This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Reading article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
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).
Good question; I was looking for information on a similar topic. I recently read a statement that reading on a computer screen was only 60% as fast as reading on paper (and the article specifically mentioned the Kindle). I think this is completely false and was disappointed to see that no reference was included. I have done lots of computer reading and am going to finish Gone with the Wind within the next hour, having started a few days ago, not reading continuously, of course.
I don't know of any online guides to reading by computer screen. I set the fonts that seem most comfortable to me. I don't have a Kindle, but do have a Nokia N800, and read using something called FBreader, though I have also had good results on a desktop computer with Microsoft Reader and Rudenko Reader, among others. The latter two are good because they also support text to speech, but require Windows.
I can't figure out where to put information like the above in Wikipedia. Perhaps it doesn't belong there. Geneven ( talk) 15:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Happy to know that! Thanks for your support. Imransagor338 ( talk) 19:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Nowadays we could use Adobe Acrobat reader, which is a great tool for Screen Reader folks 😀 Imransagor338 ( talk) 19:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
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.
"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)
The page for subvocalization and this one contradict. I subvocalize when I read and I have had the reading level of a 12 grader since I was in 7th grade. Others I know also subvocalize and they excel in reading just as much as I do. I'm sorry but that information is heavily biased and promotes speed reading.
The section "Effect of Reading" begins with the statement: "Studies have shown that American children who learn to read by the third grade are less likely to end up in prison, drop out of school, or take drugs. Adults who read literature on a regular basis are nearly three times as likely to attend a performing arts event, almost four times as likely to visit an art museum, more than two-and-a-half times as likely to do volunteer or charity work, and over one-and-a-half times as likely to participate in sporting activities, according to Jamie Littlefield on charityguide.org.[2]"
But a glance at the Littlefield article cited indicates that no "effects" have been shown at all. Rather, it appears to claim nothing more than correlation between reading and the positive effects cited.
And this interpretation is further quite plausible: Educated, more intelligent families tend to have children who avoid behaviors that result in prison time, etc., and who are more cultured, etc.
It's not implausible, either, that reading might very well *cause* the effects noted. But that is not what the cited article claims. It just claims that children who read are more likely to have the cited qualities: this is the same as claiming *correlation* -- something far easier to infer from data than is *causation*.
Thus, the word effects is not appropriate here, since this word means causal relationships, not mere correlation. Daqu 18:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
The content of this article seems very random. The topics don't seem to relate to one another, and sections seem to be unmatched in the level of detail they present.
Look at the major topics covered:
The relationship among most of these topics is at best scanty.
I'm thinking we need to revisit the content of the entire article, and consider covering the topic at a very high level with sub-articles providing the details.
Thoughts? Other ideas?
Rosmoran ( talk) 00:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
It doesn't matter, the others are trivial (and "the computer acquisition of information, the mechanism in which bills are introduced" are both processes anyway!). We have Reading, Berkshire at the top with it, but almost nobody has even heard of it - in fact the majority of the world probably wouldn't even know where Berkshire was! We have hatnotes for these things; reading should be moved back to 'reading', and a hatnote to reading (disambiguation) should be (presumably re-)added.
Also, think about people trying to internal link to this article. Unless they know that reading is a disambiguation, or they check every link they add (I try to but it can be tiresome, and I doubt many others do this), there will be a lot of links to fix. Your user page is a perfect example: "This user appears to be able learn though reading [...]". Richard001 ( talk) 23:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Read is a VERB, not a noun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.5.14.6 ( talk) 22:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
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.html Indianparttime2 ( talk) 21:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
There are additional problems in the intelligences section. I don't have time to address them right now, but simply, the "intelligences" listed are not "intelligences" as envisioned by the Howard Gardener's theory. Verbal-linguistic, visual-spatial, and mathematical-logical are mislabled and there is no "auditory" intelligence identified by the theory. Further the intelligences listed are mischaracterized. This section is in need of a lot of love. Glortman ( talk) 11:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
This not a perceived problem but a real problem as from your commnets you seem to have very litle idea about how humans first learn to speak, and then have to learn how to interpret the visual notation of speech adopted by their culture, which is called reading. Unless you have a full understanding of all of these issues and have them presented in global terms in the appropriate Wikipedia articles, then the content of well researched related Wikipedia does not relate to these less well researched articles. So the well researched Dyslexia article does not realte to well to so many of the less well researched articles in the Reading category as most are more opinion based using non peer reviewd books rather than peer review based research to substanciate and support their claims. So you it appears to be an editor who calims to be a reading expert, so It should be your role to improve this mess in the reading category, I have enough to do research peer reviewed research to supportthe existing Dyalexia Article and sub articles, and do not have the time to carry out the major revision that the many of the reading articles in the Reading Category require. So It ti time for you to stop criticsing from the side lines and begin to do some real editing work. dolfrog ( talk) 15:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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.
119.224.57.190 ( talk) 00:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasMagnus ( talk • contribs)
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Jagged 85 ( talk · contribs). 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)
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)
Another common meaning of "reading" is picking up on social cues to detect information beyond the meaning of words. Even the standing definition could apply to much more than written language: "Reading is a complex cognitive process of decoding symbols for the intention of constructing or deriving meaning." What would be the best way to include the interpretation of other symbols such as bodily/facial gestures, apparel, or tone? -- 417 「 話」 22:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The result of the move request was: no consensus for move. Mini apolis 13:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
– Someone apparently unilaterally decided (no RM that I can see) that the act of a human being seeing and comprehending sets of words is not the primary topic of the word reading. I believe it is absolutely the primary topic, above all other combined possible uses (and there are several, including some like Reading, Berkshire that are seriously significant, but which still do not come close to being the primary topic). The current article at reading (process) is pretty pitiful but the topic therein is clearly more notable than all others, I think. But what do you thin-k? Red Slash 22:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Reading (process)
[1] viewed 141099 times in the last 90 days.
Reading, Berkshire
[2] viewed 123961 times in the last 90 days.
I don't think we can promote
Reading (process) as
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
Zarcadia (
talk)
17:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
The result of the move request was: No move. The proposal is well-stated and argued, but opposing statements were well argued as well. In closing this request, I note that oppose !votes invoked policy and evidence, whereas some support !votes give no real rationale. In summation, consensus is against this move. Cúchullain t/ c 21:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
– One of the two ways to determine a primary topic is long-term significance, for topics with "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value", even if another topic by that name gets viewed more often. That's why, to give just a few examples, Apple is a fruit and not a tech company, Pink is a color and not a singer, and Avatar is a religious concept and not a movie. For this reason, I propose that the topic with the greatest long-term significance when it comes to Reading is, well, reading. It is such a fundamental aspect of not just nearly every culture and civilization in the world today, but so many previous cultures and civilizations, going back thousands of years, even ones where only a small percentage of the population could actually do it. It is the thing that you are doing right now that is the reason we are even able to communicate our opinions to each other and have a discussion about this. I see that the last time this came up two and a half years ago, there were some who objected based on the existence of a couple of places - one in England and the other in Pennsylvania. These places are not insignificant, it is true. However, I would argue that the concept of reading is so utterly fundamental in its importance, so worldwide in its interest, that it would overwhelm even Athens and Rome in how significant it is, and Reading, Berkshire and Reading, Pennsylvania are nowhere near as important as Athens and Rome. Not even close. Egsan Bacon ( talk) 21:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 ( talk) 07:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
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)
The result of the move request was: moved Support had stronger arguements ( WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:PTOPIC, more global significance and Fyrael's counter arguements) ( Non admin closure) JC7V -talk 23:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
It's absolutely beyond doubt, that reading, yes literal reading has greater cultural significance and perpetual notability than any other term in the now weird disambiguation page. The foremost and unambiguous usage of "reading" everywhere in the world, in the past century, the present and future is reading first, then anything else behind. It's the default world over and needs no qualifying, but anything else do need one before it could be understood. In fact, whatever is named "reading", it must have gotten that inspiration from actual "reading". I perused the above two discussions in 2013 and 2015 and found the arguments forwarded not only lacking in policy-based reasons but hollow and essentially appeal to page views and amassed together they gave the discussion usual fate of no consensus, which should have reverted to the actual first used title, but wasn't done. It is noteworthy that, if we follow appeal to pageview argument then Apple Inc. could have been moved to Apple as the former got 4x the number of views for the latter consistently for several years, but it wasn't so because respect for enduring significance, AT policy and common sense prevailed. Another point to consider is that the current name Reading (process) is not only clearly ambiguous but to some extent incorrect. This is because Reading (computer) is also a process and can be named as such. There's no way to immediately tell whether Reading (process) means reading done by computer, by human or by legislators. But " Reading" in and on itself, unquestionably means literal reading, unqualified. No society, culture or civilization that can claim they don't know "reading," in fact reading is so fundamental to literacy that without it we couldn't be here at all even if Reading, Berkshire is the capital of the world. There's also a particular argument I want refute: in the previous move request a claim was made that Wikipedia is not dictionary and this remained unchallenged giving it semblance of validity. The argument looks meaningful on the surface but it's thoroughly hollow in content and forgets the spirit of why NOTDIC was written. WP:NOTDIC is meant for those articles about words that cannot be meaningfully expanded beyond the definition. That's not true for "Reading", it's a developed, rich encyclopedic topic proper and not only here but even in traditional paper ones. The example of real dictionary word is Inedible and you can see what the page contains. So if there's a town/city named "Inedible" then it will surely be primary topic notwithstanding the word. I hope the community will rectify this anomaly, and the sooner the better for us. – Ammarpad ( talk) 15:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Favonian ( talk) 16:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)"A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.
A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
. Please review the guideline and reconsider your position. Dohn joe ( talk) 03:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Tools that may help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion...include: Wikipedia article traffic statistics
So you have to first weigh them for their long-term significance and eternity of notability, if the result is clear then the remaining process is needless, just as the case here is and the same process that reserve Apple for fruit despite being overwhelmed by Apple company in terms of 'pageview' you're talking of. – Ammarpad ( talk) 07:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)"A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.
"many people are only interested in the surface-level dictionary definition and don't need this article"is nothing but a sheer conjectural surmise without any verifiable evidence. – Ammarpad ( talk) 06:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
. – Ammarpad ( talk) 05:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)" [Reading] is such a fundamental aspect of not just nearly every culture and civilization in the world today, but so many previous cultures and civilizations, going back thousands of years, even ones where only a small percentage of the population could actually do it. It is the thing that you are doing right now that is the reason we are even able to communicate our opinions to each other and have a discussion about this. I see that the last time this came up two and a half years ago, there were some who objected based on the existence of a couple of places - one in England and the other in Pennsylvania. These places are not insignificant, it is true. However, I would argue that the concept of reading is so utterly fundamental in its importance, so worldwide in its interest, that it would overwhelm even Athens and Rome in how significant it is, and Reading, Berkshire and Reading, Pennsylvania are nowhere near as important as Athens and Rome. Not even close. "
one potential criterion to commonly avoid is what "first comes to mind".
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)
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)
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)
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)
I have finished the merge and welcome suggestions. John NH ( talk) 16:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2022 and 21 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Literacystudent ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jaimekatz926, Nlavinier.
— Assignment last updated by LehmanProf ( talk) 23:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
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)
Benefits of reading books 103.232.131.19 ( talk) 12:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
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)
This is the
talk page for discussing improvements to the
Reading article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
Article policies
|
Find sources: Google ( books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1 |
This
level-4 vital article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's
content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article has previously been nominated to be moved.
Discussions:
|
This article links to one or more target anchors that no longer exist.
Please help fix the broken anchors. You can remove this template after fixing the problems. |
Reporting errors |
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)
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).
Good question; I was looking for information on a similar topic. I recently read a statement that reading on a computer screen was only 60% as fast as reading on paper (and the article specifically mentioned the Kindle). I think this is completely false and was disappointed to see that no reference was included. I have done lots of computer reading and am going to finish Gone with the Wind within the next hour, having started a few days ago, not reading continuously, of course.
I don't know of any online guides to reading by computer screen. I set the fonts that seem most comfortable to me. I don't have a Kindle, but do have a Nokia N800, and read using something called FBreader, though I have also had good results on a desktop computer with Microsoft Reader and Rudenko Reader, among others. The latter two are good because they also support text to speech, but require Windows.
I can't figure out where to put information like the above in Wikipedia. Perhaps it doesn't belong there. Geneven ( talk) 15:33, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
Happy to know that! Thanks for your support. Imransagor338 ( talk) 19:39, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
Nowadays we could use Adobe Acrobat reader, which is a great tool for Screen Reader folks 😀 Imransagor338 ( talk) 19:43, 12 October 2021 (UTC)
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.
"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)
The page for subvocalization and this one contradict. I subvocalize when I read and I have had the reading level of a 12 grader since I was in 7th grade. Others I know also subvocalize and they excel in reading just as much as I do. I'm sorry but that information is heavily biased and promotes speed reading.
The section "Effect of Reading" begins with the statement: "Studies have shown that American children who learn to read by the third grade are less likely to end up in prison, drop out of school, or take drugs. Adults who read literature on a regular basis are nearly three times as likely to attend a performing arts event, almost four times as likely to visit an art museum, more than two-and-a-half times as likely to do volunteer or charity work, and over one-and-a-half times as likely to participate in sporting activities, according to Jamie Littlefield on charityguide.org.[2]"
But a glance at the Littlefield article cited indicates that no "effects" have been shown at all. Rather, it appears to claim nothing more than correlation between reading and the positive effects cited.
And this interpretation is further quite plausible: Educated, more intelligent families tend to have children who avoid behaviors that result in prison time, etc., and who are more cultured, etc.
It's not implausible, either, that reading might very well *cause* the effects noted. But that is not what the cited article claims. It just claims that children who read are more likely to have the cited qualities: this is the same as claiming *correlation* -- something far easier to infer from data than is *causation*.
Thus, the word effects is not appropriate here, since this word means causal relationships, not mere correlation. Daqu 18:14, 28 July 2007 (UTC)
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)
The content of this article seems very random. The topics don't seem to relate to one another, and sections seem to be unmatched in the level of detail they present.
Look at the major topics covered:
The relationship among most of these topics is at best scanty.
I'm thinking we need to revisit the content of the entire article, and consider covering the topic at a very high level with sub-articles providing the details.
Thoughts? Other ideas?
Rosmoran ( talk) 00:27, 28 February 2008 (UTC)
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)
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)
It doesn't matter, the others are trivial (and "the computer acquisition of information, the mechanism in which bills are introduced" are both processes anyway!). We have Reading, Berkshire at the top with it, but almost nobody has even heard of it - in fact the majority of the world probably wouldn't even know where Berkshire was! We have hatnotes for these things; reading should be moved back to 'reading', and a hatnote to reading (disambiguation) should be (presumably re-)added.
Also, think about people trying to internal link to this article. Unless they know that reading is a disambiguation, or they check every link they add (I try to but it can be tiresome, and I doubt many others do this), there will be a lot of links to fix. Your user page is a perfect example: "This user appears to be able learn though reading [...]". Richard001 ( talk) 23:16, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
Read is a VERB, not a noun —Preceding unsigned comment added by 65.5.14.6 ( talk) 22:24, 22 January 2009 (UTC)
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.html Indianparttime2 ( talk) 21:46, 17 March 2009 (UTC)
There are additional problems in the intelligences section. I don't have time to address them right now, but simply, the "intelligences" listed are not "intelligences" as envisioned by the Howard Gardener's theory. Verbal-linguistic, visual-spatial, and mathematical-logical are mislabled and there is no "auditory" intelligence identified by the theory. Further the intelligences listed are mischaracterized. This section is in need of a lot of love. Glortman ( talk) 11:22, 9 June 2017 (UTC)
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)
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)
This not a perceived problem but a real problem as from your commnets you seem to have very litle idea about how humans first learn to speak, and then have to learn how to interpret the visual notation of speech adopted by their culture, which is called reading. Unless you have a full understanding of all of these issues and have them presented in global terms in the appropriate Wikipedia articles, then the content of well researched related Wikipedia does not relate to these less well researched articles. So the well researched Dyslexia article does not realte to well to so many of the less well researched articles in the Reading category as most are more opinion based using non peer reviewd books rather than peer review based research to substanciate and support their claims. So you it appears to be an editor who calims to be a reading expert, so It should be your role to improve this mess in the reading category, I have enough to do research peer reviewed research to supportthe existing Dyalexia Article and sub articles, and do not have the time to carry out the major revision that the many of the reading articles in the Reading Category require. So It ti time for you to stop criticsing from the side lines and begin to do some real editing work. dolfrog ( talk) 15:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
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)
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.
119.224.57.190 ( talk) 00:28, 23 September 2009 (UTC)
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)
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) —Preceding unsigned comment added by ThomasMagnus ( talk • contribs)
A request for comments has been filed concerning the conduct of Jagged 85 ( talk · contribs). 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)
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)
Another common meaning of "reading" is picking up on social cues to detect information beyond the meaning of words. Even the standing definition could apply to much more than written language: "Reading is a complex cognitive process of decoding symbols for the intention of constructing or deriving meaning." What would be the best way to include the interpretation of other symbols such as bodily/facial gestures, apparel, or tone? -- 417 「 話」 22:44, 2 November 2011 (UTC)
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)
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)
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)
The result of the move request was: no consensus for move. Mini apolis 13:59, 21 May 2013 (UTC)
– Someone apparently unilaterally decided (no RM that I can see) that the act of a human being seeing and comprehending sets of words is not the primary topic of the word reading. I believe it is absolutely the primary topic, above all other combined possible uses (and there are several, including some like Reading, Berkshire that are seriously significant, but which still do not come close to being the primary topic). The current article at reading (process) is pretty pitiful but the topic therein is clearly more notable than all others, I think. But what do you thin-k? Red Slash 22:51, 30 April 2013 (UTC)
Reading (process)
[1] viewed 141099 times in the last 90 days.
Reading, Berkshire
[2] viewed 123961 times in the last 90 days.
I don't think we can promote
Reading (process) as
WP:PRIMARYTOPIC.
Zarcadia (
talk)
17:00, 1 May 2013 (UTC)
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)
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)
The result of the move request was: No move. The proposal is well-stated and argued, but opposing statements were well argued as well. In closing this request, I note that oppose !votes invoked policy and evidence, whereas some support !votes give no real rationale. In summation, consensus is against this move. Cúchullain t/ c 21:14, 4 December 2015 (UTC)
– One of the two ways to determine a primary topic is long-term significance, for topics with "substantially greater enduring notability and educational value", even if another topic by that name gets viewed more often. That's why, to give just a few examples, Apple is a fruit and not a tech company, Pink is a color and not a singer, and Avatar is a religious concept and not a movie. For this reason, I propose that the topic with the greatest long-term significance when it comes to Reading is, well, reading. It is such a fundamental aspect of not just nearly every culture and civilization in the world today, but so many previous cultures and civilizations, going back thousands of years, even ones where only a small percentage of the population could actually do it. It is the thing that you are doing right now that is the reason we are even able to communicate our opinions to each other and have a discussion about this. I see that the last time this came up two and a half years ago, there were some who objected based on the existence of a couple of places - one in England and the other in Pennsylvania. These places are not insignificant, it is true. However, I would argue that the concept of reading is so utterly fundamental in its importance, so worldwide in its interest, that it would overwhelm even Athens and Rome in how significant it is, and Reading, Berkshire and Reading, Pennsylvania are nowhere near as important as Athens and Rome. Not even close. Egsan Bacon ( talk) 21:46, 16 November 2015 (UTC) Relisted. Jenks24 ( talk) 07:12, 24 November 2015 (UTC)
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)
The result of the move request was: moved Support had stronger arguements ( WP:PRIMARYTOPIC, WP:PTOPIC, more global significance and Fyrael's counter arguements) ( Non admin closure) JC7V -talk 23:14, 5 November 2018 (UTC)
It's absolutely beyond doubt, that reading, yes literal reading has greater cultural significance and perpetual notability than any other term in the now weird disambiguation page. The foremost and unambiguous usage of "reading" everywhere in the world, in the past century, the present and future is reading first, then anything else behind. It's the default world over and needs no qualifying, but anything else do need one before it could be understood. In fact, whatever is named "reading", it must have gotten that inspiration from actual "reading". I perused the above two discussions in 2013 and 2015 and found the arguments forwarded not only lacking in policy-based reasons but hollow and essentially appeal to page views and amassed together they gave the discussion usual fate of no consensus, which should have reverted to the actual first used title, but wasn't done. It is noteworthy that, if we follow appeal to pageview argument then Apple Inc. could have been moved to Apple as the former got 4x the number of views for the latter consistently for several years, but it wasn't so because respect for enduring significance, AT policy and common sense prevailed. Another point to consider is that the current name Reading (process) is not only clearly ambiguous but to some extent incorrect. This is because Reading (computer) is also a process and can be named as such. There's no way to immediately tell whether Reading (process) means reading done by computer, by human or by legislators. But " Reading" in and on itself, unquestionably means literal reading, unqualified. No society, culture or civilization that can claim they don't know "reading," in fact reading is so fundamental to literacy that without it we couldn't be here at all even if Reading, Berkshire is the capital of the world. There's also a particular argument I want refute: in the previous move request a claim was made that Wikipedia is not dictionary and this remained unchallenged giving it semblance of validity. The argument looks meaningful on the surface but it's thoroughly hollow in content and forgets the spirit of why NOTDIC was written. WP:NOTDIC is meant for those articles about words that cannot be meaningfully expanded beyond the definition. That's not true for "Reading", it's a developed, rich encyclopedic topic proper and not only here but even in traditional paper ones. The example of real dictionary word is Inedible and you can see what the page contains. So if there's a town/city named "Inedible" then it will surely be primary topic notwithstanding the word. I hope the community will rectify this anomaly, and the sooner the better for us. – Ammarpad ( talk) 15:03, 17 October 2018 (UTC) --Relisting. Favonian ( talk) 16:03, 25 October 2018 (UTC)"A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.
A topic is primary for a term with respect to usage if it is highly likely—much more likely than any other single topic, and more likely than all the other topics combined—to be the topic sought when a reader searches for that term.
. Please review the guideline and reconsider your position. Dohn joe ( talk) 03:28, 19 October 2018 (UTC)Tools that may help to support the determination of a primary topic in a discussion...include: Wikipedia article traffic statistics
So you have to first weigh them for their long-term significance and eternity of notability, if the result is clear then the remaining process is needless, just as the case here is and the same process that reserve Apple for fruit despite being overwhelmed by Apple company in terms of 'pageview' you're talking of. – Ammarpad ( talk) 07:36, 19 October 2018 (UTC)"A topic is primary for a term with respect to long-term significance if it has substantially greater enduring notability and educational value than any other topic associated with that term.
"many people are only interested in the surface-level dictionary definition and don't need this article"is nothing but a sheer conjectural surmise without any verifiable evidence. – Ammarpad ( talk) 06:21, 23 October 2018 (UTC)
. – Ammarpad ( talk) 05:59, 24 October 2018 (UTC)" [Reading] is such a fundamental aspect of not just nearly every culture and civilization in the world today, but so many previous cultures and civilizations, going back thousands of years, even ones where only a small percentage of the population could actually do it. It is the thing that you are doing right now that is the reason we are even able to communicate our opinions to each other and have a discussion about this. I see that the last time this came up two and a half years ago, there were some who objected based on the existence of a couple of places - one in England and the other in Pennsylvania. These places are not insignificant, it is true. However, I would argue that the concept of reading is so utterly fundamental in its importance, so worldwide in its interest, that it would overwhelm even Athens and Rome in how significant it is, and Reading, Berkshire and Reading, Pennsylvania are nowhere near as important as Athens and Rome. Not even close. "
one potential criterion to commonly avoid is what "first comes to mind".
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)
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)
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)
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)
I have finished the merge and welcome suggestions. John NH ( talk) 16:40, 17 January 2021 (UTC)
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)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 30 August 2022 and 21 December 2022. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Literacystudent ( article contribs). Peer reviewers: Jaimekatz926, Nlavinier.
— Assignment last updated by LehmanProf ( talk) 23:41, 6 October 2022 (UTC)
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)
Benefits of reading books 103.232.131.19 ( talk) 12:37, 20 November 2022 (UTC)
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)