Talk:IB Diploma Programme/Archive 7

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Disengage

Please adhere to policies from WP:DISENGAGE and WP:GAME. The frequent number of edits to the section creates chaos. Some refs can be used elsewhere in the IB series and are easier to retrieve from the current article rather than trolling through histories and finding refs. That will take time and needs to be done. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Good call referee. Meanwhile while we all engage in WP:DISENGAGE may I suggest a read of WP:LAME. It takes a bit of time to get into but the section on "List of Virgins" made me chuckle for a long time. --Candy (talk) 16:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)...Please revert the References section to allow the orphaned refs to be added then if necessary moved. Thank you. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:28, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Done.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:06, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - The "References" section, now retitled "Additional Biography" has NOTHING to do with the article as it now stands. I respectfully suggest that you either copy and paste them somewhere in your own personal records or delete the section as you said you would do yesterday.ObserverNY (talk) 17:14, 30 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

That edit was performed at 16:59 -- 15 minutes before you "respectfully" asked me to remove them and after I spent an hour retrieving potentially useful links dumped during the editing process. And now I'm disengaging for a much needed wikibreak. Trying very hard to stay on-piste. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Loved WP:Lame---thanks for the good laugh. Have not read Disengage or Game yet. Still think the "fees" section is too long and is now inappropriately placed near the beginning of an article about an educational programme, not a product that is for sale. Hmmm, let's go shopping for IB. Is it on eBay or QVC? Cheers all...La mome (talk) 20:43, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with LaMome - the section looks out of place. Just referring to the relevant place on the IB site should be enough. Anyway, I doubt schools that are interested in becoming IB check out the Wikipedia page to find out what the cost will be ;-)Tvor65 (talk) 21:08, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Now one of the least important part of the programme is placed first. People who want to find out more about the IB will be met by sales information in this article. If one went to the AP or A-Level pages and was met with a break down of costs it would put me off. I think readers will be disengaged by this article as it puts costs over curriculum. Rather silly I feel and not really relevant in the place that it is. --Candy (talk) 23:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

La Mome's already moved it back ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Candorwein/Candy - That's YOUR OPINION that Fees is one of the "least important" aspects of the IB product. Again, YOUR OPINION. The Fees section introduces readers to the application process and what schools need to spend in order to become approved by IB. We all know that EVERY school that applies to IB receives authorization as long as the check is good, it's not as though it is some sort of special select group. I moved the section BACK. It is a product, it is not a mandated "programme and it is for sale. Period.ObserverNY (talk) 01:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Well, let's see: Candy, LaMome and I all think the Fees do not belong at the top for reasons already mentioned. TFOWR does not seem to mind either way. So clearly, the majority of editors here do not agree with you, ONY.Tvor65 (talk) 01:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, the 3 Musketeers are of "one mind". Isn't that special. However, I created the section, I have made considerable concessions on the language and format, and I do not agree that it should be stuck as an afterthought at the end of the article. You do not have concensus. TFOWR said he/she was fine with it at the beginning. As an admitted fence-sitter, I respect his/her honesty about waffling, but respectfully request that TFWOR weigh the arguments and decide in favor of placement of Fees after the overview. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 02:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

TFOWR also said this: "I'm happy with removing the fees/costs altogether (but referencing them)"---I would love for him/her to weigh in. In order to achieve consensus, you need a majority to agree. No one owns any one part of the article. Everyone works on it together. I respectfully ask others to weigh in as well and make up their own minds about where the fees should go and exactly how much detail should be included. La mome (talk) 02:19, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It's not about who writes the section, but rather how the section should be organized within the overall context of the article. Sticking a section about fees in the middle of the section about the various components of IB simply makes no organizational sense. I moved it to the end because it's the only logical place in the context of the article.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:28, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

There - we have consensus. Thanks, everyone.Tvor65 (talk) 02:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Tvor65 - Please look up the definition of consensus. ObserverNY (talk) 11:47, 1 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY. Please refer to the banner at the top of the discussion page referring to off-topic remarks. You seem to frequently be off-topic with your name-calling and generalizations about the IBDP. Please stay on-topic about imporving the article and not alienating your fellow editors. Thank you --Candy (talk) 06:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Candy Your lecturing is disingenuous until I receive an apology for or retraction of your "sexist" remark. ObserverNY (talk) 11:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

• Weighing in: I do think fees are relevant, and it should be mentioned (I really don't care where) that there are costs involved with the IB DP. I do not necessarily think we should explicitly list all costs, since readers can easily obtain full details by checking the sources, however I have no objection to listing costs. I mentioned earlier that there sometimes seem to be three camps: the two "extreme" (apologies to all concerned!) camps here seem to be (a) "including fees is a pro-TAIB act" and (b) "preventing fees from being listed in a pro-IB act" - I don't believe viewing "the other side" like this is helpful: one editor's agenda - or perceived agenda - shouldn't be an issue here. What matters is: is it relevant to the article and helpful to the reader? I believe discussing costs is helpful to some readers; I do not believe that detailing all costs is nearly as helpful. As always, our job is to strike the right balance, and - believe it or not! - that's easier to do when we have differing viewpoints all contributing. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 10:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

TFOWR, if you included me in camp (a), please note that I never had any objections to the program fees and expenses being included, with or without numbers, as long as they were listed truthfully, and they are. But I was convinced by others that listing fees at the top of an article about an educational program does not make sense.Tvor65 (talk) 11:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think there's a grey area between both "extreme" camps and the middle-ground camp - to be honest, I think it is - or rather should be - a bogus classification anyway. It merely seems sometimes that there are camps. So no offence was intended to anyone - it was just a reminder that we should all be striving for the middle-ground. I'm certain there have been times here when editors would have identified me as being firmly in one extreme or the other, for example. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 11:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Truthkeeper Thank you for bringing up logic. First, I must correct you that the placement of the Fees section is in "the middle" of the article. It WAS in the middle, back when it was somewhere around the Special Needs section, but then it was shoved to the very tail end of the article in the midst of a plethora of other editing discussions. I didn't pick that particular argument at the time because you and others were busy stripping the article of most of its content. I agreed with most of your reductions in order to make the article consistent in appearance. The flags are gone, the TOK chart is gone, the UCAS chart is gone. Perhaps you noticed the Canadian reference I inserted regarding IB recognition at Canadian Universities. I thought it was a very good source, yet no one commented on that. You wanted all of the countries under Recognition gone, I transferred all of the references in the run-on opening paragraph and inserted the references as they related to the specific countries (Germany, Peru, Turkey) in alphabetical order to be consistent. I see those are still intact, for how long, who knows. Now, you have not only shoved the Fees section back to the bottom, but removed all references to actual cost. Unacceptable. The overall consensus was to relay the costs in USD OR to go ahead with a Table which YOU said you would create. I assumed in good faith that you would do that. You didn't.

Back to logic. The opening line of the Fees section reads: Schools interested in being authorized to offer the IB Diploma Programme engage in a two year application process... This is a fact, yes? So let's compare the IB Diploma Programme (a product) with another product. If you were to go into a car dealership, most people first walk over to look at a particular model because it catches their eye (the Overview). What's the very next thing they look at? The sticker price. (Fees) It's right there on the car window and the consumer can determine right then and there whether the product fits their budget. Does a customer first test drive the car, read the owner's manual about every aspect of the car, listen to every feature about the car from the salesperson and THEN go to the office with the salesman to learn whether or not they can afford it? No, they do not.

The cost of IB is not a POV, it is a fact. In the interest of global fairness and transparency, IB fees should be listed right up front after the Overview so consumers can determine whether it is a product that is affordable for their schools. It is therefore logical, to start the sub-sections with the Fee and Application Process. It is Step 1. ObserverNY (talk) 11:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, this article is neither a car-dealership (obviously!), nor a dealership for the IBDP. It's intended for general readers, so the dealership-analogy doesn't hold. Think about an article here on, say, the Ford Focus - there's no mention of cost at all; the article is simply about the car. That said, I believe that this article should mention cost - cost is notable because the IB DP is being compared to other programmes - but we should try to avoid turning the article (or even part of the article) into a "catalogue" for the IB. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 11:49, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

TFOWR That's a nice article on the Ford Focus. Except, you are wrong about the article not including cost. In fact, there is a large sub-section on Marketing Strategies and the very first link I checked within the article reveals a suggested sticker price: http://www.autoweek.com/article/20090406/CARNEWS/904069995. I have no desire to go into IB's "marketing strategies", (although I could certainly document a pattern and detailed strategy, perhaps under the IB article would be an appropriate place for that). But you yourself agreed that the IBDP IS a product. ObserverNY (talk) 11:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Well, the article itself doesn't discuss cost at all, which was my point: an article about a product doesn't discuss cost, because this is an encyclopaedia and not a sales catalogue. That the article references sales catalogues is hardly surprising, and precisely what is being advocated here - that we use IB's literature to reference claims made in this article. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Why I edited the title and the fees section. FAYI. --> The title of Fees was imo a misnomer as it referred to more than fees. I'm not happy with the title still but if it reverts back to just fees the other costings will need to be taken out. I also removed the "may" word for the IBDP and put in a condensed version of what the two cited documents state (I added an extra citation) which actually refers to a suggested minimum release time (which is of course is a cost in itself).

I suggest that the section would best serve the reader if it was merged into a section called "Programme Development" or the like. Perhaps something like:

• Authorisation process.

• • Time, fees, other special school requirements (eg training, IBDC release time), possibly IB support of the school (OCC, IBNet, HeadNet etc)

• Continuing Programme development

• • Fees, continual teacher PD

Input please. Cheers! --Candy (talk) 12:05, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

TFOWRT Re: the bit above where you say, I believe that this article should mention cost - cost is notable because the IB DP is being compared to other programmes - . I was wondering what you meant by this? Do you mean in this article? Do you mean in general by readership? In the media? .... --Candy (talk) 12:10, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Candy, I guess by a sub-set of the general readership, and in the media. My view of the IB DP is that it's always an alternative to "something". In the UK, for example, most schools would have provision for A-levels, so choosing to provide the IB DP would be a financial choice (I'm glossing over the hidden costs of providing A-levels, which is slightly unfair, but stick with me!) So, in that context, many people interested in the IB DP would be interested in knowing something about costs, or, rather, we should try and avoid the impression that the IB DP is a zero-cost alternative to A-levels.

Does that make sense? I'm running on instinct and "truthiness" more than common-sense right now - I've just been through a whole load of articles changing "IBO" to "IB" and my brain is a bit frazzled.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:18, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict x 2)

1. I did not move the fees section on June 30, nor do I object to having fees/costs in the article.
2. See the "About Referencing" section below re; edits I made on June 30. I will add a new comment shortly.
3. As for creating the table: have not had time. There is no hurry. Am busy copyediting articles up for review. Editors have to eat, sleep, work, play, live a life, and spend time on wikipedia, in that order.
4. To Candorwien's recent post about Programme Development: yes, I agree, which (I hope) might also include a section about online learning and athletes. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:20, 1 July 2009 (UTC) Sorry, in my rush to save the page misread a comment so striking my words. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

And now back to the article

Continuing from the Disengagement section - TFOWR's last post to me.

OK.Now I understand TFOWR. My point is that all programmes come at a cost. I do like to compare like with like between similar types of article but not only do I feel arguing for the inclusion of fees/costs in other educational programme pages (like A Levels - I listed some on this page earlier) would not be appropriate (and probably not accepted by other editors) I don't like the inclusion of a section purely for fees/costs here. I don't even want to get into OR by comparing programmes really. Additionally, and I only know this for A levels, that there is an application process to be able to be an A level centre. This also has costs - even though they may be hidden in the general educational budget at state, county or school level. The IB has a publicly transparent and easily obtainable application process which does make the fees seem to stand out large. Does one take that and use it to simply state the fees/costs thereby inflating its prominence even more? Does one play it down? It's not easy to answer. Perhaps that's why there is so much heat about this.

What I do currently like is that editors have taken me up on the Programme Development section and it's starting to look more encyclopedic. I particularly like this as it puts flow into the readability rather than a collection of facts. It also encourages editors to add more coherently as well. We didn't resolve whether a table of costs should be added to summarise fees. But then again, we also haven't emphasised that there is a considerable amount of effort and time that must also go into implementing the programme.

I'm still also unsure about the list of recognition in different countries as I posted before. I still think it may be better to have a couple of paragraphs stating that it has broad recognition and cherry picking some select examples, maybe a line on the UK A-level controversy, and expanding why some counties consider it inferior to their national systems/do not recognise it for University entrance.

Comments welcome. --Candy (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely neutral about fees/costs, etc., but not in the 1st para; and if agreed will make a table time permitting.

Programme Development worth expanding.

Recognition cut down to a few paragraphs with links to other IB articles. Work on the quality of those articles.

Also, perhaps consider how this article is presented elswhere:German, French, and Spanish. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:08, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Aye, I accept that all programme come at a cost (and it's slightly dishonest of us to suggest that A-levels, say, are "free" compared to the IB DP). However, many readers encountering the IB DP for the first time will be encountering it as a new, alternative option to a long-standing system - they'll want to know what costs will be involved in changing from the status quo. So, I think it's worth having something in the article about costs. In some respects by mentioning costs here we're simply mirroring IB practice - they have to deal with educators who are considering adopting the IB DP in addition to, or as an alternative to, something else so they publish costs up front. I take your point about WP:OR - a direct comparison with A-levels is out of the question (unless a wonderful new source appears) but we should mention that all programmes cost, and the IB highlight their costs... hmmm, how to do this without wandering off into WP:OR... I'll need to think about this...!

Not really had a look at programme development, but will do.

Recognition? Maybe (cut down). I'm slightly biased at the moment, because this article is huge and the IB article itself isn't - and really needs some work. If the IB article was more detailed I'd maybe argue for keeping the recognition section as-is, maybe not, but right now I do think it could be cut back.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:27, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm fessing up that my Wikibreak will be because I am 6 weeks away starting tomorrow. I will have internet access from time to time but I promised myself - relaxation and no head frowns. I will attempt to help develop the IB article when I do get on-line TFOWR. I also think costs are important as you say. Perhaps ultimately, the main article could have a summary of the costs across all programmes. Then again, I should learn to walk before I run!

Thanks for bring the heads up about the IBDP and IB articles in other languages TK88. I can read French and German so worth looking at and also perhaps getting some ideas and cross fertilization. Is there a name or policy for coordinating articles across languages? Transfustration perhaps?

Otherwise, I think we have a concorde about a general approach to improve a range of articles. At some point we will get fresh editors wandering in but it's also worth thinking about getting wikipedia article quality feedback at some time. Hmm :) --Candy (talk) 21:11, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice that you'll have such a long holiday. I'm sure there are others still around who can read foreign languages as well, and we'll be looking forward to the new editors who are coming on board. Enjoy.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:21, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Application, Authorization and Fees

When I first added the "Cost" section which somebody changed to "Fees" to which I had no objection, the intent was to make readers and schools aware of the IB process and associated costs. A school must submit Applications A & B. This is a fact. The citation brings readers to the detailed IB chart which enumerates the costs. If we want to get technical, there should be mention of the "Feasability Study" which is required BEFORE application is made. IB mandates staff training (and yes, Administrators are included in that) during the application process. I object to Candy's selective revision of the IBC's position to only reflect 25% release time and not the actual creation of the position and the previously discussed omission of the CAS Coordinator's "position". The sentence regarding Ongoing Costs should reflect the same citation as the application costs and in a broad manner for consistency and NPOV. The change has been made. ObserverNY (talk) 12:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I don't see what you are so upset about tbh. I edited. It's what I'm here for! Posted the reason for my edit during the post and on the talk page. I objected to the word "may" and not to the creation of the IBDP position. I just couldn't accept that there was any evidence for a universally paid stipend. The costs of a mimimum 25% of teacher release is a far bigger cost to a school. If you want to add more info go ahead. Just ensure it is verifyable and not speculative.

I would also like to suggest that we try and talk about the edits not about the editors. It makes the process less personal and more objective. --Candy (talk) 14:13, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Candy The section has been revised. I commented on your edit, not you. Please feel free to register your objections. ObserverNY (talk) 14:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY. I am suggesting we try to NOT mention editors when objecting or complaining about edits. Refer to the edit which changed from this to that. We don't need to mention names just the edits. This is certainly the most unpleasant place I have ever edited on Wikipedia and I don't think it should stay like this. --Candy (talk) 14:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

I think we have all agreed that the mention of costs/fees is relevant to the article. The matter of where is still unresolved. As far as I can see, one editor would like it in the beginning, after the introduction. Others prefer that it be near the end. Should it be right after special needs or after the US recognition section? Should we go with "costs" "fees" or "application, authorization and fees"? La mome (talk) 01:29, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

One thing we've not considered, though might be controversial, is to have the section at the end and mention it in the introduction? Another thing to possibly consider is to discuss the matter with editors at A-level, AP, and other similar programmes and seek their advice - not least because adding "costs" to those articles could well be useful. If nothing else, recent events have perhaps shown that more eyes here can be useful (and getting some of us to take a closer look at other articles might be useful, too).

As a general point, I'm quite keen to slow right down - if we take our time getting things right on the talk page we should all be happier with the article.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 10:28, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

About referencing

Just so you know, I've been following the prevailing system of footnotes as per WP:FOOT. However, I'd defer to Canderwien on this, who has been working on the article for a good long time, and will change any of the refs I've added to refs using template/pipes/attributes. Also, editors should learn some rudimentary citing skills once they begin editing an article. Certainly making up titles for documents isn't acceptable, as each document has a title, and may have various other attributes such as author, pub date and so on. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

On June 30, in good faith, and following the be welcoming policy, I edited the ref formatting but stopped because the IB report to UNESCO had been titled IBO/UNESCO Peace Education which is incorrect. Adding attributes to refs involves accessing the documents and retrieving the attributes. Making up titles is sloppy work at best. At this point my inclination is to redo all the refs using the longer template/pipe/attribute format and having each editor edit their own refs. Adding refs is an integral part of being a Wikipedia editor and proper formatting should be followed. Input please. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper Interesting how you immediately chose to single out the peace education document I linked while ignoring this:

^ Section 51.968(b) of the Texas Education Code states: Each institution of higher education that offers freshman-level courses shall adopt and implement a policy to grant undergraduate course credit to entering freshman students who have successfully completed the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme, who have achieved required scores on one or more examinations in the Advanced Placement Program or the College-Level Examination Program, or who have successfully completed one or more courses offered through concurrent enrollment in high school and at an institution of higher education.

Is THAT proper format? I don't think so. So instead of attacking me and me alone, why don't you clearly state the EXACT format you want in the article. ObserverNY (talk) 13:35, 1 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Yes, in fact that is acceptable for a footnote. Please see the relevant policies, and practise in a sandbox. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:41, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Ridiculous! It doesn't even link to the document! It could be completely made up and is unverifiable. ObserverNY (talk) 14:12, 1 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Sure it's verifiable - just look up Section 51.968(b) of the Texas Education Code states. Not every reference or footnote should link to a document, either.Tvor65 (talk) 14:17, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

It is NOT verifiable within the context of the article. I asked for Truthkeeper to clearly state the preferred format for the section. He/she told me to go practice in a sandbox. I do not consider that constructive or welcoming. If Truthkeeper insists on making this an issue, then at least have the "good faith" to provide us with THE format he/she prefers and let's make the entire section consistent.ObserverNY (talk) 14:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

It is the responsibility of each editor to familiarize her/himself with the proper way to reference material, according to the Wikipedia standards. You seem to be the only one here who still has trouble with references. You can't expect other editors to teach you or to do your work for you all the time.Tvor65 (talk) 14:36, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Tvor65

Be polite - Assume good faith - Avoid personal attacks - Be welcoming - ObserverNY (talk) 14:43, 1 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Very good - I hope you start practicing these from now on. In the meantime, take a break from editing and learn how to do it.Tvor65 (talk) 14:51, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Tvor65 Please read [[1]] which was the reason you gave for undoing my edit. I believe you are now also in violation of 3RR. Please restore. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 14:59, 1 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I believe what Tvor65 meant was that "there isn't consensus to move the fees section to the start of the article", not that there wasn't a consensus. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:04, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, let me be clearer. I believe that there is a clear consensus to keep the section at the end of the article, not at the front. Indeed, I believe there is only one editor who believes that the section should be at the start of the article (and me, who honestly could care less right now). I believe that constantly pushing the section to the start of the article, against consensus, is disruptive. I believe that citing essays as policy is non-collegial and disruptive. I believe threatening an editor acting in good faith against disruption with WP:3RR is non-collegial and disruptive. I have tried my best to steer both sides towards middle-ground, but that has clearly not worked. I'm unconvinced the sitution at this article should continue, and I'm going to see outside assistance. I'll be back shortly.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:16, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

TFWOR With all due respect, there is no such animal as "overwhelming consensus". Consensus Specifically, Consensus is not immutable. Past decisions are open to challenge and are not binding, and one must realize that such changes are often reasonable. Thus, "according to consensus" and "violates consensus" are not valid rationales for making or reverting an edit, or for accepting or rejecting other forms of proposal or action. ObserverNY (talk) 15:22, 1 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Well, I said "clear consensus", not "overwhelming consensus", but, to be honest, I think Wikipedia:What is consensus?#Not unanimity is more relevant anyway. Particularly "after people have had a chance to state their viewpoint, it may become necessary to ignore someone or afford them less weight in order to move forward with what the group feels is best....Insisting on unanimity can allow a minority opinion to filibuster the process". Insisting on your version when everyone else was opposed to it was, frankly, unacceptable, and, for me, the final straw. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:45, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)Well, TFOWR, the only reason given for shoving the section to the end of the article was Candy who "doesn't think it's that important". I created the section, I have agreed to MAJOR revisions including the removal of all monetary references within the text, I have changed the heading to something which hopefully is more pleasing and acceptable to all and in the process, created a natural chronological "read" within the article by placing it after the Overview. My "battle" with Tvor65 goes back several years from other places. Tvor65 followed me to Wikipedia, has contributed next to nothing positive to the article and if you want to side with that "camp" which includes LaMome and Candorwein, then all I can say is you have judged poorly. It was Tvor65, not you, who used the term "overwhelming consensus", and while there was nothing "clear" about it, I apologize if you thought I meant you. ObserverNY (talk) 16:06, 1 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I have no idea what you mean by saying that I "followed" you and what "battle" you are talking about. Anybody can become a Wikipedia editor. If you continue with your insinuations, I will have to report your behavior to the administrators.Tvor65 (talk) 16:24, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You most certainly do and you are not going to trick me into outing you. Just look at the date you arrived on the scene. Of course I could post your comments from another forum where you boasted of Wikipedia's refusal to allow TAIB as an external link as proof, but that would be outing as well. I know the truth. De Nile is not just a river in Egypt. ObserverNY (talk) 16:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Again, stop the insinuations. Which other forum? What comments? What on Earth are you talking about?Tvor65 (talk) 16:37, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Sorry, not falling for your tricks. You're the one who has to live with yourself, not me. Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 17:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Okay, that's enough. I have reported your behavior to the administrators. I will not tolerate these insinuations any longer.Tvor65 (talk) 18:29, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

OK, I don't think the situation at this article is healthy: it's turned into a WP:BATTLE. I couldn't find a good dispute resolution process that adequately addresses all of the issues here, so instead I've posted at the admin noticeboard (WP:AN). Please take a look, and let me know if the posting is anything less than neutral - I've tried not to take sides.

In the posting I've mentioned that I'd be happy for the issue to be addressed anywhere - if it's moved from WP:AN I'll post here with an updated link.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

You are right, TFOWR. It's not healthy. In fact, this whole experience has made me physically ill. ObserverNY (talk) 16:34, 1 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Plot-regaining

We've been collectively admonished to regain the plot, which I think is fair enough. With that in mind I'm going to suggest slowing right down, and discussing the article overall. Candy's made some suggestions above, which I think are extremely useful, and a good starting point. I'd also like to suggest we think about the other IB articles, and how they tie in with this one; and also articles for other programmes, and how we might work with editors at those articles to improve the IB articles and the other programmes' articles.

Articles, and the protocols for editing them, vary enormously across Wikipedia - I edit some articles where months can go by without an edit, and others where edits fly in every few hours and are then debated ad nauseum on the talk page. This article seems to fall somewhere in the middle (though possibly nearer the latter group). Without wanting to prejudice edits from "outsiders", I'd like to suggest that we come up with a protocol for editing the article. Something like an extension to WP:BRD (WP:BOLD, revert, discuss). One possibility is that if anything is added - or changed - that's contentious, we pull it from the article until there's a consensus about how best to phrase it - and then put it back. Does that make sense? Would it work?

One final thing - there's been some controversy around sexism and privacy. With that in mind, here's my personal opinion (I don't expect others to share this opinion, I'm merely noting it here), a declaration on name and gender, and a few relatedsuggestions:

• I could care less whether you refer to me using "he", "she", it", "xye", "s/he" or whatever. That said, if it helps, I'm male. This is implied on my userpage, but is hidden quite well ;-)
• I don't care what you call me either, though I'll note that I've recently changed my username so hopefully "TFOWR" is the obvious thing to call me. If you call me "Josephine" I won't be offended (though I'll likely be quite confused). I don't believe I've ever used my real-life name on Wikipedia, and I don't intend to.
• I will declare - without any expectation that other editors do the same - that I have not studied under any IB programmes, and do not work in education, or with any of the IB programmes, or any other educational programmes. I did once (over 10 years ago) work at a university, and was involved with organising student exchanges within the EU - that's the closest I've come to working in the education sector. I'm making this declaration because other editors have revealed their names and interests, and I think it's reasonable for them to want to know what my possible biases could be.
• If other editors are unhappy discussing their gender that's fine and totally understandable. It would be helpful if they'd let us know what's the best way to refer to them without causing offence, however.
• Some editors have revealed their gender (and names, in some cases) here previously. Given hindsight, they may now feel that that was a mistake. If that is the case, and they let the rest of us know, I think we should honour their opinion and not refer to their name and/or gender. Again, they should let us know how best to refer to them without causing offence and intruding on their privacy. Personally, if an editor were to take this view I'd regard any reference to their name or gender as a breach of WP:OUTING, even though that data has previously been revealed.

Thoughts etc welcome!

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 10:59, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

We might consider setting up a sandbox for the article, although I'm not convinced that's really necessary.

I'll spend some time reading the German, French, and Spanish articles, as well as the other articles in the series and think about organization and consistency.

Also, per the admonishment, I'll slog through the refs and determine whether they're valid or not.

In the future when the mud starts flying, my cursor will fly to the log off and my hand will press down on the mouse without hesitation.

Refer to me as he/she/it/they. Or Truthkeeper88, TK88, TK, 88. No worries on that front.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:55, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello, everyone. I'm new to this article, but I hope I can contribute something useful. I've recently been working on the IB_Group_5_subjects article and am eager to do something else for a bit. In the interest of full disclosure, I am a teacher in the IB Diploma Programme, though I don't think that has influenced my editing in the past, nor do I expect that it will in the future. As for references to me, you can call me he / she / it / xe / man / woman / womyn /CinchBug/CB, or whatever--I only ask that you keep it clean. ;)

As far as the article goes, I like the idea of collaborating with editors who work on other articles on education programmes, as well as people who edit other IB articles (some of the other IB articles could use a bit of tidying up, I think, especially with regards to citations). I also think that developing protocols for editing this page is also a good idea.

Truthkeeper, I can help go through the references, too, and may be able to help provide some new ones. Maybe we could divide up that work between us so we don't step on each other's toes?

Regards, CinchBug | Talk 15:08, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi CinchBug - welcome aboard! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, have been deep in the article and didn't note the talk page discussion. Welcome CinchBug! Nice work on the IB Subject 5! Am finished working on the refs for now, but my assessment is that there's still quite a lot of work to do. Uncle G is correct -- the frequent reversions/edits created a situation where the refs don't support the text. Initially I was formatting refs; but am now checking and tagging with template. Any help is welcome! I'll step away for a while so we don't step on eachother. Cheers.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:36, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(Edit: cleared out some extra colons I mistakenly inserted) Thanks, TFOWR & Truthkeeper! I'm starting slow, editing some things that shouldn't be too contentious. Right now, I'm working on updating the course offerings listed for each of the subject groups. There were some inaccuracies and also a good opportunity to provide a link to the description of the specific courses (though there aren't descriptions for all of the courses, unfortunately), as opposed to linking the courses to the general subject article. Seems to make sense to me--or do you all think that I'm putting in too many internal links? Regards, CinchBug | Talk 16:43, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) What a breath of fresh air! It's great to see nice people seriously going about editing business. I am glad the dispute was resolved, and we can move on. I am a little disappointed that nobody found it necessary to mention that while I did confront ONY when she got particularly obnoxious in her edits and comments, I was always cordial and cooperative with the rest of the group and have contributed to the article. Let me "introduce" myself as well and hopefully dispel some myths that ONY was telling to anyone who would listen.

I have been following the anti-IB movement in the US ever since 2005, when Edwatch (edwatch.org), an organization in MN, attempted to eliminate an IB program in Minnetonka High School on the grounds that the program is anti-American, against Judeo-Christian values, pro-UN etc. Later I followed a very similar case in PA in 2006 (and no, I was not involved in the lawsuit there, though I followed that story closely), the legislative battle in Utah last year and other similar stories. In all cases exactly the same "playbook" was used, drawn from websites run by Edwatch, Eagle Forum and now TAIB, the site that our friend ObserverNY said she helps run. I have been editing things on Wikipedia for a while from time to time (as an unregistered user) and when I noticed someone attempting to place a link to TAIB here and the long discussion that followed, I decided to register and get involved in the editing more seriously. So this is my interest, in addition to the fact that I love to write ;-). Let me also add that I am not particularly "pro-IB"; I think it is a nice advanced program but I can also find many things that could be improved in it. (But then "nobody is perfect", right?) I am also not an ideologue. I have friends on both sides of the political divide; friends who like IB and friends who don't care for it (as well as those who have never heard of it). It is the extremists of any type, left or right, that I have real problems with. And I do think the damage they are inflicting is underestimated by many.

I'd say that ultimately the article benefited from my involvement as well of that of many others and is now in a far better shape than when I first saw it. So there is progress, and this is good. Thanks for reading. Tvor65 (talk) 18:38, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Balls

Here are some balls that you can collectively pick up and run with:

• There's no explanation of the history of the programme in the article — no explanation of the reasons that it came to be in the first place. Here is one source that discusses history. (Ian Hill has written several articles in several books that give this history. Consult the others if they are easier to read.)
  • Ian Hill (2002). "The history of international education: an International Baccalaureate perspective". In Mary Hayden, John Jeffrey Thompson, and George Walker (ed.). International education in practice: dimensions for national & international schools. Routledge. ISBN 0749438355. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: editors list (link)
• Here is a source that discusses the IB Certificate and its influence upon the Dearing Review in the U.K.:
  • Geoff Lucas (2003). "The Graduation Certificate". In Graham Phillips and Tim Pound (ed.). The Baccalaureate: A Model for Curriculum Reform. Routledge. pp. 117–138. ISBN 0749438371. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)
• And here are some general sources from which this article can be expanded in several ways.
  • Blake A. Spahn (2001). America and the International Baccalaureate: Implementing the International Baccalaureate in the United States. John Catt. ISBN 0901577677. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)
  • Tim Pound (2006). "The International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme (IBDP) and post-compulsory qualifications reform in England". In Tim Pound (ed.). The International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme: An Introduction for Teachers and Managers. Routledge. ISBN 041533537X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)
  • Ian Andain, Jill Rutherford, and Peter Allen (2006). "Implementing the IBDP: Three retrospective accounts". In Tim Pound (ed.). The International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme: An Introduction for Teachers and Managers. Routledge. ISBN 041533537X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)CS1 maint: multiple names: authors list (link)
  • Mary Kayden (2006). "The International Baccalaureate (IB) and international educatoin". In Tim Pound (ed.). The International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme: An Introduction for Teachers and Managers. Routledge. ISBN 041533537X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)
  • Gary Snapper (2006). "Marked for life? Progression from the IBDP". In Tim Pound (ed.). The International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme: An Introduction for Teachers and Managers. Routledge. ISBN 041533537X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)

Read, evalute (depths, provenances, reliability, and so forth), and (if and as appropriate) use these sources.

Herewith also some draft content to spark further work and to show you that there's still more to write. Discuss, build, expand, and so forth. Uncle G (talk) 17:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

The IBDP grading system differs from that of many countries' national/local diploma systems. In the IBDP, achieving a mark of 75% or more in an examination results in a "perfect" grade (IBDP grade 7). In the South Australian Certificate of Education, in comparison, the top 5% of all candidates, regardless of the absolute values of the examination scores, achieve the perfect grade (SACE grade 20). The SACE grades are "normalized", whereas the IBDP grades are not. Paris notes that this is one of the choices that students and educational institutions have to make if they have to choose between the IBDP and national/local diplomas. National/local diplomas can be tailored to a country's local socieconomic circumstances, and the educational needs of its community and economy. The IBDP's aim is for global fairness and uniform standards, which militates against such tailoring.

Paris also notes other factors that may affect such choices, including a perception of "western values" subsuming local values, and the English language subsuming the local language.

Language was one factor that the IB had to overcome in encouraging the adoption of the IBDP (and of the IB in general) by schools in South America. The authorization of Spanish as a third "official" IBDP language enabled students in the Spanish-speaking countries of South America to take IBDP examinations in their native languages. This, in combination with the introduction of a November examination session (as an alternative to May) which matched more closely the school calendars of Southern Hemisphere countries, helped to spark interest in adoption of the IBDP in South America.

References

This draft has since been incorporated into the history section of the article.

History The IBDP began in 1962 and was developed at the International School of Geneva. Its original goals were threefold. Hill, the deputy director general of the IBO, describes these goals as "one pedagogical, one idealistic, and one pragmatic": the provision of an education placing emphasis on critical thinking skills the promotion of intercultural understanding and the provision of an international perspective to students the provision of a diploma that would be recognized as an entry qualification by institutes of tertiary education around the world One of its founders was Robert J. Leach, the head history teacher at the ISG. He explained his view of what the emphasis on critical thinking was (specifically with respect to the teaching of history) as follows: [The teacher] should question ever accepted view, and progressively to the extent that it holds itself to be sacrosanct. [… Students] will not be given conventional reassurance for close opinions, however respectable them may appear at first glance […] unexpected withdrawal from advanced positions and genuine humility before the moore complex issues will win respect — Cited in further reading, pp. 208–209, in Robert J. Leach The development of the IBDP was supported and encouraged by the International Schools Association in Geneva. It was funded by a number of American foundations, and by UNESCO. In 1968, the IB Office was officially established, for the development and maintenance of the Diploma Programme. The first official guide to the Programme, containing its syllabus and official assessment information, was published in 1970. It included the TOK. But CAS, although appearing to an extent in guides beforehand, was not specifically identified in the guide until 1989. The Extended Essay was introduced in 1978. From the start, all subjects of the IBDP were available in English and French. Mandatory subjects for all students were a first and second language. In 1974, bilingual diplomas were introduced, allowing students to take one or more of their humanities or science subjects in a language other than their first. The IBDP subjects became available in Spanish in 1983. Although it was not the intention of the people behind the IBDP who were "international purists", the area with the greatest rate of adoption of the IBDP in its early years was the United States. Public schools in the US were not interested in the international aspects of the programme. The were, however, interested in a high-quality diploma programme whose assessment standards were benchmarked internationally. The early high adoption rate in the United States was, however, also accompanied by a high attrition rate. By the mid-1980s, 45% of schools that had adopted the IBDP had dropped it. IBO North America, after a study in 1986, attributed this to inadequate preparation. Schools had adopted the Programme, excited at its novelty, without preparation of the amount of effort, time, and money actually required to see the Programme through. The IBO reacted to the findings of its study by adding requirements for schools wishing to adopt the programme, specifying that such schools must submit formal applications and self-studies, that staff must be trained, and that the school must be inspected by a three-person IBO team. As a consequence of these changes, the attrition rate in the United States dropped from 45% to 4%. The process for adopting the Programme was made harder for schools, however. References Further reading Alexander Duncan Campbell Peterson (2003). Schools across frontiers: the story of the International Baccalaureate and the United World Colleges (2nd ed.). Open Court Publishing. ISBN 0812695054. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help) Robert J. Leach (1969). International schools and their rôle in the field of international education. Oxford, New York: Pergamon Press. ISBN 0080130372.

Reference Format

Thanks, Uncle G! That'll definitely keep us busy for awhile!

TFOWR (or anyone else who might know the answer), is there any reason that I shouldn't integrate the citation format you suggested to me (and which I used) on IB_Group_5_subjects with the format we're using here? I'm thinking of just including a Reference section between the Footnotes section and the See Also section. This way, we could very easily include references to written material that may not be legitimately available online. I don't think it would have any negative effect on extant citations...would it? Would that mess things up in here? What do you think? Regards, CinchBug | Talk 18:09, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

After comparing the reference codes used on IB_Group_5_subjects with what we have on this article, I'm convinced that there won't be any negative effect if I insert a Reference section, as I proposed above. So I'm going to do it now and start getting some of my uncited comments properly cited. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 18:40, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

No objections from me. It should become apparent soon enough, but it anyone is unsure what we're talking about take a look at IB Group 5 subjects. The idea is to have a digital version of the old-style "ibid" - one section ("References" in the IBG5s example) lists sources generally, and the other section ("Footnotes") provides the articles references, cross-referenced with the sources. This means we can "re-use" sources, so one reference can say "Source A, page 1" while another says "Source A, page 2" etc. Truthkeeper88 (and anyone else with a WP:CITE-view), this shouldn't impact how we cite, but can you think of any reason this would be undesirable? Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:52, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, great. I've inserted the first (of several) references in the "Subject Groups" section, if anyone wants to see what it looks like. It's just like TFOWR described. If someone has an objection to this format, I can always pull them out later. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 19:00, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

As kind of an aside, I've been looking at the references on the varous Subject Group pages. I'm worried that some of them may not be appropriate for use on WP, since they may violate the IB's copyright. For example:

On the Group 4 page, there is this link:

[2], which appears to contain the entire IB Chemistry curriculum. There are also pdf copies of parts of the curriculum that are simply copies of the original IB documents.

On the Extended Essay page:

[3]. I don't know if this is normally available to the public, but I can't seem to find it if I start at ibo.org. The address makes me wonder if it was copied by someone who logged on the IB OCC.

On the ToK page:

[4]. I seem to recall that, at some point on this Talk page, someone said that xml links like this were not legitimate. Again, maybe because someone copied the link while being logged on the IB OCC?

and this, too; the link is pretty long Free essays for download? That doesn't really sound right to me.

What do you all think? I take copyright violations pretty seriously, as I know WP does, but am I making much ado about nothing? Thanks in advance for the input. If the folks here concur that these links are inappropriate, then I'll take them down and make a remark on the relevant Talk pages. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 20:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I am new to all of this, but Candy and I had a discussion about referencing the IB guides. They can be cited as if they were books, referring to the print or hard copy, but there should be no link to the actual guide, since the only way to get to that is through the password-protected OCC. So it is ok to reference them, but not ok to provide links that are from schools/individuals who are posting the guides in electronic (pdf) form when they are not supposed to. I hope that makes sense?

Welcome--and cheers! La mome (talk) 21:53, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks CinchBug. Remove the suspect refs and add a needs citation tag next to them, or I can do so. We can then replace with refs from IBO.org or from Handbook as LaMome suggests Probably be a good idea, though, first to determine the copyright protection from the Handbook. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

La mome and TK, yeah, that's the same thing I was thinking. Okay, I'll go ahead and remove those links, and will return to those pages later to provide good citations from the actual documents (which aren't "legitimately" linked to any page on the web, to my knowledge). Most of those pages don't have any/many citations yet; these links were just were mostly just listed at the bottom of the pages. Thanks, CinchBug | Talk 22:13, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, it's done. I directed any queries to this Talk page. CinchBug | Talk 23:04, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Cinchbug - re: History: I see quite a large History section has been added. While I appreciate someone taking the time to insert such a large section, I feel there can be some improvement to the section as I do not believe it accurately reflects IB's origins, its "Mother" (Marie-Therese Maurette - UNESCO) and "Father" (Alec Petersen, hence the Petersen Lecture Series) of IB, neither of whom are mentioned, or the real purpose of the organization, international/peace education. Before I make any edits, I respectfully request that this speech by former Director General George Walker be read by all: http://www.ibo.org/dg/emeritus/speeches/documents/chiefexam_oct04.pdf. Thank you.ObserverNY (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Article sections

Based the excellent suggestions Uncle G provided (see Balls ) I suggest considering how to format/organize the article. Here are a few ideas:

• Consider cutting back the lead/lede section
• Add a Background/History section with history of IB DP
• Consider adding a section re: language/culture in South America as per Uncle G's sample text
• Consider revamping the Assessments section and expanding
• Consider adding section addressing pedagogy (but with the layperson in mind)
• Expand the Certificates section
• Consider adding a section for online learning

Input? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:54, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

I think these are great ideas! I was also going to suggest something else, along the lines of TFOWR's idea that we develop some editing protocols for this page. I think this is also a great idea and I have a suggestion for how we might do this:

Perhaps we could break the article down by section (Introduction, Subject Groups, CAS/ToK/EE, Assessment, the new Background/History section, etc.) and each take on the task of editing one specific section. We can open a new section on the Talk page for each section so that we can throw around some ideas and have a (fairly) easy way of keeping track of changes, the rationale for those changes, and to discuss any potentially controversial edits. With people focusing on their particular section(s), we might avoid some edit conflicts, too (though I don't know that for sure...).

I've been working on the Subject Groups section today and I'd be willing to stick with that for a bit, since there's still more work to be done on it. Once I'm done, I'll pick up a different section.

What do you all think? Regards, CinchBug | Talk 23:03, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

All great ideas! For full disclosure, I am also an IB teacher (guess which subject) and can start pulling my weight with edits on the IBDP, IB and Group 2 subject page. Being an IB teacher does not predispose one to bias, either pro or con. In fact, I would say that most teachers in general tend to be critical by nature. I would prefer to focus on content and not politics. As I have mentioned before, I am new to this and would hope that I would be given the same "benefit of doubt" that ObserverNY enjoyed. That said, I have no problem with being bold, but am still learning how to reference properly. But I always assume (and edit in) good faith. Looking forward to improving the IB series with you all.

Cheers! La mome (talk) 23:16, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, given your username and the fact that you're volunteering to work on the Group 2 page...I wouldn't hazard a guess as to which subject you teach. ;) Having said that, I was also hoping that we could "standardize" the layout of each Subject Group page to the greatest degree possible (they wouldn't be identical, but I think the basic structure could very easily be made to be the same). Not only might this streamline editing in the long-run, it would also be easier to follow for visitors to the site; that is, they would be able to get used to a particular layout and know where to find the information they seek quickly.

I should point out that I looked at the viewing stats for the Group 5 page. On May 6-8 (and especially May 7), there was a sudden spike in people viewing the page. And what was happening around that time? ;) (That was when the IB Mathematics exams were being given, for those who wouldn't know.)

Please take a look at the IB_Group_5_subjects page and let me know what you think--I've been working on it for a couple of days and really like how it's turning out so far. You could use the same citation/reference format, too, which was originally suggested to me by TFOWR--very simple to use, I think. If you have any questions or think some part of the format should be changed, let me know. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 23:31, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

My strength is research, referencing and copyediting.

I'd like to continue working on the laborious process of reformatting all the references in the entire article, and also act as librarian or keeper of links. I've located one of the Tim Pound books, noted above, on Google books.

If nobody minds, as the article is in construction it's useful to have a section to park "references to be used" for easy access and easy formatting (if they're properly formatted in the "to be used" section, then markup/template can be copy/pasted into the relevant area of the text, and perhaps the only change would be page numbers.)

Also the entire series of IB articles needs copyediting for small things such as organization/organisation and center/centre and so on which I'm happy to do. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:39, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper, that sounds good to me. I also like the idea of having an area for "references to be used," as you suggested. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 23:51, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Re: Truthkeeper's suggestions:

• History of IBDP - good idea, I have info to contribute, please advise when section is created
• Expand the Certificates section - not necessary
• Consider adding a section for online learning - should be included in Fees section/combo with staff training ObserverNY (talk) 11:46, 3 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Subject groups and coursework section

I've completed my initial editing of this section, to include renaming it, as the new name seems to be a better descriptor of the purpose and content of the section. My intent with these edits was to help answer natural questions people may have about the course offerings and requirements of the DP with regards to the subjects, but I attempted to leave the nitty-gritty details of each subject to be described in the respective Subject Group sections. Hopefully I've struck a good balance in that respect. Please take a look and let me know what you think. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 14:32, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Request opinion from Uncle G re: sources to use

The Mary Hayden/Jeff Thompson book International Education is available on Google books. The separate essays within the work are also available on Google books, such as this Elisabeth Fox essay. in your opinion, is it fine to use Google books? Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:36, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

• Google Books isn't the source. The book itself is the source. So the question is whether it is fine to use those chapters of those books, written by those authors. Such questions are answered by looking at the authors, identifying them, looking at their reputations for fact checking and accuracy, looking at how far what they wrote was peer reviewed, looking at whether they had cause to uphold any good reputation for fact checking and accuracy that they may have had, and looking at whether the subjects that they wrote about were in their acknowledged/credentialed fields of expertise.

  Ian Hill, for example, is the deputy director general of the IBO, so one has to be careful to take that into account when using Hill as a source. Note how I presented Hill's views and Leach's views in the balls above as their views, not as raw statements of fact. But equally note that Hill has no interest in a false statement of (for example) the year of the IBDP's publication of its assessment guide, and can be considered an authority for such a fact.

  Dr Tim Pound was a Senior Lecturer in Education at Oxford Brookes University and is now a teacher at Oxford International College. So this is someone who at one point studied and lectured in education for a living. That's one factor in evaluating reliability.

  Judge the reliability of sources according to our Wikipedia:Reliable sources guidelines. Ask yourselves the questions listed at User:Uncle G/On sources and content#Evaluating sources.

  If you have questions, about sources, that you wish to obtain wider comment upon, there is the Wikipedia:Reliable sources/Noticeboard. I am not an ultimate arbiter here. I'm an experienced Wikipedia editor, yes. But there are others who can be called upon. There is also Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Education where one can ask for assistance, for example. Uncle G (talk) 17:28, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

  • Yes, thank you for your slapping me down for imprecise language. I realize that Google books is not the source. Simply wanted clarification re: whether to trek to the library or not. The Elisabeth Fox essay exists as a chapter in the Mary Hayden/Jeff Thompson book (source) (and was initially published in a different journal) and is in fact accessible via Google books. In my view, as you've noted above, the IB DP article should be balanced without using Hill's material exclusively, and as such the Fox chapter is worthy.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:43, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    • I think I have the correct syntax now. Very snazzy in fact. (didn't know that was possible) Thanks for the push.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:27, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
    • It wasn't slapping you down. I thought, from the section heading, that that was what you were asking. The standard caveats apply to using Google Books as a means of reading books: One doesn't see the whole book, so one should be careful about missing context; and one shouldn't rely upon Google's optical character recognition, that it uses to construct the snippets in the search results lists, but actually read the pages directly for onesself, since Google's OCR sometimes makes significant errors. If you have a library from which you can borrow the book that is just as good, and sometimes better.

      And you're quite right about not having Hill as the sole source. Looking for and using more sources is exactly what to do. Uncle G (talk) 19:23, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

      • Thanks again. Your post addresses the concern I had -- whether Google displays accurately and whether the pagination is correct. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:42, 3 July 2009 (UTC)
        • I tend to question the inclusion of one selective piece of Ian Hill's. As IB's Deputy Director General for quite some time now, he has a direct interest in promoting IB, is signatory to and author of some controversial documents, as well as the co-author of Supertest with Jay Mathews. He can hardly be called an "objective" source. Just my 2 cents. ObserverNY (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

http://www.ibo.org/announcements/succeedincollege.cfm Thought this was interesting. David Conley wrote a book called "College Knowledge" where he talks about the benefits of IB and how it prepares students for college. Haven't had time yet to find the actual EPIC study. It might be worth looking into and citing as a reference in the IBDP article. Cheers! La mome (talk) 01:54, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Maybe on Google Scholar?Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:42, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY--Why is it ok to use George Walker's speech, but not ok to include Ian Hill's books? Please clarify this: "Cinchbug - re: History: I see quite a large History section has been added. While I appreciate someone taking the time to insert such a large section, I feel there can be some improvement to the section as I do not believe it accurately reflects IB's origins, its "Mother" (Marie-Therese Maurette - UNESCO) and "Father" (Alec Peterson, hence the Peterson Lecture Series) of IB, neither of whom are mentioned, or the real purpose of the organization, international/peace education. Before I make any edits, I respectfully request that this speech by former Director General George Walker be read by all:" http://www.ibo.org/dg/emeritus/speeches/documents/chiefexam_oct04.pdf. Thank you.ObserverNY (talk) 22:43, 4 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY and this: "I tend to question the inclusion of one selective piece of Ian Hill's. As IB's Deputy Director General for quite some time now, he has a direct interest in promoting IB, is signatory to and author of some controversial documents, as well as the co-author of Supertest with Jay Mathews. He can hardly be called an "objective" source. Just my 2 cents." ObserverNY (talk) 21:30, 3 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY La mome (talk) 01:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you so much for re-pasting my words, LaMome. This page has gotten quite long and perhaps the other editors have forgotten them. So yes, I still stand by them, Ian Hill is but one IB source and can hardly be considered an "objective" source, especially since he was an underling of George Walker's. Therefore, if one is to use one of the executives of IBO as an historical source, George Walker as a former Director General, would be highly preferable. Furthermore, I didn't say it's "not ok to include Ian Hill's book" as a reference, I said "I tend to question the inclusion of one selective..." See the difference? I questioned the inclusion of "one selective" piece by Hill, without other sources for balance. You misinterpreted my meaning. ObserverNY (talk) 02:03, 5 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I had not seen the comment from ONY above and had to go into the history to find it, as I would not have found it further up on the page. I'll paste a response in the new section below. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:42, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Greetings, Uncle G, —Preceding unsigned comment added by ObserverNY (talk • contribs) 13:53, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

History should be presented chronologically and factually. The stage for the ideological foundation and development of the IBDP was set by two left-wing ideologues, these are not my words or opinion, this is fact: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alec_Peterson and Marie-Therese Maurette, (from my George Walker reference linked above). It was Maurette who first came up with the concept which later evolved to become CAS. I disagree with the selection of quotes from Ian Hill as to the real goals for the IBDP and feel that Walker more eloquently explains IB's true aims in his speech.

I agree with LaMome regarding the section on the U.S., but most likely not for the same reasons. The assumption by Hill that - The early high adoption rate in the United States was, however, also accompanied by a high attrition rate. By the mid-1980s, 45% of schools that had adopted the IB Diploma Programme had dropped it. IB North America, after a study in 1986, attributed this to inadequate preparation. Schools had adopted the Programme, excited at its novelty, without preparation of the amount of effort, time, and money actually required to see the Programme through.[10] is what I tend to call CYA speculation to account for IB's high cost, lack of transparency and claims of being "apolitical". From the historical perspective, it is much more likely that American public schools dropped IB during the 1980's when Ronald Reagan (R) was President and withdrew the U.S. from UNESCO. http://books.google.com/books?id=RVYpxIXPcpAC&pg=PA257&lpg=PA257&dq=Ronald+Reagan+withdraws+U.S.+from+UNESCO&source=bl&ots=25s4_yVQkJ&sig=VHe8Syimc1kGsrPY3h1i-YT64vM&hl=en&ei=s5hQSsqMLdqLtgeq5-WsAQ&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=3%7C pg. 257

The citation in the original opening paragraph referring to the United World Colleges' role in the development of the IBDP has been removed and not reinserted to the history, nor do I see it deposited in the References section as Truthkeeper had requested be done previously. Additionally, the reference to "international purists" is a somewhat misleading descriptor, as the real "international purists" and Mother and Father of IB are never mentioned in the article.I think this section needs extensive work and hopefully together we can construct a section on History which accurately reflects how the IBDP evolved. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 12:26, 5 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

New edits

I've gone ahead and moved Uncle G's text into the article. After reading many of the sources he recommends, it seems to be a good description of the history. I also shortened the lead and moved text from the lead into the respective sections. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:51, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't had time to read through all of the references but will do so before editing History section. ObserverNY (talk) 02:13, 5 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The History section is shaping up nicely, but I think the references within the article need to be changed. Doesn't "UG" stand for Uncle G? I think they just need to be reformatted. There also was "further reading" written in blue. I am not even going to attempt to change them. The part about the US schools in the 80s is interesting, but may seem a bit too detailed for some people. Uncle G gave us a nice summer reading list. La mome (talk) 01:57, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

LaMome - I forgot to ask, do you have an objection to speech by George Walker which spells out IBO's history being used as a reference? If so, please provide reason. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 02:17, 5 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Having spent many hours reading on July 3 well into the wee hours of July 4, the History section seemed to be a good summary, and quite fine as a beginning for the section. The information presented in the section is available in a number of the sources kindly provided; certainly if an editor wishes, many of the assertions can be verified by a different author such as Mary Hayden, et. al. I'm not bothered if the sources are changed as long as they retain the calibre of those provided. One decision to make is how much history to present. For instance, shall the article present the very unexpected fact that Charles Dickens wrote about school reform and was an advocate of international schools as early as 1864? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:58, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper May I interpret your above question re: Dickens, as tongue in cheek? The article is specifically about the IBDP, not international schools in general. Therefore I would also reasonably suppose that any History included in the article should be specific to the IBDP. ObserverNY (talk) 14:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY-I copied and pasted your posts so that you and others could see them together, since they are not in the same section, as Truthkeeper mentioned above. If Ian is George's underling, then there is not much balance is there? I noticed that there were several of Ian Hill's books/articles referenced and one of George Walker's, all suggested readings by Uncle G. Did you read any of them? If the only reason you would like to include George Walker's speech is because he mentions the "mother" and "father" of IB, then why not include something they in fact wrote themselves? I noticed there is Alec Peterson's memoir in the IB store. Did you read that?

La mome (talk) 03:06, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

LaMomeYes, I know that's why you copied and re-pasted my words. Perhaps you missed my thank you - "Thank you so much for re-pasting my words, LaMome. This page is getting long and perhaps other editors have forgotten them" Or missed them, as was Truthkeeper's case. And perhaps you missed my comment where I said I have not had time to go through each and every reference as yet. I was under the impression that a new section is open to discussion, collaboration and editing. Please correct me if that is a misunderstanding. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 10:24, 5 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

• Forgot to add that the Tim Pound material is very good, and I'd intended to add some of that as well, but wanted to massage the section first before adding in an extra amount. In my view this section is in the building stage. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:10, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I had planned to add more to the history section today but it appears there is objection to the section. I put it in, initially, to see how it looked. It looked good, read well, and I decided to leave it for 24 hours or so. Whoever wants, may delete my edits -- I'm not bothered.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Just for the record, Sage Publications is owned by IB and while I am not suggesting that these references be removed, I am suggesting that all editors involved in working on the History section attempt to locate a few sources which are independent in their reporting on IB. I have retrieved the UWC link re:

• IB History - http://www.uwc.org/who_we_are/history/international_baccalaureate_development.aspx,

and also suggest that the following two sources be considered for inclusion in some form:

• http://www.independent.co.uk/news/education/education-news/can-the-ib-promise-ever-be-realised-431559.html
• http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/cardiff-news/2009/02/10/international-baccalaureate-s-relocation-is-slammed-by-welsh-assembly-government-91466-22891501/

Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 14:22, 5 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

One additional comment before awaiting responses, the opening sentence citing 1962 as when IB "began" is erroneous. Every reference everywhere with the exception of Ian Hill's cites 1968 as the "begin" date for the IBO. While perhaps a bunch of educators were bandying the IB concept about at that time, citing 1962 as the start date is akin to stating "Barack Obama's political aspirations to become President began in 2002 in Bill Ayer's living room". Also, IB "Office" should be changed to "Organization" and the recent announcements regarding the relocation of IB's curriculum development center from Cardiff to Amsterdam and Maryland, USA should be noted. ObserverNY (talk) 16:14, 5 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

WOW! This is astounding. I love research, this is so much fun. IB encourages lifelong learning right? So I started poking around that 1962 date and Alec Peterson, and came up with this on the Alec Peterson page in Wikipedia: "In 1962, Peterson's connections with the military (he had served in Lord Mountbatten's staff) and his acquaintance with Kurt Hahn earned him a job planning an academic curriculum for the future students of the newly-founded Atlantic College in Wales. In 1966, he was named head of the International Schools Examination Syndicate, which was reorganised in 1968 as the International Baccalaureate Organisation." What's that old saying, it's not what you know, it's who you know? So this Kurt Hahn dude, was raised Jewish but was an admirer of Hitler, until one of Hitler's goons killed a young communist. Talk about cognitive dissonance. So this appears to be the true history of Peterson's path to becoming the first Director General of IBO, unless the Wikipedia article on Alec Peterson is all wrong. Veddy interesting. ObserverNY (talk) 18:09, 5 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Seven points:

• The group=UG1 attributes for the <ref> tags is just a trick to allow one to have multiple groups of references on a single page, as there are above on this talk page (q.v.). Obviously, there's only one group of references in the article itself, so you don't need that trick.
• The draft content was there to be, as I said, discussed, expanded, and built upon. It's a ball for you to pick up and run with. Consider it the bare outline of a history of the IBDP, if you like. Yes, Peterson is missing. If you can find a reliable source that discusses his involvement, then feel free to expand the history from that source. That's the idea. It's a skeleton to be fleshed out. There's quite a lot that is missing.

  Notice that a book by Peterson is cited above. I didn't use it as a source, because it's Peterson writing about himself. (See Wikipedia:Autobiography#The problem with autobiographies.) But it's certainly appropriate as further reading, for readers who want to learn more on the subject.

• Note that the name that an organization has now may not be the name that that organization had in 1972. Yes, name changes are history that either this article or another should cover somewhere. So ObserverNY has probably put xyr finger on more things that Wikipedia has yet to tell the reader, and more scope for article expansion.
• Don't just take the sources that I cited as being all that exists. If you can find other, just as reliable, sources, then cite them for other editors to read and evaluate. Finding, reading, evaluating, and using sources is the proper study of encyclopaedists, and one lessens the burden of the finding part by citing what one finds onesself.
• Although you'll find that some other long-time editors disagree, and take an absolute minimalist position on sources, my personal view is that two independent sources are better than one. It serves the reader better. So if you can find a second, independent, source that supports the content currently based upon Hill alone, then cite it in addition to Hill, not instead of. We're here for the readers, remember, and a reader who has two, independent, sources to call upon in order to check the accuracy of an article is a reader well served. Independence is a good thing. If you can support content from two independent sources, then a reader can be better assured of its accuracy.
• Any conflicts between any two such sources are exactly what this talk page is for.

  So, for example: Yes, the question of the founding date is a good one. Bring up as many sources as you can that cover this. Compare them, side by side, and evaluate who is correct, who is the more reliable for each point, and why. Look at who they are, what their reputations for fact checking and accuracy are, and where they themselves might have got their information from.

• There's a whole lot of discussion and writing at Wikipedia:Verifiability and Wikipedia:Reliable sources and their talk pages on the finer points of using sources like Hill, which I recommend reading if one is unsure. The basic idea is that one has to be careful, and that there's not a blanket response to such situations. As I pointed out as an example above, Hill doesn't have anything to gain by, say, misrepresenting the date of first publication of the IBDP guide. So one has to look at what facts one is using such a source to support, and evaluate whether the source can legitimately be considered to be reliable for each fact.

Uncle G (talk) 18:23, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

• • Uncle G

    Thank you for your thoughtful response. As we proceed, do you recommend posting the proposed text revisions here for consensus first?

    Just as an aside, you say that Ian Hill has nothing to gain by misrepresenting "facts" about the IBO. As a lay person, a mere Observer, it seems to me that Mr. Hill is either a bit of a loose canon for IBO or used as IBO's fall guy to sign potentially controversial and political documents. The fact that he co-authored Mathews' book (which was published by Open Court which is owned by Blouke Carus, IBNA board member), his paper to the UN Disarmament Council, his representation on the Earth Charter committee, signatory to the UNESCO decade of "peace education agreement", personally, I think Mr. Hill has made a career of misrepresenting IB to the public. Or so it seems to me. ObserverNY (talk) 18:41, 5 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

    • He has nothing to gain by misrepresenting some facts — things like the date of first publication, mentioned above, for example. As I said, it's something that one has to evaluate on a case by case basis. One has to look at what facts one is using such a source to support, and evaluate whether the source can legitimately be considered to be reliable for each fact. There are three examples in the draft that I gave above that are worth examining:
      • The publication date is just used as-is. There's no reason to disbelieve Hill here, and he can be considered an authority for this information.
      • Hill's characterization of the three goals is written not as a direct characterization, but as one that is attributed to Hill himself. It's Hill's analysis and opinion, and can be neutrally presented as such if properly attributed to Hill.
      • Hill's explanation of what was causing the 45% attrition rate, which he states out-right as being the cause, is placed in context, and presented as being the cause that the IBO determined from its study. This makes it clear that whatever the real cause might have been (which the text did not state) that's the cause that the IBO thought, and acted upon. Hill can be considered reliable for the facts that such a study was undertaken, that the conclusion of the study was as given, and that the IBO took actions upon that basis; even though one might not trust that conclusion to be accurate in itself. So the text presents the conclusion in a way that does not imply anything about its accuracy, whilst still giving the reader the information about the IBO's thinking that Hill can be considered reliable for.
    • Uncle G (talk) 05:50, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's another source for you to read, evaluate, and (if and as appropriate) use:

• Eithne Gallagher (2008). "Hidden and Overt Power structures in international schools". Equal Rights to the Curriculum: Many Languages, One Message. Multilingual Matters. pp. 16–33. ISBN 184769067X. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |isbn13= ignored (help)

I draw particular attention to pages 28–29. Uncle G (talk) 06:08, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Reply to Uncle G.

• Thanks for suggesting Eithne Gallagher's book, unfortunately not available for me. The suggested pages are blanked on Google, so not much help there. An evaluation of language in international schools, and how IB addressed the issue is worthy of consideration. Unfortunately I have little fortitude for working on IB DP much longer. Have other articles in the works, and a real world deadline looming. So, will contribute as much as possible, but very much less than since the admonishment, for which I wanted to make up. Thanks again for throwing the balls in our court and for providing good sources worthy of evaluation. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Opening for History

Test opening for History section:

According to former IBO Director General George Walker, the pedagogical seeds for what would eventually become the IB Diploma were sown by Marie-Therese Maurette in 1948 when she wrote a paper for UNESCO. Walker describes Maurette as the “mother” of IB, and Alec Peterson as the “father”. In 1968, Peterson would become the first of six men who have held the position of Director General.

ObserverNY (talk) 11:47, 6 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Oh. I guess we don't discuss, we just edit. Ok. I must protest the Asia subsection within History. If Truthkeeper wants to add that, then I want to add a section on the U.S. and how Bradley Richardson developed the IB Playbook and other documents to attempt to counteract objections to IB in the U.S. ObserverNY (talk) 12:07, 6 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I got caught up in the Elisabeth Fox article which is good. There's more to add but ran out of time. If you don't like anything feel free to change. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:26, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - Your source for the following: The European public sector schools showed "little interest" in the IB DP, although "France and Germany participated in the experimental stage." However, a number of US educators were followed the IB DP during the experimental stage. Harland Hanson, of the College Board Advanced Placement Program "was an early advocate, cooperating with Peterson and others on the issue of assessment." [8] cites pg. 65, brings readers to pg. 297, and I could not locate pg. 297 online to confirm. I don't think stating stating "a number of US educators" and only naming Harland Hanson is necessary in the article. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 12:48, 6 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Yes, the page range in the Elisabeth Fox essay was wrong, but fixed. The ERIC abstract is here for the paper that was initially published in the Harvard Educational Review. Once I have the original, I'll fix the source & pagination, though fine as is because it's in the Mary Hayden book. Elisabeth Fox only mentions Hanson by name in the article, in addition to PM Pearson of Canada. Wanted to flesh out that section some more. The article delineates how the IB changed in response to various areas, such as Asia (which I included); Africa (would like to add); and North America (would also like to add.) In my view, her piece is a good source.

I don't know why the readers are brought to page 257, but will try to troubleshoot a little.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:00, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your attention to detail. If you are going to create global sections where "IB changed in response" for whatever the reason, I respectfully suggest that you are opening up a can of worms. I'm game to bait some nightcrawlers, but I don't know that the IB crowd here will be so appreciative. ObserverNY (talk) 16:21, 6 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Archive #7

Since this talk page is quite long, I propose we archive #s 1-17. This we way can focus on Uncle G's reading list (#18). I am trying to learn how to archive, but if someone gets to it before I figure it out, I will not be insulted! Thanks La mome (talk) 12:55, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

I've filled Archive 6 and will begin Archive 7 soon. If an easier method of archiving exists other than the laborious copy/paste/cut, please advise. Thanks.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:38, 5 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Truthkeeper! La mome (talk) 02:32, 6 July 2009 (UTC)

Fees Section

I am still not happy with the Fees section, or what I would prefer to call the Application and Authorization section being stuck at the very bottom of the article after the very long recognition section which is only of interest to readers from the select countries listed (out of the 134 claimed). Application and Authorization applies to all schools, everywhere in the world and should appear higher up. I will not move it before anyone else weighs in, but at the very least, it should precede Recognition.ObserverNY (talk) 13:22, 6 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Since there do not appear to be any objections, it was moved and retitled. ObserverNY (talk) 22:32, 7 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, I have no objection to the move--I don't know where the best place is for that section, but this doesn't seem to be an entirely inappropriate location. Seems okay to me. I might suggest some small edits to the body of the text, per our discussions on your talk page. But I likely won't do that today.

Have you been following the discussion at the Group 3 Talk page? It may be appropriate for you to weigh in, since the edit in question is yours. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 22:48, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

No objections to placement and new title "Application and Authorization." I like the addition of the mission statement and think that it should be placed directly after the introduction, since it further explains the aims of the organisation and programme(s). I think the new History of the DP section will become very long and subject to many revisions. Eventually it should be condensed and summarised and placed immediately after the application and authorization process, but before the recognition section. When I think of people "surfing" for information about the IB Diploma Program, I would think that they would be students, parents and teachers looking for information about the actual programme as it exists today, not the origins and development of the programme.

La mome (talk) 23:05, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, yes, I also thought that the inclusion of the Mission Statement was good. Great idea! Forgot to comment about that before, sorry! Regards, CinchBug | Talk 23:26, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Likewise no objections to either - I personally think the new location is a very logical placement - better than either of the two options we've tried before. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:06, 7 July 2009 (UTC)

Organization

Fees: no objection to placement; but objection to inclusion as a source the IB School Application in the form of a MS Word doc. that downloads to the reader's computer. Suggest finding other source.

Mission statement: no objection to inclusion, but suggest different place. If included as a direct quotation only, then perhaps in a text box in the history section. If editors agree I'll format the textbox with the mission statement.

Suggest history placement remains as is, as articles typically follow a chronological flow. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:00, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Application A (and B) are IBO's official "mandates" regarding teacher training in the application process and the only ones, to the best of my knowledge, that are available online to the public. Numerous .pdf documents are linked as references in the article and need to be downloaded onto one's computer as well, so I fail to see how your objection is reasonable.

I don't care where you put the IB Mission Statement. Move it around, put it in a box, circle it with peace signs, sink it to the bottom or plaster it at the top, makes no nevermind to me. ObserverNY (talk) 17:03, 8 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Solution

Wanna make me go away for good? Please consider allowing a reference to TAIB http://truthaboutib.com/ somewhere within the IBDP article as evidence of "criticism" of IB in the U.S. Every fact that I would like to see included in the Wikipedia article is evidenced within TAIB. No need to restate them in the IBDP article. I make no money off the website, the administrators are not officially affiliated with any one religious or political group. If the reference is identified as a POV reference, ie: criticism, is it not legitimate and in compliance with Wikipedia policy? ObserverNY (talk) 15:09, 8 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Many of the reasons why TAIB should not be included have been discussed on your own talk page and on earlier talk pages for the IBDP. I will not repaste them here. Ewen, TFOWR, Pointillist and possibly others kept removing it when you added it because, simply put, TAIB is not a valid source. Creating a section called "criticism of IB" to include TAIB as a reference does not change the fact that it is not a valid source. In the criticism of IB, one would expect to see links to educational journals or reports, not a biased blog, which is basically what TAIB is.

A better solution would be to try to work with people as opposed to alienating them and getting emotional when people make edits. Please don't use the IB talk pages for your own personal soap box either. You can "rant" all you want on your own talk page. Just some friendly advice.

La mome (talk) 17:53, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

Several editors agreed that a section called Praise and Criticism would be acceptable. It is a FACT that a number of grassroots groups have sprung up around the United States to oppose IB. TAIB is just one site. You cannot deny the fact that there is opposition to IB in the United States, from some educational, religious and political groups. The main objection to TAIB being linked was that it was "anonymous". Such is not the case. I personally don't care if the sentence were to read: "In the United States there is a grassroots movement among parents and some politicians to oppose IB in American public schools." and then cite a whole bunch of references such as DeWeese, Quist, USPEIN, Ceopa, TAIB, EdWatch, the Utah Senate Site, the Georgetown admissions officer, etc.

Regarding one of your earlier statements: Being an IB teacher does not predispose one to bias, either pro or con. I beg to differ. You are employed to support IB policies and curriculum. You are financially and ideologically predisposed to being pro-IB unless you happen to be a rebel IB teacher seeking employment in a non-IB school. Your condescending language such as "rant" and "soapbox" is far from friendly. ObserverNY (talk) 18:59, 8 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

veracity of claims

ObserverNY- Do you have any proof to support this claim?- "Just for the record, Sage Publications is owned by IB and while I am not suggesting that these references be removed, I am suggesting that all editors involved in working on the History section attempt to locate a few sources which are independent in their reporting on IB." La mome (talk) 22:17, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

From the assessment section--Student work submitted to IB for assessment grants IB the "non-exclusive charge-free, worldwide licence, for the duration of the statutory copyright protection, to reproduce submitted materials in any medium for assessment, educational, training and/or promotional purposes relating to the IB Organization’s activities, or to those related activities of which it approves."

I don’t see the statement that appears in quotes anywhere in the link that was provided. Also, licence [sic] is incorrectly spelled. I will go ahead and fix that, but I will also change the quote that is in quotes if it is not in fact a quote.

Cheers La mome (talk) 18:30, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

"Licence" is the UK/Commonwealth spelling. It's an OK spelling for this article, as the IBO is European. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:39, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I realized (or realised?!) that after I posted it. Same goes for programme and organisation. I am more concerned about the factual content of the quote, which sounds like the students do not retain copyright on their work which is not true and stated very clearly in the link that was provided. Could you verify that? Am I missing something?

Thanks La mome (talk) 18:59, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Heh, I think Noah Webster's greatest failing was that he didn't think global ;-)

I searched for "charge" in the IBO copyright FAQ, and it didn't show up, so I suspect the whole paragraph is a good-faith attempt to paraphrase. It's basically correct, except it omits what is arguable the most important part: "You hold the copyright in any work that you create using your own skill, intelligence or imagination" (italics from original source). My reading of both the controversial paragraph and the FAQ is that the student retains copyright, but grants the IBO permission to (anonymously) use the student's work. I'm not sure, but I think that's how my university did it, too. I don't know about A-level course-work or exams, however.

I'd suggest removing the quotes, or directly quoting from the FAQ (I presume fair-use allows us to do that). Either way we should include the part about the student retaining copyright.

How necessary is this paragraph, anyway? It doesn't strike me as particularly notable, and it's fairly technical - would the typical reader find it of interest? Would the article suffer if we removed it? If this is unusual - i.e. if AP, A-levels, etc retain copyright then I'd suggest considering keeping it. If it's fairly standard then I think there's a case for removing it.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:12, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I am glad you brought that up. No, I do not think it is particularly notable. The article would not suffer if we removed it. If copyright is a question that other editors feel is of importance, then we can always add the link back in with a more accurate explanation, which is that the students retain copyright of their work as they do, I think, for other exams such as AP or A-levels.

Cheers La mome (talk) 19:27, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Of course LaMome doesn't think it's particularly "notable". It's a shame she couldn't locate the exact phrasing in the IBO FAQ document I cited, but it was there. Allow me to explain WHY. First of all, up until about 4 years ago, IBO's legal language did not include the "you hold the copyright" phrase, it merely stated "all student work submitted to IBO for assessment becomes the absolute property of IBO." Yes, that's right. Shortly after I brought this to the attention of readers of the Washington Post, IBO changed the legal language. I have no problem revising the sentence or even creating a separate section for intellectual property, but I am VERY disappointed that the html that I worked VERY hard to get right has been wiped because LaMome didn't find the sentence "notable". I like TFOWR's suggestion to remove/reduce the quotation marks and I think it is important that students understand that once their work is submitted for assessment, IBO is free to use it in any manner it deems appropriate without obtaining further permission. ObserverNY (talk) 22:03, 9 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Here is the link:

This is what it says: “What is the difference between my holding the copyright in a piece of my work and it being the property of the IB? You hold the copyright in any work that you create using your own skill, intelligence or imagination. When your school sends your work to the IB for assessment you retain copyright but give permission to the IB to use it as it needs. On the other hand, the physical item that is sent in becomes the property of the IB. This means that the IB has the freedom to dispose of paper scripts, three-dimensional artwork, tapes of music, and any other submitted candidate material, when it no longer needs it; it cannot store all items of candidate work indefinitely and needs to be able to periodically dispose of material to free up storage space. If you want any of your work back, you must ask your school to reclaim it through the enquiry upon results service. What does “giving a non-exclusive licence to the IB to reproduce my work” mean? You retain copyright of your material even when it is sent to the IB. However, the IB may need to copy it for examiners and moderators as part of the assessment process for your Certificate or Diploma. It also uses samples of candidate work to help teachers understand what the IB is looking for so that they can help students to better understand the course and prepare for examinations. A non-exclusive licence means that you give permission to the IB to do what it needs to do and that you can still do what you want to do with your work.” La mome (talk) 22:41, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

OK, ONY is happy to remove the quotes. If the section is kept I'd also like to see it noted that the IBO doesn't retain the copyright as of present. I'd also prefer that we use the precise language the IBO use. LaMome, are you happy with that? ONY, are you happy with adding the part about no longer holding copyright? Are you happy with a verbatim quote? That leaves...

In the past the IBO did retain the copyright. Is this something we need in the article?

For what its worth, my instinct says that the IBO were lazy, and retained copyright because it made their lives easier (akin to a concern promoter warning attendees that video was being recording and they gave up all rights to any share of the video sales); and that the IBO changed their policy for PR reasons - not exactly A+ behaviour, but not E- either. This is WP:OR, so treat with caution.

So... is this a section that benefits the article? If so, why? If not, why?

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:16, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

To help everyone understand what the IB is talking about, here are some actual examples of the IB's use of student work that I've seen:

Extended Essay exemplars (examples of outstanding, satisfactory, and unsatisfactory work on the part of the (strictly anonymous!) student.

Internal Assessment exemplars (as above). <OpinionMode>Personally, I found these very useful the first time I ever tried to grade my students' IAs.</OpinionMode>

They might also be used in the mandatory training IB teachers receive. Here's how I've seen it done:

The presenter (ie. "teacher trainer") gives each of the assembled teachers a copy of a piece of student work. Each teacher then grades the work on their own, using the appropriate markscheme. Then the presenter shows how the work was actually graded and moderated (at all three levels). A discussion of why particular items were graded in a particular way follows. <OpinionMode>Again, I found this extremely informative.</OpinionMode>

I have no objection to including information about the copyright stuff, but I do think it should be put in perspective, if it's going to be included. Hope that helps. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 23:20, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Cinchbug and TFOWR,

Sure, I'm an agreeable sorta gal. Work with me on the phrasing and citations. I really am flexible. Do you suggest a separate section on Intellectual Property? ObserverNY (talk) 23:33, 9 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Semper Gumby! The only potential problem I see is actually putting it into perspective, since I'm unaware of any links to specific teacher training syllabi that would reference exactly how this stuff is used and, if we could find them, any valid reference would probably be short-lived (since these presenters update their teacher-training curricula as time goes on). My comments above are factual, but they're worthless in a WP article, since they constitute WP:OR. So this will be difficult to accomplish, if we want to do it right. I suspect that it can probably be done, but my only question would be, "is it necessary?"

If the consensus is, "Yes!" then so be it! But I should point out that, philosophically, I have no dog in this fight, either way. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 23:47, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

Why don't we start with a look at the real policy and work from there? (Now I realize some may contest this source, but they ARE the REAL IBO Intellectual Property regs)

Article 3 - http://hcps2.hanover.k12.va.us/ahs/dept/IB/IBO_General_Regulations.doc I don't know that an "example" is really necessary to convey the policy. But I do think parents and students have the right to know that they don't get their work back and that IBO can do whatever it wants with it once it has been submitted. Let the readers decide whether this is something that is important to them, or not.

P.S. (I'm no Michael Vicks ;-))ObserverNY (talk) 00:10, 10 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Re: Michael Vicks...heh! Yes, I get jokes. ;) CinchBug | Talk 00:24, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

You mean this, don't you? http://www.ibo.org/documentlibrary/regs_ibworldschools/documents/DP_regs_en.pdf Your source seems to be a copied version of the IB document. La mome (talk) 00:21, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

From the document I linked above: "5.2 Candidates retain copyright in all materials submitted for assessment purposes, but by submitting those materials, and subject to article 5.4, candidates thereby grant the IB Organization a non-exclusive, charge-free, worldwide licence, for the duration of the statutory copyright protection, to reproduce submitted materials in any medium for assessment, educational, training and/or promotional purposes relating to the IB Organization’s activities, or to those related activities of which it approves. Such licence shall become effective from 1 June following the May examinations and 1 December following the November examinations." Candidates retain copyright La mome (talk) 00:28, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, excellent, that's a much better source. I believe that articles 5.3 thru 5.6 also need to be summarized so the whole story is told. The fact that IBO retains the right to "change" student work (which can include audio/visual) and use it in any promotion that IBO sees fit, might give some parents pause for thought. ObserverNY (talk) 00:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I agree that parents and students should know that the students retain copyright and can request that their work be returned to them. I am glad you agree that my source is better. I still don't think any of this is relevant or worthy of such continued discussion or inclusion in the article. La mome (talk) 00:41, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

...and of course, there is section 5.4: "Under exceptional circumstances, a candidate may withdraw this licence for a specific piece of work, as provided in article 5.2. In such case the IB Organization must be notified in accordance with the procedure described in the current handbook. The candidate must submit a written notification to the school’s Diploma Programme coordinator who has the duty to inform the IB Organization by the due date. In these cases, the IB Organization will use the material only for assessment purposes." Shall we keep going, or shall we end it here?La mome (talk) 00:53, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

End it? Are you breaking up with me? Why, we've only just begun! But you'll have to wait till tomorrow when I have time to throw something together and then you can beat it with a stick to heart's content, (even though it isn't important to you). Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 01:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Stalemate

The Tristan Bunnell article was a good source for the criticism of the IB DP as it's published in a journal.
In my view we've reached a stalemate, and any meaningful editing has become impossible for IB DP.
Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:12, 8 July 2009 (UTC)

From what I can see, the Tristan Bunnell article is password protected by Sage Publications - unless you linked it somewhere and I missed it. If so, my apologies and please re-link so I may peruse. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 00:21, 9 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

As to a "stalemate" - any particular point? You have jumped all over the map from History to objecting to Application A as a reference, to the Fordham Report (Section 3 edit) to Islamic History to Praise and Criticism. I don't see how you can simply declare "stalemate" regarding any future edits of the IBDP article. It would be nice if Uncle G would weigh in. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 00:52, 9 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I worked on the History section. You deleted my edits, which is fine, but not worth doing the legwork if the edits will be deleted without good cause. So I stopped (although would prefer to continue.) Asked to give an opinion on the placement of the Fordharm report I did as a courtesy to the person who asked. It's not possible to edit the article in any meaningful way unless you agree to the specific edits, the specific sources, and the specific placement of the edit. As such, either you and you alone edit these IB articles, or an edit war ensues as did today here, or statements such as this so the only recourse is to step away. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:10, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

You said feel free to edit. I gave good cause for removing the Asia section, did I not? How was here an edit war? LaMome deleted a reference I inserted, I never reinserted it, the whole thing was a discussion, not an edit war. Apparently I am not free to make any edits without your specific agreement, specific sources or placements either. Please feel free to step away, you are obviously not seeing recent events with a clear head. ObserverNY (talk) 01:42, 9 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

proposal to move sections

I propose to move the mission statement to the top, after the introduction and the "history of IBDP" sections to near the bottom, just before the "recognition section." I mentioned in an earlier post that I think the History section will undergo many revisions and is (in my opionion) the least relevant and interesting aspect of the DP. Thoughts? La mome (talk) 23:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

The mission statement seems to be the IBOs view of the present, and the history section explains how we got there. I'm a history graduate, so I'm slightly biased towards "history", but my preference is for the status quo. This isn't a strong preference, however, and I wouldn't argue against a consensus for the change. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 23:19, 9 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't care where you put the mission statement as stated above, however moving the History section to the bottom is absolutely unacceptable to me. It makes encyclopaedic sense to leave it where it is. ObserverNY (talk) 23:28, 9 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I think that the History section would be well-placed somewhere near the top of the article, as it seems logical to me. I wouldn't think that it necessarily needs to be the first section (though I don't oppose that), and I agree that the Mission Statement could logically precede the History section. Regardless, I would think that the History section should be somewhere fairly close to the top.

However, I agree with La mome that the History section will likely be a heavily-edited (and contentious) section here. In fact, I've suggested this before. It's quite difficult to make "History" objective. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 00:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't know why you and LaMome are "predicting" a heavy editing and contention over the History section, (unless both of you have serious edits already in mind). Truthkeeper removed his/her last paragraph, don't know why, I had no objection to it. I think it reads fairly well right now. ObserverNY (talk) 00:26, 10 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, no, I have no "edits planned." As I previously stated, I don't presently intend to contribute to that section and suspect that this will be a contentious topic, for the reasons I mentioned earlier. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 00:42, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper Nice work on the IB Mission statement box and keeping the article in chronological order!

Re: Assessments - I haven't gotten to composing the copyright reference yet, but I noticed something else that is absent from the section and feel is important. IB students, whether Certificate or Full Diploma, are required to take the final exams, it is not an option as it is with AP. This could serve as a lead in to the copyright reference. Ex: IB students are required to take the IB exam at the end of the course. Once student work is submitted to IBO for assessment..... Your thoughts?

Re: CAS - the addition of the Fox reference seems to only repeat what is said in the opening sentence.

Re: the McKinney/fundraising statement from IB World, I can look up the pg. numbers tomorrow (it's my daughter's birthday and we're expecting about 50 20-25 yr olds here later, yeehah!)but I don't recall if any particular authors were attributed to the two sections I pulled from. ObserverNY (talk) 13:16, 10 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, with regards to this remark of yours (quoted below):

"I noticed something else that is absent from the section and feel is important. IB students, whether Certificate or Full Diploma, are required to take the final exams, it is not an option as it is with AP."

This is not the case. In some school districts, students are awarded a "weighted" credit (like bonus weight) for taking advanced, Honors, IB, AP, Cambridge, etc. courses, resulting in the possibility that a student could have a GPA greater than 4.0. These districts may withhold the weighted credit if the student does not take the IB (or AP, etc.) exam, but there is otherwise no way to require students to take the exam. That students cannot be forced to take the exam is particularly important in districts where students must pay for IB and AP exams themselves.

Regards, CinchBug | Talk 13:27, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Cinchbug With all due respect, IB's requirement for IB students to take the end of the course IB exam has nothing to do with weighting of GPA in individual schools. Forcing the students to take the exam and IB's somewhat less than accommodating fee reduction policy is an issue, in the United States, perhaps not elsewhere in the world. I will hunt for exact citations from IBO, but I know that Jay Mathews has made reference to this fact and considers it one of the other reasons that IB is "superior" to AP. In cases of financial need, he expects the district or other sources to supplement the student exam fees.ObserverNY (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, if a student wants to be awarded his/her IB Diploma or certificate for a course, then it is true that they would have to take the exam and fulfill IA requirements (or Diploma requirements, if that is what they seek). But there is no practical way to make a student take the exam--if a student doesn't want to take it, then he/she can simply not show up for the exam. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 13:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

And of course if a copyright reference is included, it would clearly say, "Students retain copyright..." La mome (talk) 13:32, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

When the copyright sentence is re-added to the Assessment section, it will clearly reflect the entire policy and not one selective phrase in bold. ObserverNY (talk) 13:43, 10 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Cinchbug Please take a look at this FAQ from IB : http://www.ibo.org/ibna/educators/diploma_faq.cfm#h Please note that nowhere does it say a student MAY take the IB exam. It says a student can't take the exam if they aren't in an IB school, but the key word is "WILL" when referring to the timeframe for HL and SL exams. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 13:55, 10 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, to repeat my comments from above:

...if a student wants to be awarded his/her IB Diploma or certificate for a course, then it is true that they would have to take the exam and fulfill IA requirements (or Diploma requirements, if that is what they seek). But there is no practical way to make a student take the exam--if a student doesn't want to take it, then he/she can simply not show up for the exam. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 13:52, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

While the IB does indeed want every student taking the course to take the exam, there is no practical way to make this happen. Earlier this year, due to anticipated budgetary problems, we expected that we would not be able to pay for students' exams in May 2010. Thus, we were aware that, in the fall of 2009, we would not be registering students for the exam who either were unable to afford it or decided they didn't want to take it.

Again, it is possible to say, "You are required to take this exam!" But there is no practical way to enforce it (except for districts that can refrain from awarding weighted credit). Regards, CinchBug | Talk 14:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Cinchbug Well this poses quite a conundrum, does it not? The article is primarily about the IBDP, not individual Certificate courses. Therefore, if one is to "register" as a full DP Candidate, one is required to take the DP exams in order to achieve the Diploma. If a school is not paying the $129 registration fee and steering students away from the full DP purely for budgetary reasons because the final exams are required for the DP, that seems highly discriminatory to force the student into less "challenging" courses simply because of money. That's a tsk tsk in my book. ObserverNY (talk) 14:23, 10 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, I don't understand your reference to "steering students away from the full DP" or "forc[ing] the student into less 'challenging' courses." Who said that?

Simply put, in order to be awarded an IB Diploma (or a course Certificate), then of course the student would have to fulfill all internal and external exam requirements, as well as DP requirements (except for those seeking only a course Certificate).

But if a student decides that he/she doesn't want to take the exam, then they don't take the exam. Of course, this would mean that they don't get their IB Diploma or Certificate.

Is that what you're looking for, some statement to the effect of: "In order for a student to be awarded an IB Diploma, that student must fulfill all internal and external exam requirements for each course taken." If so, okay, I suppose we can put that or something like it in the article, but I'm not sure it's necesary. Is there any reason to suspect that a student might expect to get their IB Diploma without taking the course exams? That wouldn't seem to make much sense to me.

Regards, CinchBug | Talk 14:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Cinchbug One last comment before I get to work, you said: Earlier this year, due to anticipated budgetary problems, we expected that we would not be able to pay for students' exams in May 2010. Thus, we were aware that, in the fall of 2009, we would not be registering students for the exam who either were unable to afford it or decided they didn't want to take it. A student may have decided they didn't want to take it because they couldn't afford it. Apparently you work in a district where AP/IB exam fees were picked up by the taxpayers and that resource has since disappeared. To "not register" students who may have wanted to take the full DP because of their socio-economic status, is discriminatory and elitist. Mine is a wealthy district where the students pay the fees, so this is not an issue, but for an organization whose goals are to "encourage students to take the full DP" and "provide access to people who are socio-economically disadvantaged", it certainly seems to be a contradiction of goals if the only option to "opt out" of the IB final exams is to have the student avoid the most "rigorous" program the school offers. ObserverNY (talk) 14:59, 10 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're trying to get at. In the event that our district was unable to pay for IB or AP exams, then the students would need to pay the fees themselves. Provided that a student taking the course was to pay the fees, then we would "register" them through IBIS (or "register" them for AP exams, if the student was in an AP course).

But students who didn't, or weren't able to, pay the fees wouldn't be denied access to the courses. Rather, they would still be taking the courses and learning the material. They just wouldn't be able to earn IB course Certificates or the IB Diploma, nor any of the various AP Scholar distinctions awarded by the College Board.

We were beginning to look at a variety of ways to come up with the money to pay the fees, including fundraisers and so forth. Happily, however, the budget issues were worked out and the district will be paying IB and AP fees for the students.

Regards, CinchBug | Talk 15:20, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Cinchbug Okay, the keg just arrived and I'm SURE there must be a Wikipedia policy against posting while intoxicated but let me leave you with this thought - the IB student "registration" fee must be submitted to IBO at the beginning of 11th Grade, WAY in advance of the separate exam fees for the actual exams. The College Board has no such "registration" scheme and only "registers" students for the actual exam two months before the exam is given. The registration fee IS the exam fee. This is a HUGE difference. The "product" being offered and "most recommended" by IBO is the full Diploma. A student shouldn't expect to spend their final two years of high school taking IBDP courses for the pure personal satisfaction that may come from whatever it is they may or may not learn. Students enroll in the full IBDP because their guidance counselors tell them that colleges will look at it as the "gold standard" and the "most rigorous" option available. This is only an issue in American public schools. So by advocating the IBDP in this manner, to say, "Well Johnny, I know you really, really want an IB Diploma and it could possibly award you sophomore status at a university and save your parents a year's worth of college tuition, but we're sorry, if you can't afford the exams now, just be happy with all of the wonderful knowledge you will learn" is well......well, discriminatory and elitist. Do you see where I'm coming from? Again, this is not an issue in private schools where parents accept the terms of tuition in advance. But in the public school arena, where all students are guaranteed equal access to public programs, denying students the opportunity to earn the IBDP on purely financial grounds is wrong. While your school may have "found" new porkulus money to pay the exam fees this year, it doesn't make the issue go away in districts where the entire responsibility for exam fees rests on the student or where an administrator may be feeling "stingy" and want to limit access to the IBDP. Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 16:01, 10 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, I really don't see what the timeline for registration has to do with anything. If your claim that the IBDP is "discriminatory and elitist" is based on the fact that students have to pay for their exams and the DP registration fee, then that makes AP no less "discriminatory and elitist," only less expensive. By extension, any college or university that requires students to pay for books, tuition, and other fees is also "discriminatory and elitist," since not every student is able to get all the financial assistance they may need to attend.

For the record, no, I consider neither IB nor AP to be "discriminatory and elitist."

As for your claim that guidance counselors refer to the IB Diploma Programme "as the 'gold standard' and the 'most rigorous' option available," I'm sure some counselors do say things like this, but I don't know any of them and would suggest that making generalities of this sort isn't helpful. The counselors and teachers I know all realize that students stand to benefit from taking both/either IB and/or AP courses. While the possibility of earning college credit and thus saving some of the cost of college is understandably attractive to students and parents, this aspect of IB and AP is not as important to me--as a teacher--as is what they learn in the courses. I'm always pleased when students do well enough on the exams to earn college credit, but "having my students earn college credit" is a tertiary goal for me, at best.

Regardless, this isn't a discussion forum and I think we're losing the bubble here.

Enjoy your party. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 16:38, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY, just came from deep in WP:MOS and WP:SECONDARY for information on an article I'm beginning to rewrite. According to the Manual of Style (MOS) an author should be attributed in the text if an entire sentence is quoted, and according to policy of sources, the use of secondary sources is preferred. I added the Fox quotation to the CAS section to validate the material with a secondary source. Although the use of in-text attribution can become bulky, it is the acceptable method.
As for the source you added and I tagged: it's fine if there isn't an author (although there should be one). It's an article so set it up with a cite article template and fill in as many of the fields you can.
As for the question about taking the exams, students sit exams if they want the DP, but they don't have to sit exams. Am deep in another article, but when I surface and if I have time, I'll see whether any primary/secondary sources address the issue of exams. Enjoy the birthday party! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:11, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, indeed, happy birthday to your daughter! Regards, CinchBug | Talk 14:15, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Reminder to ObserverNY and Cinchbug. This is not a forum for a discussion of the comparison of AP and IBDP. Thanks. --Candy (talk) 01:54, 11 July 2009 (UTC)

IBarms.org

Advice is sought as to the proper placement of information regarding ibarms, should it be in the DP article or the overall IB article? http://www.ibarms.org/_assets/_pdf/iBCommunityTheme.pdf http://www.ibarms.org/index.htm ObserverNY (talk) 16:56, 12 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Archive 1

←

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

Robert Leach quote

I know Truthkeeper is especially fond of this Robert Leach quote, but personally, I've never heard of the guy and the quote itself is stilted and awkwardly worded. I move to eliminate it altogether. If you want to quote the "founder" of IB, then find something from Alex Peterson, the first Director General and namesake of the Peterson Lecture series or just shorten up the section. ObserverNY (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The Robert Leach quote is from the text Uncle G wrote weeks ago. Feel free to remove, as was suggested here in one of La mome's comments, and here in my comment. I don't know where you get the idea that I'm "especially fond of this Robert Leach quote". Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - My apologies, I guess I misread your comment at IB talk where you said: Also, is it worth considering moving some of the history from the DP to here as IB began with the DP?...snip...Oh, one other thing (which should go on the IB DP talk page) I agree the Leach section can go from the history there. meaning I thought you meant the Leach quote could go from here to there. No prob. ObserverNY (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Where did IB's Mommy and Daddy Go?

Um Truthkeeper? You didn't just "delete redundency" and "fix the flow", you completely wiped the opening paragraph in "Early Development" which I had also brought over to International Baccalaureate to create History. Now if you want to add more to the History at International Baccalaureate, that would be delightful but I must protest to your removal of Mummsy and Papa here. ObserverNY (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

No reason to have redundant text on both pages, so I deleted the identical paragraph that ObserverNY copied to the parent article, as well as the mission statement, which now, appropriately, lives on the parent article. In my view, the International Baccalaureate is the appropriate page for the inception of the organization/organisation, and for the mission statement that applies to all three programs/programmes. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - I find it absolutely astonishing that after the battle you, LaMome and Tvor65 waged over the placement of the Programmes section on the International Baccalaureate article that now, all of a sudden, you've had some sort of epiphany and it occurs to you that the parent article is about the organization. I actually think the parent article looks quite good, why? Because there is no separate section on the Programmes in the parent article!!! I do think it's a shame that the Mission Statement in the blue box does not appear in EITHER article now, but so be it.ObserverNY (talk) 11:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

History: Funding

According the annals the following grants were awarded to launch the IB:
Unesco = $10,000;
Twentieth Century Fund = $75,000 (1965);
Ford Foundation = $300,000 (1966)
The statement here that the IBDP was funded by Ford & Unesco should be rewritten to reflect the Ford grant was substantially more than the UNESCO grant, and to include the 20th Century Fund grant. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The "annals"? According to here: http://www.acei-hkm.org.hk/Doc/IB%20Background.ppt , UNESCO gave $40,000 along with contracts for meetings, conferences and development, the Shah of Iran gave $100,000, the Ford Foundation gave $200,000 to IBO in 1968, but also gave $385,000 to UNIS and ISES from 55-66 (and aren't they both just another branch of UNESCO?)Btw, I find it fairly amusing that the Ford Foundation was created by Edsel Ford. IB, the Edsel of education.... LOL! You want to include more? Be my guest. But be sure to include the Shah of Iran as his grant was bigger than the 20th Century Fund's.ObserverNY (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I think we've already established that your "source" is not accurate. Where is the publication date for the powerpoint presentation? Who was the author? What is acei-hkm and how it is an authority on IB?

La mome (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No, LaMome. YOU speculated that it wasn't a valid source. The ACEI http://www.acei.org/ appears to be an established association that is actually independent of IBO. The powerpoint was produced in 2003 (see the date stamp on the document). P.S. - there are no "authors" on www.ibo.org financial information. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

And if the HKM part is confusing you, that refers to the Hong Kong-Macau branch of ACEI: http://www.acei.org/ACEIHKMExchangeProject.doc ObserverNY (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The PowerPoint was produced in 2003 by whom? I can't find it on IB's site.

http://www.acei.org/ACEIBYLAWSDRAFTFEB09.pdf

“Section 2. Objective. The objective of ACEI is to advance the professional interests of its Members…”

Their objective is to advance their own professional interests?! That is noble of them!

http://www.acei.org/index.html

“ACEI is a global community of educators and advocates who unite their knowledge, experience, and skills to share information, explore innovation, and advocate for the rights of the world's children.”

Hmm, sounds to me like they are trying to be IB’s competitors.

Why would they have an “IB” PowerPoint linked to their website, when as far as I can tell, the IB does not have that PowerPoint linked to theirs?

La mome (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, have downloaded the ppt from Hong Kong Association for Childhood Education. According to the report, Unesco funds for 1960s and 1970s totaled $40,000 (including funds for meetings). As I was reading about the 1960s and the startup of the program, I'd suggest using the number that's available on the secondary sources for the mid-sixties. The Ford Foundation amounts match; however according to this ppt. there was a grant prior to the $300,000 grant, bringing up the total funding. The 20th century funding matches the secondary sources (the author may have used those sources). The Shah of Iran funding occurred in the 1970s (pre or post revolution -will have to read again) and worth consideration, but first let's nail down 1960s and startup period. As all of this information exists elsewhere in valid secondary sources, I see no reason to add downloadable and redundant ppt. to the article. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper -

1.The article is not "redundant", it is a valid secondary source and some of the information is more extensive than the IB info. It "confirms" the UNESCO $40,000 but lists other names as well. The ACEI report states the Shah gave money in the 60's and 70's.

2. WHAT other valid secondary sources? The only sources I've seen are from IB.

LaMome - OMG, you mean IBO has an exclusive on advocating for the rights of children? I had no idea! Please provide a valid source for that claim. And LaMome, just because the IB doesn't have something on its own website, doesn't make that something not valid. Stuff disappears off the IB website every day. Perhaps IB didn't want anyone to know some of the names in that report, eh? ObserverNY (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Exactly what "report" are you talking about? The PowerPoint with the IB logo all over it, with no author, but linked to the ACEI site in Hong Kong? Exactly how are you going to reference that? Is it IB or ACEI-HK? As far as I can see, and I think this is what TK is saying, there is no new information in that PowerPoint that hasn't already been mentioned in other primary, secondary and tertiary sources. That's why it's redundant. Not to mention, umm, bogus. If it doesn't mention Maurette, the "mother of IB," then why are you even considering it as valid? I didn't claim that IB had exclusive rights on advocating for the rights of children. I said that it appears that ACEI is competing, or at least trying to compete, with IB.

La mome (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) A valid secondary source is a peer reviewed journal or book, etc. as defined in WP:Sources. A ppt report is not on the list. The ppt is primary because the organization described in the article (the IB) is also (apparently) the author of the document. In my view we are using too many primaries in these articles. None of the secondaries I've read are published by Sage to which you object, although any work that goes through peer review/editing/copywriting is obviously preferable. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - I guess I don't know which secondary sources you are referring to. Would you be kind enough to link them here so there is no confusion about what you are referencing? ObserverNY (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

It appears to me that ALL of the articles in the IB series have seriously abused WP:SELFPUB in terms of citations. This is part of the reason the articles are under constant dispute as they appear "unduly self-serving". Let me also add that "peer-reviewed" documents, when the "peer" is an IB teacher or IB employee also shouldn't be considered valid. Therefore, Hill, Fox, Bunnell - all disqualified. Bagnall? Seems good. So what to do? Remove all IB citations and place next to the statements? I'm all for allowing a handful but in light of WP:SELFPUB, having a preponderance of IB citations seems wrong. ObserverNY (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Yes. Exactly. We need to consider the following and reach consensus:

• re-read Uncle G's suggestions.
• re-read Uncle G's response re: how to evaluate sources & whether Hill, et. al are acceptable here.
• decide where to use the IB as source, i.e number of schools etc.
• decide where to delete existing sources that might be unacceptable
• ask for help if necessary.

Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Truthkeeper - I'm going to be upfront and tell you right off the bat I don't have time to read the 4 or 5 books that Uncle G suggested, although a couple of them sound interesting. I think yes, IBO can be used to cite the exact number of IB schools, the number changes quite often up and down, but they should be the primary source for that sort of statistical data. I reject Ian Hill as a credible, unbiased source. His "job" with IBO is to promote IB, and definitely falls under the category of "self-serving".As to the rest, use your discretion. I certainly don't have the energy to try and re-cite sans ibo sources these articles, too much of headache. But it does bring to mind the line from the WP:SELFPUB that if there aren't enough secondary or tertiary sources to document an article, perhaps there shouldn't be an article at all! ObserverNY (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I was suggesting re-reading Uncle G's posts, which I may not have made clear. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

On the other talk page, when we were discussing the role of Harlan Hanson in the creation of IB, HA and ONY brought up two things: primary sources can be used if secondary sources back up what is being said and the NY Times would be an acceptable secondary source.

This is what I found when I did a search on the NY Times for International Baccalaureate:

Geneva International Test May Become Passport to World Schools

A new examination, the international baccalaureate, has been set up here to provide ... The sponsors of the international baccalaureate hope that it will ...March 14, 1972

Diploma for the 'Top of the Top'; International Baccalaureate ...

Getting to this day has been torture, she tells two dozen fellow candidates for the International Baccalaureate diploma before they are ...June 21, 2003

About Education; A European-Style Curriculum Program Is Making ...

It is the International Baccalaureate program, begun almost a decade ago in ... `Senior Slump Less Obvious' The International Baccalaureate, which fills a ...November 9, 1977

Mission in Yonkers: An International Degree Program

The program, administered as part of the Yonkers School District's magnet program, was developed by the International Baccalaureate Organization, ...April 11, 1999

STATE OF THE UNION: EDUCATION; More Training Is Seen as Key To ...

President Bush's proposal, in Tuesday's State of the Union address, to increase the ranks of Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate teachers in ...February 2, 2006 - By DIANA JEAN SCHEMO

Peace studies take off

... residential school offering an international baccalaureate diploma, ... including the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo and the Center for ...October 14, 2008

So, I don't think we need to start deleting sources and information. I think we need to add sources that back up what has already been said. And add new information from sources that are valid and verifiable.

La mome (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Right off the bat, one of LaMome's NYT references is incorrect - Bush's State of the Union Address NEVER MENTIONS International Baccalaureate. http://www.c-span.org/executive/transcript.asp?cat=current&code=bush_admin&year=2006 ObserverNY (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Huh. Why did they put that in the article, then? Very weird. In any case, this speech by former Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings does mention IB. Regards, • CinchBug • 16:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And I'll also post here the NYT obit on Elisabeth Fox which eliminates her as a biased and WP:SELFPUB source: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/26/classified/paid-notice-deaths-fox-elisabeth-libby-nee-grey.html ObserverNY (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Elisabeth Fox' essay was originally published at Harvard and then republished in a book with an editor (Mary Hayden), therefore her essay does not constitute a selfpub source or a primary source. It's a valid secondary source. However, when I first read her essay I did not know she had been affiliated with IB, so to some extent that affiliation simply drives the decision making process in terms of evaluating her information (or Hill's or anyone else's). As Uncle G stated, there's no reason for Fox (or Hill) to misrepresent the history of the IB, and as the essay was initially published in a academic journal, she'd abide by academic conventions. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY, Harlan Hanson's involvement with IB, or more specifically, the founding of IBNA, has been confirmed by a non-IB source and makes a reference to yet another non-IB source (in fact, a College Board source: Freeman, J. (1987) The International Baccalaureate. The College Board Review. No. 143, Spring. 4 -6.) Didn't we already talk about that? Regards, • CinchBug • 20:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

We also talked about not giving undue weight to one early "initiator" over others, Cinchbug. Pushing Harlan Hanson and AP representation over all other "initiators" and using an IB "pioneer" (Fox) as the "source" for that citation is simply POV and wrong. ObserverNY (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Consensus?

Do we have consensus from all editors regarding the following points:

• removing secondary sources?
• using multiple primary sources to "prove a point" which is WP:OR?

Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like clarification on what you mean by primary and secondary sources. If there are numerous primary sources to support a statement that aren't WP:SELFPUB I see no reason why that should be a problem. I'm guessing you are coyly referring to my recent addition of two additional primary sources to support the statement that SOME schools...blah blah blah, which someone had previously changed to "ONE" school. You want to reduce it to two cites and leave the "Some", I have no problem with that. But you don't get to diminish the statement by reducing some to one and then claim citing more than one source is POV or WP:OR Sorry. ObserverNY (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(Edit conflict)

I'll repeat what I said before. I am interested in improving this article by adding more details and valid, verifiable sources. Fox and Peterson were not only “historians,” writing about the History of IB, they were also part of that history (although, aside from her obit, I haven't seen Fox mentioned anywhere else as a pioneer.) The point is, when we are talking about how IB came about and evolved, I think we need a combination of primary and secondary sources. The MSF (Doctors without Borders) article has only 22 out of 88 sources that are not listed as coming from MSF. As I have said before, if what Peterson, Walker, Fox, and Leach say about the History of IB, without praising or criticizing it, is echoed in other sources, then those sources should be added, without taking away other sources.

As for the "Capitalism Magazine" source...where shall I begin? Just because the guy works at Stanford does not make him a credible source on IB here. Why are we adding more to the recognition part of the article anyway? Praise/Criticism is inherently pushing POV by nature. And Aikentimes.com--or whatever it was called--is that considered credible, reliable, verifiable? Is it a "mainstream newspaper” as mentioned in WP:SOURCES?

So, I suggest we remove “Capitalism Magazine” and “Aikentimes” as they are questionable sources-- (a “fad” that’s been around for over 40 years?), not NPOV, not mainstream newspapers or magazines, supporting a minority view. “Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.”

La mome (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry. But if you are going to remove Capitalism Magazine then we must remove TIME magazine as it is well established that TIME and Newsweek are left-wing rags. ObserverNY (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

There can be no comparison between Time, an established publication, and an online magazine publishing opinions from a certain POV only.Tvor65 (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop the Hanson Nonsense

Now you want TWO references to Hanson? Ridiculous! Who are the other educators? You don't get to single out Hanson and mention Advanced Placement without mention of all of the Europeans and diplomats who helped "initiate" the program. Seriously, are you people so blind to your biases that you can't see how unreasonable you are being?ObserverNY (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(ec)I can live with two cites and "some". Three cites does get very close to original research.

As for the sentence about the American educators, I've added an additional source and will add another. There is a phrase in the sentence that's a direct quotation, so if the Fox source is removed I'd ask you to reword the entire section. Also, as you noted above, it's quite time consuming to read the material. I've scanned about 600 pages or more, and had started to go through the material again with more attention. Obviously there were more than American educators involved and obviously that should be noted; hadn't quite gotten to the point of matching names to nationalities, but will do so time permitting, or perhaps somebody else can have a look and do so. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that singling out Hanson could be seen as pushing POV (of course, I'd have to say the same for your inclusion of the quote from Thomas Sowell). So how about also naming Benjamin Bloom? He's also in the Hayden book as an early supporter of IB and he's a rather noteworthy American educator. Regards, • CinchBug • 21:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Cinchbug - I had tried to include a quote from Tom DeWeese in addition to Sowell but apparently he wasn't scholarly enough for these folks. You'll note that a Wiki article already exists on Thomas Sowell, I didn't have to go create one. Btw, thanks for clearing up my misconception about IB registration fees being for ALL IB students, not just full DP as I had thought. I had seriously underestimated the cost schools must spend annually on IB by a good $20-60,000 a year, depending on the size of the school and have corrected the information on my site accordingly. Of course, no one in here will allow the real costs of IB to be featured in the article. ObserverNY (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I had added Bob Leach to the text, had four windows open on my screen to add others, when poof! it disappeared. I've asked for a 3O again. Pulling edits before they're complete is bad form. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - I apologize for deleting the double reference to Hanson which included Leach. It just seemed pretty obnoxious to me that after all this discussion about WP:WEIGHT that you would try and have not one but TWO sentences on Hanson. I have no objection to you adding Leach. Please add the ACEI link as the citation.

Tvor65 & LaMome - Just stop. Your aggressive POV editing is uncalled for and malicious. ObserverNY (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Um, I'm going to comment on this edit. I don't know much about Elisabeth Fox so I can't really say, but I don't understand why she's not a reliable source. Observer, you may want to take your complaints about her to WP:RSN and have someone there chime in on it. As to the Hanson thing, in the above edit, it seems pretty silly that he's mentioned twice in two paragraphs. We have:

• "Among the US educators, Harlan Hanson, of the College Board Advanced Placement Program was an early advocate of the IB Diploma Programme who helped secure the Ford grant.[11]"
• "Harlan Hanson, of the College Board Advanced Placement Program was an " early advocate" of the IB Diploma Programme.[12][13]"

Do we really need to give him that much WP:WEIGHT? Just one mention would suffice, I think. If there are a few other people who were particularly instrumental at the beginning, I think it would be okay to include them so as to balance out the weight. And as a side note, I agree with Observer's edit: don't whitewash this article by blanking out criticisms. One aspect of NPOV is to give both sides of the argument. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think TK was editing right after me and did not see that I already reinserted Hanson's stuff. that's why it has appeared twice. Then, of course, ONY wiped her edit. I agree that we should add others to balance.

I am totally fine with mentioning criticism; in fact, we already have two references from newspapers about it. What I am not fine with is using unreliable POV sources such as "Capitalism Magazine".Tvor65 (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I was mid-edit when the edit was deleted. There are two sources which mention Hanson. Now I don't know which is which and whether the text matches the source, and I don't really care. Somebody else can read the books, format the sources, edit the sentence, and decide where to place it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about questioning Capitalism Magazine; it does have a longstanding article here, though it's up for AfD now. I don't really think it's a fringe thing, though, but I could be wrong. But yes, I would like to see better sources. Got anything, ONY? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The article by Thomas Sowell is only available for purchase from the Hoover Institution at Stanford. It is also available at: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell022604.asp, http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2004/02/26/parents_with_backbone, and http://eddriscoll.com/archives/001057.php. So if Capitalism is so offensive to you, perhaps you would prefer the finance.townhall citation? ObserverNY (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Then change to one of those. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Tvor65 - You have a serious problem. Leave the Sowell reference alone. Can you not read what HA wrote? ObserverNY (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Just to let everyone know, this article is currently undergoing an edit war. 3RR has been violated by two editors, so I'd advise everyone to calm down a bit. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

HelloAnnyong,

Please read this:

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2004/02/26/parents_with_backbone

This is what Sowell says:

“It also has a left-wing hidden agenda, as so many other fad programs do. One of the program's supporters gushed that it teaches students "how to think globally" and "how to make us part of the world."

One of the parents critical of the program put it quite differently. She said it "promotes socialism, disarmament, radical environmentalism, and moral relativism, while attempting to undermine Christian religious values and national sovereignty."

None of this is new. This kind of indoctrination has been going on for decades, and the kind of thinking behind it goes back a hundred years, when education guru John Dewey began promoting the idea that schools should be instruments of "social change."''

And you don’t consider that to be an extreme POV? The article is not being whitewashed, it’s being high-jacked by someone who is trying to push her/his POV.

La mome (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't really think that's extreme POV. There are lots of people out there who believe that. How many times has Obama been called a socialist in the past six months? How many people homeschool their kids 'cause they don't want them to learn crazy left-wing liberal stuff or whatever? Either way, we're not using the source to say that IB is causing the fall of Western civilization; it's only being used to say that it's a fad program. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Interesting point. IB is verboten to homeschoolers, unlike AP. Hmmmm. ObserverNY (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

HelloAnnyong, personally, I always consider a person to have questionable objectivity when they throw out tags like "left-wing" or "right-wing" (or "ultra-conservative," as in case of Tristan Bunnell). And the notion that IB is a "fad program" seems pretty silly and already refuted, considering how long it's been around and that it's continued to grow. But I don't object to including Sowell--in fact, I didn't object in the first place, I simply said it could be seen as pushing POV, which it almost certainly is. But if we're going to include opinions here, then we also get POV, by definition. It's a package deal.

But I can see your point. Sounds okay to me. Regards, • CinchBug • 01:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If there is an edit war and 3RR is being violated, then that should be reported. It seems someone could use a time-out.

La mome (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Warnings have been issued, and the warring has ceased. If it starts up again, though... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Reception

The praise/criticism stuff really did not belong under "Recognition" since that section was mostly about university recognition. So I have created a new section called "Reception". Right now, however, it is rather US-centric, so info on the reception in other countries may be needed to balance things out.Tvor65 (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, not too over-weighted. Looks like we need to include the Fordham Report! ObserverNY (talk) 10:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

"Thomas Sowell, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, describes IB as "one of the endless series of fad programs that distract American public schools from real education in real subjects" and "indoctrination"." Seriously? I didn't know that schools could become distracted. Isn't being distracted from "indoctrination" a good thing? Please define "real" education and "real" subjects. Where are the facts in this "editorial"? I think we need to include that study about ultra-conservatives and political objections to IB, since all of the sources listed under the "political objections" section come from ...ultra-conservatives.

I think it's odd that the NY Times would be considered acceptable as a source for Harlan Hanson's participation in the founding of the IB program, yet is considered a "left-wing rag," along with Time magazine for other points.

La mome (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I left your NYT cite. You reworded the statement to paraphrase the article and removed the erroneous information. I helped you along with that. See how nice we can work together? ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

LaMome - It might do you some good to listen to Dr. Thomas Sowell speak as well as read some of his books. He is a well-credentialed scholar and economist, an elegant orator, and his opinion is notable. It doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not. It doesn't matter if I agree with it or not. It is WP:BALANCE. Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

p.s. - and I do like a nice straight pole. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

TVOR65 - Your dual attempts to start an edit war here and in IB are unacceptable. Look up the definition of "reception" before you arbitrarily wipe out my edits without any discussion. ObserverNY (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

We could keep the source, but change what we include in the IBDP article, which would be more appropriate to how the IBDP is received in the UK-giving more balance to the article.

"The IB diploma is now regarded as more academically challenging and broader than taking three or four A-levels."

"Government ministers have lauded the qualification and in 2006 provided £2.5m so that every local authority in England could have at least one centre offering sixth-formers the chance to do the IB."

This line about the move could be added in the "history" section---more appropriate in the IB organisation article rather than here.

The Amsterdam base will be one of three global centres for the IB by 2020. The others are Washington and Singapore.

La mome (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

LaMome - please don't split the discussion between the two articles. Please see my recent reply to Cinchbug at IB. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

And LaMome, I'm sorry, but yours was an unacceptable edit to the exact same section that is undergoing deep debate in IB. Why would you do that? ObserverNY (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY