Talk:Lie-to-children/Archive 1

Archive 1

Modified the final example

I felt that the PhD reference was inappropriate, as someone far removed from PhD level study could concieve independently of the concept demonstrated.

Instead, I added text to indicate that, as people develop intellectually, they reach a level of comfort with the material to begin to advance the art. Tthis is what leads to intellectual advancement, not just for individuals but for society and science.

I think a reference here would be appropriate, there is nothing on the Speed of light article to indicate that light was significantly faster in the early universe, and although I have heard of scientific discissions on very minor variations in the fine structure constant (dependent on the speed of light), the only sources indicating massive variations in the speed of light are fundamentalist Christian ones. StuartH 00:39, 23 Jun 2005 (UTC)

Although this is true, it's irrelevant to the example, and students know this way before they find out about variable mass - it's a critical part of high school optics. With this in mind, I've removed it from the article. 166.111.43.152 08:45, 22 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, if the speed of light didn't vary, most of optics would be in disarray. The speed of light (at least according to relativistic physics) is constant in a vacuum. But it is a lot slower than 3*10^8 m/s in plenty of materials, for example, glass. Which is just as well, otherwise lenses wouldn't work...

Removed the c-decay fourth example (which is commonly considered to be false; see c-decay) and replaced it with a point based on your note here on optics. I'm not really happy with it, though: I think many people learn that the speed of light is medium-dependent before they study relativity. --Aponar Kestrel (talk) 14:40, 12 October 2005 (UTC)

no criticisms section

This article is not neutral, and is heavily biased in favour of this policy. There are many criticisms and arguments against it, especially as these generalisations can lead to preconceptions in the subconscious that can make it harder to form a theory of everything for the individual later in life. -- Natalinasmpf 04:46, 23 December 2005 (UTC)

Who wrote the mass example? Mass is constant throughout reference frames, what changes in relativity is the formula for momentum. Someone should write a better example.

The mass example seems to have been taken from H2G2. I love it, but I wouldn't use it as an encyclopedic source. --Valmi ✒ 01:06, 11 January 2006 (UTC)

Policy? What? Hey? Oh... well it just says that this is what a lie to children is. not whether it's a good idea or whether you should try it at home. Kim Bruning 20:00, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

I removed the NPOV template; I cannot see how it is justified in the current revision of the article. --die Baumfabrik 01:44, 14 March 2006 (UTC)

Objection to merge

JA: This page was merged without adequate discussion. Please restore it and engage in due discussion. The concept of "lie-to-children" is apt, found in common use, covers a frequently occurring phenomenon in a succinct idiom, and manages to do so with a charming lack of pretension. Jon Awbrey 10:34, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

JA: I have reverted the merge pending appropriate discussion and standard procedures for renames and so on. I recommend placing a {{main|lie-to-children}} template in the appropriate section of the Lie article. Jon Awbrey 10:45, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Gosh no, no need for weird proceduralisticizationalism, sheesh!

But that said, um, I'm not sure what lie-to-children has to do with lie, except that the first three letters are similar. The merge was also just done bodily, losing this page history etc etc. I'm not sure there's really a point to the merge. (Sorry to the folks who spent some effort on it ^^;;)

Kim Bruning 15:15, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

JA: I'm just saying that I find this idiomatic chunk frequently useful as a link from other articles, and since its parentage, Ian Stewart (mathematician) et al., is quite respectable, I see no need to bastardize or institutionalize it. Jon Awbrey 15:32, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

Quote

Das Beste, was Du wissen kannst,
Darfst Du den Buben doch nicht sagen.

The best that you know,
You cannot tell the Boys.
— Goethe, Faust

I removed the above; it was right at the start of the article. It certainly doesn't belong there, but should it be incorporated into another part of the text? Does it help explain the concept or does it just add poetic flavor? --Grace 23:43, 1 July 2006 (UTC)

JA: It's called an epigraph. It's apt, to the point, and it explains a salient feature of the concept very succintly. Jon Awbrey 04:22, 2 July 2006 (UTC)

I've looked up the guidelines on this point at Wikipedia:Lead_section, and I don't think it recommends the use of epigraphs. It says that the first sentence should immediately establish the concept in context, as in "In an essay or article, an introduction is...". Also, it says "Avoid using extended quotes in the lede". --Grace 02:39, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

JA: It seems that Goethe must be credited with having foreseen the tides of WikiPablum to come, and even the article Lie-to-children is too good to tell the kiddies. Jon Awbrey 02:52, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

The weight/mass example

Physics has always been of interest to me because it describes how the material world works but it seems like you can always keep asking, "Why is it like that?"

I came across the following on a physics page, and there is a bit of discussion about it at Talk:Neutrino.

"Mass is really a coupling between a left handed fermion and a right handed fermion. For example, the mass of an electron is really a coupling between a left handed electron and a right handed electron, which is the antiparticle of a left handed positron."

If you go to the mass article, you will not find the words "coupling" or "fermion". Based on non-wiki webpages such as this, I think that the mass article simply fails to mention a fundamental fact about mass that is known to particle physicists. "To keep the truth to one's self is no lie"? JWSchmidt 02:36, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Most of the newer physics Books I've been able to find recently don't use the "mass increases at near the speed of light" explanation, opting for "You need to calculate momentum and kinetic energy differently at near the speed of light" instead. See Mass in special relativity for examples Notovny

The "speed of light" as used in Special Relativity is the speed in vacuum (c), so I'm changing it in #3 and removing #4 as it does not apply (also see the h2g2 article). Notovny, I took the liberty to fix a typo in your link; hope you don't mind. Arielco 02:38, 22 March 2006 (UTC)

I think it might be useful to add some explanation of the context of each of the examples, and relate that to other learning:

• Weight is constant. This is true within the context of "on earth" (to fit with the examples given, 'on the moon or on Mars') or more completely "at a consistent distance from another mass"
• Mass is constant. This is true within the context of the measured object being at a constant velocity.

Hawke666 18:24, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Definition in the "Lie" article

The Lie article uses this definition:

A lie-to-children is an expression that describes a lie told to make an adult subject, such as sex, acceptable to children. The most common example, though not currently in widespread use, is "The stork brought you."

In this article, the word simplification is used. The two definitions should be reconciled. Also, we should have some examples added that demonstrate the concept outside of the classroom such as in discussions about sex with children, as seen in the above quote. Also, in some cases,the use of such lies and simplifications are criticized, such the idea of parents these days still using "the stork brought you" response. --Cab88 16:21, 9 July 2006 (UTC)

I think that this is discussing a different kind of lie to children. Make a subsection. Kim Bruning 03:28, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

Comments on article

The article doesn't seem to have found its feet yet. It is generally trying to cover the various themes of:

"Untruths, misrepresentations, lies and distortions, told to others for their own good or because they are too young or otherwise deemed unable or unsuited to hear and handle the actual truth in full."

It doesn't seem to cover simplifications as such, for example, because otherwise all present knowledge would probably be categorized as a "lie-to-children", and that's nonsensical.

It isn't clear what its subject is: to discuss how children (and other? What others?) may not be told the whole truth of something, typical circumstances, or benefits and criticisms, etc of doing so. It needs some thought, and I suspect a careful consideration - what is this article really about? What's its proper title? will help. Perhaps it should be merged into "White lie"? In fact it probably belongs there, a section in that article. FT2 (Talk) 10:12, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Merged into "Lie". It sits there much better than in its own article, where it is hard to be sure what's POV and what isn't. In the context of a fuller article that becomes less of a problem. this article left in categories, and redirrect added. No textual change. Check out article "Lie" and its intro for more. FT2 (Talk) 10:25, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

• Actually, seeing all current knowlege as a lie-to-children is a very useful point of view indeed. Especially if you happen to be a scientist.
• In fact, doubly so if you're a wikipedian. We'd have 1/10 of the mediation requests if people would just take that point of view, because 9/10 of the time it turns out that eiter or both parties *are* actually using lies to children, oops! :-PKim Bruning 03:30, 20 November 2006 (UTC)

References and (academic) honesty.

If you base your work in large part on the work of someone else, it is generally considered honest to point out that you used their work as a reference. There have been occasional scandals where people have not specified references correctly. While h2g2 is not exceptionally dignified as a reference, it *was* used in the creation of this article, and therefore The Right Thing To Do is to actually credit the relevant article with a reference, imho. If I'm mistaken, could you please point out how and why? --Kim Bruning 20:35, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

H2G2 is not a reliable source and we should not base articles on it (nor, in my opinion, link to it at all). While the example given is hardly a massively disputable "fact" it comes from a poor source. I'm inclined to remove it entirely lest people start using random blogs as sources of examples. violet/riga (t) 20:47, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

This particular piece on H2G2 is well written and even includes a dead-tree reference. I tend to judge texts based on the quality of their content, not on their location. (note that this article was written before the reliable sources guideline was). But that's not my key concern here.

Could you please address my principle concern: that erasing the reference would be somewhat dishonest? --Kim Bruning 21:38, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Of course it is appropriate to note sources, but how far down the chain can we go? We should not present something as a citation when it is itself merely a copy of another source. An example does not necessarily need referencing, and pointing to such a poor source as h2g2 while seemingly presenting it as the original is not really appropriate. violet/riga (t) 22:36, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

Have you checked the article itself? It's actually not bad. --Kim Bruning 23:52, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

I have, and often look at h2g2 articles. Similarly many blogs can be well written but are not acceptable as a source (unless directly related). violet/riga (t) 08:05, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If an article is well written, it is well written. I don't quite see the problem? --Kim Bruning 13:57, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Because of the way h2g2 articles is written we cannot claim that it is reliable, hence it is not an appropriate source. violet/riga (t) 15:06, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

If the article checks out, it checks out. Copyright issues aside, if this article had been copied verbatim to wikipedia, it would have received some editing to fit it into our (somewhat more boring :-P ) style, but it would be accepted. You appear to insist that this is insufficient? Very well, how does the manner in which this h2g2 page came about invalidate that fact? --Kim Bruning 15:25, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It does not invalidate it, it is just an unreliable source. Articles at h2g2 are not fact-checked in any way and are looked upon in the same way as forums, private websites and blogs. violet/riga (t) 20:24, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

That may or may not be true in the general case, but the fact of the matter is that this article has been fact checked now, and the facts check out against other sources. So the general case does not hold true in this specific case. Could you please address this specific case? --Kim Bruning 23:02, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

It could very easily be falsely referenced there, but if it is verbatim then we should use the original source. I'd recommend an alternative example. violet/riga (t) 14:09, 20 July 2007 (UTC)

Let's assume for a moment that we've done all our checking, and both articles turn out to be perfectly correct; with all else remaining the way it is. Is there still a reason not to use this source? --Kim Bruning 10:20, 21 July 2007 (UTC) ie: I'm trying to find out if there are additional assumptions that I'm missing

We should then use the printed source as it is the original. violet/riga (t) 16:43, 21 July 2007 (UTC)

In future, perhaps I might (though I remain unconvinced). Be it as it may, that is not the situation now. I *did* use h2g2 as my source, and it is a strong influence on the current article text. The h2g2 based text is correct, it is accurate, it has withstood a long period of peer review on wikipedia so far (though that's no absolute guarantee, of course).

So that's the current situation, and you need to play the ball where it lies.

As far as I can tell the article ain't broke, so why fix it?

If you feel a need to remove the quoted source, you will need to remove all text "tainted" by that source as well, or you would be guilty of misrepresenting your sources. Misrepresenting sources is an act that isn't permitted in newspapers or peer-reviewed journals.

Naturally, that would leave the article in a sad state, so you'd need to rewrite the parts you ripped out from scratch, based on the new source.

I don't see the gain from that, but I have no objections if you take on the task yourself, provided that the article quality does in fact improve. If the article does not improve, I shall revert you, of course. --Kim Bruning 10:48, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

If an article uses an inappropriate source that content can be removed and reverting such changes would not be taken well. You know the policies. violet/riga (t) 11:39, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

Well, sure, you have made a claim that the source text is unreliable or inappropriate. The thing is: you haven't actually backed that up in any way yet. Would you care to give that a shot? --Kim Bruning 16:58, 22 July 2007 (UTC)

In other news, if we do somehow remove the h2g2 reference, we'd probably need need to actually read and correctly reference "The Collapse of Chaos and Figments of Reality". --Ian Stewart, Jack Cohen . --Kim Bruning 21:43, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

title

Shouldn't the title at the top of the page be "LieS-to-Children?" —Preceding unsigned comment added by 4.152.108.244 (talk • contribs)

No. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 138.38.32.84 (talk • contribs)

Clarification: When possible, use the singular form as the title. --Damian Yerrick (☎) 15:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Should the title be "Pedagogic simplification", a less loaded term than "lie"? --Damian Yerrick (☎) 15:28, 28 February 2006 (UTC)

Agreed, or would be if that wasnt such an obscure term. There comes a point where the clear term even though it may sound non-neutral, is still more helpful than an obscure one. Besides people who read the article will get the full information. The article is in danger of becoming unencyclopedic, I figure. Let's try some editing..... FT2 (Talk) 10:04, 18 April 2006 (UTC)

How about the term "Wittgenstein's Ladder" ? (See WikiWikiWeb:WittgensteinsLadder). --75.19.73.101 18:33, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Or perhaps "learning ladder"? A note at the bottom of The Ego and Its Own says this kind of learning ladder may have been coined by Arthur Schopenhauer. --75.19.73.101 18:40, 25 October 2007 (UTC)

Variable speed of light

The sequence seems out of order to me. Most people learn in high school that the speed of light changes depending on the medium, but only learn in university that mass changes based on velocity. How can the sequence be modified to reflect this?

This whole example needs to be very much clarified in any case. The speed of photons is always the same, regardless of the speed of the electromagnetic wave. Too, the modern interpretation is that the mass of an object is constant and so the dependence of mass on velocity is not uniformly taught in University (it is certainly not the view taken by Griffiths or Jackson for example). My suggestion is that a completely different example be used. I think it may be difficult to find a sequence that is simultaneously illustrative of the concept and correct. Threepounds 05:36, 6 January 2006 (UTC)

The article that this points to Variable_speed_of_light is prefaced with "The VSL hypothesis is controversial, and most physicists do not accept it." This simply does not fit as an example of an outright falsity. -- unsigned

It's outright controversial ;-) And that is sort of the point. -- Kim Bruning 01:04, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

A highly questionable claim about "most people", because it depends very much on demographic. I would bet that most people who read a lot of books about science as children learn that mass changes with velocity long before they start high school. That is a small set of people, but so is the set of people who go on to study science at university. Who can say which is the larger? —Preceding unsigned comment added by 118.67.222.172 (talk) 15:02, 25 October 2008 (UTC)

Flawed Examples

Take it from someone who recently went through education, that that is not what is tought. ex. mass is always considered a constant —Preceding unsigned comment added by 67.66.201.137 (talk) 03:10, 17 July 2007

Poor you! --Kim Bruning 20:30, 17 July 2007 (UTC)

...he's actually right. What changes is the relative time dimension of four-momentum, which is identical to mass at rest, and is what is actually measured with a scale. What mass actually is does not change, which should be obvious - if it did, the passengers would shrink. This article needs to be re-tooled - in fact, this idea that "Mass is no longer constant" is in itself a "lie-to-children", to ease them into the idea of four-momentum.Not even Mr. Lister's Koromon survived intact. 19:05, 10 November 2008 (UTC)

Problem (AFD?)

As it stands, this article might well not survive another AFD. The article attributes this term to Pratchett's book, and does not establish that anyone else uses the term. The concept is important and deserves to be discussed somewhere on WP, but it's not clear that this term isn't simply a neologism coined by Pratchett and not used otherwise. The previous AFD does not appear to have addressed this issue. As a bare minimum, the article needs to cite some reliable sources showing actual use of this term by other authors. I searched the external links provided, and none of them appear to actually contain the phrase "lies-to-children", with or without the hyphens.--Srleffler (talk) 18:20, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

Oddly, the original sources are actually gone (!) . Even more oddly, the central argument of the article is gone. It's a totally different article to the one I originally wrote. Different sourcing, no example, lacking the original reference for some of the content (AKA. plagiarism) , etc. To some extent, that's how the wiki crumbles, of course. On the other hand, hmmm, not so good.

The most interesting part? The original article actually practically predicted how it would be altered by people who didn't understand the central premise: Several people changed the example, stating that parts of it were "wrong" . DOH!

As was stated at article creation, no matter what, we REALLY need an article like this in the wikipedia namespace, even if we can't keep it in the main namespace. Else people will definitely keep making the same mistakes. ;-) --Kim Bruning (talk) 15:07, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Controversy

Maybe this article should be titled "stupification" or "child abuse." Non-conventional schooling methodologies stress the importance of founding one's learning on experience, and do not pretend to educate children through dishonesty or direct deception. --Slac 03:01, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

lol. Feel free to mention non-conventional schooling methodologies in the article. Don't be biased though. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 64.40.62.77 (talk) 04:07, 27 April 2007 (UTC).

You misread. No actual deception takes place. A lie-to-children is more like a first approximation --Kim Bruning 04:12, 27 April 2007 (UTC) yay! A mathematical analogy!

Slac is right. The article defends a flawed pedagogical method, but it does not even attribute this POV to its authors, presumably Terry Pratchett and company. I wonder how well this article represents Pratchett's view. It actually sounds like P. is criticizing this approach to science education, but I haven't read his book. I don't lie to my children at all, and I'm sure they have a sounder epistemology than your kids. I don't tell them "weight is constant" or any such nonsense. The whole POV needs sources and attribution. Maybe it's just not that well flushed out yet in the literature. Anyway, it would help if you would provide a source for stuff like, "Because life and its aspects can be extremely difficult to understand without experience, to present a full level of complexity to a student or child all at once can be overwhelming." Surely some author, maybe Pratchett, probably someone who doesn't spend much time with children, has said something like this. Attribute it to him and explain that it is his point of view. 169.233.52.62 (talk) 14:26, 1 August 2008 (UTC) (ocanter) Ocanter (talk) 14:28, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

It's not clear that this is actually a flawed pedagogical concept. It may well be essential. I'm a physicist, so I'll talk about what I know. Physics is taught entirely by such lies. We start with lies-to-children, proceed with lies-to-teenagers, follow up with lies-to-undergraduates. Not before grad school does one typically encounter physics that we actually believe to be "true", and then only if you ignore the fact that we know that truth to be false as well, we just don't know what to replace it with yet. In case what I'm saying isn't clear: teenagers typically learn Newtonian mechanics etc., which we know to be a false (or imprecise) model of how the world works. Special relativity and quantum mechanics supercede it, but one doesn't encounter them until undergraduate study. Those models themselves are false, however. To really describe the world correctly you need general relativity and probably quantum field theory. At the least, the wave mechanics style of quantum mechanics that is typically taught in undergrad is woefully incomplete. Without going to a full Hilbert-space QM model, one doesn't really get the full picture of what quantum mechanics is. All of these things are reserved for grad school, however. Finally, in the end we know that relativity and quantum theory are fundamentally, deeply incompatible. We lie to ourselves and tell each other that we can use one or the other to solve problems, but deep down we know that the theories we have are still a lie-to-physicists.--Srleffler (talk) 18:12, 3 April 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry, but this viewpoint, that imprecision is the same as falsehood, is driving me nuts. Newtonian physics is not "false" in the same sense that "the sky is red (on a clear day at noon)" is false. The article conflates "a pedagogically useful falsehood" with "scientifically approximate" in a couple of places, making the real definition of "lie-to-children", if there is any, obscure. If possible, this distinction should be clarified from original sources. Tim Bird (talk) 19:13, 19 March 2012 (UTC)

this needs an example lie

Nice article, but reading it made me want an example lie to look at. Pb8bije6a7b6a3w (talk) 04:29, 16 April 2013 (UTC)

Proposed merger

Suggest that this article be merged with Noble lie. In fact, Lie-to-children, Noble lie and Pious fiction could all be combined, perhaps as Noble lie. --Hordaland (talk) 03:54, 30 August 2013 (UTC)

Opening Sentence

The opening sentence of the article ("A lie-to-children is an expression that describes a form of simplification of material for consumption by children") gives a misleading summary of the concept. As the rest of the article goes on to describe, "lies-to-children" describes the simplifications that are told to everyone, be they children, students, or even adults who don't need to know all the details. In fact, the book cited as the main source for the term ("The Science Of Discworld") uses it to describe the simplifications research-wizard Ponder Stibbons gives to the Archchancellor.

