Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dyslexia/Archive 1

Archive 1

Project Template

Created it cribbed from WP:Rowing, needs an image though. Nate1481( ^t/_c)

Image from commons added, best I could find replace it if you see a better free one, 'fair-use' is not allowed in templates etc. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 10:00, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

A European Source of Dyslexia Information

I was just surfing the internet, and i came across the web site Dyslexia International - Tools and Technologies (DITT). which has some interesting Contributions and definitions of Dyslexia which could have some suggestions for this project. their home page is at http://www.ditt-online.org/index.html and they have a "What is Dyslexia page" at http://www.ditt-online.org/Dyslexia.htm (and yes i do have an interest, I am quoted in their Summer 2005 newsletter on page 11 under the heading Reflections)

best wishes

dolfrog 18:23, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

Would it be worth having a 'resources' section on the project page? The kind of link farm that wouldn't be good in the article but could provide a great place for fact checking and source searching. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 09:57, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Good idea. I'll add one.

New graphics and header template

Thanks, Nate1481! I appreciate folks jumping in and helping to put together the basic components of the Project.

Rosmoran 22:56, 13 August 2007 (UTC)

The categories listed need creating, but having the template gives us a start. --Nate1481( ^t/_c) 09:58, 14 August 2007 (UTC)

Categorization

From the WIKI guidelines

Every Wikipedia article should belong to at least one category. Similarly every category (except Category:Contents, which is the root of the hierarchy) should be placed in at least one parent category. Disambiguation pages belong to special categories (see Disambiguation); most redirects are not categorized, though there are exceptions (see Categorizing redirects). For the categorization of pages in other namespaces, and categories used for project management purposes, see Project categories below.

An article should be placed in all the categories to which it logically belongs, subject to the duplicate categorization rule stated below. It should be clear from the verifiable information in the article why it was placed in each of its categories. Use the template if you find an article in a category that is not shown by sources to be appropriate template if the article gives no clear indication for inclusion in a category.

Normally a new article will fit into existing categories – compare articles on similar topics to find what those categories are. If you think a new category needs to be created, see the section What categories should be created below. If you don't know where to put an article, add the template to it – other editors (such as those monitoring Wikipedia:WikiProject Categories/uncategorized) will find good categories for it.

Categorize articles by characteristics of the topic, not characteristics of the article. A biographical article about a specific person, for example, does not belong in Category:Biography. (For exceptions, see Project categories below.)

An article should never be left with a non-existent (redlinked) category on it. Either the category should be created (most easily by clicking on the red link), or else the link should be removed or changed to a category that does exist.

The order in which categories are placed on a page is not governed by any single rule (for example, it does not need to be alphabetical, although partially alphabetical ordering can sometimes be helpful). Normally the most essential, significant categories appear first. If an article has an eponymous category (see below), then that category should be listed first of all. For example, Category:George Orwell is listed before other categories on the George Orwell page.

What categories should be created

Categories should be useful for readers to find and navigate sets of related articles. They should be the categories under which readers would most likely look if they were not sure of where to find an article on a given subject. They should be based on essential, "defining" features of article subjects, such as nationality or notable profession (in the case of people), type of location or region (in the case of places), etc. Do not create categories based on incidental or subjective features. Examples of types of categories which should not be created can be found at Wikipedia:Overcategorization. Discussion about whether particular categories should exist takes place at Wikipedia:Categories for discussion.

It should be remembered that categories are not the only means of enabling users to browse sets of related articles. Other tools which may be used instead of or alongside categories in particular instances include lists and navigation boxes. For a comparison of the uses of these techniques, see Categories, lists and navigation templates.

Categories appear without annotations, so be aware of the need for a neutral point of view when creating or filling categories. If the composition of a category is likely to be controversial, a list (which can be annotated) may be more appropriate.

Before creating a new category, check whether a similar category does not already exist under a different name (for example, by looking on the likely member pages or in likely parent categories).

Categories follow the same general naming conventions as articles; for example, common nouns are not capitalized. For specific rules, see Wikipedia:Naming conventions (categories).

For proposals to delete or rename categories, follow the instructions at Categories for discussion.

Subcategorization

Although there is no limit on the size of categories, a large category will often be broken down into smaller, more specific subcategories. For example, Category:Rivers of Europe is broken down by country into the subcategories Rivers of Albania, Rivers of Andorra, etc.

A category may be broken down using several coexisting schemes; for example, Category:Albums is broken down by artist, by date, by genre etc. Intermediate categories may be created as ways of organizing schemes of subcategories. For example, the subcategories called "Artistname albums" are not placed directly into Category:Albums, but in the intermediate category Category:Albums by artist.

Not all subcategories serve this systematic "breaking down" function; some are simply subsets which have some characteristic of interest, such as Best Actor Academy Award winners as a subcategory of Film actors, Toll bridges in New York City as a subcategory of Bridges in New York City, and Musical films as a subcategory of Musicals. These are called distinguished subcategories.

The identification of distinguished and non-distinguished subcategories is important for the application of the duplicate categorization rule. It is useful to state in category descriptions whether or not a given category is a distinguished subcategory of a parent category. Use the templates to specify the particulars. If no such information is present, determine the status of a subcategory by common sense and observation of the way existing articles are categorized.

Categories which are intended to be fully broken down into subcategories can be marked with the template. This indicates that any pages which editors might add to the main category should be moved to the appropriate subcategories when sufficient information is available. (If the proper subcategory for an article does not exist yet, either create the subcategory or leave the article in the parent category for the time being.)

To suggest that a category is so large that it ought to be broken down into subcategories, you can add the template to the category page.

Subcategories defined by ethnicity and sexuality are often classed as distinguished. For example, Category:African American baseball players is a distinguished subcategory of Category:American baseball players, as this category is not broken down systematically by ethnicity. See also Wikipedia:Categorization/Gender, race and sexuality.

Remember that subcategories will often belong in at least two parent categories. For example, Category:British writers should be in both Category:Writers by nationality and Category:British people. When making one category a subcategory of another, ensure that the members of the first really can be expected (with possibly a few exceptions) to belong to the second also. If two categories are closely related but are not in a subset relation, then a link to one can be included in the other's category description

dolfrog (talk) 17:00, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

Bunching

Just found Template:FixBunching. — RHaworth (Talk | contribs) 04:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

looks good I will try it out later

dolfrog (talk) 11:55, 16 June 2009 (UTC)

otitis media with effusion

Otitis media with effusion is a recognised cause of auditory processing disoder, and as such is also recognised as an underlying cause of dyalexia. Therefore otitis media does belong in the dyslexia category as one of medical problems which cause the neurologicla issues that can cause dyslexia.

dolfrog (talk) 14:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

See discussion and consensus at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dyslexia#RFC. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 14:11, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Okay, dolfrog. That's all well and good. But the article doesn't mention anything about that. In fact, the only place the word "dyslexia" appeared at all was in the category list. Adding a seemingly off-topic category to an article that seems to have nothing to do with that category without any discussion on the talk page tends to get reverted.

If you want to place this article into the dyslexia category, then you probably need to add what you're saying to the article. In order to add it to the article, you need to provide reliable sources that back up your claims (I'd look at the guidelines for reliable sources for medical articles as well). If you can suggest good text, and provide solid medical references for what you're saying (such as studies and reviews published in peer-reviewed journals), then we can likely add this to the article. If the addition warrants the category (we won't know that until we see the addition), then we can add the category.

I'd suggest that you place draft text here on the talk page for discussion (though you are by no means obligated to do so, it might help to avoid multiple reverts if you built consensus first). If the text is on point and well sourced, I'll back it for inclusion (for my part). Keep in mind, though, that it may or may not make sense to add the category even if we add some verbiage to the article. As I said, we'll have to cross that bridge when we come to it. Make sense? --Transity ^{(talk • contribs)} 14:27, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. The category is fine if the page substantially mentions it (up to WP:MEDRS standard, obviously). Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

King-Kopetzky syndrome

Hi I noticed that you started the article about King-Kopetzky syndrome or Obscure Auditory Dysfunction. Both of which are peculiar to the UK, and have now been absorbed by the UK Medical Research Council into the current Auditory Processing Disorder research program as of 2004. may be you would like toi merge the King-Kopetzky syndrome article into the Auditory Processing Disorder Article, which wil be my next editing project after i have finished my work on the dyslexia project

dolfrog (talk) 15:58, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• I would be very grateful if you do not merge them yet , as it stands I think there might be a merit in keeping King-Kopetzky syndrome as a separate article , as it is a well known name and there is plenty of puplications about it.Meanwhile, I will do some inquiries about the subject. Many thanks. Ghaly (talk) 00:12, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

RFC

Could we have a wider view on the appropriate use of Wikipedia categories? (e.g. is Category:Dyslexia appropriate for articles such as List of languages by writing system and categories such as Category:Writing systems?

I've just created the above RFC to get wider input on this current dispute. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 15:44, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

What is an RFC

dolfrog (talk) 15:51, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

A Request for Comment, a formal request for outside views on a topic.

I reverted your edit to the RFC page. That one is reserved solely for a neutrally-worded unsigned request that doesn't try to "frame" the discussion. There's equally no point in adding stuff to Wikipedia talk:Requests for comment/lang/manual; all discussion takes place here. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 17:06, 13 June 2009 (UTC)

• Outside opinion: Category:Dyslexia should only be used in articles that are primarily about dyslexia. Writing systems and the like should not have this category. – Quadell ^(talk) 18:20, 16 June 2009 (UTC)
• I think that there may be some confusion between the purpose of the category system and this project's scope. If editors here think that an article is within their scope -- that is, any article that the members choose to support by improving or answering questions about, regardless of whether anyone else at all thinks that it has anything to do with dyslexia -- then they should place {{WikiProject Dyslexia |class= }} on the article's talk page. They may certainly do that for List of languages by writing system, if they choose to support that list.
  By contrast, articles placed in Category:Dyslexia should really be directly and specifically about dyslexia. This approach is consistent with standard practice, helps readers find the most important articles (instead of drowning the more important articles in a sea of essentially unimportant articles, like laws that don't even mention dyslexia by name, but which might have a small effect on education of some students with dyslexia in a single country), avoids cluttering articles with dozens of categories, and eliminates the slippery slope problem (e.g., gives us a firm reason not to include United States Constitution, even though its due process guarantees affect thousands of students with dyslexia). As a general rule of thumb, if an article doesn't have at least a solid paragraph about (some form or aspect of) dyslexia, then the article probably shouldn't go into that category. WhatamIdoing (talk) 20:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)
• It would be helpful if the originator of this RFC would explain the context and the reasoning behind this proposal. As it stands, I can't for the life me imagine any reason why List of languages by writing system or Category:Writing systems would be placed in Category:Dyslexia; as other have already noted, neither of them is a page about any aspect of dyslexia. --R'n'B (call me Russ) 21:23, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I didn't want to "frame" discussion. I agree with you that it's screamingly wrong as a category. But it was a case of doing it by the book to get outside opinion, as User:Dolfrog was not taking the word of existing editors here that this categorisation is inappropriate. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)

What none of the opinion providers has asked yet is the very key question. "How are Writing systems related to dyslexia ??" No one has read the research which links Writing systems to dyslexia No one has asked even if there is any research to link the two topics. No one has even attempted to discuss the issue either. All have just said that writing systems have nothing to do with dyalexia without doing any research to prove the case one way or the other. All we have had is ill informed opinions and some taking rash actions based on these ill informed opinions. If you take some time out you can read the relevent research which explains:

• how different neurlogical abilitities are required to reading in the various writing systems depending on the structure of the orthography being used.
• dyslexics can have different nuerological ability deficits which can cause them to have problems reading.
• For some their nuerological skill/abiliyt deficit may not be a problem for them in a writng system where their ability defict does not conflict with skill / abiliyt requirement of the writng system they are using.

The documented research I published demonstrated this quite well. but was ignered by all. so all the opinions have been provided in ognorance of the documented research which proces most to be ill informed. Gordonofcartoon called it framing the discussion. not true just providing the research to read before anyone should make an opinion. If the facts are not presented how can anyone pass an opinion. (may be WIKI editors can because they know it all) The research is from 1999 so where the so called experts have been since then I have no idea. History of developmental dyslexia 1999 Wydell and Butterworth reported the case study of an English-Japanese bilingual with monolingual dyslexia . Suggesting that any language where orthography-to-phonology mapping is transparent, or even opaque, or any language whose orthographic unit representing sound is coarse (i.e. at a whole character or word level) should not produce a high incidence of developmental phonological dyslexia, and that orthograpy can influence dyslexic symptoms

There is more research to support this as well but most WIKI editors would appear not interested in the facts only their own opinions from waht has appeared above. This appears to be a common problem with many wiki editors they think they know it all, when they really know nothing at all, and are unwilling to ask, discuss, and learn.

Case proven

dolfrog (talk) 01:41, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

I've explained to you repeatedly that the research is totally irrelevant. This is not about the scientific background, but a matter of how the Wikipedia category system is routinely applied. Even if writing systems are proven to be intimately connected with dyslexia, it still won't apply as a category to articles/categories that don't mention it explicitly and solidly. About eight editors have told you now. It's time to stop lecturing us - Wikipedia is not a soapbox - and accept the consensus. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:12, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• I agree with User:Quadell (and several others) that Category:Dyslexia should only be put on topics that are *about* dyslexia. An example of an article that should not have this category is List of languages by writing system. EdJohnston (talk) 02:44, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• again if you had read ther support research and as a result you would understand that langauges anf writng systersm have a great deal to do with how dyslexia can affect different invividuals using different writng systems, and thsat readfers can only indeity which srting system their langage is in vy reading that artilce, to determine the way to manage their dyslexic symptoms, and which neurolgicla deficts are causing their dyslexic symptoms, and which nuerological skill option are best to develop to work around their disability.

All of this research has been ignored by all who have commneted so far and was not even considered by the editors of the writing system articles. Not very WIKI all this personal opinion stuff lacking socumentary support.

dolfrog (talk) 02:56, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Dolfrog, you're missing the point. Note that I'm familiar with this research and fully believe that they're onto something important. However, for this particular purpose, nobody cares whether dyslexia is associated with different styles of writing systems. It's irrelevant. The question is much closer to "If someone goes looking for articles about writing systems, are they trying to find information about dyslexia?" Categories are used for navigation, not for content. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:35, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing you wrote "If someone goes looking for articles about writing systems, are they trying to find information about dyslexia?" there is another side to this question "If someone goes looking for articles about dyslexia systems, are they trying to find information about writng systems" and the answe would be yes because the type of writngsystem they are born into determines the potentila neurologicla causes of tyheir dyslexia, which is waht that research indicates and more recent research confirms using fMRI especially from Hong Kong where they both Chinese and English co exist but pose different neurlogicla problems for dyslexics. Now to go back to your orignal question "If someone goes looking for articles about writing systems, are they trying to find information about dyslexia?". Well from the position of the evolution of the different writng systems undersating the neurologicla issues which surround dyslexia may explain why barious groups went their different ways after thye left Africa all thousands of years ago, and could explain why there are diffeent orthographies in the different writing systems and from why I can see some geographic link between the different extemes of orthography. So all could benefir from exploring different appraches to the same topics. dolfrog (talk) 15:07, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

An analogy that may or may not help. I go round to Dolfrog's house and start emptying my waste paper bin in through his letter box. "No, no," he says (rightly). "The letter box is only for post." I tell him that the problem is his ill-informed opinions, because he hasn't read all the research that shows envelopes and notepaper are the origin of wastepaper. Nevertheless, that research is irrelevant, and reading it would make no difference. The only issue is the generally-agreed categories of waste and post. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 04:03, 18 June 2009 (UTC)

• Uninvolved comment. Dolfrog, consensus above is that the category tag for dyslexia doesn't belong on articles not directly mentioning dyslexia. Unless you can find some reliable sources that verify the link, and allow you to place direct mention of dyslexia in the article you hope to categorize in that way, I'm afraid you're not going to be allowed to categorize them how you'd like. Unitanode 15:32, 18 June 2009 (UTC)
• Yep, writing system articles do not belong in these categories. Dyslexia might sometimes be related to writing systems, but a writing system is not about dyslexia. Plus, most writing system articles are pretty broad and already included in many categories; including this category would be overcategorization. rʨanaɢ ^talk/_contribs 12:25, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

The dyslexia project: A new beginning

Hi All

I have added some new sections below which have come from various talk pages in recent days but all realted in some way to the dyslexia project. So I have added them all below, in the hope that we can all begin to add our own input as one person working alone can cause also sorts of problems as can be seen above. I will post a copy of this to all who I think may wish to the new begining of the Dyslexia project and a copy will appear on your individual discussion pages ( I hope you do not mind). The oringinal copy of this can be found at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dyslexia main prjoct article you will see revise project template, the changes on the tamplate is the addition of a Project pages section, which includes the orinal project pages and the new STAGE TWO page which is hopefuly the new starting point. the STAGE TWO page has the dyslexia article as it is now. And we can tinker with it without changing the actual article itself and discuss and issue we may have before making further changes to the article itself.

dolfrog (talk) 21:57, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Continuing discussion from SandyGeorgia's talk page

Hi both,

just to fill in a bit og background about me. my eldest son was diagnosed as having CAPD back in 1998, ans in the UK no one was prepared to even acknowledge that APD existed so my fist prjoect was to collect information which initially came from Dr. Jay Luckers CAPD Listserve, so that my sons school couls understan his problems and provide the support he needed, that lead to my fist web sites the most useful of which are http://dolfrog4life.homestead.com/AA_index_ZZ.html and http://capdlinks.homestead.com/AA_index_ZZ.html from there together with the leading UK APD researchers I became involved with getting APD recognised in the UK, which resulted in the Founding of APDUK, and the creation of the APDUK web site, http://www.apduk.org/ of which I am still the webmaster and main contributor (you will see my real name in the copyright statement thye would not let me use dolfrog LoL). So It could be said that I may have a conflcit of interest I do not know. I also own the OldAPD forum for adults who have APD which has been in existance since 2000 http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/OldAPDs/ with regard to research which is where all the dyslexia stuff started, I have been on mnay dyalexia forums and from my own observarions most who have dyslexia have APD as one of the underlying causes of their dyslexia symptoms, and the problem was that most of the information regarding dyslexia was usually from 1980 and beyond and skewed toward one remedial program or another. So that is why I have spent the last month or so trying to revise the dyslexia article to reflct curretn resrarch while also maintaining the information from the research history. And the addtion of a History of APD on the Auditory Processing Disorder article may be a good place to start. At the beginning of this year I radically revised one of my alomost unused disucssion forums, to add 160 PD files mostly research based regarding amny of the issues that relate to dyslexia, some of which are about APD, may be you may like to join this forum and look at the PDF files that are already there, and may be add a few more. The forum is at http://health.groups.yahoo.com/group/what_causes_your_dyslexia/ (it is more of a research forum than a discussion forum, but the mebership has grown from 6 to 36 in the last few months.

I do need to take a break I am knee deep in dysexia research articles which need to be added to a new reference program I am using to store my pdf files and useful abstract information on.

best wishes

dolfrog (talk) 11:43, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to mention that a gear deal of the APDUK web site consists of article contributed by professionals interested in APD, and one "Central Auditory Processing Disorders as a key factor in Developmental Language Disorders" http://apd.apduk.org/rosalie_seymour.htm is also part of a series of articles at http://www.aitinstitute.org/rosalie_seymour.htm

dolfrog (talk) 12:07, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for this information about yourself and your background. It is helpful to understand your situation better. You are obviously have done a lot of research about these subjects and gathered lots of material. It's true that you might have a bit of a conflict of interest, but as long as you refrain from posting links to your various websites you should be alright.

However there is a potential problem is when you say "from my own observarions most who have dyslexia have APD as one of the underlying causes of their dyslexia symptoms". We can't write articles to suit what we have observed and noted. We have to look at the best, highest quality academic sources that have been published and summarize what they say. Otherwise we are engaging in original research which is forbidden here. As I said before, this generally means that we need to use academic journals and books and particularly review articles as sources. Unfortunately a Powerpoint presentation by Rosalie Seymour doesn't make the grade; it isn't published by a peer reviewed journal, and is especially inappropriate for WP because she is a proponent of the highly controversial and fringe Auditory integration training, where there is overwhelming evidence about its lack of efficacy. Having said that, it seems that on your yahoogroups you have some uploaded some relevant academic journal articles.

If you could list the ones you think important (along with their doi numbers if possible) on the talkpage of the APD article, I will download them directly from the journals. I would prefer this than joining the yahoogroups website.--Slp1 (talk) 13:16, 19 June 2009 (UTC)

I've said this to Dolfrog elsewhere, but I second your concern about the risk of original research. The papers Dolfrog is collecting look to me very thin on secondary sources such as review papers (as advised by WP:MEDRS). Making a personal selection of primary papers isn't the way to go about writing medical articles.

I'm especially not keen on the instruction at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia/Dyslexia sub-articles - "If you find one of these articles suitable as a reference for for some existing content then you could add it as a reference". We don't write stuff first then find a primary source to support it. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:20, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Original research mentioned by SandyGeorgia and Slp1 refers to some of my personal observations, and not peer reviewed research articles which are the basis for all scientific research. All of the article I have listed are PMID article you can not get any better than that. What you do not seem to realise us that Dyslexia, reading, etc are not cut and dried subjects, with cast irn definitions and scientific understanding, until we fully understand the working of the brain and the genetic etc that effect the development etc, there will always be change as part of the scientific evolution of our understanding of these issues. So you have to keep up with the recent rapid advances in research to understand the current thinking. And because the diagnosis of my disability is all part of the more recent developments, just to understand myself I have had to research what had previously seemed unrelated areas. What you have to also realise is that nothing exists in complete isolation, and that everything is usually somehow related to everything else, it just a matter working out and understanding of how and why. dolfrog (talk) 03:30, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

All of the article I have listed are PMID article you can not get any better than that

Read WP:MEDRS. Individual papers have different conclusions, different theories on their field of research. That's why we need secondary sources that give a reliable overview. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 03:49, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you should also have a look at WP:MEDRS

A secondary source in medicine summarizes one or more primary or secondary sources, usually to provide an overview of the current understanding of a medical topic. Review articles and specialist textbooks are examples of secondary sources, as are position statements and literature reviews by major health organizations. A good secondary source from a reputable publisher will be written by an expert in the field and be editorially or peer reviewed.

The research papers i have quoted are peer reviewed, which is how they become published in PUBMED etc. So please check this out first. And even secondary sources have different theories of dyslexia etc as I have explained before because the research is not complete and will not be for many years to come. As I have mentioned before you really do need to research this topic before making off hand comments dolfrog (talk) 04:04, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

• Many papers listed at PubMed with PMIDs are not peer-reviewed.
• Peer review is not the same thing a systematic review or a literature review.
• Many peer-reviewed papers are primary sources. Primary sources have limited value on Wikipedia.
• All systematic reviews and literature reviews are secondary sources. You should use these kinds of papers. On PubMed, click the "Reviews" tab to find a shorter list that is mostly the right kind of reviews.
• WP:Original research is not simply what kind of paper you're reading. It's also how you use the paper. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

what 'dyslexia' is

Perhaps dyslexia results when an individual is not saying what others wish/compel him/her to say, additionally affectrd by group/cult linguistic codes. beadtot 64.136.26.230 (talk) 05:16, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

This would fit in with some of the mythical ideas that have existed about dyslexia, Dyslexia is caused by cognitive nuerological differences rather than social differences although these social differences have been wrongly used in the past to identify possible dyslexia dolfrog (talk) 08:22, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

What should we look for on the ditt-online website?

Hi, dolfrog. I think you referenced the ditt-online website (International Dyslexia something or other) as a source for fact checking. I went through the website pretty thoroughly, and I'm not seeing anything I could use for fact checking, or even research papers (or even lists of research papers).

Could you point me to what you think would be helpful for the overall project?

Best,

Rosmoran (talk) 08:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I can not even find the link now, it was a European based dyslexia project, i have not kpt pace wi its current output, I do remember that they had a magazine archive of research news which could be used to find research sources dolfrog (talk) 20:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sami

they have move the web site to http://www.dyslexia-international.org/index.html and the Country-by-country contacts section would be very useful to start new Suppport by country articles, tye include government contcts and support groups may be some one from the support groups could provide more detailed information for each article.

best wishes

graeme dolfrog (talk) 21:38, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Merging Alexia and Deep dyslexia?

Hi,

Could someone give me a quick summary of why we're merging these two articles?

