Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Archiving 2 thread(s) from Talk:IB Diploma Programme. |
MalnadachBot (talk | contribs) m Fixed Lint errors in signatures. Approved trial for Task 2 |
||
| (4 intermediate revisions by 2 users not shown) | |||
Line 67:
::::::::::The markup has been fixed as I had the destination wrong, and we can assume that from now on archiving will be automatic. Thanks ObserverNY for the minor barnstar. Also, some of you may have seen on my talkpage that I'm needed to copyedit another article, so I'll be gone from here for some time. Not emotionally involved, simply trying to get things set up to leave. If I'm needed please leave me a message. Thanks. [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper88]] ([[User talk:Truthkeeper88|talk]]) 16:50, 5 August 2009 (UTC)
Nice job, TK! We all really appreciate it, and the Minor Barnstar from ObserverNY was a great idea and certainly well-deserved (many times over, in fact)! Thanks also to [[user:xeno|<
== Decapitalization ==
Line 1,166:
the report resembles not only the philosophy but also the structure of the IB Diploma Programme,
which had only begun to be elaborated a few years later.''' [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 20:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)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? [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 20:59, 27 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
:Observer, this is [[WP:NOTFORUM|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 [[WP:SYN|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. — [[User:HelloAnnyong|'''<span style="color: #aaa">Hello</span><span style="color: #666">Annyong</span>''']] <sup>[[User_talk:HelloAnnyong|(say whaaat?!)]]</sup> 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! [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk: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! [[User:La mome|La mome]] ([[User talk: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, • [[User:CinchBug|<b style="color:#0C0">Cinch</b>]][[User talk:CinchBug|<b style="color:#93C">Bug</b>]] • 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. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk: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.
:[[User:La mome|La mome]] ([[User talk: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 REASON'''S''' 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. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk: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 [[User:La mome|La mome]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk%3AIB_Diploma_Programme&diff=311387049&oldid=311016231] edit didn't help either.
::Respectfully, --[[User:Candorwien|Candy]] ([[User talk:Candorwien|talk]]) 15:14, 2 September 2009 (UTC)
::Oh, that reminds me, I'm late for lunch at the clam bar. Bite me. ;-) [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 15:52, 2 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
== edit war ==
:::BRING IT ON LAMOME!!!! Going for 3RR? [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 02:26, 3 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Btw, just because you didn't "undo" this: [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IB_Diploma_Programme&diff=311580965&oldid=311580754] and this [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IB_Diploma_Programme&diff=311585334&oldid=311580965] doesn't mean you avoid entering 3RR territory. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk: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. --[[User:Candorwien|Candy]] ([[User talk:Candorwien|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. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 19:01, 3 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
::::Let's try to adhere to wikipedia's policies on [[WP:Etiquette|etiquette]]. At the least the article is worth reading. Thanks. [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper88]] ([[User talk: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?
:::::[[User:La mome|La mome]] ([[User talk: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: [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User_talk:Candorwien] No wonder nobody commented on it. So will you leave it alone now? [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 19:53, 3 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
== 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. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]])ObserverNY
(adding to archive)[[User:La mome|La mome]] ([[User talk:La mome|talk]]) 11:44, 13 September 2009 (UTC)
== 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.[8][9] 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.[8][10] Leach received a grant for $2500 from UNESCO for the conference; and they were interested enough in the idea to promise additional grants.[8]''
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.[[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper88]] ([[User talk: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, <s>UNESCO hosted</s> The Conference of Internationally Minded Schools <s>and </s>"passed a resolution" for the International School of Geneva (Ecolint) to develop an international schools program.[8][9] 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.[8][10] As a result of the work achieved at the conference, additional funding was secured from UNESCO.[8]''
::You also might want to address what happened between 1948 and 1961. You will find the Kurt Hahn was influential during that period. Regards, [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper88]] ([[User talk: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, [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper88]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper88]] ([[User talk: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, [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk: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 [http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_and_British_English_differences#Formal_and_notional_agreement this] explanation. Either is correct. [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper88]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper88]] ([[User talk:Truthkeeper88|talk]]) 19:14, 5 September 2009 (UTC)
--[[User:Candorwien|Candy]] ([[User talk:Candorwien|talk]]) 18:43, 9 September 2009 (UTC)
| |||