Sine qua non
The anonymous poster from IP # 188.8.131.52 dismissed the lead-in sentence to this item as pretentious because the Latin phrase sine qua non was used. The poster states "Removed unnecessary pretentious Latin words."
However, by removing the words, the poster inadvertently changed the meaning from the essential value of a toy merely for play to it's essential value in toto. While admittedly, this is a fine distinction, toys obviously do have other uses besides play, so it is necessary to make a distinction to get a clear meaning.
Sine qua non according to the New Dictionary of Cultural Literacy refers to "essential, crucial, or indispensable ingredient without which something would be impossible: Her leadership was the sine qua non of the organization’s success. " From Latin, meaning without which nothing.
Therefore, I have rolled back this change, but if it still seems overly pretentious to others, only a change in wording which retains the original meaning should be used.--Dr.apricot
The general rule for not sounding pretentious is "if you have to define it in sentence and you don't use the term multiple times within the article, don't use it." I've made an edit which still manages to capture the meaning.184.108.40.206 (talk) 03:12, 10 July 2008 (UTC)
There are multiple POV issues in multiple sections of the article, clearly created by editors with an axe to grind (or at least willingness to put up POV-ish statements without citations). A complete rewrite is needed - The Bushranger Return fireFlank speed 07:02, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
Section 1 states "In playwork terms it is the child who determines the play value of an object rather than adults or instruction manuals." , yet further in the article, it is claimed that violent toys or gender based toys have less play value. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 220.127.116.11 (talk) 07:07, 9 November 2010 (UTC)
On the site onnetworks.com had a show called Play Value. The show is the history of gaming up to 2009. http://www.onnetworks.com/videos/play-value —Preceding unsigned comment added by 18.104.22.168 (talk) 23:35, 23 November 2010 (UTC)
The original article was written from a child development perspective. I edited it as there are many more definitions and understandings of the phrase – including obviously from outside field of working with children (hence ‘play value show’ posting here) – and I feel it’s important that play value is defined not only as an adult construct of what is good for children, but also a judgement that children make for themselves (as per the definition used in playwork practice). However I didn’t want to directly contradict the original writers as obviously their perspective is valid, hence I used the phrase ‘in playwork terms’ throughout. The point about violent toys etc is not a playwork perspective (but I couldn’t find a polite way to put a different perspective alongside this!) so in my view the point re ‘neutrality’ is valid, there is a contradiction there. The definition of ‘play value’ I gave is accepted in the playwork field (see for example Kilvington and Wood Reflective Playwork 2010). This is the first time I’ve contributed to Wikipedia – maybe I should have raised a query on this page against the original article instead of trying to change it politely and without much fuss?! —Preceding unsigned comment added by Playworker (talk • contribs) 09:54, 2 December 2010 (UTC)