Talk:Schulich School of Business

Citations

When you reference others' work, a citation needs to be added. Works that are unreferenced need to be cleaned up or removed. The rules are clear on this.Dtorgerson (talk) 11:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

COYW, thank you for adding citations to your work. If you wouldn't mind, could you leave this section up on the discussion page for a little while so that new contributors will know that they need to cite other authors' work when they reference it.Dtorgerson (talk) 05:02, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

People know about citations and it is all explained elsewhere in its appropriate spot. This is redundant, isn't it, CKatz?

It is worth writing that I did not add the citations in error. I thought that I had. Dtorgerson chose to add this oh-so-reasonable little section instead of simply adding the citations himself. That is not good teamwork. It is not as though he did not know how or where the pages were. It took me a few minutes to do once I had started... not much more time than he spent to add this to the discussion page. If Dtorgerson wants to play politics by pointing out my error instead of just fixing them, then I will play politics in drawing attention to that choice.

Oh! Here is another little something I found from Damon Torgerson: "I also added a reference to the ranking you posted." -Dtorgerson 17:55, 2 October 2007 (UTC). That was written to Cyril2006. Why did you just get on with adding a citation at that time? Why did you choose to give me your fulsome thanks and political little suggestion above? This whole pointless section dilutes discussion and starts us off on the road towards Archive #2. [In brief, I DID mind, Ckatz.] COYW (talk) 03:48, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

COYW, don't get jealous. I've added citations to your work in the past, too. How about everyone just simply formats things correctly and then the entire discussion can be avoided.Dtorgerson (talk) 05:11, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Dtorgerson, in the first place, how about you not topping the discussion page with this public-service announcement dross? What's next, using sunscreen or flossing regularly? Don't dilute our discussion page anymore. COYW (talk) 09:09, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

"Our"Dtorgerson (talk) 12:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You do not understand. "Our" means everyone except cheerleaders.COYW (talk) 15:28, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Schulich School of Business

Schulich School of Business (edit | talk | history | protect | delete | links | watch | logs | views) - What do you think of DTorgerson's proposed edits to the rankings sections? See his 'Rankings' and 'Historical Rankings' headers for info. COYW (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Undergraduate Section

The description of the undergraduate section is very technical (e.g. 383 students admitted). Rather than update the description when the school admits 384 students, why not just provide an overview and reference the school's documentation (e.g., website) for the more technical details?Dtorgerson (talk) 12:01, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Rankings

The rankings section was changed prior to resolution of the issue. Barring any discussion, the changes will be undone.Dtorgerson (talk) 11:51, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

I have formally tried to get outside opinions to manage our editing disagreement. Your intractable position is that the page should be changed your way until a "resolution to this issue". So, get outside mediation. Get third opinions. Do something positive, rather than edit, edit, edit. I have stated reasons why the page should have two headers in the rankings section. It has always been incumbent upon you to argue against me. Your points AND listening to mine would amount to discussion in my books. IMHO, you have shown yourself to be biased. Since I have told you repeatedly that I am weary of communicating with you, go get outside mediation. Why haven't you, Mr. Torgerson? Now I have done it for you. COYW (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

First, thank you for seeking outside opinions. I did not have a chance to see if anyone responded. Did anyone respond? I think that we both have somewhat intractable positions, which is what led to your seeking mediation. Had your position been tractable, there would have been no need for mediation. However, logic aside, now you have removed my work. Tit for tat. We do not seem to be further ahead other than you have now removed my work. One of us obviously sees this as moving ahead. Is there any way that you see us resolving this without going to outside mediation, which did not work (unless I missed the outside opinions before the page was archived)?

In an ideal situation, what would make you happy? How would you like to see this resolved? Could you present your perfect solution? Of course, you have to be a little realistic, I'm in good health and fairly careful when crossing the street.Dtorgerson (talk) 04:39, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

What have I erased of yours? Tell the people who will be coming to see this page. They should judge if it is really tit-for-tat or more like wave-for-tide.

Funnily enough, what makes me happy is comments like you've made above about my wanting to see you hit by a bus. Just because it is personal with you does not mean it is personal with me. Your off-the-point responses below also reveal a lot. I want you to write more and more because you will reveal your bias. Now, tell everyone the details of your proposed edits. COYW (talk) 11:44, 2 February 2008 (UTC)

You can't possibly be serious? Mock outrage aside, you erased edits of mine all over the ranking(s) section(s): here's one and here's another. There are more but I really don't care that you made the changes. I made some mistakes in judgment when I first joined the community; it was wrong of me to change the article without discussing the changes first. You were correct to point out the mistake. Regardless, I hoped that we could just get past this and move to the more civilized approach advocated by you earlier where changes are discussed on the discussion page before they are made.Dtorgerson (talk) 05:02, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

What have I erased of yours? Come again? Nice links, by the way.COYW (talk) 09:14, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Those are links to the edits you made that overwrote my work. Check the history. Do you really want a list of all the edits you made that erased my work posted here? How about we put this behind us, move forward and concentrate on improving the article?Dtorgerson (talk) 12:33, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

You don't get it, again. Those links do not work. COYW (talk) 15:26, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Correct. I did not understand that "nice links" meant "You don't get it, again. Those links do not work." I am obtuse like that. They are fixed now. If you like, I will provide more.Dtorgerson (talk) 22:10, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Provide them all. Tell me what is big for you amongst them. While you're doing this research, you will be looking at what you erased of mine, too. [I'd like that added for the record.] Then tell me why, "barring discussion", you plan to erase (again) my one and only contribution. COYW (talk) 00:55, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I admit that I erased your work and I completely apologize. It was wrong to erase the work of another without first discussing it. But if it's wrong for me, it's wrong for you too. Now that it is clearly established that we both made mistakes, can we move forward?Dtorgerson (talk) 02:11, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

OK. I bothered to look. I cannot say that I didn't know it was going to be disappointing. Your first example> I remark that you wanted a table with numbers, but just HAD to maintain some text "1st in Canada according to the Economist 2007". Coincidence? Your second example> You are making a big deal out of my edit of "Rankings" into "MBA Programme Rankings". I just want other rankings (eg., undergrad) to be organised more readably and clearly under their own header. And what was the edit immediately prior to this one you refer to???? Tit for tat, you complained?? For added hypocrisy, you called this previous edit of yours a 'minor' one. Anyhow... Here's my case: All applicable rankings, with 1-year change, 3-year average and some context with organisation. That's my case and I would love B-school promo rankings to be standardised with it starting on the Schulich page (not 'barring discussion' but 'Dtorgerson willing'). What is the 'cognitive dissonance' you allege my editing brings to a page? I put up the section above called Schulich School of Business, BTW. It was for you to justify your case for your edits. [So? Where is it?] Now, I think you should not be editing on here at all. I don't know which is worse, the actual bias in your editing, your denials or the fact that you don't make a case that floats. OK, I admit the first and second are matters of perspective, but the third... well.... One doesn't have to look hard to see emptiness. COYW (talk) 19:31, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I think we might actually be moving forward. I have a some questions:

1. What specifically do you mean by "all applicable rankings?" What makes a ranking "applicable?" Do you mean all the historical rankings of a particular publication/organization?
2. What do you mean by context of the organization. Do you mean that the ranking and the organization should be described? (e.g., "Organization A looked at the CSR aspects of the school", "Organization B looked at the number of grads who now work in non-profit organizations", etc)? If this is the case, I think the description should be included in the citation to the reference.
3. Would it not make sense to create an MBA Programme Rankings section and a BBA Programme Rankings section, with rankings for each program falling under each?

BTW, I was not responsible for the "Nth in Canada" differentiation of any ranking. I strongly argued in these pages that there should not be such a differentiation. It was not because I disagree with the potential marketing aspect of it - there is a strong argument to say that such a differentiation could be motivated by such a bias - but rather I think that a ranking should stand within the context of the ranking itself. If the ranking is of Canadian business schools then the statement would have been valid. If the ranking were more global in scope, as that particular ranking was, the statement would be out of context.

One final note, thank you for making the effort to move forward.Dtorgerson (talk) 20:44, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Historical Rankings

How do you think historical rankings should be presented? I think a table presenting previous rankings would make a great addition. Discussion?Dtorgerson (talk) 12:08, 14 January 2008 (UTC)

Why would it be great? I think dated information falls under the category of minutia and unbalances a page. Schools with tables are, not coincidentally, highly-ranked ones. Are they just showing off? Very few people care about a ranking from 15 year ago. The editors on those pages would do well to stop it, rebalance the pages, and better serve the readers.

The example table you once posted here was from a school with a string of #1 rankings (!). You often cite "leading" schools. You know most schools do not use that kind of table, yet you proffer being like the majority of pages as a reason to edit as you wish. Wouldn't a table be a little too "technical", as you have written above? You cannot have it both ways. COYW (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

I feel that tabular presentation of numerical data helps readers organize the data into information. Ideally, a graph would be best. It also allows for easier presentation of trends longer than three years whereupon readers can draw conclusions about a schools performance (positive or negative). Three years is a very short time in the life of an institution; a school rising quickly in a particular ranking over three years may not provide a realistic portrait of the institution. Removing prose also helps reduce positive or negative bias some authors are wont to include. However, I realize that while I may prefer numerical data presented in a graphical format, others may prefer such data presented in prose. What do you think?Dtorgerson (talk) 04:05, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Do most other schools use a table? I will answer for you. No. Do you use the fact that most "standard-bearer" schools do not have what the Schulich page has a rationale for editing away my work. Yes, you do. Is that incongruous? Yes, it is.

Schulich has risen a lot in the past fifteen years, but has recently reached a plateau. A reader who wants ranking information is likely to be a potential student (i.e., customer) of the school. Right? Agreed?! And it looks much, much better for Schulich to have a longer-term graph or table, doesn't it? Marketing-wise, showing the steep rise of a few years ago sure can help Schulich today. That aside, Dtorgerson, you do not put information up from just a few weeks ago! That Globe & Mail info is still begging to be added. So, add it. Is it a coincidence that you don't add relatively bad news, but are quick to champion, all the good ranking numbers that Schulich gets? My answer is no. Now we are in the school application period, too! This is high season for clicks on Wikipedia university pages

I see bias at work just as surely as something that looks, smells and tastes of cheese is cheese. --OMG. I forgot Velveeta. OK. You walk, talk and act like a duck, Damon Torgerson, admit it or not. You ought to be thankful that the likes of Cyril come edit the page. You look relatively even-handed compared with his cheerleading efforts. COYW (talk) 07:12, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

COYW, you're looking for conspiracy where none exists. I am not familiar with either the Macleans nor Globe & Mail ranking. Both publications are excellent but I do read either regularly. By all means, put the rankings in the article. No one benefits from an article that lacks transparency. So, back to the question I asked: how do you feel th at historical rankings should be presented? Dtorgerson (talk) 05:06, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

To your point about the long term trend of a school potentially misleading potential customers? How is this possibly a neutral statement? If you present the data, it's data for the 'potential customer' to discern for themselves. Further, if I were a potential student, I'd be very interested as to why a school climbed rankings for so long and then 'plateaued.' Why did it plateau? Have there been any recent changes? Giving readers more information in a neutral fashion is a good thing. If you don't like a table format, what might you suggest?71.231.77.157 (talk) 20:44, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

"How is this possibly a neutral statement?" Here is how: Wikipedia B-school pages are really all over the place. There is no standardised approach. In my opinion, if a three-year average is good enough for stock pricing, then it should be good enough for the purposes of displaying B-school rankings. Three years max. On all B-school pages. A little write-up to provide context and two headers to make it readable. Standardised. Utilitarian. Capiche? I have already made my case for this approach. On January 18th, I wrote what i did as a working theory on why people like you might prefer a table, a graph, historical data or some other non-standard addition. The irony must be lost on you that you have used precedence as a reason to argue against my improvements, yet are now suggesting a completely non-standard table or "preferably" a graph. Your edits always favour Schulich whether they are for something new of yours or arguing against something new of mine. The coin dropped months ago; namely, that the "always" part was probably not a coincidence. And now you are writing about a conspiracy?! Let's keep it simple, shall we? I don't know anything about any conspiracy. I know you are a COI case. COYW (talk) 08:55, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I was not referring to the three year average but rather your position as consumer advocate: "Now we are in the school application period, too! (emphasis added)" All I am saying is that while well intentioned, trying to be a consumer advocate is not a neutral position. Let the data stand on its own and let readers discern for themselves.

As to the three year average Applying what is a standard in one industry (financial services) to another industry (education) is not very telling. A publicly funded, education institution does not follow the same rules as a private sector investment house. Things are much more deliberate at a university. Successful investors look at more than price and for longer than three years anyway.Dtorgerson (talk) 13:23, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

B-schools sure do act and promote themselves like commercial brands. To the extent they act like service sector companies, they are. I do not really want to play the role of consumer advocate but here I am. Since commercialism seems bound to stay on the page, people who deal with the subject, no matter what their position, can be accused of non-neutrality. Bias can be only be guessed at . [On the other hand, you have already told us why you can't be neutral]. It is easy for you to say let the data stand on its own ONLY AFTER you post pro-Schulich data. I am saying that you do that. There is a larger picture. Beyond this one B-school page are many others that wil benefit from a convention. No solution is perfect and mine is not, either. All the same, I am sorry to inform you that posting some rank from 1981 is not the ideal [Or was 1982 the last year a certain school sucked?]. See the danger? People will likely want to display the most pro-school range of years. At least my way does not ignore Wikipedia guidelines about unbalancing a page. Screw Warren Buffett. COYW (talk) 16:27, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

How is posting historical data "pro" or "anti" Schulich? It's data and from that readers can draw their own conclusions. Data can trend up or down but it does not mean the data is biased. It's data, it just is. I find it very noble that you have assumed the mantle of protector of the consumer, but that is not the purpose of the article. Present as much information as you can and trust in readers' (including consumers) ability to draw their own conclusions, trust in their ability to protect themselves. You can't be there for them always. Eventually, they'll have to fend for themselves.Dtorgerson (talk) 22:21, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Here's one of the most interesting stocks I know: Baidu ([1]http://finance.google.com/finance?q=NASDAQ:BIDU). Go to the page and stretch the time frame to show a three-week period. Now stretch it to show 20 weeks or so. Change the name 'Baidu' for the 'B-School' of your choice, then change 'weeks' for 'years'. Voila! That's how things can get distorted-- and it's all true info, as well. Given how both stock prices and B-school rankings represent brands, and brands have both inherent and perceived value, the stock analogy is a strong one. All of this is pretty irrelevent. The world has people who spin statistics, I'm told, to gain advantage. Admit manipulation is possible and undetectable then argue again how inquiring minds want to know: ' Why did it plateau?'. After Britney's breakdown, that's what the buzz on the street is. But wait! [anticipating Damonese] Limiting it to just three years can show one B-school or another in a bad light. Is that my nefarious plan? Quite plainly: 'Nope'. I hope that helps!!. Now, my turn... Question Number 1 for you is: If 15 or 18 years, then why not 25 or 28, or of all-time, or B-schools in the pre-ranking era? Where would you draw the in-out line? Question Number 2. What does Wikipedia write about unbalancing a page? #3. You write about wanting to be held to a higher standard, so shouldn't you show more self-restraint/modesty before showing more of your own school's rankings (ex, R.O.I. info!) to Wikipedians? #4. If only one school had a rankings graph -- Lord, help me-- wouldn't one likely human reaction be that the school was unique/special? #5. Don't you want broad support and a convention amongst the many various B-school pages? #6. How many/few avenues have you tried in order to get support for your ideas? #7. What is the next question that you are going to pose to me, long-since answered, that is going to ignore what I have already written to you? [You should have stuck to your scorched-earth approach... At last you had a slim chance.] COYW (talk) 02:14, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

I disagree that a stock price represents a company's brand as much as I disagree that rankings represent a school's brand. There is much more to brand than price or ranking. I also disagree with the notion that since some apply a three year standard to stock prices that you should therefore apply a three year standard to school rankings. I think a more relevant metric might be applying similar standards that other schools use (e.g., law schools, medical schools, engineering schools). As for your enumerated questions, here goes:

1. Present as much data as is reasonably available. In the case of rankings, present them for as far back as they exist. I'm not sure how you present rankings from the "pre-ranking era" but if the ranking doesn't exist, I think it would be difficult to present it.
2. I'm unsure what is said about unbalancing a page but here is where it describes balance. Perhaps you could provide a link?
3. Modesty is irrelevant. Purposefully omitting a "great" ranking is as wrong as omitting a "terrible" ranking. If anything, it would be false modesty. Regardless, it's irrelevant.
4. Yes. There might be other human reactions too. Really, depends on the human.
5. Yes, I think that trying to follow convention is a good approach. I'm glad you agree.
6. I haven't tried to get support for my ideas. I try to present both sides of an argument in a neutral manner, state my position, and let people make up their own minds. If they support my position, great. If they don't, that's great too. Eventually, a consensus will be achieved through the discourse of diverse ideas. Even you and I will eventually arrive at a consensus. All this discussion, civil or not, is good for both of us and the article in the long run. It will only make for a better article.
7. Could you possibly rephrase this question? It appears somewhat rhetorical but also not.Dtorgerson (talk) 03:12, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

Rephrase??... Sure, one day. I have more questions about "moving forward" as you put it. Question #8> As the ranking of your school rises, do grads like you stand to gain? (It's a simple question that still begs a 'yes' or 'no' answer). Question #9> How is posting historical data "pro" or "anti" Schulich, given tables and graphs can spin the truth, like in my example above? [Please make my point for me, would you? Agreeing/disagreeing tangents aside, HOW?] Question#10> Do you know, or care to comment why, each of the following (reasonably available) links is not used on the page?:

http://www.mba4success.com/rank_gmba.php#wcw1 ---

http://www.americaeconomia.com/newsletter/imagenes/globalmba2005.pdf ----

http://www.report-ed.com/rankings-text.pdf (Here's a school that used this promo material: http://mooreschool.sc.edu/moore/pr/rankings/) (This publisher's Web site i here: http://www.foreignadmissions.com/ )

You get bonus points for an answer that links your edit history with your oh-so-inclusive statement: "present as much data as is reasonably available." And no-fair flip-flopping! COYW (talk) 21:56, 15 February 2008 (UTC)

There is no need to shout.

1. I thought your question was rhetorical. Regardless, there is no point in continuing this line of reasoning. Nothing I say will satisfy you or get you to answer the same question yourself. All, it will result in is you resorting to a pedophile analogy to attack me. Oh wait, that already happened. You obviously have no appreciation for the type of havoc such individuals wreak in a child's life. Classy.
2. I still do not understand how presenting historical rankings in an ordered list (table, graph, whatever), is biased. It's a historical set of numbers. Those numbers could trend up, they could trend down, they could not trend at all. By your line of reasoning, selecting any set of numbers is biased. That means a list of three years, too. I think that presenting the entire set with a three year average on the latest three years would be a very reasonable presentation. Regardless, let the readers see the data and make up their own minds.
3. I do not know why any ranking with at least some reasonable explanation/background should not be fair game to include in the rankings section. By reasonable I mean that the individual that puts in the ranking should provide 1) a reference to the source/methodology and 2) a reference to the organization that performed the ranking. As long as these two conditions are met, it seems reasonable to me to include a ranking. However, [the first link] appears to go to a ranking that Schulich was either not included or ranked below the lowest school. If the school was not included in the ranking, I do not see how it is relevant. If the ranking did cover the school, I do not see a problem with putting in something like "< 25" in a table, graph, or other type of list.

I did not understand your final paragraph. I'm absolutely serious. I will gladly respond if you rephrase it. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Dtorgerson (talk • contribs) 00:32, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

[That is not shouting. I have trouble reading and need some things in bold to find where I am on the page.] Don't joke around that you cannot 'satsify' me when just a yes or no will do it. Also, I attacked your logic, approach and presence here. I don't even know you. More to the point, every B-school can manage three years of data but not twenty. " Yes, I think that trying to follow convention is a good approach. I'm glad you agree." As for pesonal things, no, I am not connected to this school. Oh, sure I could lie to you, but we assume good faith here, right? In your case, you said your relationship with the school, and I don't need to prove you are lying. I believe you. About being outside a rankings lists, I have written to a publication and know that Schulich was included. Writing "outside the Top 25" [ '> 25', not '<25'] might have been true but got erased ... and you know it. I wonder why I even bothered to write to the publisher?! And finally, about the last paragraph: You erased those last two ranking bodies, too. So much for integrity and inclusivity. COYW (talk) 02:41, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

When you attack someone's logic by using extreme metaphors (e.g, I'm not saying you're like Hitler, but you really...), your attack really loses its merit. It also detracts from the substance of the original argument, which can be seen as a tactic to shift the debate away from the original argument. You may want to consider a different tactic, or not, whatever. To answer your question, yes, alumni of an institution could benefit if said institution is held in higher regard by a certain segment of society. However, it is also possible that they could not benefit depending on the merit of the regard. I'm not trying to answer the question politically, I'm only trying to point out that there are few absolutes and there is always another point of view. Think of it this way, should reporters not report on stories that involve their organizations (e.g., CBC reporters reported on the CBC strike)? There are valid arguments on both sides. My hope is that by removing my anonymity, I could "report" while undergoing the explicit scrutiny of peer review. That was all I ever tried to do. You assumed an ulterior motive very early on. It's understandable, I erased your work...an unfortunate oversight on my part. It was not done maliciously. Again, I apologize for any edits I did that undid the spirit of the work. It is not right to undo the work of another. Again, it was not done maliciously, but it was done and for that I am sorry.

I wrongly erased your work of the one ranking body, but posting a ranking that had no credibility other than a web page, was irresponsible. I hope that you can see that. It is not up to everyone else to do your work for you. You need to provide credible, substantiated facts. Wikipedia explicitly prohibits original research. So "I emailed so and so and they responded..." just doesn't cut it. I hope you can understand that this is not me trying to favour the school. So, when I want to place the entire history of a ranking on the page, it's not to present the school in a good light. It is to present the school for what it is, good, bad or indifferent. By presenting all of the data, I remove any editorial. If a school has been rising in the rankings over X years, this information should not be excluded...that is showing bias the same as excluding data that shows a falling trend over X years. If the data shows a hockey stick trend, it does not mean that the data should not be presented. NOT showing it, is editorializing...it's irresponsible. Show all the information and let readers decide for themselves.

I'm going to take a break from editing the Schulich page. Not because I believe I should not but because I agree with Ckatz's comments that editing more than one article is a good thing. I'm also going to give us a break. I do not edit the Schulich article to "bust your chops" and I don't disagree with you because I don't like you. I disagree with you because I believe your edits show a bias toward the school: by withholding information you establish bias. Present all the information and let readers decide. We'll never eliminate all bias, but withholding a "good" ranking is as bad as someone writing "it's the best school ever." I wish you well, and I'll check in in a month or so. Hopefully, it will give us both time to reflect.Dtorgerson (talk) 19:45, 25 February 2008 (UTC)

Appropriateness of the Macleans Magazine and Globe & Mail Rankings

Hey COYW: you can't add the Maclean's rank which you only put up to create a negative bias against Schulich for the simple reason that that survey is about York U proper not the Schulich School of Business. I would think that would be fairly obvious so I have to wonder why you tried to put it up twice. Cyril. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyril2006 (talk • contribs) 23:41, 23 January 2008 (UTC)

Well played, Cyril2006, but all of Schulich is York University. Part of York is Schulich. Schulich undergrad and grad students attend York University. Before Mr. Schulich gave money to the school of business, it was all called York University. Schulich uses the infrastructure of York. Clear enough? Sure, Schulich has taken on some student services by itself, and acts independently (ex., raising funds) but it cannot separate itself. Just because the Quebec provincial government calls itself the "National Assembly" does not make Quebec any less part of Canada. The expression "drugs and alcohol" is similarly wrong. Anyhow, I will leave the set theory and Venn diagrammes to others. All the ranking information Wikipedia pages have is purposeful. Because people can act self-interested ALL the rankings ought to be presented.

Anyhow, Cyril, the information you saw fit to edit away had 'York University' clearly written to indicate it as for the entire institution. It was written in the appropriate section, too. Those rankings have a section called "Leaders of Tomorrow" and you can be sure that the Schulich School of Business students were considered for that. Let the readers find that info and tease out whatever else they like from this Macleans work. COYW (talk) 02:02, 24 January 2008 (UTC)

Um...i don't know what your psychological problems are nor do i care...do other business schools with their own pages have rankings that are based on the entire university or just rankings for the business school itself? if you want to put a maclean's ranking for York U then put in on the York U page. I sympathize with whatever concern you personally have for the competition and reputation among business schools but do it right. I welcome a mediation from senior wikipedians who act as mediators/arbitrators if you think it necessary. Cheers, Cyril. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Cyril2006 (talk • contribs) 04:50, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

York>Schulich School of Business. You want to exclude some rankings about the former. Schulich School of Business> SSoB's MBA programme. You would have ranking info about both the former and the latter. If it is unfair, somehow, to show the ranking of York (including the SSoB), then it is also unfair to the undergraduates when the MBA programme gets some ranking number attached to it. All the same, if we are going to delineate information for individual departments, then we ought to separate the rankings as much as possible? Good point!

Isn't the Macleans info marked clearly enough for you in our "related/other" rankings section? What do you make of the "Leaders of Tomorrow" part of that Macleans ranking? Should just that info be added or is it not related enough? If you think something should be added to the York page, but not to the Schulich page, then I want to see you do it. Delineate info as you wish, Cyril, just ADD the info. The Globe & Mail rankings also await your treatment. Yet, your edit record indicates to me that you won't do a thing. If York's "Leaders of tomorow" had ranked better, the SSoB dean himself would be cheerleading and drumming the fact up on the Schulich homepage. Would you add it here? Anyhow, that is Mr Horvath's job. What is your story, Cyril? No, don't bother answering that.

I want to draw everyone's attention to the fact the York (or any university!) Geography Department does not have its own page. ...but that should not stop the business school from having one, eh. I wonder why business schools have these individual pages. Why, Cyril? Geography departments rarely get ranked. Why not? Fair? Mr Schulich gave money to a medical school and a business school. Rich business people and companies show a lot of love to business schools, eh! Why?! Discuss these questions. COYW (talk) 08:21, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

It seems yet another anonymous IP agrees with Cyril. That person, too, may add this info to the York page. The "just-because-nobody-else-does-it" argument would be better received by me if nobody else did progressive stuff on Wikipedia. When Schulich got its own page, where were all those conservative voices?! Anonymous IP or not, explain your blue pen, especially if you are not going to add the info to the York page. It does not matter whether I agree with you or not, because if I made these changes myself, I would get the edit shot down off the York because it is "something unprecedented". None of you can bring yourselves to do it because you are cheerleaders. What is in it for you besides pride?? COYW (talk) 14:12, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Well, for me it certainly isn't a matter of pride, as I've no association with the school whatsoever. I can, however, recognize that the ranking doesn't belong here. Your contention that it has to remain unless someone adds it to York's entry isn't a valid argument. --Ckatz^chat_spy 17:52, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

Settled. It goes up on the York page. My argument is not meant to be valid, as you write. I really want to show people up for the cheerleaders they are. Also, I want to avoid my good faith edits getting taken down by anon IPs and sockpuppets. I cannot show whom I suspect to be a sockpuppet, but I can show how these "fair and balanced" types run for cover when they are asked to do anything remotely negative about Schulich. So, now Macleans and Globe and Mail data goes up on the York page and Cyril will take it down. If not Cyril, then some anon IP. You watch, CKatz. Let's see what you recognise then.

Agreed, any ranking that doesn't rank the school explicitly should not go in the article.Dtorgerson (talk) 04:45, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Incidentally, I still wish to know what your view is about ranking data being on any page. Like I have written on your talkpage (since archived) we do not publish the results of the Pepsi Challenge, so why do we rank university programmes? Rankings exist for commercial purposes. COYW (talk) 19:41, 31 January 2008 (UTC)

I am the guy wrote this and even I wondered, for a second, why I wrote "your view" to Dtorgerson. I wrote to Ckatz! Damon, stop making the page hard to read by nesting your ideas inside of my posts. Post above or below but not within. You compel me to reply and it gums up the page. It really is provocative. How many times have I told you? It doesn't sink in. Requests don't work. Explanations don't work. Just don't write to me at all. COYW (talk) 16:41, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Conflict Of Interest

"[[2]]" The rules are clear here, Mr. Torgerson, unless you think that you are not promoting "your own interests". This important question remains unanswered by you: As the ranking of your school rises, do grads like you stand to gain? COYW (talk) 09:26, 16 January 2008 (UTC)

Thank you very much for the link. After careful review, I do not feel that I have in any way, broken the conflict of interest rules for wikipedia. I have been explicit in who I am; I am not an alumnus hiding behind an ip address or a cryptic wikipedia username. I have always, explicitly, argued to increase the quality of the article above all things. I have not once misrepresented myself or my work.

I am not sure what control you may feel I have over increasing, or for that matter decreasing, the institution's position in a particular ranking. I can assure you that I have none. If I were on a committee or board that was performing a ranking, I think you would have a very good reason for arguing conflict of interest and I would immediately remove myself from any discussion on rankings. However, I do not. Further, I have argued that rankings should not be arbitrarily separated precisely to remove special meaning from any ranking. For example, "Global" and "Other" introduces a hierarchy of rankings: one is prestigious, the other is...well, other. If I were advocating the school, I would have championed your separation. However, as there was never a clearly articulated precise definition of what separated one ranking (global) from another (other), the separation introduced bias and removed a neutral point of view. I continue to argue against biased presentation of rankings.

I did convey that presenting the article in the most neutral fashion rather than a biased one would benefit the school, to which you correctly argued that it benefited everyone. I absolutely agree with you on. My point was that although students often feel that advocating their school helps, it hurts in the long run. Since we both appear to agree that a neutral article benefits everyone (students, school, general wikipedia community, etc), I do not see where the conflict lies.Dtorgerson (talk) 04:29, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

There is a simple question up there. A simple yes or no is still needed. Focus. COYW (talk) 05:51, 18 January 2008 (UTC)

Depending on what you think of rankings, an alumni will benefit from an increase in rankings. However, extending the argument further, any Canadian benefits when a Canadian institution climbs a ranking. Therefore, Canadian's should not edit the page. However, the point is moot. Simply because one may benefit does not mean that one cannot maintain a critical view. Your assumption that the only person that can maintain an objective outlook is one completely removed from a situation is nonsense. Further, the theory that you (or anyone) is objective because they are anonymous is also nonsense. For all anyone knows, you're an alumni or a disgruntled employee or a student at a "rival" school. Anonymity does not equate to a neutral point of view.

If you're looking for simple "you're either with us or against us" one word answers based on how you frame the debate, you're barking up the wrong tree.

Yes I am an alumni and there is potential for bias, which is explicitly why I opted for full disclosure. I do not care whether you remain anonymous or not. It's completely beside the point. However, your anonymity does not place you above bias.

To put it in very simple terms: prove that you do not benefit from a rise or fall in the school's ranking, or leave the argument alone.Dtorgerson (talk) 04:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

You're attempts to use my disclosure against me while you remain anonymous is mind boggling and logically inconsistent. This is not personal for me in the least but I can't help but think that it is personal for you. Based on your statements about the school (e.g., dirty facilities), I can't help but think we met while I attended the school and somehow offended you. If this is the case, let's talk about it. As you've tried to use my personal information against me time and time again, I know you know how to contact me. Please do, a simple conversation might clear a lot up.

Finally, please continue to challenge me on my inputs. It will make for a better article and it will force me to honestly reflect on the school. These are both good things.71.231.77.157 (talk) 20:26, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Prove what?? I have nothing at all to prove. I come here in good faith and my edits should show that for me. I assumed good will from you at first, Damon Torgerson. I saw your editing more positively at first, too. Now, I am not fussed what you do-- as long as it is not here. I have not taken anything you have written seriously for many months now. Let me break down the reason why for you: You have a very clear, connect-the-dots monetary interest in this institution. "Schulich MBA" is written on your resume, right? Employers look at that, don't they? Your signing bonus is based on your academic background, isn't it? Surely, any reasonable definition of COI must include the notion of appearance. So, on appearences alone, self-professed graduates should not be editing their own school's page. B-schools are brands and there is way too much money involved for your continued presence here to be overlooked or pooh-poohed by your thin arguments.

You wrote "[COYW's] assumption that the only person that can maintain an objective outlook is one completely removed from a situation is nonsense". That is flat-out false. I never wrote only-schmonly anything! Focus. This section is about the following question: Has Dtorgerson disqualified himself from editing here because his stated relationship with the school is not at arm's length? By the way, who asked you to reveal your relationship with Schulich? Count that as a huge error in judgment. "Yes I am an alumni and there is potential for bias, which is explicitly why I opted for full disclosure." Wrong-o!!! Who thinks this way?? People reveal/admit/own up to a "potential for bias" as a reason for recusing themselves, not because they want to stay involved. COYW (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I never wrote that you wrote anything. I wrote that you assumed something. Focus? How about read? You just don't appear to get the point of disclosure. No one asked me to be forthright, I wanted to be open and transparent from the very beginning. That's the point.

"...If this is the case, let's talk about [my offending you]." Ummm.... so you are asking to hear MORE "mind boggling and logically inconsistent" things from me? Should I feel happy with this... "nonsense"?! Astounding. BTW, I have been to the main Schulich building, peed, and found your toilets satisfactory. Anything else you wish to distort? People who visit this COI section may well think I am more baised than you are desperate. (Naaaah!) I am still chuckling about how I am supposedly using your disclosure against you. HAHA! And police have a nasty habit of using confessions against criminals, eh! Nice one. COYW (talk) 05:35, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

So, the police have told the criminal how it is, how it will be. Lovely, telling metaphor. Still, you confuse confession with disclosure. Regardless, did you not ask me to comment on the "filthy" restrooms and to discuss meetings between students and administration at a meeting that was "invitation only?" Perhaps it was someone else using your username. Clearly, that individual exhibits a strong bias toward the school, but not you. You are above bias. You're writing in good faith...er...will. Please tell that person that I am sorry they were not invited to the meeting, I had no control over the guest list. qedDtorgerson (talk) 12:15, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

I am only human, like you, but you confuse so much that I cannot stomach it. You characterised an alleged "assumption" of mine based on something. Something I wrote, no? I don't think in your confused way so I am at a disadvantage when you try to explain yourself. At the end of the day, you can extrapolate a great big picture of me based on everything I have written and done. Tremendous. Now you. I don't have to extrapolate a thing since I accept your word that you are biased [For his school, I'd like to add.]. "You just don't appear to get the point of disclosure. No one asked me to be forthright, I wanted to be open and transparent from the very beginning. That's the point." You have chosen ignore the fact that we assume others are open and transparent from the get-go. This is the default, Wiki-way. I have a point, too: You cannot be the only one to define your edits, attitude, discussion and... er... points. I can define them, too, and they are out of bounds. Discussion page side, my edits have been pro-page not pro-Schulich. Sure people like you or Cyril2006 can call me out [Haha!], but you have to base your arguments on more than... toilets and conspiracy theories. At least Cyril2006 talks straight. I think the cheerleaders like him [IMHO] and detractors ought not edit on the page, but it is a matter of editing the work on a case-by-case basis. People who confirm their bias, like you, must not edit here at all. You are tainted. Go get another username and come back. That would be acceptable to me [but threatening pro-Schulich edits will never be]. I don't care about any more of your half-baked reasoning. [OK, you are a noble guy. Honest. Pays all your taxes. Good for you. You get a merit badge. You are also a pro-Schulich shill. Never again spoil/threaten/sully another's good faith contributions. Now, off you go...] Nor should you confound the issue [Someone using my username?! Wha--??]. The matter at hand is you recusing yourself. Point finale.

And as for Ckatz, I know you do not have a stake in this. How do I know? I don't really! I just assume it. I do note the choices you have made until now. Why shouldn't I? Yet, I am not a first-impressions kind of guy. I always say that there is no rush. BTW, please check your TalkPage and join me in discussion. COYW (talk) 20:11, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

When it is you that needs to "come clean," another standard exists. Answer the question, did you or did you not explicitly comment about the school's facilities and internal meetings? If you did, I think there is a legitimate question as to the potential for your own bias, consumer protector aside. If you did not, I'd suggest changing the password on your account.

Second, I have never written anything pro-Schulich or anti-Schulich and I certainly do not assume the mantle of protector of the consumer. It's an intentional position of bias that doesn't belong in the article and besides, the job's taken. I've argued for consistency, fairness and letting readers see all the information: good, bad, or otherwise.

Third, I was explicit in approaching things openly, not because of any desire to intentionally bias the article but to encourage others to be extra critical of my work. Sometimes, authors are unaware of their bias and I explicitly wanted to ensure that that was not the case for my work. By allowing everyone - and my definition of everyone is inclusive - to know me, they can read my work with a more critical eye.

Finally, please do not write threats to me on my talk page or anywhere. If you want to have a discussion away from this page through our personal talk pages, that is absolutely fine. However, I will not tolerate threats. The next time you attempt to threaten or bully me, I will report it.Dtorgerson (talk) 21:36, 14 February 2008 (UTC)

Oh, boy! I had a few acquintances at your school and heard things from them. I lived in Toronto, visited York more than a few times, including Schulich. I saw a little for myself. I was there at that meeting with someone. [You must not remember me working the chow line. The guy who ate the most was me!] If you have any other 'legitimate question', then ask. I have no connection with the school and never did. In my opinion, it's a regular school like every other. Frankly, I am concerned with the page and its pack of cheerleaders and not the school itself. And about my password? Actually, I think I'll pass on mocking you about that.

More seriously, you steadfastly ignore my simple yes/no question. You refuse to accept someone considers you as biased, even after you disclose the circumstances for your 'potential' bias. Think about the disturbance you have caused with that disclosure. Who else does this? Seriously. Am I compelled to accept your reasoning for the explicit disclosure? Dude, potential bias aside, it's about your actual editing history and comments, too. If characterising your contributions is a matter of opinion, remember my opinion's as valid as anyone's. I have worked long enough with you to know and there is more to this matter than bias. "I've argued for consistency, fairness and letting readers see all the information: good, bad, or otherwise."?!... WHOA. Remember: 'Bla-bla-blah, South Americans. Bla-Bla-Blah Indians. Bla-Bla-Blah No Contextual info. Bla-bla-blah Contextual Text is a Good Idea. That was all off-the-chain biased, inconsistent and unfair. This is your record. Finally [from the ridiculous to the sublime!], what threats are you talking about?! Report them [[3]] . Please bring back more eyeballs to see your 'Wiki-Libel' against me. COYW (talk) 01:12, 16 February 2008 (UTC)

Seriously, there is no need to shout. If you're having trouble reading, perhaps adjust the settings on your computer rather than making everyone endure formating for your convenience. That aside, I have made no libelous statements "wiki" or otherwise. A fine selection of your statements can be freely read on my talk page. You are also free to respond to them and I won't erase it with the caveat that it remain civil (e.g., no more references comparing me to pedophiles or Hitler). For example, you could explain why, with all your bluster about people erasing your work, you had no problem having Ckatz erase your pedophile attack against me; it almost appears that you made a mistake and then tried to cover it up without owning up. I guess some find courage in anonymity. Actually, I guess that's closer to hatespeech than a threat but I digress. Who knows, we could even have a conversation to try and settle our differences rather than boring everyone here. Novel.

Regardless, I'm off the Schulich article for a while. Just noticed this and thought I should respond to your libelous statements about me being libelous.Dtorgerson (talk) 16:33, 26 February 2008 (UTC)