Talk:IB Diploma Programme/Archive 9

Reception section

In my view, the Reception section was fairly balanced until recently, if rather long. Now ONY added a "newsy" item of a school in UK that has decided. Of course, for each such school one could add several others that have decided to adopt the program, but isn't that a little ridiculous? Are we going to keep adding on to this section to balance ONY's additions? Why is a school that drops the program (among many schools that keep it) suddenly an encyclopedic content? Tvor65 (talk) 12:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It is encyclopaedic content. Just because it happens to be current content on an article that can be updated daily, doesn't mean you have the right to remove it on the grounds that YOU think it gives undue weight. You want to add some more CURRENT positive reception about IB? By all means. Be my guest. Your vigilance in attempting to censor what can be added to IB articles is destructive, unwelcoming and biased. ObserverNY (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

According to this, information about one school is not encyclopedic. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

TK - according to this: WP:Undue Weight 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. With the inclusion of my recent edit, there are now 10 positive and 10 negative lines cited under reception. Therefore, the reception section is now balanced. ObserverNY (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I'm with Truth on this. Just to add on top of what he wrote, the school in question isn't even notable enough to have its own article on here. So that text is really not worthy of inclusion. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree as above, seems undue. A pure mathematical formula shouldn't be used to establish neutrality. Dayewalker (talk) 13:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Quoting from WP:UNDUEWEIGHT : "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Wikipedia editors." What you have added is not prevalent enough for an encyclopedia. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Who's the new editor? Do I have to go search to see if one of you dragged him/her over here? If you want to keep the most recent "Reception" restricted to 2008 and never update the IBDP article to include a 2009 cite, so be it. ObserverNY (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Dayewalker - Welcome. Your user page indicates you pride yourself on being a master of neutrality. You should be aware that I am the only long standing editor to this article who represents the "minority" opinion regarding this educational program. My edit does not include any personal opinion, but is evidence of a recent ousting of the IBDP at a private school in the UK where the programme was previously politically promoted by Tony Blair. It is significant as there has been a change in the education commissioner there, and reflects parental and student distaste for the programme. The IBDP is considered by many to be a "fringe" educational program, with only 670 public and private schools in the entire U.S., a third of its global total. I respectfully request that you allow Wikipedia readers to see that not all schools that have adopted IB are thrilled with it. ObserverNY (talk) 14:12, 9 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, if you can find multiple credible sources stating that schools are dropping the IB programme, then that would be fine. But building your case school by school is not fine, at least not here. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:15, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

That's ok Truthkeeper. I'm done with you folks at Wikipedia. I leave you with this video produced by an IB student. Listen carefully. Follow the math. Hear his message. I'm doing my part to try and spread the truth about IB. I am not alone. I feel this student's pain.

• http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z9u89HMtMwc

Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 14:41, 9 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Wikipedia is not a soapbox, and it isn't the place to grind your axe. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:51, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia is a place that emboldens the Left to censor the truth. An encyclopedia is supposed to contain FACT. This student's documented international K-12 IB experience is FACT. As I said before, I cannot change the minds of those whose are closed to FACTS that don't support their beliefs. I know I cannot change the minds of those who are beholden to IB. My presence here was to try and bring to the average Wikipedia reader, representation of FACTS about this program in an article that previously read as an advertisement for IB. Wikipedia is not supposed to be an advertisement. It is supposed to tell the good, the bad and the ugly about people, historical events, organizations, etc. I did my best. Au revoir. ObserverNY (talk) 15:09, 9 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

In truth, I think the video has some facts that are worth including in the article, such as the fact that students have one year to re-take tests and that students must re-take tests at a school in which they are enrolled. Also, the in issue of cheating and the consequences thereof might also be worthy of inclusion. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:14, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Then find a reliable source to say it. Some video made by a guy who was slighted by IB isn't reliable. There is no problem with showing both sides of the argument for IB, as long as we do it through reliable sources. And Observer, take your complaints about leftist censorship elsewhere; I recommend Conservapedia. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:22, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I know the youtube isn't reliable, but in my view, using reliable sources, it is worth considering adding the consequences of cheating on internal assessments or exams. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:27, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Well if you do pursue that, have at it. But keep in mind, this student was charged with COLLUSION, something he has never heard of, not cheating. ObserverNY (talk) 16:07, 9 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Truthkeeper, "the fact that students have one year to re-take tests and that students must re-take tests at a school in which they are enrolled. " Not certain that is correct TK. Students can sit their re-sits at another IB Diploma school given sufficient notice to that school is my understanding.I agree that may be some merit in an inclusion of the consequences of academic dishonesty. I guess I'll watch the video and see if I come back enlightened. --Candy (talk) 18:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Hey now I have watched it I'm not impressed I'm afraid. A student that "accidentally" sends his IA to his partner makes him guilty of collusion which is academic dishonesty as their reports are very similar? I have to say, I find it difficult to swallow that he thinks this is OK! The rest is just a bitter tirade. In fact he confuses the exam and the IA and the reasons why he has to be enrolled in his previous school (this is someone who has already been guilty of malpractice and now wants to submit his IA with no oversight by his teachers - go figure that one). This is someone who his school (yes his school has to pass this on to the IB) has deemed guilty of malpractice and the IB has agreed. So, the IB didn't rob him of the Diploma he was never awarded it. His school clearly also believed he shouldn't receive the Diploma. Sorry, not worthy of more comment or inclusion. Certainly not a valid source of anything for Wikipedia. However, TK was right we should investigate and perhaps add a art on academic honesty. --Candy (talk) 19:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

I would therefore hard to find it difficult to believe that his school had not informed him of the IB's academic honesty policy.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Candorwien (talk • contribs) 19:00, 9 September 2009

The youtube video itself is not worthy of inclusion. In my view, being allowed to retake the exam, despite academic dishonesty is very generous. In any event, a phrase, a sentence at most, devoted to academic integrity and the consequences of cheating perhaps is worth adding to the "Awards" section. Ha, striking what I've just written, the "Awards" section does address plagiarism. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:18, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

One other thing I'd like to question is where this sort of text belongs: on this page, or on the main IB page. Or any of the other pages... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:33, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Conley study

[1] Thought this might be worthy of inclusion. La mome (talk) 22:18, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

I think it definitely should be included. Nice find, LaMome.Tvor65 (talk) 22:24, 10 September 2009 (UTC)

© 2009 Educational Policy Improvement Center (EPIC)

Do not reproduce or redistribute without permission —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.235.103 (talk) 00:22, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The study can be used as a source as long as it's properly cited and referenced. It's neither being reproduced or redistributed here at Wikipedia. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:26, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

This will take some time to read, but it looks very interesting, and yes, should be included -- perhaps in the "Reception" section. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:28, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

Isn't that convenient. No standards for History. Imagine that. I wonder if EPIC got grant money to conduct that "homework" for IB that IBO should have done 40 years ago?ObserverNY (talk) 01:17, 11 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

To cite this report:

Conley, D., Ward, T. (2009). Summary Brief: International Baccalaureate Standards Development and Alignment Project. Educational Policy Improvement Center, Eugene, Oregon.

From the report-“The Knowledge and Skills for University Success (KSUS) college-ready standards are a comprehensive set of standards describing what university faculty expect in entry-level students. ….: http://www.s4s.org/cepr.uus.php.” …

“The IB standards are highly aligned with the KSUS standards indicating that students who learn the IB curriculum in high school enter college with the type of knowledge and skills not only expected by college faculty but also with skills known to promote academic success in entry-level courses.”…

“The results of this study clearly confirm the strong relationship between the IB Diploma Programme and standards for college readiness and success. The IB standards demonstrate a very high degree of alignment with the KSUS standards in all subject areas. In addition, many of the individual IB standards are at a level more advanced than entry-level college courses. Furthermore, the IB standards address key cognitive strategies that are critical to success in entry-level college courses. These key cognitive skill areas are rarely addressed in state content standards but are identified almost universally by college instructors as being central to success in entry-level college courses. In short, students who participate successfully in IB should be well prepared to succeed in entry-level college general education courses and in some cases to have already learned material covered in such courses.”

La mome (talk) 20:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

"All subjects"?? You mean history, even though most US.. high schools require 4 years of SS, isn't a subject? The report is garbage and any sort of inclusion of the above would be WP:UNDUE ObserverNY (talk) 21:07, 11 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Please be more specific about your claim that the report is "garbage." Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:34, 11 September 2009 (UTC)

The report opens with a biased premise. IB supplied IB teachers to "collude" to try and "establish" some "standards" for something that claims to already be an "internationally standardized curriculum". Who knows who funded EPIC to conduct the project? And excluding the most "controversial" of IB's core subjects is clearly a means to obfuscate the area where the "curriculum" is most abused and least recognized by universities. The whole thing is bogus! ObserverNY (talk) 23:37, 11 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

This appears to be a valid study and the organization is affiliated with a university. The first part of the study was to determine the content of the IB curricula for which IB teachers and staff were consulted; then a second study was conducted in which university faculty compared the IB curricula to college materials. Perhaps you didn't scroll down and read the methodologies used in the second, independent study. The only concern I have is that the second study is US centric and thus can only be used for the US portion of this article or for reception. But using as a source stating the aims of the curricula its a fine source. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:53, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

So what? Bill Ayers is affiliated with the University of Chicago. Does that make his whacko politics legitimate? ObserverNY (talk) 01:48, 12 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

So what? Thomas Sowell is affiliated with Stanford University. Does that make his opinions legitimate? Regards, • CinchBug • 02:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh hey, welcome back, Observer. In case you forgot in your thirty-six hour absence, this page is meant for the discussion to stay on topic. Let's keep it that way. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 02:15, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes Cinchbug, Thomas Sowell is a brilliant economist and a true American, not a domestic terrorist. There's a difference.

HA - I'm not editing your precious IB articles. Merely commenting on a junk "project" which all of you hypocritically have no problem suggesting for Reception with total disregard for WP:UNDUE But you go load up these articles with all the garbage you predicted I would add if y'all stopped editing. Let's see how much biased dung you can fill it with. Ready, set, go! I have to get up early, 9/12 is tomorrow! ObserverNY (talk) 02:25, 12 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The study is a significant viewpoint and a reliable source, so nothing undue about it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:34, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY (say whaaat?!) just said above and as you have been reminded many times before please stay on the topic, use the talk pages for improvement of the article and not as a blog. Thank you. --Candy (talk) 09:59, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY, you seem to have missed my point: The reference to Ayers suggests a logical fallacy: "My car is red. My unreliable phone is red. Therefore my car is unreliable like my phone." This has nothing to do with Bill Ayers--or Thomas Sowell--and the fact that an individual might be associated with a university has no bearing on the issue at hand. It also has nothing to do with whether or not this report is affiliated with a university. (TK, by the way, in reading the report, I didn't find a reference to any particular university. Could you point out a page number for me, since I seem to be missing it? Thanks.) To help determine whether or not this report is worthy of inclusion in this IB article, we should look at, for example, the other things that ERIC has done as an organization to determine if they appear to have any particular bias, or at other studies conducted by the authors. But to blindly dismiss the report as "garbage" just because it doesn't conform to your viewpoint would make no sense--likewise, assuming that the report is valid because it conforms to another viewpoint would make no sense. Regards, • CinchBug • 13:52, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I looked up David Conley. The studies he's done are for AP as well as IB and his book would also be considered a valid source, but haven't looked to see if it's available to read online. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:01, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

TK, oh, okay, I see. I'll take a look at that stuff. Thanks! Regards, • CinchBug • 18:28, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Questioning some statements

Under Curriculum is the following partial statement, "While the IB encourages students to pursue the full IB diploma, ..." The references linked don't state this and I have no evidence that this is true. Is there a citation for this? --Candy (talk) 19:23, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

Try wading through this discussion, it might explain why the multiple refs. Of course, since then the section may also have been changed so the text no longer matches the refs. Don't know how helpful this is. Probably add to the list of sections to be worked on. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:31, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I didn't wade through this. One look at it reminded me how incoherent and off track those discussions were. I added to the To Do list as you implied. FYI the reason I suggest the removal of links to [2]is that the document itself specifies that the web pages at the IBO be used as the guide (the pdf if from 2002 as well so would only have an historical significance). --Candy (talk) 21:11, 12 September 2009 (UTC)

I moved "Back to UWC" to archive #8. I think the bot would not archive it because there was no time stamp. La mome (talk) 11:56, 13 September 2009 (UTC)

Candorwein: "As with any new venture, Miles Macdonell has experienced its share of challenges. These challenges included maintaining staff commitment to the full Diploma Programme rather than encouraging interests in individual subjects and making sure the IB programme is an inclusive program that involves the entire school, teachers, and students. http://www.ibo.org/ibna/actionpacks/documents/CaseStudy-Canada_Diploma.pdf. I suppose one could argue that the above is merely the philosophy of this one particular school, however the document is hosted on the IBO website. Hope this helps. ObserverNY (talk) 14:52, 13 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

UK perspective

[3] … “But Dr Geoff Parks, director of admissions at the University of Cambridge, says that when it comes to tutors making tough calls on borderline applicants, students taking the IB stand a better chance than their A-level counterparts of getting an offer. "Because the IB differentiates better than A-levels, (at present – the introduction of the A* grade may change this), if we are hesitating about making an offer at all, we would be more likely to make an offer to an IB student than an A-level student," he says.”... Just wondering if we can use this. Is the Independent a valid source? --Cheers-- La mome (talk) 13:41, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, it is a reliable source. But if we refer to that article we should also mention the downsides that it covers. I think the basic point is that conditional offers couched in terms of IB points are more demanding than offers in terms of GCE A levels (because AAA at A Level is only about 37 IB points, and e.g. most offers from Oxford are around 40 IB points), so when a school changes from A level to IB that is one of the issues parents need to be aware of. It is a bit hard to explain this using just this Independent article. Perhaps I will find some more references to go with it, though I'm afraid this is a very busy period right now so I can't contribute much. - Pointillist (talk) 17:52, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

As far as I see the issue ... it's a bit like a vogue. ATM the Diploma has a high street cred and obviously also a high value with UK universities regarding acceptance and equivalence. The reference is also valid.

However, the real question is what we should be including in this article. IMHO, ONY pushed these articles to include as wide a base as possible to push POV. I question whether these sorts of statements from one country (ie UK .. and yes I accept it is a quality University) really enhance an article which should be grounded in the academic programme and its acceptance internationally. Perhaps some sort of consensus is needed to decide really how the article develops regarding the main topics/characteristics?

In the meanwhile, I have no objection to its inclusion in the current framework. It's just the overall framework I am concerned about.--Candy (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with Candy. In my view, consensus is needed to decide what to do with the article, section by section. Decide what to change, what to add, what to delete, etc. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:31, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

It's fine with me if the article avoids getting into specifics about acceptance in individual countries – I just felt it would misleading to quote only one side of the Independent article. Before all the drama happened I had intended to do basic wikignoming (tidying up details and fixing references) here and I still have various useful IBDP materials to hand, including various guides, statistics on results, etc. Let me know if I can help. - Pointillist (talk) 23:14, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Adding result statistics would be informative. Petersen's book has statistics from the very early years (which we don't necessarily have to add) which made me think that expanding the assessment section w/ statistics might be useful. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:23, 19 September 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think adding statistics is a good idea. I won't be around for awhile, but I might be able to do some editing next weekend. And when I say editing, I mean adding stuff here first for discussion/consideration for conclusion. I have no problem if someone else wants to add info I post here into the article. I am all for collaboration, and don't assume ownership of anything I contribute on the talk page.

The Conley study and the Independent article would only be appropriately added to the reception section (I think), which I am not completely convinced should remain as it is. Ditto for the countries chart. Perhaps if they were combined...just thinking out loud. (Conley added to US and Independent added to UK---and then going into the reception and parsing it out, possibly.) We do have a to-do list, but maybe it needs to be prioritized. I agree with Pointillist that, if added, the Independent article should show both sides of the UK perspective, which I think it does very nicely.

La mome (talk) 01:15, 20 September 2009 (UTC)

Name change

Does anyone know why the name of the article has changed twice in the last few days? Just curious. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

[4] ObserverNY (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I saw that. But why? Was it vandalism, or intentional? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I dunno. Guess you'll have to ask them! ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

See here. Regards, • CinchBug • 00:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It was changed unilaterally by a user who had been warned about doing this type of thing. It destroyed the archives and the to do list. I requested a revert so we get the archives and to do list back. A sysop helped me. It was clearly intentional but I think it was in good faith ... but without consultation was inappropriate. However, the perp got a limited ban. --Candy (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the archive bot is not functioning and needs to be re-set. I don't know how to do this, so I hope someone will look into this. Thanks, La mome (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

defend similarities

Tvor65 - since you are so quick to revert my edit, please share with everyone the similarities between the French Bac, the European bac and IB. In fact, I would love to hear your reasoning for including either of those Bacs, especially when the European Bac article specifically states: It is awarded only by the fourteen European Schools and should be distinguished from the International Baccalaureate (IB) and the baccalaureate of various national systems Furthermore, the French Bac was established under Napoleon and is extremely nationalistic. Referring readers to those two Bacs is simply not WP:notable and implies that they have something in common with IB. They don't. United World Colleges do. ObserverNY (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Ah! Whoever Colonel Warden is, I find that to be an acceptable substitution. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

• You're welcome. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

As for the French Baccalaureate, it is their national (not nationalistic) exam for university entrance. They list the International Baccalaureate under their “See also” section along with the European Baccalaureate. They also have a list of other national exit (or university entrance) exams under the section “Compare.” The French also have their own "French International Baccalaureate." If you compare the French bac and the French international bac, you will see many similarities between those examination systems and the IBDP. You'll also note that it has changed since Napoleon's time.

I think we should have either "See also" or "Compare" (or both?) at the end of the IBDP, with links to other national and international university entrance exams, as opposed to the link to the list of exams. One of the problems I see with linking to that list is that the IBDP is listed only under Europe, where it is really found around the world. That list could change or be deleted without our input or knowledge. I'd rather we decide what should be listed as comparative to the IBDP.

La mome (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.Tvor65 (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. As a new (welcome!) and previously uninvolved editor in this article, I think Col. Warden's edit is sufficient. ObserverNY (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

• In a British context, the IB is usually discussed as an alternative to the Advanced level of the General Certificate of Secondary Education (A-level) and there is now a competing national Diploma qualification for 14-19 olds which is confusingly just referred to as The Diploma. If we start listing all these specific national alternatives then we will recreate the list in question. Better to just use the list and improve it if needed. I have created an International section in that list to address the point made above. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the International section. I suppose we should add the French International Diploma and the AP International Diploma to that section as well. So that solves one problem, but there are others. In linking to the list, are we suggesting that the American GEDis equivalent to the IBDP?

