Talk:Programme for International Student Assessment/Archive 1

Archive 1

Notes

I have deleted a link to a web page that was irelevant in my opinion.

India???

What is India doing in Science 2003?? PISA is conducted only in OECD member countries. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Kingka625 (talk • contribs) 15:34, 23 January 2009 (UTC)

What are you talking about? PISA is conducted in both OECD and non-OECD countries. You are correct that India did not participate; however, there are many non-OECD coutnries in the test. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 62.109.85.218 (talk) 13:39, 19 February 2009 (UTC)

Hong Kong

Hong Kong is a country? Morhange 18:41, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Until the end of 1997 it was a British colony. Look it up, we are on the Internet after all. Padillah (talk) 18:44, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Bias (NPOV violation)

There is clear violation of the Wikipedia NPOV policy in the first section. It needs to be fixed.

Sendhil 19:16, 24 September 2006 (UTC)

Howcome?

I've added some more info on TIMSS and PIRLS; hopefully this cleans up the problems with bias? If not, please explain in more detail why the article is biased. Saint|swithin 08:12, 10 October 2006 (UTC)

PISA math comparison

The part I reverted is based on the multiple comparisons of mean performance of math. scale. Please refer to page 90 [1]. Certain parts of comparsion Finland occupied the first place. Coloane 23:23, 22 October 2007 (UTC)

Removal of USA data from 2006 table

I have removed the information:
"United States ranked 35th out of a total of 57 countries in the math survey"
"United States ranked 29th out of a total of 57 countries in the science survey"
from the 2006 table, it appears to have been put there to support the discussion below regarding the effects of spending levels on results. However there is already a sufficient example included in the body of the discussion. The correct way to include the USA's data would be to include every country's results in the table. I'm not sure if this is necessary, but if anybody enjoys making tables, then feel free!

Lewyblue (talk) 18:07, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

It is necessary to put back the information of the US over there so that we can figure out the effects of spending levels on results, that is the first reason. The second reason is we need to think and find out the reason why the US has such poor performance in every aspects so that this article can expand a bit? Coloane (talk) 21:36, 21 December 2007 (UTC)

your first reason has merit however it is already mentioned in the previouse section, if you feel that the information should be in the table for ease of veiwing then include the whole list to avoid conflict. your second reason is well intentioned but stupid. making somthing worse so as to encourage improvement, were you perhaps educated in the us?59.154.24.147 (talk) 16:08, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank for your personal attacks. I don't think to make a whole table is necessary. The US is one of the most important country in the world and most readers do need to figure out why the American students performed poorly in every aspects. That is why the info. of USA is quite necessary in that table. It is quite shameful indeed but we want to know the fact, that's it! Coloane (talk) 16:22, 2 January 2008 (UTC)

I’m sorry for any offence, I meant that last comment as a joke. I do admit that it is hard to convey this over such an impersonal medium so I apologise again. I agree with you that making a whole table would be over the top but I also feel that including the US on the presumption that "The US is one of the most important country in the world and most readers do need to figure out why the American students performed poorly in every aspects" is not only not NPOV but arrogant on the behalf of Americans. A better way of doing this would be to include a separate section, perhaps "united states performance". The inclusion of the US information on the list is unnecessary in that it is a duplication, with the information already stated in the previous section. Furthermore the reason for including the information in the article to start with was as an example of the disparity between education spending and results, something which the table does not show. Therefore the presence of the information in the table indicates only the self importance that Americans feel, which is not the subject of this article. i hope the inclusion of indonesia, a country where the people are equally important as americans, shows just how misplaced the information is. 59.154.24.147 (talk) 15:55, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

• I think English Wikipedia is mainly for American. That is why I am not completely wrong to add the US on that table. If you would like to add Indonesia, I strongly suggest that you had better create an article in Indonesian Wikipedia for Indonesian readers. Coloane (talk) 16:21, 3 January 2008 (UTC)

That shows extreme ignorance, English is the most common language in the world, as well as arrogance, even if it is mostly used by Americans this does no make it an American encyclopaedia. The US is not special and should not be treated such, it is the idea that Americans have that the US is somehow superior to other countries that results I much of the anti-Americanism in the world. As I have said there is no reason for the inclusion of that data in the table, if you feel it should be there is trongly suggest you make a new artice about american performance in pisa. i resent the fact you feel that information about non english speaking countries does not belong on an english language website.59.154.24.147 (talk) 15:09, 4 January 2008 (UTC)

sorry coloane but the other person is right, im sure you dont mean anything by it but having america in the table is a bit presumtious. i also dont think it is nessecary to the article which seems to be mainly about pisa and not the results.Grinchsmate (talk) 17:54, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

To have the US on that table is necessary because we need to figure out the average of OECD, including those which are significantly rated above or below. This section didn't finish yet and expansion is necessary. However, I don't have much time to write because I am improving the article of Macau so I can re-nominate it over FAC a bit later. After this, I will come back and write in a more objectively over here. Coloane (talk) 18:04, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

In that case is it not better to leave it correct and only change things when you can do it properly instead of leaving a half finished, messy article. Grinchsmate (talk) 18:17, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I don't understand! so actually what do you want? Coloane (talk) 18:21, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I want a quality article. I don’t want something that has random bits of information tacked on here and there. I fully support any move to improve the article but I don’t think that it should be left in a transition state while waiting for the editor to have the time. Grinchsmate (talk) 18:26, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

The table show Austria with the poverty level under Poland and on the level of Turkey that looks pretty suspicious to me can any one check that? I have the feeling that the table was constructed just to show some political opinions rather that statistics. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.191.73.54 (talk) 17:02, 22 July 2011 (UTC)

Request for 3O

This looks pretty straight-forward: The title says "List of top ten..." so it should be a list of the top ten. If the U.S. didn't make it to the top ten then that can be pointed out and discussed in a relevant section. Assertions about the importance of the U.S. or the prevalence of the English language have no place in this argument. The criteria for the list are self-defining, if the U.S. doesn't meet those criteria then they don't get on the list. It may be more direct to make a list of what countries spend and what their ranking is. Or GNP vs. ranking. But as the list stands, the U.S. simply doesn't qualify. Padillah (talk) 18:00, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

There is nothing related to assert any importance of the US. It is just a co-incidence. To put the US on that table is just simply to show certain performance of OECD country in PISA. Coloane (talk) 18:08, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If the table is there to provide information to further an argument then qualify the table to include data representative of your argument. That's why I say, if you want to reformat the table as one that presents GNP vs. PISA score or something like that then fine. If you want to reformat the table to be of certain country's PISA scores (this would then satisfy the "founding member of OECD" argument) then reformat it. As it stands none of the other 20 founding members are represented in the list except as they fall in the "Top Ten" standings, this gives undue weight to the U.S. scores, either from the point that they are low for all the money being spent or they are important regardless of how high they are. Are you suggesting that the sentence "The U.S. placed a mere 35th on the Math section" by itself somehow doesn't convey the same information as when it's in the Top Ten list? If you need another table to support a setion then make another table. If you want to get rid of this table in favor of another that represents something different let's discuss it... but, as it stands, the table is for Top Ten and the U.S. doesn't qualify (nor does the argument that it's included as a founding OECD member since the other 19 founding members are conspicuously absent). Padillah (talk) 18:20, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

So then the inclusion of the United Kingdom is just as valid as the United States, if this is the case why did you delete the other user’s changes, unnecessary though they were.Grinchsmate (talk) 18:13, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

If we add the UK together with the US, the layout will be hurt. Coloane (talk) 18:15, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I wasn’t suggesting that we add the UK. I was just saying that the other user has a point; going to the trouble of changing the UK to the US implies a POV. Grinchsmate (talk) 18:19, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

so what do you want?? Coloane (talk) 18:22, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

I believe he's trying to point out the POV of including one country "because it's a founding member of the OECD" but leaving out the other 19 founding member countries. Padillah (talk) 18:25, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Anyway! I will revert what you did tomorrow! Coloane (talk) 18:27, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Sorry but I feel that would be vandalism.

1. It would make the article worse 2. It would result in a POV being expressed, weather inadvertently or not. And I will report it, especially after this discussion. Grinchsmate (talk) 18:31, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Coloane, you are more than welcome to edit however you see fit. Please understand, a third opinion was asked for so I came to this page to offer one. I made my argument and covered all the points. I left the issue open for discussion. I then made changes congruent with my opinion. If you feel slighted there are avenues to discus this. Please take this to an administrator or an admin notice board if you feel this strongly. If you want to talk about why you feel so strongly, please tell me your side. Padillah (talk) 18:40, 7 January 2008 (UTC)

Comparisons of US with Europe

It does no particular good to compare Europe with the US, other than to make Europeans feel better!  :) However, if you compare white students in the US, normally a similarly advantaged group to Europe, you will get a different comparison entirely. (Americans do the same think BTW when they compare essentially white northern states of Maine, Vermont, Idaho, etc. with heavily black southern states, and assume that their northern school system is superior. This is sometimes the case, but often isn't when white students in the south are compared with white students in the north, equally advantaged groups). Student7 (talk) 15:16, 3 November 2009 (UTC)

Debate about December 2009 edits: selection and presentation of country mean scores

Rollbacks by IP

IP 69.156.x.y reverted for the third time all edits I made in December. The only argument given in the edit summaries is: "the table you made up by yourself is not reliable". This argument makes no sense to me:

• "you made up by yourself" - everything here is made up by somebody.
• "not reliable" - all data are taken directly from the OECD reports. If you suspect I may have made some error in copying close to ninety numeric results, just look up the original sources, compare, and tell us what's wrong with the table.

Furthermore, why do you revert everything if you just happen to suspect some error in one table? -- Georg Hurtig (talk) 18:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

No, you should tell me what's wrong with the table you had removed since 8 DEC, 2009. You are lying! the table you made up I couldn't find it on any OECD reports. 69.156.51.43 (talk) 19:58, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi IP. Fine that you are ready to discuss. Before answering to your remark, I request two things: First: Stop reverting the article while the discussion is ongoing. Second: Use civil language; assume that I am acting in good faith; don't prematurely accuse me of lying. -- Georg Hurtig (talk) 20:04, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

For documentation: Admin User:Slp1 has blocked the article for 7 days. Few minutes later, I received the following message:

"==No problem== I will come back on 16th Jan and revert again! doesn't matter! 69.156.51.43 (talk) 20:11, 9 January 2010 (UTC)"

Seems that IP is not willing to discuss. -- Georg Hurtig (talk) 20:14, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems to me you are not going to explain why did you remove all tables on 8th Dec 2009. The only way I can save he article is coming back here on 16th Jan and revert the article. You are wasting your time to fight with me! this is a dynamic IP! Goodbye! 69.156.51.43 (talk) 20:16, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Georg, even if at the moment IP69 is declining to participate in discussion, I suggest that for the record might be worth briefly answering IP69's questions, including why you deleted the previous tables and where exactly the information cited to OECD reports comes from (links, page numbers etc) --Slp1 (talk) 20:28, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Source for new table: given below.

Reasons for removing old tables: As of Dec 8th, the article contained two tables: "top five scores in 2003" and "20 places with the highest scores in 2006".

• Results from PISA 2000 were missing completely.
• The restriction to the top 5 or top 20 nations was arbitrary. This is not a sports event: this study tries to provide useful information to all participating nations, not just to the top-scoring ones. Very low outcome can even be more interesting than average outcome.
• In the 2006 table, only ranks were given, not country scores.
• Therefore I replaced the two tables by one table containing the most representative result for each year of testing, and including all OECD countries. -- Georg Hurtig (talk) 20:51, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

well, you can put PISA 2000 back anytime you want but not removed all tables, nobody would object it for sure. Top 3 or top 20 nations was not arbitrary because of space limitation. You can put all participating nations if you have time, however you removed all non-OECD nations, how can you explain then? if the 2006 table did show only score, you can simply add scores back side by side; however, you had removed everything, how can you explain then? therefore you replaced the 2 tables by one table accordingly to your personal taste including all OECD countries but not non-OECD countries? 69.156.51.43 (talk) 21:15, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

PISA is sponsored, governed, designed by the OECD. Test items are submitted by OECD country institutions. Test items are selected by OECD country representatives. Numeric standardization of item difficulties is based on results from OECD countries only. And so on. Therefore, focussing on OECD countries is not just "personal taste", it reflects the study's focus. It is certainly less arbitrary than restricting tables to the top n-scoring countries, giving results for Liechtenstein and Macao, but not for Spain, Mexico, the USA... -- Georg Hurtig (talk) 21:25, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't care whether PISA is sponsored, governed or designed by the OECD or not; if the data from the report include the figure of Hong Kong, Macau, Liechtenstein, then you would need to add them back on the table. I am not going to discuss with you anymore, it is completely wasting my time. This is the last response I am giving you. Once again, if you don't add them back these non-OECD nations on 16th Jan, I will keep reverting to the old version. Thanks! 69.156.51.43 (talk) 21:34, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The reports also include data from Montenegro, Azerbaijan, Qatar: These and many other were missing in the old version too. So, reverting won't solve your problem.

Furthermore: the official reports contain not only country mean scores, but lots of other results. We have to make a choice anyway. We can discuss how to make the most judicious choice, but requesting that some data be included in our article just because they are in an OECD report is not sensible. -- Georg Hurtig (talk) 21:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Page Protection

As you will have noticed, the page has now been protected from editing. Both of you have been edit warring, which isn't the answer, even if you know for sure you are right. As I said at the noticeboard, you now have a week to discuss your differences calmly on the talkpage and figure out a solution to the problem at hand. It should be fairly straightforward if the main issue is verifiability. Both of you might want to explain to the other exactly where you found the information/tables you wish to include. A link and a page number would help, for example. And consider it certain, IP 69, that if you fail to discuss and come back in a week to revert as promised, then you will be blocked from editing at all and the article semi-protected as required. Both of you will find that this works much better if you discuss. If you find you need help, and would like the opinions other editors, you might want to consider getting a third opinion, making a WP:RFC or using some of the noticeboards e.g. WP:NORN etc. If you find a solution sooner than a week, let me know and I'll remove the protection. --Slp1 (talk) 20:13, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Go back to the edit history and take a look. Since 8 Dec 2009, the guy drastically changed everything and removed all tables. What's wrong for me coming back here to revert to the normal version since 8 Dec, 2009? First of all the guy reverted what I had reverted it by using IP and next he signed in and reverted again. Ironically he reported this to the Admin board. Don't you think it is laughable? The guy removed all tables without saying anything over here, even right now. Maybe you were cheated on by him. 69.156.51.43 (talk) 20:30, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I have taken a look. What I see is two editors who disagree about what the content of this article should be and are fighting about by reverting back and forth, which is not allowed here. I haven't looked at who is right here, and for all I know you may well be correct that aspects of the current article are problematic. If so, you won't have difficulty convincing others of your views, but step one is to explain exactly what is wrong with the current version and how it could be improved by reinserting the previous tables etc, with reference to the policies. If you clearly explain your position, maybe you can get others to see the problem. That's why I suggested getting outside opinions if the two of you find you are stuck after some more specific and detailed conversations about the problems you both see in the other versions. --Slp1 (talk) 20:42, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I've already explained it in a very clear way, his table is fake and can't be verified. I have the whole report on my hands.69.156.51.43 (talk) 20:53, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Being a bit more specific is going to help move the discussion along.--Slp1 (talk) 21:05, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

very specific! his table given is fake. I checked Canada's score and it didn't match at all after he removed all non-OECD countries/regions. 69.156.51.43 (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Why should Canada's score (not rank ?) depend on the presence of non-OECD countries ? Which score are you refering to, and which report are you using ? -- Georg Hurtig (talk) 21:12, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Don't try to pretend you don't know what I am talking about. Put the table back according to the version of 8 Dec, 2009. I didn't say that Canada's score depends on the presence of non-OECD countries. This is an article of PISA, but not PISA for OECD. If you want to create it, you can simply open another new article known as PISA for OECD. 69.156.51.43 (talk) 21:20, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Your aggressive approach is not helping the situation, IP69. Assuming good faith is a fundamental principle around here. Your case may have some merit for all I know, but at present it is impossible to tell because of the uncollaborative approach you are using.

It appears that Georg agrees below that non-OECD content should be included, though it may be that you disagree about how this data should be included (table or text). As far as the current table is concerned, can you answer Georg's question about which score and report you are referring to and using, IP69? --Slp1 (talk) 21:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I broke my promise but I just tried to answer your question. Would you please refer to the table on 8th Dec 2009? these are the tables I am referring to and talking about. Anyway! if Georg Hurtig would like to include non-OECD nations on the table which is relatively similar to the version of 8 Dec 2009, I am not going to revert it on or after 16th Jan. 69.156.51.43 (talk) 22:09, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Sources for Large Table

As soon as the page becomes editable, the following references for the OECD league table should be included: OECD (2001) p. 53; OECD (2004a) p. 92; OECD (2007) p. 56.

Addition to "Official websites and reports": OECD (2001): Knowledge and Skills for Life. First Results from the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA) 2000.

-- Georg Hurtig (talk) 20:38, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

You had removed the tables 2003/6 with overall standings including non-OECD members. In additional to this, we are not talking about only one aspect "knowledge and skills for life" and the first result from OECD programme for international student assessment - 2000. On 16th Jan, you had better put back the tables you removed. I will not come back here anymore and revert if you do this. 69.156.51.43 (talk) 20:48, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as "overall standing" in PISA. Results are always reported seperately for the different subject areas.

"Knowledge and Skills for Life" is not an aspect of the test - it's the title of the main report on results from the 2000 testing.

Yes, I did not include non-OECD members in the new results table. Inclusion of the 50-odd countries that participated in at least one of the PISA rounds would bloat the table enormously; and it does not seem there is anybody waiting to hack all these data in. The status quo ante, with just a few top-scoring non-OECD members included, was completely arbitrary.

However, it would certainly be a good idea to add some text about results in non-OECD coutries, including some numeric scores of top and bottom ranking countries. -- Georg Hurtig (talk) 21:08, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Didn't you say that it would be fair to include all participating nations? then why would we need to care about "would bloat the table enormously..."?? what a huge contradiction you made! and sometimes, you say to include few countries would be quite arbitrary? what are you talking about? to include OECD nations but not non-OECD nations is not arbitrary? you are just repeating yourself, but nothing else. However, I didn't see that you added some text about results in non-OECD countries, not to mention tables. 69.156.51.43 (talk) 21:26, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

How to report results for non-OECD countries

To summarize my stance in the above conflict: I agree that the present article does not adequately cover PISA results in non-OECD countries. However I think it is neither a good idea (i) to revert to the old version, nor (ii) to include non-OECD countries in the present table.

Ad (i): The old tables contained a very incomplete, very arbitrary subset of test results.

Ad (ii): The present table, with 30 countries, is close to the maximum length of what fits one screen window. Extending the table to about 80 countries would make of it a raw data assembly of little encyclopedic value. Once we agree that some selection must be made, I would argue that selecting OECD members is the least arbitrary solution.

Instead of these two bad solutions, I propose the following one: (iii): Immediately below the present table, summarize results from non-OECD countries in a compact way. For instance in the following way: concentrate on the first PISA round, summarize outcome textually, giving exact scores for top and bottom ranking countries, giving score ranges (like 500...520) for groups of countries. For subsequent PISA rounds, summarize results for those non-OECD countries that participated for the first time, or that achieved scores largely different from the first participation.

Whatever other solution you may propose, please keep in mind that in a few months results from PISA 2009 will be published. We therefore should choose a format that is easily extensible. -- Georg Hurtig (talk) 22:03, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-OECD nations should be included accordingly

Non-OECD nations should be included according to the report. I don't agree with what he proposed that immiediately below the present table, summarise result from non-OECD countries in a compact way (actually his own favourite way). If you don't agree to add those non-OECD nations back to the table, I am going to revert to the version on or after 16th Jan 2010. 69.156.51.43 (talk) 22:18, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

If this is your last word, then I suggest that administrative action be taken right now to prevent you from that. -- Georg Hurtig (talk) 22:22, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Seems you're trying to unmask your real face. 69.156.51.43 (talk) 22:40, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Very unhelpful, both of you. Realize that we work by consensus here, and you are both going to have to compromise. I suggest that you both step away from your computers and come back another day, with other suggestions about how to get over this impasse.--Slp1 (talk) 22:46, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

The present version contains lots of other improvements over the December 8th version, besides unifying, condensing, and extending the country mean score table(s). Therefore, whatever you think about the coverage of non-OECD countries, bulk revert is definitely not an acceptable course of action. -- Georg Hurtig (talk) 22:44, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

what you think about the coverage of only OECD countries and deliberately hide the fact of performance of non-OECD nations on the table is not acceptable. Why do you want to hide the fact and figure of non-OECD nations? it is not difficult for you to overcome and include the figures of non-OECD nations on the table. The excuse you were given that it is not possible to include all participating countries including non-OECD on the table is entirely beyond my comprehension. You can simply include both, i.e. tables for OECD countries and OECD with NON-OECD countries as well -(up to 50 countries). I strongly believe that it is very easy for you to do that even a kid can do what I requested over here. If you don't agree with this, it seems to me you are just playing political games, but definitely not in a good faith editing anything in Wikipedia. 69.156.51.43 (talk) 23:10, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi. I followed the advice of Slp1 to stay away from the computer for a long night's sleep. Coming back to our discussion, I think by now I understand what is all about: IP, you saw my edits as suppressing information about test results in certain non-OECD countries, and for some reason you felt personally hurt. I am sorry for that.

Two new suggestions:

(iv) Include all participating countries in the long table. PRO: no more discussions. CON: table will no longer fit one screen page.

(v) Include all OECD countries plus the top three and the bottom three non-OECD countries. PRO: gives a good overview of the overall outcome of PISA, while still fitting one screen page. CON: Still somewhat arbitrary; some day a person from 4th-ranking non-OECD country will accuse us of hiding something.

Furthermore, I suggest to restrict the country entries to | flag | country name | score |, eliminating the rank number, reflecting the way data are presented in the OECD reports.

Finally, OECD membership status should somehow be indicated in the table. My suggestion: print country names of non-OECD members in italic.

And one question:

If we agree upon one of these two solutions, would you, IP, be ready to look up the data in the PISA reports (free downloads from OECD web site), and type them in ? In this way, you can also ascertain that no data are faked.

In case we agree on my older proposal (iii), I would be willing to do the work.

-- Georg Hurtig (talk) 13:40, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no such requirement that table must be staying within one screen page. What are you talking about? You can print country names of non-OECD members in italic, I don't object it. However, you didn't do that.

I guess you are the one who is personally hurt from that original data and that is why you changed everything and deliberately covered the figures of non-OECD nations, otherwise you wouldn't suggest your so-called third proposal in order to hide the figure of non-OECD nations; restrict the country entries or eliminate the rank number, etc. 69.156.51.43 (talk) 18:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Both of you, please avoid making personal remarks and guessing about what the other is feeling or thinking. As you have seen, it really doesn't move the debate forward at all.

I've looked at the information briefly and I have a few brief policy- and guideline-based comments to make which I hope will further your discussion a bit.

• WP is not a collection of lists and indiscriminate information. We aim to summarize information. We certainly don't need or want to include the whole list of 80 countries- instead the article can link OECD reports that have the complete league tables. Instead of discussing what should be in the lists, can you back up and discuss what the encyclopedic purpose of any lists would/should be? What information in them is important?
• No original research is a core policy here. It looks to me that there is some original research going on in the League Table section at least (if not others). Perhaps I have misunderstood, but the first paragraph under the table seems to imply that the table isn't been produced in this form by OECD (ignoring for the moment the removal of the non-OECD data). Is this true? The second paragraph (Results from the 3 domains...) appears to be some clear original research; it is making an unsourced argument. Are there reliable sources making these exact claims/arguments? There need to be per WP:V and WP:NOR (see especially WP:SYNT) --Slp1 (talk) 20:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ad 1: In many participating countries, PISA has been widely discussed, and it is regularly cited as rational for changes in educational politics. Therefore, the per-country outcome is of encyclopedic relevance. While WP is not an indiscriminate collection of lists, it rightfully contains quite many lists. Perhaps this points towards a solution: within the article a list of limited length, according to some rational critera (e.g. my proposal iv); plus a link to a separate lemma containing the full list. -- Georg Hurtig (talk) 20:33, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Ad 2: The table is a merger of subsets of cross tables from the original PISA reports. Exact references have been given above. This is certainly not original research, but straightforward summarizing of publicly available information. The second paragraph summarizes arguments from the Rindermann and Weiss papers, as indicated by the reference. -- Georg Hurtig (talk) 20:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Anyway! I don't want to debate with anyone. What I am concerning is that the data of non-OECD nations suddenly disappeared from the table since around 08 Dec 2009. It is very strange!!! His reason that he had given didn't make me feel quite satisfactory. I would like to see more comprehensive data other than the data covering only OECD nations in this article. So please, either put those non-OECD nations ( or at least you can put certain, but not all) back to the table or separately list them on another table so that I can compare the data with each other. You don't need to put them all on the list. I have to stop over here. Thank you! 69.156.51.43 (talk) 21:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, I encourage you to debate, because you may well have uncovered a very disturbing issue. I note that one of the sources used in the second paragraph that I questioned above is written by Volkmar Weiss, who in our WP article is denounced for racist theories, and published in the Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies in far right journal. The problems with this article are getting more and more disturbing. --Slp1 (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

This certainly needs to be discussed. Since it has nothing to do with the IP69's objections, I copy your remark to a new section. -- Georg Hurtig (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

If you seriously want to compare numeric data from PISA, then you should use the authorative OECD reports. Everything else you find in the web, including WP, is second hand, less reliable, less complete.

If you would want to see certain data here in WP in a specific table, then two requirements must be met: We need to reach consensus how additional information can be included without bloating the table to a point where it looks like indiscriminate data collection instead of encyclopedic summary. And second, someone needs to look up and type in the additional information. -- Georg Hurtig (talk) 21:20, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

well, I don't think it will bloat the table as you said. It is an exaggeration!! There are many many articles I've read like Human Development Index, list of countries in GDP per capita covering almost all countries in the world. In addition to this, I don't believe that this is a very long article that you have to make a relatively small table in order to fit within one screen page. 69.156.51.43 (talk) 21:52, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Why are you always shouting ? Boldface, double exclamation marks ... How shall we agree upon anything if you don't keep your emotions under control ? -- Georg Hurtig (talk) 21:58, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Pls pay attention to the title of this article: Programme for International Student Assessment. This is not the article: Programme for OECD student Assessment. That is why non-OECD nations should be included. I don't think I am wrong! 69.156.51.43 (talk) 22:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Please re-read carefully what I have written above. I always agreed that results from non-OECD countries should be reported in the article. I made several proposals how to do it. I am still waiting for you to declare which of my proposals are acceptable for you, or to make constructive counter-proposals. -- Georg Hurtig (talk) 22:11, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I've already read your proposal. Anyway! I don't accept that non-OECD nations should be excluded from the table and typed in a compact way separately or the like. I told you last time, you can simply put both tables together. Tables for OECD together with non-OECD nations and OECD nations. Again, it doesn't matter indeed you have to include all nations on both tables in case you personally believe that it would bloat the table and block others who would like to type any additional information. 69.156.51.43 (talk) 22:24, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't have to do anything. If you want to have data from 50-odd non-OECD members in the table, then either hack the data in, or wait until someone happens to do it. -- Georg Hurtig (talk) 22:30, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I am not talking about "50-odd" non-OECD members in the table! Why do you refuse to put the table for OECD together with non-OECD nations? anything you want to hide? 69.156.51.43 (talk) 22:37, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

What a nonsense. How could I hide anything ? We are talking about publicly available information. I just happen not to be your typing slave. -- Georg Hurtig (talk)

You are not talking about "50-odd" non-OECD members in the table ? Does that mean you basically accept my proposal (v), restricting the table to OECD plus a few non-OECD countries ? -- Georg Hurtig (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

However, if you refuse to do it, I would simply put it back the tables (i.e. OECD together with non-OECD nations) over here after 16th Jan. I don't need to revert the current version to the old version. 69.156.51.43 (talk) 22:41, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

There is no such thing as a table of "OECD together with non-OECD nations". There are just two tables with completely arbitrary subsets of 2003 and 2006 results. Reverting to them would be the worst of all imaginable solutions. -- Georg Hurtig (talk) 22:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Well, to put 50-odd non-OECD nations is also not justified in this article: Programme for International Student Assessment. Anyway, I will put those tables back on or after 16th Jan. 69.156.51.43 (talk) 22:53, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I doubt that the page will be unprotected if you maintain that menace of edit warring. We are supposed to search for a consensus. I have moved a lot in the above discussion. Don't you think it's time that you behave in a less rigid way too ? -- Georg Hurtig (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 22:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC).

Georg is right that if you act on these promises to reinsert the old tables without properly discussing the various options Georg has suggested then you will end up being blocked for disruptive editing. Please stop let's see you guys can come to some agreement. Am I right that..

• you both accept that non-OECD nations results need to be included?
• IP69 would like them to be included in the table, and in one scenario Georg agrees that this would be okay?

I'm aiming to get some progress here, so answer very briefly, preferably just yes or no.--Slp1 (talk) 23:08, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I completely agree with you slp1 if non-OECD nations results include in the table together with OECD nations. Very simple! however, I don't think Georg would like to agree that non-OECD nations should be included in the table. 69.156.51.43 (talk) 23:16, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

(1) Yes, results from non-OECD nations need to be either described or reported in tabular form.

(2a) Including the top three and bottom three non-OECD countries in each column would be fine for me.

(2b) Including all non-OECD countries would make the table very long. In this case, further discussion is needed (move the table to a separate lemma ? make the table expandable ? default=non-expanded ?) -- Georg Hurtig (talk) 23:21, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I'm going to take that as a yes from both of you, as the details are coming second. Excellent. Second question for IP69 only. Georg believes that having the whole table would be very long. Do you think the whole table needs to be included? If yes, can you give specific reasons why it is helpful (remember we can always link the full data). If no, which parts should be included? The top? The bottom? How many? --Slp1 (talk) 23:32, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Very simple! you don't need to remove the league table from the current version. What you need to do is to just add the items (Hong Kong 550 and Liechtenstein 536) for 2003 score and (Hong Kong, Taiwan and Estonia, etc) for 2006 science column. To include the whole table is not necessary and I mentioned many times. It would spend only less than 1 minute to finish, I believe. 69.156.51.43 (talk) 23:38, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Let me see if I understand you. You would like only a few non-OECD countries added, at the top of the lists only? --Slp1 (talk) 23:42, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Yes, that's correct! again, to include the whole table or part of the table doesn't matter, it is up to you all people. To wirte down the bottom 3, bottom 5, top 5 or top 10 or 20, I don't care, it is up to you all people. 69.156.51.43 (talk) 23:46, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Good. It seems like we are very close to getting agreement. However, if there is going to be a table including the non-OECD data then it needs to be done consistently and clearly indicated, if only the top 3, 5 or whatever is included. So I have another question for the two of you. Which of the following is preferred

• The whole table OECD and nonOECD together, perhaps with a "shutter" to open and close as Georg suggests above. Entering the data would need to be a joint project.
• Only the top, say 20 countries, OECD and nonOECD together, with a link to the where readers can find the full data
• The current table, with the non-OECD countries in the top 5-10 added. But some clear indication would need to be made that we were being selective in our inclusion of non-OECD data. How would we do this clearly? --Slp1 (talk) 00:15, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

All your suggestion from above sounds good to me. Now you can discuss this issue with Georg. 69.156.51.43 (talk) 02:51, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Putting just the top n makes no sense - except demonstrating how reception of PISA is misled by the analogy with a sports event. The bottom ranks are no less interesting than the top ranks.

