Education Unassessed High‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Education, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of education and education-related topics on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.EducationWikipedia:WikiProject EducationTemplate:WikiProject Educationeducation articles ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. High This article has been rated as High-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5 Archive 6 Archive 7 Archive 8 Archive 9

This page has archives. Sections older than 7 days may be automatically archived by Lowercase sigmabot III.

To provide some focus for our further efforts and get more independent input, I suggest that we nominate the article as a Good article. Colonel Warden (talk) 20:22, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's a lovely suggestion. You have my support. ObserverNY (talk) 22:49, 25 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

In terms of independent input and focus, a good idea.Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:28, 25 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• Checking it before nomination, there may be a couple of issues:

a) The article seems overcited, having citations in the lead, which ought to be a summary of cited points made in the body. Some of these citations occur in clusters. Do these represent points of contention?

b) The article could perhaps benefit from an image at top right. I suppose that most relevant material is copyright. Perhaps the IB logo would be acceptable fair use. Has this been considered before?

Colonel Warden (talk) 06:06, 26 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Done. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:53, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was cleaning up the recognition section (not that I like it much) and I realised that it isn't a recognition section. It's a recognition and how many schools there are in each country.

What abut we remove reference to the number of schools in each country? This is a list we can't efficiently keep up to date with and I see it as beyond the scope of what is encyclopaedic. People can get that info from the IB website. Actually, hang that, I'll delete those refs now and see what it looks like. Someone can revert if they feel they need to and we can discuss. --Candy (talk) 20:08, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I did that. Then I thought I'd see if I could find cites for recognition. It turns out the IB web site has these as well. I looked at the Austrian one [1] and wondered how on earth that will be condensed for the table. Perhaps it's best to wipe the table and link the engine to search for these on the IB web site (if we can find it - I googled this amongst others)? --Candy (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

• If reliable sources can be found the "Recognition" section should describe how Universities value the IBDP compared with national qualifications. IMO removing content about the number of schools was a good call. - Pointillist (talk) 22:05, 28 September 2009 (UTC) (explanation follows)[reply]

1. Recognition by Universities is definitely of interest to parents: I've just come back from Oxford's alumni weekend where there was palpable frustration from middle-aged graduates about how much harder it was for their children to excel in the IBDP (compared with GCE A levels) and that they felt colleges didn't sufficiently appreciate this. We were seated randomly at my college's dinner but the couple next to me said their son was rejected for PPE in Dec 2008 with 42 points predicted and achieved 44 points (with 7 for HL Economics). Of course, one bright individual might mess up the TSA and/or interview but in my small circle there were other Oxbridge examples: rejected by Oxford with 42 points predicted and achieved 45 points, and accepted by Cambridge with a 45 point offer (achieved!) that to my mind indicates a lack of understanding of how well the IBDP prepares students for the demands of higher-level education.

2. The count of schools by country didn't belong in "Recognition" and anyway it is very difficult to get a meaningful figure: at one end of the spectrum there are schools like KCS and Sevenoaks in the UK where the IBDP is the only 16+ option and at the other there are those who offer/will offer/previously offered it as an option. The IB website doesn't distinguish between such cases. - written by Pointillist

1. I also think removing the number of schools was a good move. This info is easily found on the IBO site and is hard to keep up-to-date.

2. I think the info on recognition is useful but it does require a lot of work; much of it lacks citations. I suggest also that we return to the text/list form, which is easier to edit than a table (does not matter for me but may be intimidating for new editors) and which it was until ONY decided one day to convert it to a table. Anyway, these are my two cents.Tvor65 (talk) 22:21, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

This is not a WP:forum. ObserverNY (talk) 22:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Good for you, ONY. Keep reminding yourself this. (Maybe you can even apply this bit of wisdom to your own talk page.) In the meantime, we will continue discussing what to do with the Recognition section. Any other opinions? Tvor65 (talk) 23:28, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm in favour of any clean up for the so called recognition section. Also, in favour of converting to text if editing the table causes difficulty. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:45, 28 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Since you are all in agreement on scrapping the number of schools in each country as readers can search for that themselves, I recommend the same logic be followed for scrapping the entire "recognition" section and condensing the section to a one line reference directing readers here: [2] Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 00:08, 29 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

And I ABSOLUTELY object to this edit by Candorwein [3] which oh so slyly removes the IB schools in Iran, Pakistan and other countries and gives WP:undue weight to others. Scrap the whole thing. ObserverNY (talk) 00:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Please relax, ONY - it appears that Candy removed all countries for which there was no university recognition info. If you've got that info for Iran or Pakistan, go ahead and include it. Otherwise, there is no point in including these until such info becomes available.Tvor65 (talk) 00:50, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I'm afraid ONY that calling me sly is not an appropriate word to use for what are entirely open actions. If you can't assume good faith then you are not welcome here. It seems your various bans have done little to improve your manners. Please read what Tvor65 (talk) wrote immediately above and read my comment on this edit which states that countries were removed. [[4]] --Candy (talk) 05:09, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candorwein - I did not call YOU sly, I called your EDIT sly: ...object to this edit by Candorwein [5] which oh so slyly. Please learn the difference and either restore the table as it was until consensus is reached on what to do or eliminate the section completely. ObserverNY (talk) 09:38, 29 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Let's eliminate the recognition section completely and link to the IB search engine as Candy so cleverly mentioned earlier.

La mome (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I was the one to mention it and it is already done. ObserverNY (talk) 10:29, 29 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

(Edit conflict) Candy mentioned it first. I also agree with Pointillist that the IBDP should be compared to similar exit or university entrance exams. Which might be a solution to the earlier discussion about "see also" vs link to a list of exams, which are not all equivalent to the IBDP. I think that is what the recognition section was originally about--how it is recognised in secondary schools around the world, not at their universities.La mome (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Resolved

 – table deleted - ObserverNY (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Candorwein linked a specific country, I linked the search directory and made the change. ObserverNY (talk) 12:04, 29 September 2009 (UTC)ObserverNYObserverNY (talk) 19:21, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

ONY - First of all it's not appropriate of you to start telling me what to do with edits which are fully documented. Secondly, your comment about my edit being sly is certainly inappropriate. The edit was sly; that was sly editing. Same thing. You still don't seem to be able to work in a friendly manner do you? I also do not have to restore the table or delete the section. It's not appropriate for you to demand things of me. It's been opened for discussion. I see your ban has not improved your civility. --Candy (talk) 11:36, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

...Perhaps it's best to wipe the table and link the engine to search for these on the IB web site (if we can find it - I googled this amongst others)? --Candy (talk) 20:44, 28 September 2009 (UTC)

Great idea, Candy.

Thanks, La mome (talk) 23:22, 29 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I honestly don't know what the best solution is, since I certainly see Candy's point about maintaining the information and keeping it current. But, if we're going to delete the table, I would suggest that we save it in its current form, perhaps in TK's sandbox (which has an earlier form of the table, but not the current one, I believe). That way, if we should ever decide we want it back in again, we don't need to rebuild it--we can just copy it and modify as necessary. Regards, • CinchBug • 20:26, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmmm, well...I guess I'm a little behind the times, since the table is already gone. It might be a good idea to go back to a previous version of the page and save all of that work somewhere now--trying to do it later would be a much bigger hassle than doing it now. Anyway... • CinchBug • 20:29, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Cinchbug. Surely, the table is permanently (well as permanently as wikipedia is here) stored in the history? Simply viewing an earlier revision means that we can extract the wiki code. I agree that it can be a hassle to find things when many months have passed though. Shame there isn't some sort of simple revision log available for edit pages which shows major deletions and additions along with dates.

However, I would have liked more of a discussion about it to be honest as I had flagged up.

Candy, yes, it's true that we can always retrieve the table, if necessary. But I agree that more discussion would have been nice. Regards, • CinchBug • 22:05, 30 September 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Well, I thought we were considering converting to text and not eliminating the table altogether. I've been very busy, but when I have the chance will stash the most current version of the table in my sandbox in case we decide to have a proper discussion about the edit. In my view a link to the IB website isn't sufficient -- in fact we already link to the IB website in the external links. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 02:01, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Let me refresh your memories: Let's eliminate the recognition section completely and link to the IB search engine as Candy so cleverly mentioned earlier. La mome (talk) 10:25, 29 September 2009 (UTC) Talk about beating a dead horse! ObserverNY (talk) 09:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Maybe I should have added "...and start all over again." I also said this-"I also agree with Pointillist that the IBDP should be compared to similar exit or university entrance exams. Which might be a solution to the earlier discussion about "see also" vs link to a list of exams, which are not all equivalent to the IBDP. I think that is what the recognition section was originally about--how it is recognised in secondary schools around the world, not at their universities." La mome (talk) 10:33, 29 September 2009 (UTC) I don't think that the recognition section the way it appears now is complete.La mome (talk) 10:21, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I don't think there was an agreement on removing the table. Converting it back to text and improving its content were discussed, and Candy already started working on the latter when ONY deleted it. As I said before, I think that info was useful.Tvor65 (talk) 11:43, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Useful to whom? The WP:notable portion of the topic, 75 countries and 2500+ universities is listed. Wikipedia is not a college search directory for IB. ObserverNY (talk) 13:07, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

I'd like to see the text from the table restored. Then the text can be edited as needed to provide a good recognition section. It is notable that the International Baccalaureate is available in various countries. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:23, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree. I have restored the text for the time being. It is now easier to edit, as one can click on edit for an individual country. If someone can copy and paste it into a sandbox, that would be good.Tvor65 (talk) 21:10, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Undue, POV selective presentation of countries, takes up WAY too much room in the article for what can be summarized in two lines. ObserverNY (talk) 21:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

I'm not going to get in an edit war with you. You wanted the table gone, I made it happen. I summarized the notability of the section concisely. Instead of responding to my question above, you ignored the ongoing discussion, abandoned consensus and restored the text. I think it looks and reads like crap.

To Col. Warden - based on this recent action by other editors, I respectfully request that you withdraw the article from the nomination process you had suggested. ObserverNY (talk) 21:38, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

The article hasn't yet been nominated for GAR, so nothing to worry about. As for the current edits, the text needs more formatting, but in my view, at least some of the text should stay. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:42, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Please justify with some reason other than "because ONY doesn't want it" why you think "some of the text should stay". Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 21:48, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

(ec) ONY - you deleted the table without a clear consensus. TK, Pointillist I did not want all of that info gone (though TK and I did not care for the table format), Candy was not sure, and CB did not even have a chance to reply. I'll assume good faith in that you thought there was consensus when you made your edit, but in reality this was not the case. Also, please watch your language - the above post of yours is vulgar and uncivil.Tvor65 (talk) 21:53, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Here is a different format of the same text, though I have to check MOS about the mdashes & bolds. As for the text: the section is incomplete and still needs citations. Until the section is finished, I'm not willing to say I love it or hate it; in my view the text is worth preserving until the section is done and then a decision can be made to keep or delete. In my view, the information here is more encyclopedic than the information in the "Reception" section. Also, no one here attacked the editor, or said I want to keep this because ONY doesn't like it. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 21:59, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec)There was agreement between me and LaMome based on Candorwein's "cleverly" suggestion. That alone probably triggered the Indonesian tsunami. You had no consensus to put it back. And Tvor65, since I've been around a number of different Wikipedia articles and you only edit IB, I have learned that it is perfectly acceptable to call an edit or a thing an ugly piece of shit if I so desire and not violate WP:civil because I am speaking of a thing, not a person. That's because, according to Wiki policy, Wikipedia doesn't WP:censor In fact, I could go so far as to call it a fucking piece of shit and not get banned for incivility, because I am describing an inanimate object. And of course we KNOW I would NEVER direct such vulgar and crude language towards a fellow editor. Cheers!ObserverNY (talk) 22:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Using vulgar language, whether directed at an inanimate object or another editor is not welcome here. I find it offensive as it does not create a welcoming atmosphere for editors to feel comfortable to contribute to the article. You have used crude language towards other editors. Just because you think it is acceptable elsewhere does not make it true here. We've asked you before and once again you demonstrate that you have not learned from the numerous bans/blocks you have received already, namely for incivility. And yet you continue. Please stop.

La mome (talk) 22:20, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

(ec) ONY, an agreement between you and LaMome does not constitute consensus. Vulgarity is never acceptable and is fundamentally uncivil. (I see that LaMome already said this much better, thanks.)

TK, your new format looks much nicer, thanks. I agree (and said a few times before) that the text needs a lot of work, and we may yet decide to remove it, but I don't see a consensus to do it at the moment. I also think that it is more encyclopedic in content than the Reception section, which cites op-ed pieces that may not be WP:RS.Tvor65 (talk) 22:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

When we have consensus I'll replace the section with the reformatted text. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 22:30, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Sorry - your "Recognition" section takes up OVER A FULL SCREEN'S WORTH of text! It looks like kaka doodie. Wikipedia is not a university guide for IB!

Is that your windup to remove the Reception section, Tvor65?? The Reception section that has been stable for MONTHS??? Divide agreement on one section, decide you can leave that section half-assed unfinished to be worked on later, while you attack the next section? Talk about uncivil and disruptive! ObserverNY (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

The following is from WP:civility (emphasis mine):

1. Direct rudeness

(a) Rudeness, insults, name-calling, gross profanity or indecent suggestions;

(b) personal attacks, including racial, ethnic, sexual and religious slurs, and derogatory references to groups such as social classes or nationalities;

(c) ill-considered accusations of impropriety;

(d) belittling a fellow editor, including the use of judgmental edit summaries or talk-page posts (e.g. "snipped rambling crap", "that is the stupidest thing I have ever seen");

I advise ONY to pay close attention to the items in bold.Tvor65 (talk) 22:45, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Tvor65 - And I ask you to pay close attention to #1:

1. Direct rudeness

(a) Rudeness

You have behaved rudely by your divisive and detrimental actions on this Talk page, beginning with your WP:forum post, ignoring ongoing discussion, distracting by announcing an attack on another section and your holier-than-thou lectures. Please do something to drastically reduce the MORE THAN FULL PAGE Recognition section and stop with your distractions. It is unbecoming and rude. ObserverNY (talk) 23:06, 1 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

??? There was no WP:forum post from me - you must be confusing what I wrote with unsigned Pointillist's post right above it that you may have construed as such (not that I agree with this characterization). Nor was I rude in any way, shape or form. You were, however. Please reread WP:Civility and stop disrupting the discussion.Tvor65 (talk) 00:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oh, will ya look at that. Someone has typed in written by Pointillist. Yes, I did attribute that long "Oxford" post to you, Tvor65. Perhaps it would have been helpful if you had pointed it out at the time when I said "This is not a WP:forum to which you snarkily replied: "Good for you, ONY. Keep reminding yourself this. (Maybe you can even apply this bit of wisdom to your own talk page.) In the meantime, we will continue discussing what to do with the Recognition section. Any other opinions?" If you don't think your tone was rude and snarky, pretend I wrote it to you and see how you think it sounds. Again, you fail to contribute anything positive to the discussion which you re-opened about Recognition. ObserverNY (talk) 00:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Perhaps you should read the posts more carefully (Pointillist did say that "explanation follows") before making accusations of WP policy violations. Especially those policies that you violate yourself on the regular basis, as I have pointed out to you.Tvor65 (talk) 00:33, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Going back to the real talk about reception: of course every University should seriously consider admitting anyone who has achieved top marks (45) in their IB, but that isn't the real measure of recognition of the IB. The fundamental problem with the current "recognition" content is that it doesn't compare Universities' entry requirements measured in IB-points to national qualifications (e.g. A levels). For example, in the UK section it is factually correct to state that UCAS has published a tariff that allows IB results to be compared with "A levels". However, this is misleading because [in 2008-9] most UK Universities ignored the UCAS tariff when deciding their minimum entry requirements and (as I hear it) IB candidates had to achieve much more than A level candidates: more subjects in a short examination period with each student being forced to succeed in a wide mixture of subjects. If the article talks about recognition, it must present a comparative point of view so that concerned parents can analyse the [educational] strengths and [university selection] weaknesses of the IBDP. - Pointillist (talk) 23:25, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with Pointillist. Perhaps a way of writing the section is to attempt to define the recognition criteria such as UCAS tariff (which is verifiable) and then compare to the actual "recognition" i.e., UCAS ignored for IB students (if that is verifiable.) I do think that an article about an international programme that prepares students for university, must in fact speak to the level of university recognition in a variety of countries. If that's impossible, then the section can be scrapped altogether. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:40, 1 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The UCAS controversy should be added to the Reception section. The UK is really the only nationality that has established an actual point table to scale the IBDP against. The vast majority of the references as they currently stand are uncited. If you are going to mention UCAS, then you must also mention that the People's Republic of China does not recognize the IBDP for university admission for balance. ObserverNY (talk) 00:07, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

To Pointillist - well, do we have anything other than anecdotal evidence of UK universities disregarding UCAS? Any specific university policies that state that?Tvor65 (talk) 00:43, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

WP:Undue is being given to 12 out of 75 countries in the "Recognition" section. Of those 12 countries, 3 - China, Peru & Turkey, do NOT recognize the IBDP. For some undeclared reason, countries which the United States has strained relations with, such as Iran and Pakistan, have been eliminated. This appears to be selective POV presentation. It is incomprehensible to me why Truthkeeper fought tooth and nail to reduce the size of the Special Needs and Application/Fees section on the basis that too much information provided WP:Undue weight to those sections, yet TK appears to be perfectly content to allow the "Recognition" section (25% of which is revealing that there IS NO recognition for the IBDP in those countries, to take up a full screen's worth of copy. The argument for retention of this long, haphazard, half uncited, selective representation of a small minority of the claimed 75 countries is illogical. Furthermore, the IBDP is awarded on a 24-45 point scale. There are numerous "exceptions" for Recognition such as the '36' pt. requirement for Russia. It would be much more fair and accurate to state that individual universities in various countries set their own standards as to what score on an IBDP constitutes an acceptable score for admission. A cite of 2 States out of 50 in the U.S.A. hardly constitutes fair representation of recognition of the IBDP in America. ObserverNY (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

About the UK situation with UCAS, etc: The UCAS website shows what IB points are required for many courses, alongside the A-level grades. It's not possible to collect all the data easily, but a small survey I made shows that very few universities offer IB students a points score which compares to the A-level grades on UCAS' own tariff table. I don't know of any independent source with this information, though (which is why I did my own survey). In terms of UCAS points, the offers to IB students are about 100 points higher than to A-level students. Ewen (talk) 12:55, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

And what of the A* A-Level grades? IB doesn't fare very well against those, as evidenced by students who were not granted admission to their UK colleges of choice: [6]ObserverNY (talk) 15:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Thanks, Ewen. This is interesting and certainly important but it does not look like we have any WP:RS to back this up yet.Tvor65 (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I haven't found any reliable source apart from sampling UCAS (which would be OR, of course). In the absence of a source, I have re-cast the sentence about the UK so that it says the tariff table isn't binding. - Pointillist (talk) 15:42, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To all: I had no trouble finding citations for the IB recognition policies in the listed countries. A lot of info can indeed be found on the IBO site, but not all of it. I removed or rewrote statements that do not appear to be backed up by any sources I was able to find. If you find citations backing those up or want to add other countries, please do so. Thanks.Tvor65 (talk) 14:24, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To all - the Recognition section as it now stands fills almost TWO FULL screens of text, more than doubling the amount of space given to the actual subjects. This is a GROSS abuse of WP:Undue. Once again, I move to strike all of the minimally represented countries, add a line about UCAS and a line about admissions standards and recognition of the IBDP varying from university to university and country to country and be done with it. ObserverNY (talk) 14:53, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Break

I'd like everyone to remember that there is a policy that shows that articles must not be biased towards one country or another. The recognition section is rather long, but it's more or less necessary. There are a couple of options for you here:

• Spin it off into a Recognition of IB article (or something like that). There may not be enough text there to really justify its own article, though.
• Compress the sections into prose. Perhaps a paragraph for European countries, Asian countries, and so on would work.

Other ideas are of course welcome, but those are two things I just came up with. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:58, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More specifically, the Recognition section as it stands constitutes WP:Listcruft. ObserverNY (talk) 15:00, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

As it stands, perhaps, but "strik[ing] all of the minimally represented countries" is not a better solution. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

My recommendation above was to strike the partial list of countries and to: "add a line about UCAS and a line about admissions standards and recognition of the IBDP varying from university to university and country to country and be done with it."The IB site where individuals can search for specific universities in specific countries is listed. Is someone going to police the recognition of IB in each of the listed countries on a regular basis and update as necessary? If maintaining the number of schools in each country was untenable, certainly national policy is as well. ObserverNY (talk) 15:17, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

I don't see the policy changing all that often. And if there are any large changes made and they're notable enough, someone will see a news article about it an update accordingly. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:25, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I support combining the countries by regions to save space. I don't think there is enough info for a separate article but the information itself is certainly relevant and worthy of inclusion. Not all of it can be found on IBO and thus simply referring to IBO site is not sufficient, IMO.Tvor65 (talk) 15:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Alright, I've gone ahead and shuffled everything into discrete sections. It's certainly not perfect, but it's a start. Thoughts? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 15:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You've beat me to it, HA: I just did the same but there was an edit conflict. I think it looks much better this way.Tvor65 (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Interesting. You know what? Leave it. To me it makes the IBDP look like a widely discredited, inconsistent, international qualification. Good work! ObserverNY (talk) 15:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

The new format doesn't help to make the extra info any less like fluff. The first paragraph is fine. I suggest just leaving that. I understand there will be calls to have them back but the real question is whether it will ever be achievable. There are so many variables, so little fixed in stone and one has to remember that non-IB qualifications are no guarantee of being accepted at Universities even if they are the top grades. In addition, the whole thing is riddled with inconsistencies ( such as PR China not officially recognising the IBDP but then Hong Kong being mentioned which is part of PR China or the use of the island of Taiwan which is part of the Republic of China). These inconsistencies may be on the IB site (I haven't checked) but they shouldn't be part of Wikipedia I feel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Candorwien (talk • contribs) 17:08, October 2, 2009

It's not up to us to determine inconsistencies. If the sources say that Hong Kong recognizes and China doesn't, then that's what this article must reflect. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 17:11, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Also, Taiwan is not part of China, even if its status is not officially recognized by some countries, and Hong Kong has had a long separate history before it was "given back" to China. Most people are aware of this, so I don't see any problem.

The information in that section is far from fluff and not all of it can be found through the IBO site. I feel strongly that it should remain there in some form, though certainly it can be condensed and improved.Tvor65 (talk) 17:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Awww, I LIKE the fluff and inconsistencies! It's perfect! But Tvor65 feels strongly about keeping it. Such a dilemma. ObserverNY (talk) 18:01, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

You know, maybe you should try to improve this article rather than degrade it. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:10, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Gee HA, I thought that's what I did by removing the table way back when and adding the summary sentence re: 75 countries and 2500+ universities which Candorwein is now advocating retaining. My edit was reverted. I did not revert back as I don't want an edit war. Other editors have extolled the virtues of the Recognition WP:Listcruft. Now it's just WP:Listcruft in prose format. My suggestion to IMPROVE the article was/is/will be to eliminate the Americas, Oceania etc. sub-sections and keep the small paragraph. Tvor65 feels "strongly" that is not acceptable. May I respectfully suggest you address your concerns to Tvor65. ObserverNY (talk) 18:32, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Except, ObserverNY, I am discussing it with everyone not just you and Tvor65. --Candy (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Candorwein - ? I have absolutely no idea how to interpret your response or how it positively contributes to the editing of this article. ObserverNY (talk) 19:04, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Tvor65, "Also, Taiwan is not part of China, even if its status is not officially recognized by some countries ..." Actually, there's the misunderstanding I was talking about. Taiwan is the main island of the Republic of China. However, it is only the main island. Mainland China and Hong Kong are the People's Republic of China.

No question about Hong Kong have a hundred year's of colonial rule before reverting back to China though. Respectfully, --Candy (talk) 18:54, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh, ok. I thought you were referring to China's refusal to recognize Taiwan as a separate country and its common claim to it as part of "One China". Hong Kong remains in many senses autonomous even now, so it is not surprising that it has different recognition policy. If you want to clarify, we could always say that the rest of PRC does not recognize the diploma. In any case, I don't see it as a huge issue, as I said. As I was searching for citations to fill in the gaps, I saw that there is quite a bit out there not necessarily included by IBO, so having all this information in one place (rather than simply referring to IBO which does not have all of it) is in fact encyclopedic and useful. In fact, older versions of the recognition section copied from WP are already floating around the web and come up in google searches. As long as it's properly cited (which it was not before), it actually gives a nice overview of how different countries recognise (or not) this international program. True, we cannot include all 75 countries, nor do I think it is necessary, as long as the info included is representative. Tvor65 (talk) 19:18, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Imho, there has been MORE than enough discussion on this topic and the time has come for editors to weigh in on a vote as to whether to include the regional descriptors, or reduce the section to the opening paragraph. Motion: To reduce Recognition section to descriptive single paragraph.(please sign after your choice)

AYEObserverNY (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

NAY LaMome

Respectfully submitted, ObserverNY (talk) 19:15, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Polls aren't how we generate consensus around here. And from the look the above, you voted for both aye and nay. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 19:23, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, I voted AYE and then submitted the motion by signing it. It's a simple enough matter. Either agree to reduce the section to a single paragraph and then work on improving the paragraph or continue to keep bickering about the WP:Listcruft and history lessons on China. Yes or No. Please cast your vote. Is it unfair to ask people to make up their minds regarding this simple point? Let's see where the majority opinion lies. And I propose nothing be done any further to the section until Ewen, Pointillist, Candorwein, Truthkeeper, LaMome, Tvor65, Cinchbug and HelloAnnyong respond. Thank you. ObserverNY (talk) 19:48, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Wikipedia is not a democracy. When I have the opportunity to catch up on the talkpage, to assess the new section, and to look at the history of the article and assess how the recognition was treated in the past, I'll comment if necessary. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 20:16, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Uh huh. Well that was helpful in reaching a resolution. Editors on this article keep changing their minds and inserting distractions and dodging the issue without ever coming to a resolution. And you know the really odd thing? As soon as I agree with whichever side seems to have the "lead" hand, so to speak, then other editors change their mind to oppose me on the decision. So strange. I simply can't figure out why that is. It shouldn't matter what I think, I'm one lone editor who is almost always overruled even though you claim Wikipedia is not a democracy. Do what is RIGHT. You might want to take a look at how editors on other pages interact in order to come to agreement on an issue. Talk:Glenn Beck. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 20:35, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Yes, I'm going to look to the Glenn Beck article as a model on how to edit. Don't bring other articles into this. I seriously doubt that you have an axe to grind over there like you do here. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 20:41, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So was that an AYE or a NAY, HA? ObserverNY (talk) 20:44, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

If you are not happy with the way things are going here, you are free to edit elsewhere. You are under no obligation to engage in the discussion.

As for the changes in the recognition section, I think we are on the right track to improving that section. It appears to be a compromise, keeping the brief summary and including policies we have so far, grouped by continent, rather than country. Other editors may now want to contribute more readily. —Preceding unsigned comment added by La mome (talk • contribs) 20:57, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

LaMome - NAY. Next! ObserverNY (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

"A cite of 2 States out of 50 in the U.S.A. hardly constitutes fair representation of recognition of the IBDP in America." ObserverNY (talk) 12:39, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY --I agree. I believe Florida and other states also have passed legislation regarding the award of credit to IB diploma candidates/recipients. La mome (talk) 23:26, 2 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So what? If you read the legislation, it doesn't actually state that universities MUST award credit to the IBDP. It states that universities MUST DEVELOP POLICIES to provide recognition for AP/IB. There is no "tariff" or "table" like UCAS in the U.S. Recognition of the IBDP in the U.S. varies from school to school, state to state and score earned. ObserverNY (talk) 23:31, 2 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Well, since the US system is not centralised, of course it will vary from state to state. My point being that legislation regarding IB credit exists in other states. Which is what I thought you were saying as well. We'll have to find sources to support that. La mome (talk) 00:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Or ... we can simply eliminate the sub-sections. ObserverNY (talk) 00:23, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Or, we can try to improve the article by adding to it. A quick google search of "international baccalaureate university recognition policies" gave me this-a university recognition task force developed by IBNA. La mome (talk) 00:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

More fluff and nonsense? Who CARES about an IB committee? Seriously, what does that have to do with established recognition of the IBDP? Has the "task force" actually effected any standardized recognition? ObserverNY (talk) 00:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

And then I found this..."More than 200 colleges and universities in 12 states across the nation recognize the IB diploma and consider it when making admissions decisions. An average of 32 percent of these higher education institutions accept the IB diploma as a credential for admission. About 7 percent offer early admission to IB diploma holders and candidates, and 6 percent offer scholarships specifically for IB students. Twenty-one percent of recognizing schools grant second-year status to IB diploma recipients upon admission to the college or university." Can we use it --"aye" or "nay?" La mome (talk) 01:04, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So you want to cite that 38 states DON'T recognize the IBDP or consider it when making admissions decisions? Oh sure! AYE AYE AYE! You go for that LaMome! That's brilliant! Good work! ObserverNY (talk) 01:12, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

(edit conflict)Add Colorado to the list "...Students may earn up to 24 college credits through testing depending on their scores and individual university policies. Colorado legislation passed in 2005 assures the credit at all state run universities except Colorado School of Mines. Students must earn a minimum score on their testing to receive their IB Diploma in August after graduation." But, I guess we might need a better source.

Still looking, La mome (talk) 01:16, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Minnesota too…

“California recognizes the value of keeping highly attractive IB graduates at in-state institutions and grants students matriculating to the University of California (UC) system with an IB Diploma of 30 or more points 30-quarter (or 20-semester) units toward their UC undergraduate degree. Minnesota also uses the score of 30 points on the IB diploma as the standard for credit acceptance. The Minnesota State Colleges and Universities Board established that all students with a score of 30 or higher must be awarded 12 quarter (or 8-semester) credits for each of the three higher-level exams. In addition, three quarter (or 2-semester) credits are granted for each subsidiary exam. The total possible credit awarded for an IB Diploma in Minnesota is 45 quarter (or 30-semester) credits.” So no, they are not saying that 38 states don't regognize it. They're saying that 12 states have passed legislation. So far we California, Colorado, Minnesota and Texas, correct? What are they others? La mome (talk) 01:45, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ha ha - that Desertania section was hysterical! But the little vandal did bring to light something that you folks seem to have overlooked - the entire continent of Africa and the Mid East! [7] Oopsie! ObserverNY (talk) 12:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Ha-ha-ha, very funny, indeed, especially given that the "little vandal" was you:[8]Tvor65 (talk) 13:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Oopsies, ObserverNY. Reverting to WP:SOCK and WP:VANDAL. Shame on you. Tsk, tsk. I believe these are reportable breaches of wikipolicy, n'est-ce pas? Instead of playing silly little games, why don't you add to the content of the article by investigating IB schools in Africa and the Middle East. And when doing so, please refrain from inserting your personal biases into the content of the article.

Thanks, La mome (talk) 13:32, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

ROTFLMAO! But you see, I don't WANT to add content about IB schools in Africa and the Mid East. It does not "improve" the article, it just adds superfluous information that individuals can look up for themselves. Let me repeat, Wikipedia is NOT a college search engine for IB. I have recommended time and time again that the section be reduced to one small paragraph, the way you forced me to reduce the Special Needs and Authorization/Fees section. My "silly game" was to point out to you how completely biased your insistence on keeping this WP:Listcruft in prose form is! Sadly, you still don't get it.ObserverNY (talk) 13:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

P.S to LaMome - didn't you mean sont ils pas? ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 13:58, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Wait, back up a second - Observer, did you just admit to making that edit as an anon IP? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 14:11, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

DOH! I forgot to log in, geez you guys have NO sense of humor whatsover! ObserverNY (talk) 15:54, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

So you find both vandalism and making racist comments about whole groups of people funny? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

"Whole groups of people"? An IB student with a score of 45 is a "whole group of people"? Get a grip HA. Who do you think you are, Jimmy Carter? Calling me a racist? That's not very nice. Yeah, I thought the Desertania section might wake you people up to how RIDICULOUS your argument to keep this way too lengthy section in the article is. I'm sorry I didn't log in and sign my name to it. But I readily admit that I wrote it. The article remains full of the WP:Listcruft you seem to have your hearts set on. Just about every edit I have ever made to this article gets reverted by Tvor65 or LaMome anyway, what makes this any different? LOL!ObserverNY (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Yes, whole groups of people. Like everyone in Iran and Afghanistan. How is it not racist to say that in "Afghanistan, IB students are housed in luxury at the newly excavated cave dorms"? — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

The recognition section does not meet the WP:Listcruft criteria. The recognition is integral to the article and has existed since the article was created -- see the earliest edit here. The recognition is important for students who may not be attending university in their own country but would want to know what the IB recognition policy is in other countries. As such, in my view, it is encyclopedic and should be included. Any section can always be improved over time. This conversation and the vandalism is disruptive to editing and to improving the article. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 15:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

[outdent] Unless you plan on listing the "recognition" of every single one of the 75 countries, you are giving undue weight to the ones you mention. None of you are trying to reach a consensus on trying to improve the article, you are simply digging around for arbitrary "facts" about IB's recognition and it has grown extremely tiresome. You have disregarded my request to leave the section "as is" until some sort of consensus has been reached, you have chosen to ignore my request for an "opinion poll" on where the majority opinion lies, so if you want to lecture me about being "disruptive", go right ahead. I find it very funny how TK can insist that "in my view, it is encyclopedic", but when we were editing the SN and Fee sections I was rebuffed with cite after cite of WP policy. ObserverNY (talk) 16:03, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

P.S. - In terms of WP:Listcruft, I do believe points #1 & 2 apply: The list was created just for the sake of having such a list - The list is of interest to a very limited number of people. ObserverNY (talk) 16:07, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

P.P.S - I don't see any Recognition List here Furthermore, the entire article at that point in time was uncited and POV. Do you really want to use that as a basis for your argument about what constitutes "good" editing? ObserverNY (talk) 16:15, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

• The point of the IB is to provide a school leaving examination that is acceptable internationally, thereby allowing students to have some mobility in their tertiary education. For example, in Hong Kong, which has been discussed, the policy is this:

"International students rarely take the local public examinations. Once the UK GCSE / A-levels were popular among many of Hong Kong’s International schools but now the International Baccalaureate (IB) is the becoming a much common programme at the diploma level. Many country's International schools teach a syllabus from their own country. Students also might take the SAT or IELTS in order to gain entry to an overseas university."^[1]

It's not necessary to provide information for 75 countries. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 16:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Way to go TK. Ignore my points. Considering there are only 14 IB schools in all of Hong Kong [9] the term "much common" is extraordinarily misleading and POV. You might want to refer back to Candorwein's edit here: [10]ObserverNY (talk) 16:42, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Although I am in favour of a short paragraph I totally agree with TK that the recognition section does not meet the WP:Listcruft criteria.

However, ObserverNY, this is not appropriate. You have disregarded my request to leave the section "as is" until some sort of consensus has been reached, you have chosen to ignore my request for an "opinion poll" on where the majority opinion lies, so if you want to lecture me about being "disruptive", go right ahead. ONY

Yes, you are being disruptive. I gave every editor the opportunity to willingly revert my original edits to this section. No one did. I suspect they were willing to ride with my suggestion (for the time being). There was a change to paragraphs and the opportunity to revert still and comment (I think HelloAnnyong did that). Both are bold editing (and both clearly signposted). If someone reverted either we could have talked. It didn't need consensus. You, however, decided to change and then insist no one makes changes. You shouldn't make changes and then insist on your own criteria to revert. Quite rightly, we should ignore your opinion poll as that's not how editing articles in Wikipedia works.

I clearly still believe that the section should be one paragraph. However, it is absolutely clear that the consensus is that the section is kept and in an expanded form. I have no option but to work with that in a constructive way. I really don't understand why you don't see that also. Instead of bickering with everyone work constructively. --Candy (talk) 20:13, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Candorwein - I would like to clarify the record. On September 29th, after discussion by yourself and LaMome agreeing to eliminate the long list of countries, I deleted them and inserted the opening sentence re: 75 countries. That was when I inserted the

Resolved

here on the Talk page as I honestly thought it HAD been resolved. As is customary, Tvor65 reverted it. [11]. You subsequently tweaked the reverted edit, as did others, mostly ignoring what was going on in talk altogether. I did not touch or revert the section for the next 3 1/2 DAYS, attempting to talk it out in here, until today when frustration got the better of me and I played my little Desertania joke. Thank you for coming back and adding your opinion. I hope other editors will take it into consideration. Regards, ObserverNY (talk) 20:52, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

One small correction - I changed out the word "ministries" in the Americas section over the course of the 3 days and most of Candorwein's tweaking had been done prior to what I perceived to be agreement to remove.ObserverNY (talk) 20:57, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

There was no agreement to remove. There were comments but discussion had not really started. Although you were bold and removed the table, you had also been disruptive with your comments at the same time which didn't help matters. There was also no clarity with your edit about what you thought (at least I didn't read that). There was just this "resolved" flag that you put up when in fact the process was awaiting more input. It would have been much better to wait as this was a substantial change and it had been clearly flagged as a topic of contention.

Yes, I tweaked (copyedited) the section which was placed in. Why shouldn't I? Then, what makes you think I ignored the talk page? I don't have to jump in every few seconds/minutes/hours with a comment. Finally, you have caused far more frustration to people here I think than the other way around yet we haven't produced actions like yours. If frustration gets the better of you like that you need to question whether this a place you should be. --Candy (talk) 21:26, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

To Candorwein-With the exception of your comments on China, the following rather clear, completely edit-related post of yours to improve the article was ignored by every other editor, except HelloAnnyong who poo pooed it:

• The new format doesn't help to make the extra info any less like fluff. The first paragraph is fine. I suggest just leaving that. I understand there will be calls to have them back but the real question is whether it will ever be achievable. There are so many variables, so little fixed in stone and one has to remember that non-IB qualifications are no guarantee of being accepted at Universities even if they are the top grades. In addition, the whole thing is riddled with inconsistencies ( such as PR China not officially recognising the IBDP but then Hong Kong being mentioned which is part of PR China or the use of the island of Taiwan which is part of the Republic of China). These inconsistencies may be on the IB site (I haven't checked) but they shouldn't be part of Wikipedia I feel. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Candorwien (talk • contribs) 17:08, October 2, 2009

Instead of following up on that, you allowed me to be the fall guy for the one paragraph argument while you played the fix up the list argument with others! Then you get all huffy when I ask people to actually make up their minds and come to some sort of agreement. My correction was not made to criticize your substantial tweaking, but merely to point out that I had incorrectly noted that you "tweaked" during the 3 day period AFTER I had deleted the table and Tvor65 restored it. Just a point of fact, not a criticism. ObserverNY (talk) 21:48, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

No, you made yourself the fall guy. I didn't ask you to do the edits that you did. You decided that this meant consensus when in fact it is only my opinion. Don't accuse me of "not following up" as I clearly have been doing. Just perhaps not the way you think I should. I just don't edit or comment like you do. If other editors haven't commented on it then they are hardly agreeing with it are they? On the other hand they are not disagreeing with it. Perhaps they need time to consider it and favour reflection over reflex. Again, you are assuming everyone ignored it. Perhaps they are thinking about it? I don't know. I'm not trying to second guess or place motives on the actions or lack of actions of others. I stick by the quote above but this is not my own user page so I can't do whatever I feel like - and I certainly believe that building consensus takes time. More time than you seem willing to give for sure. I also don't feel that HelloAnnoying poo pooed it. HelloAnnyong made a valid point related to one of the sentences. Meanwhile, the page moves on. Should I throw my toys out of the pram and refuse to cooperate because I should feel offended that my suggestion hasn't been taken up by everyone? Or should I continue to be collaborative and cooperative regardless of whether I am in total agreement? Well, that's a toughie isn't it? Eventually, we may decide to follow my suggestion but at the moment it seems the consensus is that we are trying out paragraphs. Let's see where that takes us. --Candy (talk) 23:28, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you Candorwien for the comment above. We had text, then we had a table. I wasn't crazy about the table, but was willing to let it be for a time. For now, I'm thinking about the format as it is. It will take some time to consider how best to present this material, and whether it's worth preserving. Personally I find it difficult to consider the edits and the contents with the aggressive pushing on the talk page. My intention is to take a few days away from this article and to return with fresh eyes and a fresh disposition. Thanks. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 23:36, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

So, is anyone going to report ObserverNY for vandalizing an article that s/he regularly edits? Not to mention the unethical and uncivil comments s/he left there. I don't think it is amusing at all. A warning should also be left on her talkpage. I’d rather not have to do it, since I’ll be once again accused of harassing her/him. That type of behavior is really unacceptable and should not go unchecked. La mome (talk) 16:50, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

I opened a thread at ANI. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 16:51, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thank you--La mome (talk) 17:00, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

You have no consensus for inclusion. Wikipedia is not a democracy, remember? ObserverNY (talk) 17:19, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

There is consensus. Only one editor wants the section gone, and that editor has removed text that's integral to the topic. Truthkeeper88 (talk) 17:31, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Consensus means all parties involved have come to an agreement. Candorwein has not weighed back in, nor has Cinchbug. Clearly you don't understand the meaning of consensus. It is not majority rules. You do NOT have consensus to retain the section as is. ObserverNY (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Perhaps ObserverNY prefers blocks due to edit warring, as opposed to sock puppetry and vandalism? Apparently, s/he is the one who just doesn't get it. It seems that with an imminent block on the horizon, s/he has decided to blank the article, once again.

La mome (talk) 17:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Hmm...so does this mean that the next person to revert will be hit with 3RR? What shall we do? I have a version stored in my sandbox, if that helps. Just for the record, there was no consensus for deletion, as HelloAnnyong pointed out earlier.

La mome (talk) 18:01, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

No, the next person won't hit 3RR. The rule applies for one person editing on one article. — HelloAnnyong ^{(say whaaat?!)} 18:24, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

That's very good, HA. Use gang tactics to bypass 3RR and consensus ;-) ObserverNY (talk) 19:20, 3 October 2009 (UTC)ObserverNY[reply]

Or perhaps it's consensus? --Candy (talk) 21:40, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Made a correction (though it reads a little odd but I'm tired) to the comment that staff have to "be sent" for IB training. They can use officially recognised on-line workshops. --Candy (talk) 21:39, 3 October 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for proving what a bunch of lazy, hypocritical fascists IB supporters are. Your only goal was to get ObserverNY banned. More than three weeks have passed and NOT ONE OF YOU has bothered to contribute anything to the article. Shame on all of you.