Talk:The Indian Institute of Planning and Management/Archive 9

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

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.
Talk archives for The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (current talk page)
<< 1 < Archive 8 Archive 9 Archive 10 > 10 >>
Peer review The Indian Institute of Planning and Management/Archive 9 has had a peer review by Wikipedia editors which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.
For older discussion, see archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8

Contents

Please Add New Paragraphs Only At The Bottom Of This Page

Please note that all new discussion should be added at the bottom of the page. Recent discussions will be at the bottom of this page, please respond in the appropriate sections.

Improving the article

Looks like that the article has been the centre of heated arguments and revert wars since the past one month. What I plan now is to divert those creative energies in actually improving the article.

First, it is important to understand what controversy really means. Something can be said to be controversial only if there are two contradicting viewpoints. If a magazine says something that IIPM denies, it is controversy. But if there is a fact that is accepted by everybody (like IIPM not being accredited by AICTE), then it should be included in article text under "education", and not controversy. The controversy section needs a lot of structuring as it is just a random collection of facts. The information present should be organised so that it is easy to understand.

Controversies apart, there are a lot more avenues in which the article can be improved. They are as follows:

  1. Organisational structure of IIPM: this can be sourced from self-published sources
  2. Campus and infrastructure: this can be improved a lot as the current coverage is very general and doesn't give details of individual campuses. Details can include land area, student capacity, facilities, faculty, etc.
  3. Admission: The article doesn't mention the admission procedures followed by IIPM. This can normally be from self-published sources.
  4. Research output: Is IIPM involved in research? Details (statistics) of publications in journals over the past years and possibly a comparative trend analysis.
  5. Faculty: More detailed coverage required. What is the spectrum of qualification of faculties (PhDs, non-PhDs, other degrees). Are the faculty common to all IIPMs or are there separate faculty for different IIPMs?
  6. Interaction with other IIPMs: Are the IIPMs independent? Or there are common links (other than at the top of organisational structure)
  7. Alumni: Needs expansion. Details of more alumni, and in structured format.

If these improvements are introduced in the article with proper citations, it would be great for the article as most of these are non-controversial. Apart from these things, a lot of cleanup is required. Institute's vision are mostly flowery and don't contribute much to the article. It is best to discuss what the institute does, and not what it thinks it intends to do. I will be removing it. Names of deans, faculty also don't contribute to the article unless they are well-known academics themselves.

While these improvements can go on, I will think of ways to deal with the controversy section with special care of NPOV. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 09:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

IIPM degree

Just wanted to confirm...Isn't it true that IIPM used to offer MBA and BBA degrees, but withdrew them when UGC raised objection. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 17:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ambuj, brilliant editing till now. I'm reorganising the accredition para. Your call on whether you think it's ok or not. I think iipmstudent9 would be able to confirm whether IIPM was offering MBA, BBA degrees earlier and withdrew them later. As far as I know, IIPM never has offered degrees. Thanks, Mrinal Mrinal Pandey 12:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
I've also changed the para bold structure. Apart from removing the unaccredited word from the first para (as it already has a section devoted) and I don't see on other b-school sites first introductory paragraphs whether they are unaccredited or accredited. If we do wish to continue putting the unaccredited term, then we need to put another line about why IIPM does not go in for accredtion. That'll make it too long. I've also renamed controversies to how it was put in one of the earlier versions, criticism... Thanks Mrinal Mrinal Pandey 13:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
The use of the word "unaccredited" in the first line is necessary. IIPM is an unaccredited school. It admits to being so. Acredition is a major factor about a school and for the article to be fully encycloapedic, it must include this fact in the introduction. There is of course a para for elabrating on it, which is fine. Makrandjoshi 05:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Accredition is a very important part of this article, and some people might even say that it is the most important part. But howsoever important, it still falls under the purview of "Education at IIPM", so it should be a sub-section of education and not a separate section. Similarly, GOP also falls under the purview of education. (Addendum: I am talking about section placement and not on the discussion whether "unaccredited" should appear in the lead.) — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 15:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

IIPM article structure

Dear Ambuj, just wanted to clarify, I notice you've put many details on each one of the paragraphs. I'll add on to your paragraphs in the coming weeks. But I'll also add a few more paragraphs. For example, I wish to add paragraphs that are mentioned in other b-school sites (like visits etc); apart from also adding something on GOTA, which is the Global Opportunities and Threats Analysis programme which is a separate project of IIPM. Do tell me your views on that. Regards, Mrinal Mrinal Pandey 13:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Just be sure to back whatever you write with neutral references. I couldn't find any mention of GOTA outside of IIPM sites and a few blogs. Am not sure if it is notable enough for inclusion. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 14:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)

Ganesh's edits

Dear Ganesh, I'm sorry I took so long in replying. Post Christmas, got totally busy in official work :-) But even now, don't have that much time to put in edit efforts. Just to refresh the issue context, though I notice you are not editing on this page (and I do appreciate that), I also again request you to kindly not edit this project till you are an administrator. Best regards always, Thanks, Mrinal Mrinal Pandey 13:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to add two more ranking details

Hi Ambuj, I propose adding two more ranking details. One is the Outlook ranking of 2002, and another is the Business Barons ranking of 2003. Will wait for your inputs before adding them on the ranking site. Thanks Mrinal Mrinal Pandey 13:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

I am OK with Business Barons. But Outlook has already withdrawn its rankings, so using them, or an earlier version is not right. It should come with a rider that Outlook later withdrew rankings. Makrandjoshi 05:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
I would suggest that only the latest rankings be included. If we include old rankings, it becomes necessary to clarify why old rankings are reported. The only context (in my opinion) where such a thing may be done is the case where the rankings over the years is discussed or when there is historical importance of the old ranking. The case of Outlook rank belongs to the second case, which means that its inclusion would necessitate adding the reason why they were revoked later. Both these things already exist in the article and in my opinion are vital for comprehensiveness of the article. I would suggest that only the latest ranking for Business Barons is included as there is no controversy associated with it. Again, the 2004 ranks are reported in the article, but since the 2006 ranks should be available, only the latest should be reported. As an additional note, I would like to say that educational ranking sections in most articles are biased in the sense that they only discuss the rankings in which the institute concerned has achieved good rankings. To maintain NPOV, rankings from wide variety of notable educational ranking surveys should be included irrespective of the fact whether the institute has higher or lower rankings. Similarly, if the institute has better rank under one criteria and worse under another, both should be reported. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 14:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
Man, just not getting enough time to sit on this page. How do you guys do it Ambuj? Anyway, I'll stick with having all rankings as the readers should note that the Outlook case is only one aberration out of various rankings over the years... Thanks and regards Mrinal Pandey 17:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Major edit to the Controversy section

I have done a major edit on the controversy section, primarily to bring flow to the facts mentioned. Almost every detail has been preserved in the copyedit, though there has been a lot of reshuffling. The only detail that I omitted was the reference to this article's text, as the IIPM mentioned in it is Indian Institute of Personnel Management, and not Indian Institute of Planning and Management. Please also note that there are some deliberate duplication of text between a few sections, which will take some more time to get fixed. This requires expansion of other sections in order to preserve the flow of the article text. If someone wants to do away with duplicated text, it's welcome though I would suggest waiting a bit otherwise it would introduce flow related problems in the article. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 14:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Like I mentioned Ambuj, I've not even be getting time to edit any part of this page. For example, I'll be helping you improve almost all the sections you've edited. And I also wish to include many other sections in-between. Time, time, time...phew... I guess I need till after Jan 22nd to jump on... Till then, handle the bow :-) Take care and best Mrinal Pandey 17:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
And yes, I've added back the tags that Mak had removed. Mrinal Pandey 18:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Mrinal, can you clarify why you edited the article to say that IIPM never offered MBA/BBA degrees? If that were the case, why does the online prospectus (outdated) still mentions offering MBA/BBA degrees. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 18:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ambuj, IIPM has never offered MBA/BBA degrees as far as I could check into the records. I'll check the online prospectus. My view is, even if it is outdated, I'll see it first and comment. Thanks and regards Mrinal Pandey 18:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Ambuj, I saw the IIPM prospectus. But I saw a lot of places saying BBA degrees, for example, are offered by IMI. Could you find a page that actually said IIPM offers the MBA degrees? I could not see it... Regards Mrinal Pandey 19:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Neutrality and factual accuracy of the controversy section

I have done my best to base the controversy section on universally accepted facts. All opinions have been duly attributed to their respective sources. I would like to ask all editors regarding their opinion on factual accuracy of the controversy section. I request them to point out claims that are either unattributed, and not universally accepted fact. For example, the content of the JAM's article may be debatable on factual accuracy, but the fact that JAM published the article with given content is not disputed. Once we establish the factual accuracy of the section, we can go ahead with neutrality clean-up. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 18:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

I request the editors to avoid indulging in ad hominem arguments, and concentrate on the topic in discussion. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 19:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Dear Ambuj, Rashmi being the 'editor' of JAM, I believe your reference to not making ad hominem arguments would not be sufficient. In a similar manner to your having ad hominemly (I love the word now :-))written about Arindam Chaudhuri having won a gold medal at IIPM, an institute founded by his father, I believe you would be clearly having a double standard if you do not allow Rashmi's details to be put up. I'll put the same up again till I get your comments. Do feel free to cut it out if you feel your ad hominem comments are pertinent and mine aren't. Regards and best, Mrinal Pandey 19:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Hi Ambuj, I guess you missed out the complete paragraph in your edit. I'm putting back your version. Kindly check and approve. Mrinal Pandey 19:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
I hope there are no double standards now. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 19:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
Some more. But I'll wait for other editors' comments too till then. And you'll have to be patient with me till 22nd January I guess for finalising on the factual accuracy and neutrality of the section. Thanks and regards and good night... Mrinal Pandey 19:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Source missing

The clarification that IIPM issued regarding the claims of Rashmi Bansal and Gaurav Sabnis ("We are stunned as to how the people from IIMs…") is shown to be sourced from the outlook article. However, on looking there, I find that it is not the case. Although I am sure of the accuracy of the transcripted clarification, can someone trace back the source and add it correctly. I copied it from the controversy article, but looks like nobody bothered to check the links of the source. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 19:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)

Examples of introducing a school as unaccredited

Mrinal, copy-pasting my old comment on the talk page so that you wont have to look for it - That IIPM is unaccredited is a fact, stated on its own website. This is not original research or biased viewpoint. Given that it is an unaccredited school, it is an important fact that should be mentioned in the begining, apart from the details of the accredition later. This is in conformation with wiki pages of several unaccredited institites e.g - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith_University http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Central_University http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canbourne_University http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellington_University http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landford_University and dozens of other pages. Makrandjoshi 08:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Mrinal, if you still don't agree with the use of the word "unaccredited", I would request you to raise a mediation request. I am convinced that mentioning it as unaccredited is encyclopaedic and does not violate any wiki policies. I am confident that mediators or even arbitrators will agree with me. By removing the word consistently without citing any valid wiki policy violation, you on the other hand are violating wiki policy. So far we have worked on this page amicably for almost a year in fact. Please do not force me to go into the complaint zone. Makrandjoshi 09:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

MakrandJoshi, how are you? Accreditation means different things to different people. All of the examples you have quoted above are from outside india. In India, I am sure you must know that IIPM offers a superb education, far above a couple of hundred AICTE accredited institutions. IN fact, please take a look at AICTE's website. In delhi alone, you will find that only 6 MBA/PGDBM programs are AICTE accredited - all 6 are of a quality lower than IIPM's (as per the national rankings by BT and Outlook and BB). In addition, AICTE has accredited 30 institutes in Rajasthan, 20 in Punjab, etc... none of which you or me would have heard of.

So - in America or Europe, of you are not accredited, you are probably below the standard of the accredititing counciul. And that is how this will be percieved by many Wiki readers. NBut this is not the case. And Amity Business School has taken the AICTE to court (from AICTE website home page). So the matter is also sub judice. In fact, AICTE is in court over many things (look at news archives), including its existence and powers.

Therefore, I request you reconsider your stance of putting unaccredited, Or else, lets qualify the statement with all this information about AICTE. Makes sense, na? --Iipmstudent9 18:12, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Your argument is a very subjective evaluation of accredition. All this comes under original research. Original research is not allowed on wikipedia. Wiki policy clearly states that cited facts must be stated. IIPM is not accredited. It mentions so even in the advertisements. If accredition means different things to different people, you can let them reach their own conclusions. By deleting completely validly and cited information on the basis of specious original research grounds repeatedly, you are guilty of vandalism. Either raise an rfm on this topic (you can raise it this time. last time you called Wiki's standard RFM format biased for some bizarre reason). Or stop deleting the unaccredited mention from the intro, and tampering with the position of the accredition paragraph. Makrandjoshi 10:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)

Formatted rankings

Hello, boys. Please take a look at the formatting ihave introduced to the ranking section. I think it looks very nice. Feel free to tweak it. I have not removed the Outlook ranking, although it serves no purpose (old and withdrawn)!--Iipmstudent9 17:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)

Degrees by IIPM

In today's advertisement in ToI, the IIPM mentions both MBA and BBA degrees as post-graduate degrees in management. They have finally dropped "superior to", etc. from their ads, and are now directly writing MBA/BBA. A note on the bottom of the ad states that IIPM conducts non professional and non technical courses, and states that IIPM does not teach foreign institute courses. The degree by IMI is in recognition of IIPM's excellence. I don't have the time to do the necessary update in facts and IIPM's stance on the issue. I request the editors to update the article. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 06:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)

Business Barons ranking

There is no online link provided for the Business Barons ranking. It is thus suspected to be original research. iipmstudent9 and mrinal both objected to just dates, page number and edition of Hindustan Times being mentioned for the IMI belgium story, so it was removed. Applying same standards here. Makrandjoshi 00:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC) Have also removed the Business Today ranking because it links to a subscription-only page. The aforementioned HT article about IMI Belgium is also accessible to subscribers, but that was deemed insufficient by iipmstudent9 and mrinal. Applying same standards here. Makrandjoshi 00:07, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Global Outreach Program

I have serious doubts regarding whether faculty members from US schools actually visited IIPM and conducted seminars. The only source of information is the IIPM website. Surely if a person as famous as Philip Kotler conducted a semianr, it would have been covered by the media. Please provide links of newspapers to verify this. Until then i have taken down that information. Makrandjoshi 00:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Makrand's lack of Wikiquette

Dear Makrand, you cannot simply revert and or delete constructive changes. Please review the information provided in the Help pages. The object of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopaedic article. All the other editors can see that you are consistently trying to make this an attack page. Please refrain from this behavior immediately, or you will be banned by administrators.

For example, you deleted the information on rankings, which has been on the page for over a year, and has been linked to online sources, scanned pages provided, etc. You simply deleted it?

Further, you deleted the information on faculty the visit IIPM from global institutions - this information has been reviewed by many editors, and your act was pure vandalism.

Please look at the articles provided in the HELP section, and I am sure you will see the mistakes you have made.

Thanks Iipmstudent9 06:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

iipmstudent9, every deletion I have made has cited valid wiki policy. Please get reliable sources for the rankings. Something being on the page for a long does not make it true. Refer to this famous case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler%2C_Sr.#Wikipedia_controversy

No matter how long something has been on the page, when it violates wiki policy, changes are valid. Makrandjoshi 21:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Added pics

Recently went to Mumbai and Ahmedabad campus for IIM - A Chaos competition, and clicked these pics with friends. I'm sure our friendly vandal Makrand will revert this constructive effort, but I will prevail :) Iipmstudent9 06:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

iipmstudent9, I have no problems with you adding pictures as long as they are not excessive. 3 seems fine to me. But you put them in the accredition and the admission section. I have moved them to the infrastructure section. Makrandjoshi 21:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Middle ground

Hello, this is an explanation of my edits to both the warring parties.

To Makrand:

  • There are no visible citations for IMI Belgium being unaccredited, so a statement such as ...IMI, Belgium, which itself is an unaccredited school should not be put in until disputes about offline citations are resolved (I'm assuming you have a citation from a newspaper about IMI, but its edition is not available online).
  • On reading the original source about IIPM's Delhi campus being sealed, it seems irrelevant to put that in the article, because the basic flouting of DDA norms were done by the owner, Canara Bank Relief and Welfare Society. Plus, this seems to be a pretty insignificant incident, but that is only my opinion.
  • Your line However on the rare occasion that IIPM is featured in rankings, the institute's advertisements mention the rankings. was clearly WP:OR.

To IIPMStudent9:

  • About IMI Belgium, I tried to search on Google but could not find any concrete information about this institute. There isn't even an official website. All I found were some education directory websites in Europe where IMI was mentioned. It may have been that my search methods were faulty, so please find atleast the official website of IMI and cite it in the article (specifically, a page where it mentions that it gives IIPM the right to award its degrees). This will make the article more robust in terms of citations and encyclopaedic value.
  • I have put in the following lines about the faculty: Unlike other globally recognised business schools, the school has been able to build up its teaching faculty in India by recruiting its graduating MBA students. This is taken verbatim from the source (the same FT article) and should be fine.
  • I have added {{Fact}} tags to the workshops, seminars and industry interface lists. Extraordinary claims require extraordinary proof, right? Workshops and seminars by internationally-renowned gurus are bound to have been reported in a newspaper or magazine. Please provide citations from reliable, non-IIPM sources, else someone else can rewrite or delete that information. Just because the text has been around for a year does not make it exempt from scrutiny.
  • You have used an offline source (Business Barons) to cite your claims. Please be aware that others are free to do so too (referring to Makrand's point about the offline Hindustan Times article). To be consistent, you may either want to delete the text supported by offline references or not object to other offline references to be used.

Thanks, Max 08:55, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Dear Maximvs,

Thank you for putting in all this work! I apprecaite this effort. Thank you.

  • IMI's official website is www.timi.edu
  • I guess I am OK with your line on the faculty recruited from IIPM, although these members of the faculty all have industry experience and bring that into the classroom. Readers might be misled.
  • Thank you for allowing me to explain the management guru's stuff. I will identfiy articles and cross reference them to wikipedia within the next week.
  • For business barons, I have the magazine in front of me. Can I scan a page and upload it?

Again, good job, and thank you.

Best, Iipmstudent9 12:12, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello IIPMStudent9, thanks for your reply.
  • Thank you for the IMI website. I have added a link to it in the article (in External links).
  • I'm sure you're right about the experience of the faculty, but unless we have a verifiable and reliable source that says whatever you assert, we cannot include that in the article. Maybe we should let the readers read the existing source and decide for themselves what to think.
  • Please do put in the citations for seminars by the international gurus if you can. For now, I have put up the "primary sources" template on that section.
Regards, Max 19:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)


Dear maximvs,

There are no online sources, but I have found 2 newspaper clippings in the library that refer to various guest faculty. However, Wikipedia policy says that material from IIPM's website is admissible, as long as the source is identified as the official website. Therefore, I guess it amy not be necessary to scan those articles and upload them? --AlamSrinivas 13:18, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Alam,
If the source is the official website only, we need to mention that explicitly. Please read the third bullet point in my reply to IIPMStudent9. Also, please go through WP:RS. An article should not rely on primary sources for its claims, and the IIPM website is a primary source.
Regards, Max 19:34, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

To Max Thanks for your efforts.

- The article from Hindustan Times which mentions IMI Belgium is available online, but since it is more than a week old, it is available only through paid subscription. I will try to get a scan of the article. Until then I am adding that information with a 'citation needed' rider, much like some of the other information - About the campus being sealed, it is not anyone's intention to imply it was IIPM's fault. However the campus was sealed, for whatever reason, and from an encyclopaedic point of view, it is pretty important to know that this is an institute whose campus has been selad in the past. It is an important thing to evaluate while deciding about the institute. Another thing is, iipmstudent9 claims that the campus has been reopened, but there is no valid source cited. The last news article says High Court declined IIPM's request and ordered it to vacate the campus. - Maybe using "rare occasion" was OR. But it is worth noting that IIPM says rankings dont matter, but when it is ranked well, uses them in the ads. I will reword that line to remove any OR, with a link to IIPM ads as a source. - UNESCO lists accredited schools, even though it does not accredit them itself. In that sense, considering it is a UN organisation, I don't see how mentioning that "IMI does not feature on UNESCO's list of accredited schools" violates any wiki polic. I am putting it back on. - It can be seen from IIPM's website that most faculty members do not have a PhD. However all other top ranked schools in India, like the IIMs have almost exclusively PhDs as faculty members. In fact "Most university faculty hold a PhD or equivalent degree" is a line I have taken from http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Faculty_%28university%29 Please suggest a valid way to word this fact that does not seem like OR. - All big newspapers in India like Times of India have news archives running back several years. Surely if big names like Kotler came to IIPM, it would be covered in the media and be available online. Makrandjoshi 21:30, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Max, I would also request you to express your opinion about the use of the word "unaccredited" in the first line. If you go through the talk archives, I have shown the examples of several unaccredited schools being introduced thus. IIPM being unaccredited is a verifiable fact. iipmstudent9's obejctions, which you can read above are all original research. For instance he claims that unaccredited means different things in India as opposed to USA and Europe. I disagree. This is purely original research. The verifiable NPOV fact is IIPM is an unaccredited institute, and writing so in the introductory line does not violate any wiki policy. Thus repeatedly deleting that word borders on vandalism. Makrandjoshi 21:35, 2 February 2007 (UTC)

Hello Makrand
About the sealing of Delhi campus: I have no issues with putting that information back in, since it has sources to back it up. It's a call to be taken by you and IIPMStudent9.
About UNESCO and IMI: It would be good if you could subtantiate these statements with proof. As of now, there doesn't seem to be a citation about the UNESCO not accrediting IMI line. Till then, I'm putting a citation needed tag on it.
About faculty PhDs: I'm not sure about whether quoting another WP page and saying "Unlike most other..." etc. would contitute WP:OR or not. I will get back to you on it. Till then, I have quantified the statement by citing the FT source which says "20 percent of the faculty have a doctoral degree" to be safe from objections.
About using unaccredited: Agree with putting unaccredited in the opening para. IIPMStudent9's arguments about accreditation are subjective. In addition, it is mentioned that the institute itself has not sought accreditation, so that should help explain IIPM's position to maintain balance.
Thanks, Max 19:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Glad you agree about the Delhi campus sealing.
About UNESCO and IMI, I had provided references for it, i.e the actual UNESCO listing for Belgium. However iipmstudent9 deleted it during one of his several whitewash edits. i have put it back on.
Will wait for your opinion about citing wikipedia
Glad you agree about using unaccredited in the opening para. Neutral editors such as you and me would see how it is vital to the encyclopaedic nature of this article to have it so.

Makrandjoshi 22:21, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


Hello IIPMStudent9,
AICTE and UGC are national regulatory bodies of the Ministry of Education of the Government of India. Even if there are disputes between some institutes and these councils, this cannot be a justification for not including the status of a mandatory accreditation as required by them. By virtue of their official status as government agencies, it is entirely appropriate to mention if a private institute in India is accredited by them or not.
In fact, the articles here and here mention that IIPM is not recognized by UGC or AICTE (I'm only quoting the source and these are their words, not mine). I have updated the article with this information. Of course, as I said to Makrand, the fact that IIPM has not requested de jure recognition is already mentioned and this should keep the balance.
Thanks, Max 19:38, 3 February 2007 (UTC)


To Max
1. UGC (University Grants Commission) is a funding body for universities, and has nothing to do with independent institutes that are not funded by the government.
2. AICTE is the all india council for technical education, and has no jurisdiction over IIPM or other institutes offering management training. There are several cases sub-judice on this matter, clearly identified on AICTE's on website homepage. (top ticker case with Amity)
3. I dont know about IIPM student 99, but I am clear that adding that biased information in the para is not NPOV. Further, if you choose to add that to the intro, why not add all the good stuff about Yale research, stanford program etc that makes IIPM unique?
4. I think the solution is to leave a line in the intro that says the insitite has not asked for or been granted accreditation by UGC or AICTE.

--AlamSrinivas 19:52, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Alam, all your objections are subjective. As max said, there are details added in the accredition para to make it balanced.

As for all the things that make IIPM unique, as Max has already said and even i said before, you are free to add anything as long as it is verified from a citable source. IIPM website alone cant be a valid source, even according to wiki policy since it is a primary source. For instance, no one has problems with the UNDP thing being mentioned, because it is validly cited. Claims about Yale and Stanford are not, hence are suspect. Makrandjoshi 22:04, 3 February 2007 (UTC)

Furthermore, Alam, here is what the Government of India's UGC Act 1956 says - ""the right of conferring or granting degrees shall be exercised only by a University established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, or a State Act, or an Institution deemed to be University or an institution specially empowered by an Act of the Parliament to confer or grant degrees. Thus, any institution which has not been created by an enactment of Parliament or a State Legislature or has not been granted the status of a Deemed to be University, is not entitled to award a degree."" Makrandjoshi 22:07, 3 February 2007 (UTC)
Makrand ji, UGC babu's are able to control degrees, but IIPM does not grant degrees. So UGC has no relevance to IIPm, see?Iipmstudent9 10:54, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
According to http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/WP:RS, IIPM's own website is an acceptable source of information. I'm sure you will agree. Iipmstudent9 11:00, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
---
Hello Alam,
I beg to disagree with your arguments. Apart from what Makrand has said, I would like to add the following:
  • Please go through the relevant sections of The UGC Act of 1956. The UGC is not merely a funding body, but an apex regulating authority. In fact, the AICTE was established by the UGC itself. All educational institutions come under the purview of either of these bodies by law. It is very relevant to mention if an educational institute in India is recognized by them or not.
  • Technical education includes management education. The word technical is not restricted to mean merely engineering or science. Please go through The AICTE Act of 1987. The fact that there is a case sub judice between AICTE and Amity doesn't diminish the authority of AICTE (until a verdict is given).
  • The statement about recognition by UGC and AICTE has been adequately cited. Your opinions or my views on AICTE and UGC are immaterial to Wikipedia. You are free to get a reliable, verifiable source (not the IIPM website) which says that UGC and AICTE do not have regulatory powers over IIPM, and then you can put that in. Unfortunately, until then, whatever you say about AICTE and UGC will remain WP:NOR.
  • The fact that IIPM itself has not asked for recognition has already been clearly mentioned and cited.
Thanks, Max 11:33, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

Dipali, as the wiki page on RS says, Self-published material, whether published online or as a book or pamphlet, may be used as sources of information about the author, so long as there is no reasonable doubt who wrote the material, and so long as it is:

-relevant to the self-publisher's notability; -not contentious; -not unduly self-serving or self-aggrandizing; -about the subject only and not about third parties or events not directly related to the subject; The reputation of the self-publisher is a guide to whether the material rises to the level of notability at all.

So you see, using the IIPM website as source about the school, infrastructure, faculty, courses etc is fine. But the mention of famous professors from US schools is contentious, self-aggrandizing as well as about third parties. For it to be verifiable, there needs to be newspaper article links. Makrandjoshi 14:31, 4 February 2007 (UTC)

---
Hello IIPMStudent9,
About WP:RS, I'm sure you must've read this section and the subsection about primary sources while quoting the WP:RS page with regard to using the IIPM website as a source.
Now I would like to answer your argument about not including UGC/AICTE approvals with an analogy. Let us say that BCCI and ICC ex-president Jagmohan Dalmiya forms his own cricket club, and that club is not recognized by the ICC. Dalmiya also says that he doesn't give a hoot about ICC recognition. But owing to the fact that ICC is the highest (and only) governing body in international cricket, it is entirely acceptable to include the line Dalmiya's club is not recognized by the ICC (with proper citations) in an article about such a club.
We're dealing with something similar here. In fact, UGC and AICTE approvals have significant relevance in case of educational institutes in India because their approval is required by law (unlike the above hypothetical example where ICC recognition is not a lawfully binding requirement). Please read my reply to Alam for more details.
I'm sure you will appreciate that the intent here is not to malign IIPM but to state facts as they stand, with citations. Whatever you have said about UGC and AICTE till now counts as WP:OR. If you have reliable, third-party proof that UGC and AICTE do not have jurisdiction over IIPM by law, please feel free to put it in. Till then, I request you to not remove properly cited information.
Just a quick personal question, off the record. If IIPM doesn't care about recognition (it itself states that it hasn't sought recognition from statutory bodies), why do you care so much?
Thanks, Max 19:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
PS: Is your name Dipali? Makrand has addressed you by that name. Can I call you that too? It's easier to type than IIPMStudent9 :-) (Just kidding. I'll continue with IIPMStudent9 in order to not cause confusion amongst any other poor souls that are actually reading this whole mess!) - Max 19:15, 4 February 2007 (UTC)
I actually have a similar question about rankings. If IIPM says that rankings don't matter, why are you so keen about sprucing up the rankings section? Why does IIPM mention rankings in its ads? To a neutral observer like myself, it seems like IIPM cares only about rankings which favour it, and disregards those that don't. 71.58.69.137 19:36, 4 February 2007 (UTC)