Talk:The Indian Institute of Planning and Management/Archive 3

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

You have new messages (last change).
Archive This is an archive of past discussions. Do not edit the contents of this page. If you wish to start a new discussion or revive an old one, please do so on the current talk page.
For older discussion, see archives: 1, 2
The following discussion is an archived section of Talk:The Indian Institute of Planning and Management. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section at Talk:The Indian Institute of Planning and Management. No further edits should be made to this page.

Contents

An outsider's view

User:Iipmstudent9 asked me to look at this article. I am not in any way affliated to IIPM or its detractors. I had not heard of IIPM or any of the controvery surrounding it prior to User:Iipmstudent9's request. I come to this article as a neutral observer.

Having said this, there are serious problems with this article. It clearly does not follow WP policies on WP:NPOV, nor verifiability. Much of the content does not belong in an encylopedia, and should be removed. One of the major concerns is the use of personal blogs as sources. Blogs do not constitute reliable sources.

In addition, the currently evolving controvery section needs it own article, perhaps titled IIPM advertising controversy or the like. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:43, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi K,
I agree completely with your analysis - thats what I thought as well - that as per Wiki guidelines, they cannot cite blogs etc.
And the controversy was only around the 'IIPM sues blogger' story in the media - in fact, the blogger lost his job at IBM as a result of his allegations on the blog. All this is irrelevant to Wiki as an encyclopedia, on an IIPM article, isn't it?
So, what is the next step, K? Do you review the article and point out issues that are not upto wiki standards? How do we move the controversial issues into a seperate article, or at least a seperate section like in the Microsoft article?
Best,
--Iipmstudent9 11:10, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
I completely disagree with this view for the following reasons:
  1. Which of the claims about the institute rely on blogs for corroboration? The claims about faculty and infrastructure that IIPMStudent9 keeps reverting are based on two sources, one is JAM and the other is Businessworld. JAM is a popular youth magazine that has been in existence for more than 10 years, much before blogs existed, and Businessworld is among the top 3 business magazines in India. It is only IIPM's POV that they are motivated by jealousy.
  2. Similarly, Outlook magazine is the number 1 or 2 in India. A link to that is surely within the scope of an encyclopedia?
  3. Is IIPM threatening to sue someone because of what they said not encyclopedic? Is reporting on that controversy not encyclopedic? If we report on the controversy, should we not report both sides? Only for that purpose links to blog posts have been made. We are only linking to blog posts to report on what they say, not to corroborate any statement about IIPM.
--Ravikiran 12:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Ravikiran is not addressing the issue Konrad brought up - that the entire article is not on IIPM according to Wiki, that several claims are based on blogs etc.
With regard to the BW and Jam article, I'm copying what I writeto Vilerage here:
The reason we'd wanted to move the alegations about faculty out fo the Faculty section and into the Controversy section (or seperate article) is because the articles (JAM and BW) were both written by Rashmi Bansal, an IIM alumni and known anti-IIPM voice (because IIM competes, unsuccesfully, with IIPM.). Also, Rashmi's JAMMAG is a tabloid in every sense - sensational, low circulation of only college students in a part of Mumbai, a staff of 4 part time 'journalists' and a physical format and design just like 'The Sun' of Britain. They specialise in poorly researched 'exposes' of reputable academic institutions, without any journalistic standards or integrity. IIPM at this time has sued JAMMAG for their article. As for BW (BusinessWorld), Rashmi is a contributiong editor there, and no doubt had the article published there as well. Therefore, I would like them to come under the Contrvoersy section (or seperate article as Konrad suggests), as these articles and allegations are part of a slander campign by competition, over past 2-3 motnhs, and not relevatn to a Wiki page on IIPm, which has been in existence for over 33 years. 4 - On journals, yes, i did cite 'Insight media', a marketing magazine, on the journals...
Now, Wiki does not like to verify what a citeabel source has said as per 'No new research' policy, but it should not lift from JAMMAG, which is a tabloid. Existence for over 10 years is irrelevant.
And no one has contended that Outlook or BW or not market leaders - I am pointing to a clear case of journalistic bias, that at least deserves a mention, in the case of Rashmi. Especially since the matter is sub-judice.
Regards--Iipmstudent9 12:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

I must point out that the Businessworld article is not written by Rashmi Bansal. They are credited to Aditya Khanna & Aarti Kothari. The rest of it is IIPM POV. There is no reason at all to privilege IIPM's views over that of its critics. Is IIPMstudent9 saying that claims about the faculty and infrastructure of IIPM and lawsuits filed by IIPM are not about IIPM?? --Ravikiran 12:27, 30 November 2005 (UTC)

