Talk:Dyslexia/Archive 1

message: Some would appear to dispute that dyslexia is a man made problem.
The underlying causes of dyslexia, sensory and/ or motor information processing disorders or deficts, and conflicting dominant learning styles have been always been part of human nature, as this is what makes us all different from each other.
So these differences existed before man developed speech, and before man went on to develop a visual notation of speech. So the symptoms of having problems using the human visual notation of the human devised auditory communication system can only act to highlight the existances of these differences or deficits. Which will require further medical investigation.
Unlike present day human inventions and developments which come complete with an instruction manual, man forgot to create the basic instruction manual regarding speech and the visual notation of speech communication systems. So we are now having to analyse these issues retrospectively, as we try to understand and define which skills are required to perform the task of reading, and how these skills interact when performing the task of reading. 
Unfortunately there is not even an Agreed Working Model for the task of reading. This really creates further problems when trying to identify the issues and problems that those who have problems performing the task of reading, Dyslexics.   
So finding answers to our dyslexic problems is not an easy or simple task. It is a collection of very complex issues, for the most of these issues we are still trying to create the technology required to help us understand the true nature of the problems before we can even begin to searcg for and find solutions.
These problems would still be there even if we had developed an alternative communication system, which is partially demonstrated by the problems that Chinese Dyslexics have reading their whole word style Characters. 
dolfrog 22:28, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Dyslexia a man made problem?

message: I removed this statement which was the leading sentence of the "Facts and Statistics" section.  A citationless statement saying as many as 1 in every 5 people has dyslexia is a little too outlandish I think.  Find a source and it would be a very interesting fact.
: You are absolutely right -- I've found a somewhat different source (estimates 5-17% rate) and a citation to back it up, and inserted that info where the part you removed was - Abigail Marshall 08:56, 14 December 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: 10-20% of "population" has dyslexia?

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

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

message: Hey, I'd like someone qualified to assess the following site, which cites clinical studies demonstrating Dyslexia to be a disorder of the inner-ear, that can be greatly improved by inner-ear medicines designed to improve motion-sickness. If there are no objections, I'll add a line or two about this research in the article (as a theory, of course, not as fact).
The idea is that inner ear problems could cause the focusing and eye-movement problems dyslexics are known for, as well as a difficulty with "stabilizing" letters on a page since the inner ear controls this sort of coordination. Many other dyslexic symptoms can be similarly explained as the product of inner ear abnormalities.
Dyslexia as a CV disorder
Journal abstract (for the brave)
My eight year old son has been through a series of tests, and it looks like he is dyslexic.  He has a spelling age of 7 yrs, 00 mths, but a non-verbal MAT score of 14 years 06 months.  The thing that caught my eye on this entry, was the reference to an inner ear disorder.  For 2 years from the age of 18 mths, my son was almost totally deaf, suffering from (the common condition), glue ear.  I wonder if any research has been done investigating whether there is any correlation between dyslexia and glue ear?
I have a history of Auditory Dyslexia. I had a severe ear infection when I was 3 years old. I don't have a history of glue ear. I don't have poor hearing. My hearing is sensitive. When I was 4 years old, the nuns asked what language I spoke. They couldn't understand me. My mother was informed that I wasn't hearing things right for I was turning stuff around when I heard it. Auditory reversals. They told her that people have to slow down when talking to me because information can come to be too fast. I have auditory input speech lags to this day. I need things repeated a lot. A lot of times I get confused by what people say. I can mishear things. I had auditory therapy,speech therapy,and phonics to remediate my Auditory Dyslexia. I also have a history of developmental coordination problems. I had fine motor skills therapy.  I saw Dr. Levinson for testing in 2005. I had the testing that was shown on the site except he didn't test me with 3D Optical Scanner. He tested me with 3D Auditory Scanner,and I had abnormal results. To measure auditory blurring,Dr. Levinson devised an instrument
capable of speeding up a series of clear sounds until they could no longer be distinguished, with and without an interfering background,thus establishing the auditory blurring speed.  The electronystagmography was abnormal showing that I have poor eye tracking,coordination issues. The posturography showed mildly abnormal in all 3 areas that showed that I have problems with balance and sensory integration. The standard neurological tests showed abnormalities. He even noted that I had slow auditory input and mild articulation problems when he was doing neurological testing on me.
I took Dr. Levinson's testing to the Veteran Affairs. They gave me testing,and they confirmed that I have abnormal cerebellar system. They gave me neurological testing,and it showed that I have borderline impaired immediate verbal memory and borderline impaired sentence repetition. My immediate visual memory was impaired too.
To make a long story short, the Veteran Affairs neurologists said that I have Dyslexia and Dyspraxia.I also have inattentive type ADHD diagnosed in 2004. 
I want to spend the rest of my life raising awareness about Dyslexia and Dyspraxia. I want to point out about the Auditory Dyslexics. I am tired of people focusing on Dyslexia as visual reversals of issue. I also have speech problems connected to my Dyslexia. Speech delays/problems are early warning signs of Dyslexia. They are listed at International Dyslexia Association site too.
(Satabishara 15:43, 2 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  theory of dyslexia as an inner ear disorder 

message: Amorrow says: I think that the list of celebrities should be reduced to a very small number, if any.  15% of human population says it all.  If studies has shown that dyslexia is more prevelant in certain groups, then fine.
Why are all these celebrities listed?  Are you just trying to make people who feel they have dyslexia feel better about some perception that they have not accomplished much in their lives?  If you are, then you are not being objective.  Instead, you are being sucked into problems of people who suffer from dyxlexia, both related and unrelated to their dyslexia.  Wikipedia is not here to glamourize dyxlexia.  Wikipedia is here to help others understand this specific diagnosis and describe its context in the human population.
The same goes for anything else that makes dyslexics "special" unless it has been published in a peer-reviewed journal.  Shove it somewher else and get it out of this entry.  You can add all of the "Dyslexia Support Group" links you want at the bottom of the page.
One other comment: It is inappropriate to "suspect" a living person, even if they are a celebrity, of having dyslexia.  If they are still alive, it should be considered their private medical data until they have released the information to the public.
:I think it is appropriate to list celeberties, especially since many articles that have brain disorders (Schizophrenia, Bipolar disorder, etc.) have a list.  --Admiral Roo 13:22, September 2, 2005 (UTC)
:I agree, 15% is a huge number. Perhaps a few notable examples would be fine (for example people who overcame dyslexia and prevailed or people who were greatly affected by it) but if you list 15% of the celebrities out there, you will have a list of a few thousdand names! I also agree that unless it is made publicly known that someone is dyslexic by himself of his doctor, it doesn't belong on wikipedia. Maybe us weekly...
66.75.49.213 12:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: To Amorrow, Wikipedia is for knowledge. Having celebrities on here is appropriate. It's a list of people who have dyslexica. If people know something about them then they can put a face on it and be able to see what it is and not just medical gabble.
amorrow: "Wikipedia is not here to glamourize dyxlexia."
It's not but it can be fair, and not looked as a disease as the page makes it out to be. -- Hpbenton 07:51, 8 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please remove the list of celebrities 

message: Does anyone find it ironic that the Dyslexia page has a  tag on it. :) - UnlimitedAccess 17:03, 7 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I know that you dont men to be but your comment is offensive. It was me that put up the tag. The grammer and spelling of the article is fine (perfect). What is not fine are the many unsubstantiated factoids scattered about all over the place. In particular with reference to symptoms and diagnosis--Fergie 09:44, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Offensive? I have dyslexia and I didnt find it offensive, it's a fact most forms of Dyslexia involve poor writing, I thought it was an apt joke. :P - UnlimitedAccess 10:37, 8 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Don't worry - I found it amusing too! violet/riga (t) 22:36, 9 September 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Irony 

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

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

message: Did you know that if you type in Dyslexia backwards (aixelsyd) it redirects to the dyslexia page?  I find that pretty amusing.
*Tongo Zitheroo Ketchill
:Dislexyia too. --Mistress Selina Kyle (Α⇔Ω ¦ ⇒✉) 09:32, 29 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Now that's comedy

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

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

message: Would anybody have any objection to swapping out the current, innacurate, "common characteristics of dyslexia" section with a more universally accepted list of symptoms such as this (British Dyslexic Association)?--Fergie 13:00, 12 September 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Are you sure that is the correct link?  When I click on it I am prompted to provide a username and password.  Nautile 20:19, 7 March 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Common characteristics of dylexia 

message: "Strong sense of justice; emotionally sensitive; strives for perfection." What? Just what is he basing this on? -Evil
Dyslexic
:Sounds like a category from Myers-Briggs Personality Inventory -- possibly "INFP". Certainly has nothing to do with Dyslexia, as far as I know.  Brian Pearson 05:29, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Personality Assumptions 

message: Because I'm a callow idiot, I edited this page so that it reads, 
The child may have trouble distinguishing between the letters "b," "d," "q" and "p."
I believe I added the letter Q. I apologize. I am also a dyslexic. It has taken me too long to say anything of this edit. (I should have commented first in the place.)
Thank you for your time. 65.7.232.42 03:00, 25 January 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Public Support 

message: You may want to search for the recent functional MRI studies involving dyslexia that support a physiological basis.  Here are some summary articles: 
http://www.time.com/time/asia/covers/501030908/story.html
http://serendip.brynmawr.edu/bb/neuro/neuro01/web3/Slaughter.html
http://science-education.nih.gov/snapshots.nsf/story?openform&rtn~Dyslexia
205.201.32.123 02:57, 9 May 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Functional MRI studies 

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

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

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

message: I strongly disagree with any institutions that use the term “learning disability” in their definition of dyslexia. These experts are non-dyslexics that extract their theories from books written by non-dyslexics. 
It is a different learning style and it does not take an expert to identify this fact. Once the learning formula has been identified and mastered, most dyslexics prove that the “learning disability” term has no value at all. Right from the start all humans need to come up with a learning formula and dyslexics alike. 
-----------
US National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) / International Dyslexia Association
Defines Dyslexia as a specific learning disability of neurological origin. Characterized with difficulties with accurate and/or fluent word recognition, spelling and decoding abilities.
Im a Dyslexic and I know that dyslexia is a disablity, but in my opinion it is just a speedbump that can be easily 'got over', my dyslexia used to be a learning disablity to me until I just tried harder than a person without dyslexia to overcome these issues. Im not stupid, and I know dyslexia is very different from retardation, I have an IQ of 140, and am reasonably intteligent, in fact when I was younger my reading age was twice that of non-dyslexics who were my age, but dyslexia does cause problems for many people, you have to accept that. On the other hand dyslexia does often have plus points, whereas dyslexia may cause disability in certain areas (e..g a smaller language area of the brain), it also often leads to increased capability in other areas (e.g. logic, possibly  mathematics, it varies from dyslexic to dyslesic, but usually in compensation for a smlaller language section, the brain compenstates by a larger other section). Usually dyslexics have specific skills which are much improved on those on non-dyslexics, such as skills in science, art, English vocabulary (Im only sixteen so Ive just taken my GCSE's, but I have achieved A*'s in many of my English language and literature tests, the highest you can get in English qualifications), and dyslexics usually have certain ways of looking at things, or a certain drive or intrest in specific things which increases their capability in specific subjects. Basically (with many dyslexics) at the increased difficulty in learning certain common skills (such as spelling etc) dyslexics often have a specific skill which they are much better at than the majority of non-dyslexics. In short dyslexia IS a learning disability to many, but it is also a gift in certain ways to many.172.206.11.173 10:17, 7 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  RE: Learning disability 

message: I have not changed the article because I do not have any evidence, and I do not feel that it would add to the content, but I thought I would add this here.
It seem so me that any condition that cannot be easerly tested or defined makes the medical community (especially Doctors) very uneasy, and they are very quick to try and discredit anything they cannot treat with a few pills and a set of precise data.
Good examples of this a Dyslexia and Depression. These conditions are ones that do not have a list of standard criteria for people to say "right we’ve ticked off X amount of them so the diagnosis is confermed".
Personal Feelings (sorry):
My (entirely personal) opinion is that many Doctors have an over inflated view of there own important (GP's and consultants mostly, Specialists much less so). As a Chartered Engineer If I treated my clients the same way as some Doctors have treated me and my partner (who suffers from depression) Id have been fired a long time ago, and I am just as qualified as them and dealing with people who know even less about what I do that people do about there own body’s... This type of attitude seems to go along way to explaining why the medical profession seem so ready to write off Dyslexia as "just being lazy" of "a bit slow".
Paul
There is also another reason. The most probable causes for dyslexia are enviroment factors like mercury (which is known to disturb the braindevelopment in humans and animals alike). Things that can't be threated - and even worse - would cost the big lobby's money are usually dismissed as non existent... The Bush Regime is even trying to get mercury from the list of poisons^^ BakuninXL 23:51, 8 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Not all mercury is poisonous, nor in the same amounts.  The problem with finding a "cause" for dyslexia is that there is no single dyslexia, rather it's an effect caused by any number of factors.  While I agree that exposure to mercury is not good, you must be careful not to delve into conspiracy theories... I know that people claim that mercury in MRM vaccinations causes autism, despite the situation that we no longer use mercury in our MRM vaccinations, and our rate of autism has not decreased, neither is the rate of autism higher in places where MRM vaccinations are still allowed to contain mercury, and of course all of that is compounded by the fact that autism is not identifiable until the child begins do develop as it is a development disorder, much like dyslexia.  You can't examine a 1-year old and know if it has dyslexia or not, because 1-year olds can't read.  Similarly with autism, all babies begin pretty darn autistic, then they develop some, and then autistics fall behind and never catch up.  That's just how things work, of course, do anything consistently to babies any time right around where that falling behind is noticable (like, give them an MRM vaccination) and suddenly people will associate a cause-and-effect where none exists.  Speculation and wild theories are pretty pointless on wikipedia --Puellanivis 03:17, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  The Myth of Dyslexia. 

message: It's a problem with the brain development or brain chemistry. It's probably closer related to Psychopathy, than to anything else. Instant of no feelings or empathy, people with Dyslexia have no normal access to the parts of the brain which usually are responsible for language. These parts are there, for some reason they just don't work like they are supposed to. It's the same with Psychopaths, the part of the brain that usualy progress feeling and stuff is there, it's just doesn't work for some reason...
BakuninXL 19:23, 5 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dyslexia is not a desease 

message: "...studies suggest that children with dyslexia have bad filters for irrelevant data. As a result, they struggle to form solid mental categories for identifying letters and word sounds..." Brian Pearson 07:14, 19 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Good link. Seems to meet the criteria outlined in WP:REF. It would be great if the whole article could be built up from proper, peer reviewed research such as this.--Fergie 10:02, 22 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have a suggestion for a rewrite -- I would like to retitle the "biological" basis to include the term "neurological", and include a brief summary of the research, including that done by Galaburda in the 80's as to hemispheric structural differences, the focus on phonological processing in the 90's, the research on magnocellular deficit, the more recent reports by the Sperling/Fu team on filtering issue (the one mentioned above); the connectionist work  of Berninger at U. of Washington; and perhaps some mention of the outlier theories, such as cerebellar functioning. I know that it seems like a long list, but I think the basic theories along with citations to major researchers could be easily summarized - and it seems to me that it is more informative to outline the major areas of research focus, without trying to analyze the merits of the various findings. What I would like to cover (at least) are the researchers who are most likely to attract media attention, so when you read something in the news such as the study cited by Brian you could come back to the wikipedia article and at least get a sense of where it all fits in the context of other research being done.  Abigail Marshall 02:06, 24 December 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I've always been interested in reading science articles. In the case of articles such as those found at eurakalert.org , when I have a question or comment to make, I'm often asked if I am a media person and, if so, what media I'm working for. They might be more open to comments if they know their comments or their research could find its way into articles. Just a thought. Brian Pearson 01:11, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  That's an interesting point, Brian.  I have been following up on new research that I used to source a new article - Perceptual noise exclusion hypothesis -- and corresponding with Dr. Lu, one of the researchers. It began when I simply asked for a copy of the research article in advanced of its publication.  I do write for another publication, so I just mentioned my interest in that context  -- I hadn't really thought about the wikipedia connection.  But I wrote Dr. Lu to ask what they wanted to call their theory -- and I did let him know when I created the above article.  He has been very helpful and responsive to my questions -- I just email him and say that I want to make sure I get things right.  But I do think that they are sending out press releases because they want their work publicized, so they should be happy to see it showing up quickly in wikipedia.  Abigail Marshall 05:47, 7 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Dyslexia: New Theory 

message: I have removed the following text, because it looks like private advertising to me:
:More recent advances made by the Dyslexia Treatment Centre A private therapy centre in Glasgow Scotland, UK that specializes in helping a wide variety "Learning Differences" such as ADD, ADHD, Dyslexia and dyspraxia. The Dyslexia Treatment Centre use a combination therapy treatment including the VAK Approach, used in (nlp) Neuro Linguist Programming
I do not believe that the Wikipedia entry should be used to promote private centers.  If there is a specific METHOD for treatment of dyslexia that is widely used, then I think that a separate topic should be used to reference that method, and the dyslexia article can briefly refer to it and then link; example:  [Orton-Gillingham]
Private centers which offer a particular method, or web sites devoted to promoting that method, might appropriately be linked a the bottom of a particular page.  For example, there is a section for "External Links" and "Schools for Dyslexic Students" at the bottom of the article where outside links might be appropriate. Abigail Marshall 02:10, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Promotion of private dyslexia treatment centers: 

message: What can be done to protect this page?  There are vandals - almost always anonymous IP's - messing with the article on a daily basis, usually deleting text, posting obscenities, or scrambling letters. Is there a way that we can request Wikipedia to restrict editing of this page to registered users who log in?  It seems that some of the pages in Wikipedia do have some added measure of protection.... and it only takes 5 minutes for anyone to create a user account, so I think that is a simple first step that at least might deter some of the vandals.    -- Armarshall 03:09, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: If you really think that the vandalism is that bad, bring it up here and an administrator will probably protect the page. // PoeticDecay 03:33, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thanks ! -- Armarshall 05:56, 9 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Vandalism 

message: Throughout this article, there's a lot of wild and unsubstantiated claims such as the following:
The current consensus is that dyslexia occurs in both sexes with equal frequency. It was previously reported more frequently in males, possibly due to selection factors and/or bias.
I don't mind these stats as long as they're supported by references, but otherwise they're too off-the-wall.  The dead giveaway is the expression "possibly due to..."  Deleted the line from Facts and Statistics section. BomberJoe 04:37, 13 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unsubstantiated stats 

message: The magnocellular theory of a visual processing deficit in dyslexia has now been extensively researched, and I don't think is adequately cover by the sentence:
"Other research focuses on the theory that dyslexia results from a magnocellular deficit related to visual processing, or that it is related to a cerebellar deficit"
It could be argued that it requires a section in iteself, but at least it's own paragraph within this section. It should cover Lovegroves original work using sinusoidal grating from 1986 through to the work carried out be reasearchers such as Stein, Cornelissen and Hansen that has followed up to now.  I'm happy to give it a crack if other wikipedians agree its importance?
Kinkladze28 11:28, 11 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biological Basis - Magnocellular deficit 

message: Im no expert, but my grandfather who is a Doctor (Radiation Oncologist)had rather severe dyslexia, 
and upon doing some research on it and based on his own experience he found that 
dyslexia was a condition in which the brain processes information with without discerning and selecting what information is altogether necessary o come to a complete understanding. For example, when the average persoon sees a word, usually about three threads of thought come into their head (phonics, meaning, context, etc.) but for a dyslexic instead of three, maybe 12 or 15 thoughts may come into their head —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 71.74.160.200 (talk) 14:53, 14 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Multiple thouoght entry theory 

message: I didn't read the whole discussion page, but I noticed there was a discussion about  "normal to above normal intelligence." However, the latter is not NPOV. People who are identified as dyslexic can of course have average, above average or below average intelligence. Only people whose intelligence falls below the normal range, that is, people with a mental retardation, are not given this label because their problems with reading and writing are seen as secondary to their lack of general cognitive abilities.
I have also checked the Government of Canada’s Health Portal. It does not say "in spite of normal to above average intelligence". It says: "In fact, many people with dyslexia are above average in intelligence." That's true. However, it doesn't deny the fact that many people, with and without dyslexia, are below average in intelligence. Strictly speaking, 49 % of the population. ;)
So I'm going to change that part as well in the article. 
Cheers! Lova Falk 18:37, 23 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Not due to an intelligence below the normal range" 

message: Wikipedia is not an op ed section -- I've moved and tagged the two paragraphs beginning with "Dyslexia is a man made problem." because while they reflect a valid and debatable opinion, they are not fact, and they are not attributed.  Who says this?  The poster? Or is there an agency or organization that has adopted or promulgated this view.  If it is opinion only, then it doesn't belong in Wikipedia -- or else it needs to be labeled.  
I really think those two paragraphs belong on the Discussion page, not the article ... but I'm leaving them to give the contributor a chance to clean up.  Armarshall 02:43, 24 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Additions must be verifiable and sourced 

message: I reverted your changes to the definition of dyslexia --as your revision is not in accordance with current thinking, as adopts the now disfavored "discrepency" model of dyslexia.  Your input is very welcome, but the previous definition is the product of many individuals' contributions over time and I do not think it is appropriate for any user to make such a major change without some discussion at the outset.  So can we talk about it here?  
Here is what you wrote:
::Dyslexia' is a deficiency in reading and/or writing abilities, at a level below what is expected in comparison with an individual's other cognitive abilities (level of intelligence)[1], despite conventional teaching and adequate sociocultural opportunity. It is characterized by difficulties with phonological processing[2], automatic naming skills and working memory. It's effects can be seen in spoken language as well as written language.
Here is the current, restored text:
:: Dyslexia is a condition or learning disability which causes difficulty with reading and/or writing, and which is not due to an intelligence below the normal range or to sensory problems such as poor eyesight. Dyslexia is characterized by difficulty or inability to learn adequate reading or writing skills despite conventional teaching and adequate sociocultural opportunity.
I'm not altogether happy with the current version, but I think it is closer to a consensus view. Anything adopting the "discrepancy" view is just going to be the source of a lot more discussion and conflict.
So all I am saying is lets have some more give and take before making changes to the introductory paragraph. I actually like what you wrote a lot, I just thought it was a pretty major change and would like more input before is fully incorporated.  So maybe if I don't hear from you, I'll try to restore it but also address the specific problems that are causing me some concern.    Armarshall 02:02, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I felt the the altered (Gerard) version had several good points, is there any way they can be combined? will have a look at how in detail when I have more time --Nate1481(talk/contribs) 08:53, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  To Gerard Duncan 

message: "Theories of developmental dyslexia: insights from a multiple case study of dyslexic adults"
is a research paper dating back to 2002 -2003 and the aim of the research was to compare the Theories of dyselxia that prevailed in 2002 (i) the phonological theory, (ii) the magnocellular (auditory and visual) theory and (iii) the cerebellar theory.
This is now avialable to read on line or as a free PDF download
http://brain.oxfordjournals.org/cgi/content/full/126/4/841
as this is a free download, i thought i would be a good idea to copy the description of the theories examined during this research.
Personally I do not see these as competing theories, but different perspectives on the same problems.
The Phonological Theory
The phonological theory postulates that dyslexics have a
specific impairment in the representation, storage and/or
retrieval of speech sounds. It explains dyslexics' reading
impairment by appealing to the fact that learning to read an
alphabetic system requires learning the grapheme±phoneme
correspondence, i.e. the correspondence between letters and
constituent sounds of speech. If these sounds are poorly
represented, stored or retrieved, the learning of grapheme±
phoneme correspondences, the foundation of reading for
alphabetic systems, will be affected accordingly (Bradley and
Bryant, 1978; Vellutino, 1979; Snowling, 1981; Brady and
Shankweiler, 1991). While theorists have different views
about the nature of the phonological problems, they agree on
the central and causal role of phonology in dyslexia. The
phonological theory therefore postulates a straightforward
link between a cognitive deficit and the behavioural problem
to be explained. At the neurological level, it is usually
assumed that the origin of the disorder is a congenital
dysfunction of left-hemisphere perisylvian brain areas underlying
phonological representations, or connecting between
phonological and orthographic representations.
Support for the phonological theory comes from evidence
that dyslexic individuals perform particularly poorly on tasks
requiring phonological awareness, i.e. conscious segmentation
and manipulation of speech sounds. However, evidence
for poor verbal short-term memory and slow automatic
naming in dyslexics also points to a more basic phonological
de®cit, perhaps having to do with the quality of phonological
representations, or their access and retrieval (Snowling,
2000). Anatomical work (Galaburda et al., 1985; Geschwind
and Galaburda, 1985) and functional brain imaging studies
support the notion of a left perisylvian dysfunction as a basis
for the phonological deficit (Paulesu et al., 1996, 2001;
Shaywitz et al., 1998; Brunswick et al., 1999; McCrory et al.,
2000; Pugh et al., 2000; Temple et al., 2001; Shaywitz et al.,
2002).
In order to better differentiate the phonological theory from
the others, we discuss here only the strong version of the
theory: that the cognitive deficit is specific to phonology.
Indeed, challengers of the phonological theory do not dispute
the existence of a phonological deficit and its contribution to
reading retardation; rather, they uphold that the disorder is
much more extended, having its roots in general sensory,
motor or learning processes, and that the phonological deficit
is just one aspect or consequence of the more general
disorder. 
The rapid auditory processing theory
The most obvious way to challenge the specificity of the
phonological de®cit is to postulate that it is secondary to a
more basic auditory deficit. This is the claim of the rapid
auditory processing theory, which specifies that the deficit
lies in the perception of short or rapidly varying sounds 
(Tallal, 1980; Tallal et al., 1993). Support for this
theory arises from evidence that dyslexics show poor
performance on a number of auditory tasks, including
frequency discrimination (Mc////ly and Stein, 1996;
Ahissar et al., 2000) and temporal order judgement (Tallal,
1980; Nagarajan et al., 1999) (see reviews by Farmer and
Klein, 1995; McArthur and Bishop, 2001). Abnormal
neurophysiological responses to various auditory stimuli
have also been demonstrated (Mc////ly and Stein, 1996;
Nagarajan et al., 1999; Kujala et al., 2000; Temple et al.,
2000; Ruff et al., 2002). The failure to correctly represent
short sounds and fast transitions would cause further
difficulties in particular when such acoustic events are the
cues to phonemic contrasts, as in /ba/ versus /da/. There is
indeed also evidence that dyslexics may have poorer
categorical perception of certain contrasts (Mody et al.,
1997; Adlard and Hazan, 1998; Serniclaes et al., 2001). In
this view, the auditory deficit is therefore the direct cause, in
the course of development, of the phonological deficit, and
hence of the difficulty in learning to read. The original version
of the auditory theory made no particular claim at the
biological level, but we will see below that this is now
specified within the magnocellular theory.
The visual theory
The visual theory (Lovegrove et al., 1980; Livingstone
et al., 1991; Stein and Walsh, 1997) re¯ects another longstanding
tradition in the study of dyslexia, that of
considering it as a visual impairment giving rise to
difficulties with the processing of letters and words on a
page of text. This may take the form of unstable binocular
fixations, poor vergence (Cornelissen et al., 1993; Stein and
Fowler, 1993; Eden et al., 1994), or increased visual
crowding (Spinelli et al., 2002). The visual theory does
not exclude a phonological deficit, but emphasizes a visual
contribution to reading problems, at least in some dyslexic
individuals. At the biological level, the proposed aetiology
of the visual dysfunction is based on the division of the
visual system into two distinct pathways that have
different roles and properties: the magnocellular and
parvocellular pathways. The theory postulates that the
magnocellular pathway is selectively disrupted in certain
dyslexic individuals, leading to deficiencies in visual
processing, and, via the posterior parietal cortex, to
abnormal binocular control and visuospatial
attention (Stein and Walsh, 1997; Hari et al., 2001).
Evidence for magnocellular dysfunction comes from anatomical
studies showing abnormalities of the magnocellular
layers of the lateral geniculate nucleus (Livingstone et al.,
1991), psychophysical studies showing decreased sensitivity
in the magnocellular range, i.e. low spatial frequencies
and high temporal frequencies, in dyslexics (Lovegrove
et al., 1980; Cornelissen et al., 1995), and brain imaging
studies (Eden et al., 1996). 
The cerebellar theory
Yet another view is represented by the automaticity/
cerebellar theory of dyslexia (Nicolson and Fawcett, 1990;
Nicolson et al., 2001) (henceforth referred to as the cerebellar
theory). Here the biological claim is that the dyslexic's
cerebellum is mildly dysfunctional and that a number of
cognitive difficulties ensue. First, the cerebellum plays a role
in motor control and therefore in speech articulation. It is
postulated that retarded or dysfunctional articulation would
lead to deficient phonological representations. Secondly, the
cerebellum plays a role in the automatization of overlearned
tasks, such as driving, typing and reading. A weak capacity to
automatize would affect, among other things, the learning of
grapheme±phoneme correspondences. Support for the cerebellar
theory comes from evidence of poor performance of
dyslexics in a large number of motor tasks (Fawcett et al.,
1996), in dual tasks demonstrating impaired automatization
of balance (Nicolson and Fawcett, 1990), and in time
estimation, a non-motor cerebellar task (Nicolson et al.,
1995). Brain imaging studies have also shown anatomical,
metabolic and activation differences in the cerebellum of
dyslexics (Rae et al., 1998; Nicolson et al., 1999; Brown et al.,
2001; Leonard et al., 2001).
The magnocellular theory
Finally, there is a unifying theory that attempts to integrate all
the findings mentioned above. A generalization of the visual
theory, the magnocellular theory (Stein and Walsh, 1997)
postulates that the magnocellular dysfunction is not restricted
to the visual pathways but is generalized to all modalities
(visual and auditory as well as tactile). Furthermore, as the
cerebellum receives massive input from various magnocellular
systems in the brain, it is also predicted to be affected
by the general magnocellular defect (Stein et al., 2001).
Through a single biological cause, this theory therefore
manages to account for all known manifestations of dyslexia:
visual, auditory, tactile, motor and, consequently, phonological
(for an attentional variant see Hari and Renvall, 2001).
Beyond the evidence pertaining to each of the theories
described previously, evidence specifically relevant to the
magnocellular theory includes magnocellular abnormalities
in the medial as well as the lateral geniculate nucleus of
dyslexics' brains (Livingstone et al., 1991; Galaburda et al.,
1994), poor performance of dyslexics in the tactile
domain (Grant et al., 1999; Stoodley et al., 2000), and the
co-occurrence of visual and auditory problems in certain
dyslexics (Witton et al., 1998; Cestnick, 2001; van Ingelghem
et al., 2001).
Although the auditory and visual theories have been
presented here separately for historical and logical reasons,
their supporters now agree that visual and auditory disorders
in dyslexia are part of a more general magnocellular
dysfunction. We will therefore not discuss the visual and
auditory theories independently. Rather, we will restrict the
discussion to a comparison between the phonological,
cerebellar and magnocellular theories.
I am sure that there are many other theories, but these are worth cosidering.
best wishes dolfrog 14:13, 27 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some Theories of Dyslexia 

message: There is a stub article titled double deficit.  This term refers to a theory proposed by Maryann Wolfe and is better known as the "double deficit hypothesis."  The theory is specifically about dyslexia and not about reading difficulties in general. 
I believe this stub should either be merged with the dyslexia article or set up so that it is a closely related article.
Thoughts?  
smoran 19:38, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: In theory, a good idea - but I when I was editing the "dyslexia" topic I got a message from the system saying that the topic was growing large (52K) and to consider splitting it up -- so I don't think there's enough *room* in the dyslexia topic for detailed exploration of all the different hypotheses. (See dolfrog's post above for the others).  So I think merger might not work well in the long run simply because there are so many competing theories to have room detailed discussion of each in every topic. (Apparently 52K is pushing it, and at 80-100K they really want to see articles broken up). Armarshall 23:52, 28 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Double deficit hypothesis

message: There is more than enough material to be covered on this topic to create an article series, and in my opinion the article would benefit from having summarized sections with links to sub-articles that contain the details.  
This approach would enable us to provide detailed information about specific subtopics that seem to require more comprehensive coverage, such as the dyslexia theories mentioned in the above discussion topic, without overwhelming the main article. 
Here is a link to information about what a series of articles looks like: Wikipedia:Article series.  Another relevant article to using this approach is Wikipedia:Summary style.  
Does anyone have strong objections to going this route?
smoran 01:36, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with you 100%... and thanks for posting those links -- it's a good start.  I assume that the process of the summary-style or article series is a evolutionary one, that develops over time as the sub-articles are developed. Armarshall 07:23, 29 May 2007 (UTC)

text: I agree wholeheartedly that "theories" is a good starting point - and in fact even before you had posted, had thought that my next project might be to take the dolfrog's reference above and use it as a starting point. I actually had already done something like that with the article, Perceptual Noise Exclusion Hypothesis - at the time I read that research it seemed important, but I didn't think it appropriate to have it take up much space in the "dyslexia" article, so I had created the separate article and simply added a brief sentence and link to the "Biological Basis of Dyslexia" section.  So you might take a look a that as a model for how the shorter articles can be presented. It seems like a good for topics where there is ongoing research, as there is a continual influx of new research to report -- so separate topics provide a place for that sort of thing, without causing undue focus in the main article to be placed on whichever study happens to be most recent or gotten the most press coverage. Armarshall 11:45, 29 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposal to create set of dyslexia-related articles

message: Technobabble is the product of independent researchers or groups of researchers defining the issues they are researching in their Jargon, which they invent as they progress. The result is mant terms having similar or the same meaning, which for most others only creates confusion.
And much of the debate and disagreement regarding dyslexia is rooted in these various similar definition and different researcg backgrounds.
To best help fellow dyslkexic and others may be we should create a glossary of the jargon, and try to explain the issues using language that all can understand.
There is a research paper in the UK that states with the same set of symptoms you can get 4 different diagnosis depending on the type of Professional Consultant you see. Below is a quote from the research paperwhich at this moment in timeis not available for free, but for a fee
at http://www.informaworld.com/openurl?genre=article&issn=1651%2d386X&issue=1&spage=4&volume=4 
The ‘deeply rooted positions’ mentioned above
include the different diagnosis and treatment that
will result from a referral route through different
professionals. For example, a child with identical
symptoms may be classed as APD by an audiologist,
SLI by a SLT, dyslexic by an educational psychologist,
and autistic spectrum by a psychiatrist. The
evolution of the APD concept has itself been more
strongly influenced by ‘clinical judgement’ and
commercial interests than by scientific rigour. This
has resulted in a plethora of diagnostic tests and
treatments lacking any scientific validity. Finally,
there are the competing demands and interests of
clinicians who have a problem to deal with, but no
time to do the necessary research, and academics
who, despite having plenty of research time, do not
know how and usually do not wish to research a
problem that is not precisely defined."
And we somehow have to make sense of the output of these self interested professionals.
best wishes dolfrog 13:44, 31 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: The need to eliminate Technobabble, most who visit this page are Dyslexic after all

message: No offense intended to anyone, but we cannot assume that most of the people who visit this page are dyslexic.  This is an encyclopedia, so we have to assume that anyone could visit the page.  To support this assertion, here are a couple of relevant quotes from Wikipedia style and guideline articles:  
From Wikipedia:Neutral Point of View, one of the Wikipedia:Five Pillars:
::"Wikipedia is a general encyclopedia, which means it is a representation of human knowledge at some level of generality."
From Wikipedia:Feature article advice: 
::"Any given reader of Wikipedia, an international resource of dizzying diversity, may not be familiar with your topic or its importance. Make sure you put your topic in context and explain why it's encyclopedic, only, just to complicate matters, you have to do so without retelling the history of the world and crowding the article with indirectly related information. It's a difficult balancing act."
From Wikipedia:What Wikipedia is not
::"When you wonder what should or should not be in an article, ask yourself what a reader would expect to find under the same heading in an encyclopedia."
This is not to say that Wikipedia isn't an appropriate place for more detailed information intended for a specific sub-audience.  One of the beauties of an electronic encyclopedia is that you can "layer" information, with increasingly specific/detailed information that the general reader wouldn't be interested presented in subordinate articles.   
From Wikipedia:Guide to writing better articles, on the topic of Wikipedia:Summary Style
::"The idea is to distribute information in such a way that Wikipedia can serve readers who want varying amounts of detail. It is up to the reader to choose how much detail they are exposed to (in order to avoid ...) overwhelming the reader with too much text at once. This is the style followed by such featured articles Cricket and Music of the Lesser Antilles.
::"There are two main reasons for using Summary style in Wikipedia articles. One is that different readers desire different levels of details: some readers need just a quick summary and are satisfied by the leadsection; more people need a moderate amount of info, and will find the article suitable to their needs; yet others need a lot of detail, and will be interested in reading the subarticles. ...."
Best,
smoran 23:06, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Audience for this article, and why it matters