Talk:International Baccalaureate/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Back to Finances

In thinking about how to create this section, I decided to run through the IB Annual Reviews that it has online for the years 2002-2007. Apparently, even though it is almost August, IB hasn't released its 2008 report yet. http://www.ibo.org/facts/annualreview/2005/ It would appear that with Jeffrey Beard's arrival on the scene, IB has significantly altered its financial reporting practices and now only provides info on "fee" income. Digging through IB job descrips, I came across a number of $90M income, $90M expenditure and lo and behold, a cash balance of $50M. Hmmmm. Pretty hefty fund balance for a "non-profit". Anyone else interested in digging around in this organization's financial reporting? http://search.ibo.org/cs.html?charset=iso-8859-1&url=http%3A//www.ibo.org/jobs/staff/documents/GlobalTreasuryManagerJanuary2008.doc&qt=2008+financial+report&col=ibeng&n=2&la=en Btw, it's rather interesting that IB is looking for a new CFO. Their old CFO was also the CFO of Viacom ObserverNY (talk) 16:01, 28 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Paragraph on Closing Cardiff in Reception

Notice to all - TVOR65, without any discussion, arbitrarily just wiped a paragraph I added to Reception to provide a less US-Centric view, as SHE HERSELF REQUESTED! The statement is factual, includes quotes from top IB officials and it is documented by an article from the Guardian.co.uk. She is deliberately trying to start another edit war. I have restored the paragraph. If anyone has a particular problem with it, OTHER than Tvor65 and LaMome, please advise. ObserverNY (talk) 15:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, I agree with you that it is a factual statement. But I'm not as sure about its relevance in this article. Why do you think it's noteworthy?

As for Tvor65, I was unaware that the editor was a "she" and I respectfully request that we leave claims about other editors' intentions at the door. Regards, • CinchBug • 16:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Cinchbug - Correct me if I'm wrong, but the term "reception" means how something is "received". It can be received positively, or negatively. Especially in terms of the IB article which is about the organization, when an organization eliminates 75%+ of its employees, plans to relocate to another country and earns the ire of Welsh officials, I'd say that IB's decision wasn't exactly well-received. I included Beard's explanation verbatim and didn't elaborate on the Welsh reaction so that the paragraph would be fair and balanced.

As to Tvor65, this individual is know to me outside of Wikipedia and followed me over here to deliberately disrupt and delete anything I might contribute. You can give Tvor65 the benefit of the doubt all you want, I know better. I could out every aspect of Tvor65's involvement with the IB issue but I won't. You can take my word for it, or not. Tvor65's actions speak for themselves. ObserverNY (talk) 16:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, indeed, I concur that "reception" has to do with how something is "received." But I'm not clear how the movement of IB offices from Cardiff to Amsterdam has to do with how officials in Cardiff "received" the IB. Rather, it seems that they "received" IB quite positively and had hoped that IB would stay in Cardiff--after all, that would benefit Cardiff's economy. This is the nature of their objections to IB's departure, I should think, yes?

Perhaps if we can find how officials in Amsterdam feel about IB's imminent arrival, that would provide more balance. But, then again, it is certainly in Amsterdam's interest that IB open offices in their city, since it would benefit their economy. So I'm not sure that including information about either Cardiff or Amsterdam improves the article.

Again, with regards to Tvor65, let's avoid disparaging the intentions of other editors. If it is true that you two have issues with each other, then please don't bring those problems here--I have no idea if you do actually know Tvor65 IRL, but understand that I say this to both of you. Please, as I've said elsewhere, let's try to work on these articles in a collaborative fashion. Regards, • CinchBug • 16:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

ONY, you've been asked before to not speculate about other editors who you may or may not have met previously (indeed, I seem to recall that at WP:ANI you denied having previously encountered Tvor65?) Please knock this off, it's incredibly disruptive. Comment on content, not on editors. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 16:41, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Cinchbug - sure, Cardiff's economic loss is Amsterdam's gain, but I also think the quotes from the IB officials are very telling, however you choose to interpret them, as to IB's motivation. Now that I think about it, the paragraph could be viewed as very neutral in a "global" sense, now couldn't it? I'm sure Amsterdam and Montgomery County Md, are all a-tingle in anticipation of IB's arrival. Please feel free to add anything you might find regarding those "receptions". Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 16:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

TFOWR - when Tvor65 has to play by the same rules I do, then I'll stop commenting on attempts to start an edit war. You recall incorrectly. ObserverNY(talk) 16:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(ec) Didn't know we had a reception section. Is that meant for how the IB programmes are "received" internationally? The Cardiff information seems a bit newsy to me. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Why don't you check the History and see how it came to be, Truthkeeper? ObserverNY (talk) 16:50, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ONY, I didn't mention anything about you stopping commenting on attempts to start an edit war (though if you were to stop that would help a great deal) - what I said was you've been asked before to not speculate about other editors who you may or may not have met previously. Whether you have or haven't met Tvor65 before is of no relevance to this article, or Wikipedia in general. Regarding edit wars, frankly, the argument that "X does it so it's OK for me to do it" doesn't wash. If you have a complaint with anyone, follow policy - don't simply mimic them. Regarding what you said at WP:ANI you are, of course, correct - my confusion arose because you had refuted my stated belief that one editor had met another editor previously. Re-reading your comment at WP:ANI you were refuting the inferred notion that one editor had met another editor in person. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:14, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

1. I am a "he", not a "she".

2. I have never met ONY and have certainly not "followed" anyone here. I am sick and tired of ONY's claims to the contrary.

3. I maintain that while factual, information about Cardiff move has nothing to do with program's reception, i.e. how the program itself is perceived, not the administrative decisions to move its curriculum center or whatever.

4. The Reception section is way too long, so I have condensed it throughout (see my edit). If everyone else is happy with the version ONY reverted to, fine. I have better things to do than spend time improving the article, only to see ONY wipe my edits and accuse me.

5. Yes, the section is US-centric, and there are some relevant concerns about and praise of the program's curriculum in other countries, so if anyone cares to add that info, please do.

Tvor65 (talk) 16:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The "Reception" section was created when 3rd Op HA came along and reformatted the IB article. At IBDP yesterday, Tvor65 wrote the following: The praise/criticism stuff really did not belong under "Recognition" since that section was mostly about university recognition. So I have created a new section called "Reception". Right now, however, it is rather US-centric, so info on the reception in other countries may be needed to balance things out.Tvor65 (talk) 02:19, 28 July 2009 (UTC) HelloAnnyong mentioned that he wasn't thrilled with having the same section duplicated in two articles but would leave it be if it avoided an edit war. Tvor65 now is selectively editing out the WP:BALANCE in the section without prior discussion in BOTH articles. I don't care if Tvor65 is a man or a woman, this is agrressive behavior and not operating in good faith. And because Tvor65 still doesn't seem to understand that the IB article is about the IB ORGANIZATION - reception does not need to be limited to how its "programmes" are received, but rather the actions of the organization as a whole. ObserverNY (talk) 17:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Just looked at the history. Missed the discussion about adding this. If you want discussion for all edits then please adhere to the policy yourself. Yelling "edit war! edit war!" whenever one of your edits is improved is neither civil nor productive. Cheers! Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

ObserverNY, I've read the article and I still fail to see how the remarks by IB officials can be construed to be at all "telling" about IB's reception in Cardiff. Regards, • CinchBug • 17:18, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Excuse me, Truthkeeper, but what Tvor65 did was NOT an improvement, it was a complete wiping of WP:BALANCE and I seem to recall you having a recent meltdown over at Harlan Hanson over my edit to that article (which actually WAS an improvement), so seriously, how about a little consistency and being civil on your part and dropping the double-standard?

Cinchbug - Hmmmm, well if you don't see how telling employees of 20 years that their work is no longer valued because they aren't "internationally-minded enough" - might piss some people off, I don't know what to tell ya. ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 17:25, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, sure, I can certainly see how losing one's job would "piss someone off." But I don't see why that is relevant to this article. TK's suggestion that this sounds newsy seems accurate here. Regards, • CinchBug • 17:44, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I know ONY can't be bothered but I hope the others will actually look at the edit I made to condense the section. I did not just remove the irrelavant Cardiff stuff, I also removed ACI info that LaMome has included, in order to maintain the balance, and summarized some of the new things ONY had included (without discussion, mind you), with the idea that more info can be found in the references.Tvor65 (talk) 17:35, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Tvor65, saying things like, "I know ONY can't be bothered..." is really not constructive. As I've asked ObserverNY, please leave comments about other editors at the door. Regards, • CinchBug • 17:40, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Well, she obviously has not looked at the edit. Anyway, please compare the two versions and decide which one you prefer or how it can be improved.Tvor65 (talk) 17:43, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Whether or not another editor has looked at the edit is irrelevant - comment on content, not on the editor.

Seriously, both of you, if one of you reacts badly to something the other does the situation tends to spiral. Don't comment on the other's behaviour, and don't respond if the other comments on your behaviour. If both of you tried to win the moral high ground we'd all win. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 17:46, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

CinchBug and TFOWR. Sorry, but I am only a human. How about instead of commenting on my (rather innocent) comment and giving me your saintly advices, you actually comment on the edit and the current version and make suggestions as to how the superlong Reception section can be improved, in your opinions.Tvor65 (talk) 17:54, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Tvor65, point taken. Having read both versions, I have to say that I prefer neither. I'll make an edit to the article and see what everyone has to say about it. It should be done in a minute or so. Regards, • CinchBug • 17:58, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

My edit is actually fairly similar to Tvor65's, though I've included the remarks about Utah. Regards, • CinchBug • 18:02, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict, grumble, complain, moan) We're all only human. I can't speak for CinchBug, but I've certainly had disagreements with other editors before - most long-term editors will have. What matters is how we deal with this - whether or not we let it affect our future editing. The reason I'm offering "saintly advice" is because dealing with ongoing conflicts is time-consuming: of necessity I'm spending much less time on Wikipedia right now than I have in the past, and I'd greatly prefer it if I could spend that time reviewing and commenting on edits, rather than fire-fighting. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

You know, upon further reflection, the entire Reception section is about IB programmes, not about the organization. I'm wondering if we need this section in this article at all. It would seem that this information, if it's to be included, should be at the relevant programme page. Thoughts? • CinchBug • 18:06, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I'm not 100% sure, but I think the section may even have been called "Programmes" at some point? Regardless, I think there is a case for some information on the programmes to be here (along the lines of "The IB is best known for running several educational programmes") in order to explain what the IB is and why. The first part of the current section seems to focus only (?) on IBDP, as far as I can tell? The second section ("Political objections to the IB programme in the United States...") makes it sound as if there's only one programme - it should be clarified whether opposition extends to all three programmes. So... suggest keeping, possibly shortening, definitely improving. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:13, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Okay, that makes sense and sounds good to me. Regards, • CinchBug • 18:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

I haven't shortened anything yet, but I added specific references to the IBDP when it was the DP that was clearly being referred to. I also changed "the IB programme" to "IB programmes" in the "political objections" part. What does everyone think? Regards, • CinchBug • 18:24, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

CinchBug, you may also want to edit the Reception section on the IBDP page, which is currently identical to the one here before your edit. I am not going to comment or spend any more time on this because obviously whenever I dare to edit anything ONY has contributed to, all hell breaks loose. Good luck.Tvor65 (talk) 18:29, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Tvor65, I'll go and take a look. In an effort to keep peace in our little family here, I also just reintroduced the info about the move of offices from Cardiff to Amsterdam. However, to be clear, I really don't think it's relevant to this article and suggest that we remove it. I'd be interested in what everyone else has to say about it. Regards, • CinchBug • 18:32, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Cinchbug - How can you say that information about closing down Cardiff, the IB's "curriculum center" for the past 20 years, is not relevant to an article about the IB organization? Justify please. ObserverNY (talk) 18:34, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, information about moving their offices may be relevant, though I'm not sure how noteworthy it is. The inclusion of the reaction of people who are losing their jobs does not seem to be, nor would news about people who are getting new jobs in Amsterdam. But I'll let other folks offer up their opinions. I'd recommend that no one take that bit out unless or until there's some consensus. Regards, • CinchBug • 18:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict ...and it's the edit conflicts that really cause the wiki-stress) I'd suggest if we keep the Cardiff/Amsterdam part we move it to "History" (I know, I know, it's really, really, recent history). It seems out of place in "Reception". I'm not convinced about Cardiff, to be honest - we should mention Amsterdam but mentioning the previous HQ I'm less convinced about. Moving an HQ doesn't seem hugely notable to me. I appreciate its newsworthyness, but not its encyclopaedianess (ugh! Sometimes it's easier just to use horrible, made-up words).

Tvor65, I think your plan is sound (from a "moral high-ground, avoid wiki-drama" point of view), and reflects well on you. I hope you'll be staying here, though, and discussing edits. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 18:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)If Harlan Hanson's "influence" on IB is noteworthy, certainly the closing of IB's main curriculum center where it has produced its "globally recognized curriculum" for the past 20 years, is noteworthy. It also provides readers with the knowledge that the company will be in "transition" until it establishes its new headquarters. In the future, people will either evaluate the move as a smart business move or one that undermined IB's the credibility of IB's products. I have no problem with moving it to either History or the section on IB Offices, where it originally was, way back when. I can dig up a press release on the Montgomery Md. proposed opening if you'd like as well. ObserverNY (talk) 18:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

For whatever it's worth, if it has the slightest whiff of an event to occur I avoid it. For example, the author pages I edit could include information about books to be published, but don't, until the publication occurs. Doesn't the same rule apply on the pages about music? The Cardiff move hasn't happened yet.

Also want to second TFOWR's comment that conflict is unnecessarily time consuming. Cheers. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 18:52, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

TK - it is not "unverified speculation", it was an announcement by IB, published in the UK paper, and commented upon by top IB officials. Is there some reason you want this information obfuscated and kept secret until IB actually installs itself in its new offices? ObserverNY (talk) 18:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I did not write it's "unverified". Publisher's routinely publish information about books to be published, but until the book has been published despite the fact one might know it's an event to happen in future, one avoids writing about it. La mome's comment below is correct. The event has not happened -- yet. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 19:01, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

The prospect of IB moving their offices is neither relevant nor noteworthy here and now. They haven't moved yet. They are not completely shutting down their Cardiff office. Moving to Amsterdam will create more jobs there. If we are including their move in this article at all, then it should be when it happens. If it is included in the "reception" section, then it should be about Amsterdam and how IB is received there. Now we are trying to predict the future. And telling the story about how IB may leave Cardiff through the eyes of the disgruntled employees who have enjoyed 20 years of IB. Leaving has nothing to do with reception. And talk about undue weight---an entire paragraph about how they will move, eventually?

La mome (talk) 18:57, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

The economic impact on the IB employees in Wales is being felt NOW. These folks either have to leave their homeland and pack up and move to Amsterdam or look for other work in the worst economic downturn in recent history. The insult tossed out by IB that its own Welsh staff "isn't internationally-minded enough", happened. No one is "trying to predict the future", LaMome. There are already articles out of Md. touting IB's anticipated arrival. Again, the desire by the IB advocates on this article to attempt to censor this sort of factual information is astonishing. ObserverNY (talk) 19:04, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(ec)ObserverNY, what I find astonishing is that you continue to speculate about the motives of other editors after being specifically asked to stop. Please, let's knock that off, okay? I removed that information and I put it back into the article so that we could discuss it here. Let's try to have that discussion without the unnecessary remarks and speculation. Regards, • CinchBug • 19:16, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

• http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/story/2009/02/23/ST2009022303218.html
• http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/education-news/2009/02/10/international-baccalaureate-s-relocation-is-slammed-by-welsh-assembly-government-91466-22891501/

The Washington Post is reporting it. Do you want to tell the Washington Post that it shouldn't "speculate" on that kind of news until it actually happens? ObserverNY (talk) 19:11, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Cinchbug - I have no beef with you. But I see the "sides" aligning, basing their argument on an illogical and seemingly immovable position. Now that I have the WAPO link, I respectfully suggest that the info be re-written and moved to the IB Offices section following the opening sentence, and removed from the Reception section. How does that sit with you? ObserverNY (talk) 19:23, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

My recommendation to reword the relevant information about IB Offices is to paraphrase the following: "The new offices are scheduled to open in mid-2010, with more than 100 employees who will oversee operations and testing at 1,494 schools in 28 countries and territories in North and South America. Another such center, in Amsterdam, will be responsible for European and African operations. A Singapore office serves Asian and Australian schools." and use the two links I posted above as cites. ObserverNY (talk) 19:33, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Btw, also in the interest of civility, I will not make those changes until we have some sort of agreement here. ObserverNY (talk) 19:47, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ObserverNY, I think that something along the lines of the paragraph above isn't bad. I'm willing to make the changes in a bit, provided other folks here concur. Regards, • CinchBug • 19:55, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

That's very reasonable of you, Cinchbug. Just so you know, LaMome posted a comment over at IBDP and I politely redirected her back here. ObserverNY (talk) 19:59, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Wow. Now LaMome not only makes a drastic edit (which I reverted) at IBDP, she inserts a line in this article while totally disregarding the discussion taking place, (and inaccurately, I might add). ObserverNY (talk) 20:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

I guess discussion is over, therefore my effort at civility has been interrupted. ObserverNY (talk) 20:19, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Trying again: the discussion involves a future event and although I have no huge objection to adding it, I have been deleting future events from articles I work on, and there is no guarantee if won't be tagged as a future event. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:26, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Whatever, TK. I guess you haven't kept up with the flurry of edits LaMome has just made to both articles and to which I responded to. This is WP:GAMING and not at all civil. You're not going to call LaMome out on it? Whatever. I have to make dinner. Talk among yourselves. ObserverNY (talk) 20:49, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

ONY, could you post a diff (or diffs) of the edits you're concerned about, and clarify what it is you object to in LaMome's "flurry" of edits? I've just been through of LaMome's edits since yesterday and at first glance they all look fine. Quite a lot of swapping sections around, but nothing that looks like bad faith editing. Cheers, TFOWR^{This flag once was red} 21:09, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Was about to ask the same. Am having trouble keeping up. The Daily Mail article is a little confusing -- the shadow secretary is in favour of IB but Labour not? Am I reading that correctly? Either way, the edits look okay, but I need some specific diffs to see what's happening here. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:15, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(edit conflict)

This is the direct quote from the guardian reference added by ONY in the Reception area about the proposed move--"The Amsterdam base will be one of three global centres for the IB by 2020. The others are Washington and Singapore." The plan is to have these centers fully operational for their "2020 expansion" or whatever they call it. This is from ibo.org- http://www.ibo.org/announcements/ibannouncesnewamericasglobalcentre.cfm They plan to have Montgomery county office ready by mid-2010. Haven't found anything about Amsterdam and Singapore, other than the Guardian. So, if the Guardian reference is not accurate or valid, why are we using it?

I don't think we need to include all the details about the "proposed" move---since it is a future event. We could mention that there is a plan to create new offices in Montgomery County, Amsterdam and Singapore.

I thought we were using "the Queen's English" for these articles, in which case the spelling is "centre." And can we get consensus on language usage "entitled" as in "giving a title" to a book or article? I've seen it used in articles I've been reading, yet it gets edited to "titled" here, which sounds awkward to me.

La mome (talk) 21:17, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

(EC)LaMome - If you want to change titled to entitled, please, by all means, be my guest. If you want to change center to centre, and organization to organisation and honor to honour and behavior to behaviour and theater to theatre and program to programmes, well you just knock yourself out, ok? I do so apologize for living in the United States and not using that spelling. I know that makes me an inferior being and so I bow to your worldly superiority. Oh, and we were going to try and stay away from using ibo as a source for new edits, remember? On what grounds are you declaring the Guardian article inaccurate or invalid? I seem to have missed your justification for such a claim. Btw, you still have never bothered to de-weight Harlan Hanson in the IBDP article and unless you can find it in yourself to go back and either add in some "other (verifiable) US educators" or make mention of other "initiators", I find the HH reference providing undue weight to a non-notable individual in terms of IB. Cheers! ObserverNY (talk) 23:39, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Have been trying to respond: titled is correct and entitled incorrect. At some point (?) the articles in the entire series will need copyediting and a decision made regarding WP:ENGVAR. I had rewritten the HH section in the IB DP and added Leach to the list & was in the process of adding others. Perhaps ONY can find that edit, bring it forward, reinstall it, then I'd be happy to add the other members. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:51, 29 July 2009 (UTC)

Just wanted to repost this link since LaMome dismisses the Guardian.co.uk as a valid source and apparently didn't see this source: http://www.walesonline.co.uk/news/education-news/2009/02/10/international-baccalaureate-s-relocation-is-slammed-by-welsh-assembly-government-91466-22891501/ ObserverNY (talk) 23:56, 29 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

With all due respect Truthkeeper, the onus of repairing the HH reference falls on the shoulders of the editors who are rallying for its inclusion. I've raised my objection to it as it stands, but I wouldn't DARE attempt to improve it.ObserverNY (talk) 00:01, 30 July 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

(edit conflict)

I am not dismissing the Guardian article as invalid, just posing a question. I made the changes based on the Guardian article. Others had posted that it seemed valid. I would just like clarification, that's all. 2010 or 2020, very simple.

"walesonline" doesn't seem like a mainstream newspaper to me. Thoughts? La mome (talk) 00:13, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Hanson

Keep timing out. Replied Truthkeeper88 (talk) 00:15, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Page is protected

We have been asked to settle our differences over the wording of the section about the IB offices moving from Cardiff to Amsterdam, Maryland and Singapore. This is the present version of the text--"IB announced it will be moving part of its Cardiff operation to Amsterdam and opening new offices in Maryland (US) by mid-2010 and Singapore by 2020" which also happens to be the wording I prefer, because it presents only the facts and a NPOV. Please weigh in so we can settle this. La mome (talk) 22:47, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Um, I've been out of the loop recently (partially because the conversation here moves so quickly), but what are the alternatives? What are the shortcomings of the current version? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 05:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

I'm happy with the wording as currently stands. Honestly, I'd be happier to see the entire bit of text completely removed as it refers to a future event, as I've already indicated in the discussion. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:06, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Per WP:FUTURE, "If preparation for the event is not already in progress, speculation about it must be well documented." Is there documented proof that they will be moving? The Singapore one is probably too far off to include, but the Cardiff and Maryland ones might be okay..? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:19, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

For the benefit of HelloAnnyong, who missed the back and forth, here is the current version (listed first) along with some other versions:

IB announced it will be moving part of its Cardiff operation to Amsterdam and opening new offices in Maryland (US) by mid-2010 and Singapore by 2020.

IB announced it will be moving part of its Cardiff operation, due to its remote location, to Amsterdam and opening new offices in Maryland (US) by mid-2010 and Singapore by 2020.

IB announced it will be moving part of its Cardiff operation, due to its remote location and claims that the Cardiff staff "isn't internationally-minded enough" to Amsterdam and opening new offices in Maryland (US) by mid-2010 and Singapore by 2020.

IB announced it will be cutting 300 jobs at the Cardiff curriculum centre because the "organisational structure" in Cardiff did not fit with the "ethos of international-mindedness that we (IB) insist upon", and opening new offices in Maryland (US) by mid-2010, and Amsterdam and Singapore by 2020.

IB's 2009 announcement that it will be moving its curriculum headquarters in Cardiff, Wales, to Amsterdam, Netherlands, evoked angry responses from Welsh officials. Jeffrey Beard, the IB's director-general, told Cardiff staff in a presentation in May that the Welsh capital was remote, making it "difficult to attract qualified staff" and "tricky for air travel." Monique Seefried, chair of the IB's board of governors said, "The 'organisational structure' in Cardiff did not fit with the "ethos of international-mindedness that we insist upon."

Here are the references: 1, 2, and 3.

The third reference (from WalesOnline) is no longer listed in the IB article. It presented a rather Welsh-centric view and one that was understandably bitter, since Welsh people will be losing their jobs if they don't choose to follow the office to Amsterdam. But I personally don't think that kind of POV is what is needed in WP article.

I do understand TK's reservations about WP:FUTURE, but it seems that these are well-documented plans by the IB. I think that one of the top two versions--or something similar--would be best. I'm not sure why the remarks about "international-mindedness" would merit inclusion in this article. Regards, • CinchBug • 17:43, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

The move to Maryland is documented in a press release on the IB website. There are already offices in Singapore, so these are either additional or new offices, which remains unclear. All of this part of their 2020 vision--or something along those lines. If we leave this bit about them moving and/or adding additional offices, then I propose leaving the wording the way it is and just have the Washington Post link, which I think, but I am not sure, mentions the other two offices. I don't think we need every last detail about whose feelings are being hurt. The Cardiff office isn't closing, just being reduced, with part of the operations moving to Amsterdam, which is more centrally located and easier to get into out and out of, not to mention being able to attract a more diverse staff. Apologies to the Cardiff staff. People are losing their jobs all over the world for various reasons, downsizing being one of the major reasons. Why we need to include that in the IB article is beyond my comprehension.

La mome (talk) 00:23, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I think I support the second version listed by CinchBug the best, followed by the current version. I'm still not sure about this Singapore thing, though. It's based solely on the last line of the Guardian article, right? The text is "The Amsterdam base will be one of three global centres for the IB by 2020. The others are Washington and Singapore." That sentence doesn't really strike me as meaning "Singapore by 2020"; it means that they're looking at Singapore to be one of their three global centers, and it and Washington may already be that. It says "the others are" - not "the others will." So maybe there's something in that. Still, second version, with maybe the Singapore part cut out until their plans are a bit clearer. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 01:38, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

HelloAnnyong - The reference to the 90% reduction in staff in Cardiff was originally under 'Reception' and removed by other editors. The reason I wanted the direct quote from Monique Seifreed who is the current President of the IB Council (notable) regarding "international-mindedness" is because this is what IB claims its programmes are all about. Yes, it is a Welsh-centric reference, that is because other editors complained the 'Reception' section was too "U.S.-centric". I have no problem with removing the speculation about the Singapore office as that is a long range projection. ObserverNY (talk) 12:01, 3 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

IB questionable "stats"

In the overview, it states: 739,000 IB students at 2,708 schools in 138 countries. If you go to the same source cited today, it states "745,000 students at 2,715 schools in 138 countries". I would like to know where those seven (7) IB schools with 6,000 IB students are. ObserverNY (talk) 01:09, 18 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

As discussed on the IBDP talk page, we've decided not to include those stats in the lead paragraph. You are welcome to contact IB for more information. La mome (talk) 13:23, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Did someone write something? Bzzzz, bzzzzz.... Wondering "aloud" does not mean I need to waste my time with inadmissible WP:No original research ObserverNY (talk) 13:52, 18 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

"Reception" section in two places?

Do we need to have the reception section here as well as in the IBDP article? If the reception section deals only with the IBDP, then I think it belongs only on that page. But, I am not so sure that the sources in that section deal only with the IBDP. I think other programmes were mentioned as well. Someone else had mentioned that there shouldn't be repetition, but I can't remember who. It will also be difficult to avoid repetition of info for IBDP and IB with regards to their history, as they are both so interconnected. Thoughts? La mome (talk) 12:53, 15 August 2009 (UTC)

Trying to avoid a genuine apology at IBDP with this shallow diversion? Tsk tsk. ObserverNY (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Assume good faith. La mome (talk) 00:58, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

"Now who is being fraudulent?"-LaMome

That does not meet my concept of "good faith". The phrase "Certificate Program" was on ALL of the pages I linked that you accused me of listing fraudulently. You owe me an apology, plain and simple. Not a conditional one. Just woman-up and say, "I'm sorry I accused you of being fraudulent." ObserverNY (talk) 11:10, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

Sure, I'll apologise. When you apologise to me for attempting to out me and to all of the editors for deleting entire passages that were supposedly "your contributions." You can also apologise for the above edit warring and for wiping out TK's work while s/he was in the middle of editing.

La mome (talk) 12:18, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Again with your conditional crap. You are persona non grata as far as I'm concerned. ObserverNY (talk) 23:27, 17 August 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY

It should be pointed out that a 'reception' is what you get when you graduate from the IB, and on the further entry of ANY public building!158.143.133.241 (talk) 20:00, 20 October 2009 (UTC)

Add the new logo?

Found one here [1] Someone want to take care of that? Lbart0725 (talk) 03:28, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Some relevant old page history

Some page history that used to be at the title "International Baccalaureate" is now at Talk:International Baccalaureate/Old history. Graham87 10:45, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Content

This article is far too American-centric. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 69.234.101.49 (talk) 07:40, 29 August 2009 (UTC)

You are probably right, and I look forward to seeing your improvements to the article.--RadioFan (talk) 11:52, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

Note that the article has changed considerably between August 2009 and October 2010 ;-) I had a quick look just now and my WP:BIAS-radar didn't trigger. Suggestions for improvements would, of course, be vewry welcome, if 69.234 is still around. TFOWR 11:57, 12 October 2010 (UTC)

File:IB logo.gif Nominated for speedy Deletion

An image used in this article, File:IB logo.gif, has been nominated for speedy deletion at Wikimedia Commons for the following reason: Copyright violations What should I do? Don't panic; deletions can take a little longer at Commons than they do on Wikipedia. This gives you an opportunity to contest the deletion (although please review Commons guidelines before doing so). The best way to contest this form of deletion is by posting on the image talk page. If the image is non-free then you may need to upload it to Wikipedia (Commons does not allow fair use) If the image isn't freely licensed and there is no fair use rationale then it cannot be uploaded or used. If the image has already been deleted you may want to try Commons Undeletion Request This notification is provided by a Bot --CommonsNotificationBot (talk) 07:19, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

 Fixed -- John of Reading (talk) 09:47, 21 September 2011 (UTC)

Edits made as a student project on behalf of the University of Toronto, CANADA.
About us and our project
InternationalMike (talk) 00:27, 23 March 2012 (UTC)

IBCC copyright violation

I removed the section on the IBCC curriculum because it was copied wholesale from the IB web site. I encourage editors who are active here to replace that content with a summary that does not violate the IB copyright. It will be a useful addition to the article. 04:17, 4 January 2013 (UTC)

the mission statement in the Organization section.

Hopefully I didn't just kill the whole talk page.

The mission statement is given in this blue box on the right of the Organization section, and then in the box follows a line that has nothing to do with the mission statement,

"However, the sleep deprivation caused by this rigorous program has led some leading educational authorities to investigate its detrimental effects on a student's emotional development."

This line is probably "original research" as, in my IB career, I've never witnessed people with this problem. Regardless of validity, it should at least be moved to a more relevant part of the article, like the Reception section.

The.supreme.one34 (talk) 05:11, 31 May 2013 (UTC)

CAS

I think it would be beneficial to discuss the CAS (Creativity, Action, and Service) aspect of IB to show how the program goes beyond academics to create a well-rounded individual Amanda Walker4 (talk) 01:23, 8 October 2013 (UTC)