![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The link to Magic Circle doesn't seem to make sense: Is there a lost article somewhere, that explains what Huizinga et al mean by magic circle?
Defining play seems to be have been done better done in "toys", so i transferred it over to here. I have removed some weasel words, but there are still lots left.
The opening sentence is awful ("Play is a rite and a quality of mind in engaging with one's worldview.") Can we delete and use the second sentence as the opening sentence ("Play refers to a range of voluntary, intrinsically motivated activities that are normally associated with pleasure and enjoyment.") 38.96.137.87 ( talk) 00:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Added section to cover play and children, at this stage not highly developed. Have found the book 'The Genius of Play' by Sally Jenkinson quite authoritative in relation to the relevance of play for children. Added a quote which may be seen to be too ambigious but hopefully which stimulates further development of this area. -- Evolve2k 12:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Stevanne Auerbach has a book out, 'Smart Play Smart Toys,' in which she talks a lot about the relationship between play and toys. She says that toys should be assessed on the basis of their play value, and that they can be broken down into three main value categories, active, creative and educational. She has other interesting concepts too such as the parent really is the child's first big toy and should function as his or her play guide. She notes that play is the child's work, which made me think of the Mark Twain quotation in this article about play and work being the same activity--just described from different angles. I added a short paragraph about play therapy upon which she comments extensively. Dr.apricot 15:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Early childhood education has a great section on the relevance of play to childhood, does someone with more wiki experience know how we should include this great cross relevant information there as well as here? Thanks -- Evolve2k 13:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
wat are the different types of play —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.145.59.63 (
talk)
18:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice to have an expanded section on play in other animals, as there is an extensive literature on the subject, and my understanding is that it does differ fundamentally from play in humans. I would particularly like to see examples of play in non-human animals, and a breakdown of what animals truly engage in play - I have read that only mammals engage in true play behaviour, due to fundamental differences in neuroanatomy, but certainly many bird species also engage in play behaviour. QuinnHK 21:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Do adults play? GOD 11:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
This seems like an unnecessarily crude way of putting it. Perhaps, "e.g., 'fooling around'" or "e.g., sexual forePLAY" would better convey the desired impression (without offending our more sensitive-minded readers)?
Agreed. It seems to just jump out and be crude almost for the sake of it. Shouting play in foreplay seems a better tack to take (this is not prudishness or blanking out the world of eroticism but it just doesn't seem to fit the discourse of the article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.51.123 ( talk) 09:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Just passing through and unable to fix it myself now, but I note that some of the material in the introduction at present doesn't make sense. What's with all these references to " rites"? Play doesn't have an inherently ritualistic element, nor does the linking through to process art make the definition any better. The rest of the intro looks fine, but the first sentence is terrible. Play engages "worldview"? Bizarrely disembodied. The material is there in the sections below, but it needs summarising more successfully. DionysosProteus ( talk) 02:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Though touched on, there does not seem to me to be enough explicit discussion of the role of play, especially in early cognitive development. There is good reason that all higher animals engage in play. It seems odd to mention researchers, such as Piaget, who studied the critical role of play in learning and then only mention in that sentence "human spirituality", which many of the named researchers did not study.-- seberle ( talk) 18:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
sorry, not yet familiar with the ways of wikipediea. i agree that animal and human play definitions should be the same(merged). as i see it, play differs from work only in consiquinces, sorry for bad spelling. play without question happens between different species. who has a dog? when you play catch, you are playing a game that the two species have developed over time for survival. you knock the target out of the sky or whatever, and the dog gets it and brings it back! nature is awesome! we did it together! but today, you buy alppo or sciencene diet or whatever, so you don't really need to have your dog fetch your dinner. just your slippers and newspaper. what a good boy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetgum75 ( talk • contribs) 03:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Considering that the merge request was filed several months ago and there have been no objections to it, I've acted boldly and performed the merge. I tried to move every piece of information from the animal behavior article into this one so there may be some redundant or undue portions. For this reason as well as a variety of grammar, spelling, and tone problems I noticed in this article, I have added a copyedit tag to the top of the article. If anybody wants to take a swing at cutting unnecessary material out or otherwise improving the article, please don't regard the condition I left it in as any indication that I think this is the ideal condition. Cheers, - Thibbs ( talk) 16:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry I didn't see the discussion earlier, but one can't be everywhere. First of all, I think the merger between animal and human play was a mistake. Both are enormous topics, though one would never guess it from this page. Although human play is (in evolutionary terms) an extension of mammalian play, in practice it is quite different, mainly due to the huge effect of cultural factors in human behaviour.
The introduction and definition sections of the article have almost no relevance to animal play. The whole treatment of animal play is weak, as others have said. How can one write "it has been given comparatively little attention by scientists" when one doesn't know the literature? I know it's pointless to criticise, but one does need relevant knowledge to contribute on a scientific topic... There's no way it can be handled unless you have access to the one really large survey of the field, which is:
There's nearly 700 pages, and even the appendices are mouth-watering: Appendix I: Representative definitions of play; Appendix II: Representative lists of characteristics of play... There are nine appendices. Also, (but not got by me yet) is:
Macdonald-ross ( talk) 16:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
In the "Forms of play" section it says:
Did this mean to say "Other play is unstructured, without goals"?
Even animal play can be viewed as following rules, even if they are more genetically than culturally determined. I've never seen a definition of play not suggesting the presence of rules.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.80.123.46 ( talk • contribs)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 10 December 2018. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Lihfrancisco. Peer reviewers:
Lihfrancisco.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 06:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Larry Knox: Yesterday when I saw your edit here I reverted you as, first, the citation indicates the book was published in 1955 and, second, changing dates and numbers without sources and without comment is a common form of sneaky vandalism. Today I saw you reverted me with the edit summary, "the Dutch original is from 1938." diff.
I've found a copy of the text online on Yale's website here. That copy says the first edition was "First published in German in Switzerland in 1944", which is not 1955, but also not 1938. Do you have a source for it being 1938? In the meantime I'll change it in the text to 1944 with an explanation. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 16:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)
![]() | This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page. |
Archive 1 |
The link to Magic Circle doesn't seem to make sense: Is there a lost article somewhere, that explains what Huizinga et al mean by magic circle?
Defining play seems to be have been done better done in "toys", so i transferred it over to here. I have removed some weasel words, but there are still lots left.
The opening sentence is awful ("Play is a rite and a quality of mind in engaging with one's worldview.") Can we delete and use the second sentence as the opening sentence ("Play refers to a range of voluntary, intrinsically motivated activities that are normally associated with pleasure and enjoyment.") 38.96.137.87 ( talk) 00:24, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
Added section to cover play and children, at this stage not highly developed. Have found the book 'The Genius of Play' by Sally Jenkinson quite authoritative in relation to the relevance of play for children. Added a quote which may be seen to be too ambigious but hopefully which stimulates further development of this area. -- Evolve2k 12:31, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
Stevanne Auerbach has a book out, 'Smart Play Smart Toys,' in which she talks a lot about the relationship between play and toys. She says that toys should be assessed on the basis of their play value, and that they can be broken down into three main value categories, active, creative and educational. She has other interesting concepts too such as the parent really is the child's first big toy and should function as his or her play guide. She notes that play is the child's work, which made me think of the Mark Twain quotation in this article about play and work being the same activity--just described from different angles. I added a short paragraph about play therapy upon which she comments extensively. Dr.apricot 15:41, 5 August 2007 (UTC)
Early childhood education has a great section on the relevance of play to childhood, does someone with more wiki experience know how we should include this great cross relevant information there as well as here? Thanks -- Evolve2k 13:01, 21 February 2007 (UTC)
wat are the different types of play —Preceding
unsigned comment added by
86.145.59.63 (
talk)
18:36, 23 September 2008 (UTC)
It would be nice to have an expanded section on play in other animals, as there is an extensive literature on the subject, and my understanding is that it does differ fundamentally from play in humans. I would particularly like to see examples of play in non-human animals, and a breakdown of what animals truly engage in play - I have read that only mammals engage in true play behaviour, due to fundamental differences in neuroanatomy, but certainly many bird species also engage in play behaviour. QuinnHK 21:06, 22 January 2007 (UTC)
Do adults play? GOD 11:11, 14 September 2007 (UTC)
This seems like an unnecessarily crude way of putting it. Perhaps, "e.g., 'fooling around'" or "e.g., sexual forePLAY" would better convey the desired impression (without offending our more sensitive-minded readers)?
Agreed. It seems to just jump out and be crude almost for the sake of it. Shouting play in foreplay seems a better tack to take (this is not prudishness or blanking out the world of eroticism but it just doesn't seem to fit the discourse of the article) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 194.80.51.123 ( talk) 09:28, 5 February 2008 (UTC)
Just passing through and unable to fix it myself now, but I note that some of the material in the introduction at present doesn't make sense. What's with all these references to " rites"? Play doesn't have an inherently ritualistic element, nor does the linking through to process art make the definition any better. The rest of the intro looks fine, but the first sentence is terrible. Play engages "worldview"? Bizarrely disembodied. The material is there in the sections below, but it needs summarising more successfully. DionysosProteus ( talk) 02:31, 13 September 2008 (UTC)
Though touched on, there does not seem to me to be enough explicit discussion of the role of play, especially in early cognitive development. There is good reason that all higher animals engage in play. It seems odd to mention researchers, such as Piaget, who studied the critical role of play in learning and then only mention in that sentence "human spirituality", which many of the named researchers did not study.-- seberle ( talk) 18:09, 25 September 2009 (UTC)
sorry, not yet familiar with the ways of wikipediea. i agree that animal and human play definitions should be the same(merged). as i see it, play differs from work only in consiquinces, sorry for bad spelling. play without question happens between different species. who has a dog? when you play catch, you are playing a game that the two species have developed over time for survival. you knock the target out of the sky or whatever, and the dog gets it and brings it back! nature is awesome! we did it together! but today, you buy alppo or sciencene diet or whatever, so you don't really need to have your dog fetch your dinner. just your slippers and newspaper. what a good boy! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Sweetgum75 ( talk • contribs) 03:42, 15 March 2011 (UTC)
Considering that the merge request was filed several months ago and there have been no objections to it, I've acted boldly and performed the merge. I tried to move every piece of information from the animal behavior article into this one so there may be some redundant or undue portions. For this reason as well as a variety of grammar, spelling, and tone problems I noticed in this article, I have added a copyedit tag to the top of the article. If anybody wants to take a swing at cutting unnecessary material out or otherwise improving the article, please don't regard the condition I left it in as any indication that I think this is the ideal condition. Cheers, - Thibbs ( talk) 16:17, 16 May 2011 (UTC)
Well, I'm sorry I didn't see the discussion earlier, but one can't be everywhere. First of all, I think the merger between animal and human play was a mistake. Both are enormous topics, though one would never guess it from this page. Although human play is (in evolutionary terms) an extension of mammalian play, in practice it is quite different, mainly due to the huge effect of cultural factors in human behaviour.
The introduction and definition sections of the article have almost no relevance to animal play. The whole treatment of animal play is weak, as others have said. How can one write "it has been given comparatively little attention by scientists" when one doesn't know the literature? I know it's pointless to criticise, but one does need relevant knowledge to contribute on a scientific topic... There's no way it can be handled unless you have access to the one really large survey of the field, which is:
There's nearly 700 pages, and even the appendices are mouth-watering: Appendix I: Representative definitions of play; Appendix II: Representative lists of characteristics of play... There are nine appendices. Also, (but not got by me yet) is:
Macdonald-ross ( talk) 16:49, 19 November 2012 (UTC)
In the "Forms of play" section it says:
Did this mean to say "Other play is unstructured, without goals"?
Even animal play can be viewed as following rules, even if they are more genetically than culturally determined. I've never seen a definition of play not suggesting the presence of rules.— Preceding unsigned comment added by 139.80.123.46 ( talk • contribs)
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 27 August 2018 and 10 December 2018. Further details are available
on the course page. Student editor(s):
Lihfrancisco. Peer reviewers:
Lihfrancisco.
Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT ( talk) 06:46, 17 January 2022 (UTC)
@ Larry Knox: Yesterday when I saw your edit here I reverted you as, first, the citation indicates the book was published in 1955 and, second, changing dates and numbers without sources and without comment is a common form of sneaky vandalism. Today I saw you reverted me with the edit summary, "the Dutch original is from 1938." diff.
I've found a copy of the text online on Yale's website here. That copy says the first edition was "First published in German in Switzerland in 1944", which is not 1955, but also not 1938. Do you have a source for it being 1938? In the meantime I'll change it in the text to 1944 with an explanation. ~ ONUnicorn( Talk| Contribs) problem solving 16:24, 3 June 2015 (UTC)