Talk:Dyslexia

This MedLibrary.org supplementary page on Talk:Dyslexia is provided directly from the open source Wikipedia as a service to our readers. Please see the note below on authorship of this content, as well as the Wikipedia usage guidelines. To search for other content from our encyclopedia supplement, please use the form below:

Related Sponsors

BM Pharmacy Generic pharmaceuticals at unbeatable prices. Insomnia, men's health, hair health, pain control. bmpharmacy.com
Online Pharmacy Carisoprodol, tadalafil, sildenafil, vardenafil and more... xlpharmacy.com
MedBasket.com Discreet. Inexpensive. Fast shipping. Great selection. What more can we say? medbasket.com
Frugalmed 2000 reasons to shop with us first. frugalmed.com
Ads by Tiva

WikiProject Neurology
Medicine portal
This article is within the scope of WikiProject Neurology. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the talk page.
Start This page has been rated as Start-Class on the quality assessment scale
Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the importance assessment scale

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Dyslexia article.
Article policies
Archives: 1, 2
NOTE TO CURRENT DYSLEXIA EDITORS: The WikiProject Dyslexia is up and ready to go!

Notes:

  • This is a first version of the project page. As such, we should expect it
    to evolve organically as the project evolves.
  • Please fill in empty sections, add whatever you think is appropriate, revise as needed, etc.
    All suggestions welcome.
  • All discussion of the dyslexia topic should now take place on the project talk page.
  • Don't forget to add yourself to the Participants list on the project page!
WikiProject Medicine This article is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at the doctor's mess.
B This page has been rated as B-Class on the quality assessment scale
High This article has been rated as High-importance on the importance assessment scale
This article is part of WikiProject Dyslexia, an attempt to build a comprehensive and detailed guide to Dyslexia on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, you can edit the article attached to this page, or visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.
Start This article has been rated as Start-Class on the quality scale.
To-do:  · history · watch · refresh

Note: See above for explanation.

Tasks to be done:

  • Break up article into readable chunks (must come to basic consensus on how to break up the information)
  • Move stuff about vision issues and specialized lenses to other, more appropriate articles
  • Come to consensus on navigation box. Proposed boxes at: Template:Dyslexia and User:Rosmoran/navigation sandbox.


List of issues to be discussed and resolved:

  • Concern that the lead section is not representative, is vague, and doesn't have a clear general source.
  • Consider adding a heading for info related to comorbidities (to include such info as closely related conditions --- do we represent dyscalculia as symptom of dyslexia, or as its own, albeit related disorder?
  • Reorganize history section so it doesn't jump back and forth
  • Scientific research section -- many problems. Duplications among theories; names not representative;
  • Characteristics section lacks sources
  • Variations and related conditions lacks sources
  • Suggestion to merge Irlen syndrome with Irlen filters and removed from main article (presumably with a summary-type reference?)
  • Therapies section very problematic -- US bias; seems to be disagreement among editors regarding what is and is not considered to be based on solid research evidence.
  • Missing a key intervention: "special education"
  • Concern about US bias in article overall.
  • Suggestion to keep WHO definition in main article and provide other nation and organization specific definitions in secondary article.
  • Suggestion to add info re: Welsh language orthography
  • Suggestion that Facts and Statistics info be handled elsewhere; the criticism is that these facts do not cross national boundaries.
  • Address legal issues; educational support issues
Archive
Archives
Archive 1 Archive 2

Contents

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:

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:
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:

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.

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

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."
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.</