For arguments sake let us agree that the page is highly NPOV in nature. But then tell me if these can be justified - Using extremely sleazy and slimy language in replies and in edit summaries. Using multiple handles some of which signify nothing special (like drnoamchomsky) or where the handle itself is highly NPOV in nature. For example IIPMStudent9 is also a blog which sprang-up from no where showing a highly pro-IIPM nature (and hitherto dead). In my opinion, the only reason why IIPM is to be included in Wikipedia is that they were involved in this recent controversy. It was an unknown organization or may be a little-known one which just managed to stay in news due to its so called "Honorary" dean Mr.Arindam Chaudhuri. Now let me make my stand very clear- I have nothing for or against this institute. All I am trying to do is the avoid the use of Wikipedia for free publicity. Look at the the IMDB page or www.indiafm.com for Mr.A.Chaudhuri's movie review. You will find these media also being tweaked. Also understand that there is no war here, just constant watch on an article which was constantly being vandalized by name-less, face-less people. PeaSea 12:33, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
On an extended note, what if I prove that all the Pro-IIPM edits were made by an IP address which originates from IIPM campus in New Delhi. Atleast will that be considred NPOV. PeaSea 12:35, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
IIPM is a reputed organization which existed for 33 years. That JAM MAG existed for last 10 years is IRRELEVANT. Great. So where is the intersection point for being "Relevant"? The last time I heard the same argument was "God is love, Love is blind, So God is blind". Knock it off, Dude. PeaSea 17:57, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
SeaPee, u r twisting words as usual. and heading out on a complete tangent! address the issues at hand on wiki rules and policies applicable to this article instead of pseudo- investigative journalism on iipmstudent99. 203.145.128.5 18:22, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Guess What? I talk only with people of flesh and blood. Not imposters and masqueraders. End of discussion. Period. PeaSea 19:01, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
This is just ugly. There's no sense to what IIPMStudent9 Writes, and he/she uses venemous phrases like "IIM competes unsuccessfully with IIPM" (smirk) and "JAMAMAG is a tabloid". Also the language in the edits by IIPMStudent9 are not worthy of a management student, let alone an honorary dean, if you get my drift. My vote: Retain the controversy section: it is important to know, and it's not based on blogs but on sources at TWO different magazines. Rashmi Bansal writing for both does not make a story - IIPM has given no answers to what Business world says either. Second: The article is definitely on IIPM, though I must admit that the controversy takes less space than it really should. Having said this, if further edits are done by IIPMStudent9, I will revert first, then check differences. Deepakshenoy 19:11, 30 November 2005 (UTC)
Just an FYI that I'll always be doing a revert to this article every 3 hours/day irrespective of it's last edit to Ravikiran's version. Please don't take it personal... just consider me as one of the caretakers for the iipm page - I don't like the bleeding going on, I don't have the time to take crap from IIPM's management or it's students.... At the end of the day what matters is responsible articles on wikipedia! Misleading facts and flashy advertisements have no place on the wiki. :-) —The preceding unsigned comment was added by DrStravinsky (talk • contribs).

Okay, this is what needs to be done:

  • The article itself is of very poor quality, in terms of writing, structure and implementation of the manual of style. Some good examples are Caulfield Grammar School, University of Michigan (both of which are featured articles), Stanford University, University of California, Los Angeles. A lot of work needs to be done improving the quality and conforming to MOS guidelines.
  • The IIPM logo is featured without proper copyright information. It appears it was simply copied from the website, which is not legal.
  • Current events are always given their own articles. Go to Current events for a whole host of current events. The main article should of course mention the controversy, but the details belong on the current event article.
  • Both IIPM supporters and detractors need to refrain from reverting each other. Several of you have violated the three revert rule in the past. Please stop reverting each other. User:DrStravinsky, I hope that you were joking when saying you will revert every 3 hours.
  • Both IIPM supporters and detractors need to refrain from making snide remarks and other comments that can be construed as personal attacks. Everyone needs to chill out.
  • Everyone needs to follow wiki practice in writing and signing comments. If you respond to a comment, indent your reply with a :, and don't write unnecessary stuff like Hi, Regards, etc.

Once the controversy has been moved to a separate, current event article, work can begin on improving the quality of both articles. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 00:01, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

>> Current events are always given their own articles. Go to Current events for a whole host of current events. The main article should of course mention the controversy, but the details belong on the current event article.
Re this point, IIPM was a relatively unknown institution (inspite of what iipmstudent9 and his friends may claim, and the IIPM ads in the media) till this controversy broke out. Just as three-fourths of Monica Lewinsky deals with the Clinton affair, this issue deserves a major part of this article.
As for current events thing, I think it has fairly cooled down now but the others may be better judges on this. Tintin 00:13, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Okay, that's a new point for me. Monica Lewinsky would not be notable (and thus deserve a Wikipedia article) except for the Clinton affair. If IIPM is not notable enough to deserve its own article, then yes, its article should cover the controversy in depth. If it is independently notable, then the controversy should be a separate article, just as Bill Clinton covers, but doesn't go indepth into the Lewinsky scandal. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 01:08, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Without the controversy, it deserves a paragraph or two, certainly nothing like what it is now. But this is my personal opinion and others may dispute it. As of October 11, when the controversy broke out, the article looked like this, and may have remained somewhat like that. But since then it has gone through some 700 edits. Tintin 01:30, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the Bill Clinton article is a great example - it refers to the controversy, but it not consumed by it. IIPM definitely is notable, according to Wiki policy Konrad refers to - it has over 5000 students, is the world's largest independent b-school (over half of the business students in india are from IIPM each year), its Honorary Dean is a member of the Planning Commssion of India, it has seven branches all over the country, and is setting up centers in London and NY. It's charitable work through the Great Indian Dream Foundation (see Arindam Chaudhuri article) is supported by Miss UNiverse Foundation and cricketer Sachin Tendulkar. IIPM is one of India's largest print advertisers. IIPM's mission to provide entrepreneurial business skills to anyone who wants to start or run a business is a socially just cause - the Director of IIPM has outlined this vision and its result on the Indian economy in his book the Great Indian Dream. The insititutes choice to market the program widely to fulfill this aim is perhaps held against it, due to the traditional view that educatinoal institutions need not advertise. Notability according to Wiki's nascent policy is easily justified.
We apologise collectively for any remarks made from this id. That behavior was not in keeping with the guidelines on Wiki, and we apologise unreservedly to Ravikiran and PeaSea. --Iipmstudent9 04:35, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
Iipmstudent9, am I correct in assuming that you are more than one person? If so, each of you should to create separate accounts. Also, I'm not sure if you're claiming to represent IIPM or not, but Wikipedia doesn't have "official representatives". Everyone is just another editor. :) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 05:00, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
K.Yes, this id is used by multiple students from the New Delhi campus. We were not aware that this was against Wiki policy, and have agreed to get new accounts for each of us. And we're just looking to protect our institute's interests - as current students and then alumni, unsubstantiated allegations by bloggers on a Wiki page make our institute look bad! :( But, in the process, we certainly have learnt and enjoyed using Wikipedia! :) --Iipmstudent9 03:56, 2 December 2005 (UTC)

I've created a new page called IIPM Controversy copying content from the current page, and linked to it. Have corrected a spelling mistake and further, have added copyright information to the IIPM logo. I have not removed the controversy section from the IIPM page itself- it would amount to vandalism if I do it unilaterally.

Deepakshenoy 10:50, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Moving the content unilaterally is not vandalism; it's called being bold. If other users disagree, they can undo changes. Don't be afraid to make good edits. Vandalism mean trying to wreck a page. See Wikipedia:Vandalism. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 06:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Deepakshenoy, I think thats a great first step! :) I'll second that - I've asked that no one from our group revert this IIPM page for the next three days - we'll only make edits. Further, I request K., to edit the IIPM article and remove references to the controversy, except for a link to the controversy page, which should be appropriately framed (not inflammatory). However, if stravinsky, PEasEa, or Ravikiran do not agree with this, and continue reverting, we're back to square one. I hope this step forward by DeepakShenoy, combined with my gesture, result in a positive spiral upwards towards getting these 2 Wiki articles right!--Iipmstudent9 04:04, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I'd rather not personally make edits on this page, since I was asked to have a look as an advocate. I'm sure everyone is capable of working together in good faith to improve the quality and compliance of the article. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 06:49, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
So, happily, there have been no reverts over the past 24 hours. I guess I'll take the frst step, as advised by K., and remove the controversy section from the article. This has not been shot down by any of the editors, so I believe we are unanimous in our verdict. There is a long way to go before this article falls in line, and I would encourage other inputs on changes on this talk page, before they are implemented. I'll be happy to support any changes that are in keeping with Wiki policy, and I'm sure K. will provide a neutral stance to help us. --Iipmstudent9 05:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Please stop reverting each other

User:Iipmstudent9, User:Tintin1107, User:Gurubrahma, User:Ravikiran_r, User:DrStravinsky and User:Peruvianllama, please stop reverting. Please take the time to review the WP:3RR and WP:DR policies.

If you do not agree with an edit, discuss it on the talk page. Revert wars accomplish nothing and clog up the edit history. Thanks! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 05:29, 1 December 2005 (UTC)


Konrad, in the first place we wouldn't need to keep reverting the iipm article if it's not vandalized almost 5 times daily by the likes of User:Iipmstudent9. If you and whoever else is concerned etc. can ensure that vandalism to the iipm and arindam chaudhuri page stops - I can assure you the reverts will stop as well. Don't you want the wiki to portray honest and responsible articles?

thanks, Dr. Stravinsky Ivannovich 10:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Lock ?

Maybe it is time to recommend locking this article for a while. Tintin 15:23, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Agreed! Maybe locking the page to the right version will stop the vandalism to a certain extent. Dr. Stravinsky Ivannovich 17:53, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Please read Wikipedia:Vandalism. The edits being made by IIPMStudent9 are not vandalism. A page is not locked simply because one side is sick of reverting another side. You must stop reverting and start making contributions to the page instead in an effort to resolve the dispute. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 22:11, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
PLease see my comment above to DeepakShenoy - lets work together for a commonly acceptable solution with K's help .--Iipmstudent9 04:12, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Fine. Tintin 04:15, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree to refrain myself from further edits. But the page will be constantly under watch and any IP edits will be taken care of instantly. Well, this is more like the "No first use" policy of using nukes. (IIPMStudent9 - Do you still have problem getting my name right? Usually the procedure is that one should learn the three R's before getting an "International MBA degree")PeaSea 06:20, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
I've added this article to articles we're watching at the CVU. --негіднийлють (Reply|Spam Me!*|RfS) 09:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Professor title

PeaSea, PLease see Professor article here. Clearly, Prof. Arindam Chaudhuri qualifies to use the title professor because of his enormous contribution to management theory through the publication of the popular 'Theory i'. His workshops on 'Theory i' are well attended by CEO's and Presidents of large corporations (see newspaper article scanned at Arindam Chaudhuri Wiki Talk page, and www.ArindamChaudhuri.com. His work through the NGO The Great Indian Dream Foundation also qualifies him, as well as the consulting for various Indian and FORTUNE 500 companies. There is no law or regulation in India governing use of the title professor, and as Honorary Dean the IIPM can also grant him the title. AICTE is a quality-assurance body, that IIPM has chosen not to be a member of, inspite of repeated invitations. The UGC has no authority over titles, and is a fund-giving body, controlled by politicians, with no authority over IIPM as it does not accept funds from it.--Iipmstudent9 04:30, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
See the talk page of Arindam Chaudhuri for my comments. PeaSea 05:03, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
There is no reason for Mr. Chaudhari to be called Professor, in an academic environment, because he holds no Ph.D. degree granted by an accredited institution in India (or any part of the world). He also runs what is very much a for-profit institution, which is not accredited or affiliated to any university or council. None of his research papers have been submitted for peer-review, or printed in journals. None of his research is available to research scholars, and he has not presented his postulations in any peer reviewable forum. But having said that, IIPM is not an academic institution in the sense of working with the academic community or journals or peer review of research. SO he can use whatever title he wants. But I would say that wherever such a term is used, we must mention, very specifically, that this is not a professor as known in academic circles, and the term is not to be confused with an academic professor. I would suggest using "Professor" Arindam Chaudhari with Professor in quotes. By the way, in India we follow the British meaning of Professor, which means a (full) Professor in the American meaning. "Professor" Deepak Shenoy 11:45, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
Deepak , firstly, IIPM is a non-profit institute, registered as a trust under the Societies Act 1856. You can have Agni's lawyers check with the Registrar for Companies in India. Secondly, he does not need to hold any doctoral degree to be called a professor. There is no law or regulation that stipulates how these titles are to be used. And yes, you are right that he can use whatever title he wants, although I dispute heavily your generalization that IIPM is not an academic institute - training succesful entrepreneurs and managers is what the institute does, and whether our difinitoins of 'academics' match seems to be the question. But lets save that for later. He has been referred to as Professor Arindam Chaudhuri by everyone, including the world's largest English daily Times of India (Interview of Prof. Arindam Chaudhuri by Times of India, January 14, 2000), consistently. According to Wiki's no original research policy, "Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to verify that you are not doing original research is to cite sources who discuss material that is directly related to the article, and to stick closely to what the sources say." It would appear that there is no more scope for discussion on this issue according to Wiki policy. I will wait for you to agree before implementing the changes. --Iipmstudent9 05:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
IipmStudent9, I don't agree. He runs a non-profit institution - IIPM is only part of that institution. I suggest you check with the registar of companies about the structure of holdings of Mr. Chaudhari - it will reveal enough and more. Second, he needs to hold a doctors degree, sinec in India the concept of (full) doctorate according to Wikipedia applies. IIPM is not an academic institute; if it were, it would take pains to get accredited, and to involve itself in the academic community. Sure, IIPM wants to be different, but it is so different it is not acamdemic. As I mentioned, any person can take any title he wants to, and in that sense I am a professor too. (Btw, I see you've found where I work. We don't get cowed by threats, btw, just in case you wanted to try some of those comments you'd posted on Ravikiran)

Deepakshenoy 19:14, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I found something more interesting here - http://www.business-standard.com/bsonline/storypage.php?&autono=202949
It says that IIPM is registered as coaching classes and not as a university (It makes sense, it is "Non-afiliated" and "teaches non-professional" courses quoted from their disclaimer). So how can the "Honorary" Dean of a coaching-class with no doctoral degree and not publication, be called a "Professor". The only defense remaining is taking seminars for corporates, which I think is not much of a point too. Many organizations including Art of Living foundation takes courses for corporates. Art of Living for example, in the same lines of the "Theory I-Management" teaches the Sudarshan Kriya. That does not make Sri Sri Ravi Shankar, the founder of Art of Living foundation to call himself as a professor. The American definition of "Professor" makes more sense here wherein without a doctorate you are never allowed to teach in graduate level and will never get a professorship. PeaSea 13:09, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
PeaSea, Please see my comment to Deepak above, which I believe ends the discussion on titles from Wiki's point of view. You have cited the article incorrectly - it does not say that IIPM is registered as a coaching institute!! If IIPM chooses not to accpet money from the government in return for autonomy, why should that be held against the institute? The autonomy allows flexibility and growth to achieve its objectives of training entrepreneurs and managers with the latest and best curriculum. Your are absolutely right that he can be called a professor for his well-known and highly regarded workshops. (See Arindam Chaudhuri article talk page for Hindustan Times article on CEO's and FORTUNE 500 companies who attend his workshops to learn Theory i). And your raioale of using the American system does not stand up to Wiki's rules, as I have mentioned in the coment to Deepak. I hope you will agree...--Iipmstudent9 05:50, 3 December 2005 (UTC)


I agree that technically Mr.Arindam Chaudhuri can use the "Prof" title. But this is in lines with some one using an "Honorary" title. For example I have seen quite a few magicians using "Prof" before their names (Don't get me wrong, I am not comparing Mr.AC to magicians). Now if they are to be addressed, we will definitely use the salutation "Prof". It is true that in India we do not have stipulations on whom to be called a "Professor". But your argument that he takes classes to corporates does not hold water. Read about Art of Living in my previous comment. There are umpteen number such speakers like Shiv Khera. I would include Mr.Arindam Chaudhuri in the same group. The bottom line is I agree to the use of "Prof" title but preferably in quotes or with an added note that it is honorary and not an academic title.

PeaSea 07:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

PeaSea, DeepakShenoy, I am quoting from IIPMstudent9:


He has been referred to as Professor Arindam Chaudhuri by everyone, including the world's largest English daily Times of India (Interview of Prof. Arindam Chaudhuri by Times of India, January 14, 2000), consistently. According to Wiki's no original research policy, "Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to verify that you are not doing original research is to cite sources who discuss material that is directly related to the article, and to stick closely to what the sources say."

Gentlemen, I believe Wiki's rules apply fully, and since neither of you have contested these rules, or how they apply, I will assume you will accept their relevance. As per our agreement, I am implementing changes, and will be open to reverting them back given suitable facts. As for your other arguments, shall we agree to disagree on this?--Iipmalum 07:17, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
If you are expecting a single-word answer, I need a less-ambigous question. "Shall we agree to disagree to this" is a classic example of play of words (though I assume that the situation requires the use of Hanlon's Razor)PeaSea 08:32, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Rankings

I have removed the 3 scans of HT and Outlook, which refer to the Outlook - Cfore ranking issue. The reason being, the are copyrighted images, and should not be a part of a Wiki article. If anything they may be used on the talk page to justify citing from them for a bit, and then removed. In addition, if in the rankings section other editors insist that these remain, then they need to be balanced with other scans of numberous publications and articles where IIPM is lauded and acknowledged as a leader in business education. I will revert the changes myself, if other editors see it so fit and arrive at a consensus. --Iipmstudent9 06:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

I strongly object to this edit. If the news paper scans are copy righted, so are the IIPM images. This edit is justified only if all other images, including the IIPM logo are removed. PeaSea 07:29, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
I have removed "Alleged" inserted at the Outlook rankings section. This is a smart bomb. Looks innocent, but changes the entire meaning of the paragraph. PeaSea 07:35, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
PeaSea, IIPM images are owned by IIPM, and they have been released as press release pictures to the media, through IIPM's website. Scanned images of publications like magazine Outlook and newspaper HT are copright, and putting them on Wiki endanger the project. In any case, they are referred to in the text.
Konrad, please could you take a call on this?
Also, IIPM Student 9 put the 'alleged' into the Outlook rankings section because the HT article clearly says 1. "IIPM is believed to have been suspended.. " 2. "IIPM falsified data, alleged a researcher". There are no quotes in the artilce from parents or students. Therefore, Wiki can report what HT says, as long as Sandeepan Debs and Outlook's reaction is also captured.--Iipmalum 07:34, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
It is no where mentioned in the IIPM photographs that they are in public domian. I went through the IIPM website and did not find any thing on using these images. Now they can come under the purview of Fair Use. Being used in print media does not mean that the images can be treated as in public domain. So I support the usage of both IIPM images and the newspaper scans with the Fair Use tag attached to it. PeaSea 08:13, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Regarding the use of "Alleged", you got it wrong. Read the HT article again. It says "After the survey was published, the agency received many complaints from IIPM students, parents and staff members that the information provided by the institute is wrong". Did you find the word "Alleged" any where? True, it also says "It is believed to have been suspended", but the outlook scans say that it is not a belief, but a fact. The article says, "IIPM falsified data, alleged a researcher". It does not say "IIPM allegedly falsified the data", in which case I would have agreed with you. PeaSea 08:21, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
One scan of Outlook has been added. The remaining are posted in the [IIPMControversy] page. I believe one scan is enough, and the scan is important enough for first time visitors to read. Copyright information has been added in the images. Deepakshenoy 09:09, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Deepak, please note that the copyright note you have added does NOT cover the image you have inserted. That fair use license only applies to magazine covers, and this scan is from the inside. Further, this sort of use also then justifies using the rankings scans above liberally. In fact, one could easily argue that those scans add a lot more value to a Wiki article thab this notice, which is simply a function of Palety influencing outlook (see my blog explainng the series of events). I request you to please re-evaluate the use of this image, and its relevance to the IIPM article on wiki. 'Konrad', I'm sure Deepak would be open to knowing your view on this? --Iipmstudent9 10:50, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
If the newspaper scans are to be removed, the IIPM campus photos will also have to be removed. IIPMStudent9's argument holds true for those all photos alike. So also the numerous newspaper scans in Arindam Chaudhuri article too will have to go. PeaSea 22:36, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
I would imagine that scans of any part of a magazine would come under fair use, assuming they don't include any advertising, which may not. However, the scans in the articles are of very low quality, with some even being cut in two and pasted together. That does not count as a verifiable source. A scan, if included at all, must be a high quality scan, not just a picture taken with a digital camera.
At any rate, scans of text are not supposed to be featured in the article. They are distracting and unnecessary, and are meant only to be linked to as sources. Hope this helps! --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 00:20, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I think the scan in question is perfectly legible and not cut/pasted together. It may not be the highest quality scan, but I believe this quality of scan for this kind of text is perfectly legal. The scan is not a photograph either. I have added the scan back, I believe it's important enough to remain in the Controversy section. Deepakshenoy 06:35, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Deepakshenoy, the scan is out of context (you can't see the page number or any surrounding information required to verify the authenticity), and isn't necessary. The article can simply state that Outlook did whatever by publishing a notice in whatever paper (I don't know the details), and that is sufficient for verifiability. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 08:57, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
K., I see what you mean. I've removed the scan and posted a link to the Actual Outlook article, plus quoted the headline. I think that's enough for completeness and verifiability. Deepakshenoy 09:55, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Snapshot

A snapshot of the wikipedia article at this time looks like a typical IIPM advertisement. All the edits made by IIPMStudent9 are slow reversions which converge to the last version alleged to be of POV in nature. The only thing NPOV in the whole article is a little line on the IIPM controversy. I cannot agree with any of the edits made by IIPMStudent9 except segregating the controversy section and adding back the "Prof" title to Arindam Chaudhuri (albeit with double quotes or an attached note saying that it is not academic and just a self-adopted title). Also since it was also revealed that IIPM9 is the common handle for a group of students, it is not justifiable to use this ID further. Each individual has to use separate handles. PeaSea 07:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

PeaSea, Please let me know what exactly you find to be a problem in the article, and we can discuss it. Konrad as a mediator could help us see things thru Wiki's view. And we've started using seperate handles. :) --Iipmalum 07:36, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Please Revert Back

I am twelve hours away from Indian Standard Time and is hence bidding good-bye from editing the article for the time being. I hope that my objections will be heeded. If after 8 hours this is not taken care of, I will revert back the last known NPOV edit but with a segregated controversy section. PeaSea 08:15, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

PeaSea, if you revert, you'll start a war again. Please try to discuss the issue instead. Your opinion on NPOV is not necessarily Wiki's view. --Iipmalum 07:41, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

I repeat, there is no war here, atleast for me. I previously agreed to a "No first use" policy and not a "wait and watch" policy.PeaSea 08:24, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I have added a Controversy section in the IIPM page. I believe there is enough need to inform students of potential issues with print advertisements and the website. Now, we need to evaluate all points of controversy and list then on the controversy page. I suggest that we list only the TOP 5 controversial items on the IIPM page, and detail them and others out in the Controversy page. It's too late right now, but I will attempt to do this tomorrow.Deepakshenoy 19:38, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
Deepak, Awesome edit. It think this retains the NPOV nature and gives a bird's eye view of the subject. PeaSea 20:59, 3 December 2005 (UTC)
The "controversy" section is just a small part of the entire article. The rest of the section has been segregated. Hence I support this edit. PeaSea 07:59, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Bold lines on Infrastructure

Deepak, Wiki is an encyclopedia. The article is on IIPM. Since all the photos clearly state New Delhi, and campus and branches are clearly written seperately, what is the need for such a aggressively worded line, in BOLD?? K, please help with these issues? --Iipmstudent9 07:54, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

The terms should not be in bold. See WP:MOS for more information about formatting articles. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 13:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree, the bold parts can be removed, otherwise we'll have everthing in bold. I've removed the bold parts. Now, IIPMstudent9, you must understand - removing bold does not mean removing the entire lines! I've just reset the formatting but retained the lines. I assume you have no argument with the lines themselves. "Professor" Deepakshenoy 16:12, 4 December 2005 (UTC)
Deepak, darling, is there a way of making those lines look like a (aggressive and tort law fearing!)lawyer did not write them? It looks very out of place in an encyclopedic article, na? Can we assume that everyone will look at the photo's and the captions themselves are self explanatory? By the way, I've asked the IIPM administration to contact you to see if you would like to learn more about the institute offline. And thanks for reverting Gaurav Sabnis' vandalism :) Hope you'll see that there is no need for those lines, given existence of the captions. --Iipmstudent9 10:26, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
IIPMStudent9, nope, sorry. This is not an advertisement for IIPM. It's very possible that someone,on reading the text, does not see the fact that such fancy infrastructure is only available in the Delhi "Campus". In fact the IIPM web site says that all your branches are "campuses" - see the IIPM Infrastructure page. I would like to correct that anomaly and make it clear. The captions are not self explanatory - the impression is completely different. These lines will stay, unless IIPM changes it's advertisements. Note that I have refrained from adding very pointed text like this: IIPM has only one campus - in New Delhi - and the rest are branches. IIPMs advertisements and web site give the impression that all branches have the same infrastructure as the New Delhi campus, but that is not true. The branches in other cities do not have some of the facilities (swimming pool, 1000 seat auditorium) etc. Contact me offline, of course, not an issue. Given that I don't even know your name(s), IIPMStudent9, it will be nice to add a name to an alias. Deepakshenoy 13:59, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Frankly, the Infrastructure section of this article doesn't belong. See Stanford for a well structured article about an educational institution. There should be a section on campuses, but that should address the history and what currently is on campus. Stuff like "IIPM's claims that its infrastructure is cutting edge." is an analysis of advertising practice and is not relevant to this section. That should be covered in the controversy article. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 00:38, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
What about advertising strategy ? Tintin 00:45, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
What do you mean? --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:10, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Doesn't that section look inappropriate for the article about the college, as well ? Tintin 02:15, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Oh. Absolutely doesn't belong. If anything, it should be significantly edited and merged with the controversy article, which itself needs major surgery! ;) --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 02:18, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
I agree with the "Advertising strategy" being removed. It does not belong there. But the Infrastructure section? It must stay - in India there are colleges everywhere, what differentiates them is the infrastructure available. An encyclopedia must list what the college has, and unlike Stanford, we have multiple locations for IIPM. If Infrastructure is mentioned, then we must mention what infrastructure is available where. I can see why stuff like "IIPM's claims that its infrastructure is cutting edge." is not particularly relevant here, but I believe that if we're talking facts, we must specifically say that only the Delhi campus has the phenomenal facilities and the other locations do not. Deepakshenoy 04:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
DeepakShenoy, yes, IIPM's Delhi infrastructure is really very good. Back in my days we never imagined this would be possible for IIPM! There is no other institute in the country which provides the same level of infrastructure, is there? Lucky students! --Iipmalum 17:00, 6 December 2005 (UTC)

Removed Sister Concerns

This page is information about IIPM, not about its founders. Concerns that are owned by a founder or a dean should not be listed in this page, but on the founder's page. If faculty are sourced from Planman, that should be mentioned in the faculty section. IIPM does not own Planman, as far as I know. Deepakshenoy 17:30, 4 December 2005 (UTC)

Deepak, trust the weather is improving down south?! A Wiki encyclopedia article on IIPM should capture the institute completely - and as I'll show you, Planman and GIDF are very much an integral part of the institute! Planman Consulting is run by faculty at IIPM. It was founded by Prof. A Sandeep (who is an IIM C alumnus 1996 batch) and Prof. Arindam Chaudhuri, along with active participation from Prof. NR Chatterjee and others. Planman's consulting activties provide vital industry exposure to faculty and as a result to students through involvement in projects. That is why Outlook ranked IIPM 3rd in Industry Interface. The Great Indian Dream Foundation is funded by IIPM and Planman, and all staff at both contribute 1their time and energy to the foundations work (see Arindam Chaudhuri Wiki article for more info on GIDF). In addition, Planman, GIDF and IIPM share the same offices and the same people manage all three. I dont think there is any legal relationship between the three, so you're probably right that IIPM doesn't own Planman. Given the above facts, I'd ask you to repect my request to have Sister Concerns reinstated (I'd rather you put it back than me, given our current good faith :) ) Thanks!--Iipmstudent9 10:16, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
"IIPMStudent9, all that stuff doesn't make it a "sister concern". This is an article about IIPM, not about the group activities of its founders. I believe you can mention a point in the "faculty" bit - that faculty is shared between IIPM and Planman. But putting anything as a "sister" concern is just advertising for Planman, which is not what Wikipedia is for. Outlook has, btw, specifically warned people about the IIPM ranking. Deepakshenoy 16:44, 5 December 2005 (UTC)
Image:IIPMCautionnotice1.jpg
IIPMStudent9, if Planman is owned by IIPM itself, not just faculty or alumni, then it can be in the article, since it probably doesn't have enough information for its own article just yet. However, if not, it should have its own article, or go in the article of the main owner.
Deepayshenoy, if Planman is part of IIPM, then it isn't advertising, its simply a factual notation of the relationship. Even if not a part of IIPM, if it is run by a number of IIPM faculty members, it probably could be mentioned anyway, since the faculty won't have their own article on Wikipedia. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 00:32, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
K, as I've mentioned, Planman isn't part of IIPM as a legal entity. Just because they function in the same offices doesn't entitle them to an entry here. And as for the faculty running Planman, you don't see such information in other college pages, do you? Teacher X also runs ABC consulting, etc. The point is, if Planman is to be mentioned, it can be a line in the faculty section, saying Faculty also practise at <facility>. But putting it as a sister concern and adding a logo isn't the way to do it.Deepakshenoy 04:53, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Deepakshenoy, I absolutely agree. I was trying to say that there is a circumstance where it could be mentioned, but shouldn't be a "sister concern" section. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 08:59, 6 December 2005 (UTC)
Retrieved from "http://en.wikipedia.org../../../t/h/e/Talk%7EThe_Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management_Archive_3_fc19.html"