Talk:Dyslexia/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Create a WikiProject?

Nate1481 suggested (above) creating a WikiProject to help co-ordinate the process of turning this article into a series.

Interesting point --- I never considered creating a WikiProject for this. This may be an excellent idea --- I've never been involved in a WikiProject, so I don't know how they tend to function. How broad in scope do typical WikiProjects tend to be? I know there's a Wikiproject for "Education" as a whole, and although the topic of Dyslexia is complex, it is considerably more limited. :-)

In terms of scope, would it make sense to create a WikiProject for the more general topic "Reading"? This would cover typical reading acquisition (which is closely related but enough different to stand separately, and warrants plenty of sub-articles expanding *it*). Thus, the Project would cover the process of acquiring reading skills, how it works in typical learners as well as what can go wrong or obstruct the process entirely. I'm thinking that co-ordinating the larger topic would be a good idea, especially since so much of the research for reading acquisition is also relevant to dyslexia, and vice versa. Dyslexia and Reading Acquisition certainly both warrant a series of articles separate from the other, but I'm guessing a WikiProject can be used to co-ordinate more than one "series" of articles.

Thoughts? smoran 11:58, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree -- looking at other WikiProjects I feel that they cover much broader topics than a dyslexia series, but a a "Reading" portal would be a great idea -- it would provide room to explore a variety of topics, such as issues about different reading systems, different teaching methods, political issues (No Child Left Behind law, for example), etc. The web site at http://childrenofthecode.org/cotcintro.htm provides a good overview of the type of issues and articles that could be covered. Armarshall 12:12, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed --- Children of the Code is a great site, and a wonderful, ambitious project. smoran 12:15, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Survey on ordering of content:

I want the "Definitions" of dyslexia to come after "history" and before "Research" because the definitions come first historically, whereas the "research" and "theories" represent ongoing inquiry, and the definitions are what currently govern legal and educational issues (i.e., whether the kid will get a diagnosis and help at school; whether an adult will get accommodations under the disabilities law). Also, "definitions" tell us "what dyslexia is".... which I think is more significant to understanding than "competing theories of what causes it." Also, in the interest of maintaining credibility and an objective point of view I think that the general flow should be from the general to the specific.

Here is my proposed structure, based on the current content of the article.

1. Overview
2. History
3. Dyslexia definitions
   1. Common Definitions
   2. Types of Dyslexia
4. Characteristics
   1. General
   2. Speech, Hearing and Listening
   3. Reading and Spelling
   4. Writing and motor skills
   5. Mathematical abilities
5. Variations and related conditions
6. Scientific Research
   1. Theories of Developmental Dyslexia
   2. Genetic Factors
   3. Physiology
7. Treatment
   1. Assistive Lenses
8. Legal Issues and Educational Support
   1. Public support
   2. Controversy
9. Socio-cultural Issues
   1. Facts and statistics
   2. Effect of language orthography

Feedback wanted. Armarshall 02:12, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

this is not a campaign this is to provide objective information the objective information is scientific Research how schools, goverments etc interpret this scientific research is subjective. parents and lobby groups can use the objective scientific research to change or influence the goernments or agencies subjective definition. It can not work the other way around having public opinion or agencies dictate to science. If a parent finds their local governments definition not in line with science and research then they will have to lobby and campaign to get the best for their kid and not juyst accept what their local agency tells them. So they should see the whole picture first to seeif the are getting trhe best deal for their kid. and on wiki a vote is not the way to resolve issues it is by discussion and debate. and declaring any personal interests.

I am not convinced either that "theories" should go before definitions. Another thing, these are listed as "theories", when in scientific terms, they are "hypothesis" , so the sub-section should be called "hypothesis" or the entire section "Objective Scientific Research" needs not to be titled as so.

You can not call them Scientific theories if they are hypothesis. If you want to call them theories(in the non-scientific sense), then you cannot call the section "scientific".

So either

Research

Theories of Developmental Dyslexia

or

Scientific Research

Working Hypotheses of Developmental Dyslexia

--Orbidsku 13:41, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Just an FYI ... I don't have strong preferences on terminology, so either of these are fine with me. smoran 21:05, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

WRONG AGAIN THESE ARE NOT HYPOTHESES THESE ARE SCEINTIC THEORIES. YOU HASVE LOST THE PLOT AGAIN

THESE ARE SCIENTIFICALLY PROVED THEORIES REGARDING DYSLEXIA!

WHAT YOIU ARE MISSING IS THAT THERE IS NO ONE THING THAT CAUSES DYSLEXIA, AND THAT ALL OF THESE THEORIEW ARE TRUE AND RECOGNISED THEWORIES OF DYSLEXIA THEYT HAVE PASSED THER HYPOTHISIS STAGE SCIENTIFICALLY. SO THEORIES MUST BE RE INSTATED

80.43.130.147 14:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

The theories of dyslexia may appear to be hypothesis in the USA but they are Theories to the rest of the world. may be time to catch up.

80.43.130.147 14:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Would like to address a couple of the previous posts.

First, regarding the terms hypothesis and theory: User 80.43.130.147 says that "these are scientifically proved theories regarding dyslexia." Theories are not "proved". They are hypotheses (educated guesses based on observation) that have been supported by repeated testing.

One definition of a theory is to say it's an "accepted hypothesis." Here's how the US National Academy of Sciences defines scientific theory: “Theory: In science, a well-substantiated explanation of some aspect of the natural world that can incorporate facts, laws, inferences, and tested hypotheses.”

Regarding the global view: Presenting information that addresses the global view requires the inclusion of country-specific views. That is to say, we must expect to be more inclusive of information that represents regional differences, not less.

Best

Rosmoran 16:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Response to proposal for organization of article:

Arm, Terrific proposal. I hope this helps us get moving in a positive direction.

A big part of what I like about your proposal is that it follows the "general to specific" model of presenting information, which is consistent with the Wiki principles of what makes a good encyclopedia article. It will also help us move smoothly from a single article presentation to an article series/summary style presentation.

I'd like to make a few suggestions. I think the easiest way to do so is to revise your outline and highlight the areas of difference. Constructive feedback on my feedback is, of course, welcome.  :-)

1. Overview
2. History
3. Dyslexia definitions
   1. Common Definitions
   2. Types of Dyslexia
4. Characteristics
   1. General
   2. Speech, Hearing and Listening
   3. Reading and Spelling
   4. Writing and motor skills
   5. Mathematical abilities
   6. Common strengths in dyslexics
5. Variations and related conditions
   1. Dysgraphia
   2. Dyscalculia
   3. What else?
6. Educational issues (some of this may be US-specific)
   1. Identification
   2. Intervention
   3. Educational environment
7. Scientific Research
   1. Theories of Developmental Dyslexia (meaning, research showing how dyslexics function differently than non-dyslexics? such as differences in brain structure and processing?)
   2. Genetic Factors
   3. Physiological Factors
   4. Underlying processing issues
   5. Effects of language orthography
   6. Effective interventions (as in, searching for interventions that work)
8. Treatment
   1. Academic interventions
   2. Assistive Lenses and colored overlays
   3. Auditory processing interventions (not sure if this is the correct terminology)
   4. Other?
9. Legal Issues and Educational Support
   1. What specific legal issues?
   2. What specific educational supports?
   3. I don't understand why these are grouped together?
   4. Public support (not sure what this is about)
10. Controversy
    1. Whether dyslexia is a myth
    2. What types of interventions are effective
    3. I'm sure we can find more!
11. Socio-cultural Issues
    1. Facts and statistics
    2. Societal impact
    3. Social difficulties and emotional effects (in affected individuals)

Best, smoran 21:03, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

Looks well smoran, makes sense to arrange it in the manner you suggest for now. Orbidsku 22:47, 10 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree 100% with Orbidsku about the use of hypotheses rather than theory. Also, I do not think the word "objective" should be used to describe the scientific research, because not all research is "objective" -- often research is undertaken by parties with a clear bias. (For example, check the article DDAT -- a bunch of directors of the British Journal Dyslexia all resigned last November in protest of publication of a research article they felt was flawed and subject to financial influence. Armarshall 07:55, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

DDAT is not a theory of dyslexia but one entepenuers attempt to market one remedial proram that works for only 5-10% of dyslexics and the original research that this program is based on originates from was done in the USA. well done the directors of that journal. publishers somtimes want o make moiney too. You have to understand the difference between peer reviewed research and special interest research. Peer reviewed is carried using University research personell and facilites and crossing national boundaries all of the research carried out is reviewed by your research peers and then and only then is published, such as paper i have used to cite the Theories of dyslexia, and research done to develop Special Interest research is carried out mainly by companies who have a product to sell such as DDAT or Dore as it is now known. This type of research is isdone to improve the product, and may not include all the down side negative issues of the research as this would not helpthe product marketing. similar issuies wre found in the early published research regarding the Fast Forword Program.

However in the USA youhave respected research agencies and to name one American Speech-Language-Hearing Association (ASHA) which works to a similar peer review system. So would you call their output that they describe as a theory of an auditory issue as a hypothesis

Hypothesis implies not proved, but these are proven hypothesis and that is why they are called theories. You really do need to spens a great deal of time reading the great many reseach papers before you pretend to understand the issues involved. weare aware that much research done in the USA has to provide an end product for ther sponsors but this isnot the casew for peer reviewed research in the UK, Europe and other leading research nations.

so we all need to be able to identify and distinguish between peer reviewed research papers and the research done to advance a product or idea that is not based on the scientific peer reviewed rersearch from all international sources. So before this can go any further all potential editors need to have a very good understanding of the work of all the international research programs not just ther research programs of their own country, and noit to dimiss the accepted and peer reviewed research of another contry jyust be cause it does not fit the research or opinions that may exist in their own contry, an that is happening here. toi be a wiki you have to demonstrate an international understanding of the wide ranging issues that influnce a specific topic. And for some thinking outside of their national borders and considering issuesand thinking of others is a problem in itself.

best wishes

80.43.130.147 15:08, 11 June 2007 (UTC) Also, smoran made some comments that I want to respond to, under the "Legal Issues & Educational Support" suggested topic - I don't understand why these are grouped together? Public support (not sure what this is about) -- the overlap between legal and educational support is simply that some countries have specific laws specifying what educational support or services will be provided to dyslexic students (such as IDEA in the US), sometimes with specific agencies set up to monitor the services (such as LEA in the UK). "Public support" comes in where that may influence the laws or school system, such as what happened this past month in New Zealand, where there was a public campaign for dyslexia awareness mounted via charitable organizations, in order to persuade the minister of education to recognize dyslexia and provide school support. Would "Societal Issues" perhaps be a better title? or "Political-Social Issues'? Armarshall 08:40, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Arm.

Thanks for clarifying.

I wasn't suggesting that text in any of the headings necessarily need to be revised. I was just trying to get an idea of the content you were thinking might go under each heading.

That said, "Political-Social Issues" may better represent the content you're proposing.

Best,

Rosmoran 16:50, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Arm a bit of local knowledge here in the UK "LEA" are the Local Education Authority and are the local governments education provision service. The oversee all publicly funded school in their respective areas in trhe UK. we do not have thge equivalent of your USA IDEA set up in the UK yet. It is unfortunately left to non-proft organiastions to lobby for the interests of the groups they claim to represent. and each grouyp does not have an equal lobby organiastion sop the overall message becomes distorted and sometimes miss understood.

best wishes

80.43.130.147 14:15, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Agreed, "objective" clearly should not be there, I meant to bring that up. I am even dubious about putting these Hypotheses under the title of scientific research. I'll come back to discuss/explain that later, and make the current suggested changes for now.

--Orbidsku 11:20, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I didn't want to go ahead and change all the wording from "theory" to "hypotheses" without consulting here first. There may be objections I am not aware of.(it would be inconsistant not to do so..)

The start has been changed as so:

Scientific Research

Hypotheses of Developmental Dyslexia

The following hypotheses should not be viewed as competing, but viewed as hypotheses trying to explain the underlying causes of a similar set of symptoms from a variety of research perspectives and backgrounds.

That is followed by the sub-headings "The Phonological Theory", "The Rapid Auditory Processing Theory", "The Visual Theory", etc, can I go ahead and change each subheading, from "theory" to "hypothesis"?

--Orbidsku 11:35, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi Orbidsku

you are completely failing to understand waht dyslexia is about. There is no one unifying theory of dyslexia. Dyslexia is like a big elephant, and each theory only explains the part of the elephant that each research is able to view. So all of the Theories are correct as they describe one part of the dyslexia jigsaw. Only the Magnocellular Theory tries to unify the theories which preceded it ti priviude a better picture of the dyslexia elephant. All of the Theories are valid because they are seeing the same problem byrt fromn a different research discipline and background. No one theory is better than the others as they all describe one of the many underlying causes of dyslexia.

If you want to have one theory of dyslexia then you should start your mission of international research diplomacy now, and hope for a the necessary scientific break throughs to prive us with a full understanding of the brain. There are no easy quick fix theories or remedies, dyslexia is complex and requires a deeper understanding that you have displayed so far.

best wishes

dolfrog 15:25, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The article definitely needs splitting up, 11 sections with at lest two subsections each is huge! A separate article on every thing from 4-11 taking all the subsection with them and leaving only the main heading with an intro & a link to the article would produce something that would be useful, right now it's impossible to get an overview of the issues as there is too much detail, it's good info but it makes the article hard to process. --Nate1481(^talk/_contribs) 11:41, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree, I just think that its hard to get a handle on without first creating some sort of ordered outline of topics which are/should be covered. The whole "scientific research" section needs a revamp, because it doesn't do justice to most of the lines of research. I think ideally that should be relabeled "neurological research", and then there need to be separate wikipedia articles for "Phonological deficit hypotheses" and "Magnocellular deficit" -- there is a huge amount of research, past & continuing, on both those topics, so they definitely can support their own topics. Armarshall 13:18, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Nate1481 that is a current objective, as has been discussed recently here on the talk page.

--Orbidsku 13:11, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

I had seen mentions of it, but I tend to skim this page as I edit from work mainly & it would require a sit down hour to catch up with this --Nate1481(^t/_c) 13:44, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Armarshall exellent points made at 13:18, 11 June 2007, all of which are important. The "neurological research" should be covered indepth elsewhere and separate from the hypotheses(theories!). This is going to be a very long and probably thankless task. Maybe concentration should be on one or two sections for the moment, and then as Nate suggested above "...taking all the subsection with them and leaving only the main heading with an intro & a link to the article..." once the section sorted out, and has been completed to a standard that everyone is happy with. We should probably start with the Research section and hypotheses (theories)? Opinions?

--Orbidsku 14:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, everyone. For those of you who have been participating on this page, I just changed my user name so that it doesn't include my "real life" name. Hearing about the number of Google hits for dolfrog, I decided that I didn't really want my name out on the Internet anywhere near that extent.

Regarding breaking the article by subsection: Nate's suggestion is a good one. Actually, there are Wiki guidelines that apply when turning a single article into a series of related articles. I think it would be helpful if everyone involved in this "breakup" effort would take a look at these. There are a number of potentially relevant Wiki articles, but here are the main ones that I find particularly informative:

• Breaking long articles into an article series
• Style used for article series
• Naming conventions for subsidiary articles
• Examples of series of articles
• Navigation templates

Best, Rosmoran 16:17, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Theories/hypotheses (which ever...)

This needs to be taken into account in the theories section of the article. As it is the main source for the other information there we cannot ignore the conclusion of the case study, it goes as follows;

Conclusion
The results of the present study support the phonological deficit theory of developmental dyslexia. A phonological deficit may not be a necessary cause of dyslexia, given the possibility of other independent (but rare) causes of reading impairment, but the present comprehensive study suggests that it is a sufficient cause. The phonological deficit can arise independently of any sensory or motor impairment. Nevertheless, a significant proportion of dyslexics suffer from additional auditory, visual or motor disorders. Auditory deficits, at least, may aggravate the phonological deficit, with consequences for reading impairment. The nature of the auditory deficits observed is not particularly consistent with the hypothesis of a rapid processing deficit related to a magnocellular dysfunction. Neither is the nature of motor/timing impairments particularly consistent with the hypothesis of an automaticity deficit or a cerebellar dysfunction. The nature of the phonological deficit and its relationship to auditory processing difficulties remains to be established. Why sensory and motor disorders are frequently associated with phonological deficits (and other developmental disorders) is still to be understood.

I suggest summarising this at the end of that section of the article.

--Orbidsku 16:10, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Orbidsku, that's just one study -- it is arguing a point of view but there are other points of view as well. The particular "study" you are looking at is an effort to frame an argument. I don't think that belongs here -- I think what needs to be done is to create an article - "Phonological deficit" -- do a better job of explaining what it is all about, and then in that SECOND article you could have a section for room for critique of the theory. The main argument that critics raise is that it is circular reasoning -- they define their "dyslexic" study group by looking for subjects who score poorly on tests of phonetic ability; then they do brain scans or whatever and discover that these people do indeed seem to have problems with phonics and conclude that it is the cause of their problem.

Anyway, my point is that that article doesn't represent a consensus view. But I think it would be a great idea if you feel like putting that into a "phonological deficit" article. Armarshall 16:29, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Arm

Stop displaying your ignorance that is a research paper which yoiu want to dimiss because it does not ageee with you book. you have little regard for those who have different ideas regarding dyslexia issues especially if they disagree with your personal beleifs you are insultring all who live outside of the USA and and want only to force your limited views on everyone else. you are not an authority on dyslexia , only someone who has written abok on the topic , an that makes you one of thousands not an aurthority onb dyslexia and not from any wiki stand point

Dolfrog

Hi Orbidsku

you are right and the conclusions should be dated

ARM seems not to like discussion and debate as she rushes this complex work to represent her own book regarding dyslexia. I personally have other commitments and can not get tto this discussion every day, and yet this individual just carries on withot making time for others to digest all the input to this talk especially those who are dyslexic like me. this editiung of tjis article should be done over a period of months ansd not in hours to please a very pushy autrhor trying to promotetheir own theories and book regarding dyslexia.

best wishes

dolfrog

Hi Armarshall

I am afraid I cannot find any of the methodological problems that you are referring too. I don't see how it is “...arguing a point of view ...” or ” The particular "study" you are looking at is an effort to frame an argument”, it is clearly set out to test various aspects of the theories, with fail-safes in place. It then goes through all the testing etc., and describes what is found. It then acknowledges the short comings of their testing and shows where further study needs to be carried out. It also demonstrates how some of the other studies are lacking in certain aspects, and that the phonological deficit theory (how it currently stands) fits best with the test results. Show the other scientific studies that suggest otherwise (as recent as possible), and that will be included as they present it.

You also said "...they define their "dyslexic" study group by looking for subjects who score poorly on tests of phonetic ability..." This appears to be completely untrue of this study. I don't know why you said this... The study shows how they selected their subjects, and it has nothing to do with choosing subjects based on phonetic related performances, except with one “control subject”(not a dyslexic test subject), that had problems with phonetics and a verbal and written IO below average, so obviously that one was excluded from the control group, but was not selected (for inclusion dyslexic or not) based on that.

”But I think it would be a great idea if you feel like putting that into a "phonological deficit" article”

I would also like to see the studies (which include broad scientific testing) which contradict this, I am not stating that I am backing this study(and it is a scientific study) up at the expense of the others, just that it seems an important paper and the points it raises seem very valid and important to the dyslexia article, not exclusively to a separate page. So it would be important to show all the most recent studies in relation to this, if they contradict what has been shown here.

“Anyway, my point is that that article doesn't represent a consensus view.” Consensuses from a scientific point of view or from the view of national/international organisation, commercial, private or public and peoples opinion? Scientific trumps any of the other views, so if this study is to be discarded, we need to show why, based on scientific research papers, not opinion or quotes from organisations, commercial or otherwise.

