Content deleted Content added
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Archiving 4 thread(s) from Talk:IB Diploma Programme. |
MiszaBot I (talk | contribs) m Archiving 5 thread(s) from Talk:IB Diploma Programme. |
||
Line 639:
Let me remind everyone once more: '''[[WP:NOTFORUM|this is not a forum]]'''. We are here to discuss the IB Diploma Programme. I've restored Candorwien's removals this time, but I will not do so again next time. Stay on topic. — [[User:HelloAnnyong|'''<span style="color: #aaa">Hello</span><span style="color: #666">Annyong</span>''']] <sup>[[User_talk:HelloAnnyong|(say whaaat?!)]]</sup> 22:19, 19 August 2009 (UTC)
== UWC ==
Cinchbug - The UWC is the only one of the three that actually uses the IBDP. The French Bac is a very nationalized diploma. In fact, I recall at one point, I had inserted a reference to the UWC as being credited with developing the IB SL courses, but of course, that was wiped somewhere along the way. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 18:50, 20 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
:ObserverNY, sure, that's true. Okay, I'll put it back in and see what folks have to say about it. Regards, • [[User:CinchBug|<b style="color:#0C0">Cinch</b>]][[User talk:CinchBug|<b style="color:#93C">Bug</b>]] • 18:54, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
::To clarify, I mean that it's true that the UWC are the only schools listed in the "See Also" section that use the IBDP. I don't know if it's true that UWC developed SL courses, although that may indeed be the case; but I don't recall having read that anywhere. If you have a good source for that, I would think that would be a good addition to the article. Regards, • [[User:CinchBug|<b style="color:#0C0">Cinch</b>]][[User talk:CinchBug|<b style="color:#93C">Bug</b>]] • 19:01, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
:::Cinchbug - http://www.uwc.org/our_colleges/curriculum/international_baccalaureate/school_based_syllabi.aspx [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 19:10, 20 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
::::ObserverNY, ah, I see what you're talking about. I suppose that I misunderstood you before--I thought you were saying that the UWC "came up with the idea for the Standard Level course," or something to that effect. The School-Based Syllabi are courses designed by a given school (or sometimes a small collection of schools), in many cases to create some sort of course that is required by a national/local curriculum but is not currently offered within the DP. The school then submits a detailed plan and syllabus for the course to the IB for approval. If it's approved, then the school(s) can then offer the course for credit within the DP, although all associated internal assessments still need to be sent in for moderation and students still take exams that are externally assessed/moderated. From what I've read, these School-Based Syllabi often give rise to new courses that are eventually able to offered by any IB World School (at both the SL and HL level, depending on the course)--in these cases, it works out to be kind of like a pilot coure that would fulfill a local need or interest while it's being piloted. Regards, • [[User:CinchBug|<b style="color:#0C0">Cinch</b>]][[User talk:CinchBug|<b style="color:#93C">Bug</b>]] • 19:24, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::Cinchbug - the source I linked states that 9 of the 19 SL school based syllabi courses were developed by UWC and are used by other IB schools. Are these SL school based syllabi options standard global offerings when buying IB? Regards, [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 19:28, 20 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
::::::(ec) ObserverNY, there are indeed a great many SL courses offered within the IBDP, far more than 19. But, as for how many School-Based Syllabi there are, I'm afraid I don't know. I've not looked into School-Based Syllabi too much, since I haven't needed to either develop or use one. But I would suspect that there may currently be 19 active and approved School-Based Syllabi in use and that some others are either no longer used or have become regular courses that can be offered at any IB World School. And, to clarify, it's not that these are all of the SL courses offered within the IBDP--instead, I seem to recall reading that School-Based Syllabi can only be offered at SL, although if they are eventually approved as "regular" courses for use throughout the IBDP, then they could be offered at both SL and HL.
