Talk:Thunderbird School of Global Management

message: :Image:New-tbird-seal.gif is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in Wikipedia articles constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.
Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to insure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.
If there is other other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page.  Note that any fair use images uploaded after 4 May, 2006, and lacking such an explanation will be deleted one week after they have been uploaded, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.BetacommandBot 16:54, 4 June 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Fair use rationale for Image:New-tbird-seal.gif

message: This article appears to have some problems with tone and content in that it appears to be excessively promotional and its content is drawn almost entirely from the school's one website. Claims of being the oldest, etc, should have 3rd-party sources. We don't need a list of press releases, which are all available on the schools website. Nor do we need multiple links to the website-one is sufficient except for citations. Please compare this article to those of other complarable institutoins for a better idea of how it should look.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:07, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Promotion

message: I removed a large chunk of text which was copied/plagiarised from various pages on the school's website. Obviously, plagiarising text is inappropriate under any circumstances but especially so for an academic institution. Please make sure that all text is written in the editor's own words.  ·:· Will Beback  ·:· 08:22, 6 September 2008 (UTC)
thread_title: Plagiarism

message: The "Barton Yount Award" appears to just be a student award, with no greater notability. College articles usually don't list the trustees. I'm going to remove both sections.   Will Beback  talk   22:19, 13 December 2009 (UTC)
thread_title: Awards and Trustees

message: I have noticed that (ahem) *someone* has been excising big chunks of historical material that the school is likely to view as embarrassing. I surmise this editor to be connected with the Thunderbird administration. They seem broadly unfamiliar with Wikipedia--for example, they don't know how to do footnotes, or link to other pages. While anyone is welcome to edit, the newcomer should be advised that these edits could easily be interpreted as an attempt to whitewash the article, which would only add to the embarrassment, should anyone take the trouble to trace who is doing this. A number of specific quirks of this writer (for example, their tendency to add "___, Ph.D" after the names of all college presidents, and to gush praise about Thunderbird) bear the hallmarks of a not-very-competent public relations office. Remember--propaganda that looks like propaganda, is bad propaganda. 
On the other hand, I found a few lines which appear to have been written by people dissatisfied with the tenure of former T-bird president Angel Cabrera. While this too is understandable, the article ought to refrain from making personal attacks, and limit itself to verifiable, specific controversies. For example, if you write that he alienated the faculty, then there had better be a footnote giving a reliable source for this. I have done my best to make everything NPOV (Neutral Point of View), which for the benefit of our newcomers I remind is the official Wikipedia policy.
That the school has gone through financial difficulties, great uncertainty about the future, and internal disagreements is as obvious as it is understandable. This is a key part of Thunderbird's recent history. To excise it does not make Thunderbird look better--on the contrary, it smacks of a certain corporate mentality that does not reflect well on a school with such a proud tradition, and a commitment to academics. My best advice is to frankly admit your difficulties and embrace the truth, however awkward. This will win you more respect than the fanciest marketing. --Dawud  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 111.240.196.68 (talk) 01:33, 21 March 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: Edits by T-Bird Staff

message: I have been adding material, which two other editors have been removing, and/or watering down with unsupported pro-administration claims.
As a general principle, the first paragraph of the article should give the bare bones of what Thunderbird is. It is not the place to explain the ins and outs of the Laureate deal, let alone issue a judgment as to whether Thunderbird will retain its independence, etc. (which is very much a matter of opinion). I felt that the connection with Laureate ought to be mentioned--period--here at the outset, since it represents such a significant milestone, but can appreciate the opposite view. 
For the sub-section on the Laureate deal (under "History"), I wrote one paragraph summarizing the controversy, and another summarizing the deal itself, then a sentence listing major publications that have covered the issue. Factual corrections are of course welcome (and I have embraced a number of them in my own edits), and the order of presentation is negotiable. However, eliminating otherwise noteworthy material (perhaps because it reflects poorly on the school) is unacceptable.  Two-and-a-half paragraphs on the topic are not excessive, considering the volume of mainstream journalistic coverage.  It is important that the text reflect both the objections of the dissidents, and the response of the administration. Perhaps I have been unfair to the latter. On the other hand, it is also important that neither set of opinions be embraced as fact--something which I feel the two previous editors have done. 
In the future, may I suggest discussing proposed edits here on this page.Dawud (talk) 05:11, 6 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title: post-Laureate edits

message: Hello, I'm currently working on behalf of Thunderbird to improve the quality and accuracy of this article. Their agreement with Laureate Education has caused quite a flurry of edits recently, and I'm hoping to address some issues related to that agreement, but also to generally improve the article by adding citations to secondary sources and making sure the tone of the article is neutral and encyclopedic.
Given the contentious nature of the edits that have been happening on this article recently, I'd like to be very clear about two things up front:
#I will make no edits to the article myself. As an editor with a financial conflict of interest, I follow Jimbo Wales' "bright line", and make no edits directly. Instead, I'll post suggestions here, soliciting input from volunteer editors, and asking that they move the language into the article if they agree that it conforms to Wikipedia's guidelines.
#I will serve as Thunderbird's sole point of contact here on Wikipedia. Although Thunderbird is aware that individuals from their organization have made edits to this article in the past, I've advised them to stop making edits themselves. 
I'm currently working on redrafting this article, so I don't have any suggestions about specific wording at this point, although I will likely have some in the coming weeks. I'm happy to post sections as I complete them, or wait until I've finished drafting the article, whichever editors think makes the most sense.
Because of the number of recent problematic edits to this article from IP address editors, I've also requested that this article temporarily semi-protected, in an effort to help prevent these kinds of edits.
Speaking of which, there were a number of edits this morning from an IP editor, adding biased and unsourced information to the article. If someone is willing, could they revert those edits?
Again, I'll be back in the future with other suggestions here, but if you have any questions for me, feel free to reach out, either here or on my Talk. Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI)  —Preceding undated comment added 19:29, 11 October 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Looking to improve this article 

message: As I noted previously, I'm currently working on behalf of Thunderbird to improve this article by bringing it more in line with Wikipedia's guidelines about neutral point of view and proper sourcing of information. Although I'm still working on preparing new language for this article, I'm a bit concerned about . This edit added two pieces of information regarding Thunderbird's proposed agreement with Laureate Education.
The first portion of the edit adds information from a recent study about the number of alumni that support or oppose the joint venture with Laureate. However, the source used appears to a press release, and the study is clearly biased, having been run by the group of alumni opposed to the agreement, and using language such as "The alliance with Laureate is an effort to leverage the Thunderbird brand and its hard-earned reputation in order to line the pockets of a for-profit institution." Given the bias inherent in the source, and the survey's lack of coverage in third-party sources, this doesn't seem appropriate to me to include in the Wikipedia article.
The second part of the edit was to the second paragraph under "Laureate controversy". I feel that the changes made introduce a point of view into what was a very straight forward paragraph, stating what Thunderbird "believes", as well as repeating information that is found later in the paragraph.
I'm curious what other editors thoughts on this edit are. Removal of the information from the survey seems rather straightforward, but what do folks think about the language added into the second paragraph? As noted, I'm currently working on revising this article in toto, so it's likely that this second paragraph will be rewritten, complete with proper sourcing and a more balanced overview of the proposed deal, in the near future, but I still think the current edit is problematic, especially since it was added by an account with no other edits, and at the same time as the clearly biased edit regarding the survey.
What do people think? Cheers! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 18:05, 9 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm very uneasy removing material that is negative to a subject at the behest of one of the subject's employees.  However, you have a good point.  The material could be rewritten to reflect a truthful and neutral point of view.  But that would water down the information so much that it wouldn't even be useful or informative (because of course a survey conducted by a group opposed to the idea is going to support their stance!).  So I've removed the statement about the survey. ElKevbo (talk) 02:02, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Great, thanks so much! Any thoughts on the edits to the next paragraph? Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:29, 11 December 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Concerns about a recent edit 

message: Hello, I'm back with a couple of updates that I'd like to propose for this article. As mentioned above, I'm working on behalf of Thunderbird, and so won't make any edits to this article myself, due to my financial conflict of interest.
The first update I'd like to suggest relates to the latest rankings from U.S. News and World Report. I propose that the "Rankings" section be updated to read as follows:
The second update is a bit more involved. Recently, the Higher Learning Commission rejected Thunderbird's proposed partnership with Laureate. Given that discussion of the partnership with Laureate is so interwoven into the Wikipedia article, and because things are still a bit in flux here, I'd like to suggest that editors go ahead and update the article as seems most appropriate, rather than going back and forth on specific language. Here's a source the talks about the deal being rejected, and Thunderbird's plans going forward: "Thunderbird invites alternative bids for partnership deal". Feel free to let me know if you have any questions at all. Cheers, ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 13:42, 25 March 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Done. Tell me what you think.--ɱ (talk) 21:36, 10 April 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Looks good to me—I'll reach out to Thunderbird and let them know this has been done, and see if they have any thoughts. Thanks so much, Ɱ! ChrisPond (Talk · COI) 15:18, 11 April 2014 (UTC)

text: No problem.--ɱ (talk) 15:21, 11 April 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  A couple of additional updates 

message: Thunderbird is an International Business School, which greatly differs from regular business schools, the article should only list Thunderbird's rankings among International Business Schools.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 70.171.197.69 (talk) 18:15, 27 August 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  Rankings aren't accurately represented 

message: This had a bunch of spam in it that I have cleared out. The sources very consistently discuss the financial troubles of the school, and this is no where directly discussed, and it needs to be. This page is not here to  advertise the school but to tell its story. There are things people can learn about business schools and how they work, if this were a decent WP article.  It is indecent, at this point. Jytdog (talk) 20:21, 29 June 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  advert tag 

message: In addition to General Yount, there was a person, whose name I do not remember from the U.S. State Department who was a co-founder. His name has been omitted. 2600:8800:B00:60:5167:E490:CE58:A25E (talk) 20:16, 5 September 2020 (UTC)
thread_title:  Founders of Thunderbird