Besides the point, you are attacking the phonological deficit theory itself inrelation to something else, and not this particular paper.

”The main argument that critics raise is that it is circular reasoning -- they define their "dyslexic" study group by looking for subjects who score poorly on tests of phonetic ability; then they do brain scans or whatever and discover that these people do indeed seem to have problems with phonics and conclude that it is the cause of their problem. “'

This might be a critique of other papers (Shaywitz for example, if what you said are claims they are making), but it is wholly irellivant to this paper.

--Orbidsku 22:43, 11 June 2007 (UTC)

Btw the above is not an argument to include the paper and that point of view(the paper comes too, given the tests done), its an argument against the reasons that have been put forward not to include it. It may well be a flawed paper(not yet determined), but the reasons given here seem to be biased, non-sequitur and appear to be partially emotion based, for what ever reason and are not looking at the paper, but the idea of the paper(and beyond). The sooner this whole article is split up the better, I think it should be left as is for now, and once it is split into the correct separate articles, then the editing should begin at a larger scale. Leave opinions aside for now and maybe start heading toward spliting the article. --Orbidsku 13:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Orbidsku,

I agree. Ideally, we could work together to create a better overall structure and consensus on content before we break it up. But I think breaking it up now could help us avoid some of this conflict, which seems to be, at least in part, an issue of "ownership."

Nate1481 suggested in an earlier thread that we create a WikiProject to try to coordinate this.

I'll see about getting one created and post the result here.

Best,

Rosmoran 17:11, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Hello Rosmoran,

Yes, Subheadings etc. should be sorted out, but the specific content (in the subheadings) which is of dispute maybe should be sorted after (at least where is creates clashes and slows the development of the article). So a concensus on what subheadings are to be included should be decided first. A WikiProject sounds like a good idea, I hope this (soon series of) article(s) qualifies. Good luck,
--Orbidsku 17:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Interest in creating WikiProject?

Hi, all. I'm following up on a suggestion that Nate1481 made a couple of weeks ago, to create a WikiProject. He made the suggestion in context of a discussion regarding breaking the overall dyslexia article up into a series, the thinking being that a WikiProject organization could help us to coordinate among ourselves the work currently being done, plans for what we'd like to see develop, areas where we have built consensus and where we have not, lists of to-do's, etc.

WikiProjects, like Wiki articles, do not have a specific owner. Anyone can contribute, although it's possible to join a list of project contributors/editors for easier and more direct communication with other members.

I've done some research into how WikiProjects work, and there's a fair amount of overhead that goes along with it. Many WikiProject contributors suggest that a good way to start out is to "affiliate" with a pre-existing WikiProject. By doing so, the new project can make use of existing structures and significantly reduce project-management overhead. If it turns out that the new project grows significantly, the contributors can, by consensus, decide to break away from the larger project and be completely separate.

There are a couple of existing WikiProjects under which dyslexia could be categorized. I think the best match is "neuroscience," which includes the following major areas of coverage:

   * Neurobiology
   * Basic Neuroscience
   * Neural development
   * Neurochemistry
   * Psychopharmacology
   * Neuroanatomy
   * Systems neuroscience
   * Computational neuroscience
   * Neuropsychology
   * Neuroimaging

   * Cognitive neuroscience
   * Neurolinguistics
   * Neurology
   * Psychiatry
   * Philosophy of mind
   * Neural engineering
   * Neuroethics
   * Social Neuroscience

The Neurology topic includes a subtopic called Behavioral Neurology, which lists what it calls "the dyslexias". Here's its overall description:

"Behavioral neurology is a subspecialty of neurology that studies the neurological basis of behavior, memory, and cognition, the impact of neurological damage and disease upon these functions, and the treatment thereof. Two fields associated with behavioral neurology are neuropsychiatry and neuropsychology. Syndromes and diseases commonly studied by behavioral neurology include but are not limited to: ......"

The other possibility is the Education WikiProject, but I don't think it represents the diversity of our related topics nearly as well.

I'd like some feedback on whether you think the Neuroscience/Neurology category is where "dyslexia" is best placed.

Thanks, Rosmoran 20:38, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

I think that's fine -- I agree with you that either Neuroscience or Education would be acceptable, but that Neuroscience is the better choice. But I am totally unfamiliar with how a WikiProject would work ...the truth is I didn't know such a thing even existed until it was raised on this page. Armarshall 07:45, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

It's sounding good, the over heads for the ones I've been involved in haven't been too bad, there generally used as as a place to store guidelines for all articles in the topic, discuss issues that affect multiple articles, e.g. Templates, navboxes, terminology. It's also a good way of attracting interested parties to articles. There also a good place to get help if you don't know how to do something or need support arguing with a extreme POV editor.

It's common for projects to have 'parent' and 'descendent' projects e.g. I'm part of the WP:Martial arts, which has a descendent focusing on the sport of WP:Mixed martial arts, and developed from the WP:Sport, as this is a crossover area trying to get interest from Education and Neurology by post in that the new project exists on the talk pages would help get the ball rolling. --Nate1481(^t/_c) 09:59, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, I am new to this discussion but I have following the page for some time. I will say outright that I am a researcher, thus naming my "bias". While it is correct that people diagnosed with dyslexia will access this page for information, the information available must be correct and unbiased. This page is not meant to be a forum for researchers arguing over theories, OR, a forum for people discussing their own (or their children's) dyslexia.

While it appears that progress is being made, can I further suggest that the job of this entry be given to three organisations representing Dyslexia across the world (definately not just US or other English speaking countries). This may then curtail the arguing, which appears to have become personal. Links can then be posted to websites for parents, discussion groups etc. A note could also be made that information may change due to recent knowledge. What do people think? --user Louie220.238.182.49

Wikipedia doesn't work that way -- it's open for anyone to edit, and that is as it should be. I think most of us are working very effectively on a consensus basis --and apparently Nate is saying that the WikiProject will provide support for problems with any contributer who does not respect or understand the basic tenets & purpose of Wikipedia. It's already understood among several of us that most of the "research" stuff is going to be moved to different articles, with a short summary here -- it just is a matter of creating those articles so there is something to link to.

If you are a researcher and have been following this page, I'd encourage you to participate more actively-- I think that the more we can work toward consensus among reasonable contributors respecting Wikipedia standards for objectivity and tone, the less likely there is to be problems with individuals with different ideas. If the WP approach will provide a better platform for working toward such consensus, I'm all for it. Armarshall 12:28, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

A WikiProject is just what this page needs. The more people who are adept at using wikipedia that are working on this article, the better I think it will progress. Neurology would be a more accurate Project than Education. On a point, which I don't think is terribly important "Cognitive neuroscience" would be more accurate, but I am fine with simply "Neurology".

Keep us updated!
Good luck
--Orbidsku 13:48, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi, all.

The thing with finding a "parent" WikiProject is that there are still a fairly limited number of active projects. The WikiPedia:WikiProject Neuroscience is very low activity --- the last message before mine was over a month ago. There isn't a Cognitive Neuroscience Wiki project.

Someone at the WikiProject Council suggested that we might fit into Wikipedia:WikiProject Medicine. I took a quick look, and they do cover a number of articles that, like dyslexia, could exist in a number of larger topics. I also placed a proposal at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals to see if there were other interested Wikipedians, and also to see if folks had suggestions for other extant, active projects we might fit into. Wikipedians evidently look at this list and add their username for proposed projects they're interested in.

Take a look; if you like, sign your interest in the Dyslexia project at Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals, and see what you guys think.

Rosmoran 20:50, 13 June 2007 (UTC)

Update on creating WikiProject

Hi, I've been working with someone on the WikiProject Council, and the current status is basically that we need to have more Wikipedians express interest in working with us before we'll be able to get an actual project of our own, even a Child Project.

So, if there are other folks lurking or participating only sometimes, it would help us if you would go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals and sign up for the Dyslexia and related topics project. Best, Rosmoran 17:19, 18 June 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

We're stuck at 4 Wikipedians who are interested in participating in a dyslexia child project.

I had a thought, but I'm not sure if it's a good idea or a really bad idea, so I'll toss it out there and see what you guys think.

We *could* consider broadening the topic a bit, and thereby draw more people to the project.

The only other category I can think of that's broader, but not immense, is "Learing Disabilities." Or even "Difficulties with learning."

Thoughts?

Best,

Rosmoran 17:29, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Is there anything smaller than a "project" (like some sort of committee) that might be appropriate? I'm a little wary of expanding in a way that might bring in people who have different viewpoints and agendas that might not be compatible with those who really want to see a high quality dyslexia page. In other words, if we make the project too big, it may still leave the dyslexia page in the cold. I'd rather see a more natural growth process, even if it takes awhile before we have that many people interested. Armarshall 00:45, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

My concerns precisely. I would just like to see us move forward on doing the break-up work while we have the momentum and still have a group able to work positively together.

There's no reason we can't move forward with the work. We just won't have any infrastructure beyond the Talk page to help us coordinate.

As for smaller groups, yes, there is something called a "Task Force." But even these seem to need to be a "child" of a full WikiProject.

There's also an article about using a special page called "To Do List" to coordinate work from the Talk page. Take a look at this:

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Guide - Scroll to bottom of page and see "Topic Coordination."
• Wikipedia:To-do list
• Template:Topic co-ordination link

Let me know what you think.

Best,

Rosmoran 10:00, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

There is a problem with using most of the above, because this would imply that dyslexia is a condition in its own neurplogical condition in its own right, which it is not.

There are too many types of underlying issues that would require a direct link to say at least 7 or 8 of these potential parents or partners mot just one. This also suggests that by favouring one of these options that the we are failing to endourse the contributions to be made by the other disciplines represented in these lists. There is also a new notion that the best diagnostic systems are based on multi-disciplined diagnostic teams which have representitives from all of the relevent medicla professions to participate in the diagnosis of dyslexia and all of the potential underlying causes. This is being promted as part of the One Stop Assessment Centre program,which is currently being piloted. And by assessment they mean diagnostic assessment only, and that after this multi-disciplined Assessmsnt has been made that advice can be made seperately regarding suggesting the use of any remedial programs. This means tha ther diagnostic process is taken out of the hands of educationalist and program providers who have their own vested interest agendas, which may not co incide with the dyslexics real needs.

The only Real option is to partner with the Reading Disability or Disorder groups. Because that are the only real partners that dyslexia can have.

best wishes

dolfrog 21:14, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

You missed off the list Opthamic Opticians, Audiologists and Speech and Language Therapists, to name a few. In the UK most of the recognised diagnosis of Dyslexia is made by educational Psychologists, so there would appear tro be anotrher cultural isseu here across the international boundaries.

So the Reading Disability option would be the best international option.

bewst wishes

dolfrog 21:43, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Move stuff about vision issues

The top of the article clearly states, "This article is about developmental dyslexia" -- but it is getting filled up with a lot of stuff about vision issues and specialized lenses. I think ALL of that stuff should be moved to an appropriate topics related to vision conditions -- my only problem is that I don't know which one. But the "dyslexia" we are talking about in this article is the neurological-processing issue, NOT the vision sensitivity issue that the various colored lens folks seem to advocate. Also, reference to specific lenses by their trademark names looks like spam/advertising to me. I'm not sure if specific reference to product names, as opposed to a generic description - is appropriate for Wikipedia.Armarshall 09:47, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Create "Vision in Dyslexia" or something it's needed, if the title needs changing it can be moved later. A Dyslexia categorie should be created to help organise these, a brief summary & a link to that should be all we have here. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 10:04, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

We should probably keep some of the most basic information at a general level, with a link to one or more main articles. If nothing else, there are a number of controversial theories regarding vision and dyslexia that should be included in a section with a "... controversial ..." heading. And, from a theoretical perspective, the fast processing of visual orthographic information is clearly related as shown by research.

Is it time to start talking about breaking the article up into summarized sections, with links to more detailed artiles? Or are we not ready to start looking at that yet?

Best,

Rosmoran 21:24, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

The visaul apsects are a key part of dyslexia and can not be dismiised . you might as well say get rid of the all the phonological stuff. dyslexia is about having problems with the visual notation of speech, so visual issues are a crucial part of the problem. And the coloured lenses and acetates are very importnat to those who have the visual underlying causes of dyslexia. May be the lenses should be included in the Therapies section.

best wishes

dolfrog 20:53, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Trying to define dyslexia

Folowing some of the listed references and their sources and nosing around even further, I came accross this

Dyslexia, learning, and pedagogical neuroscience.Fawcett AJ, Nicolson RI. Centre for Child Research, University of Wales, Swansea, UK. a.j.fawcett@swansea.ac.uk

The explosion in neuroscientific knowledge has profound implications for education, and we advocate the establishment of the new discipline of 'pedagogical neuroscience' designed to combine psychological, medical, and educational perspectives. We propose that specific learning disabilities provide the crucible in which the discipline may be forged, illustrating the scope by consideration of developmental dyslexia. Current approaches have failed to establish consensus on fundamental issues such as theoretical causes, diagnostic methods, and treatment strategies. We argue that these difficulties arise from diagnosis via behavioural or cognitive symptoms, even though they may arise from diverse causes. Rather than an inconvenience, variability of secondary symptoms within and across learning disabilities can inform both diagnosis and treatment. We illustrate how brain-based theories lead to radical restructuring of diagnostic methods and propose that there is an urgent need to develop genetic and brain-based diagnostic methods designed to lead to individually-appropriate remediation and treatment methods. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=PubMed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=17376143&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

---

So if the Dyslexia researchers have problems defining dyslexia what chance do we have. This also indicates that we should have a time limit say the year 2000 and all research that predates 2000 should be included in the History section or new History of Dyslexia Article, as all recent articles will cite and reference all relevent research from before the cut off time 2000. The political definitions: we only need the World Health Orgnisation definition, and may be more from the organisation that the Canadian Governement use, the rest should be consign to the history Article as that is how out of date they are. dolfrog

Of the various Theories of Developemtn dyslexia listed in the 2003 research paper the "The magnocellular theory of developmental dyslexia" is the one that ries to unify them. I have found a abstract that details this theory very well.

---

The magnocellular theory of developmental dyslexia.Stein J. University Laboratory of Physiology, Oxford, UK.

Low literacy is termed 'developmental dyslexia' when reading is significantly behind that expected from the intelligence quotient (IQ) in the presence of other symptoms--incoordination, left-right confusions, poor sequencing--that characterize it as a neurological syndrome. 5-10% of children, particularly boys, are found to be dyslexic. Reading requires the acquisition of good orthographic skills for recognising the visual form of words which allows one to access their meaning directly. It also requires the development of good phonological skills for sounding out unfamiliar words using knowledge of letter sound conversion rules. In the dyslexic brain, temporoparietal language areas on the two sides are symmetrical without the normal left-sided advantage. Also brain 'warts' (ectopias) are found, particularly clustered round the left temporoparietal language areas. The visual magnocellular system is responsible for timing visual events when reading. It therefore signals any visual motion that occurs if unintended movements lead to images moving off the fovea ('retinal slip'). These signals are then used to bring the eyes back on target. Thus, sensitivity to visual motion seems to help determine how well orthographic skill can develop in both good and bad readers. In dyslexics, the development of the visual magnocellular system is impaired: development of the magnocellular layers of the dyslexic lateral geniculate nucleus (LGN) is abnormal; their motion sensitivity is reduced; many dyslexics show unsteady binocular fixation; hence poor visual localization, particularly on the left side (left neglect). Dyslexics' binocular instability and visual perceptual instability, therefore, can cause the letters they are trying to read to appear to move around and cross over each other. Hence, blanking one eye (monocular occlusion) can improve reading. Thus, good magnocellular function is essential for high motion sensitivity and stable binocular fixation, hence proper development of orthographic skills. Many dyslexics also have auditory/phonological problems. Distinguishing letter sounds depends on picking up the changes in sound frequency and amplitude that characterize them. Thus, high frequency (FM) and amplitude modulation (AM) sensitivity helps the development of good phonological skill, and low sensitivity impedes the acquisition of these skills. Thus dyslexics' sensitivity to FM and AM is significantly lower than that of good readers and this explains their problems with phonology. The cerebellum is the head ganglion of magnocellular systems; it contributes to binocular fixation and to inner speech for sounding out words, and it is clearly defective in dyslexics. Thus, there is evidence that most reading problems have a fundamental sensorimotor cause. But why do magnocellular systems fail to develop properly? There is a clear genetic basis for impaired development of magnocells throughout the brain. The best understood linkage is to the region of the Major Histocompatibility Complex (MHC) Class 1 on the short arm of chromosome 6 which helps to control the production of antibodies. The development of magnocells may be impaired by autoantibodies affecting the developing brain. Magnocells also need high amounts of polyunsaturated fatty acids to preserve the membrane flexibility that permits the rapid conformational changes of channel proteins which underlie their transient sensitivity. But the genes that underlie magnocellular weakness would not be so common unless there were compensating advantages to dyslexia. In developmental dyslexics there may be heightened development of parvocellular systems that underlie their holistic, artistic, 'seeing the whole picture' and entrepreneurial talents. http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=11305228&ordinalpos=1&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVAbstractPlus

---

Prof. John Stein has been the leading Dyslexia Researcher at Oxford University for many years even decades.

dolfrog

The changes of the names of the sub types of dyslexis seesm to have haapened in the 1990s visual-spatial/dyseidetic subtypes language disorder/dysphonetic subtypes and the mixed sub group have a look at "Dichotic listening performance in subtypes of developmental dyslexia and a left temporal lobe brain tumor contrast group."

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez?Db=pubmed&Cmd=ShowDetailView&TermToSearch=1540824&ordinalpos=11&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

dolfrog

Controversial therapies, major problem

There are still controversial therapies mentioned in this article, and they should be removed for good despite an obstinate undoing policy from proponents. There is a new article called Controversial therapies for learning disabilities which has room for such treatments. There are currently at least a hundred controversial therapies worldwide, and as none of them has sufficient evidence in research, it is unnecessary to rate them or make a "top ten" for the purposes of an article that is based on the scientific view of dyslexia. Wikipedia has become a major media for giving people information on any topic, including learning disabilities, as it is highly ranked by search pages such as Google. It means we have a huge responsibility in giving people the information they need and not allowing Wikipedia to become a marketing media for pseudoscientific products. Honestly, we don't know if these products "work" or "don't work", but we know they lack the evidence because the evidence isn't there; see Scholar Google and compare the quality and number of results with treatments that have proven effect. Who knows, maybe one day we'll have to admit that some of these people were right. That day isn't today. Let's focus on the essential and help improve the article by moving questionable therapies to their own article... please. --Piechjo 13:37, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Piechjo

There is no one therapy for dyslkexia, and this is due the multitude of different underlying cause of the dyslexic symptoms, or possible combinatiuons of the these underlying causes. Basically all of the program work for at least one dyslexic so it can be claimed that each program does provide som,e benefit for some dyslexics. The real problem is that the marketing people and their suporters try to make out their their preferred program is THE program that benefits all dyslexics. A whole dyslexia industry has developed that depends on these competing programs, books, and remedial program providers are advertised or marketed as the MAGIC cure. Usually at the expense of those who have to live with these problems on a daily basis. So we need to expose the marketing people see what they are trying to sell, and try to define if their product works and more importantly which groups it may help and which groups the product could be harmful. These marketing people are not interested in the real issues of say dyslexics only their own source of income. The next problem is that there are others who bleive the sales pitch and then enthusiastically try to sell the same pitch to others.

