Talk:International Baccalaureate

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)

Back to Finances

In thinking about how to create this section, I decided to run through the IB Annual Reviews that it has online for the years 2002-2007. Apparently, even though it is almost August, IB hasn't released its 2008 report yet. http://www.ibo.org/facts/annualreview/2005/ It would appear that with Jeffrey Beard's arrival on the scene, IB has significantly altered its financial reporting practices and now only provides info on "fee" income. Digging through IB job descrips, I came across a number of $90M income, $90M expenditure and lo and behold, a cash balance of $50M. Hmmmm. Pretty hefty fund balance for a "non-profit". Anyone else interested in digging around in this organization's financial reporting? http://search.ibo.org/cs.html?charset=iso-8859-1&url=http%3A//www.ibo.org/jobs/staff/documents/GlobalTreasuryManagerJanuary2008.doc&qt=2008+financial+report&col=ibeng&n=2&la=en Btw, it's rather interesting that IB is looking for a new CFO. Their old CFO was also the CFO of Viacom ObserverNY (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Paragraph on Closing Cardiff in Reception

Notice to all - TVOR65, without any discussion, arbitrarily just wiped a paragraph I added to Reception to provide a less US-Centric view, as SHE HERSELF REQUESTED! The statement is factual, includes quotes from top IB officials and it is documented by an article from the Guardian.co.uk. She is deliberately trying to start another edit war. I have restored the paragraph. If anyone has a particular problem with it, OTHER than Tvor65 and LaMome, please advise. ObserverNY (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, I agree with you that it is a factual statement. But I'm not as sure about its relevance in this article. Why do you think it's noteworthy?

As for Tvor65, I was unaware that the editor was a "she" and I respectfully request that we leave claims about other editors' intentions at the door. Regards, • CinchBug • 16:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Cinchbug - Correct me if I'm wrong, but the term "reception" means how something is "received". It can be received positively, or negatively. Especially in terms of the IB article which is about the organization, when an organization eliminates 75%+ of its employees, plans to relocate to another country and earns the ire of Welsh officials, I'd say that IB's decision wasn't exactly well-received. I included Beard's explanation verbatim and didn't elaborate on the Welsh reaction so that the paragraph would be fair and balanced.

As to Tvor65, this individual is know to me outside of Wikipedia and followed me over here to deliberately disrupt and delete anything I might contribute. You can give Tvor65 the benefit of the doubt all you want, I know better. I could out every aspect of Tvor65's involvement with the IB issue but I won't. You can take my word for it, or not. Tvor65's actions speak for themselves. ObserverNY (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, indeed, I concur that "reception" has to do with how something is "received." But I'm not clear how the movement of IB offices from Cardiff to Amsterdam has to do with how officials in Cardiff "received" the IB. Rather, it seems that they "received" IB quite positively and had hoped that IB would stay in Cardiff--after all, that would benefit Cardiff's economy. This is the nature of their objections to IB's departure, I should think, yes?

Perhaps if we can find how officials in Amsterdam feel about IB's imminent arrival, that would provide more balance. But, then again, it is certainly in Amsterdam's interest that IB open offices in their city, since it would benefit their economy. So I'm not sure that including information about either Cardiff or Amsterdam improves the article.

Again, with regards to Tvor65, let's avoid disparaging the intentions of other editors. If it is true that you two have issues with each other, then please don't bring those problems here--I have no idea if you do actually know Tvor65 IRL, but understand that I say this to both of you. Please, as I've said elsewhere, let's try to work on these articles in a collaborative fashion. Regards, • CinchBug • 16:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

ONY, you've been asked before to not speculate about other editors who you may or may not have met previously (indeed, I seem to recall that at WP:ANI you denied having previously encountered Tvor65?) Please knock this off, it's incredibly disruptive. Comment on content, not on editors. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Cinchbug - sure, Cardiff's economic loss is Amsterdam's gain, but I also think the quotes from the IB officials are very telling, however you choose to interpret them, as to IB's motivation. Now that I think about it, the paragraph could be viewed as very neutral in a "global" sense, now couldn't it? I'm sure Amsterdam and Montgomery County Md, are all a-tingle in anticipation of IB's arrival. Please feel free to add anything you might find regarding those "receptions". Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

TFOWR - when Tvor65 has to play by the same rules I do, then I'll stop commenting on attempts to start an edit war. You recall incorrectly. ObserverNY(talk) 16:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(ec) Didn't know we had a reception section. Is that meant for how the IB programmes are "received" internationally? The Cardiff information seems a bit newsy to me. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you check the History and see how it came to be, Truthkeeper? ObserverNY (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ONY, I didn't mention anything about you stopping commenting on attempts to start an edit war (though if you were to stop that would help a great deal) - what I said was you've been asked before to not speculate about other editors who you may or may not have met previously. Whether you have or haven't met Tvor65 before is of no relevance to this article, or Wikipedia in general. Regarding edit wars, frankly, the argument that "X does it so it's OK for me to do it" doesn't wash. If you have a complaint with anyone, follow policy - don't simply mimic them. Regarding what you said at WP:ANI you are, of course, correct - my confusion arose because you had refuted my stated belief that one editor had met another editor previously. Re-reading your comment at WP:ANI you were refuting the inferred notion that one editor had met another editor in person. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

1. I am a "he", not a "she".

2. I have never met ONY and have certainly not "followed" anyone here. I am sick and tired of ONY's claims to the contrary.

3. I maintain that while factual, information about Cardiff move has nothing to do with program's reception, i.e. how the program itself is perceived, not the administrative decisions to move its curriculum center or whatever.

4. The Reception section is way too long, so I have condensed it throughout (see my edit). If everyone else is happy with the version ONY reverted to, fine. I have better things to do than spend time improving the article, only to see ONY wipe my edits and accuse me.

5. Yes, the section is US-centric, and there are some relevant concerns about and praise of the program's curriculum in other countries, so if anyone cares to add that info, please do.

Tvor65 (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The "Reception" section was created when 3rd Op HA came along and reformatted the IB article. At IBDP yesterday, Tvor65 wrote the following: The praise/criticism stuff really did not belong under "Recognition" since that section was mostly about university recognition. So I have created a new section called "Reception". Right now, however, it is rather US-centric, so info on the reception in other countries may be needed to balance things out.Tvor65 (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC) HelloAnnyong mentioned that he wasn't thrilled with having the same section duplicated in two articles but would leave it be if it avoided an edit war. Tvor65 now is selectively editing out the WP:BALANCE in the section without prior discussion in BOTH articles. I don't care if Tvor65 is a man or a woman, this is agrressive behavior and not operating in good faith. And because Tvor65 still doesn't seem to understand that the IB article is about the IB ORGANIZATION - reception does not need to be limited to how its "programmes" are received, but rather the actions of the organization as a whole. ObserverNY (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Just looked at the history. Missed the discussion about adding this. If you want discussion for all edits then please adhere to the policy yourself. Yelling "edit war! edit war!" whenever one of your edits is improved is neither civil nor productive. Cheers! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY, I've read the article and I still fail to see how the remarks by IB officials can be construed to be at all "telling" about IB's reception in Cardiff. Regards, • CinchBug • 17:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, Truthkeeper, but what Tvor65 did was NOT an improvement, it was a complete wiping of WP:BALANCE and I seem to recall you having a recent meltdown over at Harlan Hanson over my edit to that article (which actually WAS an improvement), so seriously, how about a little consistency and being civil on your part and dropping the double-standard?

Cinchbug - Hmmmm, well if you don't see how telling employees of 20 years that their work is no longer valued because they aren't "internationally-minded enough" - might piss some people off, I don't know what to tell ya. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, sure, I can certainly see how losing one's job would "piss someone off." But I don't see why that is relevant to this article. TK's suggestion that this sounds newsy seems accurate here. Regards, • CinchBug • 17:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I know ONY can't be bothered but I hope the others will actually look at the edit I made to condense the section. I did not just remove the irrelavant Cardiff stuff, I also removed ACI info that LaMome has included, in order to maintain the balance, and summarized some of the new things ONY had included (without discussion, mind you), with the idea that more info can be found in the references.Tvor65 (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Tvor65, saying things like, "I know ONY can't be bothered..." is really not constructive. As I've asked ObserverNY, please leave comments about other editors at the door. Regards, • CinchBug • 17:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, she obviously has not looked at the edit. Anyway, please compare the two versions and decide which one you prefer or how it can be improved.Tvor65 (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not another editor has looked at the edit is irrelevant - comment on content, not on the editor.

Seriously, both of you, if one of you reacts badly to something the other does the situation tends to spiral. Don't comment on the other's behaviour, and don't respond if the other comments on your behaviour. If both of you tried to win the moral high ground we'd all win. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

CinchBug and TFOWR. Sorry, but I am only a human. How about instead of commenting on my (rather innocent) comment and giving me your saintly advices, you actually comment on the edit and the current version and make suggestions as to how the superlong Reception section can be improved, in your opinions.Tvor65 (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Tvor65, point taken. Having read both versions, I have to say that I prefer neither. I'll make an edit to the article and see what everyone has to say about it. It should be done in a minute or so. Regards, • CinchBug • 17:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

My edit is actually fairly similar to Tvor65's, though I've included the remarks about Utah. Regards, • CinchBug • 18:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict, grumble, complain, moan) We're all only human. I can't speak for CinchBug, but I've certainly had disagreements with other editors before - most long-term editors will have. What matters is how we deal with this - whether or not we let it affect our future editing. The reason I'm offering "saintly advice" is because dealing with ongoing conflicts is time-consuming: of necessity I'm spending much less time on Wikipedia right now than I have in the past, and I'd greatly prefer it if I could spend that time reviewing and commenting on edits, rather than fire-fighting. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, upon further reflection, the entire Reception section is about IB programmes, not about the organization. I'm wondering if we need this section in this article at all. It would seem that this information, if it's to be included, should be at the relevant programme page. Thoughts? • CinchBug • 18:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but I think the section may even have been called "Programmes" at some point? Regardless, I think there is a case for some information on the programmes to be here (along the lines of "The IB is best known for running several educational programmes") in order to explain what the IB is and why. The first part of the current section seems to focus only (?) on IBDP, as far as I can tell? The second section ("Political objections to the IB programme in the United States...") makes it sound as if there's only one programme - it should be clarified whether opposition extends to all three programmes. So... suggest keeping, possibly shortening, definitely improving. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense and sounds good to me. Regards, • CinchBug • 18:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't shortened anything yet, but I added specific references to the IBDP when it was the DP that was clearly being referred to. I also changed "the IB programme" to "IB programmes" in the "political objections" part. What does everyone think? Regards, • CinchBug • 18:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

CinchBug, you may also want to edit the Reception section on the IBDP page, which is currently identical to the one here before your edit. I am not going to comment or spend any more time on this because obviously whenever I dare to edit anything ONY has contributed to, all hell breaks loose. Good luck.Tvor65 (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Tvor65, I'll go and take a look. In an effort to keep peace in our little family here, I also just reintroduced the info about the move of offices from Cardiff to Amsterdam. However, to be clear, I really don't think it's relevant to this article and suggest that we remove it. I'd be interested in what everyone else has to say about it. Regards, • CinchBug • 18:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Cinchbug - How can you say that information about closing down Cardiff, the IB's "curriculum center" for the past 20 years, is not relevant to an article about the IB organization? Justify please. ObserverNY (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, information about moving their offices may be relevant, though I'm not sure how noteworthy it is. The inclusion of the reaction of people who are losing their jobs does not seem to be, nor would news about people who are getting new jobs in Amsterdam. But I'll let other folks offer up their opinions. I'd recommend that no one take that bit out unless or until there's some consensus. Regards, • CinchBug • 18:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict ...and it's the edit conflicts that really cause the wiki-stress) I'd suggest if we keep the Cardiff/Amsterdam part we move it to "History" (I know, I know, it's really, really, recent history). It seems out of place in "Reception". I'm not convinced about Cardiff, to be honest - we should mention Amsterdam but mentioning the previous HQ I'm less convinced about. Moving an HQ doesn't seem hugely notable to me. I appreciate its newsworthyness, but not its encyclopaedianess (ugh! Sometimes it's easier just to use horrible, made-up words).

Tvor65, I think your plan is sound (from a "moral high-ground, avoid wiki-drama" point of view), and reflects well on you. I hope you'll be staying here, though, and discussing edits. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If Harlan Hanson's "influence" on IB is noteworthy, certainly the closing of IB's main curriculum center where it has produced its "globally recognized curriculum" for the past 20 years, is noteworthy. It also provides readers with the knowledge that the company will be in "transition" until it establishes its new headquarters. In the future, people will either evaluate the move as a smart business move or one that undermined IB's the credibility of IB's products. I have no problem with moving it to either History or the section on IB Offices, where it originally was, way back when. I can dig up a press release on the Montgomery Md. proposed opening if you'd like as well. ObserverNY (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

For whatever it's worth, if it has the slightest whiff of an event to occur I avoid it. For example, the author pages I edit could include information about books to be published, but don't, until the publication occurs. Doesn't the same rule apply on the pages about music? The Cardiff move hasn't happened yet.

