Talk:Arrowsmith School

This article is a mess

The criticism section is practically the same as I had made, except this edition has all the paragraphs crammed together, all the references together, instead of each ref for the relevant paragraph plus the same ref being repeated several times. I'm determined to fix this up, but I'm preoccupied with studies. When I'm back I'll contribute more to fix the mess.--Taeyebaar (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2015 (UTC)

Yes, Taeyebaar, the article is in a mess but don't worry too much about it while you're away, it is constantly under the watchful eye of the team at WP:WPSCH and is currently being cleaned up for content, prose, and WP:MoS by highly experienced long-term editors. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:15, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Kudpung, that will be very helpful. Thank you! Taeyebaar, I'm not sure how you can say it's practically the same as "you had left it". Please compare the present version to "yours". The current one has more and updated information. It also contextualizes the commentary from the Australian academics.

The change you made to the article yesterday was not helpful. You moved the "Further Reading" section to immediately after the final text section. This is completely contrary to the Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Layout. It goes after the "References" section. I have moved it back and I strongly suggest that you actually read the MoS before you attempt to edit the article again.

Finally, paragraphs are structured to present a particular and coherent sub-topic of the discourse. Why do you think that creating a series of faux paragraphs of two sentences each that read like soundbites is an improvement? Voceditenore (talk) 06:29, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

Thank you, Voceditenore, on behalf of the WP:WPSCH, for your kind voluntary engagement as one of Wikipedia's most highly experienced editors in keeping this article within the guidelines. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 06:44, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

I don't know how to shrink the logo image

Can somebody do it please/ If it's not considered too big then leave it.--Taeyebaar (talk) 18:46, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

 Done - again, you can rest assured that this article is being watched by some experienced editors and the coordinators of the WP:WPSCH. --Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 02:48, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• I have replaced the logo with the official logo of the school. This is an article about the school. The program logo could be added to the section on the program, but not in its current form. It was taken from an optometry blog, with no relation whatsoever to the school and does not reproduce the logo as it is intended to be used by the trademark owners. This is what the logo actually looks like from the official site of the Arrowsmith Program. If the program's logo is used in the program's section, the official one from the official website is the only version that should be used. I have also moved the image of the school itself to the school's history section. It does not belong in the section about the program. See also my comments below in the section Confusing conflation of the school and the program. Voceditenore (talk) 05:14, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Curriculum and tuition feez

Shouldn't that section go under the Arrowsmith Program section?--Taeyebaar (talk) 18:50, 23 June 2015 (UTC)

No, because they both pertain to the school in Toronto, not the program. Read the curriculum section carefully and its references. This article is about the school. The Eaton Arrowsmith Schools (modelled on this one) but owned by someone else, follow a slightly different curriculum, some offering 3 academic subjects + the program, and their fees are different. Other schools which offer the program (in whole or in part) to their students with learning disabilities each have their own curriculum and fee structure. See also my comments below in the section Confusing conflation of the school and the program. Voceditenore (talk) 04:13, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

Confusing conflation of the school and the program

There have been consistent attempts to turn an article about a specific school to an article about the program which was developed by the school's founder, first used in that school, and further developed there. However, it is no longer unique to that school at all and is used in several countries by many schools. These attempts have ranged from trying to use an unofficial image of the program logo as the school's logo in the infobox and moving the image of the school to the program section (both of which I have reverted) to suggesting that the school's curriculum and fees be moved to the program section. As I pointed out above. The latter is highly inappropriate. There are two solutions to this. Either stop with the surreptitious attempts which are counterproductive to the article and confusing to the reader. Or, split the article to Arrowsmith School and Arrowsmith Program over the current redirect. The school itself passes all the notability criteria for a stand-alone article as does the program. If that is considered undesirable, then there must be no confusing conflation between the Arrowsmith School and the Arrowsmith Program in the current article. Voceditenore (talk) 05:56, 24 June 2015 (UTC)

• A redirect sounds like a good idea. Drmies (talk) 17:16, 8 July 2015 (UTC)

• Drmies, Arrowsmith Program currently redirects to Arrowsmith School#Arrowsmith Program. Is that what you meant? I gather there was quite a houha about moving the article last November, and after a bit of an edit war involving cut and paste moves, etc., it ended in the current situation. See Talk:Arrowsmith School/archive 1. The article was created in 2008, and was originally about the Toronto school only, but more and more was added about the program over the years, until it became a confusing mish-mash. Back in June of this year, I restructured it to make clear which was which. Arrowsmith School and Arrowsmith program are not synonymous. Voceditenore (talk) 05:39, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Shoot, I meant to say "a separate article sounds like a great idea". My apologies for the senior moment, Voceditenore. Drmies (talk) 15:22, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Don't worry Drmies, as a real senior citizen, my senior moments are lot more frequent than yours. I agree about splitting the articles. Whatever one thinks about this program, and I am personally very skeptical about it, it is notable enough for a stand-alone article as is the school. I think it would simplify matters considerably to split them. Voceditenore (talk) 16:08, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• Yes. Thanks. Now, it's time for my medication. I hope the nurse will be here soon. Drmies (talk) 16:11, 9 July 2015 (UTC)

• I think it should be called Arrowsmith School, but a separate section is needed to discuss the various branches and what they offer. Remember it's still known as the Arrowsmith School. By WP:COMMONNAME we should go by that.--Taeyebaar (talk) 19:57, 10 July 2015 (UTC)

No, the program is known as the Arrowsmith Program. It is always referred to as that by the individual schools and school districts that offer it as part of their curriculum. They don't call themselves "Arrowsmith Schools", either formally or informally. Arrowsmith School refers only to the school in Toronto and its branch in Peterborough. There are several schools owned by Howard Eaton and modelled on the original school. They incorporate "Arrowsmith" in their name. But their name is "Eaton Arrowsmith School" (and one in the US called "Eaton Arrowsmith Academy"). None of them are called simply "Arrowsmith School". WP:COMMONNAME does not remotely support your contention that the article should not be split. Even if it were not split, the evidence is overwhelming that "Arrowsmith Program" is not synonymous with "Arrowsmith School". That is precisely why the current article is structured to make that distinction clear. I suggest you actually read the websites of the schools and school districts which offer the program. Voceditenore (talk) 17:26, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

The one in Toronto is simply called "Arrowsmith School" and it says on their website. Eaton Arrowsmith School is just a branch of the Arrowsmith school. We should have a separate section for the program though.--Taeyebaar (talk) 19:45, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

When I said, "none of them are called simply "Arrowsmith School", I was quite clearly referring to the schools owned by Howard Eaton. Of course the one in Toronto is called "Arrowsmith School". That is the school's official name, as I have repeatedly pointed out to you. It has been called that since it was founded in 1980. The school was named after Barbara Arrowsmith Young's grandmother. It is not a generic name. It is Arrowsmith School, not "an Arrowsmith school". Arrowsmith School has one branch in Peterborough. The Eaton Arrowsmith Schools are not branches of the Arrowsmith School in Toronto. They are modelled on the original school but are entirely separate schools owned by Howard Eaton, not by Barbara Arrowsmith Young. They have a slightly different curriculum, and a different logo. The "Arrowsmith Program" was named after the school where it was first used and further developed, not the other way around. I don't understand why you persist in these completely erroneous assertions. Voceditenore (talk) 05:57, 14 July 2015 (UTC)

I concur with Voceditenore, split it into two.--Daffydavid (talk) 06:31, 13 July 2015 (UTC)

I concur most strongly with suggestions that the article should be split into two separate articles. That said, there is something else in the article that gives me pause but I can't quite put my finger on it. Maybe when I have more time. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 00:46, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

• It seems there is sufficient agreement in this discussion to warrant splitting the article. Is there a reason to hold off on doing this? (Note: COI)Anglesey24 (talk) 14:32, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

   Done. Primefac (talk) 23:16, 17 November 2020 (UTC)

Split reversed

Dr Silverstein, you reversed the split made last month despite the consensus above. What is your reasoning for this? I ask as an uninvolved administrator who enacted the move (i.e. just looking for a reasonable reason). Primefac (talk) 11:27, 9 December 2020 (UTC) (please do not ping on reply)

Irrelevant "criticism"

I have removed this sentence:

Simultaneously, Norman Doidge's book The Brain That Changes Itself has been criticized by scholars, arguing that neuroscience is irrelevant to psychoanalysis.

It had been randomly tacked on to the end of the first paragraph of the section where it did not follow logically from the preceding sentences on general criticism of the Arrowsmith Program coming from psychologists and neuroscientists. Not only did its location render the paragraph incoherent, that particular criticism was entirely irrelevant to the subject of this article.

The book review by two psychoanalysts questioned the relevance of neuroscience to psychoanalysis in Doidge's overall approach in the book, of which Barbara Arrowsmith and her program constitute but one chapter. That relationship and aspect of his approach has nothing to do with the aims or claims of the Arrowsmith Program, which has never claimed it provides psychiatric benefits or can be used to treat psychiatric problems and is as about as far away from psychoanalysis as you can get. Equivalently silly irrelevance would be "balancing" everything that Coltheart has said about the Arrowsmith Program with a criticism of his work on dual route language processing. Not to mention the multiple published criticism of Linda Siegel's work on IQ. The article already states (with a reference to the Oxford Handbook of School Psychology) that Doidge presented no quantifiable data in his book for the claimed success of the program. That is a valid and highly relevant criticism with respect to the subject of the article. Continually attempting to add any "criticism" you can find, no matter how irrelevant is counterproductive and actually dilutes the argument rather than supporting it. Voceditenore (talk) 13:41, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

OK what you posted above makes sense. If you want to criticize doidge's book more directly, that seems better. But who would attack Coltheart's work? Howard Eaton? That guy is no neuroscientist. He's just defending an expensive program that he is making riches out of. I think it already placed in the article by an Arrowsmith employee but won't be given any credibility.--Taeyebaar (talk) 03:46, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

THe entire article, with or without a split, is good for a conspiracy theory. AFAICS there are two groups of editors working on this article: one that is determined to include as much informtion as possible , whether good or bad, and one that is determined to keep this article within accetable standards for an encyclopedia. Sometimes I think WP:TNT would be a good idea and start over with a completely new set of editors, however for the moment the imediate priority should be to get that split made and then whittle the chaff out of them both. Kudpung กุดผึ้ง (talk) 15:10, 18 July 2015 (UTC)

I disagree. This article has already been re-written more than once. Once was a banned arrowsmith employee and the second time by Voceditenore. If any changes need to be made it can be edited.--Taeyebaar (talk) 03:47, 24 July 2015 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 2 external links on Arrowsmith School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150905174637/http://professionallyspeaking.oct.ca:80/september_2008/raising_cognitive_capacity.asp to http://professionallyspeaking.oct.ca/september_2008/raising_cognitive_capacity.asp
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150614173338/http://projects.ecfs.org/pchurch/ATBiology/Papers2012/WhyWeCheat.pdf to http://projects.ecfs.org/pchurch/ATBiology/Papers2012/WhyWeCheat.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 15:19, 18 October 2016 (UTC)

Proposed merge with Barbara Arrowsmith Young

The subjects of the two articles are not notable independently from each other and preferably should be merged into a single article. — kashmīrī ^TALK 19:34, 11 July 2018 (UTC)

Personal communication of Prof. Adele Diamond

Developmentalcognitive (talk) 20:03, 18 November 2019 (UTC)

Request edit on 3 December 2019

I am an employee of Arrowsmith Program looking to update and correct some inaccuracies on the Arrowsmith School WikiPage. I look forward to further discussions so we can do this in a neutral and unbiased way. Here is a draft for review to the introduction of the Arrowsmith School and Program, which only includes the portion to be revised (para 2, last sentence)/added (following 2nd para). Please let me know if this looks okay to be published on the Arrowsmith School Wiki Page:

The program has been incorporated into other public and private schools in Canada, the United States, Australia, New Zealand, South Korea, Malaysia, Thailand, Spain, Switzerland, and the Cayman Islands, but has drawn skepticism and criticism from several cognitive psychologists and neuroscientists.

One peer reviewed study into the Arrowsmith Program was published in the journal ‘Learning: Research and Practice’ in October 2019. The study evaluated the cognitive and academic growth of students who participated in one year of the Arrowsmith Program. Results from the study suggest that the Arrowsmith Program may be associated with improvements in cognitive and academic skills.

LFarLima (talk) 20:24, 3 December 2019 (UTC)

References

Reply 03-DEC-2019

  Edit request declined  

• The requested prose states these claims in a generalized manner and does not give an inline attribution to whom the statements originated from (example: "According to Jane Doe, the program does not meet expectations")
• Please revise the claim statement to give inline attribution to whomeever is making the claim. Additionally, the claim statements themselves need to use citations which are formatted according to the citation style already in use with the article.

Regards,  Spintendo  03:42, 4 December 2019 (UTC)