User talk:ObserverNY

The truth about IB site is already listed, and is probably likely to amuse and entertain rather than inform people: As if the IB exists solely to corrupt to youth of the USA. Right.

As for the note about the certificates only recording the grade: What else would you expect them to do? If someone wants a certificate saying they obtained Grade 1 Chemistry then why not? The certificate would at least record what they'd been doing for the past two years...

Ewen (talk) 12:14, 21 October 2008 (UTC)

I would also like to respond to Ewen's question:

"As for the note about the certificates only recording the grade: What else would you expect them to do?"

I would have no problem with the nature of IBO's grade reporting method if the students who take IB Certificate Courses weren't identified as "IB Certificate Candidates" who "earn the certificate after SUCCESSFULLY completing the course". The fact of the matter is, the students are participants and success has nothing to do with earning the certificate so long as the exam fee is paid and you write your name on the test. It is all about debunking the phony prestige IBO tries to cloak its program in. ObserverNY (talk) 17:23, 31 March 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(I hope you don't mind me moving your response to the appropriate section.)

There's a difference between completing a course and actually attaining a qualification. The IBDP isn't really designed to be broken into separate certificates - it's possible to obtain the Diploma and only achieve a grade 1 in one subject. Each subject doesn't really have a 'pass' grade as such, so if someone wants to claim that they 'successfully' got a grade 1 then why not? At least they stuck it out to the end of the course...

As for 'phony prestige' you might like to spend some time finding evidence for this statement. I'm not sure where you'll find the IBO claiming that their qualification is better than the AP, or A-levels, or whatever.

Ewen (talk) 18:03, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Ewen - what right do you have to delete my link to the Truth About IB website? Grow up, or I'll start wiping out YOUR contributions!ObserverNY (talk) 13:12, 31 March 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

It's not just Ewen: Pointillist has as well, as have I. Wikipedia works on consensus - at this point you do not seem to have a consensus for the inclusion of a link which appears to me to be very US-centric, and largely irrelevant to a global topic. Incidentally, telling another editor to "grow up" would appear to be a breach of policy, and threatening to "start wiping out YOUR contributions" would also appear to be a breach of policy. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:18, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Everyone has the right to make edits. A grown up would have realised that and wouldn't resort to childish threats. This is where to debate the inclusion of the link. I wasn't too bothered until you kept adding the link without explaining why. Your behaviour lead me to the view that you were not prepared to justify your actions (perhaps because you know you can't?) and therefore that your persistent addition of this link ought to be resisted until such time as you can persuade people that it should be included. The ball's in your court. Ewen (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

March 2009

Welcome to Wikipedia. Although everyone is welcome to make constructive contributions to Wikipedia, at least one of your recent edits, such as the one you made to User:Ewen, did not appear to be constructive and has been reverted. Please use the sandbox for any test edits you would like to make, and read the welcome page to learn more about contributing constructively to this encyclopedia. Please post messages to editors on their talk pages, not on their user pages. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 13:20, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I've kept ObserverNY's comments and answered them, thanks TFWOR. Ewen (talk) 14:33, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Please do not delete content or templates from pages on Wikipedia, as you did to International Baccalaureate Organization, without giving a valid reason for the removal in the edit summary. Your content removal does not appear constructive, and has been reverted. Please make use of the sandbox if you'd like to experiment with test edits. Thank you. This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 17:05, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Your recent edits

Hi there. In case you didn't know, when you add content to talk pages and Wikipedia pages that have open discussion, you should sign your posts by typing four tildes ( ~~~~ ) at the end of your comment. If you can't type the tilde character, you should click on the signature button located above the edit window. This will automatically insert a signature with your name and the time you posted the comment. This information is useful because other editors will be able to tell who said what, and when. Thank you! --SineBot (talk) 14:26, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

"Source?"

Hi Lisa

I appreciate what you're doing at IB Diploma Programme, but can you use {{fact}} tags instead of adding commentary to the article?

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:42, 14 May 2009 (UTC)

Adjourned TAIB discussion

Well, here I am. Where's the bar? Ewen (talk) 14:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

My shout. What are you drinking? This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 14:07, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Pint of heavy? Ewen (talk) 14:24, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

No problem. I'm drinking Belhaven. Lisa? Any preference for cocktails? This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 15:05, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Gin and tonic with a twist of lime. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 17:58, 21 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Ah! Our hostess has arrived! Ewen (talk) 21:04, 21 May 2009 (UTC)

Yes, welcome, but your hostess is having a yard sale this weekend so I'm begging off the IB issue till Sunday or Monday. ObserverNY (talk) 10:54, 22 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

No problem - hope it goes well!

Ewen, from your choice of beverage, can I assume you're either Scottish (the name kind of gives it away, now I think about it...) or resident in Scotland? Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 11:35, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No, I'm Welsh as it happens. Dad's from Greenock though. Ewen (talk) 12:04, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry! Two great countries, however, and Wales at least knows what sport matters most. Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 12:09, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

No need to apologise. I've been mistaken for all sorts - Scottish, English, gay... My local club mistook me for a rugby player for several seasons but I think they've realised their mistake now and I'm no longer in the team. Ewen (talk) 13:06, 22 May 2009 (UTC)

I was adopted at birth and only just recently discovered the name of my birth-grandparents: http://www.houseofnames.com/xq/asp.fc/qx/harrell-family-crest.htm So it would appear we all have rather similar roots, eh? ;-)

TAIB recently posted an update about a HS in New Jersey, USA, that decided to "phase out" IB after a 3 year study in favor of expanding AP and offering the APID. I received an e-mail from the editor of the HS newspaper, asking me for my source, which of course I didn't reveal, but he asked me if I thought this "trend" to eliminate IB was localized to one section of the U.S. or was it widespread? I asked him if he thinks there really is a "trend" and if yes, doesn't that beg the question, "Is IB merely an educational fad?" ObserverNY (talk) 10:30, 23 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I wanted to address Ewen's question regarding the billing of IB as superior to AP. Allow me to present the following evidence. The first link is to an article about the Fordham Report which compared AP and IB courses. The editors of the report changed the scoring of the IB Math course to be better than the Professor who reviewed it, causing Prof. Klein to ask for his name to be removed from the report: http://www.csun.edu/~vcmth00m/wp2.pdf Despite this conflict, Jay Mathews of the Washington Post, has continued to cite the Fordham Report as evidence of IB's "greatness" and states here: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2007/10/09/AR2007100900607.html "I think both AP and IB are great choices, with IB having just a small advantage because of IB's extended essay and the failure of most AP schools to make the AP exams mandatory for AP students." Mathews is the #1 promoter of IB in the US. ObserverNY (talk) 10:48, 23 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I'm not sure what the evidence is supposed to show. The Fordham report considers four subjects and find the IB equal in two and better in two. One of the 'better' subjects is maths, which Klein thought was worse.

If we take Klein's evaluation, that's still two equal, one better and one worse subject when IBDP and AP are compared. Another notable point is that many of Fordham's criticisms of English and History revolve around the IBDP's lack of content relevant to the USA. Outside the USA I suppose the findings would be strongly in favour of the IBDP?

Jay Mathews' interpretation seems in line with Fordham's. Even taking Klein's minority report into consideration and considering IBDP and AP to be equal, Mathews gives other reasons than a subject-by-subject comparisons for considering the IBDP to be slightly superior.

Well, that's my interpretation. Good for Lisa for publicising Fordham's report and the controversy around Klein's contribution.

Incidentally, in the UK, UCAS have compared the IBDP and A-levels [1] and [2] and found that the IBDP was equivalent to six top-grade A-levels (most students take only three or four A-levels).

Ewen (talk) 18:07, 23 May 2009 (UTC)

Ewen

My dear departed mother-in-law always used to say, "Self-praise is no praise". She was from Galway, my father-in-law is from Leitrim. Anyway, that phrase always comes to mind whenever I read Jay Mathews or hear an IB representative singing IB's praises. IBO likes to sell itself on hearsay. I can round up numerous proclamations from HS Principals about IB being "better" than AP. I, for one, think it's a load of cow pies, myself.

Perhaps you missed this article out of the UK from 03/09 which downgraded the UCAS points received by the IB: http://www.sfs-group.co.uk/news-industry-19073590-private_school_leader_welcomes_ib_tariff_news.htm "he lobbied for the change after staff expressed the view that "too much volume" was being given to the IB by the tariff." ObserverNY (talk) 23:02, 23 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Yes, the UCAS link I gave earlier has the new tariff. It still has the IBDP at 29 points with a tariff of 370 - three A-grade A-levels would be 360. I see they also give equivalence to individual subjects. Again, placing the IBDP's top grades ahead of A-levels (A-level grades A, B, C, D, E have UCAS tariffs of 120, 100, 80, 60, 40 respectively).

Self praise? Is Jay Mathews affiliated with the IBO in some way?

Ewen (talk) 14:40, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ewen

Perhaps you missed TAIB's section on "IB in the Media". I believe I have stated elsewhere in the Wikipedia discussion that Mathews' book about IB, Supertest was co-authored by IBO's Deputy Director General Ian Hill and published by Open Court, which is owned by Blouke Carus, an IBNA Board member. Mathews was also in attendance at that 2005 Annual IB Convention where his book was lauded and I was ridiculed by IBO's Director General George Walker. If I were to have my book co-authored by the VP of the College Board and published by an affiliate of the College Board, wouldn't you say my work was financially influenced by the College Board?

As to 29 pts. on the IBDP vs. 3 A-Levels and only 10 pt. greater value, that hardly seems a formula for equating, well, equality, considering the IBDP requires six (6) exams. That also says nothing about the IBDP's who score between 24-28, still an IBDP. Are the equivalents on individual subjects only for HL IB exams? Are A-Level courses 2 years long?

ObserverNY (talk) 15:30, 24 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

A-level courses are two years long, yes. 29 points on the IBDP is quite modest - the top score is 45. Yet no UK university would ask for more than three A grades at A-level, which UCAS reckon as slightly below 29 IBDP points.

Mathews' work about the IBDP has links to the IBO, OK. I don't think he can be blamed for attending the 2005 meeting - you went yourself - and it's not surprising that George Walker likes Mathew's views and not yours, is it? If Richard Dawkins turned up at the General Synod I don't think his views would escape comment! Anyway, it's good to know you're making waves and the IBO is responding to your points, isn't it?

Anyway, we could argue the facts of the matter all day long but the facts (whatever they are) are not the issue with TAIB. TAIB doesn't look like a reliable source because it has a lot of emotive style ('tabloid' or 'shock-jock' style) and some points are not well supported (e.g. there are several claims that websites with stories supporting TAIB points are no longer available - as if the IBO were capable of censoring the entire internet).

As I've said, I'd be much happier supporting TAIB's inclusion as a wikipedia source if it focused on a few clear issues. How much it costs schools, balanced against its relative benefits. Cases where the IBO has concealed facts. The lack of openness in publishing.:Ewen (talk) 19:26, 24 May 2009 (UTC)

Ewen

"you went yourself"

Excuse me? What on earth gave you the impression that I was ever at an IBO annual conference? I discovered the reference to me years later when I was Googling Walker's connection with Kofi Annan. I'm sure either WAPO or IBO paid for Jay's travel and accommodations. I assure you, no such offer was ever given to me. Now I see why you failed to understand the "conflict of interest" issue I raised earlier regarding your own employment as an IB teacher.

And I would prefer if there is to be a Wikipedia article about IB/IBO, that the facts be presented accurately and without bias. Btw, thank you for the info on A-Levels being 2 years. It was something I had not considered before. But I know I have opened your eyes on a number of issues with IBO and based on Wikipedia's policy which states that all viewpoints should be presented, I still assert that TAIB is worthy of inclusion as an external link. ObserverNY (talk) 21:41, 24 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

What gave me the impression that you were there was that you said 'you were ridiculed' at the conference. My mistake.

The reason I failed to undrstand your 'conflict of interest' issue with me is that here on wikipedia we don't vote on issues and so we treat facts as facts and ignore who puts the facts forward.

Yes, we've both learned a lot about what TAIB contains. The points about cost and publications are ones I was already concerned about before I read TAIB, as it happens.

What I'd be trying to fix with TAIB is this: I didn't bother reading it in detail because of how it is written. There are countless opinionated rants on the internet and this looks a lot like 'just one more'.

There are many examples, but one from the home page is typical 'One needs to ask: "Why is an education program causing such volatile disruption and community unrest?"'

But isn't TAIB the source of a lot of the disruption and unrest? And shouldn't we first address the question "Is this education program causing such volatile disruption and community unrest?"? Jumping straight to the 'Why' question is a sly rhetorical trick, comparable with the famous gutter journalists' question 'When did you stop beating your wife?'

Ewen (talk) 07:35, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Ewen

Your "we"s are very telling: The reason I failed to undrstand your 'conflict of interest' issue with me is that here on wikipedia we don't vote on issues and so we treat facts as facts and ignore who puts the facts forward.

Are you employed by Wikipedia to monitor its articles? Who are "we"? You were the one who specifically kept wiping my link. I want to know what gives you alone, as an IB teacher, the authority to be judge and jury over what stands as an external link. Does IBO pay you to monitor Wikipedia?

I have removed the cult page. I have changed out the word "zealots" to "supporters". You appear to want to nit-pick over the most ridiculous things. And if the guy is a wife-beater, then there is absolutely nothing sly or rhetorical about asking when was the last time he beat his wife. Perhaps we should re-word that particular question and predicate it with : "When IB is threatened with elimination, conflict and controversy has arisen in a number of communities in the United States between IB supporters and opponents."

TAIB is NOT the source of disruption and unrest. TAIB reports inidents that have occurred and provides facts for parents who have asked very legitimate questions about IB but failed to get answers from either IBO or IB supporters. Cost, IB ideology (mission statement), UNESCO affiliation, media bias, special education regulations, IBO's control of intellectual property, the application process, the ACLU lawsuit ... - NONE of these issues are addressed in the Wikipedia articles. Refusing to permit TAIB as an external link is refusing to recognize verifiable documentation of important issues surrounding the IB product. ObserverNY (talk) 14:12, 25 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Oh get a grip!

I'm not employed by wikipedia or paid by the IBO - I have said so before. I monitor some articles here because I like to. Nobody pays me. In some cases I check that articles my students might use are factually accurate, in other cases it's just something I'm interested in.

And you might remember that at first I supported TAIB but when you kept adding it to articles with no justification or explanation I decided to remove the links until you answered the questions other wikipedia users had raised about it. In other words, your actions lost you a supporter.

As I write, the word 'zealots' appears on the very first TAIB page and six times elsewhere [3]. Your brochure still links the IBDP to students' suicides.

It might explain why you don't understand the objections to TAIB if you aren't fully aware of its content...

TAIB is not the source of disruption and unrest? Let me quote TAIB: 'Our "cause" or agenda is also quite clear... <snip> 1. Try and get rid of IB in our home districts 2. Prevent the further spread of IB in general public schools in the United States 3...'. TAIB is certainly a source of disruption and unrest.

You say that there are issues about the IBO which wikipedia does not mention. Have you tried adding them to the wikipedia articles? I'm not talking about adding a single link to TAIB, but adding properly referenced material which actually discusses each issue in turn. If you did this, all the sustainable accusations on TAIB would find a place on wikipedia too.

I'm trying to help here. God knows why. You accuse me of working for wikipedia and the IBO (not true), conflicts of interest (not relevant), deleting your edits before you even saved them (not possible). Are you trying to alienate me? So you can claim another critic who refuses to discuss your points?

Ewen (talk) 19:38, 25 May 2009 (UTC)

Get a grip, huh? *sigh* You know, perhaps if you had linked that helpful search which revealed all 7 times in the entire site that the word zealot appeared, I could have easily changed them all. But you know what? Any teacher who would allow his students to use Wikipedia as a reference isn't worth my respect or time. And I'm also terribly disappointed that you are unable to discern the difference between a question and an accusation. Allow me to help you... "Do you work for Wikipedia?" ... that's a question. "Aha! You must work for Wikipedia!" ... that's an accusation.

Good bye, Ewen.

ObserverNY (talk) 23:39, 25 May 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I can't help it if (a) you don't have the nous to search your own website and (b) you don't know what its content is already; so don't blame me for not doing what you said you would.

As I said, if you're not fully aware of what's in TAIB, it's not surprising that you don't understand why people object to its content. Perhaps you ought to read TAIB? Amongst the cheap shots and gutter press stylings there are some good points there.

If you think that Wikipedia is a taboo reference that students should never use then you don't really understand Wikipedia and you don't give students the credit for knowing what is and isn't a good reference. The basic rule my students use is that Wikipedia is a good first place to look for information, but it should never be the place where your research stops.

You can dress up your accusations as questions until the cows come home - it's always a pretty transparent tactic. But does your latest response mean that you finally accept that I don't work for Wikipedia or the IBO? Hurrah! At last!

Ewen (talk) 07:04, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and this is so funny I can't help adding it: TAIB uses Wikipedia as a reference here and here. Now complete the following sentence: "Any author who would use Wikipedia as a reference..."

Ewen (talk) 07:12, 26 May 2009 (UTC)

Ewen,

Thank you for pointing that out. I have removed the two links to Wikipedia. I will retain the one verbal reference as there is terribly limited information available on the Web regarding the individual Principal in question. One verbal reference in the midst of thousands is hardly worth chuckling yourself silly over. You have stabbed me in the back on another foruma nd shown me your true colours. Take your accusations of paranoia and shove them. Good bye for the last time. ObserverNY (talk) 08:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I guess you mean this forum? I can't help you taking comments out of context if you want to take offense. What I was trying to say (to the poster who did say you were 'paranoid') was that you sometimes come up with comments which 'pretty paranoid'. Accusing me of editing your work before you'd even sent it to wikipedia for example. I also suggested ignoring those bits of what you say. My reasons for suggesting that course of action are that although some of your stuff is, to me, pretty random; some of your other points are very good and shouldn't be ignored. I'm sure the complexity of what I'm saying here is not beyond you. I hope you choose to accept it.

Ewen (talk) 09:11, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Wikiquette

I am filing a report on the wikiquette page part of that process is notifying the involved parties.

ObserverNY has violated several wikipedia policies, such as COI, NPOV, engaging in editing wars and using personal attacks and questionable language.

COI violation: By her own admission, she is one of the administrators of the “Truth about IB” http://truthaboutib.com/

User:ObserverNY I am Lisa McLoughlin and I am one of the administrators and author of several of the articles within the Truth About IB site. There are a few other administrators on the site who, because of past threats against them from IB supporters, would prefer to remain anonymous. I respect their right to privacy and am willing to hang myself out as the target, if you will. We are not a for-profit group, we have no advertising other than a Google search bar on the site, and we fund the site ourselves, not with taxdollars. Truth About IB contains links to 2 doctoral thesis, 1 on the IB MYP and one on the Newsweek Best High Schools List, and countless IBO documents. A new tab added recently includes an Mp3 of a talk show radio interview I did out of Omaha, Nebraska, followed by a rebuttal from the IB Coordinator of the Omaha schools. Yes, TAIB has a POV, and on our home page we state specifically what it is and what we hope to achieve by providing readers with the information contained within. Candorwein is quick to side with the left-wing agenda by labeling us "malcontents" because we DARE to question the ideology and cost of the IB program, just like the millions of Tea Party attendees yesterday are "idiots" and "anti-CNN", right? As I suggested before, I think it would add to Wikipedia's credibility if it were to at the least feature Truth About IB under a section regarding Controversy. It exists. We've documented it. Please allow people to hear both sides of the IB story and draw their own conclusions. —Preceding unsigned comment added by ObserverNY (talk • contribs) 17:58, 16 April 2009 (UTC)

Other wikipedians have called her on the COI, yet she continues to post on the discussion board and more importantly, edit the IB Diploma Program page.

I'm concerned about two things with the TAIB link. • Firstly, the site is very US-centric (nothing wrong with that, any more than there is the site exercising its 1st amendment rights, but it's of limited relevance to a global worldview. My background is with the UK system; I sat A-levels, and although I'll concede that TAIB does discuss A-levels to a limited degree it is extermely limited (and, frankly, tabloid-level sensationalism - see here). • Secondly, there's the conflict of interest. Lisa, you acknowledge that you're an administrator on the site. I'm not convinced that someone so intimately involved with TAIB should be editing the article (post here on the talk page by all means, but let non-involved editors edit the article. The same applies to IBO employees and supporters, e.g. editors who maintain or administer pro-IB web sites). Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 18:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Lisa, first of all I'm impressed to see that you're sticking with this debate. Credit where its due: Many others would have taken a hike by now. Now, it's not that I 'didn't like' your response about the suicide links, it's that you didn't answer my point - you give seven links but only two stories are clearly relevant to whatever point you were trying to make. Dragging up tenuous and irrelevant material is not a convincing way to make an argument and when the citations relate to such tragic events it betrays a lack of taste and decency. At the other end of the serious/trivial scale - you ought to read your website's content again. There is no verb in your sentence "This website built and maintained..." Your brochure has another blooper on p3 "...forces the Board to examine it’s minimum class size policy...". And moving back to more serious matters, the next page of your brochure has this: "If interested, please e-mail... for information on fee and availability." Fee? Remember how indignant you were when you found out I taught on the IBDP? Now I find that you make money from promoting the ideas on TAIB. Ewen (talk) 07:30, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

NPOV violation (s): To Lisa/ObserverNY: Please read the Wikipedia policies on Neutral Point of View (NPOV) WP:NPOV and neutrality WP:NEU. Establishing whether TAIB adheres to these policies is the only point to this discussion. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:35, 16 May 2009 (UTC)

Student Suicides - these examples are misleading May I express my concern about the way "IB" student suicide references are being used as "data" to "prove" that the program(me) is harmful or in someway "bad" for students. If you wish to know how reliable this "data" given is then the whole perspective needs to be shown. "Among 15- to 24-year olds, suicide accounts for 12.9% of all deaths annually (CDC 2005)" (which is quite a number), "In 2005, 16.9% of U.S. high school students reported that they had seriously considered attempting suicideduring the 12 months preceding the survey. More than 8% of students reported that they had actuallyattempted suicide one or more times during the same period" : Source www.cdc.gov/injury. It strikes me that compared to the number of IB students supposed to be committing suicide then for each one there are hundreds of other students not in IB programmes committing suicide. Ergo, if you want to include information about IB student suicide rates then surely you must have some data to show it is anomalous with the general student suicide rate of students in equivalent program(mes) throughout the US? If you don't you are pushing POV. --Candy (talk) 15:55, 17 May 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. In that case I don't feel that a link to TAIB is an appropriate link to add here, as it appears to be too tabloid, and of limited relevance to most readers. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 17:49, 19 May 2009 (UTC)

Hi ObserverNY, See this statement from WP:V -- "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." You changed "some" to "two" but it seems that "two" isn't accurate. I favor using the word "some" which lies between none and many. I'm really more concerned about the statements in the IB DP article that don't show NPOV or that require verification, rather than bulking up the article more at this point. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY is not operating on good faith, nor does she assume good faith on the part of other posters/editors. ObserverNY resorts to personal attacks and name-calling:

How dare you wipe my entire response to red flag. I spent a lot of time going through the Wikipedia policy to politely respond point by point as to why TAIB should be included on Wikipedia. Your arrogant bias and disingenuous attacks calling me an idiot are beyond the pale. You serve as a fine representative for IB, Ewen. What goes around, comes around. I'm done. Peace out. ObserverNY (talk) 13:23, 15 May 2009 (UTC)

I am under the impression that the recent (extensive) posts above break the talk page guidelines. Wikipedia states, "Do not use the talk page as a forum or soapbox for discussing the topic. The talk page is for discussing improving the article." I believe that these guidelines are being broken. In addition, "Article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views.". I believe this is also being broken along with an attempt to create original research. I request that all parties abide by the guidelines as from now please. If you wish to continue in this fashion please take the discussion to another forum. Thank you --Candy (talk) 08:02, 21 May 2009 (UTC) Ewen, Where's the explanation for removing the info about the IBO Inspiration Award? Hmmm? I've asked 3 times now. What, ONLY I am subject to these rules and all of the collectivist socialists in the room are allowed to do as they please? ObserverNY (talk) 07:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY Inflammatory allegations and name-calling won't help either side. It would help if Tvor65 explained why the info about the IBO Inspiration Award was removed. You say it's important to include this link as it is about the history of lawsuits and the intentions of the IBO to usurp local control. The Award is only tangentially related to the history of lawsuits, and as I said before it would be better if the details of each case were on the article about the school in question (e.g. UCS). This IBDP article might have a brief summary of the cases and links to each school's article for more details. That way the point is made about the number of disputes without getting bogged down in the details of each one. The allegation that the IBO plans to usurp local control in US schools is one I hope you will drop. If I was forced to labour the point I would concede that the IBO wants to promote its courses in the US (Well, duh! What else would you expect of an international educational organisation? They are active in 134 other countries you know, and we have already established that the only reason the USA has more IBDP schools than any other country is because the USA is a big country) You seem to go from observing that choosing the IBO's courses means choosing a curriculum which is set beyond the USA's borders, and then equate this to alleging that a major aim of the IBO is to take control of US schools? This argument is simply not credible and I can't support its inclusion in wikipedia. Ewen (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC) ObserverNY resorts to personal attacks and name-calling: Ok, listen up IB weenieheads. I see what's happening here. You feel I'm attacking your IB manhood because fully half of the IB exams offered are not recognized for college credit the way AP is. I never realized before that SL stood for IB SchLong. But be that as it may, you have a simple choice. You can amend the statement to: 1. Some universities offer college credit for some IB SL exams. (vague but accurate) OR 2. Less than 1% of American universities award credit from SL IB exams. OR 3. 99% of American universities do not recognize IB SL exams for credit. "As for only "some" courses being recognized, this is generally true of any college credit," - sorry, simply untrue. For universities that award credit for AP, you see no such differentiation in subject matter. The problems with IB SL exams are threefold: 1. Although IBO states SL courses are supposed to be 150 hours, particularly with foreign languages, IB SL courses can be 2 years. Such is the case in my district's HS. 2. IBO has never bothered to "vet" its courses with universities to affirm that the content is indeed university level therefore... 3. Universities hear "standard" level and they don't believe it is college level material. Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY —Preceding unsigned comment added by La mome (talk • contribs)

Uh oh. Looks like LaMome is having a meltdown. Personally, I think we have reached quite a nice consensus on what can and cannot be included in the US section on the IB DP up to this point. The only other aspect which I don't think has been covered and which others previously agreed should be covered is: cost. I'm off on a little R & R right now, maybe I can compose a short, factual section later today which will be acceptable to all. If you want, I'll paste it here first before inserting it into the article - it probably should go under the overall section as IBO's site lists its costs in dollars/pounds. Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 14:01, 9 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

No meltdown, just copying and pasting previous exchanges. Trying to keep things civil, which seems to have worked. In case you missed it: "One of the core etiquette policies on wikipedia is assume good faith. It's important not to make accusations of other editors without strong evidence. Regardless of whether you believe you may know an editor outside of wikipedia, they have as much right to edit as anyone else and you need to assume they are here to improve the project and resist from bringing along prejudices that may well be proven misplaced." --neon white talk 18:44, 9 June 2009 (UTC)

Cheers La mome (talk) 21:14, 11 June 2009 (UTC)

I need to assume no such thing. La Mome's actions have demonstrated that her motives are an attempt to censor/ban my efforts to improve the article, not to improve the article herself. ObserverNY (talk) 00:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Maybe you don't need to assume La mome's good faith, but it would help if you did, please. People often live up to your expectations of them, don't you think? You might think La mome is editing in bad faith, you might have evidence that she is, but you can still treat her* like she is working constructively. If you do that persistently, even in the face of what you perceive as continued bad practice on her part, I wouldn't be surprised if she started acting in a way you find more acceptable. At the very least you'd have a stronger case if it did, unfortunately, end in a dispute.

*'her' - 'La' is feminine isn't it?

Ewen (talk) 05:57, 12 June 2009 (UTC)

Ewen,

Do I think "people" live up to my expectations? Only if you are referring to raising my own children. Or as a classroom teacher, if one holds a certain standard and expects students to meet them, then yes. I found this most evident in the classroom when a teacher would say, "This is an Honors class. I EXPECT better results and behaviour from you than from my Regents level class." However, I find that a rather odd question when it comes to anonymous Internet personas. If the individual in question is the adult whom I think it is, then you can't change a zebra's stripes, no matter how much mud you throw at its hide. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 13:40, 12 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Outing

Hi Lisa

In this edit you mentioned an editor's real-life name, which you really shouldn't do. I've seen a more recent edit from you, in which you mention that you won't reveal the identity of an editor you've encountered in real-life, so I'm putting the previous incident down to a slip - but please! be careful not to do that.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 21:51, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

TFWOR - yes, I used her first name. It was a slip. And you know my name, don't you? Should I scold you and tell you to only refer to me as ObserverNY? The woman is a stalker, she has stalked me all over the Internet, she is a vicious ideologue and I have been battling with her for three years now. I have worked to improve this article. I corrected the worldwide # of IB DP programmes, I added the current number of IB schools in each country, I added the Cost section, I updated the UCAS table, I clarified the Certificates and IB's policy on assessment and I helped to eliminate the POV in the UK section. What has Tvor65 added in a constructive vein? ObserverNY (talk) 22:58, 27 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Hi Lisa

I use your first name because you use your first name - if you'd prefer I didn't then of course I'd honour that.

I mentioned this issue because another editor raised it - I assumed it was a genuine slip, but promised I'd raise it with you. I'm not scolding you - merely warning you to be careful.

Cheers, This flag once was red^propaganda_deeds 23:10, 27 June 2009 (UTC)

Dispute resolution

I'll watch the dispute resolution process as it unfolds, and chip in as I see fit. I expect it will be a fair process, but I know there are polarised opinions on both sides so if anyone says anything I disagree with (and which someone else isn't addressing) then I'll make myself heard.

Ewen (talk) 18:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Thank you, Ewen. Just so you know, I'm fine with the article as it currently stands, in every regard. ObserverNY (talk) 18:57, 1 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

It is not a good thing to be doing a lot of edits which are causing friction during a dispute process. You are making the same sort of flammatory challenges now in edits as you were in talk. Disputes are a time to cool off for everyone not to engage in creating more friction. I hope you take heed of what I am saying. Thank you. --Candy (talk) 23:02, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me? I haven't made a single edit since TFOWR announced that he/she was taking the matter to dispute resolution so I have no idea what you are talking about. Please stop with all of your accusations and allegations, seriously. You have still never apologized for your "sexist" charge and I'd cool off a lot faster if you showed some common courtesy. ObserverNY (talk) 23:30, 1 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Neutrality

Hi ObserverNY

I honestly think it's not as simple as one editor or one side being problematic - WP:BATTLE implies far deeper issues than that. If I'd thought the problem could be solved by looking at one editor I'd have taken a different path. I think many of us - myself included - have become so entrenched in our views (including neutrality, in my case!) that we're getting bogged down unnecessarily.

Hopefully fresh eyes will change that, and I'm hoping that by posting at WP:AN we'll get fresh eyes. If nothing else, some admins will have an idea what the problems stem from the next time there's a problem.

In the grand scheme of things, things at IB DP ain't so bad - some of the nationalist debates around Wikipedia are far, far worse ;-)

Part of the problem is the lack of consistency throughout Wikipedia - some articles have very few editors, and it's easy to be WP:BOLD; others have long-established regulars, and there's a local protocol to follow when making changes. IB DP falls somewhere in between - which is possibly the worst position for it to be in.

Stick with it, and don't worry about canvassing - or be tempted to canvass yourself. See how it pans out at WP:AN and move on. In the past I've been warned, I've been blocked, and I've moved on. It's all part of the experience!

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 01:01, 2 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Josephine, uh, I mean TFOWR, ;-)

I am grateful for the mandatory break. I read your commentary on the IBDP talk page, but apparently other editors don't have the same honesty and character as you do as I see the Fees section has already had the wording changed and was moved back down to the bottom. C'est la vie. I'm done with Wikipedia. Other than encountering you and Ewen, it has been a horrible experience and one I don't care to repeat. I hope you will be vigilent in preventing the extreme pro-IB bias that I first encountered in the article from re-appearing. The article should not revert to an advertisement billing IB as superior to AP and the A-Levels. Nor should Tvor65 and LaMome be permitted to load it up with anti-Conservative/religious propaganda. Facts are facts, but IB and its supporters work very hard to suppress ones that some people may not agree with. I do think the IB mission statement should be included under the Overview, perhaps in a box, make it pretty, maybe in italics?

What bothers me most about IB is the fact that it bills itself as a programme for whirled peas yet many of its supporters are extremist, violent, exhibit abberant behavior, and will stop at nothing to "save" IB. I mean seriously, "death threats" over IB? http://www.commondreams.org/headlines06/0314-02.htm The ACLU? (After the suit was initiated, one of the anti-IB Board members wore a T-shirt to a Board meeting that read Atheists Communists Liberals United....hehehehe, well I thought it was funny) At the time this story broke, I was working as a freelance journalist for my local paper. I had already been included in Jay Mathews' book at that point. I wrote a letter to the editor of the local Pittsburgh paper which resulted in a couple of the Board members getting in contact with me. I did send them out documentation I had the good sense to print off the web before it disappeared which proved Ian Hill's role with the Earth Charter. One of the USC plaintiffs on another forum actually accused me of getting her fired from her job as an adjunct Professor and causing her to drive her car into the side of her house! Jay Mathews called me "the livliest and most intelligent IB critic in the country", but also capable of causing a stroke..... LOL! And let's not forget, IBO's Director General George Walker mocked me (Mrs. Long Island) in his 2005 plenary speech.

If IB really DID stand for peace and a more "rigorous" education, was honest about its UNESCO affiliations and made its material available online for free the way the College Board does, I wouldn't have the same passion to oppose it as I do. My country is no longer the America I grew up in. Our President is in bed with the globalists and our Constitution is being shredded. Already, stimulus money is being funnelled to IB. I'm just a middle-class Mom trying to fight the New World Order. Dodging that red laser dot on my forehead is getting old.

All the best, Lisa

TFOWR I changed my mind. Now that the IBDP page is heavily stacked with IB teachers, I have an obligation to provide input when appropriate. ObserverNY (talk) 11:55, 3 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I'm glad to hear that - your input, or, rather, input from a non-IB perspective, is valuable. I don't think the article is any more stacked now than it was before (well, perhaps a little, and I'm possibly partly responsible for that...), just that editors' backgrounds are now more public. I believe most editors will be able to maintain a neutral point of view, and I'm hoping Uncle G (at least) will continue to monitor the article and beat us back into line if we step over it!

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 13:00, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Fee section discussion

Hi TFOWR- Listen, the Fees section has been changed quite substantially, and in my opinion, badly. Since Candorwein objects so mightily to anything even mentioning Fees, why don't we create a section that is only titled Application and Authorization? The references provided to document the process will lead readers to the fees.

Schools interested in applying to offer the IB Diploma Programme complete a two-year application process. During the application process, the IB requires candidate schools to send staff for IB training (suggested removal)and to pay an annual fee.[citation needed](citation should be Applications part A & B which clearly spell out this requirement) At the end of the application process, IB conducts an authorization visit. [44] (incorrect information, annual fee applies AFTER the authorization process, should read, "After IB grants authorization, an annual...: During the authorization process the annual fee guarantees access to the Online Curriculum Centre and support from the IB. [44]

(The entire next sentence is a duplication of above) Each IB World School pays an annual fee that allows access to the IB's Online Curriculum Center, and the IB's support center. [45] Annual IB fees also include student registration fees and individual Diploma subject examination fees.[44]

I am putting this here for your consideration because I don't need the "others" getting all in a huff. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 15:20, 3 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Hi, ObserverNY. I think your suggestion for the Fees section being renamed and reworded looks pretty good. If I understand correctly, you're proposing deleting everything that's underlined above, is that correct? If this is the case, then the passage below shows how it would read (I didn't include the locations for the citations yet, but we'd still include those, of course):

Schools interested in applying to offer the IB Diploma Programme complete a two-year application process. During the application process, the IB requires candidate schools to send staff to IB training. At the end of the application process, IB conducts an authorization visit. Annual fees guarantee access to the Online Curriculum Centre and support from the IB. Other annual IB fees include student registration fees and individual Diploma subject examination fees.

I would only suggest a minor rewording and inclusion of a reference to IBIS, which is used by IB Coordinators (if you're interested, you can see a description of it here [4]):

Schools interested in applying to offer the IB Diploma Programme complete a two-year application process, during which the candidate schools are required to send their faculty and staff to IB training. At the end of the application process, IB conducts an authorization visit. Annual fees guarantee support from the IB, access to the Online Curriculum Centre, and access to IBIS (a secure website for IB coordinators). Other annual IB fees include student registration fees and individual Diploma subject examination fees.

We might also throw in a note to describe what the OCC is for (I thought this existed somewhere, but I don't see it now), something along the lines of, "a password-protected website for IB teachers that includes a discussion forum and other instructional resources." What do you think? Regards, CinchBug | Talk 17:03, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Greetings Cinchbug,

Please see if you agree with this tweak:

Schools interested in becoming authorized by IB to offer the IB Diploma Programme enagage in a two-year application process. During the application process candidate schools are required to send staff to IB training. At the end of the application process, IB conducts an authorization visit. Annual fees guarantee support from IB and access to the Online Curriculum Centre and IBIS, (password protected IB websites). Other annual IB fees include student registration fees and individual Diploma subject examination fees. (Consider adding line about online training and some courses now available)

I would argue the "security" of the OCC and IBIS, as if you read IB's legal notice, it absolves IB of any responsibility if student information somehow escapes its network.

You did a nice job on the subjects section.

ObserverNY (talk) 21:22, 3 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Thanks! Sure, I think that looks pretty good. We might later also include some other brief information about teacher training, may including a link to a place/places that are offering the training, such as some of the UWC sites. But we can determine if that's either useful or completely unworthy of inclusion later.

With regards to the security question, the OCC is just password-protected, not "secure." Since you may not have ever seen the inside, it houses IB publications, reports, and resources, news about curriculum review cycles, changes in a given policy, dates for meetings, and so on, resources that are uploaded by teachers (like ideas for how to cover material from a particular topic or suggestions for IA portfolios), vehicles for teachers to provide feedback on the exams from the current examination session, individual discussion forums for each course, and so forth. I don't think I've ever seen any student information anywhere on there, but I suppose someone could upload a student's work as an exemplar or to ask advice from other teachers about how it should be evaluated (like an EE, for example). I've never seen anything like that, though, and if someone did feel a need to do that, I would expect them to sanitize it so that the student's name and any other identifying information couldn't be seen--otherwise the teacher could get in a bit of trouble!

As far as IBIS goes, it is a "secure" website (probably precisely because it does contain information about students). By secure, they (and I) mean that it uses an encryption protocol to protect information on the site and during upload/download. You can tell if something is a secure website if there is a little "lock" image to the right of the web address in your browser (at least that's how it looks in MSIE, which is mostly what I use). If you've ever bought something online from a reputable retailer like, say, Amazon, then you'd see the same thing. You can go to that link I gave you and click on the login button (right-middle part of the screen), and you'll see the lock appear as part of the login process.

As far as their legal disclaimer goes, I'm sure you're right that they don't want to get sued if some programmer or DP coordinator screws something up, or someone hacks the system! It sounds like fairly standard butt-covering, though. ;)

Since I agree with you that folks are paying for this and should be aware that there's a cost involved, I also think it would be reasonable to help give people some small idea of what they're getting for their dollars/pounds/Euros. That's why I thought it would be a good idea to include a very brief parenthetical "blurb" about what the OCC and IBIS were each for. Otherwise they'd just be two more of those wacky IB acronyms--and Heaven knows we've already got too many of those! Talk about an acronym-rich organization! LOL!

What do you think? Regards, CinchBug | Talk 22:14, 3 July 2009 (UTC)

Cinchbug::

I am treading lightly because it was an editing war over the Fees section which got me banned for 24 hours. I was the one to create the section. Originally, there was a link to the various IB teacher workshops, which I thought would provide readers with an insight as the the cost. I was battled on everything I sought to list. Perhaps it would be helpful to you if you dug around in the history to see what fellow editor Ewen originally re-formatted for me, but which ended up being ruthlessly hacked to death. ObserverNY (talk) 23:26, 3 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

p.s. - yes, all of those IB acronyms ARE rather, er, uh, annoying. I certainly have no objection to spelling out what OCC and IBIS stand for. Btw, I know there's a little "secret" forum in the OCC because someone in there linked my website. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 00:19, 4 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Nah, I'm just kidding about the acronyms, they really don't bother me at all and, in fact, I think they're pretty convenient. But they sometimes give teachers who are new to the program some difficulty--it's a big proram and when they're trying to learn the ins and outs of their curriculum, IA requirements, and so forth, all those acronyms can be a lot to absorb! Folks seem to get used to them fairly quickly, though, at least in my experience.

With regards to your website being linked somewhere in the OCC, I'm not sure that this means there's a "secret" forum somewhere. I would think that someone probably just linked to it in a thread on one of the course forums. I mostly stick to the various math forums and don't recall having seen anything there.

I did follow some of what's been happening here over the last month or so, but not in great detail. I'll go back and look at what Ewen had originally suggested and what transpired after that. (Ewen is also an IB teacher, right?) As far as the statement that you and I have been tossing around, I don't see why anyone would object to it, especially if we can include some small description of what the OCC and IBIS sites are used for. Hopefully TFOWR will take a look at it and provide another opinion.

Anyway, Happy Independence Day! Regards, CinchBug | Talk 13:31, 4 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cinchbug,

Yes, Happy Birthday America! Thank you.

What I meant by "secret" is that both the OCC and IBIS are proprietary websites. Only those in the "IB Club" are privy to them. This, in addition to the IB forcing schools to buy IB course guides before even being able to review what the syllabus is. When it comes to public schools funded by taxpayer money, this lack of transparency is disturbing. Combine that with the lack of communication between school administrators, Boards of Ed and parents, and you've got a situation where "the powers that be" tell the public, "Trust us, it's great.... oh yeah, but we have to buy the whole shebang before you can really know what it is. Until then you simply have to believe all of our IB talking points". Despite the preponderance of IB teachers that seem to have rallied to the IBDP article, I think it needs to be kept in mind that Wikipedia should not be used as an "advertisement" for IB and that there are a lot more parents and taxpayers and most of all children, who might want to know more about the "programmes". I appreciate the fact that you disclosed your position as an IB teacher right up front. I did not appreciate the fact that I had to nudge that disclosure out of Ewen or that LaMome conducted a personal vendetta against me and only AFTER she got me banned did she disclose that she too, is an IB teacher. That said, I am willing to compromise on a great many things, as long as the facts are presented in a fair and balanced manner. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 15:48, 4 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Recommend being cautious

With regards to your comment at La mome's Talk page, okay, I accept that it wasn't directed at me. No problem there!

At first I thought "LI" was a misspelling and was meant to imply "little," but I'm fairly certain that I've figured out what LI actually means. As such, I might recommend that you be very cautious with regards to WP:OUTING.

I am neither your friend nor your foe, but my purpose here does not include the goal of seeing you banned. I hope that you keep that in mind.

Please be careful.

Regards, CinchBug | Talk 01:00, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

I'd echo that. By all means be curious as to who other editors are - just don't publish your speculations. This isn't a warning, or an attempt to "tell you off" - just an urging that you be more cautious. Like CinchBug my goal is not to see you prevented from editing. I've said before, and I'll repeat it here, that the IB articles benefit from your input - as they benefit from input from pro-IB editors - so please don't take actions that might jeopardise your continued input!

Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 11:03, 10 July 2009 (UTC)

Time to move on

I've had a "drop dead date" hanging over me for some time, and as addictive as Wikipedia editing is, I will not have the time anymore. There are other articles I'm committed to helping with, and whatever time I can carve from my schedule will be devoted to those. I would have stayed with the IB series, but don't enjoy being admonished, so it's best to leave. Happy editing!! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:13, 17 July 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper - I hope your "drop dead date" looked like Sophia Loren (or Johnny Depp) and am glad to see you have returned. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 16:42, 19 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

TK88 - many thanks for your help and sanity. Sorry I've been just lurking and missed backing you up over your admonishment. Our loss is other articles' gain! Ewen (talk) 20:16, 19 July 2009 (UTC)

3RR

Just to let you know, you've hit 3RR on IB Diploma Programme. You may want to stop your reverting. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 00:43, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Harlan Hanson article

ObserverNY, yes, I saw your note at the article and posted a reply a few moments ago. Regards, • CinchBug • 14:36, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

table practice

Country	Recognition
Australia	In Australia, the IB Diploma Programme is taught in 59 of approximately 2,800 secondary schools. Although every university in Australia recognizes the IB Diploma, entry criteria often differ between universities, with some universities accepting students on their IB score alone, while others require the score to be converted using a conversion scale. In most states, this conversion scale is based on the Equivalent National Tertiary Entry Rank or 'ENTER'.
Canada	IB North America publishes a IB Recognition Policy Summary for Canadian Universities. As of June, 2009, there are 132 schools in Canada which offer the IB Diploma Programme.
Finland	The first school which offered IB Diploma Programme education in Finland was Helsingin Suomalainen Yhteiskoulu. The first class graduated in spring 1993. Currently 15 schools in Finland offer the IB Diploma Programme education.
France	According to the "Décret du Ministère de l'Education Nationale" (23 August 1985), the IB Diploma Programme is one of the foreign diplomas which allow students access into French universities. There are 11 schools in France which offer the IB Diploma Programme.
Germany	Germany sets certain conditions for the IB Diploma to be validated (a foreign language at minimum A2 Standard Level, Mathematics standard level minimum, and at least one Science or Mathematics at Higher Level). Recently, German International Baccalaureate students in select schools are able to earn a 'bilingual diploma' which gains them access to German universities. Half of the classes in this program are held in German.
Hong Kong	IB Diploma Programme students may apply to Hong Kong universities as non-JUPAS (Joint University Programmes Admissions System). JUPAS is the system enabling applications to nine tertiary institutions in Hong Kong similar to the UCAS system in the United Kingdom. Currently the People's Republic of China does not formally recognize the IB Diploma Programme for university qualification. As of June 2009, 14 schools offer the IB Diploma Programme in Hong Kong.
India	In India, the only schools which are allowed to take on the IB programme are the international schools which are privately funded. As of June, 2009, there are 59 schools in India offering the IB programme.
Iran	Only one school in Iran, the Tehran International School, is authorized to offer the IB Diploma Programme. Iran's Diploma Programme for each subject area has three levels. These levels are numerically represented as level 1, 2 or 3. (1) is equivalent to an SL (Standard level) course which is considered an honors course. (2) is equivalent to HL (Higher level) courses which provide college credit with a score of 7, and (3) is called Olympiad course.
Pakistan	One school operates the IB Diploma Programme course, called The International School in Karachi. A number of Colleges and Universities recognize the IB Diploma Programme and accept students.
Peru	The IB Diploma is not considered equivalent to the national end-of-school examination scheme, usually because the IB Diploma is not as specialised, or because certain subjects are not offered. However, in Peru, various universities allow direct entrance to students who have successfully completed the Diploma.There are 19 IB Diploma schools in Peru.
Russia	In Russia the IB Diploma is accepted in Universities (like MGU and MGMO), but conditions are set very high. For example, to study economics in MGU the IB student has to achieve an overall score of at least 36 points, including 6s in higher level subjects.
Singapore	In the 2008-2009 prospectus, the National University of Singapore (NUS) recognises the IB Diploma Programme as a high school qualification for Singapore universities. University requirements are as follows: 3 HL subjects with scores of 5 or better, 2 SL subjects with scores of 4 or better, and a grade of 4 or better in English A, Standard Level. There are 14 schools in Singapore that offer the IB Diploma Programme.
Spain	As of June, 2009, 46 IB schools offer the Diploma Programme in Spain. The International Preparatory Schools are ranked and recognised by the Spanish Ministry of Education and Ciencias (MEC) and all teach a minimum level of Spanish language, science, literature, geography and history. The curriculum also varies from one international school to another.
Taiwan	There are two IB World Schools in Taiwan offering the Diploma Programme, Taipei American School and Taipei European School, the first of which was authorized in 1981.
Turkey	The IB Diploma is not considered equivalent to the national end-of-school examination scheme, usually because the IB Diploma is not as specialised, or because certain subjects are not offered. There are 21 IB Diploma schools in Turkey.
United Kingdom	There are 189 schools in the UK with the IB Diploma Programme. The UCAS publish tariff tables specifically for UK University entrance for IB Diploma graduates.
United States	As of June 2009, there are 670 schools offering the IB Diploma Programme in the United States. Colorado and Texas passed legislation requiring universities to adopt and implement policy which awards college credit to students who have successfully completed the IB Diploma Programme.

/>

United Kingdom

There are 189 schools in the UK with the IB Diploma Programme. The UCAS publish tariff tables specifically for UK University entrance for IB Diploma graduates.

United States

As of June 2009, there are 670 schools offering the IB Diploma Programme in the United States. Colorado and Texas passed legislation requiring universities to adopt and implement policy which awards college credit to students who have successfully completed the IB Diploma Programme.

3RR

Looks like you've violated 3RR.

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Baccalaureate&diff=305338036&oldid=305274204

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Baccalaureate&diff=305256555&oldid=305197091

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Baccalaureate&diff=305256555&oldid=305197091

http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=International_Baccalaureate&diff=305055884&oldid=304995166

La mome (talk) 21:13, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

You have not violated 3RR, as those diffs are not contained within a 24-hour period. Nevertheless, you should avoid edit warring in the future. The page has been protected for 3 days; during that period, you should resolve your dispute with La mome on the talk page. -- King of ♥ ♦ ♣ ♠ 21:54, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Hi King of Hearts - I'm not fond of "playing the victim" but I do want you to understand the history between myself and Tvor65 and LaMome. These two tag team me in the IB article series. No matter what kind of edit I do, they undo it, complain about it, alter it, etc. I have no problem with you locking the IB page until my birthday. ;-) But if you look at who created the Cardiff line and how many "reversals" there were between these two, it exceeds 3RR. LaMome starts edit wars with me without discussion and then goes running to an admin to report me. It's really rather pathetic and immature. Btw, I attempted to negotiate WP:TRUCE with both of them to no avail. Thanks for your intervention. ObserverNY (talk) 03:22, 1 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

You have been blocked from editing for a period of 48 hours in accordance with Wikipedia's blocking policy for edit warring on International Baccalaureate. Please stop. You are welcome to make useful contributions after the block expires. If you believe this block is unjustified you may contest this block by adding the text {{unblock|Your reason here}} below. OhanaUnited^{Talk page} 06:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

This user's unblock request has been reviewed by an administrator, who declined the request. Other administrators may also review this block, but should not override the decision without good reason (see the blocking policy).

ObserverNY (block log • active blocks • global blocks • contribs • deleted contribs • filter log • creation log • change block settings • unblock • checkuser (log))

---

Request reason:

hello OhanaUnited - I want you to know that LaMome and Tvor65 are the two who START every single edit war with me and if you look back through the histories of IBDP and IB you will see this for yourself. They tag team me, rush in to change ANYTHING I write, and are pushing an extreme POV. Example from yesterday: 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 does she get away with accusing me of creating a table to move a section (which I DIDN'T move, I asked for discussion to moving it which of course La Mome objected to, she objects to everything I suggest) - that's certainly not "good faith" editing". Secondly, no one is preventing her from contributing to History. Whatever a "tabloid" is in her mind never pertains to her contributions, only mine. The day before yesterday, she made a mad rush jumping back and forth between both articles, trying to split very deep discussion and totally disrupting everything. I am sick and tired of her nanny-nanny-boo boo tattle telling garbage. I don't run and report her, I keep hoping she will "get better". But she doesn't. And Tvor65 is right there at her side to undo any edit I put back and then LaMome jumps in and does the same. If the admins at Wikipedia can't see that, then they need glasses. I apologize for the cat litter comment, but LaMome really puts me over the edge.

Decline reason:

Your request to be unblocked is declined because it does not address the reason for your block or because it is inadequate for other reasons. To be unblocked, you must convince administrators either (a) that the block was made in error or (b) that the block is no longer necessary because you understand what you are blocked for and you will not repeat that behavior or otherwise disrupt Wikipedia again and you will make productive contributions instead. Please read our guide to appealing blocks for more information. Toddst1 (talk) 13:37, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

---

If you want to make any further unblock requests, please read the guide to appealing blocks first, then use the {{unblock}} template again. If you make too many unconvincing or disruptive unblock requests, you may be prevented from editing this page until your block has expired. Do not remove this unblock review while you are blocked.

Comment: unblock request was posted by ObserverNY but was invisible due an open HTML comment immediately preceeding it. I closed the tag, and ObserverNY's signature became mine ;-) Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 12:17, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Hey there TFOWR - Yeah, I was kinda wondering why there would be an edit conflict on my own talk page, thanks for that. I had missed your whole "exchange" with Tvor65 on your page until now ... LOL... I don't think you're naive, I just think you're the sensitive sort who doesn't like confrontation or anger, and that's meant as a compliment, not an insult. I found the idea of a "topic block" an interesting concept. I would imagine this sort of warring also goes on under topics like abortion or other issues where there are two decidedly opposing camps. But you see, that's what I find the ultimate irony about IB. Here this programme is supposed to promote peace, inquiry and global citizenship and when anyone dares to inquire about details of the programme, they are immediately labeled an "opponent". The lengths IB and its rabid-like supporters go to to obfuscate information about its programmes is quite disturbing, especially considering what schools pay to have it. Here's an article that I think should be referenced under "reception" when I get unbanned: http://www.telegraph.co.uk/education/educationnews/5949536/Parents-furious-as-new-diploma-leaves-private-school-pupils-floundering.html Maybe if you're bored you could cobble together a sentence to refer to this article which Tvor65 and LaMome can't protest as "tabloid". In my daughter's school, the same thing has been happening to kids - they don't get in to their 1st or 2nd choice schools even with the full diploma and they feel extremely let down.

I'm off to the beach. Have a good weekend! ObserverNY (talk) 17:49, 1 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Oh, before I go - doesn't Truthkeeper's table look nice? Do you see why I called on Truthkeeper for input before the two IB lulubirds jumped in to object? Maybe you don't know this, but I have worked as a proofreader and a local journalist and have editing experience. I also have some artistic talent and an eye for page layout, but I immediately get accused of trying to format the table for "nefarious" purposes. My widdle feelings are hurt. boo hoo.......ok, not really, you see crap like that just makes me angry. Many of my friends have oft remarked, "Oh boy, you don't want to get on her bad side!" I have no problem talking out legitimate objections and trying to reach a compromise. Those two will compromise on NOTHING and pick on EVERYTHING! So if it does end up in a "topic ban", then it must be all three. LaMome is Tvor65's enabler. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 18:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY