Talk:Aliteracy

	Linguistics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Linguistics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of linguistics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.LinguisticsWikipedia:WikiProject LinguisticsTemplate:WikiProject LinguisticsLinguistics articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.
	This article is supported by Applied Linguistics Task Force.

Comment[edit]

This page is complete garbage, cite these "facts"!

I tried but failed to verify the "42% of college grads never read a book again" number. The currently cited URL for this claim itself cites http://www.bookpublishing.com/ which does not repeat the claim. I tried to contact the Jenkins via a web form, but I have not received a response. Rrenaud (talk) 23:08, 12 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

This has gone without citation for > 3 months. I think it's time to cite or delete. Rrenaud (talk) 19:52, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

There is no need to "throw out the baby with the bath water". If some of the information needs to be deleted, the remainder can still be retained. I started this article, and I linked from other articles to it so that other editors could find it and expand it. -- Wavelength (talk) 20:29, 10 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Can you find a real citation? I think this is just spreading misinformation and rewarding the bookpublishing.com site with traffic for doing so. 72.14.228.89 (talk) 18:58, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Everything in the section "General Reading Habits of US" (except for minor changes) was added by User:Troped. I could remove that entire section, but I am reluctant to remove another editor's contribution, because I do not know whether there actually is support for that section. It seems to me that that editor should be asked to provide appropriate citations. -- Wavelength (talk) 19:28, 11 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fixup[edit]

Removed some stats not related to the article. books not making their advance back is not evidence of aliteracy, but evidence of poor publisher business strategy. fixed link, took out a little of the quoted article. hope i didnt step on toes. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 16:50, 22 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

added some more content. this really really really deserves to be a great article, perhaps the most important article on WP (ok, thats mania talking), considering that if aliteracy were to persist, this very encyclopedia would become irrelevant. i wonder if there is any evidence that WP has reversed aliteracy among any segments of population. Mercurywoodrose (talk) 04:03, 24 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]