Talk:International School of Geneva

Michael Douglas
Did he really attend Ecolint? I can find no evidence. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Eoghan1 (talk • contribs) 08:58, 4 September 2014 (UTC)

IS Manila?
isn't International School Manila in the Philippines the oldest international school in the world? it was founded in 1920, in contrast to the International School Geneva which was established in 1924. Hence International School Manila is older by 4 years. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 121.1.53.31 (talk) 09:19, 10 March 2009 (UTC)


 * Can you find a source for this? The school in Manila was originally founded as an American school, not an international one. It only changed its name to the International School Manila in 1970, but this was not its founding ethos. It was founded by and for Americans. Harry the Dog WOOF  13:24, 10 March 2009 (UTC)
 * Graded (American School of Sao Paulo) was also founded in 1920.
 * In the industry, "international school" would refer to any school offering a program not from the host nation. So a school founded as an American school would still be considered an "International" school. The American/British/French etc... in the name often signals at the curriculum being used, though not always. So "the oldest international school" in the world sounds misleading given how the term is often used. Luizgmello (talk) 07:04, 14 September 2022 (UTC)


 * Harry is right. The International School of Geneva (ISG) is the first school in the world to bear the appelation "International". Many schools that were formerly "British", "French", "American" (i.e. those serving the colonial élites) have since become International. By contrast, ISG has been known as such since 1924. Booksworm Talk?

Full revision needed
I have read the page about Ecolint and strongly believe major changes must be made. Currently there are six listed issues and I wish to resolve them one by one. The major problem is that there is too strong emphasis on self awarding and bold claims that might be misleading, exaggerated or even wrong and don't respect Wikipedia standars. 4 out of the 6 problems are all basically related to the general idea of the topic been "too sided" and "not neutral". The other two problems are about sourses that are a bit harder to find and work with without shortening the page.

We should do our best and contact an expert writer once the majority of work is done to check with they if the standars are going to be respected, let's do our best!

Blue Fox, an Alumni of this Highschool

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Bluefox098

(talk • contribs) 22:26, 21 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Huh? Lard Almighty (talk) 05:54, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Proposed Changes to fix the multiple issues
I wrongly made huge updates to the page without consulting other users, so as suggested by User:Lard Almighty (thanks for the suggestion btw) I think is wise if I first proposed what I would like to change in the page to everyone.

The changes I wish to make are the following:

-Remove private rewards from The Guardian, Good School Guide, and the others to make the wikipage more impartial & neutral

-Remove the Statement "oldest and largest operating international school in the world" since it can't be proven (we could write second oldest to Manila School or generalize it with "one of the"

-Update G20 to G30 Schools

-Add few extra (third party) sources

-Simplify the Accreditention International section to only state IB autorisations

-Remove names of current staff employers (something that I noticed other schools don't usually have)

-Removing the fluffly statements like " the school has pursued a mission to educate for peace and to inculcate strong humanitarian values of inclusiveness, respect and inter-cultural understanding." that can't really be proven and make the wikipage sound bias

-Removing the coordinates of the campuses (keeping of course distric/avenue names)

-Reducing the numbers of, or source every single important, Alumni. While the information of the Alumni is owned by the School itself, the institution may inflate the names by considering few-weeks-students as Alumni so let's try to play it safe. (also 40 names are quite a lot, should we reduce that as well?)

-Shorter the description of every Alumni to it's core (and provide a link to their respective wikipages)

-Updating numbers of students

-And more (don't hesitate do give suggestions here)

Thank you for reading and if you gentle people agree with my proposals, I think we start improving this page and try to resolve as many issues as possible.

Blue Fox Bluefox098 (talk) 12:19, 22 October 2019 (UTC)


 * Thanks for bringing this to the talk page. On the specifics:


 * Remove private rewards from The Guardian, Good School Guide, and the others to make the wikipage more impartial & neutral. This is sourced material and should remain. Citing a reliable source praising the school does not make the article non-neutral.


 * Remove the Statement "oldest and largest operating international school in the world" since it can't be proven (we could write second oldest to Manila School or generalize it with "one of the". This has already been discussed on the talk page. It is correct to say it is the oldest currently operating international school so this should stay.


 * Simplify the Accreditention International section to only state IB autorisations. We should list all accreditations.


 * Removing the fluffly statements like " the school has pursued a mission to educate for peace and to inculcate strong humanitarian values of inclusiveness, respect and inter-cultural understanding." that can't really be proven and make the wikipage sound bias. It's not a matter of proving such statements. If they are part of the school's mission statement they are informative about the school, and so should stay as long as they are sourced (including to the school's website) and are not WP:UNDUE.


 * Reducing the numbers of, or source every single important, Alumni. This is generally sourced from the person's Wikipedia page. We could have a discussion about the meaning of "alumnus" but anyone who attended the school and who has a Wikipedia entry should be there, unless it really was only a matter of weeks or months.


 * No problems with any of the other suggestions, especially adding more refs. Lard Almighty (talk) 12:38, 22 October 2019 (UTC)

Notable parents?
Is this list really required? Lard Almighty (talk) 15:04, 9 January 2021 (UTC)
 * I've removed the list per WP:BOLD. Lard Almighty (talk) 08:05, 16 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Dear Lard Almighty,


 * What do you mean by "really required"? Who is to judge what Wikipedia's millions of readers don't need to know? Who decides authoritatively on behalf of Wikipedia whether a school's historical (not current) parents can or should be listed in an article on the school? Why shouldn't the "notable parents" of other schools (e.g. Eton) be specified in their Wikipedia article, if someone can reliably provide such lists? Wikipedia's aim must surely be to make available more, not less, factual and verifiable information.


 * What prominent parents sent their children to a particular school is of historical and sociological interest to readers and researchers. In the case of Ecolint, because of its particular organization and governance, parents have, over the decades, contributed to shaping the school's characteristics and educational priorities more than in many other schools. Their identity is therefore potentially significant and illuminating for readers and researchers. To eliminate this information unilaterally (unless you have reason to believe that it is false) is destructive and is not in the best interests of Wikipedia's readers. Ideally such information would also be provided for other schools - let's hope that knowledgeable Wikipedia contributors can add it in the coming months and years.


 * Although I respect your Wikipedia expertise and scrupulous supervision of its contents, in this particular case I think you have made an error of judgement, and I ask you please to reconsider and to revert your editing. Thank you.Archilbald Haddock (talk) 17:32, 18 January 2021 (UTC)


 * This list is completely unsourced. Do any of the articles on the people you added state that they sent children to Ecolint? This is what Wikipedia refers to as original research, either assembling information from non-reliable sources or inferring from a fact that something else is true, in this case that because person A when to a school their notable parent was a parent in the sense that you mean. That is fraught with difficulty in many ways, for example whether the notable parent was the responsible parent at the time the student attended and had any relationship with the school at all. There is no doubt that a student had a relationship with the school; there is certainly doubt whether a parent had an actual relationship with the school unless that is stated somewhere in a reliable source.


 * The connection of the "Notable Parents" in question with Ecolint can easily be verified in the school's archives, which (on appointment) are accessible to researchers, scholars and visitors. There is a handwritten register listing every parent, with his/her address and occupation, from the school's foundation to the 1960s (subsequently, the number of students became too great for such a register), in addition to tens of thousands of student files (obviously more confidential) which contain fuller details for bona fide researchers. Such records are the bottom line for any claim that is made about alumni/parents of any school. You have mentioned the article on Eton as a model in Wikipedia, but it does not provide references for the assertion that every alumnus listed really did attend the school. The Wikipedia links for each of these alumni typically affirms that they did indeed attend Eton, but sometimes with no supporting evidence. Presumably Wikipedia relies on other contributors (not least genuine Old Etonians with inside knowledge of the school) to delete false claims. Why can't the Ecolint article function on the basis of same assumption? It is interesting and historically and sociologically significant to know what parents decided to send their children to a particular school, provided (and here I agree with you) that these lists of parents are readily verifiable. Wikipedia would be improved if this information could be provided for as many schools as possible.


 * I am a relative newcomer to Wikipedia as a contributor; therefore I did not understand that your comment above ("Is this really required?") was inviting a response prior to an intended deletion. I took it as no more than a skeptical remark. It takes a while to get the hang of Wikipedia protocol, which is very fiddly for those of us who don't particularly have on-line expertise.


 * I hope that we can find an understanding and a modus vivendi that will enable us to continue to enrich constructively this and other articles, in good faith and with verifiable information, for the benefit of Wikipedia's readers. Archilbald Haddock (talk) 16:47, 20 January 2021 (UTC)


 * The connection of the "Notable Parents" in question with Ecolint can easily be verified in the school's archives, which (on appointment) are accessible to researchers, scholars and visitors. This is precisely what Wikipedia means by original research. Original research cannot be the basis for a claim on Wikipedia. For each parent you want to include, you would need to find a reliable source confirming their connection to the school. These days there are more and more online sources that can confirm that a notable person attended a school, including their own writings and yearbooks; it is much more difficult in the case of parents. And determining the motives of a parent for sending their child to one school or another is even more difficult. Was it simply the closest school? Was it the only school the organisation they worked for would pay the fees for? An article in a newspaper where a parent explained their reasons for sending their child to Ecolint would be a reliable source. A scholarly book on the influence of parents on the development of Ecolint would be a reliable source. Simply extrapolating from the list of students who happened to have notable parents is not.


 * As you say, you are new. Please take the time to read the policies and guidance that I have linked and understand how they work. Please understand what Wikipedia considers to be verifiable information and what Wikipedia is not. Thank you. Lard Almighty (talk) 17:25, 20 January 2021 (UTC)

Swiss Maturité
moved from user A. Roderick-Grove's talk page -- ZH8000 (talk) 19:38, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Re this edit, first of all please assume good faith. The information is being removed because it is unsourced. If you want to re-add, it please provide a reliable third-party source. Also, if you have a connection to the school, you should declare it here. Thank you — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lard Almighty (talk • contribs) 09:05, 30 May 2020 (UTC)


 * Disagreement about accreditation:
 * One cannot but appreciate editorial modifications in good faith, but the insertion of a purely negative comment (e.g. "School X is not accredited to do Y") obviously seeks to denigrate the school in question. One could endlessly and gratuitously add this kind of statement to articles about educational institutions (e.g. "Geneva's College Calvin is not accredited by the Middle States Association of Colleges and Schools."). A temporary solution to a disagreement about accreditation is to remove all mention of it until someone references it satisfactorily.
 * For the record, thousands of alumni know that the International School of Geneva has been formally teaching the Swiss Maturité fédérale programme for many decades, with success rates of up to 100% in some years. It remains to be seen if a Wikipedia contributor can reference documents or sources certifying the school's official status in this respect.
 * Thank you.
 * A. Roderick-Grove -- — Preceding unsigned comment added by A. Roderick-Grove (talk • contribs) 01:01, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * PLEASE, get accustomed with WP:TALK AND put your remarks to the correct place, mamely the article's talk page. I will move it this time. -- ZH8000 (talk) 19:32, 10 January 2021 (UTC)


 * Firstly, the term Matura/Maturité/Maturità (and related terms, such as Mittelschule, Maturitätsprüfung etc.) is a legally defined term in Switzerland (SR/RS 413.11) – even in Geneva.
 * Secondly, federally accepted (maturité) gymnasiums are well-defined and listed (as given in the cited reference).
 * Thirdly, you very probably mismatch federally accredited gymnasiums with the execution of federal maturité exams (SR/RS 413.12); two different things: kind of school versa exam.
 * Forthly, even assumed that your school executs federal maturité exams (but an independent source proving so is still missing!! WP:VER), it does not make it a federal accredited gymnasium (as given in the cited reference). This is a provable, easily checkable, and an undoubtly sourced fact. Full stop. – Besides, hearsaying is not a reliable source (WP:NOTRS).
 * And finally, again, please stop edit-waring. Read: WP:BOLD. -- ZH8000 (talk) 20:06, 10 January 2021 (UTC)

Dear ZH8000, Thank you for your apparently knowledgeable comments, the good faith of which I do not doubt. However, I don't know what your mean about "your" school, since clearly I don't have access to the specialized information that this discussion is focusing on - otherwise, I would have included it! Perhaps some Wikipedia contributor with the relevant, referenced facts at his or her fingertips will add them at some point. It's common knowledge that the International School of Geneva has been successfully teaching Maturité fédérale courses and examination classes for decades - but I agree with you that such knowledge on its own does not validate a statement in Wikipedia.

However, there is no point whatsoever in having a subsection dedicated to "Swiss Accreditation" in an article, with the sole purpose of pointing out that a school doesn't have any! You will understand that this can only be interpreted as a derogatory specification. It's best to leave out the subsection altogether, pending referenced evidence. Therefore, to avoid the kind of "war" to which you refer, it would be courteous on your part to remove the redundant specification you have added. Otherwise, in the interests of consistency, you would have to add to the articles dedicated to every other school in the world the list of all the accreditations that they don't have! Thank you. A. Roderick-Grove (talk) 22:37, 11 January 2021 (UTC)