Talk:Indian Institute of Planning and Management/Archive 6

Archive 1

←

Archive 4

Archive 5

Archive 6

Archive 7

Archive 8

→

Archive 10

I dispute Non-Profit-Organisation

I notice that the IIPM PR team operating on this page is slipping in a lot of lies. All of them uncited. On the Arindam page I have already mentioned the fact that he is not listed in any of the tens of advisory committees on the Planning Commission sites. Then there is this thing of it being a Non-Profit Org. Just making a claim and adding a rider "you can get your lawyer to check it out" does not make it a cited claim. Tomorrow one may make any outrageous claim and back it up saying "get your lawyers to check it out". I noticed that even the IIPM homepage doesn't mention that it is an NPO!!!! As a clincher I asked my lawyer friend to check with the Registrar in Delhi, and they said they didnt have IIPM or Indian Institute of Planning and Management registered as an NPO. Konrad, please advise us on this. This is just a claim made over and over by the IIPM-PR guys. Am new to Wiki, so not sure, but hope disproving false claims made on wiki does not violate 'no original research' policy. Ponytailsnipper 03:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Checking if it is a registered non-profit wouldn't count as original research. Does the IIPM website mention anywhere that it is non-profit? If not, I'd say the statement should be removed.

On another note, please don't imply that editors operate as part of IIPM. If an editor makes pro-IIPM edits, that doesn't make him/her part of their PR team. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 06:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

IIPM site, especially the "about IIPM" page doesn't mention "non-profit" anywhere. Hence deleting it.

Ponytailsnipper 06:33, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Konrad please give your opinion on the point i made here - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Talk:Arindam_Chaudhuri#Too_Many_Pics Ponytailsnipper 07:23, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Removing uncited info from GOP section

Removing "world's top 15 business schools" as it is uncited. No source given that ranks all the participating schools as among the top 15. Replacing it with "several foreign business schools". Editing without clearing it on the talk page because it is uncited. For all other 'disputed' issues, I'll wait for a discussion before the edit. Ponytailsnipper 06:36, 11 December 2005 (UTC) The GOP page here http://www.iipm.edu/academics-gop.html lists only 20 names. Where did "over 30" come from? Ponytailsnipper 07:07, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

iipmalum, what the heck?

iipmalum, why so many major additions without clearing them on the talk page? I am reverting them all.Ponytailsnipper 17:02, 11 December 2005 (UTC) iipmalum, better behave yourself. in your last edit you did all these things - 1. unilaterally deleted the reference to the major controversy, which amounts to vandalism 2. added the uncited Sandeepan Deb quote 3. inserted a link to iipmstudent9's blog even when a neutral observer, konrad has clearly stated blogs are personal opnions and cant be stated in a wiki as sources of opinions. 4. Again added uncharitable remarks about JAM and its editor 5. Deeleted the info abut infra, placements, etc. vandalism again. 6. ... ...i dont even have the time to go on. you have resorted to large scale vandalism again. why the hell are you interested in a revert-wiki-war? Ponytailsnipper 17:18, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

oh yes, to demonstrate good faith in sticking to wiki policy rather than bash iipm, i have also reverted edits by anonymous vandals which were putting up anti-iipm stuff without clearing it on the talk page.Ponytailsnipper 17:19, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Ponytailsnipper, please don't call edits by other users vandalism. See Wikipedia:Vandalism: "Any good-faith effort to improve the encyclopedia, even if misguided or ill-considered, is not vandalism. Apparent bad-faith edits that do not make their bad-faith nature inarguably explicit are not considered vandalism at Wikipedia." --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 01:09, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Konrad, Wiki Policy definies Vandalism as "any addition, deletion, or change to content made in a deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia".

This wiki has been around for weeks and the editors have established some ground rules. For example no edits of deletion without clearing them on the talk page. iipmalum has been one of the editors since the beginning. but look at the edit of his that i was forced to revert. deleting entire sections, adding personal attacks... if that is not clear-cut bad-faith and just apparent-bad-faith according to you, well what can i say.

please refer http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Dealing_with_vandalism#Types_of_vandalism

Spam

Adding inappropriate external links for self-promotion. - A link was added to iipmstudent9's blog which is actually a splog used to promote IIPM.

Sneaky vandalism

Vandalism which is harder to spot. Adding misinformation, changing dates or making other sensible-appearing substitutions and typos. - Adding the falsified Sandeepan Deb quote when those remarks havent appeared in any paper and he has in fact denied ever making them in emails.

If these were changes made by a newbie, i wouldn't call it vandalism. I would call it a genuine mistake. but iipmalum has been around with us on this page for weeks. he/she knows the protocol we follow. yet such huge, sweeping changes, all of which blatantly violate wiki policy? and knowing that we will revert the edits unless cleared on the main page? that is clear-cut vandalism in my eyes. Ponytailsnipper 03:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Ponytailsnipper, a fundamental tenet of wikipedia is to assume good faith, as in, assume that the editor is trying to improve the article, not vandalise it. Having seen much of the editing firsthand, I do not believe that his edits constitute a "deliberate attempt to compromise the integrity of the encyclopedia." I believe that both sides are making edits according to their POVs, which means they are not vandalism by WP standards.

In addition, please properly indent and format your posts (don't use <br> for newlines) so they are easily readable. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 09:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

None of your comments deserve a dignified answer, boy.

Konrad, for your reference, please check on the earliest versions of this page. There was a scanned article from newspaper Hindustan Times, which had the quote from Sandeepan Deb. I think you'd also agree that the inflamatory link to 'major contrvoersy' is highly debatable, if not outright non-wiki for an institute page. blog IIPMStudent9 was linked before it was decided not to link blogs. I dont need to defend myself to a jealous maniac (the wiki ID tells all :) LOL!)

--Iipmstudent9 06:59, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

iipmstudent9, I dont get exactly how his wiki ID denotes jealousy, nor do I see how it is relevant. You are making an ad hominem argument. I think he raises valid points, since he hasn't made any personal attacks, but questioned the page content, both here as well as the other page and as a Wiki editor he deserves a valid response. If you are going to be choosy about which editors you respond to and which you don't, it does not reflect the Wiki philosophy. Faylicity 10:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Scanned articles et. al. have been removed from this Wiki page. Sandipan Deb's statement, if he did make it, is no longer valid considering Outlook went on record on its own web site to deny IIPM the survey results. If you put back the statement, we must add the Outlooks REMOVAL of IIPM from the survey. No blogs means no blogs, IIPMStudent9 isn't even a real name, most other blogs are, and publish their real contact information, and THEY have been removed. Deepakshenoy 07:51, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Deepak, please stop bringing up the irrelevant issue of IIPMStudent9's real name. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 09:52, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

K, That was in direct reference to IIPMStudent9's assertion that his/her/their blog must not be removed while others should. The real name issue is relevant enough for me, and I'll bring it up only in reference. I've taken my other comments back, though I'm starting to see that you're getting very negative towards my comments, K. You must tone it down. You're not going to be that much of a neutral observer otherwise.Deepakshenoy 10:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

I see both "sides" taking swipes at each other which are unnecessary. Faylicity 10:53, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Point taken. I'll cease and desist. And my apologies for any personal attacks. Deepakshenoy 11:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

K, just went through this talk page. You're doing a great job improving this wiki page as a neutral observer, but at times I think you're getting a tad too authoritative. Faylicity 10:40, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration

I have submitted this article for Arbitration, as I do not see how we can proceed. Konrad's attempts to work this out have resulted in major improvments, but we are moving back wards again.--Iipmstudent9 07:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Cool, I'm game for arbitration. I believe now we have a VERY solid article, with a concentrated "controversy" section. Wiki arbitration is totally acceptable to me, and I'm ready. I guess we need parties from all views! Deepakshenoy 07:54, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Arbitration? Extreme step I think. Never really solves anything. But you must have your reasons I guess. Hate it when a Wiki becomes a battleground. Faylicity 10:35, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Actually, before that - what are your objections to the current content, IIPMStudent9? Deepakshenoy 11:50, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

25,000 books?

From the IIPM Libraries page, it appears that the libraries have over 10,000 titles. Where did the figure 25,000 come from? Is this referred anywhere? If there's no other reference, let's edit it to 10,000. Deepakshenoy 08:11, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Valid point Deepak. If there is no source for the 25000 number, I suggest an edit to 10,000 Faylicity 10:37, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Number of titles have been edited to 10,000 based on the valid points raised in addition to the fact that no source/reference had been provided to confirm the 25,000 figure. Bloggerbrigade 18:08, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Revert war

What is the point of this?--Iipmstudent9 08:44, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Great question. You should answer it since you started it. Ponytailsnipper 09:09, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

You should color your text green, to reflect the sentiment in your remarks ;) —Preceding unsigned comment added by 61.16.233.196 (talk • contribs)

Note: Comment from DeepakShenoy starts here--->

I think some of the IIPMStudent9's edits merit note, while other's don't. I have:

• Removed After complaints made by IIPM students and alumni, - no source cited.
• Removed Home Page of Jam, One of ECO times articles, HT yahoogroup link, DNA article.
• Removed Technorati search link and Mark Glaser's blog analysis link.

I have added a link to ad-spends.

I have excluded some edits, with the following actions:

• Reverted The New York/London edit - IIPMStudent9 said it was an IIPM plan. It is not confirmed to be an IIPM move, only a Chaudhari plan.
• The "over 30", "25000 books" etc. edits which have no source, and have been discussed here earlier. Any edits made there MUST be cited, or discussed here please.
• Reorg of the Ranking section: I don't concur with Removal of Outlook data from the Ranking section.
• Retained but IIPM advertisements generalised these rankings for all IIPM campuses. IIPM advertisements do not distinguish the Delhi campus where they display the rankings.
• Removed IIPMStudent9 blog, have to give the same reasoning as for other blogs.
• Retained BW article - why was that removed??
• The whole controversy section edit is not acceptable - I have raised the issues earlier in this talk page. Businessworld's article basis is that Arindam Chaudhari visited them and asked them to conduct an investigation - it was not JAM (BW article has the details) The Jealousy thing is immature, and very subjective. IIPMStudent9's edits are gramatically incorrect. JAMMag wasn't the only one that contacted companies, so did BW, and JAM contacted more than 2 companies as per their site. AICTE's objections and IIPM's existence for 33 years have no connection, IIPM could still be hauled up. Other points have been removed which are in my opinion, very relevant.

Hope this helps. Please feel free to discuss further. Deepakshenoy 10:28, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

I have added back the sentence After complaints made by IIPM students". Here is the proof. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Image:Iipm_fud.gif PeaSea 19:37, 13 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like Dipali Sakhare was on leave today. :) Ponytailsnipper 15:31, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

HaHa, asked the ofice in iipm. Dipali is indeed on leave, and will be on leave today as well. So we'll see no edits or reverts from 'iipmstudent9' for a while. 202.63.162.226 07:46, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Controversy Section

So, the controversy section is essentially a selection of all the critical remarks on IIPM over the past three months. That is a fair statement, yes? --Iipmstudent9 06:07, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

No, it's the section relating to the recently brought up issue, by certain print publications, that questions the truth in IIPM advertisements. It indicates that the claims IIPM makes on its print advertisements are allegedly untrue. The magazines that have unearthed information which has been provided, with additional links to relevant sources. Please note: these allegations CAN be refuted, by verifiable sources if such sources exist. Deepakshenoy 06:20, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

So what exactly is an encyclopaedia entry on an institution doing with alleged claims that some elements in advertsing may be untrue? Especially with over 30% of article space being devoted to it, and a link from the intro para, which characterizes it as a 'major contrvoersrsy'(there needs to be some justification for it being called a 'major' controversy)?--Iipmstudent9 06:48, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

Many editors have felt it's important enough, and this has been mentioned here in the talk page. IIPM claims are UNTRUE, according to the magazines, and there are facts that point to them, mentioned and illustrated. Encyclopaedias must contain information and links that are pertinent enough for readers to know. According to me, the controversy section needs to stay, until IIPM addresses the points mentioned. The fact that it takes 30% of the article space is simply because there aren't enough points added to potential other sections - see the IIM article, you can add sections for each of the IIPM branches, and put some details about them. Deepakshenoy 07:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I have reinstated the Outlook point because it's part of the controversy. It is mentioned in the print ads even now, and is part of the veracity of claims section. Points are repeated because the business ranking section mentions Outlook and that has to be mentiond along with the removal and withdrawal of Outlooks rankings. Deepakshenoy 07:28, 16 December 2005 (UTC)

I have added a new point "AICTE has also mentioned that it is illegal for IIPM to offer foreign degrees without AICTE approval", referring to the money control article citing AICTE's objection to IIPM's offering foreign degrees in India. Deepakshenoy 05:55, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

About the box

A couple of points about the box - 1. M.K.Chaudhuri is mentioned as the Director in the intro, and as President in the box. Please decide on one and make it universal. 2. Schools over the world list only the number of permanent faculty members as their faculty strength. So let's reduce it from 500 to 250. OK? Ponytailsnipper 02:45, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Have waited three days for a response to this proposed edit. No opposition. so making it. Ponytailsnipper 16:22, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Faculty section

These lines - "Planman serves FORTUNE 500 clients and India's largest corporations with its HR, Marketing and Strategy Consulting practices. IIPM faculty and students are also involved in the Great Indian Dream Foundation, a charitable organisation run by the institute which works towards creating education and removing poverty and unemployment." do not belong in the faculty section, or indeed in the IIPM article. They are giving information about Planman and GIDF. i think we should delete them. Ponytailsnipper 03:01, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I agree that there is no real relevance, earlier that used to be in a "sister concern" section, which was removed. Maybe we should have a separate section called "Faculty operations" or something. Deepakshenoy 07:32, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Have waited three days for a response to this proposed edit. No opposition. so making it. Ponytailsnipper 16:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Infrastructure

"Infrastructure including classrooms, teaching aids, libraries, electronic libraries, IT equipment like Wi-fi and laptops, and leisure equipment like gymnasiums and swimming pools measure up to world class standards." This is a clear cut subjective opinion. What is the basis of it? Are there any globally defined and accepted benchmarks for infrastructure? I believe we should keep this article factual, and mention the infrastructure available, and add subjective opinions about it. Ponytailsnipper 03:05, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

I Agree. Let's change it to something like "Infrastructure includes classrooms, teaching aids, libraries, electronic libraries, IT equipment like Wi-fi and laptops, and leisure equipment like gymnasiums and swimming pools (in the Delhi campus only). IIPM considers that it's infrastructure measures up to world class standards." I think we should also include infrastructure in EVERY single IIPM unit - like Delhi: Has swimming pool, auditorium, gym. Bangalore: Two/three storey building located in <place>. And perhaps a common section that mentions classrooms etc. I don't even think the branch libraries are big, but again, no original research. Deepakshenoy 07:36, 17 December 2005 (UTC)

Have waited three days for a response to this proposed edit. No opposition. so making it. Ponytailsnipper 16:23, 19 December 2005 (UTC)

Not Management, but Planning

On CNBC's Uncovered, IIPM issued a statement saying they don't need an AICTE approval because they teach 'planning and entrepreneurship" which are non-technical and non-professional courses. Sure enough, IIPM's own website mentiones "Post graduate programme in Planning and Entrepreneurship (leading to the award of the MBA degree from IMI)" - http://www.iipm.edu/academics-curriculum.html Intro para of this wiki said "management and entrepreneurship". The management part is uncited. Am replacing it with "planning and entrepreneurship" as the IIPM website itself states. Ponytailsnipper 18:42, 19 December 2005 (UTC)