Also want to second TFOWR's comment that conflict is unnecessarily time consuming. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

TK - it is not "unverified speculation", it was an announcement by IB, published in the UK paper, and commented upon by top IB officials. Is there some reason you want this information obfuscated and kept secret until IB actually installs itself in its new offices? ObserverNY (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I did not write it's "unverified". Publisher's routinely publish information about books to be published, but until the book has been published despite the fact one might know it's an event to happen in future, one avoids writing about it. La mome's comment below is correct. The event has not happened -- yet. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The prospect of IB moving their offices is neither relevant nor noteworthy here and now. They haven't moved yet. They are not completely shutting down their Cardiff office. Moving to Amsterdam will create more jobs there. If we are including their move in this article at all, then it should be when it happens. If it is included in the "reception" section, then it should be about Amsterdam and how IB is received there. Now we are trying to predict the future. And telling the story about how IB may leave Cardiff through the eyes of the disgruntled employees who have enjoyed 20 years of IB. Leaving has nothing to do with reception. And talk about undue weight---an entire paragraph about how they will move, eventually?

La mome (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The economic impact on the IB employees in Wales is being felt NOW. These folks either have to leave their homeland and pack up and move to Amsterdam or look for other work in the worst economic downturn in recent history. The insult tossed out by IB that its own Welsh staff "isn't internationally-minded enough", happened. No one is "trying to predict the future", LaMome. There are already articles out of Md. touting IB's anticipated arrival. Again, the desire by the IB advocates on this article to attempt to censor this sort of factual information is astonishing. ObserverNY (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(ec)ObserverNY, what I find astonishing is that you continue to speculate about the motives of other editors after being specifically asked to stop. Please, let's knock that off, okay? I removed that information and I put it back into the article so that we could discuss it here. Let's try to have that discussion without the unnecessary remarks and speculation. Regards, • CinchBug • 19:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/02/23/ST2009022303218.html
• http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/education-news/2009/02/10/international-baccalaureate-s-relocation-is-slammed-by-welsh-assembly-government-91466-22891501/

The Washington Post is reporting it. Do you want to tell the Washington Post that it shouldn't "speculate" on that kind of news until it actually happens? ObserverNY (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Cinchbug - I have no beef with you. But I see the "sides" aligning, basing their argument on an illogical and seemingly immovable position. Now that I have the WAPO link, I respectfully suggest that the info be re-written and moved to the IB Offices section following the opening sentence, and removed from the Reception section. How does that sit with you? ObserverNY (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

My recommendation to reword the relevant information about IB Offices is to paraphrase the following: "The new offices are scheduled to open in mid-2010, with more than 100 employees who will oversee operations and testing at 1,494 schools in 28 countries and territories in North and South America. Another such center, in Amsterdam, will be responsible for European and African operations. A Singapore office serves Asian and Australian schools." and use the two links I posted above as cites. ObserverNY (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Btw, also in the interest of civility, I will not make those changes until we have some sort of agreement here. ObserverNY (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, I think that something along the lines of the paragraph above isn't bad. I'm willing to make the changes in a bit, provided other folks here concur. Regards, • CinchBug • 19:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That's very reasonable of you, Cinchbug. Just so you know, LaMome posted a comment over at IBDP and I politely redirected her back here. ObserverNY (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Wow. Now LaMome not only makes a drastic edit (which I reverted) at IBDP, she inserts a line in this article while totally disregarding the discussion taking place, (and inaccurately, I might add). ObserverNY (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I guess discussion is over, therefore my effort at civility has been interrupted. ObserverNY (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Trying again: the discussion involves a future event and although I have no huge objection to adding it, I have been deleting future events from articles I work on, and there is no guarantee if won't be tagged as a future event. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, TK. I guess you haven't kept up with the flurry of edits LaMome has just made to both articles and to which I responded to. This is WP:GAMING and not at all civil. You're not going to call LaMome out on it? Whatever. I have to make dinner. Talk among yourselves. ObserverNY (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ONY, could you post a diff (or diffs) of the edits you're concerned about, and clarify what it is you object to in LaMome's "flurry" of edits? I've just been through of LaMome's edits since yesterday and at first glance they all look fine. Quite a lot of swapping sections around, but nothing that looks like bad faith editing. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 21:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Was about to ask the same. Am having trouble keeping up. The Daily Mail article is a little confusing -- the shadow secretary is in favour of IB but Labour not? Am I reading that correctly? Either way, the edits look okay, but I need some specific diffs to see what's happening here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

