Talk:International Baccalaureate/Archive 2

Move to "International Baccalaureate"?

Any objections if I were to move this article from International Baccalaureate Organization to International Baccalaureate (which is currently a redirect to this article, anyway)? I gather the organisation is now simply called "International Baccalaureate", hence the proposed move...

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:49, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Add history section

As per discussion on IB DP page, add history of IB to this page as well. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:27, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

"signatory to UNESCO's ten year Peace Education plan"

The IB is a non-governmental organization (NGO) of the United Nations and is signatory to UNESCO's ten year Peace Education plan that is integrated into the IB curriculum.

I've added a {{Failed verification}} tag after this; the cite says:

In the same year, the annual NGO conference at UNESCO

headquarters adopted its own action plan for the International Decade. It can be accessed online via

the following link: http://www3.unesco.org/iycp/kits/uk_reso_ong.pdf

i.e. The IB adopted - along with other NGOs - their own action plan, not that they are a signatory to UNESCO's 10 year Peace Education plan.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:22, 13 July 2009 (UTC)

TFOWR - I beg to differ. Ian Hill signed this UNESCO "questionaire" inquiring how IBO has integrated the UNESCO Decade of Peace Education into its programmes. Hill states how the UNESCO site is linked to IBO, but bemoans the loss of the employee who hasn't kept it as up to date as they would like. Why would IBO be "reporting" to UNESCO if it hadn't agreed to implement the plan? ObserverNY (talk) 00:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

But the cited reference doesn't say that the IBO is a signatory. It says that the IBO and a bunch of other NGOs signed their own document. We need to make verifiable claims, not interpret references. Incidentally, there's a past discussion on this reference at the IBDP talk page. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 10:55, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

TFOWR - I'm confused as to what sort of verifiability you are seeking regarding IB's "alliance" with UNESCO and its decade of peace education curriculum. Would this serve what you are looking for? http://www.ibo.org/programmes/research/publications/documents/notesjanuary03.pdf ObserverNY (talk) 13:34, 14 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

No, I'm afraid not, because it also doesn't say that the IB is a signatory to UNESCO's 10 year Peace Education programme. We need a reference that supports what we state in the article, so, for example, when we say "The IB is a non-governmental organization (NGO) of the United Nations and is signatory to UNESCO's ten year Peace Education plan that is integrated into the IB curriculum" we need a reference that also says that the IB is signatory to UNESCO's ten year Peace Education plan. The current reference discusses how the IB and other NGOs signed their own agreement, but it doesn't say that the IB signed UNESCO's plan. Basically, the claims we make in the article need to be verifiable - as it stands, this particular claim isn't.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:00, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Why on earth would IBO be reporting back to UNESCO on how its peace education plan had been implemented in IB schools if IBO hadn't signed onto the plan from the get go? Would you prefer to remove the word "signatory" from the sentence and perhaps substitute "has an alliance with" (decade of peace and literacy plan), as documented in the above link? ObserverNY (talk) 14:40, 14 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I'd prefer that the claim made in the article is supported by the reference. Speculating as to why the IB responded to a UNESCO questionnaire is original research - we shouldn't be doing it, and we shouldn't expect readers to "read between the lines" either. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:44, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Okey dokey. Let's see how we can properly re-word that line to be supported by IBO's own statements and no reading between the lines is necessary. I will also add back in the citation that was removed somewhere along the way from ibo's website which states its NGO status. ObserverNY (talk) 15:02, 14 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Cool. I'm working elsewhere at the moment, I'll try and come up with some text though. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 11:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Peterson Lecture Series

Anyone else care to contribute to this or object to mention of this topic? ObserverNY (talk) 01:16, 14 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

"sharing our humanity"

Please review this statement: "An example of how these Associations work is IBARMS [10] whose Community Theme is "Sharing Our Humanity" which is "drawn from Jean-François Rischard's book High Noon".[11]" and its source.

The Community Theme “Sharing our Humanity” is an IB theme found here http://communitytheme.ibo.org/ and here http://communitytheme.ibo.org/eng/about-ib-community-theme It’s not just IBARMS. It’s world wide. And it’s voluntary. Just like the “Peace Education” plan. La mome (talk) 01:18, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

IB only lists the 30+ Associations in IB of the Americas. If you have proof of other IB Associations, please supply. ObserverNY (talk) 12:56, 14 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY-It is factually inaccurate to state that the Community Theme of "Sharing our Humanity" is IBARMS' theme. The primary function of regional associations of IB schools is to provide networking, support, training, etc... I do not need to provide proof of other regional networks around the world as I did not add it to the article. When you add sections to the article, they need to be factually accurate and include supporting evidence from appropriate sources. That is the problem with this section and the "IB signatory to UNESCO peace education plan" dilemma. Also, you need to realize that quotations in wiki and journal articles are not "scare quotes." When you use quotation marks in these articles, the implication is someone actually stated what you are quoting. Putting quotes in these articles means that if we go to the source, we will find the statement in quotation marks.

I hope this clarifies some of the questions arising from your edits.

La mome (talk) 14:17, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I will be more than happy to include the link you provided as a reference showing that ALL IB schools are encouraged to follow this theme drawn from J. F. Rischard. Therefore, I will revise the sentence to state: "An example of how these Associations work is IBARMS [10] which has voluntarily adopted the IB Community Theme "Sharing Our Humanity", based on Jean-François Rischard's book High Noon.[11] and add your official ibo cite. Better? ObserverNY (talk) 14:52, 14 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Removal of "Programme" descriptions

This article is about the IB organization. Details about the individual IB programmes are a duplication of the individual Wikipedia articles on the programmes and an unnecessary duplication. ObserverNY (talk) 12:53, 14 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY —Preceding unsigned comment added by La mome (talk • contribs)

This is what I mean by scare quotes: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Scare_quotes

I don't find them "scary," they are inappropriately used in encyclopedic articles. I see you are still having trouble with the wording involved with the IB's theme of "Sharing our Humanity" and the notion of regional and sub-regional networks. Instead of putting it all together in one place, perhaps you should give them separate headings. Also, by removing the descriptions of IB DP, MYP and PYP as well as the "IB series" box, this article looks very sparse and unconnected. I suggest putting back the brief descriptions of the IB programmes, since there wasn't really redundant information found in those descriptions and the more detailed pages for each of the programs. I would also suggest adding the IB mission statement, crucial for any organisation, and putting back in the "IB series" box.

La mome (talk) 17:03, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

If you feel information was "wasn't really redundant" regarding the individual IB programmes, then by all means, insert what you want on the specific pages referring to the 3 programmes. However, this article is not about the "programmes", it is about the organization and I included the direct Wiki-links to the individual programmes. If Truthkeeper would like to insert the IB Mission statement in a pretty blue box like he/she did on the IBDP page, by all means, go ahead! Instead of being sarcastic regarding my rephrasing of the Sharing Our Humanity theme, why don't you suggest wording which you think more accurately describes it? I suppose the IB Series box was accidentally deleted somewhere along the way. I figured out how to replace it. ObserverNY (talk) 17:13, 14 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ONY-If I add the information from here to the specific IB programme pages, then it will be redundant. This article is about the IB organisation, which would not exist without its programmes. The purpose of having the brief description of the programmes was to avoid having them float around in the intro, which is what they are doing now. It would be nice if someone else weighed in on whether or not there should be some kind of brief description of each of the programmes, with links to their pages with more detailed information. Anyone?

I made the other changes that I suggested to you. I made separate headings for the IB offices, regional offices and sub-regional associations, including a description of the IB sub-regional associations. I added a section for the IB community theme, with reference to High Noon. Feel free to edit as you see fit, within reason, of course.

Again, I would love to hear(read) what other people think.

La mome (talk) 02:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Somehow I've missed this entire conversation. I see that ONY has added the mission statement in the "pretty blue box", but frankly I think the article needs work. The thumbnail descriptions of the PYP/MYP/DP should be in the article. As for other information, as I've indicated in this conversation below there's plenty of material to be mined from the diffs. Will respond to ONY's comment re: uncited material on that thread.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

LaMome - You have it backwards, the IB programmes would not exist without the IB organization. They are products produced by a company. What you refer to as "thumbnail descriptions" were nowhere near thumbnail descriptions. I find it odd that in the IBDP article, Truthkeeper was fastidious about reducing every section to the minimum number of words possible yet here, has nothing but complaints about lack of info. The 3 programmes are Wiki-linked, no further info is needed on this page.

As to the regional offices, Cardiff is being dismantled, New York is being closed and the new offices will be in Amsterdam and Montgomery County, MD, USA. In fact, the Welsh govt. was none too happy with IB's handling of the closure of its curriculum headquarters for 20 years. ObserverNY (talk) 10:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

• Not sure if this is the best place for it, but for my part I'd like to see very brief summaries of each of the IB's programmes, with a "main article" link pointing to the relevant articles. Avoiding redundancy is good, but we should have some mention of the programmes here - otherwise it reads like "the IB runs programmes - which we're not going to tell you about" ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 11:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

TFOWR - The programmes ARE mentioned right there in the opening paragraph! The IB series box lists the programmes AGAIN! If readers want to know more about the programmes they have not one, but TWO links to obtain further information. Frankly, I find it amazing that there is such an extensive list of articles related to IB in the first place. There is absolutely no need to elaborate on the specifics of each of the programmes in an article about the organization. I have no objection to transferring some of the History from the IBDP article over to here, but seriously, why the duplication? Let me remind fellow editors, this is NOT an advertisement for the IB organization. ObserverNY (talk) 11:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I know, but typically the lede should summarise what's in the rest of the article - so there should be a (slightly) more detailed explanation of the programmes later on. Not too much, mind, I do agree with the need to avoid redundancy. This isn't so much about providing multiple links (WP:OVERLINK suggests we should de-link the second occurrence in each case) but about providing information for the casual reader who doesn't want to follow links to the main article. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 11:49, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

We can add information about the offices being moved around with links to verifiable sources. If you read the sources Uncle G provided to us, you would know that the IB organisation was created to support the IBDP. They are inextricably connected. I did not call the descriptions that you removed "thumbnail descriptions," those were TK's words. I said they were brief, although I think that TK would know better what constitutes a thumbnail. At any rate, it appears now that TK and TFOWR agree to put those descriptions back. Once they are back, we can work on the redundancy issues.

Agreed? La mome (talk) 11:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

IBO was created in order to have a non-profit corporation to sell its product. Products can spend years in development before a company puts them on the market.

Please see my citation added for "Three Programmes at a Glance". Now there are 3 places for readers to find more info about the "programmes". I think it is erroneous to assume that readers want to learn more about the programmes if they pulled up an article which specifically relates to the organization itself. What we put in the rest of the article should focus on the operational structure of the organization, (a section on the Director Generals for example), not the programmes themselves. You do not have my agreement to re-insert descriptions of the programmes. ObserverNY (talk) 12:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I agree that the article should focus on the organisation itself. I also agree that the article should not go into detail about the programmes that the organisation runs. I do, however, believe that (a) things mentioned in the WP:LEAD should be expanded in the article-proper, and (b) that the programmes specifically should be mentioned - briefly - in the article-proper (with links to the main articles). There should not be 3 places for readers to find more info about the "programmes" - the first mention in any section (and I include the WP:LEAD and infobox as one section) should be linked, and the links to the main articles should (obviously!) be linked. This should not be about "promoting products" - it should be about helping the reader to navigate. I disagree that a reader of this article will want to learn purely about the organisation: they may erroneously conflate "the programme they study" with the IB itself, or they may read the article and become interested about the organisation's programmes. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:19, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Fine. Do what you want. I think it is ridiculous. BUT, if we are going to go strictly by what WP:LEAD states, may I direct your attention to the phrase: including any notable controversies. Therefore I expect NO objections from anyone if a line is inserted into the WP:LEAD regarding controversy over IB in the U.S. (to be elaborated on in a sub-section later in the article) Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 12:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I would imagine the obvious objection is that a US "controversy" is not necessarily notable internationally. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:37, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, to preserve balance, then we would have to include praise of IB, assuming the controversy arrises from criticism. I think someone needs to reminded that this is the International Baccalaureate, not the American Baccalaureate. And finally, one must remember this: "If you don't want your writing to be edited mercilessly or redistributed for profit by others, do not submit it." Hmmm, so does that mean we could make money off of some of the comments here? La mome (talk) 13:30, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Fundraising

Moving this conversation from my talkpage:

Hi - when you moved my McKinsey funding edit which I properly cited at your request, you messed up the whole paragraph in the IBDP. Just thought I'd let you know.ObserverNY (talk) 23:39, 13 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Thanks. Fixed it. The citation needed some tweaking after all. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:07, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I see you felt the need to add IB "superlatives" to it rather than leaving it as NPOV. ObserverNY (talk) 10:49, 14 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

These were good faith edits: Reformatting the ref; matching the source to the text w/out inferences; moving the text to the correct section. If ONY considers POV revert back to former state, including refs. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 11:48, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll leave it Truthkeeper, you put it in quotes, so that's ok, it's an IB "claim". ObserverNY (talk) 13:15, 14 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

TruthkeeperYour edits to citations 6 & 7 ended up with the insertion of 40 August 2004. I'm no html expert but this doesn't look correct to me. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 15:20, 14 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The number 40 refers to the volume number of the journal, which you can find in the source. The date refers to the date of publication. (Btw -- it's not really html.) Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:24, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, ok. It just looked funny. Maybe should it say Vol. ?ObserverNY (talk) 15:36, 14 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

No. The source is a journal with a volume number. The volume is never referred to as "vol". Spending some time at WP:CITE/ES might be helpful. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:41, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Wikipedia:Tendentious editing

In my view the International Baccalaureate article has become nothing more than a stub and a section of pov pushing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:26, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - This article is a work in progress as noted in the "Start-Class" classification in the header. You are free to add any sections you like regarding different aspects, goals, themes, sub-groups, history, Director Generals, publications, etc, which relate to the IB organization. Please feel free! I have added fully cited documentation of aspects of the IB organization. Again, if you wish to see other factual aspects highlighted, please add. Nothing in my edits is POV, unless you consider it IB's POV which after all, is what the article is about. ObserverNY (talk) 16:37, 14 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

This and this are more developed than the current version. I suggest moving some of the material from the previous versions to the current versions. Input? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:33, 14 July 2009 (UTC)

Your first "this" is completely un-cited and therefore unacceptable for substitution unless you plan on researching and referencing every statement. The second has some interesting points that are worthy of inclusion. ObserverNY (talk) 23:39, 14 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Removed source citing Eagle Forum as per reliable sources. More pov pushing Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:18, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper Phyllis Schlafly is the woman who runs the eagleforum source which you claim is "not reliable". I suggest you put your own biases aside and try to live up to your handle before sabotaging my edits. ObserverNY (talk) 13:33, 15 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Is Eagle Forum a scholarly journal? Peer reviewed? Is Phyllis an expert in education? Anyone else care to weigh in before I delete it as per reliable sources. La mome (talk) 13:40, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Is the ibo website a scholarly journal? Peer reviewed? Why is there an entire long long article on Phyllis Schlafly in Wikipedia if her work and opinions aren't verifiable? It is a FACT that controversy exists. Your ongoing efforts to suppress this FACT are downright destructive. I'm sorry if you don't like the FACT that there are criticisms of IB. It is a perfectly verifiable source and you have no grounds to delete it. I have requested Uncle G to come over to take a look at this specific citation and render an opinion.ObserverNY (talk) 13:48, 15 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The fact that there is an article about Phyllis Schlafly on Wikipedia does not make the unsigned article from Eagle Forum that you cited a reliable source. After all, Wikipedia has an article about Ted Bundy, too - should we quote his opinion as well? Not to mention that your "source" is quite outdated.Tvor65 (talk) 14:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY-Please stop FLAMING! You can include the fact that there is criticism of the IB programmes. It doesn't matter if I like it or not. I am not questioning the fact, I am questioning the source. The fact needs to be from a reliable, valid, verifiable source. I can't help it if you can not see the difference from citing the IB in an article about IB and the sources you find and try to link here. La mome (talk) 14:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The right cite to use depends on the context. For example, we shouldn't use the Communist Party of China to cite a claim that "Western Capitalism is degenerate", but we could use the same Party to cite a claim that "the Communist Party of China believes that..."

In this instance, we shouldn't be using the IB to support a claim that the IB is without controversy, and we shouldn't be using Phyllis Schlafly or Eagle Forum to support the opposite. Phyllis Schafly is an excellent source when citing what she believes; she is not an excellent source when citing her beliefs (what I mean is: Schafly can be used to cite "Eagle Forum have criticised the IB", but not "the IB has been criticised").