[Untitled]

I've seen the term "Lies-To-Children" pop up in more and more places over time. I think it's a very useful concept, and it's probably actually taken (mostly) seriously by now. In any case, I think it probably warrents a wikipedia entry. Kim Bruning 20:16, 24 Mar 2004 (UTC)

Is a specific term that is found in a number of books that try to explain modern philosophy of science to the layman.

I started the page and intend to maintain it and make it clearer. Read the references. I would have duplicated much of the referenced text , but I'm not certain of copyright status. Kim Bruning 08:33, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

If this page *does* get VFD, I'd support moving it to meta instead. Kim Bruning 08:46, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Some of this stuff deserves to be in a meta/Wikipedia: article, though some of this stuff deserves to stay here... Dysprosia 08:50, 4 Apr 2004 (UTC)

Vfd

On 18 Mar 2005, this article was nominated for deletion. The result was Keep. See Wikipedia:Votes for deletion/Lie-to-children for a record of the discussion. —Korath (Talk) 06:03, Mar 24, 2005 (UTC)

For Wikipedia:Lie-to-children?

No self references. Whoops! In any case here's the self referential text, it still might be useful for making a Wikipedia: page sometime.

When discussing things or adding articles to the wikipedia, it's very important to remember that much of what you have been taught is probably actually a lie-to-children, and that reality might be far different from what you thought it was.

Kim Bruning 09:31, 11 Apr 2004 (UTC)

This article should be deleted redirected.

At the most recent deletion discussion some voters suggested keeping the Wittgenstein's ladder 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 The Science of Discworld and passing mentions. I have checked again and there are no sources. Please delete or redirect this article. Pinging AfD participants: L.tak, Rhododendrites, James500, and also Aoidh who objected to redirecting it. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:12, 5 February 2016 (UTC) Also Ganly. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:14, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• I have no objection to redirecting to Wittgenstein's ladder. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:23, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• The issue is that's is 6 one way, half a dozen the other. Wittgenstein's ladder 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. - Aoidh (talk) 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 Wikipedia article. --Sammy1339 (talk) 02:45, 5 February 2016 (UTC)
• @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. — Rhododendrites ^talk \\ 02:53, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Just as a note, if text from this article was copied, it cannot be deleted for attribution reasons so the article's history would have to remain intact. I'll respond tomorrow, as I have work (sorry). - Aoidh (talk) 03:03, 5 February 2016 (UTC)

• Struck deletion suggestion. I suggest redirecting to The Science of Discworld, but not Wittgenstein's ladder because I think the latter association, as well as the notion that this is a phrase widely used outside of the novel, originated on Wikipedia. --Sammy1339 (talk) 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. DMacks (talk) 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. James500 (talk) 06:02, 6 February 2016 (UTC)
• I tend to agree that there is not enough sourcing for a standalone article. Merger to either Science of Discworld or Wittgenstein's ladder (preferably the former) would be appropriate. -Starke Hathaway (talk) 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, — Cirt (talk) 18:24, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

@Cirt: Can you actually say explicitly what the new sources are? --Sammy1339 (talk) 18:30, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

Reply on status of ongoing research: Yes. But from my personal past experience on Wikipedia 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 Wikipedia. Current progress of research into multiple scholarly and academic sources that are peer reviewed as well as academic journals and books is  ongoing.... Thank you for your patience with this matter, — Cirt (talk) 18:43, 25 February 2016 (UTC)

• Update: I believe this now appears to be  resolved, per Sammy1339 giving me The Article Rescue Barnstar for my Quality improvement efforts on this article, at DIFF. Thank you, — Cirt (talk) 23:19, 28 February 2016 (UTC)