Talk:London Business School/Archive 1

Content
The content in this wiki is incomplete in a number of ways--Ktahawi 18:27, 16 May 2006 (UTC)

The alumni part can be included in the UofL alumni page. Niaz bd

University ratings
(I'm posting this to all articles on UK universities as so far discussion hasn't really taken off on WikiProject Universities.)

There needs to be a broader convention about which university rankings to include in articles. Currently it seems most pages are listing primarily those that show the institution at its best (or worst in a few cases). See Wikipedia talk:WikiProject Universities. Timrollpickering 00:14, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

MiF
As far as I can tell, the MiF commentary is taken almost word-for-word from the prospectus. While I doubt the LBS would object to the current approach, Wikipedia exists to report cited or undisputed facts on important topics. Unless something independent has been written about the MiF somewhere (and I suspect it must have been), then the MiF isn't important enough to warrant discussion and this section should be removed. At the very least, the text should say "according to the MiF prospectus..." 195.10.3.194 18:28, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Sorry. Forgot to log in. Kayman1uk 18:30, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Interesting. I will add that note to the MiF section and remove the tag. --Duncan 09:05, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

Peacock
I have removed the peacock tag from this article. A number of phrases were tagged in that way, and those terms have been edited recently to improve them. However, to flag the whole article seems mistaken, since the article is well referenced and factual. I suggest tagging particular statements is the way forward, nit the whole page. --Duncan 08:14, 16 June 2007 (UTC)

Rankings
This edit war is betting petty and boring. Participates should start using the Talk page to win consent. Ina recent edit, which I have reverted, information was take out of the article and a reference to a #15 ranking by the EIU was moved up the article, replacing references to other rankings. I see no reason to only use outliers. I suggest we remove the rankings from the opening section, since it is disputed, and start a new section where we can focus the energy. The, if we obtain agremment ther, we have add a summary into the intro. However, if no agreement can be found on a form of words, then we should not have a long list of rankins in the opening section. They are only rankings. --Duncan (talk) 19:13, 13 February 2008 (UTC).

About scholarship
I got scholarship from Bangladesh from this university and to know whether it is valid or not.
 * I suggest you approach the admissions office at LS and ask them. --Duncan (talk) 17:04, 21 April 2008 (UTC)

Masters in Management
we need to add that. --Duncan (talk) 12:57, 14 November 2008 (UTC)

Lacks meat
Very detailed when it come to courses offered, but nothing on location, campus, student facilities, no real history section etc etc. Grunners (talk) 23:23, 31 August 2009 (UTC)

-- Agreed, it looks like it was written by an administrator. It lacks substance. Compare it to harvard business school. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 163.119.138.107 (talk) 14:22, 18 March 2010 (UTC)

Notable alumni.
The list of alumni is getting long and, in some cases, it seems to be that people are not always so notable. I suggest that if people are notable to have a wikipedia page that we add them, but otherwise not. I just don;t see how the manager of a Singapore PR-start-up can be notable. --Duncan (talk) 09:27, 13 May 2010 (UTC)

This article is written like an advertisement, December 2010
I don't think my inclusion of this template banner at the top of the article requires much explanation.

This article uses what are known on Wikipedia as Peacock words, words which merely promote the subject without imparting verifiable information. An example (one of a few) from this article is:

"The school is proud of the diversity of the student body and the 2008 intake..."

I'm very sure that the school is proud: proud as a peacock!

Much of the article reads like an advertisement, it seems almost unnecessary to point out a particularly blatant example: "After the completion of the MBA programme, graduates accept top positions with major recruiters across Industry, Finance and Consulting sectors all around the world." Even if true, this is not written from a neutral point of view.

I'm afraid we need to rewrite much of the article from a neutral point of view, the links in the banner itself are helpful in suggesting what is required.

I see from the talk page that this problem has been raised before and the peacock banner instated. It should not have been removed as the article has not been improved. TehGrauniad (talk) 01:23, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Be bold and fix it. You say "we" should rewrite much of the article. Okay, you start. Let me know if you need help. ;) Cindamuse (talk) 02:19, 8 December 2010 (UTC)
 * I agree absolutely, ‘we’ is an important word. It seems a shame to have used the Advertisement banner at the top of the article, rather than use a sectional one. I thought about this article for a while before using it, and sadly in the end decided that it sums up the majority of the article very well. The way forward for this article might be more a case of being brutal rather than being bold. I think sweeping deletions might be in order, but I’ll think a bit more and hopefully get some community input before we do anything hasty. TehGrauniad (talk) 13:57, 8 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Good idea. Why don't you start with other business schools first? For example, Harvard Business School, has things like:
 * "The mission of HBS's Doctoral Programs is to develop outstanding scholars for careers in research and teaching at leading business schools and universities.
 * "Flexibility in learning, independence in study, research with deep impact, notable faculty who are leaders in their fields, and the finest resources in academia—these qualities enable Harvard Business School to offer highly regarded doctoral programs."
 * My point is that most school/university articles are written that way. Until you make an effort to change them all, concentrating only on LBS is quite pov.--Therexbanner (talk) 17:39, 13 December 2010 (UTC)


 * Hello Therexbanner I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. Do you mean to say that I would have to edit and improve every single article written on the topic of a business school before I could focus my attention on this one?


 * My frame of reference for including the 'advert' banner was not as wide as every other business school in the world, it was simply other University of London articles, such as Royal Holloway, King's College London, University College London and even London School of Economics which are articles that are not styled in the form of ‘advertisement’.


 * I don’t see your point about neutral point of view at all, especially given that the Harvard Business School article also contains the ‘advert’ banner. I think we have to accept that there is no deadline for the completion of Wikipedia, and think of Wikipedia as being a work in progress.


 * I still see the advert banner and weasel words tags as being relevant to this article. Please forgive me if I have misunderstood you. TehGrauniad (talk) 14:41, 2 January 2011 (UTC)


 * I wasn't being sarcastic, sorry if that's the impression you got. What I meant was that this is a systematic problem with nearly every educational article, and even a few corporate ones.
 * Even in the LSE article, statements like "LSE continues to have a major impact upon British society", and "LSE is often the most preferred university for employers in the private sector, financial services abroad and the City of London", are no better than the ones here. Therefore that article also needs to be objectified (as do many others, including the ones about U. of London colleges.)
 * I support your goals (in relation to objectifying the information), but I believe that, to be effective, this needs to be done on a Wikipedia-wide basis. As that is quite difficult, please go ahead and try to fix any articles you can.--Therexbanner (talk) 17:25, 5 January 2011 (UTC)

Hello, sorry for taking so long in replying to you. Yes I agree other articles including the LSE one have problems. Also my first post above is very bossy I agree, I was trying to justify my use of the 'advert' banner. That said, I don't have any objection to the removal of the 'advert' banner if it's thought that it's not useful. All best wishes. TehGrauniad (talk) 15:40, 18 February 2011 (UTC)

Marketing agency editing this article
I stumbled upon a press release from a PR agency local to me that mentioned that the Serious Ideas Marketing Communications agency had edited Wikipedia to promote a new LBS course - "The site link was also added to various user-generated content sites (like Wikipedia)" - http://www.seriouseducationmarketing.com/download/files/Breakthrough-in-online-digital-marketing.pdf. It also mentions encouraging people interested in the course to do the same. This could explain the spam like nature of the London Business School article. This is another example of commercial interests running roughshod over Wikipedia. -- John (Daytona2 &middot; &#32; Talk &middot; &#32; Contribs) 16:48, 26 April 2011 (UTC)


 * I understand your concern, but removing a neutrally-phrased description was not the best way to proceed. Why do you think that the descriptions for the Executive Education programs, mif, mba, emba, are of more value than the mim?
 * The description does not "promote" it in any way. It says that one of LBS'programs is a masters in management. Just like the mba, and the other programs.
 * All other major business schools have an overview of their programs. It does not matter who edits Wikipedia articles, as long as the information is sourced, npov, and relevant.--Therexbanner (talk) 23:50, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
 * Daytona2, the key criteria here are not who is editing, but whether what is being added is true, referenced and in balance with the article. The Masters in Management programme does exist, and what the article says is accurate. Please discuss these edits on the talk page before deleting again. --Duncan (talk) 22:35, 12 May 2011 (UTC)