Talk:Gifted education

message: Duke TIP About Talent Search has a list of the states covered by Center for Talent Development, Center for Talented Youth, Rocky Mountain Talent Search, and Talent Identification Program.  --Christopherlin 07:31, 2 May 2004 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the work on it lately, Autarch.   I have this article on my watchlist because I'm interested in gifted education, as I was in a fairly substandard "Gifted and Talented" program myself as a child, and now have a couple of early-achiever children who may end up in our local program (if it's better than the one I was in) -- but I don't know much about the field as a whole.  I think most previous contributors to this article have been in the same boat.  Tackling these large overview articles is daunting for many, so they just add a link to the one school they know.  I do appreciate seeing more work on it, and I'll be happy to keep an eye on your progression and help out where I can.  — Catherine\talk 01:08, 6 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for your comments, Catherine, they are much appreciated. One thing that occurred to me is to have a separate page for the huge list of wikilinks to programmes - it's such a large list it's becoming unwieldy. That or maybe make it a subsection of its' own. I have to admit that I'm not as positive about gifted education as I used to be - maybe it's just some forms of it that put me off - however, I'll try and make my contributions as balanced as possible.  User:Autarch 14:57, 29th November 2005 (UTC)
I think the reason that no one has edited this page is that it is so obviously a "bash the gifted" page that there is no point in trying to fix it.  Far better to direct people to Hoagies where there are a lot of articles and resources with some content.
63.249.114.7 07:29, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

text: Hoagies? --SV Resolution(Talk) 20:00, 21 August 2008 (UTC)

text: Ohh.  Hoagie's A nice lady at C-Mites told me about it.  Yes, we should link to it. --SV Resolution(Talk) 20:16, 22 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be fabulous.  The US isn't monolithic, either, and some places seem to have handled it according to the UK model.  Some districts, for example, had "Special education -- Low" and "Special education -- High" programs.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  Duke 

message: I agree that this article is done from a very American perspective.  In the UK, gifted education has been handled very differently, and is not treated in the same way from borough to borough.  Also, in the history of gifted education in the UK, it has traditionally been collected into the same category as education for children with below average ability.  There has been a very careful effort for over sixty years to keep terminology for both sets of children neutral - both sets have been called "exceptional", a term which also encompasses those with emotional and personality disturbances. Individual cases should be written up under a special educational needs Statement (SEN) - although the use of Statements for gifted children seems to have fallen out of favour.  There have also been widely variant methods of dealing with exceptional children in the UK, but there have been clearly identifiable periods where separate or integrated education in varying forms have been prevalent.  I have researched this topic quite extensively a few years back, and if I can find the time to read over my notes i may add some extra information to the article from a British perspective.
Redcore4 (talk) 15:20, 14 August 2008 (UTC)
replies: text: This would be fabulous.  The US isn't monolithic, either, and some places seem to have handled it according to the UK model.  Some districts, for example, had "Special education -- Low" and "Special education -- High" programs.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 01:55, 15 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Globalize

message: I also find that the article is very Americanized. One problem for Canada is that the education system seems to be based at the provincial level, so you would end up with slightly different programmes for each province. Can anyone from Canada verify this?
I may have found some useful information from the Ontario Institute for Studies in Education (OISE - pronounced Oy-zee) and will try and put together something more coherent.
Tassit (talk) 15:07, 24 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Gifted in Canada

message: I don't really see the reason to split off the list into a separate article. Besides, per naming conventions, "List of..." is often preferred. Programs vs. programmes I don't know. I've changed the wording to bring it more in line with WP:MOS. --Christopherlin 21:01, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: An earlier contributer made the point to me that it made the article clumsier to read - I suppose it's a matter of aesthetics. I'm fine with the changing of wording - I'm just used to a particular spelling - if the guidelines suggest it, I'm quite happy with it. Autarch 21:46, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know. Categories were designed to reduce the need for manually-updated "list of" articles. I personally think the list should be in the main article, instead of split off. --Christopherlin 22:28, 5 April 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: OK, the list is back in the original article - I put it near the end. Autarch 19:27, 2 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Split by Autarch 

message: The application of TPD to gifted education is one of several (other applications include psychotherapy, personality theory, philosophy of Man, etc.).
It really feels like this could be phrased better; any thoughts?RyanGrant 18:10, 24 July 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Odd Wording 

message: I kinda stumbled upon this article after being on Wikipedia for a while. I had to take a break from education. But it looks like there are some places that would help it improve:
*making all the citations and references consistent- some are APA references, and some are footnoted references
*using multiple resources (right now there seems to be a lot of information by Susan K. Johnsen to the point I had to wonder if she wrote a part of this article).
*providing multiple definitions of giftedness, including Joseph Renzulli's state of gitedness
*expanding the programs section to the point that affective education, enrichment, and pull-out should probably have their own pages, each discussing the benefits and disadvantages of each. 
* a more thorough discussion on the history of gifted education and GT studies, including the Sputnik revolution on education, the US Dept of Ed's adoption of a definition, and the various journals that study gifted ed.
* No, Susan Johnsen did not write that part of the page ... I did. It was just that I had her book at hand when I did it ... but thanks for the snarkey  comment Joelmcintosh (talk) 17:25, 18 April 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Cleaning up the article 