This is the direct quote from the guardian reference added by ONY in the Reception area about the proposed move--"The Amsterdam base will be one of three global centres for the IB by 2020. The others are Washington and Singapore." The plan is to have these centers fully operational for their "2020 expansion" or whatever they call it. This is from ibo.org- http://www.ibo.org/announcements/ibannouncesnewamericasglobalcentre.cfm They plan to have Montgomery county office ready by mid-2010. Haven't found anything about Amsterdam and Singapore, other than the Guardian. So, if the Guardian reference is not accurate or valid, why are we using it?

I don't think we need to include all the details about the "proposed" move---since it is a future event. We could mention that there is a plan to create new offices in Montgomery County, Amsterdam and Singapore.

I thought we were using "the Queen's English" for these articles, in which case the spelling is "centre." And can we get consensus on language usage "entitled" as in "giving a title" to a book or article? I've seen it used in articles I've been reading, yet it gets edited to "titled" here, which sounds awkward to me.

La mome (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(EC)LaMome - If you want to change titled to entitled, please, by all means, be my guest. If you want to change center to centre, and organization to organisation and honor to honour and behavior to behaviour and theater to theatre and program to programmes, well you just knock yourself out, ok? I do so apologize for living in the United States and not using that spelling. I know that makes me an inferior being and so I bow to your worldly superiority. Oh, and we were going to try and stay away from using ibo as a source for new edits, remember? On what grounds are you declaring the Guardian article inaccurate or invalid? I seem to have missed your justification for such a claim. Btw, you still have never bothered to de-weight Harlan Hanson in the IBDP article and unless you can find it in yourself to go back and either add in some "other (verifiable) US educators" or make mention of other "initiators", I find the HH reference providing undue weight to a non-notable individual in terms of IB. Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 23:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Have been trying to respond: titled is correct and entitled incorrect. At some point (?) the articles in the entire series will need copyediting and a decision made regarding WP:ENGVAR. I had rewritten the HH section in the IB DP and added Leach to the list & was in the process of adding others. Perhaps ONY can find that edit, bring it forward, reinstall it, then I'd be happy to add the other members. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to repost this link since LaMome dismisses the Guardian.co.uk as a valid source and apparently didn't see this source: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/education-news/2009/02/10/international-baccalaureate-s-relocation-is-slammed-by-welsh-assembly-government-91466-22891501/ ObserverNY (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

With all due respect Truthkeeper, the onus of repairing the HH reference falls on the shoulders of the editors who are rallying for its inclusion. I've raised my objection to it as it stands, but I wouldn't DARE attempt to improve it.ObserverNY (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(edit conflict)

I am not dismissing the Guardian article as invalid, just posing a question. I made the changes based on the Guardian article. Others had posted that it seemed valid. I would just like clarification, that's all. 2010 or 2020, very simple.

"walesonline" doesn't seem like a mainstream newspaper to me. Thoughts? La mome (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hanson

Keep timing out. Replied Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Page is protected

We have been asked to settle our differences over the wording of the section about the IB offices moving from Cardiff to Amsterdam, Maryland and Singapore. This is the present version of the text--"IB announced it will be moving part of its Cardiff operation to Amsterdam and opening new offices in Maryland (US) by mid-2010 and Singapore by 2020" which also happens to be the wording I prefer, because it presents only the facts and a NPOV. Please weigh in so we can settle this. La mome (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, I've been out of the loop recently (partially because the conversation here moves so quickly), but what are the alternatives? What are the shortcomings of the current version? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with the wording as currently stands. Honestly, I'd be happier to see the entire bit of text completely removed as it refers to a future event, as I've already indicated in the discussion. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:FUTURE, "If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." Is there documented proof that they will be moving? The Singapore one is probably too far off to include, but the Cardiff and Maryland ones might be okay..? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

For the benefit of HelloAnnyong, who missed the back and forth, here is the current version (listed first) along with some other versions:

IB announced it will be moving part of its Cardiff operation to Amsterdam and opening new offices in Maryland (US) by mid-2010 and Singapore by 2020.

IB announced it will be moving part of its Cardiff operation, due to its remote location, to Amsterdam and opening new offices in Maryland (US) by mid-2010 and Singapore by 2020.

IB announced it will be moving part of its Cardiff operation, due to its remote location and claims that the Cardiff staff "isn't internationally-minded enough" to Amsterdam and opening new offices in Maryland (US) by mid-2010 and Singapore by 2020.

IB announced it will be cutting 300 jobs at the Cardiff curriculum centre because the "organisational structure" in Cardiff did not fit with the "ethos of international-mindedness that we (IB) insist upon", and opening new offices in Maryland (US) by mid-2010, and Amsterdam and Singapore by 2020.

IB's 2009 announcement that it will be moving its curriculum headquarters in Cardiff, Wales, to Amsterdam, Netherlands, evoked angry responses from Welsh officials. Jeffrey Beard, the IB's director-general, told Cardiff staff in a presentation in May that the Welsh capital was remote, making it "difficult to attract qualified staff" and "tricky for air travel." Monique Seefried, chair of the IB's board of governors said, "The 'organisational structure' in Cardiff did not fit with the "ethos of international-mindedness that we insist upon."

Here are the references: 1, 2, and 3.

The third reference (from WalesOnline) is no longer listed in the IB article. It presented a rather Welsh-centric view and one that was understandably bitter, since Welsh people will be losing their jobs if they don't choose to follow the office to Amsterdam. But I personally don't think that kind of POV is what is needed in WP article.

I do understand TK's reservations about WP:FUTURE, but it seems that these are well-documented plans by the IB. I think that one of the top two versions--or something similar--would be best. I'm not sure why the remarks about "international-mindedness" would merit inclusion in this article. Regards, • CinchBug • 17:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The move to Maryland is documented in a press release on the IB website. There are already offices in Singapore, so these are either additional or new offices, which remains unclear. All of this part of their 2020 vision--or something along those lines. If we leave this bit about them moving and/or adding additional offices, then I propose leaving the wording the way it is and just have the Washington Post link, which I think, but I am not sure, mentions the other two offices. I don't think we need every last detail about whose feelings are being hurt. The Cardiff office isn't closing, just being reduced, with part of the operations moving to Amsterdam, which is more centrally located and easier to get into out and out of, not to mention being able to attract a more diverse staff. Apologies to the Cardiff staff. People are losing their jobs all over the world for various reasons, downsizing being one of the major reasons. Why we need to include that in the IB article is beyond my comprehension.

La mome (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I support the second version listed by CinchBug the best, followed by the current version. I'm still not sure about this Singapore thing, though. It's based solely on the last line of the Guardian article, right? The text is "The Amsterdam base will be one of three global centres for the IB by 2020. The others are Washington and Singapore." That sentence doesn't really strike me as meaning "Singapore by 2020"; it means that they're looking at Singapore to be one of their three global centers, and it and Washington may already be that. It says "the others are" - not "the others will." So maybe there's something in that. Still, second version, with maybe the Singapore part cut out until their plans are a bit clearer. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong - The reference to the 90% reduction in staff in Cardiff was originally under 'Reception' and removed by other editors. The reason I wanted the direct quote from Monique Seifreed who is the current President of the IB Council (notable) regarding "international-mindedness" is because this is what IB claims its programmes are all about. Yes, it is a Welsh-centric reference, that is because other editors complained the 'Reception' section was too "U.S.-centric". I have no problem with removing the speculation about the Singapore office as that is a long range projection. ObserverNY (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

"Reception" section in two places?

Do we need to have the reception section here as well as in the IBDP article? If the reception section deals only with the IBDP, then I think it belongs only on that page. But, I am not so sure that the sources in that section deal only with the IBDP. I think other programmes were mentioned as well. Someone else had mentioned that there shouldn't be repetition, but I can't remember who. It will also be difficult to avoid repetition of info for IBDP and IB with regards to their history, as they are both so interconnected. Thoughts? La mome (talk) 12:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Trying to avoid a genuine apology at IBDP with this shallow diversion? Tsk tsk. ObserverNY (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Assume good faith. La mome (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"Now who is being fraudulent?"-LaMome

That does not meet my concept of "good faith". The phrase "Certificate Program" was on ALL of the pages I linked that you accused me of listing fraudulently. You owe me an apology, plain and simple. Not a conditional one. Just woman-up and say, "I'm sorry I accused you of being fraudulent." ObserverNY (talk) 11:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY