Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dyslexia/Alternative Remedial Programs

Proposal for remedial therapies
I think the proposal sounds great. It's completely appropriate to include a section on remedial therapies, both those generally accepted by the scientific community as well as those that are not.

It might be helpful to let one person take a stab at constructing the article, and then requesting feedback or community editing. That way the original author can complete a draft of his or her vision of the article or section, without having a bunch of editors going in and inadvertently pushing the original author off track.

Just a thought.

Regarding further reading, again, perfectly appropriate.

Best, Rosmoran (talk) 16:33, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

I would be quite willing to write the article section in the wiki style to see how it turns out, I envisage only a very brief section anyway, nothing more, its not need.

Proposed therapies would be, and I think others are better qualified to comment on whether they are validated and mainstream, and others that should be included. My suggestion is if it is done this way the value and quality of the management techniques are clearly presented neutrally without any discussion that suggests bias, it is clearly present, Unvalidated and popular (marketed)

 Orten Special Remedial educational support <- ah those were the days:( Speach and language therapy <- not sure if this was ever used seriously cognitive behavioural therapy(?) Irlen filters (Unvalidated popularised) Davis Anything else cover it with a statement there are many more... if they're not likely to come across it, its not required.

This way it would all be in context and without bias but clearly highlight the issue that are of concern to the editors.

I think also in the proposed further reading, with there being no need to tie them in with the body of the article, that they are again grouped clearly as validated...popular and so on. That in my view is fair neutral and less open to objection, or spinning aminor issue into an unnecessary clump of work, however obviously leaving scope for someone who may want to do the work.

In further reading and feel the more popular of the information and parental guides etc, and one or two of the mainstream references. In my view Im not proposing anything long than I have just written.

Cityzen451 (talk) 17:39, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi both

the new WikiProject Dyslexia/Alternative Remedial Programs has its own talk page so other editors could make suggestions on the talk page Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Dyslexia/Alternative Remedial Programs and this would leave the main article free from interference as it progresses

I have included a list of some programs on the article just to create the article, there may be other program from other countries which need including and investigating. Each program should have a classification as to which of the Senses the remedy helps to develop (Visual Auditory, Kineasthetic, or multi-sensory (state which senses). And which groups or sub types of dyslexics would be able to use and gain benefit from the program / therapy.

Please remember that all programs usually help at least one dyslexic, which is why or how they were devised and created but these does not mean that the program will benefit all dyslexics.

OK the word alternative is debatable but can be used for the moment as this is only a project work page and when it is eventually added as a complete article the name can be changed in the move. I was using the alternative to mean different remedies for different types of dyslexics, I suppose "Options" is another word we could use.

dolfrog (talk) 00:08, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

copied Thread above to this page
I have copied the thread above to this page to start things off dolfrog (talk) 00:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, I'm confused!
My understanding of the proposal is that the new section to be added is for Alternative therapies (not scientifically based, ie, potential snake oil). This section would include some kind of appropriate wording to indicate that the programs are not in the mainstream of accepted dyslexia interventions.

I'm confused because on the list of therapies the project page (the one associated with this talk page) includes some therapies that *are* mainstream.

So, would someone please clue me in? What exactly will this section cover?

Thanks Rosmoran (talk) 07:04, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

What do you classify as mainstream? There are different cognitive causes of dyslexia, and so there are different types of programs to help those different sets of programs So it is about matching the programs to the cognitive causes of dyslexia. no program best suites all dyslexics, and some program can only help small groups of dyalexics say 5 or 10% of them which applies to many programs. there is a difference in the program content which can help some dyslexics and the marketing which will always at this point in time claim to help all dyslexics. That is because the dyslexia industry has been ignoring the research of the last decade and writes endless numbers of books to conceal the progress made by research. It is about finding out or doing the research to find out how any single program can help any single sub group of dyslexics. Because dyslexics need ro fins the programs that best suite their cognitive deficits, and the skills they have to work around those deficits, so we will have to do some research to find out what these programs actually do and for which group of dyalexics they provide some benefit.

The big myth is that dyslexia is a medial condition is its own right, it is not dyslexia is a symptom of many cognitive neurological deficits or disorders which can be clinically diagnosed, and have educational implications such dyslexia. Dyslexia is a man made problem and more specifically an educational problem. And nuerological cause of dyslexia have many more symptoms than just the dyslexic symptoms. dolfrog (talk) 10:49, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Sami This section covers all programs none help all dyslexics, as all where created initially to help at least one dyslexic, and to be global we have to include all such programs, describing what the program actually provides. This way each dyslexic can select the type of program that best suites them, which is not always the so called mainstream options dolfrog (talk) 10:57, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

the defintion of mainstream
Are we trying to create a new global mainstream, or are we talking about mainstream as by country, or as by orthography, or as by writing system. Some clarification needed here. dolfrog (talk) 11:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

The some of the different variables to be considered for each program

I hope this helps dolfrog (talk) 11:22, 8 July 2009 (UTC)