Talk:IB Diploma Programme

Robert Leach quote

I know Truthkeeper is especially fond of this Robert Leach quote, but personally, I've never heard of the guy and the quote itself is stilted and awkwardly worded. I move to eliminate it altogether. If you want to quote the "founder" of IB, then find something from Alex Peterson, the first Director General and namesake of the Peterson Lecture series or just shorten up the section. ObserverNY (talk) 10:46, 21 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The Robert Leach quote is from the text Uncle G wrote weeks ago. Feel free to remove, as was suggested here in one of La mome's comments, and here in my comment. I don't know where you get the idea that I'm "especially fond of this Robert Leach quote". Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:36, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - My apologies, I guess I misread your comment at IB talk where you said: Also, is it worth considering moving some of the history from the DP to here as IB began with the DP?...snip...Oh, one other thing (which should go on the IB DP talk page) I agree the Leach section can go from the history there. meaning I thought you meant the Leach quote could go from here to there. No prob. ObserverNY (talk) 12:55, 21 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Where did IB's Mommy and Daddy Go?

Um Truthkeeper? You didn't just "delete redundency" and "fix the flow", you completely wiped the opening paragraph in "Early Development" which I had also brought over to International Baccalaureate to create History. Now if you want to add more to the History at International Baccalaureate, that would be delightful but I must protest to your removal of Mummsy and Papa here. ObserverNY (talk) 01:30, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

No reason to have redundant text on both pages, so I deleted the identical paragraph that ObserverNY copied to the parent article, as well as the mission statement, which now, appropriately, lives on the parent article. In my view, the International Baccalaureate is the appropriate page for the inception of the organization/organisation, and for the mission statement that applies to all three programs/programmes. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:41, 22 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - I find it absolutely astonishing that after the battle you, LaMome and Tvor65 waged over the placement of the Programmes section on the International Baccalaureate article that now, all of a sudden, you've had some sort of epiphany and it occurs to you that the parent article is about the organization. I actually think the parent article looks quite good, why? Because there is no separate section on the Programmes in the parent article!!! I do think it's a shame that the Mission Statement in the blue box does not appear in EITHER article now, but so be it.ObserverNY (talk) 11:42, 22 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

History: Funding

According the annals the following grants were awarded to launch the IB:
Unesco = $10,000;
Twentieth Century Fund = $75,000 (1965);
Ford Foundation = $300,000 (1966)
The statement here that the IBDP was funded by Ford & Unesco should be rewritten to reflect the Ford grant was substantially more than the UNESCO grant, and to include the 20th Century Fund grant. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:44, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

The "annals"? According to here: http://www.acei-hkm.org.hk/Doc/IB%20Background.ppt , UNESCO gave $40,000 along with contracts for meetings, conferences and development, the Shah of Iran gave $100,000, the Ford Foundation gave $200,000 to IBO in 1968, but also gave $385,000 to UNIS and ISES from 55-66 (and aren't they both just another branch of UNESCO?)Btw, I find it fairly amusing that the Ford Foundation was created by Edsel Ford. IB, the Edsel of education.... LOL! You want to include more? Be my guest. But be sure to include the Shah of Iran as his grant was bigger than the 20th Century Fund's.ObserverNY (talk) 12:37, 26 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I think we've already established that your "source" is not accurate. Where is the publication date for the powerpoint presentation? Who was the author? What is acei-hkm and how it is an authority on IB?

La mome (talk) 13:06, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

No, LaMome. YOU speculated that it wasn't a valid source. The ACEI http://www.acei.org/ appears to be an established association that is actually independent of IBO. The powerpoint was produced in 2003 (see the date stamp on the document). P.S. - there are no "authors" on www.ibo.org financial information. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 13:16, 26 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

And if the HKM part is confusing you, that refers to the Hong Kong-Macau branch of ACEI: http://www.acei.org/ACEIHKMExchangeProject.doc ObserverNY (talk) 13:36, 26 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The PowerPoint was produced in 2003 by whom? I can't find it on IB's site.

http://www.acei.org/ACEIBYLAWSDRAFTFEB09.pdf

“Section 2. Objective. The objective of ACEI is to advance the professional interests of its Members…”

Their objective is to advance their own professional interests?! That is noble of them!

http://www.acei.org/index.html

“ACEI is a global community of educators and advocates who unite their knowledge, experience, and skills to share information, explore innovation, and advocate for the rights of the world's children.”

Hmm, sounds to me like they are trying to be IB’s competitors.

Why would they have an “IB” PowerPoint linked to their website, when as far as I can tell, the IB does not have that PowerPoint linked to theirs?

La mome (talk) 13:49, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, have downloaded the ppt from Hong Kong Association for Childhood Education. According to the report, Unesco funds for 1960s and 1970s totaled $40,000 (including funds for meetings). As I was reading about the 1960s and the startup of the program, I'd suggest using the number that's available on the secondary sources for the mid-sixties. The Ford Foundation amounts match; however according to this ppt. there was a grant prior to the $300,000 grant, bringing up the total funding. The 20th century funding matches the secondary sources (the author may have used those sources). The Shah of Iran funding occurred in the 1970s (pre or post revolution -will have to read again) and worth consideration, but first let's nail down 1960s and startup period. As all of this information exists elsewhere in valid secondary sources, I see no reason to add downloadable and redundant ppt. to the article. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:51, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper -

1.The article is not "redundant", it is a valid secondary source and some of the information is more extensive than the IB info. It "confirms" the UNESCO $40,000 but lists other names as well. The ACEI report states the Shah gave money in the 60's and 70's.

2. WHAT other valid secondary sources? The only sources I've seen are from IB.

LaMome - OMG, you mean IBO has an exclusive on advocating for the rights of children? I had no idea! Please provide a valid source for that claim. And LaMome, just because the IB doesn't have something on its own website, doesn't make that something not valid. Stuff disappears off the IB website every day. Perhaps IB didn't want anyone to know some of the names in that report, eh? ObserverNY (talk) 22:45, 26 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Exactly what "report" are you talking about? The PowerPoint with the IB logo all over it, with no author, but linked to the ACEI site in Hong Kong? Exactly how are you going to reference that? Is it IB or ACEI-HK? As far as I can see, and I think this is what TK is saying, there is no new information in that PowerPoint that hasn't already been mentioned in other primary, secondary and tertiary sources. That's why it's redundant. Not to mention, umm, bogus. If it doesn't mention Maurette, the "mother of IB," then why are you even considering it as valid? I didn't claim that IB had exclusive rights on advocating for the rights of children. I said that it appears that ACEI is competing, or at least trying to compete, with IB.

La mome (talk) 23:59, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) A valid secondary source is a peer reviewed journal or book, etc. as defined in WP:Sources. A ppt report is not on the list. The ppt is primary because the organization described in the article (the IB) is also (apparently) the author of the document. In my view we are using too many primaries in these articles. None of the secondaries I've read are published by Sage to which you object, although any work that goes through peer review/editing/copywriting is obviously preferable. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:06, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - I guess I don't know which secondary sources you are referring to. Would you be kind enough to link them here so there is no confusion about what you are referencing? ObserverNY (talk) 00:14, 27 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

It appears to me that ALL of the articles in the IB series have seriously abused WP:SELFPUB in terms of citations. This is part of the reason the articles are under constant dispute as they appear "unduly self-serving". Let me also add that "peer-reviewed" documents, when the "peer" is an IB teacher or IB employee also shouldn't be considered valid. Therefore, Hill, Fox, Bunnell - all disqualified. Bagnall? Seems good. So what to do? Remove all IB citations and place next to the statements? I'm all for allowing a handful but in light of WP:SELFPUB, having a preponderance of IB citations seems wrong. ObserverNY (talk) 00:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Yes. Exactly. We need to consider the following and reach consensus:

• re-read Uncle G's suggestions.
• re-read Uncle G's response re: how to evaluate sources & whether Hill, et. al are acceptable here.
• decide where to use the IB as source, i.e number of schools etc.
• decide where to delete existing sources that might be unacceptable
• ask for help if necessary.

Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:11, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Truthkeeper - I'm going to be upfront and tell you right off the bat I don't have time to read the 4 or 5 books that Uncle G suggested, although a couple of them sound interesting. I think yes, IBO can be used to cite the exact number of IB schools, the number changes quite often up and down, but they should be the primary source for that sort of statistical data. I reject Ian Hill as a credible, unbiased source. His "job" with IBO is to promote IB, and definitely falls under the category of "self-serving".As to the rest, use your discretion. I certainly don't have the energy to try and re-cite sans ibo sources these articles, too much of headache. But it does bring to mind the line from the WP:SELFPUB that if there aren't enough secondary or tertiary sources to document an article, perhaps there shouldn't be an article at all! ObserverNY (talk) 11:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I was suggesting re-reading Uncle G's posts, which I may not have made clear. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:32, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

On the other talk page, when we were discussing the role of Harlan Hanson in the creation of IB, HA and ONY brought up two things: primary sources can be used if secondary sources back up what is being said and the NY Times would be an acceptable secondary source.

This is what I found when I did a search on the NY Times for International Baccalaureate:

Geneva International Test May Become Passport to World Schools

A new examination, the international baccalaureate, has been set up here to provide ... The sponsors of the international baccalaureate hope that it will ...March 14, 1972

Diploma for the 'Top of the Top'; International Baccalaureate ...

Getting to this day has been torture, she tells two dozen fellow candidates for the International Baccalaureate diploma before they are ...June 21, 2003

About Education; A European-Style Curriculum Program Is Making ...

It is the International Baccalaureate program, begun almost a decade ago in ... `Senior Slump Less Obvious' The International Baccalaureate, which fills a ...November 9, 1977

Mission in Yonkers: An International Degree Program

The program, administered as part of the Yonkers School District's magnet program, was developed by the International Baccalaureate Organization, ...April 11, 1999

STATE OF THE UNION: EDUCATION; More Training Is Seen as Key To ...

President Bush's proposal, in Tuesday's State of the Union address, to increase the ranks of Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate teachers in ...February 2, 2006 - By DIANA JEAN SCHEMO

Peace studies take off

... residential school offering an international baccalaureate diploma, ... including the International Peace Research Institute in Oslo and the Center for ...October 14, 2008

So, I don't think we need to start deleting sources and information. I think we need to add sources that back up what has already been said. And add new information from sources that are valid and verifiable.

La mome (talk) 13:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Right off the bat, one of LaMome's NYT references is incorrect - Bush's State of the Union Address NEVER MENTIONS International Baccalaureate. http://www.c-span.org/executive/transcript.asp?cat=current&code=bush_admin&year=2006 ObserverNY (talk) 15:36, 27 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Huh. Why did they put that in the article, then? Very weird. In any case, this speech by former Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings does mention IB. Regards, • CinchBug • 16:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

And I'll also post here the NYT obit on Elisabeth Fox which eliminates her as a biased and WP:SELFPUB source: http://www.nytimes.com/2001/08/26/classified/paid-notice-deaths-fox-elisabeth-libby-nee-grey.html ObserverNY (talk) 16:01, 27 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Elisabeth Fox' essay was originally published at Harvard and then republished in a book with an editor (Mary Hayden), therefore her essay does not constitute a selfpub source or a primary source. It's a valid secondary source. However, when I first read her essay I did not know she had been affiliated with IB, so to some extent that affiliation simply drives the decision making process in terms of evaluating her information (or Hill's or anyone else's). As Uncle G stated, there's no reason for Fox (or Hill) to misrepresent the history of the IB, and as the essay was initially published in a academic journal, she'd abide by academic conventions. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:24, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY, Harlan Hanson's involvement with IB, or more specifically, the founding of IBNA, has been confirmed by a non-IB source and makes a reference to yet another non-IB source (in fact, a College Board source: Freeman, J. (1987) The International Baccalaureate. The College Board Review. No. 143, Spring. 4 -6.) Didn't we already talk about that? Regards, • CinchBug • 20:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

We also talked about not giving undue weight to one early "initiator" over others, Cinchbug. Pushing Harlan Hanson and AP representation over all other "initiators" and using an IB "pioneer" (Fox) as the "source" for that citation is simply POV and wrong. ObserverNY (talk) 20:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Consensus?

Do we have consensus from all editors regarding the following points:

• removing secondary sources?
• using multiple primary sources to "prove a point" which is WP:OR?

Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd like clarification on what you mean by primary and secondary sources. If there are numerous primary sources to support a statement that aren't WP:SELFPUB I see no reason why that should be a problem. I'm guessing you are coyly referring to my recent addition of two additional primary sources to support the statement that SOME schools...blah blah blah, which someone had previously changed to "ONE" school. You want to reduce it to two cites and leave the "Some", I have no problem with that. But you don't get to diminish the statement by reducing some to one and then claim citing more than one source is POV or WP:OR Sorry. ObserverNY (talk) 20:58, 27 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(Edit conflict)

I'll repeat what I said before. I am interested in improving this article by adding more details and valid, verifiable sources. Fox and Peterson were not only “historians,” writing about the History of IB, they were also part of that history (although, aside from her obit, I haven't seen Fox mentioned anywhere else as a pioneer.) The point is, when we are talking about how IB came about and evolved, I think we need a combination of primary and secondary sources. The MSF (Doctors without Borders) article has only 22 out of 88 sources that are not listed as coming from MSF. As I have said before, if what Peterson, Walker, Fox, and Leach say about the History of IB, without praising or criticizing it, is echoed in other sources, then those sources should be added, without taking away other sources.

As for the "Capitalism Magazine" source...where shall I begin? Just because the guy works at Stanford does not make him a credible source on IB here. Why are we adding more to the recognition part of the article anyway? Praise/Criticism is inherently pushing POV by nature. And Aikentimes.com--or whatever it was called--is that considered credible, reliable, verifiable? Is it a "mainstream newspaper” as mentioned in WP:SOURCES?

So, I suggest we remove “Capitalism Magazine” and “Aikentimes” as they are questionable sources-- (a “fad” that’s been around for over 40 years?), not NPOV, not mainstream newspapers or magazines, supporting a minority view. “Questionable sources are those with a poor reputation for fact-checking, or with no editorial oversight. Such sources include websites and publications expressing views that are widely acknowledged as extremist, or promotional in nature, or which rely heavily on rumors and personal opinions.”

La mome (talk) 21:49, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm sorry. But if you are going to remove Capitalism Magazine then we must remove TIME magazine as it is well established that TIME and Newsweek are left-wing rags. ObserverNY (talk) 23:59, 27 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

There can be no comparison between Time, an established publication, and an online magazine publishing opinions from a certain POV only.Tvor65 (talk) 00:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Stop the Hanson Nonsense

Now you want TWO references to Hanson? Ridiculous! Who are the other educators? You don't get to single out Hanson and mention Advanced Placement without mention of all of the Europeans and diplomats who helped "initiate" the program. Seriously, are you people so blind to your biases that you can't see how unreasonable you are being?ObserverNY (talk) 21:38, 27 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(ec)I can live with two cites and "some". Three cites does get very close to original research.

As for the sentence about the American educators, I've added an additional source and will add another. There is a phrase in the sentence that's a direct quotation, so if the Fox source is removed I'd ask you to reword the entire section. Also, as you noted above, it's quite time consuming to read the material. I've scanned about 600 pages or more, and had started to go through the material again with more attention. Obviously there were more than American educators involved and obviously that should be noted; hadn't quite gotten to the point of matching names to nationalities, but will do so time permitting, or perhaps somebody else can have a look and do so. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:42, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you that singling out Hanson could be seen as pushing POV (of course, I'd have to say the same for your inclusion of the quote from Thomas Sowell). So how about also naming Benjamin Bloom? He's also in the Hayden book as an early supporter of IB and he's a rather noteworthy American educator. Regards, • CinchBug • 21:46, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Cinchbug - I had tried to include a quote from Tom DeWeese in addition to Sowell but apparently he wasn't scholarly enough for these folks. You'll note that a Wiki article already exists on Thomas Sowell, I didn't have to go create one. Btw, thanks for clearing up my misconception about IB registration fees being for ALL IB students, not just full DP as I had thought. I had seriously underestimated the cost schools must spend annually on IB by a good $20-60,000 a year, depending on the size of the school and have corrected the information on my site accordingly. Of course, no one in here will allow the real costs of IB to be featured in the article. ObserverNY (talk) 23:55, 27 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I had added Bob Leach to the text, had four windows open on my screen to add others, when poof! it disappeared. I've asked for a 3O again. Pulling edits before they're complete is bad form. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:51, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - I apologize for deleting the double reference to Hanson which included Leach. It just seemed pretty obnoxious to me that after all this discussion about WP:WEIGHT that you would try and have not one but TWO sentences on Hanson. I have no objection to you adding Leach. Please add the ACEI link as the citation.

Tvor65 & LaMome - Just stop. Your aggressive POV editing is uncalled for and malicious. ObserverNY (talk) 00:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Um, I'm going to comment on this edit. I don't know much about Elisabeth Fox so I can't really say, but I don't understand why she's not a reliable source. Observer, you may want to take your complaints about her to WP:RSN and have someone there chime in on it. As to the Hanson thing, in the above edit, it seems pretty silly that he's mentioned twice in two paragraphs. We have:

• "Among the US educators, Harlan Hanson, of the College Board Advanced Placement Program was an early advocate of the IB Diploma Programme who helped secure the Ford grant.[11]"
• "Harlan Hanson, of the College Board Advanced Placement Program was an " early advocate" of the IB Diploma Programme.[12][13]"

Do we really need to give him that much WP:WEIGHT? Just one mention would suffice, I think. If there are a few other people who were particularly instrumental at the beginning, I think it would be okay to include them so as to balance out the weight. And as a side note, I agree with Observer's edit: don't whitewash this article by blanking out criticisms. One aspect of NPOV is to give both sides of the argument. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:10, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I think TK was editing right after me and did not see that I already reinserted Hanson's stuff. that's why it has appeared twice. Then, of course, ONY wiped her edit. I agree that we should add others to balance.

I am totally fine with mentioning criticism; in fact, we already have two references from newspapers about it. What I am not fine with is using unreliable POV sources such as "Capitalism Magazine".Tvor65 (talk) 00:16, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I was mid-edit when the edit was deleted. There are two sources which mention Hanson. Now I don't know which is which and whether the text matches the source, and I don't really care. Somebody else can read the books, format the sources, edit the sentence, and decide where to place it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:21, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not so sure about questioning Capitalism Magazine; it does have a longstanding article here, though it's up for AfD now. I don't really think it's a fringe thing, though, but I could be wrong. But yes, I would like to see better sources. Got anything, ONY? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:24, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

The article by Thomas Sowell is only available for purchase from the Hoover Institution at Stanford. It is also available at: http://www.jewishworldreview.com/cols/sowell022604.asp, http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2004/02/26/parents_with_backbone, and http://eddriscoll.com/archives/001057.php. So if Capitalism is so offensive to you, perhaps you would prefer the finance.townhall citation? ObserverNY (talk) 00:28, 28 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Then change to one of those. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Tvor65 - You have a serious problem. Leave the Sowell reference alone. Can you not read what HA wrote? ObserverNY (talk) 00:38, 28 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Just to let everyone know, this article is currently undergoing an edit war. 3RR has been violated by two editors, so I'd advise everyone to calm down a bit. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:44, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

HelloAnnyong,

Please read this:

http://finance.townhall.com/columnists/ThomasSowell/2004/02/26/parents_with_backbone

This is what Sowell says:

“It also has a left-wing hidden agenda, as so many other fad programs do. One of the program's supporters gushed that it teaches students "how to think globally" and "how to make us part of the world."

One of the parents critical of the program put it quite differently. She said it "promotes socialism, disarmament, radical environmentalism, and moral relativism, while attempting to undermine Christian religious values and national sovereignty."

None of this is new. This kind of indoctrination has been going on for decades, and the kind of thinking behind it goes back a hundred years, when education guru John Dewey began promoting the idea that schools should be instruments of "social change."''

And you don’t consider that to be an extreme POV? The article is not being whitewashed, it’s being high-jacked by someone who is trying to push her/his POV.

La mome (talk) 00:49, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Sadly, I don't really think that's extreme POV. There are lots of people out there who believe that. How many times has Obama been called a socialist in the past six months? How many people homeschool their kids 'cause they don't want them to learn crazy left-wing liberal stuff or whatever? Either way, we're not using the source to say that IB is causing the fall of Western civilization; it's only being used to say that it's a fad program. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:52, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm. Interesting point. IB is verboten to homeschoolers, unlike AP. Hmmmm. ObserverNY (talk) 11:47, 28 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

HelloAnnyong, personally, I always consider a person to have questionable objectivity when they throw out tags like "left-wing" or "right-wing" (or "ultra-conservative," as in case of Tristan Bunnell). And the notion that IB is a "fad program" seems pretty silly and already refuted, considering how long it's been around and that it's continued to grow. But I don't object to including Sowell--in fact, I didn't object in the first place, I simply said it could be seen as pushing POV, which it almost certainly is. But if we're going to include opinions here, then we also get POV, by definition. It's a package deal.

But I can see your point. Sounds okay to me. Regards, • CinchBug • 01:17, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

If there is an edit war and 3RR is being violated, then that should be reported. It seems someone could use a time-out.

La mome (talk) 01:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Warnings have been issued, and the warring has ceased. If it starts up again, though... — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Reception

The praise/criticism stuff really did not belong under "Recognition" since that section was mostly about university recognition. So I have created a new section called "Reception". Right now, however, it is rather US-centric, so info on the reception in other countries may be needed to balance things out.Tvor65 (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Oh, not too over-weighted. Looks like we need to include the Fordham Report! ObserverNY (talk) 10:35, 28 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

"Thomas Sowell, senior fellow at the Hoover Institution at Stanford University, describes IB as "one of the endless series of fad programs that distract American public schools from real education in real subjects" and "indoctrination"." Seriously? I didn't know that schools could become distracted. Isn't being distracted from "indoctrination" a good thing? Please define "real" education and "real" subjects. Where are the facts in this "editorial"? I think we need to include that study about ultra-conservatives and political objections to IB, since all of the sources listed under the "political objections" section come from ...ultra-conservatives.

I think it's odd that the NY Times would be considered acceptable as a source for Harlan Hanson's participation in the founding of the IB program, yet is considered a "left-wing rag," along with Time magazine for other points.

La mome (talk) 12:46, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I left your NYT cite. You reworded the statement to paraphrase the article and removed the erroneous information. I helped you along with that. See how nice we can work together? ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 13:22, 28 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

LaMome - It might do you some good to listen to Dr. Thomas Sowell speak as well as read some of his books. He is a well-credentialed scholar and economist, an elegant orator, and his opinion is notable. It doesn't matter whether you agree with it or not. It doesn't matter if I agree with it or not. It is WP:BALANCE. Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 14:03, 28 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

p.s. - and I do like a nice straight pole. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 14:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

TVOR65 - Your dual attempts to start an edit war here and in IB are unacceptable. Look up the definition of "reception" before you arbitrarily wipe out my edits without any discussion. ObserverNY (talk) 16:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

We could keep the source, but change what we include in the IBDP article, which would be more appropriate to how the IBDP is received in the UK-giving more balance to the article.

"The IB diploma is now regarded as more academically challenging and broader than taking three or four A-levels."

"Government ministers have lauded the qualification and in 2006 provided £2.5m so that every local authority in England could have at least one centre offering sixth-formers the chance to do the IB."

This line about the move could be added in the "history" section---more appropriate in the IB organisation article rather than here.

The Amsterdam base will be one of three global centres for the IB by 2020. The others are Washington and Singapore.

