User talk:Borisovich

Singapore Math

I'd like to explain several changes I made in "Singapore Math Method" article.

Mostly, I expanded and clarified "Features" and provided some specific examples or references to websites where such examples are discussed. In particular, I designated a proper (i.e. modest) place among other features to the notorious bar-models and removed the comparison of this method with "NCTM strategies" as inadequate. Formally, bar-models fit NCTM strategies as a special case of "draw a picture"; so it is not true to say that the bar-method simplifies all NCTM strategies into one. On the other hand, all the bar-method says is "show quantities by segments." It applies to any arithmetical problem, while NCTM strategies are ambiguous (draw what picture? when?) and cannot be applied in any routine fashion. Thus they should not be compared with the bar-model method.

Also, I removed from the introduction the endorsement of Saxon Math as good alternative to reform curricula - for being highly controversial.

Finally, I added to the "Critics" section a reference to a study report which is at odds with the claim that SM is weak in the statistics strand.

Borisovich (talk) 08:27, 2 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Spiraling"

Dear Seberle, I agree that the alternative meaning of "spiraling" (the one you removed) is a misuse of the term, but so was the point of the text removed by you: that many US curricula which characterize themselves as "spiral" are not. So, I restored the sentence and provided a reference hopefully illustrating this point. Borisovich (talk) 10:28, 21 December 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Nomination of Requiem for MH-17 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Requiem for MH-17 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Requiem for MH-17 until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. WWGB (talk) 11:24, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

Dear WWGB, Thank you for alerting me. As far as I understand, the main motive for proposing deletion is lack of evidence for notability of the poem, right? Perhaps the reason why you cannot confirm its notability (if you've tried) is that you are looking for it in English. Search in Russian ("Реквием по МН-17" in quotes, I include the link for results below) and you'll see that this - only one week old! - poem returns 54,000 hits, with numerous sites copying it, with radio broadcasts, replies in verse written, some sites closed for commenting it in anticipation of hate statements, some blogs claiming (I cannot confirm whether thi is correct) that the author's poetry (not only this but in general) has already been officially banned in Russia, etc. etc. It is an important political story developing alongside the MH-17 crash, and attracting in Russia perhaps as much attention (and tension) as the crash itself. It is invisible in the West because of the language barrier, but I don't think such barrier justifies exclusion from Wikipedia. I'd be happy to address other issues as well, but I'd like to hear first whether what I've said makes sense. Thanks, here is the search link [1] Borisovich (talk) 13:30, 27 July 2014 (UTC)[reply]

BTW, here is a reprint of the poem on an Israeli tv channel page: [2]

Nomination of Requiem for MH-17 for deletion

A discussion is taking place as to whether the article Requiem for MH-17 is suitable for inclusion in Wikipedia according to Wikipedia's policies and guidelines or whether it should be deleted.

The article will be discussed at Wikipedia:Articles for deletion/Requiem for MH-17 (2nd nomination) until a consensus is reached, and anyone is welcome to contribute to the discussion. The nomination will explain the policies and guidelines which are of concern. The discussion focuses on high-quality evidence and our policies and guidelines.

Users may edit the article during the discussion, including to improve the article to address concerns raised in the discussion. However, do not remove the article-for-deletion notice from the top of the article. Stickee (talk) 12:16, 8 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]