Hello Metaphorman.  I suggest that further discussion about the inconsistencies of your wikibook should be conducted on your wikibook's discussion page.  Perhaps someone could list a set of issues there to get the ball rolling.  The reading comprehension link has been posted on the speed reading wikipage at least 5 times in various obvious places.  The definition is more appropriate.  However, I don't think it will do much for your argument.  The references posted can be found in most libraries.  There are many more references that are obtainable from these primary references that are obtainable from professional and scholarly journals.  There are also more recent journal and conference publications that continue to verify the results of the findings of the posted references.   

 Nowhere on the discussion page or wikipage does it say that speed reading is crap.  It states the facts that various speed reading advocates and trainers claim various benefits and recommendations (including yourself), and the scholarly research shows the actual results while offering recommendations and defining and clarifying between various concepts. It takes everyone's view into account very reasonably. The theories and recommendations of the speed reading advocates is specific to speed reading and distinguised from accepted reading theory, and it takes a representative sample whilst being concise.  I very much doubt that you will get a better encyclopedic coverage of speed reading anywhere on the web.  I understand some may feel frustrated at the state of the conflicting claims and pseudo-theories of speed reading advocates in the world.  But I think you are going to have to accept that you are only one of them.  They can all be represented. The facts are there so the reader can come to their own conclusions.  7 July 2005 06:06 (UTC)