The real answers will eventuall bre found via rigorous peer reviewed University based resaerch. Especially internationally peer reviewed which has become a feature of reacent years. This will develop an internation perpsective of the issues and not just our own cultural views. So those who edit this articlew should begin to develop links with international dyslexia researchers so that we can provide a crossection of current research and understanding this provides regarding dyslexia with in the limitation of our present day technologies. The research will evolve and the dyslexia article will need to reflect this evolution, but it is not posible to define dyslexia and realted issues as if it is written in tablets of stone for all time. We have not got that far in our understanding of these issues yet

best wishes

dolfrog

Hi Piechjo

What you need to do is find a general new name for your programs article and take all of the prograns to it including Orton Gillingham and LindaMood Bell, and begin to classify the prograsms according to the country of origin, so that we can all add more programs from our own countries, which may have little interest to many viewers of these articles as the programs may not be avaialbe in their own homelands.

So you could call it "International Therapies" with sub sections for each country that can contribute a Therapy to this article. No therapy is proven to help all dyslexics, but we do need more control over the claims of these products similar to the pharmacutical industry. Where the product manufacturers have to stipulate the specific group of dyslexics that their program may help or even cause harm. And that they should provide independent scientific testing to support their claims.

best wishes

dolfrog

Yhis whole contraversial Therapy issue is purely a USA based issues ans has no relevance to the International remit of WIKI. This section requires readical overhaul because it only includeds description of programs used in the USA only, again this fails the wki guidelines, unles you include the maany international programs used and developed in other countries, such as Dyslexia Action in the UK in other. So best just to list all of the Programs and for eiterh an exrteranal link or internal wiki link for eacxh and let the viewer make up their own mind as to the relevance of the programs.

So i will be unoinf the present page to revent back to is previous state before this unwanted change. Another problem is the wiki page you have created requires a great deal of soting out and is currently disputed. But as i have said these are locla issues to the USa and this is an international wiki article.

best wishes

dolfrog 22:17, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Talk page cleanup

I am going to try to archive some of the discussions on this page, and clean up other sections. Please do not insert your comments in between others' comments, and please avoid using lines. These both add up to confusion. Oh, and sign your comments with ~~~~ so the date appears too. — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 17:28, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

I am temporarily giving up on this idea. The page is too big and disorganized, with FAR too many quotes. (Your argument isn't any better with quotes.) Please, people, let's try a more sane way of discussion here! This is a mess! — Chris53516 ^(Talk) 17:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Chris

I think this mess only goes to highlight the lack of clarity that exists regardinthe concept of dyslexia across both internal and International Boundaries. For some this can be a very emotional or streessful topic of discussion, as many may have experienced disability discrimination regarding acceptance of their diagnosed disability, and some of these stresses can be get tothe extreme of Post Traumatic Stress, which leads to stress triggers surronding any repeated denial of the existance of their diagnosed condition. And the discussion to the outsider may be about conflicting ideas regarding dyslexia but for some individuals it is about the recognition of their enforced way of life. best wishes

dolfrog

can't get the date thing to work

dolfrog

Dolfrog, if you sign your name with 4 squigglies - like ~ ~ ~ ~ but without spaces between the squiggly lines, then it should automatically show up with both your user name and date. Armarshall 03:48, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Done some archiving (Talk:Dyslexia/archive 2) tried to remove dead stuff or v. long bits but leave in stuff people might want to refer back to will do some more in a week or so. Also shortened some titles so content's is easier to follow --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 13:03, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Collaboration on the dyslexia article / article set

Colleagues,

I'm hoping we can establish a collegial group of editors to collaborate on this topic area because it is so important, especially to the many children suffering needlessly. To that end, I think it would be helpful if, when questioning another editor, that we at least begin by politely asking whether someone is exhibiting personal bias. It may simply be a misunderstanding, or it may be that the individual in question is sufficiently self-aware and honest to admit it and attempt to work with other editors so that we end up with a more balanced overall article or article set. We all have biases based on our personal experiences.

If you have not already done so, have you considered listing yourself as an editor interested in collaborating on a "child" Wikiproject I proposed for the topic of dyslexia and related conditions? We currently do not have enough editors expressing an interest to qualify for creating a project, and doing so could be a great help in coordinating the work that needs to be done.

The Wikiproject gurus directed me to use a lower-overhead method of coordinating work among a small group of editors, which is the Task List shown at the top of this Talk page. I would very much appreciate it if we could agree to at least try using the Task List as a method of coordinating among ourselves.

If you are interested in the proposed dyslexia Wikiproject, go to Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals and search for "dyslexia."

Best,

Rosmoran 20:35, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sami

you now have 5

best wishes

dolfrog 22:39, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi SAmi

I have just received a messageFrom Arm saying that you have a new framework for this article, and i sign up for yopur task force some but so far all i can see is you and arm talking about some secret project between the two of you,

dolfrog 03:49, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Dolfrog.

Yes, Arm and I are now Double Secret Wikipedia Editing Agents ..... :-)

Seriously, though, I'm still trying to get a "parent" project to accept our proposed child project. The process is pretty vague, and I'm not getting many responses from the projects I've approached. I'll post an update when I have something to tell. Hopefully soon. Meantime, I'm trying to get folks to use the "Task List" at the top of this talk page. That way at least we'll know what is being done.

I'm not aware of a new framework for the article, so I'm not sure what she's talking about there.

Actually, I just chatted with Arm about putting the navigation box she started on the task list (above), and she said I should go ahead and do it. She didn't do the work secretly , in fact she did invite folks to participate when she started work on it, but I think most of us missed the invitation because she didn't include a link to the template page. It turns out that the navigation box itself has a link on it, but not being familiar with navigation boxes, I didn't know to go look for one.

There is discussion on the template talk page itself, but it hasn't crossed over to this talk page much. That should be more explicit.

I'll add a post to the talk page re-issuing the invitation, complete with links. I'll also ask Arm what she meant by a new framework .....

Best,

Rosmoran 04:11, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

I don't think I used the word "framework" at least not in reference to this article. Dolfrog made some additions to the Dyslexia template, and I told him that his additions were very welcome, but that you had a different proposal on your sandbox page, so that he should go there instead. I simply wanted to alert him to the fact that you had asked me to hold off on the Dyslexia template I had created and to consider your ideas & suggestions. If it was "secret" I wouldn't have posted that - the reason I left a message for Dolfrog was precisely to make sure that he was aware of what was going on. Armarshall 08:53, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Work on Navigation tool

Hi,

Arm created a proposed Navigation box, and it would be a good idea for us to reach consensus on what this box should contain. I cobbled together a couple of alternatives at different levels of information specificity. Please take a look at:

• Template:Dyslexia
• User:Rosmoran/navigation sandbox

Best, Rosmoran 04:43, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed navigation template

for the planned Dyslexia article series

Hi,

I'm putting on the table for discussion a strawman navigation template for the dyslexia article series. The idea behind this template is to provide a quick path for easy navigation to and among the dyslexia "child" articles, and to give readers a few links to key related topics.

I absolutely expect this template to change in format, content, and possibly in scope, based on editorial discussions here and on the dyslexia template talk page.

• Take a look at the strawman template here: User:Rosmoran/navigation sandbox/proposed dyslexia nav box

• To see an approximation of what the dyslexia article would look like with this template inserted, go here: User:Rosmoran/navigation sandbox test article

In case you're interested in seeing how other projects have used navigation boxes, here are a few good examples:

• Celtic music
• Classical guitar
• Music of the United States
• Template:Judaism
• Template:Antisemitism
• Template:JewishMusic
• Template:Neuropsychology

This is just a few --- there are lots of others.

I'm looking forward to your ideas and feedback.

Best,

Rosmoran 16:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

cleanup tag

What happened to the nice header? This should be able to be revised and all the goals accomplished while still having a readable header/summary.

Hopefully someone cleans it up soon.

Fredsmith2 18:09, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi,

I'm not sure what header you are referring to. Are you talking about the lead section of the article?

Best,

Rosmoran 18:27, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I was referring to this edit: http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Dyslexia&direction=prev&oldid=145730291

It looks like it's been fixed though. Thanks. Fredsmith2 16:50, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi all. I'll have a good look through the main body of the article. I think the lead section isn't quite representative. Any suggestions for improvement? Spoctacle 11:59, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome, Spoctacle :) Some suggestions:

• True, the lead section needs a new and more general source. The introduction is now vague.
• The term comorbidity should be used in the overview and elsewhere to separate symptoms of dyslexia from symptoms sometimes caused by comorbidity with other disorders. In fact, comorbidity is a central concept and could work well as one headline.
• The history section goes back and forth and should be reorganised.
• The scientific research section with minor hypotheses should go to a separate article. I believe Rosmoran is working on this.
• The characteristics section is problematic because it lacks sources. I'm afraid most of it will have to be deleted. Maybe somebody will find proper sources later.
• Variations and related conditions lacks a general citation to verify the inclusion of each condition. Irlen syndrome should be merged with Irlen filters and removed from the main article.
• Remedial programs section isn't looking good. There is little general information about the grounds of remediation and no mention of the main intervention: special education. With the methods mentioned, there is a USA bias. All the therapies mentioned at the end are highly controversial. They should be replaced by a link to Alternative therapy (disability), but this link has been repeatedly removed by proponents of the therapies. All hypotheses and treatments mentioned in the main article should be based on solid research evidence and verified by undisputed references. Piechjo 17:42, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Welcome FredSmith2 and Spoctacle.

Piechjo:

All good ideas. I couldn't agree more about the therapies needing solid research backing in order to be included in the article, except under a heading of "Alternative therapies" or some such. I think the question to be answered is how, exactly, are we defining research? What kind of research qualifies? Wiki has a guideline, of course, but there are still gradations to be negotiated. Perhaps as a researcher you can help us with this.

One thing I keep struggling with is how to manage the many changes that need to be made to this article. We've been trying to work on a consensus basis, and I think we've had more success lately than we have had in months past.

But with your suggestions for improvement, for example, I think we need to work through each one and come to consensus before we implement, if only to avoid having edit wars going back and forth. To do this, we need some kind of project management setup.

I made a request for a child Wikiproject to help us with that very problem, but we need a reasonable number of people to "sign up" as being interested in it before it can be created.

FredSmith2 and Spoctacle: Could I talk you into expressing interest? Go to

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Dyslexia, related conditions and topics and add your name to do so.

Until then, I'll keep a list of things to do, suggestions about which we do not yet have consensus, and issues to be addressed and resolved. That way we won't lose anything.

Here's to getting a Wikiproject up and running sometime very soon!

Best,

Rosmoran 20:28, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the Welcomes guys. I think ultimately more research is the answer. Whether something is validated or not is only one issue. Its whether something is recommended or not, quackery or not, pseudoscience or not, is another set of issues. So its all down to finding reviews, and finding verifiable viewpoints on the subject. Theres going to be a lot of views probably, but of course the science view on the various interventions is tops. Its probably a good idea to distinguish between the sound/solid methods, and the viewed as bogus ones. That way we don't have to worry too much about consensus. I'll get rooting around in the research. I think there are some things we can do with the lead section though. To make it more specific at least to the concerns of evidence based researchers. Cheers Spoctacle 10:03, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Spoctacle,

Additional research never hurts, though I don't know that we have a shortage of research in this group. That said, the stickiest issue that keeps coming up is what we mean by solid, verifiable research.

I'm not sure how familiar you are with Wiki principles, but there are several that apply to this specific issue. Consensus, in particular, is a key policy: "Wikipedia works by building consensus. Consensus is an inherent part of the wiki process. (See Wikipedia:Concensus)

If you are relatively new to Wikipedia, you should take a look at the following Wiki articles for basic information about wikipedia process and content:

• Wikipedia:NPOV, the main point of which is "representing views fairly, proportionately, and without bias."

• Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not

• Wikipedia:Reliable sources

• Wikipedia:Five pillars

• Wikipedia:Simplified ruleset

• Wikipedia:List of policies

Best,

Rosmoran 13:53, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the links Rosmoran. I'm a researcher by trade, and I'm led to believe that Wikipedia looks kindly on science oriented research and determines the difference between findings and speculation. This is a subject that is pretty much science based also, at least according to empirical psychology, neurology and so on. Thus, I actually think it should be fairly doable to prioritize the various views and facts here. The more verifiable and reliable stuff would come from 2ndary sources (reviews of the various streams of research) and most likely be published in peer reviewed journals or good reliable books on related subjects. I'm sure consensus is important here, but by the looks of the article a lot of the sifting and prioritizing according to NPOV rather than agreements, would be the first step I think. There must be a fair amount more sifting to do, judging by the state of the article. Spoctacle 14:14, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Spoctacle.

Wiki does indeed look kindly on science-oriented research, and you will not get any argument from me when it comes to favoring solid research over theories, methods, etc based on anything less. I was (and am) appalled at some of the things in this article that are presented either as fact or as research based.

One issue we have run into is dealing the the proverbial "gray area" --- that is to say, the reliability of "findings" exists on a spectrum. Another category of impasse we have experienced relates to variations in research published in peer-reviewed journals in different countries. So, for example, some of the research published in the UK supports results that I have never seen reflected in research in the US. As a result, there has been some reasonable criticism that the article is skewed in favor of US sources. Of course, I'm certain there is research out there that I haven't seen, but I'm pretty familiar with a number of peer-reviewed journals published in the US on this and related topics.

It would be very helpful to have some kind of reasonable criteria that can be used to distinguish among the many "verifiable" sources that have been cited. Then we need only achieve consensus on the criteria and not on individual strains of research.

I encourage you to skim previous threads on this talk page to see the issues that come up repeatedly regarding the validity of research.

I'm glad you're here to help on this!

If you are not already aware, there is current concensus that the article needs to be broken up into a series of articles. Facilitating and organizing this effort is the reason we are trying to get set up as a WikiProject "child" project. Part of the theory is that breaking the article up into logical topics and using the so-called "Summary Style" in the main article will make it easier because of the increased focus on the subtopic. Right now it's hard to look at the information critcally because there is so much of it.

Best,

Rosmoran 22:20, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

Proposed navigation template

Hi, all.

I have not heard any objections to implementing the proposed navigation template, so I'm going to implement it. Of course, we can revise the content of it any time.

Best,

Rosmoran 16:13, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

By all means :) I left a little note in the strawman discussion. --Piechjo 17:06, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Missed comments on nav template

Hi, folks.

Just a quick heads up. I have missed some of your comments that appeared on Discussion pages related to the navigation template "strawman" in my personal pages. For some reason, my Watchlist isn't showing me all the changes made to personal pages.

If for some reason I have missed (or not implemented) a change you suggested for the Dyslexia navigation template, please don't think I'm ignoring it. Assume that I haven't found it yet, and point me to where you left it!

Maybe from here on out it would be best to leave comments on the Template:Dyslexia talk page.

Thanks for your patience,

Rosmoran 17:41, 23 July 2007 (UTC)

Sign Up For Wikiproject Dyslexia

If you have not already done so, please express official interest in the proposed Dyslexia Wikiproject at

Wikipedia:WikiProject Council/Proposals#Dyslexia, related conditions and topics

We currently have 6 which technically meets the minimum number, but WikiProjects are hesitant to create even child projects with this few interested editors.

Best,

Rosmoran 20:32, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Wild idea

Hi,

After I posted my most recent plea for folks to sign up as interested in the Dyslexia project, it occurred to me that we might have a larger body of editors interested in the project if we expand our scope a little bit.

What would you guys think about expanding the scope of the child project to learning disabilities and related topics?

Might this be a sensible thing to do? Or am I completely off my rocker?

Best,

Rosmoran 20:36, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Hi Sami

"Learning Disabilities" is even more of a disputed topic, with further international differences. And then there are the different professioans in the came country diagnosing the same symptoms in potentially 4 very different ways, this happens in the UK, and is because of the lck of multi- discipline comunication etc, some of the learning Disabilities are also not scientifically defined and there are huge areas of overlap. I think Reading was the best option or more specifically reading text, words as opposed to reading body language and other forms of reading. Another problem of linking in with specific scientific grouping is that when we begin to have a better understanding of trhe workings of the brain, and the underlying causes of dyslexia then we may need to link to different types of professions. And as the underlying causes of dyslexia become more identifiable there wil be a need to link in with the professions which research and have an understanding of these underlying causes whowe will need to link up with. These professions will not specifically be neurologists but a much wider range of multi-disciplined professionals.

best wishes

dolfrog 01:40, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Dolfrog -- you are not off your rocker -- I think its a good idea but premature. I think we should focus on getting the dyslexia articles in better order first. So I think we are jumping the gun and we should focus now on tidying up the dyslexia article and creating/improving the related articles that the navigational array leads to. When we have strong articles in all of those areas, that might be the time to see if there is interest in a broader topic or portal -- but Dolfrog is absolutely right that we are venturing into an area where there is even a greater level of dispute & disagreement. I think the navigation array is a really great start at this point and personally I want to focus my attention to making that work. Maybe its just me, but I start to feel overwhelmed when the to-do list gets too long, and I notice we've already got quite a long list on this page. Armarshall 07:27, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

OK. The idea occurred to me because most Wiki child projects have a scope that is considerably more broad in scope. But this makes a great deal of sense to me -- we can always expand our scope later.

I'm working on putting together a project page and will let you guys know when it's up.

Thanks for the feedback, Arm and Dolfrog.

Best,

Rosmoran 12:22, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Check out my first cut at a Dyslexia Project Page

Hi, fellow-editors,

Well, I have a first cut at a Project page for us --- WikiProject Dyslexia.

Take a look, add information, revise information, change the format. This is my first attempt at setting up a WikiProject, so be kind, but make the changes you think are needed.

Best,

Rosmoran 00:46, 4 August 2007 (UTC)

Facts and statistics section

There should be a Facts and Statistics section in this article. However, most of the current content belongs in other sections of the article, and some of it is redundant with information that is already included in other sections. For example, theories of causes of dyslexia belong up in their respective sections (unless we completely reorganize the current content of the overall article.

Unless I hear strong objections soon, I will incorporate most of this content into the appropriate existing sections.

Best,

Rosmoran 20:24, 7 August 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. Armarshall 08:20, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Time to get to work on breaking up article into series

Hi, everyone. Now that WikiProject:Dyslexia is set up and ready to go, I'm thinking it's time for us to move forward with our plan of turning the existing dyslexia article into a series of articles.

Here is a link to a draft plan that we can use as a basis for discussion:

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia/Proposed organization

Let's get this thing going!

Best,

Rosmoran 05:28, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

People With Dyslexia

Why can I see this causing trouble... as yet all unsourced & possible contravention of WP:BLP also has potential to get huge, I'd suggest a comment & link to the category. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 09:15, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

If it's not sourced, either on this or in the referenced article, then put a fact tag on it. If there's no way to verify that folks publicly have dyslexia, then it should be removed. If there is, or if it's uncertain, then the fact tag's the best way. I know the first two of these are sourced in their own pages. Usually that's the way lists like this are handled.

Also compare Speech disorder#Famous people with speech impediments. That's a much bigger list on a much more controversial topic. Fredsmith2 17:36, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

There's already a list of people with dyslexia, with sources, and there's a link from the Dyslexia article to this page List of notable people diagnosed with dyslexia. Piechjo 21:30, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

ADHD "causing" dyslexia

Hi,

In the facts and statistics section, the description of ADHD as an underlying cause of dyslexia needs a supporting citation.

Best,

Rosmoran 11:10, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

Navigational bars at bottom of article

Hi, folks.

I recently noticed two navigational bars at the bottom of the page. They were added on July 29 by a user who was adding these and similar navigation bars to literally thousands of articles (I had to scroll through several screens of the user's contributions to find this particular change, and I was displaying 500 changes per scroll).

The two navigation bars are titled:

• ICD 9 Mental and behavioral disorders (contains links to ~90 articles, including topics from dementia and OCD to voyeurism and erectile dysfunction)

• Symptoms and Signs (contains links to about 130 articles, including topics from coma and chest pain to rashes and incontinence)

The range of topics included in these boxes seems too broad to be helpful to anyone trying to navigate through lists of related information (the related-ness of which I question), not to mention the large number of articles listed in the boxes, which alone makes them of questionable value. Indeed, Wikipedia categories are not nearly so broad in scope!

I propose removing these navigation bars from dyslexia and related articles. There are several navigation bars that would be much more relevant than these, such as those related to psychology and neurology (and I think that even these are too broad to be useful).

In short, I propose removing these two navigation bars from the dyslexia-related articles.

Thoughts? Objections?

Best,

Rosmoran 11:44, 18 August 2007 (UTC)

The "WHO ICD-10 Mental and behavioural disorders (F, 290-319)" one is plausibly relevant the symptoms one isn't really. They were probably added with an AWB hence the huge edit count. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Nate1481 (talk • contribs) 09:22, August 21, 2007 (UTC).

Here's how I'm looking at whether the bars should or should not be included: The purpose of a navigation bar is to help users find related information. In my mind, therefore, the real question becomes: Is the navigation bar reasonably helpful to users trying navigate to and from articles related to the topic? For these bars, I think the answer is "no."

The vast majority of links included on the bars are not even remotely related to dyslexia -- the only real connection among the links on the ICD-10 bar is that they all have ICD-10 medical codes. From a usability perspective, there are 92 links on the ICD-10 bar, and only 24 of them are even marginally related to dyslexia. (I'm counting as "marginally related" everything in the bottom two subheadings, Psychological development (developmental disorder) and Behavioral and emotional, childhood and adolescence onset, though even many of these aren't directly related. In actuality, I would classify only about 10 of these as directly related.) Beyond these two sections, I'm hard pressed to find a link on the entire bar that is directly related.

I'm willing to let the ICD-10 bar remain if you guys think it important to do so, but it seems to me that both of these navigation bars do more to point users *away* from related topics than *to* related topics.

Best,

Rosmoran 23:15, 23 August 2007 (UTC)

Just curious

I will not be posting to your page again, but I am curious; why "adequate" was used to describe the intelligence of a dyslexic? Evidence of intellect, along with test scoring not consistent with above normal intelligence, is the main distinction between being considered dyslexic and having retardation. Mjmalin20 18:54, 26 August 2007 (UTC)

You're welcome to post on the page, and to participate in the Dyslexia Wikiproject at WikiProject Dyslexia.

I hadn't noticed the change to "adequate", so thank you for pointing this out. At the above cited Wikiproject, we are working to restructure this article into an article series. There will be significant and careful word-smithing done as part of that project.

Feel free to join in!

Best,

Rosmoran 09:52, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

It was change recently. I'm not sure about the whole formulation, but I would prefer "normal intelligence". To me adequate seems to imply to a necessity. --Piechjo 16:35, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Maybe it's overly politically correct, but I cringe when I hear the term "normal intelligence." The obvious converse (abnormal intel) almost overwhelms the content of the sentence.

I've seen it worded something along of lines of "dyslexics have at least average intelligence.....". What do you think?

Best,

Rosmoran 19:25, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

Yes, I like that a lot better. I went to Landmark College in the 1980's and have met many people who identify with the diagnosis; as best I can tell, there is no real clear cause, except maybe that it runs in families (genetics). How it hits and what actually helps is so intimately tied to the person’s perspective and socio-economic class that a magic bullet seems ridiculous. My understanding is that dyslexic’s develop later, so any successes by one treatment or another may have more to do with maturity and not intervention. Just a suggestion, but it might be useful to somehow include in the history, how cultural reaction to dyslexics has changed and how it has stayed the same. Having a hidden disability means that society can't really relate like they can to someone in a wheelchair. We can clearly see that the person can’t get up and walk even if we don’t know why. As the “adequate” statement indicates society don’t see people who have dyslexia as bright and intelligent. I personally know of a dyslexic who has to defend their ability to take care of their kids in a custody battle because the court is ignorant about the condition. I personally know of a HR recruiter who doesn’t believe the condition deserve ADA attention. This adds to the complexity of how a dyslexic copes with life. I think this is a core reason for the disagreement about cause in the USA. Anyway, thanks for answering my question.

Mjmalin20 21:03, 27 August 2007 (UTC)

I like your idea about adding information about the social perception of the "hidden" disability. You're absolutely right, the hidden-ness of the disability makes everything more difficult.

Do you think you could add some information about this? It would need to be cited from a source and not based on your personal experience, of course, but we could definitely use your input.

I'd like to hear more about your thoughts regarding the disagreement in the U.S. being based on the hidden disability concept. It would be an inappropriate topic for this talk page, so I'll post a message to your personal Talk page.

Best,

Rosmoran 15:29, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

My spell checker went down and I didn't notice so I claerified my earlier statment. I will talk to you on my talk pages...thanks.

Mjmalin20 16:32, 28 August 2007 (UTC)

Response to Adequate

I personally have dyslexia and when I was younger I got passing grades in school but it was one of the hardest thing I have ever had to do. So i had adequate grades in school so to the teachers nothing was wring with me. Also if you do not have a above intelligence level then the trouble reading is attributed to you not being smart

Revised wording in lead sentence

Hi,

I want to explain why I revised the first sentence of the lead section.

The previous lead sentence was:

Dyslexia is a type of reading disability that usually manifests as a difficulty with written language, particularly with reading and spelling.

From my perspective, there are two problems with this sentence:

• First is the statement that "dyslexia .... usually manifests as a difficulty with written language..." .
  

Usually manifests as a difficulty with written language? What else would it manifest as? If dyslexia is a type of reading disability, which is what we just said, doesn't it have to be a problem with written language? I recognize that dyslexia can include symptoms other than reading and spelling, but for a dyslexia diagnosis, the symptoms must include difficulty with reading or spelling. No?

• Second, the statement that "dyslexia is a type of reading disability .... that manifests as a difficulty with ... reading and spelling."

This is just plain redundant.

My revision is as follows:

Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that manifests as difficulty with written language, particularly with reading and spelling.

I used "Dyslexia is a specific learning disability ..." to eliminate the redundancy with " a ... reading disability that manifests ... as a difficulty .. with reading ..."

I used "... that manifests as difficulty with written language, particularly with reading and spelling" so that we don't imply that dyslexia manifests as a set of symptoms that does not include reading or spelling.

If someone else has a revision that would eliminate these redundancies, please suggest an alternative.

Best,

Rosmoran 23:50, 29 September 2007 (UTC)

I made the following changes to your definition for the following reasons:

1 - "manifests primarily as a difficulty with written language"

Dyslexia is diagnosed often by other symptoms & characteristics, such as with rapid automatic naming, so I just want to use language that does not exclude consideration of other characteristics.

2 - changed "cognitive deficit" to "neurological difference"

"cognitive deficit" implies an impairment in overall learning ability; this is especially problematical if used in conjunction with the phrase "learning disability" in the preceding sentence, because in the UK "learning disability" is commonly used to refer to more generalized cognitive impairments, such as mental retardation, as opposed to the more limited way that phrase is used in the US. I believe "neurological difference" more accurately describes the way most researchers would currently define dyslexia, no matter which of several underlying theories of dyslexia they prefer.

3- changed " by definition, a person diagnosed with dyslexia has at least average intelligence" to " Most people with dyslexia have average or above-average intelligence."

The IQ "disparity" definition of dyslexia has been largely abandoned, both by current researchers and by legal definitions, so it is no longer accurate to say that average IQ is "by definition." Also, many very bright children with dyslexia test as having lower IQ's simply because of the form of the IQ test -- so a statement about "by definition" could mislead parents or teachers into failing to explore the possibility of dyslexia if the students perform poorly on an IQ test. So I think expressing the concept as "Most people have...." is far more accurate. Armarshall 03:00, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi, Arm.

Although I don't agree with all of your reasoning, I agree with most of your changes. :-) I might try to tweak the "neurological difference" sentence. It sounds awfully politically correct, and I think I can write around it and convey more specifically where the differences are.

Good changes!

Rosmoran 05:29, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

You wrote, "I think I can write around it and convey more specifically where the differences are." I'm wondering how you can do that when major researchers don't seem to agree on that one. (if you review the sections & links on the different theories of dyslexia you will see what I mean). But good luck trying. Armarshall 07:30, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

I'm just a mom who's done a prodigious amount of reading, so I don't presume to know more than the researchers out there. Sounds like I wasn't clear about my intent. I'm thinking something along the lines of "differences in the ways the brain develops and functions." The goal is to convey the idea of the neurological etiology without using the PC term "neurological difference" or the decidedly non-PC term "neurological deficit" (and it is a deficit, regardless of the words we use to describe it).

The wordsmithing I'm working on is how to avoid redundancy with the first sentence of the next paragraph.

Best,

Rosmoran 10:41, 1 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, that sounds fine to me. By the way, if you enjoy doing all that reading, I'd highly recommend Maryanne Wolf's new book, "Proust and the Squid: The History and Science of the Reading Brain." It really is the best thing I've read in a long time in terms of translating the science into lay terminology, and yet at the same time conveying the complexity of the issues as well as being able to convey how much is yet to be learned and understood about the process of reading and dyslexia. Armarshall 03:31, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

Thanks for the recommendation! Maryann Wolf is among the best, and this is brand spanking new. Ordered! Take care,

Rosmoran 05:05, 2 October 2007 (UTC)

I need help!!!

Hi I'm a sixth grader ,at Kennett middle school, I am reaserching Dyslexia. I have researched it and researched it but can't get a real report. Is there any information you can give me to help me?

visit our school website at www.kscd.org —Preceding unsigned comment added by 204.108.230.104 (talk) 14:09, 10 October 2007 (UTC)

Good research topic! There is lots of good information at the website of the International Dyslexia Association: http://www.interdys.org . Good luck! Rosmoran 04:46, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Lock this due to vandalism?

This page has been getting what seems to be a ton of vandalism lately. Could we please lock this for a couple weeks to restrict new users and IP addresses from editing this? Fredsmith2 22:33, 11 October 2007 (UTC)

Information based on personal experiences

I "undid" the addition of the phrase "as well as a gift" for a couple of reasons.

First and foremost, Wikipedia is an encyclopedia, and thus is not the place for sharing personal experiences. (See the policy in Wikipedia is not a soapbox.)

Second, the statement in question is cited to a particular source. Any added information that is not from the same source must be stated, and cited, separately.

Best, Rosmoran 04:57, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I doubt there are no reliable third party sources that discuss the benefits or "the gift" of dyslexia. Perhaps your removal was premature. Fredsmith2 15:33, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

On the contrary. There are many sources that discuss traits that many dyslexics have that may be "side effects" of the neurological differences that cause dyslexia. If nowhere else, check out Ron Davis' book The Gift of Dyslexia. I don't use this as a resource myself because of lack of evidence that his "intervention" techniques work, but he certainly represents another view of the dyslexic brain.

Some areas often cited as potential strengths are visual-spatial, "seeing things in pictures," creativity, and learning to persevere, among others.

Here are a few references that may be of interest, but there are many more:

Innovative Visual-Spatial Powers in Dyslexics: A New Perspective? at http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/abs/10.1111/j.1749-6632.1993.tb23003.x (article must be purchased) -- this source may be free: http://www2.bc.edu/~winner/PDFs/Dys%20Linked%20to%20Talent.Brain&Lang.pdf

“Passionate Economist” Finds Strength and Humanity in her Dyslexia http://www.schwablearning.org/articles.aspx?r=706

Visual-Spatial Strength in Dyslexia: Rapid Discrimination of Impossible Figures. Journal of Learning Disabilities, July, 2001 by von Karolyi, Catya http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_hb174/is_200107/ai_n13172133 (membership required to view full article)

Creativity and the Dyslexic Child: A Classroom View - http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=EJ291703&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&accno=EJ291703

In the Mind's Eye: Visual Thinkers, Gifted People with Dyslexia and Other Learning Difficulties, - http://www.eric.ed.gov/ERICWebPortal/custom/portlets/recordDetails/detailmini.jsp?_nfpb=true&_&ERICExtSearch_SearchValue_0=ED416640&ERICExtSearch_SearchType_0=eric_accno&accno=ED416640

I believe that some of these things are addressed later in the dyslexia article.

Best,

Rosmoran 16:30, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You really should be working with the user that added that in, rather than just reverting the edit. The user is a newbie, and you reverted the second edit they've ever made to wikipedia, and quoted WP:SOAPBOX to him or her. See here for a list of the newbie's edits. Please review WP:BITE and please work with the newbie who is asking for help to constructively edit the dyslexia page.

It's one thing to leave a nice note on their user page saying, "I'm sorry, but I had to revert your edit. It didn't really work with the style of wikipedia. Perhaps you could do A and B and try to resubmit, or put your thoughts on the talk page." It's another to say, "First and foremost, Wikipedia is not a soapbox." Fredsmith2 00:03, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

Oh, dear. I didn't notice that it was a newcomer. Thank you for pointing this out to me, and also for pointing out how this must have felt to the newcomer. I don't consider myself a "biter," but you're right -- I could have been more kind in my explanation and offered to help. I will endeavor to be more mindful of this in the future.

Rosmoran 05:52, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

unsupported

"Some studies have concluded that speakers of languages whose orthography has a highly consistent correspondence between letter and sound (e.g. Serbian, Croatian, Korean, Italian and Spanish) suffer less from the effects of dyslexia than speakers of languages where the letter-sound correspondence is less consistent (e.g. English and French).[49]" - If you follow this link, you come to a very short article that does not mention Serbian, Croatian, or Korean. Kdammers 06:41, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

• Since no one responded, I made some deletions. While the cited secondary article claims that Italians have only 1/2 as many people with D, another source (http://www.annahouse.or.kr/) presents the Korea Dyslexia Association (KDA), which claims that a 5% rate is characteristic of Korea as it is of all

countries. (Please note that neither the cited article nor the Korean site I have just cited gives any real support for these contradictory claims, though the former refers to research that would support the claim made in terms of the few European languages mentioned. To add Korean is really problematical since D is low on the Korean awareness scale; since its phoneticness is not complete, since there are numerous situations where rules require a padjim to change phonemes (e.g., ㅈ->ㅌ,ㅂ-> ㅁ), that is, a letter is pronounced one way in some settings but another way in other settings; and since there are many mirror-image letters in Korean analogous to the rarer sets in the latin alphabet such as (b, d, p, q): (ㄴ,ㄱ), (ㅕ,ㅑ), (ㅏ, ㅓ), (ㅗ, ㅜ). 01:58, 14 October 2007 (UTC)

"lifelong condition"

I do not know of any evidentiary support one way or another for the statement "Dyslexia is a lifelong disorder, and its persistence across the lifespan is a distinguishing characteristic." The book cited is more than a dozen years old (publication date 1995) and the author apparently has not written anything about dyslexia before or since -- so it is not an authoritative source. Many dyslexics overcome early reading problems and attain advanced university degrees, as evidenced by those identified in Rosalie Fink's study -- see http://www.careertrainer.com/Request.jsp?lView=ViewArticle&Article=OID%3A33637&Page=OID%3A33638 -- Fink did testing of the adults listed in her study as well as take full histories, and symptoms of dyslexia such as difficulty with phonetic processing or spelling had persisted in some but not all (perhaps 1/3 to 1/2, I don't remember the figures.

So I would ask that you either find a supplemental source or present both sides of the issue rather than state that "persistence across the lifespan is a distinguishing characteristic"; I do not know of any sort of scientific evidence (longitudinal studies, post-testing) - and as phrased it tends to support false beliefs that reading problems & other difficulties associated with dyslexia can never be overcome, that would in turn justify lowered expectations and discrimination against dyslexics. Armarshall 11:13, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

I find this a bit puzzling because dyslexia is described as a lifelong disability/disorder/syndrome in more sources than I can possibly list -- google "dyslexia and lifelong" and you'll see what I mean. I used the Clark and Uhry book because it happened to be handy. To save you the trouble of googling, here are just a few hits you'll get:

• Dyslexia Basics

By: International Dyslexia Association (2007)

“Dyslexia is a life-long condition. With proper help, many people with dyslexia can learn to read and write well.”

Retrieved from: http://www.ldonline.org/article/16282

• Society for Neuroscience: Dyslexia: What Brain Research Reveals About Reading

“Dyslexia is a lifelong reading disorder that can have a disastrous impact on a person’s self-image and ability to live up to his or her potential.”

http://www.readingrockets.org/article/10784

• SchwabLearning: Dyslexia — An Overview

By: Jan Baumel, M.S.

“Dyslexia is a persistent, lifelong condition. There's no cure for it, but there are ways to approach learning and be successful.”

http://www.schwablearning.org/articles.aspx?r=43

• NCLD: What is Dyslexia?

“Dyslexia is a life-long language processing disorder that hinders the development of oral and written language skills.”

http://www.ncld.org/content/view/454/391/

• LDOnline: Dyslexia and the Brain: What Does Current Research Tell Us?

Can dyslexia be cured?

"In a word, no. Dyslexia is a lifelong condition that affects people into old age. However, that does not mean that instruction cannot remediate some of the difficulties people with dyslexia have with written language. A large body of evidence shows what types of instruction struggling readers need to be successful (e.g., National Institute of Child Health and Human Development, 2000; Snow et al., 1998; Torgesen, 2000)."

http://www.ldonline.org/article/14907

etc.

As for the book I cited, Dyslexia: Theory and Practice of Remedial Instruction, there is an updated version published in 2005 -- I just happened to have the 1995 version handy. I'll get the page number from the 2005 version, if that makes anyone feel more comfortable. As for its reliability, the authors are not researchers or professors trying to get tenure, so you won't see lots of research papers they authored out there (there are a few, just not many). They are practitioners who work with kids, who do research on interventions to use with those kids, and who wrote this book (originally published in 1988) to help guide other practitioners. It is so ubiquitous among segments of O-G practitioners that it is commonly referred to as "The Red Book." It's listed as recommended reading by many esteemed sources(including the IDA on its list of recommended reading for professionals: http://www.interdys.org/ewebeditpro5/upload/Recommended_Reading_for_Professionals.pdf), the Gow school, Landmark school, among others, and many, many books about dyslexia.

That said, I don't really care what reference we use, so if you prefer another, feel free to pick one.

If the implication of the two sentences suggests that dyslexics are doomed to a life of failure, it should certainly be revised to reflect that remediation and compensatory techniques can mitigate its effects. (I thought that the second sentence did that, but perhaps it needs to be stated more strongly.) I know well that dyslexics can be successful if given the help and support they need --- my first dyslexic child just graduated from nursing school! It's not a PhD, and he's not Charles Schwab, but I'll definitely settle for educated and gainfully employed .....

The point I don't want to lose is that dyslexia doesn't just go away; even after remediation, compensations/accommodations will almost certainly continue to be needed.

Best,

Rosmoran 14:44, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

Almost everything you cited includes the qualification of a second sentence or clause making it clear that dyslexics can approach learning in different ways and be successful -- that is the part that is missing in the original quote. Also, the part I object to is the phrase, "its persistence across the lifespan is a distinguishing characteristic" -- and I don't see that anywhere in any of the other quotes you listed. What does that "distinguishing characteristic" mean? That is someone is diagnosed in childhood is later tested in adulthood and no longer meets diagnostic criteria, perhaps because they simply test too well, that they never were dyslexic in the first place? It's a leap to go from "lifelong condition" to "distinguishing characteristic".

Also, I would prefer that you use the words "lifelong condition" to "lifelong disorder", as most (though not all) of your other cited sources do.... because while I agree that the dyslexic learning style persists, I don't think it can accurately be described as a "disorder" for those who have fully overcome the negative or disabling aspects. What "disorder" does Richard Branson now suffer from, for example? (See: http://www.mutualofamerica.com/articles/Fortune/September03/fortune.asp )

Congratulation on your son's graduation, though! Nursing school is a good illustration of the problem I am concerned with -- nurses with a history of dyslexia often face tremendous barriers and employment discrimination because because of misinformation about dyslexia. Try Googling "employment discrimination nursing dyslexia" and you'll see what I mean I'm sure you wouldn't want your son to face that barrier because someone misreads a wikipedia article and assumes (wrongly) that he can't possibly be trusted to read or write down numbers correctly. Armarshall 20:56, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

You do realize, I hope, that I have no desire to insist on including information that is either incorrect or misleading in any way. I'm looking at this exchange as collaborative problem solving, and I hope you are, too!

You said:

"Almost everything you cited includes the qualification of a second sentence or clause making it clear that dyslexics can approach learning in different ways and be successful -- that is the part that is missing in the original quote."

Actually, the 2nd sentence has been there since I added the material originally on August 17. The original text I added that day is as follows:

Dyslexia is a lifelong disorder, and its persistence across the lifespan is a distinguishing characteristic. Although there is no cure for dyslexia, appropriate remedial treatment and compensatory strategies can mitigate its effects.

I'm sure the text could be wordsmithed to be better, but the original intent was to convey: 1) the effects of dyslexia persist across the lifespan 2) but things can be done to reduce its effects to a greater or lesser extent.

I don't object to using the word "condition" instead of "disorder".

I just found a description of the "persistent" aspect that might help clarify the reference. It's from a quote of Sally Shaywitz, found a wEbMD article (http://www.webmd.com/news/20000107/dyslexia-is-forever):

"The belief that children with dyslexia will eventually outgrow it is simply not true," says lead author Sally E. Shaywitz, MD, of Yale University. Shaywitz tells WebMD that while many bright young adults with dyslexia learn to read words accurately, they remain slow readers for a reason. "The same phonological deficit responsible for initial reading difficulties remains and accounts for persistent problems," Shaywitz tells WebMD. In other words, children who were diagnosed as dyslexic early in their school careers were still dyslexic later on, even though they may have learned to overcome it to some degree."

The "distinguishing characteristic" phrase is actually pretty straightforward. Put another way, one characteristic that distinguishes dyslexia from other reading disorders is its persistence across the lifespan. For example, reading difficulties caused by poor or inadequate reading instruction can be more or less fully remediated -- that is, once appropriate reading instruction is provided and the individual learns to read, the reading disorder no longer exists. A dyslexic doesn't stop being dyslexic when he or she learns to read and write -- there will still be some effects of the dyslexia.

Can we figure out where we are in agreement at this point? I'd like to take a shot at revising the paragraph .....

As for dyslexia and nurses, I don't mean to be flip, and discrimination is never OK, but concern about the possibility of increased mistakes is not necessarily misplaced. This is something that my son and I have talked about, in fact. Consider the difference between adding 1 cc or .1 cc of some medication to an IV drip. A subtle difference in the orthography, but an order of magnitude of difference in how much medicine is administered. Consider, too, how many people die every year because of illegible doctor's orders (it's a lot!). Computerized doctor's orders has improved that situation immensely. I don't know what the solution is for nurses, but not considering the possibility of increased error rates would be irresponsible. (Though hospitals are horrifyingly error prone in every respect -- don't even get me started.)

Best,

Rosmoran 02:43, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

OK.. let me see if I can clarify things. I really didn't notice when this section was first added -- what brought my attention to it was some interference/editing by someone else, which was obviously inappropriate in terms of wikipedia standard.

But I am not happy with language, "compensatory strategies can mitigate its effects" - because I think that, on an individual basis, many dyslexics do far more than "mitigate". "Mitigate" implies that there has bee partial improvement in a give skill, but the dyslexic can never become as good as the nondyslexic -- but researchers who look at adult dyslexics don't report that pattern -- instead they report people being all over the map; many adult dyslexics score better on tests of reading ability than nondyslexics.

Would you be ok with changing "disorder" to "condition" and "mitigate" to "mitigate or overcome"? Armarshall 10:36, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Absolutely.

I think you have valid concerns about the first sentence, too. Can we work together to address those? I think the information is important to convey, but it sounds like the sentence does not convey what was intended.

Rosmoran 15:55, 13 October 2007 (UTC)

Hi all

I have been having a few stress related problems, and my arms are not recovering from my accident back in May as well as they should be. Hopefully some of these issues will be resolved and i can spend more time help out here. I came across this web site just recently ands it ralates to Dyslexia Research definition used by the National Institutes of Health, and was wondering if this would be useful for you. http://www.dys-add.com/define.html In the UK, two points of interest, the UK Medical Research Council has indicated that it will be making a formal announcement regarding its APD research over the last 3 years, and this may include the findings of Peer reviewed project researching possible links between APD and dyslexia. It would appear that the projects results are already in as a recent dyslexia degree course at a leading Uk university stated that 70& of dyslexics have APD as the main underlying cause. The announcements are due either just before Xmas or in the new Year, there would appear to be a package of research results to be announced.

best wishes

dolfrog 08:07, 28 October 2007 (UTC)

section on controversy

I think that the criticism of what is described in the section on controversy as "Elliott's view" is unneccesary, and also misleading. First, given the overall tone of the article, it really is not necessary to argue against the very small section that presents an alternative view. Second, the Surrey study shows that high IQ poor readers differ from low IQ poor readers in domains that are measured by IQ - vocabulary, abstract reasoning, spatial abilities, which is what would be expected by definition as the two groups differ on IQ, so this does not actually refute the argument made by Elliot (and many other researchers). I recommend simply taking the last paragraph out, as it adds little --Vannin 02:27, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

I don't see how you can characterize the Surrey study that way -- did you read the actual study? Maybe I did a bad job of summarizing it; if so, obviously that can be improved. Armarshall 04:53, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

The key point is that the paragraph is unnecessary. You have the whole article to make your point about dyslexia, and then a very, very small section on controversy. Why not just let each piece stand? By arguing against the alternative view presented in controversy, it makes the whole article seem to be trying to push a particular point of view and then the reader may start to wonder why - is someone pushing a particular point of view for commercial or other reasons? I haven't of course, read the study, as it is not yet in print, but am going by your write up and the abstract. You indicate that the group classed with dyslexia differs from those with poor reading, who presumably if they have not been classed as having dyslexia are more likely to have lower IQ and thus will be definition score lower on the factors associated with higher IQ such as the spatial abilities. This finding is consistent of course with other research by people such as Hoskyn and Swanson (2000) and Steubing et al (2002), and does not controvert the arguments made by Elliot. I repeat again, putting the section in makes the article start to look petty.--Vannin 15:59, 23 October 2007 (UTC)

OK, I disagree with you, I don't think the whole dyslexia piece is and argument -- there is a point raised in the "controversy" section by one person (Eliot) who says, in essence, that children with dyslexia should be remediated in the same manner as children who are poor readers but who do not have dyslexia; and then there is a recent, contemporaneous study that says that children with dyslexia have very distinguishable learning characteristics from other SPED children, and that these should be taken into account in crafting a plan of remediation. So it is directly on point to the Eliot issue, and I don't think that issue is really dealt with elsewhere in the article.

The study by Everatt that was cited was published online 4 months ago; I realize that it costs $25 to download it from the web site and you may not want to invest that -- but if you are interested in obtaining it all you would have to do is email the researcher. When I have a chance I'll see if I can clean up the writing to make the relevance of the article more clear. Armarshall 03:30, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

Elliot appears to be making a number of points and this study does not refute them. It does not addreess his point about early screening and intervention for all, for example. Nor does it show that there is differential response to instruction between the groups. It does show that one group has skills associated with higher IQ. It is to be assumed, although this does not appear to be demonstrated in this particular study, that this allows that group to compensate for their other difficulties. You may want to move the study somewhere else because it is not serving your purpose very well here, and even begins to look like support for Elliot's position (and by the way, using the approach he is advocating would in fact strengthen the argument for dyslexia in that the group that remained struggling after proper early intervention was used would likely be the ones with more severe problems that would then be obvious to all)--Vannin 16:47, 24 October 2007 (UTC)

I revised the paragraph about the Everatt study to clarify its relevance to the issues raised by Elliot. 05:39, 26 October 2007 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Armarshall (talk • contribs)

I have just sought out and read this article on Dyslexia with a view to learning about both perspectives that are held in current opinion in regard to this controversy as to whether Dyslexia exists as a real condition, and I have to say I agree with Vannin that the section on controversy seems overly weighted against the countercase exemplified by Elliott. I do not know enough about the subject to have established an opinion; that is why I came here to read and learn. And as like Vannin says, the whole long article is given to describing Dyslexia in detail under the implicit assumption that it exists, and yet the small paragraph which contains a possible alternative viewpoint contains immediate criticism and counter-argument against it. I think this leads to the impression that the whole article is pushing a particular viewpoint, and is not neutral. I think this section should just state the claims made by Elliott, with relevant references, and let it represent the alternative viewpoint that the whole article needs to appear neutral. kevoreilly 17.57, 13 March 2008 —Preceding comment was added at 18:02, 13 March 2008 (UTC)

To dyslexics and those that know them well it is obvious that dyslexia exists, they can usually tell that people are dyslexic; in a similar way to being able to recognise women/men, homosexual/heterosexual, black/white, blind/sighted, pious X/pious Y. It has gone beyond definition to become an identity, as such when it is questioned it raises strong emotions.

"(and by the way, using the approach he is advocating would in fact strengthen the argument for dyslexia in that the group that remained struggling after proper early intervention was used would likely be the ones with more severe problems that would then be obvious to all)"

I think you would find that this isn't ethical (as the interventions dyslexics receive have been shown to work and dyslexia can be predicted before formal literacy education), unless you are talking about giving the interventions dyslexics receive to all the children. My interest in education, has led me to become very interested in developmental approaches such as Montessori.

Regarding the nature of dyslexia the fact it frequently occurs with so many other developmental disorders to me makes it part of a bigger picture. I have read research stating dyslexics have different finger length ratios and show delayed development. In my own school the least coordinated three where all dyslexic.

Charleskenyon (talk) 02:14, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

Prof Julian Elliot is only reflecting the opinions of a growing number of dyslexia researchers, in that dyslexia is a symptom of a range of neurological or cognative problems. Each dyslexic may have one or more of these cognative or neurologicla problems which cause them to have the dyslexic symptom or havew problems accesing the written word or your cultures version of the visual notion of speech. What Elliot and others are saying is that there is no single condition called dyslexia, but a common shared symptom of dyslexia which can be caused by a range of different issues. Most of ther peer reviewed dyslexia research discusses the visual, auditory, anjd attention neurological problems (disorders or disabilities) which cause the dyslexic symptom, but most seem want to do the impossible to indentify and define a single condition called dyslexia. And this is reflected in the condition of these WIKI page, all of the underlying cuses are considered to be symptoms of dyslexia or related disabilities, when really it is the other way around, dyslexia is the symptom of many of these so called relasted issues, or a shared symptom of these underlying neurologicla causes. the dyslexia industry, those who sell remedial and support programs, books, etc about dyslexia promote the theories or defintion of dyslexia which buest suites their product, such as Davis, Orton Gilligham, Barton, Dore, BDA, to name but a few. The problem is that because there are many causes of dyslexia these support poducts do not work for all dyslexics, but the sales pitch or marketing tends to be louder than the real peer reviewed scientific research and it is dyslexics who suffer due to these confused messages about dyslexia and wondering who to believe.

dolfrog (talk) 12:25, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Redundancy in treatment section

removed some redundancy in the section on treatments. These treatments are more appropriately discussed in the pages on treatment.--Vannin 02:29, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I disagree with your view of these as "redundant" if discussed on a different page -- it is appropriate to have a brief mention of the more widespread/well-known approaches along with the link. I do not think you should force readers who want general information (perhaps to print out) to have to follow all the links. Armarshall 05:02, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

I'd add that if you wish to participate in major or ongoing edits to this page, it would be a good idea to sign on to the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Dyslexia -- because this page is a collaborative effort, major changes should really be discussed with other project team members. Armarshall 05:06, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Interesting revert. Why would you be so defensive about removing the Davis Dyslexia Correction approach? It almost makes me think that there is a financial involvement, somewhere, but that would be a conflict of interest, and if there was a conflict, I'm sure you would choose not to edit on this topic. I did put this in the discussion page, so am trying to be collaborative. I don't think that these commercial approaches need to be included. They really are not mainstream, and are not even mentioned in textbooks on the topic. --Vannin 06:15, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

All of the methods listed in that paragraph are used very widely. It doesn't matter whether they are "commercial" or not - Microsoft Windows is a commercial product, but if you had an article on computer operating systems, you couldn't ignore it and write solely about the open source Linux. The issue is what are common methods used to treat dyslexia - if you want to note that some of the methods are commercial, that might be appropriate -- but bear in mind that the Davis program itself is not wholly commercial, although Dore may be. (See, for example, the media report here about a public school in the US which utilizes Davis: http://www.denverpost.com/ci_6966916 ) The others mentioned - (Auditory integration training, Neurofeedback, etc.) are generic categories, which may or may not be offered commercially.

Also, you deleted material before adding to discussion; the normal protocol for a major change (especially a deletion vs. an addition) would be to discuss first, delete later. Finally, I'd note that your deletion would force readers to a page that has been criticized as a WP:POVFORK - Alternative_therapy_(disability) - so again there is a concern that deletion creates a POV problem. Armarshall 06:59, 5 November 2007 (UTC)

Removing inappropriate links

How about we start by removing the links to commercial sites. This would include:

• Answers to Frequently Asked Questions
• Davis Dyslexia Association International (DDAI)
• Dyslexia International - Tools and Technologies (DITT)
• The abc - de Haan method

--Vannin 02:47, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

I placed this proposal on the WikiProject Dyslexia paged in the list of issues on which we need to build consensus.

I encourage you to join the project by signing up as an editor! There's a list of participants right there on the top level page.

You are welcome despite the COI issue.

Best, Rosmoran 09:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Comment regarding external links

I concur with the editor who noted that the list of external links is too long for such a well-referenced article. I also think that the list of references is unnecessarily long and contains many redundancies.

There is a child Wikiproject --- WikiProject Dyslexia where we are planning and coordinating breaking this article up into a series of articles. It may be easiest to address these kinds of issues as part of the process of turning the article into a series.

I encourage interested editors to join us in this effort!

Best,

Rosmoran 09:55, 6 November 2007 (UTC)

Time to remove non-standard therapies?

I've recently come back to see what's happening in the English Wikipedia, and to my surprise the whole Davis Dyslexia Correction article has been deleted (see deletion log). It was due to a conflict of interest, people promoting their product in Wikipedia, and due to insignificance of the therapy as a recognised intervention. I think, after all the previous struggle, it's now time to try and remove all non-standard Dyslexia treatments from this page. They will instead be included in Alternative therapies for developmental and learning disabilities. The Dore Treatment, Fast ForWord (misspelled as Fast Forward), AIT, these are trying to look like scientific interventions, but they are not endorsed by scholars. If others agree, they could be deleted anytime, if not, I'll come back once I've added them in the alternative approaches article (I'm currently using Gavin Reid's Dyslexia - a Complete Guide for Parents as a source). Piechjo 19:58, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

The actual address is List of alternative therapies for developmental and learning disabilities. I'll be adding more information on the page this week. Piechjo 20:41, 2 December 2007 (UTC)

No reply so far. I don't see any reason why they should be there in the first place, so I'll delete them this weekend. This article is on dyslexia, not CAM. NLP has already been taken away, the Davis Dyslexia article doesn't exist anymore and there's no reason to keep another three or four random controversial therapies as there are a hundred others available, many of them more common than the ones mentioned. Piechjo (talk) 14:07, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

That sounds good, Piechjo, thanks--Vannin (talk) 15:03, 7 December 2007 (UTC)

Done, thank you very much! Piechjo (talk) 17:06, 8 December 2007 (UTC)

Thank you for doing this!!! I've been wanting to delete these gone a very long time ..... Rosmoran (talk) 06:00, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

2 sentences in lead section

Hi,

There are a couple of sentences in the lead section that I think should be moved because they emphasize stereotypical traits (reversing/transposing letters) that helps fuel misunderstanding in the general public and oversimplifies the breadth of skills/abilities that are impacted. Here are the sentences:

they may also reverse or transpose letters when writing or confuse letters such as b, d, p, q, especially in childhood. However, dyslexia is not a visual problem that involves reading letters or words backwards or upside down, nor are such reversals a defining characteristic of dyslexia. People with dyslexia usually mix up the letters B and D.

I don't think the information should necessarily be deleted. I'd just prefer that the article not lead with that information.

Does anyone else think that this information may be misplaced?

Rosmoran (talk) 06:17, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

I suppose it's fine to move it. There's a long tradition of researching reversals because (as far as I remember) Samuel Orton had a hypothesis that dyslexia is related to left-handedness and mirror-writing. This hypothesis is of course outdated although dyslexics and their teachers report a confusion of d's and b's etc. But recent research has been concentrated in other issues that might be worth mentioning before this. Piechjo (talk) 12:06, 12 December 2007 (UTC)

There's no question that many dyslexics reverse b's and d's, also p's and q's, and it's not uncommon for a dyslexic to have difficulty distinguishing among all 4.

Part of what is misleading about the sentences in question is that many typically developing young readers reverse b and d, so the symptom doesn't really become more meaningful as a symptom specific to dyslexia until after the age of 7 or 8. My thinking is that this detail could be explained easily, but that that shouldn't be done in the lead section. Rosmoran (talk) 00:07, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I agree, you could move it. Piechjo (talk) 11:56, 16 December 2007 (UTC)

Dolfrog's Absence - recommended research report

Hi all

I have been overtaken by APD related events in the UK, and I have not had the time i would like to be here more often, But I have come across an UK academic review of dyslexia carried out for a UK Government sponsored literacy program 2004. The full report is some 177 pages, but much of the interesting information is contained in pages 13 - 89, there is a full set of references pages 89 - 133 and some interesting appendices the link to this article is http://www.nrdc.org.uk/publications_details.asp?ID=11 and you need to download the "Developmental dyslexia in adults:a research review - Report" (1047kb) best wishes

dolfrog (talk) 17:40, 11 December 2007 (UTC)

Hi all

things just became more complicated, since I posted the above message, I have been running APDUK on my own as on a temporary basis, while others have had to take unforeseen emergency breaks from running APDUK on a day to day basis, which has been further complicated by an article about APD in the London based Times newspaper which gave the APDUK web site as the source of further information. So the telephone helpline traffic trebled and the email requests for information have gone through the roof. I may get some free time soon lol

best wishes

dolfrog (talk) 16:07, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Why Dyslexics Make Great Entrepreneurs

I am not a regular editor for this article so, rather than fiddle with it, I wanted to suggest a recent article in BusinessWeek "Why Dyslexics Make Great Entrepreneurs". It has some interesting facts, like how 35% of entrepreneurs in the U.S. show signs of dyslexia, and how coping skills enable dyslexics to excel as businesspeople. Here is the link: http://www.businessweek.com/bwdaily/dnflash/content/dec2007/db20071212_539295.htm Mdlawmba (talk) 04:31, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

Great link, thanks. It's still on a pretty hypothetical level, though. There have been many ideas about dyslexics, and I think it's best to wait for solid research findings before adding them in the article. Piechjo (talk) 18:00, 14 December 2007 (UTC)

I'm writing in 'controversy' talk topic, but here's some entrepreneur-related links:

http://money.cnn.com/magazines/fortune/fortune_archive/2002/05/13/322876/index.htm

http://www.charlierose.com/shows/2002/05/08/3/a-panel-discussion-about-dyslexia%0A

http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=17611066 a Radio Broadcast, for if u b not into reedin'

http://www.cass.city.ac.uk/media/stories/story_8_45816_44300.html

So there's 1.Sally Shaywitz of Yale and 2. Julie Logan of London's Cass School of Business

I'm not sure I agree with the "best to wait" plan, because the content of this page will effect peoples lives, and at least the suggestions can be made in whatever kind of minimalist factual way.--78.86.146.148 (talk) 02:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Recent revision of dyslexia subtypes section

Hi,

It looks like the new information comes from a single study/source. It is generally preferred to use multiple sources for a section so that it clearly represents a view commonly held by many experts in the field. Likewise, it's a good idea to avoid significant quoting from a single source.

It looks like the core information is good --- could you find a couple of additional sources for the information?

(Welcome to Wikipedia, by the way! If you need help, there are lots of friendly folks who would be happy to oblige.)

Rosmoran (talk) 02:09, 17 December 2007 (UTC)

Conversion Reaction Syndrome information

Hi, folks.

The references for this information are all quite old --- the most recent is 1977. I don't see it in current information and research about dyslexia --- and I've been specifically looking for it.

A couple of the references I have found refer back to this Wikipedia dyslexia article! (e.g., http://kenoath.wordpress.com/2008/01/30/cant-talk-about-it-cant-think-about-it/ and http://www.timesdaily.com/apps/pbcs.dll/section?category=NEWS&template=wiki&text=Dyslexia )

A 1999 article in the Journal of Literacy Research references the term, but as a joke: (http://findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_qa3785/is_199903/ai_n8834969/pg_13)

Many NRC members may not recall a feature added in 1977 probably unique to our association. This feature was titled "Sourdough;' named of ter the bread. The feature was designed to highlight "delightful, acerbic, toothy, and pungent comments on ideas and materials of interest to reading people" (Kingston & Lovelace,1977, p. 65). Curmudgeons were especially welcomed to apply, and indeed they did. One of the first contributions, for example, was by Tony Manzo, who argued that "dyslexia" could better be known in the literature as "hysteria conversion" or "conversion reaction syndrome" in a humorous takeoff on the use of the term (1977, vol. 9 [3], p. 306).

Before I delete the information, I'd like to give folks a chance to object.

Best to all,

Rosmoran (talk) 23:28, 1 February 2008 (UTC)

No one has objected to the removal of this information, and no one has provided more recent sources. At best, it is an outdated theory that researchers in the field of dyslexia are no longer discussing.

Therefore, I'm deleting the material.

Best,

Rosmoran (talk) 23:36, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Major cleanup needed

This is obviously an important and high-profile article and as such needs far higher standards in terms of the relevancy of content. There is serious confusion within this article's discussion of the observable characteristics of the condition. I have removed the worst section ("Characteristics - General") as it seems to say everything and nothing at all. It is a mish-mash of behaviors that could be observed in almost anyone with or without the condition and furthermore it confuses the characteristics of the condition (e.g. "reading numbers jumbled up") with possible consequences of living with the condition (e.g. "feeling unintelligent and having low self-esteem"). Furthermore, none of these symptoms are sourced and the text is riddled with weasel words (e.g. "may exhibit" etc.).

Please do not re-add this section or content like it without sourcing each example. Furthermore, when dealing with symptoms be very careful to explicitly qualify what are characteristics of the condition and what are consequences of dealing with being dyslexic. Personally I don't think the consequences side of it has a place in an encyclopedia but I suppose it's open for debate. This whole article needs a thorough clean-up but this was the most deleterious section. There is a confusion within the article between dyslexia and other (possibly related but not synonymous) speech/reading/learning conditions. If this represents a diversity of thought regarding the condition then this needs to be presented as such. If not then the extraneous content needs to be removed. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.94.170 (talk) 23:54, 22 February 2008 (UTC)

I think that most of the editors who have worked on this article in the last year would agree that it needs serious work. It does seem to be a controversial topic with many opinions and issues to be worked through.

We created a Dyslexia mini-project -- Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia -- in the fall. There was a bit of controversy toward the end of 2007 that included conflicts of interest, so work on the mini-project paused for a bit.

A number of us worked on a proposed revision of the article into a series of articles, with the top level article written in Wikipedia:Summary style. Take a look at the project page for the proposal --- all feedback welcome.

I'd very much like for interested parties to begin work on this again. Please join us if you'd like to collaborate.

Rosmoran (talk) 08:24, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the feedback, I'll take a look at the wikiproject. I'm not really sure I know enough about the subject to be of much use though... It is a subject that interests me, however, so I will bear in mind this article as I continue reading around the area. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 81.133.94.170 (talk) 15:34, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Having a collaborator who's interested in the topic but sufficiently uninformed to be completely non-partisan could be very helpful.  :-)

Best, Rosmoran (talk) 22:52, 23 February 2008 (UTC)

Removed sentence regarding speed/distance

I removed the following sentence from the lead section:

There is also a change in judging speed and distance.

There isn't a problem with the information (although we might want to rephrase it), but it doesn't belong in the lead section.

Anyone have suggestions for where this might be best placed?

Rosmoran (talk) 05:44, 27 February 2008 (UTC)

Learning disability or learning difficulty

Hi,

I reverted the change of the term "learning disability" (it was changed to "learning difficulty," and I reverted it). While I understand the desire to avoid labeling a condition as necessarily disabling, in professional circles, dyslexia is most frequently categorized as a learning disability.

International Dyslexia Society -- http://www.interdys.org/FAQ.htm

"Dyslexia is a language-based learning disability."

Federal definition of learning disabilities includes:

"The Federal definition further states that learning disabilities include "such conditions as perceptual disabilities, brain injury, minimal brain dysfunction, dyslexia, and developmental aphasia." "

Schwablearning.org --

"Dyslexia is a specific learning disability that is neurological in origin."

If there is strong disagreement on terminology, let's discuss.

Best,

Rosmoran (talk) 05:42, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Rosmoran, I think that this is a very important issue and affects the definition of dyslexia. There are a variety of definitions of a disability, but I think it is generally seen as something that limits functioning. Thus, if we view dyslexia as being a learning disability, then it really should be something that is limiting academic functioning. So, if someone is able to achieve at high level, say at a college level, although they may have some learning difficulties relative to their performance in other areas, can they really be said to have a disability? What level of performance should it be reasonable to expect people to achieve? For example, is it reasonable for someone wanting to get into med school but only getting high 'B's and 'A-'s to demand that they get accommodations for dyslexia?--Vannin (talk) 23:15, 2 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Vannin. I agree. The word "disability" itself is problematic.

That said, you bring up an interesting perspective that seems to me related to the functional definition of disability. I'm thinking aloud (well, virtually), but see if what I'm saying makes sense:

If I'm in a wheelchair, I'm certainly disabled because my inabilty to walk hinders basic daily living. I can accomplish basic tasks, but it's very difficult and requires some accommodations --- physical changes to my home or car, assistance of another individual, etc. I can do it, but my disability means that daily life tasks require extraordinary effort and/or significant workarounds.

Ditto academic functioning. If I have a reading disability, it certainly hinders my ability to perform academic work. But, there are ways to work around the problem so that I'm capable of performing academically, although it may still be very difficult. I might need books on tape, or for someone to read my assignments to me, need to dictate my essays, etc. I'm "able" to do the work, but still "disabled" because I'm cannot do the work the ways my peers do. It requires extraordinary effort and/or significant workarounds.

I don't think it's reasonable to define ability/disability by a GPA. I may make A's and B's, but who knows what I have to do in order to achieve at that level? If it requires extraordinary effort or significant workarounds to do the required work, I'm still "disabled."

Where it gets really dicey, in my mind anyway, is for a dyslexic who has received some remediation and thus achieved a higher level of functioning. The dyslexia doesn't go away --- there are still symptoms that my peers don't have to deal with, but I have improved my reading skills to some extent and have learned some coping mechanisms to help me work more efficiently. Am I still disabled?

I still have symptoms that hinder my academic performance, and that my competition doesn't have to deal with. Therefore, my contention is, yes, I'm still disabled. I will just require fewer accommodations to perform at my ability level. For example, maybe I no longer need my textbooks on tape, but I can't carry a full time class load. But because my parents' health insurance only applies to me if I'm a full-time student, I need for somebody to affirm that I am going to school full-time, even though I'm not taking a typical class load because of my disability. Likewise, maybe medical school takes me 5 years instead of 4.

Then we have the question of, how do we define "extraordinary effort"?

Thoughts? (Should we be having this conversation on our talk pages?)

Rosmoran (talk) 06:57, 3 March 2008 (UTC)

Hi Vannin and Sami

In the UK we have been introducing some legal support for Disabilities in general under UK Acts of Parliament which then become UK law. In 2005, The UK government passed one of many Disability Discriminations Acts (DDA). In the 2005 DDA all schools are legally required to have a Disability Equality Duty (DED) policy outlining how the school makes provision for all who use the schools facilities and who may have a disability. a summary can be found here http://www.teachingexpertise.com/articles/implementing-the-new-disability-equality-duty-975

So this includes teachers, pupils, parents, school staff and officials, and any outside groups who may hire or access the school facilities. Basically the DDA requires all public service providers to have a DED policy in place. Schools were given extra time to comply due the complexity of the services that they provide. The government provide some outline guidelines and definitions of a disability to comply with the DDA, and dyslexia was included as a disability have a look at http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/wholeschool/sen/disabilityandthedda/istomdisabled/ teachernet.go.uk is the UK Government web site for teachers and there is a whole section of some 10 - 20 web pages on just this topic.

best wishes

dolfrog (talk) 15:59, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Susan Hampshire's books

The British actress Susan Hampshire, who is herself dyslexic and has been active in promoting dyslexia awareness, has published two books on the subject. In addition to her autobiography, Susan’s Story, she's written Every Letter Counts. The latter is collection of interviews with dyslexics (including several celebrities such as Cher, Angharad Rees, Jackie Stewart and Michael Heseltine) describing the problems they met, and how they overcame these. The book also contains appendices with advice and a list of support organisations around the World.

I think these books deserves mention (particularly the latter), because they're potentially helpful to members of the public who stand no chance of ploughing through the research literature; but I'm not sure where they would fit...

Paul Magnussen (talk) 16:54, 19 March 2008 (UTC)

comorbidity with ADHD, fronting of Chinese study

This statement, "However, dyslexia and attention deficit/hyperactivity disorder are not correlated developmental problems.[6]" is false and the cited reference is not up to date. They are highly co-morbid, such that dyslexia researchers often take pains to screen out potential subjects with ADHD.

The fronting of the Hong Kong study assigns too much weight to it and brings the issue of brain bases of dyslexia into the article out of nowhere. there are other studies on interactions between language and the brain bases of dyslexia,including other studies of dyslexia in chinese; the cited one focuses on one finding out of many in this area and reads like the insertion of an arbitrary factoid.

This article seems to be experiencing increasing entropy: it's getting worse not better. It needs a lot of work, to stay up to date with ongoing developments and to present the material in a coherent, non-repetitious, organized way.

Cogneuroman (talk) 13:22, 28 April 2008 (UTC)

Hi, Cogneuroman.

I agree about the Hong Kong study. Putting this information in the "lead" gives it undue weight. There are many imaging studies comparing how dyslexic brains function for different tasks, how that functioning is different in the non-dyslexic brain, etc etc. The information is fine for the article, just not in the lead section.

I also agree about the state of the article.

Are you aware of the Wiki-miniproject dyslexia? The proposed re-organization is at Dyslexia article proposed re-organization.

The plan is to divide the article into several articles, using summary style and a unifying navigation template. We will split up the work among project members, working collaboratively and by consensus. If you're interested, we can certainly make use of additional editors participating.

Best, Rosmoran (talk) 23:44, 4 May 2008 (UTC)

'Spoken' not verbal, please

The partner to written language is spoken language, or even oral language, not verbal language! Macdonald-ross (talk) 17:03, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Differentiating between severities

Parts of the article seem to treat different levels and forms of dyslexia as a single thing in a way which implies all persons suffering from some form of dyslexia to have the most severe symptoms in all areas. An example would be in "Remedial programs and technologies," "There is no cure for dyslexia, but dyslexic individuals can learn to read and write with appropriate education or treatment" which seems to imply a complete inability to read or write among all dyslexics. Though this may just be my reading of the article, and I don't have the necessary knowledge of the field to properly change the article. 82.41.31.24 (talk) 23:37, 21 May 2008 (UTC)

Some of us realised what we were being taught wasn't working, and taught ourselves instead. Not everyone does what teacher says all the time, especially when it clearly isn't working. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.152.167 (talk) 10:24, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

Expansion request for Brain Scan Research section

This section mentions only one scan study. There have actually been many studies using scanning technology, including fMRI and PET scanning. The content of this section should cover a wider sampling of dyslexia studies that have been conducted using this type of technology. Rosmoran (talk) 20:12, 29 May 2008 (UTC)

Hi Sami

I usually discard these research programs because they all seem to come to the same conclusion that those who are dyslexic use different part of the brain when reading, with no real explanation. All that they are demonstrating is that those who are dyslexic have to develop coping strategies using different areas of the brain to work around their information processing deficit that causes them to be dyslexic. There tends to be a new one every six months or so lol. But this Honk Kong research is going a few steps further with some meaningful results. I have a contact who tells me that Honk Kong has gone from say that in Chinese there are no dyslexics to now recognising that the mode of dyslexia can depend on the structure of the langauge, including Chinese. All since 2003 They do not have the baggage of history and politics that we have to contend with. So they started with a clean page have gone for a totally modern scientific research base.

best wishes

dolfrog (talk) 16:33, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

It seems the section heading is inappropriate. If the aim is not to showcase the impact of brain imaging as a method for the study of dyslexia, then the section is not actually about "Research using functional brain scan technology". Why not recast the heading as "Cross-cultural investigations of dyslexia" or "Dyslexia in pictographic languages" or "Dyslexia in non-phonetic writing systems".

I agree there is an important insight made in this recent work: Different neurobiological substrates for disability in language will be observed across systems that differ fundamentally in their computational requirements. Like most good observations (excluding those in the twilight zone of quantum mechanics) it seems obviously true in retrospect. Should we have ever thought otherwise? Well, perhaps. It is not the ordinary pattern of nature that cultural determines the biological manifestation of disease. Further it reminds us not to confuse dyslexia in pictographic and phonetic languages as being the same underlying beast. Although they have a common life consequence and developmental character, their etiologies will be distinct. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 216.15.58.64 (talk) 13:15, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue here is key to waht dyslexia really is. Dyslexia is about having problems with a man made communication system, the visual notation of speech. having problems with a man made communication system can not be defined as a condition or a desease. Dyslexia is only the common symptom of a range of neurlogical or cognative disorders or disabilities, and depending on which cutlure you live in and the format of the visual notation of speech that your culture has adopted will determine which of the underlying causes of dyslexia your culture will highlight most. So in our culture we have a phonetic langauge structure so those who have auditory information processing problems are one of ther largest causes of the dyslexic symptoms, where as in china where thety have a more more character and visual structure to their langauge, so in their culture it is the the more visual processing of information which causes the dyslexic symptom.

So this is key to understanding waht dyslexia is about, and trying to define a global dfointion of dyslexia across all cultures and langauge structures so that we can idientify the real neurological cause of the dyslexic symptom.

dolfrog (talk) 12:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Legal and educational support issues

you need a citation

In the United States, Canada, New Zealand and in the United Kingdom, it has been claimed that there is a lack of adequate support and a general lack of interest in the learning disabilities of children in public schools

you could use a new Uk government report (cross party, members of the review body came from more than the party in government) The BERCOW report, which was basically reviewing the lack of Speech and Langauge support in UK School, but at the same time described the failings of thre whole Special Educational Needs sector of the Uk education system. You will notice that there wee many contributions from parents to this review which is unusual in the Uk for this type of review. have a look at the two reports, one is 3 page summary the other is a long indepth detailed report i forgotten how many pages but I managed toread them all eventually. http://www.dfes.gov.uk/bercowreview/

I hope this helps

best wishes

dolfrog (talk) 16:21, 30 May 2008 (UTC)

Neurodiversity

I am dyslexic & I am thankful that I grew up with an enlightened view about the so-called learning difficulty. I feel very uncomfortable with the way that dyslexia is presented in this article, and think if I believed the tone of what is written here I would have struggled more in life than I have. However, I am not going to edit the article because I think it reflects a consensus (at least the 'western' consensus) of how dyslexia is defined and categorised. It makes me sad, but I can only hope that in the years to come I will see this page change to give what I would see as a more realistic view of the nature of dyslexia.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/dna/h2g2/A489684 This page - particularly the second section (Dyslexia should be seen as a difference in the brain...) - has similarities to my understanding of what dyslexia is.

I think this article should refer to the concept of neurodiversity and be more clear that there are different ways that individuals define dyslexia, from personal experience, and often without reference to 'medical models'. --78.86.146.148 (talk) 03:04, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

Dyslexia as a positive is covered in this e-book on page 8. http://changethis.com/45.02.FreakFactor79.70.171.169 (talk) 23:36, 30 June 2008 (UTC)

Geographical viewpoint

This article is quite US and UK -centric and I think their should be some attempt to give a more rounded world view. --78.86.146.148 (talk) 03:39, 20 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree, dyslexia is about having problems processing a secondary man made communication system, the visual notation of speech, which takes the form of written language. Those who have problems with processing written language are termed dyslexic and the causes of these problems will vary according to the structure of both the auditory language, and type and structure of the visual notation of each auditory language. Language varies in nature from dialect to dialect and from country to country. Most of the research provided for this article originates from the USA and UK, with some coming from continental Europe as well. So those who life in other countries need to source dyslexia research from their own and nieghbouring countries so that it can be included in this attempt to describe and define dyslexia and its underlying causes.

best wishes

dolfrog (talk) 16:57, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Biological causes/symptoms

In a few areas of the article there are suggestions that since there seem to be biological differences in the brains of dyslexic people compared to controls that there is 'evidence' that at least for some people dyslexia is caused by biological differences. This has not been proven by the provided references. It can not be ruled out that dyslexia causes these differences. In this realm I think it important to specify whether acquired dyslexia or developmental dyslexia is being discussed.

I also wonder whether the section "thoughts from a sufferer" lends dignity to the article.

Nina137.111.47.210 (talk) 07:31, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

-Though I cannot site sources, I can say that such sources do exist. For the record, you have it backwards- differences in the brain cause dyslexia, though these differences are not physical as such. The brain is not so much deformed as a part of it is not being utilized that should be utilized, this part playing a major part in reading. Some dyslexics do have slightly different brains, however, the problem still lies in a section not being utilized, and both can be cured with tutoring in almost all situations. (Note, the major difference between a dyslexic and non-dyslexic brain is that one section of the dyslexic brain is not used when reading, this has been confirmed via functional MRI, thus there is a tangible difference). I'd love to be able to provide the sources, but as they are simply details gathered from discussions from a professional dyslexia tutor, I cannot. I'm not asking you to add anything without sources, but be aware that they do exist.65.4.218.107 (talk) 20:07, 30 August 2008 (UTC)

I would go along with dyslexia is the result of developmental difference due to biology.

I dislike 'should' in 'The brain is not so much deformed as a part of it is not being utilized that should be utilized' and from what I have read high functioning 'dyslexics' still have atypical MRI scans so their is no 'cure'. Tutoring results in improved performance, but 'dyslexic' features remain: coding, irregular words etc.

Feldenkrais: Body & Mature Behavior 1949 reprint 2005 p198 "The weakness of instinctive patterns of doing in man, and the long period of growth of the voluntary innervations, are mostly responsible for the infinite variety of ways of doing of the most fundermental and the most simple acts. Learning becomes the greatest and, indeed, the unique feature distinguishing man from the rest of the living universe."

My gut opinion 'dyslexia' is a genetic variation from the typical path of cognitive development and like just about all genetic variations their are degrees of expression. It results in flimsy instinctive skill acquisition, but eventually in typically more curious nature and visio-spatial/synthesising abilities. Most skills can be learnt and indeed I read a great deal and even quickly. But according to what I have read even 'highly functioning' dyslexics have problems with coding length, I would also be interested if there are adult dyslexics who are good at Boogle/Scrabble/'Countdown word games' and the approach that they used to learn.

Hope a different name (perhaps something like Fantasia) would be appropriate because teaching would have improved to the point where dyslexica is no longer an appropriate.

Charleskenyon (talk) 03:21, 5 September 2008 (UTC)

The point that I am making is about inference versus causation. Ninahexan (talk) 04:15, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Dyslexia is a man made problem, which has many neurological causes. Dyslexia is about haveing problems processing the man made visual notation of speech, and the main causes vary from language to language depending on the structure and format of the visual notation of speech adopted by each culture.

The neurological or biological problems that cause the dyslexic symptoms existed before man created any for of visual notation of speech, which only act to identify the existance of these neurological differences, or strengths and weaknesses. Dyslexia can be causes by various combinations of a lack of sensory and motor information processing skills due to neurological skill weaknesses, which can be sometimes balanced by strengths in other neurological skill areas to work around an information processing weakness.

best wishes

dolfrog (talk) 17:07, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Exaggereation

Do people with dylexia over exaggerate to sound impressive? I know this seems a little blunt and I question myself about really putting it on here but a few people I've met who have dyslexia tend to exaggerate with people - to the point where you can really tell. For example I had one telling me he had 7 Xbox360's and 4 Playstations, whereas another told me he'd been to the Beijing olympic games in January. Lord of Moria (Avicenna) _Talk ^Contribs 17:54, 17 August 2008 (UTC)

Biased Article

I doubt that this will change, but the balance of this very long article which largely makes unquestioned assertions about the nature of Dyslexia, appears to me to be overwhelmingly that the condition is a discrete, measurable and treatable disorder of probable neurological causation. The tiny section on 'Controversy' suggests that the only questioning of the concept comes from Julian Elliot. But unlike the rest of the article where highly questionable assertions are unchallenged*, someone has immediately cited a piece of research by John Everatt and colleagues purporting to show that Elliot is wrong. The overall impression from the article is that the term is 'nailed on' and that any questioning of the fundamental existence of a discrete entity is therefore to be seen as coming from a lunatic fringe. This does not give a realistic representation of considered views on the subject- Elliot's views are not fringe- they reflected the view of the British Psychological Society's Division of educational and child psychology (DECP(1999) Dyslexia, Literacy and Phonological Assessment- report of the working party) which says that dyslexia refers to difficulties of learning at the 'word level' where the problem is severe and persistent. This definition does not discriminate between dyslexics and others who have reading difficulties- it includes all- therefore dyslexia is simply severe and persistent reading difficulty.

• For example the section on results of Brain scanning with MRI/PET etc. This work is interesting but it would be expected to see some similarities in people who have problems reading. This does not 'prove' that their brains are different (e.g. they were born that way). Brains develop their neural pathways largely in accordance with experience (what we call learning) the whole structure of the brain is therefore dependent on interaction of the person with their environment. Those who have difficulty in learning are likely to have a deal of similar interactions with their environments so so the fact that they show some similarities of functioning in imaging studies shouldn't be a surprise. The problem with all these studies is that they are looking for the similarities- they seldom report on the differences because they're not looking for them. The reason that they are given so much public weight is because they have great face validity and use state of the art technology. But in scientific terms both of these should be treated with skepticism. Readers are recommended to read Stephen Rose "21st Century Brain" to understand such limitations Hugh Williams 26 September 2008 —Preceding undated comment was added at 13:27, 26 September 2008 (UTC).

Julian Elliot is correct in most of what he says, and represents the views and ideas of many dyslexia researchers the problem is the politics of the all powerful dyslexia industry, which have a range of products (programs and fund raising issues based on the concepts of dyslexia based on the research of the late Twentieth Century. To take on board ther more recent research would require too much of a fundamental change in their selling of the concept of dyslexia to maintain their livelihoods.

Dyslexics can no longer provide a free lunch for the dyslexia industry we need have our needs met, and and real understanding of the issues that affect our daily lives.

best wishes dolfrog (talk) 17:15, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Disability?

The article currently seems very keen on the notion that dyslexa is a disability. Thre are immediate problems with this view:

• Although many dyslexics have poor written skills, some have well above average skills
• Many dyslexics have done very well academically once they adopted a different reading learning approach to the one they were taught in school
• There are known aspects of dyslexia that either are an increase in skills, or indicate them, such as ambidextrousness, entrepreneurship, creativity, etc

In short I don't think the description of dyslexia as simply a learning disability is really a realistic view. Its one well known view, but given that its a view with real issues, a fuller and more truthful presentation of the views would really benefit the article imho. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.4.152.167 (talk) 10:13, 19 October 2008 (UTC)

The real problem is the many dyslexic do not like to admit that they have a disability which causes them to display the dyslexic symptoms. many of the underlying neurological cause of dyslexia are disabilities in their own right, and dyslexia is only one symptom of their disability. Yes many dyslexics can develop unconsciously coping strategies to conceal their underlying information processing weaknesses or disabilities but these coping strategies do not work under stress, and can fail during ill health. these neurological deficits do not go away, we just become better at working around them on good days, but on bad days these deficits of disabilities surface again to become a real problem. This can happen as part of the ageing process in adult life and for some women during the menopause.

best wishes

dolfrog (talk) 17:29, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Check out The Gift of Dyslexia by Ron Davis, an excellent and different perspective and theory on the dyslexic condition written by a dyslexic person. He suggests that it affects much more than just reading and has built a program to help people correct it when necessary but utilize it when possible. There's also a website at Davis Dyslexia CliffyQS (talk) 16:54, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

The idea that dyslexia is a problem or a disorder or a disease is patiently ridiculous. To really appreciate problems and disorders one should consider the human condition as a whole. In this way we can see thought processes as a spectrum with two extremes. I use the terms linear and nonlinear thinking to represent the extremes of this spectrum. Dyslexic people typically fall at the nonlinear end, and this probably also including others not so defined. At the other end we have normality, high literacy, recitation, drilling, etc., all associated with linearity.

Many social problems, recurrent calamities, and disasters such as war, economic cycles, etc. are a direct consequence of blind linearity. Nonlinear thinking is essential to avoid and navigate such problems.

Was world War I more of a problem than pacifism? Albert Einstein, a dyslexic person, was a pacifists. As human beings we all have abilities an disabilities, few of us can get along without a lot of help. It will work out better if we tackle the problem together.

My argument will of course be controversial. I would be interested in literary sources, theories, etc, that share this view. My own justification would probably be based on cybernetic or systems theory thinking. Thaeick (talk) 16:24, 20 April 2009 (UTC)

Diagnosis of Dyslexics

Please add content or resources which help people diagnose dyslexics.

This should come on the top of the article to facilitate use my novices and people with little knowledge of dyslexics.

Thank You.

~~

The real problem is to diagnose the real neurological causes of the dyslexic symptoms. Which will vary according which sensory or motor information processing deficit cause your dyslexic symptoms. So there would need to be Multi- discipline diagnostic team. Including an Audiologist, an Opthalmic Optician, Speech and Language Pathologist, and a Psychologist, just to name a few.

So thee is no one profession who can really diagnose the underlying cause of the dyslexic symptoms.

best wishes

dolfrog (talk) 17:22, 13 January 2009 (UTC)

Legal and Educational Support Issues

I would appreciate it if the following article was put at the bottom of the above subsection on the Dyslexia page:

In Scotland, David Ballantine a member of the cross party group on dyslexia put forward a petition through the Scottish Parliament Petitions Website. The petition called:

"On the Scottish Parliament to urge the Scottish Government to consider the need for legislation to provide a standardised assessment of all schoolchildren by the age of 8 which will inform parents, pupils and educators as to whether the pupil is at risk of developing a specific learning difficulty."

The petition was contrary to the other view that children should not be identified with dyslexia as it was felt that a significant proportion of these children who were dyslexic and not identified did not have appropriate learning strategies in place and that it was the right of the child to know if they had a learning difficulty that would inhibit their education.

The petition runs till the 20th February 2009 and was accepting signatures from all over the world. Scottish Parliament Petitions Website

149.254.218.189 (talk) 20:34, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

British MP calls dyslexia a myth - relevant?

[1]

Worth mentioning, possibly in the controversy section? Alex9788 (talk) 22:14, 14 January 2009 (UTC)

That was the attention-grabbing headline, but the main points he seems to be making are:

• The british education system is failing a significant minority of students when it comes to literacy
• There are financial and academic incentives to achieving certification as a sufferer of dyslexia.
• A 'dyslexia industry' exists.
• British dyslexia rates do not tally with dyslexia rates overseas.Fergie (talk) 07:45, 15 January 2009 (UTC)

This is just one miss informed UK MP trying to make a name for himself, he does not have any backing for his claims he was confusing dyslexia with level of literacy, and has no real understanding of what dyslexia really is. Just a one day headline grabber. The Uk press also has a very poor understanding of waht dyslexia is and beleive almosr anything any one lile to claim about dyslexia to improve their paper sales. A better guide from UK MPs would be to read the Bercow Report

http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/slcnaction/ and

http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/slcnaction/downloads/7771-DCSF-BERCOW.PDF

best wishes

dolfrog (talk) 16:00, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

I agree it was misinformation rather than reasoned criticism, but it might still merit a brief mention - just one sentence maybe as an example of common misunderstandings about dyslexia Hadrian89 (talk) 16:19, 25 January 2009 (UTC)

Visual Alignment

For some dyslexics it is a matter of alignment.

The defaults in the LGN causes for a weak alignment. A reader has a weaker grip on horizontal and vertical lines, detected by peripheral rod-cells of the retina (eye), and processed by the smaller Magnocellular-layers of the LGN (relay system) on to the primary visual cortex (image processing) that has a preference for vertical and horizontal lines.

For an overview please visit the following links to my site:

1. The Retina: Rods and Cones

2. Magno and Parvo in the LGN

3. Visual Grid and the Origin of Ocular Dominance Patterns in V1

4. Different alignment gives a different view

www.sharp-sighted.org

—Preceding unsigned comment added by Michel sharp (talk • contribs) 20:13, 22 February 2009 (UTC)

Typo thing

Difficulties in naming speed exist in conjunction with a phonological deficit, is characterized as double deficit dyslexia Many parents who have dyslexic children will/[23].

...at the end of Dyslexia#Subtypes_of_developmental_dyslexia. Seems off, but I have no idea what it's supposed to mean so I won't fix it. Somebody please correct it.--89.212.75.6 (talk) 22:17, 26 February 2009 (UTC)

Cross Section thingy

OMG, that cross section part; where all it says is that Catherine is researching it; is the funniest thing ive read in a LONG time. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 124.197.39.236 (talk) 21:34, 2 April 2009 (UTC)

Re Cross-Cultural Incidence Rate Comparison

this would be someone adding a topic but not being too sure what it means.

If you look at the wiki entry for Catherine McBride-Chang who was based in Hong Kong http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Catherine_McBride-Chang

you can read Current Research Interests

Her current research interests are social and cognitive development, especially reading_(activity) and vocabulary development,cross-cultural comparisons of incidents of learning disability,and cultural influences on achievement issues. The topics she researches include details of the orthography of written language, and achievement issues. The skills in learning to read are discussed with regard to incidence rates of dyslexia worldwide.

However the recent research mentioned below from Hong Kong University would be more appropriate.

Waht i think is menat by the heading is how dyslexic symptoms can vary betweeen languages and cultures, and that the underlying sensory or motor infoemation processing problems which cause the dyslexic symptoms vary in importance based on the structure of the audioty language and its corresponding visual notation, (which on this web page we use the written word ot text as our common visual notion of speech) Dyslexia is and can only be about having problems with your cultures version of its visual notion of speech. How we learn to cope with the issues that cause these dyslexic symptoms is a seperate set of issues.

best wishes

dolfrog (talk) 23:02, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong Research ref 31

Hi Sami and ARM

The Hong Kong University research link which was posted as reference 31 only lasted for 30 days. The full research paper

A structural–functional basis for dyslexia in the cortex of Chinese readers

by Wai Ting Siok,†‡ Zhendong Niu,§ Zhen Jin,¶ Charles A. Perfetti,‖ and Li Hai Tan†‡††

is now available from

http://www.pubmedcentral.nih.gov/articlerender.fcgi?tool=pubmed&pubmedid=18391194

unfortunately WIKI does not like tinylinks so i can not post the tinyurl for th above link

I have changed the link on the main page, but you may find the full artilce provides more indepth information to pad out the current entry.

best wishes dolfrog (talk) 22:30, 7 May 2009 (UTC)

To add another addition to the long list of issues, the so called sub types of dyslexia as mentioned before. May be with the article above and this one from Germany and Poland, may help to explain things in a more pluasable light. Cognitive subtypes of dyslexia. Heim S, Tschierse J, Amunts K, Wilms M, Vossel S, Willmes K, Grabowska A, Huber W. Research Centre Julich, Institute of Neurosciences and Biophysics, Jülich, Germany. s.heim@fz-juelich.de which can be seen in english at http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/18389017?ordinalpos=20&itool=EntrezSystem2.PEntrez.Pubmed.Pubmed_ResultsPanel.Pubmed_DefaultReportPanel.Pubmed_RVDocSum

I hope the link works or copy and paste "Cognitive subtypes of dyslexia" into the following web pages search option.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/sites/entrez

best wishes

dolfrog (talk) 01:53, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Subtypes of developmental dyslexia

This section is based mainly on a single research program in Australia from 1993 which is almost 15 years ago and most of the content has been overtake by the content of the "Scientific Research" section most of which eminates from this decade. Most of A. Castles current research output is in line with the contents of the "Scienentific Research" section So I will delete the Subtypes section. This section could also be confused with more recent research to define the cognative cause of dyalexia and identifying the sub types of dyslexia based on different congitive caused of the dyslexic symptom.

dolfrog (talk) 19:28, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

Added a reference to the work of Castles etal with referecnes in the History section.

dolfrog (talk) 10:24, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

High Functioning Speech Disorder

High Functioning Speech Disorder does not exist, some one is confusing large dyslexic spectrum with the Autistic spectrumExpecailly the High Functioning end of the Autistic spectrum. So I will deelte that element of the "Variations and related conditions" section.

dolfrog (talk) 20:12, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

references to Speech, hearing, listening relating to dyslexia.

There are many instences in the article mentioning that dyslexics have problems with speech, listening and hearing. Most of these issues are related more specifically to Auditory processing Disoder which is one of many underlying causes of dyslexia.

have a look at this research paper.

Auditory Processing Deficits in Dyslexia: Task or Stimulus Related?

by Karen Banai1,3 and Merav Ahissar2 1 Department of Neurobiology, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91904, Israel, 2 Department of Psychology and Interdisciplinary Center for Neural Computation, Hebrew University of Jerusalem, Jerusalem 91904, Israel, 3 Current address: Department of Communication Sciences and Disorders, Northwestern University, Evanston, IL 60208, USA http://cercor.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/16/12/1718 which is free to download.

I found this article when i was tried to locate the research paper which is used to support Cluttering as a Complex of Learning Disabilities, which sems to be done sometime in the 1970s.

dolfrog (talk) 23:06, 8 May 2009 (UTC)

The examples and perspective in this article may not represent a worldwide view of the subject.

The big problem here are the WIKI rules, regarding all content bein in English, which prevents even links to researchers and their Wiki pages. So how do we link to researchers in France, who have their own WIKU pages but in French. So there is a French WIKI dyslexia web page at

http://fr.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dyslexie

This only highlights the research problems, and if you use one of the web translation services you will alos notice that dyalexia is really langauge dependent as you read the French ideas about dyslexia

One of the researchers mentioned in the History section on this dyslexia web page is French, Clement Launay, and we can not access his WIKI page because it is on the French WIKI serivice which is not in english. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dolfrog (talk • contribs) 00:04, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

How many other language versions of WIKI are there all trying to create their own dyslexia web pages. So this is a WIKI problem and not a problems created by the editors of this particular WIKI dyslexia web page

dolfrog (talk) 23:53, 12 May 2009 (UTC)

Management See also: Dyslexia treatment

If we are to continue to have the See Also link to the Dyslexia Treatment wiki page than that page must be redically revised to include adult dyslexics and the auditory/ phonologicla problkems which can cause dyslexia. Such as the need for whole word teach of reading to match the whole sound learning of speech, which many dyslexic have.

dolfrog (talk) 15:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Legal and educational support issues Section

This section belongs more ina legal WIKI page regarding the UK Disability Discriminition Acts (DDA) and more specifivally the Disability Equality Duty (DED) legal requiremnt of all public service providers as set out in the combined DDAs epsecailly the 2002 and 2005 DDAs.

Very similar to the US IDEA.

Se we could list it on dyslexia program thingy as an related issue. as the IDEA topic and wiki page already is.

Can some one begin to sort this out.

dolfrog (talk) 20:28, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

just added some more See also WIKI pages regatrding Special education structures.

This specific section would appear to highlight a great deal of problems in the existing Wiki pages that try to cover these issues so this couldanother editorial project for another team of editors to manamge amd may be merge some of these Special education WIKI pages.

dolfrog (talk) 14:14, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Dyslexia in literature, film, and television

Removed this section as added a link to the main WIKI page of origin Dyslexia in Fiction to the "Also See" list

dolfrog (talk) 20:49, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

New section: Diagnosis of Dyslexia

The current content of this new section was previously in the "Characteristics" section.

There can be no universal diagnostic test for dyslexia per se, as the structure of each cultures visual notion of speech can vary dramatically from chinese single chatacters, to the complext english phonic based system, with many variations in between.

dolfrog (talk) 22:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Symptoms of Dyslexia was Charactaristics of Dyslexia

Charactaristics implies that thee is a concesus defintion of waht dyalexia is and therefore dyslexia has some predefined traits to match the internationally agreed defintion.

This is not the case so Symptoms is a more suitable titler as it implies the range of problems that those who have dyalexia may have, without limiting those symptoms to just dyslexia. So that researchers are able to define dyalexia when theu have discovered the internationally agreed causes of the dyslexic symptoms.

dolfrog (talk) 13:45, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Defining Dyslexia

"Dyslexia is a non existent learning disability that...."

Surely this is slightly biased - especially in the opening line! Thanks Frognsausage (talk) 17:08, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi Frognsausage

it was a bit of vandalism and not me, I have just undone the vandalism and added an "a" which had been previously been missing. Hadrian89 abd others have been doing a good job undoing the work of the vandals whose aim seems to make a mockery of this WIKI page, so we all have to be keep an eye out for bogus changes made by vandals.

dolfrog (talk) 01:37, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

Piechjo:- Management of Dyslexia is your area of interest

Hi Piechjo, and all

I have not made many changes to the "Mangement of Dyslexia" Section, but it does require a great deal of tiding up to be done, there is much repetition, and some of the references do not make sense. And one of the research programs has a skewed sample population. I have downloaded most of the reference articles and I have also found more related articles which i need to read and absorb.

The other issue is the new wiki page which is part of the dyslexia project "Dyslexia treatment" should that be renamed "Managing Dyslexia" and include much of the information of improved information which is now in the "Management of Dyslexia" section of the main dyslexia wiki page.

waiting your your comments

dolfrog (talk) 03:34, 20 May 2009 (UTC)

language bias

I've raised this topic before but think it worthwhile revisiting it. In professional writing there is a strong preference for referring to "people with disabilities" rather than labelling people by their disabilities - see the APA style recommendations [2]. This may be in contrast to the use of terms used by people within the community who may choose to use a slang term to refer to themselves, while it would be inappropriate for someone outside the group to use the same term. I suggest that we stick to the more professional tone and change the term "dyslexics" to "people with dyslexia". --Vannin (talk) 16:02, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

This is being pedantic, most prefessional researchers refer to those who have dyalexia as dyalexics, as do most who have dyalexia and others who do not have dyalexia. You would appear to be suggesting a form of assumed political correctness, which really has no place in these articles. This could also be a generaltional issue, and most generations would use the word dyalexics rather than the phrase "people who have dyalexia" it also makes the article more difficult to read, especially for dyslexics, and takes up more valuable WIKI space.

dolfrog (talk) 16:36, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Please take another look a the American Psychological style guidelines. They represent the professional standard in the disability community, certainly within North America. We would never for example write "retards" or "cripples" and "dyslexics" is in the same vein. As I said, it is very different for people within a specific community to refer to themselves that way, such as people with Aspergers calling themselves "Aspies". They can do it but I should be more careful. I think wiki space can handle a few extra words. --Vannin (talk) 16:52, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

well fine if you come from the USA, personally I come from the UK, and the word dyalexics is in common use, and as a dyslexic myself I have not bothered with the use of the word to describe meyself, and nor do the great many other dyslexics I know. This is possibly a cultural difference between the USA and the rest of the english speaking world. The US bias was a major problem with this article not so long ago.

dolfrog (talk) 18:13, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

(I'm not actually from the US) but I think that we can write it so we sound professional, and don't offend people on either side of the Atlantic. I'll put the people withs back, then, thanks.--Vannin (talk) 18:41, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Being dyslexic and having real word recall problems, due to Auditory Processing Disoder, could you wait until I have finished my current article review which should be finished in the next few days. Then you can change them all. I just want to finish my contribution to this WIKI page, finding all the supportive research is a long job and sometimes requires technical content changes, and then to have langauge issues as well is too much for a dyslexic like me.

dolfrog (talk) 19:21, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

No problems, I'll come back to it in a few days. --Vannin (talk) 21:43, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Potts Theory

To the editor who is putting in the Potts Theory material. While this sounds interesting, we really need references to be able to include it in the article--Vannin (talk) 16:32, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

New Dyslexia Categories, and Dyalexia Articles (The Next Big Step)

Hi All

I have recently created two new Dyslexia Categories.

The main new Category is Category:Dyslexia research, This a new sub category of the Dyslexia Project. Currently Dyslexia research has three new Dyslexia articles the content of which have intially been taken from th main Dyslexia Article subsections.

1) There is a new History of Developmental Dyslexia article which intially has all of the content of ther History section of the main dyalexia Article. This will allow the Main Dyalexia Article History sextion can be slimmed down to main highlights without loosing the deatil of the history itsrlf. And ther new History of Developmental Dyslexia article can be aded to, without the additions affecting the size of thre main dyalexia article.

2) There is a new Dyslexia: Genetic Research article and again the initial contant cames from the main Dyalexia article from the Genetic Research subsection. Some of the content from the history section could be added to this new article.

3) There is a new Dyslexia: Brain Scan Research and yes the initial content came from the main Dyslexia article, and yes some of the content of the history section could be added to this new article.

4) The New Dyslexia Research Category has a new Sub Category Category:Theories of dyslexia The content for the Article of the same name Theories of Dyslexia came from the Main Dyslexia article sub section Theoroes of Dyalexia.

5) There are also a few existing articles which cover some of the individual theories which have also been added to this new category. Phonological deficit Perceptual noise exclusion hypothesis and Cerebellar Developmental Delay

These changes will hopefully allow us to slim down some of the existing sextions of the the main Dyalexia article without the loss of any valuable information. But allowing is to have put in place bref description of the various theories, and research advances, while the new article can retain the existing indepth information, and we can now add more detailed information without affecting the usability of the mainb dyalexia article.

I hope you will be able to make a contribution to these new articles to help us all have a better understanding of dyslexia

dolfrog (talk) 00:56, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

The Management of Dyslexia has now been made the main article for the new Management of Dyslexia Category (which together with the Dyslexia Research and Theories of Dyslexia are the main subcategories of the main Dyslexia Category )

The content of the new Management of Dyslexia will require contributions from many to include articles regarding the different statutes and laws that exist in different countries which relate to the support provision and Rights of those who are dyslexic. At some stage in time we will have to create what is called an "intermediate" type of Subcategory which will then classify these articles by country in alphabetical order, Category:Dyslexia support by country this will be required to maintain the global content of the WIKI Dyslexia Project.

The "Legal and support" section of this the main Dyalexia article will be transferred to a new Article in the "Management of Dyalexia" Category

The "To Do List" needs to be reviewed in line with the new structure of the Dyslexia Project, which reflect the changes over the lat month. All comments and suggestions welcome.

I need to take a break for a few days from major editing issues on the Dyslexia Project, but I will return next week.

dolfrog (talk) 14:28, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

RHaworth who would like to think of himslef as a WIKI administator

RHaworth has been performing vandalism to this article and the new articles.

he has no idea what he is doing, and he does not consult anyone before performing his vandalism of our article.

I have made an complaint about his behavoir which is unacceptable, for someone who is supposed to help other WIKI users and more especiallyu those who have a communication disability such as dyslexia.

dolfrog (talk) 01:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I suspect that if we put Dolfrog's content knowledge together with RHaworth's wiki knowledge we'll have a good team--Vannin (talk) 04:05, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

dolfrog, I hope you are aware of the powerful edit history which the MediaWikia software provides. I have already admitted that this edit was a serious mistake and apologised for it. But when you saw it, instead of vague ranting "destroyed two day's work", surely the more sensible action would have been to revert my edits (whch could have been done in a few clicks) and invite me to explain myself. We have a recommendation here: assume good faith. In this case you patently failed to AGF. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 08:37, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

RHaworth thank you for reverting your changes. hopefully we can work toether from now on, begin to communicate with each other more before we make changes, to eliminate any miss understnading we both may have.

dolfrog (talk) 11:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Managment of Dyslexia and Dyslexia Support by Country

Hi All

The content of the legla and Support section has mostly gone to a new article. which is now in a new sub category of the Dyslexia project.

The problem has been the relucatnce of the the secial needs articles and categoroes to start their own by country sub categories and articles, so like all good dyalexics we have to solve the problems on our own for ourlselves and then others follow.

So we have created a new subcategory Category:Dyslexia support by country in the dyalexia project, and i have created the first article Dyslexia support in the United Kingdom which is now where most of the information from the Legla section went to. I have also asked my coleagues in the Uk to provide more information to ad to this article.

We now need you to start your own articles for your own countries so that we can biuld a library of information like this education category, Category:Education by country , If you could call your article "Dyslexia support in _ _ _ _ _" it would help the appearance of the category page and help get the articler is alphabetical county order. These arilce will become part of the Managment of Dyslexia category to help other around the world find the information and support they need.

dolfrog (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

An editing progress update

Hi All

The main dyslexia article has now been severely pruned, and a series of sub articles have been created. None of the information has been lost, but to make naviagation of the main dyslexia article more user friendly I had to make the main artile a summy article for the whole WIKi Dyslexia project.

In time the 'Diagnosis of dyslexia' and 'Variations and related conditions' sections will also be pruned but more work will first be required on the many sub articles to allow this to happen.

We seem to have aquired a few extra article to our project, so that we can provide a clear description of dyalexia. the newly merged Aquired Dyslexia and alexia articles have become Alexia (acquired dyslexia) which is a whole new area of research. I hope that I have found someone to edit the Dyscalculia article. And may be an other editor who can provide advice regarding dysphasia issues. the Scotopic sensitivity syndrome is in nead of a tidy up, if anyone could tidy that article it would be appreciated.

The Category:Dyslexia support by country needs more articles to cover many more countries. The only countries so far are the USA and the UK. Both of these articles couls also be improved upon as they only really have content which was transfered from the main article. You are all experts in the support systems and statues in your countries. If you need help starting an article help is at hand you could first contact me using the link at the bottom of this post.

There is also a grest deal of information now in the Dyslexia category pages have a look at

• Category:Dyslexia
• Category:Management of dyslexia
• Category:Dyslexia research
• Category:Dyslexia researchers

All comments welcome

dolfrog (talk) 19:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

MY APD is making editing this project too stressful

Hi All

I have done all I can with regard to editing this arrticle, the stress id proving too great. I would like to thank Vanin, RHaworth, and Nate1481 and others for all of their help. Istill have many dyslexia related research papers realting to many of the existing topics and some of the potentially new topics as research progresses.

The editing process has to to the stage wheren my APD becomes too much of a communication barrier with those who have litle or no understanding of what it is like to live with APD.

So you will have to find some one else to continue the much needed work that needs to be done.

I will be contactable via my contact page, and I may begin work on my main topic of interest the Auditory Processing Disorder Article whihc has has the basics to sort out, which is waht i am bst at, doing the research and putting it intop place, but you will need someone who is familiar with WIKI procedured and policies and understands the compex nature of dyalexia as well.

dolfrog (talk) 17:28, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi, dolfrog. I'm sorry you feel that way. If I did anything to contribute to this, please accept my apology.

You've done a tremendous amount of work toward the reorganization we planned. Thank you so much!

Come on back when you have time/energy.

Wishing you the best,

Rosmoran (talk) 19:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia/support by country

Hi All

I have just created a new article in the Wikipedia Dyslexia Project. This is a work page and as such does not follow require the strict guide lines applied to Dyslexia Article, regarding citations to support for content.

We need to create artilces for all countries, as the recognistion of dyslexia and the levels of support provided varies from country to country. There is no global or universal approach to dyslexia. So we need your help to provide your local National knowledge on this very important topic. Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia/support by country Intially I have added a few country sections, just the get the ball rolling, you can add new sections for countries not already included. There is also a talk page so you can may be discuss the issues regarding your country with other Users/editors. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dyslexia/support by country

So please help us get the correct support information for your country. dolfrog (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Addition to Diagnosis section

Hi, I just added 3 sentences to the diagnosis section. There's some redundancy there that I can't figure out how to fix just now. If someone can help, that would be great. Otherwise I 'll look at again in the next couple of days.

Best, Rosmoran (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep it simple and up-front

Dolfrog: I've been thinking this for a while, but I'll say it now. Can you try to keep things simpler with the reorganisation of dyslexia topics? In my view, you're creating far too many semi-private sandboxes and project work pages.

The Wikipedia way of working is to create an article, and discuss its development on its Talk page where everyone can see it - not hidden away in some sandbox that's only findable if you go into the associated Wikiproject.

I'm beginning to lose track of what the hell you're doing, and I'm sure others feel the same. You can believe if you want that I'm just not up to speed on your way of thinking, but I think it's getting on the edge of topic ownership by obfuscation. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 01:37, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I have replied on my talk page so i will just repeat it below.

The various sandboxes were not originally my idea, they were there before I began editing the article in May. When I started editing I only edited the dyslexia artilce and made comments etc on the article talk page, but then some one found the project sandboxes and started to add commnets there. I to find it difficult to follow. But to maintain a record of the original plan and the changes I made I made some type of record of the progress I was making, more work than i really wanted. Sami was the one who set all of this up, over 2 years ago now, and even then i had problems working out what was really going on as the work was then done in sandboxes of the individual editors which was even more confusing. So for me until this week the whole sandbox thing was just a historic record of the plan so far. since then I have added the Alternative Therapy article sandbox more to call someones bluff than anything else. but Sami has not understood my intention while she has been catching up with the progress so far.

To add to this I did ask for help on this talkpage which is in the archives now, but there was no help being offered. So not of my own choosing I have been editing this project on my own until Sami returned this week. As I have mentioned many times before I do not like working on my own as my communication disability creats its own limitations for me, so I have had to try to work around those limitations, as best I can, and you have seen, and been tracking the mistakes I can make when I am forced to work on my own in what is form me an alien environment dolfrog (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Dyslexia is not a learning disability in the UK

Dyslexia is a learning disability is understood in the United States. But in the UK, learning disabilities actually refers to those with developmental disabilities. Could we possibly say dyslexia is a learning difference instead in the first sentence of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eivmeidwl (talk • contribs) 22:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Dyslexia is a developmental disability, see all of the research papers referenced in all of the dyslexia series of articles and in the UK is classified as a Specific Learning Disability dolfrog (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence states dyslexia as a learning disability. Which learning disability are they referring to? Are they referring to the United States or in the UK? It is not very clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eivmeidwl (talk • contribs) 14:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a global statement including all countries which includes the USA and the UK. dolfrog (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me explain this clearer. Assuming this passage from learning disability is correct.

In the UK, terms such as specific learning difficulty (SpLD), dyslexia, dyspraxia and dyscalculia are used to cover the type and range of learning difficulties referred to in the United States and Canada as "learning disabilities". In the UK, the term "learning disability" usually refers to a range of conditions that are almost invariably associated with more severe cognitive impairments; the term therefore generally is taken to be indicative of low intelligence in the UK.

Dyslexia is considered a learning difficulty in the UK. But in the US, it is considered a learning disability. In the first sentence of the dyslexia, it states it is a learning disability which obviously is referring to the US definition. Since Wikipedia wants articles in a global point of view, shouldn't dyslexia be referred as a "learning difference"? --Eivmeidwl (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

May be you could add some supported information on this topic on the Dyslexia support in the United Kingdom which is part of the Category:Dyslexia support by country to explain how dysalexia is viewed in different countries around the world. Some countries are further behind current dyslexia research regarding their own orthography than others. The global view is that dyslexia is a learning disability. I am from the UK so I am not to sure where you are coming from dolfrog (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I did some research. And in the UK, they do refer dyslexia as a learning difficulty. Source: [3] If we are going to use the US definition for dyslexia, then it should say so. But since Wikipedia wants a global article, then dyslexia should be viewed as a learning difference. --Eivmeidwl (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

All of the research papers from around the world refer to dyslexia as a learning disability, and not a learning difference, so we have the global position you may also be interested in the following articles Special education in the United Kingdom and Special education in the United States both of which stem from the Special education article dolfrog (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The research papers are all wrong. I find it offensive to call someone with dyslexia in the UK as learning-disabled. In the UK, it is understood as a learning difficulty. However learning difference is a much more neutral word. I have no problem with that term. Eivmeidwl (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you are having a problem accepting the nature of your own dyslexia, and the lack of a general awareness of what dyslexia really is in the UK have a look at http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/wholeschool/disability/disabilityandthedda/istomdisabled/ the UK is full so much bad information regarding dyslexia, and disabilities in general, and disability discrimination, especially regarding the invisible disabilities. dolfrog (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify my position, I live in the UK, I am dyslexic, and I define myself as learning disabled, and I am officially defined by the UK government as being disabled. So I do not really understand the nature of this dispute. dolfrog (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Folks,

There are indeed differences in how these terms are used in the UK as compared with the US. In the UK, someone with a learning disability has difficulty with learning because of a very low IQ. In the US and Canada, someone with a learning disability has an unexpected difficulty with learning in spite of a normal IQ.

Clearly the terminology we use in the dyslexia article must reflect current usage in the major English-speaking countries, so perhaps we shouldn't use the term learning disability. However, I object to the term "learning difference."

Although "learning difference" is commonly used in some parts of the disabilities community, the very generality of the term "difference" connotes something isn't a big deal, perhaps even something that is just a "personal preference". I certainly understand people who advocate for the use of the term "different" because they don't want their children to be perceived as "abnormal" or "broken"; rather, they want their kids to be perceived as someone with a brain that is "wired" a bit differently. But there are severe consequences that occur too often because officials in the schools or community don't understand how devastating dyslexia can be to a student.

The term we choose to use has serious legal consequences as well. Someone with a "disability" is entitled to a variety of state supports. Someone with a "difference" may be perceived as someone who is just being obstinate and who needs to be more flexible. Someone who is "not working to potential" rather than someone who has a legitimate obstruction in their learning process that needs and deserves special treatment or supports.

We want to avoid using terms that connote different conditions between the US and the UK. We also should avoid trivializing the disabling effects of dyslexia. Therefore, I suggest we use the term "learning disorder" instead.

Best, Rosmoran (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Officials in the schools or community never understand when dealing with special-needs students. If a kid can't read, it's pretty clear. Just throw them in a special-needs class in a watered-down curriculum. That's all they do. They honestly don't provide any more help that's somewhat different. There is no understanding of kids with special needs. I'm sick and tired of hearing advocates for the disabled that is just out there to make publicity and $$$$$ for the organizations than to create a victim where none exists. The kids who are truly disabled are the only ones who I will understand that it is important to provide quality services. Without them, they will not be able to progress in society. Eivmeidwl (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying here. What do you mean when you say "to create a victim where none exists"?

I really would like to understand your argument --- and we still need to achieve consensus. My opinion is certainly not the "final word."

Rosmoran (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Since there is absolutely nothing I can do to have "learning difference" on there, then fine. I will just have to agree to disagree. Therefore, I am in agreement to have "learning disorder" all for the sake of publicity. I guess we don't need the third opinion after all. Eivmeidwl (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I opened up a move request for Learning disability to learning disorder. Talk:Learning disability#Requested move They said that UK uses learning disability. Esthertaffet (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Swimming vandalism

Can I presume the line the introduction stating that "contrary to popular belief, the condition does not inhibit one's ability to swim" is an attempt at zany vandalism? 86.135.178.4 (talk) 10:24, 30 September 2009 (UTC)DrSwiftus

Neutrality?

No mention in the article of the work of Prof. Julian Elliot (Durham Uni, UK). SeeTimes article 1, Times article 2 etc. Also see the book, "Children in difficulty" By Julian Elliott & Maurice Place. At least one section, perhaps should address his concerns about (1) whether dyslexia exists in the first place and if so (2)is it a useful diagnosis and (3) his criticisms of the theories behind dyslexia etc.

Already included see the topic Controversy on both Dyslexia and Dyslexia_research you must have missed the references to Julian Elliot.

dolfrog (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just edited the controversy section because it was grossly misrepresentative, it was an almost direct copy of the abstract from Julian Elliot's paper with the circumspective "It is argued" removed, and the "original-research" clause of

Reading ability is on a spectrum, and dyslexia merely represents the low end of the spectrum.

inserted halfway through, interrupting another sentence. A literal reading of the abstract does not dispute that some people have difficulty reading, but does dispute that current scientific understanding is sufficient to rigourously define a condition of dyslexia, or legitimately diagnose patients with it.Scruffy brit (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph removed from orthography section

I removed the following information from the Effect of language orthography section. The information is highly questionable --- dyslexia can be caused by more than one neurocognitive defict, although there are certainly patterns. I'm guessing that the text in this paragraph may be represent a slightly different meaning from what the source material actually says.

Using both PET and fMRI, Paulescu et al. 2001, show that dyslexia in alphabet writing systems has a universal basis in the brain and can be characterized by the same neurocognitive deficit. Clearly, the manifestation in reading behavior is less severe in a shallow orthography.

Also, the statement isn't strictly an orthographic topic. The corrected version of the paragraph may fit better in the research section of the article. Best, Rosmoran (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Requesting opinions

Hi, everyone. There is an external links section called "Research papers, media ..." To my eye, the items in this list are not significantly notable for such a broad topic as the top-level article for dyslexia. It appears to me we are giving undue weight to relatively low-importance nuggets of information.

Opinions?

Best, Rosmoran (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)