Talk:IB Diploma Programme/Archive 2

Criticism

Just removed a lengthy paragraph from this section, as it was clearly a very individual POV (and that's putting it nicely). Incoherent nonsense about the business and international relations elements, and how their lack of primacy meant that the IB was not truly 'international'.

You do get some nutters on the internets.

I edited some of the criticism here - about CAS and about IB crreating segregation in schools, and about appealing local decisions in the program. These may be personal experiences and are not indicative of the 1000+ schools world wide. Many schools are now created in an inclusive model or as whole school programs. The goal is to "level up" all students, to run an elite (but not elitist) program. A good example of a whole school approach is the Baccalaureate School for Global Education in Astoria, Queens (NYC) which was created to have all students do the IBMYP and IBDP. Inclusive models can be found in City Honors HS (Buffalo), Binghamton HS, or South Side HS (Rockville Centre NY).

The key point about the IB is that the program is a framework, with shared assessments and grading criteria and is administered by the local school who is subject to a five-year review by IBNA here in north america. Individual experiences should not be generalized to describe the program as a whole. Even North American experiences, like mine, may not be bias-free if a world-wide perspective is taken. Asse2 16:58, 2 December 2006 (UTC)[reply]

The 'segregation/social darwinism' criticism sounds abit bunk. I went to a multi-stream International school (in the Netherlands) that did IB as well as other curricula, and the kids all mixed alot outside of class, namely during breaks and during sports. This alledged segregation can in no way be taken a as criticism of the IB, but rather, the way certain schools are run, whether individualy, or on a regional basis. It should be removed.

To the powers that be at Wikipedia: Throughout the U.S., IB is being used by districts as an "attractor" to try to lure bright, higher income students into low-performing/low income schools. I am going to leave the racial segregation component out of this argument, and instead point out the "class-warfare" technique which is being employed, since racial issues are so dicey. Districts in Virginia, North Carolina, Arizona, California and Minnesota have used IB for this purpose. Districts claim IB will not only raise the overall performance levels in a given school, it will raise surrounding property values! This is a bold faced lie. IB targets low income, low performing schools for the specific reason that it can get its hands on Federal grant money. This is not an isolated incident, this is a pattern across the United States. Wikipedia's removal of links documenting this is more evidence of Wikipedia's bias in favor of IB. You cannot locate stats which show overall improvement in schools where IB has implemented. You cannot locate stats to show an "increase" in property values. In fact, even the claims by administrators that IB will increase enrollment in underutilized schools can be proven false. In the Locust Valley school district in NY, IB was implemented in 2004. At that time, there were 2303 students enrolled in the district. The projection for 09-10 is 2,173. That's a 5.6% DECREASE in enrollment since IB was implemented. It certainly appears to me that people are choosing to send their kids either to private school or elsewhere rather than choose IB. http://www.lvcsd.k12.ny.us/uploaded/Budget_Information/property_tax_report_card_pdf.pdf Also, there hasn't been a PEEP about the so-called 5 year review.

User:ObserverNYMay 13, 2009

'The IB is un-American'

Ulayiti (→External links - rm confused linkspam) - Confused linkspam? Adding an article directly critical of the very topic discussed is direct linkspam? This is supposed to be a place for all to contribute in a way directly related to the subject matter of the wiki. Clearly the view that the IB program is un-American, especially where such a claim is specifically detailed, is directly related to the subject matter of this wiki, and it was properly demarcated as a critical response. Ulayiti's removal of the link is pure POV. Ulayiti does not want people to know, apparently, the information contained within the article of April 6, 2006 by EdWatch.org entitled, "Why International Baccalaureate (IB) is Un-American," by Allen Quist. Allen Quist is an Adjunct Professor of Political Science at Bethany Lutheran College, Mankato, Minnesota, and is a former three-term Minnesota state legislator. He is also author of three recent books on the federal education system. Yet Ulayiti claims a scholarly article by Mr. Quist is "confused linkspam," according to the history. Ulayiti is in error here, and I ask the wiki community to maintain the Allen Quist link in the Critical responses section even as Ulayiti likely tries again and again to remove it as I don't have the energy to personally police Ulayiti's POV censorship, or whatever to call it -- I am a near total Wikipedia newcomer at Ulayiti's mercy. Thank you all, and please read the Allen Quist article. 71.192.35.245 18:00, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Contrary to the general trend of links added to this article, I think this link adds something this article lacks in general - criticism of the IBDP, and criticism coming from an education lobby organisation seems like a good place to get such criticism, as opposed to the random IB student that adds the "IB social shell" argument every odd week. -O bli (Talk)^? 18:15, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

HELP! While writing the above, Ulayiti censored it out again!! 'Ulayiti m (rv - see Wikipedia:External links#Links to normally avoid)' Ulayiti - I read the link you courteously provided. Thank you. Not a single one of the issues raised applies in this case. Perhaps you think the Allen Quist article "contains factually inaccurate material." That's not only your POV, but, in providing factual accuracy, Professor Quist provides specific links to source material from the IBO web site itself, specifically for the purpose of providing factual accuracy. Please, Ulayiti, think what you are doing and please reconsider your censorship. Please, Wiki community, this guy/gal Ulayiti is faster and more Wiki experienced than I, but his censoring out a professor and former legislator's scholarly article to assert his own POV is just plain wrong. Please help. 71.192.35.245 18:14, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

That edit summary remains a mystery to me as well... -O bli (Talk)^? 18:16, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

First of all, maybe I'm culturally biased or something, but somehow I don't see how endorsing the UN Universal Declaration of Human Rights makes the IBO somehow 'bad'. I also don't see how simply being international or 'promoting world citizenship' can be called 'criticisms'. But that's not the point. Pretty much the only thing in the link that's sourced is the fact that the IBO endorses the declaration of human rights (as does pretty much everyone else). From that, the 'article' goes on to leap to the following conclusions (all of which are massively POV and very much original research):

'IBO undermines the foundation principle of the United States that human rights, such as the rights to life, liberty and property, are inherent and inalienable, and must be protected by government' (How does this follow?)
'Either United States citizenship or world citizenship must have priority in our education program. Which will it be? IB gives priority to world citizenship.' (It's not like it's one or the other.)
'The IBO ideology has primary importance; state standards have lesser importance.' (Isn't this quite obvious, since the programme is managed by the IBO?)
'IBO promotes the actions and treaties of the UN even though many of these actions and treaties have not been approve by, or ratified by, the United States.' (No it doesn't, and there's no way you can deduce this from the UDHR.)
'IB promotes the view that the United Nations has higher standing than the United States Supreme Court on issues of human rights involving U.S. citizens.' (Same as above.)
'The view of the United Nations is the foundation of totalitarianism.' (I wonder if this guy is on drugs.)
That same-sex marriage and the redistribution of wealth within nations are 'contrary to the nature and interests of the United States' (which I would call not only biased, but blatant lies).

None of this makes any sense to begin with, let alone being encyclopaedic enough to be included on Wikipedia. - ulayiti (talk) 20:10, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ulayiti - a person of Allen Quist's stature writing for this particular organization says x, and you, some anonymous person on Wikipedia, make arguments above why the professor is wrong. Your solution is to remove the information provided by Allen Quist to this wiki. You have proven the case that your removal of the link is a direct result of your point of view. Further, your statements reveal a political bias. I'm new to wiki but I don't believe wikis are to be policed by politically biased individuals with a particular point of view that, if questioned, results in the removal of information with which they disagree. This is Wikipedia, not Ulayitipedia. 71.192.35.245 22:46, 3 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I am saying he's wrong, but that's not the point. Including your (or anyone's) personal essays on Wikipedia - even through external links - is blatantly against two key policies, namely no original research and verifiability. The article has no justification whatsoever and sounds pretty much like a crank theory by some low-class public servant who's been made unemployed after the introduction of the IB in some tiny small-town school in the middle of nowhere (and frankly, I find it quite amusing).

I also don't think that the website (whether it's your personal one or not) counts as a reputable publication. If you can find similar claims in any reliable source, feel free to include them. I'm removing the link for now. - ulayiti (talk) 09:56, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ulayiti - I am so happy to hear that you personally know Allen Quist is wrong. I am so happy to hear you think the Quist article is a personal essay by "some low-class public servant who's been made unemployed after the introduction of the IB in some tiny small-town school in the middle of nowhere." After all, we all know that flyover country people are a bunch of hick hayseeds, as you demonstrate. I am happy you said these things because you again sink your own case, and I will be restoring the link. By the way, thanks for deleting the vandalism.

Now you raise the issue of Verifiability. So I looked it up to see if you were correct. However, like the fast and loose way you use Wikipedia to enforce your personal worldview, you have again presented an argument easily overcome. Verifiability says: "The goal of Wikipedia is to become a complete and reliable encyclopedia, so editors should cite reliable sources so that their edits may be verified by readers and other editors." In this case, I'm the editor and Allen Quist is the reliable source. Reliable Sources says "Use sources who have postgraduate degrees or demonstrable published expertise in the field they are discussing. The more reputable ones are affiliated with academic institutions. The most reputable have written textbooks in their field: these authors can be expected to have a broad, authoritative grasp of their subject."

Allen Quist is of the "most reputable" variety, the kind "expected to have a broad, authoritative grasp of their subject." In About the Author, Allen Quist, we read,

"Allen Quist is Professor of Political Science at Bethany Lutheran College in Mankato, Minnesota. He is a widely recognized writer and speaker in Minnesota and throughout the United States. Allen Quist is author of five books, the most recent being America’s Schools: The Battleground for Freedom. Quist authored the best-selling book, FedEd: The New Federal Curriculum and How It's Enforced, which has sold 17,000 copies. He explains the federal No Child Left Behind legislation and programs such as International Baccalaureate, he describes the math and reading wars,and he discusses the effects of international agreements on our schools. Quist writes about the preservation of America's sovereignty, our commitment to self-evident truth and unalienable rights, and our resolve to pass this liberty on to the next generation.

"Prof. Quist served three terms in the Minnesota House of Representatives from 1983 to 1988. In the Minnesota House, he served as Chair if the Social Services Subcommittee and also served on the House Education Committee. Prof. Quist played an influential role in legalizing home schools in Minnesota. He was the Republican endorsed candidate for Minnesota Governor in 1994, and was one of seven delegates elected from Minnesota to the White House Conference on Families in 1980.

"Allen Quist has been a member of two school boards and holds a Bachelor of Arts Degree from Gustavus Adolphus College (St. Peter, MN), a Master of Arts degree from Mankato State University (Mankato, MN), and a Bachelor of Divinity degree from Bethany Lutheran Theological Seminary (Mankato, MN). He, his wife Julie, and the youngest of their ten children live in rural St. Peter, Minnesota."

Now, Ulayiti, regarding your argument of "No Original Research," you are wrong again. That policy applies to me, the editor. I am not presenting original research. Rather, I am pointing to Allen Quist. I did not make up any theories and post them. Actually, I did not say anything at all! Nothing! The only thing I did was post a link to a reliable source with whom's arguments you personally disagree!

Really, you now have not only stepped on me, but by recensoring this page, you have also stepped on Obli. If I knew who the Wikipedia police where, this would be the time for me to consider calling them. 71.192.35.245 13:54, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Ok, let's leave the link there then. As I said, this was all probably down to cultural difference (me thinking that to become a professor you'd actually need to know what you're talking about). - ulayiti (talk) 14:12, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Phew!! Thank you!! We can all rest now!! ;-) 71.192.35.245 14:21, 4 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I think this issue needs to raised again. This 'Professor' is definitely not unbiased, nor he is a scholar, or indeed an expert on anything, much less international standards of education. He openly and clearly supports home education, and teaches at a college were religious classes are mandatory. While alone those two facts are inconclusive, they do point an arrow at the sort of man he is. That would be opinionated, and uninterested in the truth. I have not been able to find information on the field in which he read for his Masters, but I'm guessing its not education, because if it was, it would have stated so on his page. Besides, I think that in order for an international encyclopedia to consider someone's opinion quite important, if not correct, the post-graduate degree of said person would have to be at least at the doctorate level.

Besides all of this, who the hell cares if the IB is 'un-american', as he so charmigly puts it. Maybe it is. Maybe its un-Argentinian as well, who gives a toss? This is an international encyclopedia. If Quist's page simply said that the IB was un-american, without attaching opinion or spin to it, perhaps then it would be OK to keep his link. But seeing as he clearly hates the UN, despises international standards, and thinks the US has the moral high ground on every crime ever committed and is yet to be committed, I think his link should be removed.

I leave you with a quote from Wikipedia:External Links "Because neutrality is such an important -- and difficult -- objective at Wikipedia, this takes precedence over other policies defining what should be linked" Pharzo 03:01, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Response to Pharzo - I disagree with you for the reasons stated above but also because Mr. Quist's article has been corroborated with the addition of another article that is similarly illuminating while providing new and useful information perfect for WikiPedia. IB Schools in U.S. Under U.N. Law; International Baccalaureate: An Analysis of Jurisdiction Further, your arguments that pertain to American sovereignty alone seem to apply equally to all over non-UN sovereignties. To exclude the comments of the Americans means you get to exclude the comments of the French, the Russians, the Chinese, the Japanese, the Nepalese, the Vietnamese, the Canadians, the Peruvians, the Venezuelians, the Senegalese, the Inuit, and everyone else. Clearly your point of view regarding criticism of the UN places anyone outside the UN at a decided disadvantage. Finally, your choice of language proves your interests are not in the free and open exchange of information for all but rather the promulagation of language that supports your singular point of view. 71.250.82.253 19:16, 11 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

This article I actually like. I think it should be put in the links section, mainly because it is well written, factually supported, and is not written with blatant bias, as the other one was. I wasn't saying we should exclude the comments of anyone, I was just questioning the validity of questioning the un-Americanism of items in an international encyclopedia. Also, I did not make any comments at all regarding criticism of the UN. I'm not sure what you mean by 'promulgation of language', but I suggest you look it up in a dictionary, if not to learn how to spell it, then certainly to illuminate yourself as to the true meaning of the word. I think you will agree that the second article is much better written, and much more pertinent to encyclopedic content? The first one is an opinion piece, with some references to the UN charter, but the second one is an analysis of regulations. I think the first one should be removed, the second one kept. Pharzo 01:29, 12 June 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I see, months later, wikipedian Hughcharlesparker decided this article was a "rant" and cut it out. [ 13:54, 15 August 2006 Hughcharlesparker (Talk | contribs) (→Articles - removing the first link - it's not an article in any sort of reputable journal, it's someone's rant. WP:RS) ] Apparently Hughcharlesparker had not read this section of the Talk page. And he did not first discuss its removal here. Worse, his history comment reveals a definite bias as his reason for removing the article -- he calls it a "rant," for example. Therefore, I restored the link. --SafeLibraries 21:14, 21 August 2006 (UTC)[reply]

I also am new to Wikipedia. I find the defense of Alan Quist to be interesting. This is not a scholarly piece. Mr. Quist has a partisan point of view on "internationalism", his article is hosted by an advocacy site (edwatch.org), on which his wife sits as a board member. According to the edwatch website, he is a politician who has run unsuccessfully for the governorship of Minnesota. In this article he is writing outside his area of expertise. An interesting counterpoint to Quist's parochial POV would be Professor George Walker's view of the IB in North America http://www.ibo.org/dg/emeritus/speeches/documents/ibna_jul05.pdf ````

http://www.ibo.org/dg/emeritus/speeches/documents/ibna_jul05.pdf

I'm IN that link! Yes, I am the "strange case" of "Mrs. Long Island" Mr. Walker refers to so coyly. He urges IBers everywhere to "stand up against" this kind of thinking and "be counted". My "strange case", one that advocates for retention of individual American liberties, does not jive well with IB's, which advocates relinquishing individual liberties for the "common good". I am in Jay Mathews & Ian Hill's book Supertest, Chapter 45, Rousseau in Locust Valley. But Wikipedia doesn't want to allow my link to my website http://truthaboutib.com/ as a credible source. Why would the Director General make me the topic of his plenary speech to IBNA if I am not a philosophical threat to its organization? Why would the DG take the opportunity to mock me and dismiss my research and opinion in front of a huge audience if he didn't feel the need to defend IB's socialist philosophy and "international-mindedness" (not even a word). Wikipedia is clearly in the tank for IB by its refusal to allow TAIB's link to be posted in conjunction with each of the IB programmes and allow readers to decide for themselves, what the truth is. -Lisa

User:ObserverNY —Preceding undated comment added 13:21, 13 May 2009 (UTC). May 13, 2009[reply]

The website mentioned above is written by a completely credible researcher. Here is also an article written by a 35-year teacher: http://www.cnht.org/news/2009/05/06/media-blocks-more-ib-info-to-mvrsd-parents/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 75.69.157.201 (talk) 17:07, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Truth about the IB" link

I know there was a post above about another link (to Allen Quist, I think) that criticized the IB; this is related but different. The "truth about IB" site is listed as an external link on this page; it appears to be essentially an anonymous IB-bashing website. I've nothing against linking legitimate criticism from something approximating a reliable source, but this site is, unless I'm very much mistaken, anonymous (it's "maintained by concerned citizens of the United States of America"), is neither scholarly nor fact-check-able, and is anything but a reputable publication. I would suggest we remove the link and, if we come across a marginally reliable or at least non-anonymous page that criticizes the IB, link that in the place of this. Thoughts? dcd139 (talk) 20:32, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I said back in May 2007: "I say keep all the links critical of the IB. We are not using them to support statements about the IB ('The IB is anti-U.S (ref)') but to illustrate the fact that the IB does have critics. In my opinion the criticisms are nuts, and it shouldn't take most readers long to come to the same conclusion; but shouldn't we allow readers to make up their own minds rather than 'protect' them from these viewpoints by censoring them?"

I stand by that. Perhaps the authors of 'truthaboutib.com' will wish they had kept quiet, and been thought idiots, instead of opening their mouths and having their idiocy proved beyond doubt.

Ewen (talk) 21:17, 27 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I see your point. My intent wasn't to censor or 'protect' anyone, just to have our sources be more reputable, but I can see how it could have been taken as such, and under the circumstances I think you're right. Suggestion withdrawn. dcd139 (talk) 20:52, 10 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

I disagree with Ewen. 1. The "truthaboutib" link is popping up everywhere and it smacks of pure advertising/marketing of a NPOV site. 2. If the aim of the article is to have a section rebutting perceived merits of the IBDP then a more credible source is preferable. I'll see if I can find one. 3. It's fine to allow readers to make up their own minds, but as a avid Wikipedia user I don't like to find myself on a non-credible website when I follow a link. 4. Some of the content of "Truthaboutib" seems to come from various other sources and blogs which raises copyright issues. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:26, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

1. Yes. TruthaboutIB has a very strong POV but that doesn't in itself mean it can't be used as a source for the NPOV article.

2. The link does not contain valid criticism of the IB (IMO), but it is an example showing that the IBDP has been criticised. This gets close to original research though.

3 (or 4 if you prefer). The danger is deciding what is credible and what isn't. Who's to say?

4. If the link has trouble with copyright then that's their problem, not wikipedia's.

Ewen (talk) 15:56, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry about the mistake in enumeration. I've fixed it.

1. Although the argument can be made to use a biased POV to support NPOV, in my view it's best to avoid bias altogether.

2. The link does indeed contain criticism of the IB -- and some readers might consider the criticism valid.

3. Good question. In my view, a website with unknown authorship and affiliations has not established credibility.

4. Agreed. I'll retract that point.

Final thought: if it's important to show that IB has been criticised then perhaps a section within the article using original source material is preferable. In the US some schools object to the IB for budgetary reasons, and in some cases specific education boards have objected based on the perceived philosophy of the program. I believe there has been some criticism in the UK as well, particularly in grammar schools that have replaced A-Levels with IB. Would it be more balanced to write a short summary of some specific objections rather than linking to a non-NPOV site?

Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:08, 12 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The link you refer to is quite a site! I've just been through it and you are quite right to be very concerned about its POV pushing. There are valid criticisms of the IB and these should be put forward. However, this link should not really be used as it is pushing an agenda. My comments are that:

A. It is so pushy that it fails to make basic references and has clearly inaccurate and/or unsupported information. Articles that it does refer to are confused, confusing and don't seem to support what the site claims anyway. Example: "Note that anyone who completes 9th and 10th grade MYP will receive a certificate" is incorrect. Although schools can create their own internal MYP Certificates (as in any other program(me)) an IB validated certificate is moderated externally by the IB and there is a minimum requirement.

B. Its content headings sometimes imply that the IB is making claims and accusations that it is not. (The heading, "Is the IB superior?", tries to explain why it is not (whether it is successful or not is not important). However, the IB make no claim of superiority over other program(me)s. Any criticism should be against the statements and actions of the IB surely not speculation and innuendo? Also, I can't understand what I should be annoyed/surprised about in the excepts from the Social Anthropology exams. Am I missing something here?

C. Yes, unknown authorship and affiliations does not support credibility. Clearly the author(s) is/are malcontent(s) but also unable to string logical arguments together. (Interesting to see the section "Pro-IB comments" is mostly a complaint about the "Truth about IB" web site.) It really is a shame to read the site.

 --Candy (talk) 12:33, 25 January 2009 (UTC)[reply]

User:ObserverNY I am Lisa McLoughlin and I am one of the administrators and author of several of the articles within the Truth About IB site. There are a few other administrators on the site who, because of past threats against them from IB supporters, would prefer to remain anonymous. I respect their right to privacy and am willing to hang myself out as the target, if you will. We are not a for-profit group, we have no advertising other than a Google search bar on the site, and we fund the site ourselves, not with taxdollars. Truth About IB contains links to 2 doctoral thesis, 1 on the IB MYP and one on the Newsweek Best High Schools List, and countless IBO documents. A new tab added recently includes an Mp3 of a talk show radio interview I did out of Omaha, Nebraska, followed by a rebuttal from the IB Coordinator of the Omaha schools. Yes, TAIB has a POV, and on our home page we state specifically what it is and what we hope to achieve by providing readers with the information contained within. Candorwein is quick to side with the left-wing agenda by labeling us "malcontents" because we DARE to question the ideology and cost of the IB program, just like the millions of Tea Party attendees yesterday are "idiots" and "anti-CNN", right? As I suggested before, I think it would add to Wikipedia's credibility if it were to at the least feature Truth About IB under a section regarding Controversy. It exists. We've documented it. Please allow people to hear both sides of the IB story and draw their own conclusions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ObserverNY (talk • contribs) 17:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm not sure you should be criticising someone who 'labels' you while at the same time labelling their 'agenda' as 'left-wing'.

The TAIB information is heavily criticised above for 'inaccurate', 'unsupported' and/or straw-man arguments. It would help a consensus decision to refer to TAIB if these concerns were addressed. Of course, you can raise the same arguments and make the same points by adding relevant material to the relevant wikipedia pages - if it's referenced and accurate then who would object?

Lisa, I'm sure we can find common ground if we look for it.

Ewen (talk) 15:37, 6 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

With an NPOV article there is not a "side" of the story. To ask that people hear both "sides" of the story is the problem because the IB DP article simply presents facts about the IB DP without a story.

Ewen is correct that the previous concerns should be addressed to achieve consensus. Although I haven't visited the site recently, what I've read seems sensational, and too over the top.

To admit that the site is biased with a POV admits that the link shouldn't be included in the article.

Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:39, 8 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ewen,

If Wikipedia is going to criticise the Truth About IB site as "inaccurate" and "unsupported", I would respectfully request that you provide specific examples where such is the case. In every breaking news story we list, we document our sources. For example, if you want to see if our claims that Obama and Ayers funelled money through the Annenberg Challenge to IB, I have provided the link to the actual Annenberg fund payments and the Woods Foundation.

What you claim to be presenting as "facts" about IB and IBO are what the company is trying to sell. TAIB scratches through those "facts" and locates supporting evidence to give parents and taxpayers the WHOLE story.

Yes, we include a POV in the website. I believe we are entitled to do that under the First Amendment. Education is a passionate issue. Public education, should be apolitical. IB is not apolitical. -Lisa

ObserverNY (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 13:01, 13 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

First response (to your several recent posts, ObserverNY) - Wikipedia is not a monolithic entity but is composed of many individuals who have (largely) reached a consensus on how to work together to create an encyclopedia. If the TAIB site has been criticised and removed by multiple wikipedians then it is because it's not up to the standards we generally accept for a reference, not because 'wikipedia' has decided to censor the site.

Ewen (talk) 18:13, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm concerned about two things with the TAIB link.

Firstly, the site is very US-centric (nothing wrong with that, any more than there is the site exercising its 1st amendment rights, but it's of limited relevance to a global worldview. My background is with the UK system; I sat A-levels, and although I'll concede that TAIB does discuss A-levels to a limited degree it is extermely limited (and, frankly, tabloid-level sensationalism - see here).
Secondly, there's the conflict of interest. Lisa, you acknowledge that you're an administrator on the site. I'm not convinced that someone so intimately involved with TAIB should be editing the article (post here on the talk page by all means, but let non-involved editors edit the article. The same applies to IBO employees and supporters, e.g. editors who maintain or administer pro-IB web sites).

That said, I'm glad you're posting here, and I'm glad this discussion is taking place. This debate is far less disruptive than those I've seen at other Wikipedia articles, with constant edit-warring, and you're to be applauded for that.

Disclaimers: I didn't study or sit exams under the IB system, and yes, I do have a left-wing agenda somewhere to the left (far, far to the left) of "liberalism" ;-)

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

OK. Here's an example of the sort of issue I personally have with the TAIB site. This is from the first page:

"All over the United States (in every state?) controversy surrounds this program. Most (more than 50%? where does this figure come from?) protests have been met with radical objection, community disruption, and/or reprehensible behavior (This statement could really do with some support) toward those who would speak negatively about this program. One needs to ask: "Why is an education program causing such volatile disruption and community unrest?" (Rather, one should first ask "Is an education program causing such volatile disruption and community unrest?")

"Critics (Who?) have argued that IB promotes values that conflict with traditional Judeo-Christian values (Do you consider these to be the same as US values? I thought your state and religion were separate?) . Some (Who?) have said it promotes Marxist ideology because the Deputy Director General of the International Baccalaureate Organization, Ian Hill ( see Appendix 1 of Synthesis document under the Earth Charter tab) was a signatory to the Earth Charter, a collection of Marxist global principles created in France in 2000 (So, some unnamed people find the Earth Charter Marxist, and because the Deputy DG of the IBO signed the charter, the whole IBO must be Marxist? This is the flimsiest excuse for using the 'Marxist' word). Others (Who?) object to the cost, which runs into the hundreds of thousands of dollars annually. And the forfeiture of local control (If you choose to use IB courses, you can choose to drop them later of course: I don't see how this forfeits control.) of school curriculum and culture has given many parents and school directors (Who?) pause."

Like I said, just one set of examples.

Ewen (talk) 18:33, 13 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitary section break 1

Ewen

Thank you for specifically addressing your "issues" with TAIB. Let me point out that your primary objection was that the site was run anonymously. I have clearly identified myself to you and others and cited at least two official IBO sources in which I am discussed at length. Someone above cited what we post on TAIB as falling into the category of "original research". It is. If you'll notice, while I agree with many of the points Alan Quist makes with regards to IB, TAIB has not cited Edwatch as a reference or source.

The paragraphs to which you referred are, I believe, on the homepage introduction. So I will respond to each of your questions as factually as I can.

In every state? No. Not in every state. I believe IB is in every State except North and South Dakota, but I have heard from parents from coast to coast with questions and complaints. You can listen to my radio interview with KFAB in Omaha, Nebraska. As my tag states, I am in NY. So from NY, to PA, to VA, to FL, to TX, to MN, to NB, to CA is pretty much all over the U.S. from a geographica perspective. I was unaware that Wikipedia presented only those facts which conform to a "global worldview". For specific incidents of controversy and conflict in various communities, please see the IB Buyers Beware section.

If you want me to change the word "most" to "some", I have no problem with that. However, the question is NOT, "are there any protests". I am providing you with documentation and evidence of what has transpired in various American communities. It has happened. It exists.

Who? Parents, taxpayers and teachers. Some have been brave enough to sign their names in Letters to the Editor or other sources. Some are afraid things will be taken out on their children if they object. I am willing to put my name on the line and stand tall as an objector to this organization's agenda and ideology. There are two other administrators on the site, one is a medical doctor and the other is a high school teacher. I prefer to keep their identities anonymous because their families have been threatened in the past and they really don't need any more hassles.

We could get into a discussion on the different articles contained with the Earth Charter, but I don't think this is really the place.

User:ObserverNY —Preceding undated comment added 22:48, 13 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Thanks for beginning to address the issues I have with TAIB. I think there's a lot wrong with it, I'm afraid, and its useful provocative content suffers from being mixed in with unfair and incorrect material.

As I said, the paragraphs I quoted above are just one set of examples of problems with the TAIB site. I didn't even pick a soft target - that would be the risible 'Is the IB a cult?' section - I just picked the most obvious one.

No, the question is not "are there any protests" but how extensive are they and how are these protests met by the IBO? It's a long way from some protests and a minority of them being met with reprehensible behaviour to the protests and objectionable responses to them being the norm.

'Who?' is the sort of comment used on wikipedia when people use the passive tense to avoid backing up their assertions with facts. If TAIB included some specific examples would help make your case.

As you can see, there are a lot of objections in my small example, and you've not yet been able to answer all of them, and conceded that in one case my objection was justified. Sorry, but the TAIB site is a long way from acceptable.

Ewen (talk) 06:32, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To add to Ewen's comments, there is, as far as I can tell, minimal awareness of disagreement with the IB programme in the UK. In the UK most students sit either GCSEs followed by A-levels, or Standard Grade exams followed by Highers: the IB simply isn't on most peoples' radar. I grew up as an expatriate, so I encountered the IB (though never studied within the programme), but I'm very much the exception in the UK. My point is that the articles about the IB should provide a high-level introduction to what it is, for a general audience. Telling a reader in the UK, Singapore, New Zealand, etc that there is some level of opposition to the IB in the USA is far too detailed, and seems to be simply an attempt to promote the site using Wikipedia as a marketing medium. A general reader in these countries would want to know that the IB is an alternative to local exams sometimes offered by some local schools. External Links should provide general links to learn more about the IB generally: it is not the place to promote localised opposition to the IB in the USA.

Like Ewen I also find some of TAIBs "points" bizarre, and whatever the merits of highlighting opposition to the IB I would be very wary of linking to a site that compared the IP to a cult, or asked whether it was Marxist because an officer signed a petition once. Fear of the Marxist Bogeyman seems very US-centric (but I live in a country where the governing party describes itself as "Democratic Socialist", and is criticised for having dropped its commitment to common ownership).

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:44, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ewen

I wish you had picked the Is IB a Cult section to start off, it is one of our most frequently visited pages. First of all, let's clarify, the heading itself is a question posed to the readers. TAIB references psychologist Steve K.D. Eichel and his checklist in "Building Resistance to Manipulation". TAIB has identified features of the IB DP which fit each of the bullets on the list. In fact, we include feedback from a couple of IB students, who unfortunately, never bothered to get back to us regarding their claims. We leave the question open to readers to draw their own conclusions as to whether or not this is an applicable question. If you search the web, you won't find similar student "cliques" for AP or the A-Levels. Only IB has this sort of cult-like student commeraderie. I have had my "moral character" challenged for daring to ask this question and posting the links to news stories concerning suicides of IB students. My heart goes out to the families of those students, yet again, I ask you to find me a similar cluster of stories related to AP or A-Level students. They don't exist. I didn't write the news stories, TAIB merely linked them for readers to consider. They are legitimate sources.

I conceded one of your objections was reasonable and I will change "most" to "some". I am a reasonable person and will give due consideration to fair and reasonable questions and objections. For the record, I didn't write that particular passage. However, you are asking for specifics which are detailed in other sections of the site and yet you selected paragraphs from the general "overview". You asked: "how extensive are they [protests] and how are these protests met by the IBO?" Let's start out with some facts. In the United States, the IB DP is only in 670 high schools compared to AP in over 16,000. Roughly 10% of those are private, 30% are Title I and another 30% are magnet/charter schools. TAIB has no objection to private schools which choose to purchase IB. You must keep in mind that the vast majority of parents and even many educators in the U.S. ask, "What's IB?" The methods employed by IBO and its supporters to sneak the programme into general public schools are deceptive and often done with very little public input. The protests rarely occur when the programme is being introduced, as most parents believe that IB is just a "nice extra enrichment programme" and not something which ends up becoming the scheduling and ideological focus of an entire school. The protests tend to occur when a district is faced with having to make budget cuts and consider the elimination of IB as a cost saving measure. The most notable case is that of Upper St. Clair, PA where IB supporters brought in the ACLU to retain IB after the duly elected Board majority voted for its elimination. This case is well documented throughout the site, my other two administrators are from Upper St. Clair. IBO responded by awarding the IB supporters its "Inspiration Award" for "control of local education at its finest". TAIB has included the IBO press release on the matter. In Minnesota, the Republican party attempted to pass legislation prohibiting the allocation of taxdollars on IB. In Utah, the State legislation attempted to deny funding to IB and was met with organized protests from IB students, resulting in the allocation of $100,000 instead of the $400,000 originally slated. The Utah situation cited my NYS Commissioner's appeal as evidence of a legal question that has yet to be answered: what happens if someone legally challenges IB, for whatever reason? According to the IB application, the ONLY legal document between a district and IBO, there is no formal "contract", it states that any litigation must be handled in Geneva, Switzerland. To the best of my knowledge, no one has sued IBO to date, A) because it is such a tiny fringe programme B)by the time IB students actually earn the IB Diploma and get their final grades, it doesn't make a difference to their college careers anyway. Yet the question is a legitimate one. There is a case of a Canadian student who was awarded a scholarship based on her "projected" IB grades which was then rescinded when her real grades finally came in. Let me also point out that IBO is very good at getting negative stories about its programmes pulled from the web. Time and time again, we have come across stories which don't reflect the "happy worldview" IBO likes to present and the result is Page Not Found. The most recent evidence of this can be found on our Breaking News page. Deep within the www.ibo.org site, I had located a paper which included a chart depicting the number of IB schools authorized each year. In 2007, 72 schools applied, 72 schools were authorized. You should be aware that we have analytics on the site and IBO visits TAIB on an almost daily basis, with a minimum of 3-4 visits per week.

Again, as to the "Who?" - my name is featured with articles in the Locust Valley section and under the IB in the Media section. As I have stated above, I am featured in IBO's Director General George Walker's 2005 plenary speech to IBNA and in Jay Mathews'/Ian Hill's book Supertest Your claim that the site is completely anonymous does not hold water. I have also indicated to you the reasons many people have requested that their names be withheld. TAIB respects the privacy of these parents and refuses to "out" them and place their families in the line of fire.

And now regarding what TAIB believes to be the Marxist ideology of IBO. Please refer to the plenary speech by George Walker linked above. Yes, I actually read Rousseau's Social Contract prior to my rebuttal to Jay Mathews. Walker admits that relinquishing individual liberties for "the common good" is not an uncommon ideal. Ok..... in the UK perhaps, but not in the U.S. Tony Blair made a huge national push for IB before he left office, but now Ed Balls isn't all that keen on it. However, UNESCO's "Peace Education" agenda which IBO has signed on to through 2010 better suits the UK than the U.S. In looking at U.S. politics, you need to understand that right now, 48% of the country is very unhappy with our current government. We have a President who is seeking to push through socialized healthcare, who just yesterday met with only Democrats to make sure the House and Senate shove through this Marxist reformation with one party rule. Objectors are being silenced, threatened, censored and vilified. I feel Wikipedia is taking the same tactics when it comes to refusing to post our legitimate website as a link for people to refer to. TAIB does not sell anything on its site. We are not employed by the College Board. We are merely parents who have found this programme to be objectionable in general public U.S. schools which are supported by U.S. taxdollars. As to Ian Hill and the Earth Charter - Ian Hill didn't just "sign" the document. He sat on the Earth Charter's Educational Committee and participated in Earth Charter forums. The Earth Charter specifically states that those who support it should PROMOTE: "Equitable distribution of wealth within a nation and among nations." It also requires promotion of "forgiveness of all foreign debt" and "military disarmament". America is at war. Promotion of these ideals via an educational programme is unacceptable and anti-American. It is TAIB's opinion that public education in the United States should be "apolitical". Ian Hill, Deputy Director General of IBO, co-authored Jay Mathews' book. He isn't just "someone" who signed onto the treaty. He is one of the head honchos. Jay Mathews is the ONLY educational columnist who goes out of his way to promote IB in this country. I have an ongoing e-mail relationship with Mr. Mathews, we met for lunch last year (you can see the picture of me dueling pens with him in the IB in the Media section).

As to Singapore, you can also find in the Breaking News section a feature on the outstanding results achieved in an IB school there. I had a very interesting back and forth with some IB students in Singapore. Some of them indeed question the "rigor" of an IB Diploma. However, it should be noted that in Singapore, students are pre-tracked for specific levels of secondary schooling and ALL of the students in the school were required to be FULL DP. That is NOT how IB is being implemented in U.S. schools.

Bottom-line, IB is a product. Wikipedia is actively promoting the product without allowing readers to learn about the many concerns and problems associated with the product in the United States. Your objections to the site being "U.S.-centric" represent the globalist attitude that individuals in the U.S. have no right to object to a programme which "works fine everywhere else in the world". TAIB doesn't care what IBO does in the Phillipines or in India. We have readers from all over the world, in fact, the time-zone graph is one of my favorites to look at. Most of our readership, however, is from the U.S. Google searches from readers include: "IB controversy", "IB and Marxism", "How are IB exams graded", "Jay Mathews and IB", "IB vs. AP","IB and Special Ed", "How do we get rid of IB", etc. The site only went live in October, 2008. It just seems to me that in the interest of fairness and balance, Wikipedia should allow the TAIB link to appear under External links as a source for people to peruse and consider. -Lisa

User:ObserverNY —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.235.103 (talk) 12:29, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa, rather than going round in circles debating the minutiae of Wikipedia policies, could I suggest that you take a quick look at this policy in order to understand where the opposition to the TAIB link is coming from? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC) (I've removed my original reply. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC))[reply]

Very good. Then I respectfully refer you to Wikipedia's section on "notability" for inclusion. I have already documented IBO's inclusion and objections to my research in the IBNA plenary address and Supertest, however if you want more evidence of my standing, allow me to refer you to: http://www.oberlin.k12.oh.us/districtdocs/CTIBarticle040608.pdf TAIB is not a chat site, it does not sell anything, it is a compilation of legitimate sources OTHER than AND INCLUDING www.ibo.org. TAIB's purpose is not to promote IB, but rather to expose, with verifiable links to secondary sources, evidence of problems that exist with the product. If you want me to go through the Wikipedia articles on IB and point out the biased claims you have allowed to stand without source verification, I will be happy to do so, but it seems to me whoever you people are that run this site are determined to limit the public's exposure to only the propaganda IBO wants people to know. -Lisa

User:ObserverNY May 14, 2009 —Preceding undated comment added 14:03, 14 May 2009 (UTC).[reply]

Arbitary section break 2

SineBot

My apologies for not properly signing my corrections. However, your so called 'FACT' about the number of IB schools with the IB Diploma programme is WRONG. Here is the link to IBO's official website and a search of the number of schools worldwide with the IB Diploma Programme, (and the page is specifically referring to the IB Diploma programme NOT all 3 IB programmes_, as of TODAY, May 14, 2009. Wikipedia's number is exaggerated by over 500 schools! http://www.ibo.org/school/search/index.cfm?programmes=DIPLOMA&country=&region=&find_schools=Find The correct number is 1,954. Show some intellectual honesty, please. ObserverNY (talk) 14:46, 14 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Well, this being a wiki it's really easy to change data as the sources change - which I see you've done. I'll let you into a secret - the 'FACT' you've just added is going to be WRONG at some point in the future. At which point someone will update it so that it correctly reflects the source.

Incidentally, SineBot is an automated process - a script - that automatically signs for people who forget. The easiest way to avoid this is simply to remember to sign your posts (use "~~~~" at the end of your posts).

Also incidentally, if you see a "fact" that sounds dubious - add "{{fact}}" after it, rather than adding your own commentary to the article.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:54, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

dear red flag I see that Wikipedia allowed my correction to stand. Thank you. Here's a "secret" for you, most programs or products, INCREASE in size, not DECREASE. If I am to assume that the Wikipedia figure previously given (2,607)was true, such a drastic reduction should raise eyebrows. Such a figure change would cause quite a downward plunge in a graph depicting the "growth" of IB schools globally. Therefore, you might want to indicate somewhere that if Wikipedia's original quote of 2,607 schools WAS accurate in 2008, there has been a 25% elimination of IB schools worldwide in one year. Or so it seems to me. ObserverNY (talk) 16:20, 14 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Gosh, thanks for that insight. Actually, I suspect the figure was vandalised at some point. Believe it or not, most if my time on Wikipedia is spent watching out for vandalism. Some of it I see at the time, some of it I see months later. But I rarely jump to the conclusion that it's anything other than vandalism - certainly not intellectual dishonesty or a vast left-wing conspiracy. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:31, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I would also like to add that this Wikipedia page makes absolutely no reference to the cost of IB. This is also one of our most searched questions. It is also the one, factual, non-opinionated area which IB and supporters seek to obfuscate, minimize and dismiss. It is also an area addressed extensively in TAIB. ObserverNY (talk) 16:30, 14 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

But I rarely jump to the conclusion that it's anything other than vandalism - certainly not intellectual dishonesty or a vast left-wing conspiracy Vandalism, by the Left, to inflate statistics about IBO to make it appear larger and more prestigious than it actually is, is most definitely representative of intellectual dishonesty. This is not a conspiracy theory, this is evidence of "bad behavior" by those whose political ideology supports IB. If someone was attempting to "vandalize" the IB page to make IB look bad, they would have decreased the number. Let's be sure to place the blame of "vandalism" on the appropriate parties. ObserverNY (talk) 16:47, 14 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

You know what, Lisa? Believe whatever you want to believe. When you have something helpful to bring to the article I'll still be here, waiting. Until then, I'm bowing out. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 16:50, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to have grabbed the wrong end of the stick with my 'Who?' comments. The original text mentions 'Critics' (who, err, criticise), 'some' or 'other' people who raise other objections, and some unnamed but apparently numerous parents and school directors. I'm not asking you to name your other two contributors, but if those are the only critics then I'd expect you to have written that 'We criticise' and 'We raise objections' instead of hiding behind passive sentences. So, who are these critics and other folks? TAIB would look better if it gave an example or two.

Cost? Yes, it's an issue. Make you wonder why people choose to run the course despite the costs, doesn't it? Perhaps they think it's a good course? Personally I have an issue with their vigorous pursuit of their own copyright protection when they have been very casual with other people's copyright. However, they are a non-profit organisation and I really like their appraoch to many aspects of education.

It's kinda disengenuous to explain the title 'Is the IB a cult?' as just being 'a question posed to the readers' when the material tries to make exactly this point, presenting only the facts that fit with this rather bizarre assertion. Lisa, are you an axe-murderer? Just asking...

I guess if you keep throwing mud then some of it will stick, but you'll get pretty grubby in the process. Couldn't you please keep the quantity of the TAIB accusations lower and the quality higher?

Ewen (talk) 17:05, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ewen

Make you wonder why people choose to run the course despite the costs, doesn't it? You mean, does it make me wonder why administrators wantonly spend taxpayer money (not their own) on an unnecessary program? Yeah, it does. And no Ewen, I'm not an axe-murderer, but thanks for asking. Do you perhaps have a psychologist's list of symptoms which might reveal how to spot an axe-murderer and evidence of my behavior that would agree with those symptoms? ObserverNY (talk) 20:02, 14 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Oh, like you have a evidence of the IB's behaviour that matches the behaviour of a cult? OK, let's look at the cult accusation (as you say, "we were able to easily match aspects of IB to each bulleted item [on Eichler's cult-spotting list]" so please don't give me that fig leaf of 'it's only a question for our readers')

"Isolate them in new surroundings apart from old friends or reference-points"

Well, we regularly meet with the students' parents. No isolation there. The IB is a minority course, as you admit - so as a consequence it's not available in every neighbourhood and students often have to travel. So? Later on you mention the websites IB students use - how can you reconcile social web use with isolation?

"Provide them with instant acceptance from a seemingly loving group"

"students accept IB groupthink" you say. Nice little bit of biased language there. "students... identify with each other" How terrible! You'd prefer the class members were at each other's throats? "IB student websites... provide a social network for just IB students." There are websites for Christian students too - does that make Christianity a cult?

"Keep them away from competing or critical ideas"

"This is accomplished through the IB scheduling (the course is unusually broad, with six main subjects, so of course its scheduling is different), leftist reading material (if you stand far enough on the right, everything's on the left) and TOK". To criticise TOK is plain laughable - the whole point of TOK is to engage students with competing and critical ideas.

"Provide an authority figure that everyone seems to acknowledge as having some special skill or awareness"

You obviously haven't met many IB Coordinators!

"Provide a philosophy that seems logical and appears to answer all or the most important questions in life"

So, what is the IB's doctrine on life after death? The existence of God? The meaning of life? All it tries to promote is an open, inquiring attitude.

"Structure all or most activities so that there is little time for privacy or independent action or thought, provide a sense of "us" versus "them""

It's a tough course. Not as tough as the Marines, though. Hey, I wonder how they'd score on your 'cult' questionnaire? Seriously, though - if requiring hard work and long hours is exclusive to cults then there are many cults out there.

"Promise instant or imminent solutions to deep or long-term problems"

"The promise of college acceptance, credit and scholarships, allegedly makes all of the work worthwhile." Well, you can't deny that the AP is in exactly the same boat here. And a two-year course is hardly an 'instant' or 'imminent solution' when you're sixteen.

"Employ covert or disguised hypnotic techniques."

I hope you warmed up before you made this enormous stretch! Can you think of no other explanation for the students' appreciation of the course than 'they must have been hypnotised'? Maybe they actually think it's a good thing because it has its merits? Or would that be anathema to you? And you know, last time I checked, hypnotists didn't use acronyms and soundbites very much.

"TAIB appreciates the feedback but has to seriously question the "rigor" and academic quality of a program which results in a full DPer not knowing the difference between "your" and "you're"." Great little dig at the end there. How's your own grammar? "This web site is built and maintained..." surely? But hey! Picking faults in other people never proved I was right, did it?

Ewen (talk) 22:18, 14 May 2009 (UTC) (signed with the power of tildes - ~~~~)[reply]

Right, Lisa: I've been looking at your website and found something you're going to have a long time justifying:

This is from http://truthaboutib.com/isibacult.html which I accessed today. Here's the content in case you try to remove it (and I wouldn't blame you for trying):

IB Teen & Teacher Suicides

1. http://www.news10.net/news/story.aspx?storyid=47716&catid=2

2. http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2006/04/23/AR2006042301243.html

3. http://www.gazette.net/stories/042606/silvnew180807_31942.shtml

4. http://www.tgorski.com/Adolescents/Youth%20Suicide%20Rates%20On%20The%20Rise.htm

5. http://www.sptimes.com/2002/02/09/TampaBay/Pinellas_teacher_comm.shtml

6. http://www.freethought-forum.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7991

7. http://www.echeat.com/essay.php?t=25744

(My numbers)

Now, we're talking here about teenagers killing themselves. There might be tragedies as bad but none worse. Why does your website bring up these stories? To make a point about the IB being 'a cult'. Better be sure of your facts then. Let's have a look:

Website 1: Student Attempts Suicide at Mira Loma High School

I've no way of checking but is a student on the 'International Studies Program' the same as a student studying an IB programme?

Websites 2 and 3 tell the same sad story. Two students on an IB course separately took their own lives. A third former student might have done.

Website 4: Youth Suicide Rates On The Rise

This is the very sad tale of "King High School junior Rashad Anthony Blackmon [who became] a suicide statistic" and quoted his "friend, Ashley White, 18, who recently graduated from Hillsborough High's International Baccalaureate program"

Again, I've no way of checking but was Rashad Anthony Blackmon actually studying an IB programme? Or did your google search for 'IB suicide' throw up anothe irrelevant story?

Website 5: An IB teacher kills himself.

Website 6: Freethought Forum > The Amphitheater > The Atrium > IB Suicide

"I've just heard an anecdote of an IB kid who thought he didn't do very well in the IB programme, and therefore committed suicide."

Yes, and I've just heard about the meanings of the words 'reliable' 'hearsay' and 'rumour'.

Website 7: IB: What makes suicide acceptable?

This is an attempt to provide IB students with coursework they can plagiarise for free. Does the IB allow students t analyse how and why suicides occur? How shocking! Next you know they'll be discussing the Holocaust...

So, to make your little point about the IB possibly being a bit cultish you've cited seven stories about suicides.

One story is about an IB teacher's suicide. Two are about the same two/three IB students. Two might be about IB students but it's not clear. One is a suggested essay about suicide and one is a chatroom anecdote.

So, what was your point again?

Ewen (talk) 23:04, 14 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ewen

Well, we regularly meet with the students' parents.

WE? Excuse me? Who are "WE"? Are you an IB teacher Ewen? What is your affiliation with IBO? Disclosure please. ObserverNY (talk) 00:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Yes, I teach IB students. I also teach A-level, National Diploma, First Diploma and GCSE students. Does that detract from any of my points?

I do like the way your first response is to go for the ad hominem argument. Very telling. Is it not easy to explain why your website casually and callously uses stories of suicides in a futile attempt to support its bizarre allegations?

Ewen (talk) 05:16, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ewen

I find it very interesting that you consider identifying yourself as an IB teacher an ad hominem. In journalism, that would be considered "full disclosure". Legally, for example for someone sitting on a Board, such a financial connection could be considered a "conflict of interest". According to Roberts Rules of Order: If a member has a direct personal or pecuniary (monetary) interest in a motion under consideration not common to other members, the rule in RONR is that he should not vote on such a motion, but even then he or she cannot be compelled to refrain from voting. [RONR (10th ed.), p. 394, l. 15-25.]

So while I have no power to insist that you remove yourself from the Wikipedia "consensus" process, ethics suggest that you should.

Is it not easy to explain why your website casually and callously uses stories of suicides in a futile attempt to support its bizarre allegations? You ignore the research of Dr. Eichel as a legitimate scientific reference point, the comparison between the IB logo and the yin and yang, and the link to Madame Blavatsky's Theosophical Society and IB/UNESCO art exhibit. You joke about the quality of IB Coordinators as leaders. The fact remains that they ARE assigned as leaders and overseers of the IB programmes, they ARE in charge of organizing all aspects of the programme within a school, and at least in the U.S. - they ARE paid an additional stipend for the job! How "regularly" do you meet with the parents of IB students? Twice a year for 20 minutes? That's how long the parent/teacher conferences last in the U.S.. You insist on hyperventilating about the links I provided to news stories about IB student/teacher suicides. I agree they are tragic. But they happened. There is a tremendous amount written about the stress IB students suffer in the programme. Read the IB student websites. There are usually entire threads dealing with caffeine and anti-anxiety drugs. Your personal affiliation with IB causes you to become outraged that these news items are even presented because it would tear you to shreds as a teacher if God forbid one of your own students took their own life. I understand that. However, as an IB teacher, you are predisposed to find any criticism of a programme you are employed to teach as "bizarre" or "callous". Because you take it personally.

ObserverNY (talk) 11:35, 15 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Lisa, I presume by now you've read the policy I linked to yesterday. Do you feel that the TAIB link satisfies that policy? How? If not, I'd suggest that any further discussion is moot. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa:

An editor of the TAIB website finds no conflict in promoting her website on wikipedia? If you want people with interests in this debate to leave then I will - after you. And as I said, the IB isn't close to the majority of what I teach and I'm not responsible for the IB; whereas this whole issue is about your website. Alternatively, let's just stick to the facts of the matter. "Facts don't mind who holds them, and neither should you."

Dr Eichel's research might be legitimate, but what it has to do with the IB is highly debatable.

The IB logo looks a bit like yin and yang? (Is this a wind up?) Really? And so what?

I fail to see what Theosophical Societies and UNESCO art exhibits have to do with anything either. Please enlighten me.

So, the IB coordinator is responsible for, err, coordinating the IB. Some schools pay them extra for this duty. And that makes them cult leaders. I see...

The parents can meet us as often as they choose. We have regular meetings as you describe, but if any issues come up then of course they can phone/e-mail/meet with any member of staff. Name me an IB school where this is not so. We're not running the Waco Ranch here.

As you can see above, I have made my own criticisms of the IB, so there's no reason to reckon that I'm predisposed against all negative comments of the course. "Bizarre" - yes, it is bizarre to equate the IB to a cult. "Callous" - yes, it is callous to use the stories of dead people to make your points.

Now I've covered all the points you accuse me of ignoring, except the one you want to dodge yourself: "the links [you] provided to news stories about IB student/teacher suicides". Except that they're not, are they? There's one story about two/three students (repeated twice) and one about a teacher. Two stories are not about IB students at all, or if they are they don't identify the students as such. One 'story' is the sort of hearsay you'd readily dismiss elsewhere on the TAIB site if it made a point you weren't happy with. The final 'story' is actually an essay.

Tragic, for sure. Relevant? Hardly. Tasteless, badly-researched scaremongering? Yes. Have you no sense of decency?

Ewen (talk) 12:26, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitary section break 3

How dare you wipe my entire response to red flag. I spent a lot of time going through the Wikipedia policy to politely respond point by point as to why TAIB should be included on Wikipedia. Your arrogant bias and disingenuous attacks calling me an idiot are beyond the pale. You serve as a fine representative for IB, Ewen. What goes around, comes around. I'm done. Peace out. ObserverNY (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Diffs, please. I've been monitoring posts here and haven't seen either (a) a response, nor (b) Ewen wiping them. Ewen's three most recent posts here are here, here and here. I can't see a response in this page's history, either - it looks to me like I posted my question, Ewen posted a further comment, then you came on shouting blue murder. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:29, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I've also taken a look at your recent contributions: here, here and here - again, I can't see any response. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:39, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

red flag I posted a lengthy post which included 6 points specifically referring to Wikipedia's policy, as you requested. I entered "reasons for inclusion" in the edit summary bar. When I hit Save page, it took me to the split page with the quotes in yellow and gray, where it appeared. When I went back to the talk page, Ewen's reply was there and mine was not. Clearly, Ewen is capable of wiping it from the discussion history page as well. There is no other explanation. And so I am done. ObserverNY (talk) 13:37, 15 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

So you saw a Help:Edit conflict and assumed it was a conspiracy by Ewen? That's hardly assuming good faith. Why didn't you then post your response again? Why don't you post your response again right now? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:41, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Because when I back-spaced to the page where I had written it - IT WAS GONE. I stupidly didn't compose it in Word first. Ewen wiped it from the discussion page. I am not about to spend another 45 minutes to go through the six points again. Wikipedia is simply not worth that much of my time. ObserverNY (talk) 13:47, 15 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

So you're suggesting that Ewen somehow hacked your browser? Ewen has, so far as I'm aware, no control over your local PC or web-browser. This is what we refer to in IT as a PEBKAC - a problem existing between keyboard and chair. It's a polite way of saying the user doesn't have a clue, and is blaming the technology (or, in this case, an unrelated individual). Incidentally, the split page you saw also had a copy of your text - if you'd read the page you would have seen instructions on how to fix the edit conflict. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:51, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I had no idea there was an edit conflict. What happens is that if I save my edit first, then when you save your edit wikipedia alerts you to the problem - while you were editing, someone else made some changes. I don't know if you're editing this right now, and you won't know about this edit until I save it. I'm sorry that your work was lost, but I'm not responsible for its loss. I would encourage you to write your response again - I'd genuinely like to see it.

