Talk:Indian Institute of Planning and Management/Archive 8

message: Deepak, I guess somebody shifted the paragraphs relating to alumni, publications etc to the end of the article without substantiating such a move. Someone also changed the wordings in the publications paragraph. So not only have I shifted back the paragraphs to their original positions, I have also put back details on publications in the respective paragraph. Take care... ~Mrinal
Plus, I also changed the part on the IIPM controversy to include correct tenses. The controversy occured in 2005, 2004, therefore, the statements should have the word 'had' and not 'has'. If you notice the paras changed, you'll notice the tense changes. Do revert back if you think that's not appropriate. Take care... ~~Mrinal
: Mrinal, Please place your comments or new paragraphs only at the end of the talk page. You will notice that the "substantiation" has been made and I have also specifically discussed the new text. I have removed the details as per discussion: note that this is not an advertising forum for IIPM and I see no reason to over-glorify things. You will note that these points have been discussed in detail. Secondly, when you modify tense, do not add "detractors claim" etc. for facts. IIPM only mentions its non accreditation in very small text, even now. therefore I have changed that as well. Note that "Famous Alumni" has been moved down, it seems to be better placed near the end. Deepakshenoy 17:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Deepak, Makrand, what you've edited is perfectly ok. Sorry for placing discussions on top of the page. Had no idea that new discussions are supposed to be at the end :-) Thanks again. Take care and have a great teacher's day :-) Mrinal 203.76.140.130 05:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changing back unsubstantiated paragraph moves 

message: Hi Deepak, Makrand, I saw a few lines that had been added to the controversy section (like a link to the so called Student's union web site, and links to other third party websites) which I removed. If you see those lines in the previous version, you would understand why I removed them. Kindly do vet the change. Regards, Mrinal 203.76.140.130 02:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Deepak, Makrand, I went through the whole article again, and saw so many changes to our previous version, that I went ahead and deleted the whole article and pasted the previous version which you guys had approved earlier. Someone has gone ahead and added so many extra lines that I couldn't track the changes. Kindly do see whether the article I've pasted is actually the one which you had approved. And if it is not, do kindly revert to the original article. With best regards, (and apologies for the pasting without permission), Mrinal 203.76.140.130 02:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Hi Deepak, someone's actually changing back text regularly. Can you please take a look at the changes? Mrinal 203.76.135.250 12:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Mrinal, Current edit by Glen seems fine.  Thanks to Glen, Arbustoo and Ryulong's edits and revamping to the new reference scheme. Deepakshenoy 13:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Some paras that had been added without reason have been deleted from controversy section 

message: IIPM's JV with Stanford and Yale School of Management is something that should be put across as viewpoints on the Global orientation of IIPM. As both JVs are separately oriented, I'm putting them up in different paragraphs. Again, I'll be putting them up in a different style later on in the revamped structure next week. Suggestions please... Mrinal203.76.135.250 06:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Use small case please. I will review your revamped structure, and if it does not contain all the information currently in the page I will add it or revert to the current structure. Deepakshenoy 06:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Have consolidated into "Global Partnerships". Further, please don't arbitrarily link to the IIPM web site. Also, please provide sources. Deepakshenoy 07:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: If IIPM indeed has a JV with yale or stanford, provide links from the sites of those schools or substantiate this. Until then it will be treated as uncited information Makrandjoshi 12:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makrand, it's not necessary that these universities link up to each and every joint venture that they have on their web site. So I'm reverting back to the previous page. It'll be nice if you can wait till we get citations from newspapers or other reports. Thanks and regards 203.76.135.250 04:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: With no proof, we can't just add anything. I have it from other sources that Yale has dropped your "joint venture". Stanford wise, I have scoured their site and found that they sell Prof Edison Tse's classes as videos; and the IIPM site has a link to just one program which is so ambiguous that it doesn't define a "partnership". Honestly if Stanford and Yale will not put a link on their site, is it a one sided partnership? I think we need more sources. I've removed content until verifiable sources are provided. Deepakshenoy 05:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Cool. Guess then we'll await their response on that... Mrinal 203.76.140.130 09:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Deepak, can you give me your email address? I'll ask people to send across some emails to you confirming the JVs. Would that be ok with you? Thanks... And I guess it'll be appreciated if you don't pass around the emails to everybody who might wish to have a copy put up. Perhaps you could just check with the person/department from Yale SoM whom the email mentions (using the appropriate words rather than accusatory words...I write because the email you've sent to Dr. Tse is something that could have been worded much much better. Really, it's not correct for you to send such blatantly negatively worded emails to people mentioned. But then of course, it's your choice to do that... But really again, not appreciated) 61.16.233.194 09:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: It doesn't happen this way, Mrinal. Please read about Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. E-mail correspondences are not considered reliable sources. Proving personally doesn't make the inclusion valid. If the claimed JV is true, I am sure some neutral newspapers would have covered it. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Brilliant! Then I'm putting up the 2003 UNDP key partner institution status awarded by UNDP to IIPM. It was reported in many papers. But in case you do wish, we could also put up the authorization letter from UNDP up here. Regards, Mrinal 203.76.140.130 11:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  Please cite neutral sources. If you are able to give us links to the articles, we can add the news. And this time, hopefully, with more encyclopaedic language. Deepakshenoy 11:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

text: Sending me emails is not verifiable, as Ambuj said. You already have my email id, considering Mr. Tse has forwarded my email to you - but please note that if you send me any mail I will not treat it as confidential. I understand you don't appreciate what I've said to Dr. Tse; you wouldn't, since it wasn't very nice to IIPM. By the way, that email was for my knowledge; even if Dr. Tse responds, it is still not verifiable information. To those who are confused: I asked Dr. Tse if he was moving full time to India as IIPM had used the words "joint venture" to describe his classes. And in the end I said "I wish to know because in the past IIPM has miscommunicated its intentions and has resulted in some heartburn for students." I do not think I made a false accusation. I know you will understand that I have the freedom to word my personal emails however I please. Deepakshenoy 11:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes Deepak. So HT Horizons and Education Times have covered the Stanford news. It's not available on the net. Would you guys accept scanned copies of the same? Will wait for your response. Regards 203.76.140.130 11:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text:  I have (earlier) added a tribune article about the Stanford workshops in the "Global partnerships" section. Deepakshenoy 10:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Putting up information on Stanford and Yale Joint Venture 

message: This is the first discussion note that I'm putting up for suggestions on completely revamping the site as per the benchmarks set up by wikipedia pages on all other business schools. I look forward to suggestions before uploading the totally revamped site for a day for further suggestions. Then we could revert back to the current template till the time I include the changes. After that you guys could make all the changes required. Regards, Mrinal 203.76.135.250 06:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Use small case please. Please take care to include all information as currently available. I will review. Deepakshenoy 06:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mrinal, this page has been built painstakingly over the last year by neutral and well-meaning editors. It has gone through several edits, and guys like deepak and myself remove inappropriate information put up by both sides, be it IIPM supporters or haters. The page will not be revamped to suit the whims of one person. The reason you give is fallacious. There are no wikipedia standards, and certainly no benchmarks for pages. Each page has a separate characteristic. Don' compare IIPM with Harvard and Yale. Not because of the obvious difference in the quality. But because in those cases, controversies were not ABOUT the schools. They were about individuals associated with the schools. Here the centre of the controversy is IIPM itself. So there deserves to be a separate controversy page. You are welcome to call in other neutral editors. It has been done in the past too. For the record, note that I will be reverting any changes or revamps which you make to the site without getting them cleared here. And also, for the record, I think the rant you let out against Deepak up there was in absolutely bad taste, and very unfair to him, considering how conscientious he has been even in removing all baseless anti-IIPM information on the page. As for "war cries" you are the one who has started it by wanting to revamp the page to stick to some imaginary benchmarks. There are no benchmarks given for b school wikis anywhere. The whole idea about wikipedia is that there are no benchmarks. Only guidelines. And here, there aren't even any guidelines for the b school pages. Makrandjoshi 13:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Mrinal, if you think you would be putting up something controversial, first propose it at a subpage (for example edit this link). I will be following the discussions here, and hope will be able to provide good suggestion as I have extensively worked on two educational institute FAs, namely the Indian Institutes of Technology and Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur. Also, I would suggest that you register. It has many benefits. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ambuj, it'll be lovely to have your inputs. I'll also register this week. Guess you are right about it. 203.76.135.250 04:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Makrand, if Deepak had written his statements like you have written in the last para, I would've actually drilled down my vitriol against him. But in reality, even I felt bad at having written all that. For the past three days, I didn't want to come back to this site to even see what discussions were there because I realised Deepak and my communication was going completely down the wrong lane. I really appreciate the inputs you both have given. I have also seen how you have reverted many negative statements (for example, especially on the Arindam Chaudhuri site) and believe me, that is the reason I keep writing that I find your and Deepak's views very important. A revert war is something that just came up I guess because of the momentum of the discussion. My intention was in reality to ensure that the new template is first approved by you guys before we put up. If you notice, I had written that we could put it up for a day to have your comments before accepting it, rejecting it, or making changes. Ambuj here has given a very good suggestion of using the new version page. I'll try that too. But really, my apologies again to Deepak for having said all that. Never meant it (I would've deleted all my statements if I were allowed to). Thanks...and apologies... Mrinal 203.76.135.250 04:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title:  Completely revamping this site 

message: Please propose any upheavals or real changes in this link). When we're in agreement on that page, we can bring it back here. Let's retain existing content until a new template has got the required consensus. Deepakshenoy 05:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: There's a technical problem with your proposal. The changes should be discussed in sub-page of talk page, and not sub-page of article page. Because of technical issues, article pages cannot have sub-pages and even with the "/", the page will be considered as a full-fledged article. So please discuss the new version on the sub-page of talk page (like the one I linked to). — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: Ah, gotcha. I have corrected the above link too. Deepakshenoy 07:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Use a new page to demonstrate a new version 

message: I have found no mention that IIPM is a "key" partner, and no information in the sources cited mention any responsibility of IIPM apart from having conducted three workshops in 2003. I have linked to a UNDP report as well (since that's the real source), and the article on the youandaids.org site that mentions the IIPM contribution. Deepakshenoy 12:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: UNDP Partnership

message: Mrinal, the UNDP mention is a good example to follow. Get credible links which can corroborate what is being written. If Stanford and Yale have JVs with IIPM, very good. Surely a JV would be mentioned on websites of both parties involved in the JV. So please get links from the websites of those schools about this. And if you have to revert a change made, please cite a reason more concrete than "Makrand's argument is not correct". I removed the information because it was uncited. Makrandjoshi 01:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Stanford and Yale JVs

message: I think that the sealing off of the IIPM building should be in the controversy section. Makrandjoshi 17:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I don't know, it's not yet a controversy. IIPM seems to have sub-let the land from a Canara Bank Society which had in turn leased it from the DDA. Chances are that the Canara Bank bit is trying to make a bit of money on the side, and IIPM's just a tenant. For once on the other side. Let's wait and see if other information turns up, what do you think? Deepakshenoy 17:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
replies: text: I too feel it would be early to call it a controversy. If the situation diffuses in near future, even the present information may be deleted as it is not of long-term interest for an average article reader. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: Sealing off in the controversy section