::::::Just a final add-on, I do think that the topic of School-Based Syllabi could be a good addition to this article. The UWC link you have would be a good place to start. If I recall correctly, there's also information about School-Based Syllabi at the [http://www.ibo.org IB website]. Regards, • [[User:CinchBug|<b style="color:#0C0">Cinch</b>]][[User talk:CinchBug|<b style="color:#93C">Bug</b>]] • 19:40, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
:::::::A final clarification, since your question changed a little bit since I wrote the above: From what I remember reading, if ''School B'' wants to use a School-Based Syllabus created by ''School A'', then they need to approval for that. But some of these courses are eventually adopted as "core" courses within a given subject group (the link you provided gave a couple of examples) and are authorized to be offered by any IBDP school. Hopefully that's more clear. And I do still think this could be a good additional topic for the article. Regards, • [[User:CinchBug|<b style="color:#0C0">Cinch</b>]][[User talk:CinchBug|<b style="color:#93C">Bug</b>]] • 19:46, 20 August 2009 (UTC)
::::::::Well, I'm still confused. According to the IB website: ''IB Diploma Programme candidates are required to study six subjects: one subject each from groups one to five, and a sixth subject from group six or an '''elective'''. The electives include a second subject from groups one to four, Further Mathematics SL, Computer Science and '''a school-based syllabus approved by the IB'''.'' http://www.ibo.org/ibna/ibnarecognition/diplomaprogrammeinformation/ So it would appear to me, that IB regularly allows what appear to be "school-based" courses to be permitted as the 6th subject and part of the Diploma as long as IB approves it. Where would one find the "standards" IB uses to determine if a school-based syllabi warrants IB approval? Thanks [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 20:44, 20 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
'''Cinchbug''' - I agree that it's a good idea to add ''something'' ... ''somewhere'' regarding school-based syllabi translating top SL IB courses which are acceptable as part of the IBDP. It also seems to me that in reading just the Wikipedia articles on the [[UWC]] and the [[Atlantic College]] that the UWC had a sizeable role in the ''early development'' with regards to Peterson and [[Kurt Hahn]] (who is not mentioned here). I also note that Harlan Hanson, is not mentioned there. ;-)
I would also like to register a formal objection to the group plotting against me going on at HelloAnnyong's house. ;-) Cheers! [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 00:53, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
:Yes, because apparently a discussion La mome and I had counts as "group plotting." If you want, I'll state my beliefs here too. I think edit histories speak for themselves. — [[User:HelloAnnyong|'''<span style="color: #aaa">Hello</span><span style="color: #666">Annyong</span>''']] <sup>[[User_talk:HelloAnnyong|(say whaaat?!)]]</sup> 01:04, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
:HA - you forgot your 3rd Musketeer! Btw, who is Kay?
:Anyway, any thoughts on UWC? After all, this is not a forum. ;-)[[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 01:13, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
::"Kay" is " [[:wikt:'kay|'kay]] " when I don't add the apostrophe. It's a shortening of "okay." I'll revise my edit so it's not confusing. — [[User:HelloAnnyong|'''<span style="color: #aaa">Hello</span><span style="color: #666">Annyong</span>''']] <sup>[[User_talk:HelloAnnyong|(say whaaat?!)]]</sup> 01:19, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
== Back to Early Development and Inclusion of UWC ==
'''Cinchbug''' - I added references to school based syllabi in the Subject Groups. However, I believe that the early development section needs to include info about UWC which is described as "pivotal" to the development of the IBDP. http://www.uwc.org/who_we_are/history/international_baccalaureate_development.aspx
From an historical standpoint, it appears to me that [[Lord Mountbatten]]'s colleague [[Kurt Hahn]] had tremendous influence in bringing in [[Alec Peterson]], who would become the 1st DG. In the interest of cooperation and since the revision of the incorrect representation of the formation of the IBCoF, I felt the references to Hanson and Mayer were ''ok'', but it seems that the way the paragraphs were crafted were designed to give undue weight to those individuals. Since Hanson appeared to be important to you, I respectfully request that you create some sort of draft for revision of the early development section. The UWC is also an NGO of UNESCO which I believe also needs to be referenced. http://erc.unesco.org/ong/en/directory/ONG_Desc_portal.asp?mode=gn&code=1002 Thank you. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 11:49, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
:Do we have secondary sources supporting the claim that UWC was "pivotal" in the development of the IBDP?
:[[User:La mome|La mome]] ([[User talk:La mome|talk]]) 12:34, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
From the Peterson Lectures (which also needs to be included): http://www.ibo.org/council/peterson/sutcliffe/ Please note, no text has yet been composed for addition and therefore my emphasis of the word "pivotal" was merely for discussion purposes. However, Hahn and the UWC were clearly significant and notable in the IBDP's development. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 13:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
== Application and authorization ==
ObserverNY moved the application and authorization section up to before the subject groups and core requirements without discussing the proposed move here first. I oppose this change and consider it to be a third act of disruptive editing today on the part of ObserverNY. Does anyone else object to the displacement of the application and authorization section? [[User:La mome|La mome]] ([[User talk:La mome|talk]]) 14:17, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Yes, I moved the section after YOU eliminated Participation and shoved it into A & A without discussing the proposed move here first. Stop with the accusations, I'm sick of it. You are not welcoming, you are not acting in good faith, you provided invalid references and you make constructive editing on these pages next to impossible. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 14:22, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
:(ec) In my view, leave the edits as is for now, until others can review and chime in. I thought the application and authorization section was fine where it was, but as I've stated in the previous post to ONY, I haven't had the time to review all of todays edits. At this point, editors should either follow the edit, revert, discuss procedure, or wait to discuss first, which means waiting for others to get here.(Post ec comment: nobody will join the party when it's this uncomfortable.) [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper88]] ([[User talk:Truthkeeper88|talk]]) 14:25, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
::(ec x2) Look, I really don't want to get involved in all of the drama. But, to be clear, ObserverNY, I didn't say that I "agreed with the more proper placement" of the pilot information; while I stated that I had no particular objection to moving the information, I also clearly asked for additional input before we moved anything. To keep things more drama-free in the future, if someone asks for further input before making a change, let's wait for further input--as TK points out, we're trying to do these edits way too fast. As a result of these kinds of things, we've seen references get broken or lost, and a great deal of animosity build up between editors. These would be better articles if everyone would agree to slow down, collaborate, and not snipe at each other. Regards, • [[User:CinchBug|<b style="color:#0C0">Cinch</b>]][[User talk:CinchBug|<b style="color:#93C">Bug</b>]] • 14:26, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
Cinchbug - Does it look ok to you now? Does EVERYTHING on this article have to turn into a war because LaMome has "issues"? Can we please use some common sense and stop pandering to her and attacking me? She removed the UWC reference as well, claiming "undue weight". Frankly, I have no idea when these pilot course references were even originally inserted into the article. There was never any discussion about adding them on this talk page, from what I recall. I stated above, I have no problem with referencing verifiable information, but if they are "pilot" and not fully developed, then they should not be referenced in the section of established courses. Unless LaMome has changed the article yet again since I started writing this comment, I am fine with the current layout.[[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 14:35, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
:ONY -- I'm respectfully asking you stop attacking another Wikipedia editor on this talk page. It serves no purpose. Thanks. [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper88]] ([[User talk:Truthkeeper88|talk]]) 14:37, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
::'''TK'''
::''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...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. La mome (talk) 13:48, 21 August 2009 (UTC)''
::Is this constructive? No, it is not. It is an attack on me and [[WP:Harrassment]] and I have HAD ENOUGH!!! She tried to support pilot course statements with irrelevant links and immediately went into attack mode. Be fair TK. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 14:45, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
'''Harassment is defined as a pattern of offensive behavior that appears to a reasonable observer to have the purpose of adversely affecting a targeted person or persons, usually (but not always) for the purpose of threatening or intimidating the primary target.''' I am sick and tired of LaMome reporting me to admin, engaging in edit wars, breaking [[WP:Truce]] leaving threats on my talk page and seeking to make me the "bad guy" because I don't share her same POV. Wikipedia is supposed to be POV neutral and balanced, no? Enough is enough. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 14:57, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
::I think it goes both ways. It always takes two to tango. [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper88]] ([[User talk:Truthkeeper88|talk]]) 15:11, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
::TK - I guess you don't subscribe to the "who threw the first punch and who continues to punch first" theory. I have a right to defend my integrity and good faith edits. Almost EVERY single edit I have ever made to IB has been attacked by LaMome. Yes, I have responded inappropriately, I am human. As evidenced above, I am perfectly capable of carrying on completely edit related, on topic discussion with a reasonable editor like Cinchbug, until LaMome arrives on the scene. Instead of attempting to validate the references, she supplied completely irrelevant links. Please note I didn't accuse her of being '''fraudulent'''. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 15:29, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
:::If you're referring to the links at the top of the "Pilot Courses" section here on the talk page, they look fine to me. Can you explain why they're irrelevant. I have a little bit of time at the moment to review the edit history for today's edits and to review the talk page. [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper88]] ([[User talk:Truthkeeper88|talk]]) 16:03, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
== Most recent edits ==
The edits about pilot courses were added in early July [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=IB_Diploma_Programme&diff=prev&oldid=299926817 as can be seen here]. Apparently both Cinchbug and La mome understand the terminology of pilot course as it refers to electives; however, perhaps a quick statement to the effect that they shouldn't be confused with the pilot online courses wouldn't hurt. I don't think it makes sense to move these to the pilot section as that should (in my mind) refer to the online courses, and perhaps that section should be renamed "Online instruction". As for the refs, those have been used to [[WP:V|verify]] all the courses in the subject sections and on the subject pages. Because it's not available online doesn't make the source unreliable. I think this is fine where it has been since early July.
I haven't had the opportunity to view the links to the UWC, but most likely it makes sense, as ONY suggests to write a section about UWC's involvement in the history & development section. Both Peterson and Hayden devote chapters to Atlantic college, but that history extends back to the 1920s so I hadn't added it in but perhaps ONY can review those chapters to find information to add to the history section. In my view if a course is developed, then "development" is a good place to put it.
As for moving the sentence that IB DP students have to attend a world school to the Application section -- I don't see a problem with it. In fact it functions as a good transition sentence for that section and I'm surprised that move hasn't been made earlier. [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper88]] ([[User talk:Truthkeeper88|talk]]) 16:51, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
:TK - I have no explanation as to why you are willing to accept an unverifiable, proprietary, draft reference to stand as a valid reference. Since linking the ''IB Handbook'' is considered a copyright violation, I don't see how you can justify referencing material that no one else can verify. The links that LaMome provided which I said were irrelevant referred to '''one''' school participating in the ''online'' pilot programme, '''not''' the ''pilot courses'' and references being questioned. As has been defined, they are two different animals. As to your linking of the history of the insertion of the pilot course information, again, I see no reference to any discussion of that information being added here on the talk page. I had no idea who inserted the edits originally, I was not targeting the editors who originally inserted them, I was reading over the article this morning and those sentences jumped out at me which is why I sought verifiable sources (which Cinchbug provided) and sought to organize the information in a clearer fashion.
:I also don't have a problem with moving the sentence ... now. However it was done in a frenzy by LaMome in response to my edits and without discussion. I fail to understand why you think I am the only one who should wait for days before a legitimate edit is made, but LaMome can rapidfire do whatever she pleases without discussion and that's fine by you. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 18:07, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
::(ec) ObserverNY, as far as I know, I'm the one who originally included information about the pilot courses when I was editing the "Subject Groups and Coursework" section back in early July--if it helps refresh your memory, [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=User_talk:ObserverNY&diff=prev&oldid=300119267 you complimented me] on the work that I did in that section back on your Talk page during our first discussion.
::Also, I'm not sure that the fact that the original references I used cannot be freely accessed by everyone on the internet is relevant; after all, scientific journals are also not free--thus articles from scientific journals cannot typically be read unless the reader has a subscription or is a student at a school or university that has a subscription.
::I can't speak for TK, but I'll nonetheless hazard a guess that, like me, s/he doesn't think that you are "the only one who should wait for days before a legitimate edit is made," but we're not talking about days here, and we're not even talking about hours--the edits that were in question took place within about 10 minutes of my request for additional input. Perhaps I'm just beating a dead horse, but I'll again call on everyone to try to edit more slowly and deliberately, in a collaborative fashion.
::With that in mind, I'd like to ask ObserverNY, La mome, and, in fact, '''all''' of us to agree to bury the hatchet (no, not in each other's skulls!) and once again agree to a [[WP:TRUCE|truce]]. It worked for a little while not too long ago and I see no reason why it can't work again. Regards, • [[User:CinchBug|<b style="color:#0C0">Cinch</b>]][[User talk:CinchBug|<b style="color:#93C">Bug</b>]] • 18:33, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
:::I have no disagreement with you, Cinchbug. I see no effort on LaMome's part to bury the hatchet anywhere except in my skull as I never received an apology from her for calling me '''fraudulent'''. I don't think you would like it if I called you that, would you? A simple, "I'm sorry for calling you fraudulent" would sign the truce deal for me.[[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 18:43, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
:::Since I don't have the book in question in front of me I can't tell whether or not it's copyright violation. But, generally if the book is referenced correctly, which it is, then it's not copy vio, and should be fine as a source, and as such I'm assuming [[good faith]] from the editor who added it to the article. In my view it's best to look at the edit and not the editor; I don't see evidence of "frenzy" but rather evidence of improvement to the article. As such, in my view La mome's edit is fine. I do, however understand your protest about waiting, but Cinchbug specifically asked for input regarding your edits, and in my view 10 minutes is not an adequate amount of time to elicit input from editors. [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper88]] ([[User talk:Truthkeeper88|talk]]) 18:56, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
::::TK - Um, no one except an IB teacher has the book in question in front of them, so you have no basis other than personal bias to accept an editor's declaration that it's not a copyright vio or even accurate. This is why Cinchbug's references are preferable as they are verifiable. Yes, Cinchbug asked for other input but it didn't seem to me like it would be something that would cause a huge brew-ha-ha since none of the actual information was being deleted, only moved, and legitimate citations were properly substituted. If you choose to ignore LaMome's <s>insertion of the World Religion line without discussion when I had created a section SPECIFICALLY questioning the "pilot courses",</s> changing of the Participation edit, not properly naming the new section, and doing so IMMEDIATELY AFTER I was chastised for making edits "too quickly", I respectfully suggest that you are still looking at the situation through a biased lens. Again, what's good for the goose is good for the gander and I will not agree to a truce until LaMome accepts culpability for her actions. [[User:ObserverNY|ObserverNY]] ([[User talk:ObserverNY|talk]]) 19:21, 21 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
:::::Since the information was added in July and it's had the same references until today, yes I still maintain those references are fine. If an editor buys a book at a bookstore, the book may be used to [[WP:V|verify]] and as a [[WP:SOURCES|reliable]] source. Another editor, who doesn't own the book must assume [[WP:FAITH|good faith]] that the edits and source are correct. In this case, I've assumed good faith as I don't have access to the material. You were not "chastised" , but simply reminded that Cinchbug asked for input and 10 minutes was insufficient. Clearly an editor can edit when they want; but if one asks for input, then some reasonable amount of time should be given for input to arrive, in my view. [[User:Truthkeeper88|Truthkeeper88]] ([[User talk:Truthkeeper88|talk]]) 19:36, 21 August 2009 (UTC)
== Capitalization inconsistency ==
We went through this. It was a huge battle. Yet the article still stands as an inconsistent mess when it comes to capitalization or non-capitalization of IB courses. The Subject Groups are inconsistent, some have both words capped, some don't. There is also a spelling typo and ALL lower case references in the following section:
''In 1968, the IB headquarters were officially established in Geneva, Switzerland for the development and maintenance of the IBDP. Alec Peterson became IBO's first Director General, and in 1968 twelve schools in twelve countries '''partcipated''' in the IBDP.[8][9][11] The first official guide to the programme containing its syllabus and official assessment information, was published in 1970 and included the '''theory of knowledge''' course. The '''extended essay''' was introduced in 1978,[12] but '''creativity, action, service''' (CAS), although mentioned in guides beforehand, was not specifically identified in the guide until 1989.[12]''
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
| |||