Talk:IB Diploma Programme/Archive 8

Archiving the talk page

As the debate about debate might become a lengthy debate, this is as good a time as any to introduce the subject of archiving.

Talkpages can be archived automatically using what's called a "bot". I'd like to propose adding an archive bot to these talk pages, but first some decisions need to be made in order to set the parameters for the bot.

1. How often to archive?
2. How many threads to leave on the page?
3. How to editors feel about leaving the page somewhat static during the "testing period"? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:00, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

1. Depends on the week
2. Depends on which threads are being responded to
3. If you decide on a set time period and number of threads to be archived but then ask everyone to leave the talk page as is, how can you determine if the settings would be useful?

ObserverNY (talk) 16:08, 4 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Given the volume and frequency of edits that we have here, plus the fact that new threads are started rapidly and older threads are fairly quickly abandoned, I think that we could archive any thread that hasn't had new additions made to it within about 14 days. Assuming that the traffic here will eventually slow down once most editors agree to the article's content and that things will therefore stabilize a bit, I would hope that we can later change whatever settings we use for the bot. Regards, • CinchBug • 16:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

That makes sense. ObserverNY (talk) 16:33, 4 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The markup isn't thread specific. In other words we can decide to leave 1, 2, 3, 4 and so on threads on the page, but can't set the markup to archive threads with more activity than others.

As for usefulness, the only way is to test. If the page has a lot of activity during the testing period, and if the archiving doesn't work as expected, then messages would have to be retrieved and restored from history, which is easier with less rather than more activity on the talk page. 16:39, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the two week time period suggested by Cinchbug is reasonable. It seems to me that it makes more sense to archive the defunct/settled discussions than to archive the threads still open to active discussion. ObserverNY (talk) 16:44, 4 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

TK, at the moment, we have 18 separate threads on the page going back two weeks. Of these, only three are presently active. So I should think that if we set the bot to always retain at least, say, ten threads (or maybe a dozen?), then that should be sufficient. I assume that it would archive threads from the top of the page so that the threads on the bottom of the page (which are more likely to be recent and active) wouldn't be accidentally archived.

With regards to "how often to archive," I guess I misunderstood. Were you asking how frequently the bot should check the page to see if anything should be archived? If so, I would think that running it a couple of times per week would be fine, but it would probably be okay to run it daily--unless there's a down-side to this that I haven't considered.

Thanks for doing all the legwork on this stuff, by the way! Regards, • CinchBug • 18:14, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to all for looking into using a bot for archiving. Great idea, as long as the one we use doesn't archive to nowhere like what happened to TFOWR and TK!

La mome (talk) 12:54, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Slander! Slanders, ah tells ye! Seriously, though, I think it would be good if we could get someone like HA or Uncle G to either sanity-check our plans, or steer us towards an archiving expert who could implement archiving for us. I suspect it's a lot easier to set up than my/TK's experiences suggest, but it'll be easier to get it right first time than fix up any mess it makes... Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:58, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I just posted a request on HA's page. I thing UG is MIA.

La mome (talk) 13:27, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

PS-sorry I let the cat out of the bag regarding your bot issues.

La mome (talk) 13:30, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

No worries, it's bound to come out sooner or later when someone tries to use my "archives" and discovers that I use [1] instead ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:32, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Whoosh. Okay, first, MiszaBot runs once a day at a preset hour; you don't get to control that. What you do get to control is the maximum age of a thread (in this case, you guys said 14 days) and a minimum number of threads to keep on the page (you said 12). I think that 14 days would be fine, but you might have to tweak that if/when the editing picks up. Consider: in two days, this page has generated 50 responses and 20k of text, which is pretty staggering. 14 days of that kind of editing would be 280k, which is enormous. In that case, maybe something like 9 or 10 days would be better. And a dozen minimum threads is, well, a lot. Right now you have eighteen on here, so it seems like not a whole lot would get archived. I'd say maybe 8 or 9 as the minimum.

Anyway, what you guys have come up with is fine. Probably better than hand archiving... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:39, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks HelloAnnyong for your prompt reply and advice. Should we go with 9 days and leaving 9 active threads? Who will set the bot? La mome (talk) 13:53, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

I was thinking more often. Four threads every 72 hrs seems reasonable. I'll have a look at the markup, and ask for help if necessary. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:04, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

TK - I just made a comment on your talkpage to TFOWR that I really don't have a horse in this race, but I'm ponying up because there seems to be a disturbing "creep" in the definition of "reasonable" from 14 days, to 9 days to 3 days. After a review of what is on this talk page, I would compromise with LaMome's 9 day suggestion, but I think 3 days is unreasonably short. ObserverNY (talk) 14:09, 5 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

*cough* 72h is three days. How about just 7 days? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:11, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey! It's early! I need more coffee! hehehehe ... 7 days seems reasonable. ObserverNY (talk) 14:13, 5 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Truthkeeper - why does your html at the top of the page say old=72h? Nobody agreed to that. ObserverNY (talk) 14:19, 5 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Would you like to do this? As it happens, I copied the markup as is from its home, then left a message for somebody to check the markup. If you look, you'll see I've changed to seven days. Also just to remind you, I've manually filled most of the seven archives, and often archived more frequently than once a week, but if everyone is fine with weekly then okay w/ me.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:26, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Boy, touchy touchy! I struck my comment and even labeled my strike in history with a happy face. Geez! ObserverNY (talk) 14:31, 5 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Perhaps you can strike the comment from my talk page as well? Somebody is carving time from elsewhere to make working on this article easier, and it's labeled diversionary. Yup, definitely touchy. Will be gone for some hours. Perhaps someone will swing by and have a look at the markup in the meantime. The biggest issue, as I see it, is setting the counters correctly, and whether or not they increment. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:36, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

But of course, if it upsets you, by all means. It never occurred to me that working on editing in Wikipedia held such deep emotional meaning to anyone. And I'm sorry, but it does seem diversionary to me. (And here I thought another Barn Star banner would make you happy). ObserverNY (talk) 14:43, 5 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The markup has been fixed as I had the destination wrong, and we can assume that from now on archiving will be automatic. Thanks ObserverNY for the minor barnstar. Also, some of you may have seen on my talkpage that I'm needed to copyedit another article, so I'll be gone from here for some time. Not emotionally involved, simply trying to get things set up to leave. If I'm needed please leave me a message. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Nice job, TK! We all really appreciate it, and the Minor Barnstar from ObserverNY was a great idea and certainly well-deserved (many times over, in fact)! Thanks also to xeno^talk, who worked with TK to help iron out some of the bugs in our initial set-up of the bot. Regards, • CinchBug • 20:47, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

Decapitalization

I question the changes made by Pointilist to the article. The three "core" elements of the IBDP, the Extended Essay, Theory of Knowledge and Creativity, Action Service are all referred to by IBO as capitalized, resulting in the acronyms EE,TOK and CAS, and therefore should remain capitalized. Comments anyone? ObserverNY (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

That's what I used to think until yesterday when I prepared the points matrix graphic. My first version had "Essay" and "Knowledge", and I was just about to upload it when I thought I should check the capitalisation. I was amazed to find that in every IBO publication I consulted everying was as lower-case as possible—so in the middle of a sentence theory of knowledge is the correct form—the only exceptions being Diploma Programme, Middle Years Programme and Primary Years Programme. The sources include: Handbook of procedures for the Diploma Programme (both this year's version and last year's), Extended essay—guide, Theory of knowledge—guide and Theory of knowledge assessment exemplars. I'm afraid these are all paid-for documents, so I hope you can believe me when I say that they are the right sources to use and that they fully support moving to lower case (each source contains many many examples). I don't really understand why I haven't noticed it before, but I'm not a teacher. Another surprise was that theory of knowledge is abbreviated TOK, and not ToK as I have seen so often. I wouldn't have just waded in and made the changes if there was anything controversial about them. All the best - Pointillist (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.ibo.org/programmes/documents/dp_flyer_en.pdf This also supports the de-capitalization ---Pointillist is correct. I never noticed it until now. They are also removing Latin references--the Vade mecum became the Handbook of procedures and the ab initio courses will become Foundation courses.

La mome (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they're also changing their name (sometimes) IBO/IB/ibo.org/IBNA/IB of the Americas, changing locations, changing their marking system.... gotta love that CHANGE! ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

That's a great source: covers the acronyms and capitalisation in the middle of a sentence too. Thanks for finding it—I felt a bit uncomfortable referring to materials that aren't easily accessible. - Pointillist (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Also here on the IB DP core requirements page that's easily accessible. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh, ok. To me it points to inconsistency on IBO's part when you look at the page on its main public website and it still uses the acronyms/initialism: http://www.ibo.org/diploma/ NORMALLY (and of course IB is anything but NORMAL) if you apply an acronym to a phrase or title, the words in the title should be capitalized, TOK,CAS,OCC....so either IB, as an educational program(me) should be CONSISTENT with proper grammar and decapitalize its acronyms or else capitalize the words that serve to create the acronyms. http://grammar.about.com/od/il/g/initialismterm.htm ObserverNY (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I guess TOK and CAS are acronyms (like laser) and EE and IBDP are initialisms (like UCLA), but I can't find an absolute rule about capitalisation. There are lots of variations in the wild, e.g. IgE = Immunoglobulin E; DNA = Deoxyribonucleic acid; DoS = Denial-of-service attack; Laser = light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation, Lintas = Lever International Advertising. Indeed the Chicago Manual of Style Online (15.7 Capitals versus lowercase) says that "usage rather than logic determines whether abbreviations other than those standing for proper names are given in upper- or lowercase letters." I think we just have to accept the IBO's style decision and move on. - Pointillist (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do we have to "accept IBO's style decision" in a Wikipedia article? This is not an advertisement for IB. If you look at the MAJORITY of examples Acronym and initialism, IBO's "style" runs contrary to common accepted usage. ObserverNY (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I mean, we have to accept how they style their own technical nomenclature—they couldn't impose their own style on established abbreviations like IgE or DNA, of course. I quite agree that the series shouldn't be an advertisement for IB, BTW, but it seems to be surprisingly difficult to find independent assessment of the IB by people who don't have their own axes to grind. Come to think of it, that would make a good TOK essay, wouldn't it? ;-) Pointillist (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean a tok essay, right? Frankly, that course title always makes me think of toking on a joint, but hey, old hippies are today's Conservatives. Do you think IB is a chemical compound? Hmmmm, I wonder.... ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Joking aside, I recommend that we follow WP:Manual of Style (capital letters) when it comes to "style" of the article. ObserverNY (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Pointillist - Re: "I guess TOK and CAS are acronyms (like laser)" - I suspect CAS is an acronym as I have never heard it referred to as any thing but one word ie Cass. However, in European schools, TOK is pronounced as three distinct letters. I have heard a few teachers from Australasia pronounce it as a single word ie "tock". I mention this only as a note. Whether TOK is or isn't actually makes no difference to what you have written so I agree. Accept what they use and move on. They are in transition with their strategic plan and things don't change easily overnight. --Candy (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

General principles

Wikipedia does capitalize initial letters of proper nouns, and often proper adjectives. In doing this, we follow common usage, and when uncapitalized forms are the normal English usage (abelian group, k. d. lang), we follow common usage.

CAS, TOK, EE, OCC, IBIS, IBDP, MYP, PYP, etc. are initialisms. IB's "state of transition" is irrelevant. Wikipedia articles should follow Wikipedia guidelines for common usage of style, not IB's style. ObserverNY (talk) 11:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Opening paragraph: Students take six subjects and three core components: the extended essay, theory of knowledge, and 150 hours of creativity, action and service. If the IB idols editing this article are going to insist on following IB's uncommon grammar, IB capitalizes the word Core, each of the 3 Core components are not capitalized at ALL. This sort of inconsistency in an article is unacceptable. I would like an opinion from HelloAnnyong or TFOWR before any more changes are made. ObserverNY (talk) 11:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Acronyms_and_abbreviations

“Initial capitals are not used in the full name of an item just because capitals are used in the abbreviation.”

Incorrect (not a name)-We used Digital Scanning (DS) technology

Correct-We used digital scanning (DS) technology

Correct(name)-produced by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)

So, theory of knowledge (TOK) in the middle of a sentence, but Theory of knowledge (TOK) when starting a sentence. That could explain the alleged inconsistency in language usage here- http://www.ibo.org/diploma/

12:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by La mome (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I don't see how that explains the inconsistency. It's either a titled course: Theory of Knowledge, in which case I would accept ToK as the proper initialism for the course, or it is not a "proper noun" at all, ever. ObserverNY (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I have, yet again, been asked to weigh in on the this. From seeing the official IBDP sites - especially this one - it doesn't seem to me that "Theory of knowledge" is supposed to be a proper noun, so I'm fine with leaving them lowercase. This article should probably match what the sources state - after all, that's how we decide what gets included. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong - If TOK is not a proper noun, what is it? Is the Diploma Programme a proper noun? Is it Wikipedia's intent to represent IB's uncommon grammatical usage to its readers giving credence to its sub-standard prgrammes, rather than conforming with common usage? ObserverNY (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Uh, what. It's just a noun. It just seems to me that we should follow their naming conventions, since... they're the ones who named them. And I'm not really sure what its "sub-standard prgrammes" (sic) have to do with anything. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I see. So if IB starts referring to the USA as the United states of america, that's acceptable to you and the way a Wikipedia article should read? If theory of knowledge is "just a noun", why is it acceptable to apply capitalized initialism to it? Also, you didn't answer my question about whether the Diploma Programme is a proper noun. If the title of the program is a proper noun, how do you justify claiming that the titles of the Core courses are NOT proper nouns? ObserverNY (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Yes, Diploma Programme is a proper noun. According to this page, they're not core courses, they're core requirements. And your USA example doesn't apply here, as the IB didn't create the United States. They created the core courses and named them in a specific way. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ohhhh, so a named "requirement" instead of a "course" (n) or "programme" (n), disqualifies it from being a proper noun? I don't think so. On the page you linked:

• Internal assessment
• In nearly all subjects at least some of the assessment is carried out internally by teachers, who mark individual pieces of work produced as part of a course of study. Examples include oral exercises in language subjects, projects, student portfolios, class presentations, practical laboratory work, mathematical investigations and artistic performances.
• External assessment
• Some assessment tasks are conducted and overseen by teachers without the restrictions of examination conditions, but are then marked externally by examiners. Examples include world literature assignments for language A1, written tasks for language A2, essays for theory of knowledge and extended essays.

IF you are going to insist on using IB's incoherent, inconsistent capitalization of proper nouns, I feel the need to insist that every reference to the above bolded courses or requirements be presented consistently in the article. ObserverNY (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

You know, you asked me to weigh in on something, and now you're being argumentative because you didn't like what I had to say. Did you expect me to just meatpuppet for you? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I expect you to provide a straight answer to legitimate questions about article style. ObserverNY (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

There is nothing inconsistent about IB's use of capitalization and acronyms, as I have linked above. It appears that IB does not consider its core elements to be proper nouns (again refer to the example I linked and pasted above and to HelloAnnyong's explanations). The only inconsistency here is in the logic, or lack thereof, that you (ONY) attempt to employ. Pointillist made those changes for consistency and to follow the wiki MOS policies on acronyms and abbreviations. Once again, you (ONY) hold a minority view and refuse to accept (or perhaps fail to fully comprehend) what other editors present as support for their views.La mome (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

“Wikipedia's house style avoids unnecessary capitalization; most capitalization is for proper names, acronyms, and initialisms. It may be helpful to consult the style guide on proper names if in doubt about whether a particular item is a proper name.”

From here-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)

La mome (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly, which is why I originally posted that exact clause and am seeking identification of PROPER NOUNS. IB's inconsistency is clearly demonstrated throughout its website and now this article. Your comments do not represent "good faith" and I resent your inferences that I am ignorant, illogical and attempting to "employ" some sort of tactic, other than seeking representation of common usage of the English language in a Wikipedia article. ObserverNY (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Regarding logic, I fail to follow why an article should follow the grammar of what an organization or group "thinks" it should be. Should an article on Hillbilly be written the way a Hillbilly writes, y'all? ObserverNY (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ONY-Avoiding unnecessary capitalization would require theory of knowledge, extended essay, etc... since they are not proper nouns, not according to IB, but according to general usage and Wikipedia's MOS. I did not imply that you were ignorant or illogical. My statement about your attempt to employ logic that you turned into a "tactic" illustrates my point. Your Hillbilly example also illustrates my point. I am not saying we should use IB's conventions of style, I am saying we should use Wikipedia's. Are you arguing that TOK, EE and CAS are all proper nouns and should be capitalized when written in their full forms?

La mome (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. ObserverNY (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Why? La mome (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

To be consistent with common English usage. ObserverNY (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

And just to avoid any further obfuscation of what was actually said here, LaMome states: I am not saying we should use IB's conventions of style, after both she and HelloAnnyong insisted that IB's style should be the one followed because IB "named" the stuff. So you either advocate IB's usage, or you advocate common English usage which, according to my interpretation, is what Wikipedia recommends. Pick your position, please. ObserverNY (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(edit conflict)

It is common English usage to capitalize Theory, Of, Knowledge, Creativity, Action, Service, Extended, Essay?

La mome (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I also thinks something else needs to be made perfectly clear. I don't care what IB "thinks" is a proper noun - if a noun is assigned a capitalized Initialism, it automatically makes the noun being referred to a proper noun, because why? Initials are capitalized. In headlines or acronyms which include prepositions, the prepositions are commonly not capitalized, ie: ToK. ObserverNY (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(edit conflict)

And this is what you said, under the new section-"decapitalization"--

"I question the changes made by Pointilist to the article. The three "core" elements of the IBDP, the Extended Essay, Theory of Knowledge and Creativity, Action Service are all referred to by IBO as capitalized, resulting in the acronyms EE,TOK and CAS, and therefore should remain capitalized. Comments anyone?" ObserverNY (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY which means that you are arguing to keep them capitalized because that's how IB does it. I am arguing that they should not be capitalized because that's what the Wikipedia MOS says. We also provided links to show that IB no longer capitalizes those words.

La mome (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Acronyms_and_abbreviations

“Initial capitals are not used in the full name of an item just because capitals are used in the abbreviation.”

La mome (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

from the section you quoted, apparently you're saying that theory of knowledge, extended essay and creativity, action and service are not the names of core IBDP requirements. Gotcha. What are they? ObserverNY (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

"that you are arguing to keep them capitalized because that's how IB does it." No LaMome. That is not what I am arguing. I don't care what IB did, does or will maybe do. I would like to see the application of common English usage be consistently applied throughout the article. Please stop trying to distort and misrepresent my position. ObserverNY (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ONY, I'd just like to point out that there are least three editors - myself, La mome, and Pointillist - who are in favor of the lower case. At this point you're just not respecting the consensus. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Break

I'd just like to point out that nearly 20k of talk page text has been generated over the last 24 hours - all over whether or not a few words should be capitalized. That's why this talk page gets so absurdly long. Either way, this issue needs to be put to rest, as it's very, very nitpicky. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Very nice, HelloAnnyong. The discussion page is for discussion about edits to the article. Pointillist made the initial changes. LaMome always sides with whatever IB says. And you have certainly not cited any relevant Wiki policy on the matter. I would like a different 3rd Op, please. Calling another editor "very, very nitpicky" while failing to define proper nouns in common English usage is highly unprofessional. ObserverNY (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Read what I wrote - "this issue... it's very, very nitpicky." I didn't call you nitpicky; I was referring to the discussion at hand. And with six or more editors regularly active here, a 3O doesn't apply anymore. Try WP:RFC. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

And allow me to further point out, that within the IBDP article it states: Main article: Theory of knowledge (IB course). So - is it a course or a requirement? I am not undermining consensus - you do not HAVE consensus, nor have you convinced me of a logical argument to support this inconsistent and erroneous method of referring to the titles of courses in an article. ObserverNY (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

And since Pointillist also did some "cleaning up" over at the Theory of knowledge article, allow me to point out MORE inconsistencies: The course focuses on four ways of knowing (WoK), sense perception, emotion, reason, and language and six areas of knowledge (AoK), mathematics, natural sciences, human sciences, history, the arts, and ethics. The course teaches how people gain knowledge in these areas and the role that the different Ways of Knowing play in these domains. ObserverNY (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ONY-TOK is both a course and a core element, or requirement. EE and CAS are not courses. Capitalizing acronyms does not call for automatic capitalization of the name or noun it represents. It does not matter, in this case, whether IB considers it to be a proper name or noun or not. I am not siding, nor do I always side with IB, as there really is no IB side in this matter. I am siding with the conventions of the Wikipedia MOS, which calls for avoidance of capitalization. Period. Stop trying to push the "IB is inconsistent and illogical" point of view.

La mome (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I am "pushing" the FACT that IB's product representation is inconsistent as clearly demonstrated above. The Wiki manual calls for avoidance of capitalization when referencing a procedure or method which is commonly recognized as words, NOT proper nouns. I don't know how many times I have to explain this to you. You can attempt to deny your bias all you want, just as you can attempt to deny that there are "sides" to the IB issue. Your denial doesn't change the facts. ObserverNY (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

most capitalization is for proper names, acronyms, and initialisms.WP:Manual of Style (capital letters) and WP:Proper names ObserverNY (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The statement "IB's product representation is inconsistent" is not a fact, it's an opinion. Have you followed Helloannyong's advice by submitting a request at WP:RFC or shall I?

La mome (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Never mind--I submitted a request for comment. See below.

La mome (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization

Should we capitalize theory of knowledge (TOK), extended essay (EE), creativity, action, service (CAS)?

La mome (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

And, as a clarification of the question, since ToK, EE and CAS are initialisms, shouldn't the corresponding descriptors be capitalized as per: WP:Manual of Style (capital letters) and WP:Proper names? ObserverNY (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Please refer to the preceding section for context. Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think other Wikipedians are afraid to respond... LOL! I e-mailed Ewen, but I have no idea if he is anywhere near a computer. The man has excellent grammatical skills and I will respect his opinion, (even if I may not like it), I think he can be very fair-minded, especially on something like this which is really all about what constitutes "standard" or "most common" style. ObserverNY (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Yes, I am sure your friend Ewen will be very fair-minded.

La mome (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• No. Theory of knowledge, extended essay and creativity, action, service should not be capitalized. The IBO site does not have them capitalized, and this page should reflect that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with HelloAnnyong above. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

TK - Why? Because IBO says so? You were the one who was always so precise and diligent when it came to Wiki policy. Why are you choosing to ignore it in this case? ObserverNY (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Well, this doesn't appear to be working. I respectfully request that Truthkeeper and HelloAnnyong cite the Wikipedia policy which would support using the grammatical "style" used by an article topic as preferable to common English usage. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Settle down, it's only been a day. RFCs take several days before anyone responds. See on the tag where it says that it'll be removed after 30 days? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

“Wikipedia's house style avoids unnecessary capitalization; most capitalization is for proper names, acronyms, and initialisms. It may be helpful to consult the style guide on proper names if in doubt about whether a particular item is a proper name.” From here-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)

La mome (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Acronyms_and_abbreviations

“Initial capitals are not used in the full name of an item just because capitals are used in the abbreviation.”

La mome (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

La mome (talk) 00:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

LaMome - 1. most capitalization is for proper names, acronyms, and initialisms. These ARE initialisms in dispute. 2. Please identify which subsection you are taking the 2nd quote from, I am unable to locate it on the page. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Go to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Acronyms and abbreviations. The quote is at the end of the first paragraph, just above where it gives one incorrect and two correct examples. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The 2nd quote you are referring to seems a bit of desperation and grasping at the exception, rather than the rule. CAS is an initialism, not an acronym. I stand by the most capitalization clause. But since you don't seem to agree with that, I will also refer to: Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. If we go back to 2005, [2] you will see that Theory of Knowledge, Extended Essay - are properly capitalized and as such, I recommend that the original style of the article be upheld. ObserverNY (talk) 11:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym

While the word abbreviation refers to any shortened form of a word or a phrase, some have used initialism or alphabetism to refer to an abbreviation formed simply from, and used simply as, a string of initials. In 1943, Bell Laboratories coined the term acronym as the name for a word (such as SONAR) created from the first letters of each word in a series of words (such as SOund Navigation And Ranging).[1] The terms initialism and alphabetism are neither widely used nor widely known. The term acronym is widely used to describe any abbreviation formed from initial letters.[2]

Most dictionaries define acronym to mean "a word" in its original sense,[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] while some include a secondary indication of usage, attributing to acronym the same meaning as that of initialism.

Go to the style used by the first major contributor=IB. Why use references from 2005, when there are references from 2009? If you are understanding that to mean original contribution, then you should be looking way back to the late 60s, which makes no sense.

You are Grasping at Straws(GAS).

La mome (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

LaMome - The Wikipedia article on the IBDP was constructed in 2005, not in the 1960's. The Wiki policy reference has to do with a disagreement over style in an article. I think it's pretty fair to say that we disagree. Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

I didn't write the Wiki rule. I was not one of the original contributors. The style of the original article refers to Theory of Knowledge, Extended Essay and Creativity, Action, Service. Again, you are attempting to insist on IB's "style" and not Wikipedia rules. Defer, accept it, and let's move on. ObserverNY (talk) 12:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(edit conflict)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IB_Diploma_Programme&diff=33256556&oldid=33229812

This is not an IB source, it is the 2005 version of the IBDP wiki article. You would use this as a model? This is what you thought they meant by first major contributor?

“Subjects such as physics, chemistry, biology, environmental systems and design technology”

So, you want to capitalize theory of knowledge, extended essay and creativity, action and service, but put subjects in lower case?

La mome (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It's done. Discussion over. It's not a matter of "what I thought they meant" it's a matter of what Wikipedia states. From a proofreading perspective, the article you link has one error in the heading for Subject areas, which has since been changed to Subject Groups and since Group is capitalized in every reference, so should it be in the heading. ObserverNY (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Just so we're clear, per MOS:HEAD, section titles always have their first letter capitalized and nothing else: "Capitalize the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest in lower case." — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

ONY-There are 4 editors who disagree with you. So, yeah, I guess it's done. I was also waiting for a response from the RFC. Patience is a virtue.

La mome (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY, have a look at the titles of the pages as the article is now inconsistent with those pages. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears consistent now. ObserverNY (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

We already have a consensus

I see User:ObserverNY is going back through the article restoring the incorrect forms (ToK etc.) Look, this really isn't on. We already have a consensus for the lower-case approach with all caps abbreviations:

• User:HelloAnnyong 12761 total edits (6494 article edits, 4937 distinct pages edited)
• User:Pointillist 3223 total edits (1800 article edits, 1184 distinct pages edited)
• User:Truthkeeper88 2705 total edits (1722 article edits, 200 distinct pages edited)
• User:Candorwien 1323 total edits (639 article edits, 309 distinct pages edited)

The four of us are genuine editors who are trying to improve the encyclopedia. The only person who opposes this approach is a single-purpose account with a history of tendentious editing. I will now revert ObserverNY's changes to the article. You are welcome to carry on discussing this on the talk page but the article should use the current consensus until it is overturned. - Pointillist (talk) 13:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A CONSENSUS is NOT a VOTE. You are a NEW editor to this article who has come in and made MAJOR changes without any discussion. ObserverNY (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I wouldn't necessarily call Pointillist a new editor. S/he has been registered for almost two years now. We don't necessarily discount their efforts here just because they recently joined the conversation here. Having said that, you're right that voting doesn't necessarily mean consensus. However, I think that Pointillist is correct that there is a majority of editors here who are all in agreement. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I note Pointillist didn't include LaMome. Pointillist is an editor who is new to this contentious article who has come in and caused a MAJOR disagreement on style without any discussion prior to his/her edits. Any reversion of the page by Pointillist from its current state, shall be considered as being done so under protest. ObserverNY (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

HelloAnnyong - are you attempting to invoke Tyranny of the majority ? ObserverNY (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

...no. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Pointillist is not new to this series. Have a look at the histories. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Tyranny wins. How ironic that Jean Jacques Rousseau is quoted in Tyranny of the majority ObserverNY (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Truthkeeper - Pointillist has not edited this article once in the months that I've been here and since the article and information has been genuinely challenged. To try and infer otherwise is disingenuous. ObserverNY (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

This debate about "new editor" is irrelevant. I made a series of minor changes for consistency. Renaming the TOK and EE articles required administrator intervention, which was granted because the changes were uncontroversial and verifiable. The changes were uncontroversial because there had been no previous cycle of edits/discussions about capitalization, and they were verifiable against everything I could find on the IBO's website and the many documents I checked. I assumed good faith when ObserverNY questioned my edits, and explained the changes fully and frankly. Since then, other users have supported this approach and it is now a consensus agreed by editors in good standing. I'd forgotten about it but in fact I have reverted ObserverNY on the IB series before this episode (see diff of Theory of knowledge (IB course), diff of List of International Baccalaureate people and diff of List of schools offering the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme). I am a neutral editor, not an "IB idol", and the only reason I am editing IB series articles is to ensure that future students and their parents will get the most useful information possible if they are considering this demanding programme. - Pointillist (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Pointillist - Your usage of the adjective "demanding" to describe IB exposes your bias. I also want to ensure that parents and students get the most useful information possible. As such, I recommend that the section which listed the "conditions" IB lists in order to earn an IB diploma be re-inserted into the article. Then parents and students can decide for themselves if a "programme" which allows a student to fail 50% of their final exams and still earn the diploma - is "demanding".

Also, I mentioned previously that I think the Leach quote is obscure, addressing only history and not representative of the "founding ideology" which would be better expressed by someone like Peterson. I never heard of Leach before this article - and I have researched IB for five years. ObserverNY (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

"Demanding" is a different debate, where I suspect we will find we are more in agreement, so I suggest we postpone that discussion until I have had a chance to work through the statistics. My impression is that consumers (students and parents) may not realize that this is a challenging course that may not suit everyone, and the article should say so, if sources can be found. - Pointillist (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Diploma conditions

I've removed ObserverNY's addition of the diploma conditions (in this edit). It's entirely too much weight on the conditions, and there is absolutely no reason to list every single rule here, especially when there's a list of them on an external page that we can just link to. Listing everything makes the page harder to read, and it's pushing a POV. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, HelloAnnyong - the section as it stood had after it, ergo, no reference for the conditions. The article is about the IBDP. Those are IB's conditions for attaining the diploma. I would think if you were going to give anything appropriate weight in an article it would be the conditions for attaining the product. How could this possibly constitute POV? ObserverNY (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Adding a reference and adding a huge list of conditions are two very different things. The POV I think it's pushing is one of portraying the IBDP in a particularly negative light by showing all these intricate rules for whether or not someone passes. But I'm not the only editor here - anyone else have an opinion? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would sharing the actual rules be viewed as "negative"? Those are the rules. That you think they are "intricate" is your POV. The list is certainly no bigger than the table/list for recognition. ObserverNY (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The actual rules are listed in the General Regulations, which are linked. The table for recognition is not found anywhere else, at least not in that form, as far as I know. I think we should keep that and try to expand upon it. Btw, the use of "demanding" does not represent bias, since several sources use the words "challenging, rigorous, demanding, pre-university, college-prep" when describing IBDP. People need to know that it is not a walk in the park.

La mome (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me. They are linked NOW because I sourced the conditions, they were NOT linked before. And just because "several sources" use those adjectives to apply to IB, I could find you "several sources" which use very different, less positive adjectives. People need to know the FACTS about the programme, not what you "think" they should "think" it is, LaMome. ObserverNY (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Text like "which may be found in the Diploma Programme General Regulations" doesn't work here. Wiki is not a how-to. It works better to have some examples and a reference to the general regulations. If people are really curious, they can follow the ref. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh? "Some examples"? But only the ones that "some" editors think are important? Sorry, you either reference ALL of the conditions or none. I don't think it "works better" that way. ObserverNY (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Or... those examples were there before. We reference all the conditions with ref tags; displaying them all out would be, IMO, pushing an anti-IBDP POV. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Humorous interlude

While doing some research, I came across the following passage in the preface of Alec Peterson’s book, Schools Across Frontiers:

“The breakthrough in the history of the IB, when it ceased to be a pipe-dream at the International School of Geneva and began to become a reality, came with a grant of $75,000 from the Twentieth Century Fund in 1965. The Fund commissioned Martin Mayer, whose book The Schools had caused quite a sensation in America, to produce a report (published by the Foundation under the title Diploma in 1968) on the feasibility of establishing a common curriculum and examination for international schools, which would be acceptable for entry to universities world-wide. Diploma still provides the only objective, though sometimes very critical description of the early days of the IB. In the course of a rapid tour, Martin visited the three leading schools concerned and consulted with the founder headmaster of Atlantic College, Desmond Hoare, the principal of UNIS (United Nations International School, New York), Desmond Cole, and the English headmaster of Ecolint (Geneva International School), Desmond Cole-Baker. When we first met in Geneva, Martin’s opening words were “How the hell did you get involved in this business if your name isn’t Desmond?”

La mome (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hahahaha - gee, no mention of Harpo? ObserverNY (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

No mention of Harpo in this section. But, we now will have to include the other two Desmonds and Martin Mayer. I would love to read The Schools and Diploma as well. Anyone know where we can find them?

La mome (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

We will? Puhleeze. Discuss the ridiculous rhetoric-laden Leach quote, please. I think you can find something a little more succinct and descriptive of the overall nature of the diploma. ObserverNY (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I am sure that after five years of research you must have something succinct and descriptive of the IBDP.

La mome (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well that's pretty rude and snarky, LaMome. You see, unlike you, I'm not so rude as to simply go and delete the whole thing. I thought I'd give you the opportunity to discuss and select something that didn't reek of propaganda and empty rhetoric. I have no one to tag team you to avoid a 3RR, a ploy you know very well. ObserverNY (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Initially Uncle G suggested the Leach quotation on the talkpage. I added it to the text without controversy; I removed from the text when it was questioned; and re-added to the text when we read the background histories and realized that Leach was notable. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

ONY-Please explain how my comment was rude and snarky. I was giving you the opportunity to select and discuss something succinct and descriptive. I didn't delete the whole Leach quote, which was suggested by Uncle G and re-worded by TK. I believe it is still a work in progress, so why don't you add something here on the talk page as a possible replacement or addition to the Leach quote, instead of complaining about it all the time. I suggest you keep the conversation more focused on the article and less focused on what you believe to be the intentions of other editors. After almost a year of editing, you should know this by now. Apparently, you haven't learned your lesson, despite the numerous chances you've been given to improve your approach to editing articles and commenting on talk pages.

La mome (talk) 22:49, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A year, huh? Try four months. And why is it that a quote from someone who is clearly not notable in the Wikipedia sense of notable is allowed to stand as a "work in progress" despite criticism, yet something I add to the article immediately gets attacked and wiped? Can you say double-standard? Your gross exaggeration of my time editing thus far is ironically akin to IB's gross exaggerations about its programmes. Your condescending comment that I "haven't learned my lesson" is insulting. You weren't "giving me the opportunity to select and discuss" you were sniping at my comment that I have researched IB for 5 years and trying to get me to post a different quote for you to immediately attack. I had hoped to avoid further conflict by requesting that you and or/TK or others select something more representative, by a more notable figure, but instead you simply chose to defend how the objectionable quote got there, why it is still there and attack me further. Why don't you take your own advice and focus on the article instead of what you mistakenly believe my cognitive abilities to be? ObserverNY (talk) 10:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

According to the revision history statistics, your first edit was on 9/11/08.

http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=IB+Diploma+Programme

399 (207/192) ObserverNY 2008-09-11 12:36 2009-08-14 21:43

La mome (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider that "real" editing - that was when I just happened by and tried to insert TAIB into the external links. I had no idea of the, uh, er, um, "anal qualities" of those who haunt this cyberspace regularly. Quite bizarre, actually. ObserverNY (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IB_Diploma_Programme&diff=237698118&oldid=237697612

September 2008-UNESCO Peace education

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IB_Diploma_Programme&diff=299317888&oldid=299317019

June 2009-UNESCO Peace education

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IB_Diploma_Programme&diff=next&oldid=237698118

September 2008-failing conditions

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IB_Diploma_Programme&diff=next&oldid=308005434

August 2009-failing conditions

La mome (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

OMG! Will ya look at THAT! I attempted to add TWO FACTS a year ago to the Wikipedia article! GASP! Obviously I paid it little mind until April of 2009 when I attempted to familiarize myself with the whole wondrous WikiWorld of whackos! I'm sorry I ever bothered because it really is quite addicting, as are many online forums. Thankfully work starts soon and I'll have little time for this nonsense. But you knock yourself out, LaMome. Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Early history

In reading over the hideous Leach quote again, it dawned on me, why are you starting this section with quotes from Ian Hill? Ian Hill wasn't around back then. I think the entire section needs to be re-written. It reads horribly. ObserverNY (talk) 23:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Uncle G explained why he wrote the section using Hill as the source. It's in the archived talk page. Perhaps you can ask his help in rewriting? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Uncle G went AWOL months ago. I don't need his help rewriting it. I am quite capable of re-writing it except you would fight whatever I wrote tooth and nail. ObserverNY (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

"Certificate programme" and "college-preparatory"

I'm very sorry that you seem terribly "put-out" that I changed the word "demanding" to "college-preparatory". If you want to add some sort of quote regarding "demanding" in the Reception section, then by all means. Be my guest. Demanding is an opinion. It doesn't belong in the overview. College preparatory is a factual description of the program. It is not only billed by IB this way, but viewed by major universities as such. Adding 4 citations after your change shows extreme.... I don't even know what.... . ObserverNY (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

And please explain what your problem is with the link to the Locust Valley IB Certificate Program. Your reason for adding a link claiming it's not mentioned that we can't read is, wait, I'm digging deep here....no....can't come up with anything....I give up..... what? ObserverNY (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Ooooo, "unofficial". I like it. You leave that in there Pointillist. Even though IB Representatives and school administrators sell this dog and pony show as "official", you're claiming it's not? Fine by me. ObserverNY (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Yo - dude - what's with the hyperventilating with citations? It's obnoxious! ObserverNY (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I've added more references around "Certificate Programme", and I've moved "demanding" down the the same para, because it looks like they sit well together. I don't have any problem with the Locust Valley reference—I simply added the "publisher=" field to the {{cite web}} template for completeness.

Unfortunately the phrase "college-preparatory" doesn't mean the same thing in all anglophone territories: outside the United States and Ireland it often refers institutions between school and university: you enter college at 16/17 so an IB programme finishing at age 18/19 could not be "college-preparatory". Perhaps I should have made this clearer: I'm sorry if I offended you unnecessarily in that respect.

To illustrate the ambiguity of "college", someone could study at Kew College school (age 3-11), then at King's College School, King's College (Hong Kong) or King's College (Guildford) (age up to 18), before becoming an undergraduate at King's College, Cambridge, The King's College (California) or King's College, University of Queensland - Pointillist (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently "Certificate Programme" is not a phrase used on the IBO website, and I didn't find it when running a local file search on the Diploma Programme Guide CD, so it is unofficial. Given that it isn't an official phrase it needs the weight of multiple citations. We now have six of them which should convince any sceptical editor that we have done our homework. This is important because according to the statistics there's a very large number of students who do certificates rather then the full IBDP, and we must address this to ensure the IB series is well-balanced. If there's verifiable evidence of IBO or school representatives misleading consumers that local "Certificate Programmes" have official weight, that should be clearly explained in the article too. Believe me, I am not an IB student, teacher or administrator; I only want to report unambiguous encyclopedic facts and I do not have a hidden agenda about the IBDP. - Pointillist (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Forget to say that in respect of "college-preparatory" please can you take a look at Wikipedia's College article where it explains about the ambiguity. If you accept the issue, please edit the lead accordingly. Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Pointillist - Thank you for your explanations. I can tell you first hand that school administrators are billing the Certificate Program in public schools as a means of pumping up the IB numbers to try and make the program look plausible. I don't even know if the article is still online, but at Locust Valley for example, a school with only 650 students grades 9-12, the district announced that it had "892 IB seats filled". They also tried to double-count the number of IB exams given because they are given over two days and then used for a "rankling ratio" in Newsweek magazine. They also boasted that "Over 80% of the students (class of 160) are taking at least one IB class!" Yet only 20 students were full DP, of those only 10 earned the actual diploma (50%) and then another 4 got it "on appeal".

I apologize if I was hard on you, but rabid IB supporters want certain information suppressed. Your concern about using the phrase "college-preparatory" is valid, but very UK-centric. My reason for choosing this phrase is because AP exams are considered "college-level". The number of college credits awarded AP in the U.S. almost always exceeds the college credits awarded IB, especially when you consider that the vast majority of better universities don't recognize SL exams. In a way, this goes back to the misinformation provided to parents about being a Certificate Candidate, like it is some kind of honor instead of just an expensive relabeling of a former Honors course. So while I am amenable to eliminating "college-preparatory" altogether, I am not amenable to replacing it with "demanding" in the overview. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

If what ObserverNY is saying about Locust Valley is true, then it seems to me that we should not be using it as a source, since the information they provide is not accurate, valid or verifiable. As far as I know, there is no such thing as a "certificate programme," but there are certificate candidates, as Pointillist explained above. In the Peterson book, he talks about someone suggesting that there be an alternative to the full Diploma, which may be too difficult for some students. The certificate also serves as a safety net for students who don't get the Diploma, so it's not "all or nothing." Most IB schools encourage the full Diploma first and allow students to take IB courses as certificate candidates if the student is unwilling or unable to pursue or complete the full Diploma. There are also some schools that offer only the full IB Diploma, like in Florida, for example.

As for "college-preparatory," that phrase is ambiguous. In France, collège is middle school or junior high. And Pointillist explained what it means in other parts of the world. "Pre-university" is clearer. "Demanding, rigorous and challenging" are all words that have been used to describe the IBDP as well. If we are going to include the piece about the "certificate programme" with several sources listed after it, then we can do the same for the description of the IBDP.

La mome (talk) 12:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "if it is true" and "not accurate, valid or verifiable"? Locust Valley is an IB World School. If it has run an invalid program for 5 years where is IB's accountability? You want 5 or 6 references to IB schools that offer the IB Certificate Programme? I'll be happy to locate them.

Pre-university is not "clearer". All high school courses are pre-university. Rigorous, challenging and demanding are ALL adjectives which are opinion. ObserverNY (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I didn't say the Locust Valley IBDP was invalid. I said that according to ObserverNY, the information they provide on their website is inaccurate (there is no such thing as a "certificate programme.") There is no way we can prove that what ObserverNY is saying is true about their statistical reports.

Since "pre-university" applies to all high school courses, then a word such as "challenging, demanding or rigorous" should be used as a modifier of the phrase "pre-university" to distinguish the IBDP from less difficult HS courses. I'd be happy to provide sources that describe the IBDP in a similar fashion. In fact, I am sure they are already used in the article.

La mome (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is no such thing as an IB Certificate Program then IB is fraudulently collecting money from all of the following schools in addition to LVCSD:

http://www.georgeschool.org/Academics/International%20Baccalaureate%20Program/IB%20Certificate%20Program.aspx

http://www.aislusaka.org/AboutUs/dp.html

http://www.jwnorth.org/academics/ib/ib_certificate.html

http://www.mkis.edu.my/pdf/IBDiploma.pdf

http://moodle.lethsd.ab.ca/wchsweb/images/stories/pdf/2008Welcome/ib2008.pdf

http://central.spps.org/information/counseling/gifted_talented/IB.html

http://www.dwight.edu/academics/dp/DPAssandTesting.html

http://www.gwinnett.k12.ga.us/NorcrossHS/ib/Documents/IB_Application_Packet_for_Rising_Juniors_2009-10.rev1.8.pdf

http://www.andersonptsa.com/index.php/ib-program/

http://www.holytrinity.ecsd.net/ib3.htm

And AGAIN, your opinionated "modifiers" do NOT belong in the overview, I don't care how many biased sources you can locate. The article is NOT an advertisement for the IBDP. ObserverNY (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Please try to avoid sensationalistic language. IB is not being fraudulent. Just checked the link you provided for the Dwight School. Did not find any reference to "certificate programme." That is not really supporting your "theory." La mome (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No mention of "certificate programme" here either-http://www.andersonptsa.com/index.php/ib-program/ Now who is being fraudulent?

La mome (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

LaMome - Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Seriously, you DARE to accuse ME of being fraudulent because you can't read? Read the admissions process for Sophomores/January at http://www.andersonptsa.com/index.php/ib-program/

Now re-check the Dwight School (a very expensive private school in NYC) mentions Certificate Program 3x. As to "proof" of LVCSD's propaganda, I came up with a 2006 publication which boasts 50% participation - I'll keep looking for the subsequent one which had the even higher percentage which I recall of 80% - http://lvweb.lvcsd.k12.ny.us/dnews/December%202006%20News%20LV.pdf

Please try to avoid your tendentious habit of lecturing me as to my choice of language.ObserverNY (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(edit conflict)

In some schools, there is such a thing as a "certificate program," but according to IB there is no such thing as a "certificate programme." Taking one or more IB courses is not a programme. That doesn't make the schools fraudulent, nor does it make IB fraudulent. There are plenty of schools that offer "AP" courses and "AP" programs, where students take the course and then never sit for the exam. That makes the school fraudulent. Where is the College Board's accountability?

La mome (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

LaMome - Just admit you are wrong and apologize for your accusation. The article is about IB, not AP. In the United States which hosts over 1/3 of all IB schools, we spell program - program. ObserverNY (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Well, if it is an official IB Programme, then please provide evidence of that "fact."

La mome (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

(Ahem)No mention of "certificate programme" here either-http://www.andersonptsa.com/index.php/ib-program/ Now who is being fraudulent? La mome (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you don't get to weasel out of this sort of malicious attack without an apology. I'll keep re-pasting it until you do. Furthermore, I'm perfectly content with allowing Pointillist's wording of it being an "unofficial" program to stand.ObserverNY (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(edit conflict)

"50% participation" in the IBDP means full Diploma candidates plus certificate candidates. There is nothing fraudulent about that.

La mome (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"Furthermore, I'm perfectly content with allowing Pointillist's wording of it being an "unofficial" program to stand" --which is exactly my point.

La mome (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You have a point? Really? I don't think so. What exactly is it, other than to be argumentative about EVERYTHING?

I didn't SAY that citing 50% participation was "fraudulent". I said the district is using claims of participation in its IB Certificate Program as bogus PR to attempt to justify IB, as per Pointillist's comment earlier. Let me refresh your memory: This is important because according to the statistics there's a very large number of students who do certificates rather then the full IBDP, and we must address this to ensure the IB series is well-balanced. If there's verifiable evidence of IBO or school representatives misleading consumers that local "Certificate Programmes" have official weight, that should be clearly explained in the article too.-Pointillist.

No mention of "certificate programme" here either-http://www.andersonptsa.com/index.php/ib-program/ Now who is being fraudulent? La mome (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC) - Retract your accusation. The reference is there. You are wrong and attacking me in BAD FAITH. ObserverNY (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Sure, I'll apologise. When you apologise to me for attempting to out me and to all of the editors here for deleting entire passages during one of your hissy fits. I still don't see "certificate programme" 3X on the page you linked for the Dwight school and I didn't see it on the andersonptsa in the initial descriptive paragraphs of the IBDP. I didn't scroll all the way down, or look on other links. You need to copy and paste the references on the talk page as a courtesy to fellow editors if your point is imbedded in the link. My accusation was not in bad faith. And the whole point is moot, since we actually agree that "certificate program" is not official IB terminology.

La mome (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That's no apology and I need to do no such thing. Try again. There's something seriously wrong with you if you think it's MY fault that YOU didn't scroll down and can't read. There's no need to travel to other "links". It's right there on both pages you accused me of listing "fraudulently". (Btw, you did agree to a WP:TRUCE which you broke, so your issuance of a "conditional" apology is truly distasteful.) ObserverNY (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Proposed new section

In my view the issues on the discussion should in fact be part of the article. I'd propose a section before the "History" section defining the IB, what it is and what it is not. Included in that section would be nomenclature with a explanation of the IB DP candidate, the certificate, and the fact that some schools are IB DP only, whereas others include the IB DP candidates and certificate candidates together in the nomenclature. Also the purpose of the section would be to define the aim of the IB DP, again with an explanation that in various regions of the world different nomenclature is used such as "college level" or "university qualification." Furthermore, I'd suggest working on such a section in a sandbox rather than in mainspace. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to attempt this, definitely do it in a sandbox. I'm not entirely convinced that what we've seen in the discussion can be done properly with sources, but there's no harm in trying. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting proposal, Truthkeeper. It is true that there are some IB schools which require students to do the full diploma, in fact, ISA Singapore is an excellent example where only 1 student out of a class of 402 failed to earn the Diploma. ObserverNY (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I agree with HelloAnnyong: the problem is whether sources exist to support such a section without veering into OR. When I have time, I'll see what I can find. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Great idea Truthkeeper. We might also include definitions for "Anticipated" candidates and subjects as well, since I've run into that on the group 3 page and it should be included, with an explanation, including difference between SL and HL. So much info to include, so little time.

La mome (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'd LOVE to see a definition of what an "Anticipated Certificate Candidate" is - especially since every student who takes an IB exam, SL or HL, will get a Certificate, even if they score a 1. ObserverNY (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Consistent capitalization

Since you guys fought and won the capitalization issue, may I respectfully request that either Pointillist or Truthkeeper provide consistency throughout the IB series, especially here: IB Group 3 subjects. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Go ahead and add the comment on the IB Group 3 subjects talkpage so it's not forgotten. That page looks as though it can do with a little cleanup, but I can't get to it at the moment. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no pressing reason to clean up that page right now, either. My next IB series priorities are improving Extended essay, adding results statistics in various places and verifying some of the stats that are already used. - Pointillist (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Whatever. Since it seemed so important to you here, I thought you would want to attend to it elsewhere. Well, you have capital discrepancies there and plenty of citations to add. May I recommend that somewhere you include the fact that IB examiners can refuse to assess the paper if it exceeds 4,000 words. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I agree that the EE article should contain a summary of key conditions, but it would have be presented as an incomplete snapshot-in-time, because there's no guarantee that it would be maintained (by me or by other editors) in the long term. As it happens, the IBDP materials are well written (I guess they assume their audience won't have English as a first language) but you have to buy them from the IBO store to get the detailed picture, and you don't know whether to buy them until you know a lot of stuff. So I believe an important contribution we can make here is to outline key facts and alert readers to the need to get better information before making what could be a high risk decision. I'm not anti-IBDP though: I've been going through the EE assessment criteria today and I'm convinced that—though "it isn't everyone's cup of tea"—it is excellent preparation for demanding university courses. - Pointillist (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: 4,000 words AFAIK the EE rule you mention is that "essays containing more than 4,000 words are subject to penalties and examiners are not required to read material in excess of the word limit" (page 15 of the EE guide), the principal penalty being that no marks will be awarded under criterion I: formal presentation (which could be worth a total of four marks) and the secondary penalty being that important material beyond 4,000 might be ignored which might adversely affect the marks for some of the other criteria. Feels like too much information for a Wikipedia article. If we want people to read our efforts we have to right-size them. - Pointillist (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

...and the moral of the story is...don't go over the word count! It is there for a reason. And that goes for Internal Assessments and other assignments as well.

Cheers! La mome (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, looking around my extended family I wonder whether "for a reason" invites a counterproductive reaction from mid-teens. Maybe it's better to say "don't go beyond 4,000 words because you'll be penalized, it might not be reasonable but life's like that: deal with it and move on". Those little buggers emergent adults can be unexpectedly pragmatic if you don't tempt them to argue the toss.... Pointillist (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, you've got a point there. I know a few adults like that too! At any rate, saying "you'll be penalized if you go over 4,000 words" sounds reasonable to me. Why would anyone want to go over the word limit?!

La mome (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Pointillist - One of my major disagreements with Jay Mathews of the Washington Post/Supertest over IB, is his insistence that IB is better than AP because of the 4,000 word essay. I have two major problems with this argument. Strictly adhering to 4,000 words and penalizing a student for exceeding that number, seems rather counter-intelligent. I would think that the quality of the writing and the content of the paper should be considered far more important than the number of words. If a student needs 5,000 words to adequately address an in-depth subject, why should they be penalized? Secondly, 4,000 isn't really all that much. Thirdly, you bring up an extremely excellent point- "but you have to buy them from the IBO store to get the detailed picture, and you don't know whether to buy them until you know a lot of stuff." IB's "secrecy" and lack of transparency is extremely disturbing, especially to the American taxpayer who is being forced to pay for something they are not "entitled" to review.. ObserverNY (talk) 23:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

P.S. - Fourthly, it bothers me that ToK and the EE are only run for full DP students. That means in a school which relies mostly on the certificate courses and with less than 10, in some cases only 4 full DPers, a class must be run which could be far less than a district's minimum class size policy. If the EE is so wonderful, then it should be an opportunity for every student in a school, not just the full DPers. ObserverNY (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I agree that (given the miniscule revenues they must earn from selling documentation) the IB would serve its consumers better by making all its curricula and rubrics available free of charge. It isn't as if they are secretive, anyway—buying their materials isn't expensive (in the context of higher education generally), just unnecessarily inconvenient. - Pointillist (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC) simplified 23:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) ObserverNY, at my school, we do have students who take the TOK course who aren't Diploma candidates. Students are also free to do the EE, but it's a substantial amount of work and I don't know of any students who have done the Extended Essay just for kicks. Regards, • CinchBug • 00:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Pointillist, yeah, I agree with you. As I've said a few times around here, I wish that IB would make their documents freely available online. But, as I've also said, it's their copyright, so they can do what they want with their own material. Nonetheless, I'd prefer that they change their minds about that. Regards, • CinchBug • 00:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Cinchbug - a ToK technicality, while non-DP students may take ToK, IB will not assess their essay, an internal assessment team must be established to do that, and it will not appear on an IB Certificate. Glad to see at least 2 people agree about IB's lack of transparency.ObserverNY (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Well, given their proclivity to "change," (which sometimes leads to major improvements), I wouldn't be surprised that, in the near future, their materials were found online and the core components would be opened up to students who did not wish to pursue the full Diploma as it is now (6 subjects+EE+TOK+CAS). Pure speculation on my part.

La mome (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY, yep, I'm aware of that, and that's something I wish they'd change, as well. But the entire Diploma is the focus of IB and I can understand that, though I'd prefer they'd loosen their policies a bit. Hopefully La mome's predictions are right and they'll make some changes in these regards. In any event, I'm not sure that this amounts to a "lack of transparency," since the documents are all available to the public, albeit for a fee--it's not like they're hidden in a secret CIA vault or something, after all. ;) Regards, • CinchBug • 00:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Cinchbug - While the full DP may be IB's focus, U.S. public schools are using the program for social manipulation and as a "designer label". The decision by a district to make application to IB is done completely on hearsay. NONE of the proprietary details of IB are explored, reviewed, shared with the public or even the teachers and Board members prior to committing taxpayer funds to the application process. To me, this is unAmerican. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Cinchbug - I'm curious why you are hopeful that LaMome's "predictions" will be right. If Harpo Hanson really was as instrumental as you folks claim in IB's development, it seems to me that IB should have followed the lead of its chief competitors (AP) and made its course syllabi transparent and online a long time ago. This is a company that can't even launch a complete online DP in this day and age, instead offering 3 measly courses that cannot fulfill the requirements. IB's obfuscation of its programme is deliberate. I am hopeful that IB goes out of business, and soon. ObserverNY (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Consensus for deletion of list pages in IB series

This section was originally titled Maintenance nightmare. I have renamed the section to stimulate feedback from interested parties - Pointillist (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Since this currently is the talkpage to discuss the entire series, have a look at List of schools offering the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme!! Seems like a maintenance nightmare! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that entire page should be eliminated. Anyone interested in whether a school is an IB school can simply go to www.ibo.org and look it up. ObserverNY (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I agree. I have never been comfortable with manually-maintened lists on Wikipedia: IMO it would be better if reference citations could be attached directly to categories, so such lists could be generated automatically from primary articles. - Pointillist (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree we should delete the list pages in the IB series. That would also include the "IB People" list, correct? (Even though that is probably less of a nightmare, if at all). I was going to doing it, but can't figure out how.

La mome (talk) 12:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that doesn't include the List of IB People. Gee, I wonder why Harlan Hansen isn't listed there, hmmm, how very odd. In fact, I see that there needs to be a recent "notable alumni" added to that list. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The IB people list includes only director-generals, council presidents and notable alumni. Harlan Hanson wasn't any of those. Perhaps we should add a list of founders/initiators. I noticed Marie-Therese Maurette was not listed either. Which notable alumnus needs to be added?

La mome (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

LaMome - Oh! You simply must run over there and see who I added! Right after you apologize for calling me fraudulent! ObserverNY (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Um, so is someone going to mark List of schools offering the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme for deletion? It (and List of schools offering the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme and List of schools offering the International Baccalaureate Primary Years Programme) are most definitely violations of WP:LINKFARM. I'll do it if no one else wants to. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you can go ahead and mark it for deletion. Thanks! La mome (talk) 13:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles are up for AfD. See here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, HelloAnnyong! ObserverNY (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

As AfD is a voting process, if any of you agree with the nomination, then you should cast your vote. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

History discrepancy

On the IB page, the history starts off with Marie-Therese Maurette in 1948 as writing what would later become a basis for the IBDP. Yet, on the IBDP page, the history starts in 1962, with no mention of Maurette. Thoughts? La mome (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the Maurette reference which was ORIGINALLY here and screwed around with should match up with the IB History. 1948 Pre-dates 1962. I would think you would want to include the "mother" of IB as referred to by IBO's most "prolific" Director General George Walker, but hey, I'm still waiting for an apology for calling me fraudulent and don't feel you deserve to have any questions answered or addressed until you show some intellectual honesty and "good faith" and apologize for your rude, incorrect allegation. ObserverNY (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY -- in my view you're crossing the line and engaging in incivility which makes working on these pages near to impossible. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper -- in my view, you are being disingenuous in ignoring an editor who accuses another editor (me) of fraudulent offering of information to go unaddressed when the last time this same editor posted a snarky comment which was reprimanded by Uncle G and to which YOU took personal offense at. Remember? You do, right? I believe I supported you and asked you to come back, that Uncle G's comment was not directed at you. Remember? So I am entitled to an apology from LaMome. Please feel free to call an admin in to arbitrate. I'm offended, insulted and outraged. This sort of sneaky, duplicitous, arrogant, POV manipulation of the IB talk pages by LaMome is intolerable. ObserverNY (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

So... you can all sit here and snipe at each other and point fingers and such, or we can actually edit the article. The former doesn't sound all that appealing. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Or, LaMome could simply apologize.ObserverNY (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Actually, Maurette was the mother of the IBDP, so I moved her back here. La mome (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with you adding Maurette here. I do have a problem with you removing it there and I have re-added it to the IB article. IBO only "sold" the IBDP" for 30+ of its 40 years in existence and therefore Maurette is notable historically to both the organization and its primary product. ObserverNY (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Rewriting lead

Does anyone want to take a stab at rewriting the lead so it conforms to WP:LEAD? I'm a better copy editor than writer, and not a good lead writer. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help if you could identify any issues that the current lead has vs. the guideline? - Pointillist (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally I prefer leads that are very short (3-4 sentences in 1-2 paragraphs), and that are unambiguously verifiable. To my mind, the current lead is OK except for the statistics in the last sentence ("The programme is offered in 2,002 IB schools[6] in 134 countries,[citation needed] and is widely recognised by universities.[7]")—I'm still working on that. - Pointillist (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I've noted that generally articles going through review now are required to have longer leads (mulitparagraph) that give some weight to each of the sections of the article. Like you, I prefer the shorter leads, but didn't know what others thought. I happy to leave as is, if that's fine with everyone else. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

TK and Pointillist, I think the lead here is generally okay. It should be fairly simple to get citations for the current number of schools and countries from the IB website. Regards, • CinchBug • 22:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

In this overview and in the IB overview, there are IB "stats" that I seriously question their legitimacy. In the IB article, the cited source today claims there are " 245,000 IB students in 2,715 IB schools in 138 countries." This is 'up' from 2,708 schools with 239,000 students. I would like someone to find me seven (7) new IB schools which have 6,000 new IB students in them. This strikes me as hugely inflated numbers by IBO. ObserverNY (talk) 01:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Hi CinchBug and many thanks for your feedback. Re: "fairly simple", we might need to take a view on internal consistencies of the current stats. ObserverNY has already mentioned one concern. Mine is that that IB.org's figures for the number of schools who offered candidates (for certificates or diplomas in the May 2008 session) seems to be appreciably lower than their figures for the number of IB world schools offering the IBDP in that period (even allowing for about 10% new candidates in the November 2008 session). If the difference is significant, the number of schools wouldn't pass my "unambiguously verifiable" test for the lead, and more research would be required. We'd have to explore how that might work. - Pointillist (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Pointillist - I have no problem with removing the "stat" line from the overviews. If you have time, you might also be interested in IBO's "change" in its financial reports, (compare pre and post-2005). ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(ec) Pointillist, yes, that's a good point. The stats generated after each examination session give us information about how many students (and schools) participated in that examination session, but those numbers wouldn't reflect the students who are in the programme but haven't yet taken any exams. Likewise, the number of DP schools that offered exams in the May examination session wouldn't necessarily be the same as the total number of DP schools, in part due to the November examination session, as you mention, and also because new schools adopt the programme each year. And since the IB doesn't always immediately update their public website, I tend to agree that we're unlikely to get unambiguously verifiable numbers from their website alone.

As such, I would have no objection to either moving that information to some other place in the article or removing it until we can be more confident about the verifiability of the information. Regards, • CinchBug • 11:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

7 new schools in less than a month would also support our "unmaintainable" argument for deletion of the the IB schools lists. I am fine with removing that information from the overview. Did anyone contact them to find out the names of the 7 new schools? In other words, if it is "questionable," then did anyone question them? If they are primary or middle schools, then an average of 1000+ students participating in the PYP or the MYP isn't unreasonable. The total number of students participating in IB programs around the world will never match the exam session reports, for the reasons already mentioned by CinchBug and Pointillist.

La mome (talk) 12:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

IBO also doesn't "regularly" eliminate schools from its list that have dropped the programmes. I know of at least 9 schools in the U.S. that have decided to drop IB, but are still listed on the website. Calling IB to find out where those schools are would constitute original research. IB should provide a month-by-month "roll call" of newly authorized schools for verifiability instead of just changing the numbers and shoving them into the established data base. ObserverNY (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Well, of course I am not suggesting that you actually cite that information on the IBDP page. Just thought you would want to satisfy your intellectual curiousity.

La mome (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Why in the world would I take IB's hearsay "word" on something to satisfy my intellectual curiosity? ObserverNY (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Early development

How is it possible that the IB Council of Foundation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_(nonprofit_organization) existed for 4 years without a President? In 1964, the IB Council of Foundation was founded, with Desmond Cole-Baker, Harlan Hanson, Alec Peterson and Ralph W. Tyler becoming council members in 1965, and John Goormaghtigh becoming the first President in 1968.[9][11] A legitimate non-profit has Directors or officers from the get go. ObserverNY (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Suggested re-write:

The International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme's early development began in earnest in 1962 at the International School of Geneva (Ecolint) [8] along with the development of the first IB course at a conference organized by the International Schools Association (ISA).[9] International educators such as Harlan Hanson, (Director of the College Board Advanced Placement Program), Alec Peterson (Director of the Department of Education at Oxford University) and Desmond Cole-Baker (Head of the International School of Geneva), were instrumental in securing funding from the Ford Foundation for the new course.[8][10] Peterson's research at Oxford focused on three issues: a comparative analysis of "secondary educational programmes in European countries...in cooperation with the Council of Europe"; university expectations for secondary students intending to enter university; and a "statistical comparison of IB pilot examination results with...national school leaving examinations such as British A Levels and US College Board Advanced Placement Tests."[8] As a result, the curriculum pattern of combining "general education with specialization" was initiated by Peterson, and considered "consonant with the more flexible school curriculum in the USA and Canada" and was the "curriculum framework" proposed at the UNESCO conference in Geneva in 1967.[8] Robert Leach, a history teacher at Ecolint, coined the phrase "International Baccalaureate" and secured initial funding from UNESCO.[10]John Goormaghtigh became the first President of the IB Council of Foundation in 1968.[8][10]

Comments please. ObserverNY (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I noted the discrepancy about Goormaghtigh and the date as I was shoving around the text. As is, we've only added what's supported by sources, and the sources mention Goormaghtigh with the 1968 date, so I'll have to go back, re-read and see if an earlier date can be verified. As for the suggested re-write, it doesn't follow chronological order, as Leach coined the phrase and secured the Unesco funding in, or prior to, 1962. In my view, the section should follow a summary style that adheres to chronology, but am willing to see what others have to say. In the meantime, I'll return to the sources and re-verify the section as written. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a chronological note, I doubt that Leach secured UNESCO funding prior to the "curriculum framework" being proposed at the UNESCO conference in 1967. For a non-profit to award funding prior to adoption of a proposal, seems highly unlikely. I also think it is fairly irrelevant exactly what year Leach "coined the phrase". Thank you for going back and checking the sources and your comment.ObserverNY (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Just finished it. The version that stands at the moment matches the sources. Leach did in fact organize the conference in 1962, secure the funding, write course materials, and "coin the phrase." The first actual organization was ISES which was an association that grew into IB in January 1968 and Goormaghtigh was the first Council president. I've copied the current version to my IB sandbox (different from my other sandbox) to maintain a stable version. Accessing, reading, and summarizing the sources takes time, as does checking the refs in the article. Now need to do some real work, but will let this sit for a day, and re-check myself tomorrow. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for setting that up in your sandbox. I see that you revised the IB Council of Foundation as now beginning in late 1967, however the section as currently written jumps around chronologically. I have to run out, but I will try and make some suggestions in your sandbox later. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I typically keep conversations out of my sandbox and on the relevant talkpages so the other editors know what's going on. I'm moving your comment from my sandbox here.

TK - I submit the following for consideration:

In 1948, Marie-Thérèse Maurette created the framework for what would eventually become the IB Diploma Programme when she wrote Is There a Way of Teaching for Peace?, a handbook for UNESCO.[15] The International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme's early development began in 1962 at the International School of Geneva (Ecolint) when Robert Leach, an American social studies teacher at Ecolint, organised a "small conference In Geneva" during which the term "International Baccalaureate" was first mentioned. [16][17][18] Robert Leach promoted the idea to UNESCO and secured a sequence of "small grants".[16][19] International educators Harlan Hanson, (Director of the College Board Advanced Placement Program), Alec Peterson (Director of the Department of Education at Oxford University) and Desmond Cole-Baker (Head of the International School of Geneva) founded the association named ISES (International Schools Examination Syndicate) in 1964 and were instrumental in securing funding from the Ford Foundation for the new educational course.[16] The Ford Foundation grant allowed Alec Peterson to conduct a study at Oxford University. Peterson's research focused on three issues: a comparative analysis of "secondary educational programmes in European countries...in cooperation with the Council of Europe"; university expectations for secondary students intending to enter university; and a "statistical comparison of IB pilot examination results with...national school leaving examinations such as British A Levels and US College Board (AP) Tests."[20] As a result, the curriculum pattern of combining "general education with specialization" was initiated by Peterson, and considered "consonant with the more flexible school curriculum in the USA and Canada" and was the "curriculum framework" proposed at the UNESCO conference in Geneva in 1967.[20]

ISES was restructured and renamed the IB Council of Foundation late in 1967, and John Goormaghtigh became the first IB Council President in 1968.[20][16] ObserverNY (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

What you've written is logical enough -- the problem is that the sources don't actually follow a chronological order, so it's a bit tricky. I'd like to wait for La Mome's opinion, as the other editor here who's read these books, and then restructure as necessary. At this point I'm willing to drop the Goormaghtigh sentence here (perhaps move to the parent article) and instead simply mention it was ISES in the mid-sixties and then officially became IBO at the end of 67/beginning of 68. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Back from my errands. I hope I didn't do the wrong thing by writing that in your sandbox. I thought that was proper protocol. Please understand that I merely re-wrote it for "flow" and "readability" and that I did not check the text of your sources. I am assuming in good faith that they accurately support what was written previously. You resolved the question of the IBCoF's date of origin and I think it is far less jumpy and gives the reader a much better overview of how the IBDP developed. ObserverNY (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I guess I wasn't clear: I'm merely stashing a version in my sandbox, but discussion should continue here. The current version of the article reflects the sources and I think your version is probably fine as well, but just to be certain and to help reconcile two books, want another pair of eyes to verify that's the correct sequence of events, if you don't mind. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll read the version in TK's sandbox, when I get a chance. ONY, have you even read any of these sources? If my memory serves me well, I vaguely recall you saying (and this is obviously not a direct quote) that you had neither the time nor the inclination to read those sources as they were, in your opinion, invalid because of their close ties to IB (Peterson being a DG and Fox being an IB teacher). I am sure you'll correct me if I am mistaken, and if I am, then I apologise in advance for accusing you of not reading the sources of the text you propose to edit. I noticed from the ibo.org website that the IB Council of Foundation is now referred to as the IB Board of Governors, unless I am not reading that correctly.

La mome (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify: the version in my sandbox is the same as the article. I simply stashed it there, not to have to have retrieve a good version from history again. Also, La mome, Goormaghtigh is mentioned on a different page (in Peterson) than the newly named 1967/68 move to IBO, and at some point I'd wanted to provide page numbers, which is why I'd left it separate in the text, just so you know. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe I stated quite clearly that I assume good faith that Truthkeeper has verified the statements against the sources. In the spirit of collaboration, I edited the text so that it would, imho, be a better read and flow chronologically. Do we have consensus for my suggested re-write above? ObserverNY (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(edit conflict)

No we do not have consensus. Which rewrite and what exactly are the changes? Again, have you even read the sources?

I read TK's version in the IB sandbox, which looks good to me. I am not sure what the problem is and how it differs from the one proposed by ONY. I think we also need to include this, from the humorous interlude (it's not the funny part though) “The breakthrough in the history of the IB, when it ceased to be a pipe-dream at the International School of Geneva and began to become a reality, came with a grant of $75,000 from the Twentieth Century Fund in 1965. The Fund commissioned Martin Mayer, whose book The Schools had caused quite a sensation in America, to produce a report (published by the Foundation under the title Diploma in 1968) on the feasibility of establishing a common curriculum and examination for international schools, which would be acceptable for entry to universities world-wide." From page xii of Schools across frontiers. That may explain the funding procured prior to 1967 for the UNESCO conference. An earlier version included the 20th Century Fund, but was removed because it was not considered to be notable enough for inclusion. Maybe we should rethink that.

La mome (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "which re-write and what exactly are the changes"? C'mon LaMome. Read. Truthkeeper - Debating this with LaMome is futile. You wanted her opinion. You deal with her. ObserverNY (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

There are two re-writes on this page. I am not wasting my time reading either until you tell me whether or not you have actually read the sources and what specifically are the changes you are proposing?

La mome (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no debate. Simply another set of eyes. La mome, I'd just read the section you've added above in the books and realised it should be added, so that's the next piece of the history section which then leads into the part about starting IBNA in the early 1970s which might (?) go in the parent article?

ObserverNy: I don't mind the edits, and thanks assuming good faith that I've verified material before adding, the problem with your edit is that it separates some major points that are presented differently in the sources. We really should adhere to the sources. If I were to make it a direct quotation instead of a paraphrase then it would have to be written in the manner it is now chronologically. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - It makes no sense to me to capture the early development of the IBDP as written exactly in the disjointed manner which appears to be the case with the sources. There is nothing wrong with paraphrasing the historical facts and presenting them in a condensed manner which the average reader can follow. I don't find Martin Mayer notable and think you are giving too much weight and opinion to unknown and his writing. Inserting the above section leads us back to listing ALL of the major contributors, such as The Shah of Iran who contributed $100,000 which accounted for one of the first IB schools in Tehran. It seems to me that by working with what you had re-worked after eliminating the Leach quote, combined with my grammatical and chronological revisions, we have a workable section that is detailed, concise and chronologically accurate. ObserverNY (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I made the minor changes suggested by ONY. (I don't care whether Leach was a Quaker or not). The other changes could have been made without copying and pasting entire passages here. Let's not make mountains out of mole hills. La mome (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC) :I'm fine if the Goormaghtigh section goes at the end of the passage; however, I've sourced the sentence w/ Goormaghtigh and ISES together (as it's presented in the source); if you reorganize be certain to place the correct source with the correct piece of text. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Striking above as it's been fixed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ooops! Sorry about that TK. I left a message on your talk page. Let me know if the Mayer piece is ok and if the refs are correct there as well. Cheers! La mome (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Here I posted everything under talk before boldly removing the section and replacing it without consensus. Is the following a quote? came in 1965 with a grant from the Twentieth Century Fund who commissioned Martin Mayer, whose book The Schools was well-known in the US, to produce a report on the feasibility of establishing a common curriculum and examination for international schools, which would be acceptable for entry to universities world-wide ? If not, the phrase "well known in the US" is POV and should be removed. ObserverNY (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Apparently LaMome hasn't "learned her lesson" about patience, working together and not messing up the sources. What a shame when Truthkeeper and I (mostly Truthkeeper) worked so hard to preserve and research the sources. Now Truthkeeper has decided to "step away" again. Truly, a shame. We were making such progress ObserverNY (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

We've been through the issue with losing references before when the edits came fast & furious. The mistake today was mine, and I should know better, but this is the reason I wasn't immediately accepting ObserverNY's "new" version -- I knew the refs needed to be switched out. Tomorrow I will re-read the sources and verify that the text as it stands now is properly sourced. I prefer if ONY doesn't use my mistake to further the discord with La mome. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the record is pretty clear, there was no mistake on Truthkeeper's part as the section was being discussed and I made it clear that I had only edited for copy, not references. No consensus was reached to replace the text in the article at the point in time when LaMome chose to do so. It was my intention to gain consensus on the re-wording and then properly source it before inserting it into the article. Why Truthkeeper is trying to take the blame for another editor's mishandling of an article and discussion is beyond me. ObserverNY (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Explanation about named references

This is fixed now, but just FYI, when editing, be careful when you see references in the form <ref name="something">some reference stuff</ref>. That syntax is defining a "named reference" that can be re-used elsewhere in the article, just by adding <ref name="something" /> (note the / character in the penultimate position). In this article, "Fox1" and "schoolfinder1" are examples of named references. The problem is that if the definition is deleted by mistake, the other references are meaningless and a great big red message shows up in the reference list. When you need to delete a block of text that contains named reference definitions, it helps if you break your edit into two parts. First swap the definition with one of the other places that it is used, like I did in this cut-and-paste edit. Then you can do your deletion in safety. - Pointillist (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Pointillist for the how-to info. I am notoriously horrible at referencing. I made my peace with TK. I'll try to follow your advice in the future.

La mome (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Soon, so we don't lose the page numbers, I'd like to set up the refs differently. For example see Ottawa language with both live links and page numbers in the footnote section, and full citations in the references section. Does anyone mind? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me Truthkeeper was the stickler for the way cites are referenced now and it looks fine to me. I see no need to change. ObserverNY (talk) 10:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Since Truthkeeper is a copy editor and the expert on references, I think it's a good idea to follow her advice. Ottawa language is rated GA and would be a good model to follow. La mome (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Who cares. Do whatever you want. I wouldn't want to come between you lovely ladies. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I was going to let the "woman-up" comment go, but now this. I thought that after the last gender-reference debacle it was decided that we would remain "gender neutral" on these pages. Please comply.

La mome (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Seriously. Observer, that comment was uncalled for. Everyone, just stick to discussing the edits and don't comment on other people. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong

Please review the exchange concerning the IB Certificate Program(me). There is a world of difference between ME alleging that a company is fraudulently collecting money from schools offering a program that doesn't "officially" exist, from another editor accusing ME of fraudulently posting references/links that do not contain the edit item being discussed. I will not have my intellectual integrity impugned by a Wikipedia editor simply because that editor's nose is out of joint that I alleged fraud against the company which is the proprietor of the topic of this article. An unconditional apology for that specific incident is still due. The phrase "Certificate Program" is found on ALL of those linked pages. You can tell me to get over it all you want. I won't until I receive an unconditional apology from LaMome for that specific action.ObserverNY (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I don't really know what you're talking about; I haven't been paying attention to the discussion here, as I'm rather busy during most of the day. I just found "I wouldn't want to come between you lovely ladies. ;-)" to be snarky, or just somewhat uncivil. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Then I guess ignorance, blindness and willful dismissal of an editing conflict is bliss for the 3rd Op, eh? As you wish. ObserverNY (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Take a chill pill please

Where have my edits gone?

I wish to remind you all that this is not a forum for general discussion of the IB Diploma Programme nor your wishes for improvement, bugbears, changes etc. Please keep to the topic of improving the article and not a protracted meandering of how you "feel" or your anecdotes. I have removed several comments that are not appropriate in this space. For these types of comments please use your namespace talk pages. Also, I realise that there are several other areas off target in this respect but this section was extremely inappropriate so I have deleted it. It's not my job to be your policing person and I wish you would all be self-censoring in this respect. I am also very concerned about the continual sniping that is going on in this area by single purpose accounts. Please be more responsible and treat other editors with respect at all times.

In my view, many editors are discouraged from entering and assisting with these related documents because of general incivility in the talk pages. Thank you. --Candy (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As you will have seen, I have deleted several inappropriate comments on these talk pages. I have only cleared the most salient material. The very tip of the iceberg. There is a great deal of speculative rambling, accusations and inappropriate demands made of other editors and a general tone of uncivil behaviour, moments of flaming and downright obnoxiousness, tit-for-tat and shouting matches occurring throughout this talk page.

Please keep all discussions to the subject matter. If you wish to know where I feel you are overstepping the mark please leave a message on my talk page. In addition, before you post anything anywhere, please consider how you would react to what you are writing to other people. Thank you. --Candy (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've restored those comments on the grounds that it totally threw the flow of the page out of whack. One, they seemed to be wholly arbitrary removals. Two, nothing that was removed really violated WP:TPOC, and there's a lot more on this page that does so. Removing comments like that can be really, really disruptive, and it should only be done for flagrant violations of TPOC. Next time you want to remove something, please bring it up first. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me remind everyone once more: this is not a forum. We are here to discuss the IB Diploma Programme. I've restored Candorwien's removals this time, but I will not do so again next time. Stay on topic. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

UWC

Cinchbug - The UWC is the only one of the three that actually uses the IBDP. The French Bac is a very nationalized diploma. In fact, I recall at one point, I had inserted a reference to the UWC as being credited with developing the IB SL courses, but of course, that was wiped somewhere along the way. ObserverNY (talk) 18:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, sure, that's true. Okay, I'll put it back in and see what folks have to say about it. Regards, • CinchBug • 18:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

To clarify, I mean that it's true that the UWC are the only schools listed in the "See Also" section that use the IBDP. I don't know if it's true that UWC developed SL courses, although that may indeed be the case; but I don't recall having read that anywhere. If you have a good source for that, I would think that would be a good addition to the article. Regards, • CinchBug • 19:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Cinchbug - http://www.uwc.org/our_colleges/curriculum/international_baccalaureate/school_based_syllabi.aspx ObserverNY (talk) 19:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, ah, I see what you're talking about. I suppose that I misunderstood you before--I thought you were saying that the UWC "came up with the idea for the Standard Level course," or something to that effect. The School-Based Syllabi are courses designed by a given school (or sometimes a small collection of schools), in many cases to create some sort of course that is required by a national/local curriculum but is not currently offered within the DP. The school then submits a detailed plan and syllabus for the course to the IB for approval. If it's approved, then the school(s) can then offer the course for credit within the DP, although all associated internal assessments still need to be sent in for moderation and students still take exams that are externally assessed/moderated. From what I've read, these School-Based Syllabi often give rise to new courses that are eventually able to offered by any IB World School (at both the SL and HL level, depending on the course)--in these cases, it works out to be kind of like a pilot coure that would fulfill a local need or interest while it's being piloted. Regards, • CinchBug • 19:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Cinchbug - the source I linked states that 9 of the 19 SL school based syllabi courses were developed by UWC and are used by other IB schools. Are these SL school based syllabi options standard global offerings when buying IB? Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 19:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(ec) ObserverNY, there are indeed a great many SL courses offered within the IBDP, far more than 19. But, as for how many School-Based Syllabi there are, I'm afraid I don't know. I've not looked into School-Based Syllabi too much, since I haven't needed to either develop or use one. But I would suspect that there may currently be 19 active and approved School-Based Syllabi in use and that some others are either no longer used or have become regular courses that can be offered at any IB World School. And, to clarify, it's not that these are all of the SL courses offered within the IBDP--instead, I seem to recall reading that School-Based Syllabi can only be offered at SL, although if they are eventually approved as "regular" courses for use throughout the IBDP, then they could be offered at both SL and HL.

Just a final add-on, I do think that the topic of School-Based Syllabi could be a good addition to this article. The UWC link you have would be a good place to start. If I recall correctly, there's also information about School-Based Syllabi at the IB website. Regards, • CinchBug • 19:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

A final clarification, since your question changed a little bit since I wrote the above: From what I remember reading, if School B wants to use a School-Based Syllabus created by School A, then they need to approval for that. But some of these courses are eventually adopted as "core" courses within a given subject group (the link you provided gave a couple of examples) and are authorized to be offered by any IBDP school. Hopefully that's more clear. And I do still think this could be a good additional topic for the article. Regards, • CinchBug • 19:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, I'm still confused. According to the IB website: IB Diploma Programme candidates are required to study six subjects: one subject each from groups one to five, and a sixth subject from group six or an elective. The electives include a second subject from groups one to four, Further Mathematics SL, Computer Science and a school-based syllabus approved by the IB. http://www.ibo.org/ibna/ibnarecognition/diplomaprogrammeinformation/ So it would appear to me, that IB regularly allows what appear to be "school-based" courses to be permitted as the 6th subject and part of the Diploma as long as IB approves it. Where would one find the "standards" IB uses to determine if a school-based syllabi warrants IB approval? Thanks ObserverNY (talk) 20:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Cinchbug - I agree that it's a good idea to add something ... somewhere regarding school-based syllabi translating top SL IB courses which are acceptable as part of the IBDP. It also seems to me that in reading just the Wikipedia articles on the UWC and the Atlantic College that the UWC had a sizeable role in the early development with regards to Peterson and Kurt Hahn (who is not mentioned here). I also note that Harlan Hanson, is not mentioned there. ;-)

I would also like to register a formal objection to the group plotting against me going on at HelloAnnyong's house. ;-) Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 00:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Yes, because apparently a discussion La mome and I had counts as "group plotting." If you want, I'll state my beliefs here too. I think edit histories speak for themselves. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

HA - you forgot your 3rd Musketeer! Btw, who is Kay?

Anyway, any thoughts on UWC? After all, this is not a forum. ;-)ObserverNY (talk) 01:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

"Kay" is " 'kay " when I don't add the apostrophe. It's a shortening of "okay." I'll revise my edit so it's not confusing. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Back to Early Development and Inclusion of UWC

Cinchbug - I added references to school based syllabi in the Subject Groups. However, I believe that the early development section needs to include info about UWC which is described as "pivotal" to the development of the IBDP. http://www.uwc.org/who_we_are/history/international_baccalaureate_development.aspx

From an historical standpoint, it appears to me that Lord Mountbatten's colleague Kurt Hahn had tremendous influence in bringing in Alec Peterson, who would become the 1st DG. In the interest of cooperation and since the revision of the incorrect representation of the formation of the IBCoF, I felt the references to Hanson and Mayer were ok, but it seems that the way the paragraphs were crafted were designed to give undue weight to those individuals. Since Hanson appeared to be important to you, I respectfully request that you create some sort of draft for revision of the early development section. The UWC is also an NGO of UNESCO which I believe also needs to be referenced. http://erc.unesco.org/ong/en/directory/ONG_Desc_portal.asp?mode=gn&code=1002 Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 11:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Do we have secondary sources supporting the claim that UWC was "pivotal" in the development of the IBDP?

La mome (talk) 12:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

From the Peterson Lectures (which also needs to be included): http://www.ibo.org/council/peterson/sutcliffe/ Please note, no text has yet been composed for addition and therefore my emphasis of the word "pivotal" was merely for discussion purposes. However, Hahn and the UWC were clearly significant and notable in the IBDP's development. ObserverNY (talk) 13:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Application and authorization

ObserverNY moved the application and authorization section up to before the subject groups and core requirements without discussing the proposed move here first. I oppose this change and consider it to be a third act of disruptive editing today on the part of ObserverNY. Does anyone else object to the displacement of the application and authorization section? La mome (talk) 14:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I moved the section after YOU eliminated Participation and shoved it into A & A without discussing the proposed move here first. Stop with the accusations, I'm sick of it. You are not welcoming, you are not acting in good faith, you provided invalid references and you make constructive editing on these pages next to impossible. ObserverNY (talk) 14:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(ec) In my view, leave the edits as is for now, until others can review and chime in. I thought the application and authorization section was fine where it was, but as I've stated in the previous post to ONY, I haven't had the time to review all of todays edits. At this point, editors should either follow the edit, revert, discuss procedure, or wait to discuss first, which means waiting for others to get here.(Post ec comment: nobody will join the party when it's this uncomfortable.) Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec x2) Look, I really don't want to get involved in all of the drama. But, to be clear, ObserverNY, I didn't say that I "agreed with the more proper placement" of the pilot information; while I stated that I had no particular objection to moving the information, I also clearly asked for additional input before we moved anything. To keep things more drama-free in the future, if someone asks for further input before making a change, let's wait for further input--as TK points out, we're trying to do these edits way too fast. As a result of these kinds of things, we've seen references get broken or lost, and a great deal of animosity build up between editors. These would be better articles if everyone would agree to slow down, collaborate, and not snipe at each other. Regards, • CinchBug • 14:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Cinchbug - Does it look ok to you now? Does EVERYTHING on this article have to turn into a war because LaMome has "issues"? Can we please use some common sense and stop pandering to her and attacking me? She removed the UWC reference as well, claiming "undue weight". Frankly, I have no idea when these pilot course references were even originally inserted into the article. There was never any discussion about adding them on this talk page, from what I recall. I stated above, I have no problem with referencing verifiable information, but if they are "pilot" and not fully developed, then they should not be referenced in the section of established courses. Unless LaMome has changed the article yet again since I started writing this comment, I am fine with the current layout.ObserverNY (talk) 14:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ONY -- I'm respectfully asking you stop attacking another Wikipedia editor on this talk page. It serves no purpose. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

TK

Too late. Change was already made, without consensus. I propose we move the core requirements to before the subjects, followed by online courses. Any objections? Ok, then...La mome (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

So far ObserverNY has engaged in 2 acts of disruptive editing-first, by deleting the pilot courses and then by moving them--both without any input from other editors. La mome (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Is this constructive? No, it is not. It is an attack on me and WP:Harrassment and I have HAD ENOUGH!!! She tried to support pilot course statements with irrelevant links and immediately went into attack mode. Be fair TK. ObserverNY (talk) 14:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target. I am sick and tired of LaMome reporting me to admin, engaging in edit wars, breaking WP:Truce leaving threats on my talk page and seeking to make me the "bad guy" because I don't share her same POV. Wikipedia is supposed to be POV neutral and balanced, no? Enough is enough. ObserverNY (talk) 14:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I think it goes both ways. It always takes two to tango. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

TK - I guess you don't subscribe to the "who threw the first punch and who continues to punch first" theory. I have a right to defend my integrity and good faith edits. Almost EVERY single edit I have ever made to IB has been attacked by LaMome. Yes, I have responded inappropriately, I am human. As evidenced above, I am perfectly capable of carrying on completely edit related, on topic discussion with a reasonable editor like Cinchbug, until LaMome arrives on the scene. Instead of attempting to validate the references, she supplied completely irrelevant links. Please note I didn't accuse her of being fraudulent. ObserverNY (talk) 15:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

If you're referring to the links at the top of the "Pilot Courses" section here on the talk page, they look fine to me. Can you explain why they're irrelevant. I have a little bit of time at the moment to review the edit history for today's edits and to review the talk page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Most recent edits

The edits about pilot courses were added in early July as can be seen here. Apparently both Cinchbug and La mome understand the terminology of pilot course as it refers to electives; however, perhaps a quick statement to the effect that they shouldn't be confused with the pilot online courses wouldn't hurt. I don't think it makes sense to move these to the pilot section as that should (in my mind) refer to the online courses, and perhaps that section should be renamed "Online instruction". As for the refs, those have been used to verify all the courses in the subject sections and on the subject pages. Because it's not available online doesn't make the source unreliable. I think this is fine where it has been since early July.

I haven't had the opportunity to view the links to the UWC, but most likely it makes sense, as ONY suggests to write a section about UWC's involvement in the history & development section. Both Peterson and Hayden devote chapters to Atlantic college, but that history extends back to the 1920s so I hadn't added it in but perhaps ONY can review those chapters to find information to add to the history section. In my view if a course is developed, then "development" is a good place to put it.

As for moving the sentence that IB DP students have to attend a world school to the Application section -- I don't see a problem with it. In fact it functions as a good transition sentence for that section and I'm surprised that move hasn't been made earlier. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

TK - I have no explanation as to why you are willing to accept an unverifiable, proprietary, draft reference to stand as a valid reference. Since linking the IB Handbook is considered a copyright violation, I don't see how you can justify referencing material that no one else can verify. The links that LaMome provided which I said were irrelevant referred to one school participating in the online pilot programme, not the pilot courses and references being questioned. As has been defined, they are two different animals. As to your linking of the history of the insertion of the pilot course information, again, I see no reference to any discussion of that information being added here on the talk page. I had no idea who inserted the edits originally, I was not targeting the editors who originally inserted them, I was reading over the article this morning and those sentences jumped out at me which is why I sought verifiable sources (which Cinchbug provided) and sought to organize the information in a clearer fashion.

I also don't have a problem with moving the sentence ... now. However it was done in a frenzy by LaMome in response to my edits and without discussion. I fail to understand why you think I am the only one who should wait for days before a legitimate edit is made, but LaMome can rapidfire do whatever she pleases without discussion and that's fine by you. ObserverNY (talk) 18:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(ec) ObserverNY, as far as I know, I'm the one who originally included information about the pilot courses when I was editing the "Subject Groups and Coursework" section back in early July--if it helps refresh your memory, you complimented me on the work that I did in that section back on your Talk page during our first discussion.

Also, I'm not sure that the fact that the original references I used cannot be freely accessed by everyone on the internet is relevant; after all, scientific journals are also not free--thus articles from scientific journals cannot typically be read unless the reader has a subscription or is a student at a school or university that has a subscription.

I can't speak for TK, but I'll nonetheless hazard a guess that, like me, s/he doesn't think that you are "the only one who should wait for days before a legitimate edit is made," but we're not talking about days here, and we're not even talking about hours--the edits that were in question took place within about 10 minutes of my request for additional input. Perhaps I'm just beating a dead horse, but I'll again call on everyone to try to edit more slowly and deliberately, in a collaborative fashion.

With that in mind, I'd like to ask ObserverNY, La mome, and, in fact, all of us to agree to bury the hatchet (no, not in each other's skulls!) and once again agree to a truce. It worked for a little while not too long ago and I see no reason why it can't work again. Regards, • CinchBug • 18:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no disagreement with you, Cinchbug. I see no effort on LaMome's part to bury the hatchet anywhere except in my skull as I never received an apology from her for calling me fraudulent. I don't think you would like it if I called you that, would you? A simple, "I'm sorry for calling you fraudulent" would sign the truce deal for me.ObserverNY (talk) 18:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Since I don't have the book in question in front of me I can't tell whether or not it's copyright violation. But, generally if the book is referenced correctly, which it is, then it's not copy vio, and should be fine as a source, and as such I'm assuming good faith from the editor who added it to the article. In my view it's best to look at the edit and not the editor; I don't see evidence of "frenzy" but rather evidence of improvement to the article. As such, in my view La mome's edit is fine. I do, however understand your protest about waiting, but Cinchbug specifically asked for input regarding your edits, and in my view 10 minutes is not an adequate amount of time to elicit input from editors. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

TK - Um, no one except an IB teacher has the book in question in front of them, so you have no basis other than personal bias to accept an editor's declaration that it's not a copyright vio or even accurate. This is why Cinchbug's references are preferable as they are verifiable. Yes, Cinchbug asked for other input but it didn't seem to me like it would be something that would cause a huge brew-ha-ha since none of the actual information was being deleted, only moved, and legitimate citations were properly substituted. If you choose to ignore LaMome's insertion of the World Religion line without discussion when I had created a section SPECIFICALLY questioning the "pilot courses", changing of the Participation edit, not properly naming the new section, and doing so IMMEDIATELY AFTER I was chastised for making edits "too quickly", I respectfully suggest that you are still looking at the situation through a biased lens. Again, what's good for the goose is good for the gander and I will not agree to a truce until LaMome accepts culpability for her actions. ObserverNY (talk) 19:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Since the information was added in July and it's had the same references until today, yes I still maintain those references are fine. If an editor buys a book at a bookstore, the book may be used to verify and as a reliable source. Another editor, who doesn't own the book must assume good faith that the edits and source are correct. In this case, I've assumed good faith as I don't have access to the material. You were not "chastised" , but simply reminded that Cinchbug asked for input and 10 minutes was insufficient. Clearly an editor can edit when they want; but if one asks for input, then some reasonable amount of time should be given for input to arrive, in my view. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization inconsistency

We went through this. It was a huge battle. Yet the article still stands as an inconsistent mess when it comes to capitalization or non-capitalization of IB courses. The Subject Groups are inconsistent, some have both words capped, some don't. There is also a spelling typo and ALL lower case references in the following section:

In 1968, the IB headquarters were officially established in Geneva, Switzerland for the development and maintenance of the IBDP. Alec Peterson became IBO's first Director General, and in 1968 twelve schools in twelve countries partcipated in the IBDP.[8][9][11] The first official guide to the programme containing its syllabus and official assessment information, was published in 1970 and included the theory of knowledge course. The extended essay was introduced in 1978,[12] but creativity, action, service (CAS), although mentioned in guides beforehand, was not specifically identified in the guide until 1989.[12]

Please make up your minds what is going to be the accepted style of capitalization. Once again, I would prefer that we use common usage and not IB's inconsistent style. ObserverNY (talk) 18:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Pilot Courses

I question the inclusion of alleged "pilot" IB courses (refs. 31 & 3435) which can only be verified via proprietary material. As a reader, I have no way of checking if this information is accurate. ObserverNY (talk) 11:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

http://www.govhs.org/vhsweb/Press.nsf/By+Date/B9F58F3781DD64FB862572AB0044263D?OpenDocument

http://www.govhs.org/Pages/Academics-IB

La mome (talk) 12:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

That is not what I was referring to. This is what I was referring to:

• Group 6: The arts....The pilot course for Dance in SL or HL is offered at schools participating in the pilot program.[31]...Text and Performance SL (Groups 1 and 6), which is currently a pilot course.[35]

Neither of the above courses are listed in LaMome's links. ObserverNY (talk) 12:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I have removed all of the "pilot" course references in the Group subject section as these statements are not verifiable.ObserverNY (talk) 12:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, first, there's nothing wrong with using the documents we've already listed as citations for those courses. Second, I have additional citations for each course. So I'm going to go ahead and revert those edits and include the new references. Regards, • CinchBug • 13:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Cinchbug - I'd like to see your references please, Cinchbug. Because when I wanted to use the IB Handbook of Procedures (with a readable link) as a reference for something related to Special Needs, I was forbidden from doing so because it was an IB propietary item. Therefore, IB "draft" guides for something that isn't offered globally or publicly do not constitute verifiable sources either. ObserverNY (talk) 13:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Cinchbug - your citations have big red errors ;-) I respectfully suggest that if you want to include these "pilot" courses that are not yet developed, not described and not officially offered globally to all IB schools, that a reference to them be placed in the section with the "pilot" online programme instead of inserted in the Subject Groups. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 13:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, the new references I included are all freely available on the web, as you can see in the article. Regards, • CinchBug • 13:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Oops, apparently not, since there is some sort of error in my citation. I'll go in and fix the errors so that you can see the sources. Sorry 'bout that! • CinchBug • 13:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Before you do, please read my suggestion above. I am not opposed to including verifiable information, however the Subject Group should reflect actual courses available to all IB schools. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 13:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Okay, the citatons seem to be working now. I didn't see your suggestion until now, but I don't have any particular objection to it. But before we move the pilot courses to that section (which I suppose would then have to be renamed), what does everyone else think? Regards, • CinchBug • 13:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

The pilot courses are actual courses available to all IB schools. They just need to apply to offer them. I am opposed to moving them to the section with online courses, unless that section is moved up to immediately follow the subjects section.

La mome (talk) 13:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Too late. Change was already made, without consensus. I propose we move the core requirements to before the subjects, followed by online courses. Any objections? Ok, then...

La mome (talk) 13:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

So far ObserverNY has engaged in 2 acts of disruptive editing-first, by deleting the pilot courses and then by moving them--both without any input from other editors.

La mome (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh please, spare us. I posted the topic for discussion. You came in and provided two irrelevant links. Cinchbug agreed with the more proper placement of "pilot" courses in the appropriately re-named Participation, online and pilot courses section. You asked to move it up. I did. I properly transferred all of the verifiable references Cinchbug provided and inserted them in the new section. Take a chill pill. ObserverNY (talk) 13:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I have very little time at the moment and haven't had the chance to evaluate this, but I see that Cinchbug asked for input at 13:32 and it seems that the changes were made by 13:43. This is much too fast! If these courses are not exclusive to the pilot online courses then, in my view, they shouldn't go in that section. I'd recommend keeping them where Cinchbug had them until people have had the opportunity to review the sections and text. I won't have time to do so until much later. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - Since Cinchbug provided verifiable references and also specifically stated he has "no particular objection" to re-naming the Participation section and yes, I have other things to do with my life as well, I made the changes. I made good faith, accurate, informative edits. From the IB information, all it says is they are "pilot courses" and they have been separately listed from the "online" pilot program in the new section. LaMome arbitrarily removed the Participation statement without ANY discussion and shoved it into Application and Authorization. I moved that section to a more appropriate placement. ObserverNY (talk) 14:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY - "I question the inclusion of alleged "pilot" IB courses (refs. 31 & 3435) which can only be verified via proprietary material. As a reader, I have no way of checking if this information is accurate."

Just because you have no way of checking if the information is accurate does not mean that others do not. I'm not aware of any WP policy that states that any single individual must have access to a document in order to verify it and allow it in WP. If others can check it that should be enough surely? --Candy (talk) 08:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

According to WP:Verifiability - "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." ObserverNY (talk) 12:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Thanks ObserverNY. I have read that. However, it doesn't state that all readers should be able to verify every statement all of the time. There are several readers who have access to the material and can verify it. Just like any information if you don't have the book, magazine, DVD, CD etc than you have to go and get it if you want to check the information. Sometimes this is simply difficult and we have to rely on good faith of the people concerned surely? The IB guides are fully referenced as well (or so I have seen) so this shouldn't be a problem. As regards my comment below about ESS, the UWC statement about Ecosystems and Societies is unverified. In fact it is not even verified by the source of the information - the IB (their store has the ESS guide currently for sale). This is both true and verifyable (they are not necessarily mutually exclusive). --Candy (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Please locate the IB Guides under WP:Book sources and I will be happy to accept them as verifiable references. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 14:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Hold up a second! Have I missed something here? Printed material has to have an ISBN number to be permissible as a WP source? I don't believe so. I don't seem to have seen that. A book publisher doesn't have to supply an ISBN number. The Principia has no ISBN number. It seems to be a very acceptable source though.

With respect, it's not whether you personally accept the source isn't it whether it fits the criteria for inclusion by WP surely? --Candy (talk) 15:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Truce

All right, let me do this a bit more formally. I propose that everyone agree to a truce, without any additional pre-conditions, and agree to genuinely strive to do several things:

• 1. Be civil to each other.
• 2. With the exception of minor edits for spelling, punctuation, and the like, propose and discuss changes to the article on the Talk page before actually making the changes.
• 3. Slow down the pace of editing--rapid-fire editing seems to have inevitably led to nastiness around here.

If you agree to try to do this, then please sign below. It is intended that this all be done in good faith.

• CinchBug • 18:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll agree to a truce on these terms. Thank you CB & TK for being peacemakers.

Cheers!La mome (talk) 19:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed to above and thanks to Cinchbug. Assuming that adding page numbers constitutes minor edits? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

No resolution - please see discussion on Cinchpage's talk. Will compromise if LaMome strikes or removes fraudulent comment from "Certificate Programme" section above. Then I agree to the above terms. Without an honest effort by LaMome to show good faith by removing that which has severely offended a fellow editor, I cannot believe that she is agreeing to this truce in good faith. ObserverNY (talk) 21:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

What is this fradulent comment that has offended you so terribly? Can you point it out to me? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong, we're trying to iron this out at my Talk page, if you'd care to join us. Regards, • CinchBug • 21:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

...i guess. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

I apologized, TWICE, (this makes THREE times) to LaMome for WP:Outing. She refuses to apologize, as proposed by Cinchbug, for calling me/my editing fraudulent. No truce. ObserverNY (talk) 00:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Thank you very much for trying, Cinchbug, TK and HelloAnnyong. ObserverNY (talk) 00:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

...okay then. I'm going to take my leave of this article yet again. If you guys need more help, feel free to send me a message on my talk page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted. I sincerely apologize for upsetting you if you perceived what I said as calling you fraudulent.

La mome (talk) 02:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks to CB, TK and HA for establishing that my edits were not fraudulent. Apology accepted. ObserverNY (talk) 13:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

"To do" list

I propose the following changes to the article:

1. This sentence--Currently, in order to participate in the IBDP students must attend an IB World School-- should be incorporated into the lead paragraph and the word "participation" removed from the "application and authorization" section.

2. The pilot course, formerly known as "ecosystems and societies" is called "environmental systems and societies" and is no longer a pilot course, according to this source

3. The pilot courses and the school-based syllabi should be put back into the subjects section as listed in this source

I won't make any of those changes until all the editors have weighed in here.

I suggest that other editors write their proposals in this section and as they are agreed upon and completed, we can strike through as we go, much like a "to do."

La mome (talk) 12:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Alrighty then. So am I the only one who is unable to access www.ibo.org this morning? You know, there's an old saying, "I'm not paranoid, they really ARE out to get me". This is the message I receive: "Operation failed on the data source named ibo4. Reason of failure "[Macromedia][Oracle JDBC Driver]Error establishing socket. Connection refused" I'm pretty sure that means IBO blocked my IP from its main public website. Please let me know if anyone else is having this problem. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 13:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

First, I applaud ObserverNY and La mome for settling their differences. Well done.

Regarding the IB website, I'm also getting an error. At first it was the same error ObserverNY describes, but now MSIE simply doesn't display the page. Given that there's a note on the OCC main page (before logging in) that says that the OCC is scheduled to be down for maintenance on 23 August (tomorrow) and that I've occassionally run into the same kind of temporary problem at a variety of websites, it seems most likely to me that the main IB website is also down, quite possibly for maintenance. Regards, • CinchBug • 14:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Also, I concur with La mome's suggestions. I tend to agree that the pilot courses are probably best-placed in the Subject Groups section, although, as pilot courses, the notion that they share characteristics with the pilot online Diploma Programme also has merit. I'd be interested in hearing some other ideas about this. Regards, • CinchBug • 15:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

To alleviate my paranoia, I had a friend check the IBO site and it appears their server is completely down. I recommend that no edits, other than minor spelling or capitalization fixes, be performed until IBO's site is up and running as it serves as the vast majority of citations for this article.

Unlike AP, IB does not provide any sort of online list of its allegedly internationally standardized courses/syllabi. This poses a dilemma when it comes to differentiating what currently constitutes IB courses/exams which are recognized for college credit by universities, and those which are not. I would venture to guess that there is not a university in the world that would currently award anything other than elective credit for either a school-based syllabi IB course OR a "pilot" IB course/exam. We don't even know if actual exams have been developed yet for these "pilot courses". The "online pilot diploma programme" is not currently in effect, there are only 3 "pilot" student courses and it is currently impossible to earn an IB Diploma through this method. Merely slapping the IB label on either of these types of courses does not give them any credibility in terms of rigor. Therefore I am very much opposed to sticking any sort of "pilot" courses into the Subject Group section. When they become officially recognized courses, then they should be added, but not until then.

As to the "leaflet" sources in LaMome's post, I have a couple of questions/observations: 1)what site is this .pdf being pulled from if ibo.org is down? 2) The documents are from 2008 3) All of the course names are in lower case 4) the UWC source I had previously linked but which was removed is from 2009 and lists the course as "ecosystems and societies". http://www.uwc.org/what_we_do/news/see_all_news/marine_science_syllabus.aspx “When the IB decided to replace Environmental Systems with the transdisciplinary course Ecosystems and Societies, I saw this as an opportunity to design an SBS called Marine Science,” explains teacher Laura Verhegge, who developed the course. Therefore, I believe this information is more up to date and correct. ObserverNY (talk) 17:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

P.S - Note that the UWC capitalizes the course name Ecosystems and Societies. This is something we can work on until ibo.org is back online and try and reach agreement on. If Pointillist is still around, I would be interested in some feedback as I still maintain that it should be Theory of Knowledge. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 17:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY - ""Operation failed on the data source named ibo4. Reason of failure "[Macromedia][Oracle JDBC Driver]Error establishing socket. Connection refused" I'm pretty sure that means IBO blocked my IP from its main public website."

It's an automatic response from a server when data on that server is not being accessed properly. This is purely an internal IBO issue with their IT systems and will affect all users.

Note: Neither Ecosystems and Societies nor Environmental Systems exist and more. It's Environmental Systems and Societies. --Candy (talk) 18:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

Since this is not a forum for general discussion of IB Diploma Programme, I will keep my post brief and suggest that others do the same. Once the ibo.org site is back up, you'll see that there are indeed assessments for the pilot courses, such as dance and film and the results are included in the IB data reports. As Candorwien and I have explained, the Environmental Systems course is being phased out and replaced with Environmental systems and societies, which was called "Ecosystems and societies" in the early phases of the pilot. Speculation on college credit, course credibility and rigor of pilot courses and school-based syllabi without providing sources is not relevant to the discussion as it does not address the improvement of the IBDP article, which is the purpose of this talk page.

The "leaflet" is from ibo.org--specifically ibna--and is already listed in our sources. It is provided to colleges/universities in North America. The UWC link quotes a teacher referring to the new course (Environmental systems and societies) under the old name (Ecosystems and societies).

La mome (talk) 21:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The UWC link clearly quotes a teacher referring to: “When the IB decided to replace Environmental Systems with the transdisciplinary course Ecosystems and Societies..." I really don't see how that can be misinterpreted. If Candy or LaMome can provide a 2009 source that identifies the course as Environmental systems and societies then of course we should use that. Until then, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.

Speculation on college credit, course credibility and rigor of pilot courses and school-based syllabi without providing sources is not relevant to the discussion as it does not address the improvement of the IBDP article, which is the purpose of this talk page. - That is your opinion to which you are entitled. However, my "speculation" was providing a reason as to why like items should be grouped together within the article for the purpose of improvement, ie: Pilot online programme & Pilot courses vs. already recognized IB courses.

Please address the capitalization issue. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 22:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The IB source calls it Environmental systems and societies. It is an IB course. This is the same as the whole "IB Certificate program" issue. Schools call their courses and their programs whatever they like. The pilot courses and the online Diploma Programme pilot are not like items. The courses offered online are not pilot courses, they are mainstream IB courses (ITGS, Economics, to name 2 that I remember). Your speculation is your opinion, to which you are also entitled, however we are not adding information to an encylcopedia based on opinions and speculation.

La mome (talk) 23:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)

The IB source which you provided, is a year older than the UWC source. As I said earlier, we will simply have to wait until IBO gets its website back online to verify what IB currently calls this course. If the IBO website makes no reference to the course, then from an encyclopaedic standpoint, it seems to me the most recent source would be the one to be used.

A "pilot program" is defined as an "activity planned as a test or trial" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pilot%20program By IB applying the "pilot" label to some courses and its online programme, IB automatically places them into the same trial category. They are not tried and true items and therefore should be grouped together. There is no guarantee that either the online programme or any of the pilot courses won't be discontinued next year. Just like a pilot pharmaceutical that is "test marketed" to a select group of volunteers, these "products" are not FDA approved and offered to the general public. People may develop severe reactions and the drug may be pulled. Fortunately, IB doesn't have life or death implications so the analogy is not the most apt, but if there is little interest, or if there are particularly bad test results from the pilot courses, IB may have to go back to the drawing board and re-design its "pilots". So if you want to refer to them in the article, by all means, but it should be in its own section. It is interesting information. As to your contention that schools call their courses whatever they want and this is just like the Certificate Program issue, I beg to differ. The UWC source specifically states When the IB decided to replace, not "when we at UWC decided to call it something else". ObserverNY (talk) 23:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY - "The IB source which you provided, is a year older than the UWC source." The age of a source doesn't matter in this respect. Surely, the issue is about whether it is correct? Whether or not a UWC created Environmental Systems (now Ecosystems and Societies) is irrelevant to the fact that there is an external course run by the IB called Environmental Systems and Societies (ESS) which exists now. The other courses have been superseded. I suspect the UWC website is a tad out-of-date in this respect which may be explained by the fact that the very final Ecosystems and Societies examination was only in May 2009. The first ESS examinations will be in May 2010. --Candy (talk) 12:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Please see my response to your question in the "Pilot Courses" section as it relates to WP:Verifiability. Thank you.ObserverNY (talk) 12:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Environmental systems and societies --IB Guide from the Dwight school.

La mome (talk) 12:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Oxford course companion for env. sys. & soc.

La mome (talk) 13:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: Dwight school link - "All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the IB, or as expressly permitted by law or by the IB’s own rules and policy. See http://www.ibo.org/copyright." ObserverNY (talk) 13:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I am not suggesting we use the Dwight school ref., just offering proof of what Candy and I have been saying. We can still use the IB guide as a verifiable reference.

La mome (talk) 13:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Env. Sys. & Soc. Minor at UCLA -Just FYI- found this to be interesting La mome (talk) 13:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

LaMome - please refer to WP:Verifiability and also the section on Self-pub. Furthermore, I am not suggesting that what IB teachers are claiming is "not true", merely that we follow Wikipedia rules for verifiability. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 13:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

With regards to which source? Please refer to WP:TLDR regarding posts further up on pilot courses. So, I think we can change the name back to Environmental systems and societies, no?

La mome (talk) 13:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

LaMome - The Dwight School Guide violates copyright. Your original .pdf's are from 2008. I respectfully requested that we wait for IBO's website to come back online before any such changes are made. Please adhere to the guidelines of the Truce you agreed to. I would also like for other non-IB teacher editors to weigh in on the issue. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 13:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Break

It's not the Dwight school's guide, it's the electronic version of the IB Guide for Environmental systems and societies. The hardcopy can be purchased. We can reference the guide, without linking directly to it, as we have done already with many other IB guides. The Oxford source has the course companion, with the title. As I said before, I am not suggesting that we use these sources in our references, just offering proof that the course is indeed called Environmental systems and societies. We can wait for other editors to weigh in, but it seems to me that once again a lot of time and talk page space have been wasted on a simple issue. No need to specify the occupations of editors. In fact, I am pretty sure that is inappropriate. La mome (talk) 13:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I am working very hard to be polite, welcoming and to abide by WP:TRUCE as crafted by Cinchbug. I stated above that I am not accusing you of providing misinformation, however it is proprietary information and not verifiable by non-IB members. Cinchbug, Candorwein, Ewen and you have all identified yourselves as IB teachers who therefore have access to IB material that the average Wikipedia reader does not. There is nothing inappropriate about mentioning that, as it reflects proprietary access. I take offense at your use of WP:TLDR regarding my comments on this talk page and suggest that you avoid WP:Gaming the system.ObserverNY (talk) 13:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

A simple google search will provide you (and all readers for that matter) with the guides that are listed in the references. This is no different than any of the other guides we have already listed. In fact, I provided you with the so-called proprietary information, so you can't keep saying you don't have access to it. I take offense at your repeated references to the occupations of other editors, including myself. You apologised for attempting to out me, yet continue to make reference to personal information.

La mome (talk) 14:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

So, we are waiting for Truthkeeper, HelloAnnyong, Pointillist and perhaps TFOWR to weigh in? How do you know that they are "non-IB teacher" editors?

La mome (talk) 14:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The proprietary information you linked violates IB copyright law and is therefore inadmissible as a source. Reference to your self-identification as an IB teacher does not constitute WP:Outing. I have objected to the inclusion of ANY IB guides in ANY IB articles and if there are other citations which currently exist in the articles, I challenge them as well. A Wikipedia article is not meant to stand as an advertisement for IB or to try and generate revenue for the IB Store. ObserverNY (talk) 14:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

1. As I have said before, other IB guides are referenced. It's no different than referencing a book. I did not suggest we link the Dwight school source.

2. The articles are about an educational programme. Referencing curriculum materials is logical and necessary.

3. There are no links or references to the IB store, therefore no advertising or self publishing.

4. Stop referring to me as an IB teacher. You've done it at least 3 times within the past few hours.

La mome (talk) 14:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

TFOWR, HelloAnnyong and Truthkeeper have all stated a "neutral", non-affiliated position with regards to IB. Pointillist is new to the discussion and I have no idea whether he/she is an IB teacher or not. ObserverNY (talk) 14:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

And you have a "neutral" affiliation with IB? La mome (talk) 14:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

I am not employed to teach IB, nor am I employed by The College Board. ObserverNY (talk) 14:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

That doesn't really answer the question. A simple yes or no will suffice.

La mome (talk) 14:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY, if you'd like TFOWR, Truthkeeper88, HelloAnnyong, and Pointillist to give their opinions on the matter, then that sounds fine to me. But, as I pointed out recently, I'm not sure that the fact that the subject guides cannot be freely accessed by everyone on the internet is relevant. Again, scientific journals are also not free--thus articles from scientific journals cannot typically be read unless the reader has a subscription or is at a school, university, or library that has purchased a subscription to the journal. Making a reference to such a journal, or having a Wikipedia article about that journal, is not an advertisement for the journal nor intended to generate revenue for the journal. Likewise, referencing the subject guide for a given course isn't advertisement for the course or IB, nor is it intended to generate revenue for the IB. Regards, • CinchBug • 14:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Break 2

Uh, I was asked to comment on this. But the conversation seems to have deviated from the todo list that this set out to be. So what do you need my thoughts on? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

For those weighing in-Is the title of the course, environmental systems and societies or ecosystems and societies? Can we use IB subject guides as sources or is that breaking copyright laws? Is it appropriate to repeatedly mention the professions of other editors?

La mome (talk) 15:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Cinchbug - A reference to an article in a published scientific journal is not self-published. Therein lies the difference. In the Pilot Courses section above, Candorwein states: In fact it is not even verified by the source of the information - the IB (their store has the ESS guide currently for sale). --Candy (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC). ObserverNY (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

A point of order please. My quote was As regards my comment below about ESS, the UWC statement about Ecosystems and Societies is unverified. In fact it is not even verified by the source of the information - the IB (their store has the ESS guide currently for sale). This is both true and verifyable (they are not necessarily mutually exclusive). Taking the second senetnce out of context lt seems as if I am saying that the IB's source is unverified. In fact I was indicating that the UWC source is not verified by the IB. --Candy (talk) 19:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) HA - I have requested that we wait for the IBO website to come back online to see what the IB currently names the Environmental/Ecosystems course. I have provided a UWC source which contradicts a 2008 IB source provided by LaMome. The discussion has devolved into what appears to me, pushing of proprietary sources which violate copyright and WP:Verifiability. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 15:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

One, we don't edit based on whether or not a primary source site is up. Two, ibo.org loads for me. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Environmental systems and societies La mome (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

HA - problem solved, the site was not up this morning but it is now. I will accept the following as a legitimate source for the changing of the course title to Environmental Systems and Societies: http://www.ibo.org/ibna/ibnarecognition/diplomaprogrammeinformation/ Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 15:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The "problem" was solved yesterday. Like I said, Environmental systems and societies. La mome (talk) 15:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Excellent; good job reaching a solution. Message me if you need me again. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The problem was not solved yesterday or this morning. Furthermore, regarding primary source, the opening sentence states: Wikipedia articles should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.. My UWC reference constituted a secondary source which I am willing to forego in light of IB's updated website. I am on record as challenging any usage of IB Guides in IB articles as sources. ObserverNY (talk) 15:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(outdent) The bigger issue, I think, is whether or not the subject guides written by the IB may be used as legitimate references in our articles here. As I stated above, I see no reason why they wouldn't be and I haven't found anything at PSTS that suggests otherwise. These sources aren't being used to make "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative" claims, but rather strictly "descriptive" claims, in accordance with PSTS. The fact that not everyone can freely obtain the guides--or immediately see them for free online--is not relevant, I think. Regards, • CinchBug • 15:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Cinchbug - I agree, that is the bigger issue. According to primary source: Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation. IB can make all the claims it wants about itself, but without secondary backup, it is merely self-promotion and does not meet WP:Verifiability standards, imho. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 15:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

It's okay to use an IBO source to cite the name of the program. It's even okay to marginally describe what the class does with the source, should you ever want to put that in. But when you start trying to analyzing it, then a secondary source is needed. So in this previous case, we correctly used a primary source to describe something. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes, ObserverNY, that is a quote from PSTS, but using a subject guide to identify the name of a course or to describe the curriculum of the course does not involve any "interpretation of primary source material." If, for example, we were to use the subject guide for Mathematics HL to make the claim that "Mathematics HL is the best secondary school mathematics course on Earth," then that would indeed be "interpretive" and, in fact, also "evaluative." But I don't recall seeing any such use of the subject guides in any of these WP articles about IB. Regards, • CinchBug • 15:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

IB is notorious for its lack of transparency. While you may justifiably insist on using IB Guides as a primary source for these articles for course naming instances only, I respectfully submit that Wikipedia states articles: should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 15:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I understand (as has been pointed out several times by yourself and others) that it is important not to take the hyperbole of any organisation or company and spin it in Wikipedia without appropriate secondary sources. Of course, some of this hyperbole could be quoted if enough reliable secondary sources were found to support it or repudiate it so that the reader understands what the issues are. I totally agree.

It would be good to think of you providing polite checks and balances in this article. I'm certain we would all appreciate that. However, I would also appreciate you moving a little more towards the centre so that basic verifiable facts from primary sources (as they are in many articles) can be used in the spirit of editing wikipedia. This will allow all the editors to move on towards the stated goals. If you really find this a problem then I would appreciate you going to the Village Pump and getting some response from there. I would be happy to follow their advice. Thanks. --Candy (talk) 20:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

DP aims

The very first para states, "The International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme (IBDP) is a two-year educational programme for students aged 16–19 that aims to provide an internationally accepted qualification for entry into higher education."

Two things bother me about this sentence. The first is that the ref used is 5 years old and the IB has moved on significantly since then. The second is that this is only one of the aims in the document. By stressing just one it makes it appear as though this is the only aim of the DP - which clearly it is not. What about expanding it to include all the aims of the DP? --Candy (talk) 12:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that a number of the "aims" of the IBDP have been expressed in the Core requirements section of the article. However, if you wish to include other different and more general aims, I think that would be the proper placement for them, not in the overview.ObserverNY (talk) 13:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Issues of outing and COI

Okay, look. This is very simple. In order to maintain civility best, it is advised that everyone not make mention of everyone else's professions, personal interests, websites, and so on. It is simply inappropriate to repeatedly state that a person holds Position X or runs Website Y, as it seems like, among other reasons, the accuser is just trying to discredit the other editors in doing so, and we should have none of that. Stay on topic and do not bring personal things into it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Sure, sounds good to me! Regards, • CinchBug • 15:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Me too! La mome (talk) 17:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

WP:Conflict of Interest due to the fact that some editors to this article about IB are paid to teach IB, is the source of all major editing conflicts to date. Choosing to ignore this fact does not help matters. ObserverNY (talk) 18:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I don't think that's reasonable, ONY. (1) The facts should speak for themselves and who puts them forward is irrelevant. (2) How can 'some' editors cause 'all' the conflicts? (3) COI isn't just due to some editors being IB teachers. Some editors run anti-IB websites, you know. However, point 3 isn't any use if you accept point 1. Back to editing?

Ewen (talk) 19:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Agree wholeheartedly with Ewen, (and welcome back!) Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

The fact that the number of editors on the IB series are overwhelmingly IB teachers who are PAID to teach IB courses unjustly biases the entire editing process. This is evidenced by the constant demands that "the majority has spoken". I am not getting paid to promote or not promote IB. My interest is strictly in presenting the facts. There is an IB "gang" mentality amongst all of the editors here. I'm done. You win. Load up the article with all of your unverifiable IB propaganda to your heart's content. ObserverNY (talk) 21:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Capitalization

For a fifth time, I am requesting that the issue of consistency of capitalization of IB courses be addressed. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 18:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Honestly it comes up in many articles, and really isn't too important until the final proofreading/copyediting stage. I wouldn't worry about it for the time being. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

It's really not your place to tell me what "to worry about", TK. I asked for the editors on this article to come to an agreement regarding the capitalization style of IB courses for consistency. Apparently it was important enough when Pointillist made changes, but now it isn't? ObserverNY (talk) 21:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Almost 75 posts have been added to this page on August 23rd. It is impossible to keep up with the conversation, let alone edit the article. It seems you have a number of demands, such as editors not editing, etc,. In my view, the capitalization isn't immediately important, but if you want my opinion it's this: as the article is about the IB Diploma Programme, then the nomenclature complete with spelling & capitalization of the International Baccalaureate is appropriate. As such, Pointillist's edits were appropriate. What else needs to changed? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Don't care. Over and out. Selective illiteracy doesn't pass my smell test for intellectual honesty. ObserverNY (talk) 22:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

From my desk copy of the Chicago Manual of Style: [Rules] reflect the tendency toward the use of fewer capitals, toward what is called down (lowercase) style [....] most authors do not feel strongly about capitalization [...] the editor must establish a logical, acceptable style and regularize any departure from it [...]Rules for capitalizing or lowercasing specific terms can seldom be applied to every case. The editor, understanding the nature of the work, must use discretion, judgement, and intuition in deciding when to follow the pattern... Also, according to my desk copy of CMOS, there is not a section with capitalizations of course names. In science, neither biology nor chemistry is capitalized, so generally those would not be capitalized as courses (unless it's Chemistry 100, in which case it is capitalized), I believe that the capitalizations we are using in this article are fine as they point to generic courses which might be renamed by each institution that uses them. As I stated above, it comes up in every article and the tendency, in early drafts is to over-capitalize, but in reality many fewer terms/words are capitalized in English than most realize. Hope this is helpful. And, should know better, but must reply, that this is not selective illiteracy; the folks who write style books generally set the style, and others break the style. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

My comment referring to "selective illiteracy" was in response to your comment that "It is impossible to keep up with the conversation", not article style. Both you and HelloAnnyong decide what you feel like reading and what you don't. "Also, according to my desk copy of CMOS, there is not a section with capitalizations of course names. In science, neither biology nor chemistry is capitalized, ("so generally those would not be capitalized as courses" - this is YOUR incorrect interpretation) (unless it's Chemistry 100, in which case it is capitalized)" That pretty much answers the question regarding IB course names, don't you think? No one is discussing environmental systems and societies as a general topic as in biology or chemistry. It is a properly named course and should be reflected as Environmental Systems and Societies. I doubt it will help, despite the fact that it is pretty darn clear, because the IBers will never agree to it because it doesn't reflect the almighty IB's incorrect "style". Good bye. ObserverNY (talk) 22:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

First of all the many posts are simply too long to read. As for the subject names, schools offer biology and chemistry courses (generic) but a specific school offers a course titled Chemistry 100 or some such thing. The distinction is important in capitalizations because each school can/may title the course as they want. The title is capitalized. The generic name of the subject is not. As such although it seems odd, a subject titled dance is just that, dance. Also, you glossed over the section that mentions the tendency toward fewer capitalizations, and in fact capitalizing the first word and not subsequent words is absolutely correct. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

No, it is not my incorrect interpretation. It's correct usage. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

See? You simply cannot accept the facts in your own manual. The courses in question will be reflected in schools guides as IB SL Dance. No different than Dance 101. Done. Outta here. Don't care. Have fun storming the castle! Ciao! ObserverNY (talk) 23:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

This encyclopedia is not a course guide and hence the subjects are generic subject names, thus not capitalized. You've asked my opinion and I've given three/four times now. The article reflects the rules in style manuals and as such is fine in my opinion. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

New approach to editing?

Perhaps we should try a different approach, one that avoids too much discussion on the talk pages, such as WP:1RR or WP:BRD? I think someone had suggested that earlier on, but it may have been missed or dismissed because it works best with experienced editors. At this point, I think the majority of editors are experienced. I don't include myself in that category, but I think I understand the concept and am willing to give it a try. I am going to go ahead and make some edits, based on discussions and suggestions that were made. If they are not to your liking, go ahead and revert and discuss here. A little less conversation and a little more ... editing? La mome (talk) 19:28, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Good suggestions. I think we need to monitor how many edits we make to this talk page, compared to the number of edits made to the article itself. I'm at the wrong end of the continuum when it comes to talking versus editing, and will strive to do more constructive stuff - action not words! Ewen (talk) 19:48, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi, Ewen! Um, this may make our first interaction a bit awkward, since I suppose that you may have been trying to make a point. But I'm going to reinsert most of my comments that were deleted with your most recent edit. Here they are:

La mome, I'm all for trying something else, since it seems like all other efforts have failed to maintain any reasonable degree of civility. I should point out that I'm a little concerned about WP:BRD, based on this:

BRD ... requires more diplomacy and skill to use successfully than other methods, and has more potential for failure. [emphasis mine]

Diplomacy has historically been a problem here. But the following is also suggested, which may help:

Some have even taken to simply declaring their intent by adding the shortcut "WP:BRD" at the front of their edit summary. This seems to help keep people from taking as much offense at proposed changes.

Of course, it continues:

In a way, you're actively provoking another person with an edit they may (strongly) disagree on, so you're going to need to use all your tact to explain what you're aiming to achieve.

Tact--which runs hand in glove with diplomacy--is something that has been sorely lacking in many comments around here, I'm afraid. Still, I'm game. Let's give it a try! Regards, • CinchBug • 19:57, 24 August 2009 (UTC)

History Section Clarification

Quote> "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."

First of all, I'm glad the frenzied talk is over and we can get back to our purpose. I will continue editing here if it stays calm like this.

About this sentence. If students are getting bilingual diplomas doesn't this imply that they have at least two languages that or (close to) mother-tongue level? I know that good bi or tri-lingual people actually have one language better than the others (although to you and I their languages would be indistinguishable from being native or very near native) but I'm ignoring this as it is a splitting hairs issue to some extent. If they have two essentially equal languages how can they "take one or more of their humanities or science subjects in a language other than their first" as they are both first languages?

Shouldn't it say something like "take one or more humanities subjects in either of their bilingual languages?"

--Candy (talk) 21:02, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I am also glad to see that things have calmed down. Candy, usually only one language is first (unless the person is raised in a bilingual family). It is quite possible for students to study geography or history in a language other than their first, provided, of course, that they are sufficiently fluent in this language; but by no means does it have to be near the level of their first one. For example, the school I went to used to offer (before my time) middle and high school geography and history in a foreign language that students started learning in second grade. Interestingly, this was the only option, and the idea was that this would help students learn the language even better, along with history and geography.Tvor65 (talk) 21:17, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Candy, that section came from one the sources Uncle G provided. Before rewording the source should be checked to verify exactly what the meaning is here. Good catch, though. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:20, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Candy, that's an interesting point. I agree with TK that we need to make sure that it wouldn't contradict anything in the references. Assuming we find that it doesn't, how about this, to keep it as general as we can: "...take some subjects in one language and other subjects in a different language." Regards, • CinchBug • 21:32, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't have the Hill book that's published by Sage. This text is from Uncle G's suggested version for the history, the original of which I saved in my sandbox. So, in my view the section can/may be changed as long verifiable sources exist. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:59, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Great question! This may help-

"Bilingual diplomas are awarded for:

•two languages A1, or

•a language A1 taken together with a language A2, or

•a group 3 or 4 subject taken in a language other than the candidate's language A1, or

•an extended essay in a group 3 or group 4 subject written in a language other than the candidate's language A1."

Language A1 is first native language--A2 is second native language. As an aside, and purely from experience (haven't checked any research yet---)--It is rare that a bilingual person will be equally proficient in both languages (two languages A1). As a test, ask them which language they count in or do math equations in--that is their "true" first language.

Cheers-La mome (talk) 22:49, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks La mome for the info on the bilingual degree.
On another note: text has been added to the article about the United World College and the UN school in New York, neither of which began offering the IB until 1968 according to the sources we are using and which I've read. As currently written the information splits a source, I've changed it, ONY has changed back, and at this point I don't know what to do, but the information belongs in the section about the specific schools that first offered IB in the late 60s and in fact the UWC source verifies 1968 but not 1962 which is where it's currently placed. Some advice is welcome. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:12, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

La mome, I'm not sure we need quite that much detail here--it seems excessive. Still, while I'm inclined to revert your edit, I mean no offense and will wait and listen to what you and other editors have to say. Regards, • CinchBug • 23:50, 25 August 2009 (UTC)

No problem--instead of reverting, maybe we can come up with a less-detailed description of the IB Bilingual Diploma? I am at a loss for words right now, but if you want to try, be my guest! Otherwise, revert and we can look at it again at a later date...

Ciao for now - La mome (talk) 00:43, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper-I see your point. Also, as it is worded now, it seems like the IBDP was developed in 3 different schools simultaneously, whereas I believe it was developed at Ecolint, with educators from the other 2 schools going there to work with them. I am not sure how to fix it and am signing off for now. I'll look at it again tomorrow.

Cheers-La mome (talk) 00:49, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Food for thought-

Quote from here:

"The IB Diploma was created by a group of teachers from three international schools - International School of Geneva, UWC of the Atlantic and the UN School of New York. It was founded in Geneva, Switzerland in 1968. Atlantic College was one of the seven schools that piloted the IB Diploma alongside UK A-levels, and became the first school in the world to abandon its own national curriculum in favour of the IB in 1971."

vs

Quote from here: ‘The original idea for an international qualification….first outlined by a group of teachers at the International School in Geneva in 1962. …. Further developments such as the ISES in 1965 and the involvement of the Atlantic College in Wales"…

La mome (talk) 01:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

What you've presented here is consistent with the timeline/history we've been working on, but now the article is not consistent as it has UWC Atlantic & the UN school offering IB in 1962, whereas in reality that didn't happen until 1968. I did edit the section but ONY has moved it back, and as ONY appears to be "done" with the discussion, I'm a bit stymied as how to proceed without simply deleting the edits. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input with the Bilingual Diplomas. We can mark it as something to get back to. Perhaps we can create a list of to-do's as a banner at the top of the page which won't get archived? We can then focus on one or two of then at a time or an individual or groups can work on them together as they wish. It may even attract visitors to get involved editing?

I've often heard exactly what you say about counting and maths to define the stronger language. My research tells me that if possible, for bilingual children, there is a benefit for having the relatively "harder" of the two languages should be the stronger. (My son is being raised bilingually and we're focusing on Mandarin - but fortunately it will truly be his mother-tongue.) I've also experienced students without a mother-tongue - they often have learning difficulties as they can't ground concepts effectively it seems. Ok, I'm off the point.

However, my current school has about 25% bilingual diplomas each year. Many, but not all, of these students answer the question about counting with, "usually the language I am talking in at the time" - we don't do A2. I also find it odd as my German is OK (I do all my financial transactions in German for example) and I count in German (but I would never pass an A2 examination). Maths I don't do in any language - it's all images to me :)

Regarding history. I'll try to get around to looking at that soonish. I don't really know what help I can offer though. --Candy (talk) 20:21, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I just got sucked in - in a nice way though. :) This may be old hat but have you viewed [[3]]. I like the way it phrases the IB and it may even have met ONY's approval of no self-serving advertisements.

"Founded in the 1960's, the IBO grew out of international school efforts to establish a common curriculum and university entry credential for geographically mobile students. Beyond practical considerations, international educators were also motivated by an idealistic vision: they hoped that a shared academic experience emphasizing critical thinking and exposure to a variety of viewpoints would foster tolerance and inter-cultural understanding among young people. Concentration on the last two years of secondary school sought to build a comprehensive curriculum - leading to a baccalaureate - that could be administered in any country and recognized by universities in every country." Trouble is I don't see I reliable citation for where this comes from (school's are not necessarily good sources of information as they have their own agendas), I like the phrasing though as a relatively straight-forward description of its development. --Candy (talk) 20:32, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I made some edits based on the dates and sources listed in my post above. Let me know what you think.

I like the wording of Candy's statement and we might be able to weave some of it into what we already have. The problem is we have so many historical details and that statement you provided is a good general description of the history/background of IB.

I made changes to the "awards" section to separate the types of awards-diploma, bilingual diploma and certificate. Given that there are 25% bilingual diplomas in your school, and a similar number in international schools around the world, I think that maybe my detailed description of what a bilingual diploma is isn't so bad after all?!

I've seen those to-do lists elsewhere and that was what I was trying to do here--but then I realized if it is in the body of the talkpage it will get archived. Can someone make a "to-do list" box?

Cheers La mome (talk) 20:42, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Hi La Mome. Actually, I found your response about bilingual diplomas to be very clear and agree with it. Sorry I didn't state that clearly but rambled on with my own agenda! The big difference in our school is that they are all A1 bilinguals though. As an aside I once taught a Serbian student who went to a Russian Kindergarten, primary schooled in Italy and Germany and secondary schooled in English. She learned French as her B language and Spanish for fun. Serbian, Russian, German, Italian and English were all A1 level yet she ended up studying in the UK and getting a doctorate in genetics. Bright as a button!

yes, it's the box we need.

Please note I made a couple of edits on the page. Should actually be minor but I didn't check the box on purpose as editing here needs to be as transparent as possible. --Candy (talk) 20:59, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

I know where to find the box. Will do so later (am just logging off for a little while). Also, looks like the edit warring has started again -- very tedious! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:02, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Edit war

I've boldly deleted the history section for the time being. It can be added back later. In my view comments such as this and this are too inflammatory and beyond any sort of spirit of civility. Rather than having an edit war, the section is gone. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:46, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Deleting an entire section is entirely uncivil and I have reverted your edit. YOU PEOPLE didn't WANT discussion. The second I say I'm DONE you turn this talk page into a forum. Stop being such hypocrites. I added perfectly fine facts with verifiable citations. You have a problem with Hahn? You have a problem with Desmond Cole? What is your problem? ObserverNY (talk) 21:55, 26 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

See your talk page to see what my problem is with you ObserverNY. I should add that I don't approve in the wholesale deletion of the talk page by Truthkeeper. I hope TK will revert that as it was without discussion. Sometimes things are done in frustration and anger. TK seems to be very reasonable. We all have our moments (don't we?) --Candy (talk) 22:00, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Why I deleted an entire section that I've spent a long time working on: User:ObserverNY added text into the middle of a sentence thereby splitting the source. In addition, User:ObserverNY's edit was factually wrong as the sentence in question is about 1962 whereas their information was about 1968. Last night I took the time to move the text to the appropriate place here. That edit was reverted by User:ObserverNY here. Today, La mome, who has also worked on the history section moved the text so it would be in the appropriate section. That edit was reverted here. In my view, if a section is controversial and if an editor wants to engage in an edit war, then the section can be removed for a short period and replaced later (which is what I'd intended). Looking at the edit histories, User:ObserverNY has broken the 3R rule today. That's edit warring. I've tried very hard to be even keelend and civil, but when the inappropriate comments were brought to my user page, I realised that perhaps being even keeled doesn't always do the job. At any rate, the section is restored. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:07, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh crap TK. I made a facetious remark on your talk page today and forgot to sign it. I hope you weren't reacting to that thinking it was ONY? If you were mea culpa. I'll be a lot more sensitive in future. /spanks self --Candy (talk) 22:14, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

"In addition, User:ObserverNY's edit was factually wrong as the sentence in question is about 1962 whereas their information was about 1968." You are incorrect, TK. The UWC cite mentions the 3 schools, therefore your addition of {{citation}}: Empty citation (help) is uncalled for. I changed 1962 to "the early 1960's". I believe 1962-1964 qualifies as the early 1960's, no? The following sentence to which I added Desmond Cole of UNIS with the Jay Mathews cite, further establishes the time frame for the participation of those 3 schools in the IBDP's development, re, those who formed ISES in .... 1964... early 1960's. I thought you would endeavor to actually read the very good secondary sources I provided, but I guessed wrong. Oh well. ObserverNY (talk) 00:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

No, I mean this which is actually addressed to you but on my talkpage, and not at all appropriate. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:18, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

The "edit war" was started over the inclusion of these sentences:

"The Diploma Programme's development began in the early 1960's at the International School of Geneva (Ecolint), United World College (UWC) of the Atlantic and the United Nations International School (UNIS) of New York. Alec Peterson, author of Schools Across Frontiers, credits the influence of the curriculum model developed at the UWC of the Atlantic as serving as the eventual framework of the IBDP as well as the work of his mentor educationist Kurt Hahn, who was instrumental in shaping the college’s philosophy."

Truthkeeper and I explained both on the talkpage and in the edit summaries why these two sentences needed to be reworded and moved to a chronologically appropriate part of the article.

More precisely, according to sources already included in the article, the development of the IBDP began at Ecolint in 1962 and continued later (1965)with UWC and UNIS, when Mayer started his study. The source listed from the UWC does not state that it was developed at those schools, but rather by educators from those schools. Nuance.

The Pound source is quoting from the first edition of the Peterson book. In my opinion, Pound and as a result we, would be giving undue weight to the UWC by including it there. The UWC is linked to twice already--in the external links section and in the IB series section. Why? Undue weight is also given to Hahn here, as he was instrumental in shaping the UWC's philosophy. The person from UWC- Atlantic College who should be mentioned and who is not is the 3rd Desmond from the "humorous interlude" in the archives-- Desmond Hoare-- the headmaster at UWC.

I propose that we collaboratively decide where and how to incorporate those two sentences. My proposal is the version reverted by ONY.

La mome (talk) 23:39, 26 August 2009 (UTC)

As an unabashed fan of collaboration, I thank La mome for clearly explaining the issues with some of the recent edits and once again hope that we can work together to reach consensus here, while limiting the drama as much as is possible. La mome's suggestion to use, for example, WP:BRD, includes the third letter (D) of the acronym, which refers to "discuss," thus there is no reason to suggest that discussion was not welcome. It is instead clear that WP:BRD specifically requires discussion. So, please, let's make use of that part of the process, too--without invective, accusation, hyperbole, or other various types of nastiness. Regards, • CinchBug • 00:03, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Wrote this before CB's comment above, so it might be more abrasive than it needs, but it does explain the history:

I don't object to the content; I do object to placement of the content. I moved the content and my edit was reverted. This is now the third/fourth/fifth time that the history section has been muddled up. It's very simple: it's history, and as such should follow some sort of chronological order and that order must rely on verifiable sources. If Pound is quoting Peterson, then we have the Peterson source in place, the chronology was correct: i.e. Leach had a conference in 1962; ISES was formed in the mid sixties; IB became an entity at the end of 67 beginning of 68. Peterson explains the UNIS connection on page 22 here: in 1964, the Ford Foundation asked Harlan Hanson and Desmond Cole join the group in Geneva at Ecolint as the Ford Foundation was investing millions in UNIS and they considered the "new international university entrance examination" to be appropriate at UNIS. So, the UNIS group didn't begin IB -- Ford asked that two people be sent to Geneva (Hanson & Cole) and contribute to work being done there. I have absolutely no objection to this being added to the article in the chronologically appropriate place. Will read Hill, Peterson, Fox & Pound re; the Atlantic college involvement and respond later, but at this point I think it's better to synthesize the material appropriately before adding potentially to the incorrect spot. Apologies, btw for removing the offending section, but it seemed the only option at that moment. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:09, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

LaMome and Truthkeeper are incorrect in their allegations about the lack of influence of Kurt Hahn and Alec Peterson (the father of the IBDP) and their insistence on 1968 and removing my edits to put somewhere else. The UWC was founded in 1962 by Hahn. Between 1962 and 1964, he joined forced with the others (including Cole of UNIS) to form ISES. They ALL worked on the IBDP's development. You cannot place undue weight on Harlan Hanson and ignore Hahn and Peterson simply because you and LaMome want to maximize American influence and minimize UNESCO influence. History is history and it would be CIVIL of TK and LaMome to take the time to actually read the references I took time to research instead of arbitrarily deleting them. ObserverNY (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I have read them. The dates don't match up. If you want to shove something in where it doesn't belong, then the section should be removed. I've said more than once, I don't object to the content, but it should be placed appropriately. Please don't accuse me of not reading sources again when I've read Hill, Pound, Fox, Peterson and others, sources you explicitly stated you had no time to read. Were you to take the time to read the sources I've mentioned you'd see the error. Edit warring with you is exhausting and draining and in my view I'd rather delete the entire section again rather than arguing with you. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:23, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

TK- I made a comment to you on my talk page. Please read. Yeah, editing with you is exhausting - like what I had to go through to prove to you that a foundation isn't a foundation without a Board of Directors (President), and only after a lengthy battle did you finally admit to someone else on your talk page, not here, that my point was justified. ObserverNY (talk) 00:49, 27 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I don't have a problem with the inclusion of Peterson and I never did. On Page 17 of Schools across frontiers he says: "A committee of sponsors was formed drawn from members of various international organisations based in Geneva, but the driving force in the transition from an idea, ...to a reality was not international organisations nor, as in the case of the Atlantic College, a group of influential opinion leaders with royal patronage, but the teachers at Ecolint, led by Cole- Baker....As a result of the co-operative efforts of this group, 1962, the year of the foundation of Atlantic cllege, also saw the first small conference in Geneva, organised by the teachers in Ecolint's social studies department, under their Chairman Bob Leach, which made specific mention of the words "International Baccalaureate."

This article is about the IBDP, not the UWC. While there is no question that their histories are inextricably connected (the full title of Peterson's book is Schools across frontiers: the story of the IB and the UWC), it does not say on pages 16-17 in the second edition, at least as far as I can see that Hahn was a founding figure in ISES. Yes, Peterson was a big fan of his. But Hahn is not listed in the back as one of the "people who made IB." There is however, a picture of the "three planners of the café de remor"--Peterson, Cole-Baker and Hanson.

I read the sources you provided and made comments above on how the wording in our article does not "jive" with what was actually said in those sources, as well as others here.

The whole reason for the WP:1RR was to avoid this kind of back and forth and especially edit warring.

La mome (talk) 01:26, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

::ObserverNY: I don't remember the foundation discussion. However, if editing with me is so exhausting, then perhaps you won't mind if I revert all the many edits where I've cleaned up your cite mistakes among others. I will now drop out here, as obviously I have nothing to add. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:32, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Btw -- did my comment on my talkpage include profanity? Have I demanded an apology ad nauseam? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:33, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"You cannot place undue weight on Harlan Hanson and ignore Hahn and Peterson simply because you and LaMome want to maximize American influence and minimize UNESCO influence."ObserverNY (talk) 00:18, 27 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Why would we do that?

This comment was uncalled for. I believe you owe me an apology and I would appreciate it if you would strike it or delete it from your talk page.

Thanks - La mome (talk) 01:57, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

I've restored an earlier version of the article by Candorwien, since the Peterson source does not say that the United World College of the Atlantic (aka "Atlantic College") was involved in the 1962 developments. Also, the UWC web reference does not specify early dates. While it's very clear that Atlantic College was involved in later developments, this spot in the history isn't the right place for it. From Peterson, it seems that Atlantic College was the location for a curriculum conference in 1965 (two conferences, actually, one in the spring and one in the fall). While I may have missed some earlier reference to Atlantic College's direct involvement with the development of IB, this is the earliest mention I've found so far. Again, Atlantic College should be mentioned in the "Early development" section, but it should be mentioned a bit later than it was in the version that I just changed. Regards, • CinchBug • 11:22, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

In re-reading Peterson, I'm not sure that Atlantic College hosted the 1965 spring (March) conference, but they definitely participated along with Ecolint. Atlantinc College did host the curriculum conference in October 1965, though. Regards, • CinchBug • 11:36, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

Kurt Hahn

http://www.outward-bound.org/docs/staff/kurthahn-essay.htm In 1962, at the age of 76, Hahn established Atlantic College in Wales, with the help of Sir Lawrence Darvall and many others. Atlantic College was the first of seven United World Colleges and was designed to bridge the international gap between secondary education and university level study by offering a universally recognized degree, the International Baccalaureate.

http://www.ibo.org/council/peterson/documents/Peterson_biography_eFINAL.pdf He (Peterson) met Kurt Hahn at a conference on international education in Belgium in 1957. Through this acquaintance with Hahn’s educational philosophy together with his military connections Peterson visited the new Atlantic College at St Donats (Wales) for the first time in 1961 (before any students had been enrolled). Kurt Hahn had helped to establish the school with Rear-Admiral Desmond Hoare as founding headmaster and Robert Blackburn as deputy headmaster. During the summer of 1962 Peterson worked with Blackburn to provide a broad academic curriculum to the students who were to enter this first of the United World Colleges in September of the same year. Peterson was a staunch campaigner against what he regarded as the over-specialization of British education at pre-university level. In 1960 he published a report Arts and Science Sides in the Sixth Form based on research funded by the Gulbenkian Foundation. It is noteworthy how closely the content of the report resembles not only the philosophy but also the structure of the IB Diploma Programme, which had only begun to be elaborated a few years later. ObserverNY (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

IB's authorization "standards"

I just received an e-mail from London pointing out an IB school in the UK which was authorized in June, 2008. http://www.ibo.org/school/000484/ I was also referred to an article that hit the UK press during the 2 year IB authorization process: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23384657-details/We+do+use+books+that+call+Jews+%27apes%27+admits+head+of+Islamic+school/article.do Frankly, this is outrageous. Is this the sort of "cultural understanding" IB is willing to slap its label on, as long as the cheques are good? ObserverNY (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Observer, this is not a forum. That second link does not mention IB specifically anywhere on it, so any sort of statement you'd want to make about connecting the IBO link to the article is synthesis of sources, which is a type of WP:OR - and is inadmissible. Again, this is not a place for you to discuss your outrage regarding "cultural understanding," so take it elsewhere. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO! What a perfect example! Well done HA! The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world. IB aims to create intercultural understanding and world peace but authorizes schools that breed hatred. ROTFLMAO! ObserverNY (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

HA - well done again, HA. If the information cannot be addressed or incorporated into the article as per WP:SYN I respect and abide by that policy. ObserverNY (talk) 11:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

IBDP article and talk page

Nice job Cinchbug and Candorwien (regarding recent edits). While the history of the UWC is fascinating and very much connected to the development of the IB curriculum, we can only add here what is verifiable and accurately reflects what is said in the sources. Thank you for remaining focused on improving the article and maintaining a collaborative approach to editing. HelloAnnyong, I applaud your efforts as well. What can we do to discourage editors from climbing soap boxes? Didn't check before writing this---have we abandoned the "to-do box" idea, or is it in place? Cheers! La mome (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

TK has placed the box at the top of the page. I encourage editors to use it--but please use the "Preview" button before saving changes, so that you can learn how it works! My experience with these pages suggests that editors too often don't bother to review their changes using "Preview," resulting in a great number of otherwise unnecessary additional changes. Nevertheless, thanks to TK for the box! Regards, • CinchBug • 23:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"must attend" vs "must be enrolled in"

I changed "attend" to "must be enrolled" for a reason, one which I didn't think needed to be dragged out into a lengthy discussion. But noooooooooo, you have to revert my edit and tag some BS reason to it. Stop being an obstructionist and get over yourself. ObserverNY (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

What is your reason? Mine is WP:TRITE--as in it is more consise to say that students must physically attend an IB school to participate in the program. As far as I know, the online courses are not open to students not attending an IB school. "Attend" also has fewer words than "be enrolled in". Please stop the name-calling. It is also rude to use an editor's name as the section heading of an article talk page. If others prefer "be enrolled in" then so be it.

La mome (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Re "online courses section" - it states: Eventually, the IB expects to offer the online courses to students who are not enrolled in an IB World School. Ergo, my REASONS for changing out "must attend" to "be enrolled in" (be and in being the only ADDITIONAL words) which you felt the compulsion to revert, is twofold - 1. Consistency in language 2. A homeschooled child may "attend" a school for certain activities, even though they are not "enrolled" in the school. ObserverNY (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

May I also direct you to a little something called WP:Reasonableness. Your incessant desire to pick a fight with me over something as trivial as the changing of the word "attend" to "enrolled" indicates that you are simply being unreasonable. ObserverNY (talk) 12:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Please use the preview button when making edits, instead of several edits with "minor" changes. Please stop trying to speculate what my desires/intentions are. My sole intentention is to improve the article. You made three edits and I reverted one, so please stop trying to paint the picture of me as someone who is trying to "pick a fight with you." It would help if you could put your emotions aside when editing and making comments on the talk pages. This includes, but is not limited to FLAMING, offensive/inflammatory/sensationalist language, name-calling, etc...

Thanks La mome (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I only made two edits, one was a m removal of an additional "and". You made 14 edits and I didn't come rushing in to revert any of them, now did I? I don't have to "speculate" as to what your intentions are, your actions speak volumes. You are not my Mommy or my Nanny and I don't need your condescending lecturing on how to edit when you are guilty of nit-picking, attempting to WP:CENSOR and targeting what I contribute. You have no idea what flaming is. Try getting out of your IB-centric bubble and visit the real world. ObserverNY (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY. May I remind you that article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views and we abide by WP Etiquette and Talk Page guidelines. Comments such as:

• But noooooooooo, you have to revert my edit and tag some BS reason to it.
• Stop being an obstructionist and get over yourself.
• you are simply being unreasonable.
• You are not my Mommy or my Nanny and I don't ...
• need your condescending lecturing on how to edit when you are guilty of nit-picking
• You have no idea what flaming is
• Try getting out of your IB-centric bubble and visit the real world.

are not about the improvement of this article and are unhelpful.

In addition this [4] edit didn't help either.

Respectfully, --Candy (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that reminds me, I'm late for lunch at the clam bar. Bite me. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

edit war

BRING IT ON LAMOME!!!! Going for 3RR? ObserverNY (talk) 02:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Btw, just because you didn't "undo" this: [5] and this [6] doesn't mean you avoid entering 3RR territory. ObserverNY (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Please, at the very least ObserverNY take this to a talk page. Your comments above are not about improving this article. Thanks. --Candy (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Guess what Candorwein? Your re-pasted list of my comments above does nothing to improve this article either! Why don't you practice what you preach? Preaching is so much more fun than practicing, isn't it? OR you could delete/strike your entire post from above. Your choice. ObserverNY (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Let's try to adhere to wikipedia's policies on etiquette. At the least the article is worth reading. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Despite ObserverNY's attempt to bait me, it seems that there is no edit war or violation of WP:3RR--at least not on my part. No warnings on my talk page. No pending reports on me. And, as of now, ObserverNY's version "must be enrolled in" (instead of "must attend") still stands. So, I guess everyone is ok with that version? I don't know, since no one has commented on it, besides that it is a ridiculously petty argument. Just for the record, I did not make the change, I made the reversion to the original wording, which has been there for months. What is all this fuss about an edit war? And the flaming "bring it on La mome"--seriously--what is this, a really bad movie about dueling cheerleaders?

La mome (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That's very good, LaMome. I'm so glad you clarified your secondary edit as a second reversion and not an "undo". I'm also thrilled to pieces that you realize you started a "ridiculously petty argument" which you escalated into an epoch tome here: [7] No wonder nobody commented on it. So will you leave it alone now? ObserverNY (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Back to UWC

To insert the information about the UWC and Hahn in the early development section requires a major re-working of the section. I think it is important, but I am unable to find the spirit to do it knowing it will only be attacked and disputed, despite the fact that it is verified, legitimate information. ObserverNY (talk)ObserverNY (adding to archive)La mome (talk) 11:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

early development re-wording

With all due respect Truthkeeper, the following paragraph reads very poorly, is full of run-on sentences and what seems to be non-notable information re: the $2500 UNESCO grant. In 1948, Marie-Thérèse Maurette created the framework for what would eventually become the IB Diploma Programme when she wrote Is There a Way of Teaching for Peace?, a handbook for UNESCO, and in that year also The Conference of Internationally Minded Schools "passed a resolution" for International School of Geneva (Ecolint) to begin the work of creating an international schools program.[8][9] In 1961, Desmond Cole-Baker of Ecolint initiated the work of developing the idea, and his colleague Robert Leach organised a conference in Geneva in 1962, at which the term "International Baccalaureate" was first mentioned.[8][10] Leach received a grant for $2500 from UNESCO for the conference; and they were interested enough in the idea to promise additional grants.[8]

Who hosted the "Conference of Internationally Minded Schools"? Was it UNESCO? I didn't edit your work. I just thought I'd bring attention to this paragraph here.ObserverNY (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The Conference of Internationally Minded Schools is the name of an organization to which Maurette belonged and because of which she wrote her booklet/essay. Which sentence is a run-on? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. It seems to me that all of this information refers to UNESCO, and can be rewritten in a clearer manner. Here is my suggestion:

In 1948, Marie-Thérèse Maurette created the framework for what would eventually become the IB Diploma Programme when she wrote Is There a Way of Teaching for Peace?, a handbook for UNESCO. Also in 1948, UNESCO hosted The Conference of Internationally Minded Schools and "passed a resolution" for the International School of Geneva (Ecolint) to develop an international schools program.[8][9] In 1961, Desmond Cole-Baker of Ecolint revitalized the international school concept. His colleague Robert Leach, organised a UNESCO funded conference in Geneva in 1962, at which the term "International Baccalaureate" was first mentioned.[8][10] As a result of the work achieved at the conference, additional funding was secured from UNESCO.[8]

You also might want to address what happened between 1948 and 1961. You will find the Kurt Hahn was influential during that period. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The Conference of Internationally-minded Schools was not a conference nor was it funded by UNESCO; rather it was an organization for international schools. So, the piece stating that UNESCO hosted the international-minded schools conference is neither correct nor verifiable. The resolution that was passed was simply the result of a meeting based on questionaires sent to schools. As for stating "as a result of the work achieved...funding was..." if you'd like it to be that way, that's fine, but it is a passive construction unlike the current sentence. The rest is fine. If you make these changes I would ask that you be careful of ref placement, which brings me to an issue I'd like to have all the editors here comment on so we can have consensus: I reworked the section today to eliminate the choppiness in the writing, and I also moved the references to the ends of the sentences for better readability. But, I think we should have consensus about where to place references -- after each clause or place many references at the ends of sentences. Also, I've reformatted the Peterson and Fox sources to cite chapter titles, but don't know whether we want to do it so, or to use WP:CITESHORT with page numbers. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Please see my strikes above and see if the re-wording meets with your approval. None of the references would be changed. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Should be the Conference of International-minded.... not The Conference.... Also, still not crazy about replacing an active sentence w/ a passive one. Otherwise I don't mind the changes. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, UNESCO is an it not a they. Not quite sure what you mean by passive/active. ObserverNY (talk) 10:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The source used "they" as in the people (they) at Unesco liked what they saw; can't find the rule for passive/active here, tho know it's in one of the style articles. Essentially the verb should be active (i.e Unesco gave funding. Ask yourself who gave the funding, and make that act on the verb, if possible.) If you're interested I'm sure the rule is somewhere on the net. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Having worked in journalism, I was taught that organizations are never referred to with personal pronouns. So unless your source is specifically referring to the diplomats at UNESCO and not the organization itself, the authors of your source inappropriately applied the pronoun "they." I'm still confused as to what you are looking for with regards to the phrasing. Would you care to suggest an alternative? Thanks, ObserverNY (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The phrasing in the article now is an active sentence. If you want to replace with passive that's fine, but somebody at some point will come along and change it. The issue with it/they is due to WP:ENGVAR and see this explanation. Either is correct. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You know, I'm really trying to work with you here, Truthkeeper. Can't you just offer up a sentence that you would be happier with? I don't CARE about 50 different rules. I want to know what would make YOU happy without specifically referring to the $2,500. I guess I'm just too stupid to understand what you are getting at and I'm tiring of playing your games. Please just re-write the sentence in a way you deem fit and let me see it. ObserverNY (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I'm sorry, I didn't realise the $2500 was at issue here. Why don't you want that in? I rewrote the sentence yesterday and am fine with it as is. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

--Candy (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)