A rationale inclusion criterion could read: OECD plus top n non-OECD plus bottom n non-OECD. I suggest n=3, but I could live as well with n=4 or 5. --- Georg Hurtig (talk) 07:24, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Okay! that's fine! the choice of n=5 is good for me. That's it! 69.156.51.43 (talk) 19:56, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I'd also think n=5 is a good number. Now, how do you guys suggest clearly indicating that we are being selective in inclusion of non-OECD data?--Slp1 (talk) 20:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

sorry! but I don't quite understand what you're exactly asking about, but from my speculation I guess you are asking about how we are technically going to do, is that right? From my personal opinion, I don't think we do need to remove the current league table (it looks basically fine); just simply add up to 5 non-OECD nations on the table (top and/or bottom). Is it what you are asking? 69.156.51.43 (talk) 21:18, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

My question is how you are going to indicate clearly that you are only including some non-OECD country data. Obviously in the title of the table, but how else? The table structure needs to be extremely transparent because otherwise the table could easily (and correctly) be accused of being misleading. --Slp1 (talk) 21:55, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

I don't know but you may ask Georg for how. But I think we may simply add a very brief "note" under the table stating that certain non-OECD nations has been added on the league table. (I guess it would avoid misleading, what do you think?) 69.156.51.43 (talk) 22:06, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Proposal: Replace the two paragraphs above the table

All PISA results are broken down by countries. Public attention concentrates on just one outcome: achievement mean values by countries. These data are regularly published in form of "league tables".

The following table gives the mean achievements of OECD member countries in the principal testing domain of each period:

by

All PISA results are broken down by countries, and typically presented in form of "league tables". This is particularly true for the most elementary statistics, the mean test scores, which is also the result that attracts most public attention. The following table shows a representative subset of these mean country score data. For each testing period, results in the principal testing domain are selected (in 2000 reading, in 2003 math, etc.). Besides all OECD countries, for each testing period the top five and bottom five non-OECD countries (indicated by italics) are included.

-- Georg Hurtig (talk) 08:46, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Hi IP and Slp1 !? Why so silent ? Does no comment mean: full agreement ?

Then we should come to the last question: who will implement the changes ? From my side, two suggestions:

• IP does it.
• IP apologizes for accusing me of lying and faking, and asks kindly that I do it.

-- Georg Hurtig (talk) 10:21, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry for the delay in responding. It appears that IP is satisfied with the content aspect, and I am content with the presentation aspect. As far as who does it concerned, well yes, it would be nice if IP69 would do the work and withdraw those claims he appears to agree now are false. Let's give it a couple of days and see what happens. If the worst comes to the worst, I guess I'll do it.

I'm going to unprotect the page now. Georg, I will also comment on the last section on this page. Perhaps you could work on that aspect of things. --Slp1 (talk) 22:29, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Sorry but I am very busy at the moment. I will come back here around at the end of Jan 2010 and check if any amendment has been made. If Georg are not going to do anything, then I would assume Georg let me do it instead and I would add those missing non-OECD (up to 5) nations accordingly on the table by myself. Anyway! it is much better for Georg doing this. Thanks! 69.156.51.43 (talk) 22:43, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I think Georg is hoping and expecting that you will add the non-OECD data yourself. If you can't do it till the end of January, that's fine. --Slp1 (talk) 22:53, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thank you, Slp1, for moderating this discussion. Your calm yet determined approach was very helpful. For the moment, I did just the most necessary changes: adding sources to the table, and rewriting the paragraph on overall scores. -- Georg Hurtig (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Your recent Third Opinion request has been removed from the list of active disputes:

Reason: 3O opinions are not appropriate in disputes in which other forms of dispute resolution are under way; this dispute is being mediated by Slp1. If the dispute continues, you might want to consider moving on to an RfC or some other form of dispute resolution. —TRANSPORTERMAN (TALK) 22:29, 11 January 2010 (UTC)

Paragraph about "Can PISA results be interpreted as intelligence ?"

Copied from above:

Well, I encourage you to debate, because you may well have uncovered a very disturbing issue. I note that one of the sources used in the second paragraph that I questioned above is written by Volkmar Weiss, who in our WP article is denounced for racist theories, and published in the Journal of Social, Political, and Economic Studies in far right journal. The problems with this article are getting more and more disturbing. --Slp1 (talk) 21:25, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

And for reference, this concerns the following paragraph:

Results from the three domains are closely correlated. Performing a factor analysis or a principal components analysis, one could easily construct an overall achievement scale and deduce a domain-independent country ranking. Such analysis, however, is not undertaken in the official reports, most likely because in order to avoid that PISA be interpreted as an intelligence test, which according to some claims[4] it actually is. Unavoidably, a general factor is also constructed when PISA data are used as input to a meta-index like the United Nation's Education Index.

With footnote [4]:

H. Rindermann: The g-factor of international cognitive ability comparisons: the homogeneity of results in PISA, TIMSS, PIRLS and IQ-tests across nations. European Journal of Personality, 21, 667-706 (2007) [2]. V. Weiss: National IQ means transformed from PISA Scores. The Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies, 34, 71-94 (2009) [3].

-- Georg Hurtig (talk) 21:57, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

I suggest the following changes:

• Move the entire paragraph to the "criticism" section because it summarizes a view that is at variance from the OECD's official interpretation.
• Rephrase "most likely because in order to avoid" in a way that does not sound like wild speculation; find official statements rejecting the interpretation of PISA as an intelligence test.
• Remove the Weiss citation. Rindermann seems to have clear priority. Therefore, we do not even need to debate whether it is admissible to cite Weiss.

-- Georg Hurtig (talk) 22:27, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Despite the title here, the issue is not whether PISA results can be interpreted as intelligence, but whether the paragraph is original research, of npov, and whether it is verifiable from reliable sources. It is certainly phrased like original research/opinion "one could easily construct", "most likely not undertaken because..". "unavoidably...", and there is a distinct lack of citations, though two are provided for part of one sentence. I haven't checked the whole paragraph, but the last sentence definitely is not verifiable since neither Rindermann nor Weiss mention the UN's Education Index. In any case, I doubt that the The Journal of Social, Political and Economic Studies will be accepted as a reliable source, though I have asked the question here WP:RSN. Finally, we need to be very cautious about point of view concerns when dealing with two researchers who have been critiqued for their stance on race/intelligence issues.--Slp1 (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Your second set of comments sound like you are on the right track, Georg. I think the pruning and editing may need to go further, however.--Slp1 (talk) 22:48, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

After looking up information about the Education Index, I fear that the last sentence is not only not verifiable, but plain wrong. It must certainly be deleted. -- Georg Hurtig (talk) 23:05, 10 January 2010 (UTC)

Georg, can you take care of cleaning up the paragraphs mentioned in the way you described above, and also taking into account my other comments and those of other editors here.[4]? I think it is very important to be sure that we are really summarizing Rindermann's (or other cited author's) ideas, and not some random editor's musings, with misquoting and misrepresentation of Rindermann, which is what it sounds like it may be at present. --Slp1 (talk) 22:37, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

I rewrote the second paragraph following the table, omitting all criticism. The remarks on intelligence were moved to the criticism section, but temporarily commented out, since some reading is required to avoid what looks like theory finding. -- Georg Hurtig (talk) 16:56, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Non-OECD nations

I promised that I would come back here at the end of Jan. I re-added the tables covering the non-OECD nations without removing the league table made by Georg Hurtig. I personally think that his table is generally okay and that is why I don't want to add on his table. It is much better for me to add another tables below for comprehensive view. If you do have any opinion, please write down your comment over here so that I can re-edit. Thanks! 65.95.0.190 (talk) 18:30, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

Welcome back, IP65. I appreciate that you are proposing your edits in nice tone. Yet, I would like to ask you to stick to the compromise reached above: add a well-defined selection of non-OECD countries to the main table instead of inserting differently constructed tables for the 2003 and 2006 test. Thanks in advance -- Georg Hurtig (talk) 23:21, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

I agree. It's good to see that you are discussing this here, IP65, but you and Georg reached a different compromise above. It is important to stick to your side of the bargain. --Slp1 (talk) 02:44, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't know how to correctly add a non-OECD nations to the main table without making mistake. Is that possible to retain those tables for the 2003 and 2006 tests? because the league table (only OECD nations were shown) merely shows the year of 2000 (Reading only without other categories), the year of 2003 (Maths only without Science and Reading) and the year of 2006 (Science only without Maths and Reading). I wish you could help me to edit and make an improvement on that table in case you want to integrate into one table. I don't know how to do that. thanks! (I will come back after 15th Feb 2010, I am quite busy at this moment; sorry about that) 65.95.0.190 (talk) 03:27, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

No, 65. We've been through this before. If you need help then I (and I am sure Georg) will be happy to give it to you when you have some time after the 15th. In the meantime I have removed the tables and restored the sections you deleted. A deal's a deal, 65. Leave a note here when you have some time and we can take it from there. --Slp1 (talk) 12:42, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

message between Ip 65 and slp1

I left my message to you over there, i.e. PISA on the discussion page. Thanks! 69.156.51.43 (talk) 20:32, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Again, I don't think Georg Hurtig will explain anything over there on the discussion page. You are I both were cheated on by him. His tables were basically fake. 69.156.51.43 (talk) 20:36, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

Please don't make attacks like that on other editors. If there is anything improper about the tables (and I agree that tables can be problematic if they are inappropriately sourced etc), then identify the problem, calmly point out the issue, and seek help from others if required. --Slp1 (talk) 20:47, 9 January 2010 (UTC)

