Talk:Mathematically Correct

untitled

Not a complete sentence:

The website contains many articles and reviews which claim that new context-based and constructivist math programs, many of which were funded by the National Science Foundation. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 128.151.129.187 (talk • contribs)

Now fixed in article. Gandalf61 09:03, 28 November 2006 (UTC)

There needs to be better info on the group itself, particularly its makeup. There's also been a lot of criticism of them, but there's nothing mentioned here. --C S (Talk) 05:47, 19 May 2007 (UTC)

magazine title

Is anyone else bothered by this title? A quick look through college-level math sites and wikipedia suggests that 'mathematically correct' is a meaningless, or possibly redundant, term. I might suggest that this page be a disambig page with a link to "mathematically correct(website)" and an explanation stating something like " 'correct' is not a term used in mathematics. Equality, Validity, and Provability are used instead. See also Mathematical logic and Logical value.

If I had studied more high level math, I would make the change. Dialectric (talk) 23:33, 29 November 2007 (UTC)

Actually, it's fine to use words like "correct" or "incorrect" when talking about math. For example, mathematicians will say "this proof is incorrect," by which they mean that there's a mistake and therefore it's not a real proof. Even though they're talking about mathematics, they still talk about it in English. Of course, a "computer" doing math would say "this collection of statements is not a proof of statement X" instead of "this proof of statement X is incorrect," but people doing math don't actually talk like computers. So the word "correct" here is fine. YZEMA (talk) 20:48, 19 April 2009 (UTC)

Serious POV problems

The article as posted prior to my revisions last week and as restored by Jd2718 is extremely biased and written from the perspective of someone who shares the agenda of the Mathematically Correct group. Looking over the past edits, this is not surprising, as most of them have been done by easily identifiable contributors with a history of following Mathematically Correct agenda. As such, the article is not encyclopedic in the slightest by is a pure propaganda.

I don't know who Jd2718 is and I don't really care. If he wants to eliminate bias, restoring an earlier biased version is not an appropriate solution. I made my best attempt to present a value-neutral description. Of course, I have my own perspective on the subject--given that the topic is rather controversial, it is not too surprising. However, every change I made is factual, not speculative. Compared to the original, my version contains less polemic nonsense and gives a more accurate description of the group's activities. The information is easily verifiable.

Let me suggest another thing. Consider, for a moment, Jd2718's self-description concerning Wiki:

Is not really an encyclopedia. It is a cruft pit for grown up boys, and a propaganda pit for politics and history. Neutral Point of View? Pure fiction. Where it works (eg math) it doesn't matter. I work in my union. I know there are at least two sides, and they are opposed. I have no interest in neutrality, real or pretended.

JD, if you don't know what you are talking about, refrain from editing. If you don't like what I wrote, fix the language, don't resort to a knee-jerk reaction of restoring completely fictitious, self-serving text. If you don't think you are up to the job (and judging from your own comments on neutrality, you are not), find someone else who can do a plausible job. You don't have to be objective, but you can at least try. Lone.cowboy (talk) 04:16, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

The use of highly emotive language injected a one-sided tone into the article:

• "activist group"
• "created by a cohort"
• "small number of mathematics professors"
• "supposedly "NCTM-approved""
• "the real concern of the group"
• "Although... claimed to have a national scope"
• "political machinations"
• "rested on its laurels"
• "continued their proselytizing work"
• "hiring themselves out as "experts""
• "roundly ridiculed"
• "The ire of Mathematically Correct"
• "Mathematically Correct complaints"
• "the perceived slight"
• "encouraged their allies... to disrupt school board meetings"
• "go on the attack when any of them are threatened with devastating criticism"

This sort of partisan tone is not compatible with a Wikipedia article. Jd2718 (talk) 11:24, 9 April 2008 (UTC)

"Highly emotive language"? Huh? Have you read the "original" that you restored? "One of the most frequently cited websites in the Math wars"--this without any evidence whatsoever! In the real world, this is known as "a self-serving statement" or, perhaps, "self-aggrandizement". But let's move down the list, shall we? "Activist group" is hardly a "partisan" description--if the function of the group is "activist" then most groups would be proud to call themselves activist. In fact, most groups do just that. "Created by a cohort"--perhaps I've been reading about education too much, but "cohort" is not a biased term--it represents a group identified by similar characteristics. "Small number of mathematics professors"--would you consider the exact number (3) to be more accurate? "The real concern of the group"--It appears that your main concern is with real. Would you settle for "main"? "Supposedly "NCTM-approved""--there is a very simple reason for this comment. The claim that the program have been "approved" by NCTM is completely inaccurate (I would prefer to say "a bold faced lie", but let's be civil, shall we?). NCTM does not approve or disapprove of any programs. The publishers themselves place a comment in their product that suggests that the materials meet the NCTM standards. Contrary to this language, Mathematically Correct clearly identifies materials as "NCTM approved". Who is being biased here? "Claimed to have a national scope"--did you read the previous version? That's exactly what it says. "Political machinations"--I'll grant you this one. Would you calm down if I replace it with "aided by a Hover Institution's political scientists Williamson Evers, the group was able to shape its message..." etc.? "Rested on its laurels"--the original sentence read, "Convinced that the choices were adequate, the website went largely dormant." You actually believe that "rested on its laurels" is partisan?? "Continued their proselytizing work"--uhm... that is an accurate description. In fact, it is a common self-description. "Hiring themselves out as "experts""--I suppose, this is impolitic. I can rephrase (and, no, I will not write, "whoring themselves"). "Roundly ridiculed"--this is not a description of the group, it is a description of the reaction of people opposed to the group. It is now biased to describe opposition? "The ire of Mathematically Correct"--can be rephrased. "Mathematically Correct complaints"--this is partisan??? "The perceived slight"--not sure how to treat this one. On its own, it's not a problem. Perhaps taken with other comments one can perceive "partisan tone". This can also be altered easily. "Encouraged their allies"--this is commonly known as "fact". Perhaps you heard of them. There is nothing biased about facts, except omitting them. "Go on the attack..."--read the MC post on Hy Bass. It's very educational--they are criticizing a mathematician for suggesting that a non-mathematician ally of MC does not know her math. This is something that is quite plainly placed on the website. In other words, it is, once again, a fact.

Now, lets return to the version you restored.

• a website created by educators, parents and mathematicians / scientists

Apparently, it's a good mix. Why is this identified as a "website" created by these people rather than a "group" of these people? Website, apparently, is nameless and faceless, so it must be objective. This is an attempt to deceive.

• concerned about the direction of reform mathematics curricula

apparently those who disagree with the "website" are not "concerned"--this is a clear bias

• one of the most frequently cited websites in the Math wars

As I mentioned earlier, this is a completely self-serving statement. It is a partisan attempt to influence dialog by claiming popularity. But there is no evidence to support this claim. It is completely fictitious.

• Although Mathematically Correct had a national scope, much of its focus

Although they tried to poke their noses into everyone else's business, the group was founded in California, by Californians and for the purpose of revising California standards. The "although" here clearly indicates that the description does not apply. Again, this is another attempt by the author(s) to inflate the group's credentials.

• Convinced that the choices were adequate, ...

"Convinced" is an interesting choice of words. The group lined up political allies to institute a takeover of the state education bureaucracy. They tolerated no dissent, so "adequate choices" is very POV-neutral, right?

• the website went largely dormant

As I mentioned earlier, this is the distinction between a group of individuals and the website they run. If a company (say IBM, for argument's sake) failed to change its website for a number of years, this would not imply that the company was no longer in business, would it? In fact, the networks are littered with such websites. Unlike the orphaned sites, the owners simply find no need to update them. Still, the companies are quite active.

• Many of the problems claimed by Mathematically Correct

Are you suggesting that there is a "tone" difference between this statement and "Mathematically correct complaints"?

• a large section of negative articles and reviews

Again, the "author(s)" claim that the site maintains the collection. In fact, the collection has been largely manufactured by the very group that put the site together. This is not an objective statement.

• constructivist math programs

This is not value-neutral terminology. It is intentionally inflammatory rhetoric. In simple terms, this is the education equivalent of "vast right-wing conspiracy" claimed by Hillary Clinton in 1998.

• students claim that they entered college entirely unprepared for college level courses

This is not only anecdotal, it is an interpretation. Are you suggesting that this is a "value-neutral" interpretation?

• Other programs given poor ratings

There is no indication of the origin of "rating", let alone of how it was deemed to be "poor". So this is yet another pretentious, self-aggrandizing statement.

• Curricula with poor reviews from Mathematically Correct

This is not an exhaustive list. Furthermore, it is not even consistent. Two of the programs have been out of circulation for a decade. Another two have been reissued in new editions. The last entry, NCTM Standards, is not a curriculum. This is factually incorrect and biased. It's like describing government agencies, "the EPA, the CDC, the NIH and the Republican National Committee". The combination is absurd.

• Curricula not judged deficient by Mathematically Correct

An unbiased observer will laugh at the ridiculousness of this statement

• high-scoring nation of Singapore

If this is an encyclopedia entry, to what does "high-scoring" refer? When written by a partisan, the meaning is obvious, but if one wants a value-neutral description, one has to give a meaning to this phrase

• Adds problems solving and multiple skills instead of rejecting instruction of basic skills

An obviously biased, partisan description. Again, the "adds" part has to be appended to something, but there is no indication to what it is being "added".

• Inexpensive simple textbook

These are value judgments

• popular with homeschoolers

Another "fact" that's pulled out of thin air. Remember--in Wikipedia, no original research, no fictitious claims.

• State assessments aligned with standards judged deficient by Mathematically Correct

Another laughably biased description

• External links

Interesting that there is only one entry. I added a link to another site that practices in essentially the same area as Mathematically Correct. JD chose to remove it along with other changes.

• Standards based mathematics controversy

The choice of language here automatically indicates the bias of the author(s). This is only a "controversy" to those whose agenda is opposition to "standards based mathematics". It is one thing to just enter the first three words, it is quite another to append "controversy" to them. If you wonder over to the "Standards based mathematics" entry, you will discover that it is penned by some of the same people as the Mathematically Correct entry. This just screams "bias".

JD, you really should do your homework. If you are unwilling to reconcile the two versions, you should find someone who is willing to do the editorial work. Simply abandoning an obviously biased description because--in your own judgment--the revision is also biased is idiotic. I have no idea if you have an agenda in this or not. I don't really care. But what you are doing can only be described as censorship or editorial malpractice.I am saying this for the simple reason that no matter what I write in an attempt to make the article POV-neutral, you will quibble about phrasing and restore to the original biased version. That makes your editing malicious. I performed my rewrite in good faith. If some comments were over the top, I am willing to tone them down. Are you willing to admit that the original entry needs serious POV revision?

There are many entries in Wiki made by people with an axe to grind. Just because an entry is posted and is not being challenged for POV does not mean that it is unbiased or non-partisan. And when authors can be easily identified with the group about which they are writing (in fact, two of them have been banned for repeatedly posting biased revisions), it should be obvious that the entry requires either a POV flag or serious revisions. I tried the revision approach. Now it's your turn to post the flag. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Lone.cowboy (talk • contribs) 18:10, 12 April 2008 (UTC)

Try to revise rather than rewrite. And deal directly with problems you see. You'll find that you'll get response by posting suggestions. As for my last edit, I would not single out any particular piece that I changed or removed; rather I reverted the POV rewrite en masse. I did so, though, without any thought of defending the existing version; I have participated little in editing it, and feel no commitment to any particular formulation or phrase. Jd2718 (talk) 05:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The article says that MC is one of the most frequently cited sources in the math wars. While the tense should be changed, (I'll do that) is there another, more commonly cited source on the back-to-basics side? Perhaps the superlative should be edited out as well "MC was a frequently cited source..." ? Jd2718 (talk) 05:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

The curricula MC focused on had their development funded by the NSF and were actively promoted by the NCTM. If you need an MT cite, we'll find one, though I suspect you have easier access than I do. Jd2718 (talk) 05:12, 13 April 2008 (UTC)

Major factual errors

I've noticed that this article contains major factual errors. The article falsely claimed that the website went down c. 2013, and looking through it, the last update was no later than 2007, not 2003; in particular, one of the current links on the main page is an article preprint published in February 2007. It is, however, scant on references, especially secondary ones. –LaundryPizza03 (dc̄) 03:37, 1 January 2022 (UTC)