Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 00:41, 28 August 2009

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

Education Unassessed High‑importance

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

To-do list for IB Diploma Programme: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2009-09-29 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Subject Groups esp Certificates and Certificates Programmes, Extended Essay,Introduction:last sentence Copyedit : entire article Disambiguation : languages in history section between instruction and subjects Expand : history section, last para of Establishment & Implementation, Assessment (almost all parts), range of special needs which are given examination support Update : All refs to http://www.ibo.org/diploma/documents/schools_guide_diploma.pdf as it is outdated, CAS section Verify : IB encourages students to take the Diploma (rather than certificates), Assessment

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

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

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

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

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 7 days

UWC

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to Early Development and Inclusion of UWC

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

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

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

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

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

Pilot Courses

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Application and authorization

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

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

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

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

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

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

TK

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Back to UWC

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

Most recent edits

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Capitalization inconsistency

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

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

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

Truce

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

...i guess. — HelloAnnyong 21:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

"To do" list

I propose the following changes to the article:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Oxford course companion for env. sys. & soc.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Break

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Break 2

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Excellent; good job reaching a solution. Message me if you need me again. — HelloAnnyong 15:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

DP aims

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

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

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

Issues of outing and COI

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Capitalization

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

New approach to editing?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Of course, it continues:

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

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

History Section Clarification

Quote> "In 1974, bilingual diplomas were introduced, allowing students to take one or more of their humanities or science subjects in a language other than their first."

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Great question! This may help-

"Bilingual diplomas are awarded for:

•two languages A1, or

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Food for thought-

Quote from here:

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

vs

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

yes, it's the box we need.

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

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

Edit war

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Why would we do that?

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

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

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

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

Kurt Hahn

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

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

IB's authorization "standards"

I just received an e-mail from London pointing out an IB school in the UK which was authorized in June, 2008. http://www.ibo.org/school/000484/ I was also referred to an article that hit the UK press during the 2 year IB authorization process: This is offensive (Adding comment to avoid seeing offensive title here. Totally unnecessary and inappropriate. La mome (talk) 00:41, 28 August 2009 (UTC)) Frankly, this is outrageous. Is this the sort of "cultural understanding" IB is willing to slap its label on, as long as the cheques are good? ObserverNY (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

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

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

IBDP article and talk page

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

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

• Unassessed education articles
• High-importance education articles
• WikiProject Education articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists