Talk:Alternative therapies for developmental and learning disabilities/Archive 1

Archive 1

Please sign your comments with ~~~~.

Please read before editing Alternative therapies article.

The main purpose for this article was to improve the Dyslexia article by moving here theories and therapies that do not fit the main article.

Currently, this article looks like a dispute page. It should be cleaned up and made more neutral. The tone should also by more positive towards alternative therapies because many people feel they are helpful, and some of the therapies could later be proven efficient.

--Piechjo 21:32, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

---

The dispute

This article seems to be merely the reiteration of opinion pieces taken from sources inappropriate to meet Wikipidia standards -- i.e., a popular web site page defining purported attributes of "controversial therapies" -- and an opinion/review piece from a magazine. This does not seem to be an appropriate topic or approach for a wikipedia article. Armarshall 10:36, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

References added, and these are first class sources. This article is part of making improvements to the Dyslexia article that has been used as an advert page for controversial therapies and theories. --Piechjo 10:47, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Your "references" are opinion pieces, not researched articles. I do not think mere citation to someone else's opinion does not meet Wikipedia standards, no matter how reputable the person expressing an opinion -- it still is an opinion. It is not the same as a reference to a peer-reviewed journal, or to a body of work. If your goal was/is to improve the dyslexia article, it would make more sense to create an article entitled "alternative" or "nontraditional" therapies to dyslexia, including an introductory, cautionary paragraph, rather than to paint all therapies with one broad brush. The "characteristics" in the first paragraph simply do not apply to all of the therapies listed thereafter. "Controversy" means that there is disagreement, not that every "controversial" therapy shares some agreed set of flaws. Armarshall 11:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

The fallacy of burden lies on the proponents of these therapies, but sufficient research evidence has not been provided. Therefore these are controversial therapies. Peer-reviewed journals do not normally publish research proving that some therapy is ineffective. For professionals, the absence of evidence is the proof of lack of effect. Unfortunately, this scientific praxis does give an opportunity to any quack to promote their miracle treatment on the basis that "no one has proven it false". This article helps parents and professionals worldwide to find important information on LD treatment. In my professional career, I have encountered about a hundred controversial treatments for learning disabilities. There is room for all here, but not in the Dyslexia article, for instance. --Piechjo 13:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Yes, but many of the therapies listed DO have research published in peer-reviewed journals. With Fast ForWord, the articles by Paula Tallal and other researchers were published over a period of several years before the program was created; with Davis, there was a peer-reviewed article published in 2001; there are all sorts of peer-reviewed articles about vision therapy - see http://www.visionhelp.com/research/ for examples. Meanwhile, the articles you cite to are NOT from peer-reviewed journal -- and the method most often advocated by the International Dyslexia Association - Orton-Gillingham, is not supported by any peer-reviewed research at all. So basically this is a case of the pot calling the kettle black -- where is IDA's burden met when they don't have research supporting the methods they don't brand as "controversial"? Armarshall 03:16, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

Factual Accuracy

As written, this article uses equivocation and appears misleading. In one section a "controversial" therapy is defined in reference to an opinion article on a web site, with a claim that all therapies so-labeled have all the characteristics described; in another section, drawing from an entirely different article, a series of therapies are listed as "controversial"... implying that they all have the characteristics given in the preceding paragraph. Some of the facts are demonstrably false -- for example, it is first claimed that all "controversial" therapies lack research support, but at least one of the therapies listed in the following section (Fast ForWord) is the product of extensive peer-reviewed research by Paula Tallal and others. Armarshall 10:51, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

One is far from enough from making the therapy not controversial. --Piechjo 13:01, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

It looks to me like there are a couple of dozen studies cited on the Fast ForWord web site here: http://www.scilearn.com/results/science/main=articles -- Fast ForWord is one of the most heavily studied programs currently in use. This is partly because it is a product created by the scientists who initiated the research. There are several dozen research articles on that page, including at least 2 dozen authored or co-authored by Paula Tallal herself. Armarshall 03:22, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I might agree with you. This subject is complex. The name should be changed to Alternative therapies, and it should give a broader, less negative or judging view of the topic. --Piechjo 11:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

Thank you - I appreciate your effort to present this article in more neutral, fact-based tone. Keep in mind that traditional methods for tutoring have not been shown to be effective either -- they help some kids but not others, and they have been subject to a lot of criticism. In fact, some of the strongest questions have been raised by Swedish researchers (I'll pull up some cites for you if you are interested).

I think what the "alternative" therapies share is that they are not educationally, tutoring based approaches but mostly are aimed at trying to resolve or correct some other characteristic seen to be an underlying cause of dyslexia. So maybe it would make more sense to explain these in those terms, and perhaps try to categorize the therapies in some way other than by the label of controversial. I think that the information about controversy should be retained, but perhaps as a final cautionary paragraph rather than as the vehicle for deciding which therapies to list. Bet wishes, Armarshall 05:13, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Most Learning Disability Remedial Programs

Hi both

The real problem is that too many so called learning disabilities are diagnosed by tick box assessements, and not medicla clinical diagnostic testing procedures. This poses real problems when trying to identify the real underlying causes of thse so called conditions. This is partially because as yet we do not have the technology to fully understand the workings of the brain so researchers have to hypothesis and created and develpop theories with the best informationa available to them at the time thye are carrying out their research. And as we develop new technologies so we may understand more, but in other instences it appears we actually understand less as the enormity of the issues are recognised. It is like discussing relative issues of an elephants trunk and then discovering the existance of the rest of the larger body.

To this end until we have developed a full understanding of how the brain works all we have are the besat guesses of the worlds leading research scientists. Because we do not have a full understanding of the full workings of the brain we are not able as yet to define the real reasons why these observed differences of abilites, disabilities and behaviour exist. Having said this is is part of Human nature for try and find ways to work around the problems we facew on a daily basis. There are many underlying causes and combinations of underlying cause of dyslexia autism and other invisible disabilities, which are not yet fully understood, and there are also many who worked with relatively small groups of dyslexics who have identified that some remedial programs or techniques can help some groups of dyslexics. Because we are not scientifically able to pin piont the exact causes of these problems we can not scientifically identify the any specific remedy that will work for any individual dyslexic.

I am a member of an adult dyslexia forum in the UK Being Dyslexic, http://beingdyslexic.co.uk/forums/index.php which lists even more unproven programs, but we have state that some dyslexics may find these program beneficial some more than others and some who will gain no bnefit what so ever. What is required is to define what causes your dyslexia, and then identify the prograsms that may provide some support for that underlying cause. The important thing to remember is that there inb no one program that helps all dyslexics, the range of potential underlying causes is too wide for that to happen. So may be controvertia;l is the wrong word, may be we should just call the article "Programs That MAY Help You Work Around Your Disability" with a disclaimer that this is just a list of programs that have demonstrated that they MAY to help those who have invisble disabilities such as dyslexia etc, work around and cope with the problems they face on a daily basis.

just a few thoughts

dolfrog

"Experimental" could also be an alternative

The problem is that some of the therapies on the list have been around from years so I think it would be misleading to describe them as "experimental". Again - the problem is that a whole lot of unrelated therapies have been lumped together on one list, and about the only thing they share is that advocates of traditional phonics-based tutoring don't like them. I think it would be more informative to list by types of therapies -- for example, some are geared primarily to auditory training, some to visual, some to addressing balance/motion/coordination (cerebellar/vestibular) - some are cognitive therapies, etc. The main distinction they have is that they are attempts to address causes or symptoms of dyslexia other than, or beyond, mere instruction in reading. Armarshall 03:30, 14 July 2007 (UTC)

I had medical diagnostic tests,and I even told you,dolfrog. I was examined by neurologists(which are medical doctors) and neuropsychologist include diagnosis of Dyslexia,Dyspraxia,and cerebellar vestibular dysfunction. My problems were identified in early childhood,fully explained to my mother,and I got early intervention for them. I got later testing from 2004 to 2006 because I had psychiatric misdiagnoses as an adult because the psychiatrists didn't understand that I was a neurodivergent and mistaken my cluttering speech as psychotic speech without. They never knew that I was getting speech therapy in special education class for 3 years. You attacked me any way and kept telling me to find the source of my problems. I find that very patronizing and condescending. I even stressed that I had early intervention so that my Dyslexia is corrected,remediated,and compensated but still have some issues connected to it due to the underlying neurological differences. I have found that cod liver oil,fish oil has helped with that. I told you all about my auditory,speech therapy,phonics special education. I don't like people assuming things about me without knowing me,and that's what you do. You do it based on your ideological views about Dyslexia and APD and want to get me labeled APD. It's not all about APD. I have my own beliefs about my auditory processing issues being part of Dyslexia and not the cause of it. I feel like you're forcing your views on me, and that's no different from telling me your religion is right and mine is wrong. I definitely don't go for that...especially when I have alternative spiritual/religious views as a Unitarian Universalist,Neopagan,New Ager. I would appreciate that you respect and tolerate other people's views and not be patronizing and condescending to them because you believe that your views are right and theirs is wrong. Being a multiethnic Black,White,Hispanic,Native American Dyslexic,Dyspraxic,and ADHD male who has been treated in condescending,patronizing way by others in my past, I want to treat others like I want to be treated - a human being with a soul. I feel that you preach to the choir including me. I find it very irritating and insulting. Not everybody who has different views from you have a secret agenda nor are ignorant. Satabishara 21:25, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Satabishara

If you have any Auditory Processing issues you need to have them checked out by the USA Profession who by USA law are the only profession allowed to diagnose audtitory Processing Issues, you need to visit an Audiologist to for an assessment of any hearing or listening problems you may have. Audiologists according to US law are the only profession able to officially diagnose any of these issues. So until you have has an Assessment by a qulified Audiologist you can only guess the extent of the problems you are facing each day, and you may not be fully aware of all of the issues involved. I was notfully aware of all of the issues involved with my APD until I was clinically assessed and diagnosed.

If you have other issues that also cause you to be dyslexic as you suggest dyspraxia etc I would have assummed thatr you have visited the relevent diagnostic professionals who have clinically diaganosed ypou as having these disabilities.

If you have bothered to take time to read anything that i have said, regarding dyslexia, you will have noticed that I have never said that Auditory Processing Disorder (APD) is the only underlying cause of dyslexia, I have always stated that it it one of many underlying cause of dyslexia. Dyslexia is a man made problem it is not a condition. Dyslexia is about having problems with a secondary man made communication system. The primary man made communication system is our auditory communication system, that we call speech. And dyslexia is about the secondary communication system the visual notation of speech, which in our cultures we call text. So prior to the development of a visaul notation of speech there was no dyslexia. There were however problems with processing sound or auditory information, and there were also problems with processing visual information as well. And some would have had motor problems such as dyspraxia, others would have had atention problems. But dyslexia only came about after we invented the visual notation of speech. Dyslexia is only about havimg problems with reading text, writing text, and spelling text. All of the underlying problems that cause the dyslexic symptoms had been causing problems for humans before we developed a visual notation of speech, and many of these problems have many other symptoms besides dyslexia.

You are entitled to hold what ever views you like, we all have our own opinions. But this is about proven scientific data not personal opinions. There is a difference, and my personal opinions are not waht i am expressing on this or other dyslexia forums but the sicentific information that comes from researching and reading peer reviewed scientific research papers. All I have ever asked any dyslexic is ti have all their symptoms which are identified ina dyslexia diagnostic test to have these medical issues fully assessed by the relevent medicla diagnostic professionals. Dyslexia is not a medicla condition it is about having problems with a man made communication system

What you want to beleive is totally up to you, but for all others the best advice is to have all the medical symptoms highlighted by a diagnosis of dyslexia fully assesses and diagnosed by the relevent medicla proffesional who is qualified and legally empowered to carry out such an assessment and diagnosis.

It would appear to me that it is you who have problems understanding and listeniong to others who have different views than your own. I have always been willing to listen and learn, I have spent the last 9 years learning about my own disabilities starting with dyslexia and then as a result of discussing the issues of Auditory Processing Disorder the coresponding visual processing issues, and the other sensory and motor processing problem that can cause dyslexia with many leading researchers in the UK, Australia and the USA. You would appear to be thwe one who does not want to learn about all of these issues and how they may affect you. But that is your choice, and having made that choice you should leave us to debated and definethe real underlying cause of dyslexia to those who havce open minds and aee willing to discuss and debate these issues openly. Each dyuslexic has a different set of underlying causes and we all ned to indetify the real underlying cause of our dyslexia.

The things that I said weren't about personal opinions. It's about things that I and many others experienced as well as things that I have read and researched too.

best wishes

dolfrog

Once again, I have to defend myself. I had numerous tests done in childhood as well as in adulthood. I showed you the series of tests too. I have been studying,reading a lot about Dyslexia,Dyspraxia,and ADHD. I am not some ignorant SOB that you try to make me out to me. I am not forcing my views down your throat and telling you that you are wrong and talking to you like you're ignorant and labeling you. You're the one that's doing that to me. I have no problem with listening and understanding to others who have different views. So you're full of crap. That's why I have no religious preference and openminded,broadminded about religious,philosophical views too. You obviously don't know me at all. I know and understand my underlying causes of my Dyslexia. Specialists have told me. I don't need your lectures on the matter. I have told you before that we can just agree to disagree, but you don't do that. You still force you views down my throat,telling me that I am wrong and you're right. You try to label me in regards to your views. I don't do that to you. I have problems with people who are condescending and patronizing as you are. I know that it's not all about my personal views. Don't talk to me like I am stupid because I am not. I have been talking about things from experience by not only but other people as well. I have read and researched a lot about Dyslexia,Dyspraxia,and ADHD. I have numerous books about it. I want to help in Dyslexic projects. I don't care do any projects with a person who is so patronizing,condescending,and rude to others because he doesn't share his views. I don't go for that.

69.230.96.40 01:23, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Ok, but never mind the USA point of view. None of us is American anyway. Please read my comments in the Dyslexia discussion page and do some serious studying on the subject. --Piechjo 11:44, 16 July 2007 (UTC)

That's bullcrap! I am American,and so is Abigail Marshall. Please don't assume that there are no Americans here. That's very presumptuous. 69.230.96.40 01:19, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Counter criticism

I can't say I totally agree with the counter criticism. The article on Fast ForWord in Perspectives [1] explains it all quite well, and articles in Google Scholar seem to agree: Fast ForWord is good for phonological awareness but doesn't improve reading, unlike methods that should be endorsed.

Furthermore, being founded in memory of Samuel Orton, IDA might have a burden of the Orton-Gillingham approach. The method is partially outdated. What the Florida source says is there is no research on OG, but on later methods based on it. This is what IDA writes: [[2]]. The phonological awareness part is still valid. The multisensory part may sound old-fashioned, but there is research showing that even though phonological awareness can be trained without using visual language (text), it is more efficient if you use both auditory and visual language. And writing - the "tactile" or "kinesthetic" element - is needed to improve writing skills. What's more, when IDA steates it's based on advocacy, it doesn't mean IDA is based on advocacy of OG, rather: "promoting literacy through research, education and advocacy", that is they are on the dyslexics' side.

There is outdated research of Fast ForWord and research that shows both its efficacy and insufficiency in comparison with other, better methods, and this research is hardly sponsored by IDA - unlike the Davis Dyslexia "research" that has virtually no quality and is misinterpreted by proponents. Or whatever: it's only one research. However, this article is not based on the research, but on the critique. As said, peer-reviewed journals do not normally publish studies with null results. There is even such information available, though, and the shortest way to this information is in the critique articles. Anyway, the lack of evidence is the proof of lack of evidence, simple as that. --Piechjo 18:08, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure I understand your point -- the issue isn't whether you or I agree with the reported research -- it is simply whether or not a given method is supported by quantitative research. All research is subject to interpretation and criticism. I personally am not a proponent of FastForword --but it simply is not true to say that the program "lacks research support". So if there is a paragraph in the article that says IDA labels certain therapies as "controversial" - and "controversial" is defined in the previous paragraphs as something which lacks research support -- then it is appropriate to point out that treatment X does in fact draw support from published research. IDA is not an official government organization or an arbiter of truth - it is simply one large, well-respected organization with its own agenda and its own set of biases. So it doesn't make sense to cite its position papers or informational flyers as a "source" that negates research in a peer-reviewed journal. That is, you can't dispense with 100 peer reviewed research articles listed on the FFW cite by pointing to a newsletter article, no matter who wrote the article. IDA does also publish a peer-reviewed journal, called "Annals of Dyslexia" - but the papers & articles you reference are not from that source -- so the fact that an article published in 2001 is a good critique of the research available at that time is worth mentioning, but it certainly doesn't invalidate all of the research prior to and subsequent to the article. It is a critique; nothing more. 07:11, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

Whether Fast ForWord draws support from research or not depends on the interpretation. If the proponents say it improves reading skills, and research says it doesn't, then the claim doesn't have support in research. I'm using the sources available and frequently look for more and add relevant information (I should be working, as well). The special issue of Perspectives is from 2001, but as the Information packet dates from 2004 and is currently distributed, it is up-to-date. There's something I've been trying to explain, and this is a very basic scientific policy that I wish everybody was aware of. There are certain critical articles, these are usually not research articles, but they draw their conclusions from research or the lack of research.

However, it's a common policy of peer-reviewed journals not to publish studies with null results. This can be seen as problematic, but professional scholars are used to operating in such circumstances. If there's one published article, as in case of Davis Dyslexia or Dore, it virtually means nothing as the research has to be replicated several times by various independent scholars for the results to be confirmed. When there's some research and a critique, it means literally that the issue is controversial. Often, and not the least in Dyslexia research, there are several hypotheses to be tested. Such hypotheses have appeared frequently. But even though it might at some point look like a hypothesis stands the test, it might later be discovered that the reason for the positive results actually depended on some other factor, and the research goes on.

Now, it happens that as the research and remediation goes on, there are private clinics offering remediation based on such outdated results, abandoned by the mainstream science, and claim to use a method that is proven to be efficient, and that is not available in public healthcare. What they say is true, in a way. And yet, this method will soon be called pseudoscience. I suggest you read the Perspectives special issue to get into the point. It's a fascinating subject. --Piechjo 11:46, 19 July 2007 (UTC)

I have read the Perspectives issue you cite. It's a newsletter, not a research journal; it has a series of articles that express the opinions of the writers and I found a number of factual misstatements and saw arguments that reflect a clear bias. That's my interpretation. Obviously it is not the same as yours. But the fact remains that there is (a)a significant body of published research into some of the methods that IDA labels "controversial", and (b)virtually no research at all to support the methods that IDA itself promotes and does not deem "controversial". It may be a moot issue if this article is changed to one of "alternative" therapies rather than "controversial" -- I have no quarrel with the characterization of therapies not based strictly on educational tutoring as "alternative" -- but it is not accurate to say that they are all characterized by lack of research, even though you may interpret the research as being less than compelling. Armarshall 06:25, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

It's not only in Perspectives, it's also included in the Information Packet, and it's a serious subject. Anyway, I've been thinking of making a table that includes an explanation as well as sources for criticism. When it comes to Fast ForWord, it's been mentioned that the licence owner has been willing to develop the method. If it turns out there is sufficient evident for the efficacy, I'd rather leave FFW in this article and state that it was previously controversial, but not anymore, to give people the information.

I've taken a quick look at what Google Scholar gives for "Fast ForWord". The first two hits are on the efficacy. The first one, by Hook et al., is a comparison between OG and FFW. The results are OG improves reading while FFW doesn't. The second hit, by Gillam et al., is a summary of five exploratory studies on FFW, and it's rather critical. Then there are another two Gillams plus studies not examining the efficacy but some other perspective of FFW. There's also Tallal's study that shows a change in brain scans after FFW, but it's not a study related to the skills that are needed for dyslexia remediation. There's also another interesting study by Pokorni et al. who found an increase in phonological awareness with Lips and Earobics, but not with FFW; none of these three methods was useful to improve reading, though. I finally took a look at the list of 100 FFW studies cited by the Corporation. They say: "Research shows that Fast ForWord products help students move quickly to grade level in skills critical to reading." I went to the journal articles page and wonder why Gillam and Hook (see above) are included in the list. It also seems that most articles are relevant rather to the underlying theory of FFW than directly to the method itself. Having already seen Gillam and Hook, only Ahissar et al. caught my interest. I took a look at it, but there was no mention of FFW. Talking of strawmen... being able to make a list of 100 studies might not be so impressive after all. It's vital to see the quality, not just the quantity of research. --Piechjo 12:59, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, what is vital is that you read the actual research, not just abstracts. For example, you stated that the Hook report says "OG improves reading while FFW" doesn't - that's not what it said. It said that with a short-term study, both the FFW group & OG group improved on phonemic awareness, neither improved on "word identification", and the OG group, but not FFW, improved on "word attack". Like phonemic awareness, "word attack" is a subsidiary skill (phonetic decoding of non-real words) - so your statement is incorrect. Unless you want to add OG to the list of alternative therapies not supported by research. I realize that it is difficult to get hold of the actual research articles unless you have a lot of money or a university connection, but unfortunately abstracts can be very misleading in terms of the way they represent the research. So you can't draw a lot of conclusions unless or until you've read the actual, full studies. Armarshall 11:20, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

To put it short, seeing the most prominent studies implies support for effiency in some aspect, but insufficiency of FFW in dyslexia remediation. The list of 100 peer-reviewed journals seems to be there just to fool people. In general, however, I think review articles are more suitable sources for a Wikipedia article than research articles. Using research articles soon leads to a head count, original research. But Gillam's summary could work fine, and it's published in American journal of speech-language pathology. It's also one of the Corporation's cited journals. I guess they thought no one's ever going to read all those articles anyway. --Piechjo 15:56, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

POV added by armarshall

OK, I noticed you've put your reply between my posts. I'll have a look at the stuff. --Piechjo 11:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's continue the discussion here. I have access to most studies, but Annals of Dyslexia is only available from 2002. In the first place, instead of using it as a reference, I used the Perspectives review written by Hook et al. the same year they made the study. Let's see what Hook et al. say about their findings in Perspectives:

"Both groups showed significant improvement immediately after treatment in phonemic awareness; however, only the OG group made significant progress in reading (i.e., word attack skills). Overall, we found that participation in the FFW programs did not lead to any advantages in reading and spoken language compared to children receiving similar kinds of reading instruction (without FFW). Many established methods of reading instruction (such as Orton Gillingham) have had success in teaching children with dyslexia phonemic awareness and word attack skills. To recommend FFW as an alternative program, one needs to show that it contributes to stronger gains than established programs."

Hook et al. are probably right about their judgement: if the methods that are currently in use are to be replaced by new methods, these new methods should be more efficient than the old ones. What is important is how FFW is being marketed. Not seeing the actual data, I'd rather have a look at Gillam at this point. Gillam et al. take up several problems with the method and the underlying hypotheses and conclude: "The validity of this hypothesis needs to be tested by large-scale randomized clinical trials. Only then can the efficacy of FFW be discussed with some confidence. Following the clinical trials, Phase IV and V studies will be required to further our knowledge of who benefits from FFW and why they benefit." Such research has not been published, which implies to failure to prove sufficient efficacy, or at least, that evidence is so far not available.

There is little recent research on FFW, but I've found one from 2003 stating: "Thus, Fast ForWord Language had a positive, albeit limited impact on the oral language skills, academic performance, and social behaviors of some children in this study. However, due to methodological weaknesses and limited treatment fidelity, the study results must be interpreted cautiously."[3]. There seems to be some consensus about FFW among scholars and, as editors of the article, we should follow this consensus. When it comes to OG, I don't want to sound like a sourpuss, but I'm not a great fan of any modality-based method, either. According to my knowledge OG isn't, however, controversial, and I didn't interpret the Florida source as a critique. --Piechjo 12:18, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

Include Orton-Gillingham?

I took a look at the other OG source, and there appears to be some controversy. The main point seems to be that the theoretical basis and research of OG are becoming outdated. We have to be careful with OG, but it might be possible to include it after a careful examination and a discussion. Before that, it would be good to finish the table and remove direct references to IDA. --Piechjo 14:29, 24 July 2007 (UTC)

I didn't say that there was "controversy" about OG - I said that it is supported by virtually no research. Other than that it is the most widely accepted method by educators in the US. The point is -- it illustrates the fact that the "research" argument is just a red herring used by traditionalists to justify their skeptical, wholly unscientific, view of anything that does not fit within their view. I call it "unscientific" because they are rejecting without inquiry. If they were truly interest in *science* then they would want to study those methods they are wary of, because they could simply design a null hypothesis experiment and disprove those methods.

The problem is, that the whole focus on using quantitative research to inquire about educational validity of any method is based on a false assumption: i.e., that all individuals labeled "dyslexic" will benefit from the same therapy or educational method. Add to that the practical, financial & ethical issues implicated in large scale research, coupled with placebo/Hawthorne effect inherent in any study of human learning -- and individual biasing effects that are tied to the abilities of the particular teachers or therapists selected for the study, as well as the student populations selected -- and basically constructing a good, comparative, qualitative study is virtually impossible. I think that's why IDA with its $2.1 million annual budget spends so little on research (probably about $20K last year) and rarely funds educational research (as opposed to research into the neurological or behavioral characteristics of dyslexia.

Personally I'm far more skeptical of methods that claim to be supported by quantitative research because almost by definition, they are exaggerating the impact of their results. There is NO method supported by strong, high quality, empirical research -- I doubt there ever will be. (If you disagree - please point me to some published, replicated research for whatever method you think has such support). The best you would ever get from some research is a discovery that X method on average helps Y% of students to improve by Z amount. There will always be a percentage of students who do not do well with X method and the statistical average will tend only to mask both the numbers of the students who do poorly and who do better than average with that approach. There are bound to be some approaches that are highly effective with a very small percentage of students, and some that offer only moderate benefits to a large percentage of students.

That's why I think the whole notion of structuring an article based on "alternative" or "controversial" therapies is useless, and definitely not appropriate for wikipedia, which should be factual & objective, not opinion based. What makes more sense is an article that very briefly summarizes all therapies for dyslexia & related LDs, and categorizes them by general approach -- for example, an approach like DDAT/Dore would be in the same category as Balametrics (therapies that address balance & coordination?) -- and maybe they could be correlated to the underlying therapy. The approach use by the UK Department of Education & Skills is one example -- see: http://www.dfes.gov.uk/readwriteplus/understandingdyslexia/approachesprogrammes/

Of course any such listing should identify which methods are widely accepted and which are not, and any method that is well-established and in widespread use probably merits its own separate article in which the claims & research can be explored in depth. That way you develop an informative article which does not in any way mislead users. The minute you label something as "controversial" in Wikipedia that really imposes a burden to present both sides -- there can't be controversy without at least two competing viewpoints. In other words, I think that the IDA article/characterization is a legitimate reference to cite for a subsidiary section on each therapy, not a starting point as to how you frame the article. Armarshall 07:43, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

The kind of categorisation you're suggesting would have been quite possible. It was in my interest to improve the dyslexia article by moving unsupported therapies to a different article. I believe there's a lot of research evidence for a certain type of remediation, but how can I know what it is? The first thing to do is to look it up in Wikipedia. After the most relevant information, I would personally be curious about the stuff that all those Prashnigs and Davises write about, and basically any other therapy. There should be a link to them.

The proponents of alternative therapies and theories often give a completely wrong idea about dyslexia: many claim that it doesn't exist or is caused by bad teaching or bad nutrition. That is not true, and any method based on such ideas should not be endorsed. It's also wrong to claim Einstein was dyslexic because there's no reason to believe he was. All we know is he was a talented student who did well in school (if anyone actually bothers to read his biography). There are several "theories" based on the myth of Einstein as well as "other geniuses" all being dyslexic. Such theories are rubbish. The misleading part doesn't come from this article, quite the contrary. DfES has been long lost in the swamp of dyslexia mythology, and Wikipedia could help them out.

Alternative therapies to disabilities is comparable to alternative medicine, and of course there's an article. It's a matter of putting a tag to a product saying "the effect of this medicine has not been proven by scientific methods" - but knowing the fact, it's up to the consumer whether they want to try it or not. The characteristics of these alternative treatments vary a lot. Some, such as FFW, are originally based on hard scientific research, but is now outdated. What makes it alternative is it's been commercialised. What makes it dubious is they're giving a wrong idea of the research findings on purpose. The funny thing is that no matter how different, the proponents of all these therapies usually find each other by the end of the day. Piechjo 20:51, 25 July 2007 (UTC)

I stand by what I said above - there is no significant empirical research support for any remedial method, and that categorization of "unsupported" is specious. You might as well have titled the article, "therapies that Piechjo doesn't like".

Can I ask what your personal background or perspective is related to this topic? Are you an educator? dyslexic person? parent of a dyslexic child? I'm not trying to challenge you, but you seem to have a very limited perspective of a complex, multi-faceted issue.

I agree with you that there are some proponents of alternative therapies who have opinions that are far from mainstream -- but you have lumped all sorts of unrelated therapies together. You don't seem to be aware of how widespread and well-accepted many of the therapies you have branded "alternative" have become. Armarshall 05:40, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

As I've written in my userpage, my main job is teaching languages to dyslexics. My main motive is trying to understand dyslexia and find and create ways of helping dyslexics to learn. I was hired by an organisation that promotes alternative approaches in Finland, and tried a lot of them. They didn't work. I tried to find relevant information and found a chaos. At university, I was assigned to do a study on one of the methods, and soon I noticed I was doing research on pseudoscience, but there weren't many reliable sources available to find the facts. Luckily, good sources started to appear in Wikipedia, and a year ago I started writing articles about the situation. That way I made contacts with some of the leading researchers in the field, in Finland and abroad.

Helsingin Sanomat, the biggest newspaper in Finland, commissioned me to write an article on pseudotherapies to learning disabilities and how much money is spent on them (we're dealing with a lot more than 2 million dollars, here). The article was published in May. It was made a bit harsher than the way I would have put it, but knowing there were ten top specialists of different fields of research standing behind the article, I didn't mind being the one to take the beating. Anyway, instead of making a one-sided judgement, I visited clinics and organisations that propose alternative theories and made contacts with some international names in the alternative field. I tried and tested their methods and investigated their background (both the methods and the people). But the final assessment was made by the scholars. So there you go, I'm a professional of alternative therapies to learning disabilities, but of course you have to know the mainstream to know the alternative.

Your turn. Without being an expert of neuropsychology, how did you check all the facts for your book? Piechjo 14:50, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

Question: you claim to be a "professional of alternative therapies" based on the work you did in Finland -- but many of the therapies are not offered in Finland. Did you travel abroad to visit clinics? For example, there is only one licensed Davis Dyslexia Correction provider in Finland, and she does not provide private services -- she is a special education teacher who only uses her training within her own school. Did you visit that school? If not, how can you say that you know anything at all about that particular method? What about the other methods you have listed -- are they offered in Finland? These so-called "alternative" therapies are all very different approaches from one another, based on different and sometimes opposing theories of dyslexia, which follow very different models in terms of promotion and delivery, and stemming from very different philosophies. For example, Dore/DDAT has heavily promoted and advertised is services as a "cure" for dyslexia, whereas Davis expressly prohibits its providers from ever claiming or advertising the program as a "cure" for any learning disability. It seems to me that the category "alternative" is entirely artificial in the sense of being able to draw any conclusion about one method based on understanding of others. Armarshall 10:18, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

Vandalism?

I changed - again - the headline of the last column in the table. I hope this explains it better. Armarshall, you should hold your horses. If Davis doesn't like this page, you can tell him he doesn't need Wikipedia to make more money. You have three options: you can either

1. Work to improve the page, not to destroy it,
2. Make a complaint about the page and ask for a deletion, or
3. Leave the page alone.

Piechjo 15:48, 26 July 2007 (UTC)

What's the purpose of your table? To reflect IDA's opinion? Your source for Davis is ridiculous - it is a review by someone with no direct experience in the method, expressing her personal opinion, who was questioning research that had not yet been published and she had not read at the time the article was published.

If you want to create an objective chart listing research basis of a method, then you have to go to the research. I mean, you seem to have the same sort of mindset as people who promote creationism -- you've got your "bible" (in your case, a single issue of a magazine from one US-based organization published 6 years ago) - and you want to create an article and chart based on your "bible". Every one of your footnotes goes back to the one issue of "Perspectives" -- but you don't want your chart labeled correctly to say that this is the IDA view. But no one is allowed to put in any other facts or footnotes?

Please review the wikipedia's standards -- if you want to discuss "controversy" then by definition you need to make room for both sides of the issue. If you don't want to allow injection of citations to FACTS in your chart, then your chart should be taken down. The existence of a published research study is a FACT which negates a statement that there is no research. Armarshall 07:42, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

There is no independent research done on Davis Dyslexia, and the only available review is the one by Cicci, also supported by IDA. What comes to other methods, there are already footnotes to research or review articles that are not in connection with IDA. --Piechjo 12:10, 31 July 2007 (UTC)

You are mistaken, there is independent research into Davis, here: http://www.rene-engelbrecht.co.za/research.html -- The researcher is in no way associated or affiliated with Davis, and the research was conducted under the auspices of her university. That research has not (yet) been published in a peer-reviewed journal -- but Cicci's article that you are citing is neither a research article nor is it in a peer-reviewed journal -- so you are elevating an opinion piece over research. There is also published research -- (which Cicci alludes to), which, while conducted with the participation of researchers affiliated with Davis was published in an independent, peer-reviewed journal. It's rather puzzling that you think it is o.k. to rely on Cicci's objections to research that had not yet been published as of the time of her critique, but you want to ignore the existence of the research she was questioning. Armarshall 07:05, 1 August 2007 (UTC)

Hello Armarshal. An unpublished master's degree project promised on a rather new age website is hardly what one would call independent reliable sourcing. Cicci on the other hand seems to be a useful secondary source and is corroborated by another reliable source. The table is rather useful as it helps the reader to see the views clearly. Removing it could be seen as information suppression. Spoctacle 07:38, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

What corroborating source is there for Cicci's article? And what is the justification for quoting a patently false statement in the table, coming from Cicci? I am referring to the statement, "Teaching to read or even learn is absent from Davis' literature" - the Davis book contains chapters specifically outlining reading techniques (Example - the chapter entitled "Three Steps to Easier Reading" describe a specific methodology for daily practice to improve reading fluency & comprehension). You could argue that the methods are unconventional; you could debate over whether they are valid -- but you can't say that it is "absent" because the book lays out a specific methodology -- i.e., instructions on how to teach reading the Davis way -- and the bulk of the method is focused on reading practice & word study. My point isn't to argue about Davis here; it's just that I don't see the rational of creating a chart on wikipedia with outright false statements, and justifying that by reference to the article which propagated the falsehood. (Though Cicci made clear she was expressing an opinion, not fact -- just one more illustration of the way this article fails to meet wikipedia standards for neutrality & objectivity). My complaint is with the creation of a table to express an opinion on one side of a controversy, completely leaving out the other points of view from that table. You can't have a "controversy" without showing both sides, and Wikipedia is not an appropriate forum to present only one side. Armarshall 08:57, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

IDA is the corroborating source. You seem to be accusing me of quoting false statements in the table. Do I read you correctly? The sentences are attributed to sources and as such can be presented according to WP policy. If you object to the table clearly presenting sourced views, then I think you need to find some sort of policy that supports the removal of that table. So far I havn't seen any such policy, but you might have a go. When it comes to presenting science based information, secondary or tertiary sources (aka reviews) are more useful and summary style than long lists of individual studies where the reader has no knowledge level of making head or tail of. Thus such reviews, rather than lists, get much heavier weight. Its all written into WP policy. Spoctacle 10:16, 2 August 2007 (UTC)

The Cicci article was published by IDA -- you can't use a source to corroborate itself. That would be the equivalent of my saying that the Davis books was "corroborated" by Scholastic books, since they are his publisher. In any case, the table has been set up to present only one point of view, as opposed to being an objective statement, and the article quoted specifically was labeled as opinion or critique, not fact; and Cicci's article seems internally contradictory-- she actually goes into quite a lot of detail describing the Davis approach to word study in the article.

Cicci is a speech therapist (actually an MD/ENT - see http://www.umm.edu/doctors/regina_l_cicci.html ) -- it seems that her real concern is that the Davis method does not teach speech. ("Understanding and using speech are important for learning to read. The Davis methods rely mostly on visual perceptual components of the learning process for reading, spelling, handwriting and math.") So as far as I can tell, she has created a faulty syllogism. Armarshall 05:50, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Cicci reports a few concerns over why the method is non-standard. You seem to want to add information to the table that has nothing to do with why the method is non-standard. Our own views on Cicci's report are irrelevant here. Editorialism is not allowed on Wikipedia. We simply report the facts and the views. Spoctacle 06:07, 3 August 2007 (UTC) Cicci's comments are clearly peer reviewed, so there is a level of corroboration within the publication that makes it strong. Spoctacle 06:08, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

The magazine that the article was published is, "Perspectives", is not' a peer-reviewed publication - nor was the point of Cicci's article to prove that the method is/is not nonstandard. That is yours/Piechjo's interpretation.

I agree that editorialism is not allowed on Wikipedia, which is why I object to you taking an opinion article rather than a an article published in an objective journal, then using that article as a reference for the opinions and cherry-picking the article to select out quotes expressing one point of view while deleting all the other statements contained in the article. Armarshall 07:22, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Armarshall. Its not cherry picking. It is picking, and we do have to include reasons for why it is non standard. There is a bigger issue that has far heavier weight. We are comparing with evidence based or non-pseudoscientific methods. That is the main issue here. So the other points you want to keep adding (that have no relevance to why it is non standard) may have some weight in other articles, but not this one. Spoctacle 08:00, 3 August 2007 (UTC)

Available reports

The statement that was in the chart re Davis, "practically no research", is not contained in the article cited. The text in the article cited is actually:

"There does not appear to be literature to support the orientation disorientation theories. As Davis says, the exercises can do no harm except make one a little dizzy. Available reports at this time are largely anecdotal. Research is being done with the "Davis Learnng Strategies." The results are to appear in the Reading Improvement Journal and on a web site."

I corrected the chart to reflect the actual content of the article. Armarshall 08:36, 27 July 2007 (UTC)

Why do we ignore the physical causes?

Modern medicine sees all mental illness deriving only from the brain - primarily from neurotransmitter imbalance and nothing else - the truth is that in many cases there is often an underlining physical cause (eg: infection, celiac disease, etc) and this is often never investigated, and so its no wonder today we are faced with the current tragedy that the Mentally ill die 25 years earlier, on average. Psychiatrist Dr Reading Chris reading knew this and treated hundreds of patients with mental illness including autism and found a common link - infection, celiac disease, auto-immune tendencies and malabsorbtion, after treating patients with dietry modification, antibiotics and nutritional supplementation many patients recovered, yet current day medicine does not accept this. 'Enterocolitis discovered in the majority of children with Autistic spectrum disorders' see GUTandmental illness —Preceding unsigned comment added by 211.30.235.237 (talk) 06:04, 19 September 2007 (UTC)

I don't see a problem with any valid research. If there is evidence for a link between a physical and a mental condition, it should be taken seriously. It is not easy to cure mental illnesses or autism, so I bet Dr Reading Chris is a good psychiatrist. He writes on his website: I am a holistic medical detective, "Dr. Watson" with the honed intuition of Sherlock Holmes. I use family health trees as the key to medical genetics and orthomolecular nutrition. Sounds like a lot of fun to me. Psychiatry, genetics and nutrition. That's a great combination. Piechjo 13:25, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Medicine, as with all science based perspectives, deals with cause and effect, rather than correlation. Its one thing to state a correlation between mental illness and life expectancy, and its totally different to make claims about what is causing what. If the correlation perspective was used in application, then we would probably end up with doctors prescribing a third world famine diet for cancer treatment. Basically doctors don't ignore causes. They actively seek them. What they do tend to put in cautious perspective is correlation. Its only an association, not a causal link. Pseudoscientists will make as many correlations as they can though, between what happens in their life, and whatever they want to sell. Dehydration is a killer, lots of homeopathy is the cure:) Spoctacle 15:15, 20 September 2007 (UTC)

Proven benefits

I undid the deletion of the section Proven benefits. What the section says is that alternative therapies may have some advantages, and I believe most scholars agree with this. The Sunflower example is there to show how it can work: the therapy wasn't helpful as a treatment to dyslexia but, according to this published study, it was beneficial for the students' self esteem. This Wikipedia article has been accused of being biased, and I think that different views should be included. It is about alternative therapies, and all relevant information is useful for anyone who wants to understand its problematics. The Sunflower example does nothing to prove it's not a matter of pseudoscience, but counter-critics as well as scholars might agree that mainstream studies have not yet presented all aspects of LD/DD treatment. This question has grown more and more crucial in the treatment with the appearance of postmodernist thinking as a means of changing the policy, but there is little empirical research to undermine or support the politically correct claims. Piechjo 09:09, 12 October 2007 (UTC)

That is ridiculous.You dont put something with no proven benefits in a proven benefits section. Giving ANY treatment to ANYONE boosts their self esteem,its part of the placebo effect.Im removing this again untill someone redefines proven as "doesnt work at all but maybe makes people feel better about themselves". Then you can put it back Gerfinch 16:46, 18 October 2007 (UTC)

Then I suppose giving dyslexics electric shocks would also boost their self esteem. I'm trying to change the headline, but it's not looking too good with someone claiming the article is not critical enough and another person claiming it's too critical for Wikipedia. Piechjo 16:03, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

POV Fork

If this article was an offshoot of Dyslexia, I believe what it has become is a WP:POVFORK. This needs to be dealt with either by neutralizing this article or by merging it back into Dyslexia. That's my two-cents anyhow. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 06:07, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Dyslexia is huge, I can't see how this article could be merged with it, especially since dyslexia is only one of the conditions mentioned. Would you have a practical idea on mind how to neutralise it? There is an article on alternative medicine, so whatever works there could work here, too. Maybe we should delete the list and deal with separate therapies on their own articles? Piechjo 16:29, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

This article seems to be far-and-wide about the criticisms and short-comings of Alternative Therapies rather than showing the benefits or even a neutral dialogue about the topic. Honestly, the critical POV dominates this article. Tr reading it from a neutral POV and it will become obvious what the problem is here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 22:26, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Well change it then. Before that, why not take a look at Alternative medicine. This article is, however, based on what is written about the issue. I'm aware of a Gavin Reid book that discusses the issue and gives reasons for using what he calls alternative therapies for learning disabilities. But the book is not available where I live. I have to say I'm missing your point. I understand you're not happy, but I don't know what you want to do about it. Piechjo 14:32, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

I posted a request for some input on a project which handles concerns like this. Hopefully we will get some good input. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:33, 14 November 2007 (UTC)

Good. Compared to the Alternative medicine article, what differs here is the (incomplete) list. Otherwise it is an existant topic and there are some good sources on it. In that respect, I suppose what we should do is use the available sources to improve the page, but that's hardly any news. I'm trying to get Maria Chivers' book Dyslexia and Alternative Therapies and Gavin Reid's Dyslexia - a Complete Guide to Parents. These should both be books that consider the mentioned treatments as alternative, and however recommend them to an extent (see 'alternative approaches' on Reid index). Levine, maybe you didn't notice there was another Wikipedia editor deleting the "Proven benefits" section because he thought the article wasn't critical enough. All scientific scepticism pages are susceptible to criticism from differents viewpoints, but this hardly means they shouldn't be there at all. Also, it should be noted that pseudoscience these days is maybe 10 % about UFOs, horoscopes and paranormal phenomena and the remaining 90 % exactly what it's all about: something that looks just like science but isn't recognised as science by the scientific community. The name of this article originally mentioned Controversial therapies, but it was changed because some editors argued it was POV. I'm still thinking about the name. Maybe it should, after all, be Alternative therapies for developmental and learning disabilities. Piechjo 09:29, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

I agree that perhaps a more descriptive title here will help to narrow the focus of this article. Alternative Therapy (disability) does not tell me that this article is specifically about developmental and learning disabilities. When it was titled "Controversial therapies..." that is when I believe I thought is was a WP:POVFORK (i.e. who is to say what is controversial and what isn't?). It this article is to be about the alternative therapies for developmental and learning disabilities then I suggest that the article first and foremost be about a general overview of the usage and history of such therapies in general for these disabilities. Don't go into the specifics of each therapy. I imagine that many of these therapies have their own articles (each with their own discussion of the usage, history, praise and criticism. Further, this article must be more that just a list; otherwise, I would suggest deleting this article and just creating a category named "Alternative therapies for developmental and learning disabilities" and merely join the appropriate articles with such a category. In sum, at this point I think the article is too broad sounding such that I don't readily know what it is supposed to be about, but paradoxically, it could also be too specific if it is just a means to discuss the pluses and minuses of therapies which already have their own articles.

In terms of pseudoscience, I don't think that I would consider UFOs (even ufology) a pseudoscience. I don't believe in UFOs though I haven't written off the possibility of such a thing, and if there are researchers out there using good science to either support or disprove certain theories, then that isn't pseudoscience. But you are right, pseudoscience is bad science masquerading as good science. But as science is not absolute, sometime it is difficult to determine what constitutes pseudoscience. "Alternative" (whether in therapy or medicine) does not constitute pseudoscience necessarily. Certainly, there are pseudoscientific theories within some of the medicines or therapies labeled "alternative", but the label "pseudoscience cannot be applied to all. I see it more as a Venn diagram with a circle labeled "Alternative Medicine" and a circle labeled "Pseudoscience" and the two intersect, but one does not fully contain the other. Now how much they intersect is a matter of POV; some think more than others. I just think that we have to be careful with our labeling.

Anyhow, I did alert the Rational Skepticism WikiProject about this, and in general they tend to be more inclusive in terms of labeling things pseudoscience. One has already responded to my request and he/she agrees that on first glance, this article seems overly broad. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 17:58, 15 November 2007 (UTC)

That's one person... an article could be about 'science', 'culture' or 'language' just as well. The scope isn't that broad. But I think your idea about making a category could sort it. One problem might be that proponents of alternative therapies don't want their therapies to be labelled as alternative. If their article, however, suggests they are then they might have to agree. How about:

• Changing the title
• Deleting the list and establishing a category instead
• Discussing the cases in their own articles
• Making the article a general introduction to the subject.

Piechjo (talk) 06:17, 17 November 2007 (UTC)

It seems like a reasonable way to move forward. What would you proposed for the category name? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 01:06, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I'm not sure. Maybe 'Alternative therapies for developmental and learning disabilities' or 'alternative disability treatment'? I got the book Dyslexia and Alternative Therapies today. The name might suggest dyslexia therapies could be treated separately but, again, most of the 50 therapies mentioned are also proposed for ADHD, dyspraxia etc. Piechjo (talk) 11:26, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I would opt for 'Alternative therapies for developmental and learning disabilities'. It is less ambiguous. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:47, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

I support the proposed name change to 'Alternative therapies for developmental and learning disabilities'. --travisthurston + 18:53, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

More than that, Travis, we are also considering changing this from an article to either just a category or a list. What do you think? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 18:54, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

A list with minimal intro and some refs, similar to the table already in place. It would work well with the parent articles. Would it then be titled 'List of alternative therapies for developmental and learning disabilities'? pretty lengthy, but still the best option. --travisthurston + 19:17, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Agreed. The more we discuss, the more I am convinced that a list - not a category - is the way to go here. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 19:25, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

That's not so easy. There are proponents of these therapies among Wikipedians, and some will simply delete their therapy from the list. The good thing about a category is that at least the classification will be visible in the therapy article and discussed there. Piechjo (talk) 21:04, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

If you are using descriptors such as "pseudoscientific" then yes, proponents will remove their pet therapy. However, if you leave out the POV and just simply make this a list of alternative therapies (without any POV - for or against), I am sure that so long as the proponent agrees that their pet therapy is indeed "alternative", then they should have no problem with the listing. The point of this list should be just to have an encyclopaedic list for reference. How this could be different from just a category, we could include a neutral blurb at the top which basically explains the criteria for inclusion and then also a blurb about each therapy and how they are applied for treatment for these disabilities. However, further discussion about positives and negatives of each therapy should be reserved for each therapy's actual Wiki article. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 21:11, 20 November 2007 (UTC)

Just wanted to quickly say that I fully agree with Levine on the last comment, supporting the idea that the article itself should not be from a pov perspective and that if the foundation comes from a neutral stance, we will get less controversy from editors, and less dissonance from readers. That's the whole goal of WP. Information, not prejudice, pov, perspective, etc. Neutral, unbiased information. I also wanted to add that the last few edits are a welcomed step in the right direction. Thanks Piechjo... --travisthurston + 00:13, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Definitely a big thanks to Piechjo! It looks like we are all on the same page. So would the first step be to rename this article or to first convert it into a list? -- Levine2112 ^discuss 00:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I like the article List of treatments for dyslexia as an example for the template. If there isn't movement by the weekend and we're all on the same page, I'll get started on it...--travisthurston + 01:43, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

I won't be much help this week, but if you start, I promise to help out next week. -- Levine2112 ^discuss 02:58, 21 November 2007 (UTC)

Overhaul

Alternative therapy in "disability" is a pseudoscience? Hardly. I agree that there are some therapies that are correctly labeled as a pseudoscience (AK and Homeopathy), but the article itself is not about a pseudoscientific concept. To tag it as so is nothing but WP:POV and I propose to have the article completely reworked and renamed. "Disability" is vague and would be better termed as a "mental disability". --travisthurston + 17:21, 10 November 2007 (UTC)

I don't think a learning disability is generally considered as a mental disability. The correct name for this article would probably be Alternative therapies for learning disabilities and developmental disabilities, but it would be a lengthy headline. These are both matters of special education, but the therapies are not always connected to it. Rework is fine, I've been off the scene lately, but if you have any good ideas, they're welcome. Piechjo 11:15, 11 November 2007 (UTC)

Archive 1