Talk:IB Diploma Programme

Decapitalization

I question the changes made by Pointilist to the article. The three "core" elements of the IBDP, the Extended Essay, Theory of Knowledge and Creativity, Action Service are all referred to by IBO as capitalized, resulting in the acronyms EE,TOK and CAS, and therefore should remain capitalized. Comments anyone? ObserverNY (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

That's what I used to think until yesterday when I prepared the points matrix graphic. My first version had "Essay" and "Knowledge", and I was just about to upload it when I thought I should check the capitalisation. I was amazed to find that in every IBO publication I consulted everying was as lower-case as possible—so in the middle of a sentence theory of knowledge is the correct form—the only exceptions being Diploma Programme, Middle Years Programme and Primary Years Programme. The sources include: Handbook of procedures for the Diploma Programme (both this year's version and last year's), Extended essay—guide, Theory of knowledge—guide and Theory of knowledge assessment exemplars. I'm afraid these are all paid-for documents, so I hope you can believe me when I say that they are the right sources to use and that they fully support moving to lower case (each source contains many many examples). I don't really understand why I haven't noticed it before, but I'm not a teacher. Another surprise was that theory of knowledge is abbreviated TOK, and not ToK as I have seen so often. I wouldn't have just waded in and made the changes if there was anything controversial about them. All the best - Pointillist (talk) 16:22, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

http://www.ibo.org/programmes/documents/dp_flyer_en.pdf This also supports the de-capitalization ---Pointillist is correct. I never noticed it until now. They are also removing Latin references--the Vade mecum became the Handbook of procedures and the ab initio courses will become Foundation courses.

La mome (talk) 16:44, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, they're also changing their name (sometimes) IBO/IB/ibo.org/IBNA/IB of the Americas, changing locations, changing their marking system.... gotta love that CHANGE! ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 23:20, 11 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

That's a great source: covers the acronyms and capitalisation in the middle of a sentence too. Thanks for finding it—I felt a bit uncomfortable referring to materials that aren't easily accessible. - Pointillist (talk) 16:54, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Also here on the IB DP core requirements page that's easily accessible. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:00, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Uh, ok. To me it points to inconsistency on IBO's part when you look at the page on its main public website and it still uses the acronyms/initialism: http://www.ibo.org/diploma/ NORMALLY (and of course IB is anything but NORMAL) if you apply an acronym to a phrase or title, the words in the title should be capitalized, TOK,CAS,OCC....so either IB, as an educational program(me) should be CONSISTENT with proper grammar and decapitalize its acronyms or else capitalize the words that serve to create the acronyms. http://grammar.about.com/od/il/g/initialismterm.htm ObserverNY (talk) 18:56, 11 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I guess TOK and CAS are acronyms (like laser) and EE and IBDP are initialisms (like UCLA), but I can't find an absolute rule about capitalisation. There are lots of variations in the wild, e.g. IgE = Immunoglobulin E; DNA = Deoxyribonucleic acid; DoS = Denial-of-service attack; Laser = light amplification by stimulated emission of radiation, Lintas = Lever International Advertising. Indeed the Chicago Manual of Style Online (15.7 Capitals versus lowercase) says that "usage rather than logic determines whether abbreviations other than those standing for proper names are given in upper- or lowercase letters." I think we just have to accept the IBO's style decision and move on. - Pointillist (talk) 20:53, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

Why do we have to "accept IBO's style decision" in a Wikipedia article? This is not an advertisement for IB. If you look at the MAJORITY of examples Acronym and initialism, IBO's "style" runs contrary to common accepted usage. ObserverNY (talk) 22:03, 11 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I mean, we have to accept how they style their own technical nomenclature—they couldn't impose their own style on established abbreviations like IgE or DNA, of course. I quite agree that the series shouldn't be an advertisement for IB, BTW, but it seems to be surprisingly difficult to find independent assessment of the IB by people who don't have their own axes to grind. Come to think of it, that would make a good TOK essay, wouldn't it? ;-) Pointillist (talk) 22:49, 11 August 2009 (UTC)

You mean a tok essay, right? Frankly, that course title always makes me think of toking on a joint, but hey, old hippies are today's Conservatives. Do you think IB is a chemical compound? Hmmmm, I wonder.... ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 23:11, 11 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Joking aside, I recommend that we follow WP:Manual of Style (capital letters) when it comes to "style" of the article. ObserverNY (talk) 23:26, 11 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Pointillist - Re: "I guess TOK and CAS are acronyms (like laser)" - I suspect CAS is an acronym as I have never heard it referred to as any thing but one word ie Cass. However, in European schools, TOK is pronounced as three distinct letters. I have heard a few teachers from Australasia pronounce it as a single word ie "tock". I mention this only as a note. Whether TOK is or isn't actually makes no difference to what you have written so I agree. Accept what they use and move on. They are in transition with their strategic plan and things don't change easily overnight. --Candy (talk) 09:33, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

General principles

Wikipedia does capitalize initial letters of proper nouns, and often proper adjectives. In doing this, we follow common usage, and when uncapitalized forms are the normal English usage (abelian group, k. d. lang), we follow common usage.

CAS, TOK, EE, OCC, IBIS, IBDP, MYP, PYP, etc. are initialisms. IB's "state of transition" is irrelevant. Wikipedia articles should follow Wikipedia guidelines for common usage of style, not IB's style. ObserverNY (talk) 11:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Opening paragraph: Students take six subjects and three core components: the extended essay, theory of knowledge, and 150 hours of creativity, action and service. If the IB idols editing this article are going to insist on following IB's uncommon grammar, IB capitalizes the word Core, each of the 3 Core components are not capitalized at ALL. This sort of inconsistency in an article is unacceptable. I would like an opinion from HelloAnnyong or TFOWR before any more changes are made. ObserverNY (talk) 11:54, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Acronyms_and_abbreviations

“Initial capitals are not used in the full name of an item just because capitals are used in the abbreviation.”

Incorrect (not a name)-We used Digital Scanning (DS) technology

Correct-We used digital scanning (DS) technology

Correct(name)-produced by the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC)

So, theory of knowledge (TOK) in the middle of a sentence, but Theory of knowledge (TOK) when starting a sentence. That could explain the alleged inconsistency in language usage here- http://www.ibo.org/diploma/

12:30, 12 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by La mome (talk • contribs)

Sorry, I don't see how that explains the inconsistency. It's either a titled course: Theory of Knowledge, in which case I would accept ToK as the proper initialism for the course, or it is not a "proper noun" at all, ever. ObserverNY (talk) 12:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I have, yet again, been asked to weigh in on the this. From seeing the official IBDP sites - especially this one - it doesn't seem to me that "Theory of knowledge" is supposed to be a proper noun, so I'm fine with leaving them lowercase. This article should probably match what the sources state - after all, that's how we decide what gets included. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:51, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong - If TOK is not a proper noun, what is it? Is the Diploma Programme a proper noun? Is it Wikipedia's intent to represent IB's uncommon grammatical usage to its readers giving credence to its sub-standard prgrammes, rather than conforming with common usage? ObserverNY (talk) 13:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Uh, what. It's just a noun. It just seems to me that we should follow their naming conventions, since... they're the ones who named them. And I'm not really sure what its "sub-standard prgrammes" (sic) have to do with anything. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I see. So if IB starts referring to the USA as the United states of america, that's acceptable to you and the way a Wikipedia article should read? If theory of knowledge is "just a noun", why is it acceptable to apply capitalized initialism to it? Also, you didn't answer my question about whether the Diploma Programme is a proper noun. If the title of the program is a proper noun, how do you justify claiming that the titles of the Core courses are NOT proper nouns? ObserverNY (talk) 13:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Yes, Diploma Programme is a proper noun. According to this page, they're not core courses, they're core requirements. And your USA example doesn't apply here, as the IB didn't create the United States. They created the core courses and named them in a specific way. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Ohhhh, so a named "requirement" instead of a "course" (n) or "programme" (n), disqualifies it from being a proper noun? I don't think so. On the page you linked:

• Internal assessment
• In nearly all subjects at least some of the assessment is carried out internally by teachers, who mark individual pieces of work produced as part of a course of study. Examples include oral exercises in language subjects, projects, student portfolios, class presentations, practical laboratory work, mathematical investigations and artistic performances.
• External assessment
• Some assessment tasks are conducted and overseen by teachers without the restrictions of examination conditions, but are then marked externally by examiners. Examples include world literature assignments for language A1, written tasks for language A2, essays for theory of knowledge and extended essays.

IF you are going to insist on using IB's incoherent, inconsistent capitalization of proper nouns, I feel the need to insist that every reference to the above bolded courses or requirements be presented consistently in the article. ObserverNY (talk) 14:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

You know, you asked me to weigh in on something, and now you're being argumentative because you didn't like what I had to say. Did you expect me to just meatpuppet for you? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:40, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

No, I expect you to provide a straight answer to legitimate questions about article style. ObserverNY (talk) 14:42, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

There is nothing inconsistent about IB's use of capitalization and acronyms, as I have linked above. It appears that IB does not consider its core elements to be proper nouns (again refer to the example I linked and pasted above and to HelloAnnyong's explanations). The only inconsistency here is in the logic, or lack thereof, that you (ONY) attempt to employ. Pointillist made those changes for consistency and to follow the wiki MOS policies on acronyms and abbreviations. Once again, you (ONY) hold a minority view and refuse to accept (or perhaps fail to fully comprehend) what other editors present as support for their views.La mome (talk) 14:55, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

“Wikipedia's house style avoids unnecessary capitalization; most capitalization is for proper names, acronyms, and initialisms. It may be helpful to consult the style guide on proper names if in doubt about whether a particular item is a proper name.”

From here-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)

La mome (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, exactly, which is why I originally posted that exact clause and am seeking identification of PROPER NOUNS. IB's inconsistency is clearly demonstrated throughout its website and now this article. Your comments do not represent "good faith" and I resent your inferences that I am ignorant, illogical and attempting to "employ" some sort of tactic, other than seeking representation of common usage of the English language in a Wikipedia article. ObserverNY (talk) 15:18, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Regarding logic, I fail to follow why an article should follow the grammar of what an organization or group "thinks" it should be. Should an article on Hillbilly be written the way a Hillbilly writes, y'all? ObserverNY (talk) 15:27, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ONY-Avoiding unnecessary capitalization would require theory of knowledge, extended essay, etc... since they are not proper nouns, not according to IB, but according to general usage and Wikipedia's MOS. I did not imply that you were ignorant or illogical. My statement about your attempt to employ logic that you turned into a "tactic" illustrates my point. Your Hillbilly example also illustrates my point. I am not saying we should use IB's conventions of style, I am saying we should use Wikipedia's. Are you arguing that TOK, EE and CAS are all proper nouns and should be capitalized when written in their full forms?

La mome (talk) 15:44, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Yes. ObserverNY (talk) 16:03, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Why? La mome (talk) 16:06, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

To be consistent with common English usage. ObserverNY (talk) 17:15, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

And just to avoid any further obfuscation of what was actually said here, LaMome states: I am not saying we should use IB's conventions of style, after both she and HelloAnnyong insisted that IB's style should be the one followed because IB "named" the stuff. So you either advocate IB's usage, or you advocate common English usage which, according to my interpretation, is what Wikipedia recommends. Pick your position, please. ObserverNY (talk) 17:22, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(edit conflict)

It is common English usage to capitalize Theory, Of, Knowledge, Creativity, Action, Service, Extended, Essay?

La mome (talk) 17:25, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I also thinks something else needs to be made perfectly clear. I don't care what IB "thinks" is a proper noun - if a noun is assigned a capitalized Initialism, it automatically makes the noun being referred to a proper noun, because why? Initials are capitalized. In headlines or acronyms which include prepositions, the prepositions are commonly not capitalized, ie: ToK. ObserverNY (talk) 17:32, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(edit conflict)

And this is what you said, under the new section-"decapitalization"--

"I question the changes made by Pointilist to the article. The three "core" elements of the IBDP, the Extended Essay, Theory of Knowledge and Creativity, Action Service are all referred to by IBO as capitalized, resulting in the acronyms EE,TOK and CAS, and therefore should remain capitalized. Comments anyone?" ObserverNY (talk) 15:23, 11 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY which means that you are arguing to keep them capitalized because that's how IB does it. I am arguing that they should not be capitalized because that's what the Wikipedia MOS says. We also provided links to show that IB no longer capitalizes those words.

La mome (talk) 17:36, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Acronyms_and_abbreviations

“Initial capitals are not used in the full name of an item just because capitals are used in the abbreviation.”

La mome (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

from the section you quoted, apparently you're saying that theory of knowledge, extended essay and creativity, action and service are not the names of core IBDP requirements. Gotcha. What are they? ObserverNY (talk) 18:53, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

"that you are arguing to keep them capitalized because that's how IB does it." No LaMome. That is not what I am arguing. I don't care what IB did, does or will maybe do. I would like to see the application of common English usage be consistently applied throughout the article. Please stop trying to distort and misrepresent my position. ObserverNY (talk) 19:02, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ONY, I'd just like to point out that there are least three editors - myself, La mome, and Pointillist - who are in favor of the lower case. At this point you're just not respecting the consensus. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Break

I'd just like to point out that nearly 20k of talk page text has been generated over the last 24 hours - all over whether or not a few words should be capitalized. That's why this talk page gets so absurdly long. Either way, this issue needs to be put to rest, as it's very, very nitpicky. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Very nice, HelloAnnyong. The discussion page is for discussion about edits to the article. Pointillist made the initial changes. LaMome always sides with whatever IB says. And you have certainly not cited any relevant Wiki policy on the matter. I would like a different 3rd Op, please. Calling another editor "very, very nitpicky" while failing to define proper nouns in common English usage is highly unprofessional. ObserverNY (talk) 19:31, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Read what I wrote - "this issue... it's very, very nitpicky." I didn't call you nitpicky; I was referring to the discussion at hand. And with six or more editors regularly active here, a 3O doesn't apply anymore. Try WP:RFC. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:35, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

And allow me to further point out, that within the IBDP article it states: Main article: Theory of knowledge (IB course). So - is it a course or a requirement? I am not undermining consensus - you do not HAVE consensus, nor have you convinced me of a logical argument to support this inconsistent and erroneous method of referring to the titles of courses in an article. ObserverNY (talk) 19:39, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

And since Pointillist also did some "cleaning up" over at the Theory of knowledge article, allow me to point out MORE inconsistencies: The course focuses on four ways of knowing (WoK), sense perception, emotion, reason, and language and six areas of knowledge (AoK), mathematics, natural sciences, human sciences, history, the arts, and ethics. The course teaches how people gain knowledge in these areas and the role that the different Ways of Knowing play in these domains. ObserverNY (talk) 20:10, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ONY-TOK is both a course and a core element, or requirement. EE and CAS are not courses. Capitalizing acronyms does not call for automatic capitalization of the name or noun it represents. It does not matter, in this case, whether IB considers it to be a proper name or noun or not. I am not siding, nor do I always side with IB, as there really is no IB side in this matter. I am siding with the conventions of the Wikipedia MOS, which calls for avoidance of capitalization. Period. Stop trying to push the "IB is inconsistent and illogical" point of view.

La mome (talk) 20:47, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

I am "pushing" the FACT that IB's product representation is inconsistent as clearly demonstrated above. The Wiki manual calls for avoidance of capitalization when referencing a procedure or method which is commonly recognized as words, NOT proper nouns. I don't know how many times I have to explain this to you. You can attempt to deny your bias all you want, just as you can attempt to deny that there are "sides" to the IB issue. Your denial doesn't change the facts. ObserverNY (talk) 20:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

most capitalization is for proper names, acronyms, and initialisms.WP:Manual of Style (capital letters) and WP:Proper names ObserverNY (talk) 21:04, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The statement "IB's product representation is inconsistent" is not a fact, it's an opinion. Have you followed Helloannyong's advice by submitting a request at WP:RFC or shall I?

La mome (talk) 21:57, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Never mind--I submitted a request for comment. See below.

La mome (talk) 22:16, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

Capitalization

Should we capitalize theory of knowledge (TOK), extended essay (EE), creativity, action, service (CAS)?

La mome (talk) 22:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

And, as a clarification of the question, since ToK, EE and CAS are initialisms, shouldn't the corresponding descriptors be capitalized as per: WP:Manual of Style (capital letters) and WP:Proper names? ObserverNY (talk) 22:41, 12 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Please refer to the preceding section for context. Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 00:38, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

I think other Wikipedians are afraid to respond... LOL! I e-mailed Ewen, but I have no idea if he is anywhere near a computer. The man has excellent grammatical skills and I will respect his opinion, (even if I may not like it), I think he can be very fair-minded, especially on something like this which is really all about what constitutes "standard" or "most common" style. ObserverNY (talk) 12:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Yes, I am sure your friend Ewen will be very fair-minded.

La mome (talk) 14:12, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

• No. Theory of knowledge, extended essay and creativity, action, service should not be capitalized. The IBO site does not have them capitalized, and this page should reflect that. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:47, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

Agreed with HelloAnnyong above. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:58, 13 August 2009 (UTC)

TK - Why? Because IBO says so? You were the one who was always so precise and diligent when it came to Wiki policy. Why are you choosing to ignore it in this case? ObserverNY (talk) 16:11, 13 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Well, this doesn't appear to be working. I respectfully request that Truthkeeper and HelloAnnyong cite the Wikipedia policy which would support using the grammatical "style" used by an article topic as preferable to common English usage. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 00:23, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Settle down, it's only been a day. RFCs take several days before anyone responds. See on the tag where it says that it'll be removed after 30 days? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

“Wikipedia's house style avoids unnecessary capitalization; most capitalization is for proper names, acronyms, and initialisms. It may be helpful to consult the style guide on proper names if in doubt about whether a particular item is a proper name.” From here-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style_(capital_letters)

La mome (talk) 15:14, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Manual_of_Style#Acronyms_and_abbreviations

“Initial capitals are not used in the full name of an item just because capitals are used in the abbreviation.”

La mome (talk) 17:38, 12 August 2009 (UTC)

La mome (talk) 00:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

LaMome - 1. most capitalization is for proper names, acronyms, and initialisms. These ARE initialisms in dispute. 2. Please identify which subsection you are taking the 2nd quote from, I am unable to locate it on the page. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 03:02, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Go to Wikipedia:Manual of Style#Acronyms and abbreviations. The quote is at the end of the first paragraph, just above where it gives one incorrect and two correct examples. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 04:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

The 2nd quote you are referring to seems a bit of desperation and grasping at the exception, rather than the rule. CAS is an initialism, not an acronym. I stand by the most capitalization clause. But since you don't seem to agree with that, I will also refer to: Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor. If we go back to 2005, [1] you will see that Theory of Knowledge, Extended Essay - are properly capitalized and as such, I recommend that the original style of the article be upheld. ObserverNY (talk) 11:06, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Acronym

While the word abbreviation refers to any shortened form of a word or a phrase, some have used initialism or alphabetism to refer to an abbreviation formed simply from, and used simply as, a string of initials. In 1943, Bell Laboratories coined the term acronym as the name for a word (such as SONAR) created from the first letters of each word in a series of words (such as SOund Navigation And Ranging).[1] The terms initialism and alphabetism are neither widely used nor widely known. The term acronym is widely used to describe any abbreviation formed from initial letters.[2]

Most dictionaries define acronym to mean "a word" in its original sense,[3][4][5][6][7][8][9][10] while some include a secondary indication of usage, attributing to acronym the same meaning as that of initialism.

Go to the style used by the first major contributor=IB. Why use references from 2005, when there are references from 2009? If you are understanding that to mean original contribution, then you should be looking way back to the late 60s, which makes no sense.

You are Grasping at Straws(GAS).

La mome (talk) 11:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

LaMome - The Wikipedia article on the IBDP was constructed in 2005, not in the 1960's. The Wiki policy reference has to do with a disagreement over style in an article. I think it's pretty fair to say that we disagree. Where there is disagreement over which style to use in an article, defer to the style used by the first major contributor.

I didn't write the Wiki rule. I was not one of the original contributors. The style of the original article refers to Theory of Knowledge, Extended Essay and Creativity, Action, Service. Again, you are attempting to insist on IB's "style" and not Wikipedia rules. Defer, accept it, and let's move on. ObserverNY (talk) 12:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(edit conflict)

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IB_Diploma_Programme&diff=33256556&oldid=33229812

This is not an IB source, it is the 2005 version of the IBDP wiki article. You would use this as a model? This is what you thought they meant by first major contributor?

“Subjects such as physics, chemistry, biology, environmental systems and design technology”

So, you want to capitalize theory of knowledge, extended essay and creativity, action and service, but put subjects in lower case?

La mome (talk) 12:09, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It's done. Discussion over. It's not a matter of "what I thought they meant" it's a matter of what Wikipedia states. From a proofreading perspective, the article you link has one error in the heading for Subject areas, which has since been changed to Subject Groups and since Group is capitalized in every reference, so should it be in the heading. ObserverNY (talk) 12:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Just so we're clear, per MOS:HEAD, section titles always have their first letter capitalized and nothing else: "Capitalize the first letter of the first word and any proper nouns in headings, but leave the rest in lower case." — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 12:46, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

ONY-There are 4 editors who disagree with you. So, yeah, I guess it's done. I was also waiting for a response from the RFC. Patience is a virtue.

La mome (talk) 12:51, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY, have a look at the titles of the pages as the article is now inconsistent with those pages. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:54, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

It appears consistent now. ObserverNY (talk) 13:15, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

We already have a consensus

I see User:ObserverNY is going back through the article restoring the incorrect forms (ToK etc.) Look, this really isn't on. We already have a consensus for the lower-case approach with all caps abbreviations:

• User:HelloAnnyong 12761 total edits (6494 article edits, 4937 distinct pages edited)
• User:Pointillist 3223 total edits (1800 article edits, 1184 distinct pages edited)
• User:Truthkeeper88 2705 total edits (1722 article edits, 200 distinct pages edited)
• User:Candorwien 1323 total edits (639 article edits, 309 distinct pages edited)

The four of us are genuine editors who are trying to improve the encyclopedia. The only person who opposes this approach is a single-purpose account with a history of tendentious editing. I will now revert ObserverNY's changes to the article. You are welcome to carry on discussing this on the talk page but the article should use the current consensus until it is overturned. - Pointillist (talk) 13:19, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

A CONSENSUS is NOT a VOTE. You are a NEW editor to this article who has come in and made MAJOR changes without any discussion. ObserverNY (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I wouldn't necessarily call Pointillist a new editor. S/he has been registered for almost two years now. We don't necessarily discount their efforts here just because they recently joined the conversation here. Having said that, you're right that voting doesn't necessarily mean consensus. However, I think that Pointillist is correct that there is a majority of editors here who are all in agreement. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:32, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

I note Pointillist didn't include LaMome. Pointillist is an editor who is new to this contentious article who has come in and caused a MAJOR disagreement on style without any discussion prior to his/her edits. Any reversion of the page by Pointillist from its current state, shall be considered as being done so under protest. ObserverNY (talk) 13:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

HelloAnnyong - are you attempting to invoke Tyranny of the majority ? ObserverNY (talk) 13:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

...no. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:47, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Pointillist is not new to this series. Have a look at the histories. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:50, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Tyranny wins. How ironic that Jean Jacques Rousseau is quoted in Tyranny of the majority ObserverNY (talk) 14:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Truthkeeper - Pointillist has not edited this article once in the months that I've been here and since the article and information has been genuinely challenged. To try and infer otherwise is disingenuous. ObserverNY (talk) 17:12, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

This debate about "new editor" is irrelevant. I made a series of minor changes for consistency. Renaming the TOK and EE articles required administrator intervention, which was granted because the changes were uncontroversial and verifiable. The changes were uncontroversial because there had been no previous cycle of edits/discussions about capitalization, and they were verifiable against everything I could find on the IBO's website and the many documents I checked. I assumed good faith when ObserverNY questioned my edits, and explained the changes fully and frankly. Since then, other users have supported this approach and it is now a consensus agreed by editors in good standing. I'd forgotten about it but in fact I have reverted ObserverNY on the IB series before this episode (see diff of Theory of knowledge (IB course), diff of List of International Baccalaureate people and diff of List of schools offering the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme). I am a neutral editor, not an "IB idol", and the only reason I am editing IB series articles is to ensure that future students and their parents will get the most useful information possible if they are considering this demanding programme. - Pointillist (talk) 19:18, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Pointillist - Your usage of the adjective "demanding" to describe IB exposes your bias. I also want to ensure that parents and students get the most useful information possible. As such, I recommend that the section which listed the "conditions" IB lists in order to earn an IB diploma be re-inserted into the article. Then parents and students can decide for themselves if a "programme" which allows a student to fail 50% of their final exams and still earn the diploma - is "demanding".

Also, I mentioned previously that I think the Leach quote is obscure, addressing only history and not representative of the "founding ideology" which would be better expressed by someone like Peterson. I never heard of Leach before this article - and I have researched IB for five years. ObserverNY (talk) 20:05, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

"Demanding" is a different debate, where I suspect we will find we are more in agreement, so I suggest we postpone that discussion until I have had a chance to work through the statistics. My impression is that consumers (students and parents) may not realize that this is a challenging course that may not suit everyone, and the article should say so, if sources can be found. - Pointillist (talk) 20:31, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Diploma conditions

I've removed ObserverNY's addition of the diploma conditions (in this edit). It's entirely too much weight on the conditions, and there is absolutely no reason to list every single rule here, especially when there's a list of them on an external page that we can just link to. Listing everything makes the page harder to read, and it's pushing a POV. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:41, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, HelloAnnyong - the section as it stood had after it, ergo, no reference for the conditions. The article is about the IBDP. Those are IB's conditions for attaining the diploma. I would think if you were going to give anything appropriate weight in an article it would be the conditions for attaining the product. How could this possibly constitute POV? ObserverNY (talk) 20:53, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Adding a reference and adding a huge list of conditions are two very different things. The POV I think it's pushing is one of portraying the IBDP in a particularly negative light by showing all these intricate rules for whether or not someone passes. But I'm not the only editor here - anyone else have an opinion? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:57, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Why would sharing the actual rules be viewed as "negative"? Those are the rules. That you think they are "intricate" is your POV. The list is certainly no bigger than the table/list for recognition. ObserverNY (talk) 21:01, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The actual rules are listed in the General Regulations, which are linked. The table for recognition is not found anywhere else, at least not in that form, as far as I know. I think we should keep that and try to expand upon it. Btw, the use of "demanding" does not represent bias, since several sources use the words "challenging, rigorous, demanding, pre-university, college-prep" when describing IBDP. People need to know that it is not a walk in the park.

La mome (talk) 21:08, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me. They are linked NOW because I sourced the conditions, they were NOT linked before. And just because "several sources" use those adjectives to apply to IB, I could find you "several sources" which use very different, less positive adjectives. People need to know the FACTS about the programme, not what you "think" they should "think" it is, LaMome. ObserverNY (talk) 21:14, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Text like "which may be found in the Diploma Programme General Regulations" doesn't work here. Wiki is not a how-to. It works better to have some examples and a reference to the general regulations. If people are really curious, they can follow the ref. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:25, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh? "Some examples"? But only the ones that "some" editors think are important? Sorry, you either reference ALL of the conditions or none. I don't think it "works better" that way. ObserverNY (talk) 21:37, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Or... those examples were there before. We reference all the conditions with ref tags; displaying them all out would be, IMO, pushing an anti-IBDP POV. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 21:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Humorous interlude

While doing some research, I came across the following passage in the preface of Alec Peterson’s book, Schools Across Frontiers:

“The breakthrough in the history of the IB, when it ceased to be a pipe-dream at the International School of Geneva and began to become a reality, came with a grant of $75,000 from the Twentieth Century Fund in 1965. The Fund commissioned Martin Mayer, whose book The Schools had caused quite a sensation in America, to produce a report (published by the Foundation under the title Diploma in 1968) on the feasibility of establishing a common curriculum and examination for international schools, which would be acceptable for entry to universities world-wide. Diploma still provides the only objective, though sometimes very critical description of the early days of the IB. In the course of a rapid tour, Martin visited the three leading schools concerned and consulted with the founder headmaster of Atlantic College, Desmond Hoare, the principal of UNIS (United Nations International School, New York), Desmond Cole, and the English headmaster of Ecolint (Geneva International School), Desmond Cole-Baker. When we first met in Geneva, Martin’s opening words were “How the hell did you get involved in this business if your name isn’t Desmond?”

La mome (talk) 20:42, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Hahahaha - gee, no mention of Harpo? ObserverNY (talk) 20:58, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

No mention of Harpo in this section. But, we now will have to include the other two Desmonds and Martin Mayer. I would love to read The Schools and Diploma as well. Anyone know where we can find them?

La mome (talk) 21:03, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

We will? Puhleeze. Discuss the ridiculous rhetoric-laden Leach quote, please. I think you can find something a little more succinct and descriptive of the overall nature of the diploma. ObserverNY (talk) 21:10, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I am sure that after five years of research you must have something succinct and descriptive of the IBDP.

La mome (talk) 21:24, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

Well that's pretty rude and snarky, LaMome. You see, unlike you, I'm not so rude as to simply go and delete the whole thing. I thought I'd give you the opportunity to discuss and select something that didn't reek of propaganda and empty rhetoric. I have no one to tag team you to avoid a 3RR, a ploy you know very well. ObserverNY (talk) 21:34, 14 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Initially Uncle G suggested the Leach quotation on the talkpage. I added it to the text without controversy; I removed from the text when it was questioned; and re-added to the text when we read the background histories and realized that Leach was notable. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:43, 14 August 2009 (UTC)

ONY-Please explain how my comment was rude and snarky. I was giving you the opportunity to select and discuss something succinct and descriptive. I didn't delete the whole Leach quote, which was suggested by Uncle G and re-worded by TK. I believe it is still a work in progress, so why don't you add something here on the talk page as a possible replacement or addition to the Leach quote, instead of complaining about it all the time. I suggest you keep the conversation more focused on the article and less focused on what you believe to be the intentions of other editors. After almost a year of editing, you should know this by now. Apparently, you haven't learned your lesson, despite the numerous chances you've been given to improve your approach to editing articles and commenting on talk pages.

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

A year, huh? Try four months. And why is it that a quote from someone who is clearly not notable in the Wikipedia sense of notable is allowed to stand as a "work in progress" despite criticism, yet something I add to the article immediately gets attacked and wiped? Can you say double-standard? Your gross exaggeration of my time editing thus far is ironically akin to IB's gross exaggerations about its programmes. Your condescending comment that I "haven't learned my lesson" is insulting. You weren't "giving me the opportunity to select and discuss" you were sniping at my comment that I have researched IB for 5 years and trying to get me to post a different quote for you to immediately attack. I had hoped to avoid further conflict by requesting that you and or/TK or others select something more representative, by a more notable figure, but instead you simply chose to defend how the objectionable quote got there, why it is still there and attack me further. Why don't you take your own advice and focus on the article instead of what you mistakenly believe my cognitive abilities to be? ObserverNY (talk) 10:50, 15 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

According to the revision history statistics, your first edit was on 9/11/08.

http://toolserver.org/~daniel/WikiSense/Contributors.php?wikilang=en&wikifam=.wikipedia.org&grouped=on&page=IB+Diploma+Programme

399 (207/192) ObserverNY 2008-09-11 12:36 2009-08-14 21:43

La mome (talk) 12:21, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

I don't consider that "real" editing - that was when I just happened by and tried to insert TAIB into the external links. I had no idea of the, uh, er, um, "anal qualities" of those who haunt this cyberspace regularly. Quite bizarre, actually. ObserverNY (talk) 16:56, 15 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IB_Diploma_Programme&diff=237698118&oldid=237697612

September 2008-UNESCO Peace education

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IB_Diploma_Programme&diff=299317888&oldid=299317019

June 2009-UNESCO Peace education

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IB_Diploma_Programme&diff=next&oldid=237698118

September 2008-failing conditions

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IB_Diploma_Programme&diff=next&oldid=308005434

August 2009-failing conditions

La mome (talk) 17:47, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

OMG! Will ya look at THAT! I attempted to add TWO FACTS a year ago to the Wikipedia article! GASP! Obviously I paid it little mind until April of 2009 when I attempted to familiarize myself with the whole wondrous WikiWorld of whackos! I'm sorry I ever bothered because it really is quite addicting, as are many online forums. Thankfully work starts soon and I'll have little time for this nonsense. But you knock yourself out, LaMome. Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 20:17, 15 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Early history

In reading over the hideous Leach quote again, it dawned on me, why are you starting this section with quotes from Ian Hill? Ian Hill wasn't around back then. I think the entire section needs to be re-written. It reads horribly. ObserverNY (talk) 23:10, 15 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Uncle G explained why he wrote the section using Hill as the source. It's in the archived talk page. Perhaps you can ask his help in rewriting? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:04, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Uncle G went AWOL months ago. I don't need his help rewriting it. I am quite capable of re-writing it except you would fight whatever I wrote tooth and nail. ObserverNY (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

"Certificate programme" and "college-preparatory"

I'm very sorry that you seem terribly "put-out" that I changed the word "demanding" to "college-preparatory". If you want to add some sort of quote regarding "demanding" in the Reception section, then by all means. Be my guest. Demanding is an opinion. It doesn't belong in the overview. College preparatory is a factual description of the program. It is not only billed by IB this way, but viewed by major universities as such. Adding 4 citations after your change shows extreme.... I don't even know what.... . ObserverNY (talk) 00:09, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

And please explain what your problem is with the link to the Locust Valley IB Certificate Program. Your reason for adding a link claiming it's not mentioned that we can't read is, wait, I'm digging deep here....no....can't come up with anything....I give up..... what? ObserverNY (talk) 00:16, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Ooooo, "unofficial". I like it. You leave that in there Pointillist. Even though IB Representatives and school administrators sell this dog and pony show as "official", you're claiming it's not? Fine by me. ObserverNY (talk) 00:20, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Yo - dude - what's with the hyperventilating with citations? It's obnoxious! ObserverNY (talk) 00:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I've added more references around "Certificate Programme", and I've moved "demanding" down the the same para, because it looks like they sit well together. I don't have any problem with the Locust Valley reference—I simply added the "publisher=" field to the {{cite web}} template for completeness.

Unfortunately the phrase "college-preparatory" doesn't mean the same thing in all anglophone territories: outside the United States and Ireland it often refers institutions between school and university: you enter college at 16/17 so an IB programme finishing at age 18/19 could not be "college-preparatory". Perhaps I should have made this clearer: I'm sorry if I offended you unnecessarily in that respect.

To illustrate the ambiguity of "college", someone could study at Kew College school (age 3-11), then at King's College School, King's College (Hong Kong) or King's College (Guildford) (age up to 18), before becoming an undergraduate at King's College, Cambridge, The King's College (California) or King's College, University of Queensland - Pointillist (talk) 01:11, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Apparently "Certificate Programme" is not a phrase used on the IBO website, and I didn't find it when running a local file search on the Diploma Programme Guide CD, so it is unofficial. Given that it isn't an official phrase it needs the weight of multiple citations. We now have six of them which should convince any sceptical editor that we have done our homework. This is important because according to the statistics there's a very large number of students who do certificates rather then the full IBDP, and we must address this to ensure the IB series is well-balanced. If there's verifiable evidence of IBO or school representatives misleading consumers that local "Certificate Programmes" have official weight, that should be clearly explained in the article too. Believe me, I am not an IB student, teacher or administrator; I only want to report unambiguous encyclopedic facts and I do not have a hidden agenda about the IBDP. - Pointillist (talk) 00:46, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Forget to say that in respect of "college-preparatory" please can you take a look at Wikipedia's College article where it explains about the ambiguity. If you accept the issue, please edit the lead accordingly. Thanks - Pointillist (talk) 00:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Pointillist - Thank you for your explanations. I can tell you first hand that school administrators are billing the Certificate Program in public schools as a means of pumping up the IB numbers to try and make the program look plausible. I don't even know if the article is still online, but at Locust Valley for example, a school with only 650 students grades 9-12, the district announced that it had "892 IB seats filled". They also tried to double-count the number of IB exams given because they are given over two days and then used for a "rankling ratio" in Newsweek magazine. They also boasted that "Over 80% of the students (class of 160) are taking at least one IB class!" Yet only 20 students were full DP, of those only 10 earned the actual diploma (50%) and then another 4 got it "on appeal".

I apologize if I was hard on you, but rabid IB supporters want certain information suppressed. Your concern about using the phrase "college-preparatory" is valid, but very UK-centric. My reason for choosing this phrase is because AP exams are considered "college-level". The number of college credits awarded AP in the U.S. almost always exceeds the college credits awarded IB, especially when you consider that the vast majority of better universities don't recognize SL exams. In a way, this goes back to the misinformation provided to parents about being a Certificate Candidate, like it is some kind of honor instead of just an expensive relabeling of a former Honors course. So while I am amenable to eliminating "college-preparatory" altogether, I am not amenable to replacing it with "demanding" in the overview. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 10:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

If what ObserverNY is saying about Locust Valley is true, then it seems to me that we should not be using it as a source, since the information they provide is not accurate, valid or verifiable. As far as I know, there is no such thing as a "certificate programme," but there are certificate candidates, as Pointillist explained above. In the Peterson book, he talks about someone suggesting that there be an alternative to the full Diploma, which may be too difficult for some students. The certificate also serves as a safety net for students who don't get the Diploma, so it's not "all or nothing." Most IB schools encourage the full Diploma first and allow students to take IB courses as certificate candidates if the student is unwilling or unable to pursue or complete the full Diploma. There are also some schools that offer only the full IB Diploma, like in Florida, for example.

As for "college-preparatory," that phrase is ambiguous. In France, collège is middle school or junior high. And Pointillist explained what it means in other parts of the world. "Pre-university" is clearer. "Demanding, rigorous and challenging" are all words that have been used to describe the IBDP as well. If we are going to include the piece about the "certificate programme" with several sources listed after it, then we can do the same for the description of the IBDP.

La mome (talk) 12:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "if it is true" and "not accurate, valid or verifiable"? Locust Valley is an IB World School. If it has run an invalid program for 5 years where is IB's accountability? You want 5 or 6 references to IB schools that offer the IB Certificate Programme? I'll be happy to locate them.

Pre-university is not "clearer". All high school courses are pre-university. Rigorous, challenging and demanding are ALL adjectives which are opinion. ObserverNY (talk) 12:44, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I didn't say the Locust Valley IBDP was invalid. I said that according to ObserverNY, the information they provide on their website is inaccurate (there is no such thing as a "certificate programme.") There is no way we can prove that what ObserverNY is saying is true about their statistical reports.

Since "pre-university" applies to all high school courses, then a word such as "challenging, demanding or rigorous" should be used as a modifier of the phrase "pre-university" to distinguish the IBDP from less difficult HS courses. I'd be happy to provide sources that describe the IBDP in a similar fashion. In fact, I am sure they are already used in the article.

La mome (talk) 13:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If there is no such thing as an IB Certificate Program then IB is fraudulently collecting money from all of the following schools in addition to LVCSD:

http://www.georgeschool.org/Academics/International%20Baccalaureate%20Program/IB%20Certificate%20Program.aspx

http://www.aislusaka.org/AboutUs/dp.html

http://www.jwnorth.org/academics/ib/ib_certificate.html

http://www.mkis.edu.my/pdf/IBDiploma.pdf

http://moodle.lethsd.ab.ca/wchsweb/images/stories/pdf/2008Welcome/ib2008.pdf

http://central.spps.org/information/counseling/gifted_talented/IB.html

http://www.dwight.edu/academics/dp/DPAssandTesting.html

http://www.gwinnett.k12.ga.us/NorcrossHS/ib/Documents/IB_Application_Packet_for_Rising_Juniors_2009-10.rev1.8.pdf

http://www.andersonptsa.com/index.php/ib-program/

http://www.holytrinity.ecsd.net/ib3.htm

And AGAIN, your opinionated "modifiers" do NOT belong in the overview, I don't care how many biased sources you can locate. The article is NOT an advertisement for the IBDP. ObserverNY (talk) 13:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Please try to avoid sensationalistic language. IB is not being fraudulent. Just checked the link you provided for the Dwight School. Did not find any reference to "certificate programme." That is not really supporting your "theory." La mome (talk) 13:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

No mention of "certificate programme" here either-http://www.andersonptsa.com/index.php/ib-program/ Now who is being fraudulent?

La mome (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

LaMome - Do you have a reading comprehension problem? Seriously, you DARE to accuse ME of being fraudulent because you can't read? Read the admissions process for Sophomores/January at http://www.andersonptsa.com/index.php/ib-program/

Now re-check the Dwight School (a very expensive private school in NYC) mentions Certificate Program 3x. As to "proof" of LVCSD's propaganda, I came up with a 2006 publication which boasts 50% participation - I'll keep looking for the subsequent one which had the even higher percentage which I recall of 80% - http://lvweb.lvcsd.k12.ny.us/dnews/December%202006%20News%20LV.pdf

Please try to avoid your tendentious habit of lecturing me as to my choice of language.ObserverNY (talk) 13:45, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(edit conflict)

In some schools, there is such a thing as a "certificate program," but according to IB there is no such thing as a "certificate programme." Taking one or more IB courses is not a programme. That doesn't make the schools fraudulent, nor does it make IB fraudulent. There are plenty of schools that offer "AP" courses and "AP" programs, where students take the course and then never sit for the exam. That makes the school fraudulent. Where is the College Board's accountability?

La mome (talk) 13:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

LaMome - Just admit you are wrong and apologize for your accusation. The article is about IB, not AP. In the United States which hosts over 1/3 of all IB schools, we spell program - program. ObserverNY (talk) 13:59, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Well, if it is an official IB Programme, then please provide evidence of that "fact."

La mome (talk) 14:02, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

(Ahem)No mention of "certificate programme" here either-http://www.andersonptsa.com/index.php/ib-program/ Now who is being fraudulent? La mome (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, you don't get to weasel out of this sort of malicious attack without an apology. I'll keep re-pasting it until you do. Furthermore, I'm perfectly content with allowing Pointillist's wording of it being an "unofficial" program to stand.ObserverNY (talk) 14:06, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(edit conflict)

"50% participation" in the IBDP means full Diploma candidates plus certificate candidates. There is nothing fraudulent about that.

La mome (talk) 14:10, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

"Furthermore, I'm perfectly content with allowing Pointillist's wording of it being an "unofficial" program to stand" --which is exactly my point.

La mome (talk) 14:14, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You have a point? Really? I don't think so. What exactly is it, other than to be argumentative about EVERYTHING?

I didn't SAY that citing 50% participation was "fraudulent". I said the district is using claims of participation in its IB Certificate Program as bogus PR to attempt to justify IB, as per Pointillist's comment earlier. Let me refresh your memory: This is important because according to the statistics there's a very large number of students who do certificates rather then the full IBDP, and we must address this to ensure the IB series is well-balanced. If there's verifiable evidence of IBO or school representatives misleading consumers that local "Certificate Programmes" have official weight, that should be clearly explained in the article too.-Pointillist.

No mention of "certificate programme" here either-http://www.andersonptsa.com/index.php/ib-program/ Now who is being fraudulent? La mome (talk) 13:37, 16 August 2009 (UTC) - Retract your accusation. The reference is there. You are wrong and attacking me in BAD FAITH. ObserverNY (talk) 14:23, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Sure, I'll apologise. When you apologise to me for attempting to out me and to all of the editors here for deleting entire passages during one of your hissy fits. I still don't see "certificate programme" 3X on the page you linked for the Dwight school and I didn't see it on the andersonptsa in the initial descriptive paragraphs of the IBDP. I didn't scroll all the way down, or look on other links. You need to copy and paste the references on the talk page as a courtesy to fellow editors if your point is imbedded in the link. My accusation was not in bad faith. And the whole point is moot, since we actually agree that "certificate program" is not official IB terminology.

La mome (talk) 15:01, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That's no apology and I need to do no such thing. Try again. There's something seriously wrong with you if you think it's MY fault that YOU didn't scroll down and can't read. There's no need to travel to other "links". It's right there on both pages you accused me of listing "fraudulently". (Btw, you did agree to a WP:TRUCE which you broke, so your issuance of a "conditional" apology is truly distasteful.) ObserverNY (talk) 15:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Proposed new section

In my view the issues on the discussion should in fact be part of the article. I'd propose a section before the "History" section defining the IB, what it is and what it is not. Included in that section would be nomenclature with a explanation of the IB DP candidate, the certificate, and the fact that some schools are IB DP only, whereas others include the IB DP candidates and certificate candidates together in the nomenclature. Also the purpose of the section would be to define the aim of the IB DP, again with an explanation that in various regions of the world different nomenclature is used such as "college level" or "university qualification." Furthermore, I'd suggest working on such a section in a sandbox rather than in mainspace. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:24, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

If you want to attempt this, definitely do it in a sandbox. I'm not entirely convinced that what we've seen in the discussion can be done properly with sources, but there's no harm in trying. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

That's an interesting proposal, Truthkeeper. It is true that there are some IB schools which require students to do the full diploma, in fact, ISA Singapore is an excellent example where only 1 student out of a class of 402 failed to earn the Diploma. ObserverNY (talk) 16:33, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I agree with HelloAnnyong: the problem is whether sources exist to support such a section without veering into OR. When I have time, I'll see what I can find. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:41, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Great idea Truthkeeper. We might also include definitions for "Anticipated" candidates and subjects as well, since I've run into that on the group 3 page and it should be included, with an explanation, including difference between SL and HL. So much info to include, so little time.

La mome (talk) 21:36, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Oh yes, I'd LOVE to see a definition of what an "Anticipated Certificate Candidate" is - especially since every student who takes an IB exam, SL or HL, will get a Certificate, even if they score a 1. ObserverNY (talk) 21:49, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Consistent capitalization

Since you guys fought and won the capitalization issue, may I respectfully request that either Pointillist or Truthkeeper provide consistency throughout the IB series, especially here: IB Group 3 subjects. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 17:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Go ahead and add the comment on the IB Group 3 subjects talkpage so it's not forgotten. That page looks as though it can do with a little cleanup, but I can't get to it at the moment. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid I have no pressing reason to clean up that page right now, either. My next IB series priorities are improving Extended essay, adding results statistics in various places and verifying some of the stats that are already used. - Pointillist (talk) 21:18, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Ah. Whatever. Since it seemed so important to you here, I thought you would want to attend to it elsewhere. Well, you have capital discrepancies there and plenty of citations to add. May I recommend that somewhere you include the fact that IB examiners can refuse to assess the paper if it exceeds 4,000 words. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 21:25, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I agree that the EE article should contain a summary of key conditions, but it would have be presented as an incomplete snapshot-in-time, because there's no guarantee that it would be maintained (by me or by other editors) in the long term. As it happens, the IBDP materials are well written (I guess they assume their audience won't have English as a first language) but you have to buy them from the IBO store to get the detailed picture, and you don't know whether to buy them until you know a lot of stuff. So I believe an important contribution we can make here is to outline key facts and alert readers to the need to get better information before making what could be a high risk decision. I'm not anti-IBDP though: I've been going through the EE assessment criteria today and I'm convinced that—though "it isn't everyone's cup of tea"—it is excellent preparation for demanding university courses. - Pointillist (talk) 22:50, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Re: 4,000 words AFAIK the EE rule you mention is that "essays containing more than 4,000 words are subject to penalties and examiners are not required to read material in excess of the word limit" (page 15 of the EE guide), the principal penalty being that no marks will be awarded under criterion I: formal presentation (which could be worth a total of four marks) and the secondary penalty being that important material beyond 4,000 might be ignored which might adversely affect the marks for some of the other criteria. Feels like too much information for a Wikipedia article. If we want people to read our efforts we have to right-size them. - Pointillist (talk) 22:39, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

...and the moral of the story is...don't go over the word count! It is there for a reason. And that goes for Internal Assessments and other assignments as well.

Cheers! La mome (talk) 23:00, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

You know, looking around my extended family I wonder whether "for a reason" invites a counterproductive reaction from mid-teens. Maybe it's better to say "don't go beyond 4,000 words because you'll be penalized, it might not be reasonable but life's like that: deal with it and move on". Those little buggers emergent adults can be unexpectedly pragmatic if you don't tempt them to argue the toss.... Pointillist (talk) 23:17, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

Well, yes, you've got a point there. I know a few adults like that too! At any rate, saying "you'll be penalized if you go over 4,000 words" sounds reasonable to me. Why would anyone want to go over the word limit?!

La mome (talk) 23:26, 16 August 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Pointillist - One of my major disagreements with Jay Mathews of the Washington Post/Supertest over IB, is his insistence that IB is better than AP because of the 4,000 word essay. I have two major problems with this argument. Strictly adhering to 4,000 words and penalizing a student for exceeding that number, seems rather counter-intelligent. I would think that the quality of the writing and the content of the paper should be considered far more important than the number of words. If a student needs 5,000 words to adequately address an in-depth subject, why should they be penalized? Secondly, 4,000 isn't really all that much. Thirdly, you bring up an extremely excellent point- "but you have to buy them from the IBO store to get the detailed picture, and you don't know whether to buy them until you know a lot of stuff." IB's "secrecy" and lack of transparency is extremely disturbing, especially to the American taxpayer who is being forced to pay for something they are not "entitled" to review.. ObserverNY (talk) 23:29, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

P.S. - Fourthly, it bothers me that ToK and the EE are only run for full DP students. That means in a school which relies mostly on the certificate courses and with less than 10, in some cases only 4 full DPers, a class must be run which could be far less than a district's minimum class size policy. If the EE is so wonderful, then it should be an opportunity for every student in a school, not just the full DPers. ObserverNY (talk) 23:51, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I agree that (given the miniscule revenues they must earn from selling documentation) the IB would serve its consumers better by making all its curricula and rubrics available free of charge. It isn't as if they are secretive, anyway—buying their materials isn't expensive (in the context of higher education generally), just unnecessarily inconvenient. - Pointillist (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2009 (UTC) simplified 23:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

(ec) ObserverNY, at my school, we do have students who take the TOK course who aren't Diploma candidates. Students are also free to do the EE, but it's a substantial amount of work and I don't know of any students who have done the Extended Essay just for kicks. Regards, • CinchBug • 00:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Pointillist, yeah, I agree with you. As I've said a few times around here, I wish that IB would make their documents freely available online. But, as I've also said, it's their copyright, so they can do what they want with their own material. Nonetheless, I'd prefer that they change their minds about that. Regards, • CinchBug • 00:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Cinchbug - a ToK technicality, while non-DP students may take ToK, IB will not assess their essay, an internal assessment team must be established to do that, and it will not appear on an IB Certificate. Glad to see at least 2 people agree about IB's lack of transparency.ObserverNY (talk) 00:23, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Well, given their proclivity to "change," (which sometimes leads to major improvements), I wouldn't be surprised that, in the near future, their materials were found online and the core components would be opened up to students who did not wish to pursue the full Diploma as it is now (6 subjects+EE+TOK+CAS). Pure speculation on my part.

La mome (talk) 00:30, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY, yep, I'm aware of that, and that's something I wish they'd change, as well. But the entire Diploma is the focus of IB and I can understand that, though I'd prefer they'd loosen their policies a bit. Hopefully La mome's predictions are right and they'll make some changes in these regards. In any event, I'm not sure that this amounts to a "lack of transparency," since the documents are all available to the public, albeit for a fee--it's not like they're hidden in a secret CIA vault or something, after all. ;) Regards, • CinchBug • 00:45, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Cinchbug - While the full DP may be IB's focus, U.S. public schools are using the program for social manipulation and as a "designer label". The decision by a district to make application to IB is done completely on hearsay. NONE of the proprietary details of IB are explored, reviewed, shared with the public or even the teachers and Board members prior to committing taxpayer funds to the application process. To me, this is unAmerican. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 01:36, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Cinchbug - I'm curious why you are hopeful that LaMome's "predictions" will be right. If Harpo Hanson really was as instrumental as you folks claim in IB's development, it seems to me that IB should have followed the lead of its chief competitors (AP) and made its course syllabi transparent and online a long time ago. This is a company that can't even launch a complete online DP in this day and age, instead offering 3 measly courses that cannot fulfill the requirements. IB's obfuscation of its programme is deliberate. I am hopeful that IB goes out of business, and soon. ObserverNY (talk) 12:32, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Consensus for deletion of list pages in IB series

This section was originally titled Maintenance nightmare. I have renamed the section to stimulate feedback from interested parties - Pointillist (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Since this currently is the talkpage to discuss the entire series, have a look at List of schools offering the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme!! Seems like a maintenance nightmare! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:57, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think that entire page should be eliminated. Anyone interested in whether a school is an IB school can simply go to www.ibo.org and look it up. ObserverNY (talk) 00:59, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I agree. I have never been comfortable with manually-maintened lists on Wikipedia: IMO it would be better if reference citations could be attached directly to categories, so such lists could be generated automatically from primary articles. - Pointillist (talk) 01:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I agree we should delete the list pages in the IB series. That would also include the "IB People" list, correct? (Even though that is probably less of a nightmare, if at all). I was going to doing it, but can't figure out how.

La mome (talk) 12:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

No, that doesn't include the List of IB People. Gee, I wonder why Harlan Hansen isn't listed there, hmmm, how very odd. In fact, I see that there needs to be a recent "notable alumni" added to that list. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 12:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The IB people list includes only director-generals, council presidents and notable alumni. Harlan Hanson wasn't any of those. Perhaps we should add a list of founders/initiators. I noticed Marie-Therese Maurette was not listed either. Which notable alumnus needs to be added?

La mome (talk) 13:08, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

LaMome - Oh! You simply must run over there and see who I added! Right after you apologize for calling me fraudulent! ObserverNY (talk) 13:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Um, so is someone going to mark List of schools offering the International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme for deletion? It (and List of schools offering the International Baccalaureate Middle Years Programme and List of schools offering the International Baccalaureate Primary Years Programme) are most definitely violations of WP:LINKFARM. I'll do it if no one else wants to. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:13, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I think you can go ahead and mark it for deletion. Thanks! La mome (talk) 13:16, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Articles are up for AfD. See here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:24, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, HelloAnnyong! ObserverNY (talk) 13:33, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

As AfD is a voting process, if any of you agree with the nomination, then you should cast your vote. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 13:38, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Done. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 13:53, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

History discrepancy

On the IB page, the history starts off with Marie-Therese Maurette in 1948 as writing what would later become a basis for the IBDP. Yet, on the IBDP page, the history starts in 1962, with no mention of Maurette. Thoughts? La mome (talk) 13:20, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, the Maurette reference which was ORIGINALLY here and screwed around with should match up with the IB History. 1948 Pre-dates 1962. I would think you would want to include the "mother" of IB as referred to by IBO's most "prolific" Director General George Walker, but hey, I'm still waiting for an apology for calling me fraudulent and don't feel you deserve to have any questions answered or addressed until you show some intellectual honesty and "good faith" and apologize for your rude, incorrect allegation. ObserverNY (talk) 13:31, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY -- in my view you're crossing the line and engaging in incivility which makes working on these pages near to impossible. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper -- in my view, you are being disingenuous in ignoring an editor who accuses another editor (me) of fraudulent offering of information to go unaddressed when the last time this same editor posted a snarky comment which was reprimanded by Uncle G and to which YOU took personal offense at. Remember? You do, right? I believe I supported you and asked you to come back, that Uncle G's comment was not directed at you. Remember? So I am entitled to an apology from LaMome. Please feel free to call an admin in to arbitrate. I'm offended, insulted and outraged. This sort of sneaky, duplicitous, arrogant, POV manipulation of the IB talk pages by LaMome is intolerable. ObserverNY (talk) 14:35, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

So... you can all sit here and snipe at each other and point fingers and such, or we can actually edit the article. The former doesn't sound all that appealing. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:40, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Or, LaMome could simply apologize.ObserverNY (talk) 14:47, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Actually, Maurette was the mother of the IBDP, so I moved her back here. La mome (talk) 14:15, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I have no problem with you adding Maurette here. I do have a problem with you removing it there and I have re-added it to the IB article. IBO only "sold" the IBDP" for 30+ of its 40 years in existence and therefore Maurette is notable historically to both the organization and its primary product. ObserverNY (talk) 18:04, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Rewriting lead

Does anyone want to take a stab at rewriting the lead so it conforms to WP:LEAD? I'm a better copy editor than writer, and not a good lead writer. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:29, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Perhaps it would help if you could identify any issues that the current lead has vs. the guideline? - Pointillist (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Personally I prefer leads that are very short (3-4 sentences in 1-2 paragraphs), and that are unambiguously verifiable. To my mind, the current lead is OK except for the statistics in the last sentence ("The programme is offered in 2,002 IB schools[6] in 134 countries,[citation needed] and is widely recognised by universities.[7]")—I'm still working on that. - Pointillist (talk) 21:00, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

I've noted that generally articles going through review now are required to have longer leads (mulitparagraph) that give some weight to each of the sections of the article. Like you, I prefer the shorter leads, but didn't know what others thought. I happy to leave as is, if that's fine with everyone else. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:07, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

TK and Pointillist, I think the lead here is generally okay. It should be fairly simple to get citations for the current number of schools and countries from the IB website. Regards, • CinchBug • 22:54, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

In this overview and in the IB overview, there are IB "stats" that I seriously question their legitimacy. In the IB article, the cited source today claims there are " 245,000 IB students in 2,715 IB schools in 138 countries." This is 'up' from 2,708 schools with 239,000 students. I would like someone to find me seven (7) new IB schools which have 6,000 new IB students in them. This strikes me as hugely inflated numbers by IBO. ObserverNY (talk) 01:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Hi CinchBug and many thanks for your feedback. Re: "fairly simple", we might need to take a view on internal consistencies of the current stats. ObserverNY has already mentioned one concern. Mine is that that IB.org's figures for the number of schools who offered candidates (for certificates or diplomas in the May 2008 session) seems to be appreciably lower than their figures for the number of IB world schools offering the IBDP in that period (even allowing for about 10% new candidates in the November 2008 session). If the difference is significant, the number of schools wouldn't pass my "unambiguously verifiable" test for the lead, and more research would be required. We'd have to explore how that might work. - Pointillist (talk) 01:46, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Pointillist - I have no problem with removing the "stat" line from the overviews. If you have time, you might also be interested in IBO's "change" in its financial reports, (compare pre and post-2005). ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 11:51, 18 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(ec) Pointillist, yes, that's a good point. The stats generated after each examination session give us information about how many students (and schools) participated in that examination session, but those numbers wouldn't reflect the students who are in the programme but haven't yet taken any exams. Likewise, the number of DP schools that offered exams in the May examination session wouldn't necessarily be the same as the total number of DP schools, in part due to the November examination session, as you mention, and also because new schools adopt the programme each year. And since the IB doesn't always immediately update their public website, I tend to agree that we're unlikely to get unambiguously verifiable numbers from their website alone.

As such, I would have no objection to either moving that information to some other place in the article or removing it until we can be more confident about the verifiability of the information. Regards, • CinchBug • 11:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

7 new schools in less than a month would also support our "unmaintainable" argument for deletion of the the IB schools lists. I am fine with removing that information from the overview. Did anyone contact them to find out the names of the 7 new schools? In other words, if it is "questionable," then did anyone question them? If they are primary or middle schools, then an average of 1000+ students participating in the PYP or the MYP isn't unreasonable. The total number of students participating in IB programs around the world will never match the exam session reports, for the reasons already mentioned by CinchBug and Pointillist.

La mome (talk) 12:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

IBO also doesn't "regularly" eliminate schools from its list that have dropped the programmes. I know of at least 9 schools in the U.S. that have decided to drop IB, but are still listed on the website. Calling IB to find out where those schools are would constitute original research. IB should provide a month-by-month "roll call" of newly authorized schools for verifiability instead of just changing the numbers and shoving them into the established data base. ObserverNY (talk) 12:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Well, of course I am not suggesting that you actually cite that information on the IBDP page. Just thought you would want to satisfy your intellectual curiousity.

La mome (talk) 14:18, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Why in the world would I take IB's hearsay "word" on something to satisfy my intellectual curiosity? ObserverNY (talk) 15:24, 18 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Early development

How is it possible that the IB Council of Foundation http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Foundation_(nonprofit_organization) existed for 4 years without a President? In 1964, the IB Council of Foundation was founded, with Desmond Cole-Baker, Harlan Hanson, Alec Peterson and Ralph W. Tyler becoming council members in 1965, and John Goormaghtigh becoming the first President in 1968.[9][11] A legitimate non-profit has Directors or officers from the get go. ObserverNY (talk) 12:45, 18 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Suggested re-write:

The International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme's early development began in earnest in 1962 at the International School of Geneva (Ecolint) [8] along with the development of the first IB course at a conference organized by the International Schools Association (ISA).[9] International educators such as Harlan Hanson, (Director of the College Board Advanced Placement Program), Alec Peterson (Director of the Department of Education at Oxford University) and Desmond Cole-Baker (Head of the International School of Geneva), were instrumental in securing funding from the Ford Foundation for the new course.[8][10] Peterson's research at Oxford focused on three issues: a comparative analysis of "secondary educational programmes in European countries...in cooperation with the Council of Europe"; university expectations for secondary students intending to enter university; and a "statistical comparison of IB pilot examination results with...national school leaving examinations such as British A Levels and US College Board Advanced Placement Tests."[8] As a result, the curriculum pattern of combining "general education with specialization" was initiated by Peterson, and considered "consonant with the more flexible school curriculum in the USA and Canada" and was the "curriculum framework" proposed at the UNESCO conference in Geneva in 1967.[8] Robert Leach, a history teacher at Ecolint, coined the phrase "International Baccalaureate" and secured initial funding from UNESCO.[10]John Goormaghtigh became the first President of the IB Council of Foundation in 1968.[8][10]

Comments please. ObserverNY (talk) 13:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I noted the discrepancy about Goormaghtigh and the date as I was shoving around the text. As is, we've only added what's supported by sources, and the sources mention Goormaghtigh with the 1968 date, so I'll have to go back, re-read and see if an earlier date can be verified. As for the suggested re-write, it doesn't follow chronological order, as Leach coined the phrase and secured the Unesco funding in, or prior to, 1962. In my view, the section should follow a summary style that adheres to chronology, but am willing to see what others have to say. In the meantime, I'll return to the sources and re-verify the section as written. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:43, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Just a chronological note, I doubt that Leach secured UNESCO funding prior to the "curriculum framework" being proposed at the UNESCO conference in 1967. For a non-profit to award funding prior to adoption of a proposal, seems highly unlikely. I also think it is fairly irrelevant exactly what year Leach "coined the phrase". Thank you for going back and checking the sources and your comment.ObserverNY (talk) 16:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Just finished it. The version that stands at the moment matches the sources. Leach did in fact organize the conference in 1962, secure the funding, write course materials, and "coin the phrase." The first actual organization was ISES which was an association that grew into IB in January 1968 and Goormaghtigh was the first Council president. I've copied the current version to my IB sandbox (different from my other sandbox) to maintain a stable version. Accessing, reading, and summarizing the sources takes time, as does checking the refs in the article. Now need to do some real work, but will let this sit for a day, and re-check myself tomorrow. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:53, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for setting that up in your sandbox. I see that you revised the IB Council of Foundation as now beginning in late 1967, however the section as currently written jumps around chronologically. I have to run out, but I will try and make some suggestions in your sandbox later. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 17:17, 18 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I typically keep conversations out of my sandbox and on the relevant talkpages so the other editors know what's going on. I'm moving your comment from my sandbox here.

TK - I submit the following for consideration:

In 1948, Marie-Thérèse Maurette created the framework for what would eventually become the IB Diploma Programme when she wrote Is There a Way of Teaching for Peace?, a handbook for UNESCO.[15] The International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme's early development began in 1962 at the International School of Geneva (Ecolint) when Robert Leach, an American social studies teacher at Ecolint, organised a "small conference In Geneva" during which the term "International Baccalaureate" was first mentioned. [16][17][18] Robert Leach promoted the idea to UNESCO and secured a sequence of "small grants".[16][19] International educators Harlan Hanson, (Director of the College Board Advanced Placement Program), Alec Peterson (Director of the Department of Education at Oxford University) and Desmond Cole-Baker (Head of the International School of Geneva) founded the association named ISES (International Schools Examination Syndicate) in 1964 and were instrumental in securing funding from the Ford Foundation for the new educational course.[16] The Ford Foundation grant allowed Alec Peterson to conduct a study at Oxford University. Peterson's research focused on three issues: a comparative analysis of "secondary educational programmes in European countries...in cooperation with the Council of Europe"; university expectations for secondary students intending to enter university; and a "statistical comparison of IB pilot examination results with...national school leaving examinations such as British A Levels and US College Board (AP) Tests."[20] As a result, the curriculum pattern of combining "general education with specialization" was initiated by Peterson, and considered "consonant with the more flexible school curriculum in the USA and Canada" and was the "curriculum framework" proposed at the UNESCO conference in Geneva in 1967.[20]

ISES was restructured and renamed the IB Council of Foundation late in 1967, and John Goormaghtigh became the first IB Council President in 1968.[20][16] ObserverNY (talk) 17:36, 18 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

What you've written is logical enough -- the problem is that the sources don't actually follow a chronological order, so it's a bit tricky. I'd like to wait for La Mome's opinion, as the other editor here who's read these books, and then restructure as necessary. At this point I'm willing to drop the Goormaghtigh sentence here (perhaps move to the parent article) and instead simply mention it was ISES in the mid-sixties and then officially became IBO at the end of 67/beginning of 68. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:30, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Back from my errands. I hope I didn't do the wrong thing by writing that in your sandbox. I thought that was proper protocol. Please understand that I merely re-wrote it for "flow" and "readability" and that I did not check the text of your sources. I am assuming in good faith that they accurately support what was written previously. You resolved the question of the IBCoF's date of origin and I think it is far less jumpy and gives the reader a much better overview of how the IBDP developed. ObserverNY (talk) 19:42, 18 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I guess I wasn't clear: I'm merely stashing a version in my sandbox, but discussion should continue here. The current version of the article reflects the sources and I think your version is probably fine as well, but just to be certain and to help reconcile two books, want another pair of eyes to verify that's the correct sequence of events, if you don't mind. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:59, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I'll read the version in TK's sandbox, when I get a chance. ONY, have you even read any of these sources? If my memory serves me well, I vaguely recall you saying (and this is obviously not a direct quote) that you had neither the time nor the inclination to read those sources as they were, in your opinion, invalid because of their close ties to IB (Peterson being a DG and Fox being an IB teacher). I am sure you'll correct me if I am mistaken, and if I am, then I apologise in advance for accusing you of not reading the sources of the text you propose to edit. I noticed from the ibo.org website that the IB Council of Foundation is now referred to as the IB Board of Governors, unless I am not reading that correctly.

La mome (talk) 20:39, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Just to clarify: the version in my sandbox is the same as the article. I simply stashed it there, not to have to have retrieve a good version from history again. Also, La mome, Goormaghtigh is mentioned on a different page (in Peterson) than the newly named 1967/68 move to IBO, and at some point I'd wanted to provide page numbers, which is why I'd left it separate in the text, just so you know. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:54, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

I believe I stated quite clearly that I assume good faith that Truthkeeper has verified the statements against the sources. In the spirit of collaboration, I edited the text so that it would, imho, be a better read and flow chronologically. Do we have consensus for my suggested re-write above? ObserverNY (talk) 21:01, 18 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(edit conflict)

No we do not have consensus. Which rewrite and what exactly are the changes? Again, have you even read the sources?

I read TK's version in the IB sandbox, which looks good to me. I am not sure what the problem is and how it differs from the one proposed by ONY. I think we also need to include this, from the humorous interlude (it's not the funny part though) “The breakthrough in the history of the IB, when it ceased to be a pipe-dream at the International School of Geneva and began to become a reality, came with a grant of $75,000 from the Twentieth Century Fund in 1965. The Fund commissioned Martin Mayer, whose book The Schools had caused quite a sensation in America, to produce a report (published by the Foundation under the title Diploma in 1968) on the feasibility of establishing a common curriculum and examination for international schools, which would be acceptable for entry to universities world-wide." From page xii of Schools across frontiers. That may explain the funding procured prior to 1967 for the UNESCO conference. An earlier version included the 20th Century Fund, but was removed because it was not considered to be notable enough for inclusion. Maybe we should rethink that.

La mome (talk) 21:06, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

What do you mean "which re-write and what exactly are the changes"? C'mon LaMome. Read. Truthkeeper - Debating this with LaMome is futile. You wanted her opinion. You deal with her. ObserverNY (talk) 21:11, 18 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

There are two re-writes on this page. I am not wasting my time reading either until you tell me whether or not you have actually read the sources and what specifically are the changes you are proposing?

La mome (talk) 21:16, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

There is no debate. Simply another set of eyes. La mome, I'd just read the section you've added above in the books and realised it should be added, so that's the next piece of the history section which then leads into the part about starting IBNA in the early 1970s which might (?) go in the parent article?

ObserverNy: I don't mind the edits, and thanks assuming good faith that I've verified material before adding, the problem with your edit is that it separates some major points that are presented differently in the sources. We really should adhere to the sources. If I were to make it a direct quotation instead of a paraphrase then it would have to be written in the manner it is now chronologically. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:26, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - It makes no sense to me to capture the early development of the IBDP as written exactly in the disjointed manner which appears to be the case with the sources. There is nothing wrong with paraphrasing the historical facts and presenting them in a condensed manner which the average reader can follow. I don't find Martin Mayer notable and think you are giving too much weight and opinion to unknown and his writing. Inserting the above section leads us back to listing ALL of the major contributors, such as The Shah of Iran who contributed $100,000 which accounted for one of the first IB schools in Tehran. It seems to me that by working with what you had re-worked after eliminating the Leach quote, combined with my grammatical and chronological revisions, we have a workable section that is detailed, concise and chronologically accurate. ObserverNY (talk) 21:57, 18 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I made the minor changes suggested by ONY. (I don't care whether Leach was a Quaker or not). The other changes could have been made without copying and pasting entire passages here. Let's not make mountains out of mole hills. La mome (talk) 22:00, 18 August 2009 (UTC) :I'm fine if the Goormaghtigh section goes at the end of the passage; however, I've sourced the sentence w/ Goormaghtigh and ISES together (as it's presented in the source); if you reorganize be certain to place the correct source with the correct piece of text. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:14, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Striking above as it's been fixed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:44, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ooops! Sorry about that TK. I left a message on your talk page. Let me know if the Mayer piece is ok and if the refs are correct there as well. Cheers! La mome (talk) 22:48, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. Here I posted everything under talk before boldly removing the section and replacing it without consensus. Is the following a quote? came in 1965 with a grant from the Twentieth Century Fund who commissioned Martin Mayer, whose book The Schools was well-known in the US, to produce a report on the feasibility of establishing a common curriculum and examination for international schools, which would be acceptable for entry to universities world-wide ? If not, the phrase "well known in the US" is POV and should be removed. ObserverNY (talk) 22:56, 18 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Apparently LaMome hasn't "learned her lesson" about patience, working together and not messing up the sources. What a shame when Truthkeeper and I (mostly Truthkeeper) worked so hard to preserve and research the sources. Now Truthkeeper has decided to "step away" again. Truly, a shame. We were making such progress ObserverNY (talk) 23:10, 18 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

We've been through the issue with losing references before when the edits came fast & furious. The mistake today was mine, and I should know better, but this is the reason I wasn't immediately accepting ObserverNY's "new" version -- I knew the refs needed to be switched out. Tomorrow I will re-read the sources and verify that the text as it stands now is properly sourced. I prefer if ONY doesn't use my mistake to further the discord with La mome. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I think the record is pretty clear, there was no mistake on Truthkeeper's part as the section was being discussed and I made it clear that I had only edited for copy, not references. No consensus was reached to replace the text in the article at the point in time when LaMome chose to do so. It was my intention to gain consensus on the re-wording and then properly source it before inserting it into the article. Why Truthkeeper is trying to take the blame for another editor's mishandling of an article and discussion is beyond me. ObserverNY (talk) 12:00, 19 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Explanation about named references

This is fixed now, but just FYI, when editing, be careful when you see references in the form <ref name="something">some reference stuff</ref>. That syntax is defining a "named reference" that can be re-used elsewhere in the article, just by adding <ref name="something" /> (note the / character in the penultimate position). In this article, "Fox1" and "schoolfinder1" are examples of named references. The problem is that if the definition is deleted by mistake, the other references are meaningless and a great big red message shows up in the reference list. When you need to delete a block of text that contains named reference definitions, it helps if you break your edit into two parts. First swap the definition with one of the other places that it is used, like I did in this cut-and-paste edit. Then you can do your deletion in safety. - Pointillist (talk) 23:40, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Ok, thanks Pointillist for the how-to info. I am notoriously horrible at referencing. I made my peace with TK. I'll try to follow your advice in the future.

La mome (talk) 00:28, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Soon, so we don't lose the page numbers, I'd like to set up the refs differently. For example see Ottawa language with both live links and page numbers in the footnote section, and full citations in the references section. Does anyone mind? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:26, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Seems to me Truthkeeper was the stickler for the way cites are referenced now and it looks fine to me. I see no need to change. ObserverNY (talk) 10:52, 19 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Since Truthkeeper is a copy editor and the expert on references, I think it's a good idea to follow her advice. Ottawa language is rated GA and would be a good model to follow. La mome (talk) 12:46, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Who cares. Do whatever you want. I wouldn't want to come between you lovely ladies. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 13:05, 19 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I was going to let the "woman-up" comment go, but now this. I thought that after the last gender-reference debacle it was decided that we would remain "gender neutral" on these pages. Please comply.

La mome (talk) 14:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Seriously. Observer, that comment was uncalled for. Everyone, just stick to discussing the edits and don't comment on other people. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:24, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong

Please review the exchange concerning the IB Certificate Program(me). There is a world of difference between ME alleging that a company is fraudulently collecting money from schools offering a program that doesn't "officially" exist, from another editor accusing ME of fraudulently posting references/links that do not contain the edit item being discussed. I will not have my intellectual integrity impugned by a Wikipedia editor simply because that editor's nose is out of joint that I alleged fraud against the company which is the proprietor of the topic of this article. An unconditional apology for that specific incident is still due. The phrase "Certificate Program" is found on ALL of those linked pages. You can tell me to get over it all you want. I won't until I receive an unconditional apology from LaMome for that specific action.ObserverNY (talk) 15:45, 19 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I don't really know what you're talking about; I haven't been paying attention to the discussion here, as I'm rather busy during most of the day. I just found "I wouldn't want to come between you lovely ladies. ;-)" to be snarky, or just somewhat uncivil. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:49, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Then I guess ignorance, blindness and willful dismissal of an editing conflict is bliss for the 3rd Op, eh? As you wish. ObserverNY (talk) 16:08, 19 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Take a chill pill please

Where have my edits gone?

I wish to remind you all that this is not a forum for general discussion of the IB Diploma Programme nor your wishes for improvement, bugbears, changes etc. Please keep to the topic of improving the article and not a protracted meandering of how you "feel" or your anecdotes. I have removed several comments that are not appropriate in this space. For these types of comments please use your namespace talk pages. Also, I realise that there are several other areas off target in this respect but this section was extremely inappropriate so I have deleted it. It's not my job to be your policing person and I wish you would all be self-censoring in this respect. I am also very concerned about the continual sniping that is going on in this area by single purpose accounts. Please be more responsible and treat other editors with respect at all times.

In my view, many editors are discouraged from entering and assisting with these related documents because of general incivility in the talk pages. Thank you. --Candy (talk) 20:42, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

As you will have seen, I have deleted several inappropriate comments on these talk pages. I have only cleared the most salient material. The very tip of the iceberg. There is a great deal of speculative rambling, accusations and inappropriate demands made of other editors and a general tone of uncivil behaviour, moments of flaming and downright obnoxiousness, tit-for-tat and shouting matches occurring throughout this talk page.

Please keep all discussions to the subject matter. If you wish to know where I feel you are overstepping the mark please leave a message on my talk page. In addition, before you post anything anywhere, please consider how you would react to what you are writing to other people. Thank you. --Candy (talk) 21:07, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

I've restored those comments on the grounds that it totally threw the flow of the page out of whack. One, they seemed to be wholly arbitrary removals. Two, nothing that was removed really violated WP:TPOC, and there's a lot more on this page that does so. Removing comments like that can be really, really disruptive, and it should only be done for flagrant violations of TPOC. Next time you want to remove something, please bring it up first. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:14, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

Let me remind everyone once more: this is not a forum. We are here to discuss the IB Diploma Programme. I've restored Candorwien's removals this time, but I will not do so again next time. Stay on topic. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 22:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)

What? Candy isn't God? Dang, and here I thought I'd finally found Her. ObserverNY (talk) 01:17, 20 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY