Talk:Cerebral hemispheric dominance

Is it correct?

I thought that Cerebral Hemispheric Dominance is a myth as written in List of misconceptions about the brain.

Proposed merge

Much of the information here is redundant to Lateralization of brain function. I propose we merge this article with that one, as this one is newer and less well developed. --Jayron32.talk.contribs 02:11, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strong agree, this is not written in standard encyclopedic format. Let's merge / redirect. Some of the references might be worth keeping, as well. Nimur (talk) 15:05, 29 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Strongly disagree. Dominance and lateralization are 2 completely different topics. just-emery (talk) 18:33, 1 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with the merge. In fact, just a quick look at this article suggests that it is a collection of the worst pop-psych misinformation about the cerebral hemispheres around (the whole basic idea that there are "left-brained" and "right-brained" people being the biggest one), contributed almost exclusively by one editor in the course of two days. I don't think that article should be merged with this lateralization of function, and in fact, think that this article, although having some reliable sources should probably be deleted, or massively re-written to get rid of, or explain that, most of the information here is really a collection of pop-psych "neuromyths" [1] [2] [3][4]. Edhubbard (talk) 19:00, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with EdHubbard. Remove and turn it into a redirect to the article that already has better science. Mirafra (talk) 20:13, 12 August 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also agree that this page should be removed. It definitely lacks the requisite scientific references. The Lateralization of brain function article is much more clearly written and better referenced; e.g. not littered with pseudo scientific references. K1v1n (talk) 22:08, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Given the near-unanimity here, I've converted to a redirect to Lateralization of brain function. Anybody who finds valuable material in the earlier article should feel free to merge it into that article. Looie496 (talk) 22:49, 3 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]