Talk:Brain Gym

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Good article Brain Gym was a nominee for good article, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There are suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake.
May 4, 2008 Good article nominee Not listed
Complementary and Alternative Medicine Portal
This article is within the scope of the WikiProject on Alternative Medicine. Please visit the project page for more details, or ask questions on talk.
Start This article has been rated as Start-class on the quality scale.
This article is part of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve Wikipedia's coverage of education and education-related topics. Please participate by editing the article, and help us assess and improve articles to featured and 1.0 standards, or visit the WikiProject page for more details.
Portal
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the quality scale.
??? This article has not yet received a rating on the importance scale.

Contents

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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)

[edit] 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.

[edit] 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)