Other conditions[edit]

What is meant by the "Other conditions" line in this template? How are any of these conditions supposed to be related to Dyslexia? There is no connection between Tourette syndrome and dyslexia. Please produce a peer-reviewed journal-cited indication of the reasoning behind any condition included on this template. Where is the journal-published, peer-reviewed indication that Auditory Integration Training, for example, is an effective treatment for dyslexia? Thank you. It is unclear what this template is supposed to tie together and how any or all of these article relate to dyslexia. 209.247.22.113 21:43, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This is a navigational template, not part of the article. The idea is to provide quick links to other related topics, partly so that people will not be tempted to include details about those things within the dyslexia topic itself. Tourette's probably got added because it was on a list of language-based learning disorders somewhere. "A navigational template is often a small list for use in several related articles, without the usual disadvantages of duplication; in particular, editing is done in a central place, the template page" – see Wikipedia:Navigational templates. In any case, I invited people to edit it when I created it --see Talk:Dyslexia#New_navigational_Template:Dyslexia. Maybe the template itself should be retitled to something broader. Armarshall 23:14, 19 June 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Vision for this template[edit]

Hi, Arm.

When you invited people to edit this template, you didn't provide a link to it or any way to find it. I'm not suggesting that you didn't really want collaboration, but I for one didn't realize that this was a separate Wikipedia object that would be developed separately from the dyslexia page. My ignorance of the details of Wikipedia, to be sure, but I suspect I'm not the only one.

Can you tell me a little more about what you intended the template to do? Do you envision this as the navigation mechanism for the set of articles we plan to create when we break up the dyslexia article? If not, what articles do you expect would include this template?

Best,

Rosmoran 01:02, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Sorry – the template itself has a navigation link -- if you look at it, you will see it has the letters v-d-e in the upper left side -- clicking on "e" takes you do the edit page. (The letter "d" takes you to this page, the discussion page). I mistakenly thought people were familiar with navigation templates, but I guess not. The basic idea of a navigation template is an expanded version of "categories" -- it is supposed to be a way to link together closely related topics, and I thought it was one way to help with breaking apart the dyslexia article into closely related topics. In other words, the things that go in the template are the "related" subjects that you would ordinarily NOT want discussed at length, if at all, in the main article. The template itself will show up on any page where it is deemed relevant by the editors.
For an example of a navigation template, go to Neurology and scroll to the bottom of the page to the Health science > medicine template -- you will see that the categories of the templage are generally broader than the page on which the template appears. For example, that template has a category "Medical Specialties" which includes Cardiology, Endicronology, etc. No one is saying that Neurology and Cardiology are the same thing -- the idea is that if you are on the Neurology page and want to know about a different field of medicine, you will have the template link on the bottom.
I probably should have given the template a broader title from the outset, like "Learning Disbilities" – but at the time there was a lot of discussion going on over whether "dyslexia" is "learning disability" or "condition", etc. – and I was trying to avoid using words that would set off that whole debate. We were also talking about getting a Wiki project team together – it turned out that we don't have enough people for that, but the navigational template seemed like an easily implemented, shortcut way of uniting all the topics that were being discussed as related to that project.
Armarshall 03:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


Hi, Arm. Thanks for the info. I'm still learning about Wikipedia, and I run into things I didn't know on a regular basis.  :-) Would you mind putting this into the To Do list at the top of the dyslexia Talk page? That way people will know that this is directly related to the dyslexia article.
I think using a navigational template like this is a really good idea. We do need to clearly define what we're trying to accomplish with it, but it's a great model for guiding readers through related topics.
The neurology page you pointed to actually has two templates at the bottom, one is the Template:Medicine navigation template, and the other is the Template:Neuroscience footer template. Both of these templates seem to be used as part of an overall navigational structure used by the Medicine Wikiproject. There's even a category established for the related navigation templates, called "Category:Medical navigational boxes". (I wasn't successful creating a link to this, but don't know why.)
Were you thinking we should create a large navigational structure along these lines? How broad a navigation structure do you envision?
I have a few ideas I'll go off and play around with. Will let you know when I have something to show-and-tell.  :-)
Best,
Rosmoran 21:08, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
I didn't really have a firm idea -- I just saw that the Navigational template was something that could be created quickly – without requiring approval – so to me it looked like something that could be started whether or not the Wikiproject concept was approved. The idea was that the template could be created, and then as we broke out articles from "Dyslexia" into other locations, then the same template could go on those pages -- and that would keep everything linked together. For the "to do" list did you mean something like "Improve Navigational Template"? I'm happy to add it -- or you can add the text you were thinking of -- I'm just not sure how you would like the list worded. Armarshall 21:45, 14 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

To Piechjo[edit]

This is a Navigational template -- its function is to help users go to related topics -- so it is the appropriate place to include references to other topics that are NOT included within the main topic. Please do not remove the references to the articles about the alternative therapies. You have made it clear that you have a personal bias against those therapies, but that is not a reason to remove them from a navigational array -- the whole purpose of this template is to avoid the need to discuss these items with the main article. Please read Wikipedia:Navigational_templates to understand the function of this sort of template -- this is not something that is in one place but something that will end up on the bottom of many related articles. Armarshall 12:03, 13 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Take a look at this model[edit]

Hi, Arm et al. Take a look at a similar nav template I created at User:Rosmoran/navigation sandbox. It is fairly narrow in scope, but does provide links to "larger" topic areas. Let me know what you think.

Best,

Rosmoran 06:02, 15 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Alternative version of navigation box[edit]

Hi,

Please take a look at User:Rosmoran/navigation sandbox to see a couple of different navigation structures.

Feedback requested.

Best, Rosmoran 00:38, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dear All

While trying to locate some information regarding CAPD (the web sites have changes all their content from when i lasat looked) I found about the best web page regarding dyslexia of US origin. From LDonline And this whould be the basis for any new Dyslexia article http://www.ldinfo.com/dyslexia.htm

best wishes

dolfrog 05:40, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, dolfrog.
I like the practical nature of this article. But, it cannot be used as "verifiable" information because:
  • It is on the site of a single psychologist (who is affiliated with a school district in Minnesota).
  • Although a great deal of this information is reflected in what can be found in the mainstream of dyslexia researchers/experts here in the US, the emphasis on and "due weight" given to various topics is very different.
  • Since the site doesn't provide any verifiable research to support the different emphasis, we cannot consider the information as reliable.
Please understand that I'm not saying the information isn't good or helpful. It is. But we can't use it instead of the information/conclusions presented by mainstream researchers in the U.S.
If this information is more representative of research that is published in the UK, we could certainly use it as a guideline when discussing the differences between how dyslexia is viewed in the two countries.
(I think these 2 posts should probably go on the regular Dyslexia Talk page instead of the Template Dyslexia page, but I wanted to respond to the original post.)
Best,

Rosmoran 13:55, 16 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Sami

The Problem that most outside of the USA have litlke faith with much of the so called Science that comes out of the USA. This is due to a lack of peer reviewed science artilces or papers but most is science done to support the research sponsors products, which is not always in the best interests of science and the understanding of a topic but does wonders for their marketing. So the question really being asked here is "Is the science you are relying on done for peer reviewed International research, or research to further a sponsors or companies range of products and services" Products and services include Professionals who both diagnose and provide remedial programs, so they are getting the individual to return paying more fees for their help, Program developers and and providers who are selling a magic cure, and then there are the authors of books promoting their particular vision on the topic. And some distort the results of their findings or miss out the less attractive part of their research to help promte the sponsors products.


The science we rely on has to be peer International Peer reviewed, this means that other researchers of equal or greater international Stature have read and may be edited the final research paper. This system of peer reviewed scientific research waht i base my research on, as well as talking tio as many different researchers as possible. So what type of research are you basing the information that you wish to see in the Dyslexiarelated articles, the real peer reviewed science or the opinions of one or 2 US professionals. All the researsh papers I have supplied have been through the peer review procedures and so therefore should be internationally accpeted science. You seem to have some other sources so your wiki would appear to be just the opionions of one or two of your favourite Professionals. The Univerisyut of Florida is leading US research in to Dyslexia may be you should contact them to see waht they think of your pet professionals


Or are you trying to say what is paid for to be publically accepted in the USA has to be right and to hell with real science because thaqt is what you have bought into. Science in not a consumers public opiniuon poll it dictated by the whim of the subjective opinion of concumers. Science is about researching to find the true however unpopular. And having other Peer scientists test your findings before you publish your results.


best wishes

dolfrog 17:03, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

The Real Question Is[edit]

Do you want the wiki article to be Dyslexia in the USA or do you want the article to an international dyslexia article. It has to be one or the other, but they are not one and the same thing. The USA is just one Country, and to assume that what is right for the USA is right for everyone else is wrong. So they choice is yours Do you want an internatioanlly acceptable Dyslexia wiki article or a USA dyslexia article, based around yopur own USA definitions and opinions. From waht you and others have said ius that you want a USA version in which case the article needs to called "Dyslexia in the USA" so that others of the international community understand waht your contribution is about.

dolfrog 17:25, 17 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Dolfrog,
I left you a message on your personal Talk page, but perhaps you missed it. Here's what it said:
"I'm not trying to create a USA only template. Quite the contrary. What would need to be included in the template to cover the areas you think have been left out?"
What I keep hearing from you is either/or --- either the article is USA-centric OR international. The reality is, the article has to reflect at least the major ideas, theories, therapies, etc, of English speaking countries, and not just the areas in which all the countries agree. This means that, when there is something that is accepted in the US but not in the UK, we must craft text that expresses what is accepted and what is controversial in which countries.
The thing is, I don't know what is considered conventional wisdom in the UK. Likewise, I presume that you may not know what is considered conventional wisdom in the US. When I insert text that reflects a USA-specific perspective, I have to depend on people like you to point out the specific section of text that is problematic. Then we, as collaborators, work together to address the areas of difference. The converse also applies.
So, Frogman :-), point out which items in the current navigation box are USA-specific. Then, let's figure out how to integrate both the UK and USA specific info so that they are both there and both given due weight.
Best,
Rosmoran 00:46, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi Sami

From what I understand of the position in the USA is that there is no unified government recognised research regarding dyslexia(I could be wrong) , which is why in 2006 your National Institutes of Health (NIH) has funded the Florida State University' Multidisciplinary Learning Disabilities Center a $6 million 5 year dyslexia research program. Because there is no unified approach to dyslexia in the USA. http://www.eurekalert.org/pub_releases/2006-07/fsu-ntt071106.php

So when I contributed the European Research peer reviewed research paper of 2003 which outlined the current existing Theories of Dyslexia, I was surprised by your reaction and the rweaction of others from the US. All that talk of Hypothesis etc. I have folders of peere reviewed resaefh papers from thew UK countries in Europe, but not much from the USA. So please could you provide some US Peer reveiwed scientific research papers so that we can havwe a sensible discusion. The first thing we need to do it to determine what we mean by dyslexia so that we have an agreed defintion of waht we are talking about. From my position the only thing we can be talking about is having problems with using text, so problems with reading, reading writing and spelling. All the stuff regarding memory and oranisational issues are due to coping with underlying cause of dyslexia and are shared symptoms fro some dyslexics. So we have to define dyslexia on the Peer Reviewed Scientific research from the perspective of dyslexics and not from the perpsective of remedial program providors or self interested diagnostic professionals or the internal agendas of some supprt agencies.

Dyslexia is not just an English speaking culture problem so to get a full understanding of the all of the issues we need to include the problems faced by dyslexics who have other cultural backgrounds, which should be very important to you in the USA as you have a a great diversity in your multi cultural mix. Reading has to be learnt, it is not a natural human skill, some cultures have have different time exposure to using a visual notation of speech, and in the cultures that have had developed a visual notation of speech, there have even been very diverse variations of the notion developed; this will mean that any genetic evolution development to using any visual notatiuon of speech will also be an unknown varyalbe. So first we need to talk about the basics before rushing in and writing articles about anything regarding dyslexia. We need to seperate the science from what various lobby groups want you to hear, and beleive, and the biggest lobby groups are the remedial program providers from Orton Gillingham, FastForword, DDAT(Dore), Lindamoode Bell, etc and their various supports which includes some of the so called national Dyslexic Associations. Another Group to be wary of are the diagnostic professionals who baisccaly after repeat referals to maintain their incomes, which happens in many ways everywhere. What is required is a set of scientific defintions for all of the various underlying causes of the dyslexic symptoms, so that all who have a diagnosis of dyslexia can then investigate fully all of their underlying problems which require assessments and dsiagnosis from the relevent specialist diagnostic profession. With the underlying causes of an individuals dyslexia indentified it will then become possible to identify which if any of the multitude of remedial programs may offer the correct type of support for any specific set of underlying causes. So the Program makers and providers would have to stipulate for which underlying causes of dyslexia that their programa could provide some remedial support, and also for which underlying cause of dyslexia their programs would not provide any benefit, or could caused harm. Nearly all of the programs listed so far help some dyslexics the problesm is defining which dyslexic that they help, and prevenmting the program providers from claiming that their program helkps all dyslexics, which noe of them can claim due to the diversity of the underlying causes of dyslexia.

So if you want to do this properly then each part of the new set up at wiki needs to be discussed by the editors and not have editors just go off and do their own thing. So the task force idea is a good one, but it will require a team effort, and open discussions especailly allowing for the members of this task force have differing sets of underlying causes of their own dyslexia.

In answer to your assertian that I only make critisms i havce made some constructive comments on the various new wiki pages which you or others fail to reply to so it works both ways.

best wishes

dolfrog 16:04, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi sami

you have a very confusing statement here "The reality is, the article has to reflect at least the major ideas, theories, therapies, etc, of English speaking countries, and not just the areas in which all the countries agree"


Your reality is so superficial, the article can only reflect waht we can agree on, anything else is purely waht is accepted in one country and not another. So you apear to be saying even in your own posts that you prefer a US based article because that is what you and others in the US understsnd, which is not waht WIKI is about. The international apprach is to only publish what all can agree on after due debate. So what arte you trying to say. That the USA position is tyhe international position which would be very arrogant, or that you do not have the time nor inclination to properly research dyslexia on an international basis which is the WIKI requirement. you must stop contradicting yourself in the same sentance.

best wishes

dolfrog 16:17, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Hi, Dolfrog.
I don't understand what you mean when you say "Your reality is so superficial ...." I did not say that "the article can only reflect what we can agree on." I most definitely did not say that the USA perspective is the international perspective.
I will try to restate more clearly:
  • A worldwide perspective does not mean that we are obligated to exclude any information where researchers in different countries disagree.
  • Peer-reviewed and reliable does not requre that peers from 10 different countries, or even 2 different countries, have reviewed and signed off on research findings before publication. Peer reviewed and reliable inside an individual country is sufficient for inclusion in a Wikipedia article and fair coverage, provided that where conflicts arise each is given due weight.
  • Where reliable information from one country conflicts with reliable information from another country, both should be included and the conflicts pointed out clearly.
  • The relevant Wikipedia standard is from: WP:NPOV
"The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting verifiable perspectives on a topic as evidenced by reliable sources. The policy requires that where multiple or conflicting perspectives exist within a topic each should each be presented fairly."
I would like to work with you to address your issues so that the article presents these conflicting perspectives fairly. Are you interested in trying to do that?
Best,
Rosmoran 17:55, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Proposed navigation template for the planned Dyslexia article series[edit]

Hi,

I'm putting on the table for discussion a strawman navigation template for the dyslexia article series. The idea behind this template is to provide a quick path for easy navigation to and among the dyslexia "child" articles, and to give readers a few links to key related topics.

I absolutely expect this template to change in format, content, and possibly in scope, based on editorial discussions here and on the dyslexia template talk page.

In case you're interested in seeing how other projects have used navigation boxes, here are a few good examples:

This is just a few --- there are lots of others.

I'm looking forward to your ideas and feedback.

Best,

Rosmoran 16:42, 18 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Implementing navigation template[edit]

Hi, I have not heard any objections to my proposed version of the navigation template, so I'm going to implement it.

We can always revise the content any time, of course.

Best,

Rosmoran 16:20, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Have missed some comments on the Dyslexia navigation template[edit]

Hi, folks.

Just a quick heads up. I have missed some of your comments that appeared on Discussion pages related to my "strawman" personal pages. For some reason, my Watchlist isn't showing me all the changes made to personal pages.

If for some reason I have missed (or not implemented) a change you suggested for the Dyslexia navigation template, please don't think I'm ignoring it. Assume that I haven't found it yet, and point me to where you left it!

Maybe from here on out it would be best to leave comments here on the Template talk page.

Thanks for your patience,

Rosmoran 17:39, 23 July 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Subsections to consider adding to navigation template[edit]

Researchers: Stanovich, Shaywitz, Torgeson, Cunningham,

Journals: Journal of Learning Disabilities, Annals of Dyslexia, etc (maybe this belongs in an External links list inside the article. Not sure.

Others?

Rosmoran 01:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It would make sense to have a list page of researchers, and have the navigation link to the list. You don't want all the names in the navigation template (too many). I've got 67 different researchers listed in an alphabetical author index on my computer for the various research reports I have assembled, and that is in no way complete. If you want to start such a list I'd be glad to contribute to it. Armarshall 06:01, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Can you collapse secitons of a template? Think I've seen it done if so that might be a soluiton, if not the separate linked list would work. --Nate1481( t/c) 12:40, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
It's possible to create two templates that appear as a single template, one that collapses and one that doesn't. It's a pain to maintain, though, and I think overly complex for minimal gain. (I didn't do the rhyming thing on purpose .... honest. Too little sleep, I think.)
I *don't* think the researchers really need to be part of the template, and it would certainly be most efficient to create a separate article and add a link to the template.
Unless Nate 1481 objects strenuously, I'll start an article and let Arm add lots of names to it ..... :-)
I'm thinking a separate list for journals, too. What say you?
Rosmoran 14:36, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
If maintinace will be an issue go with the list. --Nate1481( t/c) 15:45, 21 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]
On the journals, it depends on how broadly you want to define what goes on the list. If you strictly want journals focusing on dyslexia or learning disabilities, there aren't that many -- but if you expand into the broader realm of journals focusing on education or neuroscience... then there are many. Though I'm not sure if there is at that much value in listing them. I do see value in a list of researchers, because having the name provides an important key for tracking research. That is, if I know the name "Shaywitz" I can use Google Scholar to pull up her work -- but knowing the name of a journal (example: "Neurology") is not really going to lead me anywhere that will help hone in on any particular topic. I don't object to a journal list -- I just don't quite see the point of having one -- or at least if we do we should take a look at the existing lists to see where ours might fit – see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Special:Search?search=list+scientific+journals&go=Go Armarshall 12:00, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

<-We could link to the resources section on the project page & list them in full (with links) there.--Nate1481( t/c) 12:13, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]


With regard to the journals, it's true that there aren't very many journals that are exclusively focused on dyslexia. However, there are many, many journals about reading and reading disabilities, all of which include articles that are applicable.
Rosmoran 20:34, 23 August 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Recording for the Blind & Dyslexic[edit]

Rosmoran, I think RFBD does wonderful work, but should it really be a topic to itself on the navigational template? Wouldn't it be more appropriate to have a list somewhere of agencies that provide services to dyslexic individuals, including RFDB but also other charitable organizations? I'm just concerned because I think the template should be organized by topics, not individual instances-- even if the topic only goes a list. For example, what about Bookshare.org ? I personally thin that there should be a link to an article on "assistive technology" and then RFBD could be listed among resources on that page. Armarshall 02:41, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Good point. There is already an Assistive technology article, so I guess we would need to create something dyslexia-specific. Is "Assistive technology for dyslexics" too narrow a topic for an individual article? Is there is a less specific list category that would stand alone more easily? For example, a list of various types of dyslexia resources, thought that might be too broad.
Thoughts?
Best,
Rosmoran 19:43, 29 September 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Maybe an article on "Accommodations for Learning Disabilities" would make the most sense. Or maybe we should add Audiobooks to the template, and add a link to RFBD to that article, if it is not already there. Armarshall 03:28, 1 October 2007 (UTC)Reply[reply]

Extra parenthesis[edit]

There is an extra parenthesis somewhere in the following (pre-listified source):

Dyslexia( Developmental dyslexia) · Dysgraphia (Disorder of written expression) · Dyscalculia)

Please can someone say what was intended? --Mirokado (talk) 17:44, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

This goes back to the lack of a new developmental dyslexia article, and only having the dyslexia article, I have just corrected the template. dolfrog (talk) 19:13, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Thanks, nice quick response! New article? one step at a time!! --Mirokado (talk) 23:56, 8 June 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]
Categories