Talk:Harlan Hanson

Shh...these users are observing The Great Wikipedia Dramaout from July 18-23 and are probably busy creating content or WikiGnoming. If you have a question, please leave it on the talk page but it is possible that this user may not get back to you until the Dramaout has finished. Join us! Signup is here. To include this template on your talk page use {{User:Berean Hunter/shh!We'reBusy}}

Some links to information about Hanson

Here's his obituary from the New York Times. It looks like a pretty good place to start. Regards, • CinchBug • 01:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks, I'll format it & add to the reflist. The sentences I've put up are only placeholders and obviously should be rewritten. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(EC-already!)

Geez, you guys are lightening fast! This would have taken me hours, if not days...This is fun. I feel like I've moved in a brand new house and it's time to decorate! Bring on the design team!

http://apcentral.collegeboard.com/apc/public/courses/21502.html

http://professionals.collegeboard.com/profdownload/pdf/RR%2086-6.PDF

Alec Peterson's Schools across frontiers.

It was forty years?! I thought it was 25.

La mome (talk) 01:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

What would you all think about changing "References" to "Footnotes" and then use the same general footnote format I used on the Group 5 article (and most of the other subject group pages)? Here is what it would look like. I thought it worked pretty well, and should in this case, too, since we'll be citing the same sources mulitple times. What do you think? • CinchBug • 01:30, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for the spelling correction, 7! Regards, • CinchBug • 01:33, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

We need a reflist to start w/out footnotes. Somehow I've already lost the NYT ref. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:40, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, good point. But since we have four editors working on the article right now, I want to see if we can agree to the general method for citations before we get too far into this. We can use the NYT article as cited in the references, but then we could still open a "Footnote" section above it and use {{reflist|2}}. The result looks nice and clean (IMHO). • CinchBug • 01:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

All right, nice! • CinchBug • 01:46, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, please don't beat me up if I don't get the refs right. La mome (talk) 01:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Speaking of chickens, do we know which came first in his life, AP or IB? I think AP, no? La mome (talk) 01:56, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Lol. My reading of the sources suggests that he was already in charge of AP when he did his work with IB. So, AP, yes. • CinchBug • 01:59, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ok, so it seems that my forte would be decorating and TK would be good at clean up--I bet your house is immaculate. (Please don't take it the wrong way) I am sorry, I just can't get the formatting, even with the cheat sheet and citation templates...

So, I'll move AP up?

La mome (talk) 02:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, go ahead and start reorganizing. Just wanted to get something on the page. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:11, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Citation Format

Can I get a reading on the citation format I'm using? I haven't used it to reference a news article before, only printed books, so I'm not sure it's right. If no one knows, then I'll check the help files. It's the very first citation in the footnotes section. Thanks, • CinchBug • 02:00, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Don't worry, I'll clean up the refs. Go ahead and start adding the text if you want! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:05, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Adding references

The reason I like to use a working references list is that the references can be formatted and "parked" in the references section. Then when it's time to add a footnote, simply copy/paste the existing reference between the ref tags in the text. Once the article is finished the working refs can be deleted. I've added the Peterson book, but have left out the page range. Will add that later. If you'd like, I'll go ahead and add the other refs, and then let you guys work on the article. I'm supposed to be doing something else at the moment! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:04, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay. You don't like the other citation style? In any event, I'm getting ready to sign off for the evening, too. It's a good start, though! • CinchBug • 02:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Which style? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:10, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

No, no, never mind. I misunderstood. On a different topic, have you come across anything about his World War II service? The NYT obit says he served in the U.S. and in Europe, but there's no mention of what he did (was he a pilot? air intelligence? operations officer?) and when his service ended. Regards, • CinchBug • 02:23, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, a few more to add, but there are plenty of formatted refs & it's a good stub. I'll add a couple of templates (if needed) and then disappear. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I am too pooped to pop. This was fun though. Thanks for starting this article. I don't think I'll be around much tomorrow early. Maybe much later.

RIP, Harpo.

La mome (talk) 02:42, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Working with multiples

I've set up some of the refs as multiples. For example, the NYT source no longer has to be cited. Instead between the ref tags add this text : <ref name=Saxon1/> which indicates the source has been formatted and will automatically generate a footnote for the same source. I use the system of author last name and the numeral 1 as attributes for the multiples. If you look through the text, you'll note I've set up a couple of multiples for now. Will try a little more later. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:45, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Looks good. I added a link to the article at Wikipedia:The_Great_Wikipedia_Dramaout/Log#Articles_created. See you tomorrow! • CinchBug • 02:53, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Formatting

I've collapsed some of the sections for now, which can be re-added if necessary. Plenty of material to work from. Thanks to La mome for suggesting this article! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 03:52, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

WOW!!

It's amazing how much can be done in such a short period of time! Thank you all-TK, CB and lucky #7! Love the dramaout banner! I haven't found much more on Harpo. I am surprised College Board doesn't have a lot. Maybe he's in some kind of "Who's Who" book for educators? I don't have much time to do anything on here today, but I'll check back later. Ciao for now La mome (talk) 12:07, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

TK, it's the Lohnes reference from The German Quarterly. While the reference right now lists the entire article, the only relevant fact I was able to get out of it was that there were 93 schools offering AP in 1965 (which is more accurate than saying simply "less than 100"), which is on page 421. Harlan is referenced a few times near the end of the article, but not in any way that would help us expand his biography. But I'm still looking for other stuff. I'll put a {{fact}} tag at the appropriate point in the article that you can remove once it's correct. Thanks for your help! • CinchBug • 15:50, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Excellent, nice job, TK. I was trying to use the <ref name=Saxon1/> type of format that you used earlier, but I couldn't get it to work. I'll need to read up on that, I suppose... Anyway, thanks! • CinchBug • 15:58, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) An explanation of multiples here but trial and error is the best. The ref names format with or without quotation marks. Do this: for the first occurrence set up the <ref name=> markup without the slash, (very important!), then the angle bracket, followed by the entire formatted ref and close with a ref tag like this</ref>. For subsequent occurrences use only the <ref name=/> attribute with the slash (won't work on subsequent occurrences if the slash isn't present prior to the angle bracket). Hope this helps and is understandable. Adding to the above post -- your mistake was to add the slash on the first occurrence (I didn't make that clear last night) and not to add the entire citation because it was a first occurrence. Cheers Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:06, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Ah, I see now. It's not you who didn't make it clear, it is I who didn't bother to look more closely at what you had done. I knew there had to be a simple answer and it makes complete sense now, though. Thanks! • CinchBug • 16:19, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Note also that you can always label a particular reference (see how I have done this here for Fox's article), so that you can have many different references (labeled with different names) that you can use repeatedly. I learned all this here.

Nice work on Hanson's article, everyone! Tvor65 (talk) 16:27, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

More references

I don't have access to JSTOR, but this might be useful if anyone can access it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:13, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm looking at another journal that references Hanson right now, but will check that one out afterwards. Regards, • CinchBug • 16:31, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Nice job with that reference, TK. It had a little more background about what Hanson was doing at the time and led me to do more searches for him in the same publication, which bore further fruit.

I suspect that he was, in fact, on the Committee for Examiners of AP German for all of the intervening years (until he took over the directorship of AP, that is), and this is "somewhat" alluded to in the second reference I found (writte by Hanson, himself). But he never comes right out and says it, so I refrained from saying anything like that. Regards, • CinchBug • 19:24, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Great. Not having access to JSTOR irritates me; but happy that you can retrieve the info. I won't get back over here until much later, but it's coming along nicely. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:51, 23 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, I can appreciate that frustration. On the bright side, I've added two new open references, though I haven't mined them for information to insert in the article yet (there is definitely some good info there, though). Also, I found a potential gold mine of early info on Hanson and his work with the Office of Advance Standing at Harvard in this link! We'll need to check to see if those two books are in Google Books, of course. Regards, • CinchBug • 01:36, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

You are such the supersleuths! I can't wait to read the rest of "The view from one seat in the boat." I am pretty sure I have access to JSTOR, now if I could just remember those passwords... Anyway, so far so great! I have a lot of reading to do.

Cheers! La mome (talk) 02:29, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

All in a day's work! I also just added Hanson to the Harvard University article as a notable alumnus and to the List of Harvard University people#Academics. That should help us eliminate the {{Orphan}} tag. Regards, • CinchBug • 02:56, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

I just added a bunch of references from The Harvard Crimson. I went to one of The Harvard Crimson links and put "Harlan P. Hanson" in the search box, so another search with "Harlan Hanson" or "Office of Advanced Standing," etc., may deliver some new stuff. I didn't bring every single reference to him over here, as at least some weren't relevant to the article, but it's probably worth having another set of eyes go over there and check out what they've got--I may have missed something.

Also, I'm not sure about his graduation year from Harvard now. He seems to be in the Class of '46 sometimes, and in the Class of '48 at other times. I'm also not so sure about when he earned his Ph.D. Hopefully we can iron all that out. Regards, • CinchBug • 18:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

The Ph.D was 1959 as per NYT I think. If not, I'll reread and find that date. The war years classes at Harvard were a little odd and particularly the Class of 48. A lot of students left for war from various classes (46/47/48) and upon return were put in Class of 48 which was an amalgam of multiple years, which may or may not be documented. Also, Harvard publishes anniversary bios which I tried to access but the one for 48 is not available online. Might be able to get one though, but we're really veering into OR. So, for now use Class of 48 with the understanding that it probably was 46 but the War intervened and so graduation was pushed to 48. I'll access the Crimson and have a look as soon as I get the chance. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:02, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I see what you mean. The Crimson identifies him as 46 in an article written in 48 about final exams. I'm fairly certain we should stick to the 48 date, but that was a way for the Crimson to acknowledge members of the "amalgamated" class of 48. I'll poke around and see if any of this is sourced, although not sure how relevant it is. Love the articles in the Crimson -- the one I pulled up about Hanson as an advisor claimed his method of advising was to take the student to "get lubricated" because he didn't believe students should study too hard! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:17, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Yeah, that was pretty funny. He, however, apparently didn't think so and responded to that article--I think the response was in an article titled, "Think and Drink" (or maybe "Drink and Think"). I'm guessing you're right about the class year, in that he was probably originally in the Class of '46 but the war intervened and he actually graduated in '48.

I'm also trying to find other relevant places we can link this page to (poor English, I know). I've included him at these two articles: List_of_people_from_Wisconsin and Madison_wisconsin#Notable_Madisonians. Regards, • CinchBug • 19:25, 24 July 2009 (UTC)

Did some googling. I'll park these here--let me know what you think--

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=cuMLAAAAIBAJ&sjid=U1gDAAAAIBAJ&pg=3616,2291044&dq=harlan+hanson

Harpo supervised a project to create “College Placement and Credit by Examination" a directory of colleges and universities offering credit and placement for AP and CLEP exams.

http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=9OkTAAAAIBAJ&sjid=yPoDAAAAIBAJ&pg=4343,5598410&dq=harlan+hanson

http://select.nytimes.com/gst/abstract.html?res=FA0D12FD3A591A7A93C3AA178AD85F448685F9

(you have to pay for this one)

http://nl.newsbank.com/nl-search/we/Archives?p_product=MN&p_theme=mn&p_action=search&p_maxdocs=200&p_topdoc=1&p_text_direct-0=0EFE48E41F7F8191&p_field_direct-0=document_id&p_perpage=10&p_sort=YMD_date:D&s_trackval=GooglePM

(you have to pay for this one too)

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/73818639.html?dids=73818639:73818639&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=May+14%2C+1987&author=Jay+Mathews&pub=The+Washington+Post+(pre-1997+Fulltext)&desc=Tests+Help+%60Ordinary'+Schools+Leap+Ahead+Series%3A+Advanced+Placement%3A+Spreading+the+Revolution+Series+Number%3A+1%2F2&pqatl=google

Tests help ‘ordinary’ schools leap ahead

This one gives a preview

http://www.edweek.org/login.html?source=http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1984/11/21/05250009.h04.html&destination=http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/1984/11/21/05250009.h04.html&levelId=2100

Might be more appropriate on AP page, but I think he is mentioned here.

http://pqasb.pqarchiver.com/washingtonpost/access/73649765.html?dids=73649765:73649765&FMT=ABS&FMTS=ABS:FT&type=current&date=Dec+12%2C+1988&author=Jay+Mathews&pub=The+Washington+Post+(pre-1997+Fulltext)&desc=More+College-Bound+Minorities+Using+Advanced+Placement+Tests&pqatl=google

More Jay Mathews.

Cheers! La mome (talk) 13:45, 25 July 2009 (UTC)

International Baccalaureate Section

This entire section is cited by people from the IB and is completely POV. Unless you can find non WP:SELFPUB info on Hansen such as the NYT obit, I strongly suggest rewording and removing the text as it currently stands. The College Board has no such pronouncements on Hanson's history with IB. ObserverNY (talk) 16:34, 27 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

So here is my suggestion. We remove the separate section for International baccalaureate and place a line in the "Early life" over view which reads as follows, paraphrased from the NYT obit:http://www.nytimes.com/1996/12/07/nyregion/harlan-p-hanson-71-who-led-advanced-placement-program.html

At Williams College in the 1950's, he directed the Program of Advanced Standing at Harvard College, which gave students more flexibility in planning their last two college years. He was also on the first committee to develop a German examination for the College Board, in 1954. He took part in an early effort by college administrators in Europe to set up a curriculum and university entrance examinations honored internationally which would become the International Baccalaureate. ObserverNY (talk) 16:50, 27 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Well, since the article is about Harlon Hanson and not the IB, then the Peterson reference is perfectly fine, especially since it supports and gives more detail to what was mentioned in the NY Times. The part about IB is not self-serving, nor is it pushing a POV. Why would the College Board mention his involvement with IB? The NY Times does, Peterson does and I believe there are other valid and verifiable sources that do as well.

To be clear, I am not in favor of removing the IB section.

Why are you even bothering to work on this article, since you scoffed at his notability to begin with?

La mome (talk) 17:00, 27 July 2009 (UTC)

To be clear, YOU are the one pushing the POV of Hanson's significance with IB and trying to make IB significant in this article. It is insignificant in the overall bio of the man, but I could see a mention as I suggested above. I have the right to edit any article I please, as I believe you have quipped to me several times. ObserverNY (talk) 23:45, 27 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, I am amenable to reducing the section on IB--in fact, I could possibly be convinced not to include a separate section on IB and to include Hanson's involvement in the development of IB and IBNA in another section.

But, while you are indeed correct that you can edit any article you please, you are not the final arbiter of what is to be included in an article and you, like all other editors here, have a responsibility to seek consensus--this responsibility would preclude the elimination of an entire section of an article when an objection to such elimination has already been made clear on the Talk page. Really, it doesn't do anyone here, nor this article, any good to operate in this fashion.

I would encourage you to revert your edits and allow us--all of us, including you, me, La mome, Truthkeeper, and anyone else who wishes to contribute--to collaborate on the article in good faith. Regards, • CinchBug • 01:50, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

I absolutely agree with CinchBug. The IB section, that I take responsibility for writing, that CinchBug has already discussed with me, I "parked" here until the extensive research that CinchBug has conducted can be read and then synthesized into this article. I'd never heard of the guy until ten days to two weeks ago when I read about his involvement in international education. After tonight's edits to IB it's very clear that any mention of Hanson will be repeatedly deleted from those pages, so I request, respectfully, for the information to stay here until all the information can be evaluated. Hanson's involvement with IB occurred in the mid-sixties -- hardly his early life! Each article has a logical flow and pattern and I object to simply sticking what one wants into a random section for no apparent reason. Moreover, had ONY taken the time to read the user page, it would have been clear to them that there is a nice system of referencing being used here, which took some editors some time and effort to set up. Running roughshod over that for personal vendetta?, whatever, is rude. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:02, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Agree all you want. The entire impetus behind creating this article and pushing Hanson in the IBDP is RUDE. IB advocates cannot be allowed to use Wikipedia as a venue for distortion of history and IB advertising while feigning "scholarly contemplation". I improved the article, the reference to IB reads much better. I used the NYT obit as the cite and it flows better chronologically. ObserverNY (talk) 11:55, 28 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I propose that we reduce the size of the IB section, using the NYT obituary and the Bagnall reference. There's no reason to give Hanson's role in the development of the IB undue weight. Regards, • CinchBug • 15:07, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, I've had the opportunity to read the Bagnall section. Interesting and yes, I'd support adding here. However, I'd ask that you consider reading the relevant sections in Peterson's book, as it deals with an earlier time period. Let me know it you need the link to the book (actually the url is in the ref, but I can get it if you need). Then let's reconvene and compare notes. How does that sound? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:36, 28 July 2009 (UTC)

Cinchbug - "in fact, I could possibly be convinced not to include a separate section on IB and to include Hanson's involvement in the development of IB and IBNA in another section." And that's what I did. Again, it seems it's ok for pro-IBers to edit to their heart's content without "agreement" or "consensus" but when I do it, you folks have a conniption fit. Truthkeeper has another no one appreciates me, everybody hates me, think I'll go eat worms episode. I nicely asked him to return the last time this occurred when he misunderstood Uncle G's critique of LaMome's sarcasm and took it personally. I won't ask again.

You are still giving IB undue weight in an article on Hanson by having a separate section. There is no reason why the sentence I included in Early History, which also chronologically worked nicely into the paragraph, couldn't stand. ObserverNY (talk) 13:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, yes, the bit you quoted says that I could possibly be convinced that a separate IB section was not necessary--and, indeed, I could--it does not say that I agreed with you that it should be excised immediately, even though another editor had already stated an objection to such an action.

I hardly think that my reaction could be considered "a conniption," but what you did was not to simply edit the article--you deleted an entire section, again, even though an objection to that had been quite clearly stated. No one else here has done things like that and we have instead attempted to work together. That doesn't mean that we've always agreed and in fact, as Truthkeeper pointed out, I brought up the possibility that we were giving undue weight to Hanson's role in the development of IB.

But instead of summarily dismissing his contributions and deleting an entire section, I elected to wait for TK to do more research, while I did the same. The current state of the article is quite a bit closer to what I thought was appropriate. This required nothing more than collegial discussion and patience, and a spirit of collaboration.

Let us now divorce ourselves from the drama and leave "pro-IB" and "anti-IB" labels behind. Instead, let us agree to work on this article in order to make it better, not to serve anyone's personal agenda. If you can agree to this, then we can get on with discussing your proposal, namely:

You are still giving IB undue weight in an article on Hanson by having a separate section. There is no reason why the sentence I included in Early History, which also chronologically worked nicely into the paragraph, couldn't stand.

While I disagree that Hanson's role should be in the "Early History" section (he was nearly 40 or in his 40s when he helped with the funding of IB and was on the founding board of IBNA, which doesn't really qualify as "Early History," in my opinion), I think that ObserverNY's idea has some merit. Having a separate section for IB may be over-emphasizing his role in the development in IB, as though it was on the same level as his involvement with AP (for which we rightly have a separate section). I think that there is little doubt that he played an important role in the early history of IB, but perhaps we can do justice to that role differently. There are a variety of ways of doing this, I think. Truthkeeper and La mome, what are your thoughts? Regards, • CinchBug • 14:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The "Early History, Education and Career" section currently goes through the early 60's. I don't see how you can logically exclude his participation in IB in the early 60's when this section covers that period. I personally don't think whether he was 40 or 14 is terribly relevant considering the current timeframe of the section.. Just doesn't make any sense to me. It provides overview in terms of where his advocacy lay in that period and surely where he must have devoted a significant period of time to, if you all consider it so important. So why it is "fine" for Truthkeeper to revert my edit and claim to want to leave his stuff for awhile while arbitrarily wiping my edit, again, makes no sense to me.

The only objection was a snarky one from LaMome and after all of the nonsense I've read from her, I tend to try and ignore most of her comments to avoid a battle. My edit was made in good faith, as an improvement to the article. She will never view any edit I make as such, thus my reason for ignoring her objection. Let's not forget, she reformatted an entire article IB overnight without any input from anyone after berating me for waiting 12 hours to make a change on something I requested input on. She claims I broke a WP:TRUCE yet unfortunately, she never conveyed to me that she viewed the truce as broken until days after the fact. I can't deal with that kind of paranoia and vindictiveness. It's not "normal". Therefore I choose to give more weight to the opinions of seemingly more neutral editors like yourself, TFOWR, HelloAnnyong and Ewen, (and I think that's being pretty reasonable on my part when you consider 2 out of the 4 are IB teachers). ObserverNY (talk) 15:03, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, I'll refrain from commenting on the drama. Instead, I'll simply say that I expect all editors of this article to operate in a collaborative fashion. That includes me, you, TK, La mome, and anyone else who might show up.

And, to be clear, Truthkeeper didn't revert anything you did. I reverted your edits.

Let's be patient, work together, and see what TK comes up with. If anyone finds it to be objectionable, then we can discuss it here and, if necessary, make appropriate changes. This is the nature of collaboration, after all. Regards, • CinchBug • 15:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

References

Readings!

Just so you know, I'll be back to this article as as possible. First, however, I have to read the material to catch up to speed. Well done with all the sources! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:58, 26 July 2009 (UTC)

Harlan Hanson sections

When the article was a blank page I added possible section headings to be used in the article. Nothing is set in stone, and it was a temporary measure to put words on the page, but keep in mind having sections, albeit temporary, does ease navigation and editing. I've just reread the article and am halfway through the ref list. The chronology is somewhat off -- Williams & 1960s & books published in Early Life & Career. We can do the following: keep some sort of temporary sections, possibly renamed to reflect a chronological flow, or delete the separate sections altogether. If no objects, I'd like to go a series of edits with both options to see how it looks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:42, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

TK, okay. I agree with you that the chronology isn't quite right and am willing to wait to see what you come up with. I'll steer clear for a bit so that we don't have any edit conflicts, and will come back later. We can always change it later, if necessary. Regards, • Cinch<bstyle="color:#93C">Bug • 14:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

No need to steer clear. I'll go ahead and delete the sections to see how it looks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Here's the article with no sections, and the current version does have sections. The problem with the IB work is that it happened during the period Hanson was Director of AP. So, at this point, I'd suggest leaving IB as is temporarily, writing text for the rest of the article, and then streaming IB in where it belongs in the chronology, as the article nears completion. The AP section needs a lot of work, and we have the refs for it. I separated the sentence that had his AP begin date/ end date. Once the section is done, the end date can be added back, or it can be added back now if you want. Btw -- I re-added the sections as per MOS. (Will go search on specific sectioning policy). I'm done for now. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Sorry, I had an idea. Not quite done. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:37, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, now done. Yes, I agree the IB should not have it's own section, but we need to fill in the blanks in the chronology and then move IB to the appropriate place. Time for a break! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The IB sub-section as it stands has no dates, appears to run concurrent with AP which some readers could interpret as a COI since AP and IB are competitors, and doesn't name the "corporations". My understanding was that certain editors were being so insistent on IB being mentioned with Hanson because of the $585,000 he wrangled for ISES and IBO. I still dispute the sole reference to Hanson at IBDP and feel that there's a lot of groping for straws to substantiate his actual involvement. ObserverNY (talk) 15:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Sub-section looks good to me so far. Further development is needed. Patience is a virtue, as they say. Instead of deleting, lets look to add. Great job CB & TK. Will see if I can find more info and incorporate into the article. Hanson was a great man. Glad we can honor him.

La mome (talk) 16:22, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Overall, I think it's looking pretty good. I'd like to streamline it a bit and will make some edits to see what you all think. Regards, • CinchBug • 21:28, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I was trying to work on it today, but the stuff over at IB kept my attention wandering and I'm afraid I made a mess so I deleted the mess. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:38, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

How about "International Baccalaureate Council Member"? La mome (talk) 21:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) No, TK, I thought you did a nice job and didn't think it was a mess (maybe I didn't see that stuff?). I don't know if I "stream-lined" it or not, but I'm done for the moment. I think that if we can find more information about what he did as Director of AP, then that'll lessen the apparent weight that IB has at the moment. Surely there's got to be more out there about his time as Director? Then again, I know we've all been looking--I guess we'll just have to keep looking!

La mome, I read that as a reference to ISES, so it might be redundant. Regards, • CinchBug • 21:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm still reading the Harvard Crimson sources, so I'm a little behind. There seem to be plenty of sources about AP so I think that section will be expanded.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:07, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(ec) La mome, I think that "Involvement with IB" (or something similar) would be a bit better. I'm worried that calling the section "International Baccalaureate Council Member" would give his role a bit too much weight, especially since that section comes immediately after the section on his Directorship of AP. Does that make sense? Regards, • CinchBug • 22:10, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Oops, sorry, La mome! I just looked at the edit history and saw that I deleted your "also." I didn't realize that you had just included that--I didn't intend to immediately remove what you'd just put in. I didn't think it was necessary, but you can put it back in, if you want. Regards, • CinchBug • 22:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Hey CB--no problem, we were both editing at the same time. I added "also" to clarify that he was simultaneously involved with AP and IB. I changed the section heading because I think we should spell out IB and he was in fact an IB council member --first for ISES and then later for IBNA. So, I don't think that presenting the facts as they are documented gives his role too much weight.

La mome (talk) 22:48, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Working refs

I'm working my way through all the bits and pieces that Cinchbug has gathered from the Harvard Crimson and adding to the article. Not sure it's all relevant, but my editing style tends to be, add now/delete later. If that's a problem let me know. Also, I think single refs can be deleted from ref section once they're used. Any objections? I tend to keep the multiples around for a little while in case I mess up, or delete too much. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:22, 30 July 2009 (UTC)