La mome (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The items on the list are equivalent in that they all constitute secondary school leaving certificates. ObserverNY (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

In any case, we're not suggesting an exact academic equivalence. See also is just a list of topics which a reader might reasonably find useful as being generally similar or related but which haven't been mentioned in the body. If we have something to say about qualifications which are specifically accepted as equivalent or antecedent to the IB then this would best go in the article proper. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If topics that are generally similar are in the "see also" then I'd agree that the other bacs should be included w/ IBDP. See the "see also" on the Matura here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

TK - The "other bacs" are on the list. Also, I notice you added the IB logo. Was there a consensus that it meets WP:FU? ObserverNY (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I didn't add the logo. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The logo was added to the IB series box and appears in all the IB series entries. La mome (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies to TK for the mis-attribution, I read your "added image" edit and neglected to look further. I see someone totally unrelated to our discussion made the logo edit [5] Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 00:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

P.S. - the chateau picture adds a nice touch of elitism to the page. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I can take out the Chateau as the logo was added almost simultaneously. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the chateau! Hey, did you know "Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf" went there? Interesting bit of trivia, no? La mome (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't care if you leave it in or take it out. I happen to like pictures on the Wikipedia articles. I think it serves to enforce the IB's elitist snob image. If that's what you want to project, fine with me. But since both images were added without any discussion, I guess I can assume that this is a new manner of editing? ObserverNY (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

So, how do we go about finding images that don't reinforce the elitist snob image that a chateau provides? Btw, did you know that Ronald M. George went there too? La mome (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know how to respond. I thought I'd find an image of Ecolint as the history section has space to support an image. The image of the Chateau was the nicest of the images and as it happens that's where many of the meetings took place during the early years. I added the image and poof! the logo popped up as well. A new manner of editing? I tend to make changes and respond to comments. So if there's a problem with the image in the history section, by all means comment, or even delete if you want. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

GA discussion

Here's an image that's been uploaded. Does it pass FUR? If so, then it could be added to the template.

There was contention about describing the programme: is it a pre-university course of study, or not? Thus the cluster of citations in the lead -- though those could be removed and then added to the article body if everyone agrees. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

CW - I am of the opinion that placing the IB logo on the page is a violation of WP:FU specifically as it refers to: 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes. In the case of a Wikipedia article, the use of the IB logo is promotion for an expensive programme. Schools pay big money to be able to "use" the IB logo and a Wikipedia article should not stand as an advertisement for any organization. For example, you do not see a College Board logo on the Advanced Placement article. We used to have IB's mission statement in a pretty blue box, but I don't know what happened to that.

As to the cites in the WP:LEAD, I remember a dispute about the 16-19 year old thing and the fact that students must be enrolled in an IB school to participate. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Just to be clear -- the image I posted was uploaded by another editor a year ago, and I believe has been used on these articles in the past.

Also, this diff shows the reason for the cluster of cites in the lead. Unable to agree, or in the process of edit warring, some editors were using multiple cites for verification. In my view, the article is not stable enough for GAR, but input from independent editors would be welcome, so for that reason a GAR isn't out of the question. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Just because another editor inserted the logo previously and had it subsequently removed (where's the reason for removal?) doesn't mean it constitutes WP:FU. Furthermore, it would appear that the particular dif TK cited dealt more with the insertion of the subjective adjective "demanding" than with the age disagreement. ObserverNY (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Except as you have been previously informed ObserverNY, words like expensive (or cheap) are subjective and pejorative terms so it doesn't assist in creating a discussion - no matter how much original research you throw in. --Candy (talk) 06:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to add, the CB and IB are both non-profit organisations. Regarding the logo, the College Board logo is used on the College Board page. The question is whether the IBDP should have the logo of its parent organisation on the page. Comparing the IBDP to the AP article isn't really a good yardstick to base a rationale for the IBDP article. The AP and CB articles seem to need a lot of work. --Candy (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

A few thoughts/comments:

1. I think what TK was saying is that there was a logo for a while, which is still on the IB page. The question is, does it belong on both pages? And if yes, what about the other IB pages in the IB series? I agree that there should be an image near the lead paragraph.

2. Citation 3 was added to support the addition of the word "demanding" as the IBDP has been described as challenging, rigorous, demanding, etc... Since the word "demanding" is no longer there, the citation can be removed, imo. Then we would need only one of the remaining two, if at all, to support the description of the IBDP. The IBDP has also been described as a "college-prep" programme. That works for Americans, but not for others around the world, where "college" does not necessarily mean "university." It was suggested to use "pre-university" but then refuted that all HS courses are "pre-university." It is difficult to describe anything without using adjectives. The problem is that someone pointed out that it needs to be stated early on that the IBDP is more (pick one) difficult/challenging/rigorous/demanding than an average HS programme of study.

3. I don't think anyone contested that students need to attend an IBDP school in order to participate in the IBDP. There was mention of the online courses, that would be opened up to students not attending an IB school, but that is a future event, and only certain courses are offered, not a full slate needed to complete the requirements of the programme. The other dispute involved the use of "must be enrolled in" vs "must attend," but no citations were added for that.

4. I think it would be a good idea to invite other editors in to clear up these issues. If nominating the article as a GA is an option, I am all for it.

La mome (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Good Article nomination

To provide some focus for our further efforts and get more independent input, I suggest that we nominate the article as a Good article. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a lovely suggestion. You have my support. ObserverNY (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

In terms of independent input and focus, a good idea.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Checking it before nomination, there may be a couple of issues:

a) The article seems overcited, having citations in the lead, which ought to be a summary of cited points made in the body. Some of these citations occur in clusters. Do these represent points of contention?

b) The article could perhaps benefit from an image at top right. I suppose that most relevant material is copyright. Perhaps the IB logo would be acceptable fair use. Has this been considered before?

Colonel Warden (talk) 06:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Recognition section

I was cleaning up the recognition section (not that I like it much) and I realised that it isn't a recognition section. It's a recognition and how many schools there are in each country.

What abut we remove reference to the number of schools in each country? This is a list we can't efficiently keep up to date with and I see it as beyond the scope of what is encyclopaedic. People can get that info from the IB website. Actually, hang that, I'll delete those refs now and see what it looks like. Someone can revert if they feel they need to and we can discuss. --Candy (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did that. Then I thought I'd see if I could find cites for recognition. It turns out the IB web site has these as well. I looked at the Austrian one [6] and wondered how on earth that will be condensed for the table. Perhaps it's best to wipe the table and link the engine to search for these on the IB web site (if we can find it - I googled this amongst others)? --Candy (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• If reliable sources can be found the "Recognition" section should describe how Universities value the IBDP compared with national qualifications. IMO removing content about the number of schools was a good call. - Pointillist (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC) (explanation follows)

1. Recognition by Universities is definitely of interest to parents: I've just come back from Oxford's alumni weekend where there was palpable frustration from middle-aged graduates about how much harder it was for their children to excel in the IBDP (compared with GCE A levels) and that they felt colleges didn't sufficiently appreciate this. We were seated randomly at my college's dinner but the couple next to me said their son was rejected for PPE in Dec 2008 with 42 points predicted and achieved 44 points (with 7 for HL Economics). Of course, one bright individual might mess up the TSA and/or interview but in my small circle there were other Oxbridge examples: rejected by Oxford with 42 points predicted and achieved 45 points, and accepted by Cambridge with a 45 point offer (achieved!) that to my mind indicates a lack of understanding of how well the IBDP prepares students for the demands of higher-level education.

2. The count of schools by country didn't belong in "Recognition" and anyway it is very difficult to get a meaningful figure: at one end of the spectrum there are schools like KCS and Sevenoaks in the UK where the IBDP is the only 16+ option and at the other there are those who offer/will offer/previously offered it as an option. The IB website doesn't distinguish between such cases. - written by Pointillist

1. I also think removing the number of schools was a good move. This info is easily found on the IBO site and is hard to keep up-to-date.

2. I think the info on recognition is useful but it does require a lot of work; much of it lacks citations. I suggest also that we return to the text/list form, which is easier to edit than a table (does not matter for me but may be intimidating for new editors) and which it was until ONY decided one day to convert it to a table. Anyway, these are my two cents.Tvor65 (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not a WP:forum. ObserverNY (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Good for you, ONY. Keep reminding yourself this. (Maybe you can even apply this bit of wisdom to your own talk page.) In the meantime, we will continue discussing what to do with the Recognition section. Any other opinions? Tvor65 (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favour of any clean up for the so called recognition section. Also, in favour of converting to text if editing the table causes difficulty. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you are all in agreement on scrapping the number of schools in each country as readers can search for that themselves, I recommend the same logic be followed for scrapping the entire "recognition" section and condensing the section to a one line reference directing readers here: [7] Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

And I ABSOLUTELY object to this edit by Candorwein [8] which oh so slyly removes the IB schools in Iran, Pakistan and other countries and gives WP:undue weight to others. Scrap the whole thing. ObserverNY (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Please relax, ONY - it appears that Candy removed all countries for which there was no university recognition info. If you've got that info for Iran or Pakistan, go ahead and include it. Otherwise, there is no point in including these until such info becomes available.Tvor65 (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid ONY that calling me sly is not an appropriate word to use for what are entirely open actions. If you can't assume good faith then you are not welcome here. It seems your various bans have done little to improve your manners. Please read what Tvor65 (talk) wrote immediately above and read my comment on this edit which states that countries were removed. [[9]] --Candy (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Candorwein - I did not call YOU sly, I called your EDIT sly: ...object to this edit by Candorwein [10] which oh so slyly. Please learn the difference and either restore the table as it was until consensus is reached on what to do or eliminate the section completely. ObserverNY (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Let's eliminate the recognition section completely and link to the IB search engine as Candy so cleverly mentioned earlier.

La mome (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I was the one to mention it and it is already done. ObserverNY (talk) 10:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(Edit conflict) Candy mentioned it first. I also agree with Pointillist that the IBDP should be compared to similar exit or university entrance exams. Which might be a solution to the earlier discussion about "see also" vs link to a list of exams, which are not all equivalent to the IBDP. I think that is what the recognition section was originally about--how it is recognised in secondary schools around the world, not at their universities.La mome (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved

 – table deleted - ObserverNY (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Candorwein linked a specific country, I linked the search directory and made the change. ObserverNY (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNYObserverNY (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ONY - First of all it's not appropriate of you to start telling me what to do with edits which are fully documented. Secondly, your comment about my edit being sly is certainly inappropriate. The edit was sly; that was sly editing. Same thing. You still don't seem to be able to work in a friendly manner do you? I also do not have to restore the table or delete the section. It's not appropriate for you to demand things of me. It's been opened for discussion. I see your ban has not improved your civility. --Candy (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

...Perhaps it's best to wipe the table and link the engine to search for these on the IB web site (if we can find it - I googled this amongst others)? --Candy (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Great idea, Candy.

Thanks, La mome (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what the best solution is, since I certainly see Candy's point about maintaining the information and keeping it current. But, if we're going to delete the table, I would suggest that we save it in its current form, perhaps in TK's sandbox (which has an earlier form of the table, but not the current one, I believe). That way, if we should ever decide we want it back in again, we don't need to rebuild it--we can just copy it and modify as necessary. Regards, • CinchBug • 20:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, well...I guess I'm a little behind the times, since the table is already gone. It might be a good idea to go back to a previous version of the page and save all of that work somewhere now--trying to do it later would be a much bigger hassle than doing it now. Anyway... • CinchBug • 20:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cinchbug. Surely, the table is permanently (well as permanently as wikipedia is here) stored in the history? Simply viewing an earlier revision means that we can extract the wiki code. I agree that it can be a hassle to find things when many months have passed though. Shame there isn't some sort of simple revision log available for edit pages which shows major deletions and additions along with dates.

However, I would have liked more of a discussion about it to be honest as I had flagged up.

Candy, yes, it's true that we can always retrieve the table, if necessary. But I agree that more discussion would have been nice. Regards, • CinchBug • 22:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I thought we were considering converting to text and not eliminating the table altogether. I've been very busy, but when I have the chance will stash the most current version of the table in my sandbox in case we decide to have a proper discussion about the edit. In my view a link to the IB website isn't sufficient -- in fact we already link to the IB website in the external links. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me refresh your memories: Let's eliminate the recognition section completely and link to the IB search engine as Candy so cleverly mentioned earlier. La mome (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Talk about beating a dead horse! ObserverNY (talk) 09:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Maybe I should have added "...and start all over again." I also said this-"I also agree with Pointillist that the IBDP should be compared to similar exit or university entrance exams. Which might be a solution to the earlier discussion about "see also" vs link to a list of exams, which are not all equivalent to the IBDP. I think that is what the recognition section was originally about--how it is recognised in secondary schools around the world, not at their universities." La mome (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC) I don't think that the recognition section the way it appears now is complete.La mome (talk) 10:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there was an agreement on removing the table. Converting it back to text and improving its content were discussed, and Candy already started working on the latter when ONY deleted it. As I said before, I think that info was useful.Tvor65 (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Useful to whom? The WP:notable portion of the topic, 75 countries and 2500+ universities is listed. Wikipedia is not a college search directory for IB. ObserverNY (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Recognition section discussion

I'd like to see the text from the table restored. Then the text can be edited as needed to provide a good recognition section. It is notable that the International Baccalaureate is available in various countries. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I have restored the text for the time being. It is now easier to edit, as one can click on edit for an individual country. If someone can copy and paste it into a sandbox, that would be good.Tvor65 (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:Undue, POV selective presentation of countries, takes up WAY too much room in the article for what can be summarized in two lines. ObserverNY (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I'm not going to get in an edit war with you. You wanted the table gone, I made it happen. I summarized the notability of the section concisely. Instead of responding to my question above, you ignored the ongoing discussion, abandoned consensus and restored the text. I think it looks and reads like crap.

To Col. Warden - based on this recent action by other editors, I respectfully request that you withdraw the article from the nomination process you had suggested. ObserverNY (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The article hasn't yet been nominated for GAR, so nothing to worry about. As for the current edits, the text needs more formatting, but in my view, at least some of the text should stay. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please justify with some reason other than "because ONY doesn't want it" why you think "some of the text should stay". Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(ec) ONY - you deleted the table without a clear consensus. TK, Pointillist I did not want all of that info gone (though TK and I did not care for the table format), Candy was not sure, and CB did not even have a chance to reply. I'll assume good faith in that you thought there was consensus when you made your edit, but in reality this was not the case. Also, please watch your language - the above post of yours is vulgar and uncivil.Tvor65 (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is a different format of the same text, though I have to check MOS about the mdashes & bolds. As for the text: the section is incomplete and still needs citations. Until the section is finished, I'm not willing to say I love it or hate it; in my view the text is worth preserving until the section is done and then a decision can be made to keep or delete. In my view, the information here is more encyclopedic than the information in the "Reception" section. Also, no one here attacked the editor, or said I want to keep this because ONY doesn't like it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)There was agreement between me and LaMome based on Candorwein's "cleverly" suggestion. That alone probably triggered the Indonesian tsunami. You had no consensus to put it back. And Tvor65, since I've been around a number of different Wikipedia articles and you only edit IB, I have learned that it is perfectly acceptable to call an edit or a thing an ugly piece of shit if I so desire and not violate WP:civil because I am speaking of a thing, not a person. That's because, according to Wiki policy, Wikipedia doesn't WP:censor In fact, I could go so far as to call it a fucking piece of shit and not get banned for incivility, because I am describing an inanimate object. And of course we KNOW I would NEVER direct such vulgar and crude language towards a fellow editor. Cheers!ObserverNY (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Using vulgar language, whether directed at an inanimate object or another editor is not welcome here. I find it offensive as it does not create a welcoming atmosphere for editors to feel comfortable to contribute to the article. You have used crude language towards other editors. Just because you think it is acceptable elsewhere does not make it true here. We've asked you before and once again you demonstrate that you have not learned from the numerous bans/blocks you have received already, namely for incivility. And yet you continue. Please stop.

La mome (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) ONY, an agreement between you and LaMome does not constitute consensus. Vulgarity is never acceptable and is fundamentally uncivil. (I see that LaMome already said this much better, thanks.)

TK, your new format looks much nicer, thanks. I agree (and said a few times before) that the text needs a lot of work, and we may yet decide to remove it, but I don't see a consensus to do it at the moment. I also think that it is more encyclopedic in content than the Reception section, which cites op-ed pieces that may not be WP:RS.Tvor65 (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

When we have consensus I'll replace the section with the reformatted text. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - your "Recognition" section takes up OVER A FULL SCREEN'S WORTH of text! It looks like kaka doodie. Wikipedia is not a university guide for IB!

Is that your windup to remove the Reception section, Tvor65?? The Reception section that has been stable for MONTHS??? Divide agreement on one section, decide you can leave that section half-assed unfinished to be worked on later, while you attack the next section? Talk about uncivil and disruptive! ObserverNY (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The following is from WP:civility (emphasis mine):

1. Direct rudeness

(a) Rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions;

(b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities;

(c) ill-considered accusations of impropriety;

(d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "snipped rambling crap", "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen");

I advise ONY to pay close attention to the items in bold.Tvor65 (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Tvor65 - And I ask you to pay close attention to #1:

1. Direct rudeness

(a) Rudeness

You have behaved rudely by your divisive and detrimental actions on this Talk page, beginning with your WP:forum post, ignoring ongoing discussion, distracting by announcing an attack on another section and your holier-than-thou lectures. Please do something to drastically reduce the MORE THAN FULL PAGE Recognition section and stop with your distractions. It is unbecoming and rude. ObserverNY (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

??? There was no WP:forum post from me - you must be confusing what I wrote with unsigned Pointillist's post right above it that you may have construed as such (not that I agree with this characterization). Nor was I rude in any way, shape or form. You were, however. Please reread WP:Civility and stop disrupting the discussion.Tvor65 (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, will ya look at that. Someone has typed in written by Pointillist. Yes, I did attribute that long "Oxford" post to you, Tvor65. Perhaps it would have been helpful if you had pointed it out at the time when I said "This is not a WP:forum to which you snarkily replied: "Good for you, ONY. Keep reminding yourself this. (Maybe you can even apply this bit of wisdom to your own talk page.) In the meantime, we will continue discussing what to do with the Recognition section. Any other opinions?" If you don't think your tone was rude and snarky, pretend I wrote it to you and see how you think it sounds. Again, you fail to contribute anything positive to the discussion which you re-opened about Recognition. ObserverNY (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Perhaps you should read the posts more carefully (Pointillist did say that "explanation follows") before making accusations of WP policy violations. Especially those policies that you violate yourself on the regular basis, as I have pointed out to you.Tvor65 (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Going back to the real talk about reception: of course every University should seriously consider admitting anyone who has achieved top marks (45) in their IB, but that isn't the real measure of recognition of the IB. The fundamental problem with the current "recognition" content is that it doesn't compare Universities' entry requirements measured in IB-points to national qualifications (e.g. A levels). For example, in the UK section it is factually correct to state that UCAS has published a tariff that allows IB results to be compared with "A levels". However, this is misleading because [in 2008-9] most UK Universities ignored the UCAS tariff when deciding their minimum entry requirements and (as I hear it) IB candidates had to achieve much more than A level candidates: more subjects in a short examination period with each student being forced to succeed in a wide mixture of subjects. If the article talks about recognition, it must present a comparative point of view so that concerned parents can analyse the [educational] strengths and [university selection] weaknesses of the IBDP. - Pointillist (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Pointillist. Perhaps a way of writing the section is to attempt to define the recognition criteria such as UCAS tariff (which is verifiable) and then compare to the actual "recognition" i.e., UCAS ignored for IB students (if that is verifiable.) I do think that an article about an international programme that prepares students for university, must in fact speak to the level of university recognition in a variety of countries. If that's impossible, then the section can be scrapped altogether. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The UCAS controversy should be added to the Reception section. The UK is really the only nationality that has established an actual point table to scale the IBDP against. The vast majority of the references as they currently stand are uncited. If you are going to mention UCAS, then you must also mention that the People's Republic of China does not recognize the IBDP for university admission for balance. ObserverNY (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

To Pointillist - well, do we have anything other than anecdotal evidence of UK universities disregarding UCAS? Any specific university policies that state that?Tvor65 (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:Undue is being given to 12 out of 75 countries in the "Recognition" section. Of those 12 countries, 3 - China, Peru & Turkey, do NOT recognize the IBDP. For some undeclared reason, countries which the United States has strained relations with, such as Iran and Pakistan, have been eliminated. This appears to be selective POV presentation. It is incomprehensible to me why Truthkeeper fought tooth and nail to reduce the size of the Special Needs and Application/Fees section on the basis that too much information provided WP:Undue weight to those sections, yet TK appears to be perfectly content to allow the "Recognition" section (25% of which is revealing that there IS NO recognition for the IBDP in those countries, to take up a full screen's worth of copy. The argument for retention of this long, haphazard, half uncited, selective representation of a small minority of the claimed 75 countries is illogical. Furthermore, the IBDP is awarded on a 24-45 point scale. There are numerous "exceptions" for Recognition such as the '36' pt. requirement for Russia. It would be much more fair and accurate to state that individual universities in various countries set their own standards as to what score on an IBDP constitutes an acceptable score for admission. A cite of 2 States out of 50 in the U.S.A. hardly constitutes fair representation of recognition of the IBDP in America. ObserverNY (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

About the UK situation with UCAS, etc: The UCAS website shows what IB points are required for many courses, alongside the A-level grades. It's not possible to collect all the data easily, but a small survey I made shows that very few universities offer IB students a points score which compares to the A-level grades on UCAS' own tariff table. I don't know of any independent source with this information, though (which is why I did my own survey). In terms of UCAS points, the offers to IB students are about 100 points higher than to A-level students. Ewen (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

And what of the A* A-Level grades? IB doesn't fare very well against those, as evidenced by students who were not granted admission to their UK colleges of choice: [11]ObserverNY (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Thanks, Ewen. This is interesting and certainly important but it does not look like we have any WP:RS to back this up yet.Tvor65 (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't found any reliable source apart from sampling UCAS (which would be OR, of course). In the absence of a source, I have re-cast the sentence about the UK so that it says the tariff table isn't binding. - Pointillist (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

To all: I had no trouble finding citations for the IB recognition policies in the listed countries. A lot of info can indeed be found on the IBO site, but not all of it. I removed or rewrote statements that do not appear to be backed up by any sources I was able to find. If you find citations backing those up or want to add other countries, please do so. Thanks.Tvor65 (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

To all - the Recognition section as it now stands fills almost TWO FULL screens of text, more than doubling the amount of space given to the actual subjects. This is a GROSS abuse of WP:Undue. Once again, I move to strike all of the minimally represented countries, add a line about UCAS and a line about admissions standards and recognition of the IBDP varying from university to university and country to country and be done with it. ObserverNY (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Break

I'd like everyone to remember that there is a policy that shows that articles must not be biased towards one country or another. The recognition section is rather long, but it's more or less necessary. There are a couple of options for you here:

• Spin it off into a Recognition of IB article (or something like that). There may not be enough text there to really justify its own article, though.
• Compress the sections into prose. Perhaps a paragraph for European countries, Asian countries, and so on would work.

Other ideas are of course welcome, but those are two things I just came up with. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

More specifically, the Recognition section as it stands constitutes WP:Listcruft. ObserverNY (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

As it stands, perhaps, but "strik[ing] all of the minimally represented countries" is not a better solution. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

My recommendation above was to strike the partial list of countries and to: "add a line about UCAS and a line about admissions standards and recognition of the IBDP varying from university to university and country to country and be done with it."The IB site where individuals can search for specific universities in specific countries is listed. Is someone going to police the recognition of IB in each of the listed countries on a regular basis and update as necessary? If maintaining the number of schools in each country was untenable, certainly national policy is as well. ObserverNY (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I don't see the policy changing all that often. And if there are any large changes made and they're notable enough, someone will see a news article about it an update accordingly. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I support combining the countries by regions to save space. I don't think there is enough info for a separate article but the information itself is certainly relevant and worthy of inclusion. Not all of it can be found on IBO and thus simply referring to IBO site is not sufficient, IMO.Tvor65 (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I've gone ahead and shuffled everything into discrete sections. It's certainly not perfect, but it's a start. Thoughts? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You've beat me to it, HA: I just did the same but there was an edit conflict. I think it looks much better this way.Tvor65 (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. You know what? Leave it. To me it makes the IBDP look like a widely discredited, inconsistent, international qualification. Good work! ObserverNY (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The new format doesn't help to make the extra info any less like fluff. The first paragraph is fine. I suggest just leaving that. I understand there will be calls to have them back but the real question is whether it will ever be achievable. There are so many variables, so little fixed in stone and one has to remember that non-IB qualifications are no guarantee of being accepted at Universities even if they are the top grades. In addition, the whole thing is riddled with inconsistencies ( such as PR China not officially recognising the IBDP but then Hong Kong being mentioned which is part of PR China or the use of the island of Taiwan which is part of the Republic of China). These inconsistencies may be on the IB site (I haven't checked) but they shouldn't be part of Wikipedia I feel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Candorwien (talk • contribs) 17:08, October 2, 2009

It's not up to us to determine inconsistencies. If the sources say that Hong Kong recognizes and China doesn't, then that's what this article must reflect. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, Taiwan is not part of China, even if its status is not officially recognized by some countries, and Hong Kong has had a long separate history before it was "given back" to China. Most people are aware of this, so I don't see any problem.

The information in that section is far from fluff and not all of it can be found through the IBO site. I feel strongly that it should remain there in some form, though certainly it can be condensed and improved.Tvor65 (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Awww, I LIKE the fluff and inconsistencies! It's perfect! But Tvor65 feels strongly about keeping it. Such a dilemma. ObserverNY (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

You know, maybe you should try to improve this article rather than degrade it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Gee HA, I thought that's what I did by removing the table way back when and adding the summary sentence re: 75 countries and 2500+ universities which Candorwein is now advocating retaining. My edit was reverted. I did not revert back as I don't want an edit war. Other editors have extolled the virtues of the Recognition WP:Listcruft. Now it's just WP:Listcruft in prose format. My suggestion to IMPROVE the article was/is/will be to eliminate the Americas, Oceania etc. sub-sections and keep the small paragraph. Tvor65 feels "strongly" that is not acceptable. May I respectfully suggest you address your concerns to Tvor65. ObserverNY (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Except, ObserverNY, I am discussing it with everyone not just you and Tvor65. --Candy (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

To Candorwein - ? I have absolutely no idea how to interpret your response or how it positively contributes to the editing of this article. ObserverNY (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Tvor65, "Also, Taiwan is not part of China, even if its status is not officially recognized by some countries ..." Actually, there's the misunderstanding I was talking about. Taiwan is the main island of the Republic of China. However, it is only the main island. Mainland China and Hong Kong are the People's Republic of China.

No question about Hong Kong have a hundred year's of colonial rule before reverting back to China though. Respectfully, --Candy (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, ok. I thought you were referring to China's refusal to recognize Taiwan as a separate country and its common claim to it as part of "One China". Hong Kong remains in many senses autonomous even now, so it is not surprising that it has different recognition policy. If you want to clarify, we could always say that the rest of PRC does not recognize the diploma. In any case, I don't see it as a huge issue, as I said. As I was searching for citations to fill in the gaps, I saw that there is quite a bit out there not necessarily included by IBO, so having all this information in one place (rather than simply referring to IBO which does not have all of it) is in fact encyclopedic and useful. In fact, older versions of the recognition section copied from WP are already floating around the web and come up in google searches. As long as it's properly cited (which it was not before), it actually gives a nice overview of how different countries recognise (or not) this international program. True, we cannot include all 75 countries, nor do I think it is necessary, as long as the info included is representative. Tvor65 (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

call to end discussion on Recognition

Imho, there has been MORE than enough discussion on this topic and the time has come for editors to weigh in on a vote as to whether to include the regional descriptors, or reduce the section to the opening paragraph. Motion: To reduce Recognition section to descriptive single paragraph.(please sign after your choice)

AYEObserverNY (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

NAY LaMome

Respectfully submitted, ObserverNY (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Polls aren't how we generate consensus around here. And from the look the above, you voted for both aye and nay. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I voted AYE and then submitted the motion by signing it. It's a simple enough matter. Either agree to reduce the section to a single paragraph and then work on improving the paragraph or continue to keep bickering about the WP:Listcruft and history lessons on China. Yes or No. Please cast your vote. Is it unfair to ask people to make up their minds regarding this simple point? Let's see where the majority opinion lies. And I propose nothing be done any further to the section until Ewen, Pointillist, Candorwein, Truthkeeper, LaMome, Tvor65, Cinchbug and HelloAnnyong respond. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Wikipedia is not a democracy. When I have the opportunity to catch up on the talkpage, to assess the new section, and to look at the history of the article and assess how the recognition was treated in the past, I'll comment if necessary. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh huh. Well that was helpful in reaching a resolution. Editors on this article keep changing their minds and inserting distractions and dodging the issue without ever coming to a resolution. And you know the really odd thing? As soon as I agree with whichever side seems to have the "lead" hand, so to speak, then other editors change their mind to oppose me on the decision. So strange. I simply can't figure out why that is. It shouldn't matter what I think, I'm one lone editor who is almost always overruled even though you claim Wikipedia is not a democracy. Do what is RIGHT. You might want to take a look at how editors on other pages interact in order to come to agreement on an issue. Talk:Glenn Beck. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Yes, I'm going to look to the Glenn Beck article as a model on how to edit. Don't bring other articles into this. I seriously doubt that you have an axe to grind over there like you do here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

So was that an AYE or a NAY, HA? ObserverNY (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

If you are not happy with the way things are going here, you are free to edit elsewhere. You are under no obligation to engage in the discussion.

As for the changes in the recognition section, I think we are on the right track to improving that section. It appears to be a compromise, keeping the brief summary and including policies we have so far, grouped by continent, rather than country. Other editors may now want to contribute more readily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by La mome (talk • contribs) 20:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

LaMome - NAY. Next! ObserverNY (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

"A cite of 2 States out of 50 in the U.S.A. hardly constitutes fair representation of recognition of the IBDP in America." ObserverNY (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY --I agree. I believe Florida and other states also have passed legislation regarding the award of credit to IB diploma candidates/recipients. La mome (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

So what? If you read the legislation, it doesn't actually state that universities MUST award credit to the IBDP. It states that universities MUST DEVELOP POLICIES to provide recognition for AP/IB. There is no "tariff" or "table" like UCAS in the U.S. Recognition of the IBDP in the U.S. varies from school to school, state to state and score earned. ObserverNY (talk) 23:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Well, since the US system is not centralised, of course it will vary from state to state. My point being that legislation regarding IB credit exists in other states. Which is what I thought you were saying as well. We'll have to find sources to support that. La mome (talk) 00:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Or ... we can simply eliminate the sub-sections. ObserverNY (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Or, we can try to improve the article by adding to it. A quick google search of "international baccalaureate university recognition policies" gave me this-a university recognition task force developed by IBNA. La mome (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

More fluff and nonsense? Who CARES about an IB committee? Seriously, what does that have to do with established recognition of the IBDP? Has the "task force" actually effected any standardized recognition? ObserverNY (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

And then I found this..."More than 200 colleges and universities in 12 states across the nation recognize the IB diploma and consider it when making admissions decisions. An average of 32 percent of these higher education institutions accept the IB diploma as a credential for admission. About 7 percent offer early admission to IB diploma holders and candidates, and 6 percent offer scholarships specifically for IB students. Twenty-one percent of recognizing schools grant second-year status to IB diploma recipients upon admission to the college or university." Can we use it --"aye" or "nay?" La mome (talk) 01:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

So you want to cite that 38 states DON'T recognize the IBDP or consider it when making admissions decisions? Oh sure! AYE AYE AYE! You go for that LaMome! That's brilliant! Good work! ObserverNY (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(edit conflict)Add Colorado to the list "...Students may earn up to 24 college credits through testing depending on their scores and individual university policies. Colorado legislation passed in 2005 assures the credit at all state run universities except Colorado School of Mines. Students must earn a minimum score on their testing to receive their IB Diploma in August after graduation." But, I guess we might need a better source.

Still looking, La mome (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Minnesota too…

“California recognizes the value of keeping highly attractive IB graduates at in-state institutions and grants students matriculating to the University of California (UC) system with an IB Diploma of 30 or more points 30-quarter (or 20-semester) units toward their UC undergraduate degree. Minnesota also uses the score of 30 points on the IB diploma as the standard for credit acceptance. The Minnesota State Colleges and Universities Board established that all students with a score of 30 or higher must be awarded 12 quarter (or 8-semester) credits for each of the three higher-level exams. In addition, three quarter (or 2-semester) credits are granted for each subsidiary exam. The total possible credit awarded for an IB Diploma in Minnesota is 45 quarter (or 30-semester) credits.” So no, they are not saying that 38 states don't regognize it. They're saying that 12 states have passed legislation. So far we California, Colorado, Minnesota and Texas, correct? What are they others? La mome (talk) 01:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

ha ha - that Desertania section was hysterical! But the little vandal did bring to light something that you folks seem to have overlooked - the entire continent of Africa and the Mid East! [12] Oopsie! ObserverNY (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Ha-ha-ha, very funny, indeed, especially given that the "little vandal" was you:[13]Tvor65 (talk) 13:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Oopsies, ObserverNY. Reverting to WP:SOCK and WP:VANDAL. Shame on you. Tsk, tsk. I believe these are reportable breaches of wikipolicy, n'est-ce pas? Instead of playing silly little games, why don't you add to the content of the article by investigating IB schools in Africa and the Middle East. And when doing so, please refrain from inserting your personal biases into the content of the article.

Thanks, La mome (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO! But you see, I don't WANT to add content about IB schools in Africa and the Mid East. It does not "improve" the article, it just adds superfluous information that individuals can look up for themselves. Let me repeat, Wikipedia is NOT a college search engine for IB. I have recommended time and time again that the section be reduced to one small paragraph, the way you forced me to reduce the Special Needs and Authorization/Fees section. My "silly game" was to point out to you how completely biased your insistence on keeping this WP:Listcruft in prose form is! Sadly, you still don't get it.ObserverNY (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

P.S to LaMome - didn't you mean sont ils pas? ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Wait, back up a second - Observer, did you just admit to making that edit as an anon IP? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

DOH! I forgot to log in, geez you guys have NO sense of humor whatsover! ObserverNY (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

So you find both vandalism and making racist comments about whole groups of people funny? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

"Whole groups of people"? An IB student with a score of 45 is a "whole group of people"? Get a grip HA. Who do you think you are, Jimmy Carter? Calling me a racist? That's not very nice. Yeah, I thought the Desertania section might wake you people up to how RIDICULOUS your argument to keep this way too lengthy section in the article is. I'm sorry I didn't log in and sign my name to it. But I readily admit that I wrote it. The article remains full of the WP:Listcruft you seem to have your hearts set on. Just about every edit I have ever made to this article gets reverted by Tvor65 or LaMome anyway, what makes this any different? LOL!ObserverNY (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Yes, whole groups of people. Like everyone in Iran and Afghanistan. How is it not racist to say that in "Afghanistan, IB students are housed in luxury at the newly excavated cave dorms"? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

The recognition section does not meet the WP:Listcruft criteria. The recognition is integral to the article and has existed since the article was created -- see the earliest edit here. The recognition is important for students who may not be attending university in their own country but would want to know what the IB recognition policy is in other countries. As such, in my view, it is encyclopedic and should be included. Any section can always be improved over time. This conversation and the vandalism is disruptive to editing and to improving the article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

[outdent] Unless you plan on listing the "recognition" of every single one of the 75 countries, you are giving undue weight to the ones you mention. None of you are trying to reach a consensus on trying to improve the article, you are simply digging around for arbitrary "facts" about IB's recognition and it has grown extremely tiresome. You have disregarded my request to leave the section "as is" until some sort of consensus has been reached, you have chosen to ignore my request for an "opinion poll" on where the majority opinion lies, so if you want to lecture me about being "disruptive", go right ahead. I find it very funny how TK can insist that "in my view, it is encyclopedic", but when we were editing the SN and Fee sections I was rebuffed with cite after cite of WP policy. ObserverNY (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

P.S. - In terms of WP:Listcruft, I do believe points #1 & 2 apply: The list was created just for the sake of having such a list - The list is of interest to a very limited number of people. ObserverNY (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

P.P.S - I don't see any Recognition List here Furthermore, the entire article at that point in time was uncited and POV. Do you really want to use that as a basis for your argument about what constitutes "good" editing? ObserverNY (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

• The point of the IB is to provide a school leaving examination that is acceptable internationally, thereby allowing students to have some mobility in their tertiary education. For example, in Hong Kong, which has been discussed, the policy is this:

"International students rarely take the local public examinations. Once the UK GCSE / A-levels were popular among many of Hong Kong’s International schools but now the International Baccalaureate (IB) is the becoming a much common programme at the diploma level. Many country's International schools teach a syllabus from their own country. Students also might take the SAT or IELTS in order to gain entry to an overseas university."

It's not necessary to provide information for 75 countries. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Way to go TK. Ignore my points. Considering there are only 14 IB schools in all of Hong Kong [14] the term "much common" is extraordinarily misleading and POV. You might want to refer back to Candorwein's edit here: [15]ObserverNY (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Although I am in favour of a short paragraph I totally agree with TK that the recognition section does not meet the WP:Listcruft criteria.

However, ObserverNY, this is not appropriate. You have disregarded my request to leave the section "as is" until some sort of consensus has been reached, you have chosen to ignore my request for an "opinion poll" on where the majority opinion lies, so if you want to lecture me about being "disruptive", go right ahead. ONY

Yes, you are being disruptive. I gave every editor the opportunity to willingly revert my original edits to this section. No one did. I suspect they were willing to ride with my suggestion (for the time being). There was a change to paragraphs and the opportunity to revert still and comment (I think HelloAnnyong did that). Both are bold editing (and both clearly signposted). If someone reverted either we could have talked. It didn't need consensus. You, however, decided to change and then insist no one makes changes. You shouldn't make changes and then insist on your own criteria to revert. Quite rightly, we should ignore your opinion poll as that's not how editing articles in Wikipedia works.

I clearly still believe that the section should be one paragraph. However, it is absolutely clear that the consensus is that the section is kept and in an expanded form. I have no option but to work with that in a constructive way. I really don't understand why you don't see that also. Instead of bickering with everyone work constructively. --Candy (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Candorwein - I would like to clarify the record. On September 29th, after discussion by yourself and LaMome agreeing to eliminate the long list of countries, I deleted them and inserted the opening sentence re: 75 countries. That was when I inserted the

Resolved

here on the Talk page as I honestly thought it HAD been resolved. As is customary, Tvor65 reverted it. [16]. You subsequently tweaked the reverted edit, as did others, mostly ignoring what was going on in talk altogether. I did not touch or revert the section for the next 3 1/2 DAYS, attempting to talk it out in here, until today when frustration got the better of me and I played my little Desertania joke. Thank you for coming back and adding your opinion. I hope other editors will take it into consideration. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

One small correction - I changed out the word "ministries" in the Americas section over the course of the 3 days and most of Candorwein's tweaking had been done prior to what I perceived to be agreement to remove.ObserverNY (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

There was no agreement to remove. There were comments but discussion had not really started. Although you were bold and removed the table, you had also been disruptive with your comments at the same time which didn't help matters. There was also no clarity with your edit about what you thought (at least I didn't read that). There was just this "resolved" flag that you put up when in fact the process was awaiting more input. It would have been much better to wait as this was a substantial change and it had been clearly flagged as a topic of contention.

Yes, I tweaked (copyedited) the section which was placed in. Why shouldn't I? Then, what makes you think I ignored the talk page? I don't have to jump in every few seconds/minutes/hours with a comment. Finally, you have caused far more frustration to people here I think than the other way around yet we haven't produced actions like yours. If frustration gets the better of you like that you need to question whether this a place you should be. --Candy (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

To Candorwein-With the exception of your comments on China, the following rather clear, completely edit-related post of yours to improve the article was ignored by every other editor, except HelloAnnyong who poo pooed it:

• The new format doesn't help to make the extra info any less like fluff. The first paragraph is fine. I suggest just leaving that. I understand there will be calls to have them back but the real question is whether it will ever be achievable. There are so many variables, so little fixed in stone and one has to remember that non-IB qualifications are no guarantee of being accepted at Universities even if they are the top grades. In addition, the whole thing is riddled with inconsistencies ( such as PR China not officially recognising the IBDP but then Hong Kong being mentioned which is part of PR China or the use of the island of Taiwan which is part of the Republic of China). These inconsistencies may be on the IB site (I haven't checked) but they shouldn't be part of Wikipedia I feel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Candorwien (talk • contribs) 17:08, October 2, 2009

Instead of following up on that, you allowed me to be the fall guy for the one paragraph argument while you played the fix up the list argument with others! Then you get all huffy when I ask people to actually make up their minds and come to some sort of agreement. My correction was not made to criticize your substantial tweaking, but merely to point out that I had incorrectly noted that you "tweaked" during the 3 day period AFTER I had deleted the table and Tvor65 restored it. Just a point of fact, not a criticism. ObserverNY (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

No, you made yourself the fall guy. I didn't ask you to do the edits that you did. You decided that this meant consensus when in fact it is only my opinion. Don't accuse me of "not following up" as I clearly have been doing. Just perhaps not the way you think I should. I just don't edit or comment like you do. If other editors haven't commented on it then they are hardly agreeing with it are they? On the other hand they are not disagreeing with it. Perhaps they need time to consider it and favour reflection over reflex. Again, you are assuming everyone ignored it. Perhaps they are thinking about it? I don't know. I'm not trying to second guess or place motives on the actions or lack of actions of others. I stick by the quote above but this is not my own user page so I can't do whatever I feel like - and I certainly believe that building consensus takes time. More time than you seem willing to give for sure. I also don't feel that HelloAnnoying poo pooed it. HelloAnnyong made a valid point related to one of the sentences. Meanwhile, the page moves on. Should I throw my toys out of the pram and refuse to cooperate because I should feel offended that my suggestion hasn't been taken up by everyone? Or should I continue to be collaborative and cooperative regardless of whether I am in total agreement? Well, that's a toughie isn't it? Eventually, we may decide to follow my suggestion but at the moment it seems the consensus is that we are trying out paragraphs. Let's see where that takes us. --Candy (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Candorwien for the comment above. We had text, then we had a table. I wasn't crazy about the table, but was willing to let it be for a time. For now, I'm thinking about the format as it is. It will take some time to consider how best to present this material, and whether it's worth preserving. Personally I find it difficult to consider the edits and the contents with the aggressive pushing on the talk page. My intention is to take a few days away from this article and to return with fresh eyes and a fresh disposition. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

recent vandalism

So, is anyone going to report ObserverNY for vandalizing an article that s/he regularly edits? Not to mention the unethical and uncivil comments s/he left there. I don't think it is amusing at all. A warning should also be left on her talkpage. I’d rather not have to do it, since I’ll be once again accused of harassing her/him. That type of behavior is really unacceptable and should not go unchecked. La mome (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

I opened a thread at ANI. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Thank you--La mome (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

You have no consensus for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a democracy, remember? ObserverNY (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

There is consensus. Only one editor wants the section gone, and that editor has removed text that's integral to the topic. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Consensus means all parties involved have come to an agreement. Candorwein has not weighed back in, nor has Cinchbug. Clearly you don't understand the meaning of consensus. It is not majority rules. You do NOT have consensus to retain the section as is. ObserverNY (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Perhaps ObserverNY prefers blocks due to edit warring, as opposed to sock puppetry and vandalism? Apparently, s/he is the one who just doesn't get it. It seems that with an imminent block on the horizon, s/he has decided to blank the article, once again.

La mome (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hmm...so does this mean that the next person to revert will be hit with 3RR? What shall we do? I have a version stored in my sandbox, if that helps. Just for the record, there was no consensus for deletion, as HelloAnnyong pointed out earlier.

La mome (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

No, the next person won't hit 3RR. The rule applies for one person editing on one article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

That's very good, HA. Use gang tactics to bypass 3RR and consensus ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Or perhaps it's consensus? --Candy (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

IB training

Made a correction (though it reads a little odd but I'm tired) to the comment that staff have to "be sent" for IB training. They can use officially recognised on-line workshops. --Candy (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Hypocritical fascists

Thanks for proving what a bunch of lazy, hypocritical fascists IB supporters are. Your only goal was to get ObserverNY banned. More than three weeks have passed and NOT ONE OF YOU has bothered to contribute anything to the article. Shame on all of you. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.235.103 (talk) 11:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Violating your block again, ONY? They really should block your IP address as well.Tvor65 (talk) 14:56, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

I've brought this up to the admin who handled the SPI case the first time. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:12, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

IP was blocked for three months. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:37, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Thanks.Tvor65 (talk) 16:29, 29 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting resource?

I wonder how useful this is to this article and the IB article. It seems to corroborate a number of items already stated in both articles and expands them. I also suspect it was designed to counter some of the diatribe of the "Truth about the IB" website.

How valid does anyone think that this would be?

[17] Candy (have problems logging in atm) --Candy (talk) 11:57, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Some of the statements are interesting but need to be sourced properly (e.g. where on www.militarychild.org does it say the IB has been singled out as a worthwhile and rigorous academic program?) The document was published by the IB, so it isn't a neutral source in its own right. Looking at the wider picture, do we really want to debate such "myths" and "facts" here anyway? I thought we had put all that behind us. - Pointillist (talk) 13:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Noooo. We don't want to go anywhere near myths and facts at all. I was just using it as a corroborative source for some existing statements and to use it as a springboard to other sources. I wouldn't use it as a single source for anything because as you state it's from the horse's mouth. However, I should have been clearer (and a bit more thoughtful - just got excited posting again here :) ) Candy (again) still log in problems. --Candy (talk) 15:22, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Just to confirm the above comments were really from me. --Candy (talk) 19:52, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for confirming - Pointillist (talk) 20:51, 2 November 2009 (UTC)

University recognition & Reception

What if we were to eliminate both the "University recognition" and the "Reception" section? Would that improve the article? Btw -- I deleted text from the "Reception" section that was supported only with blogs and commentary, etc. Now the section should be rebalanced, or gotten rid of altogether in my mind. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 04:37, 8 November 2009 (UTC)

I am unsatisfied with this edit. I think we need a bit of balance, and that means that we must include information that may not conform to what we, commutatively, might think. • CinchBug • 00:05, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I removed text that was sourced with blogs and a commentary. If better sources can be found, then that's fine and the text can be replaced. My problem is not with the content but with the quality of the sources. In addition there were a number of long quotations that should have been eliminated earlier. In fact, I intend to rephrase the quotations in the history section as well. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:10, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

IBCC

Hello all! It's been a while and I am a little rusty, but I might have some time on my hands during the holiday break. Check this out: regarding the IB career-related certificate(IBCC)and let me know if we should include this and where---otherwise you are welcome to add it if you get to it before me!

Happy holidays and best wishes for a happy and healthy New Year!

La mome (talk) 23:42, 16 December 2009 (UTC)

Sourcing from www.ibo.org vs www.triplealearning.co.uk

I see the point about the IB website (and publications) being a primary source, but I'm not convinced that it's helpful to use www.triplealearning.co.uk (a small UK company) as a source instead. Their website says (here) that "We aim to update our sites regularly, and may change the content at any time. If the need arises, we may suspend access to our sites, or close them indefinitely." Anyway, this is a commercial site set up to sell IB materials, so it isn't really an independent source. If they are just summarizing what the IB's materials say, that would make them a tertiary source anyway. So if there's no objection, I'll restore the links to www.ibo.org in due course. All the best - Pointillist (talk) 23:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

What's sourced to www.triplealearning.co.uk? I must have missed that. I've only cleaned up the sources, and removed the application that was a MS Word file, which truly is a primary source. Anyway, we should use the best sources, so no problems with removing anything you see as troublesome. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:47, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the prompt feedback, Truthkeeper88. Triple A Learning was the reference that remained after deleting the MS Word citation (this diff). I'll try to find a better source tomorrow and then we can discuss if necessary. BTW, have you good people established a central talking point for IB articles? It would be useful to have a note of the major gaps. I can see Group 4 Physics needs expansion so I might attempt that. - Pointillist (talk) 00:15, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

If you can't find a better one place a {{fact}} there until one is found. I should have noticed that I left a bad one behind, but now have been through the references and see much to be improved. Also, feel free to work on any of these articles. Most of the editors seem to have moved on after last summer's fiasco. I wanted to clean up this one and then consider a review, but it still needs work. Nonetheless, outside editor feedback via a review would be valuable for some of the trickier section, in my view. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:31, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Notability?

In my view this article should not present anecdotes about individual non-notable incidences at specific schools. The sources added by the IP 68 shows information about a discussion to eliminate the IBDP in the future at one school, that 3 IB teachers have been made redundant at another school, and that discussions to eliminate the IB existed at another school. None of the sources show that the IBDP has been eliminated. If the IB is being eliminated due to cost problems (which well may be true) I'd prefer to see a reliable source mentioning such. However, it would be good if we can have consensus here to avoid pulling in information from each and every school unless there is truly notable event. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

First, let's evaluate the claims against the sources. The thepilot.com article doesn't say that the IB program was eliminated. The smdailyjournal.com article says "Programs like international baccalaureate or access to art and music will no longer be available" and attributes it to budget cuts. And the roanoke.com article says they have "plans to phase out the International Baccalaureate program" and will instead shift to AP due to the "availability of a grant from Virginia Advanced Study Strategies" and that "Declining enrollment in the IB curriculum prompted school officials to study it."

So based on that, I'd say that "Some school districts across the United States have eliminated the IB Diploma program due to cost saving measures, low enrollment and charges that IB weakens and eliminates Advanced Placement (AP) courses" is a gross misstating of the articles. The articles don't make any judgment about the IB program itself, and they all seem to be due to outside forces like budget issues. As such I've removed this text from the article.

As a side note, 68.194.254.7 is ObserverNY, and there's another sockpuppet investigation open. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:08, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Okay, um, this can't keep going on. I've warned the new IP, 68.98.60.87, about 3RR. Honestly I'm not convinced that this is another sockpuppet of Observer. The first number in the IP is correct, but the rest is wrong. And if you do a lookup on both IPs, they're in very different locations. It might be a meatpuppet which is another story altogether. Either way, we can't keep going back and forth on this page. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:29, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Declining enrollment IS a judgment of IB, itself. High cost IS a judgement of IB, itself. Because a school district is 'considering' eliminating IB, it's not germane to the article?! I would think someone interested in the IBDP would want to understand the reasons why some school districts might reject it. And it most certainly is relevant to the 'Reception' section of the article. Sorry I must just be a dumb meatpuppet with a gun to my head, but I don't understand your illogical censorship. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.60.87 (talk) 15:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

That's faulty logic. The articles don't say "The IB programs were declined because they charge too much" or "The IB programs are being phased out due to lack of enrollment". They point to external forces. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:46, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The section needs to be rewritten to reflect the specific sources but the problem is that those three schools themselves don't constitute notabilty. If a independent reliable source is found that verifies a trend exists to eliminate the IB due to cost considerations, then that would be fine to use. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:50, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Hello ObserverNY. I thought you'd be back. It's easy to spot you as you seem incapable of using definite articles and you use capitals for emphasis rather than bold. Both your trademarks. --Candy (talk) 14:52, 1 April 2010 (UTC)

If you are referring to me... you got it wrong Candy girl. I am not ObserverNY. You do not know who I am. Question is, Do you know who you are? ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.98.60.87 (talk) 01:58, 3 April 2010 (UTC)

unofficial certificates programme

Removed the whole part and replaced it with a simple factual statement. An "unofficial certificates program(me)" not mentioned by the IB apperas the me to be original research. --Candy (talk) 23:16, 28 March 2010 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Good article nominations

FYI - the article has been nominated for GAN. As the work here was a group effort I'd like to add other editors as co-nominators, but I don't know who is around to add. Those of you still reading, and willing to help take this through the review process, let me know here and I'll add names to the nomination. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:54, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Am still around and reading :) I can try and help your through. --Candy (talk) 21:12, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Hi Truthkeeper and Candy--I am still lurking and have some time now to help out if you need it. Just let me know what needs to be done. Cheers! La mome (talk) 23:45, 22 May 2010 (UTC)

Good to hear from both of you. When the review is opened by a reviewer I'll add co-nominations. Review comments will be posted here to the talk-page. I think it's a good idea to get another set of eyes to this article, and to get some feedback. We'll see what the comments are and then decide what needs to be done. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:16, 23 May 2010 (UTC)

TK, okay, I'm in. I'm not around a lot and, when I am, I'm usually doing anti-vandalism work. But I'm happy to help, when possible. Give me another month, though, and I'll have plenty of spare time. ;) Regards, • CinchBug • 21:36, 25 May 2010 (UTC)

According to Jay Mathews, your information on Harlan Hansen is WRONG. Fix it! —Preceding unsigned comment added by 74.108.21.254 (talk) 10:55, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

This edit [18] in February created a problem with the chronology, recently fixed. Presumably that's what you mean. If not, please be more specific. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:47, 1 June 2010 (UTC)

Quick update: there's a bit of a backlog at GAN, so I've delisted this for now, but will most likely relist again in a few weeks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:13, 4 June 2010 (UTC)

Incorrect History

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

• The history is not incorrect. According to the reliable sources that verify the information, ISES was established in 1964 and Harlan Hanson was involved with the establishment of ISES. The sentence you changed does not mention a loan. The loan information is further down the section, because it was secured at the end of 1966, and the information is reliably cited, although not to Mathews. The link you've posted is to a blog, and not considered a reliable source.
• Moreover, the information you've added about special needs is in this section, to avoid having an overly long table of contents, per WP:TOC. Now it exists in two places, and thus is redundant. Will another editor who watches this article please revert the IP's edits, as I've already reverted once today. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:53, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Done. Since I had to revert manually, I think I accidentally switched the order of Hanson and Petersen. If this is a problem, please change it back to the previous order.

Looks like ONY is back at at as an anon IP.Tvor65 (talk) 02:24, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Shouldn't make a difference. Will fix if it's a problem.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:38, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

In order for something to be "redundant", it must appear in some other location in the article. There is no mention of "special needs" anywhere in the article, therefore it cannot be "redundant". Do you have something against children with special needs, Truthkeeper? Does that make the IBDP look bad if children with disabilities can take it? As to the "blog" - it is Jay Mathews' blog, his post, from the Washington Post, and he is the author of the cite you incorrectly extrapolated from. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 68.194.254.7 (talk) 12:02, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Do you have something against children with special needs, Truthkeeper? IP, that's not WP:CIVIL. Please comment on contributions, not contributors. TFOWR 12:06, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

...and note that you are at WP:3RR - discuss your proposed changes, reach a consensus, and then make the change. TFOWR 12:08, 28 June 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits

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

GA Review

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

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

GA review – see WP:WIAGA for criteria

1. Is it reasonably well written?

   A. Prose quality:

   Very well written. No major issues.

   B. MoS compliance for lead, layout, words to watch, fiction, and lists:

   The lead is a bit abrupt for an article of this length and detail. It should be expanded to better summarize the article. As a rule, each section should be mentioned in some way.

2. Is it factually accurate and verifiable?

   A. References to sources:

   No issues.

   B. Citation of reliable sources where necessary:

   Well cited.

   C. No original research:

   No issues.

3. Is it broad in its coverage?

   A. Major aspects:

   Seems very comprehensive.

   B. Focused:

   No issues.

4. Is it neutral?

   Fair representation without bias:

   Neutral point of view

5. Is it stable?

   No edit wars, etc:

   No issues.

6. Does it contain images to illustrate the topic?

   A. Images are copyright tagged, and non-free images have fair use rationales:

   File:IB Diploma Programme hexagon.svg may be a problem. If it is a derivative of a copyrighted work, it is not free. How closely does this reproduction resemble the original?

   B. Images are provided where possible and appropriate, with suitable captions:

   More images are always nice, but in this case probably too much to ask for.

7. Overall:

   Pass or Fail:

   A nicely written and well-researched article. With some expansion of the lead and resolution of the one image issue cited, this will easily meet the GA criteria. I will put the nomination on hold while these issues are addressed. Clearly meets the GA criteria. Well done!

• • Thanks for the review. I actually thought I'd deleted it from WP:GAN, and haven't done any work on it. This is the product of a number of editors; is it possible to add co-noms?
  • I've deleted the image. Will work on the lead. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:42, 5 September 2010 (UTC)
    • Ah, I see. I saw it on the backlog and it seemed a shame to let such a nice article just sit there and fester. I am sure it is possible to add co-nominators. I think a note here might be sufficient. --Nasty Housecat (talk) 22:01, 5 September 2010 (UTC)

Post GA

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

The list of editors is long and everyone here is entitled to credit for the promotion of this article. I've left boxes on a few editor's pages, but really, anyone who edited here last summer helped bring this article along. In my view it shows what can be achieved despite discussions that filled 9 archives. Yikes! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:14, 7 September 2010 (UTC)

Shall we tell ONY? 8-) Ewen (talk) 09:59, 8 September 2010 (UTC)

Congratulations to everyone. It was a pleasure working with all of you, with the exception of one person. A huge thank you to Truthkeeper who was true to his/her moniker. Best of luck to all of you in your future endeavors, both here and in the real world. Cheers! La mome (talk) 12:44, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

I don't know whether anyone is interested, but it would be nice to focus on the other articles in the series. I haven't the time for it, but now that a good example is in place for this article, it shouldn't be too difficult. Thanks LaMome - but most of my many edits here were to fix all the formatting problems and to expand the history section with your help. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:12, 12 September 2010 (UTC)

Yes, good job comrades on working in lockstep to keep this article as completely and totally biased an advertisement as you possibly can for the IB organization! (Btw, where's the info on Jeffrey Beard's plagiarized speech?) 68.194.249.139 (talk) 18:38, 4 October 2010 (UTC)ONY

I felt so crushed by ONY's comment that the only thing I can do is this. TFOWR 18:53, 4 October 2010 (UTC)

Question

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

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

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

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