I promised that I'd come back here to edit the article PISA. I think that the league table covering OECD nations is generally okay and that is why I simply re-added the table coverning non-OECD nations without removing the league table that Georg Hurtig had made. Do you have any opinion for my edit? thanks! 65.95.0.190 (talk) 18:34, 1 February 2010 (UTC)

okay! so would you please help me to add up to 5 non-OECD nations on that table? I don't know how to insert on that table without mistake. I am waiting! 65.95.0.190 (talk) 17:58, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Good. I've made a sandbox here User:Slp1/draft5 with the table where you can edit and make mistakes without having to worry about it. Here is a sample edit, where I added a fake entry for Mexico [5]. You can see that I copy and pasted some lines of text, and changed a country name to Mexico. You would need to change the score too of course. Remember to add the five top and bottom non OECD countries for each column. Have a go and see how you get on. --Slp1 (talk) 22:40, 2 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your sandbox but I don't have any information for five bottom non OECD countries on my hands. So what should I do? 65.95.0.190 (talk) 00:59, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Check the sources listed in the article in this section [6]. These are the page numbers to check OECD (2001) p. 53; OECD (2004a) p. 92; OECD (2007) p. 56. based on what Georg added.--Slp1 (talk) 01:16, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the above information you gave me but such information didn't help me much. Anyway! I've already added some non-OECD nations on that table. Please see User:Slp1/draft5. If you have no objection, would you allow this table replace the one in the current version of PISA? 65.95.0.190 (talk) 01:43, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I'm glad you have figured out how to make the table, but I'm sorry that the references I gave you weren't helpful. Can you explain why? I see that some of the links don't work, which may be it. Perhaps you could ask Georg for updated links to the documents with the data. In the meantime, no, I think the table needs to stay in the sandbox. The current version is not what you agreed with Georg. Once it is, there should be no problem. --Slp1 (talk) 02:09, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

I don't have a hard copy for the year of 2000 (i.e. OECD 2001). But anyway! I've changed my mind now. I prefer the current version of PISA. Me too! I personally don't like the table showing the data of Hong Kong or Taiwan. I do like Canada appearing almost at the top of the table. So I am not going to change anyway. Thanks for your help and assistance. 65.95.0.190 (talk) 02:31, 3 February 2010 (UTC)

Disqualification?

Could some kind soul explain why a country is disqualified please?Twobells (talk) 21:34, 24 February 2010 (UTC) It's okay I found out why myself: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/education/4075903.stm Twobells (talk) 14:32, 26 February 2010 (UTC)

WIKIPEDIa

DA LI MOGU RIBICE DA PRDE —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.87.136.54 (talk) 20:28, 2 May 2010 (UTC)

2009 results

http://pisa2009.acer.edu.au/multidim.php --Wongba (talk) 15:35, 7 December 2010 (UTC) NEEDS update. Front page New York Times on Shanghai blowing everything out of the water. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 76.69.63.178 (talk) 00:48, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Current results

Tables

Current (2009) results tables should not have their alignment set either way in the code; instead, the template could be adjusted enough for users to specify within template braces in the main article as to whether they want the table to be positioned to the left or right. -Mardus (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Non-OECD countries

OECD countries should be in bold face, non-OECD country names in normal text. -Mardus (talk) 16:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)

Shanghai

Very strange that a city is listed and not the entire country. I wonder if every country could cherry pick their show-piece education system and then re-do the rankings. --108.132.92.8 (talk) 17:04, 20 August 2011 (UTC)

Not to get too soapboxing but that's pretty much exactly what happened under the self-justification that it would be too difficult to test all of china. The criticism of Shanghai as an outlier is in the article. --CartoonDiablo (talk) 06:28, 21 August 2011 (UTC)

This is what I find most bothersome about the overhaul by Acadēmica Orientālis. There should be some mention of Shanghai's outlier status in the article. Cephalopod (talk) 01:52, 16 December 2012 (UTC)

Endless tables

Do we really need an endless tower of unsourced tables in this article? I can see having the current results, or possibly a separate list of historical results, we including them here just makes the article unreadble. I've tagged it as a laundry list for now. aprock (talk) 18:11, 14 September 2011 (UTC)

I'm collapsing them now for easier read. Mikael Häggström (talk) 12:53, 15 April 2016 (UTC)

Finnish

The bit about good Finnish results being as a result of the Finish language is sourced by a link to a blog, which seems expressly set up to provide a reference (it has only one post). Utterly fails reliable sourcing criteria. Not to mention some of the other claims made on the blog, such as the claim that Finland's lack of them immig'uns helps its score.

@60.242.48.18 (regarding immigrants) The author of the blog explicitly says that he does not endorse this explanation.

@Student7: I understand and support the WikiProject_Skepticism policy. I fail to see, however, how that policy applies in this case:

The blog says that Swedish-speaking Finns have on average a better socioeconomic position than the Finnish-speaking Finns, and it backs up this claim with a reference to a research paper published by a professor at the Helsinki School of Economics - see reference [9] of the blog. The blog says that Finnish-speaking Finns perform clearly better than Swedish-speaking Finns, and it backs up this claim with a reference to a report published by the University of Jyväskylä - see reference [12] of the blog. The blog cites and gives references to two academic publications, both published in scientifically respected journals, and to a PhD thesis. According to these publications, Finnish has features that help reading and vocabulary acquisition - see references [18], [19] and [20] of the blog. So aren't the explanations proposed in the blog worth being made visible?

Also note that I tried to be cautious with my wording: "The Finnish language may be one reason for the good results of Finland."

I found the blog highly informative and useful, and it seems I am not alone: when googling for "Finland PISA", I get "About 5,340,000 results" - out of those, the blog is ranked #1.

According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS, self-published media, including blogs, are "largely not acceptable". Could this blog be an exception?

I am about to restore the reference. If you still think this to be against the rules, I would appreciate if you could explain why. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Jwaneditor (talk • contribs) 17:19, 2 December 2013 (UTC)

French is taught the same way that the blog describes -- first letters, then syllables. And Italian and Spanish are also phonetically transparent (I'll bet they are also taught the same way, with syllables). If the "ease" of spelling the language were a factor then, the Latin American countries would top the lists. Therefore, this theory is largely bunk. However, I did know a man with severe dislexia who finally learned to read English at age 11 when he had to take Spanish in Jr. High School and English suddenly "clicked" (He is now a voracious reader). There may be a tiny bit of truth somewhere in it as far as the speed or slowness of initial acquisition of literacy. . On the other hand, I have also heard it said that the initial difficulty of memorizing Chinese characters, for example, exercises the brain, and thus leads to better educational outcomes, at least as far as facility of memorization.

You could also postulate that Finns are highly motivated to learn other languages because virtually no one outside the tiny country of Finland speaks Finnish, and that knowing two or more languages facilitates literacy in one's own language and hence leads to academic success. (That is my particular theory, as it happens). I presume that the initial slowness of the Swedish speaking children in acquiring literacy in Finnish later fades away, since they are still the highest SES group in the country.

Of course math symbols are the same everywhere, but math scores differ by country and SES. Mballen (talk) 00:34, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

The blog proposes a possible explanation, provides references to the facts that motivate the proposed explanation (1. better SES of Swedish-speaking Finns, yet: 2. better results of Finnish-speaking Finns), and provides references to academic papers + a PhD thesis that tell why Finnish helps in reading and vocabulary acquisition.

My point was that I feel such a blog would deserve a mention in Wikipedia.

Specific points of your post:

French is taught the same way that the blog describes => I suppose you are referring to the explanations listed in the Introduction of the blog? The author says that he does not necessarily endorse those explanations.

If the "ease" of spelling the language were a factor then, the Latin American countries would top the lists. => Finland's particularity is that it has two official languages. This makes comparison between the two languages much more meaningful, since country-specific factors can be eliminated.

I presume that the initial slowness of the Swedish speaking children in acquiring literacy in Finnish later fades away => Are you implying that Swedish-speaking Finns are tested in Finnish in PISA? According to the blog, Swedish-speaking Finns are tested in Swedish. If they were tested in Finnish, the whole theory would of course fall apart.

Of course math symbols are the same everywhere, but math scores differ by country and SES. => Don't forget that math questions in PISA are verbal to a large extent. --Jwaneditor (talk) 10:07, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Tend to agree with comment above that section on "poverty" seems to alleviate many of my complaints that the results are unfairly presented (Finns vs US). They are well-stated in that subsection. Not sure that propagates to the other sections, but it is there. Student7 (talk) 23:35, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

Whoops! Responded to wrong entry. The material appears to be cited by a blog which is not WP:RS. Also, the wording say the language (itself?) is responsible? The line, if you can find it in a RS seems strange. It says to me that the language is somehow inherently more efficient than English, which may not be your intent. I don't think anyone has made that claim for any language. I've heard people say that English is vague which actually is supposed to help the creativity process; that German is precise, but thereby stifles creativity. Student7 (talk) 23:42, 6 December 2013 (UTC)

"The material appears to be cited by a blog which is not WP:RS." => The blog gives references to the material it cites. For example:

1. the PhD thesis ([19] in the blog) is available online - I checked the one citation in the blog: it is exact
2. one of the academic publications ([20] in the blog) is available online - I checked the one citation in the blog: it is exact
3. the other academic publication ([18] in the blog) is not available online - I got a copy of the article, and checked the nine citations in the blog: they are exact

I also checked the other citations given by the blog. They are all exact.

Did you take the time to check the citations before removing the reference?

"Also, the wording say the language (itself?) is responsible?" => I wrote "The Finnish language may be one reason for the good results of Finland." Did you notice the words may and one?

"I don't think anyone has made that claim for any language." => You should definitely read the academic papers referenced by the blog ([18], [19], [20]). If two academic papers + a PhD are not enough for a one-line mention in Wikipedia, what is?

You are certainly allowed to disagree with published scientific research, but then the burden of proof is on your side. Jwaneditor (talk) 19:56, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

The problem here is the material invites more questions than it answers. Why does the Finnish language yield better results for its speakers? Maybe there should be a link or something to an article that explains why. BTW, no one has yet cited any information in this discussion to answer the question what makes the Finnish language better than all others?"

While it's "nice" to have a "ready" online reference to material, it should invite immediate criticism. By all means point to the real doctoral thesis, or whatever. Please don't use a blog page. The fact that someone has to "confirm" it, just means that every other editor must do the same. Quoting the dissertation itself doesn't invite that type of criticism. References shouldn't be used that are obviously imperfect for something this controversial. And (apparently) unexplainable.

