Talk:Arrowsmith School/Archive 1

Outside References

this article references no outside sources brandon.macuser (talk) 03:21, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

there are two CBS shows with a special commentary on it. One is the Fixing My Brain will be shown on The Lens on CBC Newsworld, Cable 26 on Tuesday November 18 at 10 p.m. Please check your local cable listing for the station in your area that broadcasts CBC Newsworld.

The Brain That Changes Itself will be shown on David Suzuki's The Nature of Things on CBC on Thursday November 27 at 8 p.m.

I would like to find sources that are both for and against this method. Any skeptics out there? ---Wolfe (talk) 06:24, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

-- The problem is that we do not know the details of the methods used in the programme. One constant criticism of Arrowsmith's book is that she does not detail any of her cognitive exercises.

I included a reference to the CBC story and rewrote and expanded parts of this article and tried to do so in a neutral manner.Diderot08 (talk) 18:22, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Criticisms

The criticisms section links to several references but doesn't summarize them for the reader. Should this be updated so that some of the criticisms are actually listed in further detail?165.86.81.22 (talk) 01:23, 6 November 2013 (UTC)

This seems to be a section more about the attitudes of Macquarie_University and Dr Linda Siegel in particular over information about the Arrowsmith Program. I suggest this information move to their pages accordingly, and this section be balanced with the earlier parts of the article. It is needlessly editorialized. WP:EDITORIALIZING StarbucksLatte (talk) 02:14, 28 May 2015 (UTC)

Requested move (27 November 2014)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section. A summary of the conclusions reached follows.

The result is page boldly moved, without following the proper WP:Requested moves procedure for controversial moves. This request was initiated less than 24 hours ago, without using the {{subst:Requested move}} template, so was an unadvertised local request on this page only. And then the page was moved just eleven minutes after the "request" was made. As Eaqq just began editing on 18 November 2014, I might be inclined to give them a pass, but they've already amassed nearly a thousand edits, and their editing history suggests that this is far from an inexperienced editor, so I think they should have known better. Since moving the page, they have made significant changes to the article which makes a reversal of their bold move problematic. The Official website of the school does support these changes however. The homepage does put the program front & center. It is not clear to me that the "school" is notable outside of the "program", as it is portrayed as the flagship school of a growing network which teaches using the "program". Further discussion should take place in the section below, or a new section, and Eaqq is advised to follow the proper discussion procedures before making controversial moves in the future. – Wbm1058 (talk) 17:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

---

Arrowsmith School → Arrowsmith Program

This Wikipedia article is actually about the Arrowsmith Program, not about the Arrowsmith School in Toronto. For example, the skepticism and criticisms are about the Arrowsmith Program (which is used at Arrowsmith School).

Any objections? Eaqq (talk) 22:46, 27 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Eaqq, sorry about the sudden revert. My reason for the revert is that the article is about the school and the program is part of the school's carricula. The school also offers basic English and Math academic classes which is clearly not a part of the program. There is a section on the Arrowsmith program and if you wish to expand on that, you are welcome to do so. The school is what offers the Arrowsmith program plus English, Math and a few other social activities. So I disagree with calling it the Arrowmsith program. It is a school and the program is indenpendently taught or at least was taught in the past at certain catholic schools. Again if you wish to expand on that subject you are free to do so, but since the school offers more than just the program and has it's own subbranches i.e Eaton Arrowmsith School, I think it should be known as the Arrowsmith school. Also according to sources the program was launched in 1978; wheras the school itself was set-up in 1980. The Arrowmsith program is taught at the school, which is also the school's methodology name.

I once again apologize for any contribution you lost, you may retrieve it by checking the articles history. My only disagreement with your edits is adding anymore brain training programs to the see also section. If you look below, I created a category of brain training programs so readers can see a lot more pograms so I feel crowding up the see also section is not necessary. i already listed enough related topics there.--Taeyebaar (talk) 04:53, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

We could move (re-name) this article to Arrowsmith Program again and add a section for Arrowsmith School. What are your thoughts on that? (If you object to this, should I make a new Wikipedia article just for Arrowsmith Program, leaving this Arrowsmith School article alone? The problem with that is the information on this Arrowsmith School Wikipedia article is actually about the Arrowsmith Program. If you click on the sources, especially the criticism section, the criticism is about the Arrowsmith Program, not the school in Toronto so I really believe that the move I did is/was warranted and the best choice.)

Thank you for telling me how to find what I had added.Eaqq (talk) 04:59, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Sure no prob. Regarding the program, you make a good argument. I think the reason is because the Arrowsmith school has not opened any branches in Austraiia, just aimed to incorporate itself into local schools there which is where most of the criticism references are from. The main base of the Arrowsmith program is the school as it is known as. I don't think it's really necessary to add a new article since the school's methodology is known as the program. if you wish to add more to it you may do so and as I mentioned, the program was launched in 1978 and may not have had a full base before the Arrowsmith school was founded. The program specifically refers to the school's main methodology. I think the website of the school is a good argument since it calls itself Arrowsmith school, but discusses it's methodology as the Arrowsmith program. Expand on the program section and then see how you feel.--Taeyebaar (talk) 05:21, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The article also mentions brief history of the school itself, so I think the title is warranted.--Taeyebaar (talk) 05:33, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I strongly disagree with you. Skepticism and criticism is wholly about the Arrowsmith Program, not the Arrowsmith School in Toronto. The Arrowsmith Program has notability, (almost all of the sources cited in the "Arrowsmith School" Wikipedia article are actually about the Arrowsmith Program, not counting the sources that are affiliated with the school, such as ArrowsmithSchool.org) the Arrowsmith School in Toronto does not.

The following links are the sources currently cited for this "Arrowsmith School" Wikipedia article-

• http://www.theage.com.au/national/education/experts-question-arrowsmith-learning-program-20121103-28qcc.html This is about the Arrowsmith Program, not the Arrowsmith School
• http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/proof-hurdle-for-brain-training-20121215-2bgaz.html This is about the Arrowsmith Program, not the Arrowsmith School
• http://www.canada.com/vancouversun/news/westcoastnews/story.html?id=a4b7618a-9eaf-4fbe-9dca-1e5e80290369 This is about the Arrowsmith Program, not the Arrowsmith School
• http://blogs.vancouversun.com/2008/12/29/legal-clash-over-arrowsmith-documentary/ This is about the Arrowsmith Program, not the Arrowsmith School

This one is the only one that is about the Arrowsmith School:

• http://www.theglobeandmail.com/technology/science/brain/can-a-controversial-learning-program-transform-brains/article7871918/

Almost all of the sources cited for this "Arrowsmith School" Wikipedia article are about the Arrowsmith Program, not the Arrowsmith School.

I would like to re-move "Arrowsmith School" to "Arrowsmith Program" and I can make a section about the Arrowsmith School there (or just list it under a "Schools (that use the Arrowsmith Program)" section like I did here before you reverted). Eaqq (talk) 07:29, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Undo the move that Taeyebaar made

Can someone please help me undo the move that Taeyebaar just made (without explanation)? Thank you. All of my edits (including the change of name) made the Wikipedia article better. Eaqq (talk) 04:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Hi Eeqq please see my above response it's not lost at all.--Taeyebaar (talk) 04:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I've undone the improper cut-paste move; this is clearly controversial (a disagreement among two editors), I'll look at this some more to help sort it out. Wbm1058 (talk) 16:35, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Taeyebaar (talk · contribs) reverted what you did. Eaqq (talk) 18:42, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Eaqq, I just left a message on his talkpage regarding this.--Taeyebaar (talk) 18:43, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Guys, slow down. Please, let's not get into an edit war over this. I can see that the term "school" is probably more commonly used than "program", and the article could be renamed back to "school" with the understanding that "school" is a synonym for "program". In other words, an article about the particular school in Toronto would be titled Arrowsmith School (Toronto) and would not be the primary topic, and the article titled Arrowsmith School would be the one about the program; in other words all schools teaching the program are called Arrowsmith Schools – indeed, perhaps a compromise move to Arrowsmith Schools would make that more clear. Comments? Wbm1058 (talk) 19:08, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

We don't use Arrowsmith Schools just as we don't call it "montessori schools" we call it montessori school despite the number of branches it has. Arrowsmith School is the main school and it has it's own subranches such as the Eaton Arrowsmith School which is clearly mentioned in the article. I am still insistant on moving it back to it's previous title as it was known by ever since it was created.--Taeyebaar (talk) 05:07, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

The Arrowsmith Program is used in many schools including the Arrowsmith School in Toronto. "Arrowsmith Program" isn't interchangeable with "Arrowsmith School (Toronto)." Have you looked at this version which shows many schools use the Arrowsmith Program? Which schools (and how many) would you consider to be the "Arrowsmith Schools"?

I believe this Wikipedia article ("Arrowsmith School") should be moved to "Arrowsmith Program" and a section there can be about this Arrowsmith School in Toronto. Eaqq (talk) 20:01, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The Arrowsmith School in Toronto is not notable, whereas the Arrowsmith Program is. If you look on this talk page, you'll see I already wrote about this and showed how most of this (Arrowsmith School) Wikipedia article is actually about the Arrowsmith Program (and as such, should be renamed Arrowsmith Program). Eaqq (talk) 20:10, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I did not mean to say that "Arrowsmith Program" is interchangeable with "Arrowsmith School (Toronto)." If you look at the website, they are just calling it "Arrowsmith". I don't think that this article is the WP:primary topic for Arrowsmith – that's a WP:disambiguation page, so there is no primary topic for the title. We could parenthetically disambiguate to Arrowsmith (program) or Arrowsmith (school); I think I'd prefer the latter because "school" is a more descriptive term for what it is than the generic word "program". I am saying that Arrowsmith (program) and Arrowsmith (school) are equivalent, and neither term refers to any specific school such as the one in Toronto. Wbm1058 (talk) 21:00, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Now I note that apparently, per the website, "Arrowsmith Program" and "Arrowsmith School" are both trademarked names, so those are probably better to use than a parenthetical dab. The Toronto school may be the primary topic for "Arrowsmith School", but it is clearly not the only "Arrowsmith School". – Wbm1058 (talk) 21:15, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

There is a trademarked brain training product called the Arrowsmith Program. This program is used in many schools to help learning disabled students, including at the Arrowsmith School in Toronto. The program is literally called "Arrowsmith Program", not just "Arrowsmith". (Sorry for repeating myself but I'm trying to explain why naming the Wikipedia article "Arrowsmith Program" is the best choice.) Eaqq (talk) 22:18, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

According to this link, the Arrowsmith Program is comparable to Brain Gym and Dore Programme, if you want to look at those Wikipedia articles. Eaqq (talk) 22:27, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

I'm not disputing that. The reason why those articles were about the program is because it was the program that was being exported, not the school since they cannot physically pickup the school and transport it to Australia. However the school's website is titled Arrowsmith School and the website says the program was started in 1978 and school established in 1980 [1]. The program, the school's methodology, has it's own section and can be expanded if desired. PS-The above comments by Wbm1058 make sense to me. I parcially agree with them.--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:23, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

How many students?

How many students are there at the Arrowsmith School in Toronto? I'm picturing it (the Arrowsmith School in Toronto, not the Arrowsmith Program) as being very small. I Googled and can't find a number. Eaqq (talk) 20:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

This link says that there are just 75 students at the Arrowsmith School in Toronto, grades 1 to 12. Eaqq (talk) 22:02, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Malformed request?

Wbm1058 (talk · contribs) -- what's malformed about my latest request? Eaqq (talk) 20:04, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

In this version of the page, you were requesting a move from Arrowsmith Program → Arrowsmith Program. As the page is already titled Arrowsmith Program, it makes no sense to ask to change the name to the current name; that's indeed no change at all. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The Wikipedia article is titled "Arrowsmith School" (as far as I can see). Eaqq (talk) 20:38, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Right now, it is at Arrowsmith Program. I think I'm going to have to call in an administrator to properly move it back to Arrowsmith School. – Wbm1058 (talk) 20:46, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

And then, after that's been done, your request will no longer be malformed. Wbm1058 (talk) 20:47, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Taeyebaar: I'm content with the article as it stands, but realize that you are probably not. I'm open to a compromise on using "School" in the title as outlined above, but realize it may be hard to come to a consensus on that too. So, if you insist on reverting back to Arrowsmith School at this time, the correct way to do that is to file a "Request to revert undiscussed move" at WP:RM/TR. An administrator will be needed to do this. And then, after that has been done, Eaqq will be free to file a "controversial" request per WP:RM, and let it run for a full seven days to determine a broader consensus. Thanks, Wbm1058 (talk) 21:34, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: Can you please do it for me? I'd appriciate it. Thanks--Taeyebaar (talk) 22:05, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

 Done, see here. – Wbm1058 (talk) 22:25, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

Thanks Wbm.--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:13, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

@Wbm1058: where do I file a "controversial move" request? On this talk page? What exactly do I do? Thanks. (I want to make a request to move "Arrowsmith School" to "Arrowsmith Program".) Eaqq (talk) 07:25, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

WP:RM states the relevant procedure. --Mdann52talk to me! 08:05, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

External links

I removed two inappropriate external links and Taeyebaar wants to add them back so I will list here why I removed them:

• http://www.apa.org/pubs/journals/releases/dev-49-2-270.pdf This pdf does not mention "Arrowsmith" even one time
• http://amyalexander.wiki.westga.edu/file/view/brain+not+based+education-p.pdf This pdf does not mention "Arrowsmith" even one time Eaqq (talk) 23:57, 28 November 2014 (UTC)

The first one can be added as a reference under skepticism and criticism where it discusses the university of Oslo. The second one might not mention the subject but definately indirectly discusses it and should be kept under the external links section for anyone curious to read the report. It was mentioned in the article about Arrowmsith and discusses neuroplasticity which is what the Arrowsmith program was founded upon.--Taeyebaar (talk) 01:01, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Requested move 29 November 2014

The following is a closed discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

The result of the move request was: no consensus to move the page at this time, per the discussion below; I suggest splitting the article into two, but that is a content decision that cannot be determined my the close of a move request. Dekimasuよ! 21:37, 6 December 2014 (UTC)

---

Arrowsmith School → Arrowsmith Program – This Wikipedia article is actually about the Arrowsmith Program, not about the Arrowsmith School in Toronto. For example, the skepticism and criticisms are about the Arrowsmith Program (which is used at Arrowsmith School). Eaqq (talk) 08:21, 29 November 2014 (UTC)

Survey

Feel free to state your position on the renaming proposal by beginning a new line in this section with *'''Support''' or *'''Oppose''', then sign your comment with ~~~~. Since polling is not a substitute for discussion, please explain your reasons, taking into account Wikipedia's policy on article titles.

• Oppose i provided my reasons above. I unfortunately won't have time to debate much as I'll be busy the next few weeks.--Taeyebaar (talk) 03:43, 30 November 2014 (UTC)

Discussion

Any additional comments:

No comment here other than that official website clearly states Arrowsmith School' the rest of my comments can be seen in the above section discussions.--Taeyebaar (talk) 07:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.

3RR - enough already

Bring discussion about changes here, this edit warring needs to stop. --Daffydavid (talk) 00:55, 29 May 2015 (UTC)

Barbara Arrowsmith Young article and suggested improvements for this one

I have created a separate article for the school and program's founder Barbara Arrowsmith Young. There is more than enough material to (a) establish notability and (b) reference adequately a standalone article. Not only did the former biography section here give undue weight in this article, it was also virtually verbatim from her website. There is considerable material available on the history of the school itself and its franchises. This article, which purports to be about the school, needs a History section very badly. The writing also needs to be considerably improved. It's very clumsily written and rambling in places. For another thing, there is no need to describe the qualifications in detail of each person who has commented on the program—they all have their own articles. Controversy/criticism surrounding the program should be placed in a sub-section of the section on the program, not a separate main section. I would also suggest a more concise and neutral title for that section, e.g. "Evaluation". Voceditenore (talk) 13:49, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

Why don't you just add Arrowsmith's biography here in a section? It would give another section more expansion.--Taeyebaar (talk) 03:25, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Because if notability is established and there are sufficient sources to write a stand-alone biography of a person, it is best practice to have a stand-alone article, not to use it simply to pad another article. This article is about the school. What it needs is a history section and a description of its curriculum not a lengthy biography of its founder. Voceditenore (talk) 06:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

• But what you've put there tells a lot of the school and it's history that is part of Arrowsmith Young's history. It would fir in with the program's history with some re-organization. Let me give it a shot.--Taeyebaar (talk) 02:41, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Some of the material from that biography can be used to write a history section here. But no, the article on Arrowsmith Young will remain a stand alone article. I will add a history section to Arrowsmith School shortly. Voceditenore (talk) 06:02, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I have now added a History (of the school) section to the article, some of which is taken from the sources used to reference Barbara Arrowsmith Young's article. I have also moved the skepticism section to a sub-section of the Arrowsmith Program section and added a further subheading for the History and methodology of the program. Over the next few days, I will expand and rewrite that, using independent sources. It is currently woefully inadequate, cribbed in part from the official website, and doesn't even give basic information of the types of exercises used, making the Skepticism section significantly devoid of context. Over the next few days, I will also work on the Skepticism section. It is currently incoherent, verbose, repetitive, and clumsily written. Voceditenore (talk) 08:55, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

In keeping with Voceditenore's suggestions above, I propose a much more concise and neutral sub-section titled "Evaluation". On a side note - there may be a problem with these sources. A quick all-names-in web search for the individuals in question leads to a number of articles - all from the same association - [2]. Perhaps this is a proxy war between a few key individuals' opinions on the scientific validity of the Arrowsmith program from members of a specific association - but the fight doesn't belong on Wikipedia. By involvement in this association, in implies that several of the sources cited are direct competitors - generating revenue from LD education work. The article could tip its hat to those individuals' opinions (as Voceditenore did on the Barbara Arrowsmith article), but not this long tirade. It belongs in association bulletins, or in a stand-alone article on [LDA].208.52.180.9 (talk) 16:15, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I completely agree with you that the section needs to be much more concise, and written in summary style. I disagree that this is a "proxy war". It is simply a product of what happens all over Wikipedia whenever the subject matter is somewhat controversial, and it is not limited to psychology subjects. I've seen it happen in articles about opera singers! What happens is that each "side" adds more and more material to match and counter the material of the other "side" until you get the current mess. In my view, the lengthy addition sourced solely to the commentary/rebuttal from Howard Eaton who owns 4 Arrowsmith-based schools is equally inappropriate, and way too much weight, both pro and con, is being given to one particular dispute involving Siegel's report to the Vancouver school board. As for the articles in the LDA bulletin, I think it is a far reach to propose that the authors' views are motivated by financial gain or involved in "rival" brain training programs. They are skeptical across the board on this and similar programs,. As cognitive scientists (and Max Coltheart is a very eminent one) they deplore the oversimplification of neuroscience and claims which are largely anecdotally based and have never been assessed through randomized controlled trials. In any case, I hope to produce a concise, reasonably balanced, and neutrally worded section. Voceditenore (talk) 18:17, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I think what makes this article especially interesting is the metadialogue that Arrowsmith references in her book (I'm reading it this weekend!), quoting a theory by Norman Doige called "The Plastic Paradox" (p10). The two camps she references: those interested in "managing the symptoms of Learning Disabilities" vs. "addressing the root causes" (p31 - and perhaps a point which should be added to the Arrowsmith Program section, whose goal, according to the book, is root causes). This is suddenly a meta-meta-discussion!

• The root: "two camps vying for their opinion to be heard on the validity of a program and over-inflating their respective sources".
• Metadialogue #1: "A book written by the author, upon which the opinions are conflicting, referencing the two-camps issue as a symptom of the brain issues"
• Metadialogue #2: "A theory, discussing the symptom of the brain issues as central to the nature of conflict due to change".

Wow, what a great conversation to mistakenly fall into. I'm going to give it a fourth stratum - a conversation on Wikipedia about the theory, referencing the book, referencing the proxy war. I think this is what the Marvel character Deadpool feels like when he breaks the fourth wall.

• Metadialogue #3: "A Wikipedia discussion, referencing the Plastic Paradox theory, referencing the Arrowsmith book, referencing the proxy war."

I would propose a new article on the "Plastic Paradox", which should be central to the re-write of this article's section on Scepticism. 208.78.110.152 (talk) 15:08, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

208.78.110.152, this is an encyclopedia article, summarizing the basics of the school and its program and what other experts have said about it. It is not the place for meta-dialogues about general issues with the concept of neuroplasticity and the uses and mis-uses of it, fascinating though that may be. If anything that belongs in Neuroplasticity. As for Doidge's notion of the "Plastic Paradox", it is probably suitable at best for a section in Norman Doidge but it is certainly not central to this article. If you are interested adding material about the notion to Doidge's article, I suggest you start with this source (a series of articles in the 2015 special issue of The American Journal of Clinical Hypnosis). If you want to get a flavour of an epic Wikipedia battle over the appropriately named opera singer Kathleen Battle, see here. Voceditenore (talk) 08:39, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Use of the word "Claim"

IP is a sockpuppet and now blocked as an open proxy.
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
This word is used a number of times, and is a clear POV (e.g. "cognitive exercises that she claims help"). The corollary would be "cognitive exercises proven to help". There is sufficient evidence that the program helps the students, even if it is circumstantial or psychosomatic. The school may in fact help students, a fact which is not for Wikipedia to promote or decide. Their website has a few peer-reviewed examples supporting the "claim" [3] [4] [5], with active research into the "claim"[6] (I believe the American Psychological Association and Canadian Psychological Association research is peer reviewed prior to acceptance). Propose replacing all POV edits with neutral versions. (cognitive exercises "which may" help). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.52.180.9 (talk) 16:18, 6 June 2015 (UTC) The word "claim" is almost always editorializing. and there is way too much use of this in the current version of the "Skeptcism" section. The Wikipedia Manual of Style recommends the use of neutral words such as "said", "asserted", "stated" and avoiding words like "claim", "purported", etc. It's one of the points I plan to address when I re-write that section, But note that statements like "which may help" are equally inappropriate to use in Wikipedia's voice. We summarize what others have said, but we don't synthesize. It's appropriate to state something like "According to so-and-so these exercises may help, although the mechanism is unclear" and then reference it to a statement by so-and-so where he/she has stated that. Incidentally, Adele Diamond actually said something to that effect in the 2008 CBC documentary. The lack of "peer reviewed studies" in the context of criticism of the Arrowsmith method (or any similar method) refers to studies published in peer reviewed academic journals. None of the studies on the Eaton Arrowsmith site fit that description. The same can also be said of Siegel's study carried out for the Vancouver school board for that matter. Something presented at a poster session, even at an APA conference, does not meet that criteria either. The standard for acceptance is much lower than that for publication in a peer-reviewed journal. The main problem so far in evaluating the Arrowsmith method is the lack of studies using randomized controlled trials, or at the bare minimum a matched control group, which have been published in peer reviewed academic journals. The study in progress by Lara Boyd at the University of British Columbia may eventually prove fruitful in that respect, but it is nowhere near completion and the results (even preliminary ones) have not been published. Voceditenore (talk) 17:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC) It is neutral, because other saying that is actually does work presents it as "matter-of-fact" when it's not. Remember NPOV. Let the reader decide weather these claims are true or not. And the skepticism part is notable because it has received significant courage. And yes it is criticism, not praise or inquiry, as the sources clearly show. Titling it otherwise would be misleading to readers. There's plenty of topics on wikipedia that have reliably-sourced criticism sections. This is no exception.--Taeyebaar (talk) 18:43, 6 June 2015 (UTC) Who has said that a criticism section is going to be removed or not present the views of the multiple cognitive scientists who have questioned the method and the rationale underlying it? A single word heading title such as "Criticism" would be valid, even "Skepticism and criticism". Those are are rather minor points, however, in comparison to the current appallingly written section under that heading. That's what needs to be fixed. Voceditenore (talk) 05:35, 7 June 2015 (UTC) Back to the point - the word "claim" is misplaced. Looking at some other alternative medicine articles like Chiropractic or Acupuncture (which this article could potentially be compared to this article given the current scientific disagreement on effectiveness) - the word "claim" isn't used - despite scientific disagreement. Suggest change the title to "Effectiveness" in this article to match the standard use on Wikipedia, remove the leading word "claim" from all references, and let the reader decide - like in Chiropractic. 208.78.110.152 (talk) 15:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC) Not at all. Claim is as neutral as you can get.Taeyebaar (talk) 19:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC) No it is not "as neutral as you can get". It is loaded language and needs to be used with great caution. I strongly suggest you read Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Words to watch#Synonyms for said if you are still having trouble understanding that. Voceditenore (talk) 20:29, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Sections added

I've added a brief section about the structure of the school's curriculum and tuition fees which is standard for school articles. I have also trimmed some of the fluff from the History and methodology subsection of the main Arrowsmith Program section. Much of that appears to have been cribbed from its official website and stems from a period when someone affiliated with school was contributing heavily to the article. I have added an overview of the cognitive deficits and the exercises which the program claims remediate them. They are sourced to an independent audit of 15 remedial programs for specific learning difficulties prepared for SPELD New Zealand and supervised by two professors at the Centre for Brain Research and School of Psychology, University of Auckland. Some idea of what the program consists of and what it specifically claims to remediate is needed to contextualize the Skepticism and criticism section. Note that I only included a representative sample and did not cover all 19 cognitive areas targeted by the program. I felt that would be overkill, and the report on which it is based is freely available online for readers who wish to find about the entire set of deficits and descriptions of the remediating exercises. Voceditenore (talk) 09:33, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

Suggest New Section - "Neuroscientist Support"

In order to balance the article, there should be a section on support, not just criticism - it is notably absent. Several notable psychologists, neuroscientists and learning experts have voiced their support of the programs potential and success.

• Dr. Norman Boige - Norman Doidges book, The Brain that Changes Itself, Chapter 2 Building a Better Brain is on the work of the Arrowsmith Program. Quotes from his book...

• "Barbara's story ... is truly heroic, on par with the achievements of Helen Keller."
• "Barbara Arrowsmith-Young is a pioneer, a bold and ingenious woman, deeply empathic and utterly determined. Rarely is the person who makes a discovery the one with the defect. Barbara is the exception."
• "As I envisage the future of neuroplastic education, I think that Arrowsmith-Youngs notion of a school that has multiple brain exercises at its core for much of the day is the most promising model to get children back on track as quickly as possible."
• "Barbara Arrowsmith-Young is a pioneer, a bold and ingenious woman, deeply empathic and utterly determined. Rarely is the person who makes a discovery the one with the defect. Barbara is the exception"

Also see "On The Nature of Things" - [7]

• Dr. William J. Lancee [8]
• Dr. Brad Hale, university of Calgary - Neuroscience Will Revolutionize Education
• Many others, more research is necessary into verifiable sources...

User:Voceditenore - perhaps you could turn this from potential puffery into something as well written as your previous edits. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.52.180.205 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 9 June 2015

I've retitled the "Skepticism and criticism" section Evaluation and criticism. Thus, your proposed section and the one you've suggested below can all fit into it. I was planning to mention Norman Doidge's support for the program, although it will not be that series of rather flaming quotes. He is quite prominent (although he's a psychiatrist and psychoanalyst rather than a neuroscientist) and devoted an entire chapter to Arrowsmith Young and her program in his The Brain That Changes Itself. However, the others above are not in that league. They have not published either books or peer-reviewed articles on the program. Videos of lectures are not suitable as references, and especially ones from conferences organized by the Arrowsmith School or its affiliates and hosted on their websites. Voceditenore (talk) 19:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Suggest new section - "Ongoing Research"

I propose a new section discussing the ongoing research into the Arrowsmith program. Two universities are notably actively studying the effects;

• Dr. Lara Boyd (UBC) - http://www.med.ubc.ca/brain-change/ & https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Es7rQQpje60 (notably partially funded by Microsoft CEO)
• Dr. Gregory Rose (Southern Illinois University) - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j7B06XmNncU (notably combining brain scans with neurological assessments)These appear to both be closing in the next 6 months - it will be interesting to see their results. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 208.52.180.205 (talk • contribs) 18:49, 9 June 2015

Lara Boyd's research is also something that I am planning to include. I'm aware that it's partially funded by the Microsoft CEO. It's also funded by Harold Eaton who owns the Eaton Arrowsmith Schools, of course. I will be very interested to read the preliminary results when they are published. If you can find any published work by Gregory Rose on the Arrowsmith program (as opposed to a video lecture), that would be helpful.

On a more general note, I assume that you (IP 208.52.180.205), IP 208.52.180.9, and IP 208.78.110.152 are all the same person who has been commenting here and editing the article today. It is not obligatory, but it would be helpful to other editors if you registered an account to avoid confusion and giving the impression that several people are commenting, when in fact it's only one. You also need to be aware that if you have any affiliation with the Arrowsmith Schools or Arrowmith Program (either personal or professional), in accordance with Wikipedia guidelines, you should declare that, especially if you edit the article itself rather than this talk page. Voceditenore (talk) 20:15, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

• This IP is a suspected paid editor who is encouraging edits previously made by Arrowsmith employee user:Brunasofia. These suggested topics were removed by other editors because they were not neutral. I've removed those promotional lines made by the IP and reported it to an admin.--Taeyebaar (talk) 16:19, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

It is perfectly acceptable for editors with a conflict of interest to make suggestions on the talk page of an article. I have already cautioned them re editing the article itself. As for your removal of the so-called "promotional lines", see my comment below in Removal of relevant, reliably sourced text. Voceditenore (talk) 16:40, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

I'm not a psychologist or neuroscientist, nor am I affiliated with Arrowsmith or being paid to do work. I am certainly not User:Brunasofia. I just happened to read the book (well, am reading the various books on the subject), and got interested - and considering sending a family member to the school. But I would admit to fear - given that this article has cost at least a half dozen people their accounts - this isn't a safe article to be editing on while being logged in (case in point!). I will continue to edit anonymously indefinitely (happy to restrain myself to the Talk Page), and will do so positively and within the spirit of Wikipedia's guidelines - and will live in fear. I will make a point of only adding/suggesting relevant and good sources and information and facts to check. Once I sign up a family member to the school, I'll consider myself in COI and back out. 68.232.66.174 (talk) 18:17, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Evaluation and criticism section

Taeyebaar, I have reverted your change of the heading back to "Skepticism and criticism". It is patently absurd to assert, as you did, that the heading cannot be called "Evaluation and criticism" because "neuroiscientists have not evaluated the program". First of all, several neuroscientists have done so and come up with preliminary conclusion that its claims are unproven. "Evaluate" does not mean "praise" or "support". It means to make a judgement on something's value, either positive or negative. If you are unsure of what the word means, look it up in the dictionary. "Skepticism and criticism" no longer reflects the contents of the section, and will reflect it even less after I add the research in progress at the University of British Columbia by a neuroscientist. 17:28, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

• There are two sources I have that confirm that Neuroscientists have not researched the program (in fact three I think). But I prefer that you finish your editing before I comment, per the template on the article. DO you still wish for me to post them?--Taeyebaar (talk) 18:51, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Who is disputing that up to now, there have been no controlled trial research by neuroscientists into the program's effectiveness? It's quite obvious from the section as it is currently written that this is the case. If you think you should bludgeon that point even more, well, go ahead. However, one of the reasons why the article was previously incoherent mess of puffery and hatchet job was precisely because of the bludgeon approach to editing. Note that the lack of studies by neuroscientists hasn't stopped them evaluating the program anyway and spouting off about it to the press at great length. However, that is an entirely separate issue from your asserting that the word "evaluation" is not neutral cannot appear in the heading because neuroscientists have not done any peer-reviewed studies. That section is full of evaluations, one positive and multiple negative + information about a scientific study by a neuroscientist which is currently underway to evaluate the program's claims. Voceditenore (talk) 20:15, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

Removal of relevant, reliably sourced text

I have restored, slightly rewritten, the removal of perfectly relevant information with a reliable source to support it. The school trial in Sydney is discussed in the article, as well as the flurry of criticism that the move sparked. Information on whether or not the Catholic School Board considered the trial successful two years later, and indeed expanded it is highly pertinent. Deliberately leaving it out is POV editing. I will add that Taeyebaar's justification "reverting IP with suspicious connections to the program" is entirely unacceptable. In any case, I am now taking responsibility for restoring that information. You will now need to adequately justify removing it again. Voceditenore (talk) 16:36, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

• It's nothing but a promotion and very misleading and unacceptable especially when added by somebody connected to the subject. I'm also curious as to when other editors removed citations of direct criticism from neuroscientists (not referring to you), they go away with it, yet I'm accused of removing "sourced material." Besides the CSB or anybody's feeling "that it helped" is not a reliable source, but rather certification and reports from neuroscientists is.--Taeyebaar (talk) 17:54, 11 June 2015 (UTC)

Taeyebaar, the criticism section was restored months ago, and the fluff added by one of the school's employees has been removed. But more importantly, two wrongs do not make a right. That is an extraordinarily counterproductive approach to editing and why the article had remained stuck as a badly written combination of puffery and repetitious hatchet job. In May 2012, the Sydney Catholic School Board (CSB) announced they would pilot the program for two years—at considerable expense to both the school board and the parents of the 20 children enrolled in the pilot project. That decision is what prompted the news coverage in Australia with numerous critical comments from the two Australian cognitive psychologists (Castles and Coltheart) and the one neuroscientist (Burrows). The news articles are all from May–June 2012. Quite rightly, all of that is documented in the article. However, it is also the case that after the two-year pilot ended, the CSB decided (rightly or wrongly) that in their view, it had been a success and would be extended to other schools. That is a simple fact, whether you like it or not. And it is a highly relevant fact in the context, regardless of who originally added it. It belongs in the article. Otherwise you are doing a disservice to the reader. Are you honestly saying that no opinions about/evaluations of the program can be in the article unless they are from neuroscientists? In that case, out go the opinions of Castles, Coltheart, and Siegel. Is your goal a neutral, informative article which serves the reader or payback to the disruptive sockpuppets no matter what the collateral damage to the article? Voceditenore (talk) 06:07, 12 June 2015 (UTC)

• No I didn't mean that. Coltheart and Castles are still experts in Neuroscience, so their opinions count too. I also agree two wrongs don't make a right...however anything supportive of the program should be reliably sourced and not some primary source claiming "we say it works, so it works" or some anecdotal claim is a questionable "source". Also the claim that people from all over the world came for Arrowsmith seems irrelevant. It's not relevant who comes from where. And according to report by one of the students that was shared sometime back by Linda Siegel, he (I'm pretty sure it was a he) was the only one who came from somewhere else to attend the program. And the review as I called was negative. But all I see in the article is positive anecdotes (which is not a substitute for scientific study) being added in the article.--Taeyebaar (talk) 22:21, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Additonal Suggestions

More sockpuppetry
The following discussion has been closed. Please do not modify it.
There is a whole other book written on this subject - Brain School Does this deserve it's own section? [9][10] 1st sentence not factually correct? - The Arrowsmith school has adults learners, not just children. [11] On core methodology in the first paragraph - from Arrowsmith's book: is to focus on the "root cause of learning disabilities instead of managing their symptoms" (p31). This is key, IMHO, to what makes this school notably different than others. Worth inclusion? A core idea from her book: the work is said to have a permanent effect as the brain stays strong from the regular activities of life (lost the reference, from the book) (from the site: "the individual maintains this gain by using the cognitive area in everyday functioning") Notable, perhaps? The comparison to "Brain Training" appears to be misplaced - this appears to be a school for special learning disabilities - not "normal" people looking for brain improvement. Just a thought - it should never be referred to as such? (e.g. disambiguation page). In section "History and Methodology", comment "which she says helped" - should be "which she said helped?" (It was 1978 - and in keeping with WIkipedia Style Guidelines). 208.78.110.160 (talk) 18:43, 11 June 2015 (UTC) No because this claim is still being made so it should be left in present tense. What's your affiliation with the program anyway?--Taeyebaar (talk) 19:00, 11 June 2015 (UTC)