Talk:Arrangement of light receptors in the eye may cause dyslexia, scientists say

Review of revision 4356530 [Not ready]

 * Going to disagree with you on that last point there. The dominant/recessive issue doesn't figure much here.  This wasn't a genetic study.
 * As for the rest, I checked the sources carefully and went to the Proceedings site to see if I could find out at least what issue the article is in. No joy.  The "when" just isn't out there as of this morning, so it is not possible to fix it right now.  For "where," though, both "in Proceedings of the Royal Society" and "in the human eye" satisfy me. Darkfrog24 (talk) 18:25, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * “Individuals with dyslexia have difficulty reading, especially distinguishing between letters that are mirror or flipped images of each other, like p, b, and d.“ this should not be the first sentence, or it should answer the Wh questions and establish newsworthiness. After reading the first line, it is not clear what is the unique special about this news. Though I know, but after reading the sources. acagastya PING ME! 18:31, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * And when you say “In the dominant eye, this spot is round. In the other eye, it is asymmetrical. This, researchers speculate, allows the brain to choose just one of the two images to work with. Dyslexic individuals, researchers found, have round spots in both eyes.”, it becomes important to tell weather it is dominant gene or recessive. And as a person who has studied high school biology, and is really interested in biology, I would want that information as a reader. Now that you have written so many articles, you might want to focus on what might be trivial facts that might interest the readers. This is not a “teacher student” lecture, again. You would get to know this sooner or later. It took me more than two years to figure it out. It might happen early or late for you. Well, I know the answer to dominant recessive gene. But since you have mentioned about it, you should say about the gene. (It is different from what you may learn in future, as a Wikinews author) acagastya PING ME! 18:38, 18 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Okay now I think I know what you're talking about, : That's not what they mean by "dominant." In these source articles and the professional study that they're talking about, "dominant" does not refer to dominant/recessive alleles (genes). We happen to use the same word, "dominant," to refer to eyes and hands and genes that overwhelm the phenotype of a recessive counterpart, but that does not mean the ideas are otherwise connected.  You do not have a dominant eye because of a dominant/recessive allele.  The source articles don't even mention genetics.
 * Like ... in the U.S. people have heard the word "Dalmatians" from the movie and they know it's a spotted dog associated with firefighters.  But if I'm writing an article about people from Dalmatia, say "Archeologists unearth relics from the Roman legions' battle against the Dalmatians," I don't have to say how many spotted dogs there were because the article isn't talking about spotted dogs.  If an article is about heavy metal poisoning, there's no need to mention .  It's not that kind of heavy metal.  Voting on progressive politics doesn't give you progressive cancer. "Dominant" is just a descriptive word that biologists like to use in more than one way.
 * People are still trying to find out what causes dyslexia. Even if I wanted to say whether dyslexia was a dominant/recessive phenotype in a background paragraph, it looks like it's not caused by just one allele, so the term wouldn't really apply. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:07, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * There are four states of matter, solid, liquid, gas, and plasma. "Plasma" is also what we call the liquid component of cytoplasm, but we do not mean that amebas have super-hot star goo in their pseudopods, though that is a great concept for a sci-fi show. The word "plasma" got reused.  That's all. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:38, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I am not going to reply about it. You have missed my point completely. And then, provided some lame examples to cover it up. Or maybe I could make use of an example: I know it isn’t the best analogy, but: “haemophilia is a genetic disorder where the haemophiliac person lacks a clotting factor essential for clotting blood in case of bleeding. Chances of male suffering from haemophilia is greater than chances of female…” the information that should be mentioned here is the disease is caused due to the mutation of a sex-chromosome, X, and is recessive. Since females have both X and X chromosomes, one dominant gene can prevent the individual from being infected. But in case of males, XY, since there is only one X chromosome, and if it is infected, the male is haemophiliac. If a male has X chromosome which is haemophiliac, he would suffer from haemophilia 100%. But for females, probability is 50%. And a female can be the carrier with suffering from it, as well. So, if you were to talk about heavy metal poisoning kills a member of a heavy metal band, you might change the tone you would have used for a political dying from heavy metal poisoning, even if we know which metal killed. Similarly, in rare chances Boman Irani was to meet Irani President, the use of Irani would be different. Another rare case, let a study concerning with plasma and cell’s plasma is published, the article should be carefully written so that there is no ambiguity. There are two things: dumbing things down and providing more information. As for an author, some information might be ridiculous (taking Wikipedia’s example, the pope is catholic. It might be silly for you, but when you write it, you need to consider the audience who might be unaware of Christianity or concepts of religion. Journalism is not about leaving some of the facts, it is an art to dumb things down by providing information in such a way that it doesn’t look “dumbing it down” for those readers who are aware of that topic. acagastya PING ME! 03:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * and even if BEC is formed in rare scenarios, it is the fifth state. Even “there are four states of matter” is incorrect. acagastya PING ME! 04:01, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Acagastya, hemophilia is a single-allele condition and dyslexia isn't (also, hemophilia is X-linked, which is another matter). It's like asking if autism is dominant or recessive.  The term doesn't apply because the causes of autism are more complicated than that.  Dyslexia doesn't have a clear heredity pattern like hemophilia and color blindness do. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * You have answered what was supposed to be added to the article. acagastya PING ME! 12:02, 19 October 2017 (UTC)

I added in it was published Wednesday. That should cover the When. —mikemoral (talk) 06:44, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Thanks, man. Darkfrog24 (talk) 11:53, 19 October 2017 (UTC)
 * this time, I saw your message, but it would be better to leave a note on talk page. acagastya PING ME! 08:29, 20 October 2017 (UTC)

Dyslexia on simple enlish wikipedia
Just a thought: this version may be more appropriate than Dyslexia for readers who lack time/English-language ability? Ottawahitech (talk) 14:56, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Done. w has a parameter for that.  --Pi zero (talk) 15:01, 20 October 2017 (UTC)
 * Those who lack English-language ability would perhaps not read English Wikinews.

Just a thought
Yesterday, after college, I was thinking about it, and I wonder why we don't turn dyslexic when we try to read with one eye shut? One must be with circular pattern and other one with asymmetric. If mirror images are produced for a dyslexic person, does that mean one of the image would be a complete mirror opposite for them, implying judgement of movement of objects is also hard for the patients. In that case, with one eye shut, can they overcome this problem [if at least, I can not become temporarily dyslexic]? With their one eye shut, they would not have a conflicting mirror image. 223.237.252.103 (talk) 01:00, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * Interesting thought indeed. Have you considered writing to the research team that produced the study? Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:45, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * I was able to find email IDs for astronomers who discovered the smallest known star, I am not sure if I found emails of the people behind this one. If I did, I must have told . Maybe we would look into it tomorrow if we have time to spare. Emailing Gryllida about it as soon as possible. 223.237.252.103 (talk) 01:50, 20 January 2018 (UTC)


 * But consider this: "[The fact that the spot is round in one eye and asymmetrical in the other], researchers speculate, allows the brain to choose just one of the two images to work with." That might be it. Covering one eye might turn someone non-dyslexic. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:51, 20 January 2018 (UTC) I've been working my way through a book with a dyslexic character, and I've been wondering if a special pair of reading glasses might do the trick. Darkfrog24 (talk) 01:52, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * if it was that easy, someone would have tried reading with one eye. And when one goes to check their vision, they ask people to read text with one eye shut…I think I am either missing something about the study or their study might have important discoveries yet to be uncovered or maybe people should try this trick to read, if they are dyslexic. Do you know anyone with dyslexia? We can at least try to figure out something, so that we can ask the researchers something. 223.237.252.103 (talk) 02:12, 20 January 2018 (UTC)
 * &lt;dropping in&gt; Seems to me the trick mightn't help someone who hadn't already learned things like the difference between "b" and "d". It doesn't help to have only one image to choose from if you've never had one unambigous image to deal with and therefore don't know what to do with the one you get.  Also, if you're dyxlexic and do learn what to do with the one image, and then close that eye and open the other instead... would you then be unable to make sense of it?  --Pi zero (talk) 02:28, 20 January 2018 (UTC)

In Hindi; 26 is written as ३६. T is almost the mirror opposite and hence, "chattis ka aanda" implying two people are polar opposites and don't get along together. It was hard to remember in the beginning, but we learn what symbol means what after some some time. Hindi numerals aren't so the speakers of Hinglish. So, after some time, with one eye shut, dyslexic people can learn that too. (I was at least ten years old when I started learning the Hindi numerals) 2405:204:5511:C464:C8E7:E7F3:A8AC:A86A (talk) 05:09, 20 January 2018 (UTC)