Also maybe obscure, WP:UNDUE, and maybe (since every doctoral candidate must come up with something new), WP:FRINGE as well. This could also be why no one has ever heard of this before and why Finnish isn't taught in every Western school. Student7 (talk) 21:02, 7 December 2013 (UTC)

My answers:

• "The problem here is the material invites more questions than it answers. Why does the Finnish language yield better results for its speakers? [...] BTW, no one has yet cited any information in this discussion to answer the question what makes the Finnish language better than all others?" => Oh really? Here is what I wrote on 2 December 2013 (see above): "According to these publications, Finnish has features that help reading and vocabulary acquisition - see references [18], [19] and [20] of the blog.". (Btw, why do you say "all the others"? There are many, many languages spoken in countries that don't take part in PISA.)

• While it's "nice" to have a "ready" online reference to material, it should invite immediate criticism. By all means point to the real doctoral thesis, or whatever. Please don't use a blog page. The fact that someone has to "confirm" it, just means that every other editor must do the same. Quoting the dissertation itself doesn't invite that type of criticism. => Are you suggesting that we should bypass the blog? What about something like this:

The Finnish language could explain part of Finland's good PISA results. According to [+ references], Finnish has a very shallow orthography and very simple syllabic structure, which help reading. Also, according to [+ reference], Finnish has a rich derivational morphology, which helps in vocabulary acquisition. This theory is confirmed by the fact that Swedish-speaking Finns do not perform as well as Finnish-speaking Finns [+ reference], although they have a superior socioeconomical status on average [+ reference].

That wouldn't be nearly as informative as the blog, but perhaps it would better conform to the rules of Wikipedia?

• "Also maybe obscure, WP:UNDUE, and maybe (since every doctoral candidate must come up with something new), WP:FRINGE as well." => Here is the citation of the blog from the PhD thesis: "Among thirteen European orthographies Finnish has the most shallow orthography and simplest syllabic structure, whereas the most complex orthography is found in English. This likely explains the high probability that Finnish children will achieve accurate and relatively fluent word reading skill before the end of the first school year." Are you saying this is WP:FRINGE? Joking, I presume? (hint: http://www.oecd.org/edu/ceri/35562310.pdf)

• "This could also be why no one has ever heard of this before and why Finnish isn't taught in every Western school." => WHAT? That takes the biscuit. First, the two cited academic papers were publiched in 2000 and 2003 - that's for the "no one has ever heard". Second, even if Finnish has characteristics that makes it more efficient as a mother tongue than many (not necessarily all) languages for reading and vocabulary acquisition, who on earth would suggest to teach it in Western school? What would be the point? Really, why bring up such an appalling argument? --Jwaneditor (talk) 14:29, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

The suggested material "The Finnish language could explain part of Finland's good PISA results. According to [+ references], Finnish has a very shallow orthography and very simple syllabic structure, which help reading. Also, according to [+ reference], Finnish has a rich derivational morphology, which helps in vocabulary acquisition. This theory is confirmed by the fact that Swedish-speaking Finns do not perform as well as Finnish-speaking Finns [+ reference], although they have a superior socioeconomical status on average [+ reference]." is a bit long, as you probably guessed when you constructed it. Something like it, but a lot shorter is needed.

"One researcher has found that a shallow orthography and simpler syllabic structure helps Finnish-reading students to understand the material better and therefore stand higher in written tests." (I'm not sure about "orthography", but at least my sentence is terse. Better than before? Maybe.

And more than one person is saying this? And Swedish differs a lot from Finnish? Student7 (talk) 20:43, 8 December 2013 (UTC)

• "The suggested material [...] is a bit long, as you probably guessed when you constructed it. Something like it, but a lot shorter is needed."

=> I was under the impression that we must not provide a reference to the blog, and in that case we are facing the task of summarizing the main ideas of the blog. The text I was proposing is 3 sentences long and has 5 references, and I tried to include the main points (scientific research + observations related to results of Swedish-speaking vs Finnish-speaking Finns which seem to confirm the research). I even completely dropped the stuff on Estonia. Is that "a bit long", considering that the blog is many pages long and has 20 references?

• You propose: "One researcher has found that a shallow orthography and simpler syllabic structure helps Finnish-reading students to understand the material better and therefore stand higher in written tests."

=> A few corrections:

• There are several researchers (paper by Seymour+Aro+Erskine, PhD thesis by Lerkkanen) with publications where you can find that a shallow orthography and simple syllabic structure help in the acquisition of reading comprehension skills (wouldn't the contrary be fairly surprising?) And there are several researchers (Bertram+Laine+Virkkala) who published an article showing that a rich derivational morphology, such as the extremely rich derivational morphology of Finnish, helps in vocabulary acquisition.
• a shallow orthography and simpler syllabic structure help (not helps)
• simple syllabic structure (I think a little better than simpler)
• Finnish-speaking (I don't think that the term Finnish-reading is much used)
• The argument related to morphology is missing.

• You also ask: "And Swedish differs a lot from Finnish?"

=> A LOT. These two languages don't even belong to the same groups of languages. Swedish is an Indo-European (germanic) language, Finnish is Finno-Ugric. That's about as different as you can find within Europe.

With these observations in mind, what about something like this:

Researchers have found that a shallow orthography and simple syllabic structure help in the acquisition of reading comprehension skills, and that a rich derivational morphology helps in vocabulary acquisition. At least one person has concluded that these factors must contribute to the higher rank of Finns in the written tests of PISA [reference to blog, + whatever warnings you think are appropriate].

I don't know if this text is Wikipedia-correct, but at least it has the merit of being accurate and pretty neutral. What do you think? Jwaneditor (talk) 16:32, 9 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay. I thought you had a hard copy citation to the doctoral dissertation. If you must put a blog, best to add comment "replace with better source." And drop the "At least.." from beginning of sentence. There's one counted. If you find more, fine.

Not a "person", right? A researcher? Student7 (talk) 21:09, 11 December 2013 (UTC)

Fine. I am going to update to the following, if you don't object:

Researchers have found that a shallow orthography and simple syllabic structure help in the acquisition of reading comprehension skills, and that a rich derivational morphology helps in vocabulary acquisition. One researcher has concluded that these factors must contribute to the high rank of Finns in the written tests of PISA. [reference to blog] Jwaneditor (talk) 13:19, 12 December 2013 (UTC)

Okay.

Tends to beg the question: why don't Spanish and Russian test takers (maybe Russia doesn't use it) have similar results, since their orthography is similarly shallow. Why only the Finns?

Doesn't stop you from using what you have proposed. Student7 (talk) 20:26, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

Why? Because there must be many, many other factors involved, not only language. The interesting thing about Finland is that it's a bilingual country. As I wrote earlier, this makes comparison between the two languages much more meaningful, since country-specific factors can be mostly eliminated. Besides, Spanish and Russian presumably don't have a derivational morphology that is as rich as that of Finnish. Read again the section on morphology in the blog, and you'll understand what I mean. Better yet, take the time to get and read, as I did, the article about derivational morphology referred in the blog (The role of derivational morphology in vocabulary acquisition...) - truly enlightning. --Jwaneditor (talk) 21:04, 16 December 2013 (UTC)\

One Ph.D. candidate has proposed this -- does this person now have a job in academia, I wonder? Lots of people propose things and try to prove them in their dissertations, and then later in research papers made during their university careers, if they have them. But you would want to see some corroboration, or at least published discussion of this theory or even acknowlegment of it by other academics before this could be presented as anything other than an outlier (fringe) theory. In fact, I don't think a Ph.D. dissertation qualifies as a reliable source. An unpublished Ph.D. dissertation is still an unpublished work, even if someone posts it on a a blog. Besides, factors that might help in initial acquisition of reading and vocabulary would not necessarily any but a transient advantage, since reading involves a great deal more than mere decoding. 173.52.252.166 (talk) 02:34, 27 January 2014 (UTC)

About the new version of the paragraph on Finnish:

• Several Finnish commentators have also speculated that [...]

=> Not only Finnish commentators. See references [18] and [20] in the blog: the first authors of these articles are non-Finns (Raymond Bertram and Philip Seymour, respectively).

=> At least in the case of articles [18] and [20], the authors did not speculate, they measured.

• They think vocabulary acquisition could be further assisted by the rich derivational morphology of the language.

=> You are referring here to reference [18] in the blog. The authors of the article do not *think* that vocabulary acquisition could be further assisted by the rich derivational morphology of the language, they *showed* that this is the case, and they propose possible explanations.

• A Finnish scholar has even written a Ph.D. dissertation connecting these factors to Finland's outstanding performance on PISA.[<reference to the blog>]

=> What makes you think that the blog is a summary of a Ph.D. dissertation? I can see no trace of this from the blog.

All in all, I find the previous version of this paragraph more accurate and less speculative than the current one, so I will revert it.Jwaneditor (talk) 13:15, 2 February 2014 (UTC)

Mel Riddile blog post material

From this source: [7]. First, it is a blog post by a non-researcher. Second, it uses an extremely questionable comparison by comparing US schools with a certain percentage of students who get a free or reduced price lunch with nations with a similar percentage of the population under the national poverty line. No sources are given so it is unclear if it is relative poverty, absolute poverty, and if different nations use different criteria to define poverty. As such I propose this material should be removed. The article and statements here by Tirozzi [8] (wrongly attributed to Riddile) are better sourced and should be kept and correctly attributed. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 04:16, 31 March 2012 (UTC)

Note that the article by Tirozzi does not make such a strange comparison between free or reduced price lunch and national poverty lines. Neither does it mention Finland. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 07:01, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I have read the blog posts and then searched for data on poverty for the countries listed at Wikipedia, the World Bank and OECD. The absolute data is always below 2% for OECD members (excluding mexico i think), otherwise they`re all based on national definitions or, in the case of OECD, comparisons to the median income of the country - in both cases, you can`t compare different countries since the definition of poverty is not the same. And they don`t match with the blog post. Now, if you take the united states less poor areas according to median income IN THE US and compare with the total of another country, of course the us will be shown in a better light. But this is biased, because the same is true if you do it to any other country. In essence, the blog post is a biased, ill informed attempt by an association of teachers to say the problem is poverty and not the quality of teaching. That may be true to some extent, but the data doesn`t prove it. So i`ll remove the misleading, unsourced table, but keep the text as it is an existing criticism.

If you want, you can check the oecd data here (and/or check wikipedia): http://stats.oecd.org/Index.aspx?DatasetCode=POVERTY# — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco.natalino (talk • contribs) 14:35, 20 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all, the source and table was cleared per the RS noticeboard. That aside, using the OECD data you provided, they are all based on 40% of US median income (ie they use the same standard) and do actually correlate with the chart. The point with the US is that while obviously taking sections with less poverty yields better results, the US is an outlier when it comes to poverty which ends up skewing the score. But more importantly, whether or not you think it's misleading and whether the cause is something else is irrelevant, two WP:RS's used the data regarding the article making it noteworthy and reliable. CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:58, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

Ok Cartoon, I understand why you undid the edit. Let me try to explain myself better then. The OECD data provided correlates because it is actually the same data basis; in the case of the blog posts, they used 50% of median income for children, based on a UNICEF report (you can check it, there`s a link). The point is, if you use median income in the country to calculate a poverty threshold, you have to accept its limitations. It is a direct measure of inequality, so that the poverty line is relative to the national wealth. It is useful for domestic evaluation and comparison, but not for cross-country comparison.

You can`t directly compare it to the poverty threshold of other countries where the median income is different because the poverty threshold will have a different value. When you do, what you are actually comparing is income inequality, not poverty. I hope this is simple enough, but I can explain it better if needed. The US is an outlier when it comes to inequality, but also an outlier when it comes to income - both figures are higher than OECD average. Ergo, the poverty threshold in the united states is higher than in other countries, and a part of the children considered poor by the domestic median income measure in the US would not be considered poor if the threshold was based on OECD average. If the data used the same threshold for every country, that would be fine. But as it is, it is just a bad use of socioeconomic data by someone who doesn`t understand how to interpret this kind of indicators and has an interest in proving the problem is poverty and not teaching quality (that is stated very clearly by the author). I`m actually sympathetic to this argument, but the data provided simply doesn`t prove it. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco.natalino (talk • contribs) 11:05, 21 May 2012 (UTC)

I was under the impression it was based on median income of the OECD average, not the country's specific income because in that case it's not based on the same standards, obviously if it was based on different incomes than it would be more problematic.

My sense is if it's based on relative median incomes than it should be said as a relative measure but still feature the chart. CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:05, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

It is incorrect that "the source and table was cleared per the RS noticeboard.". You took it up there but no one agreed or disagreed (except me) with what was stated. I agree with Marco.natalino that the table should be removed. Academica Orientalis (talk) 06:12, 22 May 2012 (UTC)

I did not participate in the discussion let alone "take it up," it was you that took it up there. The point is the sources were cleared with the people there as they are with me.

Anyways I'll re-post it mentioning that it's actually a relative measure. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:03, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Yes, you are right I posted there and you did not respond. But there was no agreement that you were right either. Academica Orientalis (talk) 19:41, 23 May 2012 (UTC)

Well my point isn't anyone agreeing or disagreeing, my point is independent editors clearing it. CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:26, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

If there were no agreement that you were right, there were no "independent editors clearing it". Academica Orientalis (talk) 05:39, 24 May 2012 (UTC)

Cartoon, I believe the table is still misleading. It`s not a matter of relative or absolute poverty; you can use either absolute or relative poverty measures as long as it is the same measure for all the countries. Otherwise, the data simply doesn't provide evidence for the argument proposed. The fact is, the data provided by the blog post is comparing different measurements as if they were the same. It simply doesn`t clarify anything and mislead the reader into believing in something that simply isn`t true. I wish some of the data and argument could be saved, but it can`t, there`s really no way around it. We would need to write something like "below is a table that provides different poverty measures as if they were the same, and if we choose to disregard that they are different we can clearly see that the argument presented by the author becomes sound and coherent." That would be funny, but not very encyclopedic I fear. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco.natalino (talk • contribs) 11:11, 17 June 2012 (UTC)

No it's not, the data is using the OECD average and the method of comparison is cited. The fact is the data was cleared by the RS notice board. CartoonDiablo (talk) 19:13, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

The data source is unclear and data was not "cleared". Academica Orientalis (talk) 19:50, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Futhermore, 3 editors here disagree with you regarding the reliability of the material: I, Marco.natalino, and Subartica. Academica Orientalis (talk) 19:56, 20 June 2012 (UTC)\

Look, here is the noticeboard again, if you don't like it take it up with arbitration. I will re-add it again, if you remove the material again you will be violating Wikipedia policy and will face possible sanctions. This is your last warning. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:16, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Your link does not work. Here is a working one: [9]. There was no agreement regarding the data which was not "cleared". The consensus here on the talk page is against you. Academica Orientalis (talk) 20:21, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

I see it's been a while since I saw that discussion. Nevertheless, it was ruled that this would be OK and there are other sources such as this. What I'll probably end up doing is creating a new chart that reflects this. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:54, 20 June 2012 (UTC)

Now you are doing original research by inserting your own comparison numbers that are not mentioned by the blog post or in the Washington Post article. Wikipedia is not the place to publish original research. Also, comparing getting a free or reduced lunch in school cannot be compared to national poverty rates which have many different definitions. Furthermore, this table is not really necessary in order to show that the scores vary by poverty. Just showing that the scores vary by reduced price lunch in the US also demonstrates this without getting into OR comparisons with other definitions of poverty. Academica Orientalis (talk) 02:03, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

The claim that it is not OR is incorrect. Please see WP:SYN. Combining data in favor of an argument is SYN and OR. Academica Orientalis (talk) 03:44, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

In order to resolve this I propose we simply remove the country data and instead just show that the scores in the US varies by reduced price lunch. Such a table is in the sources so it is not OR and gets across the point that scores vary due to poverty. Thoughts? Academica Orientalis (talk) 03:47, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

They were meant as place holders but I found Riddile's original poverty numbers (here). I'll probably fix that soon as well.

With regard to misuse of comparisons, that argument doesn't really work because (1) both the UNICEF and OECD numbers are based on absolute poverty (ie a single standard for all the countries) and (2) Riddile as well as others used them meaning it has backing from as a RS. As such I think it's necessary to include them. CartoonDiablo (talk) 04:10, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

That you personally think you have found what source Riddile used is not good enough. That is also OR. Again, combining reliable data to make an argument is not allowed OR. Furthermore, how many get a reduced price lunch is not the same thing as OECD measures of poverty. These measure cannot be directly compared. That is what all 3 editors here have said to you before. Please respect the Wikipedia consensus.Academica Orientalis (talk) 04:50, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Furthermore, you are incorrect regarding the UNICEF number being absolute. I quote the Guardian "In this UNICEF research child poverty is calculated by looking at the percentage of children living in homes with equivalent incomes below 50% of the nation median.". Academica Orientalis (talk) 04:54, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

It's true the UNICEF data uses relative poverty but to say it's OR or that anything currently is warranted by consensus isn't even close. The data is identical to what other authors (who have been cleared by the RS noticeboard) used and the consensus changed from what it was a while ago to us arguing about the data sets now (meaning there currently is no consensus for anything). And no, by Wikipedia policy you can't revert based on non-consensus or violate rules based on it.

As it stands, me and 3 noteworthy sources think the chart useful and I don't understand why you're so hostile towards it especially since there is virtually no case against it. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:21, 24 June 2012 (UTC)

Cartoon, now that you understand the unicef data uses relative poverty (that`s an advance), I urge you to understand that the "same standard" on that case means "judging poverty in each country according to that country own wealth, i.e., local standards". That`s the issue, and that`s why the comparison is flawed. Your whole argument is based on the assumption that the poverty data for each country is based on an OECD average. If that was true, I wouldn`t have raised an objection. Since it`s not, the whole argument crumbles down and has no place in an encyclopedia.

What can I say? I know how to read poverty, social and economic data and have worked with this kind of stuff quite a lot, building tables and doing statistics tests from various sources of microdata. I want to correct something that is clearly wrong, I check the relevant sources, I point out the reason, and the best answer is "no, it is based on an average of all countries, I know that for sure". Are you so sure about that, cartoon? Have you really read and understood the databases and reports I referred to? Because I am afraid you don`t really know if you`re right or wrong, and you`re hanging into this argument for no good reason. That`s ok, we all do it sometimes. But it would be better if you pointed out where on the unicef report, for example, you found evidence for your claim. Otherwise, it`s just repetition.

So, what do we do? Ask someone to arbiter or something? — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco.natalino (talk • contribs) 18:28, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I understand that it's relative but that doesn't make it inherently unreliable, especially since that comparison is used by a noteworthy and RS. Statistically if there is a lack of absolute poverty figures people use the next best thing which is relative. If you feel so strongly about it the best thing to do is to find reliable criticism of comparing PISA scores to poverty etc. CartoonDiablo (talk) 22:30, 25 June 2012 (UTC)

I have no criticism on comparing pisa scores to poverty, you`re missing the point. Again, your whole argument is based on the assumption that the poverty data for each country is based on an OECD average. Could you provide the basis for your claim? Again, if that was true, I wouldn`t have raised an objection - it would be a correct comparison. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco.natalino (talk • contribs) 04:03, 29 June 2012 (UTC)

Ok, I tried put the data in better context. I hope this is satisfactory. I can`t say I`m happy with it as it would be better to just remove the table, but comedy does have its merit. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Marco.natalino (talk • contribs) 10:14, 14 July 2012 (UTC)

Data charts

The data charts of are problematic since 1) they are templates and the text does not flow around them which creates empty gaps 2) they can be vandalized 3) they are incomplete by only showing the top scoring nations 4) the results are easily available online. Thus I propose removing them and instead give a link to the data for those interested and instead have more maps. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 15:13, 5 April 2012 (UTC)

To Acadēmica Orientālis

There has been a massive effort by User Acadēmica Orientālis to change the article, some of which is discussed, some of which isn't.

Discussed changes

• With regards to Mel Riddile figures, they are in fact done by Mel Riddile but are based on figures by Gerald N. Tirozzi, to say it was done by Tirozzi is misleading.
• The poverty figures are based on Tirozzi's figures
• Data charts flowing within the article are definitely worth discussing

Undiscussed changes

• Removing poverty data for Finland
• Removing higher education data of and testing criticism of Shanghai
• Inserting Original Research regarding racial data for the United States despite a lack of scholarship on the subject
• Creating two "causes of differences" sections with a separate one and one that's combined with the criticism section, which defeats the point of there being a "criticism" section

Now I know we're supposed to assume good faith but when poverty data is removed and original research on race is introduced it doesn't look good.

As of now the edits were so extensive that I'm reverting it back to a state prior to the Acadēmica edits and inserting new information within the old framework of the article. CartoonDiablo (talk) 01:13, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

You reverting everything and restoring many unsourced and incorrect statements, as well as deleting sourced ones, because you disagree with a few of them. Please state exactly what information you are disagreeing with and the reasons for this here. I have given explanations for all edits in my edit comments. Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 05:44, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

I will respond to you claims point by point.

• Regarding Mel's Riddile's material see the section "Mel Riddile blog post material" above.
• Regarding data charts see the section "Data charts" above. Furthermore, you have deleted all the new maps for no given reason (as well as numerous other sourced material).
• There is no source for the claims regarding low poverty and Finland except Mel Riddile's blog post. See above. The other claimed source does not mention Finland. This was explained in the edit commentaries.
• Regarding Shanghai, see the edit commentaries here: [10], [11]
• Regarding the racial/ethnic data the source is the NCES: [12]
• I moved some material to two sections, one about systematic research on cross-country differences, and one about material only discussing a specific country. Not sure what you mean about "criticisms", sourced such can obviously be discussed in these sections. Your old version is confusing, like having material specifically only about Shanghai and Finland in two different places.

Because of these disagreements you reverted all other carefully explained changes, restored numerous unsourced and factually incorrect statements, as well as deleting many painstakingly sourced improvements, as well as the new maps. I propose restoring the carefully worked out version while we can discuss the disagreements you have stated here on talk.Acadēmica Orientālis (talk) 06:20, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Regarding poverty in Finland, Mel Riddile's data was wrong. The real number, according to official source http://www.stat.fi/til/tjt/2010/02/tjt_2010_02_2012-01-25_tau_002_fi.html (which was also linked in the poverty data table by me) is 13.3% which is not particularly low. The US state poverty table was IMHO very biased due to differing definitions of poverty. The testing criticism of Shanghai should be definitely in, because in the last Academica Orientalis' version the section seemed pretty non-neutral.

I do think that AO did a great amount of good work, so the suggestion to take his newest version as the baseline of corrections suggested by CD seems good to me.

Subarctica (talk) 12:57, 12 April 2012 (UTC)

Well Regarding both Acadēmica and Subarctica I'll address some of the things here:

• Mel Riddile is basing it off Tirozzi, but that aside he is a reliable source for education seeing as how he works for the NASSP.
• The poverty data for Finland is relative (ie set by the Finish government and is different then what would constitute poverty in other countries) Mel Riddile is ostensibly using absolute poverty data.
• The new maps should be replaced I agree and data charts I believe can be left intact although I'll address it in the other section when I get the time.
• The edits didn't warrant any kind of actual reason, it was complementary to Riddile's and Zhang's claims that Shanghai was an outlier and is shown by the low rates of higher education in the rest of China.
• Yes the data is sourced but using it in that manner constitutes original research since no author has independently brought up racial differences in PISA scores. If you can find an
• There is no reason at all for two sections, for one, "cross-border" and "individual" country differences amount to just country differences, and undermine the entire point of there being a "criticism" section since it's not criticism of the PISA test but differences in testing.
• Much of what was left was in fact sourced.

What we ought to do is bring back the maps for now and discuss the rest of the changes. CartoonDiablo (talk) 05:36, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Mell Riddile is a non-scholar who wrote a blog post at "nasspblogs.org/". As such it is not a reliable source. Tirozzi did not make any comparisons between national poverty lines and student who get a free lunch which is a very strange comparison.
• What poverty data Riddile uses, including for Finland, is unknown since he does not cite sources for this in his blog post.
• Zhang is a scholar so I agree we should include his view.
• Here are some who have discussed the US data: [13][14]
• Again, the current version if confusing with individual nations discussed in several different sections for no apparent reason. There is a difference between arguments and research that only discuss one particular nation (and not other nations) and arguments and research that applies to many different nations. As such it is appropriate to have two sections. If you want to in addition have a separate "criticism of PISA", then I am OK with that, but there is not much such material once the unsourced and incorrectly sourced material is removed.
• There is no reason for doing a blank reversion when you disagree with a few changes. Reasons were given for all changes.
• Please discuss point for point exactly what you disagree with regarding all the other changes which were explained in the edit summaries.
• My proposal would be bring back the earlier version, add a "criticism of PISA" section and add correctly sourced material to that section if there are any, and add Zhang's view to the China section. Academica Orientalis (talk) 08:16, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

• Mel Riddile is the Associate Director of NASSP see here which is undoubtedly a reliable source.
• The source is cited right in the article and it's Tirozzi
• Very little of the Post editorial, which is a reliable source, talks about differences in US ethnicity, if anything it says they are rather similar but I suppose you can post some of it.
• It's not confusing, there is a section on the cause of differences and a section criticizing PISA based on objections from different countries, which is what Wikipedia guidelines are based on. You're outline doesn't make sense, it's both a section of differences and a section of differences by country (the same exact thing) along with criticism.
• It's not just a blank reversion, it's re-structuring an entire group of sections that don't make sense. I'm actually very much for adding in the old maps along with the old test scores.
• Lastly, I think a lot of it is just NPOV posturing and should be settled higher if not here. CartoonDiablo (talk) 07:27, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

• Associate director of "National Association of Secondary School Principals" does not mean he is a researcher. He wrote a blog post without sources for most claims. Not a reliable source.
• Tirozzi does not make a strange comparison between unclear and not sourced national poverty lines data and getting a free lunch. See the source: [15] What Tirozzi does use is a different comparison originally made by the National Center of Education Statistics: [16] (Page 15). The NCES does not make a comparison between getting a free lunch and unclear national poverty lines.
• There is a difference between explanations for test score results applied to many nations at the same time and explanations for test score results that have been applied only to one nation. If there are sourced criticisms of PISA itself as a test, then that could be another section.
• You objected to a few changes and reverted without explanation numerous other changes. If you want to change the structure, then please just change the structure without restoring much incorrect or unsourced material as well as deleting sourced material. Academica Orientalis (talk) 11:55, 23 April 2012 (UTC)

Look I'm sorry but if you're going to blatantly exclude a reliable source and use a non-wiki structure that doesn't make sense then this will go up higher into arbitration. I'll revert the changes and include the maps for the older scores and it will go off from there, if it's reverted back this will go to arbitration, that is a final warning. CartoonDiablo (talk) 20:20, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

I have taken up the source at the appropriate noticeboard: [17]. Please state your reasons there regarding the source. Let us keep the current section structure and all the incomplete data tables for now. Do you have any concrete objections to all the other edits I made with careful explanations and which you mass reverted such as I having removing unsourced and incorrect material and I having added sourced material? If so, then please state exactly what you object to here. Otherwise, I will restore these changes while keeping your article structure, the incomplete data tables, and the Mel Riddile blogpost material. Academica Orientalis (talk) 23:12, 25 April 2012 (UTC)

Improvements to the article

• CartoonDiablo has removed some material regarding China he states does not belong in that section. I presume there is no objection to reinstating it in the "Topical studies" section?
• The first paragraph in the "Performance of U.S. states in international comparisons" is not a criticism of PISA. So I propose moving it to the "Topical studies" section.
• The "Portugal" section in the criticisms section should be removed. Looking at the source there is no criticism of PISA and the material seems largely to be invented. I propose removing it.
• In the criticisms section there is a statement "According to Chinese state-media, Xinhua News Agency's report, there are 18.9 million students enrolled in four-year higher education institutions (non-vocational, etc.) in 2007, making the figure roughly only 2% of the total Chinese population." Not sure what this has to do with PISA. PISA tests a representative sample of all 15 years old students in an area. Not four-year higher education students. So I propose removing it. Academica Orientalis (talk) 21:31, 3 May 2012 (UTC)

• I don't have a problem with moving those to topical studies section but they keep getting put back into criticism.
• Portugal section is sourced and the source is about the PISA test.
• It's done to add on to the criticism that Shanghai is an outlier since there is little movement from secondary to higher education in all of China, which, in my opinion at least, seems obvious.

I just want to say if Webvip feels the need to include it in the criticism section it will warrant an arbitration, this is just blatant. :CartoonDiablo (talk) 21:02, 5 May 2012 (UTC)

The Portugal material does not criticize PISA. Look it up in Google translate or something similar if you do not believe me. The Xinhua material does not mention PISA. How many move to 4-year higher education, that is university education, is irrelevant for the results for 15 years old students who are the equivalent of high school. Academica Orientalis (talk) 05:37, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

China criticism

I'll use this section as a final attempt at mediating prior to arbitration for user Webvip. The Financial Times et al. "criticism of criticism" does not belong in the criticism section per Wikipedia guidelines and as such can be placed in a number of sections including "topical studies" or "country differences." If it is not moved it will warrant arbitration.

The edit also amounts to a WP:POV exclusion of criticism for removing Mel Riddle's criticism of Shanghai as an outlier of China. Say what you will about whether or not including college students is appropriate as a measure of his criticism, but removing it outright is a blatant violation of guidelines. CartoonDiablo (talk) 00:16, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

I agree with parts of Webip's iedits. Riddile is not a reliable source. Furthermore, he does not say that Shangahai is an outlier. The Xinhua material does not mention PISA. Also, if you think material should be in another section, you should move it, not delete it. Academica Orientalis (talk) 05:33, 7 May 2012 (UTC)

First of all yes he is and yes he does, we've gone over this. I'll move it but if it's added back into criticism It will warrant arbitration which honestly I don't want to get into given it's tedious nature but it will also lead to enforcement of the article. CartoonDiablo (talk) 18:34, 8 May 2012 (UTC)

Finland: unknown blog writers ok?

Hi, I doubt this type of statement is encyclopedic:

"The Finnish language may be one reason for the good results of Finland.(2013 version) Why does Finnish give better PISA results?"

First of all, the statement doesn't explain who says and the source (blog) has no recognisable writer, so we can do no judgment on how reliable the source is (although the refs in the end of the blog seem legit). Opinions? -- Puisque (talk) 09:03, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

EDIT: the sentence doesn't clarify much by saying for example "according to an unknown blog writer referencing several sources [deemed reliable]". -- Puisque (talk) 09:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

I think the blog shouldn't be used at all as a source, instead the sources of the blog should be used as a whole to back up the possibility that Finnish language might have an influence on PISA results. -- Puisque (talk) 09:06, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

Hi, Puisque. Thanks for pointing this piece of nonsense out. I've only just added this article to my watchlist recently after battling an entire 'interest group' (all of whom turned out to be a WP:SOCK) on a number of pages. I've already removed an entire, incomprehensible section on Poland as it also pointed to extremely dubious, POV sources.

While this article isn't high on my priority list, it is my intention to do some serious cite checks and tidy it up when I can find a moment.

You're welcome to start cleaning it up even if you don't feel that your English is up to par as I'm happy to copyedit any changes you'd like to make. Cheers! --Iryna Harpy (talk) 22:12, 2 February 2014 (UTC)