This is the discussion page.

Close reading isn't a form of Reading per se; it's a form of Literary analysis. So it shouldn't be part of the Reading Series -- Olsonist 21:33, 2 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

For reasons similar to Removal of Proofreading below, I'm going to go ahead and remove Close reading from the template. Reading is cognition at the symbolic level. Close reading is an analytic attempt to deduce structure and meaning, something altogether different. -- Olsonist 20:51, 4 March 2012 (UTC)Reply[reply]

There seem to be some unverified claims in this article, in particular concerning the ability to eliminate subvocalization, as well as its relation to reading comprehension. I am quoting the paragraph:

"It may be impossible to totally eliminate subvocalization because people learn to read by associating the sight of words with their spoken sounds. Sound associations for words are indelibly imprinted on the nervous system—even of deaf people, since they will have associated the word with the mechanism for causing the sound or a sign in a particular sign language. Subvocalizing is an inherent part of reading and understanding a word, and micro-muscle tests suggest that subvocalizing is impossible to eliminate. Attempting to stop subvocalizing is potentially harmful to comprehension, learning, and memory. At the more powerful reading rates (100-300 words per minute), subvocalizing can be used to improve comprehension."

As well, claims made in disfavour of speed reading are not referenced, nor is the reader pointed to a resource where they are substantiated.

Ashoumarov (talk) 02:18, 19 May 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe this is the wrong location for this. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I've cleaned up the template and removed some unnecessary paraphernalia. ChyranandChloe (talk) 05:09, 6 September 2008 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I believe Proofreading should be removed from the Reading template: despite the name, proofreading has to do with the correction of materials in the pre-press phase (prior to publication) and not reading. Other than the elimination of errors improves the reading process, it is completely unrelated to the acquisition of knowledge or translation of written marks to meaningful interpretation (which reading is at the heart of it). If you are not going to include things such as grammar, definitions of good writing, copy-editing, etc. then proofreading has no place on this template.--Blondtraillite (talk) 02:47, 4 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

It may look like I didn't give enough time to discuss this, and perhaps I was impatient as I had been internally debating the removal for a while (then discovered last night I hadn't voiced it - oops!). However, I decided to go ahead with the removal once I saw the template was already being revised on different issues, not discussed here. I'm hoping the record of my reasoning in its removal will prevail.--Blondtraillite (talk) 03:10, 5 June 2010 (UTC)Reply[reply]

I changed the picture so it is more universal and less controversial. Please tell me if you have any concerns or suggestions for a better picture. John NH (talk) 12:48, 24 January 2021 (UTC)Reply[reply]