Talk:IB Diploma Programme/Archive 3

Copied from article
I'm sorry, i don't know how to edit this but this isn't true. Now CAS is based on what you do and how you involve yourself into a variety of activities. Therefore it's not based on the hours you accumulate. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.1.195.169 (talk)

you are all wrong. IB is a superior prgram to AP, as my uncle works at admissions at Harvard and he says they do favor IB over AP since it makes the student stands out from other regular students; nearly everyone takes AP. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 98.64.167.64 (talk) 02:19, 21 June 2009 (UTC)


 * LOL! Dear unsigned, even I, Truth about IB crusader extraordinaire, have allowed the Wikipedia line regarding IB and AP being viewed "equally" by universities to go unchallenged. Hearsay from your uncle at Harvard does not constitute a valid citation to support a claim of IB's alleged superiority, nor does it represent the opinion of the majority of admissions officers in universities around the world. Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 15:06, 21 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

United States
The United States section needs the following changes: Truthkeeper88 (talk) 12:16, 1 June 2009 (UTC)
 * 1) The AP information is becoming too extensive. The article is about IB and to be consistent with the other country sections the focus should be maintained on the IB Diploma is the United States section.
 * 2) How many schools have contested the IB information? Only one source is presented, and that of questionable credibility.
 * 3) See Upper St. Clair High School for a good explanation of the IB lawsuit in that district. A more important question is whether the information is of value in this article?
 * 4) The paragraph/s describing college credit deserve more development.

Truthkeeper -

I object to your using the sensationalizing, left-wing ACLU's presentation of the lawsuit instead of a neutral party (or as neutral as is possible) for a reference to the case. It contradicts what is stated which is that the Board directors sought to eliminate the IB program due to cost. Please restore my original source, which I believe was the Post-Gazette. ObserverNY (talk) 13:30, 1 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY


 * The USC issue should be mentioned here but further detail would be better in the Upper St. Clair High School article. I wouldn't be surprised to find the presentation of a lawsuit to be sensationalised and biased - that's the adversarial legal system for you! 'Left-wing'? Who's to say? I do think the newspaper report is a useful extra source - for the USC article.


 * As for the number of schools contesting the IB's information - I think ObserverNY might be able to add some more examples?


 * Ewen (talk) 13:49, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Sorry but I must have missed something. Where is the "left-wing ACLU" presentation?
 * As per the information in the media about Upper St. Clair and as per Upper St. Clair High School the Diploma Program was left out of the fray, so why add it to this article?
 * In my view the United States section needs much more development regarding the IB Diploma Program itself before bulking up the paragraphs with extraneous material. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 14:25, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Who took out the Inspiration Award reference? Hmmm? That is a legitimate Award presented by IBO to a radical group of IB supporters for "control of local education at its finest". I would like that restored please, it goes to the heart of the controversy of IB in the United States and is official IBO documentation. ObserverNY (talk) 15:31, 1 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY


 * Read this Pittsburgh-Gazette article that explores the reasons for the controversy in Upper St. Clair. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * When language such as "radical" begins to pop up it's evident that NPOV is gone. Consensus was reached earlier about TAIB and it was not to migrate the entire website into Wikipedia. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper,

The word "radical" did not appear in the scope of the Wikipedia article, only my comment to you. Furthermore, TAIB was not cited as a reference. The revisions as they currently stand are fine with me. ObserverNY (talk) 16:09, 1 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY


 * 'migrate the entire website into Wikipedia' - that's an interesting way of putting it. I've suggested that it would be better to develop a consensus here on a point-by-point basis than to take a 'take it or leave it' attitude to TAIB. There are some credible, important criticisms of the IBDP which this article should discuss.


 * Ewen (talk) 16:39, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I have no wish for an editing war but to make the IB lawsuit central to the United States section of the IB Diploma program is simply rewriting pages from TAIB. As the link in my earlier post indicates, the IB decision in Upper St. Clair is notable, not because of cost, but because the school directors accused the students of anti-Americanism. If the incident is included at all, then it should be accurately described as in the link I posted above and will repost here. I seem to have missed the relevant discussion per adding this material -- please point me in the right direction. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:55, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I don't think the short summary on this page makes the discussion 'central'. Wikipedia is always 'simply rewriting' information from somewhere - TAIB has a lot to say about the IBDP and it certainly needs rewriting! Cost was a major reason for the decision at UCS. I think the UCS article would be the best place to add your useful reference. Ewen (talk) 17:42, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree Ewen. All this "controversy" material about the Diploma being removed from particular schools is not germane to the article. It should be in articles about the individual schools. --Candy (talk) 18:50, 1 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I agree with Candy that "controversy" material should be in the individual school article.
 * As for costs, because each IB World School pays fees the cost information should be moved away from the United States and, in my view, merits its own section. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:04, 1 June 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, but I do NOT like the way you folks chose to re-edit the section about the ACLU lawsuit. Earlier, Ewen stated that I could probably add more areas where controversy has surrounded IB in the United States, and I most certainly can, but I am NOT going to bother to go those lengths if you people won't even allow the most notable of all cases to stand! Where is your defense for wiping the mention of IBO's Inspiration Award? I see none, yet you feel you have the right to wipe that FACT without any comment! The controversy in the U.S. revolves around IBO's attempt to usurp local control. The Inspiration Award rewards activist pro-IB behavior for "control of local education at its finest". This article is about the IB DP program. In Upper St. Clair, there were a grand total of 4 students earning the DP at the time of the lawsuit. This does NOT belong in an article about the school, the controversy never would have existed without IB, and IB is central to the divisiveness and controversy. Changing the focus of the excerpt to Marxism from cost is YOUR POV. The information I posted was factual and non-opinionated. ObserverNY (talk) 23:45, 1 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Candy and Truthkeeper -

No wish for an editing war? Oh THAT'S believable. Why don't you just admit that you won't allow ANY facts which show controversy about IB to be included in the article unless it makes those who oppose it look like idiots? Your POV is obstructionist and deconstructivist.ObserverNY (talk) 00:00, 2 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I agree with Candy that the so-called controversy surrounding IB in Upper St. Clair should be moved to the school’s section. This is not germane to a factual article about the IBDP. I also agree with Ewen that the Truth about IB website needs a lot of work. Wouldn’t that editing time be better spent adding info here, instead of trying to fix a site that does not maintain a neutral point of view?La mome (talk) 00:05, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

LaMome-

It IS germane to an article about the IB DP because people should be aware of the HISTORY surrounding IB and lawsuits in the United States under the United States section. Frankly, I could care less what amount of work you think the TAIB website needs as we are not discussing the TAIB website, nor was it linked in the section currently under dispute! Ostensibly, the IBO Inspiration Award is something IBO gives out annually, or perhaps it was created especially for the IB supporters in USC. IBO's "ideology" and "agenda" are at the heart of the "programme" and the company's desire to usurp local American control in favor of international control is MOST germane to the article. ObserverNY (talk) 00:23, 2 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY has once again taken it upon herself to edit parts of the website without seeking consensus from other parties (wikipedians). Is there anyway to control trolls who seek to highjack serious websites such as this?La mome (talk) 00:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

"The information I posted was factual and non-opinionated."~ObserverNY. Really? Oh, thanks for making me laugh! There is nothing non-opinionated about the information you post. There is a lot of irrelevant info and pushing an agenda, that's for sure.Tvor65 (talk) 01:10, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

TVOR and La Mome -

And obviously YOUR agenda is to post inaccurate, misleading and downright FALSE information about IB. 1. There is no such thing as "The IB Programme" 2. The U.S. Competiveness Intiative does NOT mention the "IB Program", it specifically refers to AP and IB math and science courses. Try READING it before you revert my corrections. 3. IB is not a 'CRUCIAL COMPONENT' of the Initiative. That is YOUR OPINION, and an incorrect one at that. 4. You had no problem with allowing a grossly exaggerated representation (by 650+) of the number of IB schools globally or a reference to a London school under the U.S. section, huh? Those corrections of mine you simply CAN'T refute, now can you? 5. A troll is someone like you two who come in after months of discussion and arbitrarily wipe out corrections. Call an administrator.... go ahead.... ObserverNY (talk) 08:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY


 * I've performed basic edits to enhance clarity and consistency. In my view the entire AP/IB section should be completely rewritten or scrapped because much of the material requires in-line citations. Or, if someone comes across a stray reference or two feel free to add it in. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:41, 3 June 2009 (UTC)

Protection?
Obviously there's an edit war here that no amount of discussion will resolve. This article needs to be locked, or semi-protection. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The editing is being done by established users so, no, I don't think that would help much. It would only block edits by anonymous IP users which is not the major problem.


 * I don't think the problem is insoluble so long as people take the time to explain why they are changing the article. It would also help if edits were made on a line-by-line basis as too often editors are deleting every change by an author when they only object to a small part of what was done.


 * Of course, if the problem continues we'll have to ask an admin to have a look, go to arbitration, have registered users warned, blocked, whatever. Not the best way to resolve things amicably!


 * We could do with archiving much of this talk page. Do you know how that's done?


 * Ewen (talk) 06:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ewen,

Where's the explanation for removing the info about the IBO Inspiration Award? Hmmm? I've asked 3 times now. What, ONLY I am subject to these rules and all of the collectivist socialists in the room are allowed to do as they please? ObserverNY (talk) 07:42, 2 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY


 * Inflammatory allegations and name-calling won't help either side.


 * It would help if Tvor65 explained why the info about the IBO Inspiration Award was removed. You say it's important to include this link as it is about the history of lawsuits and the intentions of the IBO to usurp local control.


 * The Award is only tangentially related to the history of lawsuits, and as I said before it would be better if the details of each case were on the article about the school in question (e.g. UCS). This IBDP article might have a brief summary of the cases and links to each school's article for more details. That way the point is made about the number of disputes without getting bogged down in the details of each one.


 * The allegation that the IBO plans to usurp local control in US schools is one I hope you will drop. If I was forced to labour the point I would concede that the IBO wants to promote its courses in the US (Well, duh! What else would you expect of an international educational organisation? They are active in 134 other countries you know, and we have already established that the only reason the USA has more IBDP schools than any other country is because the USA is a big country)


 * You seem to go from observing that choosing the IBO's courses means choosing a curriculum which is set beyond the USA's borders, and then equate this to alleging that a major aim of the IBO is to take control of US schools? This argument is simply not credible and I can't support its inclusion in wikipedia.


 * Ewen (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ewen (talk) 08:22, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I read the IB information about the Inspiration Award and added another bit to avoid bias.  The article can stand as is, but why keep it in the IB Diploma page? The DP was not eliminated in UCS according to news accounts. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 13:21, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just to weigh in on protection (I've been trying to avoid IB drama recently!) - semi-protection would be ineffectual since all parties are auto-confirmed editors. Full protection would, in my view, be overkill at this point. I'd suggest warning editors with template:3RR, and reporting to WP:AN3 if necessary. Of course, neither option should be necessary if we continue to discuss matters here. Tvor65, your edits look to me like they're dangerously close to 3RR... Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 13:29, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

American Competitive Initiative
TFWOR, Thank you for reverting the section to include the Inspiration Award. I still have a bone to pick about not only the wording of but the inclusion of this reference at all: ''The IB program has been cited as a crucial component of the US Competitiveness Initiative. The initiative calls for more teachers to be trained in the IB program. It proposes offering incentives to teachers who teach IB courses and teachers who increase the number of students passing the IB exams[26].'' This "initiative" has been referenced by those who support IB as "proof positive" that Republicans support IB because George W. Bush mentioned it. The FACT is, George W. Bush did NOT mention it in his speech, the only reference to IB appeared in the actual document. I remember this, because I researched it in 2006 to rebut pro-IB claims at the time. From the State of the Union address: ''Tonight I propose to train 70,000 high school teachers to lead Advanced Placement courses in math and science, bring 30,000 math and science professionals to teach in classrooms and give early help to students who struggle with math, so they have a better chance at good high-wage jobs. If we ensure that America's children succeed in life, they will ensure that America succeeds in the world.'' AP - no mention of "the IB program". IB certainly can't be cited as a "crucial component" when it's not even mentioned. In fact, it would appear that the Obama administration has wiped the American Competitiveness Initiative from its archive altogether! Therefore, the above referenced lines are not only incorrect, they are obsolete. ObserverNY (talk) 13:51, 2 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Not sure why my references are not linking: 1. http://www.infoplease.com/t/hist/state-of-the-union/219s03.html 2. http://www.whitehouse.gov/stateoftheunion/2006/aci/index.html#section6 ObserverNY (talk) 14:02, 2 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY


 * No problem, except it wasn't me ;-) I think it may have been Ewen. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 14:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

TFWOR,

Cool, thanks to Ewen then, (even though I'm still mad at him). ;-) Question - Do you have any objection to deleting the two sentences referencing the American Competitiveness Initiative? I would like agreement from someone else on this page to do so before I do, so that I don't get accused of anything malicious. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 15:04, 2 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY
 * I'm not familiar with it, so I'm not hugely qualified to comment... however, the initiative proposes that incentives be offered to teachers who teach IB courses, while as far as I can see the initiative has never been funded. This all seems a little abstract at this point, so on that basis I'd suggest it could be removed and re-added if/when anything concrete happens. Does that help? Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:16, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * ObserverNY: In what sense are you 'mad'?


 * 8-)


 * I thought you (or somebody) mentioned somewhere that the Competitiveness Initiative did include support for IB teachers but only for the subjects of maths & science? I can't find the link right now, sorry.


 * I had two successive edit conflicts while submitting this response. Someone's out to get me, obviously...


 * Ewen (talk) 15:25, 2 June 2009 (UTC)
 * It wasn't me, honest! I'm busy elsewhere, arguing that the British Queen is a British national (I kid you not). There have got to be better things for republicans to do than argue about the nationality of monarchs. Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 15:38, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And I just got one too so it wasn't me, Ewen ;-) I was busy e-mailing President Obama to find out why his administration has decided to wipe out the ACI 2006 archived intiative by President Bush. I haven't had time to go through all of the links to verify if the same thing was done to any of Clinton's initiatives, but I find it VERY disturbing that the White House did this to the PARTICULAR intiative I was looking for. Coincidence? Or maybe an edit conflict? Yes, I DID mention that the specific mention of IB (within the actual document which perhaps I can find archived at a RELIABLE source other than whitehouse.gov) because I had read the entire initiative and recall that the wording was SPECIFIC to training teachers in AP 7 IB math and science - there was NEVER any mention of encouraging public schools to BUY the entire IB Diploma Program-me.ObserverNY (talk) 15:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Yes! I found it: http://www.nist.gov/director/reports/ACIBooklet.pdf So here are the main two mentions of AP/IB in the document. There are funding amounts mentioned further on:

"Advanced Placement/International Baccalaureate (AP/IB) Program to expand access of lowincome students to rigorous course work by training 70,000 additional teachers to lead AP/IB math and science courses and to increase the number of AP/IB math and science tests passed by low-income students to 700,000 from 230,000;"

The Advanced Placement Incentive Program expands the Administration’s current commitment to the Advanced Placement/International Baccalaureate (AP/IB) programs by increasing funding to $122 million ($90 million over fiscal year 2006 appropriations) with a specific emphasis on math and science. This program targets districts with a high concentration of low-income students by offering incentives and training to teachers to become highly qualified instructors of AP/IB math and science courses, while also subsidizing AP/IB testing fees for lower income students. The Department of Education would require 18 applicants to offer incentives, such as salary increments or bonuses, to teachers to become qualified to teach AP/IB courses in mathematics, science, and critical foreign languages by completing training provided or recognized by the College Board or the International Baccalaureate Organization, or the equivalent, and to teachers who increase the number of students passing AP/IB tests in those subjects.

One could argue that the use of the term "Program" in this instance is generic as IB supporters will tell you that AP is not a Program. One can also argue that the Bush administration wasn't the sharpest knife in the drawer at times, and had no idea that a school can't simply teach stand alone IB Math and Science courses without buying the entire "programme". ObserverNY (talk) 15:56, 2 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY


 * Thanks for that. It's odd how it only mentions "mathematics, science, and critical foreign languages" but it can be read as support for the IB...


 * Ewen (talk) 16:20, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think one can read it as support for IB in those 3 subjects, not for the Diploma Program as a whole, which is what the Wikipedia article is about, ergo my perturbedness regarding the 2 sentences referring to ACI. One can most definitely NOT cite the IB DP as a "crucial component" of the ACI. That is factually incorrect. ObserverNY (talk) 16:41, 2 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY


 * Fair enough. I've made a change or two to indicate that ACI support is limited to maths, science and languages (which to me implies that ACI does not support the entire programme) and I've dropped 'crucial' because if the IBDP didn't exist, these particular aims of ACI would still proceed via AP.


 * Ewen (talk) 18:31, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

Ewen,

Agreeable. But can you at least spell it "program" as it is referred to in the ACI? Btw, that particular section of ACI is referred to as the Advanced Placement Incentive, IB seems to be mentioned as an afterthought ;-). ObserverNY (talk) 19:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

There are other documents that clarify what is meant by the "Advanced Placement Incentive" http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/competitiveness/expanding-apip.pdf “Expanding access to advanced placement programs would provide more disadvantaged high school students the opportunity to take challenging courses so that they will enter college or the global marketplace ready to excel.” — U.S. Secretary of Education Margaret Spellings

Notice the use of lower case advanced placement programs as opposed to the College Board’s “Advanced Placement” exams.

http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/competitiveness/expanding-apip.html “As part of the new American Competitiveness Initiative, and to strengthen high schools and prepare students for college or the workforce, President Bush and Secretary Spellings are committed to expanding Advanced Placement-International Baccalaureate (AP-IB) programs. For FY 2007, $122 million--$90 million over 2006 levels--would be provided to: Increase the teacher corps with 70,000 newly trained math, science and critical language teachers over the next five years; Increase the number of students taking AP-IB math, science and critical language tests from 380,000 to 1,500,000 by 2012, giving them the opportunity to earn college credits; and Triple the number of students passing AP-IB tests to 700,000 by 2012.”

The quote specifically mentions the fact that Bush and Spellings were “committed to expanding Advanced Placement-International Baccalaureate (AP-IB) programs” not just Maths, Science and critical languages. I think we need to include these documents and revise that section. Thoughts? La mome (talk) 23:01, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I think the fact that the Obama whitehouse.gov has wiped this initiative from the White House archives is of tremendous significance and that if any reference at all is to be made to the ACI, that only the .pdf ACI which I linked above be used as a reference. The focus was on maths and science (and secondarily foreign language), NOT then entire DP program, which is why I suggested eliminating the two lines in the first place. ObserverNY (talk) 23:14, 2 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Well, that's your opinion. Let's see what everyone else says. And notice I ask for consensus first, before I start editing. La mome (talk) 23:18, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

And the initiative was not wiped from the archives. Certain documents were archived. La mome (talk) 23:26, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

I thought this might be interesting as well: http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1568480-3,00.htm How to Bring Our Schools Out of the 20th Century By CLAUDIA WALLIS Sunday, Dec. 10, 2006 IB is mentioned in two different sections.La mome (talk) 23:45, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * The source linked above and relinked here is fine. Whether it lives on the whitehouse.gov webpages or the ed.gov webpages is not germane to the issue. As per information in the fifth paragraph I favour leaving the American Competitive Initiative section as it was previously written and updating the source. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)

La Mome First of all, I did not change the ACI section. I brought up the topic for discussion before any edits were made, Ewen agreed with my points and Ewen edited, to which I responded "agreeable". Now, you are simply incorrect about the 2006 ACI document in the White House archives: http://www.ed.gov/about/overview/mission/archived-priorities.html. It is listed as a Bush era initiative and has been removed. What does this mean legislatively? Why is the inclusion of this document so important to IB supporters? I don't mind it standing with the current revisions which highlight maths, science and foreign language, as that is accurate, however I do not agree with Truthkeeper's assertion that the wording should be reverted to include "crucial component". Sorry, IB isn't "all that" in terms of the document, it is clearly secondary to AP's importance in the scheme of education.

Secondly, if the purpose of the inclusion of the 2006 ACI in the article is to show U.S. governmental "support" for IB, then I propose that we also include U.S. governmental proposals which would prohibit governmental financial support for IB such as:http://www.mngop.com/Roots/8a6031ab-af02-4ff7-b437-5db06581aaea/Documents/2008%20RPM%20Platform.pdf and http://utahedu.blogspot.com/2008/02/text-of-tribune-article-on.html for balance. I'm sure you will be able to find plenty of documentation under the new Obama administration throwing hundreds of millions at IB in the near future. ;-)

As to the TIME magazine article, if you want to include that, I expect to be allowed to highlight the section in the article where IB students watched the ridiculous "Loose Change" internet video in TOK. BTW, I personally know of 5 people, myself included, who wrote Letters to the Editor of TIME regarding that article. Not a single letter, either pro or con, was ever published by TIME. ObserverNY (talk) 12:02, 3 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

IB officials are rubbing their hands together with glee after the passage of Obama's Stimulus package. IBO has specifically targeted low-income districts across the United States to obtain grant money to support the userous cost of its program-mes. In the U.S., Title I refers to low-income/high minority/under performing public schools. A whopping $13 BILLION dollars has just been appropriated: http://www.edutopia.org/economic-stimulus-education-school-budget ObserverNY (talk) 14:09, 3 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY- 1. http://www.ed.gov/about/inits/ed/competitiveness/strengthening/strengthening.pdf “It will ensure that high schools offer more rigorous course work, including Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate programs in math, science and critical-need foreign languages. It will inform teachers of the most effective, research-based approaches to teaching math and science.” Improving public high school education, including math and science, not exclusively math and science. The AP-IB Incentive Program is part of the ACI—IB is part of the title. I would consider that crucial. I found the documents I linked under “Archives of Information on Priorities of Previous Administrations" ...and obviously not part of this administration’s White House. I said it was archived.  The US Department of Education is still part of the Federal Government. 2. Regarding the links from Minnesota and Utah, if you want to go state-by-state, then the US section will have to be expanded. 3.  We can continue a discussion of the inclusion of the Time magazine article in a new topic category.  If it is included in the wiki page, then it should be without biased comments and personal anecdotes. 4. The article you linked regarding the education stimulus does not mention IB, so I don’t see how/why IB officials would be rubbing their hands together with glee.La mome (talk) 21:01, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi La mome (Have we met?)


 * I am happy to leave the 'crucial' part out because it's either AP or IB: The program's success does not stand or fall by the IB's inclusion. Maybe that's an outsider's view but it makes sense to me. I was also considering that the program considers only some subjects whereas the full IBDP would require more than just maths, science and a second language.


 * Ewen (talk) 21:30, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ewen-Nice to "meet" you-the "crucial" part is not what concerns me, I suppose. It's more the notion that the interpretation is that the whole program is not valued, which is not how it comes across in other supporting documentation. I will concede that the language used is varied and vague from document to document. I thought I was helping by clarifying. In essence, even if only Math, Science and critical languages were emphasized, for IB, it is "all or nothing." Either you have the whole IBDP, or you don't. Math, Science and languages are included in the whole package. We could argue that IB offers critical languages that AP does not, but I do not think it is germane to this discussion.CheersLa mome (talk) 22:25, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

LaMome -

The 2006 ACI was the forerunner of America Competes Act of 2007 http://arpa-e.energy.gov/public/pl110-69.pdf which was the actual law providing funding for the 2006 initiative. The FACT that it does NOT specifically reference the entire IB DP and was written to address maths, science and foreign languages, is exactly the reason that one cannot claim that the IB DP is a "crucial" component. I sincerely doubt that Bush and friends had a clue that schools cannot simply purchase stand-alone IB courses and merely thought IB was an international alternative to AP. Furthermore, the entire issue is moot as the final date for application for those grants was 12/31/08. It is history and no longer in effect. The final $70M is being distributed in 2009, but to date, no new grants are being issued under that particular Act. ObserverNY (talk) 11:12, 5 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

AP-IB Incentive Program :Responding to (which appeared further down in another section): "I don't believe we reached consensus on the ACI. I move to strike the entire section as it is now obsolete and irrelevant unless it is to be referred to in the past tense with the 12/31/08 expiration date included" ObserverNY (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY


 * As for the section on the ACI, I think we (are at least those who commented) agreed to leave it as is. This is what Truthkeeper said: “The source linked above and relinked here is fine. Whether it lives on the whitehouse.gov webpages or the ed.gov webpages is not germane to the issue. As per information in the fifth paragraph I favour leaving the American Competitive Initiative section as it was previously written and updating the source.” Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:54, 2 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Now you want to remove it completely? After you worked so hard trying to convince us to keep your ACI link as opposed to my AP-IB Incentive Program link? Actually, I think we should expand it to include the new initiatives. The 12/31/08 deadline (not expiration) was for submitting applications, so I believe the grants are just now kicking in, unless I am wrong. And new grants are being awarded already under the new educational stimulus:
 * http://www.imperialvalleynews.com/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&id=5757&Itemid=2
 * "Federal Aid to Encourage Low-Income California Students to Take AP, IB Exams Announced State Superintendent of Public Instruction Jack O'Connell today announced the California Department of Education received $4.3 million in federal Advanced Placement Test Fee Program grants to help low-income students pay fees to take Advanced Placement (AP) and International Baccalaureate (IB) tests."


 * http://www.indystar.com/article/20090515/LOCAL/905150350/1195/LOCAL18/Funds+will+help+expand+IB+program
 * "Stimulus money could speed up the introduction of new, more rigorous academic programs in Washington Township, including expansion of the international baccalaureate program beyond the high school."


 * http://www.timesheraldonline.com/news/ci_12500516 "California has won $4.3 million in federal :grants to help low-income students pay for Advanced Placement and International Baccalaureate exams, state officials announced Monday."


 * I am curious to see what other people think. Cheers La mome (talk) 12:40, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Other IB info for US section of IBDP wiki page
http://www.ed.gov/news/newsletters/innovator/2009/0326.pdf Under the section “Raising Student Achievement”--“The International Baccalaureate (IB) Organization, a nonprofit education group with more than 2,500 member schools around the world, has selected Montgomery County, Md., as the location of a new “global center” for the IB Americas region. The center will manage operations and assessments for nearly 1,500 schools in 28 countries and territories. The center’s opening is part of the organization’s plan to expand over the next 12 years, serving 2.5 million students and 10,000 IB programs worldwide. (Feb. 24)”

http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,1568480-3,00.htm How to Bring Our Schools Out of the 20th Century By CLAUDIA WALLIS Sunday, Dec. 10, 2006 … “Still, dozens of U.S. school districts have found ways to orient some of their students toward the global economy. Many have opened schools that offer the international baccalaureate (I.B.) program, a rigorous, off-the-shelf curriculum recognized by universities around the world and first introduced in 1968--well before globalization became a buzzword."La mome (talk) 21:19, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I'm fine with adding the information above. As for reorganizing the

What does everyone think about adding the information in the above links to the US section?La mome (talk) 22:14, 4 June 2009 (UTC)

Not to be a pain---just a general observation---under the "recognition" section, shouldn't the countries be alphabetized? I realize that they probably are in the order in which they were written, and if it's too much of an editing nightmare, I understand, but I thought it was worth mentioning.La mome (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi La mome,
 * I'm fine with adding the information above. Reorganizing the article by alphabetizing the names of the countries does have a logic that's hard to dispute.  Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Re: the Dept of Ed newsletter - this is nothing more than a load of propaganda from the Obama administration. You want to find specific funding in the $787B Stimulus bill for IB? Go for it. You want to cite a news article announcing IBO's closure of its Cardiff office of 20 years and establishing new offices in Amsterdam and Maryland, keeping the information "global"? Go for it. (TAIB has extensive information of these events and the outrage from the Welsh officials regarding IBO's reasons for closing Cardiff because it isn't "international" enough). But I for one do not support including just U.S. propaganda to promote IB, nor does the blurb even mention the IB DP which is what this article is about.

Re: the Time magazine article - I told you before, if you want to pursue including that article and "feature" that ridiculous line about it being an "off the shelf curriculum" and referencing the globalization buzzword, then I want the following section included: "The juniors in Bill Stroud's class are riveted by a documentary called Loose Change unspooling on a small TV screen at the Baccalaureate School for Global Education, in urban Astoria, N.Y. The film uses 9/11 footage and interviews with building engineers and Twin Towers survivors to make an oddly compelling if paranoid case that interior explosions unrelated to the impact of the airplanes brought down the World Trade Center on that fateful day. Afterward, the students--an ethnic mix of New Yorkers with their own 9/11 memories--dive into a discussion about the elusive nature of truth." ObserverNY (talk) 11:28, 5 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

The following links are all schools in the U.S. which are getting rid of IB:

http://www.hcnonline.com/articles/2009/02/10/pearland_journal/news/2-5_ib_stuff.txt http://www.aikenstandard.com/Local/0213-IB-program http://www.sltrib.com/News/ci_11701160 http://www.ocregister.com/articles/school-high-district-1997140-students-program  (03/12/09) http://www.thepilot.com/stories/20090322/news/local/20090322IB.html#c5t_form (03/22/09) in addition to this highly rated NY district which has rejected IB after a 3 year study: http://www.gcnews.com/news/2009/0515/Front_page/004.html

---...and the following are links to schools that have adopted the IBDP http://www.tahoebonanza.com/article/20090518/NEWS/905189980/1061&ParentProfile=1050 http://www.ksla.com/Global/story.asp?S=10413291&nav=0RY5 http://www.gazette.net/stories/05142009/prinsch182255_32532.shtml http://www.tctimes.com/articles/2009/05/23/news/doc4a16e4d99c389200295263.txt http://www.cleveland.com/plaindealer/index.ssf/2009/06/new_high_school_in_university.html http://www.startribune.com/local/46584497.html?elr=KArks:DCiUHc3E7_V_nDaycUiD3aPc:_Yyc:aUU ...and your point is? There is a page on wikipedia that lists all the IB schools by state. Why don't you create your own page that lists all the schools that have gotten rid of IB? La mome (talk) 21:43, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I was just watching an episode of Cash Cab and the question was - "Which website does Jon Stewart (The Daily Show)claim arrives at 'truth by consensus'?" The answer? Wikipedia. ;-)

I have invested way too much time in trying to get out the truth about IB. I will play by Wikipedia rules. But I will not stand by and allow IB supporters to only show the warm and fuzzy side of IB without providing balance. It is not Wikipedia's place to sell IB. ObserverNY (talk) 11:41, 5 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

United States University Credit Policies

 * ObserverNY, a cursory Google search showed more than 2 colleges in the US that offer credit for SL courses. Can you provide a verifiable source for your recent edit? For now I've marked the statement as needing a citation. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:29, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

"I have invested way too much time in trying to get out the truth about IB."~ObserverNY Really, Observer, you are pathetic! What truth??? Do you really believe that there are only two US universities that give credit for IB SL courses? (A simple google search proves otherwise.) Or is it another deliberate lie of yours?Tvor65 (talk) 18:02, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

Truthkeeper,

I just searched again and I see that the University of Georgia now offers credit for Certificate IB SL courses. So that makes three (3). http://www.gsu.edu/es/27423.html You know of more? I'd be happy to entertain your documentation.

Tvor65 I absolutely did believe that only two U.S. universities recognized Certificate IB SL courses for college credit. This subject has been long debated by pro-IBers and opponents. You can even find an whine about the lack of univsiteries awarding credit for SL exams by Jay Mathews in the Washington Post: http://voices.washingtonpost.com/class-struggle/2009/02/extra_credit_dont_count_on_col.html I will amend the statement to three. Have more? Prove it. ObserverNY (talk) 19:11, 5 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Well, do you think you can Google? In addition to the three you "believe" are it, there is George Mason (http://admissions.gmu.edu/exams/examBaccalaureateInternational.asp), Appalachian State (http://www.admissions.appstate.edu/process/ib.html), UNC at Charlotte (http://www.uncc.edu/admissions/Freshman/interbac.html), U Wisc. Stout (http://www.uwstout.edu/admissions/ap_ib_clep.shtml), Purdue (http://www.iss.purdue.edu/Admission/UG/WhyPurdue/IBALevel.cfm) - and these are just the first few hits, there are more. Tvor65 (talk) 19:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)19:23, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi ObserverNY,
 * See this statement from WP:V -- "The burden of evidence lies with the editor who adds or restores material." You changed "some" to "two" but it seems that "two" isn't accurate. I favor using the word "some" which lies between none and many. I'm really more concerned about the statements in the IB DP article that don't show NPOV or that require verification, rather than bulking up the article more at this point. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:07, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

More examples: how about UT Austin? http://www.utexas.edu/academic/mec/cbe/ibcutscores.html - lots of SL courses listed. And don't forget Univ. of Wyoming (http://uwadmnweb.uwyo.edu/REGISTRAR/ib_credit.asp), Univ. of Cincinnati (http://www.admission.uc.edu/documents/IB_Key_2008_-_2009_v_2.pdf.pdf), TAMU-Commerce (http://www.tamu-commerce.edu/testing/intBaccalaureate.asp?pagename=intBaccalaureate&menuName=creditByExam), University of Idaho (http://www.registrar.uidaho.edu/transfer-guides/ib-credit.html), Georgia Perimeter College (http://www.gpc.edu/~gpcem/ib_scores.html), University of Kansas (http://www.admissions.ku.edu/credit/earned.shtml), Univ. of San Diego (http://www.sandiego.edu/fll/advanced_credit.php), U of Maryland College Park (http://www.tce.umd.edu/ibchart.html)? I think this is more than enough to show there are far more than three.Tvor65 (talk) 20:15, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I'll give you five of your six, bringing the grand total to (eight) 8 - none of which are on the East Coast (college corridor) of the United States. Your final link only awards credit for IB SL foreign languages, art and music. I think it is extraordinarily disingenuous to say "some" when there are approx. 2500 4 yr. universities in the U.S. http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0875643.html. In other words, less than 1% !!!! of the U.S. universities award credit for IB SL exams. Now it may be very helpful to list the 8 universities that actually DO award credit for SL exams for IB students who were led to believe that they are more widely accepted, that is if you want to be helpful. As to your first three links, only "some" SL exams are recognized, in one case, only one. So if you want the statement to stand about "some" universities give credit, then it should be amended to include for "some" SL exams. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 20:48, 5 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY I think it is "extraordinarily disingenuous" to edit a section from "some" to "two," without any justification and when doing a quick Google search comes up with at least 14 universities that give credit for SL exams. This editing war is tedious and counter productive. If you want to contribute in some productive way, then why don't you start alphabetizing the country section? La mome (talk) 21:58, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

I agree. ObserverNY is just too funny. First she insisted there were only two, now she apparently thinks that George Mason, UNC Charlotte and UMD College park are not on the East Coast - what's next? Really, this is ridiculous.Tvor65 (talk) 23:33, 5 June 2009 (UTC)

And I see that ObserverNY not only (1) cannot google and (2) cannot count, she also (3) cannot read the information provided to her. "Your final link only awards credit for IB SL foreign languages, art and music", she says. Really? Let's look at the link again: http://www.tce.umd.edu/ibchart.html, Univ. MD College Park (you know, the one that ObserverNY thinks is NOT on the East Coast). I see credit given for SL Chem, SL Econ, SL French, Latin, Spanish, Swahili and Italian, SL Geography, SL Music, SL Theater. Last time I checked, economics, geography and chemistry were not in the category of "foreign languages, art and music". As for only "some" courses being recognized, this is generally true of any college credit, whether it's for AP, IB or any other program. Clearly, HL courses are more widely accepted for credit, and this is made clear by the word "some" in the article. But to list an arbitrary number without even knowing how many there actually are is beyond ridiculous.Tvor65 (talk) 00:29, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Ok, listen up IB weenieheads. I see what's happening here. You feel I'm attacking your IB manhood because fully half of the IB exams offered are not recognized for college credit the way AP is. I never realized before that SL stood for IB SchLong. But be that as it may, you have a simple choice.

You can amend the statement to: 1. Some universities offer college credit for some IB SL exams. (vague but accurate) OR

2. Less than 1% of American universities award credit from SL IB exams. OR

3. 99% of American universities do not recognize IB SL exams for credit.

"As for only "some" courses being recognized, this is generally true of any college credit," - sorry, simply untrue. For universities that award credit for AP, you see no such differentiation in subject matter. The problems with IB SL exams are threefold:

1. Although IBO states SL courses are supposed to be 150 hours, particularly with foreign languages, IB SL courses can be 2 years. Such is the case in my district's HS.

2. IBO has never bothered to "vet" its courses with universities to affirm that the content is indeed university level therefore...

3. Universities hear "standard" level and they don't believe it is college level material.

Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 09:45, 6 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY


 * Lisa, this isn't very constructive. 'Weenieheads' indeed. What next? 'Poopie pants'?


 * Until someone finds some independent research which gives the proportion of US Universities which accept IB SL (as separate certificates or as part of the IBDP?) then I think we should go with the vague 'some universities' statement. (I can give a figure for UK universities but it would probably fall into the category of original research and a figure for the UK does not have universal significance.)


 * As for the second set of three points:


 * 1) Why does a course lasting 150 hours imply that it's only a one-year course? Some schools run their SL subjects plus a bit of HL in year one, and then only the HL courses in year two. Some run SL and HL concurrently for the whole two years. Not a big deal.


 * 2) Oh really? How did the IB come up with its subject curricula then? 'Seemed like a good idea at the time'?


 * 3) In the UK universities tend to accept SL as equivalent to our AS-level (year one of the full A-level) and HL as equivalent to the full A-level.


 * Ewen (talk) 11:07, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Ewen,

C'mon now, weenieheads is a term of endearment. ;-)

The problem is, there IS no independent research on the subject (college credit for IB SL Certificate exams), other than what you are seeing thrown together here and the whining from Jay Mathews, which doesn't contain any verifiable stats, just a few VA/DC examples. I think it is very misleading, here in the U.S. anyway, when students are steered into IB and are being denied college credit for SL when they would have been eligible if they had taken AP instead. Unlike Singapore, where ALL of the students in a school are required to enroll in the full DP, most IB schools in the U.S. have less than 10% of a senior class as full DPers, with the majority of students taking one or two IB Certificate courses because they have no other choice. IBO likes to give the impression that SL courses are equally "rigorous" as HL courses, just not quite as "in depth". At least that's the official explanation I've been able to obtain. Since obviously my Google skills are clearly deficient and yours are superlative, perhaps you can locate a verifiable source to prove my "less than 1%" assertion. I would think if there were a preponderance of universities that recognized SL exams for credit, Tvor65 and Truthkeeper would have found them by now. Whether it is 8, 11 or even 20, unless someone starts providing a list of 50 (2%) or more universities that give credit for SL, stating "some" is misleading when "some" is "less than 1%".

Now, as to why should 150 hour course only be a one year course? uhhh, because if you consider that American high schools operate on average 182 days per year, even if the classes were an hour long each, one should still be able to cover the "rigorous" IB 150 hour curriculum in that amount of time with time for review. To stretch it out over 2 years is not only "dumbing down the subject" it is also depriving a student of a year's worth of instruction in another subject. So for example, if a student were to take IB SL Physics and a school stretches it out for two years, the odds are that student will receive NO college credit as compared to a student who took AP Chem and AP Physics who could earn a potential 6-8 college credits.

How does IB come up with its subject curricula? I don't know Ewen, how do they? Some schools claim they write IB curricula "in-house". I know you have to purchase the course guides before you can even see the outline. I also know IBO considers all of its exams "criterion referenced", yet no one seems to know what criterion they are referenced against. ObserverNY (talk) 17:11, 6 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY


 * I agree with Ewen. It should stay as it is now. "Some universities" is fine.  Two other points-1. Is there a way to archive this page and start over? Do we really want to scroll through discussions about teen suicides and "Is IB a cult?" everytime we post something? 2. How many warnings do posters receive regarding violation of talk page guidelines before they are blocked from editing?La mome (talk) 12:27, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * ObserverNY, first of all, "some" just means "some" - there is no cutoff number needed to use the word, nor is it misleading. It just means such universities exist but there are not necessarily many of them, that's all, or else the word "many" would be used. Second, the burden of proof is on you. First you claimed there were just two - we proved to you that this was clearly wrong. Now you claim it's less than 1% - and clearly you have no proof of that claim either. This is not TAIB where you can claim whatever nonsense pops into your head.Tvor65 (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Just an aside, a useful convention is to indent each comment in a conversation. Use :, ::, ::: etc at the start of each line. I think it makes it easier to read.


 * La mome: I'll ask about archiving. You can jump to the relevant section and just use the 'edit' like for that section. It saves a lot of scrolling.


 * It's better to avoid blocking people but if you feel it's gone too far then ask an admin to look at the situation and decide what should be done. See Requests for administrator attention.


 * ObserverNY/Lisa: You say you don't know how the IB comes up with its subject curricula. So how can you assert that "IBO has never bothered to "vet" its courses with universities"? By your own admission, this is just a guess.


 * If there really is no research we can reference, then wikipedia will just have to be vague. Wikipedia is entirely dependent on verifiable referencing, to the extent that it will, in theory, include facts which are well-referenced although they are not actually true. I have first-hand experience of trying to correct an untrue 'fact' but because the untruth was widely-reported it was very difficult to correct it. So it goes.


 * 'Criterion-referenced' is one method of setting grade boundaries. It is not really relevant to our discussion about how IBDP subject match university requirements. Warning! Long, tangential explanation follows! In criterion-referencing the grades are set depending on how students have performed against previously-agreed criteria. Sounds obvious, but every year a different set of exams are needed so it's tricky to ensure the exams are always the same standard. The opposite policy is 'norm referencing' where it is assumed that a fixed proportion of students will achieve each grade. The top x % are award the top grade, etc. Until 1984 this was how UK A-levels were graded but then criterion-referencing was introduced (See A-levels). In part, this lead to the debate over whether increased A-level pass rates represented improved student achievement or lower-standard exams.


 * I still don't get why you think 150 hours represents 150 days. Forgive my ignorance, but do US schools teach every subject on every day? My experience is that some subjects are taught maybe twice a week...


 * Ewen (talk) 19:40, 6 June 2009 (UTC)

That's right, Tvor65 That's why I asked for your help to establish a reliable list. You already contributed at least, what, 8 schools? If the purpose of the Wikipedia article is to provide accurate information about the IB DP, and a major component (50%) of the IB DP consists of SL courses/exams, either as the full diploma or stand-alone courses, wouldn't it be helpful to IB students to know exactly which schools would give them the biggest bang for their buck when it comes to IB and college credit, rather than just "some"? As I said before, your excellent Google skills should readily produce such a list which would be acceptable to all. ObserverNY (talk) 19:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY


 * Establishing a list won't do the trick. Better would be to find a reliable source with a list to reference. For now, let's live with the word "some." We seem to have consensus on that. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:59, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ewen - One of my major beefs with IB is the fact that its entire salespitch is based on hearsay. If IBO ever did bother to work with university professors to compose its courses and score its exams, I'm quite sure the organization would have stated so, somewhere, over the course of 40 years. Here is what The College Board says about AP courses/exams: (pg. 2 - Difference between AP and other college prep - http://bhs.sbo.hampton.k12.va.us/academics/docs/valueofaps.pdf.


 * Now, as far as how daily school schedules run in various schools, it varies I'm sure, but in my neck of the woods an 8 or 9 period day on an A/B schedule (phys ed and science labs alternate) and all core subjects are given every day. In some schools, block scheduling is used, but in those cases, each subject is given more than an hour on the days they are offered. Either way, each subject is certainly given at least 150 hours of seat time in a given year.


 * I'll agree to leave the sentence as "some" but would like the word "courses" changed to "exams" to be consistent with the sentence which precedes it.

United States -- American Competitive Initiative revisited

 * I don't believe we reached consensus on the ACI. I move to strike the entire section as it is now obsolete and irrelevant unless it is to be referred to in the past tense with the 12/31/08 expiration date included. ObserverNY (talk) 23:38, 6 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY


 * ObserverNY
 * I repsonded to your comment on the ACI in that section above. La mome (talk) 12:48, 7 June 2009 (UTC)

Archiving
OK, I'm going to try archiving everything up to the start of the TAIB discussion. I found out how on Help:Archiving a talk page. Ewen (talk) 19:50, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * That seems to have worked. There's still a lot here though. What should go in Archive 2, do you think? Ewen (talk) 19:58, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Let's leave it as it is for now. Thanks for the work! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:54, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ewen
 * Thank you for archiving. I checked out the village pump and they archive after 7 days.  It's too bad that isn't done automatically.  I guess I should go back there and bring that up.  Thank you for alphabetizing too.  That tidied things up nicely.  I was thinking of another way to clean things up in here, which would be to report anyone who consistently violated several policies of wikipedia, such as NPOV, COI, personal attacks and edit warring.  I checked out the administrator's page, but I don't know where to begin.  Any suggestions? CheersLa mome (talk) 01:21, 7 June 2009 (UTC)
 * Policy violations can be reported on the respective noticeboards, which are NPOV, COI, attacks and edit warring. (WP:AN and WP:ANI are really last resorts, or for serious incidents requiring urgent attention, and I'm not sure they'd really be relevant here).
 * In most cases you should warn editors first, so getting familiar with the relevant policies would be a good start: NPOV, COI, attacks (and behaviour in general) and edit warring.
 * I've not been paying close attention to the discussions here recently, but things seemed to be progressing fairly cordially. If there's a dispute over content I'd suggest considering dispute resolution first. (I've been involved with providing third opinions in the past; my involvement here would render me completely unsuitable for providing a third opinion but there are other uninvolved editors who could act in this capacity if needed). Dispute resolution includes using some of the noticeboards listed previously.
 * Hope that helps!
 * Cheers, This flag once was redpropagandadeeds 01:50, 7 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Ewen

Thanks for all that tidying up. All done with finals across the pond? ;-)


 * TFWOR Just a head's up, I don't know who LaMome is, but she mysteriously showed up right after one of my stalkers from the Washington Post came upon this discussion. Just for the sake of any future back and forths, I am not being rude, but I am not responding to any of her commentary so that she can't accuse me of personal attacks. Thanks. ObserverNY (talk) 10:00, 7 June 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Rearranging Sections
Not to be a pain---just a general observation---under the "recognition" section, shouldn't the countries be alphabetized? I realize that they probably are in the order in which they were written, and if it's too much of an editing nightmare, I understand, but I thought it was worth mentioning.La mome (talk) 22:35, 4 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Hi La mome,
 * I'm fine with adding the information above. Reorganizing the article by alphabetizing the names of the countries does have a logic that's hard to dispute.  Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:04, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * As per WP:LAYOUT the sections should be alphabetized. About articles with countries, WP:LAYOUT suggests: "Alphabetical order is especially useful when sections are divided on the basis of criteria such as country or state." I fully support resectioning. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:39, 5 June 2009 (UTC)


 * Done! Ewen (talk) 19:42, 6 June 2009 (UTC)


 * I was going to tackle this today but you've saved me the work. Thanks so much!! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:55, 6 June 2009 (UTC)