Incomprehensible articles

[Peter Damian]

Not the same as a crap article, which is simply incorrect or silly. An incomprehensible article is intelligible to a specialist or academic or technical audience, but otherwise incapable of being understood. Example dark L (T-H-L) which is meant to explain a particular way of pronouncing the letter ‘L’.

The velarized alveolar lateral approximant (dark l) is a type of consonantal sound used in some languages. It is an alveolar, denti-alveolar, or dental lateral approximant, with a secondary articulation of velarization or pharyngealization. The regular symbols in the International Phonetic Alphabet that represent this sound are ⟨lˠ⟩ (for a velarized lateral) and ⟨lˤ⟩ (for a pharyngealized lateral), though the dedicated letter ⟨ɫ⟩, which covers both velarization and pharyngealization, is perhaps more common. The last symbol should never be confused with ⟨ɬ⟩, which represents the voiceless alveolar lateral fricative. However, some scholars[46] use that symbol to represent the velarized alveolar lateral approximant anyway - such usage is considered non-standard.

This article explains it much better.

Maths articles are a good place to look.

[thekohser]

Really good to see you, PD.

Another area rich with incomprehensible articles is information technology (IT). For example, one of the hottest trends of the past couple of years, and poised for huge growth over the next five years is Software-defined networking (T-H-L). While your example is just incredible, and this one doesn't quite compare, it's still pretty incomprehensible.

Software-defined networking (SDN) technology is an approach to computer networking that allows network administrators to programmatically initialize, control, change, and manage network behavior dynamically via open interfaces[1] and provide abstraction of lower-level functionality. SDN is meant to address the fact that the static architecture of traditional networks doesn't support the dynamic, scalable computing and storage needs of more modern computing environments such as data centers. This is done by decoupling or disassociating the system that makes decisions about where traffic is sent (the SDN controller, or control plane) from the underlying systems that forward traffic to the selected destination (the data plane).

That's the lede, too -- where the content is supposed to be the most accessible to the uninformed reader.

[Poetlister]

Maths articles are a good place to look.

Yes, good to see you again.

Higher maths can be extremely difficult to explain to someone who hasn't studied maths past the age of say 16. However, many of these articles read as if they are written by undergraduates showing off (which of course may well be the case). Sites like mathworld.wolfram.com are often far better.

[Johnny Au]

Truncated icosahedron (T-H-L)

It's essentially describing a soccer ball (also known as a football outside of Canada, the United States, and Australia) and the first mention of soccer balls appear near the end of the article.

[thekohser]

Truncated icosahedron (T-H-L)

It's essentially describing a soccer ball (also known as a football outside of Canada, the United States, and Australia) and the first mention of soccer balls appear near the end of the article.

Not true; at the time you wrote this, soccer balls are mentioned in the 4th sentence of the article.

[Poetlister]

Truncated icosahedron (T-H-L)

It's essentially describing a soccer ball (also known as a football outside of Canada, the United States, and Australia) and the first mention of soccer balls appear near the end of the article.

While it's true that modern footballs are based on the truncated icosahedron (but a distorted version, since the faces are curved to make a sphere rather than flat) it is an interesting shape in its own right. Also, I would not have thought that this article was particularly incomprehensible.

[Johnny Au]

Truncated icosahedron (T-H-L)

It's essentially describing a soccer ball (also known as a football outside of Canada, the United States, and Australia) and the first mention of soccer balls appear near the end of the article.

Not true; at the time you wrote this, soccer balls are mentioned in the 4th sentence of the article.

I didn't catch that. Thank you though.

[Peter Damian]

Normal subgroup (T-H-L)

In abstract algebra, a normal subgroup is a subgroup which is invariant under conjugation by members of the group of which it is a part. In other words, a subgroup H of a group G is normal in G if and only if gH = Hg for all g in G; i.e., the sets of left and right cosets coincide.Normal subgroups (and only normal subgroups) can be used to construct quotient groups from a given group.

Explained by the link to Inner automorphism (T-H-L).

In abstract algebra an inner automorphism is an automorphism of a group, ring, or algebra given by the conjugation action by a fixed element, called the conjugating element. These inner automorphisms form a subgroup of the automorphism group, and the quotient of the automorphism group by this subgroup gives rise to the concept of the outer automorphism group.

Much better.

[Zoloft]

Normal subgroup (T-H-L)

In abstract algebra, a normal subgroup is a subgroup which is invariant under conjugation by members of the group of which it is a part. In other words, a subgroup H of a group G is normal in G if and only if gH = Hg for all g in G; i.e., the sets of left and right cosets coincide.Normal subgroups (and only normal subgroups) can be used to construct quotient groups from a given group.

Explained by the link to Inner automorphism (T-H-L).

In abstract algebra an inner automorphism is an automorphism of a group, ring, or algebra given by the conjugation action by a fixed element, called the conjugating element. These inner automorphisms form a subgroup of the automorphism group, and the quotient of the automorphism group by this subgroup gives rise to the concept of the outer automorphism group.

Much better.

Calls for the use of this smiley:

[Poetlister]

Normal subgroup (T-H-L)

As I said earlier in this thread, higher maths can be extremely difficult to explain to someone who hasn't studied maths past the age of say 16. I personally have no problem with this and no doubt others here with maths degrees would concur. But I see the problem for others.

[Peter Damian]

Endogenous money (T-H-L)

Finally, for Wicksell the endogenous creation of money, and how it leads to changes in the real market (i.e. increased real aggregate demand) is fundamentally a breakdown of the neoclassical tradition of a dichotomy between the monetary and real sectors. Money is not a "veil"—agents do react to it and this is not due to some irrational money illusion. However, for Wicksell, in the long run, the quantity theory still holds: money is still neutral in the long run, although to do so, we have broken the cherished neoclassical principles of dichotomy, money supply exogeneity and Say's law.

I can’t say whether this is fundamentally incoherent, or whether it incomprehensibly expresses some coherent truth.

Like many articles, the backbone is written by a handful of users. See this edit in 2009, then a series of edits by J. Milch (T-C-L) (‘My Name is Jan Milch.I am born and living in Sweden. Here is my contributions’). Marek comments ‘article's full of nonsense’).

[Moral Hazard]

Normal subgroup (T-H-L)

In abstract algebra, a normal subgroup is a subgroup which is invariant under conjugation by members of the group of which it is a part. In other words, a subgroup H of a group G is normal in G if and only if gH = Hg for all g in G; i.e., the sets of left and right cosets coincide. Normal subgroups (and only normal subgroups) can be used to construct quotient groups from a given group.

This lede should be understandable to anybody wanting to learn about normal subgroups.

[Moral Hazard]

Endogenous money (T-H-L)

Finally, for Wicksell the endogenous creation of money, and how it leads to changes in the real market (i.e. increased real aggregate demand) is fundamentally a breakdown of the neoclassical tradition of a dichotomy between the monetary and real sectors. Money is not a "veil"—agents do react to it and this is not due to some irrational money illusion. However, for Wicksell, in the long run, the quantity theory still holds: money is still neutral in the long run, although to do so, we have broken the cherished neoclassical principles of dichotomy, money supply exogeneity and Say's law.

I can’t say whether this is fundamentally incoherent, or whether it incomprehensibly expresses some coherent truth.

Like many articles, the backbone is written by a handful of users. See this edit in 2009, then a series of edits by J. Milch (T-C-L) (‘My Name is Jan Milch.I am born and living in Sweden. Here is my contributions’). Marek comments ‘article's full of nonsense’).

The history of economic thought (T-H-L) attracts weirdos. Wikipedia attracts cranks. Such WP articles attracts weird cranks.

[Renée Bagslint]

Normal subgroup (T-H-L)

In abstract algebra, a normal subgroup is a subgroup which is invariant under conjugation by members of the group of which it is a part. In other words, a subgroup H of a group G is normal in G if and only if gH = Hg for all g in G; i.e., the sets of left and right cosets coincide. Normal subgroups (and only normal subgroups) can be used to construct quotient groups from a given group.

This lede should be understandable to anybody wanting to learn about normal subgroups.

Anyone? Anyone at all? Why?

[JCM]

Normal subgroup (T-H-L)

In abstract algebra, a normal subgroup is a subgroup which is invariant under conjugation by members of the group of which it is a part. In other words, a subgroup H of a group G is normal in G if and only if gH = Hg for all g in G; i.e., the sets of left and right cosets coincide. Normal subgroups (and only normal subgroups) can be used to construct quotient groups from a given group.

This lede should be understandable to anybody wanting to learn about normal subgroups.

Anyone? Anyone at all? Why?

I have to admit "invariant" is not necessarily the most recognizable word which could be used here, and that sentence does read a bit stiffly.

[Poetlister]

If the lede is meant to be comprehensible to anyone who stumbles acros sthe term "normal subgroup" and wonders what it means, it would need to define subgroup and indeed group in the algebraic meaning.

[Renée Bagslint]

There is a difference between helping the casual reader know where they need to go to find out more about the general field of knowledge that "normal subgroup" is part of, and giving them a sufficient summary of that entire field of knowledge in an introductory paragraph. Why is it so hard to understand that some things are hard to understand?

[Kingsindian]

Endogenous money (T-H-L)

Finally, for Wicksell the endogenous creation of money, and how it leads to changes in the real market (i.e. increased real aggregate demand) is fundamentally a breakdown of the neoclassical tradition of a dichotomy between the monetary and real sectors. Money is not a "veil"—agents do react to it and this is not due to some irrational money illusion. However, for Wicksell, in the long run, the quantity theory still holds: money is still neutral in the long run, although to do so, we have broken the cherished neoclassical principles of dichotomy, money supply exogeneity and Say's law.

I can’t say whether this is fundamentally incoherent, or whether it incomprehensibly expresses some coherent truth.

Like many articles, the backbone is written by a handful of users. See this edit in 2009, then a series of edits by J. Milch (T-C-L) (‘My Name is Jan Milch.I am born and living in Sweden. Here is my contributions’). Marek comments ‘article's full of nonsense’).

Money is a "veil" (over the "real" economy) is a fundamental idea in monetary economics, going back many centuries. It is only appllicable in certain situations, but is quite useful. The paragraph is attempting to describe a contrary view, or maybe a refinement of the view (I can't really tell). Unfortunately, the article never bothers to elaborate on what the original formulation is, which this view is arguing against. There is an (inadequate) article on Veil of money (T-H-L) and a slightly better one on Money illusion (T-H-L).

There are also a bunch of phrases in the whole section, like "helicopter drop", which are terms of art which are never explained.

[Moral Hazard]

There is a difference between helping the casual reader know where they need to go to find out more about the general field of knowledge that "normal subgroup" is part of, and giving them a sufficient summary of that entire field of knowledge in an introductory paragraph. Why is it so hard to understand that some things are hard to understand?

A casual reader is likely to go to an article on group theory or Galois theory or symmetry group.