Misplaced Pages

Revision as of 12:52, 3 October 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given examination support Update : All refs to http://www.ibo.org/diploma/documents/schools_guide_diploma.pdf as it is outdated, CAS section Verify : IB encourages students to take the Diploma (rather than certificates), Assessment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

Name change

Does anyone know why the name of the article has changed twice in the last few days? Just curious. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:28, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY (talk) 23:39, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I saw that. But why? Was it vandalism, or intentional? Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:48, 21 September 2009 (UTC)

I dunno. Guess you'll have to ask them! ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 23:56, 21 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

See here. Regards, • CinchBug • 00:00, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It was changed unilaterally by a user who had been warned about doing this type of thing. It destroyed the archives and the to do list. I requested a revert so we get the archives and to do list back. A sysop helped me. It was clearly intentional but I think it was in good faith ... but without consultation was inappropriate. However, the perp got a limited ban. --Candy (talk) 01:10, 22 September 2009 (UTC)

It seems that the archive bot is not functioning and needs to be re-set. I don't know how to do this, so I hope someone will look into this. Thanks, La mome (talk) 20:24, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

defend similarities

Tvor65 - since you are so quick to revert my edit, please share with everyone the similarities between the French Bac, the European bac and IB. In fact, I would love to hear your reasoning for including either of those Bacs, especially when the European Bac article specifically states: It is awarded only by the fourteen European Schools and should be distinguished from the International Baccalaureate (IB) and the baccalaureate of various national systems Furthermore, the French Bac was established under Napoleon and is extremely nationalistic. Referring readers to those two Bacs is simply not WP:notable and implies that they have something in common with IB. They don't. United World Colleges do. ObserverNY (talk) 17:58, 25 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Ah! Whoever Colonel Warden is, I find that to be an acceptable substitution. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 18:39, 25 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

• You're welcome. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

As for the French Baccalaureate, it is their national (not nationalistic) exam for university entrance. They list the International Baccalaureate under their “See also” section along with the European Baccalaureate. They also have a list of other national exit (or university entrance) exams under the section “Compare.” The French also have their own "French International Baccalaureate." If you compare the French bac and the French international bac, you will see many similarities between those examination systems and the IBDP. You'll also note that it has changed since Napoleon's time.

I think we should have either "See also" or "Compare" (or both?) at the end of the IBDP, with links to other national and international university entrance exams, as opposed to the link to the list of exams. One of the problems I see with linking to that list is that the IBDP is listed only under Europe, where it is really found around the world. That list could change or be deleted without our input or knowledge. I'd rather we decide what should be listed as comparative to the IBDP.

La mome (talk) 13:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Agreed.Tvor65 (talk) 15:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Disagree. As a new (welcome!) and previously uninvolved editor in this article, I think Col. Warden's edit is sufficient. ObserverNY (talk) 15:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

• In a British context, the IB is usually discussed as an alternative to the Advanced level of the General Certificate of Secondary Education (A-level) and there is now a competing national Diploma qualification for 14-19 olds which is confusingly just referred to as The Diploma. If we start listing all these specific national alternatives then we will recreate the list in question. Better to just use the list and improve it if needed. I have created an International section in that list to address the point made above. Colonel Warden (talk) 18:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for adding the International section. I suppose we should add the French International Diploma and the AP International Diploma to that section as well. So that solves one problem, but there are others. In linking to the list, are we suggesting that the American GEDis equivalent to the IBDP?

La mome (talk) 20:03, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

The items on the list are equivalent in that they all constitute secondary school leaving certificates. ObserverNY (talk) 23:02, 27 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

In any case, we're not suggesting an exact academic equivalence. See also is just a list of topics which a reader might reasonably find useful as being generally similar or related but which haven't been mentioned in the body. If we have something to say about qualifications which are specifically accepted as equivalent or antecedent to the IB then this would best go in the article proper. Colonel Warden (talk) 23:16, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

If topics that are generally similar are in the "see also" then I'd agree that the other bacs should be included w/ IBDP. See the "see also" on the Matura here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:34, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

TK - The "other bacs" are on the list. Also, I notice you added the IB logo. Was there a consensus that it meets WP:FU? ObserverNY (talk) 23:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I didn't add the logo. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:11, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

The logo was added to the IB series box and appears in all the IB series entries. La mome (talk) 00:25, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Apologies to TK for the mis-attribution, I read your "added image" edit and neglected to look further. I see someone totally unrelated to our discussion made the logo edit Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 00:34, 28 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

P.S. - the chateau picture adds a nice touch of elitism to the page. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 00:36, 28 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I can take out the Chateau as the logo was added almost simultaneously. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:39, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I like the chateau! Hey, did you know "Stormin' Norman Schwarzkopf" went there? Interesting bit of trivia, no? La mome (talk) 00:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't care if you leave it in or take it out. I happen to like pictures on the Misplaced Pages articles. I think it serves to enforce the IB's elitist snob image. If that's what you want to project, fine with me. But since both images were added without any discussion, I guess I can assume that this is a new manner of editing? ObserverNY (talk) 00:48, 28 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

So, how do we go about finding images that don't reinforce the elitist snob image that a chateau provides? Btw, did you know that Ronald M. George went there too? La mome (talk) 00:59, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I don't really know how to respond. I thought I'd find an image of Ecolint as the history section has space to support an image. The image of the Chateau was the nicest of the images and as it happens that's where many of the meetings took place during the early years. I added the image and poof! the logo popped up as well. A new manner of editing? I tend to make changes and respond to comments. So if there's a problem with the image in the history section, by all means comment, or even delete if you want. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 01:03, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Good Article nomination

To provide some focus for our further efforts and get more independent input, I suggest that we nominate the article as a Good article. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

That's a lovely suggestion. You have my support. ObserverNY (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

In terms of independent input and focus, a good idea.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)

• Checking it before nomination, there may be a couple of issues:

a) The article seems overcited, having citations in the lead, which ought to be a summary of cited points made in the body. Some of these citations occur in clusters. Do these represent points of contention?

b) The article could perhaps benefit from an image at top right. I suppose that most relevant material is copyright. Perhaps the IB logo would be acceptable fair use. Has this been considered before?

Colonel Warden (talk) 06:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Done. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

GA discussion

Here's an image that's been uploaded. Does it pass FUR? If so, then it could be added to the template.

There was contention about describing the programme: is it a pre-university course of study, or not? Thus the cluster of citations in the lead -- though those could be removed and then added to the article body if everyone agrees. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:16, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

CW - I am of the opinion that placing the IB logo on the page is a violation of WP:FU specifically as it refers to: 1. the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes. In the case of a Misplaced Pages article, the use of the IB logo is promotion for an expensive programme. Schools pay big money to be able to "use" the IB logo and a Misplaced Pages article should not stand as an advertisement for any organization. For example, you do not see a College Board logo on the Advanced Placement article. We used to have IB's mission statement in a pretty blue box, but I don't know what happened to that.

As to the cites in the WP:LEAD, I remember a dispute about the 16-19 year old thing and the fact that students must be enrolled in an IB school to participate. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 18:41, 26 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Just to be clear -- the image I posted was uploaded by another editor a year ago, and I believe has been used on these articles in the past.

Also, this diff shows the reason for the cluster of cites in the lead. Unable to agree, or in the process of edit warring, some editors were using multiple cites for verification. In my view, the article is not stable enough for GAR, but input from independent editors would be welcome, so for that reason a GAR isn't out of the question. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:49, 26 September 2009 (UTC)

Just because another editor inserted the logo previously and had it subsequently removed (where's the reason for removal?) doesn't mean it constitutes WP:FU. Furthermore, it would appear that the particular dif TK cited dealt more with the insertion of the subjective adjective "demanding" than with the age disagreement. ObserverNY (talk) 20:04, 26 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Except as you have been previously informed ObserverNY, words like expensive (or cheap) are subjective and pejorative terms so it doesn't assist in creating a discussion - no matter how much original research you throw in. --Candy (talk) 06:56, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Just to add, the CB and IB are both non-profit organisations. Regarding the logo, the College Board logo is used on the College Board page. The question is whether the IBDP should have the logo of its parent organisation on the page. Comparing the IBDP to the AP article isn't really a good yardstick to base a rationale for the IBDP article. The AP and CB articles seem to need a lot of work. --Candy (talk) 10:57, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

A few thoughts/comments:

1. I think what TK was saying is that there was a logo for a while, which is still on the IB page. The question is, does it belong on both pages? And if yes, what about the other IB pages in the IB series? I agree that there should be an image near the lead paragraph.

2. Citation 3 was added to support the addition of the word "demanding" as the IBDP has been described as challenging, rigorous, demanding, etc... Since the word "demanding" is no longer there, the citation can be removed, imo. Then we would need only one of the remaining two, if at all, to support the description of the IBDP. The IBDP has also been described as a "college-prep" programme. That works for Americans, but not for others around the world, where "college" does not necessarily mean "university." It was suggested to use "pre-university" but then refuted that all HS courses are "pre-university." It is difficult to describe anything without using adjectives. The problem is that someone pointed out that it needs to be stated early on that the IBDP is more (pick one) difficult/challenging/rigorous/demanding than an average HS programme of study.

3. I don't think anyone contested that students need to attend an IBDP school in order to participate in the IBDP. There was mention of the online courses, that would be opened up to students not attending an IB school, but that is a future event, and only certain courses are offered, not a full slate needed to complete the requirements of the programme. The other dispute involved the use of "must be enrolled in" vs "must attend," but no citations were added for that.

4. I think it would be a good idea to invite other editors in to clear up these issues. If nominating the article as a GA is an option, I am all for it.

La mome (talk) 12:30, 27 September 2009 (UTC)

Recognition section

I was cleaning up the recognition section (not that I like it much) and I realised that it isn't a recognition section. It's a recognition and how many schools there are in each country.

What abut we remove reference to the number of schools in each country? This is a list we can't efficiently keep up to date with and I see it as beyond the scope of what is encyclopaedic. People can get that info from the IB website. Actually, hang that, I'll delete those refs now and see what it looks like. Someone can revert if they feel they need to and we can discuss. --Candy (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I did that. Then I thought I'd see if I could find cites for recognition. It turns out the IB web site has these as well. I looked at the Austrian one and wondered how on earth that will be condensed for the table. Perhaps it's best to wipe the table and link the engine to search for these on the IB web site (if we can find it - I googled this amongst others)? --Candy (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

• If reliable sources can be found the "Recognition" section should describe how Universities value the IBDP compared with national qualifications. IMO removing content about the number of schools was a good call. - Pointillist (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC) (explanation follows)

1. Recognition by Universities is definitely of interest to parents: I've just come back from Oxford's alumni weekend where there was palpable frustration from middle-aged graduates about how much harder it was for their children to excel in the IBDP (compared with GCE A levels) and that they felt colleges didn't sufficiently appreciate this. We were seated randomly at my college's dinner but the couple next to me said their son was rejected for PPE in Dec 2008 with 42 points predicted and achieved 44 points (with 7 for HL Economics). Of course, one bright individual might mess up the TSA and/or interview but in my small circle there were other Oxbridge examples: rejected by Oxford with 42 points predicted and achieved 45 points, and accepted by Cambridge with a 45 point offer (achieved!) that to my mind indicates a lack of understanding of how well the IBDP prepares students for the demands of higher-level education.

2. The count of schools by country didn't belong in "Recognition" and anyway it is very difficult to get a meaningful figure: at one end of the spectrum there are schools like KCS and Sevenoaks in the UK where the IBDP is the only 16+ option and at the other there are those who offer/will offer/previously offered it as an option. The IB website doesn't distinguish between such cases. - written by Pointillist

1. I also think removing the number of schools was a good move. This info is easily found on the IBO site and is hard to keep up-to-date.

2. I think the info on recognition is useful but it does require a lot of work; much of it lacks citations. I suggest also that we return to the text/list form, which is easier to edit than a table (does not matter for me but may be intimidating for new editors) and which it was until ONY decided one day to convert it to a table. Anyway, these are my two cents.Tvor65 (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

This is not a WP:forum. ObserverNY (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Good for you, ONY. Keep reminding yourself this. (Maybe you can even apply this bit of wisdom to your own talk page.) In the meantime, we will continue discussing what to do with the Recognition section. Any other opinions? Tvor65 (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm in favour of any clean up for the so called recognition section. Also, in favour of converting to text if editing the table causes difficulty. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Since you are all in agreement on scrapping the number of schools in each country as readers can search for that themselves, I recommend the same logic be followed for scrapping the entire "recognition" section and condensing the section to a one line reference directing readers here: Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

And I ABSOLUTELY object to this edit by Candorwein which oh so slyly removes the IB schools in Iran, Pakistan and other countries and gives WP:undue weight to others. Scrap the whole thing. ObserverNY (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Please relax, ONY - it appears that Candy removed all countries for which there was no university recognition info. If you've got that info for Iran or Pakistan, go ahead and include it. Otherwise, there is no point in including these until such info becomes available.Tvor65 (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I'm afraid ONY that calling me sly is not an appropriate word to use for what are entirely open actions. If you can't assume good faith then you are not welcome here. It seems your various bans have done little to improve your manners. Please read what Tvor65 (talk) wrote immediately above and read my comment on this edit which states that countries were removed. ] --Candy (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Candorwein - I did not call YOU sly, I called your EDIT sly: ...object to this edit by Candorwein which oh so slyly. Please learn the difference and either restore the table as it was until consensus is reached on what to do or eliminate the section completely. ObserverNY (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Let's eliminate the recognition section completely and link to the IB search engine as Candy so cleverly mentioned earlier.

La mome (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I was the one to mention it and it is already done. ObserverNY (talk) 10:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(Edit conflict) Candy mentioned it first. I also agree with Pointillist that the IBDP should be compared to similar exit or university entrance exams. Which might be a solution to the earlier discussion about "see also" vs link to a list of exams, which are not all equivalent to the IBDP. I think that is what the recognition section was originally about--how it is recognised in secondary schools around the world, not at their universities.La mome (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

Resolved – table deleted - ObserverNY (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY Candorwein linked a specific country, I linked the search directory and made the change. ObserverNY (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNYObserverNY (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ONY - First of all it's not appropriate of you to start telling me what to do with edits which are fully documented. Secondly, your comment about my edit being sly is certainly inappropriate. The edit was sly; that was sly editing. Same thing. You still don't seem to be able to work in a friendly manner do you? I also do not have to restore the table or delete the section. It's not appropriate for you to demand things of me. It's been opened for discussion. I see your ban has not improved your civility. --Candy (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

...Perhaps it's best to wipe the table and link the engine to search for these on the IB web site (if we can find it - I googled this amongst others)? --Candy (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Great idea, Candy.

Thanks, La mome (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)

I honestly don't know what the best solution is, since I certainly see Candy's point about maintaining the information and keeping it current. But, if we're going to delete the table, I would suggest that we save it in its current form, perhaps in TK's sandbox (which has an earlier form of the table, but not the current one, I believe). That way, if we should ever decide we want it back in again, we don't need to rebuild it--we can just copy it and modify as necessary. Regards, • CinchBug • 20:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hmmm, well...I guess I'm a little behind the times, since the table is already gone. It might be a good idea to go back to a previous version of the page and save all of that work somewhere now--trying to do it later would be a much bigger hassle than doing it now. Anyway... • CinchBug • 20:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Hi Cinchbug. Surely, the table is permanently (well as permanently as wikipedia is here) stored in the history? Simply viewing an earlier revision means that we can extract the wiki code. I agree that it can be a hassle to find things when many months have passed though. Shame there isn't some sort of simple revision log available for edit pages which shows major deletions and additions along with dates.

However, I would have liked more of a discussion about it to be honest as I had flagged up.

Candy, yes, it's true that we can always retrieve the table, if necessary. But I agree that more discussion would have been nice. Regards, • CinchBug • 22:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)

Well, I thought we were considering converting to text and not eliminating the table altogether. I've been very busy, but when I have the chance will stash the most current version of the table in my sandbox in case we decide to have a proper discussion about the edit. In my view a link to the IB website isn't sufficient -- in fact we already link to the IB website in the external links. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Let me refresh your memories: Let's eliminate the recognition section completely and link to the IB search engine as Candy so cleverly mentioned earlier. La mome (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Talk about beating a dead horse! ObserverNY (talk) 09:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Maybe I should have added "...and start all over again." I also said this-"I also agree with Pointillist that the IBDP should be compared to similar exit or university entrance exams. Which might be a solution to the earlier discussion about "see also" vs link to a list of exams, which are not all equivalent to the IBDP. I think that is what the recognition section was originally about--how it is recognised in secondary schools around the world, not at their universities." La mome (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC) I don't think that the recognition section the way it appears now is complete.La mome (talk) 10:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I don't think there was an agreement on removing the table. Converting it back to text and improving its content were discussed, and Candy already started working on the latter when ONY deleted it. As I said before, I think that info was useful.Tvor65 (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Useful to whom? The WP:notable portion of the topic, 75 countries and 2500+ universities is listed. Misplaced Pages is not a college search directory for IB. ObserverNY (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Recognition section discussion

I'd like to see the text from the table restored. Then the text can be edited as needed to provide a good recognition section. It is notable that the International Baccalaureate is available in various countries. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I have restored the text for the time being. It is now easier to edit, as one can click on edit for an individual country. If someone can copy and paste it into a sandbox, that would be good.Tvor65 (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:Undue, POV selective presentation of countries, takes up WAY too much room in the article for what can be summarized in two lines. ObserverNY (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I'm not going to get in an edit war with you. You wanted the table gone, I made it happen. I summarized the notability of the section concisely. Instead of responding to my question above, you ignored the ongoing discussion, abandoned consensus and restored the text. I think it looks and reads like crap.

To Col. Warden - based on this recent action by other editors, I respectfully request that you withdraw the article from the nomination process you had suggested. ObserverNY (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The article hasn't yet been nominated for GAR, so nothing to worry about. As for the current edits, the text needs more formatting, but in my view, at least some of the text should stay. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Please justify with some reason other than "because ONY doesn't want it" why you think "some of the text should stay". Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(ec) ONY - you deleted the table without a clear consensus. TK, Pointillist I did not want all of that info gone (though TK and I did not care for the table format), Candy was not sure, and CB did not even have a chance to reply. I'll assume good faith in that you thought there was consensus when you made your edit, but in reality this was not the case. Also, please watch your language - the above post of yours is vulgar and uncivil.Tvor65 (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Here is a different format of the same text, though I have to check MOS about the mdashes & bolds. As for the text: the section is incomplete and still needs citations. Until the section is finished, I'm not willing to say I love it or hate it; in my view the text is worth preserving until the section is done and then a decision can be made to keep or delete. In my view, the information here is more encyclopedic than the information in the "Reception" section. Also, no one here attacked the editor, or said I want to keep this because ONY doesn't like it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec)There was agreement between me and LaMome based on Candorwein's "cleverly" suggestion. That alone probably triggered the Indonesian tsunami. You had no consensus to put it back. And Tvor65, since I've been around a number of different Misplaced Pages articles and you only edit IB, I have learned that it is perfectly acceptable to call an edit or a thing an ugly piece of shit if I so desire and not violate WP:civil because I am speaking of a thing, not a person. That's because, according to Wiki policy, Misplaced Pages doesn't WP:censor In fact, I could go so far as to call it a fucking piece of shit and not get banned for incivility, because I am describing an inanimate object. And of course we KNOW I would NEVER direct such vulgar and crude language towards a fellow editor. Cheers!ObserverNY (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Using vulgar language, whether directed at an inanimate object or another editor is not welcome here. I find it offensive as it does not create a welcoming atmosphere for editors to feel comfortable to contribute to the article. You have used crude language towards other editors. Just because you think it is acceptable elsewhere does not make it true here. We've asked you before and once again you demonstrate that you have not learned from the numerous bans/blocks you have received already, namely for incivility. And yet you continue. Please stop.

La mome (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

(ec) ONY, an agreement between you and LaMome does not constitute consensus. Vulgarity is never acceptable and is fundamentally uncivil. (I see that LaMome already said this much better, thanks.)

TK, your new format looks much nicer, thanks. I agree (and said a few times before) that the text needs a lot of work, and we may yet decide to remove it, but I don't see a consensus to do it at the moment. I also think that it is more encyclopedic in content than the Reception section, which cites op-ed pieces that may not be WP:RS.Tvor65 (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

When we have consensus I'll replace the section with the reformatted text. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Sorry - your "Recognition" section takes up OVER A FULL SCREEN'S WORTH of text! It looks like kaka doodie. Misplaced Pages is not a university guide for IB!

Is that your windup to remove the Reception section, Tvor65?? The Reception section that has been stable for MONTHS??? Divide agreement on one section, decide you can leave that section half-assed unfinished to be worked on later, while you attack the next section? Talk about uncivil and disruptive! ObserverNY (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The following is from WP:civility (emphasis mine):

1. Direct rudeness

(a) Rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions;

(b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities;

(c) ill-considered accusations of impropriety;

(d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "snipped rambling crap", "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen");

I advise ONY to pay close attention to the items in bold.Tvor65 (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

Tvor65 - And I ask you to pay close attention to #1:

1. Direct rudeness

(a) Rudeness

You have behaved rudely by your divisive and detrimental actions on this Talk page, beginning with your WP:forum post, ignoring ongoing discussion, distracting by announcing an attack on another section and your holier-than-thou lectures. Please do something to drastically reduce the MORE THAN FULL PAGE Recognition section and stop with your distractions. It is unbecoming and rude. ObserverNY (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

??? There was no WP:forum post from me - you must be confusing what I wrote with unsigned Pointillist's post right above it that you may have construed as such (not that I agree with this characterization). Nor was I rude in any way, shape or form. You were, however. Please reread WP:Civility and stop disrupting the discussion.Tvor65 (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Oh, will ya look at that. Someone has typed in written by Pointillist. Yes, I did attribute that long "Oxford" post to you, Tvor65. Perhaps it would have been helpful if you had pointed it out at the time when I said "This is not a WP:forum to which you snarkily replied: "Good for you, ONY. Keep reminding yourself this. (Maybe you can even apply this bit of wisdom to your own talk page.) In the meantime, we will continue discussing what to do with the Recognition section. Any other opinions?" If you don't think your tone was rude and snarky, pretend I wrote it to you and see how you think it sounds. Again, you fail to contribute anything positive to the discussion which you re-opened about Recognition. ObserverNY (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Perhaps you should read the posts more carefully (Pointillist did say that "explanation follows") before making accusations of WP policy violations. Especially those policies that you violate yourself on the regular basis, as I have pointed out to you.Tvor65 (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Going back to the real talk about reception: of course every University should seriously consider admitting anyone who has achieved top marks (45) in their IB, but that isn't the real measure of recognition of the IB. The fundamental problem with the current "recognition" content is that it doesn't compare Universities' entry requirements measured in IB-points to national qualifications (e.g. A levels). For example, in the UK section it is factually correct to state that UCAS has published a tariff that allows IB results to be compared with "A levels". However, this is misleading because most UK Universities ignored the UCAS tariff when deciding their minimum entry requirements and (as I hear it) IB candidates had to achieve much more than A level candidates: more subjects in a short examination period with each student being forced to succeed in a wide mixture of subjects. If the article talks about recognition, it must present a comparative point of view so that concerned parents can analyse the strengths and weaknesses of the IBDP. - Pointillist (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

I agree with Pointillist. Perhaps a way of writing the section is to attempt to define the recognition criteria such as UCAS tariff (which is verifiable) and then compare to the actual "recognition" i.e., UCAS ignored for IB students (if that is verifiable.) I do think that an article about an international programme that prepares students for university, must in fact speak to the level of university recognition in a variety of countries. If that's impossible, then the section can be scrapped altogether. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)

The UCAS controversy should be added to the Reception section. The UK is really the only nationality that has established an actual point table to scale the IBDP against. The vast majority of the references as they currently stand are uncited. If you are going to mention UCAS, then you must also mention that the People's Republic of China does not recognize the IBDP for university admission for balance. ObserverNY (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

To Pointillist - well, do we have anything other than anecdotal evidence of UK universities disregarding UCAS? Any specific university policies that state that?Tvor65 (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

WP:Undue is being given to 12 out of 75 countries in the "Recognition" section. Of those 12 countries, 3 - China, Peru & Turkey, do NOT recognize the IBDP. For some undeclared reason, countries which the United States has strained relations with, such as Iran and Pakistan, have been eliminated. This appears to be selective POV presentation. It is incomprehensible to me why Truthkeeper fought tooth and nail to reduce the size of the Special Needs and Application/Fees section on the basis that too much information provided WP:Undue weight to those sections, yet TK appears to be perfectly content to allow the "Recognition" section (25% of which is revealing that there IS NO recognition for the IBDP in those countries, to take up a full screen's worth of copy. The argument for retention of this long, haphazard, half uncited, selective representation of a small minority of the claimed 75 countries is illogical. Furthermore, the IBDP is awarded on a 24-45 point scale. There are numerous "exceptions" for Recognition such as the '36' pt. requirement for Russia. It would be much more fair and accurate to state that individual universities in various countries set their own standards as to what score on an IBDP constitutes an acceptable score for admission. A cite of 2 States out of 50 in the U.S.A. hardly constitutes fair representation of recognition of the IBDP in America. ObserverNY (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

About the UK situation with UCAS, etc: The UCAS website shows what IB points are required for many courses, alongside the A-level grades. It's not possible to collect all the data easily, but a small survey I made shows that very few universities offer IB students a points score which compares to the A-level grades on UCAS' own tariff table. I don't know of any independent source with this information, though (which is why I did my own survey). In terms of UCAS points, the offers to IB students are about 100 points higher than to A-level students. Ewen (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

And what of the A* A-Level grades? IB doesn't fare very well against those, as evidenced by students who were not granted admission to their UK colleges of choice: ObserverNY (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Thanks, Ewen. This is interesting and certainly important but it does not look like we have any WP:RS to back this up yet.Tvor65 (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I haven't found any reliable source apart from sampling UCAS (which would be OR, of course). In the absence of a source, I have re-cast the sentence about the UK so that it says the tariff table isn't binding. - Pointillist (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

To all: I had no trouble finding citations for the IB recognition policies in the listed countries. A lot of info can indeed be found on the IBO site, but not all of it. I removed or rewrote statements that do not appear to be backed up by any sources I was able to find. If you find citations backing those up or want to add other countries, please do so. Thanks.Tvor65 (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

To all - the Recognition section as it now stands fills almost TWO FULL screens of text, more than doubling the amount of space given to the actual subjects. This is a GROSS abuse of WP:Undue. Once again, I move to strike all of the minimally represented countries, add a line about UCAS and a line about admissions standards and recognition of the IBDP varying from university to university and country to country and be done with it. ObserverNY (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Break

I'd like everyone to remember that there is a policy that shows that articles must not be biased towards one country or another. The recognition section is rather long, but it's more or less necessary. There are a couple of options for you here:

• Spin it off into a Recognition of IB article (or something like that). There may not be enough text there to really justify its own article, though.
• Compress the sections into prose. Perhaps a paragraph for European countries, Asian countries, and so on would work.

Other ideas are of course welcome, but those are two things I just came up with. — HelloAnnyong 14:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

More specifically, the Recognition section as it stands constitutes WP:Listcruft. ObserverNY (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

As it stands, perhaps, but "strik all of the minimally represented countries" is not a better solution. — HelloAnnyong 15:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

My recommendation above was to strike the partial list of countries and to: "add a line about UCAS and a line about admissions standards and recognition of the IBDP varying from university to university and country to country and be done with it."The IB site where individuals can search for specific universities in specific countries is listed. Is someone going to police the recognition of IB in each of the listed countries on a regular basis and update as necessary? If maintaining the number of schools in each country was untenable, certainly national policy is as well. ObserverNY (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I don't see the policy changing all that often. And if there are any large changes made and they're notable enough, someone will see a news article about it an update accordingly. — HelloAnnyong 15:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

I support combining the countries by regions to save space. I don't think there is enough info for a separate article but the information itself is certainly relevant and worthy of inclusion. Not all of it can be found on IBO and thus simply referring to IBO site is not sufficient, IMO.Tvor65 (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Alright, I've gone ahead and shuffled everything into discrete sections. It's certainly not perfect, but it's a start. Thoughts? — HelloAnnyong 15:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

You've beat me to it, HA: I just did the same but there was an edit conflict. I think it looks much better this way.Tvor65 (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Interesting. You know what? Leave it. To me it makes the IBDP look like a widely discredited, inconsistent, international qualification. Good work! ObserverNY (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The new format doesn't help to make the extra info any less like fluff. The first paragraph is fine. I suggest just leaving that. I understand there will be calls to have them back but the real question is whether it will ever be achievable. There are so many variables, so little fixed in stone and one has to remember that non-IB qualifications are no guarantee of being accepted at Universities even if they are the top grades. In addition, the whole thing is riddled with inconsistencies ( such as PR China not officially recognising the IBDP but then Hong Kong being mentioned which is part of PR China or the use of the island of Taiwan which is part of the Republic of China). These inconsistencies may be on the IB site (I haven't checked) but they shouldn't be part of Misplaced Pages I feel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Candorwien (talk • contribs) 17:08, October 2, 2009

It's not up to us to determine inconsistencies. If the sources say that Hong Kong recognizes and China doesn't, then that's what this article must reflect. — HelloAnnyong 17:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Also, Taiwan is not part of China, even if its status is not officially recognized by some countries, and Hong Kong has had a long separate history before it was "given back" to China. Most people are aware of this, so I don't see any problem.

The information in that section is far from fluff and not all of it can be found through the IBO site. I feel strongly that it should remain there in some form, though certainly it can be condensed and improved.Tvor65 (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Awww, I LIKE the fluff and inconsistencies! It's perfect! But Tvor65 feels strongly about keeping it. Such a dilemma. ObserverNY (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

You know, maybe you should try to improve this article rather than degrade it. — HelloAnnyong 18:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Gee HA, I thought that's what I did by removing the table way back when and adding the summary sentence re: 75 countries and 2500+ universities which Candorwein is now advocating retaining. My edit was reverted. I did not revert back as I don't want an edit war. Other editors have extolled the virtues of the Recognition WP:Listcruft. Now it's just WP:Listcruft in prose format. My suggestion to IMPROVE the article was/is/will be to eliminate the Americas, Oceania etc. sub-sections and keep the small paragraph. Tvor65 feels "strongly" that is not acceptable. May I respectfully suggest you address your concerns to Tvor65. ObserverNY (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Except, ObserverNY, I am discussing it with everyone not just you and Tvor65. --Candy (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

To Candorwein - ? I have absolutely no idea how to interpret your response or how it positively contributes to the editing of this article. ObserverNY (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Tvor65, "Also, Taiwan is not part of China, even if its status is not officially recognized by some countries ..." Actually, there's the misunderstanding I was talking about. Taiwan is the main island of the Republic of China. However, it is only the main island. Mainland China and Hong Kong are the People's Republic of China.

No question about Hong Kong have a hundred year's of colonial rule before reverting back to China though. Respectfully, --Candy (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh, ok. I thought you were referring to China's refusal to recognize Taiwan as a separate country and its common claim to it as part of "One China". Hong Kong remains in many senses autonomous even now, so it is not surprising that it has different recognition policy. If you want to clarify, we could always say that the rest of PRC does not recognize the diploma. In any case, I don't see it as a huge issue, as I said. As I was searching for citations to fill in the gaps, I saw that there is quite a bit out there not necessarily included by IBO, so having all this information in one place (rather than simply referring to IBO which does not have all of it) is in fact encyclopedic and useful. In fact, older versions of the recognition section copied from WP are already floating around the web and come up in google searches. As long as it's properly cited (which it was not before), it actually gives a nice overview of how different countries recognise (or not) this international program. True, we cannot include all 75 countries, nor do I think it is necessary, as long as the info included is representative. Tvor65 (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

call to end discussion on Recognition

Imho, there has been MORE than enough discussion on this topic and the time has come for editors to weigh in on a vote as to whether to include the regional descriptors, or reduce the section to the opening paragraph. Motion: To reduce Recognition section to descriptive single paragraph.(please sign after your choice)

AYEObserverNY (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

NAY LaMome

Respectfully submitted, ObserverNY (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Polls aren't how we generate consensus around here. And from the look the above, you voted for both aye and nay. — HelloAnnyong 19:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

No, I voted AYE and then submitted the motion by signing it. It's a simple enough matter. Either agree to reduce the section to a single paragraph and then work on improving the paragraph or continue to keep bickering about the WP:Listcruft and history lessons on China. Yes or No. Please cast your vote. Is it unfair to ask people to make up their minds regarding this simple point? Let's see where the majority opinion lies. And I propose nothing be done any further to the section until Ewen, Pointillist, Candorwein, Truthkeeper, LaMome, Tvor65, Cinchbug and HelloAnnyong respond. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. When I have the opportunity to catch up on the talkpage, to assess the new section, and to look at the history of the article and assess how the recognition was treated in the past, I'll comment if necessary. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

Uh huh. Well that was helpful in reaching a resolution. Editors on this article keep changing their minds and inserting distractions and dodging the issue without ever coming to a resolution. And you know the really odd thing? As soon as I agree with whichever side seems to have the "lead" hand, so to speak, then other editors change their mind to oppose me on the decision. So strange. I simply can't figure out why that is. It shouldn't matter what I think, I'm one lone editor who is almost always overruled even though you claim Misplaced Pages is not a democracy. Do what is RIGHT. You might want to take a look at how editors on other pages interact in order to come to agreement on an issue. Talk:Glenn Beck. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Yes, I'm going to look to the Glenn Beck article as a model on how to edit. Don't bring other articles into this. I seriously doubt that you have an axe to grind over there like you do here. — HelloAnnyong 20:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

So was that an AYE or a NAY, HA? ObserverNY (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

If you are not happy with the way things are going here, you are free to edit elsewhere. You are under no obligation to engage in the discussion.

As for the changes in the recognition section, I think we are on the right track to improving that section. It appears to be a compromise, keeping the brief summary and including policies we have so far, grouped by continent, rather than country. Other editors may now want to contribute more readily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by La mome (talk • contribs) 20:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

LaMome - NAY. Next! ObserverNY (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

"A cite of 2 States out of 50 in the U.S.A. hardly constitutes fair representation of recognition of the IBDP in America." ObserverNY (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY --I agree. I believe Florida and other states also have passed legislation regarding the award of credit to IB diploma candidates/recipients. La mome (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)

So what? If you read the legislation, it doesn't actually state that universities MUST award credit to the IBDP. It states that universities MUST DEVELOP POLICIES to provide recognition for AP/IB. There is no "tariff" or "table" like UCAS in the U.S. Recognition of the IBDP in the U.S. varies from school to school, state to state and score earned. ObserverNY (talk) 23:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Well, since the US system is not centralised, of course it will vary from state to state. My point being that legislation regarding IB credit exists in other states. Which is what I thought you were saying as well. We'll have to find sources to support that. La mome (talk) 00:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Or ... we can simply eliminate the sub-sections. ObserverNY (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Or, we can try to improve the article by adding to it. A quick google search of "international baccalaureate university recognition policies" gave me this-a university recognition task force developed by IBNA. La mome (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

More fluff and nonsense? Who CARES about an IB committee? Seriously, what does that have to do with established recognition of the IBDP? Has the "task force" actually effected any standardized recognition? ObserverNY (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

And then I found this..."More than 200 colleges and universities in 12 states across the nation recognize the IB diploma and consider it when making admissions decisions. An average of 32 percent of these higher education institutions accept the IB diploma as a credential for admission. About 7 percent offer early admission to IB diploma holders and candidates, and 6 percent offer scholarships specifically for IB students. Twenty-one percent of recognizing schools grant second-year status to IB diploma recipients upon admission to the college or university." Can we use it --"aye" or "nay?" La mome (talk) 01:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

So you want to cite that 38 states DON'T recognize the IBDP or consider it when making admissions decisions? Oh sure! AYE AYE AYE! You go for that LaMome! That's brilliant! Good work! ObserverNY (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(edit conflict)Add Colorado to the list "...Students may earn up to 24 college credits through testing depending on their scores and individual university policies. Colorado legislation passed in 2005 assures the credit at all state run universities except Colorado School of Mines. Students must earn a minimum score on their testing to receive their IB Diploma in August after graduation." But, I guess we might need a better source.

Still looking, La mome (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

Minnesota too…

“California recognizes the value of keeping highly attractive IB graduates at in-state institutions and grants students matriculating to the University of California (UC) system with an IB Diploma of 30 or more points 30-quarter (or 20-semester) units toward their UC undergraduate degree. Minnesota also uses the score of 30 points on the IB diploma as the standard for credit acceptance. The Minnesota State Colleges and Universities Board established that all students with a score of 30 or higher must be awarded 12 quarter (or 8-semester) credits for each of the three higher-level exams. In addition, three quarter (or 2-semester) credits are granted for each subsidiary exam. The total possible credit awarded for an IB Diploma in Minnesota is 45 quarter (or 30-semester) credits.” So no, they are not saying that 38 states don't regognize it. They're saying that 12 states have passed legislation. So far we California, Colorado, Minnesota and Texas, correct? What are they others? La mome (talk) 01:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)

ha ha - that Desertania section was hysterical! But the little vandal did bring to light something that you folks seem to have overlooked - the entire continent of Africa and the Mid East! Oopsie! ObserverNY (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

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