Talk:WHU – Otto Beisheim School of Management
 | This article was nominated for deletion on April 17, 2006. The result of the discussion was keep. |
 | This article is rated C-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. It is of interest to the following WikiProjects: | |||||||||||||||||
| ||||||||||||||||||
Supporting facts?
[edit]Some facts would be nice: How many applicants for how many places? What was the Abitur GPA of the class entering in 2007? Middle-half GMAT score? How many international students are currently enrolled? How is WHU currently placed in international rankings, notably in the FT European Business Schools league table? This kind of information should be expected from a school that has the nerve to claim to be "Germany's finest" in its Wikipedia article. Referring thrice to Kellog is not sufficient to support this claim anyway. Fred Plotz (talk) 12:57, 5 May 2008 (UTC)
The article should be moved, as it should not be spelled with a hyphen, but rather with a dash (and spaces). 80.71.142.166 (talk) 12:39, 22 September 2018 (UTC)
Justification for deletion of section "Controversies"
[edit]1) A single controversy does not justify a subsection on "controversies.
2) The content of this former section did not refer to a controversy, but to only one source
 | This article relies largely or entirely on a single source. |
in general and one primary source in particular. This fact is only partly covered by reference to other (commercial) websites presenting the results of the same study. Moreover, the user who had added this section has (self-) promoted this primary source in other Wikipedia articles. There is thus a high possibility of a COI. 78.109.77.105 (talk) 09:05, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
First of all, I would not have been able to do the testimony elsewhere, so the creation of a new paragraph was justified. The statement is the result of several studies. The research work of Hartmann explains why it comes to the fact that for the time being in Germany no elite universities have formed and are formed. There is also the the Dax directors report of Odgers Berndtson, which is published annually and shows the same result. In addition, the federal government also uses Hartmanns studies, for example the Federal Agency for Civic Education[1][2], which is headed by a scientific commission. The fact that I wrote that not only at the WHU page testifies more of neutrality. It would have been something else, if only I had written it down to WHU, but I did not. And in the Wikipedia Convention, it's not severe to only use one source as long as it's good. We can update the status of how many Dax board members came from WHU, but in the Odgers Berndtson Dax directors report 2018[3] WHU also plays no significant role in the ranking. And the German Frankfurter Allgemeine Zeitung also published in interview with a Headhunter from Odgers Berndtson stating the same result.[4] And i used the term controvers for a reason, because that means that the opinion about the topic is splitted. But I understand the criticism, as a suggestion we could add that this refers to the German management landscape. I would leave that decision to an admin. ZaaraTE (talk) 18:07, 5 August 2019 (UTC)
References
- ^ https://www.bpb.de/system/files/dokument_pdf/1576_Oben_Mitte_Unten_ba.pdf
- ^ https://www.bpb.de/apuz/181764/deutsche-eliten-die-wahre-parallelgesellschaft?p=all
- ^ https://www.odgersberndtson.com/media/6963/7-dax-vorstands-report-2018.pdf
- ^ https://www.fazschule.net/article/aHR0cHM6Ly93d3cuZmF6Lm5ldC9ha3R1ZWxsL2JlcnVmLWNoYW5jZS9iZXJ1Zi9tYW5hZ2VyLXdvLWRpZS1kZXV0c2NoZW4tc3BpdHplbi1tYW5hZ2VyLXN0dWRpZXJ0LWhhYmVuLTE2MDY4OTk1Lmh0bWw
Written like an ad
[edit]At least since the the removal of the controversy sections, the issues with the phrasing are readily apparent. In my opinion, it should be addressed in the following ways:
- A section on the controversy/controversies should be added
- The tone of multiple sections needs to be neutral and not like it is taken straight from the promotional material of the school
- a focus on notability would be beneficial and is clearly lacking here
FortunateSons (talk) 19:25, 30 January 2024 (UTC)
- Added a section on reception (to be extended), thoughts? FortunateSons (talk) 10:26, 8 February 2024 (UTC)
I think the crit section is generally appropriate, does someone disagree?
[edit]Should it be shortened or extended? FortunateSons (talk) 20:40, 1 April 2024 (UTC)
- Criticism sections should not exist. intforce (talk) 17:49, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- True, but the preferable solution is to create a reception section (as the essay is closer to best practice than binding policy). If you are willing to take the time? FortunateSons (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
- A university is not an artist or work which should have a reception section. It would be better to integrate it with a History section - which is currently completely missing. intforce (talk) 07:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Sure, that works too. FortunateSons (talk) 07:46, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- Done; thoughts? FortunateSons (talk) 15:31, 20 May 2024 (UTC)
- A university is not an artist or work which should have a reception section. It would be better to integrate it with a History section - which is currently completely missing. intforce (talk) 07:39, 6 April 2024 (UTC)
- True, but the preferable solution is to create a reception section (as the essay is closer to best practice than binding policy). If you are willing to take the time? FortunateSons (talk) 18:39, 4 April 2024 (UTC)
(Technical) COI disclosure
[edit]I have what a strict reading could plausibly describe as a non-financial conflict of interest in regards to this article. While I believe that my editing (both talk page and article) is not affected by it, I have voluntarily chosen to provide this disclaimer in addition to the one on my user page. FortunateSons (talk) 08:06, 31 May 2024 (UTC)