Revision as of 23:20, 23 April 2016 editCirt (talk | contribs)199,086 edits updated.← Previous edit | Latest revision as of 13:31, 23 September 2024 edit undoLowercase sigmabot III (talk | contribs)Bots, Template editors2,305,781 editsm Archiving 2 discussion(s) to Talk:Lie-to-children/Archive 1) (bot | ||
(35 intermediate revisions by 16 users not shown) | |||
Line 31: | Line 31: | ||
|action5link=Special:Permalink/707409943 | |action5link=Special:Permalink/707409943 | ||
| |
|action6=GAN | ||
| |
|action6date=23 April 2016 | ||
| |
|action6link=/GA1 | ||
| |
|action6result=not listed | ||
| |
|action6oldid=709192739 | ||
|currentstatus=FGAN | |||
|topic=langlit | |topic=langlit | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|1= | {{WikiProject banner shell|collapsed=yes|class=Start|1= | ||
{{WikiProject Debating |
{{WikiProject Debating}} | ||
{{WikiProject Education |
{{WikiProject Education|importance=Low}} | ||
{{WikiProject Freedom of speech |
{{WikiProject Freedom of speech|importance=Low}} | ||
{{WikiProject Human rights |
{{WikiProject Human rights|importance=Low}} | ||
{{WikiProject Philosophy|logic=yes |
{{WikiProject Philosophy|logic=yes|importance=Low}} | ||
{{WikiProject Politics |
{{WikiProject Politics|importance=Low}} | ||
{{WikiProject Popular Culture |
{{WikiProject Popular Culture|importance=Low}} | ||
{{WikiProject Psychology |
{{WikiProject Psychology|importance=Low}} | ||
{{WikiProject Sociology |
{{WikiProject Sociology|importance=Low}} | ||
}} | }} | ||
{{Find sources notice | |||
|search1=lies-to-children | |||
|search2=a lie-to-children | |||
|search3=Lie-to-children|search3_2=Discworld | |||
|search4=Lie-to-children|search4_2=Wittgenstein}} | |||
{{User:MiszaBot/config | {{User:MiszaBot/config | ||
|maxarchivesize = 250K | |maxarchivesize = 250K | ||
Line 65: | Line 61: | ||
}} | }} | ||
== Bloated, weirdly focused == | |||
== This article should be <s>deleted</s> <u>redirected</u>. == | |||
This article makes a mountain out of a molehill. Someone gave this not-even-very-catchy name to something with which every parent, grandparent, and schoolteacher is familiar: explanations are often oversimplified to the point of even being false in some sense; this article then belabors the use of this phrase ''lie-to-children'' here, there, and everywhere, as if it's some breakthrough concept. I have no idea what we're supposed to learn from this unending trip to nowhere, and it has a strongly promotional feeling to it, to be honest. ]] 12:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC) | |||
At the most recent deletion discussion some voters suggested keeping the ] part and deleting the lie-to-children part. No one supported keeping the latter. I have done the former, by removing the very limited material on Wittgenstein's latter to a new stub. The rest of the article is based on '']'' and passing mentions. I have checked again and there are no sources. Please <s>delete or</s> redirect this article. Pinging AfD participants: {{u|L.tak}}, {{u|Rhododendrites}}, {{u|James500}}, and also {{u|Aoidh}} who objected to redirecting it. --] (]) 02:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
Also {{u|Ganly}}. --] (]) 02:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
*I have no objection to '''redirecting''' to ]. — <tt>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></tt> \\ 02:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
:*The issue is that's is 6 one way, half a dozen the other. ] wasn't even an article until some of this article was dumped over. I'd like to try to improve this one and trim out what doesn't belong, not least of all because this article has more to work with than a single sentence. - ] (]) 02:42, 5 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
::*That's fine, but there are no sources. I hope I'm not being rude, but I don't see how this is happening. It is a neologism from a barely-notable book, which got a few passing mentions over the years in various places, probably because it had a Misplaced Pages article. --] (]) 02:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
::*{{ping|Aoidh}} Could you elaborate on how it's 6 one way, half dozen of the other? I think it's safe to say that if the subject were solely Lie-to-children, untangled from Wittegenstein's ladder, that there would be fairly straightforward consensus to delete or, most likely, redirect. I don't see anyone arguing to keep lie-to-children, and only expressing reservations because of Wittgenstein's ladder. Now that the latter was spun out, this article ''could'' be renominated, but it seems more efficient to just redirect and, on the off-chance sources can be found for "lie-to-children" as a distinct concept from Wittgenstein's ladder, it could always be recreated. I certainly don't see a need to delete the history. — <tt>] <sup style="font-size:80%;">]</sup></tt> \\ 02:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::*Just as a note, if text from this article was copied, ] so the article's history would have to remain intact. I'll respond tomorrow, as I have work (sorry). - ] (]) 03:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
::::*Struck deletion suggestion. I suggest redirecting to ], but not ] because I think the latter association, as well as the notion that this is a phrase widely used outside of the novel, originated on Misplaced Pages. --] (]) 03:33, 5 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
::::::Comment on attribution: If the other article was created by copying content from here, and the resulting consensus is that this article here no longer should exist but be a redirect to that other article, then this article here should be renamed to there and its off-topic content removed. That preserves attribution of the content that remains. That's a pretty common outcome when retaining a kernel of an otherwise-muddled and non-worthy-as-such mess. But copying and redirecting (rather than deleting) so that the attribution is retained behind the redirect is reasonable too. ] (]) 06:39, 5 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
*My provisional view is that it would be preferable to merge the material relating to ''Science of Discworld'' somewhere than to blank it without merger. ] (]) 06:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
*I tend to agree that there is not enough sourcing for a standalone article. Merger to either ] or ] (preferably the former) would be appropriate. ] (]) 18:05, 9 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
*'''Oppose'''. This article should be kept where it is as its own standalone independent article on this subject. I've researched through archival research databases. I've successfully found independent significant secondary source coverage from multiple different academic and scholarly peer reviewed books and reference journals. Thank you, — ''']''' (]) 18:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
::{{ping|Cirt}} Can you actually say explicitly what the new sources are? --] (]) 18:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::'''Reply on status of ongoing research:''' Yes. But from my personal past experience on Misplaced Pages that would be a frivolous endeavor. Unfortunately, what is most effective in civil discourse is to simply improve the article itself with reliable secondary sources in order to demonstrate argumentation for retention and avoid having the article be attempted at being disappeared off of the face of Misplaced Pages. Current progress of research into multiple ] and ] sources that are ] as well as ]s and ]s is {{doing|ongoing}}. Thank you for your patience with this matter, — ''']''' (]) 18:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
*'''Update:''' I believe this now appears to be {{done|resolved}}, per {{u|Sammy1339}} giving me The Article Rescue Barnstar for my Quality improvement efforts on this article, at . Thank you, — ''']''' (]) 23:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
{{U|David Eppstein}}, you're an educator. What do you make of this weirdness? I can't find any uptake in the outside world of this as a term or as any kind of significant "concept". ]] 19:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC) | |||
== Additional sources == | |||
:It's a standard and familiar concept to me at least, enough that I've used it as the title of a blog post . Google scholar finds 175 hits for the exact phrase "lies to children", and I think most are on-topic. —] (]) 20:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC) | |||
::Perfectly familiar to me too, because it's a perfectly obvious and old concept. What I don't get is the implication that these two or three authors were the first to point it out, like nobody realized it before. ]] 00:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC) | |||
:::Looking around WP, I see very little about ], a related notion discussed in an ] context. I think I first started noticing it some time after the turn of the century, but quick searching has not yet turned up reliable details. ] (]) 02:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC) | |||
:::The "see also" section could use some pruning or expansion. I'm not sure how ] deserves a place there. ] might belong, along with ], and my personal favorite, Maybe discussion of how related topics fit on a spectrum from "good intentions" to "deceptive shenanigans" belongs under another heading on this talk page. ] (]) 04:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC) | |||
== How come if your not logged in your contribution is deleted? == | |||
*{{Findsources3|lies-to-children}} | |||
i added an extensive series of notes to this talk page. Yet now when I return it has been deleted? ] (]) 09:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
*{{Findsources3|a lie-to-children}} | |||
:It can be deleted by someone who disagrees with your argument but it should be in the history of the 'talk' pages. If it's not & is not a result of user error when trying to post. Then that is rather more worrying ] (]) 10:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
*{{Findsources3|Lie-to-children|Discworld}} | |||
::Check the edit history of the page, where your edits still exist and . It actively broke the entire page's formatting, duplicated itself 2-3 times, and copied in pages of Misplaced Pages's help text into the middle of itself. | |||
::At one point, one of your comments said "Please provide a title for your discussion topic. If you click "Add topic", your topic will be added without a title. Style text Switch editor", which is obviously not what you were trying to do. | |||
::It was a mess. Feel free to retry. ] (]) 15:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
== A lie to children is an example of a wider range of similar phenomona == | |||
*{{Findsources3|Lie-to-children|Wittgenstein}} | |||
:Some additional sources at links above. :) | |||
1. One of the first most obvious link to a similar idea is that of https://en.wikipedia.org/Rule_of_thumb | |||
Cheers, | |||
2. They are both examples of Shorthand For! | |||
— ''']''' (]) 18:23, 25 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
Which is linguistic application of the idea of https://en.wikipedia.org/Shorthand | |||
:Added one. {{Findsources3|a lie-to-children}}. — ''']''' (]) 19:11, 27 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
::Added another. {{Findsources3|lies-to-children}}. — ''']''' (]) 06:57, 28 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
Another example of the use of is https://en.wikipedia.org/Shorthand_for_orchestra_instrumentation which is | |||
== Quality improvement project - Lie-to-children == | |||
"The the instrumentation of a symphony orchestra (and other similar ensembles) is used to outline which and how many instruments...are called for in a given piece of music." | |||
3. But is just an example of the Sociology of Science & especially the creation of Language (Jargon is a similar example of language creation) is detailed in Bruno Latour's https://en.wikipedia.org/Science_in_Action_(book) | |||
This is an attempt to recreate some of what was lost from my previous time here. I need to check the history of the talk page to see if it was deleted and if so why? But if there isn't anything & all the notes I added were subsequently deleted. Then something has changed, because ir should not be possible in wikipedia. Even if at first viewing it can.] | |||
*] | |||
] (]) 10:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC) | |||
I've embarked on a Quality improvement project for ], first introduced as a phrase in '']''. | |||
== Weird article == | |||
If you've got recommendations for additional secondary sources that could be utilized to further improve the quality of the article, please suggest them here on the talk page. | |||
Lies to children are a pest, because they are indistiguishable from a teacher that doesn't understand what he's talking about himself. See that Sussmann, who managed to confuse himself to the point where he forgot that Ohms law is always correct, only a resistor labeled with "100 Ohms" is not actually a 100 Ohms resistor at 250°C, and will never have 100 Ohms again after an excursion to 1000°C. | |||
'''Current status:''' Further research in several additional secondary sources including more ] and ] sources such as ] publications and ]s is {{doing|ongoing}}... | |||
Anybody who lies, i.e. teaches a simplified model (all models ultimately are) without explaining its limits, does his pupils, students, and everybody else, a grave disservice. No teacher ever did that to me, at least none that I care to remember. | |||
Thank you for your time, | |||
I have no idea why lying is supposed to be a popular concept nowadays. Perhaps has something to do with Donald Trump, or Hillary Clinton, or general politics. ] (]) 21:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC) | |||
— ''']''' (]) 02:56, 26 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
== Can I thank everybody for the version shown Monday 23rd September 2024 == | |||
== Trailing quotes in second paragraph. == | |||
when I was last here the article was much more confused and confusing. But some how a much clearer and supported explanation has emerged. For me lies to kids is vital to understand the transmission of knowledge. That learning is often a series of Russian Dolls with each lie often containing a combination of truth & lie. | |||
The second paragraph ends in trailing quotes, without any opening quotes before. It's not clear exactly when the quoted text starts, so I've left as-is; if someone more familiar with this could tidy the phrase, that would be great. ] (]) 12:40, 26 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
:Thank you for your helpful participation here. I'm confused, 2nd paragraph of which subsection? Could you give us a copy of the text you are referring to, here on the talk page? Thank you, — ''']''' (]) 13:01, 26 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
::The very second paragraph of the article, in the lede. 'The term was originally coined in the 2000 book The Science of Discworld by Terry Pratchett, Jack Cohen, and Ian Stewart. Pratchett, Cohen and Stewart wrote that the phrase referred to: a statement that is false, but which nevertheless leads the child's mind towards a more accurate explanation, one that the child will only be able to appreciate if it has been primed with the lie".' Note the quotation mark after 'lie', at the end, with no prior quotes. ] (]) 19:20, 26 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::Fixed it. Thank you! {{Ping|Aawood}}Look better? — ''']''' (]) 19:10, 27 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
::::That's great, good job. ] (]) 11:58, 1 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::::Thanks! — ''']''' (]) 12:03, 1 March 2016 (UTC) | |||
One of the biggest issues with a lie to kid is its rejection of being a lie and it's restatement as a tenant of belief. A current example of this is the statement that sex just is. | |||
== Phrase itself used as title of academic journal article about subject itself == | |||
So one school of thought believes that sex is a 'law of nature' like the laws of thermodynamics. | |||
The concept of lie-to-children was discussed at-length in 2000 by ] in the ''Hungarian Journal of English and American Studies'', where the subject itself was included in the article title: "Narrativium and '''Lies-to-Children''': 'Palatable Instruction in 'The Science of Discworld'". | |||
Whilst another school believes that sex is an artificial classification system that takes the results of a series of observed binomial distributions and then grades them into primary and secondary. Where primary has the most divergence and secondary less. | |||
*{{cite journal|first=Andy|last=Sawyer|accessdate=28 February 2016|journal=Hungarian Journal of English and American Studies (HJEAS)|volume=6|issue=1|year=2000|pages=155-178|publisher=Centre for Arts, Humanities and Sciences (CAHS), acting on behalf of the University of Debrecen CAHS|url=http://www.jstor.org/stable/41274079|subscription=yes|title=Narrativium and Lies-to-Children: 'Palatable Instruction in 'The Science of Discworld'|issn=12187364|authorlink=Andrew Sawyer}} | |||
That this artificial selection is very similar to the one used in race science and relies on external 'god' to make the selection. Which is fine where the science is based on religious belief but not in a pure play science hypothesis. | |||
Enjoy, | |||
In this school of thought it's argued that a religious science model of belief has been translated to a pure play science model. To support & challenge any questioning of evolutionary biology! ] (]) 04:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC) | |||
— ''']''' (]) 04:49, 28 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
== Nominated for GA == | |||
I've nominated this article for ] quality consideration, at ]. — ''']''' (]) 23:48, 28 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
== Differentiate term originated with NON fiction books == | |||
We want to make sure to emphasize and differentiate to the reader that the term originated first with Cohen and Stewart in their first two (2), NON fiction books. — ''']''' (]) 17:31, 29 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
:{{Ping|Reil}}I made some tweaks to try to improve with copy editing, let me know if that looks alright to you, bearing in mind I'd like to emphasize the first two (2) books are NON fiction and written solely by scientists. :) — ''']''' (]) 17:43, 29 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
::That's what I thought you were going for; it was just felt a bit bulky, y'know? I like your more recent take on it. Your recent work on the article's been putting a lot of substance into it, which is good, given the recent movement to delete it. Cheers! ] (]) 17:46, 29 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
:::Thanks very much for the kind words about my Quality improvement efforts to this article, {{u|Reil}}, and thank you for your helpful copy edits. Most appreciated! — ''']''' (]) 17:48, 29 February 2016 (UTC) | |||
==Prior GA Review== | |||
This article had a prior GA Review and was unfortunately not promoted to ] quality at that time. Suggestions on further quality improvement may be seen at: ]. — ''']''' (]) 23:20, 23 April 2016 (UTC) |
Latest revision as of 13:31, 23 September 2024
This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Lie-to-children article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject. |
|
Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL |
Archives: 1Auto-archiving period: 3 months |
Lie-to-children was a Language and literature good articles nominee, but did not meet the good article criteria at the time. There may be suggestions below for improving the article. Once these issues have been addressed, the article can be renominated. Editors may also seek a reassessment of the decision if they believe there was a mistake. | ||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
This article is rated Start-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. It is of interest to multiple WikiProjects. | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
Bloated, weirdly focused
This article makes a mountain out of a molehill. Someone gave this not-even-very-catchy name to something with which every parent, grandparent, and schoolteacher is familiar: explanations are often oversimplified to the point of even being false in some sense; this article then belabors the use of this phrase lie-to-children here, there, and everywhere, as if it's some breakthrough concept. I have no idea what we're supposed to learn from this unending trip to nowhere, and it has a strongly promotional feeling to it, to be honest. EEng 12:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)
David Eppstein, you're an educator. What do you make of this weirdness? I can't find any uptake in the outside world of this as a term or as any kind of significant "concept". EEng 19:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- It's a standard and familiar concept to me at least, enough that I've used it as the title of a blog post . Google scholar finds 175 hits for the exact phrase "lies to children", and I think most are on-topic. —David Eppstein (talk) 20:58, 22 August 2018 (UTC)
- Perfectly familiar to me too, because it's a perfectly obvious and old concept. What I don't get is the implication that these two or three authors were the first to point it out, like nobody realized it before. EEng 00:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Looking around WP, I see very little about milk before meat, a related notion discussed in an LDS church context. I think I first started noticing it some time after the turn of the century, but quick searching has not yet turned up reliable details. Just plain Bill (talk) 02:29, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- The "see also" section could use some pruning or expansion. I'm not sure how not even wrong deserves a place there. Moving the goalposts might belong, along with bait-and-switch, and my personal favorite, motte and bailey. Maybe discussion of how related topics fit on a spectrum from "good intentions" to "deceptive shenanigans" belongs under another heading on this talk page. Just plain Bill (talk) 04:24, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
- Perfectly familiar to me too, because it's a perfectly obvious and old concept. What I don't get is the implication that these two or three authors were the first to point it out, like nobody realized it before. EEng 00:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)
How come if your not logged in your contribution is deleted?
i added an extensive series of notes to this talk page. Yet now when I return it has been deleted? 82.6.88.43 (talk) 09:36, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- It can be deleted by someone who disagrees with your argument but it should be in the history of the 'talk' pages. If it's not & is not a result of user error when trying to post. Then that is rather more worrying 82.6.88.43 (talk) 10:19, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
- Check the edit history of the page, where your edits still exist and try to read what you wrote down. It actively broke the entire page's formatting, duplicated itself 2-3 times, and copied in pages of Misplaced Pages's help text into the middle of itself.
- At one point, one of your comments said "Please provide a title for your discussion topic. If you click "Add topic", your topic will be added without a title. Style text Switch editor", which is obviously not what you were trying to do.
- It was a mess. Feel free to retry. Reil (talk) 15:59, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
A lie to children is an example of a wider range of similar phenomona
1. One of the first most obvious link to a similar idea is that of https://en.wikipedia.org/Rule_of_thumb
2. They are both examples of Shorthand For! Which is linguistic application of the idea of https://en.wikipedia.org/Shorthand
Another example of the use of is https://en.wikipedia.org/Shorthand_for_orchestra_instrumentation which is "The the instrumentation of a symphony orchestra (and other similar ensembles) is used to outline which and how many instruments...are called for in a given piece of music."
3. But is just an example of the Sociology of Science & especially the creation of Language (Jargon is a similar example of language creation) is detailed in Bruno Latour's https://en.wikipedia.org/Science_in_Action_(book)
This is an attempt to recreate some of what was lost from my previous time here. I need to check the history of the talk page to see if it was deleted and if so why? But if there isn't anything & all the notes I added were subsequently deleted. Then something has changed, because ir should not be possible in wikipedia. Even if at first viewing it can.] 82.6.88.43 (talk) 10:06, 4 November 2023 (UTC)
Weird article
Lies to children are a pest, because they are indistiguishable from a teacher that doesn't understand what he's talking about himself. See that Sussmann, who managed to confuse himself to the point where he forgot that Ohms law is always correct, only a resistor labeled with "100 Ohms" is not actually a 100 Ohms resistor at 250°C, and will never have 100 Ohms again after an excursion to 1000°C.
Anybody who lies, i.e. teaches a simplified model (all models ultimately are) without explaining its limits, does his pupils, students, and everybody else, a grave disservice. No teacher ever did that to me, at least none that I care to remember.
I have no idea why lying is supposed to be a popular concept nowadays. Perhaps has something to do with Donald Trump, or Hillary Clinton, or general politics. 2001:9E8:2B0F:7B00:6D85:E572:F0CA:CCAC (talk) 21:37, 20 December 2023 (UTC)
Can I thank everybody for the version shown Monday 23rd September 2024
when I was last here the article was much more confused and confusing. But some how a much clearer and supported explanation has emerged. For me lies to kids is vital to understand the transmission of knowledge. That learning is often a series of Russian Dolls with each lie often containing a combination of truth & lie.
One of the biggest issues with a lie to kid is its rejection of being a lie and it's restatement as a tenant of belief. A current example of this is the statement that sex just is.
So one school of thought believes that sex is a 'law of nature' like the laws of thermodynamics.
Whilst another school believes that sex is an artificial classification system that takes the results of a series of observed binomial distributions and then grades them into primary and secondary. Where primary has the most divergence and secondary less.
That this artificial selection is very similar to the one used in race science and relies on external 'god' to make the selection. Which is fine where the science is based on religious belief but not in a pure play science hypothesis.
In this school of thought it's argued that a religious science model of belief has been translated to a pure play science model. To support & challenge any questioning of evolutionary biology! 82.6.88.43 (talk) 04:09, 23 September 2024 (UTC)
Categories:- Former good article nominees
- Articles copy edited by the Guild of Copy Editors
- Start-Class education articles
- Low-importance education articles
- WikiProject Education articles
- Start-Class Freedom of speech articles
- Low-importance Freedom of speech articles
- Start-Class Human rights articles
- Low-importance Human rights articles
- WikiProject Human rights articles
- Start-Class Philosophy articles
- Low-importance Philosophy articles
- Start-Class logic articles
- Low-importance logic articles
- Logic task force articles
- Start-Class politics articles
- Low-importance politics articles
- WikiProject Politics articles
- Start-Class psychology articles
- Low-importance psychology articles
- WikiProject Psychology articles
- Start-Class sociology articles
- Low-importance sociology articles