Talk:Alexia (condition)

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Medicine. Please visit the project page for details or ask questions at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine.MedicineWikipedia:WikiProject MedicineTemplate:WikiProject Medicinemedicine articles

Dyslexia (inactive)

This redirect is within the scope of WikiProject Dyslexia, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DyslexiaWikipedia:WikiProject DyslexiaTemplate:WikiProject DyslexiaDyslexia articles

Disability

Alexia (condition) is within the scope of WikiProject Disability. For more information, visit the project page, where you can join the project and/or contribute to the discussion.DisabilityWikipedia:WikiProject DisabilityTemplate:WikiProject DisabilityDisability articles

Ideal sources for Wikipedia's health content are defined in the guideline Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources (medicine) and are typically review articles. Here are links to possibly useful sources of information about Alexia (condition).

PubMed provides review articles from the past five years (limit to free review articles)
The TRIP database provides clinical publications about evidence-based medicine.
Other potential sources include: Centre for Reviews and Dissemination and CDC

This is the talk page of a redirect that has been merged and now targets the page:
• Dyslexia
Because this page is not frequently watched, present and future discussions, edit requests and requested moves should take place at:
• Talk:Dyslexia
Merged page edit history is maintained in order to preserve attributions.

First post

P. T. O. VS POT - is that the same? which one is the error? (clem 00:26, 17 Apr 2005 (UTC))

Presentation

The reference to Fast ForWord redirects the reader to a site in Ireland offering treatment for Developmental Dyslexia. As such it is a non-sequitur and I suggest it be removed. --Drmarc 22:06, 2 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

alexia(the name)

the name alexia is a greek name for beautifull.

That is due to the difference between a Greek root that starts with an "A" (it actually means "defender"), and a latin root "lex" to which an "A" is added. Just an unfortunate coincidence, I suppose. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Khanaris (talk • contribs) 16:43, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PNID research papers

View my collection of PMID papers, "Alexia" from NCBI this may help with providing citations dolfrog (talk) 13:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Proposed Merge from Alexia without agraphia

My step-father was afflicted alexia without agraphia in 2004, due to stroke. Really, the only acceptable reason I can imagine for a merge of the articles is that the current stub is so small. The action that really needs to be taken is that the stub needs to be made into a whole article. Not being able to read - including what one has just written flawlessly - is so intensely different (in terms of experience) from anything else I know of that it really does deserve its own article. For example, during his retraining he finally mastered the ability to recognize letters and say them out loud, but still could not read words, even though he knew all the spellings. From almost when he woke up, his ability to know what a word was if the letters were said out loud to him was undamaged. Eventually, he discovered that he was able to read the letters out loud, hear himself then know what the word was. (How much of this was neural plasticity and how much natural ability? I don't know ..) But, if he didn't say each letter out loud, he still could not read the words, even if he recognized the individual letters. He was not able to describe why or how exactly this felt, other than he found the whole thing perplexing but also fascinating, like a peek into how his own brain works. One anecdote probably isn't encyclopedic, and I don't know the overall feel that would be typical for a group of patients, but more information about the little details of the disorder would certainly help flesh out the article. Zaphraud (talk) 06:36, 10 May 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Trying to improve the Alexia article

The current article only hints at what Alexia is. There are a great subtypes of alexia, many of which have multiple names. Bascically there are the Classical or Neuroanatomical Alexias

1)Alexia with Agraphia (Central Alexia)
2)Alexia with out Agraphia (Pure Alexia)
3)Frontal Alexia
4)Spatial Alexia

The researchers in the 1970s and 1980s then needed to develop models of the reading task to try to explain the further subtypes they were seeing and identifying.

Psycholinguistic - Central Alexias (with an aphasia)

1)Deep dyslexia (alexia)
2)Phonological dyslexia (alexia)
3)Semantic dyslexia (alexia)
4)Surface dyslexia (alexia)

Psycholinguistic - Peripheral Alexias

1)Pure Alexia
2)Neglect Alexia
3)Attentional Alexia

The sub type names used above at as far I can identify are the names used by present day researchers. Many of the types of Alexia listed have multiple alternative names, which need to be listed in the article.

There are already many existing Wikipedia articles regarding some of the various Subtypes of Alexia, and also many subtypes of Alexia which as yest do not have a corresponding Wikipedia article.

So there is a great deal to do improve this and the series of related Wikipedia articles. dolfrog (talk) 15:44, 19 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

This article most importantly needs a better definition of alexia itself. Currently there is no explanation beyond a sentence in the leading section of the actual symptoms (not associated symptoms) of alexia. Mousewings (talk) 16:01, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

WikiProject Dyslexia/Reorganization 2010 a new discussion

Hi All

I will also be posting a copy of the content below on the Talk page of the Dyslexia article.

The Wiki Project Dyslexia, was set up 2007 with the aim of improving dyslexia article on Wikipedia. The first step was seen as summerising the existing 2007 article, and creating a series of specialised sub articles to provide more detailed information with regard to the many specialised areas of dyslexia. Much of this has now been achieved, especially during 2009 and 2010. The dyslexia article now meets many more of the required standards as set out by Wikipedia, and has a more universal sourced content.

So we need to move on and set up some new goals for the Wiki Project Dyslexia. Currently the content of the dyslexia article only relates to developmental dyslexia, and not the wider range of topics which are also part of the inclusive definitions of dyslexia, such as Alexia (acquired dyslexia), the various theoretical "Models of Reading" which have resulted from various strands of dyslexia research.

To help us move on I edited some of the Wiki Project Dyslexia sub-articles in an attempt ot open a discussion as to the next steps to be taken by the Wiki Project Dyslexia with regard to ALL of the Wikipedia dyslexia related articles, some of which may still need to be identified. I have made some changes and additions to the Wiki Project Dyslexia articles,

There are more sub articles that go to make up the Wiki Project Dyslexia, but thye have not been recently revised or edited.

Please have a look at these proposals and add any thoughts or ideas you may have dolfrog (talk) 12:55, 24 July 2010 (UTC)[reply]

New title discussion

Note: There's a discussion in progress at Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Medicine about possible new names for this article. -- The Anome (talk) 14:03, 13 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Student assignment 2013

I am currently updating this page for an assignment until Dec 7. I meant to make the note earlier but I did it in the wrong place. Oops. Please still comment! MarMarBla123 (talk) 16:22, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I have made a few changes, hopefully you can help fill in some of the new empty sections dolfrog (talk) 18:53, 13 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your notes. We appreciate the time you spent. For the purposes of our assignment we plan to alter parts. Please respect this until Dec 7 when our assignment ends. Thank you. — Preceding unsigned comment added by MarMarBla123 (talk • contribs) 01:07, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

You have your sandbox for your assignment content, however Wikipedia is an online encyclopedia, and when you add contributions from your sandbox to the encyclopedia articles, these contributions will become subject to editing by other Wikipedia editors who try to maintain overall accuracy of content of Wikipedia articles. Hopefully the interaction between all editors may improve the overall understanding by all dolfrog (talk) 16:45, 17 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

This article is part of an online encyclopedia not your personal essay for your college course grades. Keep your college work in your sandbox. We wikipedia editors become fed up with students mucking about with Wikipedia article just to get a course grade, and we regular Wikipedia editors have to repair the damage after you have gone. Please contact your Ambassador and learn how to contribute to Wikipedia with existing editors. This is not part of your schoolroom dolfrog (talk) 17:58, 19 November 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Edit Warring

There has been no discussion on this talk page regarding the merging of this article with any other article, or merging into any other article only tyhe following prententions from these editors who have not gained any consensus with other users only themselves. And thye have not followed standard wikipedia merger procedures

See Below Hello User:Dolfrog; Your edits at Alexia and Dyslexia appeared not to know about the page upgrade discussion on these pages presently taking place at the Talk page at User:Zad 68. You are welcome to join us, and to let us know your thoughts prior to further edits to the article which would be to save time and redundant edits. Cheers. FelixRosch (TALK) 19:22, 31 December 2014 (UTC) There is no place for this ignornce which is not based in research just your personal opinions dolfrog (talk) 20:23, 1 January 2015 (UTC)

Hello, and welcome to Wikipedia. You appear to be engaged in an edit war with one or more editors according to your reverts at Alexia (condition) and Dyslexia. Although repeatedly reverting or undoing another editor's contributions may seem necessary to protect your preferred version of a page, on Wikipedia this is usually seen as obstructing the normal editing process, and often creates animosity between editors. Instead of edit warring, please discuss the situation with the editor(s) involved and try to reach a consensus on the talk page.

If editors continue to revert to their preferred version they are likely to be blocked from editing. This isn't done to punish an editor, but to prevent the disruption caused by edit warring. While edit warring on Wikipedia is not acceptable in any amount, doing so without constructive discussion on the relevant Talk page is very likely to lead to a block. FelixRosch (TALK) 19:16, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

May be you should hold these discussions on the articles talk pages and not in a provate user page discussion. This is not wikipedia practice more aboutg doscussing your personal opinions. which are not basedd on international research. And from what i have seen is more anout the marketing of various group ideas not improving the articles content using international research. So yopur changes are inliner with wikipedia practice but more discussing your ownj provate opinions in private and not on the various articles diacussion pages with other users / editors 86.177.99.37 (talk) 21:19, 2 January 2015 (UTC)

Basically they only wish to erxpress their own opinions and not discuss any issues on this talki page dolfrog (talk) 21:48, 2 January 2015 (UTC)[reply]