Thanks,

Rosmoran (talk) 14:43, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Deep dyslexia is an old sub type of acquired dyslexia or Alexia, and more recent research has shown that deep dyslexia is a more severe form of the phological sub type of Alexia. during the 1990s some borrowed the sub types of Alexia (Acquired dyslexia) to help define the sub types of developmental dyslexia. At this point in time there is no supportive research to combine the sub types both developmental dyalexia and Alexia (Acquired dyslexia), The real issues concern remediation, the causes of alexia can be cured or remediated, this is not the case at this moment in time for developmental dyslexia. I hope this explains the position dolfrog (talk) 14:55, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

including content in this article

Hi I have been reading the contents of the arbitration I submitted, perhaps it would have been easier to introduce yourselves as editors for this article and invite me to discuss this issue with you in this talk page rather than attempt to disuade me from attempting to resolve this with intervention. I am still open to doing that, in that I will put it forward as a proposal.

I am not a spammer and I do not have a conflict of interest. I myself have dyslexia and I have had an interest in this article for some time. A conflict of interest also does not disbar a contribution, only that caution must be excercised.

My aim is to suggest expanding the area of wider reading and perspective for readers of the article. My concern is that breaking the Dyslexia article up into sub articles, And there is no harm in adding small paragraphs that are convered in more detail in larger sub articles, I suggest this since it does not really help the reader or user of this article, yes the page is an encyclopedia article, but I would strongly propose that it is also considered the purpose of such an article to help those with dyslexia or affected by it find the help and information they may require, more so becasue of the nature of the problem.

I would strongly suggest that this is taken into account and links to alternative perspectives, and I myself am not a great fan of the Davis therapy, but it is not reason to disbar a different perspective provided it is presented as such, this to me is neutrality.

One of the biggest issues of dyslexia is the controvosy, over diagnosis, treatments and theories, and there is a very strong reason for this aspect to be mentioned in the main article, and for wider reading to be included in a further reading section.

There is also a strong need for a further reading section specifically with a wider perspective.

Again apologies for the disruption, however if someone is showing an interest in the article, would it be better to remove the edits, introduce yourselves and then invite them over to the talk to discuss it?

Kind regards James —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cityzen451 (talk • contribs) 20:09, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I do not have a conflict of interest

If you're the author of (or have some other close connection with) A Memory Therapy ... etc, you do with respect to that particular book. If so, the usual "caution" expected per WP:COI is that you let others make the call about its inclusion/exclusion. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 20:35, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Im not associated with the book, other than I have read it because I take an interest in alternative unvalidated therapies, my concern is that these therapies are not mentioned in the article, because the are a very important issue in the dyslexia debate. Relying only on the scientific validated perspective when considering the whole issue is biased in itself, in this context when that stance is used to not discussing the wider perspective

So in effect I am asking for the go ahead from the article editors for the go ahead to write a section about this aspect, moreover it will better allow it to be policed, by putting it in its appropriate place.

--Cityzen451 (talk) 21:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Not that Gordon and I see eye to eye for most of the time, I can confirm that he has no conflict of interest. There is a register of Editors interested in participating in the dyslexia project which all could sign up to if you have not done so already.

If there is to be a "Further reading" section then the books need to relate to the specific articles within the dyslexia project, so for the main article only books in which the content provides a global or universal view of dyslexia should be included, and at this point in time there are not many. Most, not all, of the current books would best suite an as yet to br created article "The Alternative Remedial programs" as there are a wide range of programs none of which help or support all dyslexics but do provide some support for specific small groups of dyslexics, which would tend to follow the lines of the various cognitive causes of dyslexia, and the coping strategies that an individual dyslexia is able to use.

All of these issues need to be discussed at length, as adding the wrong books to the wrong article could be very miss leading especially to fellow dyslexics. may be we could add some kind of arrow picture or something to show or emphasis to fellow dyslexics that they need to follow the links to the sub pages for more in depth information about a specific topic (Especially the support by country articles)dolfrog (talk) 21:14, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree completely... however my concern not accusation, was posting on the arbitration without clearly pointing out stuts as an article editor, more of an observation. I would like to discuss contributing to a further reading section and a "alternative remedial programs" my main interest is contributing to this article. Cityzen451 (talk) 21:23, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Response to James' comment regarding content to be included

Hi, James.

You're not disrupting anything. Discussing, editing, re-discussing, re-editing, sometimes ad nauseum, is part of Wikipedia. :-)

I'm not sure I understand exactly what you're asking, but I'll summarize the consensus of the editors working on the article at that time. If I'm not giving you helpful information, please let me know where I'm missing your point, and I'll try to address your questions as best I can.

Note: By describing the consensus we reached way back then, I'm not saying that we should not discuss any aspect of that old plan further, and if we can reach consensus, change the entire plan. I just thought it might be helpful for you to have a little information about how we came to this point.

Breaking up the article into multiple articles was discussed pretty extensively before we started the project (which is why you don't see the discussion here on the project's discussion page -- it occurred on the Dyslexia talk page and on various individual editors' talk pages).

At the time, the article had grown to be huge, unwieldy, and it was very poorly organized. There was a good bit of disagreement about how to approach reorganizing the material, there were editors who turned out to have conflicts of interest, etc. It was a mess, and we weren't being very successful at solving the problem. So I suggested that we create a project/workgroup in an attempt to coordinate this work.

While these organization discussions were ongoing, I ran across a Wikipedia style that I thought might help us with the obvious organization problems. It's called Wikipedia:Summary style. The basic idea is to cover all topics related to the subject of the article, and for those sections that are large enough to be broken out into a separate article, provide a link to the Main Article on the top-level summary page. So, for important subheads of significant size, you have:

Subhead

Link to the "main article" that contains the full discussion of that subtopic.

A summary of the content in that separate article.

This approach had the added benefit of allowing different editors to take the lead on the various articles.

The idea was well received, so we got started. But we didn't get all that far as some of the key editors on the project got sucked back into their real lives .....

So, there you have it. Let the discussion of this approach continue!

Regarding having a broader perspective of the topic so readers can access the information, I agree completely. One of the problems we discussed way back when was that the article was very US-centric, that dyslexia exists in languages other than English, and it appeared that the British perspective on the various topics is somewhat different from what you typically see in the US. To my eye, the article now looks pretty UK-centric, so the pendulum may have swung too far in a different direction. I'm sure we'll all pitch in over time to make the article more balanced.

Is this helpful, or have I missed your point entirely? What issues do you think need to be discussed further?

Best,

Rosmoran (talk) 21:31, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

not at all that is exactly what i was trying to propose as a way to add the article, which I am now aware the way I tried and agree was a clumbsy way of attempting to do so, my view is if the inclusion of these aspects I have a concern over, requires a little more thought over and a more work to rightly as MrOllie indicated, then I am willing to do that work. In agreement with what you suggested I would propose a small section on "alternative unvalidated therapies and if appropriate a more developed contribution. In my view the issue can be address with a few lines and with a few links to more notable references.

I would also say that the article as it stands is well structured and informative, I was also very impressed after reading the talk the level of discussion and depth the editing of the article receives, especially since the artcles for some reason do appear to be vandalised quite frequently, with comments like "I am fred"!!

I also agree that a difficult aspect for an "English"/American article is to address the differences in both American and UK cultures, which does need addressing. Out of interest what are the key differences in the perspectives between America and the UK?

86.130.167.14 (talk) 21:57, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

To be perfectly honest, I don't have a good grasp of the differences between the UK and US views. Dolfrog, can you pitch in here?

As for adding a section for controversial or unproven theories or treatments, go to it! If it gets big or unwieldy we can always create a separate article for it.

Best,

Rosmoran (talk) 00:23, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to add to what Sami has said, All I have done so far is to have follow the suggestions as we had agreed some time back, there wee problems matching the content to the references and also matching the references to the content. Probably for the wrong reasons we have attracted the attention of quite few administrators who to be providing useful support, and a few experts who have been adding their advice and making their contributions as well. Now that Sami is back I can revert back to my role as a dogs body researcher, and leave all the article writing work to the better able wordsmiths. And get back to my topic of interest APD, and may be Alexia which is related to aphasia which could be part of my families set of issues (still waiting for a re-run of the assessment) dolfrog (talk) 22:19, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I forgot to add that all of the new influential research is currently coming from Germany and China, and this could change as the cognitive issues that cause dyslexia become more prominent and have a more universal clinical diagnostic options, So the US/UK pendulum will become obsolete. Basically the USA and UK approaches were the same during the 1960sm 1970, 1980s and probably the 1990s as the UK followed the Orton Gillingham appraoch to diagnosing and remediating dyslexia, The big difference became obvious when the Controversy debated started about waht causes dyslexia and is dyslexia a myth. a long story, but but it is best left to Professor Elliot to define. If you read his article "Does Dyslexia Exist?" (more a rehtorical question)

Which leads into the research from Germany, Finland, and China and elsewhere as a more global view of dyslexia emerges dolfrog (talk) 22:40, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the best approach is to go with the mainstream, and a very good balance has been made in this article. Favouring what is currently in practice and the consensus of the experts that are treating dyslexia. The paper you highlighted is a position paper, in my personal view more interesting and pertinant, but is the purpose of this article to inform the general reader or the expert.

The catagorisation of Dyslexia is nothing new to the dyslexia debate, switching hats as an academic, yes it is obvious there is controvosy and it has been discussed from the very beginning, the socially constructed "Dyslexia" is valid because it functions to serve as a label, which is required.

Taking into account when someone's height is sufficiently off the chart either direction they are considered disabled, it is the same for reading ability, the issue with dyslexia is the political issue, if concessions are made then.... which is thinly veiled discrimination. The argument is dyslexia is a construct, well yes, if you create a writing system that is unusable or an obsticle for some then it puts them at a disadvantage, possibly even a motivating factor during the development of written language, ever wondered why "Awkward" is so orquard to spell, a hidden pun? Why is there a debate; because it leads to the need to regularise written language, an absurd and upsetting notion to some. And, not without its problems, how to evaluate achievement? It would effect the aesthetics of written language, I personally feel the americans were brave to attempt to regularlise their written language.

Id rather be open and set out my stall from the beginning, My agenda is to push for the needs of the general reader of this article to ensure they find what they need and are looking for, there should be a section discussing the remedial therapies, were necessary placed in the correct context as unvalidated, with perhaps a mention of the placedo effect considering that it plays an important role in dyslexia with the effects of motivation and anxiety. I note that there is a link to Irlen lenses, this I agree with, but it is questioned, however I do possess coloured lenses myself... which are useful with Wiki's love affair with using white background. A very brief section on remedial therapies would tie in neatly with the "research into causes" section, and would aviod disrupting the structure.

The Davis book (not a favourite) relates to the developmental perspective and the perceptual noise theory. the Rowan book I proposed was one of the few related to the phonological deficit theory. Orton would be developmental(?) and so on, the list need not be exhaustive but a general run through of mainstream and interesting books. These were seed examples, to push in that direction. The main entries would be useful reference books, guides for parents and so on. The issue is interpreting "scientifically notable" as notability is that bias? What about popularity and notable controvosy due to popularity.

The reason I chose to add a further reading section is simply because taking all this into account and the possible disruption to the article and the increase in size, a simple further reading section seemed to be the best option, which the article is blatantly missing, since further reading does not imply endorsement, merely these are wider reading for an increased perspective. I would even go so far as to write a disclaimer for the section, due to the nature of the dyslexia debate. "further reading is designed to ... inclusion does not imply endorsement or scientifically validated...." Is Wikipedia a scientific journal or...?

In effect not reflecting the wider perspective makes the reader think the editors have missed them and the article is not extensive, rather than excluded them, which to me is an issue that requires addressing.

So in summary, the article is excellent, and beyond technical tweeking I dont want to interfere, im not qualified enough, I am proposing a section covering remedial therapies, that ties in with a few words placing them in their correct context maybe support groups etc a few lines, then further reading which will have to include books like Davis, similar to references to Irlen filters which are already mentioned but in the correct context.

Alternatively, I am suggesting a further reading section, which was my original contribution, with a disclaimer, since the "research into causes" touches on the alternative therapies, although the article would be better with your proposed section,

Cityzen451 (talk) 11:59, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Remedial Therapies

Hi James and All

Remedial Therapies should be included in the Management of dyslexia and /or Category:Management of dyslexia The title "Managment of Dyslexia replaced the old title "Treatment of Dyslexia" because the word treatment implies a cure for dyslexia. Son on the main page we need to include a new paragraph or dection in the Main Managment of dyalexia section "Alternative Remedial Programs" and under this heading say that "there are many remdial programs that some dyslexics have found to be beneficial to help them work around their dyslexic issues" and above that a WIKI detail link to the new "Alternative Remedial Programs Article" {This is such large topic that they may be a need for a remedial programs sub category if the wiki articles exist.)

What i propose to do is to create a wiki project sandbox specifically for this new article where we can all add and edit information regarding the detail of each of the remedial programs. While at the same time we add a new article to the Management of Dyslexia Section/Category "Alternative Remedial Programs" and on which we just list the remdial programs and stating more detailed information will follow soon.

The Further Reading can be added but first we need to decide which books are added to which articles.

In addition last night i reformatted the detail links to be in a bolder font in the hope that there is more detailed information on the sub articles any comments dolfrog (talk) 13:42, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Sandbox page created and in the navigation template Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia/Alternative Remedial Programs dolfrog (talk) 14:50, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, and for the record Im not pushing for any specific book/s, just the section. and I would be happy to contribute. I think an adition to the article would be a good idea, and although I'm the one suggesting it, I feel the article should not be over emphasised, a few lines discussing them.

Pick the main ones, the commonly subscribed to, with a balanced presentation. I also would suggest with the interpretation of Dyslexia being so woolly due to the debates that they should not be presented as alternative, but all placed within the "mangement of Dyslexia" but categorised under whether validated or popular reading... Having an Alternative section would suggest an opinion.

The issue with Dyslexia is that it is not as such clinically diagnosed and making the distinction for "Alternative" implies there is consensus in the treatment...oops you're right management.

Or simply perhaps making it clear, and going for Management of Dyslexia (for mainstream techniques) and an Unvalidated sub category

Personally I would go for Management of dyslexia and listing them in order of importance and validation,

• Validated, mainstream
• Validated
• Unvalidated mainstream/popular

Anything Unvalidated and not mainstream brief line explaining that there are various approach beyond the scope of this section....

Cityzen451 (talk) 17:22, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

By the way, the {{Main}} template is usually preferd d to the {{Details}} template. WhatamIdoing (talk) 2 23:49, 7 July 29 (UTC)

this is to prevent confusion. This are DETAIL articles being added to the MAIN summary Article, and the link back from these DETAIL sub articles is t the MAIN Article. It is possible to have a hierachy of main articles so that you can return to each main article as required, but the each sub artilce has to be a DETAIL of its own MAIN article dolfrog (talk) 02:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Proposal for remedial therapies

I think the proposal sounds great. It's completely appropriate to include a section on remedial therapies, both those generally accepted by the scientific community as well as those that are not.

It might be helpful to let one person take a stab at constructing the article, and then requesting feedback or community editing. That way the original author can complete a draft of his or her vision of the article or section, without having a bunch of editors going in and inadvertently pushing the original author off track.

Just a thought.

Regarding further reading, again, perfectly appropriate.

Best, Rosmoran (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I would be quite willing to write the article section in the wiki style to see how it turns out, I envisage only a very brief section anyway, nothing more, its not need.

Proposed therapies would be, and I think others are better qualified to comment on whether they are validated and mainstream, and others that should be included. My suggestion is if it is done this way the value and quality of the management techniques are clearly presented neutrally without any discussion that suggests bias, it is clearly present, Unvalidated and popular (marketed)

<the following completely open to discussion, they're just seed> Orten Special Remedial educational support <- ah those were the days:( Speach and language therapy <- not sure if this was ever used seriously cognitive behavioural therapy(?) Irlen filters (Unvalidated popularised) Davis Anything else cover it with a statement there are many more... if they're not likely to come across it, its not required.

This way it would all be in context and without bias but clearly highlight the issue that are of concern to the editors.

I think also in the proposed further reading, with there being no need to tie them in with the body of the article, that they are again grouped clearly as validated...popular and so on. That in my view is fair neutral and less open to objection, or spinning aminor issue into an unnecessary clump of work, however obviously leaving scope for someone who may want to do the work.

In further reading and feel the more popular of the information and parental guides etc, and one or two of the mainstream references. In my view Im not proposing anything long than I have just written.

Cityzen451 (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi both

the new Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia/Alternative Remedial Programs has its own talk page so other editors could make suggestions on the talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dyslexia/Alternative Remedial Programs and this would leave the main article free from interference as it progresses

I have included a list of some programs on the article just to create the article, there may be other program from other countries which need including and investigating. Each program should have a classification as to which of the Senses the remedy helps to develop (Visual Auditory, Kineasthetic, or multi-sensory (state which senses). And which groups or sub types of dyslexics would be able to use and gain benefit from the program / therapy.

Please remember that all programs usually help at least one dyslexic, which is why or how they were devised and created but these does not mean that the program will benefit all dyslexics.

OK the word alternative is debatable but can be used for the moment as this is only a project work page and when it is eventually added as a complete article the name can be changed in the move. I was using the alternative to mean different remedies for different types of dyslexics, I suppose "Options" is another word we could use.

dolfrog (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

I have taken a copy of this thread across to the Alternative Remedial Programs talk page just to start things off dolfrog (talk)

Could I get a summary of what has been done?

Hi, Dolfrog.

Would you mind giving me a quick summary of what you've done? I'm trying to figure out where we are in relation to the reorganization plan listed on the following project page: Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia/Proposed organization

Thanks!

Rosmoran (talk) 22:58, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sami

I did try to explain things as I went have a look at Reorganization stage one and Reorganization 2009 which at the time was more like talking to myself as no one else appeared to be interested lol .

I have only just recently radically revised the "to do" list as most of the contents had been done.

Some of the orginal proposals have fallen by the way side as documented research has required a change, or we as we try to comply with WIKI requirements.

The first thing I did was to match the references citations to the content of the article, and then unexpectedly I had to match the content to the existing citations or references. Which has meant that I am knee deep in dyslexia research papers.

Once the research and content matched, the next step was to try to reduce the many duplications of statement and content around in various sections of the article. The history section was put into chronological order, and is really a history of the research into dyslexia. I found what is now the diagnosis section buried in the characteristics section. And Treatment, which implies a cure was changed to Management of dyslexia.

To slim down the main article with out loosing the information and content meant that there was a need for new Sub articles. So the first sub divisions were Dyslexia research, and the Management of dyslexia.

These two sub divisions in turn became summary articles for the the more specialised topics so that the aim of ease of navigation continued.

The dyslexia research category Category:Dyslexia research contains what used to be the old history, and research sections. History of developmental dyslexia, Theories of dyslexia, Genetic research into dyslexia and Brain scan research into dyslexia. The controversy section was moved to the Dyalexia research page because the topic is about research controversy.

The management of dyslexia category Category:Management of dyslexia includes e old efects of orthography Dyslexia: Orthography, Managing dyslexia: alphabetic orthography. The old legal issues has been move to the relevant articles in the new Category:Dyslexia support by country which so far includes Dyslexia support in the United States and Dyslexia support in the United Kingdom more information is still on Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia/support by country

I hope this helps, the real problem was that i was working on my own, not by choice. dolfrog (talk) 00:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry I haven't been involved for so long. Life has not been kind this past year.

Please don't think I'm blaming you for anything -- I'm just trying to figure out where we are (what is our current article list? has every article that needs to be created been created?) etc.

Best, Rosmoran (talk) 01:46, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I do understand life can throw large bricks at you when you least expect them and when least wanted. I hope all is improving.

I was only trying to list the articles and trying not to forget any, which i usually do, normally the orthography ones. I think we need to create a Project Resources page where we can list useful research sources so that all can locate them, and list the research documents which have not currently been used as references so that the content can be summerised by editors who have that skill, not one of my talents, but a gather we can ask for help regarding this if need be, it is all about copyright etc. Some of the newer articles need a great deal of work done, some how we need to biuld up a library of dyslexia suport by country articles providing as much detail as we can, in the hope that someone from that country will take it on. I am trying to get some legal advice regarding the Statutes that govern statutory support provision, etc, which is not that easy. Again this will probably have to be done by country. The two medical research article need re-organising they were basically just lifted from the main article and I have copied some information from the neuroimaging article to explain the various types. I also have a couple of research papers somewhere which review the best forms of neuroimaging for dyslexia research. And the genetic research article need some input from the technical editors who can rephrase research papers of which i have plenty more to add. I need to get some sleep lol best wishes Graeme dolfrog (talk) 03:48, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep it simple and up-front

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

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

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

It's certainly difficult to coordinate when people have very different ways of working. Dolfrog has evidently been working on the reorganization by himself, so he hasn't been "coordinating" with other people who needed to be kept on the same page, because there *wasn't* anyone else on the page ..... I know that my workstyle can become very idiosyncratic when I'm off in my own world.

Now that there are other editors wanting to be involved, I want to compile a sketch of the dyslexia article series as it currently stands. Then I'll put it on the front page of the Wikiproject Dyslexia page and we can discuss how we want to move forward.

Does that sound like it might be helpful?

Best, Rosmoran (talk) 01:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sami

Fine by me It will give a chance to take a break and create a bibliography of all the research documents cluttering up my hard drives. dolfrog (talk) 03:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Clarifying structure of dyslexia articles

Hi, dolfrog. Can you help me understand your vision of where some content should go?

If I understand correctly, these are the existing articles in the topioc "hierarchy":

• Dyslexia
  • Dyslexia research (Sub category, main article)
    • History of developmental dyslexia
    • Theories of dyslexia (Sub sub category main article)
      • Phonological deficit (ARM)
      • Perceptual noise exclusion hypothesis (ARM)
    • Genetic research into dyslexia
    • Brain scan research into dyslexia
    • Dyslexia: Orthography
  • Management of dyslexia (Sub category, main article)
    • Managing dyslexia: alphabetic orthography
    • • Dyslexia support in the United States
      • Dyslexia support in the United Kingdom

discussion about the causes of dyslexia

In your mind, where should the following topics be included?

• The varying definitions of dyslexia
• Dyslexia subtypes, current and historical (surface/deep, phonological/orthographic)
• Comprehensive list of dyslexia signs and symptoms
• Controversies surrounding dyslexia (does it really exist? disorder of the brain, or different wiring for learning? is it different from garden-variety reading problems?)

Thanks for your patience with my questions ....

Rosmoran (talk) 16:57, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sami

The there is no single agreed definition of dyslexia,, the problem has been due to two different main approaches to dyslexia, the educational approach which sees the problems of teaching reading, and the medical research approach which is looking for a biological reason for the dyslexic problem, and to add to this you have government agencies, adults, parents and children all trying to understand how, why and what dyslexia is and how it relates to them. And on top of this you have the dyslexia industry steering the definitions towards the products, programs, books, teaching careers, etc. So it is a mess. The only way forward that I can see is to follow the international peer reviewed research.

The surface, deep, and phonological sub types of dyslexia only apply to Alexia (or Acquired dyslexia). These sub types were borrowed by Castles et al. to try to find similar sub groups of developmental dyslexics. But he underlying causes are different, and so are the remedial processes.

The So called Theories of Dyslexia talk about both Visual and Auditory issues which cause dyslexia, either individually or in some combination, and in the research paper which we have used to outline the main theories they state that only included the seperate issues for reference and historical interest.

Dyslexia is about having a neurological difference that causes to have you information processing problems with your cultures visual notation of speech (which we call the written word). (Excluding the Genetic issues for now) The first indications of potential language problems will be when learning to speak, those who do not have auditory processing problems will learn to speak using and developing their auditory processing or listening skills to help process what they hear and break down the sounds of words of others to build up a sound library to reproduce their own speech phonetically.

Those who have an Auditory Processing Disorder are more than likely to demonstrate a delay in learning to speak, as they tend to memorise and say they the whole sound of the word not the so called component sounds, and they biuld a library or words using visual associations, which can cause problems for the young when some words or sounds have more than meaning. So those who have Auditory Processing problems will have problems with processing speech, and will therefore have problems processing any form of notation of speech, or notation of a notation of speech.

Those who have learnt to speak but have Visual processing problems or Scotopic Sensitivity problems will have problems processing what they can see or are able to see. Anf this causes problems of being able to see visually process the notation of speech to translate that notation is to some form of sub vocalisation to process the information in the written word. The third factor is the attention span issue, such as ADHD, and when you talk to leading researchers they are talking about microseconds of Auditory or Visual inattention as causes of APD and VPD.

These are the cognitive neurological issues that cause dyslexia which are now being researched especially in Germany and China. The controversy in the UK is about the vary same issue. Trying to break the myth that dyslexia is a single medical condition, which has been promoted by many of the voluntary support organisations, and the dyslexia industry. What Prof Elliot et al. are saying is that they are seeing many cognitive issues which cause the dyslexic symptoms. In research terms most studies have only compared dyslexics with non-dyslexics, and not the different sub groups of dyslexics against nondyslexics, and as a result the research has been skewed from discovering the real underlying neurological causes of the dyslexic symptom. The test used by the German researchers are not new but they were used to determine the different types of deficits the dyslexic had that caused them reading problems.

The existence of different cognitive causes that cause the dyslexic symptoms also explains why some remedial programs help some dyslexics and not others, so the remedial programs can be categorised by the neurological deficits they can help and those which they do not help.

These medical or neurological deficits, disorders are becoming increasingly more understood as technology and science evolves at a rapid rate. And this will enable a clinical diagnosis of the underlying issues that can the cause dyslexic symptoms.

The so called characteristics of dyslexia are really the characteristics of the different neurological underlying causes, some of which are shared symptoms.

So we can only reflect the complexity of dyslexia and try to avoid the over simplification which only causes miss understanding and is scientifically misleading.

I hope you can read all of this and that i have not rambled on too much. I could go on for ever lol dolfrog (talk) 01:17, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

definitions of dyslexia

OK, let's take these one at at time.

First, the definitions of dyslexia. I know that there is no consensus on a single definition of dyslexia, so we must try to represent a reasonable sampling of the most common ones.

What we need to determine for this topic is, which article should this information be placed in? Is there an appropriate location in one of the currently live articles, or do we need a new one?

Rosmoran (talk) 07:41, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

The 2004 UK review listed some 28 definitions of Dyslexia. What we need is to create our own "Working Model" definition of dyslexia from some of these 28 oe so definitions of dyslexia, say to find the lowest common denominators. So the most basic definition would be something like

"Dyslexia is about the various neurological deficits, which can cause information precessing problems when reading, writing and spelling a visual notation of Speech."

This defines dyslexia from other reading problems such lack of access to books teaching etc, and poor teaching, and second language issues. It also reflects all of the scientific research trying to understand what causes dyslexia. dolfrog (talk) 16:49, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

"We need to create our own definition" is prohibited original research. Please do not do this. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:00, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

regarding the placement of the definitions. I think it should stay in the main article as it is now, but we should add a rider, that these definition of dyslexia will eventually derive from scientific research as and when there is a universal agreement in peer reviewed research, which is currently some time in the future. So it is more about reading our research article and getting their content as up to date as possible, which i really what i wanted to do back in May but until now revising the main article has taken up so much time.

So if we leave the currentl content of the main summary page as it is, for now, and concentrate on getting the content of the Research Articles in line with current research, we will then have a better perspective with regards to the best wording for the definition, and how it should relate to the rest of the articles in the project. dolfrog (talk) 17:11, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Your unverifiable personal belief that the definition of dyslexia will eventually be derived from scientific research is prohibited speculation on future events. Please do not include any such statement. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:01, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

this is not a personal belief. all definitions of dyslexia state that it is a neurological difference. And all of the research and theories of dyslexia have all been about identifying the neurological differences. This why there are both Visual, auditory, and the combining phonological, cerebellar, and magnocellular theories of dyslexia and the more recent Perceptual visual-noise exclusion hypothesis. They have all part of the evolution of the technologies available to understand what the neurological causes of dyslexia are. And when there is universal agreement amongst the various strands of research will there ever be a unifying definition of dyslexia, a recent UK review of Dyslexia research 2004, found 28 different definitions of dyslexia. So we can only wait for the research to provide a unified definition of dyslexia based on the neurological causes. How else would you define dyslexia, without any scientific research supporting their claims. This not crystal ball stuff, but just waiting for research to provide what ever evidence they can agree on to create a definition of what dyslexia is and how it should be diagnosed. All diagnosis must be scientifically based. dolfrog (talk) 18:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Summary of issue/proposed decision

There are many definitions of dyslexia. We should present a representative sample of them. At this point, the major ones will be presented in the main Dyslexia article. Rosmoran (talk) 23:25, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Placement for dyslexia subtypes

Where do you guys think the information about dyslexia subtypes ought to go?

There is, of course, no consensus about subtyping. But there are several hypotheses that attempt to classify types of dyslexics by symptom or cause, and to identify appropriate interventions for that "type".

Hi Sami

Sub types again will depend on the Scientific research, the current research is looking at the different cognitive causes of Dyslexia, which would mean auditory and Visual processing, Scotopic Sensitivity, and attention issues, which would also fit in with the Alexia sub types of phonological and surface dyslexia. So this defining the neurological underlying causes of dyslexia, or the dyslexic symptom. dolfrog (talk) 20:27, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi sami

Me again have a look at the research PDF files in the Files section of my forum What causes your dyslexia · Dyslexic Symptom or Mythical Condition you will have to apply to join but that is formality, as I let all who apply to join. This my help dolfrog (talk) 20:34, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

Subtypes are usually placed in a section called "Classification" (or a similar title), usually towards the top of the main article. If the subtypes are important in everyday practice (i.e., not just to researchers), then I'd put it after "Definitions." If they're not important in terms of diagnosis and treatment, then I'd put it at the end. WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:05, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

Orthography and writing systems

another issue which has not been researched widely enough yet.

Nearly all of the research has been done comparing the different orthographies in the one writing system, the Latin alphabet writing system. The levels of difficulty that dyslexics experience with the different orthographies within the latin writing system closely mirrors with the structural complexity of those orthographies. But there are different combinations of neurological skills required to perform the task of reading in the notation of speech in different writing systems. And so there are different nuerological deficits that feature as cause of dyslexia for those using the different writing systems eg Chinese writing systems, and the various other writing system. And each writing system will have different orthographies with in it.

getting tired now catch you later dolfrog (talk) 01:46, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

another issue which has not been researched widely enough yet

So no speculation/analysis until such research produces secondary sources. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 02:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I am talking about research done in the UK and the USa there are other as yet untaped research sources to be found from other countries, and other diciplines whi will be base on existing research, we just have to find it. There is no such thing as a perfect supply of all information, you have to go out and look for it. And not all research centres around the USA and the UK, which have been the prime sources used for these articles so far. So we have to find the research done in countries who use these different orthographies etc. It is out there we just have to find it. dolfrog (talk) 18:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Placement of dyslexia theories information

Note: This discussion was started on another page.

Rosmoran said: I'm thinking we might want to approach this set of topics from the perspective of identifying possible causative and contributing factors to dyslexia.

Dolfrog said: Most of these theories will bew confined to the history section in the very near future as the Cognitive cause of dyslexia are established, and diagnosis become based on a clinical diagnosis of these cognitive deficits or disorders see the last entries 2006 onwards on the history of developmental dyslexia so the issues below will be more to define the severity of dyslexia for support in the education systems)

I don't agree that theories and other specific research topics belong with historical information. Any bit of information can be placed in historical context. But theory development, and the research supporting or discounting them, do not necessarily move in a linear fashion. In fact, I've found that dyslexia researchers often take up old theories/research and reconsider them based on new information. This would be impossible to present in an article in which information is organized by dates.

Therefore, I suggest that we allow the history information to be separate from the more technical information about theories and ongoing research. I think that what's most important about the historical information is the older stuff --- the most general point being that these conditions have been documented for more than a century, and research began in this area a very long time ago.

Thoughts?

Best,

Rosmoran (talk) 23:21, 12 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sami

The history of dyslexia so far has been the history of dyslexia research. And the research into the various theories have to date all been trying to define dyslexia as a single entity or a single condition, by only comparing developmental dyslexics with non-dyslexic control group. This has not enabled the unified identification different underlying causes of dyslexia.

Most of the earlier theories were established to define a single cause of dyslexia, and hence the long running disputes and disagreements between researchers and creators of remedial programs etc; that their particular way of thinking is the only way to approach dyslexia

But it is like investigating an elephant, they all had been investigating different parts of the elephant but not being able to see the whole elephant, so to a large extent they are all correct some have been investigating the legs of the elephant, some the trunk, some the ears etc. But to understand the whole elephant you have to bring all the information from ll of the different investigation projects together. The same applies to the various theories of Dyslexia, they are all basically correct they all identify different issues that can cause dyslexia, and some try to unify some of the existing theories.

Like all of the research into dyslexia before all future research will have some links to the research done earlier, but new technologies such as neuroimaging and advances in genetics will hopefully produce new more informed theories and definitions of dyslexia.

The recent research from Germany is using established testing procedures but the difference is that they are identifying different subgroups of dyslexics, and then comparing the different sub groups of dyslexics with each other, while comparing all with the control group of non-dyslexics. This a very new approach to dyslexia research, to try to identify the different cognitive causes of dyslexia, which will define the different sub types of dyslexia and identify the neurological deficits / disorders that cause the dyslexic symptom dolfrog (talk) 10:09, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

There is more to the history of dyslexia than just the scientific side. What happened to kids with dyslexia in school in different eras? What impact did it have on employment prospects? How have social attitudes changed over time? WhatamIdoing (talk) 22:10, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

That is a fair comment. So we need two artilces, First a much wider "History of Dyslexia" Second for the current existing content "History of Dyslexia Research" The "History of Dyslexia" would only require a summary of the history of dyslexia research with Detail or Main wiki link to the "History of Dyslexia Research"

does that make sense dolfrog (talk) 00:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia avoids splitting articles just because we can. Articles with narrow subjects do not attract readers. They do, however, attract vandals, as well as editors that have agendas.

Consequently, we usually try to make one big article that includes everything, until the article gets to be "too big". The relevant rule of thumb says that the summary in the main article should be fairly long -- definitely longer than the introduction to the new article -- which most editors interpret as meaning that the summary must be at least five paragraphs long (because an introduction is supposed to be limited to about four paragraphs). So if a proposed "child" article is not significantly longer than five paragraphs, it should not be created (yet). WhatamIdoing (talk) 06:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi WhatamIdoing

I see what you are saying, the main dyslexia article did get too big, which it has been summerised and we have in your terms got many child articles. So really what we need to do is to have a single history of dyslexia article, with two or many be more main sub-sections. Initially a "Research history" sub-section and a sub-section say "Social attitudes towards dyslexia" Or "History of Dyslexia Awareness" and any other historical issues, but this may be an issue which could be extended to the by country articles as dyslexia awareness etc varies from country to country.

just a few ideas dolfrog (talk) 17:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think you understand. For now, one article is the right answer. Someday, if that single article gets to be (far) too big, then any really long section can get split off and turned into a separate article. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

using an archive Bot

does anyone object to using an archive bot to archive the content of this talk page. any preferences regarding the age of a thread before it is archived, or the minimum number of threads that should exist on the talk page prior to being archived. We do need to create some sort of archive to make navigation easier dolfrog (talk) 18:27, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting research reviews listed as i find them

I am cataloging the research papers on my hard dis and adding more as I go, all fun, so i will add the reviews i come across them here for all to read, and can be use where appropriate in the series of articles dolfrog (talk) 00:20, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

1. "Paying attention to reading: the neurobiology of reading and dyslexia." Shaywitz SE, Shaywitz BA. 2008 PMID 1883804
2. "Management of dyslexia, its rationale, and underlying neurobiology" Shaywitz SE, Gruen JR, Shaywitz BA. 2007 PMID 17543912
3. "Developmental dyslexia: an update on genes, brains, and environments." Grigorenko EL. PMID 11205626
4. "[The reader brain: natural and cultural story] Valdois S, Habib M, Cohen L. 2008 PMID 18675051
5. "The magnocellular theory of developmental dyslexia" Stein J. 2001 PMID 11305228
6. "The cognitive deficits responsible for developmental dyslexia: review of evidence for a selective visual attentional disorder." Valdois S, Bosse ML, Tainturier MJ. 2004 PMID 15573964
7. "Developmental and acquired dyslexias." Temple CM. 2006 PMID 17131596 (appears to be from an acquired dyslexia researchers perspective - dolfrog)
8. "Phonological dyslexia and phonological impairment: an exception to the rule?" Tree JJ, Kay J. 2006 PMID 16879843 (Alexia)
9. "Two types of phonological dyslexia - a contemporary review." Tree JJ. 2008 PMID 18472039 (Alexia again) dolfrog (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
10. "The education of dyslexic children from childhood to young adulthood." Shaywitz SE, Morris R, Shaywitz BA. 2008 PMID 18154503 (This only an abstract of the review, Is it possible to find a copy of the full text) dolfrog (talk) 01:42, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
11. "Neuroanatomical markers for dyslexia: a review of dyslexia structural imaging studies" Eckert M. 2004 PMID 15271263 another abstract free only dolfrog (talk) 01:53, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
12. "[Survey of fMRI results regarding a phonological deficit in children and adults with dyslexia: fundamental deficit or indication of compensation?]" Ligges C, Blanz B. 2007 (main article in German we need a translator) PMID 17608280 dolfrog (talk) 02:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
13. "Converging evidence for triple word form theory in children with dyslexia" Richards TL, Aylward EH, Field KM, Grimme AC, Raskind W, Richards AL, Nagy W, Eckert M, Leonard C, Abbott RD, Berninger VW. 2006 PMID 16925475 (need to get a copy of full paper)
14. "A multidisciplinary approach to understanding developmental dyslexia within working-memory architecture: genotypes, phenotypes, brain, and instruction." Berninger VW, Raskind W, Richards T, Abbott R, Stock P. 2008 PMID 19005912 (again need to find a copy of full paper) dolfrog (talk) 02:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
15. "From cognitive to neural models of working memory" D'Esposito M. 2007 PMID 17400538 dolfrog (talk) 15:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
16. "Working memory as an emergent property of the mind and brain" Postle BR. 2006 PMID 16324795 dolfrog (talk) 17:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)
17. Use of auditory learning to manage listening problems in children 2009 PMID 18986969 (at last an APD review) dolfrog (talk) 17:33, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

dolfrog (talk) 21:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, dolfrog, for listing these. May I suggest that we place the list in the dyslexia Wikiproject structure? If you don't mind, I'd suggest creating a new subordinate page and placing a link to it on the Main Project page, right up front so it's easy to find .....

Best, Rosmoran (talk) 20:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Can we talk about how to approach the worldwide view aspect of these articles?

Hi, all.

I'd like for us to talk about how we handle the globalization / worldwide view issue for the dyslexia series. I'm starting to see sections where the information is contorted, because we're attempting to provide this "worldwide view" for all articles.

Bear with me, if you will. Here's what I'm thinking.

Regarding research: The vast majority of dyslexia research has been done on English-speakers. The vast majority of secondary source "analysis" has been written about English-speaking dyslexics. There is some information about dyslexia in European languages, and there is a growing base of information about dyslexia in Chinese speakers.

Where "globalizing" is easy: There are some topics where differences between English speaking countries is required, for example differences between the US and UK, especially in terminology. That's pretty easy to deal with. There are a couple of articles where we have a reasonable amount of information unrelated to the US/UK (see Orthographies and dyslexia -- where there are discussions about how different writing systems affect how dyslexia manifests in individuals). That's pretty straightforward also.

The problem I see: Trying to globalize *every article* is becoming very awkward. There are lots of places where the only verifiable information is about dyslexia in English, but it's easy to see that this is an area where there are probably differences for dyslexia in other languages --- there's just no comparable information for dyslexia in other languages. And trying to organize sections to accommodate placeholders for global information, or calling out information that is only about alphabetic writing systems, is so awkward that we're ending up with sections that are pretty contorted. This means a much less usable article for the vast majority of our audience.

For an example of what I mean, see the "Signs and symptoms" section of dyslexia. Most of the research we have about symptoms is based on alphabetic languages, and most of that is specifically about the English writing system. Someday there will be a significant amount of comparable information about dyslexia in other languages/writing systems, but it's not there today. Take a look and I think the organization problem will be pretty obvious. I think this kind of thing really reduces the quality of the article for most readers.

I placed a question about this on Village Pump, and someone said this:

This is English Wikipedia, if there isnt anything, or very little, published on dyslexia among non-English language speakers, written in the English language then it isnt notable enough in the English speaking world for you to "globalise" the entire article, a small section noting that in English there hasnt been much published on the dyslexia in other languages (if this has indeed been verified through the use of a published source stating that) would suffice and no further globalizing of the article is needed, anything more would be OR in my eyes.

A couple of the best books about dyslexia (well, they're among the best IMHO) write about dyslexia in the English-speaking world -- English-speakers are their primary audience after all -- and then they include a section or chapter called something like "Dyslexia Around the World" that addresses the available information about dyslexia in languages other than English and writing systems other than the one we use. Would this be a defensible approach for Wikipedia articles?

Proposed solution: Here's a stab at trying to define our globalizing "strategy" as we write/edit these articles.

• Assume that our primary subject matter is dyslexia among English-speakers, and write from this perspective.
• Where there is a significant amount of information about dyslexia in another language or another writing system, include that information in context. (As in the Orthographies and dyslexia article.)
• Add a section in the main dyslexia article -- or if the section gets too big, create another article == title the section or article "Dyslexia around the world" or something similar. Summarize what we know about dyslexia in languages other than English and writing systems other than the one we use.
• Over time, as more secondary sources become available about dyslexia in other languages, add more "worldly" information then.

Thoughts? Suggestions?

Best,

Rosmoran (talk) 21:33, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

• Support You have an excellent grasp of the goal. Globalization does not mean that we have to represent every single possible country/language/etc without fail; it means that we give due weight according to reliable sources, without excluding sources as being about the "wrong" country/language/etc.
  Since dyslexia is a bigger problem in English than any other language, and nearly all of the reliable sources discuss English, then a properly balanced article must focus more on English/English-speaking countries. (It must also include some information about other languages/countries/etc, just like our reliable sources do.) WhatamIdoing (talk) 21:48, 1 August 2009 (UTC)
• I also agree that you have a good understanding of the problem and I think that you've put forth a well-thought way to resolve it. What are some of the sources you had in mind? I wouldn't mind having a try at them,Synchronism (talk) 05:03, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

In terms of broad-based information, the best are Dyslexia: Theory & Practice of Instruction by Clark and Uhry, Multisensory Teaching Of Basic Language Skills by Birsh, Overcoming Dyslexia by Shaywitz, and Beginning to Read: Thinking and Learning about Print by Adams (the mother of all early reading acquisition texts). Second tier are Proust and the Squid: Proust and the Squid: The Story and Science of the Reading Brain by Wolf (this is absolutely fascinating) and Speech to Print: Language Essentials for Teachers by Moats. There are lots of others, of course, but these are the ones I turn to repeatedly. Rosmoran (talk) 15:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sami look at your list of references, all would appear to be secondary sources, not primary sources, all books not peer reviewed, and the authors are able to include their own personal opinions. Many are also pre 2000. The only one which could possibly a primary source is Overcoming Dyslexia by Shaywitz. The others would appear to be "what works books" nothing wring in that but not encyclopedia reference material. Shaywitz has more recent review research papers available in PubMed. As WhatamIdoing is fond of telling mew we need review research papers, which are available from PubMed and other sources to support the content of our articles. The research papers are there we just have to find them in whatever language they are written in. dolfrog (talk) 04:05, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Books are fine, too, so long as they are secondary sources instead of primary sources (e.g., personal experiences, original experimental reports, etc.). Research papers are wonderful, of course, but the important part is the review (secondary source) part, not the "paper" part. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

==Clearing up the confusion about my frequently used references==

All of these books are, in fact, secondary sources. That is what we're looking for, are we not? All of them focus on the science of reading/dyslexia/intervention, and synthesize information gleaned from the research literature in their analysis. As for publishing dates and content, please see below:

• Dyslexia: Theory & Practice of Instruction by Clark and Uhry is dated 2005.
  The first 216 of its 320 pages consists of research surveys on critical topics relative to dyslexia interventions. These topics include the nature of dyslexia, assessment for dyslexia, principles of instruction for teaching dyslexics, phonemic awareness, phonics, spelling, vocabulary, etc etc. This book is listed as recommended reading by the IDA, Florida Center for Reading Research, every major school for dyslexics in the US (Swift, Gow, Kildonan, Brehm, Landmark College, etc), and many many universities. It is so ubiquitous among orton-gillingham based reading programs that Academic Language Therapists commonly refer to it as "the red book."

• Multisensory Teaching Of Basic Language Skills by Birsh is dated 2005.
  It is a compendium of articles by major researchers or practitioners in the field according to their area of expertise. These include such people as Louisa Cook Moats, Joanna Uhry, Graham Neuhaus, Marcia K. Henry, and Barbara Wilson.

• Overcoming Dyslexia by Shaywitz is dated 2003.
  This is by Sally Shaywitz. 'Nuff said.

• Proust and the Squid by Wolf is dated 2007.
  Maryanne Wolf is one of the "grande dames" of reading research in the US.

• Speech to Print by Moats is dated 2000.
  Louisa Cook Moats is another grande dame.

• The oldest book is Beginning to Read:Thinking and Learning about Print by Marilyn Jager Adams (yet another grande dame), which is dated 1994.
  I defy anyone to find a better or more masterful explanation of early reading acquisition. The "hot off the press" reading research papers published in peer reviewed journals use this landmark book as a key reference. I have seen no research in the area of beginning reading that refutes her analysis.

Sorry if I seem defensive, but these are books written by major researchers in this field. What more reliable information sources can be found?

Rosmoran (talk) 23:27, 8 August 2009 (UTC)

There is a great deal of research from other countries in Europe :_ Germany, France, Spain, Poland, Italy, Finland, the Netherlands, etc which may need translating. There is also some research from south America especially Brazil. There are also sources from around Asia including India, and China. But the problem is find the research papers and then translating them into English. dolfrog (talk) 22:44, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

The other issue which is coming from these other countries is that the dyslexia will be diagnosed by medically identifying the cognitive deficits that cause the dyslexic symptoms, and the current educational test will only be a screen process and an aide for teachers to access how best to help an individual dyslexic in the education system. The cognitive deficits or disorders will have range of other symptoms and the dyslexia symptom may only be of minor importance in comparison. dolfrog (talk) 22:54, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm guessing that, if the dyslexia symptom isn't the most important symptom (the primary symptom, if you will), they would call the condition something other than dyslexia. As the information you describe is translated and available in secondary sources, we can revise the articles as appropriate. Rosmoran (talk) 23:08, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Your assumption is correct -- within the confines of the formal literature. A parent or affected person might, on the other hand, reject accurate labels (e.g., high-functioning autism, which will present with reading difficulties as well as many other cognitive and language problems) and choose to self-identify as having "dyslexia" instead. WhatamIdoing (talk) 23:13, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

before I have to leave again to sort out issues in my real life. another thought. As you all know I have Auditory Processing Disorder (APD), which is the cause of my dyslexia. It is easier for me to tell others that I am dyslexic as they will have some idea of what dyslexia is. If I tell them that I have APD they have no idea what I mean, and usually I have to provide a long detailed explanation, which is not what I or they really want. The primary symptom of having APD is processing what people say in conversations, and verbal instructions. Expressing my own feeling and intentions can be a problem because of my poor auditory memory I have word recall problems, and due to coping with APD my working memory is nearly always close to overload. So for me dyslexia comes way down the list of important symptoms. dolfrog (talk) 23:53, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

Two project banners

Is your project abandoning the former template to start this new one {{DyslexiaProject}}? Prapsnot (talk) 00:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The former template is at Template:WikiProject Dyslexia. Dolfrog created Template:DyslexiaProject on 30 June 2009. The new one does not seem to be used outside of Dolfrog's own pages. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Archive bot set up

If I've done everything correctly, a bot will archive anything more than 90 days old before long. You can find (and search) the archives in the talkheader's box. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

didn't program in time.

I accept that there is difficulty in defining dyslexia and in the main column "occasionally mathematics".

At primary school I had a whole series of teachers who taught me the alphabet and I was able to read at an early age. Missing from this was any kind of figure/ number training.

I then went to a junior school where the male teacher was an embittered bully. He used to shout at me when I couldn't understand the figures. Things were so bad that my parents removed me from the school but far too late.

The "fresh start" was a completely different experience but I was thirteen before the figure lessons began again and it was equally too late for these to imprint mentally although algebra with letters proved relatively easy.

For many years after leaving school I was thought to be figure dyslexic as it took me time to remember a telephone number. Only after the invention of the calculator did my life improve.

Late in life I now wonder if I ever was really dyslexic or whether my problem was probably a combination of lack of early figure training followed by a bullying teacher who crushed my efforts. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 212.93.199.155 (talk) 10:02, 30 March 2010 (UTC)

Dyslexic Wikipedians

Just a note to say that there is now a category for Wikipedians who wish to self-identify as dyslexic. Category:Wikipedians who are dyslexic. Adding yourself to that category is purely voluntary - just add the category to your user page. Mjroots (talk) 07:08, 31 May 2010 (UTC)

Source list for articles about dyslexia

Three pleasant wikibreaks, and a very unpleasant Arbitration Committee case, have consumed time I meant to devote to this earlier, but I have just begun posting a Reading, Writing, and Dyslexia Source List on my user space to share with all Wikipedians, and you are welcome to add suggestions of sources you know. I have several very good books on the subjects of the bibliography on loan from the friendly local state flagship university library, and I will type in the citation information as I find time for that to update the bibliography. Your comments and suggestions are very welcome. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:08, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

Ping

Hey guys... is anyone watching this page? I'd like to chat to some people who might have a bit of expertise in this area... Fayedizard (talk) 15:43, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

first time I have looked at this page in a few years, got tired of working by myself on this project, and the main dyslexia articles. dolfrog (talk) 15:35, 21 April 2012 (UTC)

From the disability project

So I was browsing Wikipedia_talk:WikiProject_Dyslexia (which appears to be sadly inactive) and it occurred to me to wonder if articles that are in that project would automatically be of interest to this project as well? Many articles are in both projects, but none of the following are

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia
• Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dyslexia
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia/Dyslexia assessment
• Category talk:Developmental dyslexia
• Characteristics of dyslexia
• Genetic research into dyslexia
• Orthographies and dyslexia
• Logographic cues
• Management of dyslexia
• Theories of dyslexia
• Learning styles
• Dyslexia interventions
• Irlen filters
• History of developmental dyslexia
• Category talk:Dyslexia

• Category talk:Dyslexia research
• Category talk:Theories of dyslexia
• Category talk:Visual thinking
• Category talk:Dyslexia researchers
• Dyscalculia
• Category talk:Alexia (condition)
• Pure alexia
• Dysgraphia
• Category talk:Aphasias
• Category talk:Dyslexia support by country
• Dyslexia support in the United Kingdom
• Dyslexia support in the United States
• Category talk:Orthography
• Category talk:Reading skill advocates
• Reading (process)

• Category talk:Dyslexia in fiction
• Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic
• Strephosymbolia
• The Secret (1992 film)
• List of artistic depictions of dyslexia
• Violet Brand
• In Her Shoes (novel)
• The Princess and the Cabbie
• In Her Shoes (film)
• Taare Zameen Par
• Lexia Readable
• Centre for Studies on Inclusive Education
• Backwards: The Riddle of Dyslexia
• The Focus Foundation
• Donald Shankweiler

Should they all be? Should some of them be? Would it make any difference if they were? Interested in general nearby opinion... (If we decide that they should all be included in this project I'd be really interested in playing with a bot to move them over... ) Fayedizard (talk) 19:31, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

(tweaked the above into list format, otherwise unchanged, hope that is OK) --Mirokado (talk) 12:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Probably the simplest way to do it would be to add Category Dyslexia to Category Disability, that would bring it and all its subcats into our project with a bot run set to add the project template to all pages under Category Disability. It would also pick up any other "stray" pages that haven't been tagged yet too. We did such a bot run in the early days of the project. There will be a topic about it in the Talk archive. Roger (talk) 21:08, 12 March 2012 (UTC)

Now that there is daylight shining on my desk I notice that Category Dyslexia is already a subcategory of Category Disability via the Disability by Type category. So that takes care of the initial steps. Roger (talk) 07:20, 13 March 2012 (UTC)

The dyslexia article is not a media exercise, to make it more media friendly it is about a disability, so do your research before making any edits, there has been some very irresponsible edits made by members of this so called project, who so far have failed to understand that this is an encyclopedia not a newspaper article concerned with window dressing. I begin to wonder if some here have ever read a research paper. dolfrog (talk) 02:00, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Please be more courteous on this talk page. As far as I can see you have reverted referencing improvements, which heaven knows the article needs. Why? A sentence with six (!) references was moved out of the lead. The lead is supposed to summarise the rest of the article, not be the only place that things requiring lots of references are mentioned, so it is at least correct to place the refs elsewhere in the article. Why does one sentence need six references? If it is controversial there should be more content giving context for each reference. Why did you move the refs back? Apart from those issues, what did you not like about the edit you reverted? What does "more media friendly" mean? What change do you think of as "window dressing"? We need something other than invective if we are to discuss your concerns. --Mirokado (talk) 02:44, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

The need for the number of references is due to the dyslexia industry which for marketing reasons need to haver a single cause of dyslexia, they even own their own research journals top promote their marketing needs. So this is not contraversal more preventing remedial program marketing organisations from promoting their products, and methodologies. Organisations such as the Orton Gillingham organisation and its marketing arm the International Dyslexia Association, the UK British Dyslexia Association, and the Davis organisation in Australia. So the history of dyslexia research is important, and is still ongoing, as they still do not fully understand the neurological causes of dyslexia yet, the auditory processing, the visual processing, the attention disabilities and how they combine and interact. There are two types of dyslexia, developmental dyslexia which has genetic origins, which is what most of the content of the dyslexia article is about, and Alexia or acquired dyslexia which results from brain injury, stroke, or progressive illness. So the current dyslexia article needs to be split into two articles an initial dyslexia article describing the two forms of dyslexia, and a second about developmental dyslexia. There are further subtypes of Alexia due tot the differences in the locations of the lesions via stroke and head injury or atrophy with regard to dementia. Dyslexia is a man made problem, and there are various clinically diagnosable issues that can cause the dyslexic symptom, and the issues which can cause dyslexia can be language dependent due to the nature of a languages structure or orthography and the nature of its writing system. It has taken me over 6 years to compile my dyslexia research paper collections which are listed on my user page, and they are far from complete. I did start to begin proposals for editing the dyslexia articles in the dyslexia project back in 2010, but found working alone not an option due to my lack of copy editing skills due to my own communication disability auditory processing disorder, which is the cause of my own dyslexia. So i can provide the information, the researdch papers but I cannot write an article, my word recall problems make it is way too stressful. So if others are willing to work as part of a team then we may get somewhere. dolfrog (talk) 04:16, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi Dolfrog, it's great that you can bring up these points - it's always well worth getting these opinions. I confess that I am confused by your revert(s) - my understanding is that you have reverted the movement of a sentance from the lede to the main body of the text. This is a piece of copyediting I did because [[|Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section|Wikipedia's Policy on lede sections]] says "Significant information should not appear in the lead if it is not covered in the remainder of the article." and I felt that the sentence in question was both significant and demonstrably not in the main body of the article. Can I get your take on why you felt that the information should be in the lede but not in the main body?

I should state, as well, that my efforts on the dyslexia article have been almost entirely concerned with copyediting - I'd like it to be on the front page of wikipedia sometime soon but there are many steps on the road to getting there - and we need to be careful of WP:FRINGE, Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine) and many other polices designed to make the article as accessible as possible - I think the current target should be to make sure the article matches Wikipedia:Good_article_criteria, which is why I suggested a peer review on your talk page in the last couple of days.Fayedizard (talk) 10:04, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

there was a dyslexia wikiwar a couple of years ago which i accidently stumble upon. Two editors who it would appear had different remedial programs to promote. They both left, one was found out, and the other just stopped editing and the end result was the current article, well most of it. AS i have explained numerous times I have no copy editing skills and abilities due to my auditory processing disorder, which is the cause of my dyslexic symptom. The dyslexia article does need radically revising, but the starting point is divide the current article into two, by creating a new "developmental dyslexia" article for all of the content regarding developmental dyslexia, and for the dyslexia article to become the new main article covering all forms of dyslexia, both developmental dyslexia, and Alexia or acquired dyslexia. This was were the Wikipedia dyslexia project was going until i discovered that i am not able to copy edit to Wikipedia standards. I can however provide all of the necessary research citation support.

I see you have noticed some of the sub articles need to help break down waht was becoming an unmanageable article, and that I could only copy the content from the main article and not do any copyt editing or make further additions, such is life living with APD. by this time all other editors had stopped editing. So there is plenty of scope for you to get these article up to standard before revising the main article as further content could be added and edited in these sub articles. The Wikipedia dyslexia project could be an ideal sandbox to look at this. I think some have added some unrelated content to the project since I last took a real interest a couple of years ago. You have to realise that dyslexia is language dependent, and that even variation in the english language can change the issues that can cause dyslexia.

I would also prefer it if you would stop refering to wikipedia user guides as for me they are no go areas due to their lack of understanding of my disability in the way they present information using only words and text, no or very few pictures, diagrams and charts etc. Most of their content is common sense anyway. So this is not just about editing the dyslexia article it is also about understanding dyslexia, and how to communicate with dyslexics, like me, who will be most of the visitors wanting to read the article to help understand themselves, and explain their disabilities to others, even the so called professionals who should know, but are not adequately trained. So it is important ot get the correct information in the right places, including the lead. dolfrog (talk) 11:24, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

Can we please not have a content dispute concerning a single article cluttering up this WikiProject Talk page. If you really must discuss the matter at length please do so on the article's own talk page. Thank you. Roger (talk) 15:31, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

• "and that I could only copy the content from the main article and not do any copy editing": please clarify: did you duplicate the content or did you remove it from this article as well? Which articles have resulted from this copying?
  • (update) I see that some move notices are already placed on Talk:Dyslexia. Are there any others which are not mentioned there?
• this is an important top-level article: I don't think we can postpone improving it until dozens of related articles are finished. It will probably become clear as we make progress, though, what we can also improve elsewhere.
• wikipedia user guides: if changes involve a user guide or whatever then of course we have to mention it. Nobody is forcing you to read them of course, but you need to edit with some restraint if you are unfamiliar with what is required. I suggest you ask if something is not clear from a combination of edit summary and differences.

--Mirokado (talk) 19:41, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

I agree that this is an important article but so far you have failed to demonstrate that you have any understanding og the content, only by improving the support articles will you begin to understand the main article and have adequate knowledge to begin improving the main article. This a more a medicine areticle than the type of article you would appear top be used to editing. This requires in depth research knowledge which you have failed to demonstrate that you have yet. So currently you can make the article very atractive but with meaningless content. o go improve the sub article and earn your spurs and prove that you have anh understanding of what dyslexia is. You need to read the 100 or so related research papers that make up the body of research So far you have failed to demonstrate that you have any understanding of what dyslexia is. let alone enough understanding to edit the article. dolfrog (talk) 06:51, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

OK removed the move notices that you put on the talk page , now go an improve those article and and demonstrate that you know waht you are doing. So far you have only demonstrated that ou nare good spin doctors who have little indepth knowledge of the content required or how to edit an article about a complex medical article. So as I have said before go improve the sub articles there is no rush or is this some wikipedia peer review ego trip you are on dolfrog (talk) 07:03, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Not at all OK. Those notices were properly placed in accordance with the appropriate requirements (the relevant sections, quite short, are WP:MERGETEXT and Help:Splitting#Procedure). They are needed to provide the necessary attribution for contributions. Please restore them immediately. Then answer the question about any other moves you have performed.

I have already pointed out that there is no qualification barrier for editing. You are not allowed to assert ownership of an article. --Mirokado (talk) 07:27, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

As a quick asside, all of the copied templates on Dyslexia (appart from the Dysorthographia one) are from my recent(ish) edits to the page - I think it was you who showed me how :) ...I reverted their removal before I got to this point of my watchlist… Fayedizard (talk) 07:35, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

I do not claim to own the article, you have to understand the content to edit it and so far you havfe failed to demonstrate that you understand the content or the research. only that you may know a few wiki concepts. So if you want to edit the article find the research that supports the changes you are making, and discuss how the changed should be made in the project here to get consensus so far you have not demonstrated that you are willing to get consensus only decimate the article. You have failed to discuss any of the technical issues which needs to be done so far you have not done that. If you want to discuss these issues then this is the place to do it. WE may have to go through th article word by word, to get consensus, but if you are a serious editor of an article about a complex issue. So it will take time months probably. So are you willing to do this correctly dolfrog (talk) 07:44, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Well I can see I have no valid input into this discussion as you two only want to do, and you obvious ly do not want to explain what you are doing in terms I, a dyslexic, can understand. I hope that you do not wreck the articles too much. Not really sure why you call your project the disability project as you do not seem to understand this disability. dolfrog (talk) 07:59, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

"I do not claim to own the article" Glad to hear that! Please also make sure that you do not sound as if you think you do! I have already explained that Wikipedia evolves mainly by people making edits, discussing as necessary as they go and building on top of successive edits, not by laboriously negotiating everything in advance. So no I am not going to spend months going through the article word by word with you before I start helping to improve it. Nor I imagine will anyone else.

I do often open talk sections to explain what I am intending so you and anyone else will have plenty of opportunity to discuss things with me, in addition to any sections you or anyone else decide to start. It is a bit early to complain about my editing, I haven't started yet... Transformations for readability or maintainability which do not change the content or existing sources do not, of course, need any extra sources to support them.

I have also already said, if you don't understand something, ask.

Now please answer the question about your previous moves. You have just said you want to discuss the technical issues, so the least you can do is answer when somebody does start to do that. --Mirokado (talk) 08:17, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Assessment etc

I have added support for remaining relevant classes (category, redirect etc) to {{WikiProject Dyslexia}}. It will take a while for the displays to catch up with reality. This will help editors keep track of these objects. If you look at Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia/Dyslexia assessment you will see details of the classifications. These will be managed automatically when the namespace provides enough information (for example category). For redirects we add |class=redirect and for any project pages, |class=project to indicate the class, but if we don't the default of NA continues to apply, so there is no need for anyone to change the way they work unless they wish. --Mirokado (talk) 20:32, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

not sure if these templates have been followed up this was Rosmoran specialist area of the project, she created the template before she stopped editing abpout 2/3years ago. I will have a look at the articles listed above. dolfrog (talk) 20:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

The dyslexia interventions article should be merged into Management of Dyslexia article dolfrog (talk) 21:22, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Yes, it looks reasonable to do that merge. --Mirokado (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Why on earth have you removed the project template from the dyslexia categories? They are some of the objects a project most needs to keep track of, otherwise you don't know if someone proposes a deletion until the category is removed from all the articles. I know, it happened once or twice at WP:DISABILITY until I updated the classifications there. --Mirokado (talk) 23:53, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

OpenDyslexic font

Members of this WikiProject may wish to start an article about the OpenDyslexic font.

• BBC News - OpenDyslexic font gains ground with help of Instapaper

Also, these links may be of interest.

• Wikipedia:Village pump (technical)#OpenDyslexic font (version of 01:23, 8 May 2013)
• Wikipedia:Dyslexic readers

—Wavelength (talk) 02:06, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Comment on the WikiProject X proposal

Hello there! As you may already know, most WikiProjects here on Wikipedia struggle to stay active after they've been founded. I believe there is a lot of potential for WikiProjects to facilitate collaboration across subject areas, so I have submitted a grant proposal with the Wikimedia Foundation for the "WikiProject X" project. WikiProject X will study what makes WikiProjects succeed in retaining editors and then design a prototype WikiProject system that will recruit contributors to WikiProjects and help them run effectively. Please review the proposal here and leave feedback. If you have any questions, you can ask on the proposal page or leave a message on my talk page. Thank you for your time! (Also, sorry about the posting mistake earlier. If someone already moved my message to the talk page, feel free to remove this posting.) Harej (talk) 22:47, 1 October 2014 (UTC)

WikiProject X is live!

Hello everyone!

You may have received a message from me earlier asking you to comment on my WikiProject X proposal. The good news is that WikiProject X is now live! In our first phase, we are focusing on research. At this time, we are looking for people to share their experiences with WikiProjects: good, bad, or neutral. We are also looking for WikiProjects that may be interested in trying out new tools and layouts that will make participating easier and projects easier to maintain. If you or your WikiProject are interested, check us out! Note that this is an opt-in program; no WikiProject will be required to change anything against its wishes. Please let me know if you have any questions. Thank you!

Note: To receive additional notifications about WikiProject X on this talk page, please add this page to Wikipedia:WikiProject X/Newsletter. Otherwise, this will be the last notification sent about WikiProject X.

Harej (talk) 16:57, 14 January 2015 (UTC)

Reading (process) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Reading (process) to be moved to Reading. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 21:59, 16 November 2015 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Greetings

back again, logged in. Hello? Anyone here? Jrbwalk (talk) 16:36, 17 August 2016 (UTC)jrbwalk

@Jrbwalk: Hello! I've been poking around the various dyslexia articles, and wondered the same thing. It looks like there was lots of activity here a few years ago, and I'm curious where things were when they paused. —Verbistheword (talk) 20:53, 24 August 2016 (UTC)

@Verbistheword:You seem much more qualified, and scientific. I am just an ex-teacher who has a son who has had a lot of labels. I landed on Dyslexia for a lot of different reasons. Just last night I got a note from his birth mother...she is "extremely right brained", because of a facebook post I made. I keep coming across that idea. Does it mean anything to you? I am firmly in the camp that it is a difference, very likely to give visual strengths...my son at age 4 had a low verbal IQ, which nearly tripled by age 18, but also, at age 4, had the "visual spatial skills" of a ten year old! Very interesting stuff. I feel the current page on Dyslexia needs the additions of the works of Dr. Thomas West and Dr.s Brock and Fernette Eide.Both are searching out gifts. Have you heard of their work?

French talk page format

Following a discussion at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine #Color coding of talk pages, it was suggested that I should post the way that French Wikipedia formats its talk pages in case it might be of interest to anyone here. It will produce the same effect as for example, fr:Discussion Wikipédia:Accueil principal; you can scroll down that talk page to see if the lines and colours help to make the threading any clearer.

If you'd like to try it out, put the following into Special:MyPage/common.css:

.ns-talk .mw-body-content dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl {background:#f5faff;}

.ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl, .ns-talk .mw-body-content dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl dl {background:white;}

.ns-talk .mw-body-content dl {border-top: solid 1px #a7d7f9; border-left: solid 1px #a7d7f9; padding-top:0.5em; padding-left:0.5em; margin-left:1em;}

Of course, you only have to remove the above to return your talk pages here to normal. HTH. --RexxS (talk) 01:07, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

TheDJ spotted that I'd missed the '#' from border-left: solid 1px #a7d7f9; I've corrected that above. --RexxS (talk) 12:18, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

Dyslexia-tailored fonts and coverage on main WP Dyslexia article

Hello, new to this page (and the process of Wikipedia editing in general).

I've ended up here with some concerns about how the main WP page for Dyslexia is presented currently, specifically relating to how it discusses the merits of dyslexia tailored typefaces. I might be wasting time with it but has there been any interest on this page in to looking at how consistent the coverage is across Wikipedia articles regarding the efficacy in using these to mitigate symptoms of dyslexia? And how up-to-date the views presented are.

Currently the dyslexia page header image is of the OpenDyslexic typeface; the caption states "An example of OpenDyslexic typeface, which is used to mitigate common reading errors due to dyslexia" and links to a masters thesis as the first citation for the page and supporting citation for this statement. This is not a peer reviewed piece; it is unpublished outside of the University of Twente. It also discusses a different typeface, specifically Dyselxie, which is not open access, rather it is a paid for product produced by graphic designer Christian Boer as his own final thesis project at Utrecht Art Academy in 2008 (source: https://www.dyslexiefont.com/en/background-information/the-designer/). The thesis also shows that the results do not support the hypotheses that Dyslexie font will increase reading speed for dyslexics, that it would increase reading speed for individuals without dyslexia, or that attitudes of dyslexic individuals toward the typeface would be positive (this last one showed that just shy of 20% of dyslexic individuals found the font 'very pleasant' and short of 5% found it 'very unpleasant', with mirroring results from non-dyslexic individuals - however the vast majority of both groups were neutral). Discussion section indicates support for the hypothesis that Dyslexie font decreases error rate in reading (compared to size matched Arial font), but the results show only a 'trend' (p = <0.1, not statistically significant), that is not further supported by the data. Over all I'm of the opinion that this single, unpublished thesis that doesn't support its own conclusions does not constitute citable evidence.

Moreover; included in the body of the dyslexia article is further reference to OpenDyslexic and other type-face related research in to mitigating dyslexia symptoms. It goes on to mention that differences noted in reducing error disappear when the distance between letters is controlled, indicating that the benefits may be due to increased letter spacing alone.

Other articles on WP include Dyslexia interventions, OpenDyslexic and Dyslexie, and these all surmise the current, very limited research body on typographic aids for dyslexia, which is to say that any support for their efficacy is anecdotal and that there is no statistically valid support for the usefulness of these fonts (despite claims made by the producers of said paid software).

I think my main concern is that by having an unsupported image as the defining image for the article dyslexia, the wrong message is given about the relevance of this particular methodology in combatting symptoms of dyslexia.

Apologies if this is not the place to post this; I made my concerns on the talk page for the dyslexia article, however they have since disappeared or been archived, I'm unsure which. JMcManly (talk) 13:14, 24 October 2016 (UTC)

May be useful information

From History of dyslexia research

Wydell and Butterworth reported the case study of an English-Japanese bilingual with monolingual dyslexia . Suggesting that any language where orthography-to-phonology mapping is transparent, or even opaque, or any language whose orthographic unit representing sound is coarse (i.e. at a whole character or word level) should not produce a high incidence of developmental phonological dyslexia, and that orthograpy can influence dyslexic symptoms

— Preceding unsigned comment added by dolfrog (talk • contribs) 16:30, 13 June 2009

I don't get onto Wikipedia much so am probably putting this into the wrong place, but would like to suggest something about the organization of information about dyslexia: I'd like to bring up the fact that the "dyslexia" diagnostic term was coined by Rudolf Berlin of Stuttgart, Germany, in 1887 to describe the inability to read. It's an Ancient diagnosis. We now know that dyslexia is actually an "umbrella" diagnostic term, that describes many different cognitive functions involved in reading, and that if you perform detailed cognitive testing of a group of dyslexics, many of them will have totally different "signatures" of functional abilities and weaknesses.

I'd like to suggest that it's by relying on just the term "dyslexic" that you're having trouble going global with descriptions. If, for example, you separate it out and talk about cognitive functions such as vision tracking, symbol recognition, symbol processing, and working memory, then you could easily apply those cognitive issues to any language out there. I refer you to a very interesting school called the Arrowsmith school in Canada. Here is the page in which they describe the 19 learning dysfunctions that they test for. http://www.arrowsmithschool.org/description.htm

Note that in almost any dyslexia literature, it typically refers to something called "phonemic ability" or something like that. Unfortunately, this is massively outdated and yes, refers almost exclusively to the English language. Note that I am not in any way affiliated with the above-mentioned school but unfortunately nobody else is documenting or talking about separate cognitive functions that make up dyslexia. (That I know of)

Even if you just added a category called "Dyslexia, Cognitive theories," it would be a first step IMHO. Cheers. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Moretoastplease (talk • contribs) 07:47, 27 December 2011 (UTC)

Taare Zameen Par listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Taare Zameen Par to be moved to Like Stars on Earth. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 13:01, 17 October 2017 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Reading (process) listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Reading (process) to be moved to Reading. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 15:16, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Request for information on WP1.0 web tool

Hello and greetings from the maintainers of the WP 1.0 Bot! As you may or may not know, we are currently involved in an overhaul of the bot, in order to make it more modern and maintainable. As part of this process, we will be rewriting the web tool that is part of the project. You might have noticed this tool if you click through the links on the project assessment summary tables.

We'd like to collect information on how the current tool is used by....you! How do you yourself and the other maintainers of your project use the web tool? Which of its features do you need? How frequently do you use these features? And what features is the tool missing that would be useful to you? We have collected all of these questions at this Google form where you can leave your response. Walkerma (talk) 04:24, 27 October 2019 (UTC)

Eddie Izzard listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Eddie Izzard to be moved to Suzy Izzard. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 10:45, 15 March 2023 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.

Carl XVI Gustaf listed at Requested moves

A requested move discussion has been initiated for Carl XVI Gustaf to be moved to Carl XVI. This page is of interest to this WikiProject and interested members may want to participate in the discussion here. —RMCD bot 19:16, 13 January 2024 (UTC)

To opt out of RM notifications on this page, transclude {{bots|deny=RMCD bot}}, or set up Article alerts for this WikiProject.