La mome (talk) 19:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

LaMome - please don't split the discussion between the two articles. Please see my recent reply to Cinchbug at IB. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 19:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

And LaMome, I'm sorry, but yours was an unacceptable edit to the exact same section that is undergoing deep debate in IB. Why would you do that? ObserverNY (talk) 20:05, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Hanson Unresolved

I had requested that the sentence regarding Harlan Hanson either be reworded and cited to include other notable "IB initiators" OR that the sentence be removed. In the spirit of civility, I will not remove the sentence until someone weighs in and either improves the sentence, or agrees to its removal. However, if no one responds within 24 hours, I reserve the right to edit out the HH reference without a gazillion accusations being thrown my way. ObserverNY (talk) 23:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Please restore my edit, as I noted on the other page. Then I'll add the other members of the team. No reason to re-read the books, make the notes, etc., until the edit is back in place. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - the Hanson edits were convoluted, there were two of them, and I don't want the responsibility of attempting to merge the double attempt at listing Hanson in the article. If you want to keep him as a reference, then please go through your own edits and restore balance. If I recall correctly, Leach, (and I could be wrong but I think it was just his last name), was mentioned as an afterthought.ObserverNY (talk) 00:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I'll take a look at it tomorrow and recraft the reference, provided we can all agree to be patient. As I suggested earlier, Benjamin Bloom would be another "initiator" and he's rather notable (at least among educators--I find it highly unlikely that any teacher in the United States could get a teaching license without having learned about Bloom's Taxonomy). Regards, • CinchBug • 00:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It was not mentioned as an afterthought. I carefully crafted an edit on the very day you admitted to not having sufficient time nor the inclination to read the sources. Mid-edit, as I was adding material from the sources it was deleted. I'm having difficulty with a slow connection at the moment; but to delete an edit and then demand the resulting mess be rewritten is really asking a lot of your fellow editors. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Ralph W. Tyler as well. Cinchbug, you don't have to fix it. I'll do it. But, allow me to express the fact that it takes time to set up some material and to have it summarily deleted and then demanded it be re-instated is not conducive to collaboration. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

TK, yes, Tyler, too. He was Bloom's mentor, if I remember my outside reading correctly, and I seem to recall that one or both of them had something to do with the Ford Foundation funding (or one of the other funding sources). I agree with you about the frustration of setting up all the material only to have it immediately removed, and I'm ready to give you some measure of assurance that your work won't be summarily dismissed or deleted. Rather, we'll all have the opportunity to comment and discuss revisions, as necessary.

Of course, this will require all parties to play nice--and I'm optimistic that everone can do so and find consensus. Regards, • CinchBug • 00:56, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Let's make something clear. I didn't DEMAND that you improve the edit. I stated that I objected to its inclusion in its current state and that if no one "improved" it or made suggestions for improvement in 24 hours, I reserved the right to delete it. Likewise, TK can pout all he wants, but it is unfair to insist that I restore an edit I never wanted in there in the first place as it is not particularly notable in terms of the article. ObserverNY (talk) 01:05, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I've done what I can. Didn't realize that Cinchbug added the Bagnall ref as well. Some of the text in the sentence is a direct quotation, so for now all 3 refs will stand. When I have the time, I will re-read the books, re-list the names, and match names to nationalities, because there were others as well who deserve to be named. Trying very hard to take the high road, but the current state is the result of ONY's editing away what would have been a new series of sentences. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

It's a start. I didn't know we "practiced" putting together copy in an article. The edits are in the history. But as an average reader, I would ask myself, "Who is Bob Leach? Is he just some US HS SS teacher or what makes him notable (as there is no Wikipedia article on him)?" Also, we need to add in the Shah of Iran as one of the initial funders. I'll do THAT if you want. ObserverNY (talk) 01:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Yes, the edits are in the history. As you can see from what I've parked below, they are a mess. The trick is to match the text to the source. In this case multiple sources were used that had to be verified, checked, paraphrased and formatted which is difficult to do in one edit. When one is attempting to keep track of which is which in one's mind, while simultaneously referring to the source material with the intention of adding relevant explanatory text for the reader, and then having the initial edit deleted, to be accused of pouting, is just all a bit much. I too am human. Will spend the time to fix this mess tomorrow. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

If someone is so interested in including Bob Leach, the person who coined the phrase "International Baccalaureate" no less, then perhaps that someone should do some research and add it here, before another editing debacle ensues. The Shah of Iran was not an original intitiator, or founder, which is the section we are all working on now. Can we please try to focus? Once that's somewhat finished, then we can include the Shah, Bill and Melinda Gates and Texias IB Schools, while we're at it.

La mome (talk) 02:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Focus? You have the nerve to tell others to focus when you spent the entire afternoon yesterday leaping back and forth between this article and IB? The FOCUS is on whether someone or something is NOTABLE enough to be included in the article. Btw, Bill and Melinda Gates did a REPORT on IB that I have searched for for years, even wrote to their foundation, and was unable to obtain. They did NOT donate large sums of money to IB. However, I see Chavez's buddy Joe Kennedy gave money to IB last year. Care to go down THAT road, LaMome? Big oil and Nazi sympathizers in IB's past - you may want to be VERY careful how much "detail" you want to put into this section. ObserverNY (talk) 11:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Bringing into focus: http://www.acei-hkm.org.hk/Doc/IB%20Background.ppt despite LaMome's attempts to "debunk" this source as invalid, I hold that it is a legitimate source and one that shows the Shah of Iran's $100,000 contribution was in the 60's & 70's which would make him a significant "initiator".ObserverNY (talk) 12:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

We've already established that PowerPoints are not valid sources. By initiator, we mean founder, developer of the IB organisation or DP. It does not mean donor.

La mome (talk) 12:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Au contrare, LaMome. YOU declared that, no one else. Then you tried to claim that ACEI were IB "competitors" to which I say, what programmes are they selling? Then you challenged the date (2003). And I do believe the primary claim behind including Hanson was because he got Ford to contribute $300,000, no? Did I make that up? No, I didn't make that up.ObserverNY (talk) 12:29, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Re: coining of phrase "International Baccalaureate". You're kidding me, right? You see this as some kind of accomplishment? Putting the words 'international' (because the UN is international) and 'baccalaureate' (copied from the French Bac which pre-dates IB) together is noteworthy? ObserverNY (talk) 12:34, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(edit conflict) LaMome, I'm unclear why PPTs would be invalid sources - I'd regard the publisher as the deciding factor, not the media. No comment on whether acei-hkm.org.hk is an acceptable publisher or not.

ONY, there's a world of difference between your Hanson/Ford example and the Shah of Iran case - in one case we're dealing with a fund-raiser (Hanson); in the other case we're dealing with a donor (the Shah). Ford (a donor) shouldn't be added, but there's no reason why Hanson or any other fund-raiser shouldn't be, assuming their overall contributions are significant.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Oooo, you're such a little troublemaker, TFOWR! ;-) So riddle me this - the Ford Foundation IS currently listed as a donor along with UNESCO. It was in that sentence that I would propose adding the Shah. But Hanson, whose primary contribution was sweet talking the Ford Foundation into donating money, has his own separate recognition. You see how this entire "initiator" nonsense really gets murky? Do we list the names of all of the teachers at ISES who contributed to the development of the IBDP? Can anyone prove that Hanson had more input than say, Prof. Von Helzingburger (made up name)? Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 12:48, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Aye, I'm not really comfortable with that sentence as it is. I'd prefer "funding from a number of sources, including UNESCO", otherwise the list has potential to grow significantly. Alternatively we need to decide on (and enforce, hence my preference for the first option) a cut-off - Acme Ltd of Glasgow doesn't get listed because they only donated clerical resources, etc.

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

TK said PowerPoints were not acceptable, as per WP:SOURCES. So tell me then, who is the publisher of the Powerpoint? It may be linked to ACEI's site, but it has the IBO logo all over. Looks to me like it was part of a training session. But why wouldn't it also be on the IB site, if it's an official IB publication? Thank you TFOWR for clarifying the difference between fund-raiser and donor.

I would be careful with editing today. It would be a shame if all of TK's hard work and research were to be wiped out, again.

La mome (talk) 13:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

And I would be careful of making inferences that I would wipe out the information that Truthkeeper has parked here on the talk page. That is very different than copy that was edited out in the main article. Your "Nanny warning" is rude and insulting, hardly "good faith" and I expect an apology. Your questions are wild speculations. Nowhere in WP:SOURCES does it say that Power Point presentations can't be used. How can you possibly compare the work an independent organization compiled with what IBO decides or doesn't decide, to put up on its website which changes daily? TFOWR didn't clarify anything! He just mucked it up! (for fun I think ;-))ObserverNY (talk) 13:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY -- about the mess below, that I've struck, how is it different than the copy from the article? Last night I lifted directly from history the edit I created & you deleted, reinserted it, realized the refs no longer matched the text, lifted it out to park to work on today. Please let me know what's different so I can go in and re-edit. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

TK, what were you seeing in WP:SOURCES that ruled out PPTs? That said, this is possibly moot - I'm not convinced we should be using any source that "looks like, but isn't definitely" from the IB. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 14:08, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Moot point, my point, exactly. Can we take the discussion down further to look at possible founders/creators/initiators? La mome (talk) 14:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

This states journals & books which we have. Yes, I see that electronic media is also acceptable, but see this conversation (sorry to make you slog through it!). In my view, since books & essays exist with the information that's in the ppt there's no need to attach a ppt (primary source) that lives on a Hong Kong website (not the source, it simply hosts the ppt). If and when we ever get to the mid-1970s in the history section and that's the only source to identify the Shah of Iran as a contributer (and as you say, that's very different than a fundraiser who secured funding to start up the organization) re-evaluating the ppt at that time is certainly an option. My preference is to read the books and essays for the time period first as they are the best secondary sources. Hope this makes sense! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Parking the mess

Parking this mess here until I have time to match text to sources. Please don't edit:
<ref name=Walker1>{{cite book|title=The SAGE handbook of research in international education|editor=Mary Hayden, Jeff Thompson, and Jack Levy|publisher=SAGE|date=2007|isbn=1412919711|isbn13=9781412919715|chapter=Challenges from a New World|author=George Walker|pages=409}}</ref> In addition, a number of educators from the United States such as Bob Leach were in involved with the developing the IB Diploma Programme during the experimental stage. [[Harlan Hanson]], of the [[AP Program|College Board Advanced Placement Program]] was an " early advocate" of the IB Diploma Programme and helped secure the Ford grant with [[Ralph W. Tyler]].<ref name=Fox1/><ref name=Peterson1>{{cite book |title=Schools Across Frontiers |last= Peterson|first= A.D.C.|authorlink= |coauthors= |year=2003|edition= 2nd |publisher= Open Court|location= |isbn=0812695054 |page= |pages=18-26 |url=http://books.google.com/books?id=nTUjMNjNo3EC&dq=peterson+international+baccalaureate&printsec=frontcover&source=in&hl=en&ei=AJVnSomID8KRtge16Z33Dw&sa=X&oi=book_result&ct=result&resnum=11 |accessdate=23 July 2009}}</ref><ref name=Bagnall>{{cite journal | last = Bagnall | first = Nigel Fraser | title = The International Baccalaureate in Australia and Canada: 1980 - 1993 | journal = Ph.D dissertation | pages = p. 52 | publisher = University of Sydney | location = Sydney, Australia | date = Sep 1994 | url = http://ses.library.usyd.edu.au/bitstream/2123/817/1/adt-NU20020624.142124whole02.pdf | accessdate = 24 July 2009}}</ref>
Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I've brought the text back to a modified previous version. Uncle G's text about Leach was spot-on so I re-added it, with the understanding that it will be debatable. I've also re-added the founders/funding text with the appropriate refs. Let's please use the "Show Preview" button before saving edits, and be careful to add supporting refs when rewording or adding text. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

More info to park here

Here’s what I did for homework last night, all from Schools Across Frontiers: Near the end of the book, there is a section titled “The People Who Made the IBO” and I pulled out the following names:

Desmond Cole-Baker

Page25:

Head of English at Ecolint from 62-64,

Head of School there from 64-67

Page 26-listed as Head of School at UNIS

Developed framework for what would later become the PYP

Page 286-Went to NY with Alec Peterson and Harpo Hanso to get funding

Page 287-Developed framework for what would later become the PYP

Roger Peel

Page 289-Professor of Spanish and Modern Languages at Middlebury College 1969-1982

DG of IB from 83-98

Development of PYP and MYP

New DP courses

Brought information technology to IB for communication, databases and support

Concerned with access to IB for children in developing nations

Gerard Renaud

Page 21Philosophy teacher at Ecolint

Page 290-DG of IB 77-83

Major role in development of MYP

(I think he also came up with the idea for TOK---but I am not sure)

In other parts of the book:

Page 17-18 Bob Leach, American Quaker, Chair of SS Department at Ecolint, had conference in 1962 with a group of teachers where the phrase “International Baccalaureate” was mentioned.

Pages 25-26 Frank Bowles and Ralph Tyler became council members in 1965

Page 27-list of original IB schools-Atlantic College, British Schools Montevideo, Ecolint, Goethe Gymnasium, International School Ibadan, Iranzamin (Tehran), Lycee International de St. Germain, Santiago College (Chile) and United Nations International School. (All are still IB schools except for Iranzamin)

We can discuss what we what to include and look for mention in other sources if we are relying too heavily on this one.

Anyone know how to put accents (diacritical symbols) in?

Cheers La mome (talk) 12:11, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Wow. You're an IB foreign language teacher and you don't know how to insert diacritical symbols? ñóúúÿàáâãäåèéêëìíîï ........translation: YIKES! ObserverNY (talk) 12:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Here's the markup to be used for special characters. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks TK, that's what I was looking for. I know how to do it in Word documents.

La mome (talk) 13:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Questions regarding this quote from Leach-

"[The teacher] should question ever accepted view, and progressively to the extent that it holds itself to be sacrosanct. [… Students] will not be given conventional reassurance for close opinions, however respectable they may appear at first glance […] unexpected withdrawal from advanced positions and genuine humility before the moore complex issues will win respect[10]"

—Robert J. Leach, Cited in further reading, pp. 208–209

Should it be should question every accepted view? typo with moore---cited in further reading (is that proper citation or do we need to fix it)

La mome (talk) 14:18, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for finding the typos, and yes they are typos. My glasses are at the optician's this week (weak excuse, but nontheless true.) The sourcing is fine, but I have to add the further reading. Am a little busy and will get to it later. Have to address TFOWR's question above. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:25, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for adding back in the lost text. La mome (talk) 14:31, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Do we want to include the list of the original IB schools? Not in list or bulleted form, but as prose form as part of the History? La mome (talk) 14:49, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd already added that information, complete with mark-up for the French Lycèe's & can't remember why it was deleted. Let me look at history and try to retrieve it as it's formatted and sourced, but really can't get to it for a few hours or more. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:57, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Just my humble opinion, but the Leach quote reads like a bunch of sanctimonious bullcr-p. But if you folks want that to represent what IB 'is', hey, you go for it. With gusto! Here, have a beer! on Obama! ObserverNY (talk) 15:03, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, when adding & tweaking the text I re-inserted earlier today, please be certain that what you add is in the sources. As it was, when I added it, everything matched the source. I really don't relish having to extract the text & sources & match text to source twice in one 24 hours period. I'm referring to this diff. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:27, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - if you don't like the addition of Peterson's position to the sentence, then I respectfully suggest you remove the "later" positional Hanson and Tyler references altogether. However if you would prefer an additional citation which proves that Peterson became the IBO's first Director General, I will be more than happy to supply it. Just trying to make the paragraph WP:BALANCE with equal "titles" after each of the individuals listed. Surely you have no quarrel with that? ObserverNY (talk) 15:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Look I don't really care. If you want to add information into the text that's not in the source, then go ahead, and reformat & resource. That particular piece of text pre-dates Peterson becoming DG, so adding the first DG info in another line with a source would be preferable. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - How how could Hanson and Tyler becoming IB Council members pre-date Peterson becoming DG when the Council didn't become official until IB became official? You're not making any sense. ObserverNY (talk) 16:06, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I already added Peterson's title, which was Director of Education at Oxford University, matching the reference that TK provided. As I said before, let's all please be mindful when editing so that the info we add matches the sources that are already there. If adding more information, then add the references that go with the info.

La mome (talk) 15:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

sorry--that's Director of the Department of Education. La mome (talk) 16:00, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

And LaMome's comment illustrates further why there is no need for the second mention of Hanson and "later" IB status. I didn't REMOVE a single reference, so stop with the "mindful" lecturing. I was willing to let the second HH reference stand, but based on this trivial assault all because I added Peterson's title to create WP:BALANCE I'm more of a mind to eliminate it altogether.ObserverNY (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

According to this-http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_International_Baccalaureate_people

Peterson became DG in 1968.

La mome (talk) 16:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No one said references were removed. It is important to make sure that information that is added is either in the reference, or add the appropriate reference.

La mome (talk) 16:16, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

And when did this Tyler dude become a Council member? It says "later" but the article never mentions him 'before' the way it does Peterson and Hanson. Did Tyler help get money? Write curriculum? Get the coffee? Who were ALL of the original IB Council members? Remember what we discussed about WP:WEIGHT? ObserverNY (talk) 16:21, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(edit conflict---means two or more people are editing at once)

"Editing" does not mean "removing." Editing means writing information in the article. Editing talk page means writing information here. Here means on talk page--article means the corresponding article for the talk page. After TK spent hours editing the article, why are we now discussing removing/deleting what s/he wrote?!

La mome (talk) 16:24, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)ObserverNY: see the post at the beginning of the thread that mentions council members w/ page numbers. I'll go back and re-read, but off the top my head, as I remember the chronology, the council was established in the mid sixties and a DG was appointed a year or so later. Hope that makes sense. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding to above, please read the source. You clearly stated you had no intention of reading the books. I don't have time to explain what's in the books to you. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:28, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

From Peterson's book--Pages 25-26 Frank Bowles and Ralph Tyler became council members in 1965

Feel free to add the date.

La mome (talk) 16:30, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Never mind, I added it. Now we need date and reference for Peterson becoming DG of IB, which was after the council was established, since the council appoints/hires the DG.

La mome (talk) 16:36, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I'm reading it right now. The council was established in 1964 with John Goormaghtigh as president, a position he held until 1980. He should be added to the text. Don't know his nationality. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:40, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Bowles? Who's Bowles? I asked about Hanson and Tyler. You mean he's NOT in the citation? GASP! You know what else is odd? The Harlan Hanson article you constructed states that Hanson Hanson was also a founding member of the board of International Baccalaureate North America (IBNA) which I don't believe was formed until the 70's - so it would appear there are conflicting sources and boards.

Let me also remind all editors, that the only reason this ridiculous conversation is even taking place is because LaMome and Truthkeeper decided the bullet list of Director Generals with bios I had created was giving "too much weight" to certain individuals and needed to be eliminated. Ironically, LaMome's homework reveals information we were lacking on two of those DG's, Renaud and Peel.ObserverNY (talk) 16:47, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Edit conflict: (page 23) In 1967 Oxford "agreed to take over" the project. Peterson was an Oxford prof and was "given" by Oxford to run the project beginning in 1967. Will now search for some sources from the bib and footnotes. Btw -- I don't think we need to be this specific. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:51, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)

John Goormaghtigh was the first President of the Council of Foundation while he was director of the European Office of the Carnegie Endowment for International Peace in Geneva. He was an international lawyer of Belgian descent. pages 255-256 of Peterson's book.

La mome (talk) 16:54, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The research has been here for weeks. Easy to piggy-back. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Jumping forward to page 67: Peterson still employed by Oxford and acting DG for IBO. 1968 first examinations and the question of languages arises. French = yes; English = yes. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:02, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong, our 3O, said that the bulleted list with descriptions for DG was not a good idea. Uncle G suggested we incorporate key players into the prose of the text. Just trying to follow the advice of experienced editors/admins. TK is a copy editor, so, I trust and follow her lead as well.

La mome (talk) 17:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, well I'm sure HA had no idea what you were attempting to do when he made that comment, I had no idea that Truthkeeper was a she, (not that it matters), and Uncle G abdicated his responsibilities long ago when he went AWOL and didn't hang around to answer questions about the credibility and relevance of his suggestions. ObserverNY (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

FOCUS! - Nice dodge on the Hanson citation, LaMome. So I guess since you and Truthkeeper are such sticklers about the information being accurately cited and Hanson is not mentioned - only Bowles and Tyler, we need to remove that sentence with Hanson and Tyler, which will of course eliminate the sentence about Peterson.ObserverNY (talk) 17:42, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Ohhhh, I see the second sentence was removed. Very good. Now I just have few questions. Was Tyler the only council member in 1965? What makes him notable over other council members? How do we know when the IB Council itself was formed? And why is the acronym for the International Schools Organization (ISA)?ObserverNY (talk) 17:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Tyler was employed by the Ford Foundation and they put up the $$. You'll have to find the rest yourself because I've transitioned away from the computer with bookmarked pages. Btw-- knew this would come up. On Wikipedia I'm a genderless, faceless, blind mole, surviving on a diet of caffeine and sugar, suffering most days from SASFTL (staring as screen for too long). What happens when I log off is irrelevant. Call me "her", "he" or "it" -- I'm not bothered! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry--my bad--I did that to HA too. "I follow his/her lead" is what I should have written. I made some changes--check them out and let me know what you think.

La mome (talk) 18:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hanson again

It reads much better now. I haven't gone through the sources to see why your Hanson article states IBNA and this article states IB Council. You might want to clarify what you wrote at Harlan Hanson better so it doesn't seem like this guy spent 10 years with IB when he was supposed to be working for the College Board. Just saying. Seems like a conflict of interest since they are competitors.

As to gender disclosure, it's just that since I was called a "sexist" for referring to Candorwein/Candy as "her" and never received an apology, I'm a bit touchy that someone else can get away with it and not be called names. Oh well, Truthkeeper isn't Candorwein, it just would have been nice if a few more of you had backed me up on that, that's all.ObserverNY (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Observer: the Hanson information is from two different sources. The Hanson article uses both Peterson and Bagnall. Bagnall has Hanson starting IBNA in the seventies, and Peterson has Hanson in Geneva in the sixties. You're correct about discrepancy there. It needs to be fixed. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:58, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your intellectual honesty, Truthkeeper. I'm curious as to what criteria you will use to determine who is the more credible source, Peterson (IBDG) or Bagnall (independent researcher). I mean, you guys created the Hanson article for the sole purpose of providing him some "notability" for this article - so I would think your information should be consistent between the two articles, especially since he is Wiki linked. ObserverNY (talk) 20:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I don't think it's a discrepancy. I think he was one of the original members of the IB council and then later became council member at IBNA. La mome (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

I also don't think that being a Council member for IB and the Director of AP simultaneously is a COI. At least it wasn't back then. From the sources, it seems that is exactly what he did---Director of AP and council member of IB. I think we also need to add in the IBDP page that Hanson was intrumental in getting college credit for the IB Diploma at Ivy league schools like Harvard. La mome (talk) 20:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

LaMome - I don't think we need to add that, AT ALL. You are trying to give WAY too much WP:WEIGHT to Hanson, which has finally been reduced to an acceptable level. Why don't you find out why the acronym for the International Schools Organization is listed as ISA? Oh wait, I see you changed it to Association. But there's no ISBN number after the citation. ObserverNY (talk) 20:33, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(ec)ObserverNY: The Hanson page wasn't created to give him credibility here; he has plenty of credibility. As for sources, both are relevant because as you noted they cover two different time periods. But this is a discussion to be had on that page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:38, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY, TK and La mome are correct that the page wasn't created to give Hanson credibility in the IB article. But I do agree with you that we don't need to mention his role in getting college credit for the IBDP at schools. That's more noteworthy on his own page than it is here, in my opinion. Regards, • CinchBug • 20:43, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Cinchbug - re: Hanson in THIS article, you stated: ObserverNY, Harlan Hanson's involvement with IB, or more specifically, the founding of IBNA, has been confirmed by a non-IB source and makes a reference to yet another non-IB source (in fact, a College Board source: Freeman, J. (1987) The International Baccalaureate. The College Board Review. No. 143, Spring. 4 -6.) Didn't we already talk about that? Regards, • CinchBug • 20:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC) The Bagnall cite is not used HERE. ObserverNY (talk) 20:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, well, I'm not really sure about the point you're trying to make. I'm aware that Bagnall is not used here. But I don't think we need any additional references to Hanson in this article. Hence, I don't think we need to say anything in this IBDP article (nor in the IB article) about Hanson's role in getting schools to award credit for IB work. I think that information is more relevant to the Hanson article, not this one. I was agreeing with you... Regards, • CinchBug • 21:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

The creation of the Harlan Hanson page was in the spirit of WP:NODRAMA and to honor a great man who did great things in the field of education. The acronym is ISA because it stands for International Schools Association. I already fixed that in the article.

La mome (talk) 20:39, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Let me explain something to you, LaMome. You don't get to lecture me about every little picayune thing you can dream up and then get away with changing text merely because you "think" that is what the truth is and not support it with verifiable documentation. So it really doesn't matter that you "think" Hanson was on the Council in the 60's AND IBNA in the 70's, or that you "think" the name of an organization is actually organization or association, you have to back it up and your sources should reveal consistent information. Capice? ObserverNY (talk) 20:46, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

International Schools Association-ISA-page 15, Schools across frontiers.

La mome (talk) 20:53, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec)As per Bagnall's dissertation, Hanson founded the IBNA board (page 52). As per Peterson, Hanson was on the newly created "Council" (page 22). According to both authors Hanson was Director of Advanced Placement at the time of his involvement with the IB in the sixties and seventies. According to Peterson, ISES became an "association" in 1965 (page 20).

Have glanced at the new text and it looks good. I'll go through and check the refs when I get a chance. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:04, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Page 142 –"To have as member of the Board and of the School and College Relations Committee, a former New York State Commissioner of Education, the Directors of Admission of Bryn Mawer, Cal. Tech, Harvard, McGill, Michigan and Wisconsin, as well as the Director of the Advanced Placement at the College Board, gave IBNA a national standing in its own right." Hanson as board member of IBNA is not mentioned in this (the IBDP) article. We're not up to the 70s. And it would be more appropriate it to place that information at the IB page, since IBNA is one of its offices.

La mome (talk) 21:07, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

To Cinchbug's point above: we're still in the 1960s (or at least the text is!). When the text reaches the 1970s Bagnall will be handy. I haven't read all the hundreds of pages of the dissertation yet, but will get there eventually. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

John Goormaghtigh

More about Goormaghtigh from page 5 of this source:

The founding president of the IBO, John Goormaghtigh, was a member as a young man of the Belgian Resistance and survived Dachau following imprisonment in isolation, torture, and the execution within hearing distance of many of his friends. (He was saved by a distant cousin from the States, a soldier in the American Army, who found his copy of Plato lying on the ground outside the camp and therefore knew he must have been an inmate, whether still alive or not).
Sutcliffe. "International Education: Mirage or Oasis?" (PDF). International Baccalaureate Organization. p. 5. Retrieved 30 July 2009.

Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:12, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Signing out for a while. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:14, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

International Education: Mirage or Oasis? LOLOLOL! How about I look around for a International Education:Indoctrination or Hell source? Stop, you people are killing me! ObserverNY (talk) 17:37, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I added the info for John G., but not all the details, in the establishment section. Let me know what you think. La mome (talk) 18:35, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

No, I don't think the details are necessary, but perhaps adding the phrase "holocaust survivor" and dropping in the ref is okay. I can do that later. I posted it because I thought it was a poignant story, not something to be laughed at. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:50, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Poignant? Well I think it's poignant that Peterson was in charge of Psychological Warfare and Propaganda and got his position with IB through his friendship with Kurt Hahn, a Jewish Nazi sympathizer turned anti-Nazi because a communist student was killed, who later converted to Christianity. Now that's poignant.ObserverNY (talk) 18:55, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

If you were to read his book you'd read about Peterson's war experience and who influenced his position with IB. Do you have a source for the above? Still don't think surviving Dachau is a laughing matter, but I'll let it go now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Source for what, Kurt Hahn? The Wiki sources are in German: http://de.wikipedia.org/wiki/Kurt_Hahn I wasn't laughing at the Holocaust survivor stuff, I was laughing at the name of your source. You can read the other sources on the Alec Peterson page. ObserverNY (talk) 20:10, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Participation and online courses

I included a section with two short sentences about the IBO rule governing student participation in the IBDP. I specifically worded it so that it reflects what IBO states on its website. In this case, since IBO is the one governing the programmes, I feel it is ok to cite them as a primary source. LaMome felt it necessary to come in right away and change up the wording, changing enrolled to attend and basically mucking up the wording by adding in IB courses and exams etc. I reverted it. So I suppose NOW I have to go into a full explanation of why it needs to be worded as I initially worded it. Or do I really? ObserverNY (talk) 13:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

In order for students to "participate" in the IB Diploma Programme, they actually have to attend an IB school to take the IB courses and IB exams. La mome (talk) 14:58, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I added info about the online version, with pilot courses starting this fall. It was designed to include students who do not (or cannot) attend an IB school but want to participate.Tvor65 (talk) 15:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

And I reworded it to accurately reflect that as it currently stands, Homeschoolers cannot use the IB Programme. What you tried to show as an "all encompassing welcoming programme" is nothing more than a puny outline of a potential programme that is nowhere near off the ground and doesn't even offer half of the courses necessary for the DP. ObserverNY (talk) 15:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

It was already accurate about what is currently available and what is pilot. Did you miss the word "currently" in the beginning? Pushing POV about homeschoolers (or Homeschoolers, as you call them) is not a good idea.Tvor65 (talk) 16:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

This version looks good to me.

La mome (talk) 17:10, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

LaMome, I fixed your link above - yours did not work - hope you don't mind.Tvor65 (talk) 17:30, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Am happy to see the section about on-line courses being built. This school is not an IB world school (or perhaps is but I'm unable to see it listed as such) yet it offers the diploma programme to athletes. In my view the section needs some research à la what we did yesterday; find the sources, park the information, compose the text, and edit the text. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - Veddy interesting. Read this page: http://www.fis-academy.org/page.asp?pid=84&id=164 It doesn't say anything about the IB DIPLOMA Programme. It just says an "online IB qualification". ObserverNY (talk) 18:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

They appear to have been part of the pilot IBDP Online effort for the last two years. But I'm not sure there's enough information there for us to reach any firm conclusions. Regards, • CinchBug • 19:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

If you want to ADD something CONSTRUCTIVE to the Participation section Tvor65, you could add information about the available online teacher training workshops. THAT would be helpful instead of spinning wishful thinking of what IB may offer. ObserverNY (talk) 18:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

"Qualification" is synonymous with "degree" so that's not a big deal. However, I'd like to spend some time researching this and dumping some info here if all agree. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:59, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Turthkeeper - I don't agree that 'qualification' is synonymous with 'degree' is synonymous with 'baccalaureate'. How can they possibly earn the DP based on the 3 measly courses currently offered online? If anything, I'd say it is more synonymous with 'certificate'.ObserverNY (talk) 19:05, 31 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I already added something constructive, ONY. And the link to the onlone program clearly says that it is intended, in particular, for students who do not attend IB World School - something that you chose to repeatedly remove (I wonder why). Not very constructive of you, I may add. Tvor65 (talk) 19:07, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Some countries often refer to degrees as "qualifications". Also, note the FIS academy has students in the IB DP for three years. Again, as I said, I'd like to dig around and see what else can found on this issue. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

From the link provided as reference in that section-http://www.ibo.org/diploma/development/dponline/whobenefits/index.cfm

"Some of the main benefits of the project will be for:

• IB World Schools that wish to offer their students more subject choice.

• Students in IB World Schools who want to engage with students around the world.

• Students unable to attend an IB World School yet want to experience an IB education.

• Teachers who wish to develop new skills"

So, currently, only students attending authorized IB World Schools can take IB courses and exams. In the future, that will change. In September, some courses will be offered as part of a pilot program. Sounds logical to me.

La mome (talk) 20:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, LaMome, this was exactly my point.Tvor65 (talk) 21:48, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Page Layout

I call on Truthkeeper to consider the following - moving the Reception section to above the Recognition section and somehow condensing the Recognition section into smaller font, perhaps in a pretty coloured box. The reception text seems oddly out of place stuck all the way down at the end after that long boring list of only some of the countries IB is in. The Wiki server seems extraordinarily slow today, so I didn't want to risk attempting a move like that without your input. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 14:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Why do you want to put an "opinion" section above recognition policies? La mome (talk) 14:56, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The recognition section, in my opinion, is more or less a table of a few of the 138 countries, and not even a majority, thereof. I see no reason why this section needs to be given almost 1/3 of the entire article in bytes, plus it breaks up the reading of text. Why wouldn't you want to have the text above the table? ObserverNY (talk) 15:32, 31 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The Recognition section is not a table. Reception should stay where it is.Tvor65 (talk) 15:37, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I requested Truthkeeper's input. Of course I knew you would object. It's all you do. ObserverNY (talk) 15:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Well, sorry, you cannot make changes based only on some selected editors' input. We all participate here.Tvor65 (talk) 16:52, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I hope that HA, CB and TFOWR will weigh in also. I think the "reception" section needs a lot of work. But before we do any of that, we should finish the "History" section, no? I don't think that is any where near completion.

La mome (talk) 17:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think the Reception section has been worked over to death and is finally fair and balanced. You want to work on the History section, have at it. ObserverNY (talk) 18:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The Reception section does need more work as well.Tvor65 (talk) 18:19, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

No, it doesn't. And when IBO actually gets its act together and can offer a full line of Diploma courses available to EVERYONE, THEN you can update the information. UNTIL then, please leave the wording. I'm sure it wouldn't interest you to know that I've had a number of inquiries from Homeschoolers about IB, not to mention an inquiry from Switzerland whose child had gone through 11th grade, whose parents were both teachers, but due to economic conditions couldn't afford to pay the tuition to the International school again and wanted the child to be able to complete the Diploma at home. Of course, this is not possible under current IB rules, but I know you don't want to actually provide any HELPFUL information for parents posed with a dilemma. ObserverNY (talk) 18:29, 31 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Well, both LaMome and I think it does, and CB wanted to change it too (his edit was similar to my version, which TK found an improvement) but in the end left it as is in order avoid yet another drama. And no, I am not interested in hearing who asked you what. This is not TAIB, so please stick to the discussion about how to improve the article, not the anecdotes.Tvor65 (talk) 19:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Recognition Table

Sorry, I guess I missed a discussion on converting the recognition section to a table (ONY has just done that). Have we agreed on that? I personally prefer it as a text.Tvor65 (talk) 17:26, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's the policy about tables. For a variety of reasons, many of which are discussed in the policy, I'm not crazy about tables. Some other things to keep in mind about tables: long tables such as this are often placed in their own namespace to which the main article directs; keeping in mind this article may be assessed as some point, there's a chance the assessor would recommend eliminating the table; and, tables are difficult to maintain (as is discussed in the policy).

That said, the section clearly needs cleanup (and I must say, it's a nice looking table). My inclination would be to delete the section altogether, which makes me a deletionist but I'd wait until the rest of the article is stable.

Finally, suggest all interested (or not interested) editors chime in, including Candorwien, Ewen, TFOWR, and HelloAnnyong. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I don't think the recognition information needs to be removed, but nor do I think it should be in a table, for the reasons described at the link TK used above. Regards, • CinchBug • 18:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

TK - Thanks for saying it's a nice looking table. It took me awhile to put together, I hope I didn't mess up your sandbox, I started there and then figured I might as well just practice on my own talk page. I thought the way each and every country had an edit next to it and was listed as a big bold section looked junky. I would have no objection to having the entire table (or list) placed on a separate page for reference as you suggest. With the animosity that exists around here, I didn't DARE move its location or alter any of the text. ObserverNY (talk) 18:15, 31 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(ec) And, yes, input from Cinchbug too! Second apology in as many days!! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Nah, don't worry about that, TK. I also think that a separate page for recognition might be a good idea, but would suggest that we wait until the aforementioned editors weigh in. Having also done some work with tables at WP, I agree that they can be a pain to work with--which is another reason not to use a table here (or on a separate page, if we end up going that route). Regards, • CinchBug • 18:21, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

The IB sandbox is here. The other sandbox ironically is being used currently to convert info from two tables to prose paragraphs. Don't forget, anyone can set up a sandbox!

Post edit conflict addition: as a namespace involves creating a page, we should be absolutely certain that's the correct course. My view is the text is not stable enough for a table, but I'm not at all crazy about another IB page, although could be convinced that's a good idea. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Note: I also commented re: online courses in the participation section here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:34, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You know what? I don't really give a hoot what you do with the table. I tried to make the page look a lot better. You want to put it back to the bold, awkward, ugly list? Be my guest. If such is the consensus, then I respectfully suggest that Reception be moved up so it isn't apart from the body of the article. ObserverNY (talk) 18:38, 31 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Last night I was considering deleting all the "ugly" text, so we're on the same page there! For the moment, I'm fine leaving the table as is, with the caveat that we should consider other options. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:46, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Glad you agree it looked ugly. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 18:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Okay, CB and I do not care for the table. TK is not sure. Other opinions? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Tvor65 (talk • contribs) 19:09, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

While I don't think a table is a good idea, I concur with TK that we can leave it for the time being. Regards, • CinchBug • 19:12, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

A couple of lines of markup gets us this. You'll all have to troop over the IB Sandbox to look, and even if you'd like, we can use the talk page there!! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:01, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Very nice! See, I knew you were better at that than me! ObserverNY (talk) 20:53, 31 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Let's keep the table that TK proposed above and put it at the end of the article with the "reception" section above it. I am not too crazy about a table at all, because I think that new editors would be less likely to want to add to a table as opposed to regular text. (Looks too intimidating for newbies) The "recognition" section is far from complete-- there should be additions there, quite possibly from editors who would like to add their country's info. Instead of saying I don't like it 'cause it's ugly and doesn't have all the countries, someone should also start adding missing countries and info.

La mome (talk) 20:16, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

I think Reception should remain where it is (and worked on), and I think the Recognition should be converted back to the text, at least for the time being, for easier editing. Sorry, but to me both tables look worse than what was there before. Then Reception will not be separated from the rest of the text. We should also consider renaming "Recognition" to "University Recognition". As always, I'd like to hear from others who have not yet expressed an opinion.Tvor65 (talk) 20:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

It would appear that only Tvor65 has an objection to the table (other noted caveats that it can be revisited and perhaps moved to a separate page) and that Cinchbug, Truthkeeper, LaMome and myself are content to leave the table as is with Truthkeeper's improvements for now. I still think the Reception section has been "worked on" to death and if Tvor65 and LaMome have specific objections to the text in the 'Reception' section they should voice their complaints clearly and concisely so they can be addressed. If anyone other than LaMome and Tvor65 have complaints about the Reception section, please voice them. If you are going to change Recognition to University Recognition you eliminate half of the existing countries which merely state there is one IB school, or the number of IB schools in the country. Again, I personally think the Recognition section is completely overbloated and taking up too much space. ObserverNY (talk) 20:50, 31 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Voicing my opinion: the reception section needs work. But I'm still stuck in the history section! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:27, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Concessions

The International Baccalaureate page has been locked so that we can reach concensus on the whole "moving from Cardiff" issue. The only reason 3RR was not violated there was because the reverts were not within 24 hours, but I am guessing they were pretty close. At any rate, we are experiencing an edit war here at the IBDP over the insertion of "homeschoolers cannot use the IB program" and speculation over the online courses. I suggest we settle our differences here over that and the whole "recognition table" dilemma before this page is locked as well. It seems to me the table was created to justify moving the "reception" area up and to make it "pretty." That has also diverted us from two more important issues, which are the completion of the History section and the "reception" section, which is starting to read more like a tabloid and less like an encyclopedia. So, can we please focus on those two things, instead of jumping from page to page trying to outdo each other with our brilliant additions to the article, which are neither well thought out nor discussed on the talk pages prior to make the changes? La mome (talk) 22:39, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you try taking a little responsibility for the page being locked, LaMome? How do you think that happened? Hmmmm? ObserverNY (talk) 05:03, 1 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

• One of the problems, in my view, is that we're going too fast. As an editor with other projects to work on, (oh, yeah, and that thing called A Real Life), the constant revisions are almost impossible to keep up with. I'd prefer to see a slowing down, and editors to allow other editors to finish their editing before jumping in, but that's my style brought over from the dusty basement of articles that haven't been touched in years.

• As for the newest section about homeschooling and on-line classes, my preference would be to see that the refs have been found first before adding the text. From the very limited time I spent searching, information exists about athletes and online courses, but retrieving, reading, synthesizing & writing takes time.

• I haven't really even looked at the Reception section, but from a brief glance, it appears some work needs to be done.

• The Recognition section has been problematic for some time. In fact I never reformatted the refs there expecting the entire section to be moved or deleted. All editors here should decide which they prefer. My preference is to delete, but want time to consider it, want to look at the article w/out the Recognition and w/ the recognition, and want time to consider other possibilities such as rewriting into better prose section.

• The history section is not complete.

• As far as contributions, as stated weeks or months ago I'm happy to find refs, read the background material, but am no longer interested in actual editing here. When the article is stable I'm happy to clean up refs and to copy edit.

• Hope I haven't muddied the waters too much. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:17, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You know who you remind me of LaMome? My youngest cat. The very SECOND I change the litter box, she has to jump in and whizz in it. Just like you. Your running to admin to try and get me banned for 3RR is really getting tiresome. Grow up. ObserverNY (talk) 03:08, 1 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY