Talk:Lie-to-children

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.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 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.

Article milestones
Date	Process	Result
April 9, 2004	Guild of Copy Editors	Copyedited
March 24, 2005	Articles for deletion	Kept
April 8, 2005	Guild of Copy Editors	Copyedited
February 4, 2016	Articles for deletion	No consensus
February 28, 2016	Guild of Copy Editors	Copyedited
April 23, 2016	Good article nominee	Not listed
Current status: Former good article nominee

Debating (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Debating, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.DebatingWikipedia:WikiProject DebatingTemplate:WikiProject DebatingDebating

Education Low‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics 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.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Freedom of speech Low‑importance

	Freedom of speech portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Freedom of speech, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Freedom of speech 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.Freedom of speechWikipedia:WikiProject Freedom of speechTemplate:WikiProject Freedom of speechFreedom of speech
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Human rights Low‑importance

	This article is within the scope of WikiProject Human rights, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Human rights 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.Human rightsWikipedia:WikiProject Human rightsTemplate:WikiProject Human rightsHuman rights
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Philosophy: Logic Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Philosophy, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of content related to philosophy on Wikipedia. If you would like to support the project, please visit the project page, where you can get more details on how you can help, and where you can join the general discussion about philosophy content on Wikipedia.PhilosophyWikipedia:WikiProject PhilosophyTemplate:WikiProject PhilosophyPhilosophy

Low

This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Associated task forces:
/
	Logic

Politics Low‑importance

	Politics portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Politics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of politics 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.PoliticsWikipedia:WikiProject PoliticsTemplate:WikiProject Politicspolitics
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Popular culture (inactive)

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Popular culture, a project which is currently considered to be inactive.Popular cultureWikipedia:WikiProject Popular cultureTemplate:WikiProject Popular culturePopular culture

Psychology Low‑importance

	Psychology portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Psychology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Psychology 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.PsychologyWikipedia:WikiProject PsychologyTemplate:WikiProject Psychologypsychology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Sociology Low‑importance

	Society portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Sociology, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of sociology 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.SociologyWikipedia:WikiProject SociologyTemplate:WikiProject Sociologysociology
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

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. E Eng 12:52, 8 July 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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". E Eng 19:16, 22 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

It's a standard and familiar concept to me at least, enough that I've used it as the title of a blog post [1]. 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)[reply]

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. E Eng 00:19, 23 August 2018 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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 Wikipedia'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)[reply]

A lie to children is an example of a wider range of similar phenomona

[See Note at end of entry]

1. One of the first most obvious link to a similar idea is that of https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Rule_of_thumb

2. They are both examples of Shorthand For! Which is linguistic application of the idea of https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Shorthand

Another example of the use of [Shorthand For] is https://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Shorthand_for_orchestra_instrumentation which is "The [Shorthand For] 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 [Shorthand For] 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://wiki.riteme.site/wiki/Science_in_Action_(book)

[[Note.]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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]