Talk:Propaedeutic value of Esperanto/Pre-redirect article discussions

This is an archive of all the talk page discussions related to the article Propaedeutic value of Esperanto (e.g. its structure and contents, but not the topic itself or its sources), before it was turned into a redirect in 2022.

Redundant entry?
I wonder if the entries on Girls' Middle School in Bishop Auckland (GB) and Bishop's Elementary School, Auckland (New Zealand) actually refer to the same study. Granted the countries and dates are different, but it seems more than odd that two schools associated with "Bishop" and "Auckland" should attract studies on the propedeutic value of Esperanto. I expect there's been some garbling here. — Preceding unsigned comment added by CJGB (talk • contribs) 17 November 2005 (UTC)

Cleanup
This article is far too long. I don't want to read about the results of every individual study on the use of Esperanto in schools; I just want a summary of the facts. This article reads more like a scientific literature review than an encyclopedia article, so I am adding a cleanup tag. —Psychonaut 01:32, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

This is just a personal opinion from me, but I'm honestly glad I got here /before/ the article was cleaned up, because a list of actual studies was exactly what I was looking for. I think there is real value in including a summary of the individual studies, especially for someone like me who was trying to use Wikipedia to drill down to some first-hand information. -Jackalgirl

What it is
"Propaedeutic Esperanto is the theory"? If "Propaedeutic Esperanto" is "the theory," how are we to refer to Esperanto taught for a propaedeutic purpose? Frankly, I doubt that statement is true. But I object also to the use of the word "propaedeutic," not because it's inappropriately applied, but because it's rarely used. It doesn't appear among the scores of words related to teaching in Roget's Thesaurus, and according to the Random House Unabridged dictionary, it simply means "pertaining to or of the nature of preliminary instruction," "introductory to some art or science," or "a propaedeutic subject or study." ("Propaedeutics," construed as singular, means "the preliminary body of knowledge and rules necessary for the study of some art or science." - op. cit.) So why not "elementary," "beginners'," or "introductory"? As you may surmise from my usage, "propaedeutic purpose," I'd assumed it had something to do with instruction in one subject preparatory to learning other subjects, and perhaps it has, but in that case, why is the word so rare? "Didactic" and "pedagogical" are far more familiar words. The Encyclopaedia Britannica has its Propaedia (though you wouldn't know it existed from their website), which it calls "an outline of knowledge": nothing to do with education! If a course in Esperanto is intended to get one started in learning more Esperanto, perhaps it should be called "elementary Esperanto," and studying Esperanto for the sake of preparatory familiarization with learning new languages in general could quite clearly be called "didactic Esperanto." When studying a new language in the classroom, I've observed that, at the outset, the primary goal for most students is a remedial one: to overcome a common lack of familiarity with ordinary grammar. "Propaedeutic Esperanto" sounds like a variety of Esperanto. "Propaedeutic value of Esperanto" makes perfect sense to people familiar with the word. But the topic of this article is clearly the use of learning Esperanto as an exercise in linguistics. Though I've strayed from the point I wanted to make, I hope somebody will distinguish that from "the theory," and if there is a theory, tell us what it is. Unfree (talk) 04:26, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * "Propaedeutic" in this context is "A subject or study which forms an introduction to an art or science". "Didactic" would not be incorrect, but would be less felicitous: It would mean simply the value of Esperanto in teaching, not specifically its value as an introduction to further study, which is the point of the article. "Pedagogic" would be somewhat better, since it has the connotation of introductory teaching, but does not suggest that it is introductory to another subject. I agree that the opening line is poorly worded. kwami (talk) 07:09, 2 January 2008 (UTC)
 * How does it read now? kwami (talk) 07:42, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

More like an academic treatise
I think that this article should be summarized under a section of the same name in the Esperanto article, with some of the references brought over as well. What does everyone else think? Jchthys u.p. / cont.


 * May be a good move. Would we cut down the size of the article, or further summarize the studies? kwami (talk) 01:45, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I guess both. Probably we would eliminate most of the text about the studies and reduce them to references, while integrating some of the other text with the Esperanto article. Jchthys u.p. / cont. —Preceding undated comment was added on 16:58, 24 February 2009 (UTC).


 * I say go for it. There isn't much here except specific results, which isn't what an encyclopedia is supposed to be covering. kwami (talk) 18:16, 24 February 2009 (UTC)
 * I brought in the references; now I think this article just needs to be deleted. Jchthys cont. 23:26, 1 March 2009 (UTC)

Missing information
This article appears to mostly focus on children learning Esperanto and other languages. What, if any, impact has it had on adult learners who wish to learn other languages. There's a section in the article that seems to suggest the effect only works for kids who take language learning early in life, but it would be good to indicate if learning Esperanto has any benefit for adult learners wishing to learn other languages. 50.66.121.20 (talk) 02:40, 9 October 2018 (UTC)
 * The fact that this information is absent from Wikipedia is not a problem of this Wikipedia page, nor its contributors, but a problem resulting from the lack of scientific research on this topic. Wikipedia is not a platform for original research. Information can only be "missing" on Wikipedia if it exists somewhere else, namely a scientific source.Warddekock (talk) 13:20, 25 October 2018 (UTC)