Talk:IB Diploma Programme/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

Archive 9

UCAS tariffs/UK section

It would appear that the point awards on the UCAS table have changed for 2009. I don't want to mess up the html - but here is my source: http://www.docstoc.com/docs/4360839/IB-Diploma-and-the-IB-Certificates-IB-Diploma-revised Would someone who is more adept at formatting please make the revision? Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 19:32, 22 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Okay, reading the UK section, it needs to be completely re-written based on the revised table. It can no longer be claimed that a 45 on the Diploma scores more UCAS points than the 6 A-Levels - they are now equal at 720. I would like to suggest that someone from the UK or thereabouts perform the edits because I will be accused of doing it with a POV.ObserverNY (talk) 00:28, 23 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Since no one responded, I inserted the new UCAS table with UCAS links for documentation. I did not touch the incredibly biased UK "overview" which touts the IB Diploma's expansion and denegrates the A-Levels, but fails to cite the political reasons (Tony Blair's IB push) for the dramatic increase in IB in the UK, nor the subsequent change of political opinion held by Ed Balls. The downgrading of the IB Diploma on the UCAS tariff for 2010 clearly reflects the shift in political opinion. ObserverNY (talk) 16:01, 23 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The change in the UCAS tariff reflects no such thing. It's a relatively minor adjustment, not a wholesale re-vamp.

Ewen (talk) 18:25, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

A better source is this one: UCAS tariffs and notes

Ewen (talk) 18:30, 23 June 2009 (UTC)

Ewen - I believe that is the same source I used in the article, not the link above. Don't you consider the addition of the Certificate table and a 48 drop in the IBD 45 score significant? ObserverNY (talk) 20:04, 23 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY - we are editors. We have a specific purpose. You seem to have made a valid change. Just drop the political angle and get on with improving the article rather than trying to get some political mileage out of it. If you can't get with the idea of Wikipedia take a break please. --Candy (talk) 15:31, 24 June 2009 (UTC)

Candy - as an editor, I see political proIB bias evident in the UK section. Perhaps I should highlight the particular sentences with ? I added the new table without touching the politically biased overview to allow editors from the UK an opportunity to take responsibility for that section on their own. Drop the condescending lecturing and show some intellectual honesty. ObserverNY (talk) 15:51, 24 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY - the Certificate table is interesting, as it compares IB Certificates directly with single-subject qualifications such as A-levels.

The 48-point drop is from 768 to 720 at the very top end of the grade scale. That's an adjustment of 6.7%. Not exactly enormous. At the other end of the scale the drop is from 260 to 240 - 8.3%.

Even with the drop, UCAS rate the IBDP as equivalent to three subjects studied at slightly-better-than-A-level standard, plus three subjects at slightly-better-than-AS-level standard, plus a core curriculum equivalent to a further A-level. Very few students would achieve this standard if they took an A-level programme. (When students do achieve this number of A-levels, it tends to make the news: [1]

Ewen (talk) 06:11, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Suggestion: Replace old table with new, unless the existing table is still relevant.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:04, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

That's fine with me, it is relevant for 2009, but I would think those students have already applied long ago to university. However, based on the fact that on the new UCAS table, a 45 DP = 6 A's in A-Levels (720) I would like revisions on the language in the overview to include the removal of all the "more"s and "better"s. I can counteract each and every one of those "opinion" newstories with others that show contradictory evidence. Again, I am asking a UK editor to neutralize the narrative so that it does not attempt to portray IB as superior to the A-Levels. Also, there is no need to include the last sentence about TOK, CAS and EE not being in the A-Levels. ObserverNY (talk) 17:36, 25 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I agree that the old table should be replaced with the new one. It seems to me that the IB Diploma is superior to the A-levels, based on the facts presented in the first paragraph. No need to include opinion news stories to prove the contrary, however, I am sure we would be happy to discuss relevant facts that prove that A-levels are superior to the IB Diploma. If we are comparing the IB Diploma to the A-levels and the IB has TOK, CAS and EE and the A-levels don't, then it is perfectly logical to mention that fact. Why do we need a UK editor to neutralize the narrative? Couldn't anyone do that?

La mome (talk) 20:39, 25 June 2009 (UTC)

Since when did the purpose of the UK section on the IBDP become a platform to promote the IBDP as "superior" to the A-Levels? I don't care whether it "seems" that way to you or not, that is not the purpose of a Wikipedia article. ObserverNY (talk) 00:15, 26 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Looking forward to facts that prove otherwise.

La mome (talk) 00:19, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Article style

Has too much of a "political" feel. I guess most people who are interested in the topic probably studied IB and have more favourable than average opinions of it, because it has this "European Union/UN" pro-mumbo jumbo warm/fuzzy feel about with hardly anything on the actual academic stuff or curriculum but all this "goodness/humanity" type thing. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:36, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Recognition should be forked, undue weight, rm flagcruft. There is a lot of puffery in there YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 04:46, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

YellowMonkeyWelcome to the IBDP discussion. It is refreshing to find someone who not only went through IB, but who is able to discern a political POV within the article. I have been attempting to neutralize the article so that it reflects only facts about IB, but have been met with tremendous opposition from IB supporters. I like the edits you made to the UK section and look forward to you sticking around. We are in agreement about the CAS section (CAS being an IB component which I personally find to be a load of BS) which I repeatedly attempted to reduce in length, but ended up in an edit war with Candorwein and LaMome.Perhaps you will have more luck. ObserverNY (talk) 11:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Dear ObserverNY, I wonder how you discern that YellowMonkey went through the IB Diploma. I couldn't from the post.

Also, I refute your claim that I have been in an edit war with you ObserverNY. I don't believe I have. I don't recall reverting anything on the IB Diploma page - at least in the last couple of months. How can I have been in an edit war?

YellowMonkey - Welcome! Perhaps you would like to discuss the article style. Which style do you feel it is written in which needs to be changed? --Candy (talk) 16:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of the article style, there are quite a few very strange references in the article, which have just a number in square brackets. Whoever inserted them should learn how to put proper references in before editing.Tvor65 (talk) 19:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Twor65 Well I started to go through the article but ahve a long way to go (first two blocks done only). For me, the whole point is that it reads in a single voice (a la NPOV) and hangs coherently. --Candy (talk) 23:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

United States

I am unable to follow the history section well enough to determine who wiped the section regarding the ACLU and the IB Inspiration Award without discussion, but it does not constitute "good faith" and I shall be re-adding the pertinent facts. ObserverNY (talk) 15:16, 26 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Tvor65 - Every statement in the final US paragraph is cited. It is not opinon, it is fact. Factual lawsuit, factual published criticism, factual agreement between IBO and UNESCO, factual statement regarding IB as an NGO of UNESCO right from its own website. There is not a single adjective in the paragraph. You have no right to claim that what I wrote is "right-wing propaganda" simply because YOUR bias prevents you from accepting certain facts as truth. You are showing deliberate malice and lack of good faith by trying to suppress the truth. Please stop. ObserverNY (talk) 19:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Sure it is right-wing propaganda, plain and simple. You are citing right-wing conspiracy theorists like DeWeese and presenting "facts" with your own oh-so-obvious bias. For example, who cares about the connection with UNESCO apart from right-wing nuts like yourself who think UNESCO is an evil organization? Not all facts are relevant. As for the "controversy" in Upper St. Clair that you insisted on including, I thought we had agreed on a balanced version that suited all (and which is the one I put back in) - why rewrite it again? Tvor65 (talk) 19:47, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If you think I am going to stoop to your POV name-calling, you are sadly mistaken. The article is to present facts about the IB DP, this particular section in the United States. IB's affiliation with UNESCO is fact. Some people may think that's wonderful. There are no adjectives in the statement. Feel free to include a citation of someone published who endorses the IB/UN connection. Criticism exists. Districts have cut the program due to cost - two citations. You are acting maliciously by restoring the article to a condition where citations don't exist and that I have worked to improve. ObserverNY (talk) 20:08, 26 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Worked to improve??? Don't make me laugh. All you have done to the article is a lot of damage. This is not a playground for you to insert your biased views and propaganda, and I will not let you use it as such.Tvor65 (talk) 20:20, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Going back to ObserverNY's original note in this section, it was Truthkeeper88 who did the deed: [2]. I don't think it was a bad faith edit - Truthkeeper88 seems pretty unbiased judging from his/her/its extensive and very helpful editing here already.

I do note that Tvor65 has restored the 'correct' section, i.e. the one Truthkeeper deleted and which seemed to be consensus. ObserverNY replaced the section with an older version which had been argued over and replaced.

I don't think hyperbole is going to help. I think Tvor65 and ObserverNY have both added to the article. When the fur stops flying and a text is agreed, it's generally better-referenced, more detailed and balanced than before. Claiming that all someone does is damage is not going to resolve anything.

Let's all take a handful of chill pills each, take a deep breath, and get back to constructive editing; please.

Ewen (talk) 20:29, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's remember that ObserverNY came here with an agenda - to insert a link to her anti-IB propaganda website. When she was not allowed to do so, she has decided to simply insert, little by little, some of the the so-called "facts" she has on her loony site onto the Wikipedia page. This is what's going on.Tvor65 (talk) 20:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ewen - Tvor65 has NOT restored the previous section, Tvor65 has added all sorts of inflammatory language and it is not acceptable to me at all. I am exhausted from trying to keep up with the changes so I am posting here the section as I would like to see it read. Furthermore, Tvor65 keeps replacing the middle paragraph with a paragraph that lacks ALL citations!

United States As of June, 2009, there are 670 public and private schools offering the IB Diploma Programme in the United States. [51] Jay Mathews, education reporter for The Washington Post and Newsweek, is an advocate for increasing the number of AP and IB courses in the United States. [52] Mathews co-authored the book Supertest: How the International Baccalaureate Can Strengthen Our Schools with IB's Deputy Director General Ian Hill.[53]

Most universities grant college credit for IB HL examination scores of 5, 6, or 7, and some institutions grant credit for an examination score of 4 [54] but policies at individual universities vary and students should check with their specific schools of choice. Some universities, such as Towson and SUNY Binghamton, award sophomore status to students who achieve a score of (30+) on the IB Diploma. Colorado and Texas legislate recognition of the IB Diploma Programme[55][56]

IB is an NGO of the United Nations and has committed to integrating UNESCO's "Peace Education" into its curriculum. [57] [58] Criticism of the IB/UN relationship has been issued by Tom DeWeese [59] and Henry Lamb [60] Some districts have eliminated the IB program, citing cost as the primary reason. [61][62] In the Upper St. Clair, PA, district, the ACLU represented IB supporters in a lawsuit against the Board of Education to retain IB after the Board had voted to eliminate it. [63] In 2006, IB presented its Inspiration Award to the plaintiffs in the case for "control of local education at its finest". [64]

I sincerely hope that Wikipedia editors will consider the above 3 paragraphs and allow them to stand.Oh, and I did not replace it with an older section that had been argued over. That was a newly created section today and I asked for discussion which Tvor65 keeps wiping out. ObserverNY (talk) 20:53, 26 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Yes, I was there too, Tvor65. Think what you like about other editors, but saying it isn't going to help move things on. WP:CIVIL is pertinent.

If they are facts that she wants to add, let's consider them. Are they giving undue weight to a minority view? That's the main argument, and let's stick to it without trying to pin agendas on each other.

ObserverNY - back to your points in a sec. Edit conflicts permitting!

Ewen (talk) 21:00, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

(Dropping the excess pagination)

Here is a comparison of the version I last edited and the one before Truthkeeper removed the section you wanted replaced.

The section is essentially the same with the single exception of the line "There exists some opposition to the program in the extreme right-wing and religious right circles in the US." I guess this is what ObserverNY would call unacceptable? It's certainly unreferenced and I think it would be right to edit it to read "There exists some opposition to the program in some circles in the US." or maybe "There exists some opposition to the program in some politically conservative circles in the US." I don't know if the opposition groups need to be allocated to a particular section of the political spectrum, but if so it should be with a neutral wording.

However, I think the current section should be the basis for the future. I'm sure I've read ObserverNY's version before...

Ewen (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ewen (talk) 21:10, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Ewen Look - Tvor65 put it back in. You tell me now that Tvor65 isn't acting maliciously. Seriously, this is beyond the pale. Yes, you correctly identified the most offensive sentence in Tvor65's revision. However, from a factual perspective, I don't believe that all of the quotes in the "restored" section are really necessary, and that my current revision more concisely and accurately states the facts without the excess language.ObserverNY (talk) 21:17, 26 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I agree with Ewen that the current section should be the basis for the future and I can live with the more neutral phrase "There exists some opposition to the program in some politically conservative circles in the US." I could cite several extreme right-wing and Christian right organizations in the US whose anti-IB propaganda was used word-to-word by school directors who opposed the program but I'd rather not give these nuts any undeserved publicity ;-)

Anyway, thanks, Ewen, for helping resolve this impasse. Tvor65 (talk) 21:52, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

If we are to use this paragraph as the "basis for the future", then the opening sentence should be: "There exists some opposition to the IB program in the U.S.". Keep your political opinions to yourself. Not everyone who objects to IB is politically conservative. ObserverNY (talk) 23:59, 26 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Oh yeah? The organized opposition (the only one worth mentioning) is all about UN-is-evil, IB-is-anti-American-and-against-Judeo-Christian-values and America-is-superior. And guess what? You are the one who should leave your political opinions to yourself. Only you can't, and that's the problem. If you insist on keeping the USC stuff in, then we should explain the real reasons the program was opposed there and in places like Minnetonka and NH. Yes, schools do cut programs for strictly budgetary reasons (not the case in the above examples), and these programs may include, but are certainly not limited to, IB - but this can hardly be called part of an "opposition" or a "controversy". Tvor65 (talk) 01:29, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I think until a reference can be found to support a statement about the political stance of groups who oppose the IB, we'd better drop it.

Ewen (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I made some changes to the US section---putting the university recognition first, followed by advocacy and then opposition. It's always best to leave politics out, imho, but it seems to me that people on both sides try to politicize a programme that by its very nature was intended to be apolitical. Suffice it to say that some like it and some don't and then move on.

La mome (talk) 12:41, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

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

La mome (talk) 13:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I have been following the IB opposition movement for quite a while. So far, I have not encountered a single group that was not on the far right of the political spectrum. They all follow the same playbook from websites like edwatch.org and crossroad.to. Yes, the program is apolitical but the opposition to it is all about politics, and it is the extreme right who have a problem with it, not moderates or progressives.Tvor65 (talk) 13:21, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, here is an interesting reference I found. Unfortunately, I cannot access the article but the abstract certainly supports my assertion. Here it is:

The International Baccalaureate in the USA and the emerging 'culture war'

Author: Tristan Bunnell

Published in: journal Discourse: Studies in the Cultural Politics of Education, Volume 30, Issue 1 March 2009 , pages 61 - 72

Abstract:

The International Baccalaureate (IB) has undergone rapid growth and largely unhindered expansion over the past four decades. It has moved beyond its European nexus and the three IB programmes now have a relatively large presence in the USA, especially among public high schools. The IB gathered federal funding in 2003, and a concerted attack has subsequently emerged from a vast array of ultra-conservative agencies and commentators who denounce the curriculum as federal interference, and fundamentally 'un-American'. This paper explores the complex nature of this 'culture war' and reveals the key issues and protagonists.

I think I'll insert this as a reference. Tvor65 (talk) 13:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I took your reference out, obviously you are incapable of following Ewen's advice to act civil. If you insist on reinserting it, I insist on reinserting my reference to schools that have eliminated IB due to cost.

Well, I put it right back in; it's a valid reference and it supports the statement. Ewen wanted a reference for the statement, and I found one, following his advice. It is also pretty clear to everyone but you who is being uncivil here. As for citing schools cutting IB as part of their budget cuts, schools cut programs all the time, whether it's IB or music or a rifle team, and this can hardly be called an "opposition" to IB specifically. A school may like the program but simply cannot afford it anymore. Tvor65 (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Clearly, if IB WAS apolitical and didn't go on record as supporters and promoters of the Earth Charter and The UN Charter, then there wouldn't be political objections to it, now would there? ObserverNY (talk) 18:31, 27 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

And again, only the ultra-conservatives in the US have these objections.Tvor65 (talk) 19:38, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

http://www.ibo.org/ibna/actionkits/documents/Myths_Facts_001.pdf

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

La mome (talk) 19:44, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

This is what Ewen had said earlier- "I think until a reference can be found to support a statement about the political stance of groups who oppose the IB, we'd better drop it." Ewen (talk) 09:18, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Tvor65 found supporting evidence. I vote that it stays---it is a valid reference and it does support the argument. Anyone else care to weigh in? La mome (talk) 19:53, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. As for the "fiscal opposition" that ObserverNY keeps inserting instead, it makes no sense to me. When a school district eliminates an art or music program due to the budgetary constraints (happens a lot these days, especially in the city schools), are we supposed to assume that this district opposes art or music? Of course not. They'd probably rather have these programs but are not able to keep them. Yet when a school district eliminates its IB program as part of its budget cuts, ObserverNY immediately jumps to the bizarre conclusion that the school district "opposes" the program. Very logical, indeed.Tvor65 (talk) 20:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't accept your source - so DROP IT. Furthermore, the IBO Myths vs. Facts is by far the single most biased, inaccurate piece of propaganda the IBO has issued to date. However, since you seem so fond of it, I will consider linking it following my sentence about IB being an NGO of the UN and the UNESCO agreement in the general section.ObserverNY (talk) 20:30, 27 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Other people do accept Tvor65's source. Your sentence about IB being an NGO of the UN and the UNESCO agreement is not in this article, it is in the one about IB. Linking the "Myth vs. fact" doc. is a great idea. You will then have to remove part of your sentence as it does refute what you are trying to imply. And your source is once again outdated. Pity, isn't it though? La mome (talk) 23:22, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

You, and Tvor65 and Truthkeeper wanted the USC section out - IT'S OUT. Done. Over. Don't mention USC to me again. You have an objection to listing the political dispute in Utah for which I cited two sources, including one which is official IB? Justify your objection. The wording was "criticism", not "objection". The programme is eliminated because in some cases, it is too expensive for the district. That's a "criticism", as opposed to "Wow, this program is the best ever and so affordable" which would constitute "praise". I hope this clarifies the semantics for you.

Tvor65 removed the IB/UNESCO info without discussion and I thought it WAS in the proper, global location under "Recognition" as IB itself used the words "IB has been recognized as...". However, if you would prefer it as a separate sub-section, that's fine with me.ObserverNY (talk) 15:15, 28 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Reminder: This page is for discussion of the IB Diploma Programme. If you have comments about the IB please take it to another forum. If you have information relevant to the IB itself take it to the International Baccalaureate Organisation pages. Please note: The IB/IBO and the IB diploma refer to different categories. They are not interchangeable. Thank you. --Candy (talk) 20:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Reminder: Documents relating to ALL levels of IB curriculum which obviously includes the IBDP and specific development of the IB Diploma ARE relevant to this article and should not be diverted to an article about the host organization. ObserverNY (talk) 00:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Diverted, no, but the bulk of text pertaining to all levels should be at the IB article, with references to it from this and the other IB programme articles.

I think part of the problem is that the IB article right now is pretty limited. I'd like to see it beefed up, with mini-sections on all IB programmes (with links to this and the other programmes' articles). One example of the IB's limitations are that it doesn't discuss key staff. I guess this is really a discussion to have at the IB article itself, but since there seem to be more eyes here...!

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 10:39, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Editing and summary of recent edits

I edited every section of the IB DP article yesterday, according to article size policies. Much of the content in the article has subarticles so the main article should be concise and to-the-point.
If another editor objects to my edits, go ahead and revert; I don't mind.
I do mind, however, finding so much content restored without using previously formatted ref syntax, which now must be reestablished.
I also mind that one section of the article (the USC section that already exists elsewhere) was restored at least 20 times in various forms, and that the most recent edit deleted a good credible source that was referenced properly.
In my view, the talk page is not a place to bargain, or to threaten, which has been happening all to often. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - I know that it is against Wikipedia policy to divulge the identity of editors, so I shall not. However, Tvor65 was personally involved in the USC/IB lawsuit, hence the repeated, obsessive reversals of the paragraph. Tvor65 is the one who deleted my entry regarding the elimination of IB due to cost with proper citations and repeatedly keeps inserting "ultra-conservative", "right-wing" "ultra-religious", etc. I am frankly sick and tired of the nonesense and wish SOMEONE would make Tvor65 stop. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 20:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Actually, you are quite wrong, ObserverNY. I was not involved in the lawsuit. However, I believe that the above "information" (even if wrong) may be grounds for you being blocked as an editor as per Wikipedia policies.Tvor65 (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

OK. Tvor65, the demographic make-up of US opposition to the IB is way too much detail for this article. That there is opposition to the IB is fine; that the opposition is, apparently, largely "ultra conservative" is too much.

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

Have I alienated enough editors yet? ;-)

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 20:34, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, TFWOR, with all due respect, I disagree. That the opposition is fueled by the ultra-conservative groups is a fact supported by a valid reference. It is not too much detail; indeed, it is quite pertinent to the USC case. Now, one can argue that USC stuff is too much detail, and I quite agree, but if it has to be mentioned, as ObserverNy insists, then a proper explanation of why it's even there is in order.Tvor65 (talk) 20:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The entire section about one specific school in the US is not necessary in this article, and in fact Ewen moved it to the proper place earlier. I suggest removing it again ASAP. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm not disputing the validity of the reference; I'm disputing whether we need to go into so much detail (just because we can say something doesn't necessarily make it encyclopaedic to do so). The following sentence - which deals directly with the USC case - more or less covers the same ground without labelling IB opponents. That said, I tend to agree with Truthkeeper88 here. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:55, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Users who agree to remove the USC section = myself, TFOWR, Ewen & Tvor65. Time to remove it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:04, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

The USC case is important as it relates to IB in the U.S. for a number of reasons: 1) it is a documented lawsuit and therefore worthy of encyclopaedic reference 2) the lawsuit sought to overturn the decision of a duly elected Board majority 3)the lawsuit made international news - http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0314-02.htm 4) the entire situation caused tremendous animosity and unrest in the community 5) The ACLU respresented the IB supporters pro-bono while the lawsuit cost USC taxpayers approx. $200,000 6) The settlement also involved Gov. Rendell of PA (D) pledging $75,000, and the WAVES group (the recipients of the IB Inspiration Award) donating $45,000 in order to keep IB going.

Now, I have not sought to include all of that information. In fact, I believe I had reduced it quite succinctly to two sentences which included a source which would have provided readers with all of the further details. It is an example of political/ideological conflict which I believe should stand as an example next to the sentence about districts eliminating IB due to cost. Expressing the facts without injecting opinion is entirely possible, as I have demonstrated. Furthermore, I do not see Ewen agreeing with Truthkeeper re: removal of the entire paragraph and TFWOR referred to "the following sentence" as being acceptable, but seems to have left out which sentence by mistake and then flip-flopped on his/her position.ObserverNY (talk) 22:40, 27 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

My position is that Ewen's edit was broadly fine. I think there should be some mention of the USC case here, but I don't think it's appropriate to go into the amount of detail that's currently in the article - that much detail belongs in the USC article, not here. My principle complaint right now is the term "ultra-conservative" - cited or not - as I think that the next sentence (which I'm happy to keep in this article, by the way) deals with the facts, and the reader can make up their own mind. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 22:49, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Ewen's edit is fine. I'll put it back in. BUT, I have to wonder if there's not more going on here, which is why I have the inclination to delete it entirely. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:07, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, I respectfully disagree. We seem to be at an impasse. If it is all or nothing, then I vote nothing. No one is interested in every last sordid detail of a lawsuit that was clearly politically motivated. If it goes back in, then it will have to be stated that the "ultra-conservatives" were the ones who tried to pull the plug on the IB Diploma programme, when the community clearly was in favor of keeping it. I vote to leave it out---or link to the USC page and call it a day. This is ridiculous.

La mome (talk) 23:27, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Let's take it out again.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:37, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree with LaMome and Truthkeeper88. My position remains the same: either remove the whole thing (I support this) OR, if the USC stuff remains as an example of opposition, then so should the source of the opposition and the reference validating this fact. I believe that Ewen supports this with the reference as well.Tvor65 (talk) 23:47, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm fine with Ewen's edit, but I would also like inclusion of the sentence which referred to U.S. districts eliminating IB due to cost. And from my read of Wikipedia rules, this is not a "vote" situation but one on which we have to reach consensus. ObserverNY (talk) 00:03, 28 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Truthkeeper What's going on here is you have two people, LaMome and Tvor65 who are deliberately attempting to prevent information about the USC case from being made available on Wikipedia because of personal agendas. You appear to be waffling back and forth. At this point in time, it would appear that Ewen, TFWOR, and myself are fine with Ewen's edit.ObserverNY (talk) 00:12, 28 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Um, no. What is actually going on here is ObserverNY attempting to turn the Wikipedia page into a condensed version of her anti-IB website by inserting the "facts" that seem to support her claims and removing the ones that do not. It ain't gonna work, however.Tvor65 (talk) 01:57, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I personally liked Warthog's edit. Perhaps he/she would like to weigh in again? I am not attempting to prevent information about the USC case from being made available on Wikipedia---I suggested we link to the USC page. It's either all or nothing at this point. If it is linked, then it will have to be mentioned that the lawsuit was made by ultra-conservatives. There is no way around that. And then we will need to include Tvor65's link as well, since it is relevant.

La mome (talk) 00:20, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

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

ACLU

Thanks to the link ObserverNY posted I looked up the ACLU solicitor from USC and found this about Dover, PA. The scope of the IB DP article is not to debate "intelligent design". Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:52, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Nobody here mentioned Intelligent Design, I don't know why you would bring that up. Vic Walczak, the ACLU attorney for the USC case, was also the parent of an IB student in USC. Is THAT relevant? I didn't mention that either. The point is the ACLU took the case. Period. Whether you love or hate the ACLU or any of the thousands of other cases it has handled is irrelevant. ObserverNY (talk) 00:06, 28 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I think politics should only be included where they explicitly involve article curriculum, eg, alleged bias in history courses due to partisan funding or whatever. The general bureaucracy can go in the main org article. YellowMonkey (cricket calendar poll!) paid editing=POV 02:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Truthkeeper88!!!

Can we all pause for a moment and thank Truthkeeper88 for cleaning up the mess we have made?! Thank you, thank you, thank you!!!!! La mome (talk) 01:11, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Nope. No consensus was reached. ObserverNY (talk) 09:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I was thanking her for all of her editing work based on this:

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

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

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

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

In my view, the talk page is not a place to bargain, or to threaten, which has been happening all to often." Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:59, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

What on earth are you talking about? La mome (talk) 11:53, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

"Her"???? OMG, you called Truthkeeper a HER??? That must make you sexist, according to Candorwein/Candy!!ObserverNY (talk) 12:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I'll repeat my question, "what on earth are you talking about?" If Truthkeeper is insulted, then I apologise. Move on and get over yourself, please. You still have not explained your recent edits and additions to the article. At the very least, you should use the edit summary to briefly describe the changes you have made. To avoid being hypocritical, you should seek consensus here before making major changes, like what you have done to the CAS & US sections. La mome (talk) 12:37, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't have to explain anything to you regarding recent additions to the article. Editors are free to contribute properly cited additions to the article at anytime. If you have an objection to a particular recent edit, please articulate your specific objection and I will be happy to discuss it.ObserverNY (talk) 12:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

See below. I object to the changes you made in the CAS section. Please explain below. You can't demand consensus if you don't seek it yourself. La mome (talk) 13:05, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Consensus regarding recent edits?!

ObserverNY-No consensus was reached, nor was it sought, before you made the latest major changes to the IB Diploma Programme article. No one objected to the TOK chart, but you removed it. You also removed the aims/learning outcomes of CAS, which are relevant to CAS and to the Diploma in general. I do not know how to revert the changes and now the referencing will have to be fixed once again. Truthkeeper worked very hard in cleaning up this article and now will have to do it all over again. Not only should you thank her (or him?) but you should also apologize. It seems to me that you have just started a major edit war. La mome (talk) 12:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

No one objected to the flags for each country either, but someone removed them. In fact, I believe you and I both agreed that they looked nice. With the flags removed, the TOK chart appeared to give unneccessary visual weight to that core component, was positioned in an awkward manner and probably violated IB copyright. ObserverNY (talk) 12:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

References

ObserverNY, in her zeal to edit the article, has neglected to learn how to properly insert references. If you look at the References section and see things like [9] or [4], you know that was ObserverNY's reference. I suggest she fix all the references she has inserted before proceeding to add more incorrect ones.Tvor65 (talk) 15:10, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

When you stop deleting them, I'll be happy to do that. ObserverNY (talk) 15:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(edit conflict) -- The references have been getting increasingly messy and difficult to clean up with the constant editing. Before it's too time consuming to untangle all the inline citation syntax I'll have a go. The copyedit banner will be in place for a few hours. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:21, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

IB and UNESCO

The IB has been "recognized as a NGO of UNESCO since 1970" and participates regularly in UNESCO meetings and proposals in education.http://www.ibo.org/partnerships/governments/ and UNESCO have signed an agreement recognizing that "peace education is not an add-on but an integral part of the curriculum at all levels. http://www3.unesco.org/iycp/Report/IBO.pdf Although IB receives funding from UNESCO http://www.ibo.org/donors/complete/documents/Listofdonors2004.pdf, IB has issued a statement to the contrary. http://www.ibo.org/ibna/actionkits/documents/Myths_Facts_001.pdf ObserverNY (talk) 15:23, 28 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The document you linked is for 2004-2005 donors. It's 2009 now, so your link does not support your claim that the IB currently receives any funding from UNESCO. Thus IB's statement (issued after 2006) does not contradict anything.Tvor65 (talk) 15:35, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

I have no idea what Tvor65 is talking about the links not working - they appear to work just fine on my computer. ObserverNY (talk) 15:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I was not talking about the links not working but the references. A proper reference should not appear below (in the references section) as some random number in brackets, and all of yours do.Tvor65 (talk) 15:31, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Tvor65 - thank you so much for encouraging me to look for a more recent UNESCO donor document.http://www.ibo.org/informationfor/supporters/donors/completetlist/ ObserverNY (talk) 22:59, 28 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

You are welcome. I personally do not care one way or the other, but since the IBO lists UNESCO as one of its many donors, you can't claim they are trying to hide the fact. Nor do the say in the Myths vs Facts document that UNESCO is not a donor, only that it used to (as I understand it) fully fund the program until 1976 and now this is no longer the case.Tvor65 (talk) 23:24, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

LaMome You have no right to remove the entire section and simply declare it is in the wrong place. It is a section which is applicable globally, it is NOT in the U.S. section, I personally didn't think you would want it smack in the middle of the article on the IB DP however since it does affect all IB curriculum, perhaps you would prefer it there?

Tvor65 It is not my job to interpret IB language for you and this is not the place for debate about the contents of the documentation. They are what they are. ObserverNY (talk) 00:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I am not debating anything, just saying that your claim of contradiction is not supported by the link you put.Tvor65 (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Are we going to argue the definition of "was"? Furthermore, IB claims "IB is funded by UNESCO" is a Myth! This is a lie, plain and simple, as I have documented that IB is funded by UNESCO,Paris, with its own 2008 donor list! Please re-read the document. There is no mention of "fully-funded", either. It simply states "was funded ... until 1976". ObserverNY (talk) 00:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, I think LaMome's point was that the section should be at the more general International Baccalaureate Organization, rather than here? It does seem more pertinent to the organisation, rather than the diploma programme? Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 00:08, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

This is my understanding as well. And LaMome has a good point.Tvor65 (talk) 00:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) TFWOR - The section explains that UNESCO's "peace education is integral to all levels of curriculum. This includes the IB DP. For readers who merely research the IBDP and not IBO (which is no longer IBO), the information is relevant and globally applicable. ObserverNY (talk) 00:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

In as much as it's talking about the IB and its relationship to the UN, and to "peace education is not an add-on but an integral part of the curriculum at all levels", it's better placed at International Baccalaureate Organization. By all means mention peace education, but leave out the stuff about NGO status. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 00:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Yes, my point was that IB & UNESCO is misplaced on the IB DP page as it refers to the IB organisation. It is obvious that IB is not funded by UNESCO, but rather receives a modest donation from them. That is clearly explained in the myth vs fact doc. That information is not relevant here and is better placed at the IB Organisation page.

La mome (talk) 10:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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

TOK & EE rubric

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

Special Needs

Is this from the IB Handbook? If so, please advise re: copyright status. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:04, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

It is a deep link inside the IB's Online Curriculum Centre. I assume the webmaster has not noticed that the privileges are set to www rather than something more private. I don't know how accidental disclosure/negligence is covered by copyright (as regards to this matter). --Candy (talk) 06:11, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

"Deep link"...Oooo, sounds like "Deep Throat". Nothing like trying to break through IB's lack of transparency, eh? ObserverNY (talk) 12:28, 29 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The current reference is this - this seems OK, copyright-wise? I assume the original reference has been changed? (You'd have thought that IB would be happy with this being public, anyway - it makes them look good...?) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:34, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

TFWOR - LOL! Gee, that's what I thought too! No, the reference wasn't changed, I have no idea what Candorwein is going on about the link being "invalid" unless it happened to click on the link when I was in the editing process. ObserverNY (talk) 13:56, 29 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

It's not an www url, it's an xml url and so I flagged it. Don't know how I accessed the page, but it's on the TAIB site, so maybe it's a copy that points there? Anyway, it's gone from Wikipedia.The current ref this is a long pdf. A page number is necessary for the quotation.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - yes, it's on the TAIB site but it is not a document file in our database, merely a link. In fact, I just went over the Assessment Guide and lo and behold, the very important 12 month filing period information is not included. It refers readers to the IB Vade Mecum - Introduction, no page number: "Procedures for requesting special arrangements are explained in the Vade Mecum, the procedures manual for coordinators and teachers." Therefore, since you seem intent on withholding very important information from parents of children with special needs, I will revise the copy when I have more time. ObserverNY (talk) 14:14, 29 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Regarding page numbers when presentating quotations see this which is standard practise to ease navigation for a person who might follow the link (the entire point of verification, inline citations, and footnotes.) Accusing an editor of "withholding information from parents of children with special needs" is beyond the pale. The parents (I'd suspect) might want to find the section in the long pdf easily. Moreover, the parents would also (I suspect) have access to the information that's available to the school (hence the fees that include the OCC from whence the initial link came I think, although I never used it because following a suspicious xml link is bad form and not something we as editors want to present.) Finally, to finish with page numbers, all the pdfs in the article will eventually need to have the relevant page number identified if and when the article is to be a candidate for GA. Best to begin now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:03, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper And here I was going to compliment you on your revision to TOK. ;-) Give an old lady a break, is it fixed right now? Is the Special Needs information accurate? Is it properly cited? Geez, there are so many rules within rules within rules here it gives me a headache. I am trying to constructively improve the article. Let me repeat that. I am trying to constructively improve the article and comply with Wikipedia guidelines. This is the first and only article I have approached at length. If I mess up the html, please assume that it is unintentional and ignorance on my part.ObserverNY (talk) 16:35, 29 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

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

I am trying to constructively improve the article~ObserverNY

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

Let's ask other editors to help us decide which version, or any other they would like to suggest, would best reflect the IB's procedures for students with special needs:

"Where standard assessment conditions could put a candidate with special educational needs at a disadvantage by preventing them from demonstrating their level of attainment, special arrangements may be authorized. The Candidates with Special Assessment Needs publication [24] contains information regarding procedures and arrangements for students with special needs." or "The IB advises IB schools that "before accepting a student with special educational needs as a candidate for the Diploma Programme, coordinators should consider whether suitable arrangements, for both teaching and assessment, can be made for that student". Additional details can be found in the Candidates with Special Assessment Needs publication [25] which contains information regarding arrangements for students with special needs, while exact procedures must be obtained in the IB Handbook." La mome (talk) 01:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that magnanimous of you, La Mome. I created the section. Truthkeeper and I had a respectful back and forth about the IB Handbook reference which was deleted. TFOWR even chimed in that the IBH reference showed IB in a "good light". Then someone, (you?), arbitrarily went and changed the remaining language. Btw, exactly what have you and Tvor65 actually contributed to this article other than the flowery "aims" in CAS? Hmmmm? Anything? New section? Important data? Anything? ObserverNY (talk) 02:13, 30 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I am still amazed that you seriously consider yourself as someone who improves the article. As for my and LaMome's contributions, there are plenty, as anyone who can follow edit history can see (I know that's not your strong suit), but keeping you from turning the article into an appendix for TAIB is already quite a significant contribution.Tvor65 (talk) 02:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Obstructionism, crazed editing and arriving on the scene with the explicit intent of starting a war, are not "significant contributions". Obviously you cannot list a single positive contribution you or LaMome have made (or you would have) - because there are none! ObserverNY (talk) 10:59, 30 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Yes, obstructionism, crazed editing - these are words that describe your self-proclaimed "contributions". Thanks for being self-critical for a change.Tvor65 (talk) 11:54, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

The fewer words the better. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Oh really? Good, then I am shortening the CAS section, if that's your position Truthkeeper. ObserverNY (talk) 02:17, 30 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

References invalid

Who ever created references 28 & 29 of the current page please note that neither is valid. Reference 28 possibly also points to an internal ibo web server or is mistyped. Eitherway, it is not a suitable link. I can't fix them either. Please repair. Otherwise, in a few days I will replace with citations needed. Thanks --Candy (talk) 20:41, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Both links are "valid". Link 28 was obtained from a Google search for the IB Handbook and is available in the public domain without password access. I attempted to add the descriptors to the links, however when I did that it invalidated the links so I left them as is [28][29]. Surely you're not going to complain about information for students with special needs? ObserverNY (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Sigh... You've done it again - why can't you learn how to put in proper references? You had numbers again in the References section - and this is after TK88 has fixed all of your earlier references. I fixed them for you - please take a good look at the edit version and learn.Tvor65 (talk) 21:09, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Footnote #28: accessed the document and found the following copyright info: All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the IB, or as expressly permitted by law or by the IB’s own rules and policy. See http://www.ibo.org/copyright.
This a copy vio and is being removed.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:14, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Ohhhh - no brackets - thank you Tvor65. Truthkeeper - So are you going to leave the info in sans the [28] citation? ObserverNY (talk) 21:17, 28 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

A direct quotation from a copyright protected page cannot be used here.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:26, 28 June 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - No problem. Thanks for the fix! ObserverNY (talk) 22:55, 28 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Both links are "valid". Link 28 was obtained from a Google search for the IB Handbook and is available in the public domain without password access. I attempted to add the descriptors to the links, however when I did that it invalidated the links so I left them as is [28][29]. Surely you're not going to complain about information for students with special needs? ObserverNY (talk) 20:46, 28 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Both links were invalid because they didn't link to any information that was useful. One linked to a protected page that could not be accessed and the other gave a 404. Therefore, they were both invalid. If I wanted to complain about content I would have done so. As I have said before. Read the message and assume good faith. You really could have tried the links yourself and seen they didn't work. --Candy (talk) 05:44, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Assume good faith, Candy. You clearly clicked on the links when I was in the process of editing. Truthkeeper removed the opening sentence and link (which obviously worked else he/she would not have known it was to the IB Handbook) and I am fine with the revision as it stands, and yes, the link works. ObserverNY (talk) 11:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Don't spew "good faith" back at me ObserverNY. You need to start reading your own comments and those of others. You do this far too often. Again, I have NOT worked on the links when you were in the process of editing. If I did there would have been an edit conflict. In fact, I have not worked on the links at all. I just brought it to everyone's attention. Again, you could have checked this using the history. Instead you start the blame game on me that I must have been changing them while you were. --Candy (talk) 14:23, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Candy, I have no idea what your problem is as you appear to be the only one who had a problem accessing the links. Get over it. Assume good faith. I never accused you of "working" on the links, or any other ridiculous accusations like being "sexist". As to your recent edit deleting the IB/UNESCO curriculum document, please read this comment by your fellow editor: By all means mention peace education, but leave out the stuff about NGO status. Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 00:48, 29 June 2009 (UTC) ObserverNY (talk) 14:47, 29 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I posted a message on Candy's talkpage mentioning that I didn't have a problem with the peace education bit, and that I'd stated that here. That said, I'm but one editor - other editors may disagree with my view. Regardless, could everyone (I am emphatically not directing this at any one editor) hold off on adding/removing sections repeatedly? There seem to be three "camps" here - two opposing camps and a camp in the middle who are happy for a middle-ground to be found. Neither of the two opposing camps should "win" - we should all be striving for a consensual article arrived at through discussion. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

TFWOR You are wise, former red flag. ;-) Truth should be the winner. ObserverNY (talk) 15:51, 29 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Why, thank you ;-) I've had a more thorough look through the PDF now, and I have a few more concerns, however. I'm still keen to get something into the article about peace education (apparently 2001 - 2010 is the "INTERNATIONAL DECADE FOR A CULTURE OF PEACE AND NON-VIOLENCE FOR THE CHILDREN OF THE WORLD" - putting it in all-caps didn't help propagate the information to people like me, however). What concerns me is that the PDF doesn't state that IB signed a UNESCO agreement - the NGOs adopted a resolution inspired by UNESCO's position:

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

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

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

Thoughts?

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:25, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

TFOWR You have my blessing to elaborate on the sentence in any manner that you see fit. If you scroll to the bottom of the document, you will see that the IBO signatory to the agreement is Ian Hill. Apperently Mr. Hill is rather fond of signing things, UNESCO Peace Education, The Earth Charter, Jay Mathews' book....  ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 19:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Excellent, I'll make a start shortly if there's no dissent? Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 20:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) I think the measures are localised because some of the IB schools are/were UNESCO schools. I looked up UNESCO schools and found one that started as an UNESCO school in Finland, but is now IB. Presumably UNESCO paid the IB fees for the school/s which explains the localised nature of the response in the report. To be precise, if there are still schools that are both UNESCO/IB (and finding them would constitute original research) then in those cases IB is following the UNESCO peace education culture. However, you're correct that the pdf is simply a report to UNESCO and doesn't indicate an agreement or umbrella action plan. In my view this information is fine for the new/moved IB article as long as it's precise. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:55, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Well, one school at least (Kristin School in New Zealand) was mentioned and it has no UNESCO history per se - it was started as a private school by local parents when a local religious school closed - but I take your point that we're nearing WP:OR-territory here. I'll post my revised "peace education" section here for feedback so any glaring WP:OR on my part can be excised ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 20:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC) Disclaimer: I was a student at Kristin for 1 or 2 years in the mid 1970s, prior to it adopting IB programmes. 'til today I had no idea it was an IB school - small world, eh?!

Truthkeeper If you had looked up UNIS, you would have found the following:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/United_Nations_International_School Considering 1/3 of the page is devoted the IB Diploma Programme, I'd say they are pretty much joined at the hip, wouldn't you? And if the IBDP constitutes an "international standard", doesn't it follow that an ideological agreement/report signed by IB/UNESCO relates to EVERY IB school? ObserverNY (talk) 20:05, 29 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

No, it doesn't. But that's unimportant. What can be verified, is the question. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that a lot of time and brain power are being wasted on deciding whether to include the mention of "peace education" into an article about the IBDP. It is obvious that ObserverNY has an agenda all her own. I still maintain that if this is included at all, it should be placed on the IB page, not IBDP. And then next year it can be removed when the "decade of peace" is over. Why are we even entertaining the thought of including a response to a questionnaire?

La mome (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 21:32, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, TFOWR. If the UNIS page is going to dedicate a major portion to the IBDP, then the IBDP page should at the very least mention that all UNIS schools adopt the IB curriculum. Whether you love or hate the UN is irrelevant. Facts are facts. ObserverNY (talk) 23:00, 29 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

If all United Nations International Schools adopt the IB curriculum, then that fact should be posted on the IB page, not the IBDP page. How many UNIS are there, btw? Do they adopt all IB programmes or just the IBDP? Facts are facts. Let's get them straight, back them up with valid sources and post them in the proper places.

La mome (talk) 23:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

TFWOR-Yes, I agree with this: "If it made up, say, 1% of the IB DP curriculum, and never attracted media attention then let's just ditch the section. If it made up, say, 95% of the curriculum, or hit global headlines for several weeks in 2003, then I'd say there's an argument to keep it." So, where are the headlines? Where is it mentioned in the subject guides? Is it a requirement, like CAS, EE and TOK? Not trying to be difficult, just trying to keep this article accurate. Put what you want in the IB article, within reason, of course. But I don't see "peace education" as a huge part of the DP. We could include the mission statement and the learner profile though. Cheers! La mome (talk) 23:27, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I stand corrected, I was thinking of the UWC, not UNIS. http://www.uwc.org/what_we_do/international_baccalaureate.aspx "UWC teaches the International Baccalaureate Diploma (IB) in 11 of its 12 Colleges and has played an important role in its development since it was introduced. Read more about UWC's role in the history of the IB. The creation of School Based Syllabi (standard level IB Diploma subjects) is another important contribution UWC has made to the IB Diploma. Read more about UWC developed School Based Syllabi. By all means include IB's mission statement, but the learner profile is already referenced several times in documents supporting CAS and other topics and would constitute an unnecessary replication of information. ObserverNY (talk) 00:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

LaMome You had no right to remove the IB/UNESCO line - no consensus has been reached and you are acting maliciously. Answering your own questions with more questions does not constitute consensus. Please try and behave like an adult, if you are one. ObserverNY (talk) 00:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

No consensus was reached to include it. La mome (talk) 00:49, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

So you think that gives you the right to arbitrarily delete it without comment? Sorry. You are acting in poor faith. ObserverNY (talk) 00:52, 30 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

UWC is listed under Institutions under other articles in the IB series. If you are going to edit, then try linking you statement to the UWC page. The inclusion of UWC and the IB/UNESCO peace education statement is awkward. You are misusing and misappropriating the term vandalism. I have as much right to edit as you do.

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

I'm sorry LaMome, I missed your response as to exactly what constructive information you have contributed to this article. Anything? Because I don't see a single section, citation, reference, addition, correction, in fact, ANYTHING, other than your insideous and excruciatingly tiresome attempts to interfere with everything I have attempted to contribute. LEAVE IT ALONE. If someone else wants to weigh in, please do, but I can no longer assume you are operating in "good faith" based on your behavior. ObserverNY (talk) 02:26, 30 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Proposed move of International Baccalaureate Organization to "International Baccalaureate"

I proposed this on the relevant talkpage, but figured that there are probably more eyes here right now. Any nay-sayers, weigh in now. There's currently a redirect at International Baccalaureate (to the IBO article), so I suspect I'm going to have to request a page move rather than simply do it myself, so you've all got some time to say "nay", if you're opposed to a move ;-)

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:54, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Go for it, TFOWR. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 17:10, 29 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

yay --Candy (talk) 18:46, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

• (Done! TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 10:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC))

Language

Continuing my rewrite to improve the fluidity of the article. Now I have got as far as the "Fees section".

Firstly, this seems to be out of place where it is as it breaks up the flow of education. It falls between awards and special needs.

Secondly it reads terribly without any rhyme or reason. It could be part of a section referring to the implementation and development of the programme in a school but even then one must question why the fees are not just a referenced instead of being copied out.

Any suggestions? --Candy (talk) 20:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Questions answered --Candy (talk) 11:33, 1 July 2009 (UTC) :)

Yeah, I suggest we return to the edit Ewen made, which everyone but you agreed on. Either leave it "as is" or restore Ewen's formatting. ObserverNY (talk) 20:15, 29 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I'll have a look at it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:33, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Done.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks Truthkeeper. In a better place now for sure. Anyone any comments about the second question please? --Candy (talk) 22:02, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the special needs section should go after "assessment." The fees section is fine where it is now.

La mome (talk) 22:07, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Referencing the cost/fees is preferable. Streamlined consise articles read better.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:36, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

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

Whether or not the "fees" section stands is only part of the problem ObserverNY. Could you turn your attention to the way the section is written. It reads very poorly. Any suggestions apart from those I made above? --Candy (talk) 06:22, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Working references to be deleted

I'm going to delete the References section. It was meant to be a "working references" section - normal during the construction and/or reconstruction of an article. I always use such a section when copyediting and added one a few days ago. Not meant to be a battleground, so it will be deleted and kept elsewhere as of tomorrow. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:16, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

TruthkeeperWhen I first noticed this section, I wondered to myself, "Hmmm, why is this here? It appears to be just random opinion pieces about IB", hence my addition, which you removed. It would now appear that Tvor65, in Tvor65's desire to obstruct and undo any edits I may make to this article, has once again gone in and replaced a reference. Please keep your word and remove this entire section. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 23:38, 29 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Just so you know, some were refs that had been deleted but might be used in the future, or a ref that didn't verify the point in the article, but perhaps useful elsewhere. Two others I found as I was searching for verification of certain points. One, about online learning and athletes, particularly skiers, is interesting and worth a section of its own, so I stuck it there as a reminder. It's easier to work with already formatted refs, rather than causing the mess I untangled over the weekend (incomplete, but I felt the copyedit banner was keeping people away from editing, so I stopped.) Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:04, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the work you did over the weekend - it's appreciated. And preventing the rest of us from editing isn't necessarily a bad thing ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 00:12, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I did not replace any references, ObserverNY - just put back one that you removed. Please make it a habit of understanding the history of edits before you falsely accuse people of replacing things. Additionally, I have to remind you that everybody has a right to edit, and this includes making sure the article does not become a sort of condensed TAIB, which it certainly would if it were up to you. Tvor65 (talk) 01:09, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Recognition

Cleaned up the recognition section. Added citations needed. Of particular note, I deleted the UCAS table as it was not fit for purpose in this article.

Also noted that Hong Kong Special Autonomous Region has a section about PRC. This is a case of the larger category within the smaller one and doesn't seem correct.

After reading the whole section I wonder whether the whole thing should be reduced considerably and country by country removed? It just seems to be unnecessarily repeating itself - "there are 21 Diploma schools in Lesser Twistlethroat", and an opportunity for people to add in fluff. This section (nor the fees section) can be found on similar pages ( Scottish Highers, Matura, AP, A-levels, European Baccalaureate or Baccalauréat). The exception being the Matura but only because it is a non-standard curriculum, with the same name but administered separately, in several different countries. --Candy (talk) 07:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

What citations? It looks like the entire opening paragraph in the Recognition section is missing all citations. Same for the Extended Essay. Furthermore your condensation of the UK section appears extraordinarily biased and needs to be rephrased to a NPOV. You removed the UCAS table, which was in the article LONG before I arrived on the scene, without any discussion.

On the bright side, at least the CAS section is now in line with the rest of the article.ObserverNY (talk) 10:50, 30 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY. Please try to get with editing and not PPOV. Added citations needed = I added tags saying citations are needed. You could easily see this from the history in a few seconds. So, if you think I have removed citations inappropriately explain further with specific details or I will assume you have spoken in error.

There is nothing to stop me making edits based on my experience as an editor. Whether or not something was here before YOU arrived doesn't mean that it was elegant, useful or appropriate. I made appropriate comments in talk.

What exactly is your reason for keeping the UCAS table?

Why is the UK section biased. Try to support your arguments with reasons rather than just accuse. --Candy (talk) 11:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Candorwein/Candy - You said: "Cleaned up the recognition section. Added citations needed." If you want people to understand your "clearity", then you should have said "I noted where citations are needed". See the difference?

As to the UK section, both of the following sentences are irrelevent, out of date, and attempt to promote IB as superior to A-Levels. Due to the alleged grade inflation and political controversy over reforming A-Levels,[33] the Diploma has been gaining attention and popularity as an alternative.[33] From 2004 - 2007, the number of schools teaching the IB in the UK more than doubled.[33] Furthermore, source 33 doesn't validate its statement with real numbers to prove that the number of schools have actually doubled and therefore stands as unsubstantiated opinion.

re: UCAS table - "Elegant"? I thought Wikipedia was supposed to be encyclopaedic. And now you and Truthkeeper want to remove the entire Recognition section and reduce it to a single sentence? Hardly seems "constructive" but if that's what you want, go right ahead. In fact, I think we could reduce the entire article to just a few paragraphs. As I stated originally, the entire article as it originally stood upon my arrival on the scene, stood as an advertisement for IB. I found the UCAS table informative, visually pleasing, NPOV and a standardized rating. My recent addition of the updated UCAS table reflected a 2008 change in awards, but you chose to eliminate that information. I don't care, rahlly, I don't. All I am asking for is some consistency in your editing endeavors which have ranged from wild elaboration to total annihilation. ObserverNY (talk) 13:20, 30 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

In my view removing the countries is fine, but add wikilink to List of schools offering the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme. Having the countries in the main article creates the need for too much maintenance, and creates too many redundancies Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:27, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Truthkeeper. I didn't expect that page to exist. It's quite a page for trainspotters :] Certainly I feel that a link there would be fine. I was wondering if the recognition section page should be spun off too into its own page with a link here as well?

ObserverNY. I must have missed the information which told me that Wikipedia cannot be both an encyclopedia and elegant? --Candy (talk) 16:01, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

recent edits

Candy, Tvor and Truthkeeper--Thank you for the the changes you have made to improve the IBDP article, especially in the areas of CAS and special needs. I still think there is work that needs to be done in the "fees" section. I agree with the "less is more" philosophy and that section stills seems too wordy to me. I will try working on that too, but it won't be until much later this afternoon/evening. Cheers! La mome (talk) 10:31, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

LaMome - "especially in the areas of CAS and special needs" - ROTFLMAO - how do you sleep at night? After the extensive diatribe and patting each other on the back about how wonderfully you and Candorwein "fixed" the CAS section to include all of that nonsense about the "aims"? Unbelievable. ObserverNY (talk11:07, 30 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY. Reminder: This page is about improving the IB Diploma Programme not to be rude to follow editors. --Candy (talk) 11:34, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Candorwein/Candy - Practice what you preach. I'm still waiting for an apology for your "sexist" accusation. ObserverNY (talk) 13:24, 30 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Fees cont.

I reworded the opening two sentences to read more concisely. If Truthkeeper would like to add in the other global currencies, please feel free. If not, then I suggest removing the other currencies in the rest of the section and merely report in USD for consistency.ObserverNY (talk) 11:16, 30 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

You could even fix the currencies so it reads American dollars and not just dollar and have the currency statements uniform not in different formats. --Candy (talk) 11:37, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

We could have it uniformly formatted for USD/$. Even better is to delete the numbers altogether and to reference them. So the section would read roughly: IB charges application fees, students pay examination fee, and so on. I'm happy to make that edit, but will wait for some consensus.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:41, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Continuing my long-standard tradition of sitting on the fence (!) I'm happy with removing the fees/costs altogether (but referencing them), or having only USD figures, or having all currencies used by the IB. I have a sneaking suspicion that removing the figures might be controversial (though I'm starting to think it's too much detail, and should be deferred to references). I can see an argument for including the CAD/CHF/GBP figures (I'm a UK resident, so I'm sympathetic to this argument) but sticking to one currency will make our lives easier (not convinced that that should be an argument, but still...) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:45, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'd be happy with deleting all numbers Truthkeeper. If the site is externally referenced then provided the host doesn't change their server addresses we are more certain of accurate and timely information. If we stay with numbers in the text then probably best in a table form. --Candy (talk) 12:53, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict the following written in response to TFOWR's comment): You've identified the problem. If the specific fees are in the section then best in all currencies, not only USD. Having all currencies bogs down the section, so for brevity I'm inclined toward the nothing rather than the all solution. But, like you I'm on the fence here. Maybe trying a few versions to see which looks best?

In response to Candy's more recent comment yes, a table is the best way to present the numbers if we decide to keep them. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:00, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the idea of a table is a good one, if accurately constructed. There should be two sections, Application fees and Ongoing Costs. I personally don't care whether you create it only in USD or reflect the other currencies, the U.S. dollar is recognized as the primary global currency, even by IB. Weren't you the one who originally insisted on the inclusion of all the other currencies? Nah, couldn't have been you. ObserverNY (talk) 13:32, 30 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

TFOWR If you're a guy, that fence sitting must get awfully painful .... (badda bing) .... now THAT was sexist!;-)

Please take a look at my revision to the Fees section. I am still in favor of a table if someone else creates it, now that the UCAS html table has been wiped, I don't know how to format one. ObserverNY (talk) 14:33, 30 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

To all I do not care for the placement of the Fees section at the very end of the article. Let's keep in mind that the IB Diploma is a product. Before going into the extensive litany of IB components, people should know what the cost is. Fair and upfront. Therefore, I feel the Fees section should immediately follow the opening overview, be it a table or a description. ObserverNY (talk) 15:25, 30 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I'm happy with the fees section being early on - I'd accept that the IB's programmes are products. I'm still in two minds about the level of detail, though - this isn't a catalogue for educators choosing the IB DP, but a general resource for anyone interested in it.

Truthkeeper88 did (I think) argue for all currencies (as did I); there's nothing wrong with changing our minds! I've changed my mind mid-thread a few times - it would be surprising if I didn't (and pointless debating with me) if that wasn't the case, so no brickbats at Truthkeeper88, please!

Oh, and as to the pain - I'm only fence-sitting until Ewen reappears - then I'm going to toss a coin and take a side ;-) Just kidding - I'm working hard at neutrality; slap me if I go off-piste

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:03, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

I'm with Candy. Mention that there are fees and link to the references giving the exact fees. Tables are cumbersome (isn't that why the TOK/EE matrix was removed, as well as the UCAS table?). As for fence-sitting, I would think it would be equally painful, regardless of gender. One can still present a NPOV without taking sides, n'est-ce pas? La mome (talk) 20:19, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Oui, c'est vrais --Candy (talk) 00:00, 1 July 2009 (UTC)