)
In an attempt to accomodate some of Braingymer ( talk · contribs)'s edit ( diff1 diff2 diff3), I've modified the last sentence ( diff) and added another reference to it - both references now have quotes. How's that? -- HughCharlesParker ( talk - contribs) 15:30, 3 August 2007 (UTC)
Apologies for my rough post - I'm not sure on the proper etiquette for Wikipedia discussions. I'd simply like to add that Sense About Science have just released a document called 'Sense About Brain Gym', detailing the pseudoscientific claims found in the BG Teacher's Manual alongside corrections/refutations by qualified scientists. The document is available online here: http://www.senseaboutscience.org.uk/index.php/site/project/233/
There are also links here to press coverage by BBC's Newsnight report on Brain Gym. Editors may find it useful material. best, Frank Swain 15:48 04 April 2008 (BST)
The quote from Dr Barry Beyerstein as cited is a quote of a quote from the Guardian which is itself uncited... It's not clear whether Beyerstein is talking about Brain Gym or just speaking generally... Not really sure what should be done about it though... Remove the citation? How do I document it so that someone doesn't see it as vandalism and add it back in? Remove the quote entirely? It's not clear right now if it's an incorrect quote or just needs proper citation... Heccy ( talk) 17:25, 7 April 2008 (UTC)
A good article has the following attributes:
1. It is well written. In this respect: (a) the prose is clear and the spelling and grammar are correct; and (b) it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, jargon, words to avoid, fiction, and list incorporation.
2. It is factually accurate and verifiable. In this respect, it: (a) provides references to all sources of information, and at minimum contains a section dedicated to the attribution of those sources in accordance with the guide to layout; (b) at minimum, provides in-line citations from reliable sources for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons;[2] and (c) contains no original research.
3. It is broad in its coverage. In this respect, it: (a) addresses the major aspects of the topic;[3] and (b) stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary details (see summary style).
4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.
5. It is stable; that is, it is not the subject of an ongoing edit war or content dispute. Vandalism reversion, proposals to split or merge content, good faith improvements to the page (such as copy editing) and changes based on reviewers' suggestions do not apply. Nominations for articles that are unstable because of constructive editing should be placed on hold.
6. It is illustrated, where possible, by images.[4] In this respect: (a) images used are tagged with their copyright status, and fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and (b) the images are appropriate to the topic, and have suitable captions.[5]
In its current condition, I must fail the GAN because it requires more information that will likely take longer than seven days to acquire. Brain Gym is a psychological/medical technique, but it's also a business and needs to be written about like one—infobox? revenue? costs? number of patients/clients? etc. Article is not neutral, broad is coverage, or have any pictures. Hope to see this article in the GAN process on a future date. Best -- Eustress ( talk) 03:37, 4 May 2008 (UTC)
The recently added "Popularity" section is flawed in at least two regards:
I've changed the last two words of the lead paragraph back from "heavily disputed" to "thoroughly discredited". There's not a single credible reference to support the idea that Brain Gym isn't bunk, and there are several extremely credible references to support the idea that Brain Gym is, in fact, pseudoscientific bunk. According to Wikipedia:Lead Section#Citations: "because the lead will usually repeat information also in the body, editors should balance the desire to avoid redundant citations in the lead with the desire to aid readers in locating sources for challengeable material. ... The necessity for citations in a lead should be determined on a case-by-case basis by editorial consensus." I think that, since this article's fairly short, repeating all the references in the lead paragraph is un-necessary. -- HughCharlesParker ( talk - contribs) 13:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)
Since these two words have been changed back and forth a few times, it seems to me we need to establish a consensus here on the talk page. So, two questions:
I can't find the line you are referring to. Has it been removed? Bt109 ( talk) 20:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
I've put a new ending on the lead paragraph. Is everyone happy with that? -- HughCharlesParker ( talk - contribs) 15:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)
Since its last review, the article has been expanded to give more information about the gym, rather than just criticism of it. However, it is still not giving neutral presentation due to the conspicuous absence of any comment from the Brain Gym's clients. Specifically, the UK state school system.
If the Brain Gym system has been so thoroughly lambasted by the scientific community, the UK Department of Eduction must have published a response at some point, whether in favor of or against the use of the Brain Gym curriculum. Even if they haven't, then that fact has probably been mentioned in a reliable source, so we should at least be able to provide a cited claim that they haven't addressed the issue.
Feel free to renominate the page once this rather major issue has been cleared up, and good luck. -- erachima talk 23:52, 30 August 2008 (UTC)
I agree that some recent edits were not much of an improvement to this article and that they appear to push a POV which I suspect may be self-serving. I would still refrain from calling such edits "vandalism" even when reverting them. WP:BITE and WP:AGF and all that. Rl ( talk) 11:17, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
For what it's worth, the quote attributed to the Council was actually taken from Moore/Hibbert (2005), "Mind boggling! Considering the possibilities of brain gym in learning to play an instrument", British Journal of Music Education, 22(3):249-267, doi:10.1017/S0265051705006479. Rl ( talk) 11:54, 22 December 2009 (UTC)
I placed the "advert" tag on this article but was reverted by another editor:
Could someone review this? I don't want to revert the IP, but the some sections of the article really do read like an ad. Look at the "History" section, for example. I don't think the edit summary "description of program is considered neutral" gets us there. It tells us that the IP thinks the description is neutral. The "History," "Claims" and some of the later sections of the article are just slightly overly deferential to Brain Gym. Saebvn ( talk) 03:17, 3 November 2010 (UTC)
I have reverted the IP after additional consideration. However, then I read R1's comments here. The article needs work, but after hearing from my fellow editors, I'm removing the advert tag. Thanks for commenting. I will come back to this article. Saebvn ( talk) 04:20, 4 November 2010 (UTC)
The following:
Undue weight?
DHooke1973 ( talk) 01:43, 23 December 2011 (UTC)
Agreed. I've read excerpts of Spark, and all those are about the new discoveries in aerobic exercises. I'd say the Brain Gym advocates are trying to create another bandwagon to jump on. Bt109 ( talk) 20:25, 4 January 2012 (UTC)
Such a tag would be appropriate at the top of this (and other such) articles ... doesn't Wikipedia have anything to warn about these crackpots? -- 46.164.40.143 ( talk) 13:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)
I removed this addition after not finding Dennison with a search in the rest of the article. Obviously, something went wrong with the search, but I don't see it as appropriate for the lede. -- Ronz ( talk) 01:41, 28 March 2013 (UTC)