Talk:IE Business School

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: NPOV

message: 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)
thread_title: Structure of Ownership

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on IE Business School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20100607210805/http://www.law.northwestern.edu/news/fall04/madridLLM.html to http://www.law.northwestern.edu/news/fall04/madridLLM.html
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20080814084137/http://www.aacsb.edu/General/InstLists.asp?lid=2 to http://www.aacsb.edu/General/InstLists.asp?lid=2
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20081011100511/http://accreditation.mbaworld.com:80/content/accreditedlistall/index.html to http://accreditation.mbaworld.com/content/accreditedlistall/index.html
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20141103114335/http://www.cnnexpansion.com/tablas/2013/02/22/mba-globales-2013 to http://www.cnnexpansion.com/tablas/2013/02/22/mba-globales-2013
*Added archive http://web.archive.org/web/20140911004331/http://www.businessweek.com:80/articles/2013-11-07/the-complete-2013-executive-education-ranking to http://www.businessweek.com/articles/2013-11-07/the-complete-2013-executive-education-ranking
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 14:08, 24 April 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified one external link on IE Business School. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120704081014/http://iebusinessschool.tumblr.com/ to http://iebusinessschool.tumblr.com/
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 03:53, 10 November 2017 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text:  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)
replies: text: Thanks for your answer . 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)
thread_title:  Irrelevant information 

message: 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  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: , which I thought was pretty light-touch in the circumstances. 
What do people think? 
Joe (talk) 19:17, 28 January 2019 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title:  So Forbes...  

message: 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 ).  Pinging  who I see have discussed similar issues in the past, also  due to their interest in higher education. Russ Woodroofe (talk) 15:53, 5 January 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: 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)
thread_title: Peacock language, again