Talk:IE Business School

NPOV

I have tagged the article as being promotional. The article contains statements and judgements of value, that although sourced, are not good for an encyclopedic-style article. Some parts of the article sound more like a promotional prospectus/viewbook, than as an article. Thank you. --Karljoos (talk) 11:13, 24 January 2009 (UTC)

I have corrected problems with non-date-specific data points, and removed the "Neutral Point-of-View" flag. If there are additional items which contributed to the NPOV, please advise. The original article from 2005 was definitely in "brochure-ese" and there has been a great deal of work to rewrite it in an appropriately neutral tone.

To make sure that we're talking about the same problems, here is an example of some "brochure-ese" from the current Wharton School entry (not to pick on Wharton, but it is the best example that I know of):

"The School publishes an influential on-line journal, Knowledge@Wharton, that is "the envy of every other school", and a newly established publishing house Wharton School Publishing. Wharton maintains the world's largest financial, economics, management, marketing, and public policy data warehouses accessible through state-of-the-art web-based data management services, called WRDS."

In this excerpt, some of these claims have citations. However, the subjective wording such as "influential" and claims such as "envy of" are clearly promotional. Other wording such as "state-of-the-art" is inappropriate because it might be true at one point in time, but rapid technological advances will may render WRDS a "state-of-obsolescence" system by the time you read the article. Claims related to being "the world's largest" also need to be constrained to a specific time frame, as this can change rapidly. For instance, the article should read "as of January 2007, Wharton maintained the world's largest ..." Do you agree that these are all problems with this passage from the Wharton School article?

Originally the IE Business School article suffered from similar problems. There were data points given without reference to specific years or intakes. If memory serves, the computer rooms were described as "state-of-the-art." I believe that those issues have all been addressed. I just corrected some data points that were prefaced with "currently."

In terms of your comments about looking like a "prospectus/viewbook," this article contains all of the same elements as other business school articles--key demographic data, programs, partnerships, prominent faculty and alumni, and rankings.

If you still see any specific sentences that aren't in an appropriately neutral style, please let me know. Thank you for your collaboration in making Wikipedia an ever-improving global reference!

All the best, Julian --Dr_jkl (talk) 18:55, 4 March 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for your message. The article is better now, but I still tag it as promotional because maybe rankings can be found in other articles, but they the tone of the article very promotional, and provide little information. Also, just because another article does something wrong, isn't an excuse to do it as well. Check WP:WAX. Thank you. --Karljoos (talk) 23:30, 21 July 2009 (UTC)

Rankings can be found on most homepages of the top business schools in the world, and therefore they "are" important to these schools and do provide information about the consistency of a program. This is specially true when BSchools rank consistently on the top across the most reputed rankings (forbes, business week, FT, America Economia). Karljoss, please provide *specific* sentences that aren't in a neutral style. In the meantime I am removing the Promotional status of the article/ —Preceding unsigned comment added by 190.16.245.39 (talk) 20:53, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Structure of Ownership

It is important for an institution of higher learning to disclose its structure of ownership, especially if the owner is a for-profit firm. I am adding here links to the official registrar of the Comunidad of Madrid (the Spanish State where the School operates) to show the ownership structure of this school. For some reason, this information has been consistently deleted, I just wonder who is upset by a paragraph disclosing information about who owns the school and whether it is a for-profit firm or a foundation. Totaleclipseoftheeye (talk) 18:58, 4 March 2012 (UTC)totaleclipseoftheheart

I agree with you. We should know the ownership. I am an MBA from IE and agree it should be transparent and not deleted.

Thanks

Bran — Preceding unsigned comment added by 141.0.158.7 (talk • contribs) 13:07, 16 August 2013

Irrelevant information

Hi, an IP is trying to include info about the inclusion (or not) of the IE at FT ranking. I think that content shouldn´t be included: what is the point of including info about its position in a certain ranking each year? Is it relevant? Is it worth investing time in editing the articles of all the organizations included in the ranking, every year?. Cheers. --Rodelar (talk) 19:46, 10 February 2018 (UTC)

I have reviewed other articles with similar content and, following their example, I have included a table with the rankings of recent years. Cheers. --Rodelar (talk) 11:12, 13 February 2018 (UTC)

International rankings are fairly useful (see University of Oxford#Rankings and reputation), although if others feel it's irrelevant I'm not one to judge - it could vary depending on the university. I've included a footnote about the irregularities - a whole paragraph was WP:UNDUE, and the inclusion of the line explains the lack of 2018 rankings. ∰Bellezzasolo✡ Discuss 13:17, 19 February 2018 (UTC)

Thanks for your answer @Bellezzasolo:. Ok, I agree with that; after review other similar articles, I added a rankings table. What I´m not agree is with the incluson of the reasons for not being in 2018 ranking. Apart from irrelevant (in my opinion), why this year?, why only that ranking?, why not include the reasons for being in every ranking?, why only in this university?. It seems an obvious bias. --Rodelar (talk) 14:54, 22 February 2018 (UTC)

So Forbes...

I spent some time monitoring recent changes today and reverted vandalism here a couple of times. Looking at the history, it feels like the point of contention is over the school's removal from the rankings. I thought it was worth opening a thread and getting some form of consensus. I feel like if Forbes [1] put a school in their 'Top ten business school scandals', then that's pretty much a reliable source covering a notable event. So I think it should be covered. But I'd like to hear other arguments. For reference - this was my prefered edit: [2], which I thought was pretty light-touch in the circumstances.

What do people think?

Joe (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Hi Joe. First of all, thank you for raising the issue in such a kind way. On what you say, I agree that Forbes is a reliable source and it's good that it appears in the article. What I'm not so sure about is the paragraph you suggest; apart from the fact that the exclusion is already cited in the rankings section, its addition to the History section is a little disconnected as it is too short and offers no more information than its origin; if there were a bigger historical exposition of the institution, I think that paragraph would fit better. --Rodelar (talk) 21:06, 28 January 2019 (UTC)

Thanks for coming back to me. To check my understanding - you'd be happy with the sentence if we also bulked out the history section a little? Joe (talk) 11:56, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

That's right, I think right now it's forced to be included in such a short section. The history of an institution should expose all its development, not just focus on a punctual and negative fact, it would be contrary to the principles of neutrality, don't you think?. --Rodelar (talk) 21:35, 29 January 2019 (UTC)

So it sounds like a good solution would be to add some content to bulk out the history section and then include this event. Assuming that works for you I'll take a swing at it.Joe (talk) 06:23, 31 January 2019 (UTC)

Peacock language, again

IP and near-SPA editors have added a sentence to the lede about the business school being a "top" business school. As stands, this is clearly an example of WP:PEACOCK language. It could conceivably be replaced with more concrete language (such as that in Harvard Business School, which says it is a consistently top-rated school). Unfortunately, that doesn't seem to actually be the case, per the ratings table further down in the article: the Economist has rated it in their bottom half, and the Financial Times did not rate it out of concern that it might be gaming the process. Accordingly, I am removing the language again from the article (over revert of Lolipopm1995). Pinging @Rodelar and Bellezzasolo: who I see have discussed similar issues in the past, also @ElKevbo: due to their interest in higher education. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)

Yeah, "top" is very subjective, it would need a highly reliable source to meet WP:NPOV. ∰Bellezzilla Solo✡ Discuss 16:09, 6 January 2022 (UTC)