Talk:Cambridge Judge Business School

Rankings removed

Why were the rankings removed? These were not "selective" or "promotional" - the FT, Forbes, and the Economost are three of the most respected business publications in the world. Other rankings, such as USNews, only contain American schools so are not relevant. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 24.85.250.184 (talk) 07:41, 10 August 2008 (UTC)

JBS Photo

• does anybody know why the picture of JBS was deleted from the page? Parnell88 03:30, 21 January 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Jbslogo.png

Image:Jbslogo.png 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 09:27, 5 June 2007 (UTC)

Lists of names

Lists of names in this article should be sourced in accordance with WP:BLP. As there is no way of constantly maintaining linked articles, this applies to names which have a Wikipedia article as well as those that do not. Any name listed with no verifiable citations should be removed. Refer to WP:NLIST for guidance. Fæ (talk) 17:11, 11 October 2010 (UTC)

Chaired Professors

The list of names seems entirely arbitrary. These are staff members who have professorships but why would we include staff lists? If the chairs held were at JBS there may be a rationale to include the list but general staff lists are discouraged by WP:NLIST. Fæ (talk) 10:41, 13 December 2010 (UTC).

This is not a general staff list - it is only the list of 13 chaired professors who are the most senior members of JBS. The general staff list would have been many times larger - I agree that we should not add the whole list. The chairs **are** attached to Judge Business School (I have added a page reference to demonstrate this - see page 22). I therefore don't see the arbitrariness. (Bradcam66 (talk) 11:08, 13 December 2010 (UTC))

You may be confusing "senior member" with people who happen to have a chair somewhere else. I have examined page 22 of the pdf file linked in the article and I cannot see any clarification about the nature of the professorships held, if anything There is no particular reason why this article should list senior members of staff when this does not have a definition in the context of the school. You may have a case if such a list exists on the JBS website, however I still do not believe this would meet the guidelines of NLIST. Fæ (talk) 11:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

You say "the layout might lead me to believe that some professorships are with the Faculty of Business and Management rather than the school" - Are you aware that Judge Business School IS THE Faculty of Business and Management? If you look more closely at page 22, line 2 or 3 of the pdf reference, the professors are listed under 'Judge Business School' of the Faculty of Business & Management. Please provide alternative evidence that these professors have chairs 'somewhere else' other than JBS (aka Fac of Bus. & Mgt) of the University of Cambridge! Then, you say you cannot see 'any clarification about the nature of the professorships held'. Please look at pages 2 to 11. There is no more authoritative a source than the Cambridge University Reporter (see wiki article on it). It is the equivalent of the Oxford gazette. (Bradcam66 (talk) 12:49, 13 December 2010 (UTC))

You are using layout styles as evidence. Please supply a source that states unambiguously that the 13 chairs you refer to are within the JBS. As for asking me to provide evidence they are not, that is not the way things work on Wikipedia, we do not assume that all claims are true until proven false; refer to Burden of evidence. Thanks, Fæ (talk) 13:40, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

I see that you have revised the text of your message, time 11:21, 13 December 2010. Thank you. But, since my reply at 12:49 on 13 December is not meaningful without the original text of your message, I am including, for the record, the text of your earlier message: "You may be confusing "senior member" with people who happen to have a chair somewhere else. I have examined page 22 of the pdf file linked in the article and I cannot see any clarification about the nature of the professorships held, if anything the layout might lead me to believe that some professorships are with the Faculty of Business and Management rather than the school. There is no particular reason why this article should list senior members of staff when this does not have a definition in the context of the school. You may have a case if such a list exists on the JBS website, however I still do not believe this would meet the guidelines of NLIST. Fæ (talk) 11:21, 13 December 2010 (UTC)" (Bradcam66 (talk) 17:55, 13 December 2010 (UTC))

Edits conflicts are frequently happen, however this was not an edit conflict. The fact that I added to my message posted at 11:21 at 11:43 (within the guidelines of WP:REDACT) and then you posted a message in reply to my 11:21 version an hour and 28 minutes later means that I'll take the option of sticking to my updated message on the basis that you would have been better advised to re-write your rather delayed response or post a diff to explain what happened rather than repost a confusing outdated duplicate. I have crossed out my signature on the text that you posted to it clear that I do not stand by that post. Fæ (talk) 18:12, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Response to third opinion request:

After reviewing your talking posts, the list on the article page, and the cited sources, it is my opinion that the list is noteable and worthy of inclusion, as its size is reasonable, and most of the people have their own Wikilinked articles. However, none of the three cited sources for that list justifies the inclusion of Raghavendra Rau, in my opinion, in its present state. A quick Google brought me to this: http://www.jbs.cam.ac.uk/research/faculty/raur.html. I think if you cite this as a fourth source, the list is solid and should be kept. —Bark (talk) 21:18, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for your feedback Bark. Could you confirm that you appreciate that the key issue is about whether the chairs are unambiguously granted by JBS rather than professors who hold chairs elsewhere? If your opinion is that a general list of professors, regardless of the nature of their chair, who are currently employed or lecture within JBS would meet NLIST then I am happy to accept your interpretation. Fæ (talk) 23:36, 15 December 2010 (UTC)

I can appreciate the distinction. Maybe changing the title of the list to "Chaired Cambridge Professors", just to make it a little more clear, would be in order? However, this issue does not really address notability of the list to me. Rather, it's the fact that most of the members of the list have their own Wikipedia articles, and those articles are linked from the list. Are those articles notable themselves? Maybe they are. Maybe they are not. If they were deleted, and there were no linked articles, then my opinion would have been that this list wasn't notable and should be removed. As such, they exist. I assume these are people of worth. The number of people on the list is small and manageable, and as such, members who don't have an associated article should be included anyway in the interests of being fully inclusive since most of the members do have associated articles. The spirit of Wikipedia is to be inclusive of notable information. Therefore, I find the list worth keeping. However, it was a close call for me, but I didn't make it lightly. If either of you are unsatisified, I would recommend proceeding with the next step of conflict resolution. --Bark (talk) 17:54, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the clarification. All professors in the UK with chairs easily meet the guideline of WP:PROF (this is not always true for people with the title "professor" from other countries) and so I would not object to future red-link names on such a list being retained so long as there was a reliable source quoted here. I would agree with your suggestion of a re-title which would avoid the addition of non-chaired professors, or those without a local chair. I took this to 3O and find it sufficient to show this list meets the policy, though I would not discourage anyone else from continuing on to, say, RfC if they felt this needed more viewpoints. Fæ (talk) 18:09, 16 December 2010 (UTC)

Centrobusiness

What is the service called "centrobusiness" for? Why is one of their servers - named centrobusiness - connecting our computers over the ports around 49700 with a hidden https connection without any user interaction? What is that for? We had never a relationship with them, neither used anything from this institute or theyr entities. Strange and ugly.

--Cosy-ch (talk) 07:09, 14 March 2018 (UTC)