Talk:Indian Institute of Planning and Management/Archive 11

message: Makrand,
I haven't included your HT citation, since we're still in a grey area about offline citations. To be fair, I have also commented out the Business Barons citation in the rankings category. Could you scan the HT page, upload it to Wikimedia Commons, and then link to it? That would provide a non-disputable citation.
About the other stuff you had removed, it's back with the  tag and  template. That stuff is not totally orphaned, it is claimed by IIPM, so I thought we could keep it with the given tags as caveats. I have suitably modified the language to mention that these are claims of the institute.
Also, I have commented this line in the opening para: Since 2005, IIPM has been involved in controversies regarding its name, accreditation, advertising, and plagiarism. Although this states something that follows in the article, it sounds harsh and POV-ish when written that way. Plus, it may be prudent to not include such an explicit line in the opening para, given how some feathers can get mightily ruffled while editing this article. It's probably better to let the reader read through the article and gather the facts.
Alam/IIPMStudent9/IIPMAlum/Mrinal Pandey/Anyone else from IIPM,
Please do not revert mercilessly. Provide a rational explanation for your edits. Just chanting "POV, POV" all the time is really not going to help. You can find reliable, third-party sources to counterbalance the allegedly unpleasant facts that are mentioned in the article, and that would be okay. For instance, please find a reliable, secondary source that says UGC or AICTE have no jurisdiction over IIPM and you can put that in. Heck, I'll put it in before you, if I find it. But please, till then, refrain from whitewashing some lines/paragraphs (which have valid sources to back them up) just because it does not suit you. I'm sorry if that sounds harsh.
It seems the earlier talk page was pushed into the archives (it's here, if you want to look at it), and none of you have answered any of the points I had raised on that page. What is the point in editing if you don't want to debate the changes and only steamroll ahead with your reverts to cover up a few incidents that are not favourable to you?
As I mentioned to Makrand above, I have not included his HT citation because it is offline. To be fair, I have commented out the paragraph about Business Barons ranking, since it used an offline citation as well. If you want to include the Barons citation, you may want to include Makrand's offline HT citation as well.
Oh, I had spent some time in arranging the pictures in a gallery and making formatting changes to reduce clutter, so please retain those changes if you decide to revert.
Thanks, Max  - You were saying? 18:25, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Max, I agree with what you say, and am OK with the changes you have made. However some IIPM folks are reverting it to totally whitewashed versions. So am reverting to your last saved version. Makrandjoshi 03:54, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Explanation of my revert 

message: Max, Why are you putting in the adjective unaccredited repeatedly? It is not acceptable at all. I think it has been explained before that in the Western world, unaccredited implies a degree mill or otherwise disreputable institute. IIPM has been in existence 33 years, has more students than the other Top 10 institutes combined, and therefore using the word unaccredited is harsh and negative.
I believe Dipali clearly said she wanted to use the positive line like IIPM does not seek recognition or accreditation. Please understand this.
Similarly, the unnecessary argument and confusion saying it does not offer MBA or BBA degrees has no place in the introductory paragraph. A business school does not HAVE TO offer those degrees. So that line only throws dirt on IIPM for no reason. 
I have fixed those problems, so now in the spirit of Wikipedia I ask that you discuss this out before reverting.
AlamSrinivas 19:20, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Alam, I'd advise you to read up wiki policy. "Not acceptable at all" is not valid grounds for deleting perfectly true and cited information. The counter-argument put forth by iipmstudent9 falls under original research. You can not delete and revert on the basis of OR. Repeatedly doing so amounts to vandalism. Vandalism is not a word that should be loosely bandied about, but even max will agree that repeated deletions and reverts here are amounting to vandalism. Makrandjoshi 04:06, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  The introductory para 

message: please look at news reports and www.arindamchaudhuri.com. His claim to fame is that he founded Planman Consulting and wrote a bestseller book. So please cite  that awful-sounding phrase about father-son in the introduction. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by AlamSrinivas (talk • contribs) 19:22, 11 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Arindam Chaudhuri is Honorary Dean, Not Dean 

message: Max, as you have seen, AlamSrinivas vandalised my userpage. He first left what was clearly a threat saying - 'Makrand ji, aapko dar nahi lagta hain? Ye IIPM log aapko maarenge.'(Makrand, aren't you scared? IIPM people will beat you up/kill you). Then he left a single word "vandal". At worst this is a threat which I am myself thinking of now taking to the police in my city to bring an arrest warrant against Alam Srinivas. This is a case of intimidation from Alam and my contemplating police action is not a "legal threat". Secondly, I believe this is an action which warrants a ban on AlamSrinivas for vandalising my page. I am registering a complaint against him with the editors. Makrandjoshi 04:23, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Max, Advice needed 

message: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Incidents#Threat_of_Violence_and_Vandalising_my_userpage
Alam has been indefinitely blocked for issuing threats to me. iipmstudent9, you would be well advised to be careful about the legal threats you issue. Makrandjoshi 13:01, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Alam has been indefinitely blocked 

message: All these legal threats seem out of place - this is just a webpage. If passions are getting so inflamed and violence seems likely, perhaps you should all back off for some time. IIPMstudent9, which batch are you? Chill, and please dont do anything drastic with the police. I'm sure Makrand is well-intentioned. Max, thanks for the assist in this matter - you seem to be the most level-headed person here.
I've removed the 2 contentious lines from the intro, and hope we can leave them out for the time being until everyone agrees to put them back in a acceptable form.
Iipmalum 19:02, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: iipmalum, thanks for your voice of sanity. ABout the lines you deleted from the intro, I have put them back in. They are valid, factual, cited as well as encyclopaedic, and in Max's and my own opinion, necessary in the intro. The "contention" to them is on purely "original research" grounds, and no wiki policy has been cited in their deletion. Hence I would request you not to delete those. Makrandjoshi 21:42, 12 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Please be civil 

message: Both Max and Makrand are cheats - you are adding material only selectively from these newspaper articles and being biased!! Its so obvious you guys are anti-IIPM. Pathetic! You cant even do a good job of covering up your work. Just admit you are working on behalf of the IIM'S! :) 
We all think its funny! :) :) You dont need to pretend to be real editors. Take a hike!
Iipmstudent9 21:07, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: iipmstudent9, I am waiting with baited breath, cowering in fear under my dining table....NOT!! Makrandjoshi 01:15, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Bullshit! Cheats! 

message: Hi Max and Joshi, I dont know how to do the links in internet Wikipedia, so I have added the lines from the articles. Please dont do original research. IIPm9 is right - both of you seem to have anti-IIPM bias, whoich is not correct and is shameful. Please dont spoil the name of the institute for your ow nvendetta sake - prove your editorship with Wikipedia by having a fair POV. 
Iipmalum 21:15, 14 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: iipmalum, I have no desire for vendetta. My only motivation is to keep this wiki neutral. I only delete things which are against wiki policy. As for your description about Dr. Chaudhuri and the cultural event, it was only my suggestion that you not include too many details. If you choose to, fine. It just makes the wiki bulky, but i don't see it violating any wiki policy. I have no intention of deleting it. But the first line of the article, which had been edited like a whitewash, i have made NPOV again. I do not have any anti-IIPM bias. Makrandjoshi 01:22, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Citing articles, please follow Wiki rules 

message: It is disgusting to see the level to which IIPM employees are stooping. I don't even need to mention the violent death threats by AlamSrinivas. They are on my talk page for everyone to see.
As for iipmstudent9's legal threat, it is purely laughable. I visited her talkpage, found someone left a message for her with that name. The message was mroe than a year old. If she really was interested in keeping her name secret, she would have deleted that year old message from her talkpage which revealed her identity. But she didn't. So I assumed calling her that is kosher. It is easier to type than iipmstudent9. 
But these charges of revealing your identity are preposterous. The person who seems to have revealed it is some friend of your's called User:Ponytailsnipper on your own talk page more than a year back. 
I hope we are clear that i did not reveal your identity.
But let assume I had. Even then, what you are saying rings as pure nonsense. You might not know this but I know the IT Act 200 like the back of my hand. It has no clause for revealing someone's identity. If you had made this threat 2 years back, it would have been treated as credible. But everyone has read about your empty legal threats to Gaurav Sabnis. What happened? he kept his blog as it is. Your lawsuit never came.
You people think that legal threats and physical threats will cow everyone down. Shameful. Makrandjoshi 02:08, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Threats and More Threats 

message: iipmstudent9 and Alam's new avataar AlamSrini1 have been blocked by the admins because of legal and physical threats respectively. I am sure they will be back using sock-puppets, a case I have made to the admins and requested for a total edit-block on this page. Makrandjoshi 02:20, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  iipmstudent9 blocked 

message: IIPMStudent9,
I told you to be careful about your threats, but you just didn't listen. Moreover, you stooped to namecalling.
You accuse us of "working" for the IIMs(!). You know what? You're absolutely right. You caught us red-handed. The IIMs have nothing better to do. They have an army of people working in their basements writing blogs, printing magazines and editing Wikipedia with the sole purpose of maligning IIPM because of their "inferiority complex". Yes that's it. You should take the IIMs to court. Wait! I'm giving you advice about legal action?! Terribly sorry, chum. :-)
To quote Jack Nicholson's character from As Good As It Gets, "Go sell crazy someplace else, we're all stocked up here."
Way to go. Enjoy your permablock. You will probably be back (with more of your pals? How fun!), but Wikipedia will be ready for you.
Max  - You were saying? 11:34, 15 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good job, IIPMStudent9 

message: I guess Max's argument was that accreditation is very important to this institute's Wiki - given that, I guess you would have to agree that placements are also very important. Therfore I have added the cited line from The hindu article to the intro. nice?
Iipmalum 08:17, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added the line on 100% placements from The Hindu newspaper 

message: Added 300 companies from same article in the hindu —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iipmalum (talk • contribs) 08:18, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit - 300 companies visited campus  

message: i have a majhor problem with the way you have quoted the Times of india article. The artilcle states as a matter of fact that the IIPM does not fall under the purview of AICTE UGC etc. So why are you quoting it as 'The institute assdeerts'? very wrong?
Iipmalum 08:22, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Because there are other news article, mentioned in the accredition and the controversy section, where AICTE and UGC disagree with that contention. Makrandjoshi 13:30, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  'According to IIPM', 'the institute has asserted'  

message: This line is pure fiction. we have a responsibility as Wiki editors. None of the IIM's, which are the incumbent premier b-schools, offer degrees. neither does XLRI. And neither does IIPM. Therefore, it is very clear in the taught programs section that IMI offers the degrees. Let it remain that way. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Iipmalum (talk • contribs) 08:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: The AICTE recognizes degrees from IIMs and XLRIs as equivalent to MBAs. Not the same for IIPM. And you are free to add the same like in the wiki pages of IIMs. Makrandjoshi 13:33, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Unlike most business schools IIPm does not offer MBa degrees 

message: I see that there has been repeated reverting with respect to IIPM offering MBA & BBA programs. This seems very strange to me. 
both this http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/mp/2002/04/29/stories/2002042900500200.htm article and earlier Times of india one clearly say IIPM offers MBA and BBA courses. now, Wikipedia is not a majority rules. Wikipedia also says no original research. Since IIPM's courses lead to degrees from IMI, and that is clearly mentioned, why are you breaking Wiki rules and not including this perfectly valid and cited information?
Iipmalum 08:41, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IIPM offers BBA and MBA programs 

message: i am adding material cited from here http://www.hinduonnet.com/thehindu/thscrip/print.pl?file=2007010800340200.htm&date=2007/01/08/&prd=edu&. please let me know if it is OK?
Thanks
Iipmalum 08:48, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global opportunity and threat analysis program 

message: it seems faculty info is not cited... so does that mean I can add a lot of info from the iipm prospectus?
~Theres great stuff on palcements and ghlobal tours etcIipmalum 10:28, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Stuff which is cited only from the primary source, but which no one else contests will stay on. But if someinformation is cited from the primary source which other editors think is false or misleading, it has to be backed up by other citations. Makrandjoshi 13:36, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Faculty information - only from prospectus> 

message: Hello people,
This should've come to me sooner, but better late than never. The paragraph about UGC and AICTE has apparently touched some raw nerves, so let's decide to follow a principle that may be a way out of endless revert wars - attribute contentious statements to their sources.
I've changed this para so that the wording clearly attributes the disputed assertions to their sources. This may have made it a bit long and clumsy to read, but maybe that's okay given the high tempers surrounding the same.
Please let me know the possible objections that anyone has to this scheme.
IIPMAlum,
I've asked this before off the record, but the talk page was swept into the archives. I ask again - if IIPM itself doesn't care about accreditation and recognition (it says so itself), why do you care so much?
Max  - You were saying? 17:52, 16 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Second opening para - attribution to sources 

message: please dont delete validly cited material such as the global outreach program and the new cited material from Times of india and hindu. 203.76.140.130 07:20, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: It has not been deleted, merely moved to the Industry Interface section where it is more relevant. Makrandjoshi 15:36, 23 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Issues with edits