Talk:Reading

message: This article seems to be a mishmash of information, indicated by the fact that "Reading speed" is the second topic and "Miscellaneous" has a large place.  I think it makes sense to reorganize the information according to the domains of literacy: phonological awareness, phonics, fluency, vocabulary, and reading comprehension (the latter should probably be subdivided, perhaps into comprehension processes [e.g., working memory] and knowledge).  If there is no objection, I'll do that sometime in the next week. Kearnsdm 08:21, 14 March 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Hodge Podge

message: is there any good info about how to best read in a computer? font type, size, etc. ? —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 201.83.178.101 (talk) 05:30, 7 April 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reading in a computer 

message: The entire section headed "Skill Development" seems to be an argument for altering the standard spelling of English words to a phonetic system.  It is an opinionated rant.  Why is this under "Skill Devlopment"?  The claim that the problem is the language itself rather than inadequate education is utterly unsubstantiated in the article.  The author of this section evidently learned to read - so did I, and we managed to do it despite the bizarre and inconsistent quirks of English spelling.  
Has the author looked at the Wikipedia entry for the list of countries by literacy rate?  The Reading entry also seems to claim that "Chinese picture-writing symbols" are easier to learn to read than English words.  The literacy rate in China is lower than that of most English-speaking countries, and looking at the list by literacy rate, I see no correlation between writing system and literacy rates.  Clearly, the type of writing system is not the main predictor of literacy.  I propose that the argument for changing the spelling of English be deleted, or at the very least moved to an appropriate section.
:: I agree and was struck by the apparent bias of that section, so I have added a POV marker to that section.  Various statements such as "The Only Way Students Learn to Read English As a result, the ONLY way students can learn to read English is to learn the spelling of all 20,000 or more words in their reading vocabulary one-at-a-time by rote memory or by repeated use of the word. This learning can come through either the phonics or partially through the whole word teaching method." seem questionable to me and are unsourced. I don't think these sentiments have either scientific support or are in accord with the views of most educators.  Armarshall 14:01, 23 May 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  I would go a step further. This isn't just a "biased section"; it's vandalism, plain and simple. There is absolutely no way that this extraordinary rant can be integrated into the rest of the article; this is self-evident, and doesn't require any extensive soul-searching on our part to determine. As of ten seconds from now, I am removing the offending content. Mattrognlie 07:30, 25 May 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Biased Section 

message: "Speed reading courses and books often encourage the reader to continually speed up; comprehension tests lead the reader to believe their comprehension is constantly improving. However, competence in reading involves the understanding that skimming is dangerous as a default habit."
Speed reading information I've seen stresses comprehension, with that in mind I do not understand how speed reading could be considered dangerous as a default habit. It'd be a good idea to explain this fully or remove it 70.132.22.157 02:04, 24 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The section on speed reading could stand to be explained 

message: Hi,
Whoever added the new graphic images, good choices!  They look terrific.
Also, I've seen some sets of related articles that use nice info boxes that point users directly to closely related topics, in context of the main article rather than at the bottom.  I put together a strawman to illustrate the idea and would like for interested editors to take a look and see what you think.
Here is a strawman to give you an idea of what I'm proposing:  
User:Rosmoran/sandbox/reading/reading template
Here is a mock up of what the reading article might look like with this navigation template added: 
User:Rosmoran/sandbox/reading/example reading article with nav template
Thoughts?
Best,
Rosmoran 19:27, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Great images; idea about navigation box for reading and related topics 

message: Anything on how far something you're reading should be away from you? or if it is damaging to your eyes to read in the dark? I hear that reading in the dark actually doesn't damage or strain your eyes; and reading something in front of you should be around a foot away. Any research/information? 70.111.251.203 00:48, 26 February 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, I've heard of eye damage, myopia, eye strain, and so on before.  So far the information I'm heard is - well - it's controversial. For instance, public perception has it that myopia is caused by reading - especially reading in the dark where there is eye strain; however, from a physician I spoke to that's untrue, myopia is "genetics".  There has been research conducted that reading or more specifically intelligence is linked to myopia, and they are hypothesizing that reading is the genetic trigger to myopia; for example, just has your muscles adapt when they are used, you eyes will reshape and thus refocus to the distance you view things at the most.  Anyway, here are some links Myopia, Ohio State, More links with Google.ChyranandChloe (talk) 03:51, 6 May 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Eye damage

message: Reading may refer to the computer acquisition of information, the mechanism in which bills are introduced, certain people, and places. To provide a more flexible position for the disambiguation page, I believe that this article Reading should be moved to a new article Reading (process). Move will be made, 07 July 2008. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:03, 30 June 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: Now can you fix the disambiguation page!  —Preceding unsigned comment added by 87.102.119.5 (talk) 16:12, 15 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: It takes time, I have to let the bots fix the links to this article before changing the redirect. I'll do it on July 16. ChyranandChloe (talk) 02:33, 16 July 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: I think it should go back to plain old 'reading' myself. All the other meanings are pretty trivial. Richard001 (talk) 08:02, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: The reasoning to place the disambiguation first is to give the reader the power to choose which definition of "reading" to use rather than narrowing them to simply "interpreting symbols to construct meaning". This exposes them to other possible definitions that would otherwise be hidden or underrepresented. You are right in that this article holds the most natural name space, which is why it was decided to place Reading (process) at the top of list in the disambiguation. ChyranandChloe (talk) 21:52, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

text: Before you make the move, you'll have to CSD delete the Reading (disambiguation) redirect, move the disambiguation, CSD delete the Reading, then move the Reading (process). You have consensus. ChyranandChloe (talk) 22:10, 28 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Move [[Reading]] → [[Reading (process)]] 

message: The "Intelligence" section is in desperate need of some citations. I've tried looking but the closest I managed to find was:
http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,20867,21993021-2702,00.htmlIndianparttime2 (talk) 21:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Intelligence

message: Guys, I don't know you, but I think the picture of the dude reading does not really add any particular value to the article beyond the aesthetic one (that implying he is aesthetic if at all). IMO this picture should be removed. Furthermore, it seems to me this picture was added for some personal fame reasons. Thanks! --Camilo Sanchez (talk) 07:58, 3 May 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Guy reading picture

message: All of the reading Artiles on wiki lack consistancy, tend to be single country orientated, and therefore lack a global view.
There needs to be reading by country catergory to reflect the skill requirments of different writing systsm and the different orthographies whith each writing system.
dolfrog (talk) 13:13, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
replies: text: The solution to your perceived problem is for you to add "missing" information from other countries, not to balkanize the reading-related articles.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 17:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  need a WIKI reading project 

message: I have been collating a series of PubMed online Research paper collection, mainly about dyslexia, which can be found at  user:dolfrog 
There is a Reading Collection of articles which may be worth looking at when developing this article There is another collection which could also be of interest Dorsal and Ventral Streams - functional anatomy of language
dolfrog (talk) 18:32, 17 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  PubMed Research papers regarding Reading 

message: A bizarre paragraph near the end makes some unreferenced and to some extent insulting statements about having a high reading level making you less likely to take drugs or go to prison.
I am going to go ahead and remove the whole lot. It seems like a slur against drug users, implying they are less bookish or educated.119.224.57.190 (talk) 00:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reading Makes You Less Likely... 

message: Prompted by a recent addition, I checked  the whole list but I couldn't find anything that isn't either irrelevant or has some sort of axe to grind. A strict application of WP:ELNO would remove the lot. Other views, please, before implementing this WP:BOLD step.--Old Moonraker (talk) 17:56, 15 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed trim of  "external links" section 

message: I started a new section called "Goals of reading". Most of the information come from Mortimer J Adler's How to Read a Book, but the section certainly needs work.--ThomasMagnus 21:26, 3 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Goals of reading 

message: A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of . Jagged 85 is one of the main contributors to Wikipedia (over 67,000 edits, he's ranked 198 in the number of edits), and practically all of his edits have to do with Islamic science, technology and philosophy. This editor has persistently misused sources here over several years. This editor's contributions are always well provided with citations, but examination of these sources often reveals either a blatant misrepresentation of those sources or a selective interpretation, going beyond any reasonable interpretation of the authors' intent. I searched the page history, and found 3 edits by Jagged 85 in April 2010. Tobby72 (talk) 17:19, 8 June 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: That's an old and archived RfC. The point is still valid though, and his contribs need to be doublechecked. Tobby72 (talk) 21:06, 10 June 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misuse of sources 

message: I changed the wording of the overview section to be neutral regarding how much printed word is read as opposed to electronic displays.  To say that "most" reading is still of the printed word would need a citation. -- Fyrael (talk) 15:41, 24 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Printed vs. Electronic Reading 

message: I re-added the book published by Harvard, under the rereading paragraph. It helps establish the concept and term as being notable beyond just a casual sense, and it is one of few academic works published on the subject. The book goes beyond just listing an authors favorite books, it examines the phenomenon in general, by a literature professor. Also don't throw around the word "advertising", it's uncalled for, see WP:FAITH, if it was astroturfing it would be obvious. The edit was made in good faith. Green Cardamom (talk) 05:11, 7 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rereading 

message: It seems to me that the content is still quite random. For example, why does the main section "Overview" contain comments about horizontal scrolling and contrast? That seems to not fit there, and also to be an opinion, not a statement of fact. I'd like to remove it and some other extraneous parts, pending comments?
Also, I think a useful section or subheading would be addressing the impact the internet has had on reading. There are tons of popular press articles on the topic (eg Nicholas Carr, "Is Google Making Us Stupid?", and NY Times, "R U Really Reading?"). There is also a fair bit of research on how the presence of hyperlinks, for example, makes reading more difficult or easier. 
Toxicmegacolonlaptop (talk) 18:50, 16 December 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Content random, poorly organized - new section? 

message: Many of the descriptions throughout this article ignore Braille as a non-visual language, for example from the last part of the introduction, "The common link is the interpretation of symbols to extract the meaning from the visual notations."  This implies that blind individuals who are literate in Braille cannot read.  This is a bias that I would like to see removed.  --zandperl (talk) 02:33, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Agreed. The trivial fix to that sentence is "... interpretation of symbols to extract the meaning from the visual or tactile notations", but the more is required, including a short Braille section with a  hatnote to Braille. Mitch Ames (talk) 13:45, 15 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Braille? 

message: :The following discussion is an archived discussion of a requested move. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on the talk page. Editors desiring to contest the closing decision should consider a move review. No further edits should be made to this section. 
The result of the move request was: no consensus for move. Miniapolis 13:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Apple (fruit) woud be a more sensible way to approach consistency; like Orange (fruit).  Dicklyon (talk) 05:07, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Apple (fruit), with apple redirecting to it?  Absurd.  We've never done that, outside of a few outliers, and you know it... and I really wish you'd cease your crusade to change that.  Powers T 23:40, 4 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Not true.  Article writers have often done this, but someone quickly changes it.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:36, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: No. Not so absurd as you may suggest. apple should become the disambiguating page, with links to Apple Inc, Apple (fruit), and Apple Corps. -- Ohconfucius ping / poke 02:22, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Right, I wasn't suggesting that Apple would be a redirect, but that it would be a disambig page, like Orange.  But I'm not proposing or crusading to do that, just saying that it would not be unreasonable or unusual, and that it would be the conventional way to address what you see as an inconsistency.  Dicklyon (talk) 03:05, 7 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: But you suggested "consistency" as a reason to change the name of the apple article, not primacy (or lack thereof).  So you're saying that because orange is a disambiguation page, apple should be too?  If that's the case, I don't understand why.  Powers T 17:00, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

text: *Suggest instead Rename to Reading (literacy), as "process" does make it sound like machinery, or computing, or some technical thing.  --SmokeyJoe (talk) 10:33, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *I see where you're coming from here, but "literacy" seems like too narrow a scope to me. "Literacy" refers exclusively to the written word, but the article also covers the reading of musical notation and of pictograms. Also, the term "literacy" implies a certain level of skill in the reader, but the article also covers the acquisition of reading by beginner learners. How about Reading (cognition) instead? I think that would include all of the pertinent activities covered in the article, and I like it better than Reading (process). — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 12:39, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *I still prefer "literacy". To me, it is broad, and includes musical literacy, ancient hieroglyphic literacy, even pictographs and simple code or sign reading. Oddly, "literacy" has a broadness far exceeding that of "literature". "Cognition" has too much to do with mental processing of the information beyond the reading itself. --SmokeyJoe (talk) 13:03, 12 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: *I would say that reading is the mental processing of the information. But anyway, given the disagreement here and the nature of the discussion so far, this is probably best left for a future move request. (Maybe we could open one straight away if this closes with a "no consensus".) — Mr. Stradivarius ♪ talk ♪ 14:41, 12 May 2013 (UTC)

text: *:RMs only last a week (normally). If more discussion is wanted, an RfC would be the next step. They last 30 days. Apteva (talk) 15:17, 18 May 2013 (UTC)

text: The above discussion is preserved as an archive of a requested move.  Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section on this talk page or in a move review. No further edits should be made to this section.
===Postmortem--no primary topic?===
Hola, this is your previous RM poster here. At Talk:Reading, I recently concluded a test of primacy, and indeed it appears that loads of people do type in Reading expecting to get the city. (Doubtlessly pronunciation has something to do with this.) I finally agree that by pageviews, at least, we have no primary topic. Any future move request would have to rely more on the second criteria at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Red Slash 00:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Requested move

message: Hola, this is your previous RM poster here. At Talk:Reading, I recently concluded a test of primacy, and indeed it appears that loads of people do type in Reading expecting to get the city. (Doubtlessly pronunciation has something to do with this.) I finally agree that by pageviews, at least, we have no primary topic. Any future move request would have to rely more on the second criteria at WP:PRIMARYTOPIC. Red Slash 00:36, 30 June 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Postmortem--no primary topic?

message: You hear a lot about the benefits of reading (especially being read to as a young child), including as it relates to future academic success. I think this definitely merits mention in the article. Anybody have access to academic databases that contain studies on this? — Preceding signed comment added by Cymru.lass (talk • contribs) 16:29, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree in principle. The existing "Cognitive benefits" section could be broadened and expanded. RCraig09 (talk) 17:32, 20 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: The problem with a benefits section is that it will promote the false notion that all are cognitively able to read effectively, and that alternative forms of communication are not required for those who need to use the various alternative forms of communication. Tis problem can be seen as society narrowly focuses on text based communication and fails to provide the alternative methods of communicating their message for those who need them, and promotes purely selfish and discriminatory attitude. dolfrog (talk) 03:46, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
replies: text:  Perhaps an additional section "Alternatives to text-based communication" could be added to deal with your (Dolfrog) concern, somehow incorporating a link to Ableism.  But merely describing benefits of text-based reading does not promote the notion that all people are cognitively able to read effectively. RCraig09 (talk) 15:28, 21 July 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Benefits section? 

message: At some point in the past the section Reading rate was put under assessment, making wikilinks to reading rate stop working. I'm moving it back into its own section, under reading skills, since it is not just a means of assessment. The inscrutable note was actually part of the diagram caption and refers to data in the diagram. StarryGrandma (talk) 22:47, 25 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  Reading rate - moving back to its own section 

message: I'm breaking this into a new section so as not to disrupt the move discussion. IF the result above is not to move, would any editors object to running a redirect experiment in order to determine exactly how many users actually travel from the disambiguation page to the most common Reading articles? Does three months sound like a sufficient period of time or would we be more comfortable with six? I mostly would like to just see traffic for Reading (process) and Reading, Berkshire, but I've also seen Reading, Pennsylvania mentioned. Any others that someone would like considered? I'm not sure if there's standard practice (and I suspect there isn't, since this isn't that common) for the actual title of the special redirects, but I'll maybe ask on the disambiguation project page. -- Fyrael (talk) 21:32, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Reading (visual activity) was used for this article, maybe we could use Reading (town in Berkshire) and Reading (city in Pennsylvania), similar to Lincoln (president) and EA (video game company) by User:JHunterJ. Crouch, Swale (talk)  21:39, 25 October 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh....thank you for linking that. I hadn't realized that this experiment was already run in 2015. Looks like  found that the cities had sufficient traffic through the disambiguation page that the process couldn't be considered primary. In that case I'm perfectly willing to accept the results of such a recent experiment. -- Fyrael (talk) 21:48, 25 October 2018 (UTC)

text: ...and within hours our article about reading has  intended for a town. Certes (talk) 14:22, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: There will always be some links to the wrong article on the wiki because people are too lazy to check their links, or even to think through where their links probably go. Also, is this where you meant to put this comment? -- Fyrael (talk) 15:17, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text:  You clearly missed he point here. The article of the town was never at "Reading," (and rightly, will never be). So the fact that link was incorrect has no relation with this move whatsover. If that link was there for the past 10 years, it has been incorrect since so, it didn't became so today as you're wrongly assuming.–Ammarpad (talk) 16:39, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: I think you in fact have missed the point that Certes is alluding to, although in fairness they didn't say it explicitly. The big difference between how things were and how things are now is that before as soon as 1 or 2 links to the disambiguation page had been created the page would show up at Wikipedia:Disambiguation_pages_with_links and be very promptly fixed. Now in order to catch these wrong links someone has to take it upon themselves to periodically view the newest links to Reading (which I assume there's a tool for somewhere) and examine them one-by-one to see if any need fixing. It was discussed above though, so I don't see any purpose in rehashing. -- Fyrael (talk) 17:29, 6 November 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Experiment for primary topic 

message: The section is too short and neglected. It also doesn't mention the crucial aspects. I reckon it needs to be reworked.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Szymioza (talk • contribs) 11:39, 26 March 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cognitive benefits 

message: I am aware of the many contributions made towards this article. However, it seems to me that our readers would be better served if the material was put in other articles (Literacy, Learning to read, Educational assessment, etc.). If so, it would be easier to maintain credible, encyclopedic content. Some of the sections, such as "Reading skills" and "Assessment" are better covered elsewhere. And, some potions should be transfer elsewhere. The entire opening paragraphs have no citations, but perhaps the wiki-links are meant to cover that. Overall I found about 23 instances without citations; so it appears to lack sufficient credibility, or usefulness.
I would be willing to help if others agreed to the strategy. John NH (talk) 21:21, 5 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Is this article necessary?

message: Further to my above comments, perhaps the best solution would be to merge Learning to read with Reading. This would enable our readers to find information more easily. It may be that many readers go to Reading when they really want more in-depth information about reading acquisition or teaching reading, etc., and don't know where to find it. Many readers, perhaps a majority, read Wikipedia on a smart phone so they may not see the "Reading" menu.
I welcome your suggestions. If there is an agreement to do the merger, I am happy to begin the process. John NH (talk) 15:36, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: I have begun the merging process. I will favour material that is relevant, encyclopedic and having references. Comments welcome. John NH (talk) 17:05, 14 January 2021 (UTC)
thread_title: Proposed merger of Learning to read with Reading

message: The main thing that I want to emphasize here is that the article is very disorientating, with varied level of detail and information. In my opinion, the article structure would make readers very confused and not knowing the general gist (especially for an article for reading itself). Looking through the article, some sections need simplifying (Teaching reading), while others need clean up (The Reading Wars: phonics vs. whole language). There is no consistency here. I suggest that the article needs to follow the WP:SUMMARYSTYLE more throughly as in my view the article is the most deficient on. CactiStaccingCrane (talk) 16:38, 6 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text:  Thank you. I will take a look at these concerns when time permits. John NH (talk) 13:31, 15 January 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  About unclear tag 

message: — Assignment last updated by LehmanProf (talk) 23:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Wiki Education assignment: Language and Literacy Acquisition and Development

message: If there are no objections, I will split off the Science of reading subsection so it is a separate article. Then I will reduce the subsection in the Reading article and I will add details to the new article. John NH (talk) 15:10, 7 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title: Split off Science of reading

message: Benefits of reading books 103.232.131.19 (talk) 12:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Everyday conversation 

message: we have a red link mandatory reading (compulsory reading). Is it a definable concept? If not, then the redirect should be done or red links to be unlinked Estopedist1 (talk) 16:22, 31 January 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Mandatory reading