Talk:Indian Institute of Planning and Management/Archive 10

message: Looks like that the article has been the centre of heated arguments and revert wars since the past one month. What I plan now is to divert those creative energies in actually improving the article.
First, it is important to understand what controversy really means. Something can be said to be controversial only if there are two contradicting viewpoints. If a magazine says something that IIPM denies, it is controversy. But if there is a fact that is accepted by everybody (like IIPM not being accredited by AICTE), then it should be included in article text under "education", and not controversy. The controversy section needs a lot of structuring as it is just a random collection of facts. The information present should be organised so that it is easy to understand.
Controversies apart, there are a lot more avenues in which the article can be improved. They are as follows:
# Organisational structure of IIPM: this can be sourced from self-published sources
# Campus and infrastructure: this can be improved a lot as the current coverage is very general and doesn't give details of individual campuses. Details can include land area, student capacity, facilities, faculty, etc.
# Admission: The article doesn't mention the admission procedures followed by IIPM. This can normally be from self-published sources.
# Research output: Is IIPM involved in research? Details (statistics) of publications in journals over the past years and possibly a comparative trend analysis.
# Faculty: More detailed coverage required. What is the spectrum of qualification of faculties (PhDs, non-PhDs, other degrees). Are the faculty common to all IIPMs or are there separate faculty for different IIPMs?
# Interaction with other IIPMs: Are the IIPMs independent? Or there are common links (other than at the top of organisational structure)
# Alumni: Needs expansion. Details of more alumni, and in structured format.
If these improvements are introduced in the article with proper citations, it would be great for the article as most of these are non-controversial. Apart from these things, a lot of cleanup is required. Institute's vision are mostly flowery and don't contribute much to the article. It is best to discuss what the institute does, and not what it thinks it intends to do. I will be removing it. Names of deans, faculty also don't contribute to the article unless they are well-known academics themselves.
While these improvements can go on, I will think of ways to deal with the controversy section with special care of NPOV. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 09:05, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Improving the article 

message: Just wanted to confirm...Isn't it true that IIPM used to offer MBA and BBA degrees, but withdrew them when UGC raised objection. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 17:43, 2 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Ambuj, brilliant editing till now. I'm reorganising the accredition para. Your call on whether you think it's ok or not. I think iipmstudent9 would be able to confirm whether IIPM was offering MBA, BBA degrees earlier and withdrew them later. As far as I know, IIPM never has offered degrees. Thanks, Mrinal Mrinal Pandey 12:52, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I've also changed the para bold structure. Apart from removing the unaccredited word from the first para (as it already has a section devoted) and I don't see on other b-school sites first introductory paragraphs whether they are unaccredited or accredited. If we do wish to continue putting the unaccredited term, then we need to put another line about why IIPM does not go in for accredtion. That'll make it too long. I've also renamed controversies to how it was put in one of the earlier versions, criticism... Thanks Mrinal Mrinal Pandey 13:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  The use of the word "unaccredited" in the first line is necessary. IIPM is an unaccredited school. It admits to being so. Acredition is a major factor about a school and for the article to be fully encycloapedic, it must include this fact in the introduction. There is of course a para for elabrating on it, which is fine. Makrandjoshi 05:00, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Accredition is a very important part of this article, and some people might even say that it is the most important part. But howsoever important, it still falls under the purview of "Education at IIPM", so it should be a sub-section of education and not a separate section. Similarly, GOP also falls under the purview of education. (Addendum: I am talking about section placement and not on the discussion whether "unaccredited" should appear in the lead.) — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 15:09, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IIPM degree 

message: Dear Ambuj, just wanted to clarify, I notice you've put many details on each one of the paragraphs. I'll add on to your paragraphs in the coming weeks. But I'll also add a few more paragraphs. For example, I wish to add paragraphs that are mentioned in other b-school sites (like visits etc); apart from also adding something on GOTA, which is the Global Opportunities and Threats Analysis programme which is a separate project of IIPM. Do tell me your views on that. Regards, Mrinal Mrinal Pandey 13:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Just be sure to back whatever you write with neutral references. I couldn't find any mention of GOTA outside of IIPM sites and a few blogs. Am not sure if it is notable enough for inclusion. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 14:58, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  IIPM article structure 

message: Dear Ganesh, I'm sorry I took so long in replying. Post Christmas, got totally busy in official work :-) But even now, don't have that much time to put in edit efforts. Just to refresh the issue context, though I notice you are not editing on this page (and I do appreciate that), I also again request you to kindly not edit this project till you are an administrator. Best regards always, Thanks, Mrinal Mrinal Pandey 13:04, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Ganesh's edits 

message: Hi Ambuj, I propose adding two more ranking details. One is the Outlook ranking of 2002, and another is the Business Barons ranking of 2003. Will wait for your inputs before adding them on the ranking site. Thanks Mrinal Mrinal Pandey 13:13, 4 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I am OK with Business Barons. But Outlook has already withdrawn its rankings, so using them, or an earlier version is not right. It should come with a rider that Outlook later withdrew rankings. Makrandjoshi 05:11, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I would suggest that only the latