Talk:Dyslexia

Dyslexia Talk · Dyslexia Project · Reorganization 2009 · Live Articles · support by country

Template:FixBunching

Neutrality?

No mention in the article of the work of Prof. Julian Elliot (Durham Uni, UK). SeeTimes article 1, Times article 2 etc. Also see the book, "Children in difficulty" By Julian Elliott & Maurice Place. At least one section, perhaps should address his concerns about (1) whether dyslexia exists in the first place and if so (2)is it a useful diagnosis and (3) his criticisms of the theories behind dyslexia etc.

Already included see the topic Controversy on both Dyslexia and Dyslexia_research you must have missed the references to Julian Elliot.

dolfrog (talk) 21:54, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

I've just edited the controversy section because it was grossly misrepresentative, it was an almost direct copy of the abstract from Julian Elliot's paper with the circumspective "It is argued" removed, and the "original-research" clause of

Reading ability is on a spectrum, and dyslexia merely represents the low end of the spectrum.

inserted halfway through, interrupting another sentence. A literal reading of the abstract does not dispute that some people have difficulty reading, but does dispute that current scientific understanding is sufficient to rigourously define a condition of dyslexia, or legitimately diagnose patients with it.Scruffy brit (talk) 16:27, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia/support by country

Hi All

I have just created a new article in the Wikipedia Dyslexia Project. This is a work page and as such does not follow require the strict guide lines applied to Dyslexia Article, regarding citations to support for content.

We need to create artilces for all countries, as the recognistion of dyslexia and the levels of support provided varies from country to country. There is no global or universal approach to dyslexia. So we need your help to provide your local National knowledge on this very important topic. Wikipedia:WikiProject Dyslexia/support by country Intially I have added a few country sections, just the get the ball rolling, you can add new sections for countries not already included. There is also a talk page so you can may be discuss the issues regarding your country with other Users/editors. Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dyslexia/support by country

So please help us get the correct support information for your country. dolfrog (talk) 23:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Addition to Diagnosis section

Hi, I just added 3 sentences to the diagnosis section. There's some redundancy there that I can't figure out how to fix just now. If someone can help, that would be great. Otherwise I 'll look at again in the next couple of days.

Best, Rosmoran (talk) 19:28, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Keep it simple and up-front

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

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

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

I have replied on my talk page so i will just repeat it below.

The various sandboxes were not originally my idea, they were there before I began editing the article in May. When I started editing I only edited the dyslexia artilce and made comments etc on the article talk page, but then some one found the project sandboxes and started to add commnets there. I to find it difficult to follow. But to maintain a record of the original plan and the changes I made I made some type of record of the progress I was making, more work than i really wanted. Sami was the one who set all of this up, over 2 years ago now, and even then i had problems working out what was really going on as the work was then done in sandboxes of the individual editors which was even more confusing. So for me until this week the whole sandbox thing was just a historic record of the plan so far. since then I have added the Alternative Therapy article sandbox more to call someones bluff than anything else. but Sami has not understood my intention while she has been catching up with the progress so far.

To add to this I did ask for help on this talkpage which is in the archives now, but there was no help being offered. So not of my own choosing I have been editing this project on my own until Sami returned this week. As I have mentioned many times before I do not like working on my own as my communication disability creats its own limitations for me, so I have had to try to work around those limitations, as best I can, and you have seen, and been tracking the mistakes I can make when I am forced to work on my own in what is form me an alien environment dolfrog (talk) 02:43, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Dyslexia is not a learning disability in the UK

Dyslexia is a learning disability is understood in the United States. But in the UK, learning disabilities actually refers to those with developmental disabilities. Could we possibly say dyslexia is a learning difference instead in the first sentence of the article? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eivmeidwl (talk • contribs) 22:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Dyslexia is a developmental disability, see all of the research papers referenced in all of the dyslexia series of articles and in the UK is classified as a Specific Learning Disability dolfrog (talk) 13:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The first sentence states dyslexia as a learning disability. Which learning disability are they referring to? Are they referring to the United States or in the UK? It is not very clear. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Eivmeidwl (talk • contribs) 14:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This is a global statement including all countries which includes the USA and the UK. dolfrog (talk) 14:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me explain this clearer. Assuming this passage from learning disability is correct.

In the UK, terms such as specific learning difficulty (SpLD), dyslexia, dyspraxia and dyscalculia are used to cover the type and range of learning difficulties referred to in the United States and Canada as "learning disabilities". In the UK, the term "learning disability" usually refers to a range of conditions that are almost invariably associated with more severe cognitive impairments; the term therefore generally is taken to be indicative of low intelligence in the UK.

Dyslexia is considered a learning difficulty in the UK. But in the US, it is considered a learning disability. In the first sentence of the dyslexia, it states it is a learning disability which obviously is referring to the US definition. Since Wikipedia wants articles in a global point of view, shouldn't dyslexia be referred as a "learning difference"? --Eivmeidwl (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

May be you could add some supported information on this topic on the Dyslexia support in the United Kingdom which is part of the Category:Dyslexia support by country to explain how dysalexia is viewed in different countries around the world. Some countries are further behind current dyslexia research regarding their own orthography than others. The global view is that dyslexia is a learning disability. I am from the UK so I am not to sure where you are coming from dolfrog (talk) 15:19, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I did some research. And in the UK, they do refer dyslexia as a learning difficulty. Source: [1] If we are going to use the US definition for dyslexia, then it should say so. But since Wikipedia wants a global article, then dyslexia should be viewed as a learning difference. --Eivmeidwl (talk) 15:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

All of the research papers from around the world refer to dyslexia as a learning disability, and not a learning difference, so we have the global position you may also be interested in the following articles Special education in the United Kingdom and Special education in the United States both of which stem from the Special education article dolfrog (talk) 15:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The research papers are all wrong. I find it offensive to call someone with dyslexia in the UK as learning-disabled. In the UK, it is understood as a learning difficulty. However learning difference is a much more neutral word. I have no problem with that term. Eivmeidwl (talk) 15:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you are having a problem accepting the nature of your own dyslexia, and the lack of a general awareness of what dyslexia really is in the UK have a look at http://www.teachernet.gov.uk/wholeschool/disability/disabilityandthedda/istomdisabled/ the UK is full so much bad information regarding dyslexia, and disabilities in general, and disability discrimination, especially regarding the invisible disabilities. dolfrog (talk) 15:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify my position, I live in the UK, I am dyslexic, and I define myself as learning disabled, and I am officially defined by the UK government as being disabled. So I do not really understand the nature of this dispute. dolfrog (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Folks,

There are indeed differences in how these terms are used in the UK as compared with the US. In the UK, someone with a learning disability has difficulty with learning because of a very low IQ. In the US and Canada, someone with a learning disability has an unexpected difficulty with learning in spite of a normal IQ.

Clearly the terminology we use in the dyslexia article must reflect current usage in the major English-speaking countries, so perhaps we shouldn't use the term learning disability. However, I object to the term "learning difference."

Although "learning difference" is commonly used in some parts of the disabilities community, the very generality of the term "difference" connotes something isn't a big deal, perhaps even something that is just a "personal preference". I certainly understand people who advocate for the use of the term "different" because they don't want their children to be perceived as "abnormal" or "broken"; rather, they want their kids to be perceived as someone with a brain that is "wired" a bit differently. But there are severe consequences that occur too often because officials in the schools or community don't understand how devastating dyslexia can be to a student.

The term we choose to use has serious legal consequences as well. Someone with a "disability" is entitled to a variety of state supports. Someone with a "difference" may be perceived as someone who is just being obstinate and who needs to be more flexible. Someone who is "not working to potential" rather than someone who has a legitimate obstruction in their learning process that needs and deserves special treatment or supports.

We want to avoid using terms that connote different conditions between the US and the UK. We also should avoid trivializing the disabling effects of dyslexia. Therefore, I suggest we use the term "learning disorder" instead.

Best, Rosmoran (talk) 00:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Officials in the schools or community never understand when dealing with special-needs students. If a kid can't read, it's pretty clear. Just throw them in a special-needs class in a watered-down curriculum. That's all they do. They honestly don't provide any more help that's somewhat different. There is no understanding of kids with special needs. I'm sick and tired of hearing advocates for the disabled that is just out there to make publicity and $$$$$ for the organizations than to create a victim where none exists. The kids who are truly disabled are the only ones who I will understand that it is important to provide quality services. Without them, they will not be able to progress in society. Eivmeidwl (talk) 19:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, but I don't understand what you're saying here. What do you mean when you say "to create a victim where none exists"?

I really would like to understand your argument --- and we still need to achieve consensus. My opinion is certainly not the "final word."

Rosmoran (talk) 01:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Since there is absolutely nothing I can do to have "learning difference" on there, then fine. I will just have to agree to disagree. Therefore, I am in agreement to have "learning disorder" all for the sake of publicity. I guess we don't need the third opinion after all. Eivmeidwl (talk) 19:31, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I opened up a move request for Learning disability to learning disorder. Talk:Learning disability#Requested move They said that UK uses learning disability. Esthertaffet (talk) 21:39, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Paragraph removed from orthography section

I removed the following information from the Effect of language orthography section. The information is highly questionable --- dyslexia can be caused by more than one neurocognitive defict, although there are certainly patterns. I'm guessing that the text in this paragraph may be represent a slightly different meaning from what the source material actually says.

Using both PET and fMRI, Paulescu et al. 2001, show that dyslexia in alphabet writing systems has a universal basis in the brain and can be characterized by the same neurocognitive deficit. Clearly, the manifestation in reading behavior is less severe in a shallow orthography.

Also, the statement isn't strictly an orthographic topic. The corrected version of the paragraph may fit better in the research section of the article. Best, Rosmoran (talk) 02:02, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

Requesting opinions

Hi, everyone. There is an external links section called "Research papers, media ..." To my eye, the items in this list are not significantly notable for such a broad topic as the top-level article for dyslexia. It appears to me we are giving undue weight to relatively low-importance nuggets of information.

Opinions?

Best, Rosmoran (talk) 02:45, 7 August 2009 (UTC)

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"? [2] [3] 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)