Talk:Dyslexia/Archive 5

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 ← Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

Did you know

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

Dyslexia image

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

Are you talking about the first image? -- Moxy (talk) 13:32, 27 March 2015 (UTC)
I think it needs to be addressed at Wikimedia commons as the [1] indicates it is in fact correct for dyslexia--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:25, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
It was uploaded by Special:Contributions/Willard5 this person who is no longer around and there is no source on it - fails WP:VERIFY. I agree it should come down until we can verify it is correct. Taking it down now. Jytdog (talk) 12:38, 31 March 2015 (UTC)
There are many causes of reading difficulties; one is a mechanical problem with the eyes (ophthalmologists call it "binocular instability" or "BI") that results in blurring, double vision, and other visual perception distortions. Part of the workup for dyslexia is a thorough eye exam, because if BI can be identified and corrected, the dyslexia may resolve. There are other causes of dyslexia, however, and many dyslexics do not have BI -- so while I had no objection to the image during GA review, on further review I agree with removing it. DoctorJoeE review transgressions/talk to me! 12:54, 31 March 2015 (UTC)

General Public Education

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

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

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

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

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

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

I would generally say no. All these are easily findable by a google search. Doc James (talk · contribs · email) 02:59, 17 June 2015 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Acquired vs. alexia?

The opening paragraphs seem to contradict each other:

> When someone who previously could read loses their ability, it is known as "alexia".

> Dyslexia that develops due to a traumatic brain injury, stroke, or dementia is called "acquired dyslexia".

The only way I can see that these don't contradict is if to be 'acquired dyslexia' it must occur prior to learning to read. But I think the 'dementia' in particular makes that a rather unlikely definition. So how do these terms differ? The disambiguation page for alexia says they do not - 'also known as acquired dyslexia' (and redirects here) - assuming this is correct I think these could do with rephrasing by someone familiar. OJFord (talk) 20:01, 4 May 2020 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:17, 4 May 2020 (UTC)
do not agree w/ edits made[2] have left a message on your talk, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
The latter one was a reference to this unanswered request for moving alexia later down. Will again unarchive the font post. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Noting also that the article received a somewhat more adequate review at Wikiversity, and when that was copied to here (without attribution), it did not contain this alexia wording, which was added post-review.[3] My suggestion is to revert to that lead, which was adequate, as the lead introduced post-review is inferior. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
OJFord, I believe that alexia and acquired dyslexia are synonyms. The non-acquired form – often called just "dyslexia" in the US – is, properly speaking, developmental dyslexia. The difference between the two can be more significant than just the cause. People with acquired dyslexia often can't write, either (which is Agraphia), and often have other problems as a result of the brain damage. WhatamIdoing (talk) 04:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Introduction to article disrupted by reference to alexia

Restored from Archive 4. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:23, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

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

Best wishes to all!

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

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

I support restoring this lead, which was superior to what is here now, and deals with the inappropriate alexia mention. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

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

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

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 18:47, 29 February 2020 (UTC)
Unarchived for the second time. It's a misleading and non-WP:MEDRS and so does not belong in the infobox. – Thjarkur (talk) 12:43, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
article went thru two reviews for GA and was published so...your point is not logical if its been reviewed twice for GA, thank you (please in the future do not make edits without consensus, as this page is semi protected, also I would prefer not to take this to an administrator)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:52, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Sorry but that is not a response to the specific complaints I have about it being clearly misleading and non-MEDRS. Are you of the opinion that it is not misleading to showcase it so prominently? Replying to "please don't make edits against consensus", in August you reverted me saying "I'll explain on talk" but you did not, then I brought it up here in February and you twice quietly archived the post without replying to the specific complaints I had. Going through GA is not at all relevant to this specific point as we're both quite capable of assessing here and now whether this is misleading or MEDRS. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:00, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
The points raised by Pjarkur are spot on, and we don’t use master’s theses for medical content.[4] This issue is unresolved, and there are similar in archives, which you (Ozzie) allow to go to archives without addressing. The two deficient Reviews are irrelevant; as well discussed, the “exemption” from MEDRS for content here is unwarranted.[5] Please remove the unsupported font, and address the old issues in archives, as well as Outriggr’s edit which you reverted. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:08, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
And please archive the GA review; the page is lengthy and there is no reason for other items to go to archive, unaddressed, while the GA review stays. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:12, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Thjarkur Ill continue this conversation with you on your talk, as I'm considering an interaction ban w/ the Sandy Georgia who twice now had edit conflict ( said individual just came out of an Arbcom )with the individual who just posted below you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:14, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
I'd rather discuss content here, if possible. – Thjarkur (talk) 13:17, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
image removed lets find another--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:22, 1 July 2020 (UTC) (Ill post to your talk as well)
have changed, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:33, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

harassment

have file a harassment complaint against person below, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:44, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Better, thank you, but now we have an image caption that leaves the reader bewildered, by introducing an image without an adequate description (what are we looking at and why), and introducing an undefined person (Wilson).[6] This "Wilson" is never mentioned on the page, and we don't tell the reader what the image is, and it does not seem that a shorthand machine is appropriate for an article on dyslexia. It is fine to have no image, if there is nothing adequate available. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:41, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Ozzie, do not remove other people's posts;[7] I have restored. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:18, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Also, please stop altering Pjarkur's heading; these are two separate concerns, and they set it up as a separate section[8] which you have multiple times removed. [9] [10] [11] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 13:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Ozzie, your constant refactoring of this page, and other people’s posts,[12] is making the page indecipherable. You have cut off my post from what I was replying to, and entered your post (with an inappropriate and personalized heading) out of chronological order. Could you please review Wikipedia:Talk page guidelines? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 14:28, 1 July 2020 (UTC)


have posted to adminis. will wait [13]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
Done? [14] Now would it be OK if we clean up the talk page as before,[15] which you reverted? Clutter at the top impedes discussion, and all of those edits (mentioned below) are standard. The lack of a Table of contents is particularly difficult, there is much old info cluttering the page, adding Wikiprojects to template banners is standard, and the DYK entry should be in the article milestones. SandyGeorgia (Talk) 20:56, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
no, not in agreement at this time, thanks (additionally I may post more at RexxS talk, thank you) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:06, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

Talk page cleanup

Article history built (incorporating DYK), projects added to Project shell banner, merges and copies combined to one heading, old unattributed copy of entire article from Wikiversity added, five-year-old posts archived, and TOC reinstated.[16] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 15:02, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

I have readded the post above, which was reverted and deleted (fifth instance of removing posts by others).[17] SandyGeorgia (Talk) 17:53, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

OK, since you disagree with reinstating the cleaned up talk page, one-by-one to understand what your specific objections are:

  • Add the DYK entry to articlemilestones, which is standard, and consolidates templates: [18]
  • Add all WikiProject templates to the Project banner: [19]
  • Put all of the historical merges and copies under one heading-- they are only there for legal (attribution) reasons, but we don't need to see them all: [20]
  • Archive multiple sections here that are five years old so that new topics can be more easily seen and discussed: [21]
  • Allow a Table of contents on the talk page, which is standard and for ease of editing: [22]
  • And the date given on the DYK is wrong: (which means when clicking the link we are taken to the wrong page and don't actually see the DYK at all) [23]

Which of these are causing a problem and which might we reinstate? SandyGeorgia (Talk) 21:15, 1 July 2020 (UTC)

will give above list some thought, thank you(not very good with bots have added this [24], again I think its correct but Im not good at technical stuff)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:27, 1 July 2020 (UTC)
It looks like you accidentally subst:d a navbox into the middle of that. I think I've fixed it, but I made the edit all from memory, so something might be slightly off. If you find that managing archive bots is difficult, you should feel free to ask someone else or to use manual archiving instead. There is absolutely no practical, moral, ethical, or other radvantage to reverting a manual archive edit, and then asking the bot to cut and paste the same discussions to the same page the next day. WhatamIdoing (talk) 03:32, 3 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 23 July 2020 Please change current content to the new content below

Change - Dyslexia was clinically described by Oswald Berkhan in 1881,[34] but the term dyslexia was coined in 1883 by Rudolf Berlin, an ophthalmologist in Stuttgart.[114][115][116] He used the term to refer to the case of a young boy who had severe difficulty learning to read and write, despite showing typical intelligence and physical abilities in all other respects.[117] In 1896, W. Pringle Morgan, a British physician from Seaford, East Sussex, published a description of a reading-specific learning disorder in a report to the British Medical Journal titled "Congenital Word Blindness".[118] The distinction between phonological versus surface types of dyslexia is only descriptive, and without any etiological assumption as to the underlying brain mechanisms. However, studies have alluded to potential differences due to variation in performance.[119]

To

The term dyslexia is from the field of medicine. It was introduced by a German ophthalmologist, Rudolf Berlin, in 1883. Berlin treated the subject in the series of publications in 1883, 1884, and 1887.[1][2][3] In his 1883 presentations Berlin discussed the cases of five adult patients, four males and one female, referred to him over the years. He described their symptomatology which included the acquisition of literacy skills with no apparent difficulty with reading problems occurring later on, following some type of brain damage. Berlin labeled the clinical profile he described dyslexia. In his final and most comprehensive treatment of the subject in 1887, Berlin discussed his original cases (plus a sixth case). He judged their condition to be closely related to alexia and word blindness.[3] Berlin’s observations, as those of Adolph Kussmaul's[4], dealt solely with adults who successfully learned to read and who then experienced some kind of brain trauma followed by reading problems, what today would be considered acquired dyslexia.[5] . A British eye surgeon, W. Pringle Morgan, is appropriately credited with providing the first focused and clearly recognizable description of what is now variously called developmental dyslexia, specific developmental dyslexia, or simply dyslexia. In an 1896 report he introduced and applied a new diagnostic label, congenital word blindness, to the now famous case of "Percy F."[6] His description of Percy contained a set of basic descriptors that today would be recognized as developmental dyslexia, specific developmental dyslexia or simply dyslexia. Percy experienced no brain damage and had no visual, auditory or mental deficits but exhibited unexpected difficulty in his efforts to learn to read, spell, and write (these learning difficulties considered to be neurologically based unfolding over the developmental period during which most children successfully acquired literacy skills.)[5] JchPHD58 (talk) 16:26, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

References

  1. ^ Berlin, R. (1883). Uber Dyslexie. Medicinisches Correspondenz-Blatt des Wurttembergisohen arztlichen Landesvereins, 53, 209-10.
  2. ^ Berlin, R. (1884). Über Dyslexie. Archiv fur Psychiatrie und Nervenkrankheiten, 15, 276-278.
  3. ^ a b Berlin, R. (1887). Eine besondere Art der Wortblindheit (Dyslexie). Wiesbaden: Verlag von J.F. Bergmann.
  4. ^ [Kussmaul, A. (1877). Diseases of the nervous system and disturbances of speech. In H. von Ziemssen (Ed.) & J.A. McCreery (Trans.), Cyclopedia of the practice of medicine (Ch. 27). New York: William Wood.
  5. ^ a b Howell, J. (2019). Dyslexia: A history of the term and current challenges. (Rev.). Michigan Dyslexia Institute, Inc. https://www.dyslexiacommentary.com/
  6. ^ Morgan, W.P. (1896). A case of congenital wordblindness. British Medical Journal, 2, 1378
  •  Not done not clear why/how this text would improve article--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 17:33, 23 July 2020 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 August 2020

I want to be able to look up greek definition. anyamcguire1738@hotmail.com 16:49, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

the greek 'definition', well Ill see what I might find, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:43, 25 August 2020 (UTC)

Writing

Hello, I suffer from dyslexia myself and I would like to say that when I write it is super slow and time wasting. Many more of my friends who have dyslexia agrree that it is like the nerve from your brain to your hand takes the longest route possible. I would appreciate it if someone who has acsess to edit this page adds this infomation and information from people with dyslexia, Many Thanks, Lexi ItsLexiM (talk) 20:48, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

thank you for posting, will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 21:11, 24 December 2020 (UTC)

Greek image

The only example of written dyslexia on here is in greek, and is a bit low quality. I can't read greek and assuming most people on the english article can't either. Shouldn't there be more examples in multiple languages? Onyens (talk) 21:17, 3 September 2021 (UTC)

will see what commons has--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:33, 4 September 2021 (UTC)

Weird reference code?

Somewhere in Dyslexia#Signs_and_symptoms there is bit of code saying {{rp|647}}. It shows up as elevated(?) text ":647" and does not link to anything. Does anyone know what that is? Maybe if someone found the original edit this bit of code was added we could learn what it is?— Preceding unsigned comment added by פרה (talk • contribs)

that is the page number which is next to the reference--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:26, 5 February 2022 (UTC)

Inconsistency in the page and re-organizing

Dear all,

If I'm right, there is an inconsistency in the page. The info box states "surface dyslexia", but the surface-one is a sub-type of dyslexia.

I'm digging the topic as I just found this reference : https://www.college-de-france.fr/site/stanislas-dehaene/seminar-2015-02-10-11h00.htm

Naama Friedmann also wrote : http://language-brain.com/dl.php?f=Friedmann_Coltheart_types_of_developmental_dyslexia_NaaMax

I think there could be some work done here (ontological). Dyslexia (main page) > sub-type -> short section + sub-page Synthetic table : Dys- ; diagnostic ; prevalence ; remediation / treatment ; source

I'm also asking Mme Friedmann to free the graphs she's using in her presentation if possible to upload-it to commons and develop an SVG from it. (It's a derivation from "Friedmann, N., & Coltheart, M. (in press). Types of developmental dyslexia. In A. Bar‐ On, & D. Ravid (Eds.), Handbook of communication disorders: Theoretical, empirical, and applied linguistics perspectives. Berlin, Boston: De Gruyter Mouton" fig. 1 is used in the talk mentioned.) If the graph is locked by the editor, We'll have to remake-it XD (if there are any fans of Inkscape).

BR

Rudy

--RP87 (talk) 09:54, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

not certain as to the point your bringing up, both of the following are used in this article (and all medical articles) (Wikipedia:Manual of Style/Medicine-related articles and Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) --Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:53, 19 May 2022 (UTC)
FYI, I started the graph for the french wikipedia (as I'd needed to translate content anyway). If the author frees the original english graph, I'll upload it asap.
Cartographie des dyslexies depuis les travaux de Naama Friedmann
RP87 (talk) 14:01, 19 May 2022 (UTC)

Please check grammar.

Article's 1. sentence:

  • "Dyslexia, also known as reading disorder, is a disorder characterized by reading below the expected level for ones age."

Is that correct? Isn't it spelled "[some]one's age"? --80.129.57.199 (talk) 16:51, 11 July 2022 (UTC)

Reading below grade level does not mean the patient is dyslexic

I'm not sure how something this easily verifiable could be so profoundly mischaracterized here. Children who read below grade level are not by definition dyslexic, the terms are not synonymous. In fact, most children who read below grade level are not dyslexic. Conflating these terms does a disservice to everyone involved. 2601:18F:4101:4830:3D2D:7E60:EFDB:3347 (talk) 04:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

will look(it is cited)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 11:56, 15 August 2022 (UTC)

Characteristics of dyslexia merge

Consensus has been reached among participating editors that the edits made satisfy the merging concerns. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)

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

The article Characteristics of dyslexia's scope is integral to a complete discussion of dyslexia, and is therefore a redundant fork. I propose that the characteristics article primarily merges into Dyslexia#Signs and symptoms, which it has the most similarity with (the characteristics article is even already in a hatnote there). Onto the more technical parts of a merge, a lot of the content of the characteristics article isn't actually worth merging, so if the merge goes ahead, then the characteristics article will first need to be purged of original research etc. --Xurizuri (talk) 11:56, 19 February 2022 (UTC)

  • Note: Ozzie10aaaa and I have discussed this merge at User talk:Xurizuri#dyslexia. --Xurizuri (talk) 03:54, 26 February 2022 (UTC)
  • oppose -thats not logical to do so,it should not be merged it needs its own article thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:19, 19 February 2022 (UTC)
    • Could you expand on why it needs its own article? --Xurizuri (talk) 00:42, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
      • simply due to the size of the article (it needs to be covered in a separate article, as it currently is)--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 00:50, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
        • The characteristics article is only that size because it talks about a lot of the same things as the Dyslexia article. If it was merged, then not a lot would actually be added to the Dyslexia article. That's why it's a good candidate for merging, because it has an overlapping scope. --Xurizuri (talk) 03:04, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
if you take a look Ive started to gradually fix the article in question (slowly)[25]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 03:07, 20 February 2022 (UTC)
The main Dyslexia article is 3,500 words right now. The Characteristics of dyslexia article is nearly 1,000 words long.
I wonder if the articles about this subject should be kept intentionally short, with enthusiastic use of Wikipedia:Summary style. Encyclopedic style is meant to be a fairly brief summary, but Wikipedia articles can easily sprawl into something far longer than that. Having a {{Main}} link in every important section, with just a few paragraphs left on this page, could make this page into a model of writing good articles. WhatamIdoing (talk) 02:23, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
very good idea--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:47, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
It's worth keeping WP:NOTPAPER in mind - we don't have the same space constraints as most encyclopedias. Regardless, I'm not proposing that we don't have summary style sections, I'm proposing that we merge the characteristics article specifically. I vehemently believe that the characteristics of dyslexia is the most crucial part of an article about dyslexia. If we summarise out characteristics, then this article is neutered. --Xurizuri (talk) 11:18, 2 March 2022 (UTC)
I continue to agree with WhatamIdoing, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:54, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

It makes not sense to have a "characteristics of" article. It is a poor way of organizing an encyclopedia. Agree with the proposed merge.17:10, 22 February 2022 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by MedGME (talk • contribs)

see my response above--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:47, 24 February 2022 (UTC)

Discussion

Please check

Could someone please double-check these facts?

  • I believe that the "requires normal intelligence" thing changed a few years ago.  At least according to some people, dyslexia is now anyone reading below the expected level for their age.
    done[26]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:55, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
    The change from the intelligence-based model to the age-based model should probably be noted in the ==History== section. I haven't looked, but there may be some "history of dyslexia" sources available online. WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:31, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
WAID, will check done, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 20:29, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  • While dyslexia is more often diagnosed in men:  I suspect that dyslexia is most often diagnosed in "boys", not "men".  How many adults actually get tested, compared to the number of school children?
    done[27]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:27, 28 February 2022 (UTC)
  • may blend sounds when producing words:  Isn't that "may struggle to blend sounds"? You're supposed to blend sounds when you're speaking.
    done[28]--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:30, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

I hope this feedback is helpful. WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:12, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

it is, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:49, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

Alexia

Should the article say more about alexia (at least enough of a sentence in the body to link to Pure alexia), or should Alexia (condition) be split out of here entirely, and never mentioned again after the lead? WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:14, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

we can add a sentence [29]done--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 13:39, 28 February 2022 (UTC)

close

per WhatamIdoing above suggestion (as a solution) , I believe this discussion should be closed per Wikipedia:Merging#Step 4: Close the merger discussion and determine consensus and per... should last about a week, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 19:10, 2 March 2022 (UTC)

Following the request here: [30], I am closing this discussion. --Tryptofish (talk) 19:31, 4 March 2022 (UTC)
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Fix typo "Henry Winker"

please change "Henry Winker" to "Henry Winkler" 24.9.86.198 (talk) 03:37, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Done. Thanks for pointing it out. AndyTheGrump (talk) 03:42, 13 October 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 14 October 2022

It is suggested the removal of the main image since the image does not accurately represent dyslexia. As mentioned in the article and by other sources dyslexia is not a visual impairment and the image gives the false idea it is. A more accurate image would be a child being tutored in reading or an image of the section of the brain where dyslexia occurs. Sark Asadourian (talk) 23:33, 14 October 2022 (UTC)

will look at images that are available, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:44, 15 October 2022 (UTC)
 Note: Closing out edit request as another editor has stated they will look into it and any edits that require some level of consensus are out of scope. Cheers! —Sirdog (talk) 08:52, 18 October 2022 (UTC)

Word-blindness?

'word blindness' really? in the first line? this is such an archaic term with unhelpful connotations. peoples expressions of dyslexia are broad and i just don't think that term is reasonable to use in the first instance when trying to explain the topic. it is re-inforcing 1-dimensional stereotypes in the UK this term has not been used since maybe 1980s or 1970s ? these stereotypes affect peoples lives (eg love life, employment ...) and life chances so can whoever is writing this be a bit more sympathetic please and literally more accurate about the condition.

placed later in the paragraph and with added context / disclaimers would be okay I think.

If there are people on the planet still using that term, & I have no doubt there are, and they are wikipedia readers, they need to be pointed in a better direction by fixing this. 88.104.107.74 (talk) 18:38, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 23:06, 3 March 2023 (UTC)

Image

Would it be possible for a dyslexic editor to take a picture of their English handwriting? The current image is poor-quality and most importantly in Greek. It doesn't add a lot to the article, considering the average reader will not be able to tell the difference between "dyslexic" and "nondyslexic" Greek. (Roundish ⋆t) 01:09, 4 May 2023 (UTC)

will look--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 01:27, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
I can do this.....but is there some specific that I could write that illustrates what you're looking for? ... something with a lot of B-Gs or the lack of spacing. I suffer from two aspects . Moxy- 01:34, 4 May 2023 (UTC)
The current picture has random Greek words, so I suppose whatever you think best. I'm not sure if actively choosing something with many Bs and Gs counts as a demonstration or an over-the-top performance of dyslexia, but a lack of spacing represented in the picture would be an nice addition, since many people seem to think of dyslexia only as "no can spell". I don't have dyslexia, so I guess only you can accurately judge! (Roundish ⋆t) 01:57, 4 May 2023 (UTC)


@Moxy: reminder, if you are still interested? --(Roundish ⋆t) 22:43, 10 May 2023 (UTC)

What is this?

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

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

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

Spoken Article

I plan to record a spoken version of the article soon. As part of the process, I will copyedit with a light touch. I may also add a short section about stigma and success, with a reference to List of people with dyslexia. Any feedback is welcomed. 0101Abc (talk) 06:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

  • support sounds good, thank you--Ozzie10aaaa (talk) 12:18, 26 August 2022 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 21 December 2023

The first sentence in the management section states” Through the use of compensation strategies, therapy and educational support, individuals with dyslexia can learn to read and write”. This implies that WITHOUT the use of compensation strategies, therapy and educational support, individuals with dyslexia CANNOT learn to read and write. I suggest changing the sentence to something like -Individuals with dyslexia can increase their ability to read and write through the use of compensation strategies, therapy and educational support. 2001:569:7CA1:5F00:A525:994A:2E96:CC62 (talk) 02:27, 21 December 2023 (UTC)

 Not done: I don't see how that implies that they cannot learn to read and write without the therapy, etc. I think it's an instance of denying the antecedent. Deltaspace42 (talk • contribs) 10:16, 21 December 2023 (UTC)
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Dyslexia/Archive_5&oldid=1197666234"