Talk:Indian Institute of Planning and Management/Archive 3

message: I have moved the reference to JAMMAG article from Infrastructure to Controversy - it doesn't belong in infrastructure, as allegations made in JAMMAG are a part of the controversy. 
I have moved the reeference to BW to the Coverage in Mainstream media - same reason as above.
The infrastructure section of a Wikipedia article should state the facts about the institute. The Controversial articles, written and inspired by IIM-ite Rashmi Bansal, in BW where she is Contributing Editor and JAMMAG where she is editor, should remain in the Controversy section, and I even suggest we add the fact that thre is a clear motive for bias...
--Drnoamchomsky 09:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Infrastructure 

message: Overhauled the section, and renamed to the Global Outreahc Program. There was never any mention of 'Guest Faculty' in IIPM ads or prospectus. So there cannot be any rationale of a controversy over the use of the term, when it does not exist. The global outreahc program is the term used by IIPM, and is the term used here...
If even IIPM does not call it guest faculty, what is it doing in the Faculty section?
--Kunal 15:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Guest Faculty 

message: These scans are here to verify cites in the main article, which kept getting reverted inspite of 'Harvard' citing.--Iipmstudent9 04:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Outlook Magazine''' 

message: On the basis of these pages, I have added ". IIPM has a strong interface with industry and its course content is highly regarded, according to Business Barons Magazine."
--Drnoamchomsky 07:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  '''Business Barons Magazine''' 

message: Shall we get rid of this section ? As it only repeats content from the introduction.
--Drnoamchomsky 07:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  History section 

message: "IIPM has a strong interface with industry and its course content is highly..." has been taken from the scan of Business Barons on Talk page. Do not revert it again.
"..involved in a major controversy" sounds so BAD!! It is not true! Needs to be much better written.. or not at all... the controversy sction can remain at the bottom, but why should something as irrelevant as mudslingin by IIM grads be put on Wiki page up front>?
Moved Honorary Dean to faculty list as per ravikirans reorganisation
From Faculty, removed controversial allegations by BusinessWorld and JAM mAgazine, which have no evidence or research backup, and both articles are written by or edited by Rahmi Bansal, an IIM (competing b-school which has been overshadowed by IIPM) alumnus and known victim of IIPM jealousy! Have not deleted, but inserted into controversy section. Kindly justify why it should be here in faculty... please see my discussion above wher I have given rationale of how a mudslingin campaign by organised competitiors should not dirty the WIki page of a large and respectable organisation... 
Ravikiran u are a software guy, not an IIM alumnus judging from your CV: dont you see the Rashmi and Gaurav are simply using people like you, and abusing the power of press?
From Publications, added Research to title - see justification above to Inventingfacts. Dont revert without discussion
Again, moved allegations by IIM alumni to Controversy section - this is an IIPM wiki article - not the notepad of IIM alumni.. the institute has done a remarkable job of bringing business education to everyone who wants it - a dire need for the country which need so many more managers and entrepreneurs to fuel its growth... why should lying naysayers and mudslingers be given credence in the main sections - agreed, they can be in the contrversy section...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Drnoamchomsky (talk • contribs) 
: Well, I am touched by your concern to protect me from evil IIM alumni. I'd request you not to make presumptions about my educational qualifications and my profession. I understand that IIM alumni are feeling threatened because IIPM alumni are displacing them in the Direct Sales Agent market,  but I have pretty much reverted all your edits. Here's why:
# Saying that it is "highly regarded" is POV. It should be cited in the article. 
# The major controversy came about because IIPM threatened to sue people. If IIPM considers something important to sue, then it must be important right? The controversy has been covered on the national news on CNBC etc. I am sure that this qualifies as a major controversy.
# This is not a brochure for IIPM. We have no reason to privilege IIPM's claims as to its infrastructure over others. All we can do is report what IIPM claims as its infrastructure and what detractors claim about the infrastructure. Calling some claims "controversial" is POV.
# Ditto for faculty. The fact that most regular faculty are from IIPM  itself can be checked from a casual perusal of the faculty page on IIPM. I've put a link to there in the interest of fairness.
# You can have your way on qualifying Rashmi Bansal and Gaurav Sabnis as IIM alumni. But there is no need to mention it every single time. Given that the lead to IIPM's statement in the press clearly says: "
IIPM's official responseto the controversy was to claim that the controversy was motivated by jealousy of IIPM on the part of IIM alumni and professors. It issued the following statement:" I don't see the need to mention this claim again and again.But do you honestly think that IIPM has any chance of succeeding in turning "IIM Alumni" into a word of abuse?  
# Finally, it is quite rich of you to argue that the article is turning into a scrapbook when there are 5 photographs of IIPM's infrastructure in one section. If needed, we will move most of the images into a separate section at the end. But let it stay for now. 
--Ravikiran 14:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ravikirans's Edits 

message: Some users are using their edit summaries to make meaningless comments (eg "For Mother India" by 203.145.128.5) or personal comments against other editors (as have been made by 203.145.128.5 and Drnoamchomsky). Please do not do this. That is not what edit summaries are for. Edit summaries are meant for you to provide a short summary of the edit (as should be obvious from the name) for other users to see.
--Kunal (talk) 07:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Edit summaries

message: Blogger/Wiki Patrols - There is an Impersonation of Dr. Noam Chomsky going on at the IIPM page. For more details regarding this matter or to report it, please contact:
Pablo Stafforini (pablo[AT]chomsky.info) or  Anthony Arnove (arnove[AT]chomsky.info)
130 West 25th Street
Room 12A
New York NY 10001-7406
USA
phone: +1 212-366-9883
fax: +1 212-366-6868
<BR/>
Pablo, 
No worries, we've switched to another username. Didn't know it would worry you so! Give ourbest to the good professor!<BR/>
regards
--Iipmstudent9 05:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  Given that "Dr. Chomsky" was threatening to get people out of their jobs in edit summaries , I am frankly curious what they teach at IIPM, other than intimidation, impersonation, bribery? --Ravikiran 07:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Impersonation Watch & Spam Assasin Alert