It seems a moot point, anyway - there is now (or was when I checked a minute or two ago) a new reference.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:10, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The article about Phyllis Schafly clearly defines her conservative philosophy. Eagle Forum shows considerable bias. That said, I also agree with the criticism about the IB as a source. In my view, all of these articles are relying on primary sources and disregarding the good secondary sources that Uncle G provided.

Btw -- telling Uncle G that I'm pro-IB is incorrect. The bulk of the edits I've performed have been to repair links, and to format the article, which is part of the process of editing. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:12, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

TVOR65 - The word "controversy" is fine. Leave it alone.

Truthkeeper - I'll ask you again, are you going to replace the IB Mission Statement box I inserted which you removed?

TFOWR - Did you write Bill Clinton's speech on the definition of "is"? ;-)

I have no idea who this Tristan Bunnell is, nor am I able to read what you claim is in the citation to support the statement. This hardly seems a fair substitution. ObserverNY (talk) 14:50, 15 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Oh! Tristan Bunnell is a teacher at an IBO school! http://www.cis-edu.dk/staffstaffing/atog.htm Sorry, I do not accept this source as a valid unbiased citation for controversy and that this particular reference was originally placed by Tvor65 on Uncle G's talk page. ObserverNY (talk) 15:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I'd have to agree with that. I assumed from the context (following on from discussions on peer review, etc) that the source was sound, and from a neutral third party. Tvor65, that was shabby. Please don't do that.

Do we have a third-party source for this? Something from, say, a newspaper report? Failing that, can we use the two sources we have (Schafly and Bunnell) and re-write the claim so that it's neutral and so that the reader is aware of the two sources respective biases (or possible biases)?

ONY, I didn't not participate in meetings which may or may not have led to a definition of a word, a word which might have been "is" ;-)

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

TFOWR - please see the two newspaper citations I added. ObserverNY (talk) 15:32, 15 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(Edit conflict) I would agree that the "Eagle Forum" reference isn't a good source and that the Tristan Bunnell article has a strong possibility for bias in this regard. But I just read the news article (from the Guardian) that ObserverNY most recently linked to and it looks okay to me. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 15:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with the Guardian article (I haven't read thePilot.com one yet). Thanks, ONY. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:53, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks guys (or gals). I also added a reference to Tom DeWeese of the American Policy Center as LaMome questioned why UNESCO and Controversy were in the same section. Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 15:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, I'm not sure we can say that the Tom DeWeese article you linked to could really be considered to have come from an unbiased source. It would appear that he's pushing his POV, as opposed to engaging in scholarly research or reporting. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 16:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I had not noticed that Bunnell was an IB teacher - knowing that, I agree that the article could be construed as biased. His article did appear in a peer-reviewed scholarly journal, however (as opposed to a website, say), and this should carry some weight. I agree also that DeWeese is a biased source and removed it for that reason. The Guardian article is not entirely factually correct (e.g. the local police later confirmed that the only reported death threat came was emailed by someone from another state but the article makes it sound as if there were more than one and implies that they came from the local residents) and has been replaced by two other newspaper articles.Tvor65 (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Mission Statement box and IB Series box

If anyone doesn't like the page arrangement for these two boxes, please let me know. Thanks! ObserverNY (talk) 17:58, 14 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

citations-references

I changed some of the "retrieved on" dates from 2009 07 13 to July 13, 2009. Before I go ahead and add the access dates for references for the IB offices, regional offices and sub-regional associations, should I use the 2009 07 15 format or July 15, 2009? (That, by the way, is the date I accessed those sites. If anyone else wishes to continue the "major reconstruction" of this site, including the references, then by all means, feel free.) I am still not comfortable with citation formats, so I will apologize in advance for errors. Cheers La mome (talk) 12:21, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

No strong view. I've typically seen dates-that-are-intended-for-human-consumption use names for months, and dates-that-intended-for-non-human-consumption use ISO dates (2009-07-15). There's possibly an WP:ENGVAR/WP:MOSDATE issue, in that dates on non-US topics normally use "15 July 2009", but so long as months are named ("July", not "7") I don't personally care. Dates like "2 3 2009" really annoy me - whether they're US or non-US dates - because they're ambiguous. Dates like "2 February 2009" and "March 2, 2009" I'm fine with ;-) I'm a techy-geek who would be far happier if the whole-wide-world used "2009 07 15" - but that's never going to happen... :-( Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I prefer 2 February 2009, with the month written out. But, the majority of the citations are February 2, 2009. So, for ease of editing, I would suggest going with February 2, 2009. Anyone else? And it will take awhile---I won't get to it until much later today. Other pressing activities on the agenda for today. Ciao for now La mome (talk) 12:35, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

The citation templates automatically generate retrieval dates. The unformatted refs should be fixed when somebody has time.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:56, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper Do you plan on replacing the IB Mission statement box? Also, the entire Mary Hayden quote in your re-added programmes section is a POV and unneccessary, specifically: "The International Baccalaureate Organisation (IBO) is a burgeoning political global player,. You want thumbnails, fine, but this has to go. ObserverNY (talk) 13:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

See below. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:02, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits

My objective was the following:

• move the text box with the mission statement so that the Table of Contents can format properly.

To do so, I had to add enough text to support the text box, which involves a little playing around with text. For the time being I took already written and sourced text from the history and re-added. Yesterday ONY told me to go ahead and edit, so I did not realize he/she would object. The Mary Hayden text had been moved from the IB DP page and seemed to work here. But I was not finished. I also took a quick look at the Eagleforum website, and then deleted the source with the intention of replacing with a better source. At that point I had a real world interruption and left the computer for a few moments. During that period Uncle G was notified.

So, I propose the following two options:

• I'm happy to revert all my edits and to walk away from the article.
• I'm also happy to spend time reformatting the text so that it can support the text box and still format the Table of Contents. (Caveat: I can begin that process now, but have very little time to work on it, so might not finish completely, but can return in some hours.)

I apologize to ONY for accusation of POV pushing. If he/she wants to complete his/her edits, then perhaps the best solution is for me to revert back to version of article some hours ago, and then if the formatting needs to be addressed do so later. Please let me know what's best. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Apology accepted Truthkeeper. I don't want you to walk away, I think we can work together to create a good article. Take your time. I personally think that the article as is currently stands serves as a more solid description of the organization and a good "jumping off point" to expand further. I like the way you condensed the WP:LEAD and hope the current formatting including the "thumbnail" sketches of the individual programmes meets with everyone's approval. ObserverNY (talk) 16:36, 15 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Tvor65 - Seriously, I do believe Uncle G told you to not "pick the scab". You are not operating in good faith, your edits are targeted and malicious, and I will cut this off at the pass by reporting your behavior to Uncle G. You want to ADD something constructive, please do, but don't go wiping out my edits, without discussion, to serve your POV. ObserverNY (talk) 16:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Actually, this was a reference to your behavior. Please go right ahead and complain. I explained every edit I made, both here and in the edit summary. Let me politely remind you that I have as much right to edit the article as you or anyone else.Tvor65 (talk) 17:05, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You did not explain your reason for removal of the Tom DeWeese sentence and citation which was placed in the article to clarify a question from LaMome. If you have a valid reason, let's hear it. ObserverNY (talk) 17:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Yes, I did - see above and in the edit history.Tvor65 (talk) 17:14, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

You cannot claim that Tom DeWeese for the American Policy Center is a biased source for a statement about Tom DeWeese's opinion of the UN/IB in a section called Controversy. He represents a credentialed and respected individual - therefore, the citation is valid. Just because you don't agree with Tom DeWeese's opinion does not make the source biased since it refers directly back to the President of the American Policy Center. Please re-read TFOWR's comments above. ObserverNY (talk) 17:22, 15 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

See CinchBug's comment above re DeWeese, which I agree with.Tvor65 (talk) 17:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I am replacing the UK Guardian citation that Tvor65 so rudely removed after two other editors were fine with it. This has got to stop. For Tvor65to dispute the facts reported in a UK paper without any proof of disparity other than personal hearsay as grounds for removal is absurd. You don't want DeWeese in? Fine I really don't care. I was merely responding to LaMome's questioning. ObserverNY (talk) 17:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Besides, there is no need for two citations from a small local paper when there is an international reference available. I just want to point out that ALL of this pointless discussion has come about AFTER the resolution of agreement to not use the Eagleforum source and satisfaction with the UK Guardian source. ObserverNY (talk) 17:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(edit conflict) :: There is nothing rude about replacing one newspaper account by two other ones, unless you perceive any editing of your contributions as rude. Not everything published in a newspaper is necessarily correct, and I pointed out the problem I have with the Guardian article. The articles I cited instead are both from a local newspaper with what appears to be a better fact-checking and less sensationalism than the Guardian article. If other editors would rather have the Guardian article cited, I will not object any further. Thanks.Tvor65 (talk) 17:57, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Suggested compromise

In my view the dispute is this: the IB is either praised (e.g. the Mary Hayden quotation) or disparaged (e.g. Eagleforum's view.) I believe the controversy arises between those who consider UN/UNESCO detrimental influences (particularly in education) and those who consider UN/UNESCO positive influences (particularly in education.) If we can agree to the nature of the controversy, then moving forward is somewhat easier.

One solution is to show the two sides: in other words include the Mary Hayden quotation, but add a rebuttal from Eagleforum, or from Tom Deweese, or vice versa.

Another solution is to find a secondary source that delineates the controversy in a clear fashion, and work from such a source, if one exists.

Finally, if the information about the specific schools is central to the controversy, then consider, again, finding a current secondary source that defines the controversy, thus eliminating the need to rely on primary sources for specific events.

Opinions? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:42, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I support the second solution, i.e. finding a secondary source.Tvor65 (talk) 18:59, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict):Truthkeeper I appreciate you giving fair and neutral consideration to the dilemma. Just from an historical perspective of the development of this article to date, the NGO statement about IB and UNESCO originally appeared in the IB:LEAD and then you moved it out, splitting it up to OTHER, which I re-named, and someone re-named again, but I have no problem with the way the section currently reads. 2:51 PM EST. That said, I think it fairly succinctly summarizes the fact that controversy exists, for a variety of reasons, cost, lack of student interest AND affiliation with UNESCO. Different Americans have different issues with the programme. For some, it is purely the expense. For others, it is political. For me personally, lack of transparency is a big issue, as well as the cost and political leanings. I don't think the article should become a competition for balance of "praise" vs. "criticism" of the programmes, nor do I think that criticism should necessarily be placed in the "rebuttal" category, just that the article should reflect that controversy does exist as evidenced in the cited articles. By listing IB as an NGO of UNESCO, it is presented as a fact, not a POV. The reader can determine for themselves without POV influence whether this is a good or bad thing in their minds. I don't know how you pose to resolve the conflict that this sub-section is no longer referred to in the opening. Thanks ObserverNY (talk) 19:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)Observer

Just to add, I do not believe that any secondary source which describes the controversy can be found that will ever be accepted as "neutral" by some, hence my suspicion this is why Tvor65 was quick to endorse your 2nd suggestion, thereby effectively eliminating the section altogether. ObserverNY (talk) 19:09, 15 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Assume good faith, ONY.Tvor65 (talk) 19:13, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Tvor65 - Your "shabby" trick with the Bunnell citation and your claim that you "didn't know" that Bunnell is an IB teacher speaks to your history of "good faith". ObserverNY (talk) 19:16, 15 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ONY, do me a favor and be polite, please. I object to you calling my finding a relevant research article a "shabby trick". I honestly had no idea that the author teaching in an IB school since the citation I found does not say this. This, by the way, does not change the fact that his is a scholarly article published in a peer-reviewed journal, which is all I ever claimed when I inserted my reference. Once again, I ask you to be polite and assume good faith.Tvor65 (talk) 19:27, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Taking the above comments in turn: as stated previously I trimmed the lede to move text around with the objective of fitting in the text box. Looking at the history, it appears that 3 editors were editing simultaneously, which created confusion, but I'd intended to continue reorganizing until the box fit, or revert the edits; if the opposition occurs only in the US then perhaps consider presenting as such; as per presenting controversy, sentence mechanics necessitate placing a position after the other, but am not bothered by which comes first; once the sub-section has been fleshed out a sentence can be added to the lede to indicate the nature of the controversy; finally, am not willing to rule out the existence of secondary source before searching for such. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - I am certainly open to looking at any secondary source which you can come up with. I just know from experience here that no matter what source I find, it will be objected to as biased. If you want to split the NGO and Controversy in the U.S. into two sub-sections, that would be fine with me. The section is also fine with me, as it stands right now. Are you unhappy with the way it reads? ObserverNY (talk) 19:39, 15 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

On acceptable references

Since I have been accused of providing "shabby references", let me remind everyone that I found the reference through the ERIC library database which does not show the author's affiliation. I did not google his name though maybe I should have.

Okay, so now we know that the author is an IB teacher who has also done a lot of research about international education. Does it mean any scholarly article written by him about the program is biased, even if it was peer-reviewed and published in a reputable journal? Please note that the school he teaches at is located in Denmark, not US, and thus he was not involved in, or personally experienced, the controversy in the US. Here is the abstract, in case you missed it earlier:

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

I am not pushing for this article to be included (although I think it is certainly quite relevant); just wondering what would be considered an acceptable source in this case.Tvor65 (talk) 20:04, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Tvor65, while I would normally consider an article from a scholarly journal to be a good source, I don't think that's true in this particular case. The fact that the article is written by an IB teacher and the article's main subject is about the nature of some people's objections to the IB is what gives me pause, along with his use of the term "ultra-conservative," which seems a bit odd. That the author is not in the US is a point in his favor, though I don't know what his nationality is--he could be an American teaching at that school in Denmark, which would potentially further undermine his objectivity.

In short, I think he's a little bit too close to the topic he is treating for us to use his work in a WP article.

Regards, CinchBug | Talk 20:34, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me add that I don't think that this article's initial inclusion was "shabby" and I would discourage anyone from making such characterizations, since it does nothing to help us improve these articles and can very easily work against that goal by worsening relations between editors. But now that we're aware of his possible conflict of interest, then I don't feel comfortable using the reference. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 20:44, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your thoughtful response, CinchBug, which is much appreciated. I think Bunnell is British, or at least studied there. Anyway, I agree with you that we should not cite his work for the reasons you stated. It is too bad because there aren't a lot of scholarly articles on this subject.Tvor65 (talk) 20:54, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict):::Cinchbug - I apologize if my re-usage of the ever neutral and eternally fair TFOWR's characterization of Tvor65's edits is received as offensive. "Tvor65, that was shabby. Please don't do that." Poor TFOWR will now be forever racked with guilt for daring to take a stand. Thank you for your neutrality in determining that the Bunnell citation cannot be deemed "without bias". ObserverNY (talk) 21:03, 15 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, I tend to choose my words quite carefully and was well aware of how and when the term was used. I stand by my judgment that it was unnecessary, as is sarcasm. ;) Regards, CinchBug | Talk 21:31, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

I've apologised to Tvor65 on my talk page. I do think we all need to be more careful with references - both Schafely and Bunnell would be fine as sources in some contexts - but not this one. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 22:41, 15 July 2009 (UTC)

So, what is IB anyway?

Talk about losing the plot...As I read the article (and talk pages) now, I see that IB is an organisation that has three educational programmes, several offices and associations worldwide, mecanisms for fundraising (since it is a non-profit), a community theme embracing our humanity and an NGO of the UN (which is apparently really bad according to some Deweese guy who thinks it's poisoning our taxes, or something like that) and there is controversy in the US, the largest global consumer, which doesn't like IB due to politics and because it's too expensive. Fantastic. Really. Bravo. I am speechless. La mome (talk) 02:31, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

PS-And I expect no objections as I add the press releases for the 1000+ IB schools in the US that have adopted one or more of the IB programmes.

Seriously...La mome (talk) 02:51, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

La mome, yes, it appears we're proceeding apace. ;)

It's been an interesting day, in the Chinese sense. But we should all bear in mind that no WP article is ever likely to be "finished" and this, too, is a work in progress. On balance, I think a that a fair amount of useful information has been added to this article as of late, though it may or may not read so well to a newcomer who happens upon the page.

As for losing the plot, the mathematician George Pólya once said something to the effect of, "If you can't solve a problem, then there is a simpler problem that you can solve that will help. All you need to do is to find it."

