Talk:Amity University, Noida

message: Removed previous content which was subjective, and was a clear attempt at glorification.
MaximvsDecimvs 14:34, 19 June 2006 (UTC)
thread_title: removal of promotional content

message: One or more portions of this article duplicated other source(s).  Infringing material has been rewritten or removed and must not be restored, unless it is duly released under a compatible license. (For more information, please see "using copyrighted works from others" if you are not the copyright holder of this material, or "donating copyrighted materials" if you are.) For legal reasons, we cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or published material; such additions will be deleted. Contributors may use copyrighted publications as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously, and persistent violators will be blocked from editing. While we appreciate contributions, we must require all contributors to understand and comply with these policies. Thank you.  --Moonriddengirl (talk) 10:36, 31 July 2009 (UTC)
thread_title:  Copyright problem removed 

message: This article should talk about AMITY UNIVERSITY UTTAR PRADESH - thats Noida campus
We should have different pages for different campuses - all have different administration/courses/infrastructure etc
--Pranav (talk) 05:33, 27 April 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I think we're on the same side, but have differing views. The Lede should contain controversies mentioned in the article. At the same time, I would also suggest removing the photos that you have put. Firstly, there's no reliable source support for the photos being of Amity University. Secondly, the photos look promotional and not encyclopedic. Best.   Wifione    ....... Leave a message 10:10, 5 May 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: How are the photos promotional, they are just depicting the campus, thats all, that too not in the entirety (now that would have been promotional, why does any photo on any page of a university have to be present there then - isnt that promotional too.. so let the ambiguity pass, these photos are of Amity University (with the campus names mentioned), so let it be!--Pranav (talk) 17:34, 7 August 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Scope

message: It is mentioned that Amity University is unaccredited. This is wrong. Amity is a non profit private University established through State Legislature and is fully recognised /accredited.  Cfiveindia (talk) 07:53, 16 September 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: I'm waiting for your reply. Thanks.  Wifione Message 05:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes suggested 

message: Pranav, may I enquire. Have you read NPOV, NOR, PRIMARY, ABOUTSELF? If you do finish reading these most imperative policies of Wikipedia, would you believe that some of the sources and the statements you have placed are neither neutral nor reliable? My suggestion to you would be to kindly revert the changes you believe do not qualify on these policies. Yes, my suggestion also would be that rather than commenting so aggressively, discuss your changes on this talk page and you will get an appropriate response. So peter down the emotion, peter up the regularity of talk page discussion. I'll desist from reverting your additions till you get a reasonable chance to respond. Finally, an open war-call by you to start edit warring (in your edit summary, you've suggested "if its an edit war u want, i am ready!") is the worst move possible in following policy and consensus in talk page discussions. Please read up on edit warring and especially 3RR. I'm waiting for your reply specifically to the following queries of mine:
*Have you read up all the links I've provided here?
*Do you recognize many statements you've added as being based on non-reliable sources?
*Do you take back your statement of wanting to edit war?
:I'm waiting for your reply. Thanks.  Wifione Message 05:24, 22 September 2011 (UTC)
thread_title: Oh dear

message: 1. The article says that Amity is not recognised by AICTE. It is very clear that Amity does not need AICTE recognition as is also referenced in the next sentence. This way one could list 100 accreditations/recognitions that Amity does not have just because it does not need. BUT this statement creates a lot of confusion as private institutions in India do need AICTE recognition, but Universities do not.  As the statement is leading to immense damage to students of Amity University it needs to be deleted. 
2. There is no arrest warrant against anyone in Amity. All the articles take reference of a yellow tabloid Tehelka which is known for its blackmailing journalism. Where is the proof for this? Putting  such a huge allegation on a living person is absolutely wrong, not fair and seriously adversely affects their life. 
3. To say that Ugc was not recognising Amity is absolutely false. Where in the referenced article of 2007 does it say that Ugc did not recognise Amity. It just does not say that. People cannot just add their own interpretation!
Cfiveindia (talk) 05:20, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: * While I agree with Wifione on the basic facts, I think the article now gives just a bit undue weight to some of the facts. Regarding AICTE accreditation, it is mentioned in the infobox at the "type" field and at the lead, as well as, of course, the article body. We usually (judging from the few dozen India university articles I copyedited) don't list matters of accreditation by AICTE (either positive or negative) at either the infobox type field or the lead. The matter is usually discussed in the Academics/Programmes section. As for UGC's refusal of recognition, the fact is that it is currently recognized, as can be verified by the UGC official list of private universities of 1 September 2011. I think that equal weight should be given to both facts, i.e. whenever we mention that UGC once refused recognition, we need to say that it is currently recognized. As for the warrant I totally agree with Wikione, i.e. that we have a reliable source for it, and the tone in which it is mentioned seems neutral to me. --Muhandes (talk) 10:54, 22 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Hi Muhandes. With respect to accreditation/recognition in lede, with Amity, it was a significant controversy. And as per lede guidelines, we should mention the issue of accreditation/recognition in lede in case such a controversy has existed. Otherwise, in normal institutions, there's generally no need to mention the same as there's no controversy. Also, with respect to UGC's recognition, I couldn't see where it was written in your link that this is a list of institutions recognized by UGC. I notice a list of private universities, but not recognized ones. I may be wrong - please do correct me if I've read this wrongly.  Wifione Message 17:55, 24 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: * In a bit of a hurry, so no sources, but I did research this subject quite a bit while working on List of universities in India. For an institution to call itself a private university (or, as a matter of fact, any kind of universality), it needs to be recognized by the UGC. The list I linked are those private universities which UGC recognizes. It has a separate list of "fake universities", i.e. institutes which call themselves "university", and grant degrees, but have no recognition. There are similar lists for other types of recognized universities, namely central, state and deemed universities, see List of universities in India. Bottom line, that linked list is the official place to look for whether an institute is recognized or not. --Muhandes (talk) 14:35, 25 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: *Thanks for the reply. Sorry for the trouble on this. Please don't mind my viewpoint in this - what you're saying seems to be a synthesis, a deduction that's presumptive. I'll prefer a clear list that says "UGC recognized private universities". One reason I say this is because I do remember seeing somewhere on UGC's website a link that mentions UGC recognized colleges. Now, in case Amity's colleges are recognized, the list should have their name. Also, the link you provide has another red flag. Against almost all Amity names, there's either an "inspection report awaited" or something similar written. So I really don't think that this is an exceptional source to be used for recognition. May I suggest a resolution? It may quite be possible that UGC does not have a facility to recognize state private universities. I suspect this because UGC, as much as I've tried to read this evening on the net, is presumably a central university recognizing authority than a state university recognizing authority. I'll try to search for such a link. If I find it, then it resolves a lot of issues that the general reader might be interested in.  Wifione Message 03:51, 26 November 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: * I don't think so. The official term for university recognition in India is "institutions recognised under clause (f) of Section 2". By this clause universities are "established or incorporated by or under a Central Act, a Provincial Act or a State Act" and are "recoginsed (sic) by the Commission in accordance with the regulations made in this behalf under this Act". Section 26 clause (d) explains that the UGC has the power to specify "the institutions or class of institutions which may be recognised by the Commission under clause (f) of sub-section 2". I don't think this is synthesis, I think it is just reading the relevant act. I might add that if the UGC does not have the facility to recognize, then for sure a lead mentioning its refusal to recognize something is far from being neutral. But anyway, I have spent on this much more time and effort than I care to spend, so I am going to move on. --Muhandes (talk) 16:54, 27 November 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Changes needed 

message: Doesn't it look a little absurd that there is more information about the controversies is the article than there is about the university in general. I would like to gather and provide more information on this subject. As I am a student of the organization now, I think i will be able to do a good job. Can I get some help on how I can contribute to a good wikipedia article that does justice to both, controversies and achievements of the University.
Bhanuvrat (talk) 00:21, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: * Mr. Wifione seems to have a personal issue with the University. Though a verbal war on Wikipedia would be totally awesome and engaging, I strongly feel that this article works against WikiProject Universities and WikiProject India. The primary purpose of an encyclopedia is to give information. What the user does with that information is beyond the control of the information provider. Here, Wifione intentionally includes outdated content and provides references as old as 5 years. You'll have to try harder than that to screw up the lives of the 60000 students presently enrolled there. Vignesh.Mukund (talk) 10:18, 9 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ** Dear Vignesh.Mukund Oh that attitude might be helpful in starting a flamewar with a good offence but for a good article it won't help much. What  Wifione did initially was to remove the text which looked more like the prospectus of the university typed in. This was a good thing to do because we all know that advertisements are never true down to the core. But, as you cite, the content he is allowing is only condemning the university. For example, the brief about Amity's involvement in the commonwealth games 2010 can be sited as a positive effort and then mention the controversy that followed. The present bit sounds like, the whole 2010 thing flopped because of Amity's involvement.Bhanuvrat (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

text: * Few facts that I am aware of and would like to add on to the article are as follows. In India, the university has three major campuses Nodia, Lucknow and Jaipur, these three are primarily known as Amity University Uttar Pradesh, Amity University Lucknow and Amity university Rajasthan respectively. And that the other few cities mentioned in the article like Pune, Calcutta etc are just for Amity Global Business school. Now I believe that there should be separate articles for each of these campuses which provide information about them separately. But at the same time the article doesn't have to sound like an advertisement. I would like to know how that can be done. Or I can add the information and someone can edit it to make it more encyclopaedic instead of ruthlessly reverting my changes. Please suggest.Bhanuvrat (talk) 02:50, 11 February 2012 (UTC)

text: ** I have been following this page since its inception and I understand that the early versions of the page were advertisements created by the University itself. A very good way to start cleaning up the article would be to compare its structure with another article about any international University. I am bothered by the blunt comments put in by Wifione as they fail to reveal the actual motive behind his actions which conveniently violate the NPOV. Someone should check the references listed. Most of them are old and have a very vague writing style. Vignesh.Mukund (talk) 22:43, 16 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Vignesh. Please do go ahead and be bold to add material based on reliable sources that is written neutrally. If you do wish, you could provide the information without the source within the article and I'll search out the reliable source. The endeavor out here is to have a collaborative project. If you could contribute your mite and Bhanuvrat too could do that, there's no reason why we shouldn't get this onto a good article status within a few days or so. But we'll really need to work on that collaboratively. My time doesn't allow me to be an expansive editor. I focus mainly on educational institutes articles, especially those with management programmes, as my experience with an article related to another institute has given me some understanding of how this complicated area operates in the Indian subcontinent. I'll await your inputs, especially on whether you all can help this article reach a good article status. My objective is to make at least three to five management institute's articles this year into good articles. Tell me what you think and how we should proceed. Best.  Wifione Message 06:32, 17 February 2012 (UTC)

text: ** Wifione, Vignesh, - thats a good objective of yours but Amity is not just a management institute. There are many courses running here in three major campuses. The list of all courses can be obtained from the website www.amity.edu . So lets first organize the structure of article(s). Because Amity University is present in Noida, Lucknow and Jaipur mainly and more campuses are cropping up around the globe (few of my teachers from noida campus went to Dubai for some help in keeping pace with the course there). Also since it is a university there are different colleges in every campus - eg Amity School of Engineering and Technology, Amity Business School, Amity School of Biotechnology etc. First of all, shouldn't we try and decide on the pages that the article would contain? I mean, an article for every campus or college or one page for everything? Please help me get things organized so that I can start adding things I know. Bhanuvrat (talk) 16:20, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

text: ** To all - why is this article starting with an irrelevant statement that the University does not have AICTE approval?  In the next sentence itself it is referenced that a University does not need it.  There are many pages on Indian Universites on wikipedia.  None of them say that they don't have AICTE approval. This looks illogical and should be removed. RahulGanpathy (talk) 12:40, 27 March 2012 (UTC)

text: ** Wifione, you have removed some changes i made.  I would like to understand: all universities in India are non-profit. so why delete a correct statement?  i linke to the iet website which has listed all international universities/institutions who have accreditation.  Amity University is listed there.  there is no other indian university in the list.  so why have you deleted this?  Also Amity Global Business Schools are institutions of Amity which i had corrected.  what is the meaning of "Amity brands its varsities as"?  what are varsities? the varsities (universities) of Amity are called Amity University, not amity global business school. RahulGanpathy (talk) 14:51, 28 March 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks for the note. Is there a reliable source that you can provide here to confirm that all universities in India are non-profit? The IET website link you can place. But you cannot place a statement that it is the only Indian university unless there's a reliable source that makes that confirmation. And about "Amity brands its varsities as...", yes, do go ahead and change it. I'll copy edit it if there's any English issue, otherwise the last point sounds sensible. Thanks for the note.  Wifione Message 07:50, 30 March 2012 (UTC)

text: ** Wifione, finally it looks like the article has recovered from the controversies and feels neutral instead of negative. Good Work RahulGanpathy. One think I would like to ask and propose is starting different articles for different campuses - the ones in noida, jaipur etc. They are known as Amity University Uttar Pradesh, and Amity University Rajasthan. So doesn't Amity University become a brand name like University of California whose different campuses in california, berkeley etc are separate universities? I think there should be separate articles for them, what say? Oh I just searched and found an orphan article http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amity_University_Rajasthan. More information about AUR is available here amity.edu/jaipur/pdf/Perspectives_icmp2012.pdf . Please lets discuss and decide the structure for the articles. Bhanuvrat (talk) 02:25, 26 April 2012 (UTC)

text: **It looks like the article is back to what it used to be; a copy of the prospectus. Sorry I was gone for long. I think we need to strike a middle ground for it to come across as completely neutral but thoroughly informative. Edit wars don't really lead to good articles. Like Bhanuvrat suggested, why don't we look up articles of International Universities like the University of California. Vignesh.Mukund (talk) 21:57, 17 June 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I feel in the run to promote the university, some of the editors might have deleted contents that were bringing the article to NPOV status. Right now, it looks purely like a fluff piece. I'll edit some and put back much cited material that existed prior to the reedits.  Wifione Message 03:23, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I've brought back much of the earlier version. I want to include now two subsections in the version I had reverted. One is on Awards and the other is on Rankings. My problem is, the awards section had only one primary link citation. The rankings section had no mention of Amity University. Suggestions please on how to include these two sections back.  Wifione Message 03:47, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: My final note. I have here two reference links; A, and B. An editor needs to go through these to chalk out what can be notably included and what not. For example, there's a much referenced news about some lady like Dana Sangma which I have not included deliberately awaiting comments from other editors. Then there is much more references about the High Court asking Amity University to stop construction immediately. But I haven't been able to find any link for either the award or rankings. Kindly help provide reliable sources. Thanks.  Wifione Message 04:14, 8 August 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: More controversies than content

message: The UGC inspection report is an outdated primary source and should not be used to reflect on the University.  The UGC as a norm regularly inspects Universities and gives suggestions to all and takes compliance reports.  to just take a few negative points out of a large primary source is not justified.  Rahulpandey1 (talk) 12:17, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: bullshit. it was a major lawsuit and some of the only actual third party coverage of the  subject. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: point 16 of the judgement makes clear that it did not direct Ugc to inspect and to find problems as mentioned in the article but merely said that Ugc is open to inspection.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulpandey1 (talk • contribs) 08:10, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

text: and the UGC has conducted review and it has found and identified concerns. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:22, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  UGC 

message: in multiple places it is written that Amity University does not have AICTE approval.  in the same article the law of India is referred to which says that a University does not require AICTE Approval.
So to say that the University does not have the approval is totally misleading as someone reading may think that it is required but is not there.  This way all articles of all universities of India should say they don't have AICTE approval.  Why only of Amity University?
There is a reference of one article of 2007 by an american journalist who has referred to some list of unrecognised colleges by aicte where Amity's name comes.  Again one has to see that Amity University is not a college and thus there is no way that its name can be in that list or for that matter in any list of AICTE.  on this basis to say that AICTE has withdrawn approval from Amity University is absolutely baseless.  
It is like saying to a japanese citizen that the American government has withdrawn the nationality from you.  If the American govt has not jurisdiction over you or granted you anything, how can they take it away.  The same case is with AICTE.  They have no jurisdiction over a University.  So there is no way they can grant or withdraw approval or recognition to a university.Rahulpandey1 (talk) 12:58, 6 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: as is most of the sourcing and writing in this article, its pretty bad. but it appears that Amity is attempting to pass itself off as something it is not, "Come to us and get a degree (but the degree is not worth anything because we are not appropriately accredited)" seems to be valid coverage or at least as valid as all the promotional content and claims about Amity that are solely sourced to Amity. If you want, we can cut it all down to a stub and rebuild from there. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:39, 8 December 2012 (UTC)

text: when you are using primary sources to include positive material about the school, you cannot remove negative materials about the school which have equally valid primary sourcing. a national public body stated a warning about Amity, you cannot just remove that claim cause you dont like it. and after fighting a lawsuit to get on another list, you cannot claim that the reviews of that site are not legitimate to include, either. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:25, 9 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: TRPoD, the article does not talk about amity university but a list of colleges which includes amity. We need to differentiate between a university and a college. Aicte will never say anything about a university as universities do not come under it's jurisdiction. What is the source of the journalists article? Where is the list that includes amity university? Rahulpandey1 (talk) 07:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

text: Rahulpandey1, do you think we should remove all of the info for all of the UK accreditation? Or should we remove the whole section entirely? To be honest, I don't like listing out every single accreditation (it feels like an unnecessary level of detail), but I know that it's done on some university articles. Qwyrxian (talk) 01:41, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Qwyrxian, accreditations are the hallmark of quality for universities so we should not remove the whole section. But you are right that ASIC could be removed as it is from the UK border agency and may not be relevant. Rahulpandey1 (talk) 07:36, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Then you have no grounds to reject AICTE. For example, "Accredited by the American Accreditation Council for Business Schools and Programs(ACBSP), USA". There is no "requirement" that Indian universities acquire accreditation form US accrediting organizations. You can't pick and choose to include only the ones the got, rejecting the ones they didn't get. That's a direct NPOV violation. So, which way shall we go--include the AICTE, or exclude all non-Indian accrediting organizations? Qwyrxian (talk) 08:09, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  there is a fine difference we need to see here. Aicte does not accredit universities even if they want to. It only accredits colleges. Though ACBSP is not required by an indian university, it will accredit if requested as universities fall under it's mandate. Thus there is no question for amity, for that matter any university, not having aicte approval as aicte cannot give and a university cannot request. Rahulpandey1 (talk) 08:18, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: the not so fine point is that you are going to far lengths to include accolades and willing to go into contortions to attempt to find reasons not to include critical info. thats a WP:NPOV violation. I have gone through removing any content not supported by third party content. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 12:35, 10 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I think your choice was best, TheRedPenOfDoom. Even if we forget about NPOV for a moment (of course, we can't but just to show there's more than one problem here), we can't pick and choose which primary documents to use, because doing so is original research. We should include only information that is discussed in reliable secondary, independent sources. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:37, 10 December 2012 (UTC)

text: " with a cgpa higher than of even Mumbai University" - POV push much? Wikipedia is not for you to create webvertisements for the college. Please stop NOW and I will not need to revert "sourced" propaganda.  -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 02:34, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  if you feel that should not be said ( even though the times of india, indias top newspaper is saying it) then please delete that portion. But atleast keep the basics like the university has A grade accreditation. This is an important achievement for any university and this information should be on the pages of all universities. Rahulpandey1 (talk) 06:12, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: ratings are important huh? what about the other sites that say "WARNING WARNING WARNING?" -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:02, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: There is a big difference in a Government body like NAAC doing a multiple day inspection on campus by very senior vice chancellors and giving the University the highest grade of A and some website making some claimsRahulpandey1 (talk) 15:19, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: UGC is not just "some website" - Amity went to the highest court in the land to get listed on them. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:27, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  but the Ugc website is not saying warning? Also NAAC is a body of UGC only. The UGC Chairman personally hands over the accreditation certification to the Vice chancellor of the Univeristy. Only 40 or so universities have an A grade by NAAC of UGC. You should not misread the whole issue of the listing.  Amity was one of the first if not the first private universities in India. Uptill then UGC had only listed public universities that were getting funding from Ugc. Thus there was a lot of confusion withing Ugc on whether to and how to list private universities. Being a government body it was taking a long time. Thus to fasten the process Amity went to court. If you read the judgement this point is very clear. Rahulpandey1 (talk) 18:14, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: we base our article content on the third party coverage not on the primary source court documents. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:22, 11 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Rahulpandy, I think maybe you just haven't become familiar with Wikipedia yet. One of our core policies is WP:OR. This policy forbids original research, and original research has a very wide definition on Wikipedia. One of the aspects of this policy is that, in general, we should not be looking at primary documents. If we do use primary documents, we may never use them for anything other than what they say. And if we have multiple primary documents, and we're trying to decide which ones are "important" enough to use, that too is almost certainly original research. We certainly can never say "Well, this one is more important because it was a longer study, a more serious analysis, compared to this other one that was done quickly". We simply are not allowed to make those judgments. Thus, we need to go back to looking only at what independent secondary sources say. And just to be clear, both the accreditation documents and the court judgment are primary sources per WP policy. Qwyrxian (talk) 05:13, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Qwyrxian,  I thank you for your guidance and your efforts towards this.  On this point I do have a question which i would be grateful for your help.  In the article it is said " The courts additionally asked UGC to conduct inspection to find out problems in Amity University's programmes"  If we see, the secondary source says " (the court) has asked the commission to inspect the private college and point out any problems in its programmes.  The primary source (the judgement which is linked to above) says "It is, of course, open to the UGC to carry out periodic inspections of the petitioner university and to point out deficiencies, if any"  So we see there is a big difference in which the secondary source has rephrased the primary source which makes it much more negative than it really is.  the court telling ugc to go and find problems is far more harsh and negative than the court saying that UGC can go if they want to and if any problems are there point them out.  They have just stated the role of UGC towards any university as it is not really mandatory for ugc to inspect but they may do if they want to.  So what is to be done in such a case where there is a conflict between the primary and secondary source?  It does not seem to be right to put wrong information in the public domain by the wrong interpretation by a secondary source when the primary source clearly says something different.  I would appreciate your guidance.  Rahulpandey1 (talk) 13:04, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The secondary source, because you are using your own opinion to interpret the primary source. You say the primary source is less negative, but we can't actually tell that without understanding the full context for the statement. If you found a different secondary source with a different interpretation, then we'd have a more complex case. Or if there was a radical difference between the primary and secondary sources, we might question the reliability of the secondary source (and if we rejected it, we'd leave the info out entirely). But here, the two sentences are very similar, in my opinion, not enough to justify excluding the secondary source. Qwyrxian (talk) 13:14, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: i would like to humbly submit that there is a huge difference between the court directing an agency to go and inspect and saying that it is open to go for inspection.  One is an order and one is  an option.  It is like the difference if a court orders someone to be hanged or says that it is open to be decided whether they should be hanged.  In words there may be less difference but in meaning there is huge difference.  Rahulpandey1 (talk) 13:55, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: if you agree the best thing would be as you suggested to remove it.Rahulpandey1 (talk) 14:37, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

text: this Times of India Article  clarifies that a University does not need AICTE approval. Thus a University can never be on the negative list of AICTE. Rahulpandey1 (talk) 03:35, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: From the referenced livemint article: "The government’s regulator, the All India Council for Technical Education (AICTE), has also advised students to avoid 168 “unapproved colleges” earlier this year. The list includes Amity." Just because a university is not required to have AICTE does not mean that AICTE cannot have 2 lists: 1 list that says "approved" and another list that says "don't go here". Even if you are correct that Amity doesn't need AICTE approval does not mean that AICTE can't explicitly make a negative finding against that university. Qwyrxian (talk) 03:38, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  AICTE 

message: The below sources (primary IET website and secondary from EduTech a leading education journal) show that Amity University has IET accreditation. 
www.theiet.org/academics/accreditation/int-progs.cfm
www.edu-leaders.com/content/delegation-six-foreign-universities-visit-amity-university
Rahulpandey1 (talk) 14:31, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: lots of places give "accreditation" and "ratings" and "warnings". why would we decide to include this rating and not the one that says "WARNING DO NOT ATTEND" ?? -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 14:48, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Rahulpandey1 (talk) 15:51, 12 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The edu-leaders article does appear to be a reliable source, and thus I believe the information can be included. Also, TRPoD, what is your secondary source for your claims of negative ratings? Qwyrxian (talk) 00:27, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: while edu leaders does appear to be a reliable third party source, this particular bit appears to be simply a press release regurgitation (and the full version) of which slightly cut and reordered versions appeared in Press Trust of India, IBN Live, Times of India etc. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:13, 13 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The fact that they drew the info from a press released does not actually make this a press release. As far as I can tell, edu-leaders is an independent organization, has an editorial staff that makes sound editorial decisions, and thus presumably researches facts. There is no reason to believe that said article is a press release in the sense that it is not a reliable source.  Additionally, it presents simple facts in neutral language about an event involving multiple groups. The information is valid and worth keeping, and thus I reverted your removal. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:12, 14 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  IET 

message: Does the fact that every university issues honorary doctorates lead to that it should not be written about on a university page? Like this there are so many facts on a university page which are done at all universities. Rahulpandey1 (talk) 07:41, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: there are zero credentials or criteria regarding who a university gives out an honorary degree. they are like candy and for the university and someone wanting to know about the university from an encyclopedic perspective, they provide zero information or knowledge and serve only as promotional hoopla with the school attempting to ingratiate itself by "fame by association". -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 16:53, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  there are so many universities that list their honorary doctorates. Will you go to all and delete the entries? Some are listed below for your reference. 
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Hofstra_University_honorary_degree_recipients
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/University_of_Gothenburg#Honorary_degrees
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rhode_Island_School_of_Design#Honorary_Doctorate_of_Fine_Arts
Rahulpandey1 (talk) 17:14, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: that other pages have crap in them that they shouldnt is not a valid excuse to allow crap in additional articles. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 21:42, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, please feel free to remove that info from other articles. Any university can award an honorary degree to anyone for any reason. It doesn't mean anything. Now, the people might include the honorary degrees on their page, because they can say it's recognition of themselves, but they university can't list it, because they're the ones that decided who to award them to. A university could, for example, decide to award an honorary degree to everyone who's ever won a Nobel Prize...but that wouldn't mean anything other than that they decided to grant such a degree. Rahul, I'm seriously beginning to believe that you are unable to edit this article in a WP:NPOV manner. If you should continue to attempt to push such blatant puffery into this article, I may have to ask for sanctions. Qwyrxian (talk) 23:22, 16 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: thank you for the advice. I am still learning. I have been looking at other university pages to understand how they are structured and was just following that thinking that if something is allowed on so many pages it would be on others also. Rahulpandey1 (talk) 03:22, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: the issue has been brought up at the conflict of interest notice board if anyone wishes to comment. Wikipedia:COIN#Amity_University -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:31, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

text: The WSJ/Mint is not presenting it as opinion. it passed through their editorial board and is presented as fact. we therefore present it as fact unless there are other reliable sources that make different claims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 03:55, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The London Evening Standard calls Amity University India's Oxbridge http://live.standard.co.uk/Event/Thread.aspx?Id=71822/57790860 Rahulpandey1 (talk) 10:15, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: no, the london standard doesnt - that is a user generated post in a liveblog-- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:08, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: It is on the London Evening Standard website and says it is reported by Pippa Crerar (the City Hall Editor at the Evening Standard - http://www.standard.co.uk/biography/pippa-crerar-city-hall-editor).   — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rahulpandey1 (talk • contribs) 15:09, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

text: As per the New Times Amity is a leading global education group from India. http://allafrica.com/stories/201212170094.html Rahulpandey1 (talk) 13:04, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: the all africa site Content on this site includes reports, speeches, press releases and announcements from governments, non-governmental organizations and other newsmakers, inside and outside of Africa. ... Hundreds of organizations supply press releases and other material, and we select the most newsworthy. While it may be "newsorthy", a press release from Amity is still a press release and cannot be used as a source for unduly self serving claims. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: you would have seen that the all africa site has aggregated the news printed by the New Times which is a daily newspaper.  The logo of the newspaper is clearly given as well as the name of the journalist.  I do not know how you are saying this is a press release.  I am still giving the link of the newspaper itself :  http://www.newtimes.co.rw/news/index.php?a=61825&i=15207 Rahulpandey1 (talk) 15:14, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: as per the Economic Times, Amity University is a premier university which offers premier facilities for all its students in the best of work and study environments . http://articles.economictimes.indiatimes.com/2008-10-19/news/28479878_1_amity-university-isb-rajat-guptaRahulpandey1 (talk) 18:19, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  are these enough examples to offset the Mint view? Rahulpandey1 (talk) 18:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)

text: you are correct, I was just going by the highly visible co-branding effort - the Mint itself is owned by HT. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 13:21, 17 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Honorary Degrees 

message: As per the links above, in 2012 the LondonnEvening Standard calls Amity University the Oxford or Cambridge of India Rahulpandey1 (talk) 02:31, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I'd go with the Mint report. The London Standard Oxbridge remark is a throw away one. The Economic Times article is gibberish and 'premier' doesn't mean anything. The New Times piece is merely a fluff piece and is best ignored. THe Mint article seems better researched and more nuanced. Frankly, I'd drop all these gratuitous references to Oxbridge and Premier and rephrase the mint stuff in the more nuanced way that we see in the article. I haven't heard of Amity before but, on reading about it, it seems like a nascent project with a lot of promise and a lot of risk. That's what the article should bring out. And, all this should be in the history section. What does 'Reception' mean in the context of a university? --regentspark (comment) 02:56, 19 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: I agree with RegentsPark comment above. I've summarized the Mint report (see discussions over the inclusion below), and am removing the London Standard Oxbridge and Economic Times remark.  Wifione Message 18:33, 24 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Perception  

message: If no one objects, I'll merge the contents of that article into this one. --regentspark (comment) 16:49, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Are they independent degree granting universities with no connection except for the foundation? Either way, I think it better for now to put everything in one article. As this gets larger, we can think of breaking it up. Also, do you have dates for when the university was founded, when the first class was started, when it was recognized, etc? If yes, could you add it - along with sources - in the history section. --regentspark (comment) 18:29, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: support the merger. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 18:31, 21 December 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  [[Amity University Rajasthan]] 

message: I've included NPOV material from Wall Street Journal Live Mint sources. I've also deleted unsubstantiated comments from the article. I've reorganized the history and recognition section sequentially from 2005. These are notable issues and should not be deleted. Also, as per the Wall Street Journal Live Mint source, one of the main controversies dogging Amity University is the Chauhan's fraud charges in Germany. Post analysing editors' comments above, I still cant's see how we cannot include one line from this article summarizing this, especially as the controversy directly connects with Amity. Therefore, instead of having a full paragraph on the Chauhans, I have simply quoted the straight line from the Wall Street Journal article that connects the issue. Thanks.  Wifione Message 12:54, 21 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: changes were made after a lot of discussions with multiple editors. we should not revert back to the same old position after so much effort 203.196.135.20 (talk) 08:28, 22 January 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Wifone's addition seems to be good. It's only 2 sentences, so now it does not seem to fail WP:UNDUE.  More tellingly, you took the opportunity to remove other content that was clearly agreed upon above (about the "colleges to avoid").  I have reinstated Wifone's additions. Qwyrxian (talk) 08:17, 23 January 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  NPOV absence 

message: If we see in the MINT Article by Alison Granito, the following footnotes have been added to correct what has been said by the journalist in the article:
"The Delhi High Court order reiterated the roles of the UGC and the state and central governments. It said that while state and central governments had the right to licence and recognize universities, UGC had no role in this. If UGC were to list universities on its website, it would have to list all. However, the court added that UGC did have the right to inspect universities.
The All India Council of Technical Education is not empowered to accredit or recognize universities, although it does have the right to accredit and recognize technical programmes being offered by universities."
From this is becomes clear that 
1. UGC has no role in recognition of Universities.  2.  The court said that UGC has the right to inspect universities (which is just reiterating the current law.  
Thus to say in the wikipedia article that UGC has not recognised Amity University and that the court directed UGC to go and inspect Amity to find faults is wrong. 
3.  AICTE does not accredit or recognise universities.  Thus it is clear that Amity Universities licence could not have been revoked by AICTE nor could Amity University have been included in a list of unapproved colleges.  
Thus the wrong information needs to be corrected in the WIkipedia Article
Rahulpandey1 (talk) 13:49, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: we report what the sources say, we do not interpret or extrapolate from what they say. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 17:12, 6 May 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: I have to agree with TRPOD. I don't see how the additional comments in any way alter the main text of the article. If there was actually something incorrect, we have to presume that MINT would have explicitly said so (something like "The article originally said..." or "We retract..."). Qwyrxian (talk) 01:29, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

text: Did MINT print a public retraction? If not, we cannot use it. A private letter will never be a reliable source. Qwyrxian (talk) 12:35, 11 June 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  MINT Article  

message: No where has anyone mentioned when the first campus freshers were inducted. Under history, they have taken great interest in talking about 120 students and so on but can someone kindly fill this gap. Is it 5-10 years old, or a 1000 ?
They mention patents, how come there is no section of notable alumni ?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.172.201.104 (talk) 16:48, 9 October 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Added dates, its 2003.Travick1 (talk) 17:25, 22 October 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  Founding or Started Date 

message: Amity Law School seems to be the law branch of main institution, Amity University. A merger and redirect with Amity University would be best way to extend the main article keeping the verifiability in mind. It is requested that please give your feedback below on this merger as  and  . Thank you! — CutestPenguinHangout 17:36, 22 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: ... because there is difference between WP:Move and WP:Merge. — CutestPenguinHangout 14:16, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: Oh right! I misquoted it. So why not use WP:MERGE guidelines? §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {T/C} 16:58, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
replies: text: On the article Amity Law School a merger is proposed since November 2012 but I can't see any progress so thought to use RfC and I don't think there any violation of misuse, is there any? — CutestPenguinHangout 17:03, 23 September 2014 (UTC)

text: My impression is that merge looks like a good idea. The stubby Law School article would benefit from the surrounding context in this article. My only hesitation is that I see Amity University has twenty four campuses across India and internationally. In time this article may grow overlarge and require a split-by-campus or something, but I see no indication that's happening any time soon. The merge looks good,  Be Bold. If no one is objecting to a merge you can just take the RfC down any time you like. Alsee (talk) 20:31, 23 September 2014 (UTC)
thread_title:  RfC: Merger proposal, should [[Amity Law School]] to be merged with [[Amity University]]? 

message: Both articles are on the same university. Location might be different but makes no point in having 2 articles on the same university. Lakun.patra (talk) 09:48, 21 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: How can you say that notability is questionable? Please throw some light!Arifjwadder (talk) 07:00, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: Please also see the website of University Grants Commission (http://www.ugc.ac.in/privateuniversitylist.aspx?id=8&Unitype=3)  to find out whether it is an independent university in relation to other Amity or not.Arifjwadder (talk) 07:13, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  The onus is on you to prove that they are notable individually. And please follow WP:INDENT. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 07:21, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  One must accept the fact that the reason is already given. And again; INDENT. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:27, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  That is what I am asking as I am unable to get 'independent notability of each campus is questionable' written by you!Arifjwadder (talk) 09:31, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  You have to show us how the Gurgaon branch itself passes WP:GNG. All the IITs and IIMs would pass that, but this one seems doubtful. Also, the content was more or less same. So there is no point in having two separate articles. The separate legal status of both campuses doesn't really matter much. §§Dharmadhyaksha§§ {Talk / Edits} 09:52, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  There is not enough notability for all the branches of Amity universities for stand-alone articles. Even the official website (as per the article) is same for both unlike IIMs which Arifjwadder had compared previously. May be at a later point of time as and when the universities become notable they can be forked into separate articles. Lakun.patra (talk) 09:59, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  As all the university is managed by Ritnand Balved Education Foundation (RBEF), New Delhi and the management is same for all the university, it might be a reason for having a same website. So far legality is concerned all the universities are separate and has been established by separate state legislation. Its separate identity is very much clear from the website of UGC (http://www.ugc.ac.in/privateuniversitylist.aspx?id=8&Unitype=3) and AIU (http://www.aiuweb.org/members/membersa.asp). It can be also accessed through the govt of Indias site (http://mhrd.gov.in/state-private-universities)Arifjwadder (talk) 10:25, 22 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Concur with the above references.EyThink (talk) 19:12, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text: If that's the sourcing you are going by, it fails to be third party and so validates the merge proposal. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:16, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Why would not anybody go? Those are definitely third party government websites. It passes third party. It is far better then any other third party sources. EyThink (talk) 19:22, 26 September 2015 (UTC)

text: none of those are rationale that establish WP:GNG has been met. the only third party coverage is that someone committed suicide on campus and that there was a conference held there. see also WP:FRANCHISE. -- TRPoD aka The Red Pen of Doom 19:15, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  Those reference in government site establishes its separate entity and as mentioned by you about third party coverage on campus and conference is adding weight to it. Please see that all the campus is having separate Vice-Chancellors which means those are separate university. EyThink (talk) 19:26, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
replies: text:  User talk:TheRedPenOfDoom Also please see http://www.hindustantimes.com/gurgaon/amity-manesar-must-share-info-under-rti-haryana-panel/story-IDhSFsUjBgqaNRh1wFQBDK.html.EyThink (talk) 19:33, 26 September 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposed merge with [[Amity University, Gurgaon]] 

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified  on Amity University. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150710021738/http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/india-best-universities-ranking-private-sector-survey/1/272876.html to http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/india-best-universities-ranking-private-sector-survey/1/272876.html
When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at ).
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 19:50, 11 October 2016 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: As to my removal of content, over the article, I would like to state :--
*Non-profit is sheer nonsense. Don't ask me to believe that these business-oriented money-minting ventures, charging hordes for each student, exist for causes, so noble. Provide me at least two intellectually independent reliable sources that describe it in such a fashion and I will concede. Otherwise, it's typical vanity-speak.
*More business-spam as to mentioning the multiple locations. Mention those campuses only, which have got an UGC clearance.
*WASC, AIU, IET and ACU all seem to be bodies with hardly any relevance to the education system. They exists and Amity is a member. Without denying that, how is that any encyclopedic? Which media house has devoted significant coverage to either Amity's membership of the organisation or about the organization and it's activities? This in entirety resembles a common business practice by these institutes to be a member of a large number of bodies, (whose activities are as scarcely known to me, as are to them), so that their brochures can colorfully mention how many bizarre-heavynamed-organisations, they are part of, which ought to attest their greatness. I bet that there exists an association for every permutation chosen from the set of the words:- Indian, American, Engineering, Technology, Quality, College, Association, Foundation, Commonwealth, South-Asian et al with some suitable preposition, interjected in between. 
*We are not a directory of all courses offered by them.
*Education rankings by random media-units does not matter for they have no expertise or relevance in determining the comparitive quality of an institution. QS is famed worldwide for such studies, which justifies it's usage. NIRF is the official ranking parameter used by MHRD, India, which subsequently justifies it's usage.Both have it's criticisms, though. I need to dig up old threads but there has been a discussion on the locus, with a broad consensus to avoid mentioning these media-rankings. 
°©∯WBGconverse 16:41, 15 October 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Removal of content