Talk:IB Diploma Programme/Archive 5

Archive #2

Can we archive sections 1-9 ("criticism" through "copied from article") as they date from May and appear to be inactive? La mome (talk) 18:50, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Job done! Ewen (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Ewen! Next time, I'll try to figure out how to do it instead of asking someone else. I am slowly learning the ins and outs of editing. Cheers La mome (talk) 21:48, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CAS

A while back someone who identified himself/herself as a student changed the CAS hour requirement from 150 to 180. I linked this http://www.ibo.org/ibaem/conferences/documents/JohnCannings.pdf where it clearly states a minimum of 150 hours during the course of 18 months. Cheers La mome (talk) 22:36, 14 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm changing the CAS section as there is no 150 hour requirement. This was so until the current academic year but it changed. --Candy (talk) 14:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem with eliminating what actually constituted a "standard" (150 hours) of some sort for one of the IB DP's "Core" requirements. It just goes to prove that the 3 Core requirements are the fluff and nonsense part of the DP. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 14:57, 16 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

ObserverNY.- Perhaps read the changes before you add a comment? --Candy (talk) 15:28, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, I see you made a small novel out of the CAS section, especially since IB students seem to be very proud of being able to "fake" CAS. http://www.thestudentroom.co.uk/showthread.php?t=903969 Way too much information. ObserverNY (talk) 19:10, 16 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

There's no need to be sarcastic, everyone!

The CAS section is getting a little long now that it's been updated. The new requirements seem a little harder to express concisely? I'd suggest using the specific page for more detail.

As an aside, it's useful having protagonists in different time zones isn't it? It gives people time to calm down and think before answering. It's a conscious effort to keep civil sometimes but we're managing it more often than not.

Ewen (talk) 21:05, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Protagonist? Moi? Not a propagandist? Oh that's good, I must be moving up the evolutionary scale. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 21:33, 16 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Candy-The changes you made to the CAS section are fine with me. I think there still is a guideline of a minimum of 150 hours, but as you have said, there is more of a focus on the learning outcomes. La mome (talk) 21:46, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi la Mome. FYI. The quote from Section 1 page 6 of the guide I referenced is' "This focus on learning outcomes emphasizes that it is the quality of a CAS activity (its contribution to the student’s development) that is of most importance. The guideline for the minimum amount of CAS activity is approximately the equivalent of half a day per school week (three to four hours per week), or approximately 150 hours in total, with a reasonable balance between creativity, action and service. “Hour counting”, however, is not encouraged." --Candy (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To all -

The entire CAS section can be reduced to the following and cut out all of the IB flowery jargon:

CAS

Main article: Creativity, Action, Service

CAS is an acronym for Creativity, Action, Service. Students are required to engage in three roughly equally balanced areas of unpaid activities involving social or community work (Service), participation in sports or physical activities (Action), and initiative in creative or artistic activity (Creativity). The guideline for the minimum amount of CAS activity over the two year programme is approximately 150 hours in total. "Hour counting”, however, is not encouraged. [12]

CAS performance and records are documented by the student using official forms (CAS/AEF Forms) which are retained by the school. CAS/CP forms are submitted to the IB regional offices by 1 May and 1 November. If the Diploma Programme candidate does not complete the requirement within two years, the Diploma will not be awarded, even if all other requirements have been satisfactorily met. [13]

There was redundant/conflicting information re 18 mo/2 yrs and also re non-completers. I would like consensus on the above section, please. ObserverNY (talk) 22:09, 16 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Candy--I can't seem to open the #12 link for CAS. ObserverNY--What flowery jargon? You cut out the part about the learning outcomes, which is the essence of CAS, not forms and hours. La mome (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

La Mome - You can't open a book reference! It's the CAS curriculum Guide published by the IBO. My understanding is that original sources are quite valid as material in Wikipedia. --Candy (talk) 23:30, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candy--I had no idea (obviously)---thanks for pointing that out! Good to know. So, we can cite the guides that we can access either through the OCC or purchasing at the IB store. Can you take a look at the changes I made in the EE section and add the citation for the current EE guide? I am new to this and have problems citing sources. Cheers La mome (talk) 23:45, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LaMome - My proposed revision for the CAS section does indeed cut out what you call the "learning outcomes" but what I call IB subjective rhetoric and unsubstantiated claims. The aims of CAS are to develop students who are reflective thinkers who understand their own strengths and limitations; who identify goals and devise strategies for personal growth; who are willing to accept new challenges and new roles and are aware of themselves as members of communities with responsibilities towards each other and the environment; who are active participants in sustained, collaborative projects and enjoy and find significance in a range of activities involving intellectual, physical, creative and emotional experiences. This entire passage is full of biased adjectives that are unsubstantiated with any specific sources outside of IB's salespitch. "Reflective, find significance, personal growth, enjoy, new challenges, creative and emotional experiences" - a link to the CAS guide like the EE guide can provide anyone who is interested access to reading these "aims" instead of cluttering up the article with IB educationese. I posted a link in this section from students who claim CAS is a "joke" and how they successfully "faked" the requirement. If you want to leave that section in, then I recommend you locate a source which substantiates the claim. Of course, then I expect to be allowed to include the student opinion which contradicts your claim.

-)ObserverNY (talk) 12: 11, 17 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY - This is not the place to discuss CAS, people who claim to have cheated in their academic studies, the academic integrity of particular students but to discuss improving the article in an encyclopedic way. This is also not a bargaining area or place of tit for tat. --Candy (talk) 12:50, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candorwein - It's not? Gee, I would have thought a sub-section titled CAS on the discussion page would have been the appropriate place to discuss the CAS portion of the article, but if you can point me to a more appropriate arena, I'm all eyes. Otherwise, I am still awaiting feedback re: my proposed revision to the section as posted above. Since you were the one to insert the flowery "aims" of the component, either defend them with a source which quantitatively confirms IB's "aims", or agree to the revision which factually and more succinctly describes the design of the component. ObserverNY (talk) 13:04, 17 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Since when are you calling the shots here, ObserverNY? I happen to think the CAS section is fine the way it currently is. Others can speak for themselves but I haven't seen anyone else here object to the current wording. You may not like the aims part, and that's too bad, but it accurately describes the goals of the program according to the IBO. Some students will always find a way to game the system and cheat; this does not mean most do, nor does it make CAS and its goals any less meaningful. Candy is right, quit using this discussion page as a platform for your propaganda. I have yet to see any edits of yours that have actually improved the article. Tvor65 (talk) 14:18, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I believe Candy means here is not the place to discuss approval or disapproval of CAS, but to discuss how best to incorporate CAS in an encyclopedic manner. A couple of suggestions to tighten the section: consider moving the sentences re: CAS form submission to the CAS sub-article; consider reworking very long sentence #2. Because the reference is titled "For students graduating in 2010 and thereafter" (in other words students beginning year one of DP now or in the fall), the CAS section must reflect current CAS requirements, aims, and philosophy, with which I agree. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:54, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Truthkeeper. "Because the reference is titled "For students graduating in 2010 and thereafter" (in other words students beginning year one of DP now or in the fall)" ... Just to clarify, I understand this to mean students currently in year one of the programme in the Northern Hemisphere (just coming to the end of their first year) and all subsequent students (until the guide changes). I'm "on the run" atm but happy for you to try out some changes to see how it looks and others respond if you want to. (Nothing ventured nothing gained). :) --Candy (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi ObserverNY You can either tag the part you are not happy with for a cite or delete it. I will, however, when I have time in the next few days, put an appropriate cite on. You've read the WP guidelines so you know what is appropriate. --Candy (talk) 15:10, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

CAS hours can always be falsely reported anyway. I know a few classmates who did precisely 0 YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:59, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

So true, YellowMonkey. However, IB advocates seem to think CAS merits a mini-tome's worth of description in the article. Since they finally put the IB language in quotes, I'll not fight it any further. Intelligent people can sift through the IB rhetoric and discern the truth. ObserverNY (talk) 11:07, 25 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