Wise man, Pólya. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 03:07, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Bravo, LaMome! You are absolutely right - the article clearly needs to rewritten. I am quite busy these days (working late now to make up the time lost arguing with ONY) but hopefully the other editors will not just leave it up to ONY to decide what should and should not be included.Tvor65 (talk) 03:18, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Tvor65 - Excuse me? It's my fault you have to work late because you chose to pick a fight? I don't think so. I don't believe you have added a single section to either the IBDP article or this one. Truthkeeper and I were right in the middle of re-formatting what had been an almost blank page. Truthkeeper supplied two former versions of the page, the second of which I said had some information that was worthy of inclusion. No one bothered to include any of it. I had restored the IB Series Box and inserted the IB Mission Statement box. Truthkeeper eloquently condensed the WP:LEAD, and found it necessary to remove the Mission Statement Box for formatting purposes to be reinserted later. We reached agreement on the Programme thumbnail descriptions, the number of links to the Programme articles were effectively reorganized. I suggested a section on Director Generals and the Peterson Lecture series (the latter could be combined in the bio of Alec Peterson, the first IBDG) which I would have been able to help construct if you hadn't decided to launch your attack on the NGO/Controversy section. The section about the IB office locations needs to be expanded to reflect IB's announced change of locations in the near future. I suggested that part of the History from the IBDP article could be brought over to this article as well. More details about what IB Associations are would be helpful. I thought since LaMome had inserted the offices/associations sections, elaboration on those sections would have been his/her baby. Instead, this morning I read LaMome's snarky recap of yesterday's events. It's pretty difficult to keep reading a book when someone is beating you over the head.

Let me repeat what I said to Truthkeeper - this is a Start-Class article. Truthkeeper, who is well versed in Wiki policy, obviously understood this and constructively sought to keep up his/her good work until you intervened. You can choose to be a help or a hindrance. You decide. ObserverNY (talk) 11:40, 16 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I did not pick a fight with you, ONY. I just edited out several biased references of yours (Eagle Forum, DeWeese etc.). My edits were fully explained and discussed with others. You should get used to the idea that anyone has as much right to edit as you do and stop throwing tantrums every time a reference of yours is questioned (and not just by me, mind you). Then we can work more effectively.Tvor65 (talk) 11:54, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

Focus people! Here are two articles about IB--please start "writing for the enemy" instead of sniping at each other (and me).

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1568480-3,00.html How to bring our schools out of the 20th Century By CLAUDIA WALLIS Sunday, Dec. 10, 2006 “a rigorous, off-the-shelf curriculum recognized by universities around the world and first”

http://www.aft.org/pubs-reports/american_educator/summer2002/testworthteaching.html A test worth teaching to The IB's Course Guides and Exams Make a Good Marriage By Robert Rothman

“With its challenging external examinations, its well-planned course guides tied to those exams, and its extensive training for teachers, the IB represents a good example of an effective, instructionally sound, exam-based system.” La mome (talk) 12:02, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

excellent advice from Uncle G--"writing for the enemy"

"Two very quick points off the top of my head, then: First, I suggest that you say to ObserverNY, if you haven't done so already, that you're happy to find another approach that addresses any substantive objections, and to work towards that. Second, I suggest that you keep away from impunging ObserverNY's motives, as you just did. (This goes for you in the opposite direction, too, ObserverNY.) I suggest that you both try what is known as "writing for the enemy". Try to find good sources for information, and to add such well-sourced information to the article, that is counter to your personal opinions of the subject. Both of you. I'd offer more specific advice on this point, but I haven't reviewed the substance of the content that you are disputing yet. And don't be shy of hashing things out at length on talk pages. We're not going to run out of not-paper for them. Just remember to not upset each other and to stick to discussions of the content and of the sources, not of editors." Uncle G (talk) 14:55, 15 July 2009 (UTC) La mome (talk) 03:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

So we have the controversy (can we change that to criticism, as discussed earlier)? Now we need the praise (unless someone can come up with a better word). Cheers La mome (talk) 03:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

I separated the NGO and Controversy sections and retitled them into "Partnerships" and "Criticism." IB is affiliated with other organizations besides UNESCO as stated in the source that was given by I don't remember who. That said, let's remember that no one "owns" any one piece of the article. The "offices" section is not my "baby." If those offices are moving, then add the locations with a valid source to back it up. I also added the mission statement, without the box, since it wouldn't fit with it.

Cheers La mome (talk) 12:29, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

LaMome - Looks good to me. The only change I made was the word "entitled" to "titled" regarding the Time article. Freudian slip? ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 13:10, 16 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

No, the text will not fit in the text box, as I found yesterday. Looks fine as is. My contribution has been only to shove around text and to fix the ref syntax. Just wanted to clarify that, as ONY's characterization above gives me more credit. As for start class, it doesn't necessarily refer to length, but rather to something akin to grade/mark. Start class is less that C and more than stub. Have other obligations today, so won't be here much. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:17, 16 July 2009 (UTC)

A few more minor suggestions

• I suggest separating the issue that you have with the NGO/UNESCO affiliation into two parts. There are plenty of sources that confirm that the IBO is a recognized NGO of the UN, UNESCO, and the Council of Europe. The issue that appears to be under dispute there is the other half of the sentence: whether the IBO is signatory to a plan. So confirm that you are all in agreement on the uncontroversial part.
• There's such a thing as summary style. It may or may not be appropriate here. Yes, it does lead to duplication, but the summaries are supposed to be summaries. Personally, I'd be looking for a way to build narrative prose with links in the text, rather than just a collection of summaries. In other words, write about the subject at hand, and link to the subordinate subjects when they come up in the prose. But that's my personal preference. Articles grow in other ways.
• Truthkeeper88, and La mome: Don't get disheartened at the rate of progress, and sarcasm really doesn't help. You cannot see it, but the prior article that was here, deleted to make way for this one to take its place, started in 2003. By 2009 it was five paragraphs, two of which were devoted to explaining things that this might be confused with, and the remaining three of which were sourced to works of the IBO itself. Even this article looked like this after four years.
• I was going to offer some suggestions for resolving the mission statement issue, but from what I read above you appear to have an amicable understanding and agreement that the mission statement belongs in the article, and it's simply a tricky question of layout (two sides to the page — three sidebars) that is the problem.

I haven't looked at the specific sources in the other dispute. But from reading the above it appears that you collectively are, and are considering their provenances and trying to find good sources and more sources. That's good. Don't let a single adjective de-rail that effort.

You also, from reading what ObserverNY writes above, appear to have formed some ideas of how to expand the article and where you are going that you are in rough agreement over. That's good, too. Uncle G (talk) 03:15, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

• Hi Uncle G -

  The reference to IB being a "signatory" to the UNESCO plan was removed and changed to reflect a broader curriculum agreement between the two organizations.

  Just so you know, I didn't interpret any of Truthkeeper's remarks to be sarcastic yesterday. When I have time, I will put together a section on IB's Governance structure with short summaries after the names of each of the Director Generals. Anyone who wishes to start this up before I get around to it should feel free to do so! I think there also needs to be a section describing the OCC and IBIS which are proprietary IB services that are password protected and perhaps a section on IB Teacher workshops/online training.

  I believe we are all in agreement on the inclusion of the Mission Statement and putting the blue box back in is apparently incompatible with the page layout (through no one's fault here). Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 12:42, 17 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

  • It was the "Fantastic. Really. Bravo. I am speechless." above that I was referring to as sarcasm that didn't help. This should have been clearer on my part.

    I reiterate what I've said to Truthkeeper88 elsewhere, to La mome and ObserverNY: You all don't appear, to me, to actually be in as much of a conflict as you think yourselves to be. Don't get disheartened. Look at what you have collectively managed to do compared to the four years' editing prior to that. Uncle G (talk) 19:19, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, my sarcasm seems minor compared to two attempted outings, all the FLAMING and crying to you when one does not get one's way. Candy said it was upleasant here. My welcome was less than warm, with Ewen accusing me of using a pseudonym and having prior knowledge of ObserverNY. Obviously her/his input is more valued than others, maybe because s/he makes the other editors work twice as hard at making this article factually accurate with valid and verifiable sources. See below for what ensued on our talk pages after s/he tried to "out" me and maybe you'll understand the sarcasm, fueled by frustration at having to deal with such an upleasant, negative individual.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:La_mome I wonder, wonder, wonder, wonder, which - which LI IB school you teach in? ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 22:14, 9 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY ObserverNY, was that directed at me? Regards, CinchBug | Talk 22:17, 9 July 2009 (UTC) Ooops, no, not you Cinchbug. LaMome. ObserverNY (talk) 00:29, 10 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ObserverNY&diff=prev&oldid=301549131 Recommend being cautious With regards to your comment at La mome's Talk page, okay, I accept that it wasn't directed at me. No problem there! At first I thought "LI" was a misspelling and was meant to imply "little," but I'm fairly certain that I've figured out what LI actually means. As such, I might recommend that you be very cautious with regards to WP:OUTING. I am neither your friend nor your foe, but my purpose here does not include the goal of seeing you banned. I hope that you keep that in mind. Please be careful. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 01:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC) I'd echo that. By all means be curious as to who other editors are - just don't publish your speculations. This isn't a warning, or an attempt to "tell you off" - just an urging that you be more cautious. Like CinchBug my goal is not to see you prevented from editing. I've said before, and I'll repeat it here, that the IB articles benefit from your input - as they benefit from input from pro-IB editors - so please don't take actions that might jeopardise your continued input! Cheers, TFOWRThis flag once was red 11:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC) Responding to your comments to me on TFOWR's talk page: "LaMomeFor Pete's sake, stop being such a tattletale. Since you only revealed yourself to be an IB teacher AFTER you went and got me banned, I thought maybe you'd share which IB school you were at. That's it. Not your name. That's not outing. Nor is it harassment. http://en.utrace.de/ is a free IP address locator and lots of fun. Nothing creepy about it at all, especially when dealing with an "international" topic, I find it interesting to see what country people come from. For example, I was reading something on one of the Wiki pages and this one individual who only signed with an IP address came from Turkey. Now, I've never been to Turkey, nor do I know anyone from Turkey, but knowing the person wasn't American put their comments in a better perspective. TFOWR appears to be a very neutral and reasonable individual which is why I appreciate his presence in the article. Same goes for Cinchbug You and Tvor65 seemed to think it was ok to run around to everybody else's talk pages complaining about me. It's very easy to cast the first stone. You attempted to bait me with snarky after snarky reply yesterday. Please try and play nice instead of running to Uncle G with every imagined offence you conjure up." ObserverNY (talk) 11:37, 10 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY Clarifying a few things: 1. You were the one that went tattling to TFOWR that you knew where I lived thanks to the IP address locator. 2. You got yourself banned because of 3RR. This is your second attempt at outing another editor. I don't need to conjure up any offenses. 3. Unlike you, I have no desire to share where I live or work. And I can assure you I don't know you, nor do I wish to. I also don't live anywhere near your little island. But it is beautiful in the summertime. 4. Focus on the facts and not the editor. La mome (talk) 13:18, 11 July 2009 (UTC) Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ObserverNY" http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ObserverNY&diff=next&oldid=301567596 LaMome How old are you? 12? No wait, don't tell me, you might run to Uncle G and report me for outing! Grow up. ObserverNY (talk) 17:44, 11 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:ObserverNY" You'll notice also that I did not run around to everyone else's talk pages. I did not report her to Uncle G. I responded on his/hers, and s/he then deleted it. If that is not an admission of guilt, I don't know what is. I deleted my friends' IP address from the talkpages, but am concerned that they are still floating around in the history pages. Oversight never responded to my email. La mome (talk) 23:12, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

I have to agree with LaMome. I think this says a lot about what has been ONY's real agenda on Wikipedia from the beginning (just take a look at the website she is pushing to be included). No wonder she starts kicking and screaming whenever someone is standing in the way by daring to edit her "contributions".Tvor65 (talk) 12:59, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

IB Governance

I set up the Governance section but don't have time to compile small bios right now for the Director Generals. Help in completing this section is welcome. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 19:39, 17 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Where does it say-Prior to IB, Beard was the COO of Seeds for Syngenta AG, a Swiss agribusiness in this reference?-http://www.ibo.org/dg/

La mome (talk) 13:27, 18 July 2009 (UTC)

Please see cite #12. ObserverNY (talk) 17:54, 18 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Propose Moving Programmes Section

I think the article would flow better if the Programmes section were to be placed after IB Offices and before Fundraising. Any objections?ObserverNY (talk) 23:56, 18 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, actually, I would think that most people who would come to this article would be most interested in information about one (or more) of the programmes. So it seems more logical to me that the "Programmes" section should be the first section after the intro/table of contents. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 13:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cinchbug. Thanks for the feedback. I don't know that we can speculate as to why a Wikipedia reader would come to this page for information on a specific IB programme or what they are most interested in. Let's say a reader searches International Baccalaureate. It will bring them to this page which provides the information about the organization. "No, no, I want to know about the Diploma Programme!" says our reader. The IB Series bar clearly directs them to where they can find detailed and specific information about the DP, as well as the section about the Programmes. (Point of fact, the MYP and PYP weren't even developed until the early '90's, presumably under the Directorship of the obscure Mr. Roger Peel). I have been unable to locate any bio information on Peel, only a few quotes from when he was the DG, perhaps you can help add to that section. So placing the information regarding the 3 Programmes at the very beginning of the article about the organization gives the impression that all 3 programmes began back in 1968. ObserverNY (talk) 14:14, 19 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I agree with CinchBug. The current placement of the Programmes section does not make much sense. They should be described at the top.Tvor65 (talk) 14:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

FWIW, I think the focus of the article should be on the organisation, rather than the programmes. I don't have any objection to mentioning the programmes in the WP:LEAD to help readers, but beyond that I think programmes should be after organisational data. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:22, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you TFOWR. ObserverNY (talk) 14:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

To the contrary, I think we can speculate as to why someone would come to this page--the organization exists to manage the programmes and it is the programmes that make the organization notable. Hence I still contend that it isn't very logical to put the info about the programmes after the organizational data, and the forward placement of programme info wouldn't alter the focus of this article from being about the organization itself. However, if there's consensus to put the programme info later, then that's okay with me. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 14:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. Thus far, however, there is no consensus about the current placement: two people support it, and two don't. Perhaps, someone else can weigh in?Tvor65 (talk) 14:38, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Cinchbug - The organization came into being to develop and sell the programmes. From a purely capitalistic and chronological perspective, before I buy stock in a company, I like to know how it has been run in the past. Thank you for your willingness to agree with myself and TFOWR regarding placement. It appears that Tvor65, for unstated reasons, is the only one who objects to the current placement thus far. ObserverNY (talk) 14:46, 19 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Well, CinchBug is happy to accept a consensus, but I'm not convinced there is a consensus yet. If there were just two editors discussing this I'd suggest we consider a third opinion; under the circumstances we could either go with the status quo or look at some other form of dispute resolution? The reason I mention a third opinion is that it's a good way to get an outside view, and that seems to me to be useful - we're all involved to some degree, and it would be interesting to see what a "lay reader" thought. I suppose I could post on WP:3O's talk page and see if a non-IB-related editor could swing by for an informal opinion? Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:54, 19 July 2009 (UTC) And in case you all couldn't guess, I'm also happy with whatever consensus develops ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:56, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

TFOWR, sure, that sounds reasonable. I'd have no objection to abiding by the opinion of a 3rd party. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 15:17, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent suggestion TFOWR. Will you do the honors? ObserverNY (talk) 15:18, 19 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Agree with leaving Programme text where it is now & adding info re: dates of establishment. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:23, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Good to see you Truthkeeper, glad you didn't go away. ;-)) ObserverNY (talk) 15:25, 19 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Someone's done it, anonymously. Welcome back, Truthkeeper! Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 15:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Logically, most capitalists would want to know about their investment, or the product(s) they are buying. But saying that one can't speculate on why one would come to a wiki page for info and then speculating about it, is of course, illogical.

Consensus does not matter. Apparently this is not one man, one vote, now is it? It appears that some votes count more than others. So having a "third party" is always necessary.

TFOWR, since you are now available on the IB pages, could you please look into deleting the IP address that is posted in the history of your talk page and here? It's been over a week now and still no response from oversight.

La mome (talk) 15:28, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, had not looked at the article history before commenting. What I meant is that the programme information (as in my view, the IB is notable because of the DP/MYP/PYP) should occur toward the top of the page rather than toward the bottom of the page. Sorry for the confusion. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, well now maybe you should just go away again! (KIDDING!) I guess we should just wait for a WP:30. ObserverNY (talk) 16:29, 19 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Sure, I think that's still the best way to resolve the issue. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 16:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Other (non-WP:3O) issues

In the meantime, I concur with TK that it might be useful to include dates of establishment in the programme section. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 15:31, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree, Cinchbug. Would you prefer to do that? I recall seeing something about the first DP exams being offered in '70 or '71, but the info on the MYP and PYP is a little harder to pin down. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 15:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Good work, Cinchbug! Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 15:45, 19 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Yep, done. Thanks. Also, I have a question about this statement:

"The International Baccalaureate is primarily known for the IB Diploma Programme..."

I don't doubt it's veracity, but it sounds like an opinion/judgment. Does anyone else think we need a citation for this? Or am I just picking nits? Regards, CinchBug | Talk 15:51, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, you could rephrase that to state that "the longest established and most popular of the 3 programmes is the..." and cite current global numbers for each of the 3 programmes... or something to that effect. I personally don't have a problem with the current wording as it is truthful but I 'm sure I've seen articles where it has been stated, "IB is best known for its Diploma Program". I can search for them if you like. ObserverNY (talk) 16:01, 19 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(ec) We could always change it to read "The International Baccalaureate is known for the IB Diploma Programme...", or replace "primarily" with "widely", maybe? That would avoid any citing issues... (lazy way out!) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:02, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I seem to recall reading somewhere in the WP help files that something needs to be cited if it's likely to be disputed. Personally, I don't think this claim is likely to be disputed, but I just wanted to verify that with you all. Would you all concur? Regards, CinchBug | Talk 16:05, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I think you could use this cite if you feel more comfortable: http://hall.mpls.k12.mn.us/sites/1fc6de56-e579-4a54-a6e1-dbb90133b151/uploads/washingtonpost_Dec17_06.pdf "International Baccalaureate is best known for a high school diploma program geared to the university-bound academic elite". and just change the word "primarily" to "best". Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 16:12, 19 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Cinchbug - Dang, you're quick! ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 16:19, 19 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Yes, well, I'm also sometimes known as "Lightning" Bug. ;) Good find, ObserverNY! I've inserted the original Washington Post article as a reference. Thanks! CinchBug | Talk 16:21, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:3O response

Someone left a note on the 3O talk page about how to break the stalemate here. Since it seems like an even split, an RFC is probably the next best solution. You may also want to leave a note on WT:EDUCATION, the talk page of the Education Wikiproject, to get more people involved. I don't have time now to read over the discussion, but I might later. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:36, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Many thanks, HelloAnnyong.

Everyone else - what next? I'd prefer to see if WT:EDUCATION can offer advice, before going down the RFC route, but that's just me! Any other views? Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:41, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

TFOWR, sure, WT:EDUCATION seems like a good choice to me. And, also, thanks to HelloAnnyong for the suggestion! Regards, CinchBug | Talk 16:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, excuse my ignorance, but what good is a WP:30 if they don't offer an actual opinion and pass the buck to another department? ObserverNY (talk) 16:49, 19 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Bringing in new editors is a fine idea, although I'm not sure how active WT:EDUCATION is. As for the placement, how is it an even split? Could we just go through that again? I agree to place the programme information toward the top of the article. Thanks to HelloAnnyong for responding. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:50, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) ...and done! No "James Bond" shenanigans this time ;-)

Third opinions are really only for disputes between two editors; I was chancing it a bit asking on their talk page, hoping that someone might offer an "unofficial" third opinion. But HelloAnnyong is right: there are better ways to deal with this.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:52, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

TFOWR - Thanks for the clarification and thanks for forwarding the discussion. I do think this is a "which came first, the chicken or the egg" sort of issue, and I am of the mindset that the organization (the IB chicken) came before its eggs (the programmes). Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 16:58, 19 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Just to explain, there was no 3O requested for this page. Someone left a request on the 3O talk page. I was merely responding to that. Like TFOWR said, 3Os are generally for disagreements between two editors. Having said that, another opinion is always helpful, so I'll leave my comments in the No consensus to move section. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:35, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

• Truthkeeper, I've finally worked out where you fit in all this, and why you were querying the even split - it was an even split, but now you're here - sorry, I'm being slow today. Everyone else, there are 3 "leave its" and 2 "move its". I'd still be keen to get some outside input...? (Too late now, anyway, since the issue has been advertised!) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:06, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

TFOWR, I'm not sure the "leave its" and "move its" are aligned quite as you've described, since TK clarified his statements a bit earlier, assuming "leave its" think the positioning should remain as it is right now and the "move its" think the programme info should be at the top (I would think it would be best placed immediately after the mission statement). Regardless, I concur that outside input is a good idea. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 17:13, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, you're probably right. My brain isn't firing on all cylinders today! Apologies, Truthkeeper. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:20, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No, no, an apology is hardly necessary! No worries! Edit: I see now that the apology was directed at Truthkeeper...whoops. Now it's my turn to offer up apologies to TK and TFOWR! Sorry! ;) CinchBug | Talk 17:24, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Some suggestions re: history and sources

Just a suggestion worth consideration: the sources Uncle G provided were quite good and many of the essays provided history of the IB and the individual programmes and background info on the Director Generals. Unfortunately I no longer have access to the computer I had been using where I bookmarked the sources, so I can't pull them up easily. However, I have captured some of the sources and placed them in the IB Sandbox on my page. In the spirit of collaboration I invite anyone who's interested to go in and copy the sources from the page. The benefit of using these sources is that they are good verifiable secondary sources. On the other hand, finding and reading the material is time consuming. I have read most of the material and could most likely provide the information necessary, but don't see an opportunity from a time POV for a few days at the least. Cheers! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:57, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper, that sounds like a good idea. I'll see if I can look through some of those sources later on today or tomorrow. Thanks! Glad to see you're still with us! Regards, CinchBug | Talk 19:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

No consensus to move

I see no consensus to move the Programmes section, with only ONY and TFWOR preferring it to be later in the article and at least three editors preferring the old placement. So I moved it back where it originally was for the time being. We can always move it back later if there is a consensus to do so, or if at least a clear majority of editors prefer it that way.Tvor65 (talk) 20:34, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Tvor65, I understand, but I really think we should wait to move that section. If you haven't already, please see User talk:Uncle G‎ and User talk:TFOWR‎. Olive branches abound! Please consider reverting your section move, in the interest of peace and goodwill. ;) I think we can stand to wait until we get a response from a third party or from WT:EDUCATION. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 20:39, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Cinchbug, I agree, the one thing we ALL agreed on was waiting to receive input from WT:EDUCATION. I had proposed a WP:Truce to Tvor65 on Uncle G's talk page, but this action appears to be a clear rejection of my overture. This is exactly the sort of action that is the causal agent for much of the "drama" in IB, the unwillingness of one participant to work with others. ObserverNY (talk) 20:53, 19 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Well, now, let's not be too hasty, ObserverNY. Please give Tvor65 a chance to read about what has transpired, and let's avoid making any negative comments about other editors--it's all part of WP:Truce, after all. "Give peace a chance," yes? ;) Regards, CinchBug | Talk 21:00, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm a coffee drinker myself, but I respectfully suggest that the Programmes section be moved back to where it was prior to Tvor65's edit so that when WT:EDUCATION pops by, they won't misconstrue what we are discussing. However, I won't be the one to do it as I know that would be used against me. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 21:32, 19 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Hmmm, yes, that's a good point. I'd prefer to give Tvor65 a chance to do it, as it would truly represent a level of good faith on Tvor65's part that no one could deny.

~sigh~ But I suppose it should really be done sooner rather than later. Okay, I'll go do it now.

Please, everyone, give this WP:Truce an opportunity to succeed. Otherwise these articles will continue to be very unpleasant places to edit. Regards, CinchBug | Talk 21:43, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you Cinchbug. You are kind and reasonable. Of course I agree to abide by whatever opinion WT:EDUCATION offers. ObserverNY (talk) 21:48, 19 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Wow - you guys must all live glued to your computers. Me, I was out most of the day and have not seen until now any of the discussions mentioned above. I have to say, I don't really understand all the drama. ONY moved the section before there was any consensus on the new placement. Yes, she has asked if people would mind but did not wait long enough for other editors to respond. As it turns out, only she and TFOWR want to move it (pending the outside opinion), while three of us don't. So I moved it back until an agreement is reached - what's the big deal? Anyway, since it appears to be such a big deal for you, I would revert my edit but I see that CinchBug has already done it. I do hope that next time ONY waits until she hears a response from at least some editors before proceeding to move things around.Tvor65 (talk) 00:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Twelve (12) hours elapsed between the time I posted my inquiry and the time I moved the section. If others consider that unreasonably short, please advise. Also, I hope Tvor65 has seen my proposed WP:Truce and I await a reply. LaMome already agreed. ObserverNY (talk) 00:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I unwatchlisted the page but have been checking once every 24 hours or so, which is pretty normal on other pages. Often days go by without responses from editors. As it happened, I've checked twice in this 24 hours, but with summer holidays and all, it's a little unrealistic to get quick responses. I see that only Cinchbug has responded to the idea about using secondary sources. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) It may have been 12 hours, but during the time when some of us (at least those who live in the US time zones) were sleeping or attending to other business. Patience is a virtue, you know. Regarding ONY's proposal, I replied already that it's fine with me on the Uncle G talk page.Tvor65 (talk) 00:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Regarding Tvor65's reply to my WP:Truce proposal, it is with deep regret that I cannot shake on it, based on the caveat included in Tvor65's reply on Uncle G's talk page, to which I responded. ObserverNY (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

So here's my take on this. First, Wikipedia is not a manual. Based on that, I reject ObserverNY's comment about moving the page up so someone can find the diploma program better. Now, I've looked around at a bunch of articles of other organizations, including Médecins Sans Frontières - which was a featured article - and I can't really find any pages that have the organization's directors listed out the way they are here. To be honest, I think having the directors listed in such a way seems to be pushing some sort of POV, as if each of these people needs to be listed out so the reader can evaluate what sort of people they are or something. If any of them were particularly notable, I suppose we'd have articles for them or whatever. So I think that the programs themselves are more important, and I would therefore support moving the programs section up.

Ideally, I'd like to see the first section being a History of sorts, and maybe having the directors worked into that prose, as long as reliable sources are used. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, HelloAnnyong. Something like:

• History
• Organisation

• mission statement, DGs, offices, partnerships (mostly as prose but with scope for sub-sections as required)

• Programmes
• ...etc...

...?

(Everyone) Another issue for me is that fund-raising seems more associated with the org, and community theme seems more associated with the programmes. Could we re-jig?

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 09:01, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hello HelloAnnyong - Thank you for stopping back but with all due respect, you first confuse me with advocating for moving the Programme section up and reject it, then conclude at the end of your statement to move the programme section up! - I was not the one pushing for moving the Programme section up. I believe the article is about the organization and the Programme section should remain where it is currently. Also, Wikipedia does have articles for three (3) of the Directors General. However, since 21 years worth of IBO leadership and the development of the MYP and PYP programmes occurred under two obscure and non-notable individuals, I have no objection to collapsing the mention of the 3 notable DGs into a History. I concur with TFOWR's layout and "re-jigging", but fear that HelloAnnyong's opinion leaves us as confused and divided as we were yesterday. Should a 2nd request be placed at WT:EDUCATION? Should we go with TFOWR's interpretation? Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 11:00, 20 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

TK, CB, Tvor and I stated that we wanted the programmes closer to the top (after the mission statement, I believe). TFOWR, ONY and now (I think) HA want it where it is. I am fine with another opinion from WT:Education and adding the History from the IBDP page, which needs to be completed and summarised. Since we can't find info for all of the DGs, I agree that they should be mentioned in the History section. I propose Mission statement, Programmes, History, Governance, Fundraising, etc... La mome (talk) 11:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

First of all, (and my apologies to Truthkeeper for not responding to the suggestion regarding History during this discussion on Programme placement), any History section on the IB article should be about the History of the IB itself, not the IBDP. Truthkeeper has all of the quotes which Uncle G supplied in the sandbox and while I reviewed them yesterday, I see there are a few that could be culled, but many that were just from Ian Hill whom I do not consider an unbiased source. Secondly, since the 3rd opinion seems to concur with myself and TFOWR, I respectfully suggest that we wait for WT:EDUCATION to weigh in before any further changes are made, along with a mock-up on the History section before it is added to the article. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 12:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Yes, that is basically what I said. From the IBDP history section: "In 1968, the IB headquarters were officially established in Geneva, Switzerland for the development and maintenance of the Diploma Programme." I also agreed that we should wait for another opinion from WT:EDUCATION. I would love to find more sources, other than Ian Hill. Btw, I am not too fond of the quote from Leach on the IBDP page either. I apologise if I offend anyone, but the quote focuses on the teaching of History, not necessarily other IB subjects or the IB philosophy in general (although it does state that) and it just seems too lofty. I am sure there are better quotes, perhaps by the mother or father of IB, not some random teacher no one has heard of. I don't think we are making any major changes for a while and focusing on how to improve the article together. We can all play around in the sandbox. That said, I won't be playing until much later today.

La mome (talk) 12:31, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(2nd Edit conflict)Re: Reynaud and Peel - other than TFOWR and myself, I am unaware that anyone else has actually searched for information on these gentlemen. Considering that these two DG's ran IBO from 1977-1998 (during which 2 of the 3 IB programmes were developed and the DP strategically expanded), it strikes me as incredibly odd that IBO itself does not provide any info on them. Perhaps Truthkeeper can locate some info on them in the Hayden source? While I agree with mentioning the DGs in History, that does not mean that I support eliminating the DG bios under Governance or discontinuing an effort to discover more about Reynaud and Peel. Also, I agree with LaMome about the Leach quote. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 12:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Observer, I was going based upon your saying " "No, no, I want to know about the Diploma Programme!" says our reader. The IB Series bar clearly directs them to where they can find detailed and specific information about the DP, as well as the section about the Programmes." but I think I misread what you were saying there. I just struck out the part of my comment that stated that. Sorry about that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:15, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

To summarize

Five editors: CinchBug, I, LaMome, Truthkeeper and HelloAnnyong (who clearly said: "So I think that the programs themselves are more important, and I would therefore support moving the programs section up.") all want to have the Programmes section up there after the mission statement. The editors who support ONY's move are ONY and TFWOR. That's two. So we already have a clear majority of editors who are not happy with ONY's placement. I therefore suggest that we put the section back where it was before ONY moved it.Tvor65 (talk) 12:40, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

And I respectfully suggest that we WAIT for ET:EDUCATION to weigh in before any moves are made as EVERYONE but Tvor65 has agreed to. HelloAnnyong was unfortunately not very clear as their comment began with: Based on that, I reject ObserverNY's comment about moving the page up so someone can find the diploma program better.ObserverNY (talk) 12:47, 20 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Copied from above where perhaps Tvor65 missed my reply: Regarding Tvor65's reply to my WP:Truce proposal, it is with deep regret that I cannot shake on it, based on the caveat included in Tvor65's reply on Uncle G's talk page, to which I responded. ObserverNY (talk) 11:11, 20 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY Until Tvor65 recognizes that his/her editing pattern and apparent desire to counteract and control anything I contribute to IB articles as part of the problem, there can be no WP:Truce between us. ObserverNY (talk) 13:03, 20 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Here, I'll weigh in again. Tvor got it right - I think the programs section should be moved up. Much as I hoped the Education Wikiproject would help here, I'm not sure they're active enough to do so. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:12, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Look, enough with the drama already. The above silliness is a good example of why editors avoid getting involved here. I clearly do not counteract "anything" ONY contributes to the article: just compare the number of edits she and I made so far, and the only thing that I "desire" here is a non-biased and well-written article. I am just another editor who has as much right to edit and voice my opinion as anyone else. I think HelloAnnyong was quite clear about his opinion. Even without it, we still have twice as many editors against ONY's move than the ones for it (4 vs 2).Tvor65 (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, HelloAnnyong for your time. Yes your comments were clear in that you endorse moving the programme section up the page, and if I'm not mistaken this is the comment you reject about finding DP in the info box. Thanks btw, for fixing the info box, couldn't get into myself. I agree also that the Education Wikiproject does not seem active based on the comments on their page. In my view we should go ahead an move up the comments, and then start looking for good sources for the rest of the article. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:18, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(just saw TK's post while editing mine) Thank you, Truthkeeper. That is my understanding as well. Somebody, please move the section back where it was. I would do it myself but I'd rather avoid ONY pouncing on me again ;-)Tvor65 (talk) 13:23, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you very much for weighing in and clarifying, HelloAnnyong. You posted while I was editing, so I just noticed your comment. Thanks again.Tvor65 (talk) 13:27, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your clarification HelloAnnyong. As I said before, I am willing to abide by the 3rd party decision. In light of this decision however, I am choosing to remove my contributions to the article. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 13:30, 20 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Moved the programme information up. Still some reformatting to be done, but don't have time to get to it until another day. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:41, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) That seems rather hasty. A lot of the text you removed seems to be fairly useful. For example, in terms of WP:NPOV there should be a counterbalance to the Praise section. I don't really see why you felt the need to blank parts of the article. They may have been your contributions, but it's not just your article, so I don't really think you should remove whole sections of text without consensus. Unless I missed something earlier in the discussion... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:44, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that other people edited some of the removed sections as well.Tvor65 (talk) 13:48, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I was copy/pasting only the programme sections and ended up with an article with the programme section in two places, so in one edit I blanked the section that already had been moved. Didn't touch anything but the programme section. I can revert the edits if you think that's the path to take. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Meant revert edits to the programme section. Didn't move this and I agree it should stay. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong - Absolutely, it's not my article. Thank you for acknowledging that a lot of the text was "fairly useful". Other editors are free to pull from the history any of my contributions which they deem useful for future construction of the article. I am too old and tired to continue this battle for balance with no appreciation for the facts I contribute and only attacks. Clearly "consensus", as I define it, is not the way Wikipedia operates. Regards,ObserverNY (talk) 13:54, 20 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Deleting contributions?

ObserverNY: I was just logging off but noted the article is shrinking rapidly. Why? If you'd like to discuss here, let's do so. Sorry, if you felt I was being hasty moving up the programme sections but nobody else seemed willing to do the deed. Perhaps you could explain your actions? Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:49, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm out of here Truthkeeper. Please see my reply to HelloAnnyong. Thanks. All the best. ObserverNY (talk) 13:56, 20 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Um, alright. I've restored a bunch of text and attempted a reorganization. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:13, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Wishing you good luck with that HelloAnnyong. You're a brave soul. ObserverNY (talk) 14:18, 20 July 2009

(UTC)ObserverNY

Looks very nice. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:45, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks great - thanks, HelloAnnyong.Tvor65 (talk) 14:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the input and help restoring the article, HelloAnnyong.

La mome, I note that you just included the IB Mission Statement as a separate section. That sounds fine to me, but it's already in the body of the Organization section. We can probably take it out of one place or the other. Any opinions about the best way to do this? Personally, I like the blue box that TK used on the IBDP page, but I seem to recall that the blue box wouldn't work on this page for some reason. Regards, — CinchBug 16:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi CB--sorry about that. I didn't realize the mission statement was incorporated into another section. I also liked the blue box---maybe we could try putting that in again, if we all agree that the mission statement should be in its own section. I would also like to restore the community theme, sharing our humanity, if that hasn't been done already and if everyone agrees. I might have some time later to work on that. And what does everyone think about including the learner profile?

La mome (talk) 21:43, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

La mome, no problem! I figured you probably just overlooked it, since it had previously been its own section and had since been incorporated into another section. HelloAnnyong came along shortly thereafter and edited the change out. I propose we just leave it where it is for the moment, but that we later revisit it and decide if we want it in a separate section, in the blue box, etc.

I have no objections to restoring the community theme and I think the Learner Profile might be worth including, too, since it's something else that's common to all three programmes. But, while I suggested we leave the Mission Statement alone for now, the Learner Profile and the Mission Statement are certainly related. Maybe they should go in one section, with a subsection for the Learner Profile?

Anyone else have any ideas about this? Regards, — CinchBug 21:50, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

What is this blue box? I can't find a recent edit with it in it. I prefer it the way it is now; highlighting the mission statement too much is probably a violation of WP:WEIGHT. And I think that adding back that community theme section is also a bit too much puffery for this article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:52, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong, here's a link to where it appears on the Diploma Programme page. Regards, — CinchBug 21:59, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Moving on: food for thought

I agree with Truthkeeper that the article should include more references to verifiable secondary sources. I personally would like to see more references to books and articles by education researchers that were published in peer-reviewed journals. This can only make the article better. A search for "International Baccalaureate" on Google Scholar reveals a lot of articles that look interesting. For example, I found several articles that examine whether IB is a good program for gifted students. Tvor65 (talk) 18:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'll check that out. There is also that David Conley book and the EPIC study (I think that's the acronym) that came out about college readiness skills and IB---or something along those lines. Might be more appropriate in the DP article. Just thinking out loud, well, sort of...

Cheers! La mome (talk) 21:46, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm a bit less convinced that we should include that kind of information (that IB is good for gifted students, etc.). We need to make sure that we don't get into the business of advocacy. If the consensus is include this stuff, we'll need to be very careful about not making this into an advertisement. Also, I looked up one of those articles on Google Scholar and I seem to recall that it specified the IBDP in particular. So, if that info is to be considered for inclusion, this probably wouldn't be the right article for it.

Thoughts? Regards, — CinchBug 21:57, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

I was not suggesting that we advocate anything. I don't even know if IB is actually good for gifted students (they tend to be more focused on/talented in particular subjects, while IB is a broad program). All I am saying is that there is some real research (indeed, Ph.D. dissertations written) out there that may be worth including here for an interested reader.Tvor65 (talk) 22:07, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Tvor65, sure, sure, I certainly agree with you (and TK) about using some good, verifiable scholarly research. I think that's a good idea! Regards, — CinchBug 22:10, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Incidentally, existing research on IB and gifted/enrichment education also includes PYP: see, for example, this abstractTvor65 (talk) 22:26, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, interesting. I didn't see that one. The only one that I looked at closely was authored by two people, one of whom was a professor somewhere in Texas (as I recall, anyway; I just tried searching again and didn't see it, so I clearly need to adjust my search parameters). Regards, — CinchBug 22:33, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

My search parameters were too narrow. Here's a link to the article I was referring to. It's probably one of the articles you saw, too, since I used the parameters you suggested above to find it (again). Regards, — CinchBug 22:37, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I saw this one too.Tvor65 (talk) 22:38, 20 July 2009 (UTC)

A quick pop in to see how things are progressing and to toss out a few ideas. I still believe that before the article is loaded up with new material, the history section should be written. Uncle G mentioned it, HelloAnnyong mentioned it, and most articles I've worked on have a background/history section. As I've noted, cannot work on the article this week, but am happy to supply source material. Also, is it worth considering moving some of the history from the DP to here, as IB began with the DP? Finally, I'm not sure the mission statement needs to be on each page; that seems a bit redundant. Oh, one other thing (which should go on the IB DP talk page) I agree the Leach section can go from the history there. Sorry this is all over the place. Will try to get back in tomorrow to post on the IB DP page as well. Thoughts? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:35, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

History

I added the opening paragraph from the IBDP article here. When I did that, Truthkeeper removed the paragraph over there. Now anyone is obviously free to add anything they deem appropriate over here, but just because it has been moved here doesn't validate a claim of redundancy over there. So Truthkeeper, I am respectfully asking you to replace the paragraph at IBDP and add whatever you feel is appropriate over here. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 01:37, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I propose we eliminate the "programmes" section and incorporate them into the History section. I believe that both Uncle G and more recently HA suggested that there be more "prose" (but not puffery) and less lists. Is everyone ok with this? I think that will solve two problems at once---moving them up into the "history" section---and eliminating the redundancy problem by only mentioning them once. What does everyone think? La mome (talk) 02:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The Learner Profile right now is puffery, and I think it reads like an advertisement. As to incorporating the programs into the History section, I think I'm okay with that, as long as the text that's added is verifiable. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Replied. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I cut down the "puffery" and combined it with the mission statement, as suggested by CB, since they are closely related. I think the mommy and daddy story is puffery, but left it in since no one else objects to it. However, it is more appropriate in the history of IB and does not need to be in two places, since we are trying to avoid redundancy. The same goes for the mission statement, which is fine here, but does not need to be on all the IB pages. Btw, I started reading the History of IB according to Peterson on google books and he mentions something about the "obscure" DGs (that people were speculating about on talk pages) and other founding fathers (Harlan from College Board and some other American from University of Chicago) and funding from sources other than the Ford Foundation and UNESCO. I am not really sure how much detail we want---but there is plenty there and in the Elisabeth Fox books. La mome (talk) 04:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well done on the article; I think it looks much better now. As to the history of IB, that section should really just be an overview of their history. We don't need to know what every DG did every year (that'd be adding a lot of weight) but a general explanation as to how the program came to be and how it's grown over the years. I think what's there right now is a pretty good start towards that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Does anyone object to adding the following bit of text regarding the genesis of the IB?

As Mary Hayden delineates in "international Education: Principles and Practice" the IB "was devised in the late 1960s to provide an internationally acceptable university admissions qualification suitable for the growing mobile population of young people whose parents were part of the world of diplomacy, international and multi-national organizations."
Mary Hayden (2001). "Global Issues: A Necessary Component of a Balanced Curriculum for the Twenty-First Century". International Education: Principles and Practice (2nd ed.). Routledge. p. 94. ISBN 0749436166. {{cite book}}: Unknown parameter |editors= ignored (|editor= suggested) (help); Unknown parameter |isnb13= ignored (help)

As it stands it's a direct quotation, but can be rewritten. I'll be checking in as time permits tomorrow. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 05:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. So much for making major changes during "sleeping time", eh? I have a problem with this quote and citation: The IB developed a set of ten attributes which represent its mission statement as learning outcomes. "The aim of all IB programmes is to develop internationally minded people who ... strive to be: inquirers, knowledgeable, thinkers, communicators, principled, open-minded, caring, risk-takers, balanced and reflective." [13]. As a broken quote and no link to the document, I don't believe this is valid and would like to see it removed. I also don't think there is any need to include the Hayden quote. ObserverNY (talk) 10:52, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Just working on improving the article as per WP:NODRAMA and in good faith. I'll fix the incorrectly formatted reference for the Learner Profile. I think the Hayden quote should be included and some of the ibo.org references could be replaced with third party or verifiable secondary sources (not sure of correct terminology) to give the article more balance. La mome (talk) 11:55, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

LaMome, very nice work on the article, thank you! I like how the programs are incorporated in the history now. I agree with you that the mother-father stuff is puffery and perhaps can be rephrased. Also, right now we describe DP and MYP in some detail but say almost nothing about PYP - perhaps, we should add a few words describing the program (other than the ages of children it is designed for)? Without the puffery, of course.Tvor65 (talk) 12:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

The George Walker reference to the mother and father of IB is not "puffery", it describes the exact origin of IB pedagogy and certainly pre-dates all of the International School stuff from Hayden. I also don't see any need to "expand" the info on PYP as there are no standardized assessments that accompany the programme. Very authoritarian quoting the WP:NODRAMA, LaMome. There's no drama when you get to completely overhaul a page in the middle of the night and no one gets to weigh in on it, but when I merely move an existing section to what was a logical placement you and Tvor65 and Truthkeeper hold an Inquisition of the enth degree calling in 3rd Opinion and WT:EDUCATION. There's WP:NODRAMA as long as you 3 are omnipotent. Got it.

Thank you for fixing citation #13. ObserverNY (talk) 12:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(Ahem!) The editor who called in both WP:3O and WT:EDUCATION was yours truly, who shared your view that org should come before prog. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:05, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL! Ohhh, TFOWR, there you are! That's right. You were hoping to stem the DRAMA that erupted over my arrangement of the article and "their" objections. And then you ran away leaving me holding the bags. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 13:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The puffery of the mother and father section comes with the "sowing of the pedagogical seeds," which may be a direct quote that is incorrectly cited. The historical origins are not puffery, just the flowery language. I thought that by incorporating the programmes into the chronological history of the creation and development of the IB and its programmes it would solve the problem of redundancy and placement of the programmes in their own section, giving them too much WP:Weight

Cheers La mome (talk) 14:19, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

So, which George Walker is he? I was going to add a wiki link for him, but he does not appear to be listed on that page. We could always create a page for him. Any volunteers, in the spirit of WP:NODRAMA, which includes the creation of new articles?

La mome (talk) 14:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Shirley in the interest of WP:NODRAMA and based upon your awesome reformatting skills of last evening, you could have gone in and corrected my html to include the (professor) portion, an oversight on my part but one which you have chosen to dramatize. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I think you are reading tone in my comment where there is none. If I had known which George Walker he was, I would have fixed it. I honestly did not know there was already a page for him. Still, no drama.

La mome (talk) 14:49, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Banner removed

I see that the banner citing this article is undergoing a major revision has been removed. The banner did state that it should remain in place until several days go by without any edits. Does that mean that all editors who have participated on this article agree to leave the article AS IS? By that, I mean that any major edits to the article in the form of additions or deletions without discussion will be considered a violation of WP:Assume Good Faith. I cast a vote to leave the article AS IS or else restore the Undergoing Revision banner. ObserverNY (talk) 13:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I placed the banner on the article when the blue text box was floating between the table of contents and the infobox and the article was clearly in the process of reformatting. As that situation has been resolved, I removed it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the banner is needed anymore, as long as people don't start cutting out large sections of the article. I can assure you that I won't be deleting my contributions. TK, when you get a chance, could you take a look at the reference formatting? I am afraid I made a few boo-boos in that area.

Thanks- La mome (talk) 14:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting how you both "agree" there's no need for the banner but avoid committing to a response regarding AS IS. So let me repeat my question, do all editors agree, that other than minor citation fixes or such, the article should remain AS IS? It's a simple yes or no. If the answer is no, then the banner must be replaced. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 15:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Okey dokey. I removed the "unbalanced" banner since we now all seem to be in agreement, (or at least no one has voiced any objections) that the article is fair, balanced and properly formatted. Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I also don't think the banner is needed anymore. Not having the banner there doesn't mean that people can't make significant changes to the article. But since we've got a new structure to the page now, I think it's okay that it was removed. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Really. Without consensus from all of the editors that have participated. And people can just load up on any of the newly recreated sections any way they see fit. That's good to know. ObserverNY (talk) 15:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

As long as people are editing in good faith and not giving too much WP:WEIGHT to minority opinions or puffery, I don't see a problem in removing the banner. I also don't mind the small banner being there. The other one was too big. I am pretty sure that the article will not stay "AS IS" and hope that it will only get better.

Cheers! La mome (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

wiki links

What is the rule on wiki links? Is it just the first mention, or at each mention? I am having lots of fun with this new skill, but I don't want to get carried away... Thanks, La mome (talk) 15:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

WP:OVERLINK discusses this, but it's usually first mention. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks--I'll remove any overages. La mome (talk) 15:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Slowly it Creeps

Oh goodie. Soon the entire History section will be a full blown "overview" of the programmes. I'm replacing the "unbalanced" banner. ObserverNY (talk) 15:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ROTFLMAO! Ohhhh!!! Now it's even been re-named History and Overview! LOLOLOLOLOL! You go LaMome! No POV or DRAMA from you, eh? LOLOLOLOLOL!ObserverNY (talk) 16:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I'm going to work on my hedges now so let's see how you can make this article a MUCH better advertisement for IB. I have full confidence in your ability to do so and HelloAnnyong's apparent willingness to go along with whatever the pro-IB faction deems appropriate. TaTa! "Have fun storming the castle!" The Princess Bride (film)ObserverNY (talk) 16:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, you agreed to a truce with La mome, so let's please avoid making accusations. La mome did not change the name of that section, as you would see if you bothered to look. Come on, let's stop with the silliness, please. Regards, • CinchBug • 16:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Urick Yeggermanngenssohn

Urick Yeggermanngenssohn is listed as the first DG on the IB people page. Anyone know anything about him, or is this vandalism that slipped by? Other IB notables included batman, jedi masters, etc... They were removed, but Urick remains. Could he be the real father of IB? La mome (talk) 16:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Settle down, Observer. I think La mome was referring to List of International Baccalaureate people#IB directors-general, where Urick is the first person listed. I'm almost positive that's a fake; I can't find anything on him. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

La mome, the only references to this name I find in Google are located at the English and Spanish WP articles for IB people. Smells like vandalism to me. Regards, • CinchBug • 16:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) ::Why are you even looking at that page? Good grief, you mean it didn't mention Karl Marx? Of COURSE it's a fake. I guess some vandal was asleep at the wheel!ObserverNY (talk) 16:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

In her summary of the genesis of the IB, Elisabeth Fox mentions a Norwegian educator. Perhaps this is correct? Also, will repair ref syntax (if needed) later, and will review my notes re: early history of IB. Cheers! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:18, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Would you please share with us Fox's scholarly credentials? Thank you.ObserverNY (talk) 16:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Assuming this is the same Elisabeth Fox, it appears that she passed away about 8 years ago. Regards, • CinchBug • 16:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Ohhh! A "pioneer" of the IB program and a Dean of a UN school - hardly what one could consider an "unbiased" source for IB History and as such, if any quote of hers is to be used her affiliation with the organization must be clearly stated. Thank you Cinchbug. ObserverNY (talk) 17:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, to use her as a source for any type of evaluation of the IBDP, for example, would be to use a (more than likely) biased source, since she has had (and presumably continued to, until her passing) a close relationship with the IB. But to use her as a resource about the history of the IB would not necessarily introduce bias. It would depend on whether she is presenting facts ("Jimmy Smith set up this aspect of the DP," for example) or opinions ("Jimmy Smith's work has made a student's participation in the DP a path to that student's eternal salvation," for example). Regards, • CinchBug • 17:53, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

If anyone finds anything on this person, let me know. Presuming that it was vandalism (since I've never heard anything even remotely like that and there is no other reference to him that I can find), I already deleted the name at both the English and Spanish versions of the article. Regards, • CinchBug • 16:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Did a search on google books in the IB books, found nothing on him. But did find the following:

From Elisabeth Fox--"The IB made its first appearance as a series of pamphlets entitled (as in “give title to something, like a book”---not a “freudian slip”) the International Schools Examinations Syndicate”

Before it was called IB, it was called ISES

From Alec Peterson’s Schools across frontiers

Also part of IB history and development

Professor Ralph Tyler—professor of Education at University of Chicago

Professor Benjamin Bloom (of Bloom’s taxonomy)

Harpo Hanson Director of the College Entrance Examinations Board’s Advanced Placement Program

Do we want to include any of that, and if so, here or at the IBDP page? La mome (talk) 17:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, I agree that it's interesting, but I don't know how detailed we want to make the History part. Personally, I'm of the mind that the History section should be fairly lean, although it seems that a lot of folks here really want to include more of the history of the IB. I suppose that I wouldn't object if there's a consensus among editors that some of that should be included.

Nice research, in any case. Regards, • CinchBug • 17:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I think it's MORE interesting that Alec Peterson "joined the Ministry of Information and joined the propaganda branch of the Special Operations Executive. He played an important role in South-East Asia, and was largely responsible for the Indian Forward Broadcasting Unit, which was very successful in the Burma campaign. He became Deputy Director of psychological warfare... but hey, that's me. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 17:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Cinchbug - No objection to History becoming "and Overview"? No objection to the section being expanded to be mostly about the programmes? Don't you see what "they" are doing? ObserverNY (talk) 17:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(ec) ObserverNY, I don't see any problem with a few sentences dedicated to each of the programmes--again, it is the programmes that make the IB notable. Having said that, I thought that these brief descriptions should be in a separate section about the programmes that had links to the pages where people could get more information, if they were so inclined.

But it seems that the wind has blown in a different direction and that most people are fairly happy with incorporating that into part of the history of the IB; this includes you you, since you lobbied to leave it "as is" not so long ago and the text about the programmes hasn't undergone any dramatic alterations or expansions since then. In the end, while I preferred otherwise, I have no objection to this.

As for renaming the section "History and Overview," no, I don't think that's a particularly good name. The better name would simply be "History." But I'm not in the habit of reverting an editor's work without discussion. Regards, • CinchBug • 18:09, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

To add on to my comments above, I would think that it would be okay to reduce some of the information in the description of the programmes. In my mind, all we need about the programmes in this articles is a fairly bare-bones description. However, some folks may already consider this to be fairly bare-bones. Regards, • CinchBug • 18:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Interesting, thanks, LaMome. I recall reading about this in "Supertest". I think that the history part should be short but it is certainly worth mentioning all the people who contributed to the creation of the program, including the ones LaMome listed above. Perhaps we can replace the first two sentences (especially the mother-father silliness) by simply listing all the people who were involved in the beginning, without getting into too many details (which would be in the references, anyway).Tvor65 (talk) 18:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't even think of it Tvor65 - or you will have declared a war of untold proportions. ObserverNY (talk) 18:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Tvor, that's probably not a good idea. Not all of those people are notable and are worthy of inclusion here. Again, we should just be explaining the basic story of how IB was formed. We don't need intricate stories about how Person X met Person Y and introduced him/her to Person Z. Just the basic story. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree - that's exactly what I suggested. Only the main players (and some of the ones LaMome mentioned were such) and no stories, just basic facts. The current version overdoes it, I think.Tvor65 (talk) 18:11, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

That is NOT what you suggested Tvor65. What happened to the "prose" vs. "list" style advocated, oh, about 6 hours ago? Hmmmm? ::::: (edit conflict) So let's see - after LaMome's own reformatting of the article at which point the reformatting banner was removed, we have NO consensus that the article looked good and should pretty much stay the way it was.

• ONY - YES
• LaMome - NO
• Tvor65 - NO
• Truthkeeper - NO
• Cinchbug - ?
• TFOWR - ?
• HelloAnnyong - NO

"Under reconstruction" Banner goes back unless this nonsense stops. ObserverNY (talk) 18:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Observer, kindly stop with the threats of adding the banner back - it's really not making things any better. And Tvor, I sort of agree; "the current version overdoes it" is sort of a conflicting message with "by simply listing all the people who were involved in the beginning". Adding those people in would be getting us into very murky territory. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:21, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec x infinity) Tvor65: aye, the "mother and father" part you mentioned is definitely over-doing it ;-) I think mention Maurette, Peterson as the first DG, and then skip onto the HQ establishment in Geneva.

ONY: yesterday you deleted a whole load of content and stated that you were leaving. Now you're issuing threats like "banner goes back unless this nonsense stops". These actions are really unhelpful, and completely outside the spirit of the "truce".

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) Okay, that sounds reasonable, TFOWR. Regarding CB's comment above: I think we do need to provide a very brief description of each program (the way it was already done for MYP, for example - perhaps that one can be shortened a bit) and since these are now moved to the history section, using "History" as the name of the section no longer reflects its content, which is why I renamed it.Tvor65 (talk) 18:32, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It appears to me that major reformatting of the article is over, so I'm not sure why the "Under reconstruction" banner would need to be put back in the article. The big stuff seems stable and we seem to be discussing relatively minor changes. Regards, • CinchBug • 18:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I left. I'm back. The WP:TRUCE was between myself and LaMome. I actually thought the reformat of the article overnight was pretty good. But they won't leave it alone. They're going to pick and change until every mention of UNESCO is erased. I never reached a Truce with Tvor65. Truthkeeper can leave and come back but I can't? Aren't those fence posts getting uncomfortable, TFOWR?

I don't understand what HelloAnnyong and TFOWR mean by the "mother and father" section is "over-doing it". Over-doing it in terms of Tvor's desire to remove it? Or over-doing it in terms of the way the sentences read? Please explain. Thank you.

Cinchbug - Please note that I didn't revert the name change on the History section either. So? What to do, what to do?ObserverNY (talk) 18:40, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Well, the title's already been changed back. So I'm not sure what else you thing needs to be done about it. ? Regards, • CinchBug • 18:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Anyone can leave and come back - I was objecting to the wholesale deletion of text on the way out the door. The fenceposts are just fine, thanks.

The "mother + father" bit was the first part of the history section: it's been rewritten now, and is much better - though possibly still too long.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:13, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

What puffery can we get rid of?

I am fine with the way the article is, except for the sowing the pedagogical seeds with Mommy & Daddy. We can cut that and add in that before IB was called IB, it was called something else. I think that is relevant and verifiable. I've seen it in two sources, both from Mary Hayden. Any objections to that? La mome (talk) 18:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

YES, I OBJECT. ObserverNY (talk) 18:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

What in particular do you object to, ObserverNY? Regards, • CinchBug • 18:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Life, the universe and everything. And the answer is 42 ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 18:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I agree that "pedagogical seeds" is a bit much. What you propose sounds pretty good. Why don't we make use of Truthkeeper's IB Sandbox? That way we can see what it would look like and comment on it, to avoid edit conflicts and such? Regards, • CinchBug • 18:31, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sounds good to me.Tvor65 (talk) 18:34, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry--did not make use of the sandbox. Check it out and let me know what you think.

La mome (talk) 18:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I say we get rid of all of the "puffery" regarding the Programmes. Any objections? ObserverNY (talk) 18:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

What, in particular, do you propose, ObserverNY? I (and Tvor65, also, I might point out) have already suggested that we might shorten the programme descriptions. Regards, • CinchBug • 18:46, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

How about this? We merge the second two paragraphs into one, like this:

Since 1994, the IB has offered the IB Middle Years Programme for students ages 11 to 16 and they created the IB Primary Years Programme in 1997 for children ages three through ten.

Regards, • CinchBug • 18:51, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) LaMome, looks good to me; I made a couple of minor changes in the first sentence. I still think that the involvement of American educators, including Hanson from the College Board, may be worth a brief mention since it sort off refutes the common misconception that the program is of purely European origin and underscores its international beginnings.Tvor65 (talk) 18:47, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

There is no documentation about Hanson on the IB site. Trying to "sway" readers and lend the College Board's credibility to the origins of IB is POV. There is no proof that Hanson was working on behalf of the College Board and since there hasn't been any collaboration between IB and the CB in the 45 years since, (in fact, I can locate a George Walker quote where he describes the two organizations as "competitors"), is decidedly non-neutral. ObserverNY (talk) 18:54, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Cinchbug - I had removed a sentence from each, but I like your condensing better. Cheers. ObserverNY (talk) 18:56, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

edit conflict

I am fine with how the programme descriptions were. (have not seen what observerny did yet) Each have two short sentences that include the age group for the program, the date of creation and brief description of the curriculum. IB is an educational organisation. Its products are its programmes. I still think we can develop the history of IB more, but the programmes section is fine. Just enough detail and no puffery or flowery language.

La mome (talk) 18:58, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) We don't need to rely on the IB site alone. Hanson's contribution is well known. It is described in the source that LaMome mentioned and also in the "Supertest".Tvor65 (talk) 19:00, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Re program description: agree with LaMome. I think we should put back a brief description of each curriculum. Can others weigh in?Tvor65 (talk) 19:06, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY, perhaps it would be best for us to conclude our discussion of the matter before making the changes, as in this case there is a clear difference of opinion about what and how much info we need to include about the programmes. Regards, • CinchBug • 19:08, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Right, Cinchbug. Exactly what started the entire request for a 3rd opinion in the first place. And look who is advocating expansion of the Programmes descriptions - Tvor65 and LaMome. Gee, what a surprise. ObserverNY (talk) 19:14, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

No, what prompted me to recommend and then file a WP:3O request was the placement of the programmes section - "should it be before or after the organisation section?" Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 19:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

Liked your first cut ONY. CB's version, executed by ONY, reduced it to next to nothing for the MYP & PYP. Perhaps we need a definition of what constitutes puffery?

La mome (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

So what? Mathews wrote a whole chapter in Supertest about me as well as referring to me in the Washington Post, but I wasn't allowed to be cited as valid criticism because you all claimed COI. Furthermore, all other references to Mathews and his bias due to his financial affiliation with IB and Ian Hill have been eradicated. No to Hanson and no to re-expansion of programme descriptions. ObserverNY (talk) 19:12, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

How about a happy medium, as below:

Since 1994, the IB has offered the IB Middle Years Programme,[10] which is composed of eight subject areas and five areas of interaction and designed for students ages 11 to 16. In 1997, the IB added the IB Primary Years Programme for children ages 3 through 10, which is an inquiry-based program relying on six global transdisciplinary themes supported by six subject areas.[13]

Comments? Regards, • CinchBug • 19:16, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

LaMome - sorry I missed your last comment due to edit conflict. I have no problem with you restoring to my first cut or Cinchbug's suggestion is also fine with me as well. Cheers. ObserverNY (talk) 19:17, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(Edit conflict)X2

"They're going to pick and change until every mention of UNESCO is erased."-ONY

Why do you think that? And why is it a problem to include the College Board Director as one of the founders of IB? It seems he and Alec Peterson were good buddies. And he was the one who got a lot of the early funding. Although we do have to be careful not to weigh too heavily on the American involvement, but it should definitely be mentioned.

La mome (talk) 19:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Because Hanson wasn't one of the "founders" of IB and it is misrepresentation to state such. ObserverNY (talk) 19:22, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

CB--looks good. ONY--well, I am not sure of the exact wording, but I'll paste here--much later. Need to take a break.

La mome (talk) 19:24, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

And why would we get rid of UNESCO references? La mome (talk) 19:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec 5x) Regarding programs: I prefer the happy medium version by CinchBug above. ONY's cut was fine except it inexplicably reduced the PYP program to just its final project. In short, I suggest we go with CinchBug's version.

Regarding history: agree with LaMome's comment. Ian Hill mentions Hanson as one of the main players in the beginning. I doubt it is a misrepresentation. I also don't see why we would want to remove UNESCO. Tvor65 (talk) 19:28, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

I inserted Cinchbug's version. Glad to see you did not remove the UNESCO reference in the Maurette sentence. ObserverNY (talk) 19:29, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Onward: regarding Hanson

Okay, it looks like we've reached some consensus about what to include regarding the programmes. Excellent!

I found this reference to Hanson being a founding member of the board of IBNA (do a search within the pdf for Hanson; he's referenced three times). It comes from a PhD thesis, so we should be able to look at the bibliography--which will tell us not only if the sources are good, but also might help us find other sources.

Having said all that, I don't know if we need to include information about Hanson or not. But it would probably be best if we clarified his role--if any--before deciding either way. Regards, • CinchBug • 19:39, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you. The dissertation cites Jennifer Freeman's article "International Baccalaureate" regarding Hanson's involvement. I was not able to locate the actual article, just the abstract. But it's clear from at least three sources now that Hanson was in fact a major player when the program started. I certainly don't insist on the inclusion, just suggest that we consider it. In general, I am fine with the history part as it is now.Tvor65 (talk) 20:26, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's an obituary for Hanson in the NYT. Regards, • CinchBug • 20:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the link. He clearly made some remarkable contributions. Note also this paragraph in the obituary:

He took part in an early effort by college administrators in Europe to set up a curriculum and university entrance examinations honored internationally. After years of negotiations among education ministries, that spadework helped create an International Baccalaureate granted by 380 schools in 56 countries.

Best, Tvor65 (talk) 21:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Yep, I noted that, too. Though it speaks to his involvement in a general sense, it's unfortunately not very specific. (I included indents for your signature line, by the way--I hope that's okay. If not, feel free to change it back.) Regards, • CinchBug • 21:10, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

You might want to read this 2005 George Walker speech which mentions ol' Harpo and note that not only did IBNA not come into being until 1975, but apparently there was a bit of a tiff between Renaud and Nichols (who?) that lasted a long time. Perhaps this is some of the reason we can't find any info about Renaud. Hmmmm. http://www.ibo.org/dg/emeritus/speeches/documents/ibna_jul05.pdf ObserverNY (talk) 21:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Yes, I read that somewhere on one of the Talk pages before. It does confirm that "ol' Harpo" was a member of the board of IBNA, interestingly. As for the tensions/conflict between Renaud and Nichol (it says that Nichol was a regional director for IBNA), it's hard to tell what actually put them at odds. Regards, • CinchBug • 21:57, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) There you have it (from Walker's speech re Hanson): he was appointed to the ISES council and "played a crucial role in the launch of the IB".Tvor65 (talk) 21:59, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

This (middle paragraph) had been added to the IBDP page but ObserverNY removed it. In my view, the early educators involved in the inception of the IB are worth mentioning. It can done in one or two sentences and is easily verified with secondary sources. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:02, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Huh, that's interesting. While I'm not saying that we necessarily need to put it back in, why was it removed? You're pretty good about referencing stuff, TK--was there an error in the citation or something? Regards, • CinchBug • 22:15, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

It was removed, (if Truthkeeper will recall), because it was followed by a paragraph on the "attrition rate" of the IB program in the U.S. and the entire article was undergoing an extreme scale back at Truthkeeper's behest. ObserverNY (talk) 23:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

This is the delete diff. Don't know why, but not because of the ref. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:20, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Thinking of changing this:

“The International Schools Examinations Syndicat (ISES) appeared as a series of pamphlets created under the auspices of the International Schools Association and later become what is known today as the International Baccalaureate.”

To this:

“A small group of teachers from the International School of Geneva (Ecolint) created the International Schools Examinations Syndicate (ISES) to facilitate university entrance worldwide and to promote world peace and intercultural understanding.”

The first quote sounds like the IB is just a bunch of pamphlets that appeared out of nowhere.

Fox had this:

Tyler influential figure—got the loan from the Ford Foundation

French and German—early curriculum development

Britain-Higher and Subsidiary (now known as Standard) levels

Peterson had info about Harpo Hanson---I'll post it in a few...

Cheers! La mome (talk) 22:23, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

On Harpo Hanson from Peterson:

Page 22-Harpo was part of the ISES council, he negotiated a deal with Berkeley on Peterson’s behalf so that Peterson would only work the summer semester so he could be the DG of ISES

Page 23-According to Peterson, Harpo and he “clinched the grant” with the Ford Foundation (Fox claimed it was Tyler---unless I misread it.)

Page 69-Desmond Cole and Harpo Hanson “pitched” (my words) the IB to they Ivies…Harvard and Princeton gave students “direct entry into Sophomore year” (his words)

Fascinating... La mome (talk) 22:36, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

CB & ONY-thanks for fixing the MYP & PYP section. La mome (talk) 22:38, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Page 26 -- Ralph Tyler & also the name of the Swedish prof., (not Norwegian) and verifies vandalism above. Here's the ref for others to read; . Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:43, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Fascinating? Sounds like a lot of conflicting propaganda to me. I see absolutely no reason to mention Hansen unless you are also going to locate details about 1. the Director Generals we know nothing about 2. ALL of the IBNA Board members (that would include Blouke Carus who owns Open Court and who published Supertest) 3. Go into details about the Directors of IBNA, IB Asia, etc. Also, I find the "direct entry into sophomore year" at Harvard and Princeton quote of PARTICULAR interest as I just received an e-mail inquiry from a parent in Mumbai saying that IB was "unofficially" representing exactly that to students in India. Fascinating. ObserverNY (talk) 23:25, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The first quote sounds like the IB is just a bunch of pamphlets that appeared out of nowhere. LOL! Those would be a bunch of UNESCO pamphlets and you mean it is more than that? Could have fooled me. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 23:50, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I think the details of Harpo Hanson's life are significant and interesting. Didn't you read what people have posted? He pretty much ran the College Board on his own with the help of his secretary and was one of the key players in the creation of the IB program. As far as I can tell they don't have a wiki article for him (unless I am not searching correctly). I think in the spirit of WP:NODRAMA we should create one for him. Who knows if he'll make it into this article, but I think he definitely deserves his own, don't you? Why shouldn't he be mentioned here, btw? Right now we are working on the History of IB, the past, not the present. I am not interested in digging up controversial hearsay and gossip. Just looking for the facts. La mome (talk) 00:18, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

If you are so interested in the DGs, then why don't you go over to the IB People articles and start adding info there?

La mome (talk) 00:21, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, La mome, you're absolutely right that Hanson deserves his own page (and I can't find one for him either). Just from his obituary, you can see how impressive his accomplishments were. Since it was your idea, I definitely think you should do the honors and then go to the WP:NODRAMA page and list it as a new page that needs to be fleshed out (since they have a list of new pages that have been created during the WP:NODRAMA event, and that would get more eyes on his page). Great idea. Regards, • CinchBug • 00:26, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Actually, the list of work during the event is at Wikipedia:The Great Wikipedia Dramaout/Log. Regards, • CinchBug • 00:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, I'll try it, but I've never started a page before. Have you? La mome (talk) 00:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope, sure haven't. I'll look it up real quick in the help files and be back in a moment! Regards, • CinchBug • 00:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I think this is where we need to look: Help:Starting_a_new_page. Obviously, I haven't had a chance to read it yet, though. Will start now! • CinchBug • 00:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks like this is the way to go. Sounds pretty simple...but maybe I should read more first. • CinchBug • 01:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I am a chicken--so I started here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:La_mome/Harlan_P._Hanson on a sub-page. Could we list at Dramaout and then move it to its own page once it becomes more substantial?

La mome (talk) 01:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Type Harlan Hanson into the search bar and then click yes at the prompt that asks do you want to start this page. I'm in the middle of reading a hilarious account of his attitude toward students whilst a counselor at Harvard. Once the page is created, it'll be a stub but a lead can be added and working refs, and then flesh out. Then we can also wikilink from this page. ec x 3: do you want me to do it? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, please, if CB hasn't done it already! La mome (talk) 01:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Man, you are a chicken, La mome! ;) Okay, TK, go ahead and do it! • CinchBug • 01:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Done. Only has one sentence, but it exists. Let's move the discussion over to Harlon Hanson. I have to add categories and an education template. CB, can you capture the NYT source -- we need dates for the first sentence. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)—Preceding unsigned comment added by Truthkeeper88 (talk • contribs) 01:17, July 23, 2009

Bravo, TK! Will do. • CinchBug • 01:22, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Awwww! Someone deleted your Hanson page as "implausible"......wasn't me! LOLOLOLOL! ObserverNY (talk) 14:43, 23 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Observer, it was first moved to Harlan Hanson since that's the appropriate spelling; the redirect was deleted as an implausible typo. Sorry to rain on your parade there. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Buzz kill! ;-) LOL! The International Baccalaureate section is absolute biased garbage and needs to be removed. None of the College Board sources make ANY reference to Hanson's alleged work with IBO. Alec Peterson, 1st Director General of IBO, book published by Open Court, which is owned by Blouke Carus and IBNA Board member, same goes for Jay Mathews (I note Jay's co-author Ian Hill, Deputy Director General of IBO has been left out of the citation) are completely biased sources for IBO's own advancement. IBO wants to highlight AP's Hansen to try to offset its European creators. Really HelloAnnyong, please wake up to the agenda of this organization and the actions of its "agents". It is all about spreading propaganda to advance its globalist cause. ObserverNY (talk) 15:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

"On Promoting World Peace and Intercultural Understanding"

LaMome - re: your, (ahem) "rewording". While you made me feel like I should break out my guitar and sing Kumbaya, may I respectfully suggest that you attribute that claim to a specific individual/source in quotes. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 14:39, 23 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The source is already there - see Hayden's book.Tvor65 (talk) 16:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Tvor, thanks for fixing the wording so it matches the source. You beat me to it! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:16, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I fixed it "better" since you left out the quotation marks. There's no proof that they have ACTUALLY facilitated whirled peas, blah blah blah. ObserverNY (talk) 16:38, 23 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I reverted your edit since it is not a verbatim quote but rather paraphrasing what is said in the article.Tvor65 (talk) 16:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi ObserverNY. The text can be paraphrased but what's paraphrased must be in the source. In other words, adding info the source doesn't mention, as with the Peterson text you added, separates the citation from the text. It's always helpful to read the source (once there is one) before editing a verified piece of text. Cheers! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh you did, did you Tvor65? So it's okay for you to paraphrase and not me? Truthkeeper? You gonna stand for that? Show me your "neutrality". ObserverNY (talk) 16:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Please read my post above. Paraphrasing is fine as long as that which is being paraphrased exists in the source. If the paraphrase introduces material that does not exist in the source, then that material should be edited out, or a new source introduced to verify. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:57, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Not to mention that I did not paraphrase anything, ONY - I simply compared what LaMome has written to the source and confirmed that it was indeed from the source, if not verbatim.Tvor65 (talk) 16:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(EC) I reworded it to state "with the goal of...". It is improper to present a goal as an actual accomplishment or historical achievement.ObserverNY (talk) 17:01, 23 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Have a look at this about paraphrasing Wikipedia:Close paraphrasing. Currently the text is almost word for word the same as the source, so might as well rewrite and put it in quotation marks, or revert to the way it was originally written. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - please don't insult my intelligence. My original request to LaMome was to put it in quotes. ObserverNY (talk) 18:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Changed it back to LaMome's paraphrasing. Saying that something was "created to promote" world peace is not the same as claiming it has achieved the goal.Tvor65 (talk) 18:28, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The sentence is poorly worded. Stating the school was created "to facilitate university entrance, and blah and blah" is puffery and bravado. Either cite it as an aim or goal of the school, put it in quotes, or eliminate it from the description. ObserverNY (talk) 19:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

As it was in this diff was fine as a paraphrase from a fine secondary source. What is it you disagree with here? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean from your recent edit. But, I'd caution against removing the bit about "university entrance" as that's cited in numerable verifiable sources. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:14, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - As far as I'm concerned, the article is about IB, not ISES, and the whole Peace stuff is mentioned in the beginning with Maurette. Regarding the "university entrance", ISES didn't create it, IBO did: "provide an internationally acceptable university admissions qualification suitable for the growing mobile population of young people whose parents were part of the world of diplomacy, international and multi-national organizations" and it is therefore redundant listing it AGAIN in connection with ISES. The sentence was a run-on, poorly worded sentence and superfluous. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Tvor65 - please don't do that again. ObserverNY (talk) 19:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Yes, I see that the university recognition is redundant and agree with you on that point. However, upon reading the source for Maurette (Walker's speech} I see that he doesn't explicitly state she created the framework for IB. He simply introduces and discusses her work. In my view, extrapolating from a source is tricky, whereas the ISES source (Fox) is clear about the purpose, so I'd actually recommend merging the sentence/information somehow. I'm happy to give it go, if you don't mind. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:48, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Tvor65 - Your "attempt" at rewording and condensing has produced yet another unacceptable, run-on sentence. I am reverting your edit.

Truthkeeper - if you read the Walker speech, it specifically refers to Maurette as "sowing the seeds for the PEDAGOGY which would become the IB Diploma". This was "removed" by Tvor65 and LaMome as "puffery". ObserverNY (talk) 19:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(ec) Observer - just because you don't like a phrase does not mean you can remove it without consensus (which clearly was not there, per the above discussion) and revert edits. Please stop doing this and try to edit constructively. I have condensed and reworded your version for now but agree with TK that we should use Fox's source instead, which clearly states the purpose of the ISES.Tvor65 (talk) 19:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Tvor65 - I asked you nicely. If you think you can "entrap" me in 3RR, think again. Play nice. ObserverNY (talk) 20:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Tvor65 - Perhaps you need to be reminded that "no consensus" is not grounds for objecting to an edit. Clearly, even when there ARE objections, (such as the one I proclaimed regarding YOUR rewording of the Maurette reference) you went ahead and changed it anyway. Double standard, muh dear? ObserverNY (talk) 20:03, 23 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Hi ObserverNY. I've read the document a number of times and can't find "sowing seeds for pedagogy". Performed a find function and received no results for pedagogy/seeds/sowing. Do you have a page number? Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

ONY, I have no intention of "entrapping" you anywhere. You are quite capable of creating problems all by yourself, as you have recently demonstrated. Perhaps you need to be reminded that the goal is to reach a version acceptable to all. I have already compromised with you regarding your removal of the well-documented goals of ISES. Now you repeatedly revert my edits simply because you don't like a sentence which is just fine and is in my opinion better than your version. I suggest you wait until someone else weighs in.Tvor65 (talk) 20:12, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I was going to weigh in, but the section has changed so much that I'm reduced to reading the diffs which is a little more time consuming. Think I'll wait until this settles and let someone else weigh in, or read the material later. Certainly it's important for the text to match the source. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:15, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, TK. I am actually okay with the latest rearrangement by ONY - it looks better than what she tried to do before. And, by the way, ONY, I did not revert the Maurette reference. Please read the edit history before attributing edits to people.Tvor65 (talk) 20:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd weigh in, but I'm getting dizzy from looking at all of the edits. I'll need to check the sources before I offer up any opinion and I won't be able to do that now. But I'll try to come back later. Regards, • CinchBug • 20:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

TK - I have no objections to the word "pedagogy" not appearing in the sentence. Framework or basis is fines with me. I must be remembering it from a GW speech which I can't seem to locate right now. Here are two other sources to back up Maurette as the original "source" for IB ideology: http://www.ibo.org/dg/emeritus/speeches/documents/chiefexam_oct04.pdf, http://books.google.com/books?id=4MPJcee_CyIC&pg=PA21&lpg=PA21&dq=George+Walker++Maurette+UNESCO&source=bl&ots=BgnY5i2MIO&sig=culvHeA-blOHfVo6t7GcHF-yNlU&hl=en&ei=GMZoSozKE4zeMb_m7M8M&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=1 (pg. 21) Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 20:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(edit conflict)

Responding to:

"Truthkeeper - As far as I'm concerned, the article is about IB, not ISES, and the whole Peace stuff is mentioned in the beginning with Maurette. Regarding the "university entrance", ISES didn't create it, IBO did: "provide an internationally acceptable university admissions qualification suitable for the growing mobile population of young people whose parents were part of the world of diplomacy, international and multi-national organizations" and it is therefore redundant listing it AGAIN in connection with ISES. The sentence was a run-on, poorly worded sentence and superfluous. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 19:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY"

If you had bothered to read the Fox chapter, you would understand the reference and the reason for my wanting to change it from pamphlets falling from the sky to IB coming about as a result of a group of teachers meeting with specific goals in mind--

1. to provide a unified curriculum drawing on best practices from around the world to facilitate the university entrance process (not the "getting in to a university" which is how you read it, I believe) 2. to promote world peace--echoing Maman Maurette (which is not puffery and not a false claim of actually achieving that goal, obviously, given world events)

3. to foster intercultural understanding.

These were the goals stated for ISES which later became IB---they are one and the same.

Instead of directly editing on the page, I suggest you put your proposals either in the sandbox or on the talk page, as I did, so that we can hash it out. Otherwise it becomes edit warring and the article gets hacked at indiscriminately.

Because you decided to pack up your bags and leave, we had to piece together the remains of the article and basically start from scratch. I have yet to hear an apology from you for such rude and immature behavior. I also noticed that not one admin said boo. My guess is because of the WP:NODRAMA which you completely ignored, despite numerous reminders. I hope you noticed that your behavior, comments and edits were ignored for the most part for the last few days.

I find it suspiciously ironic that you are adamant about leaving every last mention of UNESCO in the article, yet thumb your nose at the desire to promote world peace. Care to explain?

La mome (talk) 22:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Nope! Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 23:55, 23 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Will spend some time thinking about this. On the one hand Peterson claims Leach created a history syllabus/curriculum in the early 1960s and Hill claims Maurette created one in 1965 that, according to Hill, was difficult to implement. Basically it appears a group of international educators (American, French, Swiss, British) had an idea for an international educational program. The idea resulted in ISES which then, thanks to the Ford Foundation money morphed into IB. Certainly the work that was started with ISES and moved to IB is important as were the aims of the people involved. Reading the annals seems to show some sort of a collaborative effort, not as though one single person was responsible for the entire idea. In terms of international education, I had pointed out on the other talk page IBDP that Charles Dickens advocated international education as early as 1864, so as I mentioned then, where is the cut off point and how to determine who gets the ultimate credit? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Doctors Without Borders is really worth reading. The article highlights the founding doctors as a list in the lead. Not a bad idea. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - "Difficult to implement?" Are you seriously taking that into consideration? Because if you ARE, then you better create an entire section on "Implementation of IB Programmes" and let's get into all of the problems schools have had (in the U.S. at any rate) with scheduling, lack of student interest, excessive cost and use of IB by politicians for social manipulation of minority/wealthy populations. Game? ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 00:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

History: Leach

Hats off the Uncle G!! Just stumbled across this:

1962, the year of the foundation of Atlantic College, also saw the first small conference in Geneva, organised by the teachers in the Ecolint's social department, under their Chairman Bob Leach, which made specific mention of the words "International Baccalaureate." Bob Leach, a widely travelled American Quaker with long experience of international education, had been seconded to ISA.

• Peterson, A.D.C. (2003). Schools Across Frontiers (2nd ed.). Open Court. pp. 18–19. ISBN 0812695054. Retrieved 23 July 2009. {{cite book}}: Cite has empty unknown parameter: |coauthors= (help)

We may have to revisit the Leach material, as his notability may lie in coining the term International Baccalaureate, among other things. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I saw that too. Now I feel bad that I called Leach "some random History teacher." La mome (talk) 22:29, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Initiators

The Doctors without Borders article is impressive and was a featured article. We should definitely be using that as a model. They refer to the creators or founders as "initiators" and give a bulleted list. If we were to do that, or something similar, we should start brainstorming for people to include in that list. So far we have only Maurette and Peterson mentioned by name. Leach was part of the group of teachers, but there were others. Hanson certainly qualifies as an "initiator." Suggestions? La mome (talk) 12:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh excuse me, but when I had a bullet list of the Directors Generals, I was told that was giving too much WP:WEIGHT. Or am I remembering incorrectly? ObserverNY (talk) 13:27, 24 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Please refer to HelloAnnyong's comment here: [1] Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 13:37, 24 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Or to put it another way, Maurette and Peterson were the mother and father. The second cousins twice removed really aren't all that notable in the scheme of things. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 13:40, 24 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

HA's objection was not the list, it was for the descriptions for each person. She was the one who suggested looking at Doctors without Borders, before TK and me. We are just reiterating what she said. Have you even looked at Doctors without Borders, which was a WP:FA? La mome (talk) 14:24, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, perhaps I need to highlight more than the entire paragraph: To be honest, I think having the directors listed in such a way (bulletted w/description) seems to be pushing some sort of POV, as if each of these people needs to be listed out so the reader can evaluate what sort of people they are or something. If any of them were particularly notable, I suppose we'd have articles for them or whatever." ~HelloAnnyong

It would appear to ME, that LaMome is pushing an extreme POV to not only include but highlight obscure "initiators" (to make Harpo Hansen the slightest bit notable you had to go create a page yourself). That's just how it looks from this side of the looking glass, folks. ObserverNY (talk) 14:45, 24 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

p.s. to LaMome - You used a word that is a particular pet peeve of mine, especially when used by a teacher to a group. It raises hackles on my neck and causes me to grind my teeth. Can you guess what word it was? I'll give you a hint, it's got the letters B and S in it. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 14:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

First, I'm male, not female. Second, my objection was for both the list and the description. Third, the Doctors without Borders article was made FA three years ago, so perhaps taking it at its current face value isn't the smartest of ideas. The list at the top was added by an anon IP two years after the article was promoted (here) but no one has reverted it as of yet. I'm pretty sure that the list should be removed, and if the article was given an article review, I'm almost positive that that list would hurt the article. Either way, we should strive to be better than that. Observer's comments about parents vs. cousins was correct, IMO, and we shouldn't be listing every person ever. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:08, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for weighing in, HelloAnnyong. ObserverNY (talk) 15:51, 24 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

HelloAnnyong and ObserverNY,

1. I apologize for the "she."

2. Since you suggested we look at the Doctors without Borders, I looked at it and noted its formatting, etc... It is a lot more detailed than the IB article and there is a lot missing from the history of IB point of view. I had no way of knowing that the bulleted list was added after the FA nomination, unless I looked at the edit history, which I did not.

3. I am not trying to push any POV, just looking to give credit where credit is due. Procuring $300,000 back then for funding is nothing to sneeze at.

4. As much as I would love to take credit for the creation of the Harlan Hanson article and his notability, alas I can not. 25 years at the helm of AP, while I was literally just a "mome" (babester) is pretty notable, I think. Helping to start up what would later become IB, another major educational program, is indeed noteworthy. If you and others believe that he is not worthy of a mention in the IB pages, then so be it.

5. There are other people who were signicant in the creation and development of IB.

I am not suggesting that we mention every person ever, I am just asking that editors look into contributing to the article by investigating people who were involved with IB from the early stages. I don't see how that is pushing an extreme POV. In my opinion, it seems Marie-Therese Maurette is receiving undue weight, given that hers was simply an idea, while the group of teachers (including Leach)created curriculum and held a conference.

Ciao for now La mome (talk) 18:19, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I take the blame for brining the list in the lead at drs w/out borders to the attention of the editors here. As per HelloAnnyong's advice I looked at the article, but also did not take the time to determine the date of FA status or to examine recent edits, so I apologize for that.

Answering the question of whom to include in the history is tricky. I've yet to see sources that do more than tip the hat at Maurette; however, others such as Peterson, Leach and Hanson clearly contributed to the launching of IB. Perhaps including the four: Maurette, Leach, Hanson and Peterson is possible.

Also agree with La mome's characterization of Hanson -- at the helm of one educational program for more than a quarter century; involved with the start-up of another and bringing in the funding, are all noteworthy in my view. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:54, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree with LaMome and TK - need to give credit where credit is due. From my reading, Leach, Hanson and Peterson certainly deserve to be given some weight as people who actually started the program in the 60s.Tvor65 (talk) 19:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper, LaMome and Tvor65 - The 3rd Opinion (HA) disagrees with you. Shall we also include the Shah of Iran who contributed $100,000? Shall we list how much the Aga Khan has invested in IB since 2008? Do you see where this is going if you persist in trying to insert "American influence" into the article regarding IB's "innovation"? You can attempt to disavow POV all you want by claiming "notability", yet in Wiki terms, there are no articles on Leach, Fox or Hanson. Frankly, a bunch of teachers sitting around "brainstorming" about putting IB together is not "notable" other than the basic ideology they worked off of and the first official Director General to launch the programme. The International School and its evolution is mentioned. Imo, this is enough. ObserverNY (talk) 19:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Suggestion - If you are really so interested in the key players regarding IB, why don't you find some real information on the 3 DG's who ran the organization for a total of 22 years? (Gérard Renaud (1977-83), Roger Peel (1983-98), Derek Blackman (1998-99)ObserverNY (talk) 19:28, 24 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

If there are enough reliable sources that mention Leach, Fox and Hanson as people who started IB, then they should be mentioned. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:31, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

HA - your comment poses an interesting dilemma. As the article stands, ALL of the citations with the exception of those attributed to the criticism of IB under "reception" are IB sources and therefore not: reliable, third-party, published sources with a reputation for fact-checking and accuracy, as are the proposed sources for Hanson, Fox, etc. Your opinion please. ObserverNY (talk) 19:55, 24 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Leach and Hanson are mentioned in multiple reliable sources. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:57, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - Their relationship to IB is not mentioned in any 3rd party, non-IB affiliated sources. Let me qualify that with a specific example: if the College Board bio on Hansen or his obituary in the NYT had made reference to his involvement with IB, I would view those as 3rd party, reliable references. However, they do not. ObserverNY (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(outdent) This is where we get into tricky territory. You can use primary sources to state some things, like who's currently running the company. But for claims and analyses, you need to use secondary sources. See WP:PSTS for more on this. For the history of an organization, it's murky territory. We can use the company site for some events, but it would be better to have secondary ones. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:09, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - I stand corrected - The NYT obit does make reference to Hansen and the IB and therefore qualifies as a 3rd party source. However, if you are going to insert Hansen, then it should be done so in a neutral, non-descriptive manner just as the Director Generals are listed without any specifics as to their backgrounds. ObserverNY (talk) 20:01, 24 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

HelloAnnyong, Uncle G provided a number sources that are secondary sources. If you'd like, have a look in my sandbox. The first large bit of block text complete with sources is Uncle G's. The rest consists of information and secondary sources I've found and checked. These are the ones that mention Leach and Hanson. In my view we are using too many primary sources in these articles. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:34, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I could have sworn we already talked about this Ph.D dissertation somewhere in here. It also makes a reference to Hanson, his role as a founder of the board of IBNA, and his feelings about IB. Like I said, I'm pretty sure it's already floating around here somewhere, but I'll include it again here, just in case. Regards, • CinchBug • 20:44, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Just to add on, the dissertation above references this article:

[Freeman, J. (1987) The International Baccalaureate. The College Board Review. No. 143, Spring. 4 -6.

I would think that article would count as a reliable source, if we can get a hold of it. Regards, • CinchBug • 20:48, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Ummm, I'm pretty sure we discussed Bunnell, not Bagnall, but I could be wrong. He appears to be an independent Professor doing research on IB, so I would consider Bagnall a secondary source. I don't know how you could prove how reliable he is.... ObserverNY (talk) 21:23, 24 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I think dissertations are reliable. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:26, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

First mention was here. I've been trying to get some eyes on the original article in The College Board Review, but haven't been able to yet. Regards, • CinchBug • 21:33, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Responding to:

..."Shall we list how much the Aga Khan has invested in IB since 2008? Do you see where this is going if you persist in trying to insert "American influence" into the article regarding IB's "innovation"?" ....19:21, 24 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

No, I do not see where this is going. Please explain. We are not trying to insert American influence, it exists through Harlan Hanson and Prof. Tyler. I don't understand why you are against including their participation in the creation and development of IB. How are the origins of IB related to Aga Khan? And you still haven't explained why you are so obsessed with Maurette and UNESCO? Plus, isn't the source you quoted for her and the "mother/father thing" from George Walker, a former DG of IB? Isn't that a no-no? Why is it ok for you to use him as a source, but it's not acceptable if anyone else uses former DGs as sources? And doesn't the source you included for Maurette also include mention of you? Isn't that COI as well?

La mome (talk) 01:02, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

Rewriting History

I see your WP:NODRAMA is over, eh LaMome? LOL! You want to rewrite History? Then I suggest we use the following source from ACEI: http://www.acei-hkm.org.hk/Doc/IB%20Background.ppt "History of International Baccalaureate". This addresses Truthkeeper's posit about how far back do we go (1924?), removes Maurette but instead places emphasis on the failed League of Nations and mentions Leach, but not Tyler or Hansen. Just as an aside, the info in this document regarding the number of IB schools established during the "Experimental Period" of IBO (70-76) is vastly different from the number cited in the NYT's obit on Hansen (NYT not exactly known for being accurate or unbiased) ObserverNY (talk) 10:41, 25 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

As to the source used for Maurette, are you WP:OUTING me LaMome? I don't see ObserverNY mentioned anywhere in that article. I suppose in fairness, I have discussed on other user talk pages Walker's reference to Mathews' chapter on me where I was mentioned anonymously, however I think the following sentence from the above WP page is more applicable: If "following another user around" is accompanied by tendentiousness, personal attacks, or other disruptive behavior, it may become a very serious matter and could result in blocks and other editing restrictions. ObserverNY (talk) 11:36, 25 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

You outed yourself here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:IB_Diploma_Programme/Archive_2

You linked one of George Walker's other speeches (I was mistaken in saying that it was the reference to the Maurette quote) and then proudly divulged that the person he was talking about in one of his anecdotes was you. Further down you give your full name and identify yourself as one of the editors of the TAIB site that you kept trying to link on to the IB articles. Again, I am not following you around, don't know you and don't know why you think I am personnally attacking you or pushing a POV.

I don't want to remove Maurette, I said I don't think she should receive undue weight. If your new source doesn't mention Maurette or Tyler, then it is not very accurate, is it? We are trying to improve the article by adding more details about the history and origins of IB, not take away the little that we have. Please help us in that endeavor.

You still haven't answered my question about your interest in UNESCO and adding Aga Khan to the list of contributors for early funding. Do you have a source for that?

Thanks, La mome (talk) 13:15, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not going to play your little drama game, so drop it. Thought we had a WP:TRUCE LaMome. See the link above for the Shah of Iran's $100,000 contribution in early History. Please show me where Wikipedia requires History to only be early History. ObserverNY (talk) 16:48, 25 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

TFOWR - Since you appear to be the only editor in here who has a sense of humor, I thought you would get a kick out of this: http://uncyclopedia.wikia.com/wiki/International_Baccalaureate (Note: I am NOT advocating including this in this article!) Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 17:39, 25 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

To ObserverNY,

Still no drama. No games. I've asked you questions that you refuse to answer. You called off the truce when you started blanking the article. And you still haven't apologised to anyone. Funding in the 80s is not early funding, which is the section we are working on now. If you want to jump ahead in history, be my guest, but the source you provided with a powerpoint doesn't look too reliable or verifiable to me. The ppt looks like they tried to make it look like an "official" IB presentation. Instead of wasting your time on uncyclopedia, why don't you try reading some of the sources Uncle G suggested?

La mome (talk) 18:12, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

LOL! No drama, huh? Withdrawing my contributions to the article which you all objected to anyway, doesn't warrant an apology. I left you with what you desired and contributed - to build upon. HA reformatted and retrieved those contributions of mine he felt warranted reinstatement, quite fair and balanced, I might add. Stop with the ridiculous attempt at a guilt trip, LaMome, it ain't working. Besides, it's way too nice a day to waste time in here. Ciao for now! ObserverNY (talk) 18:26, 25 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

New Section - IB Finances

Here's a section that is missing from the organization's page, other than the brief mention to the IB Fund. With all of the chatter about Hanson getting the Ford Fo. to cough up $300,000 and the Shah of Iran $100,000, it really should be reported how much IB nets/spends a year in U.S. millions, how much revenue comes from its fees, donations, etc. IB keeps the salaries of its top executives under lock and key, but I think people will be surprised how little this organization claims it actually operates on. In fact, it is less than the annual budget for my little school district with 2250 students. ObserverNY (talk) 23:18, 25 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Golly gosh Truthkeeper, why would you go back to the IBDP page and start up discussion on finances there instead of responding here? Hmmmm? [2] Divide and conquer?ObserverNY (talk) 12:43, 26 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Look at the dates. TK posted that on the IBDP talk page on July 23, before you posted here. So you should ask yourself the above question.Tvor65 (talk) 12:55, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, well, frankly, I thought we were done with that article and hadn't looked over there for at least a week. So since Truthkeeper was questioning finances with regard to THIS article, I ask again, why was the comment placed over THERE? ObserverNY (talk) 13:10, 26 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

1. The funding info was placed on the IB DP page because that's where the Unesco funding is.
2. The funding info was placed on the IB DP page a few days ago, as I was reading the information from the sources and predates ObserverNY's comment here.
3. The IB DP article is not done. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:28, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I SEE that it "pre-dates" my finance comment here by 2 days, but that doesn't negate the entire Hanson discussion and his advocacy (in terms of the disputed $300,000 contributed by the Ford Fo.) HERE. ObserverNY (talk) 14:44, 26 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Elisabeth Fox

I see Tvor65 reinserted the Fox reference. In case some of you missed the NYT obit: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/26/classified/paid-notice-deaths-fox-elisabeth-libby-nee-grey.html She is listed as a "pioneer of" IB AND a dean of UNIS. This is hardly an unbiased source. ObserverNY (talk) 15:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Again, you'd do well to study edit history, ONY. I did not reinsert the Fox reference, as it was never removed (nor do I think it should be). What I did was restore the label on the reference in case we need to use it more than once, as happened before.

Scholarly articles in peer-reviewed publications, such as the one by Fox, about the history of the program are most certainly legitimate secondary sources.Tvor65 (talk) 16:13, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No, they are not legitimate secondary sources when they are self-serving documents and the "scholars" are "pioneers" and practitioners of IB. ObserverNY (talk) 16:18, 27 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

So far you are the only one here who finds the article (which, apparently, you haven't even read) "self-serving".Tvor65 (talk) 16:54, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't have to waste my time reading it. Fox is listed by the NYT as a "pioneer" of IB. That makes her in the IB camp to promote it. ObserverNY (talk) 19:07, 27 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Well, yes you do have to read articles before you declare them "self-serving". Fox reference is used to describe the history of IB. Have you found any peer-reviewed articles that contradict her account? What is it exactly in her description of how the program started that you find self-serving?

Your objections would be understandable if, for instance, an article by someone who is associated with IB was used to cite the positive reception of the program, or if there was some substantial controversy about the program's early history and/or substantial discrepancy in how different secondary sources describe it. None of this is the case here.Tvor65 (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

You were using the Fox source to cite Harlan Hanson's "contributions" to IB. You are trying to promote a "more positive" American reception towards IB by placing such an emphasis on Hanson in order to diminish the mostly European influence on the programmes. Again, I suggest you use the NYT obit's broader reference to Hanson's involvement. ObserverNY (talk) 15:34, 28 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Same conversation in two places. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:27, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, yeah, you do need to read the article. And you should read this one as well, since Fox isn't even mentioned in this article. It can't be self-serving if the self that is supposedly being served is not even there!

La mome (talk) 22:28, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Really? Twice? Sorry, Tvor65, I didn't realize that! I was just trying to stick to the spirit of HelloAnnyong's ruling. Whoops! Regards, • CinchBug • 03:39, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, I'm not a huge fan of having the same text in two articles... but if keeping it means we won't have a big edit war again, then I guess I'm okay with it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 03:53, 28 July 2009 (UTC)