Talk:LearningRx

Problems with article references?

I am quite puzzled as to why user:Guy removed the references on learningrx and calling them "primary sources" when all of them are secondary, neutral sources. I'd like some input here please.--Taeyebaar (talk) 19:27, 25 May 2015 (UTC)

Notability

Taeyebaar WP:CORPDEPTH is quite explicit that sources like [2] are "trivial coverage" and do not count for notability. As the notability of the org is still in question (with a no consensus AfD#2), adding only sources that establish notability seems prudent. Considering this article reads like a press release and needs an update, this seems quite important, and suggest the article is cut right down until satisfactory. Widefox; talk 09:54, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

That source was not used to establish notability but to source a fact. I disagree that the "article reads like a press release and needs an update". The article is neutrally written. The article does not need to be updated because it uses the sources available. If you have anything to update, then please point it out here. But slapping on an {{outdated}} tag without specifically saying what needs to be updated and which sources can be used for the update is unhelpful tag bombing. Cunard (talk) 03:12, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It's been taken to AfD twice already. Time to reflect on the pillars of WP. Blaming the messenger does nothing while we had a possibly (I do not know) unbalanced article. This is all due to overuse of primaries including a primary portrayed as a secondary. This article was a disgrace. Widefox; talk 09:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

It was kept at both AfDs. It was closed as "keep" in the first AfD and "no consensus" at the second AfD. Keep listing until it gets deleted is not a valid reason to slap inaccurate tags like {{notability}} on the article.

Please point out which sources in the article are primary sources. There are seven references. Six of the references are clearly secondary sources: Entrepreneur, The Oregonian, St. Paul Pioneer Press, KTEN, Associated Press, and The New York Times. The only primary source, the Awear Technologies link, was added by you. (And, to make it clear, I agree with that addition to establish the connection.) Cunard (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Don't know what your point is - I've created neither of the AfDs or hinted at another. Straw man argument. Along with KEEPLISTINGTILLITGETSDELETED (which is for AfDs not N) - irrelevant. So, the last tag being "inaccurate"... {{notability}} "whose article subject is, in your judgment, reasonably likely to be non-notable" (emphasis own) - as you are not me, you logically cannot say it is inaccurate. You can disagree with my judgement, but as others at the AfD have expressed the same sentiment this is clearly beyond reasonable doubt for others as well as me. It is 100% accurate. Now that I've more than justified all tags as legit concerns, Seems to be there's no substance to the criticism of them, and ironically unjustified. It's time to WP:DEADHORSE. Emotive words like "deface", "slap", "tag bombing" aren't helping you dig yourself out and border on WP:AGF/WP:CIVIL. The article potentially was misrepresenting promotional content through lack of disclosure. (in the EU that may be a legal requirement). It needed fixing , NPOV still needs checking, and readers deserve to know this.

{{update}} was so we could have the results of the 2010 grant funded research - a secondary independent source for the research and claims to get us somewhere closer to WP:MEDRS. Philip David Zelazo's comment may not be an independent, secondary RS. How on earth is that valid in the "Reception"? If not independent, it's not "Reception". It is also still false balance per WP:BALANCE (based on current sources). Widefox; talk 11:42, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

That was in response to your "It's been taken to AfD twice already" and "This article was a disgrace". Is "disgrace" not an "emotive word"? Practice what you preach.

The article potentially was misrepresenting promotional content through lack of disclosure. (in the EU that may be a legal requirement). It needed fixing , NPOV still needs checking, and readers deserve to know this. – the "disclosure" was that Philip David Zelazo is connected to a group founded after he was quoted in an article. If no other connection can be found, then there is no "disclosure" to make in the article because that would be original research. Assuming that there is a connection in 2010 would imply that the reporter who quoted Zelazo was incompetent in not noting this connection or that Zelazo misrepresented by omission his connection with LearningRx. Either of these claims would be a WP:BLP violation if made without solid sourcing.

It cannot be verified that Zelazo was not a secondary, independent commentator in 2010, so the article cannot make that claim. And it does not violate neutrality to omit an unverifiable claim. Other than this Zelazo issue, what else in the article do you believe is non-neutral and violates WP:NPOV?

{{notability}} says, "Please help to establish notability by adding reliable, secondary sources about the topic." What actionable comments do you have about "adding reliable secondary sources about the topic" so the tag can be removed? The article already includes the Entrepreneur, The Oregonian, St. Paul Pioneer Press, KTEN, Associated Press, and The New York Times, so it's very unclear why you think the article's deficient in that respect. Cunard (talk) 05:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

"trivial coverage" sources don't help. i.e. that's specific actionable - adding non-trivial sources. It is OK to challenge it, and per WP:BURDEN it is not up to me to find specific sources (or justify AfDs that I didn't initiate).

That you don't like the tags here is understood. Building a consensus would breakout of the stalemate of the current situation of trying to invalidate another editors opinion.

User:Cunard - KEEPLISTINGTILLITGETSDELETED is not relevant is it? WP:TAGBOMB is not relevant is it? 1. Each tag has been justified here hasn't it? 2. Adding a few most important tags is specifically not tag bombing per TAGBOMB. As TAGBOMB is an accusation of disruptive editing, are you now going to withdraw the accusation so we can move on per WP:STICK. Unjustified accusations of disruptive editing is disruptive, further, this is now WP:DISRUPTSIGNS "b. repeatedly disregards other editors' explanations for their edits." Widefox; talk 08:28, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

• The {{notability}} tag was removed by uninvolved editor Boleyn (talk · contribs), who wrote: "removed notability tag; no consensus to delete at 2 AfDs. If anyone still has concerns, they could try AfD again." Cunard (talk) 02:44, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Reception

WP:NPOV (WP:BALANCE) needs checking - it may be an issue (and possibly disclosure). As Philip David Zelazo is an advisor to a partnered organisation[3] what's the level of independence from the organisation of his view? This was not made explicit in the article. The balance is currently portrayed as majority positive, minority negative. That is not currently supported by a source or BALANCE of sources.
Do any of the editors have a connection with the org or have anything to disclose per WP:COI and WP Terms of Use? Widefox; talk 10:38, 3 June 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the unsourced sentence. That Philip David Zelazo is an adviser to a partner organization was not made clear because the St. Paul Pioneer Press article that quoted him did not disclose the connection.

I do not have a conflict of interest with the company. I never heard of it until I participated in the first AfD at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/LearningRx.

The tag bombing of the article with {{notability}}, {{news release}}, and {{update}} tags is unhelpful. The {{notability}} tag should be removed because the subject was covered in The New York Times and in several pages of a book published by the reputable publisher Penguin Books. It also received significant coverage in Entrepreneur, The Oregonian, St. Paul Pioneer Press, and the Associated Press. Please do not deface the article with an inaccurate tag. Either remove the tag or renominate the article for deletion at AfD.

The {{news release}} tag says at Template:News release:

This template should be used when the article appears to have been written by a public relations agent acting on behalf of the subject of the article, or having some connection with the subject. It is used when the article is not necessarily a blatant advertisement, but is still overly promotional in tone.

This article was not written by a PR agent acting on behalf of the subject of the article. I have no connection with the subject. As an uninvolved editor, I reviewed the article and do not believe it has promotional tone. Instead, it is neutrally written. Please point out any sentences you consider promotional or remove the tag.

Cunard (talk) 03:47, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

That it was not disclosed in the source reflects on the quality of that article as an RS. I don't know the level of connection, but it was trivial to find one. It typifies the sentiment of this article's construction - overuse of primaries and affiliated sources. News release just about covers that as less than an {{advert}} "appears to have been written by a public relations" (emphasis my own) - that's simply by the primary overuse and undisclosed affiliated source(s). Per the AfD, any biomedical claim needs WP:MEDRS standard. "Tag bombing is the unjustified addition of numerous tags" - all have been justified. Back to notability, not only WP:CORPDEPTH but WP:AUD with the current sources (somewhat a symptom of the franchise model). Widefox; talk 09:10, 4 June 2015 (UTC)

No, it does not reflect on the quality of that article as a reliable source. Philip David Zelazo gave his quote to the St. Paul Pioneer Press in 2010. LearningRx–partnered organization Awear Technologies, which Zelazo advises, was founded in 2011 according to https://www.linkedin.com/company/awear-technologies. There was no connection between Zelazo and LearningRx through Awear Technologies, which did not even exist in 2010.

WP:AUD says:

The source's audience must also be considered. Evidence of significant coverage by international or national, or at least regional, media is a strong indication of notability. On the other hand, attention solely from local media, or media of limited interest and circulation, is not an indication of notability; at least one regional, national, or international source is necessary.

The organization was covered in The New York Times, a national source. It was covered in a Penguin Books–published book. It was covered in the regional newspapers The Oregonian and St. Paul Pioneer Press. How does it not pass WP:CORPDEPTH and WP:AUD?

If there are any biomedical claims in the article that fail to meet the WP:MEDRS standard, please remove the claims (along with your tags). Vague assertions that there are WP:MEDRS violations are unhelpful and do not help improve the article. Cunard (talk) 03:12, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

It may or may not. That's WP:OR. If ever you've started a company, the people and connections exist before founding etc. It's difficult to prove the negative and highly speculative to try to prove the negative based on an OR timeline. It's a franchise too, so difficult to know connections. In any case, I've already combined the {{news release}} with NPOV to cover it. It does need checking (per my comment above). Widefox; talk 12:02, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

As an editor unaffiliated with LearningRx, I have checked the article and find it neutral. I recommend removing the {{POV check}} tag. If you disagree, please edit the article to remove any content you consider non-neutral. You can remove the entire "Reception" section if you want, as the claims made in there may violate WP:MEDRS. Otherwise, the tag will languish there for months or years. Cunard (talk) 05:12, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Calling for removing the POV check while discussion is only just starting on it here is disruptive to the process of consensus building. Widefox; talk 07:47, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Please edit the article to remove any content you consider non-neutral. Cunard (talk) 02:45, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

(discussion about the offtopic use of tags continued at User talk:Cunard ) Widefox; talk 09:54, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Update tag

Regarding the {{update}} tag added here to the "History" section, please explain what "recent events or newly available information" need to be added to the article. It is not enough to make the vague claim that the section needs to be updated. Without specific new information (along with the specific reliable sources that verify that information), the addition is an "unjustified addition". Cunard (talk) 03:22, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

I made an update to the article using http://www.nytimes.com/2012/11/04/education/edlife/a-new-kind-of-tutoring-aims-to-make-students-smarter.html. I did not include any further information from The New York Times like the results of the study (see the following quote):

Oliver W. Hill Jr., a professor of psychology at Virginia State University in Petersburg, recently completed a $1 million study, yet to be published, financed by the National Science Foundation to test the effects of LearningRx. He looked at 340 middle-school students who spent two hours a week for a semester using LearningRx exercises in their schools’ computer labs and an equal number of students who received no such training. Those who played the online games, Dr. Hill found, not only improved significantly on measures of cognitive abilities compared to their peers, but also on Virginia’s annual Standards of Learning exam.

He’s now conducting a follow-up study of college students in Texas and, he said, sees even stronger gains when the training is offered one on one.

to avoid falling afoul of WP:MEDRS. Cunard (talk) 03:33, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Additionally, a Google search ("Oliver W. Hill Jr." LearningRx) did not return anything about a published study, so it likely the study was not published or has not been published yet. So there is nothing else about this to update. Cunard (talk) 03:35, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Odd, look again at the Google search - third hit does give "...Yes, it's very expensive, its organization as a franchise is bizarre, and its claims for success are overly dramatic and supported by few peer reviewed scientific studies..." (and goes on that it compares unfavourably to other orgs) Dan Hurley - 2014 In contrast, the lede has "The company aims to improve cognitive abilities based on the principle of neuroplasticity." rather than slightly better "claims".

Update and NPOV check justified. User:Cunard, time to drop this "unjustified" mantra (which to me is now coming across ad hominem - see above), suggest getting a third opinion, in fact, let's ping them....User:JzG User:Taeyebaar User:Short Brigade Harvester Boris User:SilverSurfingSerpent User:LaMona . Widefox; talk 12:47, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

Here's the link to the NSF grant: [4]. The grant is about cognitive training, and it isn't clear if LearningRX was studied. There's another Oliver Hill NSF grant, but it seems to be about "mindfulness" not cognitive training [5]. Oliver W Hill Jr does not have a visible profile on the VSU pages. I looked in G-scholar under the names of the co-principles and found nothing. Also the NYT article says it was a million dollar grant, but NSF says that it was $411K. Sometimes grants are optionally renewable, up to a certain amount, but I don't find evidence of further funding -- unless Hill was combining the two grants when interviewed by NYT. This is sloppy reporting on the part of NYT -- I'd say that their fact-checkers missed this one. In any case, other than the paragraph in NYT there appears to be no evidence of the stated results. At best, this article needs to say that no such results have been published in peer-reviewed sources. LaMona (talk) 16:49, 5 June 2015 (UTC)

"At best, this article needs to say that no such results have been published in peer-reviewed sources." – would this violate Wikipedia:No original research? Cunard (talk) 05:13, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

To update: 1. NSF can state not published as of 2015 2. Dan Hurley - 2014 (per above) and others (which is not OR)

The lede should not just have the primary claim, but include the current status of lack of peer-reviewed. {{As of}} can be used, and sources so not OR (or having to prove the negative). Widefox; talk 07:19, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't completely understand the proposed change here but feel free to make it to the article per the Wikipedia:BOLD, revert, discuss cycle. Cunard (talk) 02:52, 7 June 2015 (UTC)

Ping Doc James for opinion about this article, specifically MEDRS. Widefox; talk 07:30, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I'll comment here soon. I found something on the neuroscientists and their opinion on the program. I'll wait for others to also add their opinion. Thanks for pinging.--Taeyebaar (talk) 02:37, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

Give me a few days and I'll add some stuff to their receptionTaeyebaar (talk) 23:21, 8 June 2015 (UTC)

There's a quote and source above that can be put into the reception. Widefox; talk 10:00, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Which quote and which source? If it's the one you quoted above, I was unable to find "it's very expensive, its organization as a franchise is bizarre" in a Google search. The third hit for my Google search, http://www.dailyprogress.com/news/learning-center-aims-to-be-the-perfect-rx/article_682b4859-3abe-51ec-a86d-da653d394807.html, doesn't contain that quote. Cunard (talk) 05:49, 10 June 2015 (UTC)

neutrality?

Can somebody please address the reason for the neutrality tag? Is it too much in favor or against the topic?--Taeyebaar (talk) 17:43, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Some guy called Taeyebar keeps adding promotional material sourced to press releases. Not sure why. Guy (Help!) 00:10, 5 November 2016 (UTC)

Changes

You did a lot more than restore the content about the CEO thinking about stepping down in this dif Please explain. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 07:48, 16 November 2016 (UTC)

I have restored:

The company's teaching approach is based on Ken Gibson's research in visual processing and his brother Keith Gibson's work as a clinical psychologist. The two worked in their respective fields for 17 years before "adapting them for use in a commercial setting"

This is sourced information about the company's history and what the company's teaching approach is based on. I disagree with its deletion. I have also restored:

An October 2016 article in The Gazette stated that founder and CEO Ken Gibson is planning to retire and will be succeeded as CEO by his daughter Kim Hanson. His son-in-law Dean Tenpass will become COO.

The CEO succession plan does not violate WP:CRYSTAL because it is reported in a reliable source that confirmed the information with the company.

When Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer announced their retirement from Microsoft and the company's succession plans, the Microsoft Wikipedia article noted this. The same should be done for LearningRx.

Cunard (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

And regarding your addition of:

The "brain training" field has been controversial in the scientific community; in 2014 a group of 75 scientists put out a statement saying that most claims made by companies in the field were pseudoscience, which was countered several months later by an industry-organized group of scientists who said that there was evidence for their effectiveness.[2]

This information is not directly about LearningRx though it appears in an article about LearningRx. This looks like WP:COATRACK material about the "brain training field" in LearningRx's article.

Cunard (talk) 03:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

One thing at a time - starting with the last. Encyclopedia articles provide context. This article was completely lacking in it. LearningRx was named in the statements by scientists by both sides, btw. Am happy to have an RfC over that and am confident it will stay in. Do you really want to contest that or not? Jytdog (talk) 03:41, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Before determining whether to hold an RfC, I'd like clarification on a few points. I am fine with keeping it in if it can be reworded to be more directly about LearningRx.

The material you added is sourced to http://www.cnn.com/2016/10/20/health/brain-training-exercises/. The CNN article mentions LearningRx three times:

The developers and marketers behind the LearningRx brain-gaming programs settled similar charges in May, paying $200,000.

Both Lumosity and LearningRx are still in business. On its website, Lumosity describes its web and mobile games as "designed by scientists to challenge core cognitive abilities." The company launched a collaborative research initiative called the Human Cognition Project that involves more than 40 universities.

Meanwhile, LearningRx's website notes, "We offer a variety of programs that target specific cognitive weaknesses." The company includes a five-member scientific advisory board and features more than a dozen studies about its programs on its website.

But the controversy surrounding brain training seems to have heated up before the two companies faced their charges, about two years ago, when critics called it "pseudoscience."

Based only on this CNN article, I do not see how "LearningRx was named in the statements by scientists by both sides, btw." Am I missing something in this article?

Is there another source that says the scientists named LearningRx as a company they considered? With that source, maybe we can reword that paragraph to say that the scientists specifically considered LearningRx.

For example, if we can reword the paragraph from:

... in 2014 a group of 75 scientists put out a statement saying that most claims made by companies in the field were pseudoscience

to:

in 2014 a group of 75 scientists put out a statement saying that most claims made by companies in the field including LearningRx were pseudoscience

then I am fine with keeping the entire paragraph in with just that change.

Cunard (talk) 04:40, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

OK, so I ~thought~ they named companies in the 2014 statement (which is here) and they didn't name any. I was thinking of a review article i read when i worked on this. my bad and i apologize. The letter speaks to the industry as a whole, without naming names. Not mentioning this is leaving out a crucial piece of context... please do read it and see if you agree. thx Jytdog (talk) 06:10, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. No worries, I sometimes get stuff mixed up too. I think the "brain training" material is balanced in presenting the two sides of the issue. My only concern was that it's more about "brain training" than about LearningRx. But since the CNN article made the connection between LearningRx and the criticism about brain training, I think it's okay to keep the introductory material. It's currently one paragraph of a two-paragraph reception section so currently isn't too long. But if it grows longer but is not directly about LearningRx, I'd recommend trimming it to avoid its becoming a WP:COATRACK. Cunard (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

yay! yes i tried not to belabor it. thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Teaching approach material

I've found the information included in this edit diff to be excessive intricate detail and promotional, such as being cited to an article "LearningRX offers help to struggling students". K.e.coffman (talk) 05:02, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

The removed information was:

The company's teaching approach is based on Ken Gibson's research in visual processing and his brother Keith Gibson's work as a clinical psychologist. The two worked in their respective fields for 17 years before "adapting them for use in a commercial setting".

I think it is encyclopedic to include LearningRx's teaching approach because it explains where LearningRx teaching methodologies came from. Jytdog (talk · contribs), as the first editor who removed this content, is there a better way to reword the information so it can be restored? Cunard (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

That is promotional content. It implies that the methods are grounded in science. That is how they sell. Jytdog (talk) 05:29, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Is it possible to reword the addition so it doesn't imply the methods are grounded in science? I think it would be an omission if the article didn't discuss what LearningRx's teaching methodologies are based on. Cunard (talk) 05:32, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Let's keep in mind that this company was called to the carpet for deceptive advertising OK? We know how they market it. who knows what it is actually based on. One guy is an optometrist (which the company spins into "a specialist in pediatric visual processing" for pete's sake) and the other says he is a clinical psychologist. Jytdog (talk) 05:54, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

We could say something like "the company says its methods are grounded in the founders' experience" or something. Jytdog (talk) 06:05, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Yes, I agree we need to keep in mind the company settled deceptive advertising charges filed against it by the FTC. I like your rewording. I made a few tweaks to it. How about "The company says its teaching methods are grounded in founder Ken Gibson and his brother Keith Gibson's experience." Please let me know if you're okay with this rewording. Thank you, Cunard (talk) 06:36, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

That is fine, thanks. Jytdog (talk) 10:45, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Thank you, I have restored the reworded material. Cunard (talk) 05:54, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Company succession material

The company succession material was:

An October 2016 article in The Gazette stated that founder and CEO Ken Gibson is planning to retire and will be succeeded as CEO by his daughter Kim Hanson. His son-in-law Dean Tenpass will become COO.

My view above was that: "The CEO succession plan does not violate WP:CRYSTAL because it is reported in a reliable source that confirmed the information with the company." When Bill Gates or Steve Ballmer announced their retirement from Microsoft and the company's succession plans, the Microsoft Wikipedia article noted this. The same should be done for LearningRx."

Why do editors oppose including this material? Can the material be reworded to gain support for inclusion?

Cunard (talk) 05:15, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Because it is WP:CRYSTALBALL and trivia besides. When he steps down and their is a new CEO we can report that. Microsoft is a huge publicly traded company driven by Bill Gates; of course WP noted the succession plans there. This is a little family owned private company. Jytdog (talk) 05:30, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

It doesn't make sense to me that it would be WP:CRYSTALBALL and trivia for a "little family owned private company" but the same information would not be that for a "huge publicly traded company". But I do not feel strongly enough about it to continue advocating for restoring this paragraph. I am fine with reporting about the new CEO when that happens. Cunard (talk) 05:42, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

great. Jytdog (talk) 10:46, 17 November 2016 (UTC)

Christina Lima

I do not find the source used in this edit diff to be sufficiently reliable. It's bylined as "Special to Oregonian, and I believe it to be by the same author as for this entry Cheap Eats: Blue Sage Cafe. The author is identified as a "freelance writer from Portland". It was not written by the paper's staff, and I find the claims presented in the article to be too close to the company's own position. I suggest this content be removed. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:00, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

That Christina Lima is a freelance writer does not make her article in The Oregonian unreliable. The Oregonian's editors reviewed and approved her article. The article is being used to support the sentence "The company says its teaching methods are grounded in founder Ken Gibson and his brother Keith Gibson's experience." It is not controversial that the company is saying their teaching methods are grounded in the founder and his brother's experience. Cunard (talk) 07:15, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

But it is also unnecessary and turns the article into a promotional piece for a company that is known for its misleading promotion. Newspapers in general do not have the best reputation for fact checking and accuracy, especially when they run a human interest story like this. K.e.coffman (talk) 07:29, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

The sentence has been reworded so it doesn't imply the methods are grounded in science, so it is not promotional. I disagree that The Oregonian article is unreliable for the uncontroversial statement that LearningRx's teaching methods are based on its founder and his brother's experience. I consider what a company says its teaching methods are based on to be due weight. Cunard (talk) 07:43, 18 November 2016 (UTC)

Recent changes

User: Kimmybrandon1 the changes you made here and here removed sourced content, added unsourced content, and added promotional content. None of this is OK. Please discuss your proposed edits here and their basis in Wikipedia's policies and guidelines. Jytdog (talk) 17:34, 26 January 2017 (UTC)