Jump to content

Talk:IB Diploma Programme

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
This is an old revision of this page, as edited by ONB98 (talk | contribs) at 23:57, 13 April 2014 (→Curriculum: new section). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Good articleIB Diploma Programme has been listed as one of the Social sciences and society good articles under the good article criteria. If you can improve it further, please do so. If it no longer meets these criteria, you can reassess it.
Article milestones
DateProcessResult
September 5, 2010Good article nomineeListed
WikiProject iconEducation GA‑class High‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation
GAThis article has been rated as GA-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
HighThis article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Incorrect History

1964 Reference to Harlan Hansen removed - incorrect as per author of Supertest - Jay Mathews: "As for Harpo, it looks like the Wikipedia guys misread the book. I just looked at that part and it says Harpo and co. got the Ford loan in 67." http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/community/groups/index.html?plckForumPage=ForumDiscussion&plckDiscussionId=Cat:a70e3396-6663-4a8d-ba19-e44939d3c44fForum:5093b309-eb0a-47e2-b777-ea68b9dd478eDiscussion:3111f4d7-129f-4e52-b0cd-a2603a7dda15&plckCurrentPage=1 —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.254.7 (talk) 00:31, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

  • The history is not incorrect. According to the reliable sources that verify the information, ISES was established in 1964 and Harlan Hanson was involved with the establishment of ISES. The sentence you changed does not mention a loan. The loan information is further down the section, because it was secured at the end of 1966, and the information is reliably cited, although not to Mathews. The link you've posted is to a blog, and not considered a reliable source.
  • Moreover, the information you've added about special needs is in this section, to avoid having an overly long table of contents, per WP:TOC. Now it exists in two places, and thus is redundant. Will another editor who watches this article please revert the IP's edits, as I've already reverted once today. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Done. Since I had to revert manually, I think I accidentally switched the order of Hanson and Petersen. If this is a problem, please change it back to the previous order.
Looks like ONY is back at at as an anon IP.Tvor65 (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Thanks. Shouldn't make a difference. Will fix if it's a problem.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
In order for something to be "redundant", it must appear in some other location in the article. There is no mention of "special needs" anywhere in the article, therefore it cannot be "redundant". Do you have something against children with special needs, Truthkeeper? Does that make the IBDP look bad if children with disabilities can take it? As to the "blog" - it is Jay Mathews' blog, his post, from the Washington Post, and he is the author of the cite you incorrectly extrapolated from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.254.7 (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Do you have something against children with special needs, Truthkeeper? IP, that's not WP:CIVIL. Please comment on contributions, not contributors. TFOWR 12:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]
...and note that you are at WP:3RR - discuss your proposed changes, reach a consensus, and then make the change. TFOWR 12:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Recent edits

  • So that we're all on the same page, so to speak. According to Peterson, the discussions with the Ford Foundation began in 1964 here on page 22, and the Ford Foundation grant was secured by Hanson and Peterson at the end of 1966 here on page 23. Here on page 22 all Mathews mentions is that the loan was secured but is unclear about the date, with the exception that he got Peterson out of teaching the term at Berkeley in 1967. Turns out, however, according to Peterson term ISES wasn't adopted until 1967, whereas Mathews on page 21 claims it was adopted in 1964, so I may leave it as is for now.
  • As for Special needs - here's the diff showing the information was consolidated, but not eliminated. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:59, 28 June 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA Review

This review is transcluded from Talk:IB Diploma Programme/GA1. The edit link for this section can be used to add comments to the review.

Reviewer: Nasty Housecat (talk) 04:35, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

  1. Is it reasonably well written?
    A. Prose quality:
    Very well written. No major issues.
    B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:
    The lead is a bit abrupt for an article of this length and detail. It should be expanded to better summarize the article. As a rule, each section should be mentioned in some way.
  2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?
    A. References to sources:
    No issues.
    B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:
    Well cited.
    C. No original research:
    No issues.
  3. Is it broad in its coverage?
    A. Major aspects:
    Seems very comprehensive.
    B. Focused:
    No issues.
  4. Is it neutral?
    Fair representation without bias:
    Neutral point of view
  5. Is it stable?
    No edit wars, etc:
    No issues.
  6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?
    A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:
    File:IB Diploma Programme hexagon.svg may be a problem. If it is a derivative of a copyrighted work, it is not free. How closely does this reproduction resemble the original?
    B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:
    More images are always nice, but in this case probably too much to ask for.
  7. Overall:
    Pass or Fail:
    A nicely written and well-researched article. With some expansion of the lead and resolution of the one image issue cited, this will easily meet the GA criteria. I will put the nomination on hold while these issues are addressed. Clearly meets the GA criteria. Well done!
    • Thanks for the review. I actually thought I'd deleted it from WP:GAN, and haven't done any work on it. This is the product of a number of editors; is it possible to add co-noms?
    • I've deleted the image. Will work on the lead. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Post GA

Just wanted to say congrats to everyone who has worked on this page. It's been an, um, interesting journey, but the fact that this article was promoted really just shows what a solid bunch of editors you guys are. Well done! — HelloAnnyong (say whaaat?!) 16:30, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]

The list of editors is long and everyone here is entitled to credit for the promotion of this article. I've left boxes on a few editor's pages, but really, anyone who edited here last summer helped bring this article along. In my view it shows what can be achieved despite discussions that filled 9 archives. Yikes! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Shall we tell ONY? 8-) Ewen (talk) 09:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Congratulations to everyone. It was a pleasure working with all of you, with the exception of one person. A huge thank you to Truthkeeper who was true to his/her moniker. Best of luck to all of you in your future endeavors, both here and in the real world. Cheers! La mome (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
I don't know whether anyone is interested, but it would be nice to focus on the other articles in the series. I haven't the time for it, but now that a good example is in place for this article, it shouldn't be too difficult. Thanks LaMome - but most of my many edits here were to fix all the formatting problems and to expand the history section with your help. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)[reply]
Yes, good job comrades on working in lockstep to keep this article as completely and totally biased an advertisement as you possibly can for the IB organization! (Btw, where's the info on Jeffrey Beard's plagiarized speech?) 68.194.249.139 (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)ONY[reply]
I felt so crushed by ONY's comment that the only thing I can do is this. TFOWR 18:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)[reply]

Question

I reverted this edit because some of it contains MoS errors, writing of numbers, etc., but also some of it contains fixes to spelling from Am English to British English. I'm too lazy to trawl through the archives - does anyone remember what we decided re spelling? I'm thinking it probably should be British. Anyway, pending comments we can reinstate some of the changes. I do seem to think we had decided to use IB instead of International Baccalaureate, but am not entirely certain. Input? Truthkeeper (Talk) 21:31, 18 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

  • You should change the age to 19 instead of 18 because that's what IBO says it is on its website:

http://ibo.org/diploma/ 74.108.23.97 (talk) 15:32, 2 November 2011 (UTC)guess who[reply]

What's the matter, HelloAnnoyingone? You don't want anyone to know that Alec Peterson headed up Psychological Warfare for Lord Mountbatton? Personally, I think that's a rather interesting tid bit, considering the way IB indoctrinates. 74.108.23.97 (talk) 00:16, 26 February 2012 (UTC)hehehehehe[reply]

Recent edits

Discussion moved from User talk:74.108.22.78, [1]:

Regarding recent edits there, they're problematic for a variety of reasons. Please discuss on the talk page per bold, revert, discuss. You were bold, I reverted (and now you've reverted), so it's time to discuss instead of edit war. Thanks. Truthkeeper (talk) 02:21, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Not gonna "talk", Truthkeeper. There's no use trying to "talk" to you.

Not talking won't be helpful, but thanks for verifying per this. You added a lot to a section that was built based on a lot of discussion and arrived at through consensus. I trimmed down - just because something can be cited doesn't mean that everything gets to be added to the page. Choose two to keep - I'd suggest the most recent but honestly I think they're pretty minor examples and the para was fine as it was. Truthkeeper (talk) 04:13, 15 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Your trimming involved eviscerating the section. But hey, if you think that's fair and balanced and need to feel all powerful by wiping out something which you readily admit was built based on a lot of discussion, then let it be on your conscience. Personally, I felt the remarks added to Sen Dayton's reference were biased and not germane, therefore I don't have all that much of a problem with you wiping the old Reception U.S. section. It might interest you to know that there is currently another amendment to a bill on the docket in Utah, also involving Sen. Dayton, to exclude IB from scholarship incentives. Nah, I guess that wouldn't interest you because again, it does not favor IB. However, the fact that an entire village in Nevada spent 18 months fighting the implementation of IB, that it was the #1 news story for the area,l and that IB was sent packing, IS historically significant. The New York Times story is a perfectly legitimate cite and I am fine with it the way it reads. The cost issue is significant and I would like to add more to that since IB's fees have increased dramatically ($151 student registration, $104 per exam as compared to $89 for one AP exam, I do not know the cost of an A-Level exam, perhaps someone could share) ....... but I won't. Not in the mood to fight with you. I tried to add two historically significant lines, properly cited, and you had a meltdown. Very sad.

Oh, one more thing, in retrospect I am also glad that you wiped the reference to Pittsburgh (which was incorrect, it was Upper St. Clair, PA) because this way, Wikipedia isn't revealing how the pro-IBers and the ACLU bullied the school district and cost the taxpayers a bundle. Wouldn't want that kind of information associated with IB, would we? :-) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.22.78 (talk) 23:54, 16 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

P.S. - You might consider asking Ewen's opinion of my 2 edits and whether he concurs with what you eliminated. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.22.78 (talk • contribs) 15:49, 15 February 2013‎

    • OPINION - Truthkeeper, interesting edit: " For the UK only, taking the IB with its six subjects, EE, TOK and CAS is actually a disadvantage compared to sitting three A-levels.". Needs a citation. This statement is true, but should not be limited to the UK. The Advanced Placement Exams (AP) in the U.S. also garner far more college-credit than the IBDP. ~~ONY — Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.22.78 (talk) 13:13, 3 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Curriculum

Is it possible to create different articles that explain the various courses offered by the IB Diploma Program similar to how there are various articles about the courses offered by the College Board's Advanced Placement Program?

Curriculum

Is it possible to create different articles that explain the various courses offered by the IB Diploma Program similar to how there are various articles about the courses offered by the College Board's Advanced Placement Program?

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:IB_Diploma_Programme&oldid=604082370"