Talk:INSEAD/Archives/2012

Clubs

The Clubs section is totally out of proportion to their prominence on campus. Every B-school has an Energy Club etc. We should remove the clubs and add more unique info about the 'National Weeks' and the Summer Ball which are special INSEAD traditions that have been maintained for decades. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 83.112.225.31 (talk) 22:11, 12 May 2008 (UTC)

Zirtechie and Bakashi10

Both Zirtechie and Bakashi10 are spending a lot of time editing this. Can you two not form a consensus? Zirtechie, are you associated with INSEAD? Bakashi10, are you associated with some competitor of INSEAD's?

Bakashi10 has made some reasonable deletions e.g. removing 'eloquently' and adding citation request references for various statements of opinion. This is to be applauded. However, I disagree with Bakashi10's repeated deletion of the phrase "one of the world's leading business schools". This is reasonable given INSEAD's reputation and the fickle nature of business school rankings. Many top business school refuse to cooperate with rankings and rankings tend to change a lot from year to year. Many rankings such as the WSJ's and The Economist's are seen as very unreliable. I also disagree with Bakashi's deletion of various paragraphs which seem to be quite factual and include sources. I would rather see this information left in and these two having a good discussion as to why they should be taken out. I have looked at other top tier business school Wikipedia entries this morning, it seems to me that INSEAD is one of the less 'promotional'. My two cents, I hope you two can sort your differences out - Jaffafive 10:08, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

Spam allegation

I pulled the following off the page, since there wasn't any source given for it. Can anyone provide an appropriate source for the following?

==INSEAD and internet Spam== INSEAD is responsible for hundreds of thousands of registration based medicinal spam each year.

Thanks! - Fordan (talk) 19:52, 8 May 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Inseadlogon2.jpg

Image:Inseadlogon2.jpg 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 this Wikipedia article 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 08:15, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Further third party opinion Aristrent22 21:43, 8 August 2007 (UTC)

I don't like either of these editors' approaches (Zirtekie and Bakashi10). See discussion page on LBS and Wikipedia guidelines generally.

People who are conflicted tend to select certain rankings. They include them in their own school's website. Have a look at Tanaka, Judge, IMD, Said and LBS entries. They contain lots of unsubstantiated statements. I have made amendments to this entry.

I encourage Zirteckie and Bakashi10 to talk to each other constructively. It looks like Zierteckie has accepted Bakashi10's removal of some statements. Zirteckie could put more effort in explaining his/her position. Bakashi10 just re-enters what he/she wants every time. This is not ideal.

"Notable" alumni section

Other Wikipedia articles about B-Schools do have a NOTABLE alumni section, but as of Jan-30-2009 Insead's has 112 "notable" alumni. Without diminishing anyone's success, most seem to be CEO and/or founder of very little known or inconsecuential businesses or somewhat senior personnel of somewhat bigger companies. I believe that the espirit of this section is to bring up alumni who have succeeded and are very well known. Not every single entrepeneur who created his own little company, or anyone who just happen to have had a promotion. I think this section needas to be dramatically reduced. Wikihonduras (talk) 19:15, 30 January 2009 (UTC)

But removing all the alumni and only making in available in the INSEAD alumni category is overreacting. Other business shools maintains a short list of alumni for informative purpose (to get an idea without having to go on all the individual pages what are the type of some alumni - the ones in top position)--Nabeth (talk) 10:38, 20 March 2009 (UTC).

Please read the tag and comment above. There is no mention of deleting the section. A list with over 120 (and growing) entries in the main article should be reduced, specially when there are no guidelines of who should make the list and who shouldn't be included. Just as also suggested below when a list of books/authors was introduced. Oher business schools and universities do have a very short list in the main article, when for example Presidents, Nobel Prize are part of the alumni. Then there is a separate section where other alumni are classified. That allows discussion of who should be in, be seaparare from the main Insead article. Wikihonduras (talk) 16:30, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear Wikihonduras, I apologize. I realised afterward that I replied to your post as if the removing of the all list of alumni was the result of your action. I indeed got confused. I personally agree that the list of alumni was too long, and should be reduced to something more reasonable. For the time being I will leave other people to select which INSEAD alumni should belong to this list (I would prefer myself to focus my attention to academic & knowledge related content). Note: I assume the previous list was inspired by the list from Harvard Business School, which appears to be very long. Best regards. --Nabeth (talk) 17:12, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Well, contrary to what I said, and following your advice (looking at what other people do), I have created a page List of INSEAD alumni. I believe it is the better way to advance. However, I would prefer from now on, not to be involved in the subject of alumni. On the other hand, my honest opinion (comparing to other similar pages), it would be unfair not to have a section about INSEAD alumni like other business schools. --Nabeth (talk) 18:46, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That list, like all such lists, should only include people who are notable in their own right, and already have articles about them in Wikipedia. Notability is not inherited: just because somebody is an executive of a notable firm, does not mean that they thus become themselves notable. --Orange Mike | Talk 20:11, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Books by INSEAD faculty section

This section is informative since it helps to understand the research conducted at INSEAD. --Nabeth (talk) 10:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

This just seems like the reintroduction of material by some authors who don't on their own warrant bio-articles. What criteria are going to be used to justify what books are inserted into a "some" books criteria section? Unless you can define what "some" are, its just spam or cruft. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 10:39, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Dear trident. INSEAD is an academic institution, and therefore it is just useful to make reader to understand the kind of work and expertise that is conducted by faculties. The section is therefore not about the people themselves, but it agregate some of the work that is being done. Just saying that INSEAD is good at this or that would be subject to caution. Indicatoing some of the books that were authored by some people helps to get an impression of what is really being done. Best regards. Note that the number of faculty / books mentionned remained limited and to my opinion not excessive. Best regards.--Nabeth (talk) 10:54, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

It's not about INSEAD, its about the criteria used for what books are included in that section and why? What criteria are "some" books going to be included or not, which was my original question? Can you also in your reply state your relationship to INSEAD, and whether you are one of the authors listed? Personally, I am an MBA graduate but not from INSEAD. Rgds, --Trident13 (talk) 11:26, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

See answer in User talk:Nabeth --Nabeth (talk) 11:47, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

Ok, User:Orangemike, who is an administrator has come and has done the cleaning and removed this section. I somewhat disagree with this (I believe we are loosing here useful information), but he can be see as a neutral third party, this is all right for me. --Nabeth (talk) 19:44, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

That section was absurd; can you imagine the length of such a section for a Harvard, an Oxford, a University of Chicago? This entire article has been inflated by the inclusion of non-encyclopedic content like that, material that should be confined to the pages of a college catalog or the history of the school. Club descriptions and the like have no place here unless the clubs themselves are genuinely notable (think Skull and Bones). --Orange Mike | Talk 20:17, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

As I indicated previously, the point was not to put a complete list of faculties and books, but just a small subset so that people could have a more concrete idea about the kind of stuff that was published. List of some faculties is something that exist on other schools if I am now wrong. Thanks for the reference Skull and Bones that is indeed interesting. Best regards --Nabeth (talk) 20:28, 20 March 2009 (UTC)

INSEAD - the name

I understood that the french name for INSEAD is deprecated, certainly it is not heard or used on campus except to highlight the fact that it is not used anymore - I would suggest moving it to the history section - perhaps in the first line where INSEAD is founded.

The view promoted on campus is that although this is indeed the original name from which the abbreviation is derived, it has effectively (if not formally) been dropped as INSEAD has become an international business school and brand. The view being that INSEAD is no longer a French business school although it has a campus in France. Indeed French is not the language of teaching (although used among administrative staff in France but cf. Mandarin in Singapore), it is possible to attend just the Singapore campus, and some courses are not offered in France, as I understand it. There is no particular bias toward French citizens or speakers, although there are (?)13% of them.

I will see if I can find a reference to this anywhere (e.g. the green book / INSEAD site).Finereach (talk) 17:05, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Thank you for the input. I tried to check also on the Internet (societe.com) about if this long name was something really official, but could not find anything. "Moving it to the history section" may indeed something to be done, because what matter here is the actual usage, and the long name may no longer be used except in administrative document in France. Feel free to proceed then with the change. --Nabeth (talk) 18:29, 13 May 2009 (UTC)

Now changed.Finereach (talk) 19:22, 13 May 2009 (UTC)