The article does seem to be overbloated, given that CAS is pretty straightforward and out of around 60 fellow students that I overlapped with, none ever failed it (although some should have) whereas exams and subjects are a much bigger deal. Also, for "action" it isn't just "physical sports", debating and chess are apparently allowed; if they are not, I and a few of my classmates who correctly and transparently declared this ought to have failed. For service, most people went to a lunchtime charity/fundraising club at school, sat at a table and ate their lunch and got their 1 hour's service per week; even though the lunch break was 40minutes I think they all claimed 1 hour YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Verification

Much of the above conversation can be avoided by adhering to WP:V, WP:BURDEN and WP:SOURCE. Regarding fees: ObserverNY found a good source for fees. However, the document only needs summarisation. Anything not supported in that document (teacher training, IB coordinator, online curriculum centre) must either be referenced (via a different source) or not included in the article. Regarding WP:SOURCE : each source must be assessed as per source policies and requirements. Also, when adding references/sources it's helpful to add a page number in long documents such as the one that's currently linked in the EE section. I'll clean up ref syntax as needed to add to the quality of the inline citations and footnotes in the article. In my view sticking to the policies makes everything much less murky. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:32, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for the info Truthkeeper. So, if I understand correctly, the OCC homepage should be included as it is mentioned in the document on fees, but obviously not clear as to its purpose and rights to access for some people. The teacher training costs vary from school to school, so assigning a random average is not accurate. I think the OCC home page should be linked after "educational resources" and the last line should read as follows: "Additional ongoing costs will vary and may include teacher professional development at IB workshops, the position of the Diploma Programme coordinator (at least 25% release time is recommended), Extended Essay supervision, educational resources and postage for examination mailings[32]" The IBC does not have to be a teacher and can be an administrator who assumes the duties of IBC. 25% release time is recommended---not required. La mome (talk) 22:41, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't know how you came to that conclusion about including the OCC page, Truthkeeper never mentioned OCC ObserverNY (talk) 23:16, 16 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

PS--the document in the EE section is an outdated EE guide. This violates copyright as all guides are found on the OCC (password protected) or at the IB Store. The EE section needs some serious updating. La mome (talk) 22:43, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

PS - It (IB EE guide) is posted on a school's website and if it violates "copyright" then the onus is on the school, not Wikipedia. Furthermore, you have no proof that any portion of the EE requirements have changed and therefore it cannot be "outdated". ObserverNY (talk) 23:14, 16 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

For example, re: teacher training, I chose this random document. The hotel cost is stated, as are transportation and food costs. One could add all the costs based on such a source and come to a conclusion: but it's a tricky business. How much does the plane ticket cost? Does the attendee need airfare? Does the attendee need hotel accommodation? Will the attendee arrive late or early? Too many variables make using such sources problematic. The source currently linked to teacher workshops has no cost/fee in the document, so it should be replaced with another.

Regarding OCC: the online curriculum centre is mentioned in this document and thus there doesn't seem to be a problem to use the link Candy provided on June 14? or June 15?.

If the reference in the EE section does not adhere to the policies for WP:SOURCE then it's best to avoid using it. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:02, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Either Candy or I will post the reference for the NEW EE guide, unless you would rather do that yourself, ObserverNY? Linking the reference to the hardcopy of the guide does not violate copyright, according to Candy. La mome (talk) 23:50, 16 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Funny, without the discussion it would have flown below the radar -- but I've pulled this source to add currency info for consistency and noted the source is only for IB North America. In my view, the source must reflect the subject of the article, i.e. International Baccalaureate, rather than one specific region. Perhaps there's another source? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:15, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truthkeeper - Since IBO claims that its programmes represent an "international standard", it shouldn't matter whether the documentation was issued for IBNA or the Asia-Pacific region - the "programmes" and elements thereof, are supposed to be the same. ObserverNY (talk) 11:56, 17 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

