User talk:JamesBradfordHale

Welcome[edit]

Hello, JamesBradfordHale, and welcome to Wikipedia! Thank you for your contributions.

I notice that one of the first articles you edited appears to be dealing with a topic with which you may have a conflict of interest. In other words, you may find it difficult to write about that topic in a neutral and objective way, because you are, work for, or represent, the subject of that article. Your recent contributions may have already been undone for this very reason.

To reduce the chances of your contributions being undone, you might like to draft your revised article before submission, and then ask me or any other editor to proofread it. To start creating a draft article, just click your user name at the top of the screen when you are logged in, and edit that page as you would any other. If the page you created has already been deleted from Wikipedia, but you want to save the content from it to use for that draft, don't hesitate to ask anyone from this list and they will copy it to your user page.

The one firm rule we do have in connection with conflicts of interest is that accounts used by more than one person will unfortunately be blocked from editing. It is also worth noting that Wikipedia generally does not allow editors to have usernames which specifically link them to one company or corporation. If your username does have such a name, it would be advisable for you to request a change of username.

If you are stuck, and looking for help, please come to the New contributors' help page, where experienced Wikipedians can answer any queries you have! You can also just type {{helpme}} on your user page, and someone will show up shortly to answer your questions. Here are a few other good links for newcomers:

I hope you enjoy editing here and being a Wikipedian! Please sign your name on talk pages using four tildes (~~~~); this will automatically produce your name and the date. If you have any questions, check out Wikipedia:Where to ask a question or ask me on my talk page. Again, welcome! Mirokado (talk) 18:28, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

There are several inaccuracies in your current entries for LD and RTI that do not reflect current knowledge or research, so I was just trying to correct them so they are more accurate. I don't know what to say about a "conflict of interest". The LDA white paper was endorsed by the LDA, and the 58 scholars from all over, many of whom are some of the top experts in LD - they aren't "my group" of researchers, etc. If you want a listing of their credentials I can send them to you. But I can also send the article (or you can get it online). So I am not advocating my work per se, but the work of 58 experts (the journal allowed us to call them "experts") in SLD identification. That is their position, and I agree with it. JamesBradfordHale (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)jamesbradfordhale[reply]

The "third method" has been written about extensively in the literature, not just my work. Please look this up on google scholar and the federal government's website. It is there in black and white. I think it is unfair to delete the third method just because you think it is my conflict of interest. This is the law, it has nothing to do with my personal gain, and its absence represents a significant problem in your entry. Please read the literature or email me and I'll be glad to send the articles (from peer-reviewed journal articles) to you. JamesBradfordHale (talk) 21:29, 5 December 2011 (UTC)jamesbradfordhale[reply]

Thanks for the kind offer to send detailed information, which I do appreciate. It is not necessary to put you to that trouble. If you can provide independent sources as well as "your" paper and we can cooperate on the style of the additions there will be no problem. --Mirokado (talk) 23:56, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Here are some citations to wet your whistle; please read and incorporate as you see fit; as you can see, the processing strengths and weaknesses approach is part of US federal law (e.g., "third method"), and is advocated by many professionals (and I'm not in any of these pubs) - leaving this out of your entry IMO is a disservice to children with learning disabilities: 1. Let me start with an article that uses the term "third method" of SLD identification: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pits.20501/full 2. Flanagan and Alfonso's (Eds) book includes many leaders in the field, you can see their work on google books: http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=QWBqJgvN9wQC&oi=fnd&pg=PR13&dq=processing+strengths+and+weaknesses+sld&ots=OligVws8Ah&sig=z4Bgi1PtSN5OABX7rvgKws5gW30#v=onepage&q=processing%20strengths%20and%20weaknesses%20sld&f=false 3. Here's another edited book with many chapters by leaders in SLD evaluation edited by Reynolds and Fletcher-Janzen: http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=jJehs2qBYRIC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=reynolds+era+rti&ots=UOnAN2xcMf&sig=MZBxjvOONXDfA4AvaUfFBUvZWDg#v=onepage&q&f=false 4. The Special Issues of Psychology in the Schools edited by Mather and Kaufman is another good source. If you look these articles up all are suggesting a "third method" approach and processing strengths and weaknesses. Start with the intro article and then look at the rest (two consecutive ISSUES) on the topic (probably about 10 articles or so). http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pits.20185/abstract 5. Here is the American Academy of School Psychology position: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pits.20187/abstract 6. Here's a nice article by several leaders in neuropsychology: http://acn.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/2/217.short 7. And here's an article from special educators: http://www.jstor.org/pss/25474644 8. And here's more from educators/psychologists: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/pro/37/1/99/ 9. Finally, this paper that talks about a US Supreme Court case includes one of the top education lawyers in the US (Pete Wright), although please note that I am a co-author on this one: http://jpa.sagepub.com/content/29/2/103.short

I hope this is sufficient. We are in the middle of finals and I have many past due projects on my plate. I really can't go into more detail at this point, but I hope you realize that I am not alone in what I advocate. Perhaps you could get someone else to verify the points I'm making, or perhaps you have the integrity to do the research yourself. If you need me to write an email to some at Wikipedia to support this extraordinary situation I'd be glad to do so. Dr. Hale JamesBradfordHale (talk)(UTC)jamesbradfordhale

Thanks I have read this, but not yet looked at anything in detail. I will look further over the next few days and post updates here as necessary. I will keep watching this page as well as the articles. --Mirokado (talk) 23:48, 6 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Learning disability[edit]

Your recent edits here seem to be promoting a white paper of which you are the lead author. In particular the section Processing Strenghs and Weaknesses (PSW) reads as an excuse to do so. It is not forbidden to edit articles in which you have a clear conflict of interest, but it is not recommended and you must be very careful indeed about adding content based on or with the net result of promoting your own work. If your work is notable someone else will refer to it. It is unencyclopedic to attempt to give a work the appearance of extra authority by such phrases as "some of the most important academics..." (see peacock terms).

In addition I notice that as part of your first edit to this article you have interpolated text into a quotation without any explanation: "...but inextricably related to the individual's evironment..." [sic]. Quotes must appear exactly as in the original (modulo trivial typesetting) so if the original quote was wrong this is an important correction which must be explained preferably with a separate edit summary.

I'm afraid that it is not clear whether some of your other changes are your opinion or can be supported by reliable sources. You need to supply reliable references (not to your own work!) to support all content "challenged or likely to be challenged". Given the other problems I have mentioned, all the non-trivial unsourced additions are challenged.

I suggest that you seek advice before adding this material, either from one of the involved projects (listed on Talk:Learning disability, each has its own talk page, or for conflict of interest issues, Wikipedia:Conflict_of_interest/Noticeboard.

You are also welcome to continue a discussion here, but please bear in mind that I may be the only person watching this page, so you are more likely to get a knowledgeable response if you ask on one of the other pages I have mentioned. --Mirokado (talk) 19:10, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Hello again. I have now also had a look at your changes to Response to intervention. You have added lots of references from other workers there, so the whole effect of your changes is rather different. I will leave it to other editors to review the changes to that article, but a lot of further updates will be needed to "wikify" them if they remain! In addition to my suggestions above, you could see what the reaction to Response to intervention is, help sort that article out as necessary and with the experience you gain there (editing Wikipedia does take a bit of practice...) you could have another go at Learning disability. --Mirokado (talk) 19:41, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know what to tell you, but some of these statements made on your site are clearly wrong and not supported, but you still allow those to be posted. I have provided references from peer-reviewed literature for everything I have said, so when you hold others to this same high standard we can talk. Otherwise, I think your scrutiny is problematic, you need to be fair in how you establish the validity of the statements made, and the scientific, peer-reviewed literature is much better than somebodies' personal opinion. How do you check their "conflict of interest" when they say things that don't even have any references??? This doesn't make sense to me, but I'm a scientist, not a wiki-dude. JamesBradfordHale (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Dr. Hale-[reply]

Here's a case in point "...usually caused by an unknown factor or factors. The unknown factor is the disorder that affects the brain's ability to receive and process information." No citations whatsoever; you ask me for my citations, and you are willing to publish this? Please explain. Learning disabilities are not a mystery. The deficit in the basic psychological processes is part of the federal law, there are hundreds of studies that show the abnormal brain functioning leads to the disabilities. To just remove my stuff when there is plenty of literature to support it, and allow the other stuff to be written, when there is no documentation to support it (AND it is wrong to boot!), is very concerning. Please explain. I edited these pages to make them more accurate, please refer to the many sources cited in the RTI posting if you want to make sure I am accurate in representing the literature JamesBradfordHale (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)JamesBradfordHaleJamesBradfordHale (talk) 21:45, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your replies. I will try to address them and am happy to work with you rather than against so that we can improve the article. One problem is that it does take a while to get used to editing on Wikipedia. It is not uncommon for enthusiastic and ambitious first efforts to be reverted. We can talk here and in the meantime you can see what happens with the other article too.

(We normally indent one step further for a reply by adding an extra colon before each paragraph, as here).

The main stylistic problem with your use of Hale et al was that the section was talking about the paper and mentioning what the paper said as an afterthought. Once you are ready to start again, you need to have (for example) a section deal with the "third method" and cite the paper as a normal inline reference. I suggest that you include information for which you can add references from wholly independently-written papers as well. The article should end up giving due weight to all responsibly persued methods (or however you would prefer to phrase the necessary balance).

The process of review on Wikipedia is completely different from the peer review you are used to. We are all expected to write balanced content by including all significant points of view: that certainly includes points of view we personally may disagree with. We also have to provide reliable sources for "anything which may reasonably be challenged" which basically means "what someone else who is reliable has said" and not "what I know", "what you know" or "what your researches have established". This for an expert can be difficult and frustrating.

As far as the text from the article lead which you quote is concerned, the lead should not generally need inline references because it is supposed to be a summary of the rest of the, reliably sourced, article. Once again, please distinguish between things your expertise leads you to believe are wrong, things for which there exist no reliable sources and things for which there is currently no reliable source in the article.

The article content evolves by a process of consensus, which basically means that if nobody challenges a change then that change becomes part of the evolving consensus. We have become stricter about reliable sources over the years which explains why many articles have content which does not meet current standards. As well as adding new content you are welcome to add references for existing content when that will help, and you can challenge existing content which you consider unreliable.

It is now my bedtime. --Mirokado (talk) 23:39, 5 December 2011 (UTC)[reply]

   OK, sleep well. I cannot take any more time on this, but please check out the facts. A scientific journal is much more reputable than someone else's opinion, but I guess that is up to you to decide. But I think that if you want a credible product, please check out what I am saying. I'd be glad to get rid of all the references to my work if you produced something that was more credible. Please give me your email and I will send articles if you are interested.  JamesBradfordHale (talk) 21:35, 5 December 2011 (UTC)Dr. Hale-  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.104.180.84 (talk) [reply]

Please see my comments above in "welcome" regarding why my changes to "learning disability" are warranted and necessary. Dr. Hale I'm copying them here just in documentation of the position under the header "learning disability": Here are some citations to wet your whistle; please read and incorporate as you see fit; as you can see, the processing strengths and weaknesses approach is part of federal law, and is advocated by many professionals (and I'm not in any of them) - leaving it out is IMO a disservice to children with learning disabilities: 1. Let me start with an article that uses the term "third method" of SLD identification: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pits.20501/full 2. Flanagan and Alfonso's (Eds) book includes many leaders in the field, you can see their work on google books: http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=QWBqJgvN9wQC&oi=fnd&pg=PR13&dq=processing+strengths+and+weaknesses+sld&ots=OligVws8Ah&sig=z4Bgi1PtSN5OABX7rvgKws5gW30#v=onepage&q=processing%20strengths%20and%20weaknesses%20sld&f=false 3. Here's another edited book with many chapters by leaders in SLD evaluation edited by Reynolds and Fletcher-Janzen: http://books.google.ca/books?hl=en&lr=&id=jJehs2qBYRIC&oi=fnd&pg=PR5&dq=reynolds+era+rti&ots=UOnAN2xcMf&sig=MZBxjvOONXDfA4AvaUfFBUvZWDg#v=onepage&q&f=false 4. The Special Issues of Psychology in the Schools edited by Mather and Kaufman is another good source. If you look these articles up all are suggesting a "third method" approach and processing strengths and weaknesses. Start with the intro article and then look at the rest (two consecutive ISSUES) on the topic (probably about 10 articles or so). http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pits.20185/abstract 5. Here is the American Academy of School Psychology position: http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com/doi/10.1002/pits.20187/abstract 6. Here's a nice article by several leaders in neuropsychology: http://acn.oxfordjournals.org/content/23/2/217.short 7. And here's an article from special educators: http://www.jstor.org/pss/25474644 8. And here's more from educators/psychologists: http://psycnet.apa.org/journals/pro/37/1/99/ 9. Finally, this paper that talks about a US Supreme Court case includes one of the top education lawyers in the US (Pete Wright), although please note that I am a co-author on this one: http://jpa.sagepub.com/content/29/2/103.short

I hope this is sufficient. We are in the middle of finals and I have many past due projects on my plate. I really can't go into more detail at this point, but I hope you realize that I am not alone in what I advocate. Perhaps you could get someone else to verify the points I'm making, or perhaps you have the integrity to do the research yourself. If you need me to write an email to some at Wikipedia to support this extraordinary situation I'd be glad to do so. Dr. Hale JamesBradfordHale (talk)(UTC)jamesbradfordhale