Talk:Brain Gym International/Archive 1

Archive 1

Blogs

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 appreciate and – to some extent – understand your concern. However, on this issue, I disagree: the link was to the personal website of a well-known, respected journalist who was cited in the article. It led to a collection of his published articles on the subject, complete with publication information. The fact that he uses blogging software makes no difference. It is not exactly encouraged, but permissible according to our guidelines. Calling the addition of such a link "blog spamming" seems quite inappropriate.

Those articles that are in fact available at the Guardian's website can be verified to be verbatim copies, but some of the Guardian articles are only available at the author's website. In addition, the author's website will be updated when new articles are published, and it's good to have that source somewhere, both for the readers of the article and for those wishing to update it. It is very unlikely that WP would expose itself to very much of anything by keeping the link as it was.

Anyhow, I changed the article to only link directly source everything directly from the Guardian. Rl 22:41, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Excellent work, RI, thank you. The problem with the blog is that we're almost never supposed to use blogs as third-party sources, and in this particular case, some editors have been adding it recently to a large number of articles, almost to the point of spamming, so we need to cut down on its use. If the material is in the Guardian or elsewhere, we should link to it directly; if it isn't, we shouldn't be using it. Many thanks again. SlimVirgin ^(talk) 22:48, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

At your service. Glad I could help out. Rl 22:59, 19 February 2007 (UTC)

Neutral Point Of View

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)

I'm not clear which part of wikipedia's neutral point of view policy you think this article doesn't meet. I can see that the introductory paragraph could do with a bit of expanding for the reasons you say, but I don't think that constitutes a NPOV violation. Could you explain? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 09:13, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I assume it's WP:NPOV#Undue weight. However, I don't think the article is giving the opinion of a tiny minority undue weight – unless scientific consensus counts as a tiny minority (which sadly may be a real danger). Anyone is welcome to add a more detailed description of the program (not a copyvio, of course), but I don't think the POV tag is justified either way. And the stricter criteria of WP:BLP don't apply here, either. Rl 10:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

I ran across the article while reverting obvious copyvio and removal of all contrary information. I'd never heard of Brain Gym, and after reading the previous version (which I restored), I still didn't have a clear idea of what it was or what was involved. What kind of motions? Is it physical exercise? Gesture? Does it relate to Montessori teaching? How is applied kinesiology adapted in this particular instance?

I think the skepticism about pseudo-scientific underpinnings is correctly and carefully stated, and I don't get any impression of a "tiny minority". I just would like to see more substance on the program itself, which maybe could be stated as "undue lightness". That probably isn't strictly POV, but it created a perception in my mind from reading it as a complete stranger to the practice. By the way, I agree that there's no WP:BLP issue here.

I'll take the tag off. If some expansion of the first couple of paragraphs could enlarge on the actual program, I'd be satisfied. I appreciate the feedback, and will watch for discussion or questions here. Acroterion _(talk) 13:20, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

{{expand}}, maybe? Rl 14:24, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

That just might work ... It's like there's a template for everything!

Seriously, I apologize if I struck a nerve with the tag, it wasn't my intention. Acroterion _(talk) 14:44, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

No, no, don't apologise. This is how it's supposed to work - you make a suggestion, other people disagree amicably, we discuss it, and with any luck the article benefits. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 15:54, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

Exactly, no need for apologies. I didn't agree with the tag, but I find your conduct exemplary. Rl 15:56, 4 July 2007 (UTC)

TLRP report

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)

Recent developments

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)

Beyerstein quote

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)

Nevermind, I found the recent revision where this quote became orphaned and reverted it... I'm not sure what the point of that revision was exactly, but it confusingly makes it seem as though Beyerstein was talking about Brain Gym when he may not have been, and makes the quote uncited. Heccy (talk) 17:40, 7 April 2008 (UTC)

My GA Review of this article

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.

• Very minor issues that will likely change before the article is up for GAN again in the future.

  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.

• Good

  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).

• No. Article is mostly a criticism of the gym but does not offer any History section, infobox, etc. to elaborate upon the gym itself.

  4. It is neutral; that is, it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias.

• Maybe textually, but the imbalance of the article renders it non-neutral.

  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.

• No recent issues.

  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]

• No illustrations—would be helpful.

Conclusion

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)

"Popularity" section

The recently added "Popularity" section is flawed in at least two regards:

• It cites "Neuroscience and education: from research to practice?" by Usha Goswami (doi:10.1038/nrn1907) as supporting evidence. That article, however, would better fit the Criticism section. Goswami says that BrainGym and similar programmes are based on "neuromyths" that "need to be eliminated". She attributes the "success of the brain-based learning industry" to "inspirational marketing" which "ensures that teachers who attend these conferences do get 'sold' on the supposed benefits of these programmes" and to "placebo effects" that "may indeed bring benefits to children in the short term." In summary, she says that teachers are very interested in neuroscience, but science is not yet ready to offer practical advice.
• It puts up a straw man: embodied intelligence is a well established concept. None of the critics claims that "intellectual activity can somehow exist apart from our bodies". What they do say is that the supposed scientific foundations of BrainGym are bunk, and that's as solid a consensus as you ever get in science. Rl (talk) 16:03, 1 July 2008 (UTC)

I've tagged it NPOV and tone as it repeatedly presents disputed claims as facts, cites sources that do not adequately support its assertions, does not reference some controversial claims at all, and is generally written in 'PR' style. Do you think it's salvageable, or is deletion the best option? It doesn't add anything to the article as it stands.86.0.203.120 (talk) 14:56, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

I've looked again in more detail, and it's even worse than I initially thought. I reckon its unfixable without a complete re-write, and as it stands it's an embarrassment to this encyclopaedia. I've went ahead and removed it.86.0.203.120 (talk) 15:02, 8 July 2008 (UTC)

Rl: I added Professor Goswami's paper into the article as a reference to a new paragraph, part of which used your text. Have you read the whole article in Nature? I could only find the abstract on-line. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 14:23, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Yes, I have read the article. Rl (talk) 09:58, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

thoroughly discredited

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:

• Should the last two words of the lead section remain "thoroughly discredited"?

1. Yes --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 13:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

1. Comment Not all claimed results are discredited. Some of the advice may well be helpful beyond the Placebo effect. – The lead for astrology (an area with comparable scientific merits) says merely "Generally, the scientific community considers astrology a pseudoscience or superstition.". Could that be an alternative? Rl (talk) 13:53, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

Hmmm. How about: "Its theoretical foundation has been discredited, and described as pseudoscience. It's claimed results have been put down to the placebo effect." I think that's more precisely backed up by the references. I recognise that 'discredited' is a strong word, but in a clear case like this, with plenty of supporting citations, I think it's fair and accurate to use it. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 14:21, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

We should definitely attribute these claims, at least to the "the scientific community", which is justified in this case. Plenty of respectable disciplines have been described as pseudoscience by someone. (And "It's claimed results" would of course be "Its claimed results".) Rl (talk) 10:06, 12 August 2008 (UTC)

• Assuming it does, do we need to repeat the references at the end of the lead section?

1. No --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 13:26, 11 August 2008 (UTC)

I can't find the line you are referring to. Has it been removed? Bt109 (talk) 20:42, 4 January 2012 (UTC)

Last sentence of the first paragraph

I've put a new ending on the lead paragraph. Is everyone happy with that? --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 15:39, 13 August 2008 (UTC)

• I don't know about "everyone", but I think you did a good job there. Rl (talk) 07:55, 14 August 2008 (UTC)

GA review: fail for NPOV issues, again

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)

Thanks for your review, erachima. In the light of your comments I did a google search for "brain gym site:.gov.uk". Of the first 200 results, 155 were from LEAs and other regional organisations - I discounted them. Of the 45 national sites, I found:

• 12 from teachernet.gov.uk - mostly case studies, and a few letters pages or similar - nothing addressing the question of what Brain Gym is.
• 1 from dcsf.gov.uk restating the material from the Brain Gym website
• 2 more from the DCSF briefly mentioning BG
• 2 school reports from ofsted.gov.uk that mention BG only in passing
• 2 from standards.dfes.gov.uk, referring to a case study on teaching go (game) that mentions BG in passing
• another page from the standards site briefly restating some of the material from the BG website
• another page from the standards site that's a case study that mentions BG only in passing
• another page from the standards site that's a forum thread
• 5 from parentscentre.gov.uk, forum threads
• 4 from healthyschools.gov.uk, inspection reports / case studies etc that mentions BG briefly
• 4 from HMIE, all reports on schools that mention its use but go into no detail
• 4 from the National Grid for Learning restating the material from the BG website
• 2 from teachers.gov.uk - an inspection report and a case study
• 1 from scotland.gov.uk that only lists its name
• 1 from tda.gov.uk mentioning BG in passing
• 1 from nationalparks.gov.uk mentioning BG very briefly
• 1 from the QIA, which turned out not to have anything on it about Brain Gym at all.

I then searched each of those sites for "brain gym". I found a couple more pages with passing references, but only one, from the standards site, with anything approaching guidance - part of a handbook for learning mentors, again just restating some stuff from the BG website.

It's hard to believe, but at least as far as a fairly thorough googling is concerned, there simply isn't any guidance relating to brain gym on any governnment-run education-related website. I could find not a single reference to the ESRC report, Dr Goswami's paper, or the Sense about Science briefing document. The sites I was looking at put a lot of their stuff on the web, too, so it would surprise me to find that they'd produced guidance on the subject and not put it on the web.

I've made three changes to the article since the GA review: one mentioning Dr Dennison's admission that much of Brain Gym is pseudoscience, another moving a section, and the third adding to the "criticism in the media" section, noting one journalist's astonishment that the DCSF are supportive despite all the evidence, and despite the fact that BG is plainly "hooey". Is this last edit satisfactory as a cited claim that the DCSF haven't addressed the problems with Brain Gym?

I'd be grateful for your comments before nominating for GA a third time. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 03:59, 1 September 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism?

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)

Given the sheer amount of well-sourced material removed, and the amount of material copied and pasted into the article from the Brain Gym website, I think the intention of the editor was clear - I think it's reasonable to call this earth-relocation tool by its name. In any case, I left a message that I think was constructive on the editor's talk page. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 16:25, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I understand your anger: you put a lot of good work into this article, much more than anyone else if memory serves. I would have reverted these edits, too. But when I look at the article's recent history, I see one editor, Ckri40, working on it for several hours. They left the criticism sections mostly intact which I take as a sign of good faith. To someone who does not think that Brain Gym is complete bunk the version as edited by Ckri40 would probably still look fairly critical of the subject; it would certainly not make a great ad. – You may want to read the first two paragraphs of WP:VANDAL again (I did). We do not have the evidence to call those edits vandalism. I don't mean to lecture a good, veteran editor, I just know how tempting and easy it is to ignore AGF and related rules more often than we should. Rl (talk) 11:01, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

:) Ironically, you've assumed I'm angry - I'm not. I take your point, though - clearly Ckri40's edits weren't the sort of blanket hatchet job as someone tried the next day. Next time I'll leave a less abrasive edit summary. In my defence, as I say, I left a more constructive message on Ckri40's talk page. --HughCharlesParker (talk - contribs) 10:36, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I managed to miss the note you left on their talk page. I apologize. Keep up the goood work :-). Rl (talk) 11:50, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Quote

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)

Advert Tag

I placed the "advert" tag on this article but was reverted by another editor:

• http://en.wiki.x.io/w/index.php?title=Brain_Gym&action=historysubmit&diff=394331840&oldid=394298250

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)

Last time I touched it (September 15), the article was fairly critical. Not an attack piece, mind you, but even further from an advert. Unfortunately, the only ones interested in adding some positive perspectives appear to have a vested interest in the subject and edit accordingly. Parts of the article now read indeed like an ad or at least like a defense of BrainGym. Rl (talk) 15:59, 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)

 Removed "advert" tag. Removed the advert tag. Saebvn (talk) 04:23, 4 November 2010 (UTC)

lede - Undue weight?

The following:

John J Ratey, in "Spark, The Revolutionary New Science of Exercise and the Brain," suggests that research increasingly supports the efficiency of Brain Gym and programs like it.

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)

I've removed it. Grossly undue and promotional as written and referenced. Maybe he has some peer-reviewed research that's directly relevant, instead of using his book? --Ronz (talk) 03:35, 26 January 2012 (UTC)

Pseudoscience (or alike) tag

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)

Dennison in lede

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)