Talk:IB Diploma Programme: Difference between revisions

Browse history interactively ← Previous edit Next edit →Content deleted Content addedVisual WikitextInline

Revision as of 01:09, 30 June 2009 editTvor65 (talk \| contribs)385 edits →Working references to be deleted ← Previous edit		Revision as of 01:17, 30 June 2009 edit undoTvor65 (talk \| contribs)385 edits →Special Needs Next edit →
Line 539:		Line 539:

	::WHO CHANGED THE SPECIAL NEEDS SECTION? This reads like a load of mumbo jumbo - I SERIOUSLY object!!!! ] (]) 00:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY		::WHO CHANGED THE SPECIAL NEEDS SECTION? This reads like a load of mumbo jumbo - I SERIOUSLY object!!!! ] (]) 00:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

			::: ''I am trying to constructively improve the article''~ObserverNY
			::: You are?!! My, that's the funniest thing I've heard today. ] (]) 01:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

	== References invalid ==		== References invalid ==

Revision as of 01:17, 30 June 2009

This page is not a forum for general discussion about IB Diploma Programme. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about IB Diploma Programme at the Reference desk.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the IB Diploma Programme article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9

Education Unassessed High‑importance

	Education portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation
???	This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
High	This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

/Archive 1 March 2007-March 2008
/Archive 2 March 2008-May 2009
/Archive 3 June 2009
/Archive 4 June 2009
/Archive 5 June 2009

Verification

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Teacher Training & ongoing costs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Certificates

I would like Tvor65 to please stop vandalizing the Certificate section in which it was stated "IB Certificates are grade reports which reflect the final grade (1-7) a student earns upon completion of the course and exam." This is NOT an opinion, this is a FACT. Tvor65's obsessive desire to conceal this FACT shows that he/she is not operating in good faith by repeatedly deleting a fact without discussion.

However, adding the sentence about how Certificate students don't have to take TOK or do the EE is ridiculous and unnecessary. They don't have to get their driver's license either, now do they? TOK and EE are listed as core components of the full Diploma. Adding that sentence under Certificates is completely unnecessary. ObserverNY (talk) 17:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

This is a statement of the obvious. Everybody knows what a certificate is. Maybe we should also define what a "student" means? Really, stop being ridiculous. You are the one continuously vandalizing the article and someone who is clearly obsessed with it.Tvor65 (talk) 17:50, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that I have explained repeatedly when I edited why I did it, whereas you just keep inserting the phrase back, not bothering to explain why. You are clearly obsessed with inserting this trivial statement which adds absolutely nothing to the article and sounds kind of stupid. As for certificate students not having to satisfy the other requirements, this is actually an important piece of information, as some people do assume that everyone taking IB classes must also participate in CAS and do EE. Mind you, this was not even something I wrote but I agree with whoever wrote it that it belongs in the article. So far, you seem to be the only one unhappy with it.Tvor65 (talk) 18:24, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

No, Tvor65, everyone does NOT know what an IB Certificate is. The clarification that an IB Certificate is a grade report (which is issued whether one passes or fails the course/exam, but THAT is stating the obvious when one has already included the 1-7 range, any moron can figure that out because it is previously stated that IB considers a '4' as passing) and not something one would think one would only obtain if they PASSED the exam/course. You have no justification for removing that sentence. ObserverNY (talk) 18:31, 20 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(edit conflict) Oh, okay, everyone BUT YOU always knew what it is. But now you know as well - so you have no justification to put it back in. Here is a definition for you from http://www.thefreedictionary.com/certificate:

cer·tif·i·cate (sr-tf-kt) n. 1. A document testifying to the truth of something: a certificate of birth. 2. A document issued to a person completing a course of study not leading to a diploma. 3. A document certifying that a person may officially practice in certain professions. 4. A document certifying ownership.

Clearly, both first and second definitions are applicable here. People all over the world get certificates of participation in various events and courses (not to mention birth and marriage certificates) - what's the big deal? Tvor65 (talk) 18:51, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict):The source used to verify the statement about the grade reports is this document. A search of the document shows only one sentence about certificate students: "All students are encouraged to follow the full Diploma Programme. Those who fail to satisfy the entire set of requirements or who elect to take fewer than six subjects are awarded a certificate for examinations completed." Any statement in the article has to be verified via a source, so the wording, currently as is in the article should be different, or a different source found. BTW -- when a pdf document like this source is used, providing page numbers is required. Cheers. It's taken two edit conflicts to post the above statement. Will respond the newer posts separately. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:36, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper Hmmm, I understand your reference to what IB "says" regarding "All students being encouraged to follow the full Diploma", but that is simply a lie when it comes to most American IB schools. Only the tiniest percentage of students are full DP in general public HSs. Surely you don't dispute the fact that an IB Certificate is a grade report? It is NOT presented that way to American parents. In most non-IB cases, you don't get a certificate or a diploma if you FAIL the requirements! Heck, you can't get a Death Certificate if you're still alive or a Birth Certificate if you have an abortion! Instead, an IB Certificate is billed as an "honor" or at the very least, "something worthy of recognition". If, which it is, nothing more than a "certificate of participation no matter how badly you participated" (now THAT's a POV!)then can we please just state it in a factual manner without POV so that people understand it for what it is?

P.S. - Nice flags. ;-) I'm not so crazy about that TOK chart though, it makes the page look unbalanced and gives extra weight to TOK in the article. ObserverNY (talk) 20:03, 20 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

What a load of nonsense! What about the definition above ("a document issued to a person completing a course of study not leading to a diploma") you find so hard to understand? It is very common in the US for students to get certificates of participation in a competition (one does not have to win anything) or completion of a course of study (which has nothing to do with "passing" an exam) - all that is required is to participate or to complete the course (in this case, take the exam and get a grade). Whatever personal misunderstanding you may have had (which is rather bizarre, I have to say), it does not mean most people interpret it the way you do. So please stop vandalizing the article by inserting this nonsense.Tvor65 (talk) 20:35, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict, again)

I added the flags, but not the TOK chart.

As for the certificate, another opinion (such as Candy's or Ewen's or La Mome's) would be helpful. I don't quite understand your reasoning, and keep in mind, anything in the article has to be verified.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:39, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll e-mail Ewen to get him to pop in on this point. I'm not sure what you don't understand but let me attempt to clarify. In a regular U.S. HS course, if you fail the course/final exam, you don't get a "certificate" - you get a report card. You either have to repeat the course the next year if it is a core requirement, or you don't receive credit for it. You don't get to graduate HS with a regular diploma for "participating", yet failing. Without clearly stating that an IB Certificate is an actual grade report issued by IB, the "assumption" by every parent that I've ever spoken with is that a student only gets an IB Certificate if they PASS the course/exam. I will search for other documentation of this fact, but it is a fact which people like Tvor65 clearly want supressed because it lays bare some of IB's bloviated rhetoric surrounding its programmes. One really isn't a "Certificate Candidate" if they get a Certificate automatically, as long as they pay the exam fee. Every student who takes a stand-alone IB Certificate course is a Certificate Recipient, even if they scored a 1, 2 or 3. This is in contrast to the term "Diploma Candidate" which is legitimate because there are students who don't EARN the IB Diploma and don't make it into the category of Diploma Recipients. ObserverNY (talk) 22:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

From the IB Vade Mecum:pg. 6 http://hanover.k12.va.us/ahs/dept/IB/IBO_General_Regulations.doc - "Certificate Candidates will receive a certificate indicating the results attained in individual subjects." In the past, you have objected to using verbatim language, therefore I see no reason why inserting 1-7 to clarify those are possible results would be a problem. Clarifying that the Certificate is a grade report, is supported by this statement. ObserverNY (talk) 23:59, 20 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Actually, I think La mome first pointed out that the sentence is stating is obvious, as per the article history:

(cur) (prev) 00:19, 17 June 2009 La mome (talk | contribs) (38,557 bytes) (→Certificates: "Certificate is a grade report" is stating the obvious---do we have a source---or is this really necessary?) (undo)

Tvor65 (talk) 21:42, 20 June 2009 (UTC)

Sigh... By definition (see above), certificate and report card are the same thing in this context. US students and their parents are in fact very familiar with the concept of a certificate as they get those all the time. ObserverNY, as usual, is making an issue where there is not one in order to push her POV.Tvor65 (talk) 01:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Grade report and report card are North American educational terminology. You won't find them outside the US except in International Schools that follow a US curriculum. Best not use them. --Candy (talk) 10:45, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Candy. I want everyone to understand why this is an issue for me. IB schools in the United States are deliberately misrepresenting what IB Certificates are. In school generated IB handbooks or FAQs, parents and students are told that students must PASS the IB exam in order to receive an IB Certificate: pg. 10 - http://www.sanjuan.edu/files/47160/IB%20Handbook.pdf This is simply untrue. The Certificate is issued by IB, regardless of whether a student passes or fails the exam. I am open to the sentence being changed to: "An IB Certificate is issued to a student at the end of the IB course/exam regardless of the score" or something similar, but I feel it is incumbent upon Misplaced Pages to accurately portray IB's definition of a Certificate. Cheers ObserverNY (talk) 12:04, 21 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

P.S. - I am fine with the sentence as follows: "An IB Certificate stating the final grade (1-7) is issued to students upon completion of each Diploma course. I removed the word "successful" as it is an unnecessary descriptor and because failure does not equal success. ObserverNY (talk) 12:14, 21 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I'm happy with that change too ObserverNY. However, although I understand your annoyance with possible misrepresentation by US schools of the Diploma Qualifications we cannot enter into changes in this article because it is out of the role of our jobs as editors. The source you cite is clearly one which does not represent the current information delivered by the IB and is quite out of date. If you have a problem with what the school is representing and you are certain that you are correct then you could politely email the Head of the School or someone on the school board to point out where there may be potential inaccuracies. I noted that the document was created and last modified in August 2007 - the Diploma has changed considerably since then (for many reasons but also because of the curriculum review cycle).

I also have to be clear that the terminology being used to discuss the DIploma Programme must be quite precise otherwise it becomes nonesense. You say above that: The Certificate is issued by IB, regardless of whether a student passes or fails the exam. However, this is not what happens. A student who sits a DIploma subject and fulfills all the requirements of the subject (for instance that submits a portfolio of Art work for Art and has done the necessary amount of science practical work) and sits the exam - regardless of the outcome of the exam - will receive a Certificate with their grade. There is no pass or fail of certificates. So, students do not "pass or fail examinations". However, (and I need to check this) I believe that if they fail to submit certain necessary parts of the work (and this may mean not attending one or more exam) they will not receive a certificate. The only thing that students pass or fail is the Diploma itself. --Candy (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

Candy - I am glad we have been able to reach consensus on the line in Certificates. I agree with you 100% that students are issued an IB Certificate, "regardless of whether a student passes or fails the exam" -- "there is no pass or fail of Certificates". That was exactly the point of the clarification. However, students do pass or fail the exams, it is so stated in the article that IB considers a '4' passing. ObserverNY (talk) 10:50, 22 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY. Which article are you referring to that mentions pass or fail of certificates and a 4 is a pass? I don't know of one. If you are referring to the sanjuan.edu document it is not from the IB and therefore not a valid source. --Candy (talk) 17:59, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Candy I was quoting your response to me, not any article when I said I agree 100% that students are issued an IB Certificate "regardless of whether a student passes or fails the exam". Those were your words. Please see above. As to the '4' being considered passing, in the article, under Diploma Conditions, right above Certificates, it states: IB considers a 4 a passing grade, however a student may earn the IB Diploma and still have 1 HL failing grade and 2 SL failing grades. While IB may award a Certificate regardless of the score, certainly colleges use the IB '4' as the 'passing' standard equivalent to an AP '3' when basing their credit policies for advanced exams. ObserverNY (talk) 18:33, 22 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY.

1. I believe that the statement : students are issued an IB Certificate "regardless of whether a student passes or fails the exam" are your words. I was quoting you. This means that you seem to have quoted me as the originator when in fact I was quoting you.

2. You say, As to the '4' being considered passing, in the article, under Diploma Conditions, right above Certificates, it states: IB considers a 4 a passing grade, however a student may earn the IB Diploma and still have 1 HL failing grade and 2 SL failing grades. Which article is this? Just give me the reference or link. There are lots of articles linked and I want to know which one you are referring to?

3. Furthermore, (continuing 2 above) the quote you may be using is possibly from the Diploma conditions. Let me reiterate. There is no pass or fail on a certificate as far as I understand from the IB (please show me a quote about certificates if you have one - NOT Diploma). There is a pass and fail on the Diploma. Failing the Diploma does not mean you pass or fail certificates. --Candy (talk) 16:03, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
You are exhausting me with your word games. When I refer to the article, I am referring to THE article we are discussing on the IB Diploma. I gave you specific directions as to where the line was located in the article. Since you seem to prefer directing me all over Misplaced Pages instead of reading back through our actual discussion, here is what you said: A student who sits a DIploma subject and fulfills all the requirements of the subject (for instance that submits a portfolio of Art work for Art and has done the necessary amount of science practical work) and sits the exam - regardless of the outcome of the exam - will receive a Certificate with their grade. There is no pass or fail of certificates. So, students do not "pass or fail examinations". However, (and I need to check this) I believe that if they fail to submit certain necessary parts of the work (and this may mean not attending one or more exam) they will not receive a certificate. The only thing that students pass or fail is the Diploma itself. --Candy (talk) 19:26, 21 June 2009 (UTC) - I was quoting YOU. So don't try and twist it around to absolve yourself of any responsibility for what you wrote. It is ridiculous beyond the pale to assert that there is no score which IB considers passing on its exams, be they taken as stand-alone courses or within the context of the full diploma. A '4' is passing. This of course, has nothing to do with Certificates as they are issued whether a student passes or fails the IB exam. ObserverNY (talk) 16:33, 23 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Candy quoted in italics from your own words from your post (posted 12:04, 21 June) directly above hers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:58, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Truthkeeper - I see that part, but that was not the part of her quote that I quoted!This is a ridiculous back and forth. As far as I'm concerned, the wording in the Certificate section is fine. I agreed with her statement that "There is no pass or fail of certificates".-Candy but disagree with her statement which included a partial quote of my statement"So, students do not "pass or fail examinations".-Candy Capice? Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 20:14, 23 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
ObserverNY - stop calling me a HER. I have not revealed my gender. Please stop being sexist. --Candy (talk) 15:34, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
ROTFLMAO! Oh brother, I mean sister, I mean, oh forget it, from now on I'll just call you IT. Is that PC enough for you? ObserverNY (talk) 15:55, 24 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
>>ObserverNY You need to stop your personal attacks on me. You must assume good faith and treat me as an editor with respect. --Candy (talk) 18:01, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
You first, Candorwein/Candy. You're the one who called me "sexist" merely because I assumed Candy was a feminine name, (which it is), so it's hardly as though I attacked you. How about assuming a little of that good faith you keep talking about? ObserverNY (talk) 00:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY You were sexist. Don't try and wriggle out of it. --Candy (talk) 06:01, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Candy - Why don't you go after LaMome for calling Truthkeeper (a clearly non-gender specific name) for being sexist? I don't wriggle. Your allegation is unjustified and ridiculous. Either apologize, retract your allegation, or show some consistency and go after LaMome as well. ObserverNY (talk) 12:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Talk Page Guidelines
Suggestion: following WP:TALK is helpful to facilitate the discussion on the IB Diploma Programme talk page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:31, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Truthkeeper - would you please recommend the proper procedure to follow when an editor repeatedly reverts changes in the article without responding to discussion on the changes on the Talk page? Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 17:10, 21 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Yeah, like when ObserverNY repeatedly reverted the certificates portion to insert the obvious statement that certificate is a grade report before there was any discussion of this trivial fact on the talk page? Or when she keeps reverting the fees page to fit her idea of the costs, repeatedly disregarding the fact that schools do not have to have separate people serving as CAS or EE coordinators if (as is often the case) the DP coordinator takes on these responsibilities? (All IB is requiring is that someone supervises the program, including the CAS and EE parts of it - they don't care if it's one person, three or ten - it is up to each IB school how it distributes these responsibilities, so it is - what's the ObserverNY's favorite word? - ah, disingenuous - to keep inserting these as two separate coordinator positions as if every school is obliged to do it this way.) Oh, and most of the time she does not even bother to explain her edits in the little edit summary box, let alone on the talk page. I am so glad, ObserverNY, that you have decided to check what the proper procedure is for your actions. That's a first step toward recovery, and it's about time.Tvor65 (talk) 20:37, 21 June 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY As you don't seem to have read the WP:TALK then I will point out one place for you to potentially resolve your issue: Misplaced Pages:Dispute resolution. This is clearly marked inside WP:TALK. I have to inform you that following your recent comments to me and going back over page histories I find that the comments and edits you are making are not in the spirit of Misplaced Pages. You have revealed to me that you run a site advocating anti-IB viewpoints. That is your prerogative. But sadly, you seem to be under the impression that these views are appropriate here on this page. If you continue to be disruptive, antagonistic, lack good faith (you have now attacked me more than once with rude comments) and uncommunicative (you have not responded to several of my questions) then I will have to ask for more NPoV editors to come into this discussion. I am certain that they will not accept the way you have treated your fellow editors. Play nicely from now on please and there will be no need to do this. I assure you that this is an appropriate and common way to deal with editors who lack the civility to work towards the stated Misplaced Pages Common Goals. --Candy (talk) 23:32, 21 June 2009 (UTC)
Candy - I certainly apologize if I failed to answer any of your questions or if you feel as though I attacked you. By the same token, there have been instances where you have attacked me and voraciously defended a pro-IB POV(CAS)without adequate citations or documentation. Let's move forward without insults or attacks. Tvor65 is an antagonist from another forum and arrived on the Misplaced Pages scene with the intent of causing trouble and trying to negate any additions I might make to the article. Based on our recent consensus on Certificates, I believe we can work together to improve the article. ObserverNY (talk) 11:01, 22 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
ObserverNY. Simply please edit appropriately. That will be sufficient for me. Also, please tell me what evidence you need for me to back up any of my statements about CAS and I will supply it. Also, please stop poisoning the well against Tvor65 and calling me pro-IB. Assume good faith. This is not helping anyone to support your edits or opinions and is irrelevant to the discussion. Thanks --Candy (talk) 18:05, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Candy - The CAS section lacks a citation for the long second sentence which describes the "aims". ObserverNY (talk) 18:36, 22 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
The aims of the CAS portion of the program can be found in the CAS guide published by the IB: http://www.aacps.org/aacps/oldmhs/PDFs/Cas%20guide%202008.pdf (see p.5) Not sure what is the proper way to cite this guide but it's in there.Tvor65 (talk) 20:23, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Never mind, this guide was already in the references, so I inserted the citation.Tvor65 (talk) 20:40, 22 June 2009 (UTC)
Candy, Tvor65 and Truthkeeper---For what it's worth, I like the recent improvements you have made to the IB DP page, inlcuding, but not limited to the addition of the flags, the TOK/EE matrix and the re-editing of the CAS section. I think the inclusion of the aims is important in capturing the true spirit of CAS. Cheers! La mome (talk) 22:48, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks La mome. Sadly I can only take partial credit for the CAS page. Thanks to you to for your clearity and support --Candy (talk) 18:03, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

UCAS tariffs/UK section
It would appear that the point awards on the UCAS table have changed for 2009. I don't want to mess up the html - but here is my source: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/4360839/IB-Diploma-and-the-IB-Certificates-IB-Diploma-revised Would someone who is more adept at formatting please make the revision? Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Okay, reading the UK section, it needs to be completely re-written based on the revised table. It can no longer be claimed that a 45 on the Diploma scores more UCAS points than the 6 A-Levels - they are now equal at 720. I would like to suggest that someone from the UK or thereabouts perform the edits because I will be accused of doing it with a POV.ObserverNY (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Since no one responded, I inserted the new UCAS table with UCAS links for documentation. I did not touch the incredibly biased UK "overview" which touts the IB Diploma's expansion and denegrates the A-Levels, but fails to cite the political reasons (Tony Blair's IB push) for the dramatic increase in IB in the UK, nor the subsequent change of political opinion held by Ed Balls. The downgrading of the IB Diploma on the UCAS tariff for 2010 clearly reflects the shift in political opinion. ObserverNY (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
The change in the UCAS tariff reflects no such thing. It's a relatively minor adjustment, not a wholesale re-vamp.
Ewen (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
A better source is this one: UCAS tariffs and notes
Ewen (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)
Ewen - I believe that is the same source I used in the article, not the link above. Don't you consider the addition of the Certificate table and a 48 drop in the IBD 45 score significant? ObserverNY (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
ObserverNY - we are editors. We have a specific purpose. You seem to have made a valid change. Just drop the political angle and get on with improving the article rather than trying to get some political mileage out of it. If you can't get with the idea of Misplaced Pages take a break please. --Candy (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)
Candy - as an editor, I see political proIB bias evident in the UK section. Perhaps I should highlight the particular sentences with
This article contains weasel words: vague phrasing that often accompanies biased or unverifiable information. Such statements should be clarified or removed.
? I added the new table without touching the politically biased overview to allow editors from the UK an opportunity to take responsibility for that section on their own. Drop the condescending lecturing and show some intellectual honesty. ObserverNY (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
ObserverNY - the Certificate table is interesting, as it compares IB Certificates directly with single-subject qualifications such as A-levels.
The 48-point drop is from 768 to 720 at the very top end of the grade scale. That's an adjustment of 6.7%. Not exactly enormous. At the other end of the scale the drop is from 260 to 240 - 8.3%.
Even with the drop, UCAS rate the IBDP as equivalent to three subjects studied at slightly-better-than-A-level standard, plus three subjects at slightly-better-than-AS-level standard, plus a core curriculum equivalent to a further A-level. Very few students would achieve this standard if they took an A-level programme. (When students do achieve this number of A-levels, it tends to make the news:
Ewen (talk) 06:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Suggestion: Replace old table with new, unless the existing table is still relevant.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
That's fine with me, it is relevant for 2009, but I would think those students have already applied long ago to university. However, based on the fact that on the new UCAS table, a 45 DP = 6 A's in A-Levels (720) I would like revisions on the language in the overview to include the removal of all the "more"s and "better"s. I can counteract each and every one of those "opinion" newstories with others that show contradictory evidence. Again, I am asking a UK editor to neutralize the narrative so that it does not attempt to portray IB as superior to the A-Levels. Also, there is no need to include the last sentence about TOK, CAS and EE not being in the A-Levels. ObserverNY (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
I agree that the old table should be replaced with the new one. It seems to me that the IB Diploma is superior to the A-levels, based on the facts presented in the first paragraph. No need to include opinion news stories to prove the contrary, however, I am sure we would be happy to discuss relevant facts that prove that A-levels are superior to the IB Diploma. If we are comparing the IB Diploma to the A-levels and the IB has TOK, CAS and EE and the A-levels don't, then it is perfectly logical to mention that fact. Why do we need a UK editor to neutralize the narrative? Couldn't anyone do that?

La mome (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)
Since when did the purpose of the UK section on the IBDP become a platform to promote the IBDP as "superior" to the A-Levels? I don't care whether it "seems" that way to you or not, that is not the purpose of a Misplaced Pages article. ObserverNY (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Looking forward to facts that prove otherwise.

La mome (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
How about instead you look forward to facts about the IBDP in the UK - sans a comparison to the A-Levels other than it as "being viewed equally", (as demonstrated on the UCAS tariff that a 45 on the IBDP is = to 6 A A-Levels). The summary is not supposed to be an analysis and comparison of two programs, it is supposed to be facts about the IBDP. ObserverNY (talk) 01:02, 26 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Article style
Has too much of a "political" feel. I guess most people who are interested in the topic probably studied IB and have more favourable than average opinions of it, because it has this "European Union/UN" pro-mumbo jumbo warm/fuzzy feel about with hardly anything on the actual academic stuff or curriculum but all this "goodness/humanity" type thing. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Recognition should be forked, undue weight, rm flagcruft. There is a lot of puffery in there YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
YellowMonkeyWelcome to the IBDP discussion. It is refreshing to find someone who not only went through IB, but who is able to discern a political POV within the article. I have been attempting to neutralize the article so that it reflects only facts about IB, but have been met with tremendous opposition from IB supporters. I like the edits you made to the UK section and look forward to you sticking around. We are in agreement about the CAS section (CAS being an IB component which I personally find to be a load of BS) which I repeatedly attempted to reduce in length, but ended up in an edit war with Candorwein and LaMome.Perhaps you will have more luck. ObserverNY (talk) 11:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Dear ObserverNY, I wonder how you discern that YellowMonkey went through the IB Diploma. I couldn't from the post.

Also, I refute your claim that I have been in an edit war with you ObserverNY. I don't believe I have. I don't recall reverting anything on the IB Diploma page - at least in the last couple of months. How can I have been in an edit war?
YellowMonkey - Welcome! Perhaps you would like to discuss the article style. Which style do you feel it is written in which needs to be changed? --Candy (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Speaking of the article style, there are quite a few very strange references in the article, which have just a number in square brackets. Whoever inserted them should learn how to put proper references in before editing.Tvor65 (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Twor65 Well I started to go through the article but ahve a long way to go (first two blocks done only). For me, the whole point is that it reads in a single voice (a la NPOV) and hangs coherently. --Candy (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

United States
I am unable to follow the history section well enough to determine who wiped the section regarding the ACLU and the IB Inspiration Award without discussion, but it does not constitute "good faith" and I shall be re-adding the pertinent facts. ObserverNY (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Tvor65 - Every statement in the final US paragraph is cited. It is not opinon, it is fact. Factual lawsuit, factual published criticism, factual agreement between IBO and UNESCO, factual statement regarding IB as an NGO of UNESCO right from its own website. There is not a single adjective in the paragraph. You have no right to claim that what I wrote is "right-wing propaganda" simply because YOUR bias prevents you from accepting certain facts as truth. You are showing deliberate malice and lack of good faith by trying to suppress the truth. Please stop. ObserverNY (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Sure it is right-wing propaganda, plain and simple. You are citing right-wing conspiracy theorists like DeWeese and presenting "facts" with your own oh-so-obvious bias. For example, who cares about the connection with UNESCO apart from right-wing nuts like yourself who think UNESCO is an evil organization? Not all facts are relevant. As for the "controversy" in Upper St. Clair that you insisted on including, I thought we had agreed on a balanced version that suited all (and which is the one I put back in) - why rewrite it again? Tvor65 (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
If you think I am going to stoop to your POV name-calling, you are sadly mistaken. The article is to present facts about the IB DP, this particular section in the United States. IB's affiliation with UNESCO is fact. Some people may think that's wonderful. There are no adjectives in the statement. Feel free to include a citation of someone published who endorses the IB/UN connection. Criticism exists. Districts have cut the program due to cost - two citations. You are acting maliciously by restoring the article to a condition where citations don't exist and that I have worked to improve. ObserverNY (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Worked to improve??? Don't make me laugh. All you have done to the article is a lot of damage. This is not a playground for you to insert your biased views and propaganda, and I will not let you use it as such.Tvor65 (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Going back to ObserverNY's original note in this section, it was Truthkeeper88 who did the deed: . I don't think it was a bad faith edit - Truthkeeper88 seems pretty unbiased judging from his/her/its extensive and very helpful editing here already.
I do note that Tvor65 has restored the 'correct' section, i.e. the one Truthkeeper deleted and which seemed to be consensus. ObserverNY replaced the section with an older version which had been argued over and replaced.
I don't think hyperbole is going to help. I think Tvor65 and ObserverNY have both added to the article. When the fur stops flying and a text is agreed, it's generally better-referenced, more detailed and balanced than before. Claiming that all someone does is damage is not going to resolve anything.
Let's all take a handful of chill pills each, take a deep breath, and get back to constructive editing; please.
Ewen (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Let's remember that ObserverNY came here with an agenda - to insert a link to her anti-IB propaganda website. When she was not allowed to do so, she has decided to simply insert, little by little, some of the the so-called "facts" she has on her loony site onto the Misplaced Pages page. This is what's going on.Tvor65 (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Ewen - Tvor65 has NOT restored the previous section, Tvor65 has added all sorts of inflammatory language and it is not acceptable to me at all. I am exhausted from trying to keep up with the changes so I am posting here the section as I would like to see it read. Furthermore, Tvor65 keeps replacing the middle paragraph with a paragraph that lacks ALL citations!
United States As of June, 2009, there are 670 public and private schools offering the IB Diploma Programme in the United States. Jay Mathews, education reporter for The Washington Post and Newsweek, is an advocate for increasing the number of AP and IB courses in the United States. Mathews co-authored the book Supertest: How the International Baccalaureate Can Strengthen Our Schools with IB's Deputy Director General Ian Hill.
Most universities grant college credit for IB HL examination scores of 5, 6, or 7, and some institutions grant credit for an examination score of 4 but policies at individual universities vary and students should check with their specific schools of choice. Some universities, such as Towson and SUNY Binghamton, award sophomore status to students who achieve a score of (30+) on the IB Diploma. Colorado and Texas legislate recognition of the IB Diploma Programme
IB is an NGO of the United Nations and has committed to integrating UNESCO's "Peace Education" into its curriculum. Criticism of the IB/UN relationship has been issued by Tom DeWeese and Henry Lamb Some districts have eliminated the IB program, citing cost as the primary reason. In the Upper St. Clair, PA, district, the ACLU represented IB supporters in a lawsuit against the Board of Education to retain IB after the Board had voted to eliminate it. In 2006, IB presented its Inspiration Award to the plaintiffs in the case for "control of local education at its finest".
I sincerely hope that Misplaced Pages editors will consider the above 3 paragraphs and allow them to stand.Oh, and I did not replace it with an older section that had been argued over. That was a newly created section today and I asked for discussion which Tvor65 keeps wiping out. ObserverNY (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Yes, I was there too, Tvor65. Think what you like about other editors, but saying it isn't going to help move things on. WP:CIVIL is pertinent.
If they are facts that she wants to add, let's consider them. Are they giving undue weight to a minority view? That's the main argument, and let's stick to it without trying to pin agendas on each other.
ObserverNY - back to your points in a sec. Edit conflicts permitting!
Ewen (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
(Dropping the excess pagination)
Here is a comparison of the version I last edited and the one before Truthkeeper removed the section you wanted replaced.
The section is essentially the same with the single exception of the line "There exists some opposition to the program in the extreme right-wing and religious right circles in the US." I guess this is what ObserverNY would call unacceptable? It's certainly unreferenced and I think it would be right to edit it to read "There exists some opposition to the program in some circles in the US." or maybe "There exists some opposition to the program in some politically conservative circles in the US." I don't know if the opposition groups need to be allocated to a particular section of the political spectrum, but if so it should be with a neutral wording.
However, I think the current section should be the basis for the future. I'm sure I've read ObserverNY's version before...
Ewen (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Ewen (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
Ewen Look - Tvor65 put it back in. You tell me now that Tvor65 isn't acting maliciously. Seriously, this is beyond the pale. Yes, you correctly identified the most offensive sentence in Tvor65's revision. However, from a factual perspective, I don't believe that all of the quotes in the "restored" section are really necessary, and that my current revision more concisely and accurately states the facts without the excess language.ObserverNY (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
I agree with Ewen that the current section should be the basis for the future and I can live with the more neutral phrase "There exists some opposition to the program in some politically conservative circles in the US." I could cite several extreme right-wing and Christian right organizations in the US whose anti-IB propaganda was used word-to-word by school directors who opposed the program but I'd rather not give these nuts any undeserved publicity ;-)
Anyway, thanks, Ewen, for helping resolve this impasse. Tvor65 (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)
If we are to use this paragraph as the "basis for the future", then the opening sentence should be: "There exists some opposition to the IB program in the U.S.". Keep your political opinions to yourself. Not everyone who objects to IB is politically conservative. ObserverNY (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Oh yeah? The organized opposition (the only one worth mentioning) is all about UN-is-evil, IB-is-anti-American-and-against-Judeo-Christian-values and America-is-superior. And guess what? You are the one who should leave your political opinions to yourself. Only you can't, and that's the problem. If you insist on keeping the USC stuff in, then we should explain the real reasons the program was opposed there and in places like Minnetonka and NH. Yes, schools do cut programs for strictly budgetary reasons (not the case in the above examples), and these programs may include, but are certainly not limited to, IB - but this can hardly be called part of an "opposition" or a "controversy". Tvor65 (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I think until a reference can be found to support a statement about the political stance of groups who oppose the IB, we'd better drop it.
Ewen (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I made some changes to the US section---putting the university recognition first, followed by advocacy and then opposition. It's always best to leave politics out, imho, but it seems to me that people on both sides try to politicize a programme that by its very nature was intended to be apolitical. Suffice it to say that some like it and some don't and then move on.

La mome (talk) 12:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
...and to be fair, then Ewen's comment above should also be applied to the political stance of groups who support IB. You know, that goose and gander thing. It seems to me that since the IB programmes are implemented around the world and across the political spectrum, it would be pretty hard to limit support of the IB programme to one political group.

La mome (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I have been following the IB opposition movement for quite a while. So far, I have not encountered a single group that was not on the far right of the political spectrum. They all follow the same playbook from websites like edwatch.org and crossroad.to. Yes, the program is apolitical but the opposition to it is all about politics, and it is the extreme right who have a problem with it, not moderates or progressives.Tvor65 (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Incidentally, here is an interesting reference I found. Unfortunately, I cannot access the article but the abstract certainly supports my assertion. Here it is:
The International Baccalaureate in the USA and the emerging 'culture war'

Author: Tristan Bunnell

Published in: journal Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, Volume 30, Issue 1 March 2009 , pages 61 - 72
Abstract:
The International Baccalaureate (IB) has undergone rapid growth and largely unhindered expansion over the past four decades. It has moved beyond its European nexus and the three IB programmes now have a relatively large presence in the USA, especially among public high schools. The IB gathered federal funding in 2003, and a concerted attack has subsequently emerged from a vast array of ultra-conservative agencies and commentators who denounce the curriculum as federal interference, and fundamentally 'un-American'. This paper explores the complex nature of this 'culture war' and reveals the key issues and protagonists.
I think I'll insert this as a reference. Tvor65 (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I took your reference out, obviously you are incapable of following Ewen's advice to act civil. If you insist on reinserting it, I insist on reinserting my reference to schools that have eliminated IB due to cost.
Well, I put it right back in; it's a valid reference and it supports the statement. Ewen wanted a reference for the statement, and I found one, following his advice. It is also pretty clear to everyone but you who is being uncivil here. As for citing schools cutting IB as part of their budget cuts, schools cut programs all the time, whether it's IB or music or a rifle team, and this can hardly be called an "opposition" to IB specifically. A school may like the program but simply cannot afford it anymore. Tvor65 (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Clearly, if IB WAS apolitical and didn't go on record as supporters and promoters of the Earth Charter and The UN Charter, then there wouldn't be political objections to it, now would there? ObserverNY (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
And again, only the ultra-conservatives in the US have these objections.Tvor65 (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
http://www.ibo.org/ibna/actionkits/documents/Myths_Facts_001.pdf

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

La mome (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
This is what Ewen had said earlier- "I think until a reference can be found to support a statement about the political stance of groups who oppose the IB, we'd better drop it." Ewen (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Tvor65 found supporting evidence. I vote that it stays---it is a valid reference and it does support the argument. Anyone else care to weigh in? La mome (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you. As for the "fiscal opposition" that ObserverNY keeps inserting instead, it makes no sense to me. When a school district eliminates an art or music program due to the budgetary constraints (happens a lot these days, especially in the city schools), are we supposed to assume that this district opposes art or music? Of course not. They'd probably rather have these programs but are not able to keep them. Yet when a school district eliminates its IB program as part of its budget cuts, ObserverNY immediately jumps to the bizarre conclusion that the school district "opposes" the program. Very logical, indeed.Tvor65 (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't accept your source - so DROP IT. Furthermore, the IBO Myths vs. Facts is by far the single most biased, inaccurate piece of propaganda the IBO has issued to date. However, since you seem so fond of it, I will consider linking it following my sentence about IB being an NGO of the UN and the UNESCO agreement in the general section.ObserverNY (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Other people do accept Tvor65's source. Your sentence about IB being an NGO of the UN and the UNESCO agreement is not in this article, it is in the one about IB. Linking the "Myth vs. fact" doc. is a great idea. You will then have to remove part of your sentence as it does refute what you are trying to imply. And your source is once again outdated. Pity, isn't it though? La mome (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
You, and Tvor65 and Truthkeeper wanted the USC section out - IT'S OUT. Done. Over. Don't mention USC to me again. You have an objection to listing the political dispute in Utah for which I cited two sources, including one which is official IB? Justify your objection. The wording was "criticism", not "objection". The programme is eliminated because in some cases, it is too expensive for the district. That's a "criticism", as opposed to "Wow, this program is the best ever and so affordable" which would constitute "praise". I hope this clarifies the semantics for you.
Tvor65 removed the IB/UNESCO info without discussion and I thought it WAS in the proper, global location under "Recognition" as IB itself used the words "IB has been recognized as...". However, if you would prefer it as a separate sub-section, that's fine with me.ObserverNY (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Reminder: This page is for discussion of the IB Diploma Programme. If you have comments about the IB please take it to another forum. If you have information relevant to the IB itself take it to the International Baccalaureate Organisation pages. Please note: The IB/IBO and the IB diploma refer to different categories. They are not interchangeable. Thank you. --Candy (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Reminder: Documents relating to ALL levels of IB curriculum which obviously includes the IBDP and specific development of the IB Diploma ARE relevant to this article and should not be diverted to an article about the host organization. ObserverNY (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Editing and summary of recent edits
I edited every section of the IB DP article yesterday, according to article size policies. Much of the content in the article has subarticles so the main article should be concise and to-the-point.
If another editor objects to my edits, go ahead and revert; I don't mind.
I do mind, however, finding so much content restored without using previously formatted ref syntax, which now must be reestablished.
I also mind that one section of the article (the USC section that already exists elsewhere) was restored at least 20 times in various forms, and that the most recent edit deleted a good credible source that was referenced properly.
In my view, the talk page is not a place to bargain, or to threaten, which has been happening all to often. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Truthkeeper - I know that it is against Misplaced Pages policy to divulge the identity of editors, so I shall not. However, Tvor65 was personally involved in the USC/IB lawsuit, hence the repeated, obsessive reversals of the paragraph. Tvor65 is the one who deleted my entry regarding the elimination of IB due to cost with proper citations and repeatedly keeps inserting "ultra-conservative", "right-wing" "ultra-religious", etc. I am frankly sick and tired of the nonesense and wish SOMEONE would make Tvor65 stop. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Actually, you are quite wrong, ObserverNY. I was not involved in the lawsuit. However, I believe that the above "information" (even if wrong) may be grounds for you being blocked as an editor as per Misplaced Pages policies.Tvor65 (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
OK. Tvor65, the demographic make-up of US opposition to the IB is way too much detail for this article. That there is opposition to the IB is fine; that the opposition is, apparently, largely "ultra conservative" is too much.

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

Have I alienated enough editors yet? ;-)

Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 20:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, TFWOR, with all due respect, I disagree. That the opposition is fueled by the ultra-conservative groups is a fact supported by a valid reference. It is not too much detail; indeed, it is quite pertinent to the USC case. Now, one can argue that USC stuff is too much detail, and I quite agree, but if it has to be mentioned, as ObserverNy insists, then a proper explanation of why it's even there is in order.Tvor65 (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The entire section about one specific school in the US is not necessary in this article, and in fact Ewen moved it to the proper place earlier. I suggest removing it again ASAP. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the validity of the reference; I'm disputing whether we need to go into so much detail (just because we can say something doesn't necessarily make it encyclopaedic to do so). The following sentence - which deals directly with the USC case - more or less covers the same ground without labelling IB opponents. That said, I tend to agree with Truthkeeper88 here. Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 21:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Users who agree to remove the USC section = myself, TFOWR, Ewen & Tvor65. Time to remove it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
The USC case is important as it relates to IB in the U.S. for a number of reasons: 1) it is a documented lawsuit and therefore worthy of encyclopaedic reference 2) the lawsuit sought to overturn the decision of a duly elected Board majority 3)the lawsuit made international news - http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0314-02.htm 4) the entire situation caused tremendous animosity and unrest in the community 5) The ACLU respresented the IB supporters pro-bono while the lawsuit cost USC taxpayers approx. $200,000 6) The settlement also involved Gov. Rendell of PA (D) pledging $75,000, and the WAVES group (the recipients of the IB Inspiration Award) donating $45,000 in order to keep IB going.
Now, I have not sought to include all of that information. In fact, I believe I had reduced it quite succinctly to two sentences which included a source which would have provided readers with all of the further details. It is an example of political/ideological conflict which I believe should stand as an example next to the sentence about districts eliminating IB due to cost. Expressing the facts without injecting opinion is entirely possible, as I have demonstrated. Furthermore, I do not see Ewen agreeing with Truthkeeper re: removal of the entire paragraph and TFWOR referred to "the following sentence" as being acceptable, but seems to have left out which sentence by mistake and then flip-flopped on his/her position.ObserverNY (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
My position is that Ewen's edit was broadly fine. I think there should be some mention of the USC case here, but I don't think it's appropriate to go into the amount of detail that's currently in the article - that much detail belongs in the USC article, not here. My principle complaint right now is the term "ultra-conservative" - cited or not - as I think that the next sentence (which I'm happy to keep in this article, by the way) deals with the facts, and the reader can make up their own mind. Cheers, This flag once was red_deeds 22:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Ewen's edit is fine. I'll put it back in. BUT, I have to wonder if there's not more going on here, which is why I have the inclination to delete it entirely. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, I respectfully disagree. We seem to be at an impasse. If it is all or nothing, then I vote nothing. No one is interested in every last sordid detail of a lawsuit that was clearly politically motivated. If it goes back in, then it will have to be stated that the "ultra-conservatives" were the ones who tried to pull the plug on the IB Diploma programme, when the community clearly was in favor of keeping it. I vote to leave it out---or link to the USC page and call it a day. This is ridiculous.

La mome (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Let's take it out again.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I agree with LaMome and Truthkeeper88. My position remains the same: either remove the whole thing (I support this) OR, if the USC stuff remains as an example of opposition, then so should the source of the opposition and the reference validating this fact. I believe that Ewen supports this with the reference as well.Tvor65 (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
I'm fine with Ewen's edit, but I would also like inclusion of the sentence which referred to U.S. districts eliminating IB due to cost. And from my read of Misplaced Pages rules, this is not a "vote" situation but one on which we have to reach consensus. ObserverNY (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Truthkeeper What's going on here is you have two people, LaMome and Tvor65 who are deliberately attempting to prevent information about the USC case from being made available on Misplaced Pages because of personal agendas. You appear to be waffling back and forth. At this point in time, it would appear that Ewen, TFWOR, and myself are fine with Ewen's edit.ObserverNY (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Um, no. What is actually going on here is ObserverNY attempting to turn the Misplaced Pages page into a condensed version of her anti-IB website by inserting the "facts" that seem to support her claims and removing the ones that do not. It ain't gonna work, however.Tvor65 (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I personally liked Warthog's edit. Perhaps he/she would like to weigh in again? I am not attempting to prevent information about the USC case from being made available on Misplaced Pages---I suggested we link to the USC page. It's either all or nothing at this point. If it is linked, then it will have to be mentioned that the lawsuit was made by ultra-conservatives. There is no way around that. And then we will need to include Tvor65's link as well, since it is relevant.

La mome (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Agree with La mome. Also, am assuming good faith on the edits.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:29, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

ACLU
Thanks to the link ObserverNY posted I looked up the ACLU solicitor from USC and found this about Dover, PA. The scope of the IB DP article is not to debate "intelligent design". Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
Nobody here mentioned Intelligent Design, I don't know why you would bring that up. Vic Walczak, the ACLU attorney for the USC case, was also the parent of an IB student in USC. Is THAT relevant? I didn't mention that either. The point is the ACLU took the case. Period. Whether you love or hate the ACLU or any of the thousands of other cases it has handled is irrelevant. ObserverNY (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
I think politics should only be included where they explicitly involve article curriculum, eg, alleged bias in history courses due to partisan funding or whatever. The general bureaucracy can go in the main org article. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Truthkeeper88!!!
Can we all pause for a moment and thank Truthkeeper88 for cleaning up the mess we have made?! Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!!! La mome (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Nope. No consensus was reached. ObserverNY (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
I was thanking her for all of her editing work based on this:

"I edited every section of the IB DP article yesterday, according to article size policies. Much of the content in the article has subarticles so the main article should be concise and to-the-point.

If another editor objects to my edits, go ahead and revert; I don't mind.

I do mind, however, finding so much content restored without using previously formatted ref syntax, which now must be reestablished.

I also mind that one section of the article (the USC section that already exists elsewhere) was restored at least 20 times in various forms, and that the most recent edit deleted a good credible source that was referenced properly.

In my view, the talk page is not a place to bargain, or to threaten, which has been happening all to often." Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)
What on earth are you talking about? La mome (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
"Her"???? OMG, you called Truthkeeper a HER??? That must make you sexist, according to Candorwein/Candy!!ObserverNY (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
I'll repeat my question, "what on earth are you talking about?" If Truthkeeper is insulted, then I apologise. Move on and get over yourself, please. You still have not explained your recent edits and additions to the article. At the very least, you should use the edit summary to briefly describe the changes you have made. To avoid being hypocritical, you should seek consensus here before making major changes, like what you have done to the CAS & US sections. La mome (talk) 12:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I don't have to explain anything to you regarding recent additions to the article. Editors are free to contribute properly cited additions to the article at anytime. If you have an objection to a particular recent edit, please articulate your specific objection and I will be happy to discuss it.ObserverNY (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
See below. I object to the changes you made in the CAS section. Please explain below. You can't demand consensus if you don't seek it yourself. La mome (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus regarding recent edits?!
ObserverNY-No consensus was reached, nor was it sought, before you made the latest major changes to the IB Diploma Programme article. No one objected to the TOK chart, but you removed it. You also removed the aims/learning outcomes of CAS, which are relevant to CAS and to the Diploma in general. I do not know how to revert the changes and now the referencing will have to be fixed once again. Truthkeeper worked very hard in cleaning up this article and now will have to do it all over again. Not only should you thank her (or him?) but you should also apologize. It seems to me that you have just started a major edit war. La mome (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
No one objected to the flags for each country either, but someone removed them. In fact, I believe you and I both agreed that they looked nice. With the flags removed, the TOK chart appeared to give unneccessary visual weight to that core component, was positioned in an awkward manner and probably violated IB copyright. ObserverNY (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

References
ObserverNY, in her zeal to edit the article, has neglected to learn how to properly insert references. If you look at the References section and see things like or , you know that was ObserverNY's reference. I suggest she fix all the references she has inserted before proceeding to add more incorrect ones.Tvor65 (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
When you stop deleting them, I'll be happy to do that. ObserverNY (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
(edit conflict) -- The references have been getting increasingly messy and difficult to clean up with the constant editing. Before it's too time consuming to untangle all the inline citation syntax I'll have a go. The copyedit banner will be in place for a few hours. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

IB and UNESCO
The IB has been "recognized as a NGO of UNESCO since 1970" and participates regularly in UNESCO meetings and proposals in education.http://www.ibo.org/partnerships/governments/ and UNESCO have signed an agreement recognizing that "peace education is not an add-on but an integral part of the curriculum at all levels. http://www3.unesco.org/iycp/Report/IBO.pdf Although IB receives funding from UNESCO http://www.ibo.org/donors/complete/documents/Listofdonors2004.pdf, IB has issued a statement to the contrary. http://www.ibo.org/ibna/actionkits/documents/Myths_Facts_001.pdf ObserverNY (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
The document you linked is for 2004-2005 donors. It's 2009 now, so your link does not support your claim that the IB currently receives any funding from UNESCO. Thus IB's statement (issued after 2006) does not contradict anything.Tvor65 (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
I have no idea what Tvor65 is talking about the links not working - they appear to work just fine on my computer. ObserverNY (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
I was not talking about the links not working but the references. A proper reference should not appear below (in the references section) as some random number in brackets, and all of yours do.Tvor65 (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Tvor65 - thank you so much for encouraging me to look for a more recent UNESCO donor document.http://www.ibo.org/informationfor/supporters/donors/completetlist/ ObserverNY (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
You are welcome. I personally do not care one way or the other, but since the IBO lists UNESCO as one of its many donors, you can't claim they are trying to hide the fact. Nor do the say in the Myths vs Facts document that UNESCO is not a donor, only that it used to (as I understand it) fully fund the program until 1976 and now this is no longer the case.Tvor65 (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
LaMome You have no right to remove the entire section and simply declare it is in the wrong place. It is a section which is applicable globally, it is NOT in the U.S. section, I personally didn't think you would want it smack in the middle of the article on the IB DP however since it does affect all IB curriculum, perhaps you would prefer it there?
Tvor65 It is not my job to interpret IB language for you and this is not the place for debate about the contents of the documentation. They are what they are. ObserverNY (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
I am not debating anything, just saying that your claim of contradiction is not supported by the link you put.Tvor65 (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Are we going to argue the definition of "was"? Furthermore, IB claims "IB is funded by UNESCO" is a Myth! This is a lie, plain and simple, as I have documented that IB is funded by UNESCO,Paris, with its own 2008 donor list! Please re-read the document. There is no mention of "fully-funded", either. It simply states "was funded ... until 1976". ObserverNY (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
ObserverNY, I think LaMome's point was that the section should be at the more general International Baccalaureate Organization, rather than here? It does seem more pertinent to the organisation, rather than the diploma programme? Cheers, TFOWR 00:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
This is my understanding as well. And LaMome has a good point.Tvor65 (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) TFWOR - The section explains that UNESCO's "peace education is integral to all levels of curriculum. This includes the IB DP. For readers who merely research the IBDP and not IBO (which is no longer IBO), the information is relevant and globally applicable. ObserverNY (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
In as much as it's talking about the IB and its relationship to the UN, and to "peace education is not an add-on but an integral part of the curriculum at all levels", it's better placed at International Baccalaureate Organization. By all means mention peace education, but leave out the stuff about NGO status. Cheers, TFOWR 00:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Yes, my point was that IB & UNESCO is misplaced on the IB DP page as it refers to the IB organisation. It is obvious that IB is not funded by UNESCO, but rather receives a modest donation from them. That is clearly explained in the myth vs fact doc. That information is not relevant here and is better placed at the IB Organisation page.

La mome (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
"Modest"? Define "modest" and assign a dollar/pound whatever amount please. The section has been removed. But your argument is disingenuous because, whether it is a minor or major "donation", UNESCO is still funding IB. Calling it a Myth when UNESCO is still listed as a 2008 donor, is a lie. ObserverNY (talk) 11:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

TOK & EE rubric
See this re: copyright. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:56, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Special Needs
Is this from the IB Handbook? If so, please advise re: copyright status. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
It is a deep link inside the IB's Online Curriculum Centre. I assume the webmaster has not noticed that the privileges are set to www rather than something more private. I don't know how accidental disclosure/negligence is covered by copyright (as regards to this matter). --Candy (talk) 06:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
"Deep link"...Oooo, sounds like "Deep Throat". Nothing like trying to break through IB's lack of transparency, eh? ObserverNY (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
The current reference is this - this seems OK, copyright-wise? I assume the original reference has been changed? (You'd have thought that IB would be happy with this being public, anyway - it makes them look good...?) Cheers, TFOWR 12:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
TFWOR - LOL! Gee, that's what I thought too! No, the reference wasn't changed, I have no idea what Candorwein is going on about the link being "invalid" unless it happened to click on the link when I was in the editing process. ObserverNY (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
It's not an www url, it's an xml url and so I flagged it. Don't know how I accessed the page, but it's on the TAIB site, so maybe it's a copy that points there? Anyway, it's gone from Misplaced Pages.The current ref this is a long pdf. A page number is necessary for the quotation.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Truthkeeper - yes, it's on the TAIB site but it is not a document file in our database, merely a link. In fact, I just went over the Assessment Guide and lo and behold, the very important 12 month filing period information is not included. It refers readers to the IB Vade Mecum - Introduction, no page number: "Procedures for requesting special arrangements are explained in the Vade Mecum, the procedures manual for coordinators and teachers." Therefore, since you seem intent on withholding very important information from parents of children with special needs, I will revise the copy when I have more time. ObserverNY (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Regarding page numbers when presentating quotations see this which is standard practise to ease navigation for a person who might follow the link (the entire point of verification, inline citations, and footnotes.) Accusing an editor of "withholding information from parents of children with special needs" is beyond the pale. The parents (I'd suspect) might want to find the section in the long pdf easily. Moreover, the parents would also (I suspect) have access to the information that's available to the school (hence the fees that include the OCC from whence the initial link came I think, although I never used it because following a suspicious xml link is bad form and not something we as editors want to present.) Finally, to finish with page numbers, all the pdfs in the article will eventually need to have the relevant page number identified if and when the article is to be a candidate for GA. Best to begin now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Truthkeeper And here I was going to compliment you on your revision to TOK. ;-) Give an old lady a break, is it fixed right now? Is the Special Needs information accurate? Is it properly cited? Geez, there are so many rules within rules within rules here it gives me a headache. I am trying to constructively improve the article. Let me repeat that. I am trying to constructively improve the article and comply with Misplaced Pages guidelines. This is the first and only article I have approached at length. If I mess up the html, please assume that it is unintentional and ignorance on my part.ObserverNY (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
WHO CHANGED THE SPECIAL NEEDS SECTION? This reads like a load of mumbo jumbo - I SERIOUSLY object!!!! ObserverNY (talk) 00:58, 30 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
I am trying to constructively improve the article~ObserverNY

You are?!! My, that's the funniest thing I've heard today. Tvor65 (talk) 01:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

References invalid
Who ever created references 28 & 29 of the current page please note that neither is valid. Reference 28 possibly also points to an internal ibo web server or is mistyped. Eitherway, it is not a suitable link. I can't fix them either. Please repair. Otherwise, in a few days I will replace with citations needed. Thanks --Candy (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Both links are "valid". Link 28 was obtained from a Google search for the IB Handbook and is available in the public domain without password access. I attempted to add the descriptors to the links, however when I did that it invalidated the links so I left them as is . Surely you're not going to complain about information for students with special needs? ObserverNY (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Sigh... You've done it again - why can't you learn how to put in proper references? You had numbers again in the References section - and this is after TK88 has fixed all of your earlier references. I fixed them for you - please take a good look at the edit version and learn.Tvor65 (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Footnote #28: accessed the document and found the following copyright info: 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.
This a copy vio and is being removed.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Ohhhh - no brackets - thank you Tvor65. Truthkeeper - So are you going to leave the info in sans the citation? ObserverNY (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
A direct quotation from a copyright protected page cannot be used here.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)
Truthkeeper - No problem. Thanks for the fix! ObserverNY (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Both links are "valid". Link 28 was obtained from a Google search for the IB Handbook and is available in the public domain without password access. I attempted to add the descriptors to the links, however when I did that it invalidated the links so I left them as is . Surely you're not going to complain about information for students with special needs? ObserverNY (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Both links were invalid because they didn't link to any information that was useful. One linked to a protected page that could not be accessed and the other gave a 404. Therefore, they were both invalid. If I wanted to complain about content I would have done so. As I have said before. Read the message and assume good faith. You really could have tried the links yourself and seen they didn't work. --Candy (talk) 05:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Assume good faith, Candy. You clearly clicked on the links when I was in the process of editing. Truthkeeper removed the opening sentence and link (which obviously worked else he/she would not have known it was to the IB Handbook) and I am fine with the revision as it stands, and yes, the link works. ObserverNY (talk) 11:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Don't spew "good faith" back at me ObserverNY. You need to start reading your own comments and those of others. You do this far too often. Again, I have NOT worked on the links when you were in the process of editing. If I did there would have been an edit conflict. In fact, I have not worked on the links at all. I just brought it to everyone's attention. Again, you could have checked this using the history. Instead you start the blame game on me that I must have been changing them while you were. --Candy (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Candy, I have no idea what your problem is as you appear to be the only one who had a problem accessing the links. Get over it. Assume good faith. I never accused you of "working" on the links, or any other ridiculous accusations like being "sexist". As to your recent edit deleting the IB/UNESCO curriculum document, please read this comment by your fellow editor: By all means mention peace education, but leave out the stuff about NGO status. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 00:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC) ObserverNY (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
I posted a message on Candy's talkpage mentioning that I didn't have a problem with the peace education bit, and that I'd stated that here. That said, I'm but one editor - other editors may disagree with my view. Regardless, could everyone (I am emphatically not directing this at any one editor) hold off on adding/removing sections repeatedly? There seem to be three "camps" here - two opposing camps and a camp in the middle who are happy for a middle-ground to be found. Neither of the two opposing camps should "win" - we should all be striving for a consensual article arrived at through discussion. Cheers, TFOWR 15:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
TFWOR You are wise, former red flag. ;-) Truth should be the winner. ObserverNY (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Why, thank you ;-) I've had a more thorough look through the PDF now, and I have a few more concerns, however. I'm still keen to get something into the article about peace education (apparently 2001 - 2010 is the "INTERNATIONAL DECADE FOR A CULTURE OF PEACE AND NON-VIOLENCE FOR THE CHILDREN OF THE WORLD" - putting it in all-caps didn't help propagate the information to people like me, however). What concerns me is that the PDF doesn't state that IB signed a UNESCO agreement - the NGOs adopted a resolution inspired by UNESCO's position:

In 2001, the Executive Board of UNESCO invited the Organization's Member States and all partners of UNESCO to continue and deepen their commitment to a culture of peace in the framework of the International Decade for a Culture of Peace and Non-Violence for the Children of the World (document 161 EX/3.6.1). In the same year, the annual NGO conference at UNESCO headquarters adopted its own action plan for the International Decade.

The actual measures reported by IB seemed to be fairly localised; I couldn't see any evidence that all IB schools were involved, though - to be fair - the IB were most likely selective in what they reported to UNESCO. Examples included "Students from an IB school in Vietnam participated in a role play case study of World War 1", "The United World College of the Adriatic in Italy reports on peace education activities centering on a peace ‘walkathon’ conceived to highten awareness and understanding for human rights protection and violations", and a school in Ecuador was involved in "the production of a music CD ‘For peace for the children of the world’, most of which has been recorded by the children and young students themselves."

So... could we say instead that IB responded to a UNESCO questionaire stating that "peace education is not an add-on but an integral part of the curriculum at all levels", and that IB DP students participated in a wide-range of activities during the UNESCO-sponsored International Decade of ... etc ... (I'm not manually typing the decade's name, and I'll spare you all the ALL-CAPS a second time...) Incidentally, this section would be a good candidate for a "see main article" link to the IBO/soon-to-be-IB article...

Thoughts?

Cheers, TFOWR 19:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
TFOWR You have my blessing to elaborate on the sentence in any manner that you see fit. If you scroll to the bottom of the document, you will see that the IBO signatory to the agreement is Ian Hill. Apperently Mr. Hill is rather fond of signing things, UNESCO Peace Education, The Earth Charter, Jay Mathews' book.... ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Excellent, I'll make a start shortly if there's no dissent? Cheers, TFOWR 20:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
(edit conflict) I think the measures are localised because some of the IB schools are/were UNESCO schools. I looked up UNESCO schools and found one that started as an UNESCO school in Finland, but is now IB. Presumably UNESCO paid the IB fees for the school/s which explains the localised nature of the response in the report. To be precise, if there are still schools that are both UNESCO/IB (and finding them would constitute original research) then in those cases IB is following the UNESCO peace education culture. However, you're correct that the pdf is simply a report to UNESCO and doesn't indicate an agreement or umbrella action plan. In my view this information is fine for the new/moved IB article as long as it's precise. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Well, one school at least (Kristin School in New Zealand) was mentioned and it has no UNESCO history per se - it was started as a private school by local parents when a local religious school closed - but I take your point that we're nearing WP:OR-territory here. I'll post my revised "peace education" section here for feedback so any glaring WP:OR on my part can be excised ;-) Cheers, TFOWR 20:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Disclaimer: I was a student at Kristin for 1 or 2 years in the mid 1970s, prior to it adopting IB programmes. 'til today I had no idea it was an IB school - small world, eh?!
Truthkeeper If you had looked up UNIS, you would have found the following:http://en.wikipedia.org/United_Nations_International_School Considering 1/3 of the page is devoted the IB Diploma Programme, I'd say they are pretty much joined at the hip, wouldn't you? And if the IBDP constitutes an "international standard", doesn't it follow that an ideological agreement/report signed by IB/UNESCO relates to EVERY IB school? ObserverNY (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
No, it doesn't. But that's unimportant. What can be verified, is the question. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
It seems to me that a lot of time and brain power are being wasted on deciding whether to include the mention of "peace education" into an article about the IBDP. It is obvious that ObserverNY has an agenda all her own. I still maintain that if this is included at all, it should be placed on the IB page, not IBDP. And then next year it can be removed when the "decade of peace" is over. Why are we even entertaining the thought of including a response to a questionnaire?

La mome (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I believe that the IB page should cover this in more depth than here, but I don't think that necessarily precludes mentioning it briefly here. I'd be happier with a better source, not least because the questionnaire is quite dated now, but it does indicate that peace education is a part of the IB curriculum at all levels (I happen to think that peace education is a good thing, but I tend to be broadly pro-UN too). I guess the real question is: how big a part of the curriculum does/did peace education play? And how notable is/was it? If it made up, say, 1% of the IB DP curriculum, and never attracted media attention then let's just ditch the section. If it made up, say, 95% of the curriculum, or hit global headlines for several weeks in 2003, then I'd say there's an argument to keep it. Obviously, the reality is somewhere between these two extreme examples!

I also don't believe ObserverNY's agenda is that relevant, provided other editors review - which is what we're all doing to everyone's edits, anyway.

Cheers, TFOWR 21:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Thank you, TFOWR. If the UNIS page is going to dedicate a major portion to the IBDP, then the IBDP page should at the very least mention that all UNIS schools adopt the IB curriculum. Whether you love or hate the UN is irrelevant. Facts are facts. ObserverNY (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
If all United Nations International Schools adopt the IB curriculum, then that fact should be posted on the IB page, not the IBDP page. How many UNIS are there, btw? Do they adopt all IB programmes or just the IBDP? Facts are facts. Let's get them straight, back them up with valid sources and post them in the proper places.

La mome (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
TFWOR-Yes, I agree with this: "If it made up, say, 1% of the IB DP curriculum, and never attracted media attention then let's just ditch the section. If it made up, say, 95% of the curriculum, or hit global headlines for several weeks in 2003, then I'd say there's an argument to keep it." So, where are the headlines? Where is it mentioned in the subject guides? Is it a requirement, like CAS, EE and TOK? Not trying to be difficult, just trying to keep this article accurate. Put what you want in the IB article, within reason, of course. But I don't see "peace education" as a huge part of the DP. We could include the mission statement and the learner profile though. Cheers! La mome (talk) 23:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I stand corrected, I was thinking of the UWC, not UNIS. http://www.uwc.org/what_we_do/international_baccalaureate.aspx "UWC teaches the International Baccalaureate Diploma (IB) in 11 of its 12 Colleges and has played an important role in its development since it was introduced. Read more about UWC's role in the history of the IB. The creation of School Based Syllabi (standard level IB Diploma subjects) is another important contribution UWC has made to the IB Diploma. Read more about UWC developed School Based Syllabi. By all means include IB's mission statement, but the learner profile is already referenced several times in documents supporting CAS and other topics and would constitute an unnecessary replication of information. ObserverNY (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
LaMome You had no right to remove the IB/UNESCO line - no consensus has been reached and you are acting maliciously. Answering your own questions with more questions does not constitute consensus. Please try and behave like an adult, if you are one. ObserverNY (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
No consensus was reached to include it. La mome (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
So you think that gives you the right to arbitrarily delete it without comment? Sorry. You are acting in poor faith. ObserverNY (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
UWC is listed under Institutions under other articles in the IB series. If you are going to edit, then try linking you statement to the UWC page. The inclusion of UWC and the IB/UNESCO peace education statement is awkward. You are misusing and misappropriating the term vandalism. I have as much right to edit as you do.

La mome (talk) 01:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed move of International Baccalaureate Organization to "International Baccalaureate"
I proposed this on the relevant talkpage, but figured that there are probably more eyes here right now. Any nay-sayers, weigh in now. There's currently a redirect at International Baccalaureate (to the IBO article), so I suspect I'm going to have to request a page move rather than simply do it myself, so you've all got some time to say "nay", if you're opposed to a move ;-)
Cheers, TFOWR 16:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Go for it, TFOWR. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
yay --Candy (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Language
Continuing my rewrite to improve the fluidity of the article. Now I have got as far as the "Fees section".
~~Firstly, this seems to be out of place where it is as it breaks up the flow of education. It falls between awards and special needs.~~
Secondly it reads terribly without any rhyme or reason. It could be part of a section referring to the implementation and development of the programme in a school but even then one must question why the fees are not just a referenced instead of being copied out.
Any suggestions? --Candy (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Yeah, I suggest we return to the edit Ewen made, which everyone but you agreed on. Either leave it "as is" or restore Ewen's formatting. ObserverNY (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
I'll have a look at it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Done.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Truthkeeper. In a better place now for sure. Anyone any comments about the second question please? --Candy (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
I think the special needs section should go after "assessment." The fees section is fine where it is now.

La mome (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
Referencing the cost/fees is preferable. Streamlined consise articles read better.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
What do you mean by "referencing the cost/fees is preferable"? The cost of applying to be an IB school is a considerable investment and an article about the IBDP should provide readers with this overview. It deserves the small paragraph/section it has. I don't care where you place the section, but please don't start a new war by trying to remove it altogether. You wouldn't allow information showing U.S. districts have eliminated IB due to cost, at the very least allow the facts re: application, training and ongoing costs to stand. ObserverNY (talk) 23:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Working references to be deleted
I'm going to delete the References section. It was meant to be a "working references" section - normal during the construction and/or reconstruction of an article. I always use such a section when copyediting and added one a few days ago. Not meant to be a battleground, so it will be deleted and kept elsewhere as of tomorrow. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)
TruthkeeperWhen I first noticed this section, I wondered to myself, "Hmmm, why is this here? It appears to be just random opinion pieces about IB", hence my addition, which you removed. It would now appear that Tvor65, in Tvor65's desire to obstruct and undo any edits I may make to this article, has once again gone in and replaced a reference. Please keep your word and remove this entire section. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Just so you know, some were refs that had been deleted but might be used in the future, or a ref that didn't verify the point in the article, but perhaps useful elsewhere. Two others I found as I was searching for verification of certain points. One, about online learning and athletes, particularly skiers, is interesting and worth a section of its own, so I stuck it there as a reminder. It's easier to work with already formatted refs, rather than causing the mess I untangled over the weekend (incomplete, but I felt the copyedit banner was keeping people away from editing, so I stopped.) Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
Thanks for the work you did over the weekend - it's appreciated. And preventing the rest of us from editing isn't necessarily a bad thing ;-) Cheers, TFOWR 00:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)
I did not replace any references, ObserverNY - just put back one that you removed. Please make it a habit of understanding the history of edits before you falsely accuse people of replacing things. Additionally, I have to remind you that everybody has a right to edit, and this includes making sure the article does not become a sort of condensed TAIB, which it certainly would if it were up to you. Tvor65 (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Categories: