Talk:Kumon

message: Please note that this page, "Kumon Method," is wavering from talking about the Kumon Method to talking about Kumon Inc. and Kumon Learning Center services. The aforementioned info should be separated into a "/Kumon" and "/Kumon_Method" page here on Wikipedia. Markn26 (talk) 16:15, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Page is bordering on two topics 

message: The "Thinking Face" Logo section seemed the worst offender as far as advertising goes, I changed it, but I couldn't think of any way to remove anything advert-ish it without losing some information. The last sentence bothers me, so if someone could change that without losing too much info that would be great. I also added a "Criticisms" section that may not agree with NPOV rules, but I think it's OK. As someone enrolled in Kumon, I can say that what I wrote is not biased or opinion, rather I have written it using my and others' experiences as reference.
Vinnie 20:18, 9 July 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The section was removed for obvious reasons, I'm going to keep this article free-ad DodgerBr (talk) 00:40, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changed "Thinking Face" Logo Section 

message: Deleted conversations in this section of the Talk Page as they are violating Wikipedia's Talk Page guidelines: See section Behavior that is unacceptable / "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic". --Markn26 (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Restoring deleted discussion below (the "Balance" section) as the outright deletion of others' comments violates Wikipedia's Talk Page guidelines: See section Others' comments / "you should not delete the comments of other editors without their permission". The only reasons listed for outright deletion of others' comments are because they contain prohibited material (not merely discouraged), personal attacks, trolling, or vandalism.  None of these possible reasons apply to the deleted discussion. --70.41.70.6 (talk) 18:20, 8 November 2010 (UTC)
thread_title: Discussion deletion

message: No critics? Surely it can`t be all good? Just googling tells me there is a huge drop out rate. Why? Is there corporate editing going on here?Andycjp (talk) 04:46, 19 July 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Balance

message: There is a lot on this page. Maybe it should be locked? mbslrm 02:41, 13 January 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalized 

message: I hate it. Brickman10857 (talk) 18:22, 28 November 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: It does not matter. Here, we have to deal with only facts and informations, not opinions. DodgerBr (talk) 00:24, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Your opinion on kumon. 

message: Due to the unwanted advertisement content present in this article and a major absence of references, I am going to rewrite and watch carefully it, like I did with the equivalent article in Portuguese/Brazil. I ask the help of all other contributors to keep this article clean and suitable. DodgerBr (talk) 00:23, 20 April 2016 (UTC)
replies: text: In order to verify informations, two sections written as an advertisement will be removed (Kumon values and Kumon at home). I hope your comprehension. DodgerBr (talk) DodgerBr (talk) 23:14, 3 May 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Effort to improve the article 

message: I came here for random reasons and looked up the sources of this page. I found the "criticism" section wanting. I am not myself a supporter of the Kumon system (afaik, there is no Kumon in my very country and the first time I heard of it was on Wikipedia). It puzzles me the need to introduce a criticism section at all costs: surely it is being done bona fide, that is, to offer different perspective on the issue. Nevertheless, I find it unsettling that criticism is voiced as "opinions of X and Y". So I went straight to the original soruce, i.e. the article criticising the system. It turns out that, despite NYT being an esteemed publication, Kate Zernike is just doing "bad journalism" -- that is, the kind of journalism based on the opinions of a couple of "experts" and a lot of emotional writing... such as criticism of the Kumon company based on the *way* the journalist felt when she entered the building? Is this fact or fiction? Let us dissect the arguments included in the NYT article: 1. Psychologists are interviewed, not Education specialists; 2. Gopnik (psychologist) is a Professor. To my knowledge, she has carried out no specific research on the Kumon system. So how comes she is regarded as a primary source? 3. Gopnik does not cite facts or figures, but just some kind of general "feeling" that the child is being overburdened. 4. Parents are accused of enrolling kids in the Kumon system because they are anxious, but instead we are faced by a series of parents who are very okay with what the kid is doing. The anxious ones, in the article, are the "psychologists". 5. Katy Hirsh-Pasek (another psychologist) claims Kumon is not beneficial, and yet she also claims "it does no harm". Is this criticism? Where are facts? "Einstein did not use flashcards" does not undermine the Kumon system.
Bottom line: if you find me academic articles that undermine Kumon at its core, I am very happy to edit the criticism section. However, if the source of criticism is Zernike's article, I am afraid every rational NPOV human being would dispense of it immediately. As it stands, the section must go. MarcelloPapirio (talk) 18:50, 27 November 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Criticism has absolutely no basis 

message: add a simple English version plz. Tomiwa278 (talk) 21:21, 29 June 2020 (UTC)
replies: text: This is a more appropriate addition to the Simple English project.  Thanks for the note, though---I will create a page there when I have a moment, if nobody has gotten to it first. JeanLackE (talk) 20:31, 31 July 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Plz add sim. Eng, ver. 

message: The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion:
* 
Participate in the deletion discussion at the . —Community Tech bot (talk) 02:07, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  A Commons file used on this page or its Wikidata item has been nominated for deletion 

message: What does "Tennis" have to do with Kumon? I suspect it is a teaching term they use (although I can't find anything online) but this isn't explained in the section. 5.148.84.234 (talk) 10:17, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kumon Method of Tennis section