Talk:IB Diploma Programme/Archive 6

UCAS tariffs/UK section

It would appear that the point awards on the UCAS table have changed for 2009. I don't want to mess up the html - but here is my source: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/4360839/IB-Diploma-and-the-IB-Certificates-IB-Diploma-revised Would someone who is more adept at formatting please make the revision? Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Okay, reading the UK section, it needs to be completely re-written based on the revised table. It can no longer be claimed that a 45 on the Diploma scores more UCAS points than the 6 A-Levels - they are now equal at 720. I would like to suggest that someone from the UK or thereabouts perform the edits because I will be accused of doing it with a POV.ObserverNY (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Since no one responded, I inserted the new UCAS table with UCAS links for documentation. I did not touch the incredibly biased UK "overview" which touts the IB Diploma's expansion and denegrates the A-Levels, but fails to cite the political reasons (Tony Blair's IB push) for the dramatic increase in IB in the UK, nor the subsequent change of political opinion held by Ed Balls. The downgrading of the IB Diploma on the UCAS tariff for 2010 clearly reflects the shift in political opinion. ObserverNY (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The change in the UCAS tariff reflects no such thing. It's a relatively minor adjustment, not a wholesale re-vamp.

Ewen (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

A better source is this one: UCAS tariffs and notes

Ewen (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ewen - I believe that is the same source I used in the article, not the link above. Don't you consider the addition of the Certificate table and a 48 drop in the IBD 45 score significant? ObserverNY (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY - we are editors. We have a specific purpose. You seem to have made a valid change. Just drop the political angle and get on with improving the article rather than trying to get some political mileage out of it. If you can't get with the idea of Wikipedia take a break please. --Candy (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Candy - as an editor, I see political proIB bias evident in the UK section. Perhaps I should highlight the particular sentences with ? I added the new table without touching the politically biased overview to allow editors from the UK an opportunity to take responsibility for that section on their own. Drop the condescending lecturing and show some intellectual honesty. ObserverNY (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY - the Certificate table is interesting, as it compares IB Certificates directly with single-subject qualifications such as A-levels.

The 48-point drop is from 768 to 720 at the very top end of the grade scale. That's an adjustment of 6.7%. Not exactly enormous. At the other end of the scale the drop is from 260 to 240 - 8.3%.

Even with the drop, UCAS rate the IBDP as equivalent to three subjects studied at slightly-better-than-A-level standard, plus three subjects at slightly-better-than-AS-level standard, plus a core curriculum equivalent to a further A-level. Very few students would achieve this standard if they took an A-level programme. (When students do achieve this number of A-levels, it tends to make the news: [1]

Ewen (talk) 06:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: Replace old table with new, unless the existing table is still relevant.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me, it is relevant for 2009, but I would think those students have already applied long ago to university. However, based on the fact that on the new UCAS table, a 45 DP = 6 A's in A-Levels (720) I would like revisions on the language in the overview to include the removal of all the "more"s and "better"s. I can counteract each and every one of those "opinion" newstories with others that show contradictory evidence. Again, I am asking a UK editor to neutralize the narrative so that it does not attempt to portray IB as superior to the A-Levels. Also, there is no need to include the last sentence about TOK, CAS and EE not being in the A-Levels. ObserverNY (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I agree that the old table should be replaced with the new one. It seems to me that the IB Diploma is superior to the A-levels, based on the facts presented in the first paragraph. No need to include opinion news stories to prove the contrary, however, I am sure we would be happy to discuss relevant facts that prove that A-levels are superior to the IB Diploma. If we are comparing the IB Diploma to the A-levels and the IB has TOK, CAS and EE and the A-levels don't, then it is perfectly logical to mention that fact. Why do we need a UK editor to neutralize the narrative? Couldn't anyone do that?

La mome (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Since when did the purpose of the UK section on the IBDP become a platform to promote the IBDP as "superior" to the A-Levels? I don't care whether it "seems" that way to you or not, that is not the purpose of a Wikipedia article. ObserverNY (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Looking forward to facts that prove otherwise.

La mome (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

How about instead you look forward to facts about the IBDP in the UK - sans a comparison to the A-Levels other than it as "being viewed equally", (as demonstrated on the UCAS tariff that a 45 on the IBDP is = to 6 A A-Levels). The summary is not supposed to be an analysis and comparison of two programs, it is supposed to be facts about the IBDP. ObserverNY (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Article style

Has too much of a "political" feel. I guess most people who are interested in the topic probably studied IB and have more favourable than average opinions of it, because it has this "European Union/UN" pro-mumbo jumbo warm/fuzzy feel about with hardly anything on the actual academic stuff or curriculum but all this "goodness/humanity" type thing. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Recognition should be forked, undue weight, rm flagcruft. There is a lot of puffery in there YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkeyWelcome to the IBDP discussion. It is refreshing to find someone who not only went through IB, but who is able to discern a political POV within the article. I have been attempting to neutralize the article so that it reflects only facts about IB, but have been met with tremendous opposition from IB supporters. I like the edits you made to the UK section and look forward to you sticking around. We are in agreement about the CAS section (CAS being an IB component which I personally find to be a load of BS) which I repeatedly attempted to reduce in length, but ended up in an edit war with Candorwein and LaMome.Perhaps you will have more luck. ObserverNY (talk) 11:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Dear ObserverNY, I wonder how you discern that YellowMonkey went through the IB Diploma. I couldn't from the post.

Also, I refute your claim that I have been in an edit war with you ObserverNY. I don't believe I have. I don't recall reverting anything on the IB Diploma page - at least in the last couple of months. How can I have been in an edit war?

YellowMonkey - Welcome! Perhaps you would like to discuss the article style. Which style do you feel it is written in which needs to be changed? --Candy (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of the article style, there are quite a few very strange references in the article, which have just a number in square brackets. Whoever inserted them should learn how to put proper references in before editing.Tvor65 (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Twor65 Well I started to go through the article but ahve a long way to go (first two blocks done only). For me, the whole point is that it reads in a single voice (a la NPOV) and hangs coherently. --Candy (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

United States

I am unable to follow the history section well enough to determine who wiped the section regarding the ACLU and the IB Inspiration Award without discussion, but it does not constitute "good faith" and I shall be re-adding the pertinent facts. ObserverNY (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Tvor65 - Every statement in the final US paragraph is cited. It is not opinon, it is fact. Factual lawsuit, factual published criticism, factual agreement between IBO and UNESCO, factual statement regarding IB as an NGO of UNESCO right from its own website. There is not a single adjective in the paragraph. You have no right to claim that what I wrote is "right-wing propaganda" simply because YOUR bias prevents you from accepting certain facts as truth. You are showing deliberate malice and lack of good faith by trying to suppress the truth. Please stop. ObserverNY (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Sure it is right-wing propaganda, plain and simple. You are citing right-wing conspiracy theorists like DeWeese and presenting "facts" with your own oh-so-obvious bias. For example, who cares about the connection with UNESCO apart from right-wing nuts like yourself who think UNESCO is an evil organization? Not all facts are relevant. As for the "controversy" in Upper St. Clair that you insisted on including, I thought we had agreed on a balanced version that suited all (and which is the one I put back in) - why rewrite it again? Tvor65 (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If you think I am going to stoop to your POV name-calling, you are sadly mistaken. The article is to present facts about the IB DP, this particular section in the United States. IB's affiliation with UNESCO is fact. Some people may think that's wonderful. There are no adjectives in the statement. Feel free to include a citation of someone published who endorses the IB/UN connection. Criticism exists. Districts have cut the program due to cost - two citations. You are acting maliciously by restoring the article to a condition where citations don't exist and that I have worked to improve. ObserverNY (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Worked to improve??? Don't make me laugh. All you have done to the article is a lot of damage. This is not a playground for you to insert your biased views and propaganda, and I will not let you use it as such.Tvor65 (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Going back to ObserverNY's original note in this section, it was Truthkeeper88 who did the deed: [2]. I don't think it was a bad faith edit - Truthkeeper88 seems pretty unbiased judging from his/her/its extensive and very helpful editing here already.

I do note that Tvor65 has restored the 'correct' section, i.e. the one Truthkeeper deleted and which seemed to be consensus. ObserverNY replaced the section with an older version which had been argued over and replaced.

I don't think hyperbole is going to help. I think Tvor65 and ObserverNY have both added to the article. When the fur stops flying and a text is agreed, it's generally better-referenced, more detailed and balanced than before. Claiming that all someone does is damage is not going to resolve anything.

Let's all take a handful of chill pills each, take a deep breath, and get back to constructive editing; please.

Ewen (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's remember that ObserverNY came here with an agenda - to insert a link to her anti-IB propaganda website. When she was not allowed to do so, she has decided to simply insert, little by little, some of the the so-called "facts" she has on her loony site onto the Wikipedia page. This is what's going on.Tvor65 (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ewen - Tvor65 has NOT restored the previous section, Tvor65 has added all sorts of inflammatory language and it is not acceptable to me at all. I am exhausted from trying to keep up with the changes so I am posting here the section as I would like to see it read. Furthermore, Tvor65 keeps replacing the middle paragraph with a paragraph that lacks ALL citations!

United States As of June, 2009, there are 670 public and private schools offering the IB Diploma Programme in the United States. [51] Jay Mathews, education reporter for The Washington Post and Newsweek, is an advocate for increasing the number of AP and IB courses in the United States. [52] Mathews co-authored the book Supertest: How the International Baccalaureate Can Strengthen Our Schools with IB's Deputy Director General Ian Hill.[53]

Most universities grant college credit for IB HL examination scores of 5, 6, or 7, and some institutions grant credit for an examination score of 4 [54] but policies at individual universities vary and students should check with their specific schools of choice. Some universities, such as Towson and SUNY Binghamton, award sophomore status to students who achieve a score of (30+) on the IB Diploma. Colorado and Texas legislate recognition of the IB Diploma Programme[55][56]

IB is an NGO of the United Nations and has committed to integrating UNESCO's "Peace Education" into its curriculum. [57] [58] Criticism of the IB/UN relationship has been issued by Tom DeWeese [59] and Henry Lamb [60] Some districts have eliminated the IB program, citing cost as the primary reason. [61][62] In the Upper St. Clair, PA, district, the ACLU represented IB supporters in a lawsuit against the Board of Education to retain IB after the Board had voted to eliminate it. [63] In 2006, IB presented its Inspiration Award to the plaintiffs in the case for "control of local education at its finest". [64]

I sincerely hope that Wikipedia editors will consider the above 3 paragraphs and allow them to stand.Oh, and I did not replace it with an older section that had been argued over. That was a newly created section today and I asked for discussion which Tvor65 keeps wiping out. ObserverNY (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Yes, I was there too, Tvor65. Think what you like about other editors, but saying it isn't going to help move things on. WP:CIVIL is pertinent.

If they are facts that she wants to add, let's consider them. Are they giving undue weight to a minority view? That's the main argument, and let's stick to it without trying to pin agendas on each other.

ObserverNY - back to your points in a sec. Edit conflicts permitting!

Ewen (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(Dropping the excess pagination)

Here is a comparison of the version I last edited and the one before Truthkeeper removed the section you wanted replaced.

The section is essentially the same with the single exception of the line "There exists some opposition to the program in the extreme right-wing and religious right circles in the US." I guess this is what ObserverNY would call unacceptable? It's certainly unreferenced and I think it would be right to edit it to read "There exists some opposition to the program in some circles in the US." or maybe "There exists some opposition to the program in some politically conservative circles in the US." I don't know if the opposition groups need to be allocated to a particular section of the political spectrum, but if so it should be with a neutral wording.

However, I think the current section should be the basis for the future. I'm sure I've read ObserverNY's version before...

Ewen (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ewen (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ewen Look - Tvor65 put it back in. You tell me now that Tvor65 isn't acting maliciously. Seriously, this is beyond the pale. Yes, you correctly identified the most offensive sentence in Tvor65's revision. However, from a factual perspective, I don't believe that all of the quotes in the "restored" section are really necessary, and that my current revision more concisely and accurately states the facts without the excess language.ObserverNY (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I agree with Ewen that the current section should be the basis for the future and I can live with the more neutral phrase "There exists some opposition to the program in some politically conservative circles in the US." I could cite several extreme right-wing and Christian right organizations in the US whose anti-IB propaganda was used word-to-word by school directors who opposed the program but I'd rather not give these nuts any undeserved publicity ;-)

Anyway, thanks, Ewen, for helping resolve this impasse. Tvor65 (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If we are to use this paragraph as the "basis for the future", then the opening sentence should be: "There exists some opposition to the IB program in the U.S.". Keep your political opinions to yourself. Not everyone who objects to IB is politically conservative. ObserverNY (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Oh yeah? The organized opposition (the only one worth mentioning) is all about UN-is-evil, IB-is-anti-American-and-against-Judeo-Christian-values and America-is-superior. And guess what? You are the one who should leave your political opinions to yourself. Only you can't, and that's the problem. If you insist on keeping the USC stuff in, then we should explain the real reasons the program was opposed there and in places like Minnetonka and NH. Yes, schools do cut programs for strictly budgetary reasons (not the case in the above examples), and these programs may include, but are certainly not limited to, IB - but this can hardly be called part of an "opposition" or a "controversy". Tvor65 (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I think until a reference can be found to support a statement about the political stance of groups who oppose the IB, we'd better drop it.

Ewen (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I made some changes to the US section---putting the university recognition first, followed by advocacy and then opposition. It's always best to leave politics out, imho, but it seems to me that people on both sides try to politicize a programme that by its very nature was intended to be apolitical. Suffice it to say that some like it and some don't and then move on.

La mome (talk) 12:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

...and to be fair, then Ewen's comment above should also be applied to the political stance of groups who support IB. You know, that goose and gander thing. It seems to me that since the IB programmes are implemented around the world and across the political spectrum, it would be pretty hard to limit support of the IB programme to one political group.

La mome (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been following the IB opposition movement for quite a while. So far, I have not encountered a single group that was not on the far right of the political spectrum. They all follow the same playbook from websites like edwatch.org and crossroad.to. Yes, the program is apolitical but the opposition to it is all about politics, and it is the extreme right who have a problem with it, not moderates or progressives.Tvor65 (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, here is an interesting reference I found. Unfortunately, I cannot access the article but the abstract certainly supports my assertion. Here it is:

The International Baccalaureate in the USA and the emerging 'culture war'

Author: Tristan Bunnell

Published in: journal Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, Volume 30, Issue 1 March 2009 , pages 61 - 72

Abstract:

The International Baccalaureate (IB) has undergone rapid growth and largely unhindered expansion over the past four decades. It has moved beyond its European nexus and the three IB programmes now have a relatively large presence in the USA, especially among public high schools. The IB gathered federal funding in 2003, and a concerted attack has subsequently emerged from a vast array of ultra-conservative agencies and commentators who denounce the curriculum as federal interference, and fundamentally 'un-American'. This paper explores the complex nature of this 'culture war' and reveals the key issues and protagonists.

I think I'll insert this as a reference. Tvor65 (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I took your reference out, obviously you are incapable of following Ewen's advice to act civil. If you insist on reinserting it, I insist on reinserting my reference to schools that have eliminated IB due to cost.

Well, I put it right back in; it's a valid reference and it supports the statement. Ewen wanted a reference for the statement, and I found one, following his advice. It is also pretty clear to everyone but you who is being uncivil here. As for citing schools cutting IB as part of their budget cuts, schools cut programs all the time, whether it's IB or music or a rifle team, and this can hardly be called an "opposition" to IB specifically. A school may like the program but simply cannot afford it anymore. Tvor65 (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, if IB WAS apolitical and didn't go on record as supporters and promoters of the Earth Charter and The UN Charter, then there wouldn't be political objections to it, now would there? ObserverNY (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

And again, only the ultra-conservatives in the US have these objections.Tvor65 (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

http://www.ibo.org/ibna/actionkits/documents/Myths_Facts_001.pdf

Why don't we just link this and let readers decide for themselves the alleged links between IB-Earth Charter-UN-Marxism-Socialism-world domination, etc...

La mome (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This is what Ewen had said earlier- "I think until a reference can be found to support a statement about the political stance of groups who oppose the IB, we'd better drop it." Ewen (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Tvor65 found supporting evidence. I vote that it stays---it is a valid reference and it does support the argument. Anyone else care to weigh in? La mome (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. As for the "fiscal opposition" that ObserverNY keeps inserting instead, it makes no sense to me. When a school district eliminates an art or music program due to the budgetary constraints (happens a lot these days, especially in the city schools), are we supposed to assume that this district opposes art or music? Of course not. They'd probably rather have these programs but are not able to keep them. Yet when a school district eliminates its IB program as part of its budget cuts, ObserverNY immediately jumps to the bizarre conclusion that the school district "opposes" the program. Very logical, indeed.Tvor65 (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't accept your source - so DROP IT. Furthermore, the IBO Myths vs. Facts is by far the single most biased, inaccurate piece of propaganda the IBO has issued to date. However, since you seem so fond of it, I will consider linking it following my sentence about IB being an NGO of the UN and the UNESCO agreement in the general section.ObserverNY (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Other people do accept Tvor65's source. Your sentence about IB being an NGO of the UN and the UNESCO agreement is not in this article, it is in the one about IB. Linking the "Myth vs. fact" doc. is a great idea. You will then have to remove part of your sentence as it does refute what you are trying to imply. And your source is once again outdated. Pity, isn't it though? La mome (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You, and Tvor65 and Truthkeeper wanted the USC section out - IT'S OUT. Done. Over. Don't mention USC to me again. You have an objection to listing the political dispute in Utah for which I cited two sources, including one which is official IB? Justify your objection. The wording was "criticism", not "objection". The programme is eliminated because in some cases, it is too expensive for the district. That's a "criticism", as opposed to "Wow, this program is the best ever and so affordable" which would constitute "praise". I hope this clarifies the semantics for you.

Tvor65 removed the IB/UNESCO info without discussion and I thought it WAS in the proper, global location under "Recognition" as IB itself used the words "IB has been recognized as...". However, if you would prefer it as a separate sub-section, that's fine with me.ObserverNY (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Reminder: This page is for discussion of the IB Diploma Programme. If you have comments about the IB please take it to another forum. If you have information relevant to the IB itself take it to the International Baccalaureate Organisation pages. Please note: The IB/IBO and the IB diploma refer to different categories. They are not interchangeable. Thank you. --Candy (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Reminder: Documents relating to ALL levels of IB curriculum which obviously includes the IBDP and specific development of the IB Diploma ARE relevant to this article and should not be diverted to an article about the host organization. ObserverNY (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Diverted, no, but the bulk of text pertaining to all levels should be at the IB article, with references to it from this and the other IB programme articles.

I think part of the problem is that the IB article right now is pretty limited. I'd like to see it beefed up, with mini-sections on all IB programmes (with links to this and the other programmes' articles). One example of the IB's limitations are that it doesn't discuss key staff. I guess this is really a discussion to have at the IB article itself, but since there seem to be more eyes here...!

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 10:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing and summary of recent edits

I edited every section of the IB DP article yesterday, according to article size policies. Much of the content in the article has subarticles so the main article should be concise and to-the-point.
If another editor objects to my edits, go ahead and revert; I don't mind.
I do mind, however, finding so much content restored without using previously formatted ref syntax, which now must be reestablished.
I also mind that one section of the article (the USC section that already exists elsewhere) was restored at least 20 times in various forms, and that the most recent edit deleted a good credible source that was referenced properly.
In my view, the talk page is not a place to bargain, or to threaten, which has been happening all to often. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - I know that it is against Wikipedia policy to divulge the identity of editors, so I shall not. However, Tvor65 was personally involved in the USC/IB lawsuit, hence the repeated, obsessive reversals of the paragraph. Tvor65 is the one who deleted my entry regarding the elimination of IB due to cost with proper citations and repeatedly keeps inserting "ultra-conservative", "right-wing" "ultra-religious", etc. I am frankly sick and tired of the nonesense and wish SOMEONE would make Tvor65 stop. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Actually, you are quite wrong, ObserverNY. I was not involved in the lawsuit. However, I believe that the above "information" (even if wrong) may be grounds for you being blocked as an editor as per Wikipedia policies.Tvor65 (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. Tvor65, the demographic make-up of US opposition to the IB is way too much detail for this article. That there is opposition to the IB is fine; that the opposition is, apparently, largely "ultra conservative" is too much.

ObserverNY, the same applies to the minutiae of the (ACLU) lawsuit. Who brought the suit is irrelevant. (I'm unconvinced, too, by the most recent edit - it was reversed following a lawsuit is fine; it was reversed following an ACLU lawsuit which resulted in a settlement is way too much detail.

Have I alienated enough editors yet? ;-)

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, TFWOR, with all due respect, I disagree. That the opposition is fueled by the ultra-conservative groups is a fact supported by a valid reference. It is not too much detail; indeed, it is quite pertinent to the USC case. Now, one can argue that USC stuff is too much detail, and I quite agree, but if it has to be mentioned, as ObserverNy insists, then a proper explanation of why it's even there is in order.Tvor65 (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The entire section about one specific school in the US is not necessary in this article, and in fact Ewen moved it to the proper place earlier. I suggest removing it again ASAP. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the validity of the reference; I'm disputing whether we need to go into so much detail (just because we can say something doesn't necessarily make it encyclopaedic to do so). The following sentence - which deals directly with the USC case - more or less covers the same ground without labelling IB opponents. That said, I tend to agree with Truthkeeper88 here. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Users who agree to remove the USC section = myself, TFOWR, Ewen & Tvor65. Time to remove it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The USC case is important as it relates to IB in the U.S. for a number of reasons: 1) it is a documented lawsuit and therefore worthy of encyclopaedic reference 2) the lawsuit sought to overturn the decision of a duly elected Board majority 3)the lawsuit made international news - http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0314-02.htm 4) the entire situation caused tremendous animosity and unrest in the community 5) The ACLU respresented the IB supporters pro-bono while the lawsuit cost USC taxpayers approx. $200,000 6) The settlement also involved Gov. Rendell of PA (D) pledging $75,000, and the WAVES group (the recipients of the IB Inspiration Award) donating $45,000 in order to keep IB going.

Now, I have not sought to include all of that information. In fact, I believe I had reduced it quite succinctly to two sentences which included a source which would have provided readers with all of the further details. It is an example of political/ideological conflict which I believe should stand as an example next to the sentence about districts eliminating IB due to cost. Expressing the facts without injecting opinion is entirely possible, as I have demonstrated. Furthermore, I do not see Ewen agreeing with Truthkeeper re: removal of the entire paragraph and TFWOR referred to "the following sentence" as being acceptable, but seems to have left out which sentence by mistake and then flip-flopped on his/her position.ObserverNY (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

My position is that Ewen's edit was broadly fine. I think there should be some mention of the USC case here, but I don't think it's appropriate to go into the amount of detail that's currently in the article - that much detail belongs in the USC article, not here. My principle complaint right now is the term "ultra-conservative" - cited or not - as I think that the next sentence (which I'm happy to keep in this article, by the way) deals with the facts, and the reader can make up their own mind. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 22:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Ewen's edit is fine. I'll put it back in. BUT, I have to wonder if there's not more going on here, which is why I have the inclination to delete it entirely. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I respectfully disagree. We seem to be at an impasse. If it is all or nothing, then I vote nothing. No one is interested in every last sordid detail of a lawsuit that was clearly politically motivated. If it goes back in, then it will have to be stated that the "ultra-conservatives" were the ones who tried to pull the plug on the IB Diploma programme, when the community clearly was in favor of keeping it. I vote to leave it out---or link to the USC page and call it a day. This is ridiculous.

La mome (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's take it out again.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with LaMome and Truthkeeper88. My position remains the same: either remove the whole thing (I support this) OR, if the USC stuff remains as an example of opposition, then so should the source of the opposition and the reference validating this fact. I believe that Ewen supports this with the reference as well.Tvor65 (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with Ewen's edit, but I would also like inclusion of the sentence which referred to U.S. districts eliminating IB due to cost. And from my read of Wikipedia rules, this is not a "vote" situation but one on which we have to reach consensus. ObserverNY (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Truthkeeper What's going on here is you have two people, LaMome and Tvor65 who are deliberately attempting to prevent information about the USC case from being made available on Wikipedia because of personal agendas. You appear to be waffling back and forth. At this point in time, it would appear that Ewen, TFWOR, and myself are fine with Ewen's edit.ObserverNY (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Um, no. What is actually going on here is ObserverNY attempting to turn the Wikipedia page into a condensed version of her anti-IB website by inserting the "facts" that seem to support her claims and removing the ones that do not. It ain't gonna work, however.Tvor65 (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally liked Warthog's edit. Perhaps he/she would like to weigh in again? I am not attempting to prevent information about the USC case from being made available on Wikipedia---I suggested we link to the USC page. It's either all or nothing at this point. If it is linked, then it will have to be mentioned that the lawsuit was made by ultra-conservatives. There is no way around that. And then we will need to include Tvor65's link as well, since it is relevant.

La mome (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Agree with La mome. Also, am assuming good faith on the edits.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)