Talk:Desautels Faculty of Management

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


Notable Alumni[edit]

Prof. Henry Mintzberg and Prof. Karl Moore are not alumni of Desautels Faculty of Management. They are indeed faculty members, but they were never graduated from the Faculty. Therefore, I removed their names from notable alumni list. Their names can be added if the title is changed to "Notable Alumni and Staff".

Today I removed William Shatner from the list of alumni as well. It's doubtful that he graduated from the business school given his career in the arts. PKT(alk) 13:39, 8 January 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I re-added Shatner because he did graduate from the business school. Please fact-check things instead of removing them based on "hunches"User:Locoelbob — Preceding undated comment added 17:15, 6 July 2014 (UTC) [reply]

Edits to the page[edit]

I do not understand why my edits are being reverted. They are sourced and are not "promotional" and are consistent with other business school pages such as Sauder School of Business and Queen's School of Business — Preceding unsigned comment added by 142.157.194.131 (talk) 02:38, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • Thanks for pointing me to Sauder, where you've been editing as well. Drmies (talk) 03:02, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

I added back edited versions of the Student Life and selection of exchange program schools since other pages such as Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania and New York University Stern School of Business have similar features.142.157.194.131 (talk) 03:42, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

  • I'll get to those in a minute, thanks. Drmies (talk) 03:48, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • I don't understand why the Student Life section is inappropriate for Wikipedia. It's sourced, unbiased, and provides readers with more information about student life at the school. Similar pages like New York University Stern School of Business and Wharton School of the University of Pennsylvania have had similar sections for a long time as well. In fact, almost EVERY page for a university or college on Wikipedia has a similar student life section describing a few of the clubs/extracurricualar activities available (e.g. University of Massachusetts Amherst). While I agree with some of the edits you've been making to improve the clarity of the page, you haven't provided any reasoning or rationale to your edits for the Student Life section (both in this page and other pages).142.157.194.131 (talk) 03:51, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
      • Because it is either promotional or trivial or both. If common sense doesn't explain it well enough, there's Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Student_life. Why would you think that listing a university's clubs would be neutral, encyclopedic information? Please see this. Drmies (talk) 04:01, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
        • Alright then, you better get to editing, since almost every single page for a medium-large size university in the US and Canada has a pretty generic student life section.142.157.194.131 (talk) 04:03, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
          • In other words, your question is answered--why your edits are being reverted. Drmies (talk) 04:06, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
            • My question is answered. However like I said, there is ALOT of work to be done changing almost every other university page on wikipedia to also "fix" the Student Life pages.142.157.194.131 (talk) 04:10, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
    • Oh and PS, if you're cleaning up business school pages, then John Molson School of Business has alot of work to be done142.157.194.131 (talk) 03:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Updated Student Life Section[edit]

As per http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:College_and_university_article_guidelines#Student_life, I will be adding back the Student Life section discussing only notable pieces of information (Desautels Capital Management, case competitions, not for profit consulting, and Dobson Cup) as they have been covered by third party independent news sources: http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/careers/business-education/commerce-beyond-the-profit-motive/article15274613/, http://poetsandquants.com/2015/03/13/new-case-competition-attracts-top-schools/, http://www.canadianbusiness.com/business-strategy/mba-students-head-of-the-asset-class/ http://www.montrealgazette.com/technology/Hope+hustle+McGill+University+Dobson+competition/6770024/story.html142.157.194.131 (talk) 04:56, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

self-published source tag[edit]

The self-published source tags are really unnecessary, since they're all from the University itself, not some random guy's blog. Literally every article on a university from Wikipedia cites numerous publications from the University itself. And just choosing a random university page (e.g. University of Connecticut), you can see that pretty much every source is from publications from the university itself).142.157.194.131 (talk) 06:36, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

You have previously been advised on the fact that citing to the university is a self-published source. You have also been warned about using Wikipedia for promotional or advertising purposes, but have continued to do so. I would recommend that you stop editing the article as your IP address shows a clear conflict of interest. GregJackP Boomer! 06:59, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
I'm sorry for any misunderstandings in the past, but I've done my best to correct them. Do you have any specific examples of things that you think needs correcting? I've tried looking at other university pages as a template, and I don't see any major discrepancies between them and the Desautels page. I'm only an undergrad student, not a promoter or anything, and I was simply trying to update the page with more info. And just choosing a random university page (e.g. University of Connecticut), you can see that pretty much every source is from publications from the university itself).142.157.194.131 (talk) 07:17, 19 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Again, you can point at other articles all you want--but if you want to, you should maybe point at the good ones (see Wikipedia:Good_articles/Social_sciences_and_society#Education). In addition, it matters greatly whether a number of enrolled students is cited to the university or a statement like "most prestigious school in the country". Drmies (talk) 15:56, 20 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
For the incident I'm referring to, User:GregJackP tagged literally every direct citation from the school (including completely trivial facts such as the number of majors offered, number of students enrolled, year something was founded, etc.) with a Self-published tag, which was absolutely ridiculous and borderline vandalism. And everything external/subjective (including rankings) was properly cited with the secondary source. And even looking at other good articles (e.g. Oxford College of Emory University or even a featured article like United States Military Academy), you can see that the majority of citations come directly from publications by school itself, which is completely reasonable for an article on an educational institution. User:GregJackP still hasn't provided any kind of reasonable justification for such an action.142.157.194.131 (talk) 02:05, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Maybe it's because your initial effort was full of promotional language instead of encyclopedic language. In addition, every one of the other articles you talk about use a good deal of external references in addition to their self-published refs, and do not cherry-pick only the good ones. You may want to look at the West Point article again, as a majority of the cites are external to the school. Also, before you talk about vandalism, maybe you should look at the content I have created—three featured articles, plenty of good articles, etc. Nothing I did was anywhere near vandalism, and when you looked like you were starting to understand some of the basics of content creation, I moved on. Finally, what makes you think that I owe you an explanation—for anything? I'm only here because you pinged me. GregJackP Boomer! 03:06, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]
Your addition of the self-published tags was after the promotional language was removed. You added inappropriate self-reference tags to the most trivial of things like student numbers and majors offered (and like I said, external/subjective things like rankings were properly cited from the rankings themselves). Your other content bears no relevance to this specific case. And Wikipedia is a community website, not your personal encyclopedia. If you do not feel the need to explain or discuss reasoning behind your edits, then maybe you should not be an editor here.142.157.194.131 (talk) 03:20, 21 April 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 6 external links on Desautels Faculty of Management. 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:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 04:30, 17 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

A Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion[edit]

The following Wikimedia Commons file used on this page has been nominated for speedy deletion:

You can see the reason for deletion at the file description page linked above. —Community Tech bot (talk) 11:06, 26 August 2019 (UTC)[reply]

Hello Doctor Henery[edit]

Doctor focused on current world economic crisis. 

I am interested in anyone critical thesis which could at anyone time have reflected on the economic attributes which could affect the world in the 23rd century. The documentaries maybe in ralative to the differences between the securities involved in social dynamics as religious affliations which seems to be creating war crisis and the world economic degradation in regards to securities of the universe since we must have a functional tomorrow.

The above could also mean that the world must not be operated in minimised interests of ethnic cults and violent abilities to disable any given localities just because they belong to a certain domain. The supper power shouldn't be a natural threat but a pride of the world's nature. 105.161.76.198 (talk) 07:15, 4 June 2022 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Desautels_Faculty_of_Management&oldid=1201472028"