Talk:Dyslexia

10-20% of "population" has dyslexia?

I removed this statement which was the leading sentence of the "Facts and Statistics" section. A citationless statement saying as many as 1 in every 5 people has dyslexia is a little too outlandish I think. Find a source and it would be a very interesting fact.

You are absolutely right -- I've found a somewhat different source (estimates 5-17% rate) and a citation to back it up, and inserted that info where the part you removed was - Abigail Marshall 08:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)

General

Most of this article needs to be wiped out.

-I agree it's a piece of shit

- Making a few changes to make this page more accessible to dyslexic people.72.185.206.11 07:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

The part about how dyslexics can read and write perfectly but still have dyslexia is ridiculous. Of course those who have treated dyslexia may be able to, but no one is diagnosed dyslexic if they have no dyslexic difficulties reading or writing.

It also keeps just talking about "education"? Why doesn't it have the different methods which have been used effectively? The methods are well-established and used in combination in public schools.

In additon, where is the section about protection as a disability? IEP's? 504's? Is it somewhere in the article but the article is so long I just have missed it?

Also, a lot of the information about dyslexia seems to wrongly be mislabeled, describing someone who has comorbid ADD/Dyslexia.

I would edit it but I would wipe most of it out, since a lot of it is misinformed and badly organized. Where are our experts? Meg1064 03:46, 25 February 2006 (UTC)

I just made a few edits to this page and would like to get to know the main editors before I make other changes. I have a fair amout of knowledge on the subject. I have a JD/MBA from Stanford with a Masters Thesis in Learning Disability Law, as well as 30+ years of battle scars fighting for civil rights as an dyslexic learner myself. I run a non-profit in the US, The Initiative for Learning Identities, focusing on adults with LD. We count Sally and Benet Shaywitz, (Dr. Sally Shaywitz is head of the National Institute of Health Center of Learning and Attention at Yale Medical School) as advisors and focus on independence for adults with LD. Please contact me though wikipedia or this board if you have comments on this Newbie's edits. Cheers. benfoss 01:30, 19 August 2006 (UTC)

Ben I've also been trying to clean up this page over the past month or so. I say, just keep doing what you're doing and the page will be all the better for it. --Drmarc 01:25, 24 August 2006 (UTC)

Exactly. This article should be better than it is, and I'm sure it will be after you work on it. Maybe it needs someone to really organize the article, to separate what is scientically founded and what is more based on personal experience and intuition.Patty Scheel 12:28, 7 September 2006 (UTC)

"Dyslexics are usually above normal intelligence because they have to be able to cope in a world where the other 80-85% of the population is oriented naturally. "

Sorry but I have never heard this before and I frankly am very reluctant to believe it. Where are all the studies showing it?

Also, the statement about the dyslexic being a "three dimensional thinker", while it may have some basis in truth, seems far more reductive and simplistic than the rest of the article. Not being an expert, though, I don't know how to qualify it properly... --Matt McIrvin 14:35, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Well, there are so many things said about dyslexia... and the research goes on, too. Max Frisk writes in Ericson 1996 (from Swedish:) "A defective development of the left planum temporale seams to cause dyslexia. In such cases the right hemisphere can become dominant and more developed which may imply an increased creative imagination and artistic talent of the subject (Goldman-Rakic et al.,1984)."

Personally, I find this questionable, but I'd have a look at the source if it was available in my country. If anyone else is interested, it's in Geschwind, N, Galaburda, A M (eds): Cerebral dominance: The biological foundations, pp. 179-194. --Piechjo 13:18, 22 July 2006 (UTC)

---

Could something about dysorthographia (inability to spell) be added?

---

Some have disagreed with these findings, however, and believe that while dyslexia may sometimes be inborn it is often attributable to lack of phonics training when learning to read and the preponderance of the whole language system.

I don't know a lot about this issue, but this sentence looks like POV to me. There might be people who say dyslexia is often caused by "a lack of whole language training." --Szyslak 09:29, 24 Dec 2004 (UTC)

---

"Although many biographers claim to have disproved that Einstein was dyslexic, their arguments are based on the premise that because he actually excelled in school, he could therefore not have had a learning disability. "

Didn't Einstein perform poorly in school?

The article on Einstein talks about this. He seems to have been regarded as having some sort of deficit early on, and got in some trouble with liberal-arts subjects later. But there's also a legend that he received poor grades in mathematics which is a result of biographers' confusion over a change in the grading system; he was actually an excellent math student. I'd say the jury is still out on whether this indicates any sort of diagnosable learning disability. --Matt McIrvin 14:26, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

---

Sometimes, in a hurry, we misread things.
e.g: We misread Breakfest as Breakfast with a preconcieved notion that it is breakfast.

what is this called ??

-kaysov

Intelligence.

---

Time and again some portions of my articles have been removed as "copyrighted"!!! Please do not do that again: I indeed pasted it ready-made; however, I pasted it from my own article (http://www.supermemo.com/articles/genius.htm). Please feel free to expand upon this text, but I would appreciate if you would leave this note intact. One reason is that I would not like anyone ever think that I steal material from Wikipedia to write my own articles! I just thought this would be a nice contribution. -- Piotr Wozniak

---

As a dyslexic, I see my dyslexia as a problem with symetry ie b/d/g/p/q or do/ob/op/go or multiples thereof. I also have left/right dyslexia where i get my directions backwards all the time. -- Mike Dill

If you have trouble with b, d, p, and q, think of how dyslexics feel about the Tengwar of Feanor! --Damian Yerrick

the joke of the dyslexic agnostic - didn't know if he should believe in dog.

...or the dyslexic devil-worshipper who sold his soul to Santa...

---

If you can read this, you may have dyslexia. --Damian Yerrick

---

Greetings, I have just signed on as a user and made several edits to the article. My name is Abigail Marshall and I am the author of the book, The Everything Parent's Guide to Children with Dyslexia. (That doesn't make me an expert, but it does mean that I spent a lot of time researching & fact checking, so I am pretty familiar with what can and can't be substantiated about the subject).

I am frustrated somewhat by seeing categorical statements about issues that are subject to debate. So for example I edited a section under "Facts and statistics" which said that *all* current scientific research focuses on the phonological deficit theory of dyslexia to change the reference to "all" to "much", and add some references to some of the other major focuses of research, like magnocellular deficit and cerebellar deficit. (I don't even buy into these theories, but it simply is misleading to ignore this research). Of course I included citations for these. I also added some paragraphs trying to summarize some of the various approaches to dyslexia. Again, I realize that there is a lot of controversy surrounding different theories and approaches, but that certainly is no reason to ignore them.

I think this topic will be improved if users try to word things in a way that acknowledge other points and view. In other words, we can avoid saying "all" research supports X, or there is "no" research to support Y. It seems to me to make more sense to acknowledge the controversy ("some researchers claim") - and if appropriate to create a linked topic to explore the issues related to whatever theory or method is worthy of debate, or to edit an already existing topic.

Anyway, that's how I feel and why I made the initial changes that I did. -- Abigail Marshall 08:11, 12 December 2006 (UTC)

Inborn

Article states conclusively that dyslexia is inborn, implying this is true 100% of the time. Can we really state that definitively? Many people believe it is often (or even always!) attributable to use of the look-say (whole language or whole word) method of teaching children to read instead of phonics.

Reworded to mention that people disagree, but I think it still needs to have the big bold faced sentence that pronounces the "truth" that dyslexia is inborn NPOVed. Jdavidb 18:45, 5 Mar 2004 (UTC)

---

Doyle Saylor djsaylor@mindspring.com This discussion of dyslexia has some deficits.

First, This article does not clearly come out and say that dyslexia can affect hearing and touch but that is an accepted scientific view of dyslexia. While citing Gazzaniga I wonder why the writer did not also read Margaret Livingstone?

Secondly, this article ignores in visual dyslexia the common difficulty with seeing depth for dyslexics. Hence the larger issue of the magno-cellular pathway and what it does. Therefore the connection to damage arising in Alzheimers wherein the affected person gets lost because they are motion blind is not connected to the same issue that affects dyslexics.

Thirdly, Dyslexics have trouble with web pages that have flash elements in them (animated graphics). A focus strictly on reading therefore can't pick up the disability issues that also affect dyslexics.

Fourth, There is no sense in this paper why some dyslexics seem so bright. This might have been explored by looking at primate evolution and the rise of the color seeing channel in vision (parvo-nuclear). The relative difference between seeing motion and seeing stationary surfaces seems to correspond to what intelligence is usually ascribed to. Correlations to experiments with blind people whose cortex seems to have re-mapped from visual centers to touch centers is highly suggestive of the intelligence factors in Dyslexics.

Fifth, In referring to script issues the author ignores Japanese scripts (Kanji) that are much easier for dyslexics to absorb. All scripts to some extent reproduce sounds, but some scripts are more easily seen than others. Why is this?

Sixth, In describing the areas of the brain where visual processing occurs the sense of visual pathways is much more muddled than need be. A description of the motion sensing areas and the paths from there to the parietal lobe and temporal lobe would make more sense than the current allusions. thanks, Doyle

---

To Doyle: your comments are insightful and inspiring, but where are your edits to the main article? :-)

Version at the time of writing mentions dyscalculia specifically as being tied to difficulty with reading analog clocks, not because of the numerals but because of the "rotational positioning" involved. I couldn't find anything to corroborate this, and suspect that this isn't part of dyscalculia. Basically, Doyle is right: this article could use some good overhauling by someones knowing their stuffs, pardon me grammar.

Incidentally, why are all these words so friggin' hard to spell? You can't tell me that it's not deliberate, man. Stupid G(r)eeks.

---

See "Chinese dyslexics have problems of their own" http://www.mirabilis.ca/archives/002117.html http://www.nature.com/news/2004/040830/full/040830-5.html but see response: http://listserv.acsu.buffalo.edu/cgi-bin/wa?A2=ind0409&L=anthro-l&F=&S=&P=12758

Dyslexia Parents Resource http://dyslexia-parent.com/

"Dyslexia- A Gift?" by Lillian Jones http://www.bayshoreeducational.com/dyslexia.html

That page is 404'd now, but "The Gift of Dyslexia" is a book by Ron Davis, [1], founder of Davis Dyslexia, owner of dyslexia.com, and somebody probably worth an article. Ojw 22:44, 21 July 2005 (UTC) (warning: paranoid US group with legal support)

" Before the invention of written language, dyslexia didn't exist. People with the

gift of dyslexia were probably the custodians of oral history because of their

excellent ability to memorize and transmit the spoken word." http://www.mlode.com/~ra/ra8/dyslexia.htm

??? http://www.dyslexiacure.com/

Another possible external link: Recording for the Blind and Dyslexic -http://www.rfbd.org/

---

"5-15% of the population can be diagnosed as suffering from various degrees of dyslexia."

The population of what? US? English-speaking countries? The world?

I don't know, but I've read that Japan has a much lower perccentage. Maybe in Spain as well where the language is much more phonetic.

The article later states that 17-20% of children are dyslexic. Either these two statistics need to be reconciled, or the first (which doesn't cite a source) should be removed. Lebki 4:18, November 8, 2005

---

A comment

I'm posting this here because I don't know where else to post it. But I have just found an article on Wikipedia where one user is belittling another because he's says that he is dyslexic. My son is dyslexic and I just can't understand how an adult could be so cruel. Jrossman 02:34, Feb 8, 2005 (UTC)

Some people fail to develop at the same emotional pace that most of the rest of the world does just as some of us have trouble reading and writing. Being an adult is a physical age thing and has nothing to do with having good sence or good maners in a public place. At least your son is reciving help and support with his problem.

Einstein discussion

I've removed a large part of the "is he/is he not" discussion about Albert Einstein being dyslexic. It doesn't fit into this article and, while it may contain relevant information, could not easily be worked into his article. If someone can rework it somewhere then that would be good. violet/riga (t) 17:43, 12 Feb 2005 (UTC)

Three dimensional thinkers?

The dyslexic is a three dimensional thinker.

I encountered this sentence in the article, and it immediately struck me as dubious. I was curious about the basis for this statement, being that it was completely new to me, and I googled dyslexia "three dimensional". The first link that came up where three dimensional refered to a type of thinking or mental ability was this one: [2]. According to this article, although there is a popular belief that dyslexia is accompanied by a compensatory strength in spatial ability, scientific evidence shows otherwise. Granted, this is only one study (I could probably find more) but it is enough that I feel justified in asking for some reference on this statement, and if none can be produced this statement (or the entire paragraph) should be scratched. Now perhaps the reference is there, somewhere among the several references at the bottom of the article. I'm not the only person who finds parts of this article questionable (see comments above on the claim that dyslexics are higher than average intelligence) and without good citations, even if the info is good and backed by science, in the context of this article it sounds like feel-good, armchair cognitive psychology. At least that's what it seems like to me; I can't speak for the others. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 07:32, 21 May 2005 (UTC)

I am Dyslexic, and I am a very visual thinker. According to the Veteran Affairs neurologist, I have strong visual spatial skills. I even scored time bonus points on the final,most difficult design on the block design test. She even told me that I could be an engineer. She wrote that I should be encouraged to find ways to make better use of of my strong visual spatial skills. I think in pictures,visualize nonstop. I picture and visualize everything before I do it. I picture and visualize myself doing things like I am seeing myself in a mirror. I have a vivid imagination. When I read books,I feel like I am watching a movie. Ronald D Davis wrote a book about Dyslexia,and he says that Dyslexics are mainly picture thinkers,and that's true for me. I have Dyspraxia too,and so I have coordination problems..so I don't have the fine motor skills for things like painting,drawing,and sculpture. The problem with Dyslexics is that their minds are way too hard do pin down. IQ tests don't work on a lot of Dyslexics....they definitely don't work on me. I have Dyslexia,Dyspraxia,and inattentive type ADHD. I could see that there could be lack of scientific evidence of Dyslexics have strong 3d visualization abilities. (Satabishara 15:37, 2 April 2007 (UTC)).

theory of dyslexia as an inner ear disorder

Hey, I'd like someone qualified to assess the following site, which cites clinical studies demonstrating Dyslexia to be a disorder of the inner-ear, that can be greatly improved by inner-ear medicines designed to improve motion-sickness. If there are no objections, I'll add a line or two about this research in the article (as a theory, of course, not as fact).

The idea is that inner ear problems could cause the focusing and eye-movement problems dyslexics are known for, as well as a difficulty with "stabilizing" letters on a page since the inner ear controls this sort of coordination. Many other dyslexic symptoms can be similarly explained as the product of inner ear abnormalities.

Dyslexia as a CV disorder

Journal abstract (for the brave)

My eight year old son has been through a series of tests, and it looks like he is dyslexic. He has a spelling age of 7 yrs, 00 mths, but a non-verbal MAT score of 14 years 06 months. The thing that caught my eye on this entry, was the reference to an inner ear disorder. For 2 years from the age of 18 mths, my son was almost totally deaf, suffering from (the common condition), glue ear. I wonder if any research has been done investigating whether there is any correlation between dyslexia and glue ear?

I have a history of Auditory Dyslexia. I had a severe ear infection when I was 3 years old. I don't have a history of glue ear. I don't have poor hearing. My hearing is sensitive. When I was 4 years old, the nuns asked what language I spoke. They couldn't understand me. My mother was informed that I wasn't hearing things right for I was turning stuff around when I heard it. Auditory reversals. They told her that people have to slow down when talking to me because information can come to be too fast. I have auditory input speech lags to this day. I need things repeated a lot. A lot of times I get confused by what people say. I can mishear things. I had auditory therapy,speech therapy,and phonics to remediate my Auditory Dyslexia. I also have a history of developmental coordination problems. I had fine motor skills therapy. I saw Dr. Levinson for testing in 2005. I had the testing that was shown on the site except he didn't test me with 3D Optical Scanner. He tested me with 3D Auditory Scanner,and I had abnormal results. To measure auditory blurring,Dr. Levinson devised an instrument capable of speeding up a series of clear sounds until they could no longer be distinguished, with and without an interfering background,thus establishing the auditory blurring speed. The electronystagmography was abnormal showing that I have poor eye tracking,coordination issues. The posturography showed mildly abnormal in all 3 areas that showed that I have problems with balance and sensory integration. The standard neurological tests showed abnormalities. He even noted that I had slow auditory input and mild articulation problems when he was doing neurological testing on me. I took Dr. Levinson's testing to the Veteran Affairs. They gave me testing,and they confirmed that I have abnormal cerebellar system. They gave me neurological testing,and it showed that I have borderline impaired immediate verbal memory and borderline impaired sentence repetition. My immediate visual memory was impaired too. To make a long story short, the Veteran Affairs neurologists said that I have Dyslexia and Dyspraxia.I also have inattentive type ADHD diagnosed in 2004. I want to spend the rest of my life raising awareness about Dyslexia and Dyspraxia. I want to point out about the Auditory Dyslexics. I am tired of people focusing on Dyslexia as visual reversals of issue. I also have speech problems connected to my Dyslexia. Speech delays/problems are early warning signs of Dyslexia. They are listed at International Dyslexia Association site too. (Satabishara 15:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)).

Please remove the list of celebrities

Amorrow says: I think that the list of celebrities should be reduced to a very small number, if any. 15% of human population says it all. If studies has shown that dyslexia is more prevelant in certain groups, then fine.

Why are all these celebrities listed? Are you just trying to make people who feel they have dyslexia feel better about some perception that they have not accomplished much in their lives? If you are, then you are not being objective. Instead, you are being sucked into problems of people who suffer from dyxlexia, both related and unrelated to their dyslexia. Wikipedia is not here to glamourize dyxlexia. Wikipedia is here to help others understand this specific diagnosis and describe its context in the human population.

The same goes for anything else that makes dyslexics "special" unless it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal. Shove it somewher else and get it out of this entry. You can add all of the "Dyslexia Support Group" links you want at the bottom of the page.

One other comment: It is inappropriate to "suspect" a living person, even if they are a celebrity, of having dyslexia. If they are still alive, it should be considered their private medical data until they have released the information to the public.

I think it is appropriate to list celeberties, especially since many articles that have brain disorders (Schizophrenia, Bipolar disorder, etc.) have a list. --Admiral Roo 13:22, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

I agree, 15% is a huge number. Perhaps a few notable examples would be fine (for example people who overcame dyslexia and prevailed or people who were greatly affected by it) but if you list 15% of the celebrities out there, you will have a list of a few thousdand names! I also agree that unless it is made publicly known that someone is dyslexic by himself of his doctor, it doesn't belong on wikipedia. Maybe us weekly...

66.75.49.213 12:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

To Amorrow, Wikipedia is for knowledge. Having celebrities on here is appropriate. It's a list of people who have dyslexica. If people know something about them then they can put a face on it and be able to see what it is and not just medical gabble.

amorrow: "Wikipedia is not here to glamourize dyxlexia."

It's not but it can be fair, and not looked as a disease as the page makes it out to be. Hpbenton 07:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)

To Amorrow: I was diognised with dyslexia (if it's spelled like that) when I was 8 years old, and having felt stupid, and less worth my entire life, YES it feels good to know that there are others with this "disease" that have managed to succeed with something in their life. Furhtermore, I think that anyone who does not know how it is to live with this impairment ever day, feeling less intelligente than everybody else, should comment on anything within this area, because feeling appriciation was, and is still a big part of making me feel better, and it is probably still so for many.

Direction difficulty

Am I correct in believing that difficulty with directions is common in dyslexics? My father is a dyslexic, and he has no sense of left vs. right, etc. Would this count as a form of dyslexia, is this just a part of dyslexia, is this a different disorder altoghether, or am I just not looking close enough at the article? Idekii 02:56, 25 August 2005 (UTC)

I am not sure if it is true for all dyslexia sufferurs, but I myself do have a problem telling left from right. --Admiral Roo 13:20, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Dyslexics don't suffer from a poor sence of direction. The reason that some confuse Left and Right is because they are words that are commonly learnt at the same time. Like Black and White, which many dyslexics confuse when they first learn them.

My brother, now 38 and with whom I spent I great deal of time with grow up, definitely has a very hard time distinguishing left from right. I think I am a better expert on the subject than most anyone, as having been able to observe his diffuculties for decades. When asked to "make a left turn" he hestitates and commonly makes a right turn. When asked to pick up an object on the right he will mkae the same hesitation and commonly pick up the item on the left. He can open doors with knobs by twisting them to the right, and tighten screws and other turnable fasteners correctly. The problem maybe linked to his word association, but what else can we use to communicate relative directions? Sysrpl 09:21, 22 June 2006 (UTC)

Quality of this article (including a discussion of whether dyslexia really exists)

The majority of the article as it stands is extremely POV with a large amount of unsubstatiated conjecture and downright untruths about dyslexia. It seems to suggest that being dyslexic is actually quite an attractive condition, by attributing it to all kinds of virtues such as high IQ, ability at art/engineering/etc, verbal skill and so on.

The section on Common Characteristics is particularly misleading, whilst there is no mention at all of the recent controversy surrounding the diagnosis of dislexia in the first place--Fergie 12:09, 2 September 2005 (UTC)

That link to the article sounds a lot like Anti-psychiatry to me. Dyslexia does exist. While it is not an attractive condition, I can tell you it is not that disableing of a condition. At least not to me. --Admiral Roo 13:25, September 2, 2005 (UTC)

Please read the link- he is making the point that a) no common method of diagnosis has been agreed and b) Dyslexia is not statistically associated with elevated abilities in other fields (such as art, architechture, music and so on). Both good points that could be covered in this (wikipedia) article.--Fergie 18:27, 3 September 2005 (UTC)

What is the state of current research? One expert interviewed in a recent Dispatches programme on Channel 4 in the UK stated he could not tell dyslexics from other poor readers, implying that dyslexia is a myth. For all I know, this is a very minority opinion but if it isn't, the article is severely flawed.

I saw that Dispatches documentary too. Fascinating show. It showed that 99% of the population has no reading problem as long as they are taught well. Some may need one-to-one tuition, but even those children who are diagnosed as "dyslexic" who are taught simple phonics (matching symbols with sounds, i.e. straightforward traditional education) by well trained teachers on a one-to-one basis do up to 8 times better than those who are given specialised dyslexia tuition. This research was done by researchers at Durhan and York Universities at a high standard. Dyslexia does not exist. This article should be heavily rewritten to reflect all the latest research. Wikipedia should reflect the controversies also, but even before seeing that documentary, it was clear this article is extremely biased. --Aaron McDaid 12:46, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

I would like to ask those of you who think dyslexia is not a real disorder why you think it is not a real disorder. I think I am good proof that it does exist. --Admiral Roo 12:51, September 9, 2005 (UTC)

There is no scientific research backing it up. In particular, the fact that a patient says he or she has a disease doesn't prove anything. Patients are not experts on their own condition. Wouldn't I be right in thinking that doctors are advised not to treat or diagnose themselves? I'm not denying the existence of intelligent children who have difficulty reading. Instead I am calling for those children who can't read to be given the best help as advised by science. And the latest science is that of those who have difficulty reading, there is no difference between the intelligent ones and the less intelligent ones. There is not a shred of evidence showing that the specialist treatments recommended for dyslexics actually show any benefit whatsoever. The evidence clearly shows that all children with reading difficulties, regardless of intelligence (or diagnosis of dyslexia), benefit most from simple old-fashioned teaching by good teachers. I'm not denying that many children have a problem reading, just pointing out that the whole theory built up around "dyslexia" is false, and never had much evidence backing it up. One of the main theories around dyslexia surrounds the claim by many patients that they have difficulty with their vision, such as jumbling up or reversing letters and numbers. Science should never take the subject's word for it, instead it should do experiments. The research shown on the documentary shows that children diagnosed with dyslexia were just as good at copying down complicated symbols and diagrams as non-dyslexics (the symbols in question were the Hebrew alphabet). If tuition programmes not designed for dyslexics are better at improving the reading ability of dyslexics than those programmes designed for dyslexics, and if so-called dyslexics respond very well to one-to-one expert tuition on the basics of reading (eventually being able to read as well as their non-"dyslexic" peers), then dyslexia cannot exist. The burden of proof is, and always has been, on the dyslexia faithful (I know 'faithful' isn't an accurate word, please forgive me) to scientifically prove the existence of a condition which is provably different from general reading difficulty. The Dyslexia Myth is getting in the way of helping these children. The only way the term "dyslexia" can continue in future is if it's redefined to mean general "reading difficulty". The British Dyslexia Assocation admitted that it is not connected to intelligence in any way. --Aaron McDaid 14:04, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

There should certainly be some mention of the claims that it doesn't exist, and the best way to start might be to list some references here, then work them into the article. violet/riga (t) 22:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Aron, are you assuming that all dyslexia suffers can't read? Thier are more types then not being able to read. For instance, I can't spell, but I read college level stuff. As for patients not being the experts in thier own condition is wrong. Read up on what Dr. Torry says in his book Surviving Schizophrenia, for he explains it better then I ever can when he says that ppl with a disorder(s) are experts at thier disorder(s). --Admiral Roo 03:08, September 10, 2005 (UTC)

Dyslexia is not a myth. I have it along with Dyspraxia and inattentive type ADHD. I had auditory reversals and had problems listening to rapid speech. That led me to have speech reversals and disorganized speech. This was acknowledged by specialists when I was 4 years old. They told my mother that it was a form of Dyslexia. I was trained to listen better and had speech therapy. Then I had phonics. I was in special education for 3 years. I wasn't speaking words until I was 2 years old. I didn't speak clearly nor in full sentences until I was almost 8 years old I have history of cluttering. I also have auditory input speech lags which have to do with delays in understanding what people say. I still have problems with memory in regards to what I read and hear. I have to read stuff repeatedly. It's like after I read it,my mind goes blank. I have to deeply immerse myself in the material as well as using mental imagery to help me understand what I read. I was recently confirmed by Veteran Affairs neurolopsychological testing to have impaired immediate verbal memory,borderline impaired verbal memory,and borderline impaired sentence repetition. I also was confirmed to have eye coordination,tracking issues including poor saccadic and pursuit movements. The Veteran Affairs neurologists confirmed that I have Dyslexia and Dyspraxia after neurological and neuropsychological testing. It confirmed the testing that I had by Dr Levinson that included abnormal electronystagmography,abnormal posturography,abnormal neurological testing which included noted speech and auditory processing issues,and abnormal 3D Auditory Scanner which led to his diagnosing me as having cerebellar vestibular dysfunction which he believes is root of Dyslexic Syndrome. I have problems with directions as well as sense of time. I have problems with disorganization. Like Dyslexics,I am a very visual thinker. I have strong visual spatial skills. I think mainly in pictures instead of words to the point that I visualize things nonstop. I visualize everything before I do it. I even visualize myself doing things like I am seeing myself in the mirror. My Dyspraxia is related to my coordination of my speech as well as overall coordination, poor short term memory,forgetful,disorganized,highly sensitive/emotional,poor sense of direction,poor sense time,problems with remembering sequences(including when people show me stuff,not just reading. I am slow to get stuff at first. I know what it's like to be called "retard" by other kids for my Dyslexic,Dyspraxic difficulties and being in special ed. I know what it's like for my coworkers to think that I am stupid and treat me that way. I know what it's like to be misdiagnosed by psychiatrists because of my speech irregularities. Dyslexia is no myth. Dyspraxia isn't either. You have to have the conditions to totally understand. If you don't,you won't understand. (Satabishara 16:29, 2 April 2007 (UTC)).

I know that many of those diagnosed with dyslexia can read. If anything, that fact proves how meaningless the term dyslexia really is. It's now applied to anyone who has any difficulty with almost anything. The article itself admits how inconsistent the symptoms are. It states that they get worse under pressure - but isn't that entirely normal for any person? Looking at the list of characteristics, the article says that most dyslexics will suffer about 10 of them. But there are 37 characteristics listed there, and each of them is so vague that I wouldn't be surprised if the vast majority of the population suffer from 10 of them. This means that most people are dyslexic! Many of the characteristics are of the form "Can be an extra deep or light sleeper". If you include both extremes like that, then you're saying that the only way somebody can be non-dyslexic is if they are completely average in every way. That's obviously nonsense, it'd be a very rare person who would be average in every way, the odds of it are very slim.

If some people suffer from a variety of symptoms, there's no reason to think the symptoms are related - somebody with cancer might also have excema, but that's no reason to say there's a connection.

If I remember correctly, the main research mentioned in the documentary has been completed but has not been published formally yet (and peer-reviewed et cetera), we may have to wait some time unfortunately. But I might look around for other studies mentioned in the programme and post references if I can find any.

However, the onus is on those who want to prove dyslexia exists. It's not just enough to draw up a list of symptoms and then find a group of people who match that. Out of 6 billion people, you can find somebody with pretty much any list of symptoms. If you make up a disease or disorder, you have to prove it exists, not expect critics to disprove it. Otherwise any crank could make up a new disorder every day, and expect to be taken seriously just because nobody bothered to disprove it's existence.

The first sentence of the article says In its most common and apparent form, it is a disability in which a person's reading and/or writing ability is significantly lower than that which would be predicted by his or her general level of intelligence.

However, reading is actually performed by a relatively primitive part of the brain (just as with spoken conversation), so there is no reason that there should be a link with higher brain functions and intelligence. You wouldn't be surprised at a highly intelligence person who wasn't any good at sports (hand-eye coordination et cetera, primitive brain functions), so why should you make an assumption that they should be good readers? (reading is another primitive brain function).

Perhaps the whole dyslexia myth is a result of the simple mistaken assumption that reading is a high level brain function and should be predictable from their intelligence level. Now that I think of it, why should it be predictable is such a way even if that assumption was true? The "higher" brain functions might be quite separate anyway. Being good at all the "higher" functions might be just as much a coincidence as being good at some and not others. --Aaron McDaid 14:10, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

I've found this New Scientist article about research by the Institute of Phychiatry in London which reports that learning difficulties including dyslexia are not special distinct conditions after all. Learning disabilities or abilities seem to be the result of the cumulative effects of a very large number of genes and environmental effects (as opposed to a small number, which would be consistent with learning difficulties really being definite specific disorders). This article is a bit light on details but the results are typical of the sort of research that was mentioned on the Dispatches documentary.

As would be expected, everybody has a different set of genes and a different environment so every individual is unique. In my own opinion, the variation in mental abilities, including those classified as dyslexia or other learning difficulties, is entirely what would be expected by an almost random distribution of genes and environmental factors. For example, if 20% of the population has higher than average intelligence, and also 20% has reading problems, then there is no surprise that 4% (4% = 20% of 20%) of the population are intelligent people with reading problems. Of course, the genes and environment probably aren't distributed randomly, for example, having good genes means the parents have good genes which might mean they do well in life meaning the child gets a good environment.

Being dyslexic is no more the result of a mental disorder than being highly intelligent, or even of having exactly average intelligence!

Here's more on the content of the documentary itself, written by the producer of the documentary. From the linked article: "The biggest shock was that the 'dyslexia myth' story which sounded so controversial when I first started the research, turned out not to be controversial at all to the experts. The idea that the common understanding of dyslexia is a myth was startling when I first heard it. Yet I found it was a view shared by every academic that I talked to. The scientific consensus about it is overwhelming."

--Aaron McDaid 17:25, 10 September 2005 (UTC)

There is of course also the possibility that dyslexia does exist as a condition (or perhaps like schizophrenia, as one of several distinct conditions with some similarity in symptoms), but that the vast majority of those who are diagnosed with dyslexia have been misdiagnosed. This would explain the difficulty in finding any difference in general characteristics of individuals or in effective treatments between those who have been diagnosed as dyslexic and those who have not; the sample of "dyslexics" has been contaminated by a large number of individuals who should be in the other category. I am inclined to believe that something like this must be the case, as 1) it is hard to believe that there does not exist a neurological condition which would effect only the ability to read, given the large number of more universally accepted conditions that affect a similarly narrow area of functioning, 2) at one time (perhaps before misdiagnosis became so common, if this is the case) dyslexia was more widely accepted as a real condition, and 3) it is obvious to me how such misdiagnosis could have become commonplace. To be blunt, 50 years ago, if Junior was having problems in school, you took him to a specialistic, and the doctor said he did not suffer from dyslexia, that was that. Today, you've picked up a penchant for armchair psychology from watching the news (or reading Dyslexia for Dummies), and besides, you know your kid's smarter than average despite all evidence to the contrary (whether it is just because your style of parenting is different than your parents', or because that's what they teach him in school), so you know Junior is dyslexic, no matter what Dr. A may say. You take him to Dr. B and Dr. C and finally doctor Dr. D, who was recommended by a friend whose kid is also "dyslexic". End result: Junior is "dyslexic", whether or not he really is. Granted, this situation could happen even if there is no such thing as dyslexia, and I hope I'm not needlessly offending anyone by going off on this tangent, but I think it makes it clear that there is some merit to considering the possibility of widespread misdiagnosis. CyborgTosser (Only half the battle) 08:49, 5 October 2005 (UTC)

Dyslexia is currently diagnosed by looking for people whose reading levels are out of line with their IQs. This is called the discrepancy model. Arguing over "dyslexia" is difficult as it doesn't have a clear definition. However, the current system gives extra reading assistance to a certain group of people based on the discrepancy model. There have been studies that have shown that giving this reading assistance to people with reading difficulties is equally beneficial to people regardless of IQ. The discrepancy model is therefore discriminating against people with lower IQs, these people would benefit equally well to those labelled as dyslexia. Brain scans also show exactly the same problems in both IQ groups. I am not saying that we shouldn't use the term dyslexia for a group of people with special-learning-difficulties but if we decide we do want to use the dyslexic term we should apply it regardless of IQ. My mother works in the area of giving teaching assistance and applying the current dyslexia discrepancy model in the UK (statementing). I could probably find internet sources from the leading experts in the field. I think we should state that the labelling of people as dyslexic based on the discrepancy model is now considered to be unhelpful and possibly discriminatory. It should probably also be mentioned that due to the fact that the term dyslexia has always been associated with the discrepancy model and not just with "specific reading difficulties" some people are arguing that "dyslexia" as it is currently defined does not really exist.

Umm there seems to be alot of arm-chair specialists, lets be blunt if you make a statement you must be able to quantify it. That is you should use decent resources, such as published papers opposed to what you watched on telly that night. To state that Dyslexics are either, more, less, or average in regard to intelligence must quantifible.

Further more if 'believe' that dyslexia doesn't exist YOU must also quantify it as well! Not just make it up in some pseudoempirical-rationalist manner. Again quantify with real papers, not just T.V., or lunch room discussions.

In 'general characteristics' the line "Appears to be bright, seemingly highly intelligent, and articulate but unable to read, write, or spell at grade level." Also needs a neutral term for 'grade level' as not all english speakers have a understanding of the U.S.A. educational system.

Mark

There is a real problem with the way reading in general is viewed and the way dyslexia is diagnosed.

Firstly, the very term 'dyslexia' implies a deficiency in the biological systems involved in reading. It assumes that everyone should be able to read black text on a white background - anyone who can't, must have a deficiency. However, no system in the body has ever evolved to read. Reading requires small sharp movements across a tight, regular array of symbols - a type of movement that is required nowhere else in nature so that there has been no selective pressure for it to evolve.

This is compounded by a lack of understanding of the biophysics of the eye. Light is detected on the retina when it reacts with pigment molecules in the receptor cells. This pigment molecule can be folded in three different ways which react with different frequencies of light - broadly corresponding to red, green and blue light. As the number, and size of these cells varies from person to person, different people can have vastly different experiences when looking at black text on a white background (white light being composed of red, green and blue light). This can lead to poor quality data collection which makes it hard to accurately detect the edges of letters and hence more difficult for the eyes to accurately move to the next point of fixation and makes reading stressful and inefficient. If the eyes are unable to make a solid fixation, you end up with the confusion between b's and d's etc because although the eyes detect the shapes o and l they do not detect the position correctly so you either get b (lo) or d (ol).

By measuring the optimum background colour for an individual, stimulation of the receptor cells can be maximised and data gathering by the eyes can be increased in both speed and efficiency so the stress caused by reading is massively reduced. This can leave people who are "dyslexic" reading faster than those who are supposedly normal.

Secondly, there is a huge disparity in the diagnosis of dyslexia between different social groups. Dyslexia is far more commonly diagnosed in the children of well-off, middle-class families than in those from poorer backgrounds. The expectations of a parent for their child's success also rests on the misconception that comfortable, highly efficient reading of black text on a white background is the norm. Well educated, efficient readers expect their children to perform as they did and if they don't then the term 'dyslexia' has more acceptable connotations than 'not good academically'.

This is not to say that there isn't a section of the populace that have difficulty reading that is unrelated to intelligence, but rather that this group should not necessarily be differentiated from the rest of the population with the black-&-white categories of dyslexic and non-dyslexic. If you look at reading speeds across the population, you find that there isn't a gap between dyslexics and non-dyslexics, but a spread where the speeds of the fastest dyslexics overlap with those of the slowest non-dyslexics. This suggests that they are not suffering from a distinct, definable condition, but are simply the extreme end of a normal distribution. This is backed up by the fact that non-dyslexics also show improved reading speeds when the background colour is optimised for the individual, but the gains shown are not as high as for those originally diagnosed dyslexic.

Steve

Another way at looking at things is in the different part of the brain which handle certain functions. In most people the primary language processing areas (Broca's area and Wernicke's area) are located in the left cerebral hemisphere. For some dyslexics they actually do some language processing in the right hand side (reflecting a high correlation between left handed people and dyslexia). This can account for some of the observed problems, using non specalised areas for parsing symbols. It might also acount for some of the benifits of dyslexia, (many dyslexics I know think of it more as a different way of thinking than a disability). Another distinction not mentioned in the article is between visual and auditory dyslexics which are very different phenomena. I've written some more on this at [3] but the essay did not really get as far as dyslexia. --Salix alba (talk) 12:43, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Re: benefits of dyslexia (different way of thinking) - this may tie in with some research we've done examining eye movement during text/number tasks involving itterative arrays and graphical tasks that don't require itterative movements. When reading, the eyes of the dyslexic group move out of synch with each other and cannot maintain a steady fixation or make accurate saccades. Interestingly, we found that a significant proportion of the dyslexic group out-performed the non-dyslexic group when it came to the graphical tasks and when performing these tasks, the dyslexic group showed very synchronised eye movement and steady fixations just as the non-dyslexic group. It would be interesting to see if a "deficit" in itterative text processing correlates at all with an "improved" ability at graphical information processing. However, to draw any useful conclusions, you'd need some kind of standard distribution to compare the results against.--SteveQ 13:44, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Most interesting, do you have a website/publications? Myself I've always been drawn to graphics/geometry and there is a contriversal book, "Drawing on the right side of the brain" which makes a strong case for spatial skills being located in the right hand hemisphere. I'd really like to find the time to really review the current litature on the subject for which goes a lot further than this article, it might be worth having a look at Lateralization of brain function. --Salix alba (talk) 17:29, 30 May 2006 (UTC)

Our website is here - it looks nasty, I know, but there are some articles under the "Science" section that explain what we do. --SteveQ 11:29, 31 May 2006 (UTC)

Merge with learning disability?

Wikipedia also has an entry for learning disability, of which dyslexia is one kind. - 130.132.246.83 02:32, 7 September 2005 (UTC) jb - sorry, didn't log in.

The topic seems to stand on its own pretty well. --Jtalledo (talk) 03:01, 29 September 2005 (UTC)

I find it hard to accept that reading trouble which is not a learning disability must not be called dyslexia. What are we to call it? My Random House Unabridged Dictionary calls it "an impairment of the ability to read due to a brain defect", and gives dys- + lex(is) + -ia as its etymology. To me, that implies that the word is applicable to conditions which aren't related at all to learning (not even learning how to read), but only to reading -- that is, the practice of reading. (The dictionary is a bit old, and no doubt, our understanding of what occurs within and without the brain has grown more sophisticated since it was compiled.) --D021317c 11:55, 28 May 2006 (EDT)

Irony

Does anyone find it ironic that the Dyslexia page has a {{cleanup}} tag on it. :) - UnlimitedAccess 17:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)

I know that you dont men to be but your comment is offensive. It was me that put up the tag. The grammer and spelling of the article is fine (perfect). What is not fine are the many unsubstantiated factoids scattered about all over the place. In particular with reference to symptoms and diagnosis--Fergie 09:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Offensive? I have dyslexia and I didnt find it offensive, it's a fact most forms of Dyslexia involve poor writing, I thought it was an apt joke. :P - UnlimitedAccess 10:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)

Don't worry - I found it amusing too! violet/riga (t) 22:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)

Dyslexia as a result of brain lesion

When I read this article, I was quite surprised that dyslexia was labelled a learning disorder right away, although there are many well examined cases of dyslexia as a result of brain lesion and those cases are apt to reveal much more about the nature of writing and how we associate language with visual symbols than the phenomenon of dyslexia as a learning disability, such as which strategies can be applied to process which sort of writing system. My suggestion is therefore to shorten the learning disorder part and to extend the article by a section about the findings of research on dyslexia as result of brain lesions. Any spelling errors in this comment are not due to dyslexia but to the fact that the author is not a native speaker of this language Watasenia 12:43, 18 October 2005 (UTC)

A note should be put in somewhere distinguishing acquired dyslexia, which is due to brain damage occurring during the lifetime, from developmental dyslexia, the condition which may be partly genetic that arises in children without brain damage. The article currently seems to only mention developmental dyslexia. Unless someone else does it first, I will try to remember to get onto it once my exams are over. --Nzbassist 06:46, 11 June 2006 (UTC)

I have changed the text at the top to make this distinction. The term "dyslexia" is typically reserved for developmental cases. Alexia is used to refer to acquired cases (reading impairment due to brain damage). There is a link to alexia for people looking for information on it.--Drmarc 04:34, 2 August 2006 (UTC)

Removed controversial edit

I removed the following edit, as it seems to go against the rest of the article. Please do not restore it without achieving consensus on this talk page first. Thank you! --Ashenai (talk) 15:45, 19 October 2005 (UTC)

===The Dyslexia Myth===

A recent research report has found that in reality, Dyslexia cannot be proven to exist in any scientific basis. [[Channel 4]] in the UK reported this in a documentary. 'The Dyslexia Myth' argues that the common understanding of dyslexia is not only false but makes it more difficult to provide the reading help that hundreds of thousands of children desperately need.

Now that's comedy

Did you know that if you type in Dyslexia backwards (aixelsyd) it redirects to the dyslexia page? I find that pretty amusing.

• Tongo Zitheroo Ketchill

Dislexyia too. --Mistress Selina Kyle ^{(Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉)} 09:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)

Debate and Controversy

I've just added a new section on the debate and controversy over dyslexia, it's definition and cause. I'm trying to fairly describe the alternative viewpoints. The rest of the article should be used to support or contradict the views. Strictly speaking a 'controversy about dyslexia' is different from 'dyslexia' and the important thing is to fairly represent the alternative views, not immediately discuss the merits of the views. With this new section, readers will be able to read the many POV statements in the rest of the article (varied POV statements they are too) with the due caution, enabling the rest of the article to openly discuss the subject without us having to struggle over each little bit of the article. --Aaron McDaid 17:48, 14 January 2006 (UTC)

The Characteristics section

There were are a number of questions asked about the accuracy of the Characteristics section in the article. They are now all brought together in this part of the talk page. --Aaron McDaid 00:50, 18 January 2006 (UTC)

The characteristics section is still nonsense. The 30-odd characteristics listed are so vague and general that it's certain that the vast majority of the population will have at least 10 of them, making them a 'dyslexic' according to this article. Ronald D Davis is not a reliable source - he runs a company called the 'Davis Dyslexia Association' so obviously has a vested interest. Please find a list from a published journal or something like that or remove it. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 12:47, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

Compensation Stratergies

Speaking as a dyslexic I know I do use compensation stratergies but why link it to low self esteem?

Bedwetting Section

Concerns from a dyslexic friend about this section. Is this confirmed by a person as a specific resultof dyslexia?? Or is it the result of vandalism

Thanks foryour time...

Philipwhiuk 13:40, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

None of the information in the Characteristics section has been scientifically verified. The characteristics probably cover most of the population, dyslexic or not.

--Aaron McDaid 14:04, 17 January 2006 (UTC)

Common characteristics of dylexia

Would anybody have any objection to swapping out the current, innacurate, "common characteristics of dyslexia" section with a more universally accepted list of symptoms such as this (British Dyslexic Association)?--Fergie 13:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)

Are you sure that is the correct link? When I click on it I am prompted to provide a username and password. Nautile 20:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)

General characteristics?

Aside from the first general characteristic (Appears to be bright, seemingly highly intelligent, and articulate but unable to read, write, or spell at grade level) the rest seem irelevant. Any child with a big imagination and a high IQ generally acts tha way the rest of the characteristics say. 82.76.30.78 08:22, 15 September 2005

True

Personality Assumptions

"Strong sense of justice; emotionally sensitive; strives for perfection." What? Just what is he basing this on? -Evil Dyslexic

Sounds like a category from Myers-Briggs Personality Inventory -- possibly "INFP". Certainly has nothing to do with Dyslexia, as far as I know. Brian Pearson 05:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure where this doscisson beings or ends... How do Dyslexics act when they ain't getting truth to a person. I'm Dyslexic but I want to know if my actions is me getting peed off and my communication goes down and I get more nasty.

Basicaly i was complaining about someone bullying me and i left i was getting patted on the head and told to go off.. User:Angel LaHash 18:21BST, 3 April 2007

Public Support

Because I'm a callow idiot, I edited this page so that it reads, The child may have trouble distinguishing between the letters "b," "d," "q" and "p."

I believe I added the letter Q. I apologize. I am also a dyslexic. It has taken me too long to say anything of this edit. (I should have commented first in the place.) Thank you for your time. 65.7.232.42 03:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)

Removed controversial edit

Viewpoints were also put forward from same dubious Channel 4 documentary.

Other languages

This article keeps referring to english speaking dyslexics. I have read in many places, including wikipedia articles as well as published writing that amongst speakers of other languages (such as spanish) which have much more regular spelling than english, dyslexia is less common. I don't have sources to back this up, but if someone else knows ----about this topic and can verify it, could you please contribute to the article? thanks

---

can different languages cure dyslexic since the brain works differenly for everyone? is it possible for someone who has english dyslexic to excell in chinese, and for someone who has chinese dyslexic to excell in english? (or other languages). The two languages are opposite to each other: chinese uses logogram to associate to an object(or meaning), while english uses alphabets where each symbol primarily represents a sound or a combination of sounds. chinese is harder to learn since you have to memorize thousands of characters, but once you master it...(what happends then??). Plus chinese fonts are more organized on paper. English on the other hand has only 26 alphabets to memorize, but the difficulties comes from spelling (as you can tell from my spelling errors). Japanese has a combination of characters (kanji) and alphabets (hitagona, kitakona). can this be the reason why japs are doing so well in schools (personal opinion)?
humans eyes tend to count numbers when we see more then four dots (some three). thats why dices are limited by three rows max.
example: How many dots
... (no count, you know its three just by looking)

...... (your eyes need to count)

example 2:
$100,000,000

$3000000

i often have difficulty reading words more than six alphabets, it slows my reading speed dramatically. thankfully, I was able to over come this with text-to-speech softwares.
i've googled "chinese dyslexic" and found this page pretty interesting.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/life/feature/story/0,13026,1310286,00.html
Pseudohan 04:36, 24 March 2006 (UTC)

Interesting stuff. It had not occurred to me this was possible. Brian Pearson 05:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

---

No, these 2 Factors are nor related to each other.. It's probably rather the amount of heavy metals like mercury, vaccines, and other enviroment factors which cause the gap. These country's in the south where people usually talk spain, are far less poluted and offer more healthy living conditions...

Updated page April 11 06.

Inspired by the previous contribution “Debate and Controversy” the subject of the documentary was introduced. This was an attempt to present the same arguments and information in a more concise way, also adding creditability by citing the work and adding a bibliography. It was also placed at the end of the article as documentary does largely address public support. Since the article is addressing the future of dyslexia it should appear at the end of the article as it would in an essay conclusion.

Martin Lambert.

Updated April 12

It appears "The Dyslexic Myth" has resulted in this article to have many unsupported claims and conjecture. An attempt to create a bias readers by attempting to tell them how to interpret studies becomes clear. The most disappointing attempt to create prejudice is seen in the characteristic trait, where all the positive ones had been removed leaving only the ones that could create prejudice.

Removed -hypotheses, redundant data, unsupported claims, removed unsupported speculation and conjecture. removed leading sentences with suggested meanings. If a study is sone and the results are presented unless the study suggest where this leads we can let people think for themselves. At one point a new theory is introduced in as though it belongs to a prior one. The separation is made clear. Removed unsupported opinion of what studies may mean. For General Characteristics stated source and pointed out this is the sources argument. Included all his suggested traits not just ones that are negative, the old way appeared to be intended to leave a negative bias. Dyslexic Myth moved under public support and added that the British Governments findings on Dec 7th of 2005 by the House of Lords has confirmed Dyslexia is not a myth.

Removed article on controversy. April 26th

Documentaries are commercial products made and sold for entertainment value some times information value, they are interesting ways and easy ways to learn info but they are designed to entertain as well as inform hopefully. If you want to use the arguments presented in the documentaries’ please find, their scholarly sources that have went through the peer review process that are not hypotheses. As anyone who has studied film at an academic level will know all films including documentaries are biased. Thus, by using a documentary to present information you are presenting a bias instead of analytical or critical thinking.

With roughly 100 years of research into dyslexia many papers and even documentaries have been developed. Most of which has successfully gone through the peer review process and have been accepted as creditable both by the academic world and various governments as seen through policies made discussing Dyslexia. For one single documentary to have an entire paragraph is questionable in this article. This documentry represents less than 1% of the studies on the subject.It becomes even more questionable when we see that the documentary, primary sources of information have yet to successfully go through the peer review process. Even more so when we see it is primarily based on hypotheses as to theory. The ideas’ presented in the transcripts of the document are largely based on observation and not scientific research. Frankly simply mentioning that the “In a report on the House of Lords Dyslexia debate which took place on Wednesday 7 December is now available the Government confirms dyslexia is not a myth.” is more than should really appear if this is to be a creditable article.

After reading the transcript of the show it is clear that like most documentaries and even papers it is attempting to prove a point its bias is very clear. However after reading articles on the “evidence” from the documentary it becomes clear that a good portion of the “evidence” has been unable to achieve scholarly levels even by scholars as the articles and hypothesis (many ideas presented are hypotheses and not theories) have yet to make it through the peer review process. The documentary largely acts as a tool for individuals to put forward arguments that they are unable to creditably put forward in the academic world.

Stop removing reference to controversial documentary

User:69.199.242.181,

1. Please sign your comments in talk pages with ~~~~.
2. Please provide edit summaries when doing something drastic like removing an entire section, especially if the section is controversial.
3. Please provide meaningful section titles in talk pages—"Updated page April 11 06." does not summarise what the section is about.
4. I am going to reinstate the section on the grounds that it has been published by reliable and reputable sources. Although not as authoritative as a peer-reviewed academic paper, it is out there, and it is controversial, so this article would be incomplete without it.
5. I agree with your comment about the sentence regarding the House of Lords, and therefore I will leave it out.

PizzaMargherita 21:08, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I just undid your second revert, which again lacked of an edit summary. Remember the Three revert rule, and please discuss here if you have any arguments. PizzaMargherita 21:43, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I also find it ironic how, contrary to the "Controversy" section that you keep removing, the claims in the section "Facts and statistics" do not offer any references. PizzaMargherita 22:50, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

When reading Wikipedia:Reliable sources, I suspect you failed to consider the headings: Avoid citing the popular press, Evaluating sources, and Cite peer-reviewed scientific publications and check community consensus. All of these suggest that the documentary should not be included in the article. However seeing that the "Holocaust Myth" is covered in Wikipedia’s Holocaust section, there is little point to continue this further. I trust as it stands most people can choose for them selves how reliable and reputable tv shows are for representing information earnestly and accurately. User:69.199.242.181 May 20 2006

I am a little disappointed as I had thought, and hoped Wikipedia might be more reliable than the tv as a source of information. I am happy I resisted the temptation to use if for research in any of my work. This has proven to me the value of peer reviewed work even if there is the occasional intellectual elitism. The loss of creditability without the peer review process threatens sufficiently to justify the tolerance of the occasional intellectual elitism. User:69.199.242.181 May 20 2006

I generally agree with the above comment; the show was a report on other research and not itself research. I'd be more interested in the underlying cites. News reports have a habit of trying to sensationalize, and the summary attacking the straw man of the "common understanding" tells us nothing. If the show is so important, perhaps it deserves a page of its own where its sources could be fully explicated? But I don't see the point of reporting on a report. Sam 09:59, 20 May 2006 (UTC)

In the Controversy section, can anyone explain this bit and point to a reference? It seems frankly absurd to me: Critics claim that through FMRI it has been demonstrated that the dyslexic mind processes information - mostly in pictures, sounds and emotion - about 1300 to 25000 times faster than the 'normal' brain, which is considered to work with verbal thought processes. The 'normal' person is limited to the speed of speech, as opposed to the dyslexic who thinks mainly in non-verbal terms. This means that much information is lost when trying to put thoughts into words, as to the dyslexic the process can feel similar to translating a foreign language. It was put in long after I added the text at the top about citing sources. I suggest removing it unless there's some evidence. I've tried to keep myself away from this article, but I see it's still in very bad shape. Aaron McDaid (talk - contribs) 12:38, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

The pain of being Dyslexic

Although I see a lot of discussion about what Dyslexia is and is not. I don't see much about the human side of it. What its like to be Dyslexic. Personaly I run in to spelling knotsies and english biggets all the time. I've written several blogs about my frustration with whats it like to be Dyslexic. I'd like to see and or post something about this.

Any thoughts?

Mark at grennan.com

Mgrennan 02:01, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

I appreciate your concern about the pain of being dyslexic. However, Wikipedia is meant to be an encycolpedia and personal experiences about a broad topic such as dyslexia are non-encyclopedic. A general discussion of the difficulties that dyslexia creates is appropriate and appears to be addressed in the Characteristics section. If you have any general information (e.g. navigation while driving can be especially challenging to a dyslexia sufferer, etc.) without having it become a personal topic, please feel free to add that information. Blogs will still be the best place for you to express your personal frustration with the challenges of dyslexia.

Epolk 19:47, 6 June 2006 (UTC)

Functional MRI studies

You may want to search for the recent functional MRI studies involving dyslexia that support a physiological basis. Here are some summary articles:

http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/501030908/story.html http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web3/Slaughter.html http://science-education.nih.gov/snapshots.nsf/story?openform&rtn~Dyslexia

205.201.32.123 02:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

"Alternative spellings"

As far as I have been able to determine, the 'alternative spellings' are not widely used in anything except a self-deprecating, self-referential or otherwise humorous context. Therefore I'm editing them out. If I'm wrong, I hope I don't cause anyone any offence. Matthew Platts 13:55, 9 May 2006 (UTC)

spanish?

The characteristics are now in spanish? i think. can this be changed back. Charlie78 18:22, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Category:Dyslexic Wikipedians

has been proposed for deletion you can add your comments at Wikipedia:Categories for deletion#Category:Wikipedians by mental condition. --Salix alba (talk) 09:22, 15 May 2006 (UTC)

Mirror writing

The description of mirror writing is ambiguous and poorly worded:

"writing that appears backwards, but can be read when reflected in a mirror"

That could mean that when reflected in a mirror, it appears backwards, but can be read (which obviously makes it normal writing), or that it actually is backwards, in which case, why say it "appears" so, and shouldn't "but" be replaced with "and"? --

D021317c 11:39, 28 May 2006 (EDT)

Jumbled

"More problems can include the brain being extremely or mildly jumbled."

This doesn't sound right to me?

RE: Learning disability

I strongly disagree with any institutions that use the term “learning disability” in their definition of dyslexia. These experts are non-dyslexics that extract their theories from books written by non-dyslexics.

It is a different learning style and it does not take an expert to identify this fact. Once the learning formula has been identified and mastered, most dyslexics prove that the “learning disability” term has no value at all. Right from the start all humans need to come up with a learning formula and dyslexics alike.

---

US National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) / International Dyslexia Association

Defines Dyslexia as a specific learning disability of neurological origin. Characterized with difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition, spelling and decoding abilities.

This article is a total mess

Just about every tenet of wikipedia has been broken on this article. Is there a consensus that it needs to be cleaned up or are people happy with it as it is? --Fergie 09:31, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Do you have specific points, where you think the article needs improvment? It's easier to try and address specific points than a general cleanup call. --Salix alba (talk) 10:21, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

Come to think of it the page is very much about dyslexia as a wholely negative disorder, and does not reflect the positive view of dyslexia as a different mode of thinking. For example Dyslexia the gift, The Benefits of Dyslexia. The general view of this is that dyslexic people often have strengths in seeing the overall picture, in solving problems quickly and in visual skills and can tend to be very creative DIMW Column – Dyslexia, the Hidden Problem Among Creatives.

One challenge to this is making it clear that dyslexia is not a necessary condition for being creative, and likewise, not all people with dyslexia have such a talent. Instead they have other talents like being great parents, businesspeople, teachers, etc. I am all for encouraging people to think of dyslexia as just one part of a person's abilities, rather than a person's defining characteristic. But I think we have to be careful to present factual information. There's no scientific evidence that I know of to support the theory that reading difficulties cause you to be more creative. --Drmarc 21:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

Maybe this is more a case of correlation rather than causation, my own view is that a lot of its down to different development in the brain, which can cause both the reading dificulty and a more spatical awareness. From WP:NPOV NPOV says that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and it can be said that the benefits of dyslexia are a significant viewpoint, even though there is not scientific underpinning. On the flip side I've read somewhere that a disproportionate number of the prisioners are dyslexic. --Salix alba (talk) 03:02, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

The article also misses the many famous people who have been suspected of being dyslexic Richard Branson, Albert Einstein, Winston Churchill, Walter Elias Disney, Alexander Graham Bell, Leonardo DeVinci, Thomas Alva Edison, Michael Faraday. --Salix alba (talk) 11:48, 30 August 2006 (UTC)

I and others have been trying to clean it up. It was in much worse shape a month ago. I'm keen to keep working on it but time is limited. If you have comments on where it could be improved please do post them here, or make some changes yourself. --Drmarc 21:19, 31 August 2006 (UTC)

If you look over the changelogs and talk page you will see that I am a long time, occasional editor of this page. The article as it stands is full of unverified and questionable information, yet there seems to be little will to change it. The 'charcteristics' section in particular has flown in the face of all that is good and holy about Wikipedia for several months. Unusually, there is no edit war here, what is happening is that a lot of different users are reverting sensible edits. I just want to find out if it is only me or if others feel the same. --Fergie 11:29, 1 September 2006 (UTC)

Fergie, I do feel the same way about the page. I did work on the 'characteristics' section a few months ago, including removing a load of things that are factually untrue. But yes, lots of the "points" in there are not helpful and are not referenced because there'd be nothing to refer to. I guess the issue for me has been how much of the old, unhelpful stuff to cut, and how much time one has to edit the page.--Drmarc 01:48, 4 September 2006 (UTC)

The Myth of Dyslexia.

I have not changed the article because I do not have any evidence, and I do not feel that it would add to the content, but I thought I would add this here.

It seem so me that any condition that cannot be easerly tested or defined makes the medical community (especially Doctors) very uneasy, and they are very quick to try and discredit anything they cannot treat with a few pills and a set of precise data.

Good examples of this a Dyslexia and Depression. These conditions are ones that do not have a list of standard criteria for people to say "right we’ve ticked off X amount of them so the diagnosis is confermed".

Personal Feelings (sorry): My (entirely personal) opinion is that many Doctors have an over inflated view of there own important (GP's and consultants mostly, Specialists much less so). As a Chartered Engineer If I treated my clients the same way as some Doctors have treated me and my partner (who suffers from depression) Id have been fired a long time ago, and I am just as qualified as them and dealing with people who know even less about what I do that people do about there own body’s... This type of attitude seems to go along way to explaining why the medical profession seem so ready to write off Dyslexia as "just being lazy" of "a bit slow".

Paul

There is also another reason. The most probable causes for dyslexia are enviroment factors like mercury (which is known to disturb the braindevelopment in humans and animals alike). Things that can't be threated - and even worse - would cost the big lobby's money are usually dismissed as non existent... The Bush Regime is even trying to get mercury from the list of poisons^^ BakuninXL 23:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)

Not all mercury is poisonous, nor in the same amounts. The problem with finding a "cause" for dyslexia is that there is no single dyslexia, rather it's an effect caused by any number of factors. While I agree that exposure to mercury is not good, you must be careful not to delve into conspiracy theories... I know that people claim that mercury in MRM vaccinations causes autism, despite the situation that we no longer use mercury in our MRM vaccinations, and our rate of autism has not decreased, neither is the rate of autism higher in places where MRM vaccinations are still allowed to contain mercury, and of course all of that is compounded by the fact that autism is not identifiable until the child begins do develop as it is a development disorder, much like dyslexia. You can't examine a 1-year old and know if it has dyslexia or not, because 1-year olds can't read. Similarly with autism, all babies begin pretty darn autistic, then they develop some, and then autistics fall behind and never catch up. That's just how things work, of course, do anything consistently to babies any time right around where that falling behind is noticable (like, give them an MRM vaccination) and suddenly people will associate a cause-and-effect where none exists. Speculation and wild theories are pretty pointless on wikipedia --Puellanivis 03:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)

Dyslexia is not a desease

It's a problem with the brain development or brain chemistry. It's probably closer related to Psychopathy, than to anything else. Instant of no feelings or empathy, people with Dyslexia have no normal access to the parts of the brain which usually are responsible for language. These parts are there, for some reason they just don't work like they are supposed to. It's the same with Psychopaths, the part of the brain that usualy progress feeling and stuff is there, it's just doesn't work for some reason...

BakuninXL 19:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)

Dyslexia: New Theory

"...studies suggest that children with dyslexia have bad filters for irrelevant data. As a result, they struggle to form solid mental categories for identifying letters and word sounds..."[4] Brian Pearson 07:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)

Good link. Seems to meet the criteria outlined in WP:REF. It would be great if the whole article could be built up from proper, peer reviewed research such as this.--Fergie 10:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

I have a suggestion for a rewrite -- I would like to retitle the "biological" basis to include the term "neurological", and include a brief summary of the research, including that done by Galaburda in the 80's as to hemispheric structural differences, the focus on phonological processing in the 90's, the research on magnocellular deficit, the more recent reports by the Sperling/Fu team on filtering issue (the one mentioned above); the connectionist work of Berninger at U. of Washington; and perhaps some mention of the outlier theories, such as cerebellar functioning. I know that it seems like a long list, but I think the basic theories along with citations to major researchers could be easily summarized - and it seems to me that it is more informative to outline the major areas of research focus, without trying to analyze the merits of the various findings. What I would like to cover (at least) are the researchers who are most likely to attract media attention, so when you read something in the news such as the study cited by Brian you could come back to the wikipedia article and at least get a sense of where it all fits in the context of other research being done. Abigail Marshall 02:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)

I've always been interested in reading science articles. In the case of articles such as those found at eurakalert.org [5], when I have a question or comment to make, I'm often asked if I am a media person and, if so, what media I'm working for. They might be more open to comments if they know their comments or their research could find its way into articles. Just a thought. Brian Pearson 01:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

That's an interesting point, Brian. I have been following up on new research that I used to source a new article - Perceptual noise exclusion hypothesis -- and corresponding with Dr. Lu, one of the researchers. It began when I simply asked for a copy of the research article in advanced of its publication. I do write for another publication, so I just mentioned my interest in that context -- I hadn't really thought about the wikipedia connection. But I wrote Dr. Lu to ask what they wanted to call their theory -- and I did let him know when I created the above article. He has been very helpful and responsive to my questions -- I just email him and say that I want to make sure I get things right. But I do think that they are sending out press releases because they want their work publicized, so they should be happy to see it showing up quickly in wikipedia. Abigail Marshall 05:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)

Visual dyslexia - The child in the photograph was experiencing.....

The following statement, posted under the new subhead "Visual Dyslexia", seems to me like an unsourced and unsubstantiated testimonial - NOT an appropriate entry for Wikipedia: The child in the photograph was experiencing some learning and behaviourial difficulties at a leading private school in London. The teaching staff did not consider that there might be a physical cause. On being taken to a specialist in the UK Midlands, visual dyslexia was diagnosed. Treatment using coloured and 'frosted' lenses lasted only three weeks. The boy's reading age (which was 7 at age 7) improved by two years within three months. I am looking for others' comments or views on this issue. I don't think anecdotal reports or testimonials should be allowed, at all, in the dyslexia topic -- no matter what the message, except (at most) to say that X method "is supported with anecdotal evidence" - coupled with an appropriate citation. (If testimonials start coming in for one method, then they would be acceptable for all.... and that would quickly turn into a useless muddle)

I propose that the above paragraph be removed, and replaced merely with a descriptive tag for the image, e.g. "Picture depicts a 7 year old boy treated with a 'frosted lens' to address a vision problem causing difficulties with reading." (or something similar).

I would be interested in hearing other thoughts on this. Abigail Marshall 03:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)

I poked around, and saw something called, "Visual deficits in dyslexia?"[6] But, without buying it, I couldn't confirm anything. The British Dyslexia Association[7] does talk about colored glasses, papers, and so forth, as an aid for some dyslexics. Brian Pearson 06:53, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Well, my problem is with the statement about the result -- i.e., the claim, that the child's reading improved by "two years within three months" -- there is no way to verify that, and if the proponent of one method can do that, then pretty soon someone else would come along with another picture and some other claim. I don't think Widkipedia should be a place for hype or testimonials... that's all.

I've gone ahead and removed this paragraph from the article -- if the person who posted it can substantiate the claims, then I think they should create another topic to explain the nature of the therapy, and then use a reference & link to get there. There just isn't room for details about all the different treatments for dyslexia in the one article.

"The child in the photograph was experiencing some learning and behaviourial difficulties at a leading private school in London. The teaching staff did not consider that there might be a physical cause. On being taken to a specialist in the UK Midlands, visual dyslexia was diagnosed. Treatment using coloured and 'frosted' lenses lasted only three weeks. The boy's reading age (which was 7 at age 7) improved by two years within three months."

Abigail Marshall 11:10, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. I think such specifics don't belong in an encyclopedia. Brian Pearson 02:44, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Promotion of private dyslexia treatment centers:

I have removed the following text, because it looks like private advertising to me:

More recent advances made by the Dyslexia Treatment Centre A private therapy centre in Glasgow Scotland, UK that specializes in helping a wide variety "Learning Differences" such as ADD, ADHD, Dyslexia and dyspraxia. The Dyslexia Treatment Centre use a combination therapy treatment including the VAK Approach, used in (nlp) Neuro Linguist Programming

I do not believe that the Wikipedia entry should be used to promote private centers. If there is a specific METHOD for treatment of dyslexia that is widely used, then I think that a separate topic should be used to reference that method, and the dyslexia article can briefly refer to it and then link; example: [Orton-Gillingham]

Private centers which offer a particular method, or web sites devoted to promoting that method, might appropriately be linked a the bottom of a particular page. For example, there is a section for "External Links" and "Schools for Dyslexic Students" at the bottom of the article where outside links might be appropriate. Abigail Marshall 02:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Merge from Reading Difficulties and Dyslexia

I oppose this merge. I'm not sure that there is any new information there and, to be completely honest think that Reading Difficulties and Dyslexia could probably stand to be deleted. --Selket 16:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

The real question is whether Reading Difficulties and Dyslexia are one and the same (or at least closely related). If the answer is 'yes', then the articles should be merged.--Fergie 14:39, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Selket; I don't think that Reading Difficulties and Dyslexia is useful in understanding dyslexia, so I don't think a merger makes sense. Dyslexia is NOT synonymous with "failure to acquire reading skills", but rather is recognized to be a condition of neurological origin (i.e., a functional brain difference) that impacts reading and literacy. The "Reading Difficulties" article lists underlying skill areas related to dyslexia, but otherwise has nothing to do with dyslexia. I think the word "dyslexdia" should be excised from the "Reading Difficulties" article, and it should be retitled something like "Reading Skill Acquisition" or merged with an article on reading or literacy, if any such article exists -- perhaps with the article Developmental Stages of Reading, -- Abigail Marshall 08:28, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

I am no expert in the field, yet through my work (in medicine) I have noted a growing consensus that treatments effective for children diagnosed with reading difficulties are equally effective for children diagnosed with dyslexia. Furthermore, that there exists no agreed clinical definition of dyslexia that identifies symptoms not present in individuals with reading difficulties. I definately agree with the proposal to merge this article with Reading Difficulties and Dyslexia, until such time as we see some solid peer reviewed research to indicate that individuals with reading difficulties are distinct in some way from individuals with dyslexia.--Fergie 15:12, 5 February 2007 (UTC)

The research is there. Example: Shaywitz SE, Shaywitz BA, Fulbright R, et al (2003). Neural Systems for Compensation and Persistence: Young Adult Outcome of Childhood Reading Disability. Biological Psychiatry 54:25-33. Abstract: http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/entrez/query.fcgi?cmd=Retrieve&db=PubMed&list_uids=12842305&dopt=Abstract

I don't want to get into a debate over research, but I think that the emerging consensus is that there is a neurological difference, and the issue of educational interventions is very different than the issue of the underlying cause of the condition. Torgeson reports failure rates as high as 40% with the reading interventions typically used in schools, so I think the "consensus" is that educators haven't quite figured out what is the best way to help dyslexics become fluent and capable readers. -- Abigail Marshall 03:35, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Good link, yet you appear to be proving my point. The abstract (no access to the full paper) seems to use 'reading difficulty' and 'dyslexia' interchangably- ergo there is no clinical difference between 'reading difficulty' and 'dyslexia' according to these researchers and the Dyslexia article should be merged with Reading Difficulties and Dyslexia. --Fergie 10:32, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

Actually, the 2003 Shaywitz study I referenced reported two distinct patterns of dyslexia, with different neurological signatures, and theorized that there were very distinct subgroups -- one that was merely poor readers, but another group who became more capable readers over time but persisted with a more divergent neural signature. I could easily list 50 different studies all finding some sort of neurological difference related to dyslexia if you wanted to debate the point. But wouldn't it make more sense to simply have a separate article that dealt with "reading acquisition" and cross-link with the dyslexia section? That way, you've got the information all neatly organized & cross-referenced, without creating more confusion. I agree that the issues overlap -- but there are dyslexics who read well but continue to have other symptoms of dyslexia; and there are many children and adults who do not read well, but are not dyslexic -- so it is not helpful to anyone to view a symptom of the condition as being synonymous with it. -- Abigail Marshall 20:15, 6 February 2007 (UTC)

If it can be shown that some people with dyslexia read well then I concede the point. But this argument means that dyslexia is not related to reading, which is perhaps venturing into the bounds of original research. What symptoms of dyslexia do not relate to reading difficulty? Can good readers really be classified as dyslexic? If so, is this classification a mainstream view?--Fergie 10:23, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

There's a good list of common symptoms of dyslexia here -- http://www.dyslexia-ca.org/dyslexiasymptoms.html - this is from an International Dyslexia Association web site, so it definitely reflects mainstream view. Some of the common symptoms listed unrelated to reading are difficulty in learning tasks such as tying shoes; left-right confusion; difficulty following direction. You might also be interested in this article which is comes from a retrospective study of successful adult dyslexics, tracing their development of reading skills - all of the dyslexics in the study became excellent readers; all had been diagnosed with dyslexia in childhood and also participated in extensive diagnostic testing as adults. The article is here: http://www.careertrainer.com/Request.jsp?lView=ViewArticle&Article=OID%3A33637 -- Abigail Marshall 14:15, 7 February 2007 (UTC)

Dyslexia is not the same as Reading Difficulty. They are sets that overlap but are not identical. Someone who is never taught to read can have a reading difficulty without ever being dyslexic. Yes, literature often uses the terms interchangably - but then that happens elsewhere in intellecetual discussions without issue (Russia is often used in Second World War articles in place of USSR, or Britain in place of United Kingdom). The need for English language writers to find alternative words to keep articles free of repetition does not make those alternative words entirely identical. 193.129.65.37 06:39, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism

What can be done to protect this page? There are vandals - almost always anonymous IP's - messing with the article on a daily basis, usually deleting text, posting obscenities, or scrambling letters. Is there a way that we can request Wikipedia to restrict editing of this page to registered users who log in? It seems that some of the pages in Wikipedia do have some added measure of protection.... and it only takes 5 minutes for anyone to create a user account, so I think that is a simple first step that at least might deter some of the vandals. -- Armarshall 03:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

If you really think that the vandalism is that bad, bring it up here and an administrator will probably protect the page. // PoeticDecay 03:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

Thanks ! -- Armarshall 05:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)

NLP and NPOV

The history of dyslexis section has major problems with POV. A huge amount of article space is dedicated to fringe theories with no peer-reviewd publications. This fails the principle of Undue weight. It is worth noting that the NLP crowd has been accused of agenda pushing elsewhere. -Selket ^Talk 16:16, 12 February 2007 (UTC)

I don't see this at all -- there is one line mentioning NLP at the very end. There are 5 paragraphs tracing history from Berlin, Morton, Orton, and reference to phonological awareness. Then there are only 2 paragraphs summarizing views of West, Davis, & Silverman.

Furthermore, this is a "history" section -- it makes no sense to be looking for "peer-reviewed" publications to give "history". That is, it doesn't matter whether Orton was right or wrong or what methodology he used was - the only issue as to "history" are the facts as to what he did. I agree with you that the very last sentence of the NLP reference seems to come out of the blue, and wouldn't have any problem with deleting that single, concluding sentence. But the rest is a fairly straightforward discussion of major, widely disseminated points of view. - Armarshall 02:14, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Unsubstantiated stats

Throughout this article, there's a lot of wild and unsubstantiated claims such as the following:

The current consensus is that dyslexia occurs in both sexes with equal frequency. It was previously reported more frequently in males, possibly due to selection factors and/or bias.

I don't mind these stats as long as they're supported by references, but otherwise they're too off-the-wall. The dead giveaway is the expression "possibly due to..." Deleted the line from Facts and Statistics section. BomberJoe 04:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

Music and dyslexia - unsourced statement

I removed the following text because it is unsubstantiated and factually inaccurate (even if musical training could help with dyslexia, there is no "long history" of it being used to remediate dyslexia -- at best it is a novel and unusual approach):

Music and dyslexia have had a long and complicated relationship in that dyslexics have difficulty with learning music notation but, at the same time, music has long been used as a method for overcoming dyslexic obstacles in reading and mathematics. There is some suggestion that dyslexia is less prevalent amongst children who have a history of singing in early childhood. In other words, where musical training is a rigorous part of early childhood training, the probability of dyslexia can be significantly reduced.

I retained the citations, but placed them at the end of a new sentence, "There is also some evidence that musical training may help develop temporal processing skills, and may provide a further avenue of remediation for dyslexia." This is consistent with the abstract of the first citation -

It has been proposed that temporal processing ability can be improved through training, and that this will lead to improved language and literacy skills (Tallal et al., 1996). Music training, requiring very accurate timing skills, can offer a medium for the development and improvement of temporal processing ability, and thus may provide a valuable form of extra remediation for dyslexic children. This article reports some preliminary work in this area, which has produced encouraging results. http://pom.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/28/2/218

I just found the original paragraph to be overstated and it seemed like a very unusual claim. I don't know of any research correlating research as to the prevalence of dyslexia in musical training - so if it exists, it needs to be better supported. - Armarshall 05:21, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

• To AR Marshall

I can understand your urge to remove my contribution, but you must allow room for people with other documented knowledge. You are dismissing the wisdom of others who have long dealt with dyslexia using other methods, in particular the choral methods used in religious schools for centuries. Without a balanced presentation, your contribution appears immature, bombastic and ill-informed, since it ignores what others have known for centuries. I'm sure that you don't want your work to appear thus. I am not disparaging your contribution (although I would very much like to), and I ask you to leave my contribution in place. Your knowledge of alternative and novel theories does not automatically give you the right to dismiss the valid contributions of others in Wikipedia. Therefore I have replaced the section that you removed, and ask that you leave it in place. It is properly sourced and documented and it belongs up front with the other contributions. If you want to be useful, please focus on cleaning up the many undocumented and unsourced contributions instead. BomberJoe 23:17, 13 February 2007 (UTC)

BomberJoe -- I read the source you gave and quoted directly from that. The following statements simply are not based in fact: "music has long been used as a method for overcoming dyslexic obstacles in reading and mathematics" -- your reference to choral methods used in religious schools "for centuries" makes no sense, because "dyslexia" was not even known or recognized widely until the 20th century, and was first documented as a medical condition in the late 19th century. I would suggest if you are knowledgeable about the use of music to teach reading, that you tone down your language and that you also add to the "Music Therapy" topic, and create an appropriate link from the dyslexia topic to that, as has been done with references to other methods in the preceding paragraph. By "tone down" I mean, don't state categorically that a novel and rarely used approach has been "used for centuries"; don't claim that an approach that some studies find "encouraging" is is going to "prevent" dyslexia. Or else provide the evidence to support the statements. I wasn't out to get you -- I read your addition, then I did my best to find the sources you cited, and what I could find didn't support what you said. Stick to the facts and label theory appropriately. - Armarshall 00:46, 14 February 2007 (UTC)

Adkchamp 04:40, 27 February 2007 (UTC)I'm 19 and I believe I have Dyslexia but my friends and family tell me i dont have it. im now a freshman at college and the reason is because all my life, my reading comprehension was at a level below than my peers yet i've manage to work ways to exceed that by a small percentage every year(such as methods). I have a IQ of 117 out of 140 (thats above average), im very creative when it comes to art such as acting and also good in sports (but did not achieved in it due to excessive minor injuries); my handwriting is illegible, written grammar sucked and when i read, i skipped some words and/or lines (maybe because it didn't interest me?) (no one really actually helped me at English during high school and my history on reading was terrible); i day dream a lot; i use pictures to remember things; i taught myself the multiple times table in the 3rd grade all the way through 5th grade and now im at expert at it;and I have a minor hearing problem (i can hear 85% on the left and 95% on the right). So tell me, is it possible that i still have it or maybe im just making it up? adkchamp

Speech,Hearing

I added Speech,Hearing section to Dyslexia. A lot of Dyslexics have problems with speech and auditory processing. I am definitely one of them. International Dyslexia Association have speech and auditory processing problems listed. Speech delays is one of the early warning signs of Dyslexia. Many Dyslexics have history of severe ear infections. Many of them had glue ear. There have been many a Dyslexic that needed speech therapy. Many people who have problems sounding out words when they talk have problems sounding out words when they read. (Satabishara 15:53, 2 April 2007 (UTC)).