Talk:Otherness of childhood

Untitled
Hi

I dont see this as soap boxing. It is trying to set out a perfectly legimimate concept within the geographies of childhood. It would be soap boxing if it was saying this is right over other competing theories but it does not. It is trying to summerise a position which is being developed and which has been through critical scrutiny in the per reviewed papers which are referred to.

I dont see this enntry is different from, say, the entry on non-representational theory which states what the position of that approach is, who developed it and in what references. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owainjones2 (talk • contribs) 21:48, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You are trying to set out your concept - soapboxing. How's your NPOV? -- Mr Stephen 20:59, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Hi. Yes it is my concept but all concepts are someone's concepts. where do they come from otherwise? What is NPOV? Regards — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owainjones2 (talk • contribs) 22:02, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * NPOV -- Vegaswikian 21:19, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * Vegaswikian beat me to it. I see from your talk page  that you have been given some time to re-cast the article. -- Mr Stephen 21:29, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * I know what npov is now and get the point (but is it really possible) I have tried to modify the article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Owainjones2 (talk • contribs) 22:44, 23 May 2006 (UTC)


 * You can add WP:NOR to why this should be speedy -- Gnevin 01:05, 24 May 2006 (UTC)


 * He's cited Cloke and Philo, this isn't original research. If he hadn't told you who he was you'd have no issue with the article. What you are demonstrating is the anti-elitist bias which plagues wikipedia. In literaty terms this is a well written article, and inclusion of such articles should be encouraged on wikipedia. The last thing oen should do is speedily delete them. -- Supposed 21:10, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

Waste ground
Hello. I think that this is a good article, but I have one question. What does "waste ground" refer to? Is it a garbage dump, land with a lot of litter, or something else. It seems "waste" is used somewhat figuratively, and I don't know what type of ground I'm supposed to imagine. (Ejoty 02:55, 5 September 2008 (UTC))


 * Ejoty, I'll take a stab with my own reading of this sentence: Ideas of the otherness of childhood have connections with some children’s affinity with disordered spaces (those not managed and tidied by adult society) like waste ground in cities. I think that waste is being used not in the sense of garbage or refuse, but rather in the sense of a space that is inefficiently used by adult standards. Perhaps an abandoned building or lot in which children like to play would be a good example: while adults would see a dirty, run-down, economically adrift section of a city, children might see a place that they can make their own and on which they can impose their own world. I may be wrong, but I think you are wise to treat the term "waste ground" figuratively. -Phoenixrod (talk) 06:29, 5 September 2008 (UTC)