Talk:Three cueing

Recent changes

Hi Wasianpower. Regarding , separate criticism sections are generally discouraged. See WP:CRITICISM. This is a stub so there isn't really a need for separate sections either but if you think the content should be divided up, I think going by geographic areas makes more sense (a section for the United States, for example). Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:21, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Oh wait, I hadn't seen you had expanded the article as well. I think you did a good job fleshing it out, but I don't think criticism should be separated from the rest given my comment above. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:23, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Hi @Clovermoss! It seems to me this is a topic where a criticism section is WP:DUE. Most of the RS I've been able to find so far are almost entirely devoted to criticizing the methodology, and per WP:CRITICISM, a criticism section may be appropriate if the sources treat the negative material as an organic whole, and if readers would be better served by seeing all the negative material in one location. The issue with incorporating it as-we-go style geographically is that much of the criticism centers around the methodology itself rather than its implementation in the US/UK/Australia. Alternatively though, maybe a "reception" or "responses" or maybe even "effectiveness" section might be more neutral, and could incorporate both criticism as well as some of the defenses? 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 22:54, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

@Wasianpower: Generally yes, a reception section is how I see it done. That way both the positive and negative aspects aren't separated from each other. I think an "effectiveness" section would work just as well for that reason. On a more tangential note, how did you find these other sources? I wasn't intentionally trying to write a single POV but I genuinely could not find any higher quality sourcing that talked about this in a positive way. So I'd like to know what you did differently. Clovermoss🍀 (talk) 22:58, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

I've gone ahead and changed the heading! Tbf, most of the sources were already there and I've only added a small handful of sources to the article so far, but mostly I've been clicking links/citations articles are providing to each other when they seem potentially relevant. The APM reports article was my starting place which I think was a pretty ideal as an accessible overview of the topic that explains the logic of three cueing even if it goes on to disagree with it. So far it seems that it's definitely difficult to find RS firmly on the pro-three cueing side, there does seem to be a fairly strong academic consensus and at most what I've found so far are articles that try to represent both sides. 🌸⁠wasianpower⁠🌸 (talk • contribs) 23:15, 11 November 2025 (UTC)

Weird picture

The scan of kodomo no kuni is an odd choice for this article. Is there evidence to suggest three-cueing was used in 1920s japan? Why not an english picture book? ~2026-25885-90 (talk) 13:58, 15 May 2026 (UTC)