message: Can we split the List of G&T programs off into its own, independent page?  The length of the ToC box is intimidating right now. WhatamIdoing 18:31, 22 October 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  List 

message: Freek, 
When you wikilink a word, it needs to go to a useful page that's related to this one.  A remarkable number of words that you wikilinked didn't land on a useful page.  For example, you linked the word prone in a sentence about the myth that "highly intelligent children were prone to ill physical and mental health".  Unfortunately, the word prone here is about a tendency or likelihood, and the page that you linked to was Prone position, which means lying down on the ground.  
Please also avoid linking years.  I know it's done in many articles, but if the other things happening in the same year (such as a war) are not obviously directly related to the subject at hand, then the date should not be linked.  See WP:OVERLINK#Dates, "Stand-alone years, months and days of the week should generally not be linked."
I've undone everything, for (my) simplicity, but I ask you to be much more restrained in the future.  WhatamIdoing (talk) 05:19, 21 August 2008 (UTC)
thread_title:  August 2008 

message: You may find it helpful while reading or editing articles to look at a bibliography of  Intelligence Citations, posted for the use of all Wikipedians who have occasion to edit articles on human intelligence and related issues. I happen to have circulating access to a huge academic research library at a university with an active research program in these issues (and to another library that is one of the ten largest public library systems in the United States) and have been researching these issues since 1989. You are welcome to use these citations for your own research. You can help other Wikipedians by  suggesting new sources through comments on that page. It will be extremely helpful for articles on human intelligence to edit them according to the  Wikipedia standards for reliable sources for medicine-related articles, as it is important to get these issues as well verified as possible. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk) 14:16, 11 August 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Intelligence Citations Bibliography for Articles Related to Human Intelligence 

message: Some links looks suspicious, possible WP:LINKSPAM:
*A link for professionals suffering from opiate addiction (link dead, linked via Wayback Machine).
*American Dental Association on drug use (link dead, linked via Wayback Machine).
*Article on lawyers and alcoholism (link dead, linked via Wayback Machine).
As all are dead anyway, I'll remove them.Autarch (talk) 18:43, 20 September 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  Links of dubious relevance 

message: This sentence is clearly POV: If education followed the medical maxim of "first, do no harm," then no further justification is required for providing resources for gifted education. Given the discussion in the controversies section (in particular the mention of writings of Mara Sapon-Shevin) the very notion that such programmes do no harm is hotly disputed.
This section in general can do with more citations.Autarch (talk) 18:18, 7 October 2010 (UTC)
replies: text: Although I'm a proponent of G&T Education, I agree. I'll edit to reflect that this is POV. Danjel (talk) 04:29, 12 October 2010 (UTC)
thread_title:  POV in Justification 

message: This subsection is centred about one country - adding more countries for a more global view would be better.Autarch (talk) 20:21, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Summer Enrichment programmes (United States) 

message: Several paragraphs don't have any citations. I'm not sure if the citations in the article address some of these issues and just haven't been referenced often enough, or if there are no sources to support the articles.Autarch (talk) 20:24, 29 October 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  More citations needed 

message: There seem to be a lot of additions of content mentioning the United States organization NAGC to this article, which is all right, but the referencing should be in the same citation style and follow the same rules about external linking as other articles on Wikipedia. I'll check the article in a while and see what needs cleaning up by the Wikipedia manual of style. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 23:43, 30 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some of the latest additions to the article should probably be cited to Web sources rather than linking from article text. 

message: Like most of the  articles here on Wikipedia, this article has been accreting quite a few factual statements over the years that are unreferenced and, in some cases, wrong. Let's discuss in this section any unreferenced statements in this article for which it is worthwhile to find a reference. I recommend the  source list for articles on this topic and related topics (mentioned in an earlier talk page section here) for references we can all use to improve the article. I'll pass through the article to tag some of the statements that I think are most in need of references, and invite your commments about good sources. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 00:05, 31 August 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unreferenced statements in article 

message: Greetings! I added back a few links to gifted assessment pages. They were removed on the grounds that they were not reliable sources. But my understanding is that criteria for external links is not the same as that of sources. The links are relevant to the topic, and some of the only online resources available for this topic, run by an organization that assessed giftedness. I believe they are relevant to the page and therefore should remain. DaltonCastle (talk) 18:37, 26 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: I have mixed feelings about Hoagies. It is self published,  questionable in presentation, and isn't something we could use as a reference, so I'm not sure that we should be directing readers to it. However, it doesn't seem like a major problem. Advanced Psychology Services is more of an issue, as it is there primarily to sell services, so it runs into WP:EL. I don't see much value in linking to it, and there are good reasons for not doing so. At this stage I'm inclined to pull Advanced Psychology Services, but leave open the possibility of Hoagies. - Bilby (talk) 07:18, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Yea, I see your point. But looking further into it, while they do sell services locally, the online assessment is free and relevant to the page. I have been looking around for other sites that offer a similar service, but haven't been able to see any. Especially not among any non-commercial sites. So what's the best approach here? DaltonCastle (talk) 19:15, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Online assessments have not been validated and do not deserve any links, per WP:EL. -- WeijiBaikeBianji (talk, how I edit) 21:56, 27 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  I had a look at both links and tend to agree with DaltonCastle, it is true that both sites have commercial sections, but they have a wealth of resources for parents of gifted children, some of these resources are quite unique and cannot be found elsewhere on the web. Wiki-shield (talk)   — Preceding undated comment added 11:49, 28 February 2015 (UTC)

text: I think we'll just need to fall back on the external links guideline - it is not a recognised online test, is doubtful (I answered "unsure" to every question and it still said there was a 30% chance that my child was gifted), and there are a lot of other online assessments online, with no clear reason to single out this business over the others. I looked at the other resources, but there isn't enough on the psy-ed site to make it worth using as a resource. I'm happy to let Hoagies sit, though. - Bilby (talk) 12:00, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Interesting... I assume "unsure" is weighted at 30% for normalization purposes, this is quite typical in statistical tests. Out of interest, I just profiled my nephew (who is in gifted program) and got 86% giftedness likelihood score. Then I profiled my son and got "Based on your answers, there is lower than 20% chance that your child is gifted". Oh well...  Anyway, if we strictly follow external links guideline then both links are to be removed (as there are commercial sections in both sites). Yet, following this logic will result is removing 50% of existing external links across Wikipedia and most of these are valuable resources that are only available at commercial sites...Wiki-shield (talk)   — Preceding undated comment added 12:35, 28 February 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Links

message: 'Goodey" tried to run-up.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 23.117.16.45 (talk) 21:51, 13 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Attendance 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 2 external links on Gifted education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080105203603/http://www.webster.edu:80/~woolflm/letahollingsworth.html to http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/letahollingsworth.html#adol
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071212183424/http://www.nagc.org:80/index.aspx?id=572 to http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=572
*Added  tag to http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?langno=1&nodeID=4156#defintion
*Added  tag to http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?langno=1&nodeID=4156#prin
*Added  tag to http://www.edb.gov.hk/index.aspx?langno=1&nodeID=4156
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 20:04, 11 January 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Gifted education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.webster.edu/~woolflm/letahollingsworth.html
*Corrected formatting/usage for http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=572
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20050428115413/http://www.cbe.ab.ca/programs/spec_ed/se-gifted.asp to http://www.cbe.ab.ca/programs/spec_ed/se-gifted.asp
*Added  tag to http://www.edb.gov.hk/FileManager/EN/Content_3201/ecr4_e.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070927190517/http://www.gt-cybersource.org/Record.aspx?NavID=2_0&rid=10586 to http://www.gt-cybersource.org/Record.aspx?NavID=2_0&rid=10586
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 10:04, 4 September 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 9 external links on Gifted education. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20151022091331/http://www.sa.gov.au/topics/education-skills-and-learning/schools/curriculum-and-learning/student-support-programs/gifted-and-talented-education to https://www.sa.gov.au/topics/education-skills-and-learning/schools/curriculum-and-learning/student-support-programs/gifted-and-talented-education
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20061105054659/http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=565 to http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=565
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120226143500/http://134.173.180.115/berger/pdf/Halpern2007.SciSexDif.Pub.pdf to http://134.173.180.115/berger/pdf/Halpern2007.SciSexDif.Pub.pdf
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20071114045049/https://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=656 to http://www.nagc.org/index.aspx?id=656
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20070819124231/http://www.sengifted.org/articles_adults/Tolan_DiscoveringTheGiftedExChild.shtml to http://www.sengifted.org/articles_adults/Tolan_DiscoveringTheGiftedExChild.shtml
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100420064919/http://www.plymouthantiquariansociety.org/cshp_pip.htm to http://www.plymouthantiquariansociety.org/cshp_pip.htm
*Added archive https://archive.is/20121212165856/http://education.ua.edu/departments/spema/gifted-talented-education/sew/ to http://education.ua.edu/departments/spema/gifted-talented-education/sew/
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20091228130513/http://www.wku.edu/Dept/Support/AcadAffairs/Gifted/cmsmadesimple/index.php?page=students to http://www.wku.edu/Dept/Support/AcadAffairs/Gifted/cmsmadesimple/index.php?page=students
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100611141400/http://www.education.purdue.edu/centers/geri/youth_programs/index.html to http://www.education.purdue.edu/centers/geri/youth_programs/index.html/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 08:58, 16 October 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: The current Short Description is too long. It's about the size of a paragraph:
broad term for special practices, procedures, and theories used in the education of children who have been identified as gifted or talented; the main approaches to gifted education are enrichment and acceleration
Could someone who is well versed in this subject matter please pare down the Short Description to < 40 chars. as per Wikipedia's rules. The Short Desc. is used in Wikidata and other related projects. Thanks. Jimj wpg (talk) 03:43, 11 October 2019 (UTC)
thread_title:  Short Deescription too long 

message: This article consists almost entirely of off-the-cuff opinions. 2600:1700:6AE5:2510:0:0:0:24 (talk) 01:11, 18 March 2024 (UTC)
thread_title:  Original Research