Ewen (talk) 13:54, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

while you were editing, someone else made some changes. Right, and that "someone" was you, Ewen. Your "changes" including wiping out everything I wrote. As I said, I have no time for this technological battle right now, since you apologized, I will consider re-visiting the issue, but for now, I am completely soured on the ability of Wikipedia to make a fair and impartial decision about including the TAIB website. ObserverNY (talk) 14:06, 15 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

No, Ewen's changes did not include wiping out everything you had written. Have you read (and understood) Help:Edit conflict yet, or would you prefer to blame Ewen for your inadequacies? The page explained how to resolve the edit conflicy, the help page I've (twice) linked also explains how edit conflicts work and how they can be resolved, and Ewen has also tried to explain what happened and how to fix it. Meanwhile, we're still waiting for your response to my question - but if you'd prefer to blame technology, blame Ewen, blame an vast international conspiracy - that's OK. I'll consider the matter resolved as going nowhere (and, incidentally, it'll help answer why TAIB seems so tabloid). Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:11, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

red flag Incidentally, the split page you saw also had a copy of your text - if you'd read the page you would have seen instructions on how to fix the edit conflict Since I'm obviously a technological moron and can't spend hours on end simply trying to figure out Wikipedia's bizarre editing policies, perhaps you can use your administrative powers to retrieve that block of text and repaste it for me? ~ just a stupid Mom who wants what is best for kids when it comes to education. ObserverNY (talk) 14:14, 15 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

I'm not an administrator, but I seriously doubt an administrator could fix a problem that lies solely at your end. All you needed to do was read the text on the split page, and I doubt I can help you with that. Following instructions was a skill I learned some time ago, but time-travel was not. Why not post a summary of your original post? All you need to do is open WP:EL and go through it, point by point, identifying those points that you think might apply to the TAIB link and explaining why you feel they don't actually apply. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:21, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

At this point, I wouldn't swear on a Bible that my text was actually on the edit page. When that page came up, I back paged to my original post to attempt a repost as a "minor" edit and it was gone. I explained to you that I failed to compose the original post in Word. My bad. Earlier this morning I had a problem where my text ran off the page and I discovered it was because I had indented the paragraph by mistake. I corrected that and it appeared correctly. I'm tired of being insulted by people on this page while trying to politely address your questions without snarkiness and sarcasm. I find the responses from yourself and Ewen to be utterly unprofessional. ObserverNY (talk) 14:46, 15 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

I regard Ewen's comments as the epitome of good faith, and I apologise if mine have been less so. I got annoyed that you blamed Ewen for what was clearly your error, and continued to do so even when the issue was explained to you.

In the meantime, it has been explained to you that the benchmark for TAIB's link (and, indeed, all external links) is laid out here. Unless you're prepared to discuss how TAIB's link complies with that policy I don't regard this thread as productive. So... are you prepared to discuss how TAIB's link complies with policy?

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:49, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

red flag Do you consider the following the "epitome of good faith"? Perhaps the authors of 'truthaboutib.com' will wish they had kept quiet, and been thought idiots, instead of opening their mouths and having their idiocy proved beyond doubt. Ewen, Oct. 2008 I don't. Are you an IB teacher as well? What is your role with this site? Who are the administrators of this site? Until I receive some sort of message from a Wikipedia administrator other than Ewen who sits on the Wikipedia "consensus" Board, I will not waste my time arguing my point. I don't believe in exercises in futility. ObserverNY (talk) 15:03, 15 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Given the extraordinary claims made on the TAIB site I consider it perfectly reasonable.

I am not an IB teacher, moderator, administrator or student. I have never had any contact with the IB - though my parents did nearly send me to an IB school.

The administrators of this site may be contacted at the administrators noticeboard.

You still haven't provided a response to my question with regard to TAIB and the external links policy. Do you intend to?

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:10, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry, Lisa. I didn't mean to offend with my comment. It's actually a misquote of "It is better to stay silent and let people think you are an idiot than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." which has been attributed to Abraham Lincoln. I think we've all said idiotic things at one time or another and then wished that we hadn't. Lincoln seems to have been modest enough to admit it, and if he's said some daft things then how many have I uttered?

Mind you, there's plenty of sarcasm and snarkiness on TAIB. That doesn't help make its case either.

For the record, I'm not an administrator here, nor do I have any status with wikipedia. I have exactly the same privileges as you: Just another stupid parent who wants what is best for kids when it comes to education.

Ewen (talk) 15:58, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, thanks for the (wholly unjustified) character reference, TFOWR!

I wonder if we should make a The Truth About IB page on wikipedia? Ewen (talk) 21:17, 15 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

For someone who objects to merely linking the TAIB site as an informational external link under Wikipedia IB pages, I can only surmise that the reason for an IB teacher to suggest establishing a Wikipedia page dedicated to TAIB, is for the purpose of ridicule and attack. Take a hike. ObserverNY (talk) 14:21, 16 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

To Lisa/ObserverNY: Please read the Wikipedia policies on Neutral Point of View (NPOV) WP:NPOV and neutrality WP:NEU. Establishing whether TAIB adheres to these policies is the only point to this discussion. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa, people establish pages for other reasons than to ridicule and attack. What you presume about other people's motives can be very revealing about your own. (Actually, I think that point is covered in TOK)

It would be interesting if TAIB was considered 'notable' but a wikipedia page would be accountable to policies on neutrality, verifiability, etc.

I'd have thought you'd welcome the publicity and the chance to have a full debate.

By the way, I notice you charge for consulting on issues raised in TAIB. I'm sure you just cover expenses. It does make it very peculiar for you to charge me of a conflict of interests, though.

I'm still mostly concerned with your lack of justification for including suicide stories on TAIB. A response would be very interesting, please.

Ewen (talk) 19:13, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hey! Get in line! I'm still waiting for a response to my question on WP:EL. To be fair, though, that shouldn't take long since Lisa already prepared one yesterday - it's just a matter of re-doing it and posting it. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:19, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hah! I'm sure Lisa could list many unanswered questions herself, which was what I had in mind when I suggested The Truth About IB - we could thrash out the many issues in the privacy of our own page. I'm sure our little debate isn't attracting a large readership! Ewen (talk) 20:04, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Truthkeeper & red flag

According to the NPOV page that you linked: Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent ALL significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each.

The Wikipedia articles are ONLY pro-IB information. Not only have they included incorrect stats, they include opinion without citation.

The TAIB site contains doctoral thesis, cost of the programme, news updates from verifiable sources, direct links to papers issued by IBO, an MP3 of a radio interview of myself and an IB Coordinator, special ed regulations, etc. If you want citations of "notoriety" published about me personally, please refer to the Director General's 2005 plenary speech, Jay Mathews/Ian Hill's book Supertest, in addition to: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/09/AR2007100900607.html and http://www.oberlin.k12.oh.us/districtdocs/CTIBarticle040608.pdf

Are you willing to state that TAIB's viewpoint is "insignificant"? Allow me to refer you to our breaking news page today where IB was rejected by one of the top NY school districts: http://truthaboutib.com/breakingnewsopinions.html

IB is a product. Wikipedia has featured it in numerous articles and only from the IB viewpoint. Its position is not NEUTRAL, therefore Wikpedia is violating its own policy by not allowing TAIB as an external link. I challenge anyone to prove what the "majority" opinion is on IB, as the vast majority of people will respond "What's IB?" if asked.

Ewen

I responded to your question about why we included the links to the articles about IB student/teacher suicides. I'm sorry if you didn't like my response, but please don't accuse me of not responding. Furthermore, there is nothing grammatically incorrect about the sentence: "This website is built and maintained by ...." It IS built upon regularly and IS maintained daily. In addition, I ran it through Word and it came back just honkey dorey. So if you want to criticize my grammar because I criticized an IB student who didn't know when to use 'your' instead of 'you're', I suggest you try and locate a sentence that actually qualifies.

ObserverNY (talk) 23:29, 16 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

I didn't link to the WP:NPOV page (thought that policy is certainly pertinent) - I linked (repeatedly) to WP:EL, since the issue here is about you adding a link, and WP:EL deals with links. Since you prepared a response yesterday (but didn't manage to post it) I don't expect you'll have much difficulty re-posting a fresh response that addresses the issues raised in WP:EL and how you feel the TAIB link addresses those issues. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:33, 16 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

red flag

I seriously don't have time right now to carefully spell out everything I prepared yesterday. However, under Links to Be considered, Wikipedia states: Wikipedia articles[1] should rely primarily on reliable, third-party, published sources (although reliable self-published sources are allowable in some situations - see below). Reliable sources are credible published materials with a reliable publication process; their authors are generally regarded as trustworthy or authoritative in relation to the subject at hand. How reliable a source is depends on context. As a rule of thumb, the more people engaged in checking facts, analyzing legal issues, and scrutinizing the writing, the more reliable the publication. Sources should directly support the information as it is presented in an article and should be appropriate to the claims made; if an article topic has no reliable sources, Wikipedia should not have an article on it.

I submit that TAIB meets all of these qualifications and violates none of the issues such as chat, advertisement, etc. If you believe most people regard the Washington Post and the Director General of IBO as "credible", then I have clearly established my credibility for the facts presented within the TAIB site and should be allowed to be linked under the NPOV clause posted above.

ObserverNY (talk) 00:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Hmm, here's what I see under WP:El#Links_to_be_considered:

For albums, movies, books, and other creative works, links to professional reviews.
Very large pages should be considered on a case-by-case basis. Worldwide, many use Wikipedia with a low-speed connection. Unusually large pages should be annotated as such.
A well-chosen link to a directory of websites or organizations. Long lists of links are not acceptable. A directory link may be a permanent link or a temporary measure put in place while external links are being discussed on the article's talk page. The Open Directory Project is often a neutral candidate, and may be added using the [Template: dmoz] template.
Sites which fail to meet criteria for reliable sources yet still contain information about the subject of the article from knowledgeable sources.

Are you sure you're looking at WP:EL?

If it helps, the specific aspects of WP:EL which I'm concerned about with to TAIB are:

'Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?' - I have concerns over comparisons with "cults", and allegations of "marxism": comparisons with cults, in particular, I consider quite tasteless;
Links normally to be avoided: 'Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".' - again because I feel that using words like "cult" and "marxism" is inaccurate and misleading.
Additionally, I'm concerned about the very US-centric nature of TAIB. You asked above whether I felt that TAIB's viewpoint was "insignificant", and yes, to be honest I do. I acknowledge that it may have some significance in the US but I am yet to see any evidence that TAIB has achieved notability outwith the US. I assume that one school district in one state rejecting the IB is significant, even if it doesn't sound it to someone unfamiliar with the US education system - but that doesn't automatically confer notability on TAIB (unless TAIB was significantly involved in the decision?)

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:19, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I linked WP:NPOV and I didn't mean to muddy the waters. TFOWR deserves justification to the WP:EL policy, (which I see you've addressed causing an edit conflict.)

Ewen has easily demonstrated that you make assertions based on an essay cheating service, which is hardly reputable. TAIB clearly picks and chooses which links to include and has entire pages that are no more than rants about specific school districts.

I like Ewen's suggestion to create a TAIB page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:17, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Talking of edit conflicts, I just got one with you, and seem to have messed up the chronological flow of the thread slightly - for the record, Truthkeeper88 posted before my post above. I 'spose I could change the order and indentation but it's late and I'll just mess things up further ;-) Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 00:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa, first of all I'm impressed to see that you're sticking with this debate. Credit where its due: Many others would have taken a hike by now.

Now, it's not that I 'didn't like' your response about the suicide links, it's that you didn't answer my point - you give seven links but only two stories are clearly relevant to whatever point you were trying to make. Dragging up tenuous and irrelevant material is not a convincing way to make an argument and when the citations relate to such tragic events it betrays a lack of taste and decency.

At the other end of the serious/trivial scale - you ought to read your website's content again. There is no verb in your sentence "This website built and maintained..."

Your brochure has another blooper on p3 "...forces the Board to examine it’s minimum class size policy...".

And moving back to more serious matters, the next page of your brochure has this: "If interested, please e-mail... for information on fee and availability." Fee? Remember how indignant you were when you found out I taught on the IBDP? Now I find that you make money from promoting the ideas on TAIB.

Ewen (talk) 07:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitary section break 4

Gentlemen

First of all, allow me to inform you that I haven't a clue as to what TFOWR stands for. I could think up some rather colorful adjectives, to insert, but they would most likely be incorrect and I have tried to keep this discussion serious and my ignorant interpretation would only serve to distract.

Secondly, the clause I referenced above is from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:RS which is linked within the External Link page guidelines. While you may consider comparison of IB to cults - "tasteless", I consider globalist indoctrination of American schoolchildren and overcharging American taxpayers for what I consider a "superfluous" programme to be more than "tasteless - I consider it "foul".

Your Eurocentric POV dismisses our U.S.-centric POV as "insignificant". I assure you, IBO does not consider my POV as insignificant. It is why Mr. Walker included me in his 2005 plenary speech as a way of thinking to "stand up against and be counted. It is why Jay Mathews (who CLEARLY has a journalistic conflict of interest since his book was co-authored by the DDG of IBO and published by Blouke Carus who owns Open Court and is an IBNA Board member) dedicated Chapter 45 in his book Supertest to me. In 2004, when the IB representative visited our high school, he told the parents, "All of the top high schools on Long Island are CLAMORING for IB." At the time, Locust Valley was the 2nd IB high school in Nassau County. It is 2009. There are 54 high schools in Nassau County. Five years later and there are STILL the same two IB high schools. I have successfully helped thwart the implementation of IB in two districts in Nassau County - Garden City and Glen Cove. Money was spent in both districts to "investigate" IB, via paying for training of teachers without notifying the public that taxpayer dollars were being expended on each district's "investigation" process. None of the top high schools are "clamoring" for IB, it was a bold faced lie as is most of the propaganda issued by IBO. Through e-mails and fliers, a parent group in California last month stopped the implementation of the IB MYP in its school. I feel it is rather disingenuous to call the TAIB POV "insignificant". Rather, IBO itself is "insignificant" in the scope of advanced-level programs with a global workforce of 350 people, soon to be diminished by 290 workers in Cardiff when IBO closes its doors there because Cardiff isn't considered "international enough" by IBO. During its upcoming "restructuring" period, IBO will have a global workforce of less than 100 workers. I would hardly call a 0% increase in 5 years in my county a market which is "clamoring" for IB.

As to the brochure and what Ewen wants to portray as a conflict of interest on my part - 1. The site went live in October, 2008. I put the brochure up in December, 2008. I have had two inquiries into what I would charge to come to a district as a speaker, one from Ohio, the other from New Hampshire. I responded to these inquiries by quoting the cost of my airfare, rental car and one night in a local hotel. Neither party was able to raise the money from their local parent groups and therefore I have not had any speaking engagements to date. Even if I did, it does not constitute a "conflict of interest" as I am not employed by the College Board or UCAS or any other governing body or organization that is in direct competition with IBO. I was not paid for the KFAB radio interview. I have not made one red cent off of the TAIB site.

I am not in favor of a Wikipedia page dedicated to Truth About IB. I AM in favor of allowing the TAIB link to be included under External Links on Wikipedia pages which refer to IBO and IB programmes.

And yes, Ewen, I now see that the verb 'is' is missing from that bottom line. I will go in and fix it. Not to beg off responsibility, but that line was set up by the other two admins when they first created the site. As to the misplaced apostrophe, mea culpa. It will have to stand because I am not about to redo the entire .pdf to fix it. I believe there is also a partial sentence that was duplicated in the text that needs correcting, but I really do have a life outside of fighting IB.

One final note, I have no idea what "essay cheating service" you are referring to.

ObserverNY (talk) 10:58, 17 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

("TFOWR" stands for "THis flag once was red"; Ewen was referring to me).

Lisa, I asked you to address all of WP:EL, not to cherry-pick some policies linked to off it which TAIB may comply with. TAIB may satisfy WP:RS; that in no way means that a link to TAIB automatically satisfies all of WP:EL in the context of including a link to TAIB on an article about the IB. By all means ensure you address WP:RS when creating an article about TAIB; when wishing to add an external link to a separate article the relevant policy is WP:EL, as it deals with external links.

I assume you are addressing my concerns when you state Your Eurocentric POV dismisses our U.S.-centric POV as "insignificant". I have no idea why you automatically assume the opposite of US-centric is Euro-centric; this is a large planet and includes areas outwith the US and Europe. My experience of education is in New Zealand (Oceania), Singapore (Asia), Oman (Asia) and the United Kingdom (Europe). I simply don't feel that a decision taken by one school district in one state of one continent is particularly significant in a global context. Perhaps US-centric was a little harsh, and I should have described your example as New York-centric?

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:06, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You seem to misunderstand what I consider tasteless. You're trying to support the accusation that the IB is a cult by suggesting that the IB causes suicides amongst students and teachers, and yet you can only find two stories to support this link so you pad out your references with two stories which are not obviously related and two web links which are not even relevant or reliable. One dubious link is the "essay cheating service" www.echeat.com/essay.php?t=25744.

Comparing the IB to a cult isn't tasteless. It's laughable. Attempting to support your laughable accusations with those tragic stories - that's tasteless. I still haven't heard you even attempt to justify this content.

And as I said, I'm sure your fees are just to cover expenses; but your complaint that I had a conflict of interests in this debate is very strange given your own position, whether you profit from your website or not.

Ewen (talk) 11:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

red flag I was not "cherry-picking". You did not specifically point out which aspects of the EL policy you feel disqualify TAIB as an external link, and therefore I shall claim that TAIB duly qualifies under all apects. Your allegation of NY-centric is disingenuous as I have already told you that the other two admins are from Pennsylvania and the site covers IB situations THROUGHOUT the US, in addition to covering Singapore and the A-Levels.

Ewen Laugh away, IB teacher. The fact is, the entire section is titled as a question. TAIB includes the sentence: "Until then, we leave it in the reader's hands to determine if they think IB has cult-like qualities, or not." Therefore, the information on the Is IB a Cult page is merely that, information. Take it, leave it, or laugh at it if you will. You have been unable to negate Dr. Eichel's checklist with anything other than scoffing and making fun of IB Coordinators. Nervous tittering is a common defense mechanism when faced with a serious cause for concern. You have also failed to address the stress related incidents and related drug abuse employed by IB students to keep up with the IB DP. De Nile is not just a river in Egypt.

My complaint that you have a conflict of interest in this matter is totally justified under Robert's Rules of Order. It took many long back and forths before you inadvertently exposed yourself as an IB teacher with your casual use of "we". You had not been honest up until that point of this discussion by providing full disclosure as to your affiliation with the organization in question. The TAIB homepage fully discloses that none of the administrators are employed by any of the organizations at issue. The fact that you find it "strange" is indicitive of relativistic IB thinking and Liberals in general - the allegation can only apply to others, never yourselves. Unless you volunteer to teach IB for free, my allegation is not "strange" in the least, it is extraordinarily valid.

ObserverNY (talk) 12:25, 17 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

I note the points you've raised, but I'll not put you straight on those until you answer this one of mine you have consistently avoided:

Why do you include seven links in the TAIB section "IB Teen & Teacher Suicides"?

Ewen (talk) 13:50, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ewen

I tire of your incessant harping on this one section. I included seven (7) articles to show that evidence of suicide related to IB is not a lone, isolated occurance. Had I only focused on ONE link, let's say the Washington Post story, you would have accused me of sensationalizing a lone incident. So when I provide MORE than one link, you call it laughable and tasteless. How very hypocritical. The -echeat article was included because it is an example of an EE by an IB student on the topic. I'm sure you are well aware that IBO holds strict regulations over "intellectual property" of student work which has been submitted to IBO for assessment and does not republish anything which could in any way show IB in a bad light. It so happens that I did come across that article after Google searching "IB suicides", however the other articles were ones I received in my daily Google alerts. TAIB is not in any way, shape or manner encouraging students to use e-cheat for their IB EE papers, however the paper certainly presents a pro-suicide in America viewpoint that readers may find enlightening. I have now responded to your question at least five different times. Do not ask me again. ObserverNY (talk) 15:00, 17 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

(Lisa, this refers to your answer earlier; I'm replying here to keep the chronology). I don't believe TAIB satisfies the external links policy; you apparently believe it satisfies every aspect of it, while referring specifically to a separate policy and ignoring WP:EL. I mentioned several aspects of WP:EL above that I believe TAIB fails on; could you explain why you disagree, and why you feellinking TAIB satisfies those aspects of WP:EL? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:11, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

red flag I was just reading back through some of this discussion and came upon something you said early on:My point is that the articles about the IB should provide a high-level introduction to what it is, for a general audience. Telling a reader in the UK, Singapore, New Zealand, etc that there is some level of opposition to the IB in the USA is far too detailed, and seems to be simply an attempt to promote the site using Wikipedia as a marketing medium. A general reader in these countries would want to know that the IB is an alternative to local exams sometimes offered by some local schools. External Links should provide general links to learn more about the IB generally: it is not the place to promote localised opposition to the IB in the USA.

This gave me pause for thought, so I decided to do a search of exactly how many IB schools with the DP actually exist in some of the other regions of the world: http://www.ibo.org/school/search/index.cfm?programmes=DIPLOMA&country=FR&region=&find_schools=Find France - 10 New Zealand - 9 China - 38 Singapore - 14 Australia - 57 Japan - 11 wait for it ............ U.S.A. - 670 The fact that there are 10 times as many IB schools with the DP in the U.S. compared to the ENTIRE CONTINENT of Australia and New Zealand combined, tells me that IBO's primary market is in the United States and therefore, since that is also the location of the primary number of objections to the programmes, the opposing viewpoint SHOULD be presented to the MAJORITY of consumers of the IB product. The only thing I want to "market" through Wikipedia is information. ObserverNY (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

OK, so you're not addressing WP:EL, and instead want to ignore Wikipedia:WikiProject Countering systemic bias? That's fine, you can post whatever you want, but unless you can come up with a good reason, compliant with policy, for posting an external link to TAIB then nothing much is likely to change. You get to vent, we get to reply, we all waste some time. Are you interested in adding the TAIB link (if so, demonstrate that to do so would be compliant with policy) or would you prefer to argue the toss?

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:46, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Student Suicides - these examples are misleading

May I express my concern about the way "IB" student suicide references are being used as "data" to "prove" that the program(me) is harmful or in someway "bad" for students. If you wish to know how reliable this "data" given is then the whole perspective needs to be shown.

"Among 15- to 24-year olds, suicide accounts for 12.9% of all deaths annually (CDC 2005)" (which is quite a number), "In 2005, 16.9% of U.S. high school students reported that they had seriously considered attempting suicideduring the 12 months preceding the survey. More than 8% of students reported that they had actuallyattempted suicide one or more times during the same period" : Source www.cdc.gov/injury. It strikes me that compared to the number of IB students supposed to be committing suicide then for each one there are hundreds of other students not in IB programmes committing suicide. Ergo, if you want to include information about IB student suicide rates then surely you must have some data to show it is anomalous with the general student suicide rate of students in equivalent program(mes) throughout the US? If you don't you are pushing POV. --Candy (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for that Candy. I quite agree.

Lisa, you have at last given your justification for including the seven 'suicide' links.

"Had I only focused on ONE link, let's say the Washington Post story, you would have accused me of sensationalizing a lone incident. So when I provide MORE than one link, you call it laughable and tasteless."

No, I didn't call the suicide section laughable. I did call it tasteless because essentially you give seven links but there is only one story about IB student suicides. One is about an IB teacher's suicide. The others are really irrelevant. What are you trying to prove with the essay that IB students might use for their coursework? IB students are encouraged to consider suicide as an option?

If you can find evidence that IB students are more prone to suicide, drug abuse, whatever, than students on comparable courses then you'd be right to raise it as a matter of grave concern. The thing is that despite your efforts to dig the dirt on the IB you have failed to make this point. Any decent person would delete the links, drop the issue as completely unproven speculation and hope that the friends and family of the students in the stories hadn't seen what a shameful use you were making of their tragedies.

(Deep breath)

You mention Robert's Rules. I had to look them up - it's not something we use often where I live. They sound pretty sensible, but not for the sort of debate we're having here. Wikipedia is not run by voting : see Wikipedia:Consensus#Consensus_is_not_in_numbers.

Look, you're obviously labouring under a misapprehension here. It explains a lot about why you've gotten so hot under the collar. Robert's Rules, or regulations like them, would apply if we were going to pass a motion and vote on it. If I had a conflict of interests then we'd need rules to decide if my vote should count. That's not what we're doing here. We're debating and exchanging ideas. Contributors are entitled to remain totally anonymous. If a point is valid, it's valid, whoever makes it.

It took me a while to get used to wikipedia's ways of working. I found that it even has a policy for making allowances for newcomers. However, I respectfully suggest that you consider that people are acting in good faith before you assume otherwise.

Ewen (talk) 16:47, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candy The fact remains that IB is a very expensive, elitist, fringe programme which is being forced into American high schools despite objections from US citizens. While student suicide in general is indeed a tragic and serious issue, I challenge you to find me articles which single out students who take AP courses and commit suicide. I have searched. I came up empty handed. If you can locate articles which address student suicides in a comparable advanced-level educational programme (AP, A-Levels) and not just the general population, I will include them.

I gave a clear indication that PoV was forced. You have not responded to my allegation. Instead you have started a non-sequitur based on my comments. You claim that you have "facts". I heartily disagree. You are simply pushing PoV and using nationalistic and perjorative statements. I don't have to find any articles to prove students taking AP courses commit suicide. That is not what I have said nor is it want I wish to imply. That is, unfortunately, a sign of your explicit PoV and apparent prejudice. This article is about the IB. Whatever other issues you have with your own websites are up to you and I don't care what you write as it will ultimately reflect on you. Just don't push them to shove in here. To be truthful I find you a troll and pushing PoV. I suggest you take this as a wake up call. We ask to assume that there is good faith but I don't find you have good faith here. --Candy (talk) 21:40, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ewen

Any "decent" person, eh? Very nice, Ewen. Since I am a decent person, I shall refrain from saying what I would really like to say to you. You originally led me to believe that you were part of Wikipedia's "consenus" Board. Now you want to lecture me on Wikipedia's "ways of working". Enough. I have no more time to invest in this discussion. I have not reported this discussion to site administrators because I am not a "tattletale" and had hoped that perhaps reasonable discussion would prevent IB zealots from repeatedly deleting links to TAIB. I'm done playing games and discussing this issue any further. ObserverNY (talk) 17:09, 17 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Err, when did I say anything about being on any board? Sorry if you thought I was lecturing. I'll just let you carry on blundering about, screaming blue murder when you can't understand how the server works or how decisions are made. If you won't listen to my advice, listen to Matthew (7:1-5)

Ewen (talk) 17:36, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ewen

You, sir, were the one who judged me as "indecent", a "nut" and "idiotic". Nowhere have I "screamed blue murder". You stated: "It would help a consensus decision to refer to TAIB if these concerns were addressed." Good bye, Ewen. ObserverNY (talk) 17:49, 17 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

WP:CONSENSUS is achieved via discussion between editors of the article. Nothing has been said about a "consensus board." Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:07, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa; Yes I did say that the views on TAIB were nuts, idiotic and indecent. You're a big fan of free speech so don't complain when I say what I feel. For the record, you had a right old rant when you mistakenly thought I'd magically deleted what you were writing on your PC, and you weren't exactly calm when you thought I'd breached (the irrelevant) Robert's Rules. I suggested that your case to have TAIB included as a source on wikipedia articles would be helped if TAIB addressed certain concerns. I initially argued for including TAIB but changed my mind when you kept adding the link without attempting to explain why. I would certainly oppose its inclusion now I know about the suicide links. And on that topic, try googling '"Advanced Placement" student suicide' or similar. I found three examples quickly - I guess you didn't look too hard to see if there was another side to the story. I can send you the links if you want but I'm not about to publicly exhume stories of dead kids just to make a point - even though you seem comfortable with that idea.

Ewen (talk) 19:18, 17 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ewen

You found 3 links quickly did you? Great. I wonder what phrase you Googled. Because I just Googled "Advanced Placement student suicide" again and the only thing I came up with referred to AP as the Associated Press. So why don't you just go ahead and e-mail those links to: info@truthaboutib.com. And I'm rather curious - if I were to eliminate the Is IB a Cult section, would you then agree to allow TAIB as an external link? Or would you find some other point to deliberate? ObserverNY (talk) 23:27, 17 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

I gave you the exact phrase I used: '"Advanced placement" student suicide'. If you don't just look at the first few hits then there are multiple cases. It's not comfortable reading. The e-mail is on its way and I'm trusting you not to publish it.

If you removed the 'Is IB a Cult?' section then it would be large step towards TAIB editing its content to leave just the verifiable, serious material. There are other parts of TAIB that don't, in my opinion, merit inclusion. There's also a lot of material there with some good, proper, serious criticisms about the way the IBO operates. I wouldn't feel comfortable giving you a list of demands in return for my support (As if I am the ultimate authority on content. As if!) but I'd certainly be happy to advise you on what I think are problematic sections on TAIB. I certainly wouldn't be looking for endless point after point to raise in opposition to TAIB's inclusion.

Engaging in this process is a terrific demonstration of your commitment to clarify TAIB's concerns about the IBO. Thank you.

Ewen (talk) 05:46, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Arbitary section break 5

Ewen

Thank you for the e-mail. I will try and get hold of one of my other administrators this morning to discuss the removal of the Is IB a Cult? page. As I have said before, TAIB's intent is to inform, not offend. Clearly this is not an issue exclusive to IB, but a tragedy which spans ALL high-level exams. Perhaps there is a more positive way of approaching the issue so that parents and teachers can better prepare students to deal with the stress and potential disappointment of poor scores on these exams.

Please advise as to which other sections of TAIB you feel are problematic. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 11:39, 18 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

The page has been removed. p.s. I also corrected the absence of "is" on the homepage. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 12:16, 18 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Lisa, I hope I can be as constructive and flexible as you have just been. Ewen (talk) 14:17, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you, Ewen. I hope you can too. ;-)

I would like to ask Truthkeeper and This Flag Was Once Red to weigh back in on the discussion. I stand by my assertion that the TAIB link qualifies under Wikipedia's External Link policy for inclusion. Rather than asking me to go through every aspect of the policy and the umpteen links associated with each policy and links within links, please cite specific passages or clauses which you feel TAIB violates and let's discuss. ObserverNY (talk) 17:52, 18 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Hi Lisa

The parts of WP:EL I'm concerned about are:

'Is the site content proper in the context of the article (useful, tasteful, informative, factual, etc.)?' - I have concerns over comparisons with ~~"cults", and~~ allegations of "marxism": ~~comparisons with cults, in particular, I consider quite tasteless;~~
Links normally to be avoided: 'Any site that misleads the reader by use of factually inaccurate material or unverifiable research. See Reliable sources for explanations of the terms "factually inaccurate material" or "unverifiable research".' - again because I feel that using words like ~~"cult" and~~ "marxism" is inaccurate and misleading.
Additionally, I'm concerned about the very US-centric nature of TAIB. You asked above whether I felt that TAIB's viewpoint was "insignificant", and yes, to be honest I do. I acknowledge that it may have some significance in the US but I am yet to see any evidence that TAIB has achieved notability outwith the US. I assume that one school district in one state rejecting the IB is significant, even if it doesn't sound it to someone unfamiliar with the US education system - but that doesn't automatically confer notability on TAIB (unless TAIB was significantly involved in the decision?)

(I've copied this from a much earlier post in the thread, and struck-through the parts you've already addressed, so apologies if it reads a bit strangely as a result! In particular, the last item, which relates more to WP:WORLDVIEW than to WP:EL - I'd like to see evidence of significant - reported in national press, for example - concern re: the IB outside the US. What I'm getting at here is: is the TAIB link generic enough to be of use to non-US readers of the article?)

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:01, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Red, Thanks for responding. I'm so glad we've put the cult issue to bed. Now I just have to fight Marxism and Globalist Worldview. Geez, this should be a breeze! ROTFLMAO!

First, let me repaste my reply to you from above: This gave me pause for thought, so I decided to do a search of exactly how many IB schools with the DP actually exist in some of the other regions of the world: http://www.ibo.org/school/search/index.cfm?programmes=DIPLOMA&country=FR&region=&find_schools=Find France - 10 New Zealand - 9 China - 38 Singapore - 14 Australia - 57 Japan - 11 wait for it ............ U.S.A. - 670 The fact that there are 10 times as many IB schools with the DP in the U.S. compared to the ENTIRE CONTINENT of Australia and New Zealand combined, tells me that IBO's primary market is in the United States and therefore, since that is also the location of the primary number of objections to the programmes, the opposing viewpoint SHOULD be presented to the MAJORITY of consumers of the IB product. The only thing I want to "market" through Wikipedia is information. ObserverNY (talk) 15:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The main article in Wikipedia PROVIDES all of the general basics that people in those countries can resdily refer to. However, for the U.S. residents who are coughing up the most millions to IBO, it is incumbent upon an encyclopedic source to also refer to opposing points of view. Wikipedia's policy clearly states this. TAIB has backed up allegations of marxist thinking espoused by the IBO Director General, Deputy Director General and overall mission statement (which I notice is not made prominent on the Wikipedia page) are indeed Marxist ideals. They can try and couch it in all sorts of generic PC terminology like "international-mindedness", but we expose the BS that is IB. We also place a tremendous amount of focus on the COST of IB, which is noticeably absent from the article. Please see our Breaking news section today:http://truthaboutib.com/breakingnewsopinions.html ObserverNY (talk) 18:43, 18 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Right, so Australia and NZ are quite small - but that still leaves the rest of the non-US world. You mentioned France, one of the largest European countries, but the EU consists of many more countries than just France, and several are on a par in terms of population. You haven't (I believe) demonstrated that the US represents the majority of consumers, but, regardless, even if the US did have 10 times as many IBDPs as the rest of the world, the article should still put forward a global perspective. The article is not just for those US residents who are coughing up millions to the IBO, it's also for non-US residents.

I'm very unhappy with the Marxist angle TAIB takes. Part of this is, I remember reading Free to Choose back when I was at school (studying A-levels, I hasten to add!) and in it Milton Friedman listed the platform of the US Socialist Party in the 1920s or 30s, and invited the reader to contrast that platform with the US in the present-day (this was in the 1980s, under President Reagan). The parallels were striking, but I don't think you could - or rather should - infer from that that Reagan was some kind of closet socialist (or even that the Democrats before him were). Likewise, I don't believe that agreement in one small area of policy should label someone a Marxist (I also don't believe that labelling someone a Marxist is a valid argument anyway, but if TAIB feels that Marxism is a hot-button issue with its members and potential members then so be it). I dare say there are some areas of policy I hold in common with some Marxists: but the last election I participated in, I voted for the government. For that matter, one of my (two) votes went to the Greens - it wouldn't surprise me if they supported the Earth Charter, but I don't consider them Marxist (leftish, maybe), nor would I consider myself Marxist for supporting them (I'm a leftist - my other vote went to a Labour candidate - but by no means would I ever consider myself a Marxist). So... the Marxist thing I think there are two areas: (1) I am concerned, but it's probably none of my business, that TAIB believe "Marxist" to be disparraging - I don't think that's a view commonly held in Europe or Oceania - this I wouldn't necessarily hold as a barrier to a TAIB link, and (2) I don't consider labelling someone as Marxist because he agrees on one small aspect of policy with some Marxists - this is more concerning, since it implies less-than honest reporting. (Incidentally, and largely off-topic, did you know that Karl Marx once commented that all that he knew was that he "was no Marxist"?!)

I'd still like to see reports of opposition to the IB outside the US, and I think these would help TAIB's case hugely. For example, here in the UK (I'm no longer in NZ) the IB is largely unknown in state education; it's comparatively stronger in private education. I'd expect fee-paying parents to take a far closer interest in the IB than other parents, and to be honest it wouldn't surprise me if there was opposition to the IB in Britain. Education in NZ is similar, except that parents at the better state schools might also be expected to take an interest (though with only 9 IBDP schools in the country it's entirely possible that it is limited to fee-paying schools).

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 19:15, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Lisa/Observer,

Thanks for eliminating the cult page.

I agree with the examples of WP:EL that TFOWR cites. Have you mentioned that you use tracking software on your site? If so, I believe it conflcts with the EL policies.

The allegation that TAIB is US-centric is also a concern. You can argue that 600 or so schools of the 1900 hundred or so that offer IB are in the US. True, but according to the same fact two thirds of IB DP schools exist outside of the US.

The pages devoted to specific schools in Pennsylvania show inflammatory language that's over-the-top.

Thanks, Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:07, 18 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa, overnight I thought of a couple of other examples of Marxist politics with mainstream acceptance; one proved fruitless - I had thought that Britain's Campaign for Real Ale had been set up as a front for the Communist Party of Great Britain, but all I can find now is that an officer is a current or former member of the (Marxist/Trotskyisy) Socialist Workers Party. The other is perhaps more relevant, since there's no leglislation in Britain madating the consumption of real ale! It's the mass trespass of 1932, which continues to affect land rights and law in England and Wales to this day (there's no law of trespass in Scotland, so I'm largely unaffected by this, although I do support the recent law introduced in England and Wales as a result). The mass trespass was organised by Benny Rothman|a Communist]].

I also had a think about Ewen's earlier suggestion that a TAIB article be created, and I'd like to suggest you rethink this. I do appreciate why you might be cynical about it, and I certainly won't suggest that creating this article would necessarily be easy. I think one of the obstacles you'd encounter would be conflict of interest, so I'd suggest you be upfront (as you have been here) about your involvement with the site. Maybe you could create a draft article in your userspace (e.g. at User:ObserverNY/sandbox), and then post at Wikipedia:Articles for creation with a link to your sandbox/draft page? If there were a TAIB article I'd suggest (though Ewen, Truthkeeper88 and others may disagree) that it could be linked to from a "See also" section in this article.

Unlike TruthKeeper88, I've not acknowledged the changes you've made to the TAIB site with respect to "cult". I'd like to rectify that - thanks! I was (and to a certain extent am) concerned that TAIB is too "tabloid" - I believe that this change goes some way towards rectifying that.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 10:52, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am not going to get into a discussion with you about the values/dangers of Marxism/socialism/communism. The very first reference I ever read about IB and Marxism was in 2004 in an article by George Archibald of the Washington Times. Since then, I located articles by Henry Lamb and Tom DeWeese which also specifically adressed IB/UN and socialism. TAIB was not the first to coin the usage of the term Marxism when referring to IB's ideology. TAIB links these various sources, along with additional documentation such as I have referred to previously (IBO/UNESCO Peace Education, George Walker's plenary speeches, etc.) It is a legitimate interpretation of verifiable sources separate from TAIB. You can attempt to minimize the presence of IB in the U.S. and claim that because U.S. IB schools "only" make up 34% of ALL IB DP globally, it doesn't constitute a "majority" of the IB schools "globally". But that is incredibly disingenuous since the remaining 66% are spread amongst 133 other countries, the vast majority of which are ... socialist! The fact that there are only 10 IB schools in ALL of France, especially since the French Baccalaureate is another form of secondary recogntion, exemplifies how incredibly puny IB's influence is in its own backyard! Heck, even in Switzerland, IBO's country of origin, there are only 26 IB schools. So I will state again, the GENERAL information which is applicable to ALL countries makes up the text of the IB Articles. The one country, the United States, which is a Federal Republic/democracy and has the overwhelmingly largest concentration of IB schools happens to be the country in which there are objections to IB's ideology. TAIB has documented objections from coast to coast, in many different states. Consumers have the right to know, from an encyclopedic perspective, that in a democracy like the United States, when it comes to public education which is funded by taxpayers, there are legitimate objections to taxpayer money being expended on a Swiss/UN programme. I'm not asking to include this information in the article. I am merely asking for the TAIB link to be included as an external link. Wikipedia's own policy which I quoted somewhere above, states that opposing viewpoints should be included.

I do not see anything in Wikipedia's EL policy regarding excluding links which pay for analytics on their sites. If it exists, I challenge you to prove that IBO doesn't have tracking ability on its site. I assure you, they do.

I do NOT want a separate Wikipedia article on TAIB. From my perspective, admitted socialists only want such a page created to target and ridicule. We have endured quite enough from left-wingers who don't believe that we at TAIB are entitled to free speech or freedom of the press, that we should be dismissed, silenced and ridiculed. IB's ideology is one problem, but the primary issue which most affects American taxpayers is IBO's onerous cost. I will say it again... there is nothing within the Wikipedia article which addresses the COST of the product. I shared with you our link to yesterday's article out of Dubai indicating Dubai's "most expensive" school, a new IB school, barely ranked above the 'unsatisfactory' rating.

I find it rather amusing that those of the far-left political persuasion consider the term "Marxist" derogatory. Quoting Karl Marx not recognizing himself as a Marxist is a beautiful example of socialist cognitive dissonance. The fact remains that TAIB is reporting what 'OTHERS' have said about IB's ideology.

Now, as to what is written in the Upper St. Clair section, I'll have to go back and read it over. I didn't write it, I do recall changing out the word "zealots" for "supporters", but if there is other language there which you find objectionable I will re-read it and see if I agree. But seriously folks, how much harder are you going to make me work to merely allow an EL to the site? ObserverNY (talk) 17:27, 19 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Fair enough. In that case I don't feel that a link to TAIB is an appropriate link to add here, as it appears to be too tabloid, and of limited relevance to most readers.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Define "too tabloid". I have already proven that itTAIB's content is fiscally and ideologically relevant to readers from the United States which constitutes the overwhelmingly highest concentration of IB schools in the world. If you continue to block TAIB as an EL, I will have to insist that the IB "mission statement" and a section on Cost be included in the IB article. You constitute one vote, red flag. Let's see what others have to say. ObserverNY (talk) 18:03, 19 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

"Too tabloid": using scare tactics, like, for example, using someone's support of one policy to label them using perjorative terms.

I do not constitute one vote; inclusion is by consensus. I am indicating that right now you are not winning me over.

I'm not sure why IB's mission statement isn't included - it seems like it would be a good thing to include? Cost, again, would appear to be useful - I'm not sure what the costs would be in the UK but I could certainly try and find out if it would help. I dare say other editors could provide costs for other countries (I could possibly try and get NZ data, too).

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:15, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

TFOWR, thanks for the section breaks.

Lisa/Observer, apparently there was another edit/conflict recently because my comment posted after TFOWR's but was written slightly earlier. I objected to the sections about the individual school districts, and yes, the word zealot shows a POV.

You're not winning me over either. But, adding the mission statement to the article is a brilliant idea, as is adding a cost section. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:43, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Lisa/Observer: There you go again with the unsupportable assertions!

"...there are only 10 IB schools in ALL of France... exemplifies how incredibly puny IB's influence is in its own backyard! Heck, even in Switzerland, IBO's country of origin, there are only 26 IB schools. ...the United States, which is a Federal Republic/democracy and has the overwhelmingly largest concentration of IB schools..."

Have you considered that the USA has a slightly larger population than Switzerland? If Switzerland was the same size as the USA, it would have 1033 IBDP schools. Canada would have 1199. The UK 904. Australia 803. (And I can't resist adding - the Isle Of Man would have 3999 IBDP schools if it had a USA-sized population of 306 million). The USA clearly does not have the 'highest concentration' of IBDP schools.

Other countries I checked would have lower number of schools if they were scaled to USA populations: France 47, Russia 26, China 9 , India 15, Indonesia 22. I haven't checked all countries but the USA could even be mid-table when you list IBDP schools per capita.

Ewen (talk) 07:54, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Incidentally, the low number of IBDP schools in France is attributed by the IBO to the French Baccalaureate's similarity to the IBDP and the fact that le Bac is much longer established. Ewen (talk) 08:44, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ewen

Your IB "scaling" of other countries is unsupportable. Let's face facts, shall we? The IB schools in many of the countries outside of the United States are PRIVATE or boarding schools. TAIB does not have concerns about IB in private schools, that is clearly detailed on the homepage. I'm pretty sure that residents in Communist China don't get to vote on school budgets or Board of Ed members. Current IBO stats clearly show that with 670/34% of ALL IB schools in the world, the U.S. does indeed have the largest concentration of IB schools. So instead of trying to propagandize IBO's "potentential" with what ifs, hypotheticals and wishful thinking to support your anti-U.S. analysis, why can't you just accept the fact that the U.S. is the single largest contributor to IBO's bottom line? IBO is not in business for altruistic reasons. The company has refused to disclose the salaries of its top officials. I even had Jay Mathews ask IBNA directly and he was told that IBO doesn't have to release that information. I can tell you how much the CEO of the College Board earns as well as the CEO of ETS. But not IBO. Why the secrecy? Take a look at IBO's financial reports. They are a mess. IBO reports $54M total income globally for 2005. My tiny little school district just passed a budget of $69.5M. Sorry, that does not make sense. If we just take the 670 DP IB schools in the United States and an average annual expenditure of $100,000 (IB fees + IB teacher training)= $67M. And let's not forget, you guys keep insisting that the U.S. is a "minority" in the global IB picture! That's not even counting the fees and training for the MYP and PYP in the U.S.! C'mon guys, where is your sense of fairness and balance? Where is your sense of logical reasoning?

TAIB includes IBO's mission statement and costs. So why not allow it as a resource for readers for information not included in the Wikipedia article which truthkeeper and Red Flag agree are good suggestions?

I just went back through the "IB Buyers Beware" section which includes breakout stories on different districts. The Triangle of Travesty tab needs to go, as Garden City and Vallejo, California have resolved to reject IB and so it is no longer relevant. I will remove the word "zealot" and "political neophyte" from the Upper St. Clair page, however the Fairfax, Locust Valley and Cherry Hill pages seem fine to me.

I am trying to work with you folks. I am making modifications to appease your objections. But I really don't buy your "tabloid" and "scare tactics" argument. We are presenting a very legitimate, documented, verifiable website that YOU are afraid people will read and learn facts about IBO you don't want them to know. It seems no matter what I do, you come up with some policy reference which when I adress it, then you come up with something else. You objected to the anonymity, I came forward. You objected to the cult/suicide page. I removed it. The fact that we are U.S. citizens and there are 10x as many IB schools in the U.S. as anywhere else you dismiss as insignificant, yet Wikipedia policy clearly states that ALL viewpoints should be represented. The Wikipedia articles contain the basic, generic, global IB facts (recall I had to downgrade the 2,607 DP schools to 1,954)) which anyone anywhere in the world can reference. By seeking to exclude the TAIB link you are choosing to discriminate against U.S. citizens and therefore your position is anti-American. ObserverNY (talk) 11:48, 20 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

And we are trying to work with you, Lisa.

It's not easy to discover which of the schools listed in each country are public and which are private. I don't suppose all 670 IBDP schools in the USA are publicly-funded but you are happy to use that number, so I used comparable numbers for other countries from the same source as you obtained the 670 figure. Of course scaling the Isle of Man's 1 private school is a nonsense, but Canada has more IBDP schools per capita than the USA. Sure, the USA has more IB schools than any other country. (Five times more than Canada and four times more than the UK, not '10x' more than anywhere else). The USA also has more people than any other English, French or Spanish-speaking country. The USA is a very significant part of the IBO's target audience, agreed; but it's certainly not the only one.

I'm sure that TAIB isn't the only source of information about the IBO's mission statement and costs, and I would prefer a direct link to the IBO's data than a link to TAIB or some other secondary source. No, this isn't another excuse to avoid TAIB, just sensible citation - getting it from the horse's mouth as it were.

TAIB has some good shots (The funding issue alone looks very dodgy - lucky for them they're based in a country with notoriously secretive banking regulations), but the hyperbole lets it down. It's not anti-American to criticise TAIB, just as it's not racist to criticise Barack Obama. If there are fair points to answer let's put them out there and have them answered - this applies to the IBO, TAIB and all.

Ewen (talk) 12:26, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Ewen

TAIB does link directly to IBO's mission statement and its fees page. While you may "prefer" a direct link within the scope of the Wikipedia article, the fact remains that TAIB exists as a reference which already includes information which others agree is informative. As to the 10x more, that reference was to the entire continent of Australia and New Zealand combined - 66 vs. 670, so technically it is MORE than 10x. Thank you for admitting your Isle of Man example was nonsense. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 13:07, 20 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

More than 10x? If you add the rest of the World to Australia and New Zealand surely the figure drops - to one third, if I recall your earlier figures?

...and if TAIB links directly to IBO's mission statement and its fees page, surely this article should do likewise? Why go through a "middleman"?

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:12, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Red Flag

From the Wikipedia article which you seem to hold so dear: "More than half of the schools offering the Diploma Program are state funded schools." ^{[citation needed]} ???? Ewen and I were discussing "concentration" of IB schools within a given country/continent. Cost and who pays for it is our #1 issue with IB. If you want to keep adding the rest of the world, then please provide me with: A. Legitimate stats as to how many of ALL IB DP schools worldwide are private vs. B. How many IB DP schools are taxpayer funded vs. C. How many IB DP schools are financed by a communist/socialist government vs. D. How many IB DP schools are being funded by Islamic leaders like the Aga Khan. The term "state funded" is not applicable globally, nor even to the U.S. ObserverNY (talk) 15:21, 20 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Lisa, I apologise. I saw the "10x Australia and New Zealand" statistic again and assumed you were again using Australia and New Zealand as a proxy for the World-minus-the-US.

I can't immediately help with the rest of the world, but I can help with New Zealand, Australia and the UK:

New Zealand
- The IBO claims that there are 13 schools in NZ offering 1 or more IB programmes (reference here).
- Of those at least three are state-funded: Glendowie Primary, John McGlashan College and Nga Tawa Diocesan School - so 23% for New Zealand.

I'm sure this is a legitimate "taxpayer funded" example, and I don't believe the NZ government qualify as "socialist".

Australia
- The University of Sydney claims there are 53 schools in Australia offering IB programmes (reference here).
- Of those seven are state-funded (sorry, they don't list them) - so 13% for Australia.
England
- The BBC claims there are 76 schools in England offering the IB (reference here)
- Of those 46 are in "the state sector" - so 60% for England, though this is based on data from 2006 and is likely to be an underestimate - the Government is "funding start-up costs for 29 maintained institutions in areas where there is no IB provision at present" (as of December 2007, and note that this may well include Wales, as Jim Knight is Minister of State for England and Wales).
Scotland and Wales
- WP:OR here, I'm afraid: I went through the IBO's list of UK schools and manually checked the Scottish and Welsh ones. There are 6 as far as I can see (not entirely surprsing; both countries are a great deal smaller than England, and Scottish Highers are broader than A-levels)
- Of those 3 are state-funded - so 50% for Scotland and Wales. (Motherwell College, College and Whitchurch High School. The International School of Aberdeen, St. Leonards School and Westbourne School are private. Incidentally, I appreciate you may be sceptical about the IBO's figures, and I can't confirm all of these, but I do know that Motherwell College is state-funded (I live in Glasgow, and Motherwell is fairly near).

I'll keep googling, and gradually fill in the gaps. I'll aim for Europe next. I'll need a definition of "communist/socialist" before I get too far - I'm not sure if Britain, for example, counts as "socialist" as it currently has an elected government which purports to be socialist.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 18:56, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

According to the IBO's 2007 annual report (page 14), 56.6% of IB schools are state-funded. It would take a very good economist to establish how much state funding was actually from taxpayers and how much from other sources of revenue a state might have.

To answer your point C and D we'd have to look at definitions of 'socialist' (In various countries, you find politicians claiming to be 'socialist' when they probably aren't, or vice-versa - depending on how they think their voters will react to the term) and 'Islamic leader' (Would that be the leader of an Islamic country or would you count the leader of a secular country if he/she happened to be a Muslim?).

What was the point of this discussion again? I think we agree that the IB in the USA is important, but the majority of IB students are in other countries. TAIB discusses mainly the US situation - well, that's fine so long as TAIB isn't used as a source of material for other countries.

As I've said, Lisa: I think TAIB would be much better if it focused on a few, sustainable points instead of crying wolf at any issue that looked a bit dubious.

Ewen (talk) 19:23, 20 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I am under the impression that the recent (extensive) posts above break the talk page guidelines. Wikipedia states, "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing improving the article." I believe that these guidelines are being broken.

In addition, "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.". I believe this is also being broken along with an attempt to create original research.

I request that all parties abide by the guidelines as from now please. If you wish to continue in this fashion please take the discussion to another forum. Thank you --Candy (talk) 08:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Fair point, Candy. Parts of the discussion have been about improving the article - whether to include the TAIB link or not - but parts have drifted far from that question, obviously.

I'm not sure where the discussion should continue. Talk:The Truth About IB? 8-)

Ewen (talk) 10:34, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

red flag

I appreciate the effort you are making to validate IBO's claim of 50-56% of all IB schools being "state funded". I think before we explore the definition of a socialist government, we need to define "state funded". Here in the United States, the vast majority of public schools are funded by homeowner property taxes, with an eensie weensie percentage coming from individual states in the form of "state aid". Only in major metropolitan cities like NYC does the overall funding come from the State.

I would also like to draw your attention to this article which came out yesterday about IB and the UK: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1184567/Fears-tier-education-pupils-taking-rival-exam-A-levels-rise-40.html Please note that this article highlights political/elitist divisiveness revolving around IB, in addition to mentioning that IB is primarily housed in "independent" colleges, which in American terms means private high schools. Therefore I have to disagree with your assertion that "more than 60%" of the IB schools in the UK are "state funded".

Candy

Where would you suggest the discussion should take place? We are currently attempting to validate a "fact" claimed in the IB DP article. I personally object to continuing it on a talk page such as the one suggested by Ewen, as I am opposed to the establishment of a Wikipedia article dedicated to TAIB. ObserverNY (talk) 11:18, 21 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Lisa, in the UK and NZ "state-funding" would come from central government coffers. I'm not sure about Australia, which has a federal structure similar to the US. In the UK at least, local taxes (Council Tax) would typically pay for the maintenance of schools and the payment of teachers - I believe, though I'll need to check - that curriculum requirements are centrally funded (since they're set nationally). I'm not sure I see a distinction between forms of state-funding, however - either parents pay for it, or tax-payers in general do.

Candy, point taken. This thread is - in theory - about adding to the article, but it has gone off on tangents along the way. Would a user talk page be a better venue, or maybe a subpage of this talk page?

Lisa, as an incidentally, I don't care what people call me but I'd point out that "the flag used to be red" - "Flag" or "TFOWR" might be shorter and more apt titles ;-)

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:30, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'd be happy with both those suggestions, TFOWR. I'm not sure how we make 'a subpage' or whose talk page would be best? We could adjourn to my place but maybe Lisa's would be more appropriate - it's all about her website after all.

You username has always intrigued me, TFOWR; very mysterious. If you want to insist that your flag is no longer red than that's fine by me!

Ewen (talk) 11:45, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, a subpage could be created at Talk:IB Diploma Programme/TAIB, but I think a user talk page (or subpage of) might be better. I'd like to see what other editors think, but I'd be happy with anyone's talk page.

Prior to 1997 I was a member of the UK Labour Party, which at the time gleefully sang "The Red Flag" at its conferences. Since then both the party and me have drifted apart, and both have drifted away from The Red Flag. My political interests are now more individualist and cooperative, so arguably "black" might be the flag's colour now, though I don't really identify as an anarchist, more as a syndicalist or cooperator. I did find myself voting for the government the last time I had the opportunity, though! I'm now back living in a one party state, so any future vote is likely to be a protest vote... and this is definitely off-topic - sorry, Candy!

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I have no problem adjourning to here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ObserverNY Is it too early for cocktails? ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 12:33, 21 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Clarity

"Re-sits for each paper (sat in the next exam session - November or May) are possible for a maximum of three times." Does that mean that some one can only resit 3 papers, or can resit any number of papers a maximum of three time in subsequent sessions? Massau (talk) 11:32, 1 November 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protect

This page seriously should get locked for not logged-in users. Can some admin do that please?

A lot of vandalism is going on here... Check the page history. Ferdinand h2 (talk) 17:44, 8 December 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Links for use

I just cleaned out the linkfarm in this article in accordance with WP:EL. However, there were a couple articles there that while not being acceptable as external links, could provide valuable information to include within the article and cite as reliable sources. I'll list them below:

Them From Space 23:26, 9 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Shame they can't even get a basic fact correct. I do believe they mean to compare the IB DIPLOMA with A levels or the AP. At least UCAS get it correct at UCAS Tarifs --Candy (talk) 14:55, 10 April 2009 (UTC)[reply]

UK section written like an advert

The UK section appears to be written as an advert of IB over A-levels. "Higher Level subjects in the IB have a greater depth and breadth than full A-Levels, such as Mathematics, which has substantial A-Level Further Mathematics and 1st year university materials. Similarly, Standard Level subjects are considered to be more challenging than AS-Level subjects."

Sources please .... —Preceding unsigned comment added by 86.26.7.12 (talk) 21:10, 2 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Added tags,thanks for pointing this out ...errm...unsigned --Candy (talk) 22:09, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]

German

I know there is a long lasting trial German language IB Diploma programme. Does anyone have more information? --Candy (talk) 22:05, 19 May 2009 (UTC)[reply]