Talk:Barbara Arrowsmith Young

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.

If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.

Biography

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography articles

Education Low‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Canada: Ontario / Toronto / Education Low‑importance

	Canada portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Canada, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Canada on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.CanadaWikipedia:WikiProject CanadaTemplate:WikiProject CanadaCanada-related articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	Ontario portal This article is supported by WikiProject Ontario.
	This article is supported by WikiProject Toronto (assessed as Low-importance).
	This article is supported by WikiProject Education in Canada.

Skepticism Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Skepticism, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of science, pseudoscience, pseudohistory and skepticism related articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.SkepticismWikipedia:WikiProject SkepticismTemplate:WikiProject SkepticismSkepticism articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Women writers Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Women writers, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of women writers on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.Women writersWikipedia:WikiProject Women writersTemplate:WikiProject Women writersWomen writers articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

It is requested that an image or photograph be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.
The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

There's a problem here[edit]

Where's the evidence she "overcame" her learning disabilities, aside from flat claims made by herself?--Taeyebaar (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I've tweaked that slightly. It now says : "an autobiographical account of her own severe learning disabilities and the method she developed to overcome them". Even in its previous form, the lede sentence in question also made it clear that it is an autobiographical account. So it is obvious that that is what she has said about herself. You can choose to reject it but Norman Doidge's chapter also states that she no longer has "any noticeable bottlenecks in her mental processes." I have seen no reliable sources which have ever questioned that she overcame her own difficulties, only ones which have questioned whether or not her method can help other people with similar difficulties, or at least any better than other methods. If you can find such a source, please post it here. Voceditenore (talk) 05:20, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

According to a student's review of the arrowsmith program, he (I'm quite sure it was a he) said somewhere that Norman Doidge is not a Neuroscientist but a psychologist and used the guy's biography as a reference. He basically I for one agree with that. This program or any program should have neuoroscientific endorsement. The expert opinion of a neuroscientist outwieghs the opinion of a psychologist. Another was a psychologist Dr Detterman who said the same for the 'brain training' programs. I'll see if I can find these reviews.--Taeyebaar (talk) 19:15, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Doidge is a psychiatrist. All you had to do is (a) read Norman Doidge or (b) read the references. You don't need to find some student's review of his book to find out that he is a psychiatrist. This is not an article about her program. It is about Barbara Arrowsmith Young. The text currently mentions what Doidge, who wrote a chapter on her in his book, said about her program, but it is countered by the criticism of at least three prominent neuroscientists, all referenced. The reader can make up their own mind. The article makes it clear that it is she who says she overcame her learning difficulties, not Wikipedia. It makes it clear that her program is viewed with skepticism by several cognitive psychologists and neuroscientists, who have the "last word" in the article. There is no way that this article could be read as an "endorsement" of her program. Quite the contrary, in fact. So what exactly is your problem? Are you saying that her program which is (rightly or wrongly) very notable cannot be mentioned in the article unless an "endorsement" of it from a neuroscientist can be found? If so, that is absurd and completely contrary to the goal of an encyclopedia. Voceditenore (talk) 05:52, 8 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

References[edit]

The reference:

Tarica, Elisabeth (18 June 2012). "Brain program heads this way". Sydney Morning Herald.

was replaced with

"Weird neuroscience: how education hijacked brain research". Max Coltheart. The Conversation. 10 December 2012.

using the edit summary "more explainatory" [sic]

I have undone this and restored the original reference. The purpose of references is to verify statements made in the article (in this case, that Max Coltheart has criticized her program), not to "explain" general issues. . The "new" reference did not even mention Arrowsmith or her program. Taeyebaar, if you wish to add it as "Further reading", fine, although I personally think it's unnecessary. This article is a biography. It is not about her program, let alone about general issues of neuroplasticity and the uses or misuses of the concept. Voceditenore (talk) 06:22, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yea OK, I got it.--Taeyebaar (talk) 19:02, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Fixing my brain[edit]

Should the documentary be linked there? Seems more like an advertisement for the Arrowsmith program. I'd like some opinions here.--Taeyebaar (talk) 19:16, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, it should be. First of all, the Canadian Broadcasting Corporation documentary is mentioned (and rightly so) in the article. Secondly, per WP:EL it gives the`reader the opportunity of seeing and hearing the subject of the article with material directly related to her biography. Thirdly, and most importantly, it is not an "advertisement" for the program. It contains criticisms/skepticism by both Adele Diamond (a very eminent neuroscientist) and Linda Siegel, whose comments open the documentary and which she elaborates on later in the film. Furthermore the commentary from two of the four parents explained why they withdrew their children after one year I strongly suggest you actually watch the documentary before making comments like that. Voceditenore (talk) 21:05, 7 June 2015 (UTC)[reply]