Talk:Hong Kong Advanced Level Examination

message: Parts of the article on the Chinese Language and Culture exam have been deleted thrice, one by the unknown user User:203.218.150.92 and two by User:Mcy_jerry, all within seven days.
Of them, only Mcy_jerry left a brief message on User_talk:Carlsmith by stating parts of the section as "meaningless", "gramma[tically]... [un]satisfactory", and confusing.
I am looking forward for the detailed and substantiated reasoning from these two and other users who would edit the article in such way. Please leave your opinions below. If further deletion is made without discussions, I might consider reporting to the administrators for protecting the page from further edits.
Carlsmith 04:49, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Frequent deletion of sections - may involve POV

message: First I would like to apologise for my unintented deletion of your work without appropriate notifications. I don't mean it, to be frank, and don't realise it could be regarded as an act of vandalism in your book. Hope you can accept my apology with my deepest regrets.
Here, I'm writing to give my arguements:
===From 2001 onwards===
In your passage, you have written:
>>From 2001 onwards, the HKEAA has been engaged in rapid changes in the format of the exam. These changes include the replacement of questions on prescribed texts with open-ended questions in the paper of cultural understanding. By doing so, the HKEAA attempts to prevent candidates from rote-memorising the mandated reading materials.
But how could you tell such revamps have been in progess since 2001? No apparent evidence has backed up your points; assuming that your points are valid somehow, from what channels make you realise that those changes carried out by HKEAA is to "prevent candidates from rote-memorising the mandated reading materials?"
My suggestion:
*Quote certain markers' reports to support your view.
*Contact the Chinese Language Department of HKEAA and ask for their ideas. Most importantly, try to clarify whether they have the exact same purpose (i.e. desist sheer memorization) to the so-called "paper revamp" as you have mentioned.
===Saliva-pouring===
>>Such move, however, was criticised by some candidates as a move towards "saliva-pouring" (口水科), by which candidates would answer in a way so as to appease markers.
*Here I like you to show your source for the critics above-mentioned.
>>(For more information on the definition of "saliva-pouring", refer to "Tong shi, tong shi" (http://library.polyu.edu.hk/search/t{215c28}{21593c}/t11{215c28}19{21593c}/1%2C5%2C5%2CB/frameset&FF=t11{215c28}19{21593c}+11{215c28}19{21593c}&1%2C1%2C), the 12 February 2005 episode of News Magazine, produced by Television Broadcasts Limited, Hong Kong)
*This is a detailed yet unsuitable quote of source, which is produced in a non-English language; and it is no written information that provdies s clear explanation as well but a empty library record--this is what I mean for "meaningless"--other users can never know the true meaning of your special term, and CarlSmith was as if trying his/her best to persuade others to fly to Hong Kong and borrow that DVD from an unfamiliar university. Furthermore, his page is included in part of the English verion of Wikipedia. The term has a immense tint of local slangs, and English users from other countries may NOT appreciate the meaning. Please write your definition of "Saliva-pouring" precisely and concisely. Otherwise, the following template messages may be considered to implement:
*Moreover, the quoted source above is only refering to liberal studies, instead of the definition of "saliva-pouring". Stangely enough, yet possibly to a greater extent, some users would think Hong Kong students use their saliva to handle their liberal studies assignment.
*"to appease markers" seems to be biased on the surface. In a sense, you have to "appease" markers in every test in order to score high marks.
===Paper revamp===
>>>In 2005, the format of paper 1B (reading comprehension) was changed from speed reading of various articles to fine reading of only three articles, without prior notice. The move stirred up protests from some candidates, some of whom played on the phrase "stirring, brewing, squeezing (http://mathsking.net/fun/2005clc.htm)" (攪切搾) which came up on one of the articles, Being Middle Age is Afternoon Tea (http://www.ylib.com/author/don/article.htm) (中年是下午茶) by Tung Ch'iao (董橋). The HKEAA reiterated its stance that there has not ever been a "specific" format for the exam, thus, insisted there was nothing wrong with the paper. An article with the title of the pun appeared briefly on Chinese Wikipedia, and swiftly removed by administrators after holding a vote (http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E5%88%A0%E9%99%A4%E6%8A%95%E7%A5%A8%E5%92%8C%E8%AF%B7%E6%B1%82/4%E6%9C%8812%E6%97%A5).
If my memory serves me, there was NOT ONLY ONE paper revamp apart from what you have mentioned. There was a time the HKEAA changed the format of the comprehension test into speed reading from the original 2-piece reading. Again, NO candidates were previouisly alarmed to such "drastic" change. So why only the change in 2005 was recorded in your case? Don't they carry the same significance? Or should the latter one be of greater importance? Test formats are fluctuating from time to time, and that is the fact; seemingly, there are no two identical papers from different examination years. Please show your reason why only such "change" you have mentioned is worth being recorded. If no reasonable justification is provided, I may consider the following template message:
No solid evidence has shown that a number of (in your case, some) candidates are parodying a particular phrase from a comprehension article. Your one and only one external link to an unknown private website could be a fraud with respect to the whole scheme of thing--especially when people read the word "fun" in the external link's URL, offering not the slightest accuracy to the users. To compund matters, the concerned article you have quoted in the passage is not the exact same verion of the test paper. The latter one is designately abridged for accessing purposes.
===Conclusion===
I'm not asking the user CarlSmith to delete the controversial contents on impulse, but I sincerely hope that this user can reconsider the fidelity and reliability of his/her works. After all, what we want to put into the Wikipedia should be unbiased, dependable, and 100% factually correct. On the other hand, arguably, CarlSmith should give out appropriate explanation to his part of writing as well, otherwise that TOO could be a "vandalism" as he/she mentioned.--Mcy jerry 08:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Apology and counter-arguments 

message: I'm not asking the user CarlSmith to delete the controversial contents on impulse, but I sincerely hope that this user can reconsider the fidelity and reliability of his/her works. After all, what we want to put into the Wikipedia should be unbiased, dependable, and 100% factually correct. On the other hand, arguably, CarlSmith should give out appropriate explanation to his part of writing as well, otherwise that TOO could be a "vandalism" as he/she mentioned.--Mcy jerry 08:58, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Conclusion

message: So unfornate to tell you that, Mr Carl Simth, the deletion act of mine should not be considered as vandalism, as the official page has clearly clarified.
NPOV violations The neutral point of view is a difficult policy for many of us to understand, and even Wikipedia veterans occasionally accidentally introduce material which is non-ideal from an NPOV perspective. Indeed, we are all blinded by our beliefs to a greater or lesser extent. While regrettable, this is not vandalism. See also: NPOV dispute. 
Of course I'm meaning to is not to tease you to protect the page for a temporary period; this is your right, after all. But what I wnat to accentuate is reaching a considerate consensus. Write again later.
--Mcy jerry 13:36, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Not vandalism

message: I was siting before the monitor all day long, yearning to see the reply of Mr Carl Smith. Certainly it was the happiest moment when I read a reply from Mr Smith, one of the most endeavour wikipedians that I have ever seen. But when carefully scrutinise every line, every word of the belated response, my heart sank all of a sudden. Feeling terribly dismayed, what I leart from the feedback was that Mr Smith was a laconic but careless person. He simply did not read my arguements with heart, mixed up certain concepts that I have made. Obviously we need a sincere process of give and take so as to perfect the information in dispute. Mr Simth did give his opinions for consideration, and yet "subconsciously" pooh-pooh my point of view.
Here, I once again re-typed my arguements in a MORE clear approach. Hope Mr Simth can really spend a minute or half to scan through this reply, rather than barking up the wrong tree for his next reply.
===Chinese webpage reliable, said I; undependable, said you===
First, I did not say the Chinese webpage you have provided is of little, or rather, no avail, not I doubted the reliabilty of the related article (In fact, I like to watch News Magazine of TVB. A nice programme indeed; the unreliable thing is the website that you later stated). What I'd like to point out, yet unluckily ignored and misunderstood, was the page you were providing was a library item entity page, which apparently gives no clue to most users what "saliva-pouring" is, i.e. a lack of concise definition. 
In your cited example Happy Corner, the illustrate item was a de facto common culture both in Hong Kong and Taiwan, and the original editor has clarfied the meaning of the school prank to avoid ambiguity. Similarly, "Saliva-pouring" was a Hong Kong slang, likewise a buzzword, and certainly not all English users can fully undertand what Mr Smith was saying; on the other hand, instead of give a clear picture of "how the saliva is poured in the test", he was as if trying his best to persuade others to fly to Hong Kong and borrow that DVD from an unfamiliar university which is absolutely impractical. That's why I have out a template as follows:
and
EVEN MORE ABSURD was that the Chinese website, which was actually talking about LIBERAL STUDIES, instead of THE DEFINTION OF SALIVA-POURING. How come a user can under "Saliva-pouring" in that totally irrelavent webpage.
Another thing that I consider as biased was "to appease markers". In a sense, you ALWAYS have to "appease" markers, to "appease" marking schemes, to "appease" the examination authority in every test in order to score high marks. So if the act of appeasing and "Saliva-pouring" imply an equal sign, then why use a buzzword?
===2001? Where's the source?===
In your passage, you have written:
>>From 2001 onwards, the HKEAA has been engaged in rapid changes in the format of the exam. These changes include the replacement of questions on prescribed texts with open-ended questions in the paper of cultural understanding. By doing so, the HKEAA attempts to prevent candidates from rote-memorising the mandated reading materials.
But how could you tell such revamps have been in progess since 2001? No apparent evidence has backed up your points; assuming that your points are valid somehow, from what channels make you realise that those changes carried out by HKEAA is to "prevent candidates from rote-memorising the mandated reading materials"? Or did Fung Lok Tak, the chairman of the Chinese Language Department of HKEAA, mention it before?
In a word, where's your source?
My suggestion:
*Quote certain markers' reports to support your view. 
*Contact the Chinese Language Department of HKEAA and ask for their ideas. Most importantly, try to clarify whether they have the exact same purpose (i.e. desist sheer memorization) to the so-called "paper revamp" as you have mentioned. 
===Paper revamp-biased===
>>>In 2005, the format of paper 1B (reading comprehension) was changed from speed reading of various articles to fine reading of only three articles, without prior notice. The move stirred up protests from some candidates, some of whom played on the phrase "stirring, brewing, squeezing (http://mathsking.net/fun/2005clc.htm)" (攪切搾) which came up on one of the articles, Being Middle Age is Afternoon Tea (http://www.ylib.com/author/don/article.htm) (中年是下午茶) by Tung Ch'iao (董橋). The HKEAA reiterated its stance that there has not ever been a "specific" format for the exam, thus, insisted there was nothing wrong with the paper. An article with the title of the pun appeared briefly on Chinese Wikipedia, and swiftly removed by administrators after holding a vote (http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E5%88%A0%E9%99%A4%E6%8A%95%E7%A5%A8%E5%92%8C%E8%AF%B7%E6%B1%82/4%E6%9C%8812%E6%97%A5).
If my memory serves me, there was NOT ONLY ONE paper revamp apart from what you have mentioned. There was a time the HKEAA changed the format of the comprehension test into speed reading from the original 2-piece reading. Again, NO candidates were previouisly alarmed to such "drastic" change. So why only the change in 2005 was recorded in your case? Don't they carry the same significance? Or should the latter one be of greater importance? Test formats are fluctuating from time to time, and that is the fact; seemingly, there are no two identical papers from different examination years. Please show your reason why only such "change" you have mentioned is worth being recorded. If no reasonable justification is provided, I may consider the following template message:
No solid evidence has shown that a number of (in your case, some) candidates are parodying a particular phrase from a comprehension article. Your one and only one external link to an unknown private website could be a fraud with respect to the whole scheme of thing--especially when people read the word "FUN" in the external link's URL, offering not the slightest accuracy to the users. ITo compund matters, the concerned article you have quoted in the passage is not the exact same verion of the test paper. The latter one is designately abridged for accessing purposes.--Mcy jerry 15:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Better-sweet 

message: >>>In 2005, the format of paper 1B (reading comprehension) was changed from speed reading of various articles to fine reading of only three articles, without prior notice. The move stirred up protests from some candidates, some of whom played on the phrase "stirring, brewing, squeezing (http://mathsking.net/fun/2005clc.htm)" (攪切搾) which came up on one of the articles, Being Middle Age is Afternoon Tea (http://www.ylib.com/author/don/article.htm) (中年是下午茶) by Tung Ch'iao (董橋). The HKEAA reiterated its stance that there has not ever been a "specific" format for the exam, thus, insisted there was nothing wrong with the paper. An article with the title of the pun appeared briefly on Chinese Wikipedia, and swiftly removed by administrators after holding a vote (http://zh.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:%E5%88%A0%E9%99%A4%E6%8A%95%E7%A5%A8%E5%92%8C%E8%AF%B7%E6%B1%82/4%E6%9C%8812%E6%97%A5).
If my memory serves me, there was NOT ONLY ONE paper revamp apart from what you have mentioned. There was a time the HKEAA changed the format of the comprehension test into speed reading from the original 2-piece reading. Again, NO candidates were previouisly alarmed to such "drastic" change. So why only the change in 2005 was recorded in your case? Don't they carry the same significance? Or should the latter one be of greater importance? Test formats are fluctuating from time to time, and that is the fact; seemingly, there are no two identical papers from different examination years. Please show your reason why only such "change" you have mentioned is worth being recorded. If no reasonable justification is provided, I may consider the following template message:
No solid evidence has shown that a number of (in your case, some) candidates are parodying a particular phrase from a comprehension article. Your one and only one external link to an unknown private website could be a fraud with respect to the whole scheme of thing--especially when people read the word "FUN" in the external link's URL, offering not the slightest accuracy to the users. ITo compund matters, the concerned article you have quoted in the passage is not the exact same verion of the test paper. The latter one is designately abridged for accessing purposes.--Mcy jerry 15:09, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Paper revamp-biased

message: It seems like that you do know a lot about the subject. Bravo (Don't be modest). Wouldn't it be wonderful for you find data on previous revamps and detailed contents on the exam for the article, as they still linger in your memory? Afterall, Wikipedia is about collaboration, about giving the full view of a paticular subject.
As you do recall the events in detail, you may as well write about them. Why should you prohibit them from coming out?
You may as well better define the term "Better sweet", given your viewpoint. You should also refrain from the use of all caps of some words, given your vast knowledge of Wikiquette and netiquette, as well as other personal statements to be best avoided at all cost.
--Carlsmith 22:29, 16 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Re: Not vandalism, Better sweet, etc, etc. 

message: So pleased to see that Carl Smith has been so dedicted in further improvement. I must say that the controversy is "legally dead" to me! You may remove the dispute template next time, Carl. Again, please applause to our laborious contributor.
--Jerry Crimson Mann 15:04, 19 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Another big hand to Carl Smith 

message: This part should majorly include how candidates' knowledge of this subject is assessed in the paper, which lacks in the present data field. Moreover, an anon. has only vaguely stated that the format of the paper had been changed since 2004, without any further, yet crucial, elaboration. There is doubt, too, that whether the question about curve sketching was particularly difficult in the paper of 2005; the correspondant results have not been released yet, let alone the markers' report. So much of the viewpoint is much too subjective at the moment, for example:
:In 2005, the exam paper is much worse than 2004...
The statement above is somehow too "personal", and certainly does not fit the requirement of being objective.
Unfortunately, this maths paper is downright beyong my ken. So what I can do is only to delete this sections within days if no improvement of the contents is seen.
Jerry Crimson Mann 15:20, 27 May 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Pure Mathematics 

message: Should we include the syllabuses of the subjects here? Thomas621 10:06, 28 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Syllabuses

message: "The low percentage of grade A students in UE may indicate that Hong Kong lacks students who are truly proficient in English."
I think putting this stuff into "controversy" requires a comparison with, say, GCE French AL in Britain, instead of a proper and internationalized English proficiency test. Perhaps we shall take it back to the UE section?
Dichen (talk) 20:40, 19 June 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: A few points