Talk:Dyslexia/Archive 4

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

Text regarding Sir Rose report temporarily removed

Hi, there.

A hearty welcome, and my apologies, offered to new wikipedia editor Woosycat. If Woosycat had a personal page, I'd ask for clarification and try to come to consensus there. Since there isn't one, I thought the best route would be to delete the information temporarily so we could perhaps achieve consensus here.

The removed text is as follows:

A recent government funded report by Sir Jim Rose has been issued in June 2009 clarifying how dyslexia is to be defined. {{cite news | first=Michael Rice Dr Michael Rice (University of Cambridge, formerly Senior Research Officer, NRDC Institute of Education) with Greg Brooks Research Director, NRDC Sheffield, and Professor of Education, University of Sheffield | title = Developmental dyslexia in adults: a research review | date=2004-05-01 | publisher=National Research and Development Centre for Adult Literacy and Numeracy | url =http://www.nrdc.org.uk/projects_details.asp?ProjectID=75 | pages =*133-147 | accessdate = 2009-05-13 }}</ref><ref name='University'>{{cite book |last=Brazeau-Ward |first=Louise |title=Dyslexia and the University |publisher=Canadian Dyslexia Centre |year=2001 |location=Canada |pages=1–3 |url=http://www.dyslexiaassociation.ca/english/files/universityanddyslexia.pdf |isbn=1-894964-71-3}}</ref>

The report mentioned seems to have come from the UK. There's nothing wrong with that! But since this particular section is a very prominent one in the article, information we provide here needs to be broad in scope in terms of applicability. For country-specific information, when we refer to "the government", we'd need to specify the UK government, that the report was specifically about adult dyslexia rather than dyslexia across the lifespan, etc etc.

This is very good information, and we could include it in a few different ways. One would be to create context in this section for country-specific information. Another way might be to place the information in another section of the article. There used to be a paragraph in the controversy section that discussed the fact that some people assert that dyslexia does not exist as a disorder. I believe that information was from the UK also. Perhaps these two facts would be good if placed somewhere together?

Thoughts?

Best, and again, a warm welcome to Woosycat ....

Rosmoran (talk) 23:47, 10 August 2009 (UTC)

Introduction

I have changed the introduction as well as expanding it. I realized that dyslexia is caused by unknown factors because if someone who suffers from mental retardation but cannot read does this person has dyslexia? No, because it is caused by mental retardation, a known factor. Someone who suffers from dyslexia, there is no known factors. It is all theories but nothing about real causes. If you have any issues with this, please let me know. Esthertaffet (talk) 15:43, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi. I think you made some changes that could be very good, especially your point about dyslexia being diagnosed at all levels of intelligence. By definition, dyslexics have at least average intelligence. I modified the old statement to more closely reflect the statement made by Sally Shaywitz in the cited source. I'm sure we could find another source that would frame the information differently. If you can find one, let's look at modifying the statement.

As for causes, because of functional brain scan technology we actually know much more than ever before about the various etiologies of dyslexia, so it wouldn't be accurate to say that there are no known causes. The bigger problem is that there are so many definitions of dyslexia that it's impossible to narrow down to a limited number of causes.

I have seen a similar statement to the one you added regarding dyslexics having trouble learning to read if left to figure things out for themselves or if taught in conventional ways. This is a very important point, but I can't remember the source of that information. Do you know where it came from? I think if we can cite a source for the information we should include it in the article in some appropriate location.

Best, Rosmoran (talk) 09:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

The cause for dyslexia cannot be just a person with dyslexia is wired differently due to using functional brain scan technology. That's not a cause. I'm sure there are people who don't have dyslexia but have similar brain scans with people who have dyslexia. There must be more research on dyslexia in order to formulate the causes of dyslexia. Since "unknown causes" was rejected, what other terms can we use?

"Dyslexia is not an indicative of intelligence level. Rather, people with dyslexia have trouble performing specific types of skills or completing tasks if left to figure things out by themselves or if taught in conventional ways. Dyslexia cannot be cured or fixed; it is a lifelong issue. With the right support and intervention, however, people with dyslexia can succeed in school and go on to successful, often distinguished careers later in life."

I didn't think it required a source. I thought it was just common knowledge. Esthertaffet (talk) 15:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding whether the text about dyslexics having trouble learning to read "if left to figure things out for themselves or if taught in conventional ways" is common knowledge: It could certainly be considered common knowledge in the community of dyslexia professionals, but I don't think this can be considered common knowledge in general---for example, I've never met an educator not trained in some orton-gillingham program who has any knowledge of the special instructional requirements of most dyslexics. If they don't know it, the general population certainly won't. The statement itself is very powerful and easy to understand, but it is framed very differently than what we see in most dyslexia literature. This unique-ness is what needs to be cited.

Help me understand what you're trying to say about the "cause" of dyslexia. Perhaps our difference is semantic rather than substantial.

Here's an attempt to clarify where I'm coming from: We know several areas of the brain that often function very differently in dyslexic readers of English than in typical readers of English, two of which are those parts of the brain that process phonological information and the parts that process the orthographic information (the visual squigglies on the page) that is then translated into sounds->words->meaning. The neurological pathways required to process this information the didn't develop normally, so the brain compensates by trying to build alternative pathways, which of course are less efficient.

I would consider this abnormal information processing a "cause" of dyslexia, at least for people trying to read English orthography. On the other hand, one could argue that the actual cause is whatever disrupted the brain development process during which these pathways should have been created.

Does this describe how we are using the word "cause" differently?

Rosmoran (talk) 23:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, but no one truly knows what disrupted the brain development process. In other words, how come the brain is wired differently for people with dyslexia? There is never a straight answer to why people have dyslexia, other than they are wired differently. Esthertaffet (talk) 15:20, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Let's say someone has Down syndrome. A person with mental retardation has his brain wired differently. The cause for that is because he has Down syndrome. This would explain why it affects the brain's ability to receive and process information. Now let's go back to someone with dyslexia. A person with dyslexia has his brain wired differently. The cause for that is because he has ???. There is no answer. How would this explain what is affecting his brain to receive and process information? Of course there is no cure for dyslexia because there was never a cause to begin with. Esthertaffet (talk) 15:34, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Regarding the down syndrome/dyslexia comparison: Someone with Down Syndrome has a brain wiring difference that has been classified and named -- that doesn't say what *caused* the wiring difference. Ditto, someone with OCD has a brain that is wired differently. What caused the different brain wiring? We don't know. (Actually, we know a couple of things that may have caused it, but in most cases there's no way to figure that out yet.) So that argument doesn't hold.

Nevertheless, your original point is that, from your perspective, the "cause" is whatever disrupted the brain development so that the neural pathways are not developed properly, yes?

Rosmoran (talk) 20:45, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. Esthertaffet (talk) 21:53, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Great. So, how best to handle this? I just spent some time sampling the Wikipedia articles for a number of neurological disorders, and most of them don't specifically address causes (except things like strokes and brain traumas).

Is this something we want to emphasize in the article? the fact that we don't know specifically what caused the brain wiring to be abnormal?

Rosmoran (talk) 00:13, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I have found references. The first article said that "nobody quite knows at the moment" and the second article said that it was unknown. With this being said, can we say that dyslexia is caused by "unknown factors"? [1] [2] Esthertaffet (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

That wasn't what I was saying needs to be cited. Rather, as I said above, it was the qualifying text "if left to figure things out for themselves or if taught in conventional ways" that needs citation.

I don't think it matters whether the text is worded "unknown cause" or "unknown factors." The dicey bit is the text surrounding those words. The article already says that dyslexia is neurological in origin, so someone would need to craft some wording around "neurological in origin" and "unknown cause."

That said, in my last post I asked the question: "Is this something we want to emphasize in the article? the fact that we don't know specifically what caused the brain wiring to be abnormal?" (The answer may well be "yes.")

Best, Rosmoran (talk) 03:41, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Article should be edited to represent the lack of medical consensus regarding dyslexia from causation to existence —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.150.144.204 (talk) 16:23, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

General idea for a tool

I did not know where else to post, so I just stuck this up here..

• Dyslexia help-application collection —Preceding unsigned comment added by 95.91.73.39 (talk) 01:28, 9 October 2009 (UTC)

My PubMed Dyslexia research paper collections

For anyone wish to find supportive research papers when editing the Dyslexia article I have collated some online Research paper collections at PubMed.

• Alexia collection
• Aphasia collection
• Dorsal and Ventral Streams - functional anatomy of language collection
• Dyslexia and Attention collection
• Dyslexia and Auditory Processing collection
• Dyslexia and Cognitive Nuerology, Neurobiology collection
• Dyslexia and Genetic Research collection
• Dyslexia and Morphological Processing collection
• Dyslexia and Orthography collection
• Dyslexia and Phonological Processing collection
• Dyslexia and Remediation collection
• Dyslexia and Speech and Language Impairments collection
• Dyslexia and Visual Processing collection
• Dyslexia and Working Memory collection
• Dyslexia in Logographic (Chinese, Japanese) Orthographies collection
• Learning collection
• Otitis Media collection
• Plasticity collection
• Reading collection

there are probably some 200 plus research papers in these collections

best wishes

dolfrog (talk) 17:52, 17 September 2009 (UTC)

These collections have recently been expanded to include Dyslexia and Cognitive Nuerology, Neurobiology collection by year of publication, and a new series regarding Leading Dyslexia Researchers see User:Dolfrog dolfrog (talk) 04:01, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

dyslexia and background noise media debate

Medical News Today 12/11/09 published an article New Brain Findings On Dyslexic Children and on 13/11/09 they published my reply to the article dolfrog (talk) 05:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

origin of the word

I looked this up to find out where the word dyslexia comes from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 99.91.100.38 (talk) 18:36, 21 December 2009 (UTC)

What about Strengths of Dyslexia?

How come there is nothing on strengths of Dyslexia?

There are strengths that Dyslexics tend to have like strong ability to visualize,picture things in their mind's eye.

I really believe that it depends on whether the Dyslexia is genetic or not I believe the same with other neurodivergent conditions like Dyspraxia,ADHD,Autistic Spectrum —Preceding unsigned comment added by Satabishara (talk • contribs) 19:02, 3 March 2010 (UTC)

For that to be included, it would need to have a verifiable source - see WP:VERIFYAutarch (talk) 20:16, 23 March 2010 (UTC)

There are no strengths of dyslexia. Dyslexia is the shared symptom of a number of cognitive information processing deficits / disorders, are catagorised by the Cognitive subtypes of dyslexia. Acta Neurobiol Exp (Wars). 2008 The so called strengths are the cognitive compensatory strategies developed to work around the cognitive deficit which causes the dyslexic symptom. dolfrog (talk) 03:56, 11 April 2010 (UTC)

What if the strengths of Dyslexia are actually what is causing the problem in the first.....like strong right hemisphere processing interfering with left hemisphere processing as well as even an ultrasensitivee nature that can be seen as having sensory integration problems.

Why is it a cognitive deficit? Who decides that it's a cognitive deficit? Just because a person's way of thinking,and learning is different doesn't mean that it's a disorder nor deficient. A different mind is not a deficient mind.

There are strengths with Dyspraxia,Autistic Spectrum,Dyscalculia,and Tourette Syndrome. I think that it's more with the genetic types and not the acquired types 69.230.104.229 (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)Satabishara69.230.104.229 (talk) 10:13, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

I think you need to read some of the research regarding dyslexia, and the related issues. Dyspraxia is about having motor cognitive problems, which is why it is also known as Dyspraxia - Developmental Coordination Disorder (DCD) in the majority of research papers regarding the condition The Autistic Spectrum is a wide range of issues which are cause by multiple cognitive disorders, which can cause a spectrum of information processing problems. Dyscalculia is about having problems processing numeric information

All of the above are the result of developmental cognitive deficits / disorders many of which have an initial genetic cause. Dyslexia is not a condition, but a shared symptom of many sometimes co-morbid cognitive conditions such as Auditory Processing Disorder, Visual Process Disorder (which are cognitive sensory information processing disorders) ADHD etc. Most are born with these cognitive deficits / disorders, and from birth subconsciously begin to develop compensating cognitive skills to work around their cognitive deficits. It is these compensating cognitive skills or coping strategies which you are calling "strengths". These compensating cognitive skills are not usually developed by others who do not have a cognitive deficit / disorder, and this is why dyslexics and others have to thinking differently to try and cope with their cognitive deficits.

These same cognitive problems can be acquired via an accident, severe brain injury, stroke, dementia, etc. But this does not usually happen during early development, when we are most able to subconsciously develop compensating cognitive skills. dolfrog (talk) 17:48, 17 April 2010 (UTC)

"Dyslexia is not a condition..." is almost worth putting into the main article. There is at least a phenomena of high achieving dyslexics, the tone of the article is entirely negative and many Dyslexics do not view their condition in this way. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.75.202.169 (talk) 15:25, 22 November 2012 (UTC)

Of course there are high achieving dyslexics, yet dyslexia is a learning disability. However, if the strengths of Dyslexia are actually what is causing the problem in the first place, that should absolutely be mentioned in the article. However, good reliable sources are needed. Lova Falk talk 14:28, 28 November 2012 (UTC)

Reorganized

I have reorganized the text here as per WP:MEDMOS and the requested tag. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 21:27, 18 May 2010 (UTC)

Controversy section

This section is based on one paper, Elliot and Gibbs (2008), and currently nothing else. That one paper is in a philopophy of education journal, not a scientific journal. It seems to me this needs to be cleaned up or dumped. Thoughts? Dbrodbeck (talk) 11:54, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Dyslexia is an educational diagnosis, not a clinical diagnosis. There are neurological clinically diagnosed disabilities or disorders which have dyslexia as a symptom. International dyslexia research over the last decade or so has been investigating the various factors which can cause dyslexia, such as the auditory, visual, and attentional cognitive factors which can cause the dyslexic problems. The "Contoversy" is the challenge being made to the concept that dyslexia is condition or disorder with a single neurological cause, which has been the claim made or the educational philosophy used by those advocating the existance of dyslexia in the English speaking world, especially in the USA and the UK. The advocates in the USA and the UK claim scientific research supports their notion that dyslexia has a single neurological cause, which would be feasable using the technology etc of the 1970s and 1980s, when these concepts of dyslexia were created, as were the remedial programs which these advocates use or sell to those who have dyslexia. So this paper questions this 1970s / 1980s educational philosophy (which has been adopted by the respective governments) and questions the diagnostic process, which is currently based on the scientific research of the 1970s / 1980s, and ignores the international dyslexia research of the last decade or more. The content of this article tries to reflect the current international research which is focused on identifying dyslexia and its neurological causes, while at the same time trying to define the working in everyday life being done to help remediate information processing and learning problems experienced by dyslexics, much of which is not in line with cutting edge research. I think i have i have covered most of the issues of this very complex set of issues dolfrog (talk) 12:47, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

I am not sure what an 'educational diagnosis' is. Dyslexia is covered by the ICD 10, for example. Do we not have to follow WP:MEDRS here? Would the paper in question meet that standard? Dbrodbeck (talk) 14:35, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

What is ICD 10 Prof Elliot refers to the situation in the UK dolfrog (talk) 14:48, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

dyslexia is an educational diagnosis using educational measures (measuring reading speeds etc) as opposed to a medical or clinical diagnosis using medical diagnostic tests dolfrog (talk) 14:51, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

as an example Auditory Processing Disorder (APD) is neurological condition regarding how the brain processes all sound heard by the ears, including speech. Dyslexia is about having problems with the visual notation of speech. So those who have APD will have problems processing speech sound information, and they will also have problems processing any notation of speech sound information. dolfrog (talk) 14:58, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

Click the link in the infobox on the page that says ICD to find out about it. Many psychological/neurological/developmental disorders are diagnosed with behavioural measures. Dbrodbeck (talk) 15:01, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

ICD 10 dates back to 1992 which is can only be based on the research science of 20 years ago. Research has moved on significantly since then and a great deal more is now known about the underlying causes of dyslexia since then, and some researchers are discussing Biomarkers for the underlying causes of dyslexia, but not for dyslexia itself. I also noticed that ICD 11 is due anytime, which may include more recent research regarding dyslexia and the underlying neurological or clinical causes. Prof Elliot is saying that Dyslexia does not exist, but the clinical underlying causes do. And Dyslexia is a man made problem, man created the various writing systems as a visual communication system, and some who have various cognitive deficits or disorders will have difficult accessing this man made communication system, depending on the cognitive skill sets required to decode the symbols, which varies between the different writing systems, and the languages within each writing system. For example it is possible to be dyslexic in one language of one writing system and not dyslexic in a langauge from a different writing system. It is all down to the orthography of the language being used. dolfrog (talk) 15:20, 26 May 2010 (UTC)

have a look at Cognitive subtypes of dyslexia 2008Acta Neurobiol Exp (Wars). 2008;68(1):73-82..

diagnosis

Even if this varies by country (which I know it does), why is there nothing on who diagnoses dyslexia and how this is achieved? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.119.248.25 (talk) 02:24, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Dyslexia is about having problems with a man made communication system, the visual notation of speech, which varies according the the writing system being used, and the orthographic variations of each language within each writing system. Dyslexia is not a medical or clinical diagnosis, as there are no internationally recognised biomarkers to identify the existence of dyslexia. Each country has their own form of educationally based diagnostic tests and each country defines the specific professions that can diagnose dyslexia. International research has indicated that the way forward is to identify the underlying cognitive / medical causes of the dyslexic symptom, such a auditory processing , visual processing, and attention. These three cognitive measures can be clinically diagnosed, and can individually or in any combination cause the dyslexic symptom. dolfrog (talk) 09:40, 1 July 2010 (UTC)

Dehaene's book Reading in the Brain will help greatly with improvement of this article.

It would be a really good idea for several Wikipedians to have Reading in the Brain: The Science and Evolution of a Human Invention by Stanislas Dehaene at hand as they continue to edit this interesting article. The book is recent, very well researched, and very clear on the neurology of different forms of dyslexia. It also has an excellent cross-cultural perspective on writing systems and dyslexia.

-- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 17:46, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The real problem with this type of book is that it is not peer reviewed and may be slanted towards a prospective market, if you could source some peer reviewed research papers by the same author which are accessible online than that would be greatly appreciated. dolfrog (talk) 18:35, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Having read the reviews of the book, there would appear to be an unbalanced perspective of scientific research slanted to a range of teaching and intervention programs, based on alphabetic languages, and ignoring the need for both lexical and sub-lexical processing as part of the reading process. dolfrog (talk) 18:57, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Reading the actual book rather than reviews will allay your concerns about the book. It has a much broader perspective than that, is very much based on peer-reviewed research published in professional journals (lavishly cited in the book), and is based on considerable clinical experience with dyslexic persons. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:04, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Follow-up question: which reviews did you read of the book in the twenty-two minutes after I posted the citation? I learned about the book originally from favorable reviews posted in places where I consistently find recommendations of good books. I happen to have read a lot of the primary research literature that Dehaene cites, and he cites and summarizes that research accurately and even-handedly. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:13, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

from your edits so far this you have little understanding of the various writing systems, and lack an internation understanding of the visual notion of speech, which is waht text is. Again provide some international peer reviewed research papers, from you contributions so far Dehaene is no authority on reading or dyslexia, or if he is then he is just one among many who have their point of view to promote the sales of their book dolfrog (talk) 19:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

When you write, "from your edits so far this you have little understanding of the various writing systems," you are making a mistake based on insufficient evidence. In fact, I have academic training in Chinese, various Indo-European languages, Hebrew, Greek, and Japanese (this is revealed on my user page) and also in linguistics. I have extensive experience in teaching English reading both to English-as-a-second-language learners and to native speakers of English and also some experience in teaching Chinese literacy to second-language learners. I have read a number of scientific books and articles about the origin and development of writing systems around the world, and about dyslexia and reading instruction. I have immediate family relatives whose first languages of literacy were Japanese, Chinese, or English. Please do not assume too much about other users' backgrounds until you have checked more facts; the article can improve in content best by all of us looking up references carefully and then checking their quality. I appreciate the efforts you have made on your user page to share references with other Wikipedians and will be looking up many of those references. Feel free to look at a subpage of my user page for citations on some closely related issues. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:10, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

The reviews of Dehaene's book from the New York Times, the Washington Post, the Wall Street Journal, and the Frontal Cortex blog are easily available popular reviews by reviewers with relevant professional training and experience. The review in the journal Nature is, alas, behind a paywall. (This is a frequent problem in all online research--many of the best sources are less accessible to the general public than worse sources.) A straightforward Google Scholar search turns up many professional publications by Stanislas Dehaene on reading. I hope this helps answer your question about Dehaene's professional standing and previous publications. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 20:31, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

It was the Washington Post review which i read before making my comments above. If you have been following the recent international research papers regarding multiple neurological processes which are involved in the decoding of visual symbols to the sounds the represent, to meaningful communication, many of these processes happen independently and are not part of precise sequence, but rather in a more random cycle. And that perception and "the filling in" of information gaps based on experience or context happens more than was previously understood. The old theories, good in their day, which this book was based on are now being overturned, especially the promotion of phonics only approaches of teaching and the discrediting of whole language, when each teaching method addresses a different type of neurological information processing, both of which are integral parts of the reading process. dolfrog (talk) 21:20, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for identifying the review you read. It would be especially helpful to also identify the sources you are relying on for using the review as a basis for dismissing the book by Dehaene, one of the leading researchers on the neurology of dyslexia. (Once you read his book, you'll see how careful he has been in his research for many years.) I am especially curious about your statements about methods of reading instruction--where is the evidence about which methods work best? These issues are definitely of importance for the article, which like all Wikipedia articles ought to be based on reliable sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:35, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

There are many leading dyslexia researchers from many countries, (I have included some PubMed research paper collections of many leading dyslexia researchers on my dolfrog user page) and researching dyslexia various writing systems, which create different cognitive issues which cause the dyslexic symptom. Dyslexia is about having problem with a man made communication system the visual notation of speech. Each language has is own range of sound frequencies that it uses, added to which there are different forms of visual notations of speech in the form of different writing systems. Dehaene's research has only been concerned with a single writing system the Latin Alphabet writing system. There are at least two seperate areas of the brain involved in the reading process, the lexical (whole word) and the sub-lexic (phonic) areas of information processing, which have been identified since 2008. And again these areas of information processing have varying importance depending on the orthography of the writing system and language being used. It has only been in the last few years that researchers have been beginning to understand the multiple cognitive processes which are involved in the reading process, and much of this understanding has come about as a result of international research into dyslexia, and especially Alexia or acquired dyslexia resulting from stroke. dolfrog (talk) 02:49, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your further comments. When you write, "Dehaene's research has only been concerned with a single writing system the Latin Alphabet writing system," I have to strenuously disagree, because I have read his book. Dehaene has actually done more research in other writing systems than most authors on dyslexia, as anyone who reads his book will be plainly able to see. (I was very impressed with the quality of previous publications he cites about Chinese, my undergraduate major, most of which are unknown to most writers about dyslexia.)

I appreciate the links you have provided to many primary research articles on your user page, and looked up a couple of those over this weekend (which will be the basis for my next edit of this article, after a few more days of digesting what I read directly from the journal you kindly cited). On the same run to friendly local academic library, I checked out quite a few textbooks and treatises on dyslexia from various points of view, to update a bibliography on the subject I began keeping in the 1980s. I'll post the updated bibliography, which I will continue to update from time to time for years to come, to my user page soon, following your example.

I want to make clear that my interest in the issue of dyslexia comes precisely from knowing that "there are different forms of visual notations of speech in the form of different writing systems." That is the interest I had, as a student of Russian, Chinese, Greek, Hebrew, Japanese, and other languages, in the dyslexia literature. I have had the dismaying experience over the years of observing many authors about dyslexia making demonstrably false statements about reading based on what they think they know about other writing systems. Scholars of Chinese and Japanese (for example the late John DeFrancis and J. Marshall Unger) have been appalled at how often mistaken assumptions about how Chinese characters operate as a writing system have led to mistaken inferences about how human reading works. Stanislas Dehaene gets these facts right, and that is precisely why I heartily recommend his book to anyone who wants to better understand how reading operates neurologically for any human being, as a cultural innovation in the human species as a whole, and as a difficulty to be overcome by a learner with dyslexia. As they say in Chinese, 百聞不如一見, so reading Dehaene's book thoughtfully will be far more beneficial than hearing excuses for not reading it. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:25, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Ok when this book is freely available online via google books or another onlime publisher, I will read it. So until then I can only take your word for its valuable and enlightening contents I am dyslexic, and due to my own cognitive subtypes of dyslexia i need text to be presented as it is on this web site all multi-coloured which is how i cope with unfamiliar complex text. dolfrog (talk) 03:39, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Spelling question: "dyslexic" is much more attested for all parts of speech than "dyslectic."

I see that there is a variation in spelling in the article between "dyslexic" and "dyslectic." Checking dictionaries just now, especially the dictionaries that are most authoritative for editing professionally edited text in either the United States or Britain, I see that "dyslexic" is far and away the more attested spelling. This is also attested by Wiktionary, entry "dyslexic," which of courses has to follow the reliable sources. The Wikipedia Manual of Style guides editors to follow preferred spellings attested in major dictionaries when editing articles. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 19:59, 2 July 2010 (UTC)

Renewing my question here, because there ought to be a source for spellings used on Wikipedia. So far, I don't see any evidence that any professionally edited book uses any spelling but "dyslexic" for a noun or an adjective related to the word "dyslexia," and Wikipedia always prefers the more commonplace spelling. Currently, most other Wikipedia articles that mention dyslexia include only the spelling "dyslexic" and not the spelling "dyslectic" at all. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:31, 3 July 2010 (UTC)

I agree and made the change. A quick look at the journal references shows "dyslexics" to be prevalentLateg (talk) 12:41, 5 July 2010 (UTC).

Thanks for the spelling correction. While looking this up, to be sure what the preferred spelling is, I actually found a link via Google that laughs at this very Wikipedia article because of that spelling issue. It's probably particularly important to follow standard English spellings in an article about dyslexia. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:30, 5 July 2010 (UTC)

I see that since you did the first pass of correcting spelling, Dolfrog kindly reverted a large section of the article that had been deleted some time before when I first began editing this article, and that brought back in some more misspellings. Because the reverted section included citations to particular articles and books, I was even able to check those articles and books as I went along, and to confirm that in all cases the spelling "dyslexic" was preferred by the authors writing in English as native speakers of English. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 03:44, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Dyslexia has a Greek origin. In Greek we call it "Δυσλεξία" while the person with that health issue is called "Δυσλεκτικός". I'm pretty sure that the reference to the person with dyslexia should be dyslectic. A quick search on English dictionaries though have shown that (wrongly in my opinion) the prevailing form of the word is dyslexic (although dyslectic is used and considered correct as well). The word in the "dyslectic" form is been used in hundreds of scientific articles as well http://scholar.google.gr/scholar?q=dyslectic&hl=en&btnG=%C1%ED%E1%E6%DE%F4%E7%F3%E7 (although again the dyslexic form prevails). Papagel (talk) 09:28, 6 July 2010 (UTC) lol

Yes, I can read Greek too, but in English Wikipedia we follow English sources (dictionaries) for spelling, and they all agree that "dyslexic" is the preferred spelling. (Because the word was not coined for its current meaning in Greek, but rather in another language--which as I recall was EnglishGerman--from Greek roots, the Greek form simply illustrates the principle that each language spells in its own way, sometimes in disregard of other languages.) I hope this puts the matter to rest; I've done a lot of looking up to make sure that the spelling was well attested and correct as I've edited the article. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 11:30, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

language evolves, dyslexia is a new concept from the 1880s and the word dyslexia was created to define this newly recognised disability using Greek and Latin. There are also differences between the various English speaking cultures as to how many words are spelt, and even differences in meaning of some words between the different cultures. Dyslexic is the accepted form of spelling across most of the cultures who use the English language, and the many translation services which translate articles written in English, so to use any different spelling increase the margins of error in meaning when these articles are translated. dolfrog (talk) 12:33, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Good point that standardized spelling helps ease machine translation. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 12:41, 6 July 2010 (UTC)

Cross-Linguistic Neuroimaging and Dyslexia: A Critical View

I have found the research paper "Cross-Linguistic Neuroimaging and Dyslexia: A Critical View" by Tarik Hadzibeganovica, Maurits van den Noortc, Peggy Bosche, Matjaz Perc, Rosalinde van Kralingen, Katrien Mondt and Max Coltheart and i will see how it fits into the dyslexia article. dolfrog (talk) 23:47, 16 July 2010 (UTC)

The research paper is a review research paper, and supports the information already in the article regarding cognitive subtypes of dyslexia, and that the cognitive skills required to perform the reading task differ according to differences in language and writing system orthography. I will add the paper as reference for the appropriate content dolfrog (talk) 00:12, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

WikiProject Dyslexia/Reorganization 2010 a new discussion

Hi All

I will also be posting a copy of the content below on the Talk page of the Alexia article.

The Wiki Project Dyslexia, was set up 2007 with the aim of improving dyslexia article on Wikipedia. The first step was seen as summerising the existing 2007 article, and creating a series of specialised sub articles to provide more detailed information with regard to the many specialised areas of dyslexia. Much of this has now been achieved, especially during 2009 and 2010. The dyslexia article now meets many more of the required standards as set out by Wikipedia, and has a more universal sourced content.

So we need to move on and set up some new goals for the Wiki Project Dyslexia. Currently the content of the dyslexia article only relates to developmental dyslexia, and not the wider range of topics which are also part of the inclusive definitions of dyslexia, such as Alexia (acquired dyslexia), the various theoretical "Models of Reading" which have resulted from various strands of dyslexia research.

To help us move on I edited some of the Wiki Project Dyslexia sub-articles in an attempt ot open a discussion as to the next steps to be taken by the Wiki Project Dyslexia with regard to ALL of the Wikipedia dyslexia related articles, some of which may still need to be identified. I have made some changes and additions to the Wiki Project Dyslexia articles,

• Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia/Proposed organization
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia/Dyslexia sub-articles
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia/Reorganization 2010
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia/Developmental dyslexia reorganisation
• Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia/Alexia reorganization

There are more sub articles that go to make up the Wiki Project Dyslexia, but thye have not been recently revised or edited.

Please have a look at these proposals and add any thoughts or ideas you may have dolfrog (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)

Political correctness

Moved from "What about Strengths of Dyslexia?"

I changed bits of the first paragraph in order to make it more politcally correct. Basically I just changed it to a learning 'difference' instead of disorder and added other difficulties other than reading as it is a common misunderstanding that dyslexia can simply be defined as a 'reading disorder'. It is in fact a complicated learning difference that can affect almost all academic areas whether it comes to memorizing historical dates, mental math in algebra, or understanding maps, not only reading. 24.6.170.162 (talk) 22:36, 8 August 2010 (UTC)

Let's be sure to use reliable sources for medicine-related articles before making substantive edits to this article. Medical accuracy is more important than political correctness, and any major statement about dyslexia in the article should be sourced to (preferably multiple) reliable secondary sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 16:01, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree with WeijiBaikeBianji and reverted the edits to reflect the citations. Political correctness only applies specific societies and is not global, Wikipedia is a global encyclopedia dolfrog (talk) 21:21, 9 August 2010 (UTC)

"Invitation to edit" trial

It has been proposed at Wikipedia talk:Invitation to edit that, because of the relatively high number of IP editors attracted to Dyslexia, it form part of a one month trial of a strategy aimed at improving the quality of new editors' contributions to health-related articles. It would involve placing this:

You can edit this page. Click here to find out how.

at the top of the article, linking to this mini-tutorial about MEDRS sourcing, citing and content, as well as basic procedures, and links to help pages. Your comments regarding the strategy are invited at the project talk page, and comments here, regarding the appropriateness of trialling it on this article, would be appreciated. Anthony (talk) 12:05, 31 August 2010 (UTC)

The list of articles for the trial is being reconsidered, in light of feedback from editors, and should be ready in a day or two. If you have any thoughts about the Invitation to edit proposal, they would be very welcome at the project talk page. Anthony (talk) 14:50, 2 September 2010 (UTC)

Copyright problem removed

One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s). The material was copied from: http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/content/126/4/841.full (content was present in the article from 4 June 2007 to 15 October 2010). Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you. Moonriddengirl ^(talk) 20:38, 23 October 2010 (UTC)

English spelling reform link

The article mentions that:

"children with reading problems in one language might not have a reading problem in a language with a different orthography."

but, later on, it is stated that:

"There is no cure for dyslexia."

I think there are many linguists and many educators who believe that if English spelling was to be made more phonemic, rates of dyslexia in English countries (which are much higher than in phonemic languages) would be dramatically reduced. So, there is a cure for dyslexia! Fix the language, not kids!

(I am a teacher with 25 years of experience in teaching and with a degree in linguistics.)

Add Unlocking Dyslexia in Japanese from 5.July.2011 WSJ

Add Unlocking Dyslexia in Japanese excerpt example

Researchers have long observed that some dyslexics have an easier time with languages like Japanese and Chinese, in which characters represent complete words or ideas, than they do with languages like English, which use separate letters and sounds to form words. ... "There are very real differences in the brain's reading circuit for an alphabet as opposed to a language like Chinese," says Maryanne Wolf, a professor of child development and director of the Center for Reading and Language Research at Tufts University in Medford, Mass. Dyslexics "think visually. They analyze patterns," she says. Character-based languages are mastered through memorization, a skill that dyslexics tend to rely on more than do typical language learners, says Sally Shaywitz, co-director of the Yale Center for Dyslexia and Creativity in New Haven, Conn. And language characters are more like pictures than letters, which can be easier for many dyslexics to reproduce, she says. Dyslexia, the most common of all learning disabilities, is a neurologically based disorder that causes difficulties in language-related tasks. It occurs regardless of a person's intelligence or level of education. As many as one in five people have dyslexia to some degree, according to the Connecticut Longitudinal Study, a long-term study of about 450 school-age children that concluded in the early 2000s. A study of school-age children published last year in Psychological Science compared how good readers and dyslexic readers learn language. Using brain-imaging technology, researchers at the Yale Center found that when people with dyslexia read in English they rely on the same region of the brain as do readers of kanji, a character-based language in Japan. By contrast, a somewhat different region of the brain is used by good English readers as well as by children reading kana, another Japanese language, but one in which each character represents a sound, as in English.

Emphasis: Written Chinese is not necessarily connected to spoken dialects, such as the Beijing dialect of Mandarin Chinese. 97.87.29.188 (talk) 20:59, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

I doubt this meets WP:MEDRS anyway. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:05, 5 July 2011 (UTC)

"Anyway"? Why Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) comment? 97.87.29.188 (talk) 21:42, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

The Wall Street Journal is not a peer reviewed secondary source. Dbrodbeck (talk) 22:51, 7 July 2011 (UTC)

Adult Diagnosed Dyslexia

Hello All,

Please forgive the clumsiness. I am relatively new to this aspect of Wikipedia. Let me explain my situation. I am a doctoral student currently trying to complete an assignment in which we are to "improve" information about a subject in reading on the internet. My professor's rationale is that there is a lot of "bad" or "not helpful" information out there, and he wants us to pick a corner and improve it. I am deeply interested in Adult Diagnosed Dyslexia, or Dyslexia that is not officially diagnosed until adulthood. My interest stems from my personal experiences with this and I have been doing research for a couple of weeks now to discern information about those who may struggle with not receiving a diagnosis until later in life. I noticed the dyslexia page here has a section for signs and symptoms for "secondary school children and adults" that could use some more information; however, the information I have (and need to post for my project) is likely to be disproportionately large compared to the other sections and contain more than just "signs and symptoms." I am wondering if I might be able to make a separate "adult diagnosed dyslexia" article and link it to this page, or if adding another section to this article would be appropriate. Essentially, I am looking for feedback from those most involved in this community of dyslexic information on what and where the information on adult diagnosed dyslexia would be most helpful and useful?

I really appreciate the help. I want to contribute in useful ways, as I think this topic truly deserves space and care. Thank you again.

A.Kaseroff (talk) 18:14, 20 December 2011 (UTC) A.Kaseroff

Changes

Hi all,

I've done some fairly large changes today- moving the history timeline into the history article and removing a load of copyvio text - I'm going to get the dust settle on that before I do any other major changes but I'd like to raise the issue that the 'Dyslexia research' section is much more detailed and advanced that the Dyslexia_research article that it links to - I'd like to spin that out into the Dyslexia_research article as per WP:SS assuming that there are no objections... Fayedizard (talk) 20:21, 29 February 2012 (UTC)

Okay so nobody appeared to object, so I've done some more heavy duty work today - moving various parts of the main article into the sub-articles. Again will let the dust settle for a bit - Any problem's let me know :) Fayedizard (talk) 22:04, 5 March 2012 (UTC)

Yet more hack-and-slash editing today, but I think that should be the last of it for a good while - it's time to take a bit more of a forensic approach... Fayedizard (talk) 22:16, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

Might be a copy via...

So this edit [3] introduced some text in 2009 that appears to be taken from this page [4] - which google dates at 9 Nov 2004... not sure what other people think but I'm going to have a go at extracting/rewritting while keeping the stuff that's been cited since... might be a touch messy for a while... Fayedizard (talk) 21:34, 16 March 2012 (UTC)

may be if you had good copy editing and research skills you could further develop these articles, and demonstrate that you are able to make a positive contribution to the dyslexia project. dolfrog (talk) 02:51, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

DCDC2 and DCDC2 (gene)

Two different articles devoted to the same gene. The gene is associated with a form of dyslexia. Would be great to merge the articles and maybe mention the gene in "Dyslexia". Cheers, --CopperKettle 12:38, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

Well spotted. The creator of DCDC2 should have updated DCDC2 (gene). The merge should be uncontroversial, procedure is at Help:Merging. You should end up with the modified content in DCDC2 (gene) and DCDC2 a redirect with the appropiate talk page template. --Mirokado (talk) 20:38, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

 Done I have gone ahead and merged DCDC2 (gene) into DCDC2. Boghog (talk) 05:55, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

Proposed cognitive subtypes

The sentence "There are three proposed cognitive subtypes of dyslexia: auditory, visual and attentional." appears only in the lead. It has six references with only four facts that need supporting: "proposed", "auditory", "visual" and "attentional". This is contrary to the relevant part of the Wikipedia Manual of Style. What does "proposed" mean here? Is this subdivision not generally accepted? The number of references implies that this information does not belong in the lead. The lead should contain the currently accepted definition of dyslexia. The first sentence appears to define dyslexia well in summary (if it does not in fact do so it needs to be changed). So why is this sentence there? A proposal is not a definition: in the absence of a detailed explanation it looks as if its removal to later in the article was entirely justified. Depending on any explanation it may be possible to copy the sentence to later in the article, moving the references to the copy. --Mirokado (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2012 (UTC)

There is no agreed definition of dyslexia, and the best research based defintion is in that research based sentence, you really do need to do some research, as you seem to have no understanding of dyslexia. dolfrog (talk) 07:24, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

Updates for accessibility

I have agreed with User:Dolfrog (see User talk:Dolfrog/Archives/2012 1#June 2012 among other places) that I will look at both this and related articles when making updates. I will use the list presented in Wikipedia talk:WikiProject_Dyslexia#From the disability project. I hope the original author of that contribution won't mind if we update it as necessary without changing anything else there.

I suggest we discuss issues common to all articles on this talk page.

To start with I will be concentrating on accessibility (see WP:ACCESSIBILITY) which is concerned with making Wikipedia easy to use also for people with disabilities. The obvious example of this is vision impaired users with a screen reader, but, in the context of these articles, it is also important to make the articles easy to comprehend and, for editors, easy to edit. My first edits will thus deal with updating the structure of the articles to take advantage of the work, by many of our fellow editors, in these directions which was not available when the articles were created.

There will be no change at all to the content presented to the reader unless I say otherwise in an edit summary. While I will be changing the way the source creates the article I am not anticipating any substantial change to the style of the presented article. I will structure the changes carefully so that everything mentioned in the edit summary can be seen clearly in the difference listing (I do this anyway so I can easily check the edits).

I will add progress reports and other updates as necessary here in accordance with my normal practice which has worked well on other similar activities. Comments welcome. --Mirokado (talk) 21:18, 6 June 2012 (UTC)

First set of edits to Dysgraphia. A summary of the main points here which will also be relevant for subsequent edits (I will add to this list as necessary without cluttering it with signatures etc):

• using {{cite pmid}} and friends for {{cite journal}} when it has a relevant identifier. This means that the source is more concise, improving readability, and we get consistency within an article and across articles for free since all citations share the same Cite journal definition. I have added year to the existing first author in the reference name as an orientation aid for source editors.
• normalising use of name="fred" in ref tags and similar: uniform use of the quotes helps editors searching for multiple occurences in source text.
• moving multiply-defined reference definitions to the reference list. This means that all occurrences of that inline citation are consistent throughout the article, which can help when searching for them.
• in the case of Dysographia there was only one inline ref definition left, so I moved that to the references list as well, again for source consistency.
• some changes for citation consistency, for example using an appropriate wp:Citation Style 1 definition if available when the other references do so, presentation of author names.
• placing the references in a References section. This is consistent with the lead article Dyslexia and leaves the section title Notes free for "notes" (out-of-line additional information) as opposed to "references" which are out-of-line external supporting documents.

As you can see, consistency will be a major theme of these edits. --Mirokado (talk) 18:45, 7 June 2012 (UTC)

using {{cite pmid}} and friends for {{cite journal}} is not a good idea very not practacle for most editors, and hardly ever used. The inline system is best and easiest to use, especially when there are large numbers of references. Not too sure about the Notes either, most just call them references and further reading, which has not extended to research papers. dolfrog (talk) 20:02, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

There are two Wiki citation generators used for most articles, especially for those using PubMed ID or DOI reference numbers Diberri Wikipedia template filling and DOI Wikipedia reference generator The PubMed option tries to include the DOI when possible. (you always added the DOI manually if need be) dolfrog (talk) 19:33, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Thanks for your response. That is after all why I started this section! I chose a smallish article to act as an example, so not all the options for dealing with a larger article are immediately apparent. Subsections follow, which I hope will make it easier to thread the various individual issues as well as any general comments here. It is not particularly urgent to do any more of these changes until either others have contributed to this discussion or I have to make some "real" edits anyway, so I will concentrate on other issues for the time being... --Mirokado (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Cite pmid

Those templates are not very widely used at least in part because they are fairly new. They would in any case not necessarily be retrofitted to large, stable articles until somebody needed to maintain them. However my experience of using them has been positive. The author formats in the article before the update were inconsistent, which proves that the current situation is unsatisfactory, so without this change you will need to do some careful manual inspection of all the articles. Please.

Let's leave the Cite pmid definitions in that one article for now, I updated it precisely so we (all involved editors not just you and me) could discuss it. Consensus can develop at leisure... Well done for mentioning those tools, I will check them out as necessary. But the generated templates from Cite pmid already contain both ids if both are available with no manual intervention. It has the significant advantage that the resulting source is much easier to read.

As long as the article content is not swamped by reference definitions, and particularly if you or others are making sure the references are consistent when creating new ones, I don't mind too much about using Cite pmid and friends in the actual article or not. (I sort of mind, just not too much). --Mirokado (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Multiply-used references

From my experience with Gaza flotilla raid (not as you can imagine the easiest of articles to help maintain) and related articles, I know that it is difficult for editors to move content accurately if it contains a reference which is also used elsewhere in the article. Precisely splitting (moving content from one article to another) is one of the things you are asking other editors to do, if I have understood you correctly. While I am not yet stating any opinion about doing that, the changes I am proposing prepare the ground for exactly what you appear to want.

This affects references whose definitions are used more than once. It is a significant improvement to have those defined in a predictable place, not needing to be placed elsewhere in the same article if content is moved. That will help new or occasional editors. In Dyslexia this affects only ten out of the 88 citations. --Mirokado (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

General legibility

Perhaps you are so familiar with the source of these articles that you do not realise, but it is totally illegible for a newcomer once there is more reference-definition text than content. Since Wikipedia is "the encyclopedia everyone can edit" such a barrier needs to be removed if it becomes a significant hindrance to new contributors, particularly those with any text comprehension disability, particularly for articles which clearly need a lot of refactoring. It has so far been a massive hindrance to me: even after half an hour's confusion I still could not tell what you did not like when you did [this reversion]. One of the sentences being moved consists of 12 words of content and 148 words of reference definition! Did anything change as well as being moved? Virtually impossible to tell with a reasonable expenditure of time.

Thus it will also be necessary to move the definitions out of paragraphs whose content is otherwise swamped, leaving the much shorter named references with which we are already familiar. If we are not doing everything in one go, that can be done as necessary when editing a problematical section.

Any remaining references can quite happily stay with the content (even if that is not what I would prefer). One or two at the end of a longish paragraph don't do much harm, for example. --Mirokado (talk) 23:20, 8 June 2012 (UTC)

Most editors make one edit in a single section of an article, and they add the reference supporting citations in that section wit the edit, and then the citation is automatically collected in the reference section at the bottom of the article, if the reference has be n used before then a shorten name duplicate can be used. This is a medical article using research paper references not magazine citations. Medical article citations are research paper based, and therefore all editors need to be familiar with medical research paper sources, and the various citation options available. Newcomers have to learn about and undersrtand the content of an article before they can begin editing. So may be you need to begin to read the research papers that support the content of this article, before you begin to make nay more changes. I have noticed that you have a degree, and you would have had to do much research and learning to acquire the knowledge required for your degree, the same applies to medical articles you have to learn about the subject, and the tools you need to work in the area. So you need to become as familiar as I am with the various sources of information, or are you just another fleeting editor not really interested full time dedication to the dyslexia project. dolfrog (talk) 13:23, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

With all due respect, I suggest you read and familiarize yourself with the Manual of Style and the relevant WP policies and guidelines before attempting a wholesale restructuring of the article. Please don't demean your fellow editors--labeling us "fleeting" is not a good idea. Engaging in ad hominem attacks probably won't be a productive strategy, either. You may have a great deal of experience with this subject matter, or you may not. It doesn't much matter, though, because you don't own the article. This is a community effort, and it's not within your purview to tell other editors what to do and dismiss their opinions with a callous "you're not as dedicated as am I" remark.

Perhaps I misread or misunderstood what you wrote and, if I did, I apologize. If not, I recommend you reevaluate your approach. — UncleBubba ^{( T @ C )} 14:54, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Hi I have been part of the Dyslexia project since it started back in 2007 / 2008 the article currently only needs a few tweaks here and there and the addition of some more recent research citations to support the content. There has been a need for this article to be split into a Genaral dyslexia article and a Developmental Dyslexia article, which what most of the current content relates to. There are two types of dyslexia, Developmental Dyslexia which has a genetic origin, and Alexia (acquired dyslexia) which is results fro ma brain injury, substance abuse, stroke or progressive illness. And the dyslexia article should be a summary of both types of dyslexia and the various subtypes with more detailed information on the specific subtypes articles. This has been a proposal from the 2010 Dyslexia project plan of action, but due to a lack of editors willing to engage in the task it never got off the ground. All I have mentioned is that dyslexia has many underlying medical causes which require understanding to enable editing of the articles content, and that edits need to learn like I have how to find the information, and how best to make changes to a medical article, which requires secondary, Review, research citations. I am also aware that many who read this article may have a learning disability, especially as dyslexia is a reading disability which I share with many others. As research improves the understanding of the causes of the dyslexic symptom, then editors should include new findings. Due to my own dyslexia caused by auditory processing disorder, i have word finding problems, which means that i am not able write what I understand the is best suited to Wikipedia articles, but I can find and add the information and supporting research citations, such is the frustration of living with this type of communication disability. dolfrog (talk) 15:31, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

(ec) I can respond to your concerns about "attempting a wholesale restructuring of the article". The reference reorganisations I am (was?) suggesting above would be in preparation for splitting the main article which dolfrog has said he wants, and I could help with. But there are lots of other things I can be doing instead. The approach of do a bit, explain, wait for responses, self-revert if necessary normally works a bit better than this even if other editors say "please don't do it" which of course can happen. I won't be reorganising any of the references in these articles unless there is a clear consensus to do so. There are lots of other routine changes such as completing the odd reference and making presentation consistent which I will do as a matter of course as convenient. --Mirokado (talk) 15:52, 9 June 2012 (UTC)

Can UNIFON help dyslexics?

Has there been any research to see if Unifon could help dyslexics?

If yes, please add info re. it to both the dyslexia and Unifon Wiki pages. Phantom in ca (talk) 01:30, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

I'm curious about what motivates that question. It seems completely random, but it is not the sort of question somebody would ask without a reason. Looie496 (talk) 02:56, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

The main problem is that the system is based on phonics, and most dyslexics have problems processing the the gaps between the sounds that make up a word, so this system poses the same problems as the all other alphabet writing systems to dyslexics who have problems using alphabet writing systems. Dyslexia is langauge dependent and writing system dependent. It appears to be a novel experiment, an attempt to simplify the structure of the English language, at one research centre. dolfrog (talk) 03:55, 2 July 2012 (UTC)

Section on famous people

This looks like a feel-good section, not supported by facts. This section has no references and not all of the linked articles mention dyslexia. A well-supported reference in the person's article should be a requirement for inclusion in this list. 108.234.224.230 (talk) 22:29, 14 December 2012 (UTC)

I totally agree! Do you feel like checking who has such reference in their article and who doesn't? Lova Falk talk 13:11, 15 December 2012 (UTC)

I have removed Leonardo Da Vinci, Thomas Edison and Albert Einstein from this list.There are many web-sites claiming that these men were dyslexic, without any documentation. This claim is often made on dyslexia-support pages("you shouldn't feel bad because so and so also had dyslexia.") It may be that this is just a myth, that has been repeated so many times that it has become "something everybody knows". I will try to find reliable sources.46.9.167.112 (talk) 17:43, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Good work! Personally, I don't see how "famous people with dyslexia" sections contribute to a dyslexia article, but I know many editors like to have them... Lova Falk talk 17:57, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Thank you. I agree, I don't think it belongs here at all, and if other editors feel the need to have this section, they should at least have some sources. I have removed Hans Christian Andersen and Winston Churchill. I found this article on PubMed Hans Christian Andersen's spelling and syntax: allegations of specific dyslexia are unfounded., and this FAQ-Personal life about Winston Churchill on the homepage of the Winston Churchhill centre and museum.46.9.167.112 (talk) 18:30, 18 December 2012 (UTC)

Good work! Much appreciated. Lova Falk talk 08:26, 26 December 2012 (UTC)

I have taken the liberty of removing the entire section for now. It is entirely unsourced, which violates WP:BLP. I personally think that this section should be in the article, however, and I may start working on a properly sourced paragraph or two about famous dyslexics, which would serve better (and less vandal-friendly) than the previous list. Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 02:27, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

I just found List of people diagnosed with dyslexia, which I will link to the article. Sang'gre Habagat (talk) 02:30, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

Very good! In that case, we can keep the list out of this article. Lova Falk talk 19:35, 16 January 2013 (UTC)

New genetic data

This stuff is very exciting, but it is a primary source. Let's wait and see how it is dealt with by a secondary source, per WP:MEDRS. Dbrodbeck (talk) 18:42, 26 September 2013 (UTC)

POV

Alright, in reading this article, it is really skewed to Dyslexia, omitting the types, causes and discussion of what Dyslexia really is. It also fails to address it on a global scale. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:59, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Dyslexia is about having problems with a man made communication system, the visual notation of speech, or the graphic symbols society chooses to represent the sounds of speech. Dyslexia is a social construct, and language dependent. There are two different types of dyslexia, Alexia (Acquired Dyslexia) which is caused by brain injury, stroke, or a progressive illness; and Developmental Dyslexia which has a genetic origin. Some children may also acquire underlying causes of the dyslexic symptom during their natural development, say from suffering from otitis media or some form of brain injury. There are three cognitive subtypes of developmental dyslexia, auditory, visual, and attentional; and the are various subtypes of Alexia related to the location of lesions, or atrophy including surface dyslexia, deep dyslexia, phonlogical dyslexia, semantic dyslexia, pure alexia, and more. dolfrog (talk) 17:25, 29 October 2013 (UTC)

Yes, but it deals specifically with "developmental dyslexia" and not "dyslexia" as a whole. It makes little sense to ignore or avoid the 70+ classifications of dyslexia - and to be perfectly fair - "surface dyslexia" as a type of alexia should be covered under a broad article on dyslexia simply because that is part of its name and classification. For a worldview, it is very heavily biased to the Latin alphabet and particularly the English language. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 01:07, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Chris I spent almost a year trying to get this article to represent the international research regarding developmental dyslexia back in 2009-2010, others have since made changes, and currently I do not want to go through all that stress again. I still have some of my PubMed and other related research paper collections on my user page, which may provide some links to some of the more recent research.

There are only three cognitive subtypes of developmental dyslexia. And there is also a great deal of marketing hype from program providers and their various marketing agencies some of which pose as support agencies; all very clever marketing to sell programs. But ignores the research trying to identify the causes of the dyslexic symptom. Alexia is an acquired form of the dyslexic symptom and has its own articles and sub articles on wikipedia. As you say this article claims to be about developmental dyslexia and that should mean changing the title of the Article to "Developmental dyslexia" may be by transferring much of the content of this article to the new article, while changing the content of this article "Dyslexia" to act as a summary of all types and subtypes of dyslexia including links to each of the main articles for each type and subtype of the dyslexic symptom. And yes dyslexia is language dependent and a social construct, not a medical condition. It is the various underlying conditions that share the dyslexic symptom dolfrog (talk) 03:02, 30 October 2013 (UTC)

Your removal of the section on Davis as "marketing hype" is really unconstructive and seems to be a bad faith accusation. Could you explain why you think it is "marketing hype"? Removing sourced information from articles is generally a bad thing and you didn't give a satisfactory explanation. It is time to discuss now. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:40, 31 October 2013 (UTC)

Davis only markets his programs, books, etc there is no scientific research for his claims, and his web site designer had been trying to edit this article some years ago. Dyslexia is not a "Gift" that is the sales pitch or hype. The alternative skills and abilities we dyslexics access, develop and use are exhausting to use, not a "gift". It really depends if you understand what dyslexia is or whether you want to play to the dyslexia industry promoting their books, remedial programs and philosophies. The international research is there if you want to read it, or ypou can continue with the marketing hype from Davis, the various Orton Gillingham marketing agencies, and others whose income is based on supposedly supporting dyslexics, but is actually all about selling a product or service. dolfrog (talk) 13:26, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

Or to put this another way, Davis and the so called "Gift of dyslexia" are as the title of this thread pure POV. You really do need to read the body of international research and get away from the marketing hype of the dyslexia industry that makes its money from dyslexics; the marketing and selling remedial programs and philosophies. dolfrog (talk) 14:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

First of all, "marketing hype" does not mean you can push dyslexia as entirely negative or purge out other view points. Davis's work has been well received for more than 25 years from both industry experts and journalists and you seem to be well aware of this. You are making a red herring by stating because the man has a book it is "marketing hype" and I renamed the section, but it doesn't change that dyslexia is not universally panned as some form of mental retardation, brain defect or otherwise and Davis's methods are employed in dozens of countries. Clearly, your attempt to push it out is contentious, but "marketing hype" is not going to be an excuse. You will have to put an argument to your objection. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 23:06, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

The real issue is whether this article is about dyslexia, developmental dyslexia, and understanding the cognitive neurology that causes the dyslexic symptom, or whether the article is about folk law and mythology. Davis is not part of any scientific research, it is about making dyslexia more accaptable, and a sales gimic. My days of editing this article are over, I have a clinical diagnosis of the underlying cognitive cause of my dyslexic symptom, the real problem is that other dyslexics are not be able to access the correct information to help them understand the cause or causes of their dyslexic symptom and more importantly not able to understand the best alternative compensating skills and abilities they may be able to develop to work around their deficit / disorder /disability from this article. And none the correct information comes from the dyslexia industry who are only interested in selling their product regardless of whether they can help the various cognitive subtypes of dyslexic. Some of the research papers you may need to improve this article may be found in the research paper collections listed on my user page. Good luck editing this article dolfrog (talk) 03:34, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I did not realize you were emotionally attached here or that you consider yourself to be able to judge what is "correct" and what is not. Please read WP:TRUTH and re-read the Terms of Use. Wikipedia does not and should not gear towards the treatment of any condition, mental or otherwise! I understand your position, but you are not being objective and you are espousing a clear bad faith and knee-jerk reaction here. I suggestion you calm yourself down and try to explain what's wrong with Davis's 25+ year work in the field before you go blasting his work as "folk law or mythology" or "a sales gimic[sic]". Wikipedia is a collaborative place; but I don't want you going off in a huff if you cannot articulate your reasons for opposing. I'll wait a bit, just gather your thoughts. ChrisGualtieri (talk) 04:05, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

I would suggest you begin by reading some of the vast body of international research regarding dyslexia. The truth is in the research not with those who have products to sell. And you will be surprised who the biggest marketing agencies really are. Just follow the money, and after reading the reseach you will realise why the dyslexia industry want the research surpressed, because the research demonstrates what snake oil sale men they are. Read the research, this was some time ago a research based article, and should be supported by Secondary (review) research and no POV or marketing. From my perspective I have done the research for the content of this article, and due to the cause of my dyslexic symptom I have few if any copy editing skills, and limit my self to improving citations etc on Wikipedia, and removing nonsense. So if you want to use the research compilation regarding dyslexia on my user page then that is all i can do, if not I understand. I now have more interest in other articles covering many of the wider related issues. You wrote "Wikipedia does not and should not gear towards the treatment of any condition, mental or otherwise!" well that is what Davis is all about and nothing else. As I said at the beginning of this read the research and find out what dyslexia really is about, I did post a link to this years international symposium below which would be a good starting place. There are more research paper collections here if you are interested, and if you need summary of the most useful papers have a look at my Diigo dyslexia links list. Again I wish you well, unfortunately this article has too many stressful memories for me from years gone bye. dolfrog (talk) 04:53, 2 November 2013 (UTC)

A new starting point

There was an International Dyslexia Symposium held this year at Oxford University UK, the program page is still available online, and also includes some downloads. The program used by the researchers may provide outline for how this article should be laid out. Obviously international research will continue to improve the understanding of the issues which cause the dyslexic symptom for both Alexia (acquired dyslexia) and Developmental Dyslexia. Hopefully the related Wikipedia articles can reflect International research regarding Dyslexia. dolfrog (talk) 16:40, 1 November 2013 (UTC)

criticism of the phenomenon.

A 'Criticisms' section has been twice added, and reverted by me. The citations used are not WP:MEDRS compliant. I am opening this discussion in hopes that the editor who added them can bring his or her concerns here. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:30, 6 March 2014 (UTC)

I added a criticism sections with reliable references from academics including professors. I think it's a legitimate section based on the valid sources and wp:npov.

It's just adding what some certified educationalists think of the phenomenon . It doesnt deal with adding reliable sources regarding cures & medicines. It's a legitimate section per wp:npov giving an alternate viewpoint69.165.246.181 (talk) 00:31, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Indeed, could we find sources in peer reviewed journals? Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:20, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

You are in 3RR territory, before we have consensus could you please revert back to the original version? Dbrodbeck (talk) 01:22, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

No, if it is disputed, you should add the appropriate template for that section. The sources cited are clearly reliable as far as wp policy goes. 69.165.246.181 (talk) 03:01, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Please read WP:BRD. We have a grand total on one editor adding something (you) and a grand total of one editor (me) removing something. There is then no consensus to add the material. Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Buzzfeed and the Daily Mail are not really great sources, especially for a medical article, and who cares what these people think? Dbrodbeck (talk) 12:50, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The Telegraph, Daily Mail and Guardian are not good sources for a claim as strong as labelling dyslexia as pseudoscience. Buzzfeed isn't a good place for "researches at Yale and Durham" to be published. This section is WP:UNDUE in my humble opinion as it demonstrates no acceptance of its premise among mainstream reliable sources. Where are the articles published in scholarly journals to back up these claims? I'm removing the section and I'd advise 69.165.246.181 to review WP:MEDRS. --RexxS (talk) 13:28, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

MEDRS definitely should apply to this article, but not for all sections. "Society and culture" and "History" might include some RS sources. Would be good to get better sources to build the culture section which is currently underdeveloped, however I think populating it only with this statement would be a bit undue. Also, there is no such MEDMOS heading as "Criticism of the phenomenon"... which anyway has difficulties... the people are quoted as saying dyslexia does not exist, whereas calling it a "phenomenon" implies existence. "Non-mainstream views" might be better.

However, saying a medical condition does not exist requires a MEDRS source. Plus, there is the WP:UNDUE concern added by RexxS.Dbrodbeck (talk) 13:41, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Agree, but, if there are enough of these sentiments floating around in the academic literature, against the concept of dyslexia, then the article should mention them. Sources better than newspapers are desirable. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.40.85.171 (talk) 13:47, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

The book which these articles refer to have yet to be published. However the ideas they are propsing are not new, and international research of the last decade has been supporting the idea that dyslexia is not a condition, more a shared symptom of various underlying cognitive deficits / disorders. Dyslexia has been demonstrated to be langauge dependent, and a Social Construct, which was the description Julian Elliott used in one of his previous papers. Dyslexia is a man made problem about having problems using a man made communication system the visual notation of speech, or the graphic symbols society chooses to represent the sounds of speech. There are two type of dyslexia, Alexia (acquired dyslexia) which is caused by brain injury, stroke or atrophy, and developmental dyslexia which has a genetic origin. There are three cognitive subtypes of developmental dyslexia auditory, visual, and attentional, which means that an auditory processing disorder, a visual processing disorder, an attention disorder or any combination of these issues can cause the dyslexic symptom. (Phonological processing is a form of Auditory processing or processing the sound your ears hear.) The 2013 International dyslexia symposium has more detail and the recent changes in DSM-5 dolfrog (talk) 14:00, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

Research papers regarding these issues may be found in some of the CiteULike research paper sahring groups. Developmental Dyslexia , Alexia (acquired dyslexia) , and Reading: Acquiring and Developing the Skills and Abilities dolfrog (talk) 14:23, 7 March 2014 (UTC)

If you can't find any other criticism than that book I feel we are awfully far out in WP:UNDUE. Noone is stopping you from adding well sourced criticism, but Buzzfeed and Dailymail are horrible sources for anything at all. Information is contorted to give the most impact, with no respect to what is true or not. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 05:40, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

The main problem regarding dyslexia is the marketing hype from the remedial program providers such as the Orton Gillingham organisation, and its various marketing agencies, which in turm own two dyslexia research jopurnals, with some editorial influence. So we have to look at truely independent research free from the influences of the dyslexia industry, which even has some bogus qualifications which really only mean that a person is a qualified Orton Gillingham program provider. Some of the best research comes from say Germany, Finland, and Asia, discussing the dyslexic issue with regard to a wide range of languages and writing systems. Another issue is which profession or professions should be involved in the clinical diagnostic process, andwhich professions should only be involved with providing support for the clinically diagnosed information processing disability that causes the dyslexic symptom. some who currently diagnose dyslexia may loose this income source as other professions are better place to diagnose thew actual medical issues. And another issue is the problem of multi discipline teams working together, will the various professions and professionals be willing to work as part of professional team to help an individual who may have oneor more causes of their dyslexic symptom or may require multiple forms of support. dolfrog (talk) 16:21, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Ok, those are the problems. What parts of the article do you feel should be changed and improved? Do you have any suggestions for any good sources for those statements? As you say the German, Finish and Asian research groups must have review articles we can use. Cochrane has two reviews which discuss dyslexia at [5]. Those are generally regarded as of utmost quality. Generally speaking systematic reviews are regarded higher than just any review, and using them are the best way to avoid fringe views from those with monetary interest. CFCF (talk · contribs · email) 17:26, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

-I will add further sources and just added one from the BBC. Don't tell me that's not a reliable source. I've read through wp:rs many to know what I'm talking about.69.165.246.181 (talk) 21:10, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Do you have a source that meets MEDRS? A scholarly review perhaps? That would be best. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:30, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

• I am adding an important section that is only stating that academicians claim it to be fiction. It is not trying to pursue readers into believing it is fiction. It is only explaining what scholars think and it seems I'm not the only one here. Quiet a few followers of the dyslexia cult here with their team-tag. But hey isn't every favorite topic.69.165.246.181 (talk) 21:45, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Actually, what you are doing is adding material against consensus and edit warring. Dbrodbeck (talk) 21:49, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

(edit conflict) @69.165.246.181: Sadly, you don't know what you're talking about. The BBC reporting what Graham Stringer said isn't a reliable source for the claim that dyslexia is a myth. Stringer is an MP who was previously a chemist and has no standing whatsoever to comment on dyslexia. You are attempting to push these sort of worthless pieces of yellow journalism against a vast body of medical and scientific literature that holds the opposite view. You need to read WP:UNDUE:

• "Wikipedia should not present a dispute as if a view held by a small minority deserved as much attention overall as the majority view. Views that are held by a tiny minority should not be represented except in articles devoted to those views (such as Flat Earth). To give undue weight to the view of a significant minority, or to include that of a tiny minority, might be misleading as to the shape of the dispute. Wikipedia aims to present competing views in proportion to their representation in reliable sources on the subject."

This article contains over 100 good quality sources from peer-reviewed scholarly journals and books from respected publishers. None of these suggest that dyslexia is a myth or pseudoscience, and the view of the overwhelming majority of reliable sources on the issue is absolutely clear. --RexxS (talk) 21:53, 8 March 2014 (UTC)

Merger with Alexia

Copied from User:Dolfrog talk page by Dolfrog (formated by User:Moxy).

Hello User:Dolfrog; Your edits at Alexia and Dyslexia appeared not to know about the page upgrade discussion on these pages presently taking place at the Talk page at User:Zad68. You are welcome to join us, and to let us know your thoughts prior to further edits to the article which would be to save time and redundant edits. Cheers. FelixRosch (TALK) 19:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no place for this ignornce which is not based in research just your personal opinions dolfrog (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Alexia (condition) and Dyslexia. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, doing so without constructive discussion on the relevant Talk page is very likely to lead to a block. FelixRosch (TALK) 19:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

May be you should hold these discussions on the articles talk pages and not in a private user page discussion. This is not wikipedia practice more about discussing your personal opinions. which are not based on international research. And from what I have seem is more about the marketing of various group ideas not improving the articles content using international research. So your changes are inline with wikipedia practice but more discussing your own private opinions in private and not on the various articles discussion pages with other users / editors dolfrog (talk) 22:08, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Basically they only wish to express their own opinions and not discuss any issues on this talk page dolfrog (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

So lets start a talk about the merger that took place with this edit from here. I am assuming that Felix is referring to this conversation where he mentions his intent to implement some changes. No real conversation about merging old content ...more about the R48.0 classification on dyslexia and alexia. So what are the problems with the merger and how can they be fixed? Or should it all be restored to the original version. These are the questions we are talking about - correct?. Thus first question - should a merger take place at all... as in does Alexia merit its own article as per Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine). Then secondly - if Alexia should be merged is the info proper and sourced well, thus merit to stay in Wikipedia at all. We would really needs sources, especially for the stuff copied over from the other page that have had citation tags for years - and fix ref errors now here. So lets talk about this point for point and get things moving in the right direction. -- Moxy (talk) 00:55, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I second Moxy, what's more I was at the "talk" listed on Wikipedia med, no one was there. So what do you have in mind, and why don't we begin with the questions Moxy brought up?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:19, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Google Books · Google Scholar · JSTOR

Alexander Leff; Randi Starrfelt (October 17, 2013). Alexia: Diagnosis, Treatment and Theory. Springer Science & Business Media. ISBN 978-1-4471-5529-4.

Could somebody start from the beginning and tell me what the actual proposal is? For example, I see in the history that Dolfrog removed some well-sourced information about the different types of dyslexia, and I don't understand why. I also see that he removed links to charitable organizations. The edit summaries are all the same, which confuses me.

The first removal makes no sense to me, and the edit summary is factually wrong, because

• "sourced" is the opposite of "personal opinion" and "original research", and
• I really doubt that Dolfrog believes that Felix has just made up the idea of central dyslexias (for example).

The second removal is a good one, since lists of charities shouldn't be in the article, per WP:MEDMOS and WP:EL.

But it sounds to me like there is some bigger, over-arching problem here. What exactly is the bigger problem? WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:30, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

There seems to be two things going on at once. First a copy and paste of the article "Alexia" now a redirect to here and some random purging of that copy and paste along with other stuff removed that was already here. To be honest I think its best we reinstate both pages..start from the beginning. -- Moxy (talk) 04:39, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

• Was there a discussion about merging alexia and dyslexia? Alexia appears to be a type of dyslexia and sometimes is used synonymously thus a merge seems reasonable.[6] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 05:58, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

Are the meanings of dyslexia and alexia consistent across national varieties of English? When the terms are related and all parties appear to have credible references, I start to wonder. —Shelley V. Adams ‹blame
credit› 20:06, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

It appears to be similar to the situation with dysrhythmia and arrhythmia. Both are used interchangeably even though technically there is only one arrhythmia and that is asystole which is a subtype of dysrhythmia. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:45, 3 January 2015 (UTC)

I agree with Doc here....but we need to be clear in this article if the merger is to stay. Technically, a patient with alexia is completely unable to read, while dyslexia refers to a less severe form of the disorder. Alexia is something acquired and dyslexia is developmental. One could say dyslexia is really the parent term...with alexia having a specific cause with a worse outcome....but many source view it in a different light. This may be a hard one...any resident experts? -- Moxy (talk) 00:28, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

[7] and [8] suggest both are sufficiently different to warrant individual journal studies, logic dictates they should warrant separate articles--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:24, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

So what should we do about this copy and pasting mess? Wish this copy and pasting was not such a problem all the time. -- Moxy (talk) 16:23, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

copy and paste is a slap in the face to all who spend so much time (present company included) in crafting an article, perhaps ANI is where (the user) should be taken, I would be willing to spend the time redoing the article ( I already do ebola/west Africa) why not another--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:56, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

The editor in-question does have this problem copy and pasting all over including copyrighted material from the net...they just dont care. But we should just look at this one article for now....a user copyright investigation can take place later after all the current problems are solve (there are many) -- Moxy (talk) 22:58, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

References

so I can start tomorrow morning, its 66,000 bytes I will go over it, but I don't think I can do it alone (im already working on the ebola/west Africa article) I could use some help, would you have time?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:14, 4 January 2015 (UTC)

This line is interesting "developmental dyslexia is different from acquired dyslexia, sometimes called alexia"[9] Either we should merge the two and discuss both here or we could have a disambig page for dyslexia that links to "developmental dyslexia" and "acquired dyslexia" Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:40, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

IMO they seem to be different( as indicated by the refs above) and as a result need their individual articles, on a side note ive been editing this article for a few hours now and could use any help--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:52, 5 January 2015 (UTC)

Quick review

In my view the sources are mostly too old - with many from the 1990s, and a 9 year old source in German... needs lots of work improving sources and updating content based on them. ...Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

3 Additional review 4 WikiProject Did you know nomination 4.1 Dyslexia

GA nomination preparation (before review)[edit]

below you will find the response I received at the help desk Dyslexia[edit]

hi, some time ago I took over an article (dyslexia) which was a mess, copyvio, etc. Recently Ive done about 100 edits on it and have slashed 12,000 bytes, two other contributors came in and helped as well. At this point where can I go to have someone take a look at the overall quality of the article and give me his/her opinion.i would eventually like to take it for GA nomination thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Hi Ozzie! I skimmed the whole article for a few minutes and I have to say: great work, to you all! Okay so since you think it's ready for a GA nomination, head over to the good article page, make sure the page is up to par, and then head over to the GA nominations page and nominate it. Be aware though, nominations do not happen overnight, it could take weeks to get reviewed. Just be patient and good luck. -A Wild Abigail Appears! Capture me. Moves. 15:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC) thank you, that's very kind of you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

before taking any steps I would like to get opinions from chris (and basie) thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Quick review

In my view the sources are mostly too old - with many from the 1990s, and a 9 year old source in German... needs lots of work improving sources and updating content based on them. ...Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC) it could be that some dates are more reflective of sources that were "quality" when published, so we may add newer ones via review articles as long as the quality is not altered. Having said that many times one finds that when one is looking at a specific sub topic, there just might not be a available source that is recent. Also one has to deal with the nature of a source, which might influence whether you pick that latest or something more established. On a side note, two other individuals had gone over the article and didn't mention the sources so im not sure if that opinion is generally viewed.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC) I will go over the article and add sources like text books. I do agree that old studies dont help readers much..but they are good sources....I will add real books with detail that all can see... like this -- Moxy (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)Ozzie please read WP:MEDDATE. That is a well established part of MEDRS and an important one too. If other reviewers didn't notice how old the sources are, that is the result of carelessness. I will work on updating the sources with you. Jytdog (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)we here welcome any opportunity from all editors to improve this article of course im certain we are all well versed on "MEDDATE" but again there are many things to weight ,IMO just because something was written today, doesn't mean it is better than an earlier source if the quality is better, in any event, as we go forward we will base each source on its merits as well as all factors. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC) @Ozzie10aaaa: I skimmed through the article text and went through the source to check for compliance with the MOS-related GA criteria (I did a few unrelated MOS compliance checks as well). There were a few minor issues that I saw/fixed, but overall I think the article text/writing quality is decent enough, so it should pass the "well written" GA criteria; although, it may need a few more minor text revisions in a certain sections. Except for the references that I formatted, I haven't looked at the citations, so I don't know yet if any of them need to be replaced with a current medical review to meet the WP:MEDRS standard. In most cases, it's generally pretty simple to find a current MEDRS-quality review to replace older citations.

Sometime tomorrow when I have more time, I'll read through the article more thoroughly and check the citations for any issues, and then make any changes I can to help you get through the GA review process. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 04:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

thank you for your knowledgeable assistance--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)Sepppi, it should not just be a matter of swapping sources out! New sources ~should~ lead to new content. The point is that the article reflects current sure knowledge - not the state of the field 15 years ago.... it may be that nothing has been learned, but that would be disappointing, wouldn't it? I've been gathering reviews. There are a lot. Jytdog (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC) @Jytdog: I completely agree with you; if I go through the trouble of looking for a replacement source for a statement without a MEDRS-quality review, I almost always end up making some form of text revision if only to ensure that the statement is directly supported (for WP:V compliance) by the replacement review. I usually do add any notable/useful content from replacement reviews if I notice any when I skim through them; when I don't have a lot of time, I usually just put quotes of noteworthy material from the review into the citation quote parameter for adding later. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 16:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC) Seconding previous comments: it's generally well-written, but if this wants to be a GA, it needs major overhaul of sourcing. Partly to get newer MEDRS-quality ones; but partly because (and this is a problem going way back for Wikipedia's whole coverage of dyslexia-related topics) it's become a linkfarm of statements linked to primary sources, mostly with no way for the reader to verify that any statement, or the overall selection of topics, represents a secondary consensus. Some sources don't even appear to have been checked; earlier today I found that the first sentence in the article (about alexia being a synonym for dyslexia) cited a primary paper that didn't even mention the terms "alexia" and "dyslexia". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC) As you can tell we are all ready on top of anything that was left without appropriate sourcing, as you might have noticed user:Moxy already went over some points you have raised. Tomorrow I plan to go over the entire article again to finish anything that that might be in question we plan to present a GA quality article and we know the work needed. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC) You might check the Dyslexia#History section, which has a sentence fragment - "A description of phonological and surface types of developmental dyslexia (dysphonetic and dyseidetic, respectively) to classical subtypes of alexia which are classified according to the rate of errors in reading non-words" - that I can't quite see how to fix because it doesn't readily relate to the following citation. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC) so therefore lets remember-[1]

1.Well-written: a.the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and b.it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[2]

2.Verifiable with no original research:[3] a.it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;[4] b.all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[5] and c.it contains no original research.

3.Broad in its coverage: a.it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[6] and b.it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4.Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. 5.Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[7] 6.Illustrated, if possible, by images:[8] a.images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and b.images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

these are the points we must adhere to--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC) fwiw, ozzie, gordon took time out of his life to read carefully and give you feedback. "thanks" would be a more appropriate response. and if you presented that list b/c it says nothing about being up-to-date... well hm. Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC) the purpose of the list is to understand the goals that must be satisfied, to therefore meet the criteria for a GA review, in this case the 6 main points, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)As mentioned above I have added and changed some sources...will do more if need be. I have made a new section "Further reading" of the books I did not use as sources ,,but are good source of info. -- Moxy (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC) teamwork(im proud to be a part of Moxy's team)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)note - i apologize for not helping with the work so far. I have watched the updating of the sources. It was good to see them updated, but what i saw in almost every instance, was that the citation was changed, and the content wasn't changed at all. (example of 2 ref updates here) to be frank i have less faith in the article now than i did before. i believe it was verified but outdated before; now i don't believe the content will verify. i don't think you should put this up for GA. until somebody reads it over carefully for VERIFY. Jytdog (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Not sure I like that lack of good faith being put forth..but o well... Lets look at the example you gave here) If one would have taken the time to look one would have seen that it was not properly dated in the first place...a portion of the edit only corrected the date of publication and added some marital that was removed because it was not sourced..thus a source was added. I suggest all look at the updated source...see if there are any real problems before commenting. In most cases sources were simply added not replaced.- Moxy (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC) it is not a question of any kind of faith. i observed behavior, which was changing many references and changing the content little. (note, in the bottom half of that dif, content was moved from one side of the ref to the other, but not changed. just moved) Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Feel free to look over the changes....not much change to the content as it was all done pretty well ..as in sourced with 21st century refs and with uptodate info before hand. What did take place was the additions of sources (not often replaced) that go into details about the topics at hand. Medical and journal news articles fail to discuss important issues in detail ..thus modern medical books were added to backup the already sourced info that was not out dated...as per the new source added. High-quality reliable sources generally talk about more then an individual case report or study, thus sources with more info was added. The best thing we can do for our readers is to allow then access to information.,,,be it with one or two or three refs. -- Moxy (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC) you and i are seeing different articles. but i will try to review this weekend. Jytdog (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC) Jytdog I don't see why we cant see eye to eye, and therefore have a GA article, since our intention is meeting the criteria set forth for such a review, we of course welcome your opinion equally as anyone elses and thank you --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC) What is this?[edit]

Menu

0:00

Impaired-extraction-of-speech-rhythm-from-temporal-modulation-patterns-in-speech-in-Developmental Dyslexia-Audio4

This file is linked in the article without a description, and when I go to the information page it links to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3591889/?tool=pmcentrez – seemingly completely unrelated. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC) its from Wikimedia commons, I was going to get rid of it, it should play but does not (thanks for deleting it, there are four such files on dyslexia at Wikimedia commons, I must have mistakenly picked this one)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC) GA Review[edit]

GA toolbox

Peer review Dup detector Disambig links External links

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dyslexia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review. Reviewer: Bluerasberry (talk · contribs) 13:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Review from Bluerasberry[edit]

I compared the content in the sections of this article to what is expected to be included per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Diseases_or_disorders_or_syndromes. Currently, this article has no sections for prevention/screening, outcomes/prognosis, or society and culture. If these sections where in the article, I think "testing" might be an appropriate replacement for the screening section, which could complement the following "diagnosis" section. I think it would be right to include something about whatever testing procedures exist to screen or test for this condition. In the outcomes section, something ought to be said about the kind of life a person with dyslexia can expect. Is this a major disability, a minor inconvenience, or something in between? What is most common? For the society and culture section, I think that something should be said about social stigma of the condition and the culture of the population with dyslexia. It is likely that persons with this condition share the common experience of having a period of frustration in school. There could be some list of depictions of dyslexia in popular culture, such as Taare Zameen Par.

In the "signs and symptoms" section the "language" subsection talks about the difficulties of learning different languages but makes no connection to how this is relevant to dyslexia. The connection should be made. Likewise the "mechanism" section talks about the mechanism of learning language, but does not connect this concept to dyslexia and it should explicitly do so.

The "management" section shows a "dyslexia typewriter" but does not explain what this is. The source cited does not explain either. Somehow this picture should be explained.

I checked nothing other in this review than to see if the article contained the content required by MEDMOS. This is item 3 of the Wikipedia:Good article criteria. To pass GA, someone else should check the other items. If either the missing content can be added or someone can explain why it should not be added, then I would endorse a pass of this article for item 3 of the criteria. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC) I will immediately look at possibly adding an additional section as you have indicated above. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC) 1. I have added sections as per your suggestions on testing, prognosis and a sub-section on society.

2. I have deleted the typewriter (which was a special adapted device for dyslexics, in favor of the Open Dyslexic font image with reference)

3. as a whole I think, im generally covering what you stated above, having said that if for any reason, we need more effort I will add information, references and images were they are expected to be, I thank you for taking the time to have given me the above analysis, do not hesitate to further any information you deem fit, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC) Quick side note: GAs don't have to comply with MEDMOS. But if you can find good information on those subjects, then I think that would be great. For ==Prevention==, I would add it only if there is something that can be done. "Lots of people have ideas, but probably none of it works" would not be worth including. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC) thank you, that is a very good point--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Thanks for the changes and updates. I endorse a pass for item 3 of the Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Someone else should review for the other items. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Blue Rasberry I thank you for your endorsement and gracious manner in this review, thank you again--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC) Review from Cas Liber[edit]

Taking a look now - sorry re delay. I copyedited as I went so please look at them and the accompanying edit summaries...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC) See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Citations - do we really need all the inline refs in the lead? I generally have none no hard and fast rules..... No obvious copyvios detected (a good thing!) Dyslexia is "a group of language-related conditions in which reading problems reflect impairment in the representation and manipulation of phonemes". - if this is a quote, we should include which body made it/defined it thus. The orthographic complexity of a language (i.e., conventional spelling system) directly impacts how difficult learning to read the language is --> "directly" is redundant and should be removed. ...posing other problems to dyslexic learners, as well as to theories of dyslexia - what problems to theories? This left me curious...can we expand upon this? Avoid any 1-2 sentence paras by expanding or merging.

More later (I need to sleep now!) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC) I am looking to address all the issues you have stated, thank you,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC) Ok - just brushed my teeth - will keep looking for a few minutes (nearly midnight here in Oz) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)1.in regards to references, they can be taken out,it is my view the reader gets more info, however I can remove if you wish 2.no copyvios 3.this point has been fixed, the paragraph did not need to start with that sentence 4.is redundant and has had parts removed 5.point has been fixed 6.will merge 2-3 sentences (as in the "test" section) Right, last thing for tonight - Cerebellar theory of dyslexia is probably best talked about in the article rather than as a seealso link...

7: new information (on cerebellum) added with reference--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)this is a case report and I wouldn't use it to support a general statement in the article, in fact MEDRS would insist we don't use this ref at all. I will therefore replace it--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)8: it has been removed, as there were two references for the sentence in question.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)An example of one of the problems dyslexics experience would be seeing letters clearly, this may be due to abnormal development of their visual nerve cells - this scans oddly in English - either replace the comma with a semicolon or change the "this" into a "which"....9:done changed to "which" --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Research has shown an increased proneness to the Stroop effect, used in tests for attention deficit, in individuals with dyslexia - am in two minds - medmos would say remove it but more about psychometrics than clinical effect - I can see a case for including it, but in this case I'd give authors and dates so folks know it's one study..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)10:best to go MEDMOS...and remove--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC) Notes[edit]

i started going through this and got as far as para 2.1. i read over each ref and saw whether it supported the content or not. i found junk refs that added no value, refs where there was no pmid which made it harder than necessary to check if the source was primary or secondary, and after i added pmid, i found many, many primary sources. i tagged them. when book chapters were cited, the chapter was not cited, just the book. I will keep going, but have to leave now. Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC) Sounds good,,,I will take the time to fix the problems that have come up (change content if needed) over the next few days......this is what i have been working on already. I will also fix all the external page numbers as this has been a problem in the past for some GA reviewers (not sure what the current reviewer thinks of them?). Thank you for the copying editing along the way Jytdog.. -- Moxy (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC) I am going to step back from this page for a bit ....not sure that removing academic books like medical encyclopaedias and replacing them with a web sites that have no details will help our readers in the long run. -- Moxy (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC) There is nothing wrong with academic books as long as page numbers are provided. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Moxy I assume you are talking about this dif I made? In my view that dif is a great improvement.Jytdog (talk) 06:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)Nope ..that edit was fine..great rewrite..though the same info can be found in a real publication. Lead now all sourced to web pages with very little info over academic books that go into details. I am concerned many of the new sources were just found today when doing a Google search over actually knowing what publications contain this info with the case studies etc.. All that said I do understand that the last there editors here have great experience at this ...thus why I will step back. I just think more info in sources is better,--Moxy (talk) 08:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Lead uses simple language. Refs in the lead are too the NIH, a 2012 Lancet review and a number of textbooks. Thus not "all sourced to web pages"I do not find NIH material by a random google search but actually navigate directly there as it is a good enough source and most importantly uses simple language and provides a general overview. Plus one can closely paraphrase as they are PD.I am happy with more complicated sources being used in the body but they content needs to be significantly simplified. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Simplification[edit]

The lead was too complicated. I took a go at simplifying it. Some of the rest of the article could also use a bit of simplification. Used this 2012 Lancet review for some of it http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3465717/ Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Another good review [2] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC) edits today[edit]

Ozzie10aaaa i am going through your changes today. in this dif you renamed the ref badly. You called it "The Defining Feature of Dyslexia Is Reversing Letters" when the actual title is "Myth 17: The Defining Feature of Dyslexia Is Reversing Letters". The way you named it, makes it appear that the source says the opposite of what it actually says. I fixed that. in this dif you replaced 2 primary sources with a review, which ~looks~ great. most importantly, the new source does not support the content - the review is focused on auditory learning and plasticity at different points in development, and uses comparisons between music learning and language learning to illuminate that. the word "dyslexia" is mentioned in exactly one sentence which says nothing about word retrieval or naming things. This is exactly the kind of thing i mentioned above and this article should not pass GA review until every single new source is checked to make sure it supports the content. which is what I am doing. I am really really unhappy with this. Bad news. I have removed the source and tagged this as citation needed. on a much more minor level, in the citation, you provided a URL to the PMC version of the article and an access date. As I wrote in several edit notes, you don't need an "access date" field for a journal article or book (you can do it if you like, but we are busy and why waste time with something you don't need), and instead of providing the URL to the PMC article, it would be WAY WAY better to use the pmid and pmc paramters - the pmid is especially important for looking to see if the source is PRIMARY or SECONDARY, and if you use the pmc parameter, the template automatically provides the hyperlink to the free version, so you don't have to use the url field. In any case, I would appreciate it, and I reckon other members of project med, would appreciate it, if you at least used the pmid parameter, thanks.

the new source DOES support the content if im not mistaken the individual above is incorrect the citation was replaced by Moxy.thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC) look at the dif - there i just provided again. Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Yes check.svg Done All ok now new source added...best the small problems are just dealt with over chastising each other. I will fix what I can as I have been doing with the sources as problems come up...but copy-editing is not my strong point.-- Moxy (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ as i mentioned above, I remain really concerned with the sourcing here. I understand the attraction of going for GA but the article actually has to be sound fundamentally - the sources need to be up to date and the content needs to reflect the sources. the criteria are what they are, but to me GA/FA are just bullshit shiny badges - what matters is that articles in WP provide great, well sourced content to readers. I will keep working through the sourcing you have provided. and to both oz and moxy, if you cite a book with chapters please cite the chapter. thx Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Jyt, take a breath. This is not a constructive way to give criticism (especially if others are feeling "chastised" in the process) and improve the article. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC) (edit conflict) - :::Yes we all need to tone it down a bit....About sources I am also concerned that scholarly sources by leading experts are begin replaced by web sites with less info that will be dead links in a few months.. (but not a big deal in the long run if the extensive sources are in the article as Doc mentioned above). I will try to cite chapters but the tools we all use dont do that. However I will take the time to fill it out manually when I notice.-- Moxy (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC) unfortunately individuals who have not contributed to this article, are now interested for some odd reason... in any event editors come and go however the articles stay and that's what is important to the reader. Hopefully the reviewer will take heart in the effort those who have contributed during the span of this article, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC) oz you asked me to review this. i do appreciate the work you are doing a lot to bring this up to GA status. at the same time, sound scholarship is essential and sourcing must be solid in WP, especially in a GA that is held up as a model for other articles. I will keep working on this and will keep my harshness in check. i apologize for being harsh. but oz and moxy, you can review your own work and make sure the sourcing is sound. if you get to it before i do, all the better. Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC) anything of that nature, I can take to ANI after the review. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC) i don't know what you mean about going to ANI. anyway we will keep working through things here. Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)as with all editor we here at Wikipedia, we welcome all individuals to edit and have a good time doing so for the benefit of the reader. And again we should not forget that is the most important thing the reader, as many individuals pass by here to get there information from us. Some editors of course may or may not have the same level of experience and therefore make mistakes, we all do, I make mistakes as well, but while this is a learning experience for all of us we must have patience will all, again I hope the reviewer enjoys the article. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

┌────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────────┘ again, oz, i really appreciate the work you are doing to try to bring this to GA and to get us all involved. thanks for that. Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Agree thanks oz. GA review is a good opportunity for us to push each other to produce even better content :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC) I thank you Doc James for taking of your valuable time, I am certain your guidance is correct--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC) I wasn't going to get involved in this, but what the heck. Looking at the Ozzie10aaaa's comment above about editors "now interested for some odd reason". There is nothing sinister about this - and it's certainly not a matter for ANI. GA nominations go on a generalised page Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Biology_and_medicine and often attract comment from outside editors interested in the topic. In fact, it's the whole point of putting up the nomination for scrutiny. I commented for that reason, although I did edit in this area years back.

I do, however, want to strongly second Jytdog's comments about primary sources and making sure the sources actually verify the statements cited. It's easy to get blinded to the overall picture by a linkfarm of references, and there's an understandable inhibition on dismantling stuff that seems well-cited. This is not blaming anyone currently editing; in fact the article inherited this problem from years back. It's nevertheless important that the sources be checked: just because they look academically respectable doesn't mean they're reliable citations. An example: "Auditory processing disorder is recognized as one of the major causes of dyslexia" (in the section Associated conditions. The citation goes to a primary paper "Entrainment of neural oscillations as a modifiable substrate of attention" that simply doesn't support the statement. It says at most that "mounting evidence points to dysfunctional oscillatory entrainment in dyslexia", but it doesn't mention the specific condition auditory processing disorder, much less say that it's recognized as one of the major causes of dyslexia. This kind of thing needs addressing. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Yes check.svg Done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC) I was actually reading up on this point today..can I get others to read over John Stein; Zoï Kapoula (2012). Visual Aspects of Dyslexia. Oxford University Press. pp. 158–161. ISBN 978-0-19-163634-9....and see what they think. -- Moxy (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC) Moxy this looks like a very good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)thanks gordon. just to be clear, ozz did ask me to participate in this process. And ozz again - it is great that you are rallying Project Medicine to improve this article. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC) as per the request above two issues have been Yes check.svg Done, if for any reason there are any other issues we welcome them to finish this article process. thank you (note- several other issues that have been resolved are reflected on the article history page)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC) I am maybe a quarter of the way through the article, checking sources. Jytdog (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Can I ask why you dont use the page number parameter in the templates..instead you put them outside the sources even for sources not used two time and are linked to a specific page? Just wondering because the page numbers all over the page break up the flow for our readers even more then just the source. Should I fix all these or is the GA reviewer ok with this? -- Moxy (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC) sure! if you want to cite the reference a second time, but cite a different page, you have to cite it separately instead of just being able to use the ref name. In my view it is a good thing to use the ref name/repeat citation method: a) so that readers can easily see what the most-relied-on sources are, instead of it looking like each source is used just once, and b) it saves clutter in editing view, when you can use just the ref name. and by the way, several of the sources that are used just once are very good and I reckon that i will end up citing them again as I work through the rest of the sourcing. there is no policy, it is pure preference, but that is why i do it. Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Ohh i see. Just making the point as someone with dyslexia...the refs make pages harder to read let alone and extra number. I normally just use the system when need be...maybe when all is done I will migrate to Harvard citations as its easier to read. I think I may write a bit about this at and get others to see if this should be mentioned at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility or at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting. I see this problem is not mentioned anywhere...thus people have no clue its a problem. Just thinking of our readers like me who are dyslexic and for general accessibility with the sources,-- Moxy (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)ay caramba. i totally get that. hm. hm hm. so is it better for you to have references be used once? Jytdog (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC) Not about using it one time its about the overlap onto the next word for me and others I would guess. Having two footnotes squares in the body of the text covers (blends over would be a better description) even more of the next word for me. [1][2]five letters covered this way over just 2 and a bit with [1] this way . All not a big deal not part of the GA review,,,just we do things in a different manner and I am trying to explain why it may be a problem here...again not a big deal overall.-- Moxy (talk) 02:19, 16 March

Non medical claim

I do not consider this a medical claim [10] and thus was okay with it. User:Ozzie10aaaa Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:29, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

ok..Doc James (talk--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:21, 18 August 2015 (UTC)

dyscalculia/numbers only mentioned in lead

Lead says "... is associated with similar difficulties with numbers.[]" Lead should summarise rest of article so this should be expanded on, eg. in associated conditions. - Rod57 (talk) 18:24, 29 November 2015 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:58, 5 December 2015 (UTC)

First sentence

This source gives a nice definition which we paraphrase:

"These individuals typically read at levels significantly lower than expected despite having normal intelligence." [11] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 04:56, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

yes the definition(source) works well--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:36, 6 March 2016 (UTC)

Alexia and dyslexia are not the same thing. Page merger should be reversed.

The Alexia (condition) page has been merged onto the Dyslexia page. I think this is a mistake, as alexia and dyslexia are not the same thing. Oxford Dictionaries defines alexia as "inability to recognize or read written words or letters, typically as a result of brain damage", and dyslexia as "a general term for disorders that involve difficulty in learning to read or interpret words, letters, and other symbols, but that do not affect general intelligence". Timothy Cooper (talk) 07:52, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:20, 11 June 2016 (UTC)

They are similar enough that they can exist on the same page. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Moved

Moved this here

"In 2016, further studies in to the efficacy of specialized fonts Dyslexie and OpenDyslexic were unable to establish statistically significant results in support of either product. Results initially indicating a 7% increase in words per minute using the Dyslexie font were subsequently deemed no longer significant when within-word and between-word spacing was matched to the control Arial font."

The first was a primary source of 39 people [12]

The other is also a small primary source [13]

We need to wait for proper secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 14:50, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Looks at this further and it appears there are no reviews on this font and the current sources were poor. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:07, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

Well, thanks for looking at it and sorting it out. Richard-of-Earth (talk) 17:57, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

User:Richard-of-Earth restored the primary source as there are simply no good secondary sources. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:49, 10 August 2016 (UTC)

References

Forgive me if I am doing this wrong, I am new to editing on Wikipedia. I think the use of 'dyslexic' typefaces in this article needs to be reviewed as there is very little peer-reviewed evidence toward their efficacy. In terms of secondary sources, the only secondary source cited here is a very short article [14] that just regurgitates a line from the artist's YouTube advert for the typeface. The other citation is a primary source, and is a Master's thesis submitted to the University of Twente [15]; is not a published, peer reviewed article, and it too only used a small study size (n = 43; 21 of which were dyslexic). I understand I am likely going about this the wrong way, but I feel that the page as it currently is does not provide an accurate view on the current scientific literature regarding 'dyslexic' typefaces and their proven efficacy. At the very least, given that these products aren't backed well in the scientific literature, perhaps changing the 'Dyslexia' Wikipedia page header picture to something other than an example of one of these products would be appropriate. JMcManly (talk) 06:47, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:19, 26 August 2016 (UTC)

Appreciate it --JMcManly (talk) 14:18, 3 September 2016 (UTC)

[[WP:LEAD}}

Recommends the lead be kept at 3 to 4 paragraphs. So partly restored. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:59, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:26, 25 August 2016 (UTC)

Thank you for starting a thread about the lead, and for your dedication to maintaining this article! That’s fair if we’d like to stick to that WP:LEAD rule of thumb. WP:MOSMED recommends the lead introduce content in the same order as the body of the text. As long as this lead sticks to 3-4 paragraphs, are there any concerns with its content following the order of the body of the article? —Verbistheword (talk) 18:38, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

The lead already does follow the same order as the body. First paragraph is definition and symptoms, second is cause, mechanisms, and diagnosis, and third is treatment and epidemiology. What do you see as out of order? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 23:44, 28 August 2016 (UTC)

Agreed, that general flow works. Within it, a few sentences seem out of order.

In the first paragraph (Definition and Symptoms), the sentence with the clause “noticed at school” refers to diagnosis, which is the last topic of the second paragraph. The sentences with “loses their ability” and “involuntary” refer to causes, which are the first topic of the second paragraph.

In the second paragraph (Cause, Mechanisms, and Diagnosis), the sentence with “difficulties caused by” rules out causes. Though it belongs in the paragraph, it is separated from the other cause sentences by the mechanism and diagnosis sentences. —Verbistheword (talk) 19:32, 30 August 2016 (UTC)

This "When someone who previously could read loses their ability, it is known as alexia." is a definition not a cause.

"Often these difficulties are first noticed at school." is a description of the onset which is a symptom and something that is taken into account as part of the diagnosis.

This "The difficulties are involuntary and people with this disorder have a normal desire to learn." is also not a description of a cause.

This sentence is about diagnosis "Dyslexia is separate from reading difficulties caused by hearing or vision problems or by insufficient teaching." Basically one needs to rule out these problems before making the diagnosis. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 09:19, 31 August 2016 (UTC)

I believe the line "It may begin in adulthood as the result of a traumatic brain injury, stroke, or dementia.[2]" is unclear do to the word "begin". Some context may need to be provided. Does the word begin infer that the patient was already possessive of dyslexia but the symptoms not apparent? Or does the gene kick into activation because of a traumatic experience such as those listed? Joce Strad (talk) 00:25, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

will look at the text in question--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:39, 12 October 2016 (UTC)

It means they develop it newly and never had it before. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:21, 13 October 2016 (UTC)

New section: 'arguments against its existence'

Whether you agree with this view or not. It is important we have this section. Due to not having it being a form of censorship. Especially since some of the opposing views come from credible sources.

• Disclaimer: I have dyslexia myself. Nevertheless, I want facts to prevail and am open minded to it. Ned (talk) 23:53, 18 February 2018 (UTC)

any such section would need sources that are consistent with Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources and Wikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine),--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:19, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

I agree with both you guys. However, let's remember that there might be a reliable source, like a newspaper article, that says, "Mr. Smith says that dyslexia isn't real. Here is why he's wrong." Treat a fringe theory like a fringe theory: WP:FRINGE. Kind of like we might say "Jenny McCarthy long maintained that vaccines cause autism, but there are hundreds of studies showing that it does not." We can and should note the history and size of the anti-vaccination movement and the results of their activism without pretending that we think they're right. Now if there is a valid scientific study suggesting that dyslexia isn't real, of course we should mention it. I'm just saying that even if everyone who thinks it's not real is a crank, there's still an established way to mention and include them here. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:27, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

Study showing causes

A few months back there was a study published showing that the shape of the fovea is the same in the eyes of dyslexic individuals but different in the eyes of most individuals and how this makes it difficult for the brain to tell mirror images apart. We did a Wikinews article about the announcement. I think it might merit a mention here.

Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:23, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

[16] this isn't a review per MEDRSWikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:50, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

I am confused. Do you mean you do not find the University of Rennes study consistent with WP:RS? It was published in the Proceedings of the Royal Academy B, which has an excellent reputation. The study was performed on humans. Darkfrog24 (talk) 13:59, 21 February 2018 (UTC)

its been adjusted[17]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:54, 2 March 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 3 March 2018

This article does not acknowledge some of the controversy that exists and challenges the conceptualisation of dyslexia as 'diagnosable' and distinct. The article, therefore, is now scientifically biased. This is not to suggest that there not are many people who are seriously disadvantaged by difficulties with literacy / reading. I simply wish to amend the article to bring it more in line with current thinking. Simon Gibbs (talk) 15:44, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

Pls specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. --Moxy (talk) 15:51, 3 March 2018 (UTC)

remove OpenDyslexic typeface image

The image with OpenDyslexic typeface should be removed. Studies have showed that the typeface does not really help people who have dyslexia (and it is even mentioned in the reference provided just next to the image http://www.ilo.gw.utwente.nl/ilo/attachments/032_Masterthesis_Leeuw.pdf - look in the "conclusion" paragraph). Therefore this image is quite misleading and inappropriate here. Looks almost as if someone wants to promote an unsuccessful idea using Wikipedia. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 2A02:8084:40E0:900:35A7:76E3:DAC1:1B94 (talk) 18:00, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

will take a look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:02, 5 April 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2019

Under the Epidemiology label, it states "While it is diagnosed more often in males,[3] some believe that it affects males and females equally" this can be changed to show some of the studies related to showing how the learning disability effects genders more equally and then suggest reasons to why there is that discrepancy. Dr. Frank Wood and Dr Rebecca Felton conducted a study in the Forsyth county schools school system on testing children for dylexia. The Appleford schools said "Dr Frank Wood, a professor of neuropsychology and director of The Dyslexia Program at Bowman Gray University [Today Wake Forest Medical Center] in Winston-Salem, North Carolina, involved 485 children in the Winston-Salem-Forsyth County schools. Dr Wood, Dr Rebecca Felton, Associate Director of the Dyslexia Program, and their colleagues tested the children in the first grade and again in third grade. They found no difference in the reading abilities of boys and girls. Dr Wood commented that he and his colleagues were shocked when their research project showed that there was no difference. “This contradicts decades of conventional wisdom” Dr Wood said." This comes from the Appleford school's Dylexia Fact sheet on Dylexia for girls. Due to available resources at this time, the original study could not be accessed by me. Adding this study would be beneficial as it helps to understand further that there are outside external factors that might be influencing the why there are more males than female who are identified with having dylexia.

Articles that mention the study: https://www.applefordschool.org/wp-content/themes/canvas/pdfs/_Factsheet-Dyslexia-Girls.pdf https://www.nytimes.com/1990/08/22/us/education-studies-dispute-view-of-dyslexia-finding-girls-as-afflicted-as-boys.html Lolofifi1772 (talk) 16:49, 26 March 2019 (UTC)

•  Not done must follow MEDRSWikipedia:Identifying_reliable_sources_(medicine)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:34, 27 March 2019 (UTC)

Tasha on the topic of dyslexia

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Liaberadi1234 (talk • contribs) 14:54, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

did you have a request?--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:19, 20 March 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 February 2019

TheRealBabySpyYT (talk) 20:32, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Dyslexia has a common myth people with dyslexia don't read or write backwards its just a common myth.

Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. The article already mentions that myth. RudolfRed (talk) 20:54, 28 February 2019 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2018

Add external link: https://www.pearsonclinical.com/language/products/100000207/dyslexia-screening-testsecondary-dst-s.html Kevin Pearson1 (talk) 15:40, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

No. ElKevbo (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 19 October 2018

Request to add external link: https://www.pearsonclinical.com/language/products/100000696/dyslexia-screening-testjunior-dst-j.html?origsearchtext=DST-J Kevin Pearson1 (talk) 15:29, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

No. ElKevbo (talk) 16:07, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 18 August 2018

In the section below, right after [83], the sentence states, "Deep alexia" but should state "Deep dyslexia"...

Deep dyslexia See also: Deep dyslexia Individuals with deep dyslexia experience both semantic paralexia (para-dyslexia) and phonological dyslexia, which causes the person to read a word and then say a related meaning instead of the denoted meaning.[83] Deep alexia is associated with clear phonological processing impairments.[18] Deep dyslexia is caused by widespread damage to the brain that often includes the left hemisphere.[84] The "continuum" hypothesis claims that deep dyslexia develops from phonological dyslexia.[85] 71.202.44.241 (talk) 21:32, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Done Danski454 (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2018 (UTC)

Same thing

"Dyslexia manifests on a continuum of severity—it is a dimensional disorder."

means the same as

"Not all people have the same degree of symptoms.",

which means the same as "Different people are affected to varying degrees."

Have condensed Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:20, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

Doc James agree--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:21, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

We also have

"The difficulties are involuntary and people with this disorder have a normal desire to learn."

and

"There is a normal desire to learn."

Will condense that aswell... Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:23, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

What ref supports "difficulties with motor coordination,... concentration, and personal organization, but these are not, by themselves, markers of dyslexia. "? Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 13:27, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

good point--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:51, 16 October 2019 (UTC)

I find it to be misleading to display the OpenDyslexic font in the infobox

OpenDyslexic may be a neat art project, but these fonts have not been shown to have any effect. Displaying it so prominently and saying that it "tries to help with common reading errors" implies that it does help with reading errors. – Thjarkur (talk) 18:32, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 11 March 2020

I am a Musicology scholar interested in Dyslexia and music, currently writing a paper.

In the article it is said: "In terms of music and any possible positive effects on people with dyslexia, until now there is currently no evidence or data showing that music education significantly improves the reading skills of adolescents with dyslexia.[106]"

You could argue that this is the case with adolescents, but the source actually does not imply that this is the case with adolescents only (it also implies this is the case with children too). But I actually found that the source is simply somewhat untrue, as there are different reviews and articles that conclude otherwise, for example:

A 2015 review: https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0197455615000684?via%3Dihub

2015 published article: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0138715 "Music Increases Phonological Awareness and Reading Skills in Developmental Dyslexia: A Randomized Control Trial"

Perhaps it should be changed to: "In terms of music and possible positive effects on people with dyslexia, there exists some evidence that music education or therapy could help improve the reading skills of adolescents and children with dyslexia." Konnakonrad (talk) 10:57, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:26, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

after looking at it, it would need a better reference for the text your suggesting, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:44, 11 March 2020 (UTC)

Ok thank you. Would just children fare better considering the sources, or how do you see the situation? Konnakonrad (talk) 09:09, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

will look again over weekend(coronavirus articles are taking up a lot of time)thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:12, 12 March 2020 (UTC)

Introduction to article disrupted by reference to alexia

Hi, all. Just looking at this page for the first time in several years. The introduction needs a minor edit. The in-text reference to “alexia” in the intro confuses the issue because of its placement in the introductory paragraph. The sentence following this one appears to be describing alexia, when in fact the topic has returned to the original subject, “dyslexia.” This has a simple fix: move the alexia sentence to the end of the paragraph.

Best wishes to all!

Sami Webb Moran Sami Webb Moran (talk) 15:20, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:41, 16 March 2020 (UTC)

GA nomination preparation (before review)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

---

below you will find the response I received at the help desk Dyslexia[edit]

hi, some time ago I took over an article (dyslexia) which was a mess, copyvio, etc. Recently Ive done about 100 edits on it and have slashed 12,000 bytes, two other contributors came in and helped as well. At this point where can I go to have someone take a look at the overall quality of the article and give me his/her opinion.i would eventually like to take it for GA nomination thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:58, 15 January 2015 (UTC) Hi Ozzie! I skimmed the whole article for a few minutes and I have to say: great work, to you all! Okay so since you think it's ready for a GA nomination, head over to the good article page, make sure the page is up to par, and then head over to the GA nominations page and nominate it. Be aware though, nominations do not happen overnight, it could take weeks to get reviewed. Just be patient and good luck. -A Wild Abigail Appears! Capture me. Moves. 15:03, 15 January 2015 (UTC) thank you, that's very kind of you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:11, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

before taking any steps I would like to get opinions from chris (and basie) thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 15:32, 15 January 2015 (UTC)

Quick review

In my view the sources are mostly too old - with many from the 1990s, and a 9 year old source in German... needs lots of work improving sources and updating content based on them. ...Jytdog (talk) 01:47, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

it could be that some dates are more reflective of sources that were "quality" when published, so we may add newer ones via review articles as long as the quality is not altered. Having said that many times one finds that when one is looking at a specific sub topic, there just might not be a available source that is recent. Also

one has to deal with the nature of a source, which might influence whether you pick that latest or something more established. On a side note, two other individuals had gone over the article and didn't mention the sources so im not sure if that opinion is generally viewed.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:25, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

I will go over the article and add sources like text books. I do agree that old studies dont help readers much..but they are good sources....I will add real books with detail that all can see... like this -- Moxy (talk) 11:55, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

Ozzie please read WP:MEDDATE. That is a well established part of MEDRS and an important one too. If other reviewers didn't notice how old the sources are, that is the result of carelessness. I will work on updating the sources with you. Jytdog (talk) 12:27, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

we here welcome any opportunity from all editors to improve this article of course im certain we are all well versed on "MEDDATE" but again there are many things to weight ,IMO just because something was written today, doesn't mean it is better than an earlier source if the quality is better, in any event, as we go forward we will base each source on its merits as well as all factors. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:15, 24 January 2015 (UTC)

@Ozzie10aaaa: I skimmed through the article text and went through the source to check for compliance with the MOS-related GA criteria (I did a few unrelated MOS compliance checks as well). There were a few minor issues that I saw/fixed, but overall I think the article text/writing quality is decent enough, so it should pass the "well written" GA criteria; although, it may need a few more minor text revisions in a certain sections. Except for the references that I formatted, I haven't looked at the citations, so I don't know yet if any of them need to be replaced with a current medical review to meet the WP:MEDRS standard. In most cases, it's generally pretty simple to find a current MEDRS-quality review to replace older citations.
Sometime tomorrow when I have more time, I'll read through the article more thoroughly and check the citations for any issues, and then make any changes I can to help you get through the GA review process. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 04:07, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

thank you for your knowledgeable assistance--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 08:38, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Sepppi, it should not just be a matter of swapping sources out! New sources ~should~ lead to new content. The point is that the article reflects current sure knowledge - not the state of the field 15 years ago.... it may be that nothing has been learned, but that would be disappointing, wouldn't it? I've been gathering reviews. There are a lot. Jytdog (talk) 09:58, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

@Jytdog: I completely agree with you; if I go through the trouble of looking for a replacement source for a statement without a MEDRS-quality review, I almost always end up making some form of text revision if only to ensure that the statement is directly supported (for WP:V compliance) by the replacement review. I usually do add any notable/useful content from replacement reviews if I notice any when I skim through them; when I don't have a lot of time, I usually just put quotes of noteworthy material from the review into the citation quote parameter for adding later. Seppi333 (Insert 2¢ | Maintained) 16:46, 29 January 2015 (UTC)

Seconding previous comments: it's generally well-written, but if this wants to be a GA, it needs major overhaul of sourcing. Partly to get newer MEDRS-quality ones; but partly because (and this is a problem going way back for Wikipedia's whole coverage of dyslexia-related topics) it's become a linkfarm of statements linked to primary sources, mostly with no way for the reader to verify that any statement, or the overall selection of topics, represents a secondary consensus. Some sources don't even appear to have been checked; earlier today I found that the first sentence in the article (about alexia being a synonym for dyslexia) cited a primary paper that didn't even mention the terms "alexia" and "dyslexia". Gordonofcartoon (talk) 23:08, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

As you can tell we are all ready on top of anything that was left without appropriate sourcing, as you might have noticed user:Moxy already went over some points you have raised. Tomorrow I plan to go over the entire article again to finish anything that that might be in question we plan to present a GA quality article and we know the work needed. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:23, 10 February 2015 (UTC)

You might check the Dyslexia#History section, which has a sentence fragment - "A description of phonological and surface types of developmental dyslexia (dysphonetic and dyseidetic, respectively) to classical subtypes of alexia which are classified according to the rate of errors in reading non-words" - that I can't quite see how to fix because it doesn't readily relate to the following citation. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 00:59, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

so therefore lets remember-[18]

1.Well-written: a.the prose is clear and concise, it respects copyright laws, and the spelling and grammar are correct; and b.it complies with the manual of style guidelines for lead sections, layout, words to watch, fiction, and list incorporation.[2]

2.Verifiable with no original research:[3] a.it contains a list of all references (sources of information), presented in accordance with the layout style guideline;[4] b.all in-line citations are from reliable sources, including those for direct quotations, statistics, published opinion, counter-intuitive or controversial statements that are challenged or likely to be challenged, and contentious material relating to living persons—science-based articles should follow the scientific citation guidelines;[5] and c.it contains no original research.

3.Broad in its coverage: a.it addresses the main aspects of the topic;[6] and b.it stays focused on the topic without going into unnecessary detail (see summary style).

4.Neutral: it represents viewpoints fairly and without bias, giving due weight to each. 5.Stable: it does not change significantly from day to day because of an ongoing edit war or content dispute.[7] 6.Illustrated, if possible, by images:[8] a.images are tagged with their copyright status, and valid fair use rationales are provided for non-free content; and b.images are relevant to the topic, and have suitable captions.

these are the points we must adhere to--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:05, 11 February 2015 (UTC) fwiw, ozzie, gordon took time out of his life to read carefully and give you feedback. "thanks" would be a more appropriate response. and if you presented that list b/c it says nothing about being up-to-date... well hm. Jytdog (talk) 04:11, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

the purpose of the list is to understand the goals that must be satisfied, to therefore meet the criteria for a GA review, in this case the 6 main points, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:04, 11 February 2015 (UTC)

As mentioned above I have added and changed some sources...will do more if need be. I have made a new section "Further reading" of the books I did not use as sources ,,but are good source of info. -- Moxy (talk) 19:15, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

teamwork(im proud to be a part of Moxy's team)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:22, 16 February 2015 (UTC)

• note - i apologize for not helping with the work so far. I have watched the updating of the sources. It was good to see them updated, but what i saw in almost every instance, was that the citation was changed, and the content wasn't changed at all. (example of 2 ref updates here) to be frank i have less faith in the article now than i did before. i believe it was verified but outdated before; now i don't believe the content will verify. i don't think you should put this up for GA. until somebody reads it over carefully for VERIFY. Jytdog (talk) 20:57, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Not sure I like that lack of good faith being put forth..but o well... Lets look at the example you gave here) If one would have taken the time to look one would have seen that it was not properly dated in the first place...a portion of the edit only corrected the date of publication and added some marital that was removed because it was not sourced..thus a source was added. I suggest all look at the updated source...see if there are any real problems before commenting. In most cases sources were simply added not replaced.- Moxy (talk) 21:12, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

it is not a question of any kind of faith. i observed behavior, which was changing many references and changing the content little. (note, in the bottom half of that dif, content was moved from one side of the ref to the other, but not changed. just moved) Jytdog (talk) 21:25, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Feel free to look over the changes....not much change to the content as it was all done pretty well ..as in sourced with 21st century refs and with uptodate info before hand. What did take place was the additions of sources (not often replaced) that go into details about the topics at hand. Medical and journal news articles fail to discuss important issues in detail ..thus modern medical books were added to backup the already sourced info that was not out dated...as per the new source added. High-quality reliable sources generally talk about more then an individual case report or study, thus sources with more info was added. The best thing we can do for our readers is to allow then access to information.,,,be it with one or two or three refs. -- Moxy (talk) 21:47, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

you and i are seeing different articles. but i will try to review this weekend. Jytdog (talk) 21:50, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

Jytdog I don't see why we cant see eye to eye, and therefore have a GA article, since our intention is meeting the criteria set forth for such a review, we of course welcome your opinion equally as anyone elses and thank you --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:00, 3 March 2015 (UTC)

What is this?

Impaired-extraction-of-speech-rhythm-from-temporal-modulation-patterns-in-speech-in-Developmental Dyslexia-Audio4

This file is linked in the article without a description, and when I go to the information page it links to http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3591889/?tool=pmcentrez – seemingly completely unrelated. -- CFCF 🍌 (email) 11:22, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

its from Wikimedia commons, I was going to get rid of it, it should play but does not (thanks for deleting it, there are four such files on dyslexia at Wikimedia commons, I must have mistakenly picked this one)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:30, 4 March 2015 (UTC)

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:Dyslexia/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Bluerasberry (talk · contribs) 13:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Review from Bluerasberry

I compared the content in the sections of this article to what is expected to be included per Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Medicine-related_articles#Diseases_or_disorders_or_syndromes. Currently, this article has no sections for prevention/screening, outcomes/prognosis, or society and culture. If these sections where in the article, I think "testing" might be an appropriate replacement for the screening section, which could complement the following "diagnosis" section. I think it would be right to include something about whatever testing procedures exist to screen or test for this condition. In the outcomes section, something ought to be said about the kind of life a person with dyslexia can expect. Is this a major disability, a minor inconvenience, or something in between? What is most common? For the society and culture section, I think that something should be said about social stigma of the condition and the culture of the population with dyslexia. It is likely that persons with this condition share the common experience of having a period of frustration in school. There could be some list of depictions of dyslexia in popular culture, such as Taare Zameen Par.

In the "signs and symptoms" section the "language" subsection talks about the difficulties of learning different languages but makes no connection to how this is relevant to dyslexia. The connection should be made. Likewise the "mechanism" section talks about the mechanism of learning language, but does not connect this concept to dyslexia and it should explicitly do so.

The "management" section shows a "dyslexia typewriter" but does not explain what this is. The source cited does not explain either. Somehow this picture should be explained.

I checked nothing other in this review than to see if the article contained the content required by MEDMOS. This is item 3 of the Wikipedia:Good article criteria. To pass GA, someone else should check the other items. If either the missing content can be added or someone can explain why it should not be added, then I would endorse a pass of this article for item 3 of the criteria. Blue Rasberry (talk) 13:58, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

I will immediately look at possibly adding an additional section as you have indicated above. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:22, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

1. I have added sections as per your suggestions on testing, prognosis and a sub-section on society.

2. I have deleted the typewriter (which was a special adapted device for dyslexics, in favor of the Open Dyslexic font image with reference)

3. as a whole I think, im generally covering what you stated above, having said that if for any reason, we need more effort I will add information, references and images were they are expected to be, I thank you for taking the time to have given me the above analysis, do not hesitate to further any information you deem fit, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 16:32, 11 March 2015 (UTC)

Quick side note: GAs don't have to comply with MEDMOS. But if you can find good information on those subjects, then I think that would be great. For ==Prevention==, I would add it only if there is something that can be done. "Lots of people have ideas, but probably none of it works" would not be worth including. WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

thank you, that is a very good point--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 10:28, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Thanks for the changes and updates. I endorse a pass for item 3 of the Wikipedia:Good article criteria. Someone else should review for the other items. Blue Rasberry (talk) 11:43, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Blue Rasberry I thank you for your endorsement and gracious manner in this review, thank you again--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:30, 13 March 2015 (UTC)

Review from Cas Liber

Taking a look now - sorry re delay. I copyedited as I went so please look at them and the accompanying edit summaries...Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• See Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style/Lead_section#Citations - do we really need all the inline refs in the lead? I generally have none no hard and fast rules.....

• No obvious copyvios detected (a good thing!)

• Dyslexia is "a group of language-related conditions in which reading problems reflect impairment in the representation and manipulation of phonemes". - if this is a quote, we should include which body made it/defined it thus.

• The orthographic complexity of a language (i.e., conventional spelling system) directly impacts how difficult learning to read the language is --> "directly" is redundant and should be removed.

• ...posing other problems to dyslexic learners, as well as to theories of dyslexia - what problems to theories? This left me curious...can we expand upon this?

• Avoid any 1-2 sentence paras by expanding or merging.

More later (I need to sleep now!) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:34, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

I am looking to address all the issues you have stated, thank you,--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:40, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

Ok - just brushed my teeth - will keep looking for a few minutes (nearly midnight here in Oz) Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 12:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

1. in regards to references, they can be taken out,it is my view the reader gets more info, however I can remove if you wish
2. no copyvios
3. this point has been fixed, the paragraph did not need to start with that sentence
4. is redundant and has had parts removed
5. point has been fixed
6. will merge 2-3 sentences (as in the "test" section)

• Right, last thing for tonight - Cerebellar theory of dyslexia is probably best talked about in the article rather than as a seealso link...

7: new information (on cerebellum) added with reference--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:47, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

• this is a case report and I wouldn't use it to support a general statement in the article, in fact MEDRS would insist we don't use this ref at all.

I will therefore replace it--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:52, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

8: it has been removed, as there were two references for the sentence in question.--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:58, 21 March 2015 (UTC)

An example of one of the problems dyslexics experience would be seeing letters clearly, this may be due to abnormal development of their visual nerve cells - this scans oddly in English - either replace the comma with a semicolon or change the "this" into a "which"....

9:done changed to "which" --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:06, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Research has shown an increased proneness to the Stroop effect, used in tests for attention deficit, in individuals with dyslexia - am in two minds - medmos would say remove it but more about psychometrics than clinical effect - I can see a case for including it, but in this case I'd give authors and dates so folks know it's one study..... Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 14:11, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

10:best to go MEDMOS...and remove--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:18, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Err..but you've left the reference there....? It's a primary source and shouldn't be used to support a general statement....Cas Liber (talk · contribs) 23:39, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

I will change the reference as well.thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:02, 23 March 2015 (UTC)

Notes

i started going through this and got as far as para 2.1. i read over each ref and saw whether it supported the content or not. i found junk refs that added no value, refs where there was no pmid which made it harder than necessary to check if the source was primary or secondary, and after i added pmid, i found many, many primary sources. i tagged them. when book chapters were cited, the chapter was not cited, just the book. I will keep going, but have to leave now. Jytdog (talk) 22:20, 14 March 2015 (UTC)

Sounds good,,,I will take the time to fix the problems that have come up (change content if needed) over the next few days......this is what i have been working on already. I will also fix all the external page numbers as this has been a problem in the past for some GA reviewers (not sure what the current reviewer thinks of them?). Thank you for the copying editing along the way Jytdog.. -- Moxy (talk) 00:32, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I am going to step back from this page for a bit ....not sure that removing academic books like medical encyclopaedias and replacing them with a web sites that have no details will help our readers in the long run. -- Moxy (talk) 05:53, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong with academic books as long as page numbers are provided. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 06:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Moxy I assume you are talking about this dif I made? In my view that dif is a great improvement.Jytdog (talk) 06:35, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Nope ..that edit was fine..great rewrite..though the same info can be found in a real publication. Lead now all sourced to web pages with very little info over academic books that go into details. I am concerned many of the new sources were just found today when doing a Google search over actually knowing what publications contain this info with the case studies etc.. All that said I do understand that the last there editors here have great experience at this ...thus why I will step back. I just think more info in sources is better,--Moxy (talk) 08:24, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Lead uses simple language. Refs in the lead are too the NIH, a 2012 Lancet review and a number of textbooks. Thus not "all sourced to web pages"

I do not find NIH material by a random google search but actually navigate directly there as it is a good enough source and most importantly uses simple language and provides a general overview. Plus one can closely paraphrase as they are PD.

I am happy with more complicated sources being used in the body but they content needs to be significantly simplified. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 15:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Simplification

The lead was too complicated. I took a go at simplifying it. Some of the rest of the article could also use a bit of simplification. Used this 2012 Lancet review for some of it http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3465717/ Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:26, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Another good review [19] Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 03:29, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

edits today

Ozzie10aaaa i am going through your changes today.

• in this dif you renamed the ref badly. You called it "The Defining Feature of Dyslexia Is Reversing Letters" when the actual title is "Myth 17: The Defining Feature of Dyslexia Is Reversing Letters". The way you named it, makes it appear that the source says the opposite of what it actually says. I fixed that.
• in this dif you replaced 2 primary sources with a review, which ~looks~ great.
  • most importantly, the new source does not support the content - the review is focused on auditory learning and plasticity at different points in development, and uses comparisons between music learning and language learning to illuminate that. the word "dyslexia" is mentioned in exactly one sentence which says nothing about word retrieval or naming things. This is exactly the kind of thing i mentioned above and this article should not pass GA review until every single new source is checked to make sure it supports the content. which is what I am doing. I am really really unhappy with this. Bad news. I have removed the source and tagged this as citation needed.
  • on a much more minor level, in the citation, you provided a URL to the PMC version of the article and an access date. As I wrote in several edit notes, you don't need an "access date" field for a journal article or book (you can do it if you like, but we are busy and why waste time with something you don't need), and instead of providing the URL to the PMC article, it would be WAY WAY better to use the pmid and pmc paramters - the pmid is especially important for looking to see if the source is PRIMARY or SECONDARY, and if you use the pmc parameter, the template automatically provides the hyperlink to the free version, so you don't have to use the url field. In any case, I would appreciate it, and I reckon other members of project med, would appreciate it, if you at least used the pmid parameter, thanks.

the new source DOES support the content if im not mistaken the individual above is incorrect the citation was replaced by Moxy.thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

look at the dif - there i just provided again. Jytdog (talk) 18:14, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done All ok now new source added...best the small problems are just dealt with over chastising each other. I will fix what I can as I have been doing with the sources as problems come up...but copy-editing is not my strong point.-- Moxy (talk) 18:21, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

as i mentioned above, I remain really concerned with the sourcing here. I understand the attraction of going for GA but the article actually has to be sound fundamentally - the sources need to be up to date and the content needs to reflect the sources. the criteria are what they are, but to me GA/FA are just bullshit shiny badges - what matters is that articles in WP provide great, well sourced content to readers. I will keep working through the sourcing you have provided. and to both oz and moxy, if you cite a book with chapters please cite the chapter. thx Jytdog (talk) 18:30, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Jyt, take a breath. This is not a constructive way to give criticism (especially if others are feeling "chastised" in the process) and improve the article. TylerDurden8823 (talk) 18:40, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

(edit conflict) - :::Yes we all need to tone it down a bit....About sources I am also concerned that scholarly sources by leading experts are begin replaced by web sites with less info that will be dead links in a few months.. (but not a big deal in the long run if the extensive sources are in the article as Doc mentioned above). I will try to cite chapters but the tools we all use dont do that. However I will take the time to fill it out manually when I notice.-- Moxy (talk) 18:48, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

unfortunately individuals who have not contributed to this article, are now interested for some odd reason... in any event editors come and go however the articles stay and that's what is important to the reader. Hopefully the reviewer will take heart in the effort those who have contributed during the span of this article, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

oz you asked me to review this. i do appreciate the work you are doing a lot to bring this up to GA status. at the same time, sound scholarship is essential and sourcing must be solid in WP, especially in a GA that is held up as a model for other articles. I will keep working on this and will keep my harshness in check. i apologize for being harsh. but oz and moxy, you can review your own work and make sure the sourcing is sound. if you get to it before i do, all the better. Jytdog (talk) 18:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

anything of that nature, I can take to ANI after the review. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:13, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

i don't know what you mean about going to ANI. anyway we will keep working through things here. Jytdog (talk) 19:45, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

as with all editor we here at Wikipedia, we welcome all individuals to edit and have a good time doing so for the benefit of the reader. And again we should not forget that is the most important thing the reader, as many individuals pass by here to get there information from us. Some editors of course may or may not have the same level of experience and therefore make mistakes, we all do, I make mistakes as well, but while this is a learning experience for all of us we must have patience will all, again I hope the reviewer enjoys the article. thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:12, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

again, oz, i really appreciate the work you are doing to try to bring this to GA and to get us all involved. thanks for that. Jytdog (talk) 20:09, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Agree thanks oz. GA review is a good opportunity for us to push each other to produce even better content :-) Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 20:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I thank you Doc James for taking of your valuable time, I am certain your guidance is correct--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:41, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I wasn't going to get involved in this, but what the heck. Looking at the Ozzie10aaaa's comment above about editors "now interested for some odd reason". There is nothing sinister about this - and it's certainly not a matter for ANI. GA nominations go on a generalised page Wikipedia:Good_article_nominations#Biology_and_medicine and often attract comment from outside editors interested in the topic. In fact, it's the whole point of putting up the nomination for scrutiny. I commented for that reason, although I did edit in this area years back.

I do, however, want to strongly second Jytdog's comments about primary sources and making sure the sources actually verify the statements cited. It's easy to get blinded to the overall picture by a linkfarm of references, and there's an understandable inhibition on dismantling stuff that seems well-cited. This is not blaming anyone currently editing; in fact the article inherited this problem from years back. It's nevertheless important that the sources be checked: just because they look academically respectable doesn't mean they're reliable citations. An example: "Auditory processing disorder is recognized as one of the major causes of dyslexia" (in the section Associated conditions. The citation goes to a primary paper "Entrainment of neural oscillations as a modifiable substrate of attention" that simply doesn't support the statement. It says at most that "mounting evidence points to dysfunctional oscillatory entrainment in dyslexia", but it doesn't mention the specific condition auditory processing disorder, much less say that it's recognized as one of the major causes of dyslexia. This kind of thing needs addressing. Gordonofcartoon (talk) 21:58, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

 Done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:38, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

I was actually reading up on this point today..can I get others to read over John Stein; Zoï Kapoula (2012). Visual Aspects of Dyslexia. Oxford University Press. pp. 158–161. ISBN 978-0-19-163634-9....and see what they think. -- Moxy (talk) 22:49, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

Moxy this looks like a very good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 22:56, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

thanks gordon. just to be clear, ozz did ask me to participate in this process. And ozz again - it is great that you are rallying Project Medicine to improve this article. Jytdog (talk) 22:04, 15 March 2015 (UTC)

as per the request above two issues have been  Done, if for any reason there are any other issues we welcome them to finish this article process. thank you (note- several other issues that have been resolved are reflected on the article history page)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:54, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

I am maybe a quarter of the way through the article, checking sources. Jytdog (talk) 01:04, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Can I ask why you dont use the page number parameter in the templates..instead you put them outside the sources even for sources not used two time and are linked to a specific page? Just wondering because the page numbers all over the page break up the flow for our readers even more then just the source. Should I fix all these or is the GA reviewer ok with this? -- Moxy (talk) 01:10, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

sure! if you want to cite the reference a second time, but cite a different page, you have to cite it separately instead of just being able to use the ref name. In my view it is a good thing to use the ref name/repeat citation method: a) so that readers can easily see what the most-relied-on sources are, instead of it looking like each source is used just once, and b) it saves clutter in editing view, when you can use just the ref name. and by the way, several of the sources that are used just once are very good and I reckon that i will end up citing them again as I work through the rest of the sourcing. there is no policy, it is pure preference, but that is why i do it. Jytdog (talk) 01:43, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Ohh i see. Just making the point as someone with dyslexia...the refs make pages harder to read let alone and extra number. I normally just use the {{Sfn}} system when need be...maybe when all is done I will migrate to Harvard citations as its easier to read. I think I may write a bit about this at and get others to see if this should be mentioned at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Accessibility or at Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Text formatting. I see this problem is not mentioned anywhere...thus people have no clue its a problem. Just thinking of our readers like me who are dyslexic and for general accessibility with the sources,-- Moxy (talk) 02:00, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

ay caramba. i totally get that. hm. hm hm. so is it better for you to have references be used once? Jytdog (talk) 02:09, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Not about using it one time its about the overlap onto the next word for me and others I would guess. Having two footnotes squares in the body of the text covers (blends over would be a better description) even more of the next word for me. ^{[1][2]five letters covered this way} over just 2 and a bit with ^{[1] this way} . All not a big deal not part of the GA review,,,just we do things in a different manner and I am trying to explain why it may be a problem here...again not a big deal overall.-- Moxy (talk) 02:19, 16 March 2015 (UTC)

Additional review

At the request of @Ozzie10aaaa: I have reviewed this article as well. With the exception of one awkwardly-worded sentence (which I fixed myself), I see no significant problems. Changes suggested and made by other reviewers were entirely appropriate. In the absence of further objections or comments, any of the reviewers can close the review -- or I'll do it. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 00:10, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

DoctorJoeE thank you very much, I really appreciate it--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:12, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Did you know

--Moxy (talk) 15:54, 22 March 2015 (UTC)

Dyslexia image

From Moxy's talk page Hi Moxy, I just looked at the page for dyslexia, and there is some absolutely incorrect information on it. The pictures which state this is how a dyslexic views a page are absolutely wrong!! These were taken from research on Irlen Syndrome, not dyslexia, which DOES NOT affect the way a person views the page. Please remove these false statements ASAP, as it is misleading and will lead desperate parents down an incorrect and expensive treatment path, should the child not have both disorders! — Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.217.208.202 (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

Are you talking about the first image? -- Moxy (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)

I think it needs to be addressed at Wikimedia commons as the [20] indicates it is in fact correct for dyslexia--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

It was uploaded by Special:Contributions/Willard5 this person who is no longer around and there is no source on it - fails WP:VERIFY. I agree it should come down until we can verify it is correct. Taking it down now. Jytdog (talk) 12:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

There are many causes of reading difficulties; one is a mechanical problem with the eyes (ophthalmologists call it "binocular instability" or "BI") that results in blurring, double vision, and other visual perception distortions. Part of the workup for dyslexia is a thorough eye exam, because if BI can be identified and corrected, the dyslexia may resolve. There are other causes of dyslexia, however, and many dyslexics do not have BI -- so while I had no objection to the image during GA review, on further review I agree with removing it. DoctorJoeE ^{review transgressions}/_{talk to me!} 12:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

General Public Education

Are these general public education information items worth noting in the article?--Jcardazzi (talk) 18:40, 16 June 2015 (UTC)jcardazzi

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/wonkblog/wp/2015/06/10/powerful-images-show-what-its-like-to-read-when-you-have-dyslexia/

https://www.youtube.com/watch?t=20&v=yLMbjWwp4ZI&ab_channel=KidsInTheHouse

http://www.pbs.org/parents/readinglanguage/articles/dyslexia/the_facts.html

https://www.pearsonclinical.com/therapy/products/100000104/dyslexia-early-screening-testsecond-edition-dest-2.html — Preceding unsigned comment added by Kevin Pearson1 (talk • contribs) 15:21, 19 October 2018 (UTC)

http://dyslexia.yale.edu/Technology.html

I would generally say no. All these are easily findable by a google search. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.