Talk:Hult International Business School/Archive 1

Archive 1

Note

Most of the page reads like directly copied from their webpage.

"[...] has been educating global business leaders [...]" as a first sentence is straight-out ridiculous, that is not a definition, that is marketing. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.57.144.81 (talk • contribs) 22:30, 27 May 2009 (UTC)

Whatever you say. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 93.97.1.50 (talk) 22:37, 5 August 2009 (UTC)

It seems to me that this a rather rubbish university, isn't it? it sounds like they are selling a product in an infomercial. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 201.243.160.124 (talk) 02:43, 7 September 2009 (UTC)

This pages is being repeatedly edit to include advertising. Tommythe (talk) 03:05, 24 April 2010 (UTC)

There is somebody on this page that regards all the positive information as advertising. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.73.230 (talk) 00:27, 17 July 2010 (UTC)

Recent edits regarding advertising

The campus at Boston does exist as well as the other locations around the world. Hult is the former Arthur D. Little School of Management, I am pretty sure it is relevant...

Hi, just wanted to put my view here regarding the recent edits to the article. Blackumbrella recently edited the article to include a bit more info along with some images of the different campuses. These edits were later undone by Tommythe as being advertising. I believe that providing images of the campuses is not advertising; however, at the same time, I do believe that the article could be written from a more neutral point of view, considering that the article is basically composed of only positive acclaim and rankings. The addition of the images, however, seem all right to me, and I see only a positive side for keeping them there, which is why I restored and modified Blackumbrella's edits. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:33, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

At least one of the images in this refers to a Boston campus, no such campus exists. The image is of the EF Eduction building in Cambridge, MA. Of which Hult occupies one floor. Wiki does not need to include photo of five buildings that may or may not belong belong to this company, nor does it need to list all the degrees offered. There is a link to the companies site. Many of the references in the page refer to a company source, not third party. The purpose of this page has been to advertise - look at the comments above, many editors have viewed this page as advertising. Tommythe (talk) 04:18, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I knew there was something wrong with photo of the "Boston" (actually Cambridge) campus, the EF Eduction logo has been doctored off it the top left of the building and from over the main entrance. No doubt an attempt to suggest that the whole building is for Hult, now that's misleading and, dare I say it, an attempt to advertise Hult. Take a look at http://www.bing.com/maps/?v=2&cp=r1vh7b929p1m&scene=51754854&lvl=2&sty=o and http://equator.eftours.com/2009/01/ef-recycling.html Tommythe (talk) 04:51, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

The comments from other users are from late 2009 when the article looked more like this, which I clearly agree was written in a promotional tone. The article has since been sliced to a short stub, though, and those comments are now irrelevant.

But interesting find with the image. I agree with you on the fact that they should not be in the article, simply due to it being misleading. However, I do not believe that the images should be removed just for the sake of not having the images. I think they would otherwise fit in the article, as they illustrate the locations and architecture of the facilities, as the article should as described in Wikipedia:UNI/AG#Article_structure. As for listing the degrees, I agree with you, also per Wikipedia:UNI/AG#Article_structure, which states that a list of all the degrees should not be listed. Perhaps one of the images could be re-placed in the article, one that is not misleading. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:39, 27 April 2010 (UTC)

I disagree that unsourced images of each of their buildings are needed. The locations have been listed, surely that's enough. Including the images misleads readers into believing that the school occupies the complete building - this is not the case in Cambridge, MA. Tommythe (talk) 04:50, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I know, I agree with you, as I said (or at least tried to say, I know it wasn't very clear of me) due to them being misleading. However, if they do own one of the building completely, I believe it would be appropriate to leave an image. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:49, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

The marketing and recruiting department at Hult are very sly and sales orientated people. This however, should not take away from the validity of Hult. Lets work together to eliminate all the rubbish that they try and spin and get the true facts about Hult in order. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 92.98.248.68 (talk) 08:12, 10 August 2010 (UTC)

I have removed several sections that I thought were irredeemably marketing-oriented. I have rephrased the rest of the text and provided references where I could find them. I do not think the article reads like advertising anymore. Please point out any areas needing further attention. K8bell (talk) 11:03, 4 February 2013 (UTC)kbell

Speedy Deletion

I agree with the editor who proposed this. The article has information of little value and is being used to promote a private company. The article has contained much deliberately misleading and inaccurate information. Some editors (perhaps connected with Hult) have tried to include only favorable information in this article. See the history page for edits which skew the view of this company.Tommythe (talk) 12:24, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I do agree. Please delete this irrelevant article about this irrelevant institution written by its irrelevant marketing department. --82.132.248.108 (talk)

Just because the article has been written form a promotional stance in the past doesn't mean that it should be speedily deleted. Being a short article that has little valuable information isn't reasoning for deletion, either; Wikipedia has thousands of short articles; there are quite a few that are shorter. The art of a wiki is the ability to expand. Anyway, the reason given doesn't really follow any speedy deletion criteria, at least not directly; please consider doing a proposed deletion or bringing it up for discussion instead. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 20:54, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Also, please stop restoring the speedy deletion tag if you happen to be reading this. It has been declined by an admin; there is no point in re-adding it. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 21:18, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

Well, the fact that this institution is irrelevant to Wikipedia combined with its marketing department trying to bend the facts IS a reason for speedy deletion. --82.132.139.36 (talk)

1.) Why is it irrelevant to Wikipedia? This is an encyclopedia, after all.

2.) If several editors are POV pushing, then it's the editors that are the problem, not the article itself.

3.) The reasons that you have given aren't any reasons for speedy deletion. See WP:CSD. There is speedy deletion criteria for very short articles that do not identify the subject. However, this article does identify the subject, and being short itself is no reason for deletion. There is also the criteria for articles that are exclusively promotional; however, this article isn't.

Also regarding speedy deletion, it needs to be indisputable. If anyone except for the article creator disagrees with speedy deletion, then it's done and over; the article will not be speedily deleted. If you still believe that the article should be deleted, it needs to be either proposed for deletion (which could be declined by any user, once again) or place in a a deletion discussion where the community will form a consensus. You are free to take it for discussion there. Thanks, ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 22:01, 28 April 2010 (UTC)

I do consider it irrelevant because it is not exactly an amazing business school (if you look at all rankings in full detail rather than reading the advertisement a.k.a. Wikipedia article you will agree) and got nothing special about it. Futhermore its 'campuses' are buildings or floors of buildings. Given the age of the institution this makes it really irrelevant. The article has little information since there is hardly anything.to say about this institution. The ranking in the introduction as well as referring to a house in London and a not-yet-existent office in San Francisco as campuses counts as advertising in my book. Where is the genuine value added to Wikipedia apart from that its original concept failed in 2002 and that it is named by a decadent man (there are accounts according zo which his wife likes to shower in Evian water...). Finally I'd like to insert {{p r o d}} into the article but can't be botheted to create in account. Anyone? --82.132.139.93 (talk)

Wikipedia is not a directory of "the best" in any category. It's an encyclopedia. The main criterion for inclusion of a topic is notability. Hult qualifies based on that criterion.

Concerns about this article should be addressed by providing reliably sourced information about the university, and writing that information in a POV-free manner. --Orlady (talk) 13:19, 30 April 2010 (UTC)

Rankings in the introduction of the article

Hi, does anyone else think the excessive (and only mentioning positive results) references to the rankings in the introduction count as advertising and that this should be changed? --82.132.136.183 (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 01:21, 3 May 2010 (UTC).

The rankings include the alumni recommend rank (measuing whether graduates in industry would hire more recent gradudates) and research rank, for which Hult are just about worst in the rankings.Tommythe (talk) 19:33, 3 May 2010 (UTC)

If someone thinks that the only positive side of information is listed here, it should be complimented by the negative information which is based on the proven evidence, rather than endless non-productive deleting & rewritings. Well-sourced negative information should be welcomed.

Plus, alumni recommend rank is one of the most common/reliable methods of measuring the quality of business schools. The criticism above should be done against The Economist or other ranking institutions rather than this article. Excluding these sorts of rankings merely because someone dislike this particular method of measurement is not reasonable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 78.105.73.230 (talk • contribs) 00:20, 17 July 2010

Recent See Also

Why should there be a see also to EF? They are separate entities. Not in the same business. And you have not given details of ownership, the link would seem random to someone who doesn't who owns both organizations. Luckylou222 (talk) 03:52, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Different question: Why do you want to suppress information about the relationship of Hult to EF (and vice versa)? Your entire edit history appears to have that single objective.

At one time, this article did discuss EF's ownership of Hult, but that content was deleted. Rather than spending time researching the history and rewriting the section, I added a "See also" link to the EF article. I believe that what I did was consistent with the guidelines on See also sections in the Wikipedia Manual of Style. I'm restoring the material you deleted. --Orlady (talk) 15:22, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Include some sentences to detail the state of ownership, so that the see also doesn't look like a unconnected piece of information. Something like - the Hult family own the travel company EF, which in turn owns Hult(if that is accurate, I don't know the exact details of who owns what). Luckylou222 (talk) 16:19, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

You seem to know an awful lot about Hult and EF, but you also seem to be committed to expunging information about them from Wikipedia. --Orlady (talk) 17:44, 7 July 2010 (UTC)

Take a professional tone. If you can't you should stay quiet.Luckylou222 (talk) 02:23, 8 July 2010 (UTC)

Nonprofit???

An anonymous user removed the "for profit" descriptor from the article lead section, with a note saying "Hult is a 501c3 not-for-profit institution registered in the State of Massachusetts." I posted a request on the user's talk page, asking "Can you provide a source for that information? Wikipedia requires reliable sources for verifiability of content."

If this is true, the anonymous user should be able to supply a reliable third-party reference to that effect. If no source emerges in the next couple of days, I intend to restore the "for profit" descriptor. --Orlady (talk) 02:18, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

I searched several databases to find out if Hult is a non-profit organization. A search at the IRS database of charities shows that it is part of "a list of organizations eligible to receive tax-deductible charitable contributions", but that is all. I also came across another database that lists Hult as a tax exempt/non profit organization, but unlike the IRS search, this one files Hult as a "Educational Organization", which, based on our own article, would indeed place it under a 501(c)(3) organization, which covers organizations with educational purposes. I'm no professional (heck I'm 15) when it comes to all this fancy-shmancy stuff, but it seems like the anonymous user is correct. ~SuperHamster Talk Contribs 03:17, 19 July 2010 (UTC)

As Hult indicates on it's own web page, it's audited financial staments can be found at the Massachusetts Attorney General's web page. The documents filed there show that Hult is a 501(c)(3) organization (see document IRS 990) and that Hult is a not-for-profit organization (see financial statements). I will therefore add the non-profit info to the article. -- Bthor (talk) 20:55, 19 September 2010 (UTC)

FWIW, I checked on Hult's non-profit/not-for-profit status today; the U.S. Internal Revenue Service (IRS) Exempt Organization Search does say that Hult is a 501(c)(3) non-profit. The IRS legally determines 501(c)(3) status, the best marker of non-profit status in the U.S. I'm not sure where this might fit in the article anymore (11 years after Bthor's comment)... whether it's relevant in the lead after all. Right now the lead calls it a "private university" which is accurate and succinct. But it's certainly not "for profit." Just FYI. Megercliff (talk) 02:09, 4 August 2021 (UTC)