Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Archiving 5 thread(s) from Talk:IB Diploma Programme. |
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Archiving 6 thread(s) from Talk:IB Diploma Programme. |
||
Line 743:
Please make up your minds what is going to be the accepted style of capitalization. Once again, I would prefer that we use ''common usage'' and not IB's inconsistent style. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 18:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
== Pilot Courses ==
I question the inclusion of alleged "pilot" IB courses (refs. 31 & <s>34</s>35) which can only be verified via proprietary material. As a reader, I have no way of checking if this information is accurate. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 11:28, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
:http://www.govhs.org/vhsweb/Press.nsf/By+Date/B9F58F3781DD64FB862572AB0044263D?OpenDocument
:http://www.govhs.org/Pages/Academics-IB
:[[User:La mome|La mome]] ([[User talk:La mome|talk]]) 12:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
That is not what I was referring to. This is what I was referring to:
* Group 6: The arts....'''The pilot course for Dance in SL or HL is offered at schools participating in the pilot program.[31]'''...Text and Performance SL (Groups 1 and 6), '''which is currently a pilot course.[35]'''
Neither of the above courses are listed in LaMome's links. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 12:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
:I have removed all of the "pilot" course references in the Group subject section as these statements are not verifiable.[[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 12:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
::ObserverNY, first, there's nothing wrong with using the documents we've already listed as citations for those courses. Second, I have additional citations for each course. So I'm going to go ahead and revert those edits and include the new references. Regards, • [[User:CinchBug|<b style="color:#0C0">Cinch</b>]][[User talk:CinchBug|<b style="color:#93C">Bug</b>]] • 13:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
:::Cinchbug - I'd like to see your references please, Cinchbug. Because when I wanted to use the IB Handbook of Procedures (with a readable link) as a reference for something related to Special Needs, I was forbidden from doing so because it was an IB propietary item. Therefore, IB "draft" guides for something that isn't offered globally or publicly do not constitute verifiable sources either. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 13:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
::::Cinchbug - your citations have big red errors ;-) I respectfully suggest that if you want to include these "pilot" courses that are not yet developed, not described and not officially offered globally to all IB schools, that a reference to them be placed in the section with the "pilot" online programme instead of inserted in the Subject Groups. Thank you. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 13:23, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
::::ObserverNY, the new references I included are all freely available on the web, as you can see in the article. Regards, • [[User:CinchBug|<b style="color:#0C0">Cinch</b>]][[User talk:CinchBug|<b style="color:#93C">Bug</b>]] • 13:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::Oops, apparently not, since there is some sort of error in my citation. I'll go in and fix the errors so that you can see the sources. Sorry 'bout that! • [[User:CinchBug|<b style="color:#0C0">Cinch</b>]][[User talk:CinchBug|<b style="color:#93C">Bug</b>]] • 13:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::Before you do, please read my suggestion above. I am not opposed to including verifiable information, however the Subject Group should reflect actual courses available to all IB schools. Thank you. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 13:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
::::::Okay, the citatons seem to be working now. I didn't see your suggestion until now, but I don't have any particular objection to it. But before we move the pilot courses to that section (which I suppose would then have to be renamed), what does everyone else think? Regards, • [[User:CinchBug|<b style="color:#0C0">Cinch</b>]][[User talk:CinchBug|<b style="color:#93C">Bug</b>]] • 13:32, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
:The pilot courses ''are'' actual courses available to all IB schools. They just need to apply to offer them. I am opposed to moving them to the section with online courses, unless that section is moved up to immediately follow the subjects section.
:[[User:La mome|La mome]] ([[User talk:La mome|talk]]) 13:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
::Too late. Change was already made, without consensus. I propose we move the core requirements to before the subjects, followed by online courses. Any objections? Ok, then...
::[[User:La mome|La mome]] ([[User talk:La mome|talk]]) 13:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
:::So far ObserverNY has engaged in 2 acts of disruptive editing-first, by deleting the pilot courses and then by moving them--both without any input from other editors.
:::[[User:La mome|La mome]] ([[User talk:La mome|talk]]) 13:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
::::Oh please, spare us. I posted the topic for discussion. You came in and provided two irrelevant links. Cinchbug agreed with the more proper placement of "pilot" courses in the appropriately re-named ''Participation, online and pilot courses'' section. You asked to move it up. I did. I properly transferred all of the verifiable references Cinchbug provided and inserted them in the new section. Take a chill pill. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 13:54, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
:I have very little time at the moment and haven't had the chance to evaluate this, but I see that Cinchbug asked for input at 13:32 and it seems that the changes were made by 13:43. This is much too fast! If these courses are not exclusive to the pilot online courses then, in my view, they shouldn't go in that section. I'd recommend keeping them where Cinchbug had them until people have had the opportunity to review the sections and text. I won't have time to do so until much later. Thanks. [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper88]] ([[User talk:Truthkeeper88|talk]]) 14:09, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
::Truthkeeper - Since Cinchbug provided verifiable references and also specifically stated he has "no particular objection" to re-naming the Participation section and yes, I have other things to do with my life as well, I made the changes. I made good faith, accurate, informative edits. From the IB information, all it says is they are "pilot courses" and they have been separately listed from the "online" pilot program in the new section. LaMome arbitrarily removed the Participation statement without ANY discussion and shoved it into Application and Authorization. I moved that section to a more appropriate placement. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 14:15, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
::ObserverNY - "I question the inclusion of alleged "pilot" IB courses (refs. 31 & 3435) which can only be verified via proprietary material. As a reader, I have no way of checking if this information is accurate."
:: Just because you have no way of checking if the information is accurate does not mean that others do not. I'm not aware of any WP policy that states that any single individual must have access to a document in order to verify it and allow it in WP. If others can check it that should be enough surely? --[[User:Candorwien|Candy]] ([[User talk:Candorwien|talk]]) 08:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:::According to [[WP:Verifiability]] - ''"The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether '''readers''' are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true."'' [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 12:18, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Thanks ObserverNY. I have read that. However, it doesn't state that all readers should be able to verify every statement all of the time. There are several readers who have access to the material and can verify it. Just like any information if you don't have the book, magazine, DVD, CD etc than you have to go and get it if you want to check the information. Sometimes this is simply difficult and we have to rely on good faith of the people concerned surely? The IB guides are fully referenced as well (or so I have seen) so this shouldn't be a problem. As regards my comment below about ESS, the UWC statement about Ecosystems and Societies is unverified. In fact it is not even verified by the source of the information - the IB (their store has the ESS guide currently for sale). This is both true and verifyable (they are not necessarily mutually exclusive). --[[User:Candorwien|Candy]] ([[User talk:Candorwien|talk]]) 13:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:Please locate the IB Guides under [[WP:Book sources]] and I will be happy to accept them as verifiable references. Thank you. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 14:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Hold up a second! Have I missed something here? Printed material has to have an ISBN number to be permissible as a WP source?
I don't believe so. I don't seem to have seen that.
A book publisher doesn't have to supply an ISBN number. The [[Principia_Mathematica_Philosophiae_Naturalis|Principia]] has no ISBN number. It seems to be a very acceptable source though.
With respect, it's not whether '''you''' personally accept the source isn't it whether it fits the criteria for inclusion by WP surely? --[[User:Candorwien|Candy]] ([[User talk:Candorwien|talk]]) 15:59, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
== Truce ==
All right, let me do this a bit more formally. I propose that everyone agree to a [[WP:TRUCE|truce]], without any additional pre-conditions, and agree to genuinely strive to do several things:
*1. Be civil to each other.
*2. With the exception of minor edits for spelling, punctuation, and the like, propose and discuss changes to the article on the Talk page before actually making the changes.
*3. Slow down the pace of editing--rapid-fire editing seems to have inevitably led to nastiness around here.
If you agree to try to do this, then please sign below. It is intended that this all be done in [[WP:AGF|good faith]].
• [[User:CinchBug|<b style="color:#0C0">Cinch</b>]][[User talk:CinchBug|<b style="color:#93C">Bug</b>]] • 18:50, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
:I'll agree to a truce on these terms. Thank you CB & TK for being peacemakers.
:Cheers![[User:La mome|La mome]] ([[User talk:La mome|talk]]) 19:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
::Agreed to above and thanks to Cinchbug. Assuming that adding page numbers constitutes minor edits? [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper88]] ([[User talk:Truthkeeper88|talk]]) 20:38, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
:::No resolution - please see discussion on Cinchpage's talk. Will compromise if LaMome strikes or removes '''fraudulent''' comment from "Certificate Programme" section above. Then I agree to the above terms. Without an honest effort by LaMome to show good faith by removing that which has severely offended a fellow editor, I cannot believe that she is agreeing to this truce in good faith. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 21:00, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
::::What is this fradulent comment that has offended you so terribly? Can you point it out to me? — [[User:HelloAnnyong|'''<span style="color: #aaa">Hello</span><span style="color: #666">Annyong</span>''']] <sup>[[User_talk:HelloAnnyong|(say whaaat?!)]]</sup> 21:27, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::HelloAnnyong, we're trying to iron this out at [[User_talk:CinchBug#Truce|my Talk page]], if you'd care to join us. Regards, • [[User:CinchBug|<b style="color:#0C0">Cinch</b>]][[User talk:CinchBug|<b style="color:#93C">Bug</b>]] • 21:30, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::...i guess. — [[User:HelloAnnyong|'''<span style="color: #aaa">Hello</span><span style="color: #666">Annyong</span>''']] <sup>[[User_talk:HelloAnnyong|(say whaaat?!)]]</sup> 21:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
I apologized, TWICE, (this makes THREE times) to LaMome for [[WP:Outing]]. She refuses to apologize, as proposed by Cinchbug, for calling me/my editing '''fraudulent'''. No truce. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 00:33, 22 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
Thank you very much for trying, Cinchbug, TK and HelloAnnyong. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 00:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
:...okay then. I'm going to take my leave of this article yet again. If you guys need more help, feel free to send me a message on my talk page. — [[User:HelloAnnyong|'''<span style="color: #aaa">Hello</span><span style="color: #666">Annyong</span>''']] <sup>[[User_talk:HelloAnnyong|(say whaaat?!)]]</sup> 02:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::Apology accepted. I sincerely apologize for upsetting you if you perceived what I said as calling you fraudulent.
::[[User:La mome|La mome]] ([[User talk:La mome|talk]]) 02:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:::Thanks to CB, TK and HA for establishing that my edits were not fraudulent. Apology accepted. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 13:07, 22 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
== "To do" list ==
:I propose the following changes to the article:
:1. This sentence--''Currently, in order to participate in the IBDP students must attend an IB World School''-- should be incorporated into the lead paragraph and the word "participation" removed from the "application and authorization" section.
:2. The pilot course, formerly known as "ecosystems and societies" is called "environmental systems and societies" and is no longer a pilot course, according to [http://www.ibo.org/ibna/ibnarecognition/diplomaprogrammeinformation/documents/2008DPleaflet.pdf this source]
:3. The pilot courses and the school-based syllabi should be put back into the subjects section as listed [http://www.ibo.org/ibna/ibnarecognition/diplomaprogrammeinformation/documents/2008DPleaflet.pdf in this source]
:I won't make any of those changes until all the editors have weighed in here.
:I suggest that other editors write their proposals in this section and as they are agreed upon and completed, we can strike through as we go, much like a "to do."
:[[User:La mome|La mome]] ([[User talk:La mome|talk]]) 12:49, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
Alrighty then. So am I the only one who is unable to access www.ibo.org this morning? You know, there's an old saying, "I'm not paranoid, they really ARE out to get me". This is the message I receive: '''"Operation failed on the data source named ibo4.
Reason of failure "[Macromedia][Oracle JDBC Driver]Error establishing socket. Connection refused"'''
I'm pretty sure that means IBO blocked my IP from its main public website. Please let me know if anyone else is having this problem. Thank you. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 13:31, 22 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
:First, I applaud ObserverNY and La mome for settling their differences. Well done.
:Regarding the IB website, I'm also getting an error. At first it was the same error ObserverNY describes, but now MSIE simply doesn't display the page. Given that there's a note on the OCC main page (before logging in) that says that the OCC is scheduled to be down for maintenance on 23 August (tomorrow) and that I've occassionally run into the same kind of temporary problem at a variety of websites, it seems most likely to me that the main IB website is also down, quite possibly for maintenance. Regards, • [[User:CinchBug|<b style="color:#0C0">Cinch</b>]][[User talk:CinchBug|<b style="color:#93C">Bug</b>]] • 14:54, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::Also, I concur with La mome's suggestions. I tend to agree that the pilot courses are probably best-placed in the Subject Groups section, although, as pilot courses, the notion that they share characteristics with the pilot online Diploma Programme also has merit. I'd be interested in hearing some other ideas about this. Regards, • [[User:CinchBug|<b style="color:#0C0">Cinch</b>]][[User talk:CinchBug|<b style="color:#93C">Bug</b>]] • 15:21, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:::To alleviate my paranoia, I had a friend check the IBO site and it appears their server is completely down. I recommend that no edits, other than minor spelling or capitalization fixes, be performed until IBO's site is up and running as it serves as the vast majority of citations for this article.
:::Unlike AP, IB does not provide any sort of online list of its allegedly internationally standardized courses/syllabi. This poses a dilemma when it comes to differentiating what currently constitutes IB courses/exams which are recognized for college credit by universities, and those which are not. I would venture to guess that there is not a university in the world that would currently award anything other than elective credit for either a school-based syllabi IB course OR a "pilot" IB course/exam. We don't even know if actual exams have been developed yet for these "pilot courses". The "online pilot diploma programme" is not currently in effect, there are only 3 "pilot" student courses and it is currently impossible to earn an IB Diploma through this method. Merely slapping the IB label on either of these types of courses does not give them any credibility in terms of rigor. Therefore I am very much opposed to sticking any sort of "pilot" courses into the Subject Group section. When they become officially recognized courses, then they should be added, but not until then.
:::As to the "leaflet" sources in LaMome's post, I have a couple of questions/observations: 1)what site is this .pdf being pulled from if ibo.org is down? 2) The documents are from 2008 3) All of the course names are in lower case 4) the UWC source I had previously linked but which was removed is from 2009 and lists the course as "ecosystems and societies". http://www.uwc.org/what_we_do/news/see_all_news/marine_science_syllabus.aspx ''“When the IB decided to replace Environmental Systems with the transdisciplinary course Ecosystems and Societies, I saw this as an opportunity to design an SBS called Marine Science,” explains teacher Laura Verhegge, who developed the course.'' Therefore, I believe this information is more up to date and correct. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 17:29, 22 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
::::P.S - Note that the UWC capitalizes the course name Ecosystems and Societies. This is something we can work on until ibo.org is back online and try and reach agreement on. If ''Pointillist'' is still around, I would be interested in some feedback as I still maintain that it should be Theory of Knowledge. ;-) [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 17:46, 22 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
::ObserverNY - ""Operation failed on the data source named ibo4. Reason of failure "[Macromedia][Oracle JDBC Driver]Error establishing socket. Connection refused" I'm pretty sure that means IBO blocked my IP from its main public website."
::It's an automatic response from a server when data on that server is not being accessed properly. This is purely an internal IBO issue with their IT systems and will affect all users.
::Note: Neither Ecosystems and Societies nor Environmental Systems exist and more. It's Environmental Systems and Societies. --[[User:Candorwien|Candy]] ([[User talk:Candorwien|talk]]) 18:50, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:::Since this is not a forum for general discussion of IB Diploma Programme, I will keep my post brief and suggest that others do the same. Once the ibo.org site is back up, you'll see that there are indeed assessments for the pilot courses, such as dance and film and the results are included in the IB data reports. As Candorwien and I have explained, the Environmental Systems course is being phased out and replaced with Environmental systems and societies, which was called "Ecosystems and societies" in the early phases of the pilot. Speculation on college credit, course credibility and rigor of pilot courses and school-based syllabi without providing sources is not relevant to the discussion as it does not address the improvement of the IBDP article, which is the purpose of this talk page.
:::The "leaflet" is from ibo.org--specifically ibna--and is already listed in our sources. It is provided to colleges/universities in North America. The UWC link quotes a teacher referring to the new course (Environmental systems and societies) under the old name (Ecosystems and societies).
:::[[User:La mome|La mome]] ([[User talk:La mome|talk]]) 21:09, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
::::The UWC link clearly quotes a teacher referring to: '''“When the IB decided to replace Environmental Systems with the transdisciplinary course Ecosystems and Societies..."''' I really don't see how that can be misinterpreted. If Candy or LaMome can provide a 2009 source that identifies the course as ''Environmental systems and societies'' then of course we should use that. Until then, I guess we'll just have to wait and see.
::::''Speculation on college credit, course credibility and rigor of pilot courses and school-based syllabi without providing sources is not relevant to the discussion as it does not address the improvement of the IBDP article, which is the purpose of this talk page.'' - That is your ''opinion'' to which you are entitled. However, my "speculation" was providing a reason as to why '''like items''' should be grouped together within the article for the purpose of improvement, ie: Pilot online programme & Pilot courses vs. already recognized IB courses.
::::Please address the capitalization issue. Thank you. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 22:44, 22 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
:::::The IB source calls it Environmental systems and societies. It is an IB course. This is the same as the whole "IB Certificate program" issue. Schools call ''their'' courses and ''their'' programs whatever they like. The pilot courses and the online Diploma Programme pilot are not like items. The courses offered online are not pilot courses, they are mainstream IB courses (ITGS, Economics, to name 2 that I remember). Your speculation is your opinion, to which you are also entitled, however we are not adding information to an encylcopedia based on opinions and speculation.
:::::[[User:La mome|La mome]] ([[User talk:La mome|talk]]) 23:15, 22 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::::The IB source which you provided, is a year older than the UWC source. As I said earlier, we will simply have to wait until IBO gets its website back online to verify what IB currently calls this course. If the IBO website makes no reference to the course, then from an encyclopaedic standpoint, it seems to me the most recent source would be the one to be used.
:::::::A "pilot program" is defined as an "activity planned as a test or trial" http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/pilot%20program By IB applying the "pilot" label to some courses and its online programme, IB automatically places them into the same '''trial''' category. They are not '''tried and true''' items and therefore should be grouped together. There is no guarantee that either the online programme or any of the pilot courses won't be discontinued next year. Just like a pilot pharmaceutical that is "test marketed" to a select group of volunteers, these "products" are not FDA approved and offered to the general public. People may develop severe reactions and the drug may be pulled. Fortunately, IB doesn't have life or death implications so the analogy is not the most apt, but if there is little interest, or if there are particularly bad test results from the pilot courses, IB may have to go back to the drawing board and re-design its "pilots". So if you want to refer to them in the article, by all means, but it should be in its own section. It is interesting information. As to your contention that schools call their courses whatever they want and this is just like the Certificate Program issue, I beg to differ. The UWC source specifically states '''When the IB decided to replace''', not "when we at UWC decided to call it something else". [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 23:53, 22 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
::ObserverNY - "The IB source which you provided, is a year older than the UWC source." The age of a source doesn't matter in this respect. Surely, the issue is about whether it is correct? Whether or not a UWC created Environmental Systems (now Ecosystems and Societies) is irrelevant to the fact that there is an external course run by the IB called Environmental Systems and Societies (ESS) which exists now. The other courses have been superseded. I suspect the UWC website is a tad out-of-date in this respect which may be explained by the fact that the very final Ecosystems and Societies examination was only in May 2009. The first ESS examinations will be in May 2010. --[[User:Candorwien|Candy]] ([[User talk:Candorwien|talk]]) 12:43, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:::Please see my response to your question in the "Pilot Courses" section as it relates to [[WP:Verifiability]]. Thank you.[[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 12:50, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
::::[http://www.dwight.edu/academics/dp/EnvsysSoc.pdf Environmental systems and societies] --IB Guide from the Dwight school.
::::[[User:La mome|La mome]] ([[User talk:La mome|talk]]) 12:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::::[http://www.oup.com/oxed/international/ibdiploma/geography/ Oxford course companion for env. sys. & soc.]
::::[[User:La mome|La mome]] ([[User talk:La mome|talk]]) 13:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::::: Re: Dwight school link - "All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, stored in a retrieval system, or transmitted, in any form or by any means, without the prior written permission of the IB, or as expressly permitted by law or by the IB’s own rules and policy. See http://www.ibo.org/copyright." [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 13:02, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
:::::::I am not suggesting we use the Dwight school ref., just offering proof of what Candy and I have been saying. We can still use the IB guide as a verifiable reference.
:::::::[[User:La mome|La mome]] ([[User talk:La mome|talk]]) 13:09, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
[http://www.ioe.ucla.edu/academics/article.asp?parentid=408 Env. Sys. & Soc. Minor at UCLA] -Just FYI- found this to be interesting [[User:La mome|La mome]] ([[User talk:La mome|talk]]) 13:13, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::::LaMome - please refer to [[WP:Verifiability]] and also the section on Self-pub. Furthermore, I am not suggesting that what IB teachers are claiming is "not true", merely that we follow Wikipedia rules for verifiability. Thank you. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 13:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
:::::::::With regards to which source? Please refer to [[WP:TLDR]] regarding posts further up on pilot courses. So, I think we can change the name back to Environmental systems and societies, no?
:::::::::[[User:La mome|La mome]] ([[User talk:La mome|talk]]) 13:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::::::LaMome - The Dwight School Guide violates copyright. Your original .pdf's are from 2008. I respectfully requested that we wait for IBO's website to come back online before any such changes are made. Please adhere to the guidelines of the Truce you agreed to. I would also like for other non-IB teacher editors to weigh in on the issue. Thank you. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 13:25, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
=== Break ===
It's not the Dwight school's guide, it's the electronic version of the IB Guide for Environmental systems and societies. The hardcopy can be purchased. We can reference the guide, without linking directly to it, as we have done already with many other IB guides. The Oxford source has the course companion, with the title. As I said before, I am not suggesting that we use these sources in our references, just offering proof that the course is indeed called Environmental systems and societies. We can wait for other editors to weigh in, but it seems to me that once again a lot of time and talk page space have been wasted on a simple issue. No need to specify the occupations of editors. In fact, I am pretty sure that is inappropriate. [[User:La mome|La mome]] ([[User talk:La mome|talk]]) 13:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:I am working very hard to be polite, welcoming and to abide by [[WP:TRUCE]] as crafted by Cinchbug. I stated above that I am not accusing you of providing misinformation, however it is proprietary information and not verifiable by non-IB members. Cinchbug, Candorwein, Ewen and you have all identified yourselves as IB teachers who therefore have access to IB material that the average Wikipedia reader does not. There is nothing inappropriate about mentioning that, as it reflects proprietary access. I take offense at your use of [[WP:TLDR]] regarding my comments on this talk page and suggest that you avoid [[WP:Gaming the system]].[[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 13:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
::A simple google search will provide you (and all readers for that matter) with the guides that are listed in the references. This is no different than any of the other guides we have already listed. In fact, I provided you with the so-called proprietary information, so you can't keep saying you don't have access to it. I take offense at your repeated references to the occupations of other editors, including myself. You apologised for attempting to out me, yet continue to make reference to personal information.
::[[User:La mome|La mome]] ([[User talk:La mome|talk]]) 14:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:::So, we are waiting for Truthkeeper, HelloAnnyong, Pointillist and perhaps TFOWR to weigh in? How do you know that they are "non-IB teacher" editors?
:::[[User:La mome|La mome]] ([[User talk:La mome|talk]]) 14:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:::The proprietary information you linked violates IB copyright law and is therefore inadmissible as a source. Reference to your self-identification as an IB teacher does not constitute [[WP:Outing]]. I have objected to the inclusion of ANY IB guides in ANY IB articles and if there are other citations which currently exist in the articles, I challenge them as well. A Wikipedia article is not meant to stand as an advertisement for IB or to try and generate revenue for the IB Store. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 14:33, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
::::1. As I have said before, other IB guides are referenced. It's no different than referencing a book. I did not suggest we link the Dwight school source.
::::2. The articles are about an educational programme. Referencing curriculum materials is logical and necessary.
::::3. There are no links or references to the IB store, therefore no advertising or self publishing.
::::4. Stop referring to me as an IB teacher. You've done it at least 3 times within the past few hours.
::::[[User:La mome|La mome]] ([[User talk:La mome|talk]]) 14:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:::TFOWR, HelloAnnyong and Truthkeeper have all stated a "neutral", non-affiliated position with regards to IB. Pointillist is new to the discussion and I have no idea whether he/she is an IB teacher or not. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 14:45, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
::::And you have a "neutral" affiliation with IB? [[User:La mome|La mome]] ([[User talk:La mome|talk]]) 14:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::I am not employed to teach IB, nor am I employed by The College Board. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 14:53, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
::::::That doesn't really answer the question. A simple yes or no will suffice.
::::::[[User:La mome|La mome]] ([[User talk:La mome|talk]]) 14:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::::ObserverNY, if you'd like TFOWR, Truthkeeper88, HelloAnnyong, and Pointillist to give their opinions on the matter, then that sounds fine to me. But, as I pointed out recently, I'm not sure that the fact that the subject guides cannot be freely accessed by everyone on the internet is relevant. Again, scientific journals are also not free--thus articles from scientific journals cannot typically be read unless the reader has a subscription or is at a school, university, or library that has purchased a subscription to the journal. Making a reference to such a journal, or having a Wikipedia article about that journal, is not an advertisement for the journal nor intended to generate revenue for the journal. Likewise, referencing the subject guide for a given course isn't advertisement for the course or IB, nor is it intended to generate revenue for the IB. Regards, • [[User:CinchBug|<b style="color:#0C0">Cinch</b>]][[User talk:CinchBug|<b style="color:#93C">Bug</b>]] • 14:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
=== Break 2 ===
Uh, I was asked to comment on this. But the conversation seems to have deviated from the todo list that this set out to be. So what do you need my thoughts on? — [[User:HelloAnnyong|'''<span style="color: #aaa">Hello</span><span style="color: #666">Annyong</span>''']] <sup>[[User_talk:HelloAnnyong|(say whaaat?!)]]</sup> 15:01, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:For those weighing in-Is the title of the course, environmental systems and societies or ecosystems and societies? Can we use IB subject guides as sources or is that breaking copyright laws? Is it appropriate to repeatedly mention the professions of other editors?
:[[User:La mome|La mome]] ([[User talk:La mome|talk]]) 15:07, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::Cinchbug - A reference to an article in a published scientific journal is not self-published. Therein lies the difference. In the Pilot Courses section above, Candorwein states: ''In fact it is not even verified by the source of the information - the IB (their store has the ESS guide currently for sale). --Candy (talk) 13:52, 23 August 2009 (UTC)''. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 15:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
:::::'''A point of order please.''' My quote was ''As regards my comment below about ESS, the UWC statement about Ecosystems and Societies is unverified. In fact it is not even verified by the source of the information - the IB (their store has the ESS guide currently for sale). This is both true and verifyable (they are not necessarily mutually exclusive).'' Taking the second senetnce out of context lt seems as if I am saying that the IB's source is unverified. In fact I was indicating that the UWC source is not verified by the IB. --[[User:Candorwien|Candy]] ([[User talk:Candorwien|talk]]) 19:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::(edit conflict) HA - I have requested that we wait for the IBO website to come back online to see what the IB currently names the Environmental/Ecosystems course. I have provided a UWC source which contradicts a 2008 IB source provided by LaMome. The discussion has devolved into what appears to me, pushing of proprietary sources which violate copyright and [[WP:Verifiability]]. Thank you. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 15:08, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
:::One, we don't edit based on whether or not a [[WP:PSTS|primary source]] site is up. Two, ibo.org loads for me. — [[User:HelloAnnyong|'''<span style="color: #aaa">Hello</span><span style="color: #666">Annyong</span>''']] <sup>[[User_talk:HelloAnnyong|(say whaaat?!)]]</sup> 15:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::::[http://www.ibo.org/ibna/ibnarecognition/diplomaprogrammeinformation/ Environmental systems and societies] [[User:La mome|La mome]] ([[User talk:La mome|talk]]) 15:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::::HA - problem solved, the site was not up this morning but it is now. I will accept the following as a legitimate source for the changing of the course title to Environmental Systems and Societies: http://www.ibo.org/ibna/ibnarecognition/diplomaprogrammeinformation/ Thank you. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 15:20, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
:::::The "problem" was solved yesterday. Like I said, Environmental systems and societies. [[User:La mome|La mome]] ([[User talk:La mome|talk]]) 15:24, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::Excellent; good job reaching a solution. Message me if you need me again. — [[User:HelloAnnyong|'''<span style="color: #aaa">Hello</span><span style="color: #666">Annyong</span>''']] <sup>[[User_talk:HelloAnnyong|(say whaaat?!)]]</sup> 15:28, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::The problem was not solved yesterday or this morning. Furthermore, regarding [[WP:PSTS|primary source]], the opening sentence states: ''Wikipedia articles '''should rely mainly on published reliable secondary sources''' and, to a lesser extent, on tertiary sources. All interpretive claims, analyses, or synthetic claims about primary sources must be referenced to a secondary source, rather than original analysis of the primary-source material by Wikipedia editors.''. My UWC reference constituted a secondary source which I am willing to forego in light of IB's updated website. I am on record as challenging any usage of IB Guides in IB articles as sources. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 15:29, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
(outdent) The bigger issue, I think, is whether or not the subject guides written by the IB may be used as legitimate references in our articles here. As I stated above, I see no reason why they wouldn't be and I haven't found anything at [[Wikipedia:PSTS#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources|PSTS]] that suggests otherwise. These sources aren't being used to make "analytic, synthetic, interpretive, explanatory, or evaluative" claims, but rather strictly "descriptive" claims, in accordance with PSTS. The fact that not everyone can freely obtain the guides--or immediately see them for free online--is not relevant, I think. Regards, • [[User:CinchBug|<b style="color:#0C0">Cinch</b>]][[User talk:CinchBug|<b style="color:#93C">Bug</b>]] • 15:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:Cinchbug - I agree, that is the bigger issue. According to [[WP:PSTS|primary source]]: '''Any interpretation of primary source material requires a reliable secondary source for that interpretation.''' IB can make all the claims it wants about itself, but without secondary backup, it is merely self-promotion and does not meet [[WP:Verifiability]] standards, imho. Regards, [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 15:38, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
::It's okay to use an IBO source to cite the name of the program. It's even okay to marginally describe what the class does with the source, should you ever want to put that in. But when you start trying to analyzing it, then a secondary source is needed. So in this previous case, we correctly used a primary source to describe something. — [[User:HelloAnnyong|'''<span style="color: #aaa">Hello</span><span style="color: #666">Annyong</span>''']] <sup>[[User_talk:HelloAnnyong|(say whaaat?!)]]</sup> 15:42, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::Yes, ObserverNY, that is a quote from [[Wikipedia:PSTS#Primary.2C_secondary_and_tertiary_sources|PSTS]], but using a subject guide to identify the name of a course or to describe the curriculum of the course does not involve any "interpretation of primary source material." If, for example, we were to use the subject guide for Mathematics HL to make the claim that "Mathematics HL is the best secondary school mathematics course on Earth," then that would indeed be "interpretive" and, in fact, also "evaluative." But I don't recall seeing any such use of the subject guides in any of these WP articles about IB. Regards, • [[User:CinchBug|<b style="color:#0C0">Cinch</b>]][[User talk:CinchBug|<b style="color:#93C">Bug</b>]] • 15:46, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:::IB is notorious for its lack of transparency. While you may justifiably insist on using IB Guides as a primary source for these articles for course naming instances only, I respectfully submit that Wikipedia states articles: ''should rely '''mainly''' on published reliable secondary sources''. Regards, [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 15:57, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
::: I understand (as has been pointed out several times by yourself and others) that it is important not to take the hyperbole of any organisation or company and spin it in Wikipedia without appropriate secondary sources. Of course, some of this hyperbole could be quoted if enough reliable secondary sources were found to support it or repudiate it so that the reader understands what the issues are. I totally agree.
:::It would be good to think of you providing polite checks and balances in this article. I'm certain we would all appreciate that. However, I would also appreciate you moving a little more towards the centre so that basic verifiable facts from primary sources (as they are in many articles) can be used in the spirit of editing wikipedia. This will allow all the editors to move on towards the stated goals. If you really find this a problem then I would appreciate you going to the [[Village Pump]] and getting some response from there. I would be happy to follow their advice. Thanks. --[[User:Candorwien|Candy]] ([[User talk:Candorwien|talk]]) 20:16, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
== DP aims ==
The very first para states, "The International Baccalaureate Diploma Programme (IBDP) is a two-year educational programme for students aged 16–19 that '''aims to provide an internationally accepted qualification for entry into higher education.'''"
Two things bother me about this sentence. The first is that the ref used is 5 years old and the IB has moved on significantly since then. The second is that this is only one of the aims in the document. By stressing just one it makes it appear as though this is the only aim of the DP - which clearly it is not. What about expanding it to include all the aims of the DP? --[[User:Candorwien|Candy]] ([[User talk:Candorwien|talk]]) 12:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:It seems to me that a number of the "aims" of the IBDP have been expressed in the Core requirements section of the article. However, if you wish to include other different and more general aims, I think that would be the proper placement for them, not in the overview.[[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 13:12, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
== Issues of outing and COI ==
Okay, look. This is very simple. In order to maintain [[WP:CIVIL|civility]] best, it is advised that everyone not make mention of everyone else's professions, personal interests, websites, and so on. It is simply inappropriate to repeatedly state that a person holds Position X or runs Website Y, as it seems like, among other reasons, the accuser is just trying to discredit the other editors in doing so, and we should have none of that. Stay on topic and do not bring personal things into it. — [[User:HelloAnnyong|'''<span style="color: #aaa">Hello</span><span style="color: #666">Annyong</span>''']] <sup>[[User_talk:HelloAnnyong|(say whaaat?!)]]</sup> 15:51, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:Sure, sounds good to me! Regards, • [[User:CinchBug|<b style="color:#0C0">Cinch</b>]][[User talk:CinchBug|<b style="color:#93C">Bug</b>]] • 15:55, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::Me too! [[User:La mome|La mome]] ([[User talk:La mome|talk]]) 17:48, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::[[WP:Conflict of Interest]] due to the fact that some editors to this article about IB are paid to teach IB, is the source of all major editing conflicts to date. Choosing to ignore this fact does not help matters. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 18:39, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
:::I don't think that's reasonable, ONY. (1) The facts should speak for themselves and who puts them forward is irrelevant. (2) How can 'some' editors cause 'all' the conflicts? (3) COI isn't just due to some editors being IB teachers. Some editors run anti-IB websites, you know. However, point 3 isn't any use if you accept point 1. Back to editing?
:::[[User:Ewen|Ewen]] ([[User talk:Ewen|talk]]) 19:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::::Agree wholeheartedly with Ewen, (and welcome back!) [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper88]] ([[User talk:Truthkeeper88|talk]]) 20:58, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::The fact that the number of editors on the IB series are overwhelmingly IB teachers who are PAID to teach IB courses unjustly biases the entire editing process. This is evidenced by the constant demands that "the majority has spoken". I am not getting paid to promote or not promote IB. My interest is strictly in presenting the facts. There is an IB "gang" mentality amongst all of the editors here. I'm done. You win. Load up the article with all of your unverifiable IB propaganda to your heart's content. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 21:35, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
== Capitalization ==
For a fifth time, I am requesting that the issue of consistency of capitalization of IB courses be addressed. Thank you. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 18:49, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
:Honestly it comes up in many articles, and really isn't too important until the final proofreading/copyediting stage. I wouldn't worry about it for the time being. [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper88]] ([[User talk:Truthkeeper88|talk]]) 21:00, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::It's really not your place to tell me what "to worry about", TK. I asked for the editors on this article to come to an agreement regarding the capitalization style of IB courses for consistency. Apparently it was important enough when '''Pointillist''' made changes, but now it isn't? [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 21:14, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
:::Almost 75 posts have been added to this page on August 23rd. It is impossible to keep up with the conversation, let alone edit the article. It seems you have a number of demands, such as editors not editing, etc,. In my view, the capitalization isn't immediately important, but if you want my opinion it's this: as the article is about the IB Diploma Programme, then the nomenclature complete with spelling & capitalization of the International Baccalaureate is appropriate. As such, Pointillist's edits were appropriate. What else needs to changed? [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper88]] ([[User talk:Truthkeeper88|talk]]) 21:36, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::::Done. Don't care. Over and out. Selective illiteracy doesn't pass my smell test for intellectual honesty. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 22:05, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
:::::From my desk copy of the Chicago Manual of Style: ''[Rules] reflect the tendency toward the use of fewer capitals, toward what is called ''down'' (lowercase) style [....] most authors do not feel strongly about capitalization [...] the editor must establish a logical, acceptable style and regularize any departure from it [...]Rules for capitalizing or lowercasing specific terms can seldom be applied to every case. The editor, understanding the nature of the work, must use discretion, judgement, and intuition in deciding when to follow the pattern...'' Also, according to my desk copy of CMOS, there is not a section with capitalizations of course names. In science, neither biology nor chemistry is capitalized, so generally those would not be capitalized as courses (unless it's Chemistry 100, in which case it is capitalized), I believe that the capitalizations we are using in this article are fine as they point to generic courses which might be renamed by each institution that uses them. As I stated above, it comes up in every article and the tendency, in early drafts is to over-capitalize, but in reality many fewer terms/words are capitalized in English than most realize. Hope this is helpful. And, should know better, but must reply, that this is not selective illiteracy; the folks who write style books generally set the style, and others break the style. [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper88]] ([[User talk:Truthkeeper88|talk]]) 22:22, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::My comment referring to "selective illiteracy" was in response to your comment that "It is impossible to keep up with the conversation", not article style. Both you and HelloAnnyong decide what you feel like reading and what you don't. '''"Also, according to my desk copy of CMOS, there is not a section with capitalizations of course names. In science, neither biology nor chemistry is capitalized,''' ("so generally those would not be capitalized as courses" - <u>this is YOUR incorrect interpretation</u>) '''(unless it's Chemistry 100, in which case it is capitalized)"''' That pretty much answers the question regarding IB course names, don't you think? No one is discussing environmental systems and societies as a general topic as in biology or chemistry. It is a properly named course and should be reflected as Environmental Systems and Societies. I doubt it will help, despite the fact that it is pretty darn clear, because the IBers will never agree to it because it doesn't reflect the almighty IB's incorrect "style". Good bye. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 22:56, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
:::::::First of all the many posts are simply too long to read. As for the subject names, schools offer biology and chemistry courses (generic) but a specific school offers a course titled Chemistry 100 or some such thing. The distinction is important in capitalizations because each school can/may title the course as they want. The title is capitalized. The generic name of the subject is not. As such although it seems odd, a subject titled dance is just that, dance. Also, you glossed over the section that mentions the tendency toward fewer capitalizations, and in fact capitalizing the first word and not subsequent words is absolutely correct. [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper88]] ([[User talk:Truthkeeper88|talk]]) 23:21, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::No, it is not my incorrect interpretation. It's correct usage. [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper88]] ([[User talk:Truthkeeper88|talk]]) 23:27, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::::::See? You simply cannot accept the facts in your own manual. The courses in question will be reflected in schools guides as IB SL Dance. No different than Dance 101. Done. Outta here. Don't care. Have fun storming the castle! Ciao! [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 23:30, 23 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
::::::::::This encyclopedia is not a course guide and hence the subjects are generic subject names, thus not capitalized. You've asked my opinion and I've given three/four times now. The article reflects the rules in style manuals and as such is fine in my opinion. [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper88]] ([[User talk:Truthkeeper88|talk]]) 23:37, 23 August 2009 (UTC)
| |||