HI ObserverNY. I seem to be unfamiliar with the IB claiming that its programmes "represent an "international standard"". Could you supply the source of your quote so I can read and consider what you are saying please? I'm also confused as to why a parochial comment should be accepted as an internationally encompassing comment because it is about an international organisation? From my own recent experience KFC is pretty horrible for me in Cairo but I find it excellent in Shanghai. Do you think either of my experiences should be taken as representative of all KFC franchises around the world? I don't. So, in order to help me understand what you mean could you explain how your comment above should relate to the entire IB Diploma programme? Thanks. --Candy (talk) 15:20, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Candy - the following is an official IBO "action kit" for educational leaders which addresses all three IB programmes globally: ^[1]. On page two you will find the following: The three programmes help schools to: Add international perspectives to their academic offerings - Measure teaching and learning against an international standard . I can also provide you with numerous press releases which tout the same, but I thought you would prefer an official IBO statement. ObserverNY (talk) 16:28, 17 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

It would have surely made more sense to have said that it allows a standard to be applied internationally. --Candy (talk) 22:17, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candy - With all due respect, the only reason we are discussing this is because Truthkeeper questioned the citing of an IBNA document vs. one which represents IB globally. I am presenting the "action kit" as evidence that IBO represents its three programmes as "a measure of teaching and learning against an international standard", that international standard being the IB programmes! Ergo, a Vade Mecum for EE or CAS by IBNA should be absolutely the same as a Vade Mecum for the Mid East or Asia Pacific or Europe. You said you were "unfamiliar" with IBO claiming its programmes "represent an international standard". While the implementation of IB programmes in various schools may indeed vary greatly based on the quality of the teachers and administrations just like the various cooks at the KFC's you have visited vary in quality and talent, both organizations work off of an "original recipe". It is IB's "original recipe" that I seek to accurately portray in the Wikipedia article. IB is topheavy with rules and regulations, we haven't even addressed the student's intellectual property which IBO claims "absolute control" over once a student has submitted work to IBO for assessment. Transparency, or lack thereof, is something which I may want to add a section on. I'll have to think about it.. ObserverNY (talk) 23:29, 17 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

(edit conflicts) Hi ObserverNY: I asked about this source because, for consistency, the article should indicate each currency for the various fees, but the IB North America source only shows USD amounts so it's useless for other currencies as a source. Do you know whether another source exists showing the annual fees in each currency? If so, we'll replace sources; otherwise we'll leave as is for now. Cheers.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:33, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ObserverNY-The Handbook of Procedures (no longer called the vade mecum) is issued from Cardiff. There is no such thing as one from IB Americas (no longer IBNA) and one from each of the other regions. Truthkeeper clarified nicely why the fees document was pulled, so I hope you understand now what the article needs in terms of referencing documentation of costs. I am curious to see the proof you provide that IB (no longer IBO) has absolute control over intellectual property. I hope you will post it here before you try to incorporate it into the article, along with your thoughts on transparency, to avoid embarassing yourself any further.

La mome (talk) 23:49, 17 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well then, I suppose the entire article on IBO must be deleted and rewritten since NONE of the original IBO/IB terminology/legal organization is valid, eh?

Truthkeeper I guess I misunderstood you because your comment followed LaMome's reference to the EE citation. No, I don't have another reference at this time, sorry. Perhaps you might want to include a monetary conversion site? ObserverNY (talk) 00:50, 18 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

(trying again) I've cleaned the fees/cost section and sorted out the references & sources. Currently no source has been provided to cite application fees in currencies other than USD so I've left as is for now. The workshop source does not provide fee information so I've pulled it for now. Yes, in fact, I referred to the source in the cost flying below the radar, but not to worry because it's all sorted out for now. (Here's hoping I can post without an edit conflict) Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:02, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truthkeeper I have added an IB workshop link which addresses every region and every currency. The cost of the workshops can be determined by clicking on each individual workshop. I feel that the way you minimized and obfuscated this cost by eliminating the "$595 to $1039, not including travel and course materials" (which is by far the greatest cost to schools that buy IB), is not being entirely honest. Furthermore, IB teacher training is NOT an option, it is a requirement as spelled out in the Application forms which is why I changed "may be" to "are". ObserverNY (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

ObserverNY--what on earth are you talking about? Could you please fill in the gaps where your line of reasoning leaps from one document not being current to the entire article being deleted and rewritten?

La mome (talk) 02:00, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You're the one nit-picking over IBO vs IB, IBNA vs. IB Americas, it seems to me that if you want to be so picayune then the article titled "International Baccalaureate Organization" - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_Baccalaureate should be retitled or pulled. ObserverNY (talk) 13:14, 18 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

ObserverNY - With respect, it seems much of your information is out-of-date and you misuse what you do have in order to PPOV or make grandiose suggestions such as renaming this article or rewriting it. Please try to be constructive in improving this article. Thanks --Candy (talk) 10:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Teacher Training & ongoing costs

Hi ObserverNY. I made an interim edit to the cost section until a verifiable source is located. Must an applicant school send all teachers and administrators to training, or only those who have not previously received IB training? This document states, on page 6, that an applicant school shall Register a vanguard of teachers/administrators to attend IB workshops for teachers new to the DP which, in my view, is more precise. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:17, 18 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Truthkeeper. That's a great source. I would like to direct your attention to pg. 12 which states: Continuous training & conferences - As detailed above, schools need to provide for continual professional development for Diploma Programme teachers and administrators beyond the initial training stage. So whether a teacher has previous IB training in another district (highly unlikely, but I suppose a remote possibility), they are still expected to partake in ongoing training. So in your example, let's say a teacher is hired who had Level I IB DP training. Wouldn't that teacher then be required to get Level II and Level III? I do believe the school is also required to send representation to the annual IB Conferences in July for their region which is a hefty expense. (you know, those IB love-fests where the DG's get to bash me for standing up for individuality and national sovereignty?) ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 00:03, 19 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Perhaps another member in the discussion group has a clear answer? Check the region -- which I think is Africa and Europe. I'd venture if the region has a preponderance of International Schools, then why not hire a fully IB trained staff member? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:44, 19 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truthkeeper - If a school is seeking authorization for IB, most of its teachers are already on board and therefore MOST of its teachers would not have had IB training. If the school happens to have an opening and happens to be able to hire a teacher who already had IB training, that's great, but insignificant in the overall cost of teacher training merely reducing the cost by $1,500-$1,800. This figure is negligible when a school is spending an average of $60-80,000 a year to train its teachers. ObserverNY (talk) 10:32, 19 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Hi ObserverNY - You seem to be stuck entirely in the idea that this article is IB Diploma in the USA. I feel you need to take a broader perspective.

You would need to substantiate your claim about a school being required to send representation to the annual IB conferences. Hefty is a weasel word as well. Try not to use these as they don't support arguments.

I can see where you are pushing for a teacher to go to different levels of training. I think that you should be glad that an organisation supplies differentiated training based on teacher experience. All too often it is one size fits all. To my mind you lose credibility by pushing this "training is expensive" issue because you seem to be massaging the limited data you have to "prove" something beyond the scope of this article.

Truthkeeper - If a school is seeking authorization for IB, most of its teachers are already on board and therefore MOST of its teachers would not have had IB training. I don't see what you are trying to say here tbh ObserverNY. You make two assumptions. The first is that most of its tecahers are already onboard (which has one of those weasel words again). How do you arrive at this statement and can you verify it? Or are you just making it up? Secondly, that MOST of its teachers would not have had IB training is another big assumption in the same vein as the first. Also, please refer to it as DIploma Training or DP Training. IB training is ambiguous as it refers to all three programmes.

(you know, those IB love-fests where the DG's get to bash me for standing up for individuality and national sovereignty?) ;-) I see you are trying to be funny. However, I don't know what a love-fest is, a DG is, why they would be bashing you (I'm certain they don't read Wikipedia and have better things to do than discuss its edits or editors) ? Better you don't explain, just try to keep to the discussion please? --Candy (talk) 10:38, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

A DG is a Director General. I was referring to George Walker and his plenary speech from 2005 in which he attacked me based on Jay Mathews' representation of my views in his book Supertest, Chapter 45. I will search for official IB language which requires an IB school administrator to attend the annual conference. It exists, I just haven't searched for it yet. IB regularly monitors my website http://truthaboutib.com/breakingnewsopinions.html and online comments so I wouldn't be surprised if Tvor65 actually works for IB. I have provided you with my real identity, I am not hiding behind an anonymous moniker. Whatever my opinion of the IB program is, it has nothing to do with the presentation of facts in the article. A fact is a fact.

I'm not going to explain to you what a "love-fest" is, nor do I appreciate your condescending attitude. I am not the one who sells three levels of 3 day IB training, IB is. It is not my fault that in many cases, IB training is not held anywhere near the location of the IB schools and involves airfare, hotels, meals and rental cars in addition to the IB fee. It is a fact. Go through the list of IB workshops. This expense affects countries all over the world, not just the U.S. Now, IB has just this year created online training. I have no objection to adding a line which references this new option. ObserverNY (talk) 14:15, 21 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

ObserverNY. It seems you have put a lot of issues and admitted that you are biased against the IB on the table. This only reinforces exactly how your comments read. However, I am not here to attack or defend the IB. I am trying to do my job as an editor. If you keep on saying things that don't make sense to me I will question them - you do want me to try to understand what you are saying don't you? I don't use the phrase DG and this is the first time I have read it. I know who George Walker is. I don't care about and issues between you and him as I don't think it applies to this article. If I even knew what DG meant why would I think George Walker? He's not the Director General of the IB! If you think that asking for clarification is condescending then you are not going to get on with many editors in Wikipedia.--Candy (talk) 19:35, 21 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candorwein It doesn't matter whether I love or hate IB, that is completely irrelevant. The purpose of the Wikipedia article is to present accurate facts. The entire issue regarding the DG arose when I initially was trying to have TAIB included as a link and established my identity. I have no control over whether you remember that discussion or not. It was not your question about what does a DG stand for that I found condescending, but rather: "Hefty is a weasel word as well. Try not to use these as they don't support arguments". Hefty is a perfectly legitimate adjective and I don't appreciate you calling it a "weasel" word. Your implication is that I am a weasel for using it, and I find that highly offensive.

Truth cannot be biased. Facts cannot be biased. However, omission of pertinent facts or presentation of only those facts which make something look good is bias. ObserverNY (talk) 11:51, 23 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

ObserverNY It really would help if you went and read the Wiki guidelines and explanatory pages. Then you would know that "weasel words" is a normal phrase used throughout Wikipedia to describe the use of language which gives undue emphasis with out supporting evidence. --Candy (talk) 15:46, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

If I had used adjectives such as onerous, outrageous, prohibitive, budget-busting, userous etc, in the article, then your application of the term "weasel word" would have been appropriate. The word hefty, meaning "of considerable size or amount", is accurate, not inflammatory, and is most certainly applicable in the discussion portion of the article. If I had inserted the word "hefty" into the article, then your directions to me could be considered perspicacious, but since I did not, I merely consider them picayune. Please respond to my comment to you regarding the IBC and CASC positions instead of lecturing me about Wiki guidelines.ObserverNY (talk) 16:20, 23 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Click on this policy WP:WEASEL to read about the usage of weasel words on Wikipedia. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:10, 23 June 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truthkeeper - Do I need to say, "DUH"? I read the "guidelines". They refer to the use of "weasel words" within the context of an article NOT as related to an editor's language on a discussion page. If you read the discussion here:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia_talk:Avoid_weasel_words you will also note there appears to be lack of consensus on the guideline itself in addition to objections to those Wiki editors who choose to toss out this particular phrase as Candy did. ObserverNY (talk) 22:59, 23 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

^ [1]

[1] [1]

[1]