Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 14:04, 9 September 2009

This page is not a forum for general discussion about IB Diploma Programme. Any such comments may be removed or refactored. Please limit discussion to improvement of this article. You may wish to ask factual questions about IB Diploma Programme at the Reference desk.

Education Unassessed High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

To-do list for IB Diploma Programme: edit · history · watch · refresh · Updated 2009-09-29 Here are some tasks awaiting attention: Cleanup : Subject Groups esp Certificates and Certificates Programmes, Extended Essay,Introduction:last sentence Copyedit : entire article Disambiguation : languages in history section between instruction and subjects Expand : history section, last para of Establishment & Implementation, Assessment (almost all parts), range of special needs which are given examination support Update : All refs to http://www.ibo.org/diploma/documents/schools_guide_diploma.pdf as it is outdated, CAS section Verify : IB encourages students to take the Diploma (rather than certificates), Assessment

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the IB Diploma Programme article. This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic. New to Misplaced Pages? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help. Assume good faith Be polite and avoid personal attacks Be welcoming to newcomers Seek dispute resolution if needed Article policies Neutral point of view No original research Verifiability

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9Auto-archiving period: 7 days

Back to UWC

To insert the information about the UWC and Hahn in the early development section requires a major re-working of the section. I think it is important, but I am unable to find the spirit to do it knowing it will only be attacked and disputed, despite the fact that it is verified, legitimate information. ObserverNY (talk)ObserverNY

IB's authorization "standards"

I just received an e-mail from London pointing out an IB school in the UK which was authorized in June, 2008. http://www.ibo.org/school/000484/ I was also referred to an article that hit the UK press during the 2 year IB authorization process: http://www.thisislondon.co.uk/news/article-23384657-details/We+do+use+books+that+call+Jews+%27apes%27+admits+head+of+Islamic+school/article.do Frankly, this is outrageous. Is this the sort of "cultural understanding" IB is willing to slap its label on, as long as the cheques are good? ObserverNY (talk) 20:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Observer, this is not a forum. That second link does not mention IB specifically anywhere on it, so any sort of statement you'd want to make about connecting the IBO link to the article is synthesis of sources, which is a type of WP:OR - and is inadmissible. Again, this is not a place for you to discuss your outrage regarding "cultural understanding," so take it elsewhere. — HelloAnnyong 21:55, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

ROTFLMAO! What a perfect example! Well done HA! The UN's stated objective is to maintain international peace and security, but since its creation there have been 160 wars throughout the world. IB aims to create intercultural understanding and world peace but authorizes schools that breed hatred. ROTFLMAO! ObserverNY (talk) 22:07, 27 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

HA - well done again, HA. If the information cannot be addressed or incorporated into the article as per WP:SYN I respect and abide by that policy. ObserverNY (talk) 11:26, 28 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

IBDP article and talk page

Nice job Cinchbug and Candorwien (regarding recent edits). While the history of the UWC is fascinating and very much connected to the development of the IB curriculum, we can only add here what is verifiable and accurately reflects what is said in the sources. Thank you for remaining focused on improving the article and maintaining a collaborative approach to editing. HelloAnnyong, I applaud your efforts as well. What can we do to discourage editors from climbing soap boxes? Didn't check before writing this---have we abandoned the "to-do box" idea, or is it in place? Cheers! La mome (talk) 22:45, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

TK has placed the box at the top of the page. I encourage editors to use it--but please use the "Preview" button before saving changes, so that you can learn how it works! My experience with these pages suggests that editors too often don't bother to review their changes using "Preview," resulting in a great number of otherwise unnecessary additional changes. Nevertheless, thanks to TK for the box! Regards, • CinchBug • 23:58, 27 August 2009 (UTC)

"must attend" vs "must be enrolled in"

I changed "attend" to "must be enrolled" for a reason, one which I didn't think needed to be dragged out into a lengthy discussion. But noooooooooo, you have to revert my edit and tag some BS reason to it. Stop being an obstructionist and get over yourself. ObserverNY (talk) 01:26, 2 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

What is your reason? Mine is WP:TRITE--as in it is more consise to say that students must physically attend an IB school to participate in the program. As far as I know, the online courses are not open to students not attending an IB school. "Attend" also has fewer words than "be enrolled in". Please stop the name-calling. It is also rude to use an editor's name as the section heading of an article talk page. If others prefer "be enrolled in" then so be it.

La mome (talk) 12:10, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Re "online courses section" - it states: Eventually, the IB expects to offer the online courses to students who are not enrolled in an IB World School. Ergo, my REASONS for changing out "must attend" to "be enrolled in" (be and in being the only ADDITIONAL words) which you felt the compulsion to revert, is twofold - 1. Consistency in language 2. A homeschooled child may "attend" a school for certain activities, even though they are not "enrolled" in the school. ObserverNY (talk) 12:36, 2 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

May I also direct you to a little something called WP:Reasonableness. Your incessant desire to pick a fight with me over something as trivial as the changing of the word "attend" to "enrolled" indicates that you are simply being unreasonable. ObserverNY (talk) 12:56, 2 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Please use the preview button when making edits, instead of several edits with "minor" changes. Please stop trying to speculate what my desires/intentions are. My sole intentention is to improve the article. You made three edits and I reverted one, so please stop trying to paint the picture of me as someone who is trying to "pick a fight with you." It would help if you could put your emotions aside when editing and making comments on the talk pages. This includes, but is not limited to FLAMING, offensive/inflammatory/sensationalist language, name-calling, etc...

Thanks La mome (talk) 13:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Actually, I only made two edits, one was a m removal of an additional "and". You made 14 edits and I didn't come rushing in to revert any of them, now did I? I don't have to "speculate" as to what your intentions are, your actions speak volumes. You are not my Mommy or my Nanny and I don't need your condescending lecturing on how to edit when you are guilty of nit-picking, attempting to WP:CENSOR and targeting what I contribute. You have no idea what flaming is. Try getting out of your IB-centric bubble and visit the real world. ObserverNY (talk) 13:27, 2 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY. May I remind you that article talk pages should not be used by editors as platforms for their personal views and we abide by WP Etiquette and Talk Page guidelines. Comments such as:

• But noooooooooo, you have to revert my edit and tag some BS reason to it.
• Stop being an obstructionist and get over yourself.
• you are simply being unreasonable.
• You are not my Mommy or my Nanny and I don't ...
• need your condescending lecturing on how to edit when you are guilty of nit-picking
• You have no idea what flaming is
• Try getting out of your IB-centric bubble and visit the real world.

are not about the improvement of this article and are unhelpful.

In addition this edit didn't help either.

Respectfully, --Candy (talk) 15:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)

Oh, that reminds me, I'm late for lunch at the clam bar. Bite me. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 15:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

edit war

BRING IT ON LAMOME!!!! Going for 3RR? ObserverNY (talk) 02:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Btw, just because you didn't "undo" this: and this doesn't mean you avoid entering 3RR territory. ObserverNY (talk) 13:19, 3 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Please, at the very least ObserverNY take this to a talk page. Your comments above are not about improving this article. Thanks. --Candy (talk) 17:34, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Guess what Candorwein? Your re-pasted list of my comments above does nothing to improve this article either! Why don't you practice what you preach? Preaching is so much more fun than practicing, isn't it? OR you could delete/strike your entire post from above. Your choice. ObserverNY (talk) 19:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Let's try to adhere to wikipedia's policies on etiquette. At the least the article is worth reading. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:29, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

Despite ObserverNY's attempt to bait me, it seems that there is no edit war or violation of WP:3RR--at least not on my part. No warnings on my talk page. No pending reports on me. And, as of now, ObserverNY's version "must be enrolled in" (instead of "must attend") still stands. So, I guess everyone is ok with that version? I don't know, since no one has commented on it, besides that it is a ridiculously petty argument. Just for the record, I did not make the change, I made the reversion to the original wording, which has been there for months. What is all this fuss about an edit war? And the flaming "bring it on La mome"--seriously--what is this, a really bad movie about dueling cheerleaders?

La mome (talk) 19:42, 3 September 2009 (UTC)

That's very good, LaMome. I'm so glad you clarified your secondary edit as a second reversion and not an "undo". I'm also thrilled to pieces that you realize you started a "ridiculously petty argument" which you escalated into an epoch tome here: No wonder nobody commented on it. So will you leave it alone now? ObserverNY (talk) 19:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

early development re-wording

With all due respect Truthkeeper, the following paragraph reads very poorly, is full of run-on sentences and what seems to be non-notable information re: the $2500 UNESCO grant. In 1948, Marie-Thérèse Maurette created the framework for what would eventually become the IB Diploma Programme when she wrote Is There a Way of Teaching for Peace?, a handbook for UNESCO, and in that year also The Conference of Internationally Minded Schools "passed a resolution" for International School of Geneva (Ecolint) to begin the work of creating an international schools program. In 1961, Desmond Cole-Baker of Ecolint initiated the work of developing the idea, and his colleague Robert Leach organised a conference in Geneva in 1962, at which the term "International Baccalaureate" was first mentioned. Leach received a grant for $2500 from UNESCO for the conference; and they were interested enough in the idea to promise additional grants.

Who hosted the "Conference of Internationally Minded Schools"? Was it UNESCO? I didn't edit your work. I just thought I'd bring attention to this paragraph here.ObserverNY (talk) 17:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The Conference of Internationally Minded Schools is the name of an organization to which Maurette belonged and because of which she wrote her booklet/essay. Which sentence is a run-on? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:31, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your reply. It seems to me that all of this information refers to UNESCO, and can be rewritten in a clearer manner. Here is my suggestion:

In 1948, Marie-Thérèse Maurette created the framework for what would eventually become the IB Diploma Programme when she wrote Is There a Way of Teaching for Peace?, a handbook for UNESCO. Also in 1948, UNESCO hosted The Conference of Internationally Minded Schools and "passed a resolution" for the International School of Geneva (Ecolint) to develop an international schools program. In 1961, Desmond Cole-Baker of Ecolint revitalized the international school concept. His colleague Robert Leach, organised a UNESCO funded conference in Geneva in 1962, at which the term "International Baccalaureate" was first mentioned. As a result of the work achieved at the conference, additional funding was secured from UNESCO.

You also might want to address what happened between 1948 and 1961. You will find the Kurt Hahn was influential during that period. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 22:41, 4 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The Conference of Internationally-minded Schools was not a conference nor was it funded by UNESCO; rather it was an organization for international schools. So, the piece stating that UNESCO hosted the international-minded schools conference is neither correct nor verifiable. The resolution that was passed was simply the result of a meeting based on questionaires sent to schools. As for stating "as a result of the work achieved...funding was..." if you'd like it to be that way, that's fine, but it is a passive construction unlike the current sentence. The rest is fine. If you make these changes I would ask that you be careful of ref placement, which brings me to an issue I'd like to have all the editors here comment on so we can have consensus: I reworked the section today to eliminate the choppiness in the writing, and I also moved the references to the ends of the sentences for better readability. But, I think we should have consensus about where to place references -- after each clause or place many references at the ends of sentences. Also, I've reformatted the Peterson and Fox sources to cite chapter titles, but don't know whether we want to do it so, or to use WP:CITESHORT with page numbers. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:39, 4 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the clarification. Please see my strikes above and see if the re-wording meets with your approval. None of the references would be changed. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 01:23, 5 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Should be the Conference of International-minded.... not The Conference.... Also, still not crazy about replacing an active sentence w/ a passive one. Otherwise I don't mind the changes. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:49, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

With all due respect, UNESCO is an it not a they. Not quite sure what you mean by passive/active. ObserverNY (talk) 10:00, 5 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The source used "they" as in the people (they) at Unesco liked what they saw; can't find the rule for passive/active here, tho know it's in one of the style articles. Essentially the verb should be active (i.e Unesco gave funding. Ask yourself who gave the funding, and make that act on the verb, if possible.) If you're interested I'm sure the rule is somewhere on the net. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:31, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Having worked in journalism, I was taught that organizations are never referred to with personal pronouns. So unless your source is specifically referring to the diplomats at UNESCO and not the organization itself, the authors of your source inappropriately applied the pronoun "they." I'm still confused as to what you are looking for with regards to the phrasing. Would you care to suggest an alternative? Thanks, ObserverNY (talk) 17:12, 5 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The phrasing in the article now is an active sentence. If you want to replace with passive that's fine, but somebody at some point will come along and change it. The issue with it/they is due to WP:ENGVAR and see this explanation. Either is correct. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:51, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

You know, I'm really trying to work with you here, Truthkeeper. Can't you just offer up a sentence that you would be happier with? I don't CARE about 50 different rules. I want to know what would make YOU happy without specifically referring to the $2,500. I guess I'm just too stupid to understand what you are getting at and I'm tiring of playing your games. Please just re-write the sentence in a way you deem fit and let me see it. ObserverNY (talk) 19:07, 5 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I'm sorry, I didn't realise the $2500 was at issue here. Why don't you want that in? I rewrote the sentence yesterday and am fine with it as is. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)

Reception section

In my view, the Reception section was fairly balanced until recently, if rather long. Now ONY added a "newsy" item of a school in UK that has decided. Of course, for each such school one could add several others that have decided to adopt the program, but isn't that a little ridiculous? Are we going to keep adding on to this section to balance ONY's additions? Why is a school that drops the program (among many schools that keep it) suddenly an encyclopedic content? Tvor65 (talk) 12:20, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed. — HelloAnnyong 13:17, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

It is encyclopaedic content. Just because it happens to be current content on an article that can be updated daily, doesn't mean you have the right to remove it on the grounds that YOU think it gives undue weight. You want to add some more CURRENT positive reception about IB? By all means. Be my guest. Your vigilance in attempting to censor what can be added to IB articles is destructive, unwelcoming and biased. ObserverNY (talk) 13:24, 9 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

According to this, information about one school is not encyclopedic. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:40, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

TK - according to this: WP:Undue Weight Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. With the inclusion of my recent edit, there are now 10 positive and 10 negative lines cited under reception. Therefore, the reception section is now balanced. ObserverNY (talk) 13:52, 9 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I'm with Truth on this. Just to add on top of what he wrote, the school in question isn't even notable enough to have its own article on here. So that text is really not worthy of inclusion. — HelloAnnyong 13:53, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

Agree as above, seems undue. A pure mathematical formula shouldn't be used to establish neutrality. Dayewalker (talk) 13:58, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(ec)Quoting from WP:UNDUEWEIGHT : "Keep in mind that, in determining proper weight, we consider a viewpoint's prevalence in reliable sources, not its prevalence among Misplaced Pages editors." What you have added is not prevalent enough for an encyclopedia. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:00, 9 September 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict) Who's the new editor? Do I have to go search to see if one of you dragged him/her over here? If you want to keep the most recent "Reception" restricted to 2008 and never update the IBDP article to include a 2009 cite, so be it. ObserverNY (talk) 14:04, 9 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

• Unassessed education articles
• High-importance education articles
• WikiProject Education articles
• Misplaced Pages pages with to-do lists