This article was nominated for deletion on 15 March 2018. The result of the discussion was keep. |
This article is rated Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
The contentious topics procedure applies to this page. This page is related to complementary and alternative medicine, which has been designated as a contentious topic. Editors who repeatedly or seriously fail to adhere to the purpose of Wikipedia, any expected standards of behaviour, or any normal editorial process may be blocked or restricted by an administrator. Editors are advised to familiarise themselves with the contentious topics procedures before editing this page. |
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. |
Daily pageviews of this article
A graph should have been displayed here but graphs are temporarily disabled. Until they are enabled again, visit the interactive graph at pageviews.wmcloud.org |
Prior content in this article duplicated one or more previously published sources. The material was copied from: http://www.brainbalancecenters.com/about/the-ten-principles-of-brain-balance/, http://www.brainbalancecenters.com/blog/management_team/134963-2/ and http://www.brainbalancecenters.com/our-program/integrated-approach/sensory-motor/. Copied or closely paraphrased material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.)
For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, and, if allowed under fair use, may copy sentences and phrases, provided they are included in quotation marks and referenced properly. The material may also be rewritten, providing it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Therefore, such paraphrased portions must provide their source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Voceditenore (talk) 12:10, 2 October 2015 (UTC)
@Sofiariv10: Per WP:MEDMOS, Do not hype a study by listing the names, credentials, institutions, or other "qualifications" of their authors. The text of the article should not needlessly duplicate the names, dates, titles, and other information about the source that you list in the citation.
which is exactly what the following sentence does:
Furthermore the study has not even completed so no conclusions about the study can be made. The above passage attempts to confer a degree of respectability to the method for which no persuasive evidence has yet been provided that it works. Per WP:MEDRS, what matters are the conclusions of studies that have been reviewed by independent third parties. Hence I propose to remove the above sentence. Boghog (talk) 04:10, 27 June 2018 (UTC)
I went through previous edits. I am wondering why this article is now so biased against Brain Balance when there are plenty of sources that address the success thousands of children with learning disabilities have had? I understand that within academic research there is a grey area before more results are published, but I am not sure why the other side of the story is not represented. There are questions about the efficacy of Brain Balance in the scientific and medical community, and the article has acknowledged that. On the other hand, this article does not reflect what Wikipedia prides itself on and that is providing neutral information that adequately reflects all of the facts. One major fact that is being omitted is that there is a significant community that relies and trusts Brain Balance to help their children. The article is not representative of this. How can we make this article better in the sense that it reflects all sides of the argument just as the NPR article does? Additionally, the NPR article is not properly represented as it does acknowledge that the majority of the 18 parents NPR interviewed were happy with the program, which aligned with the reviews and ratings that NPR found. It is reflective of one family's story. There is significant data missing from this article which does not align with Wikipedia's values. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Okhauger (talk • contribs) 00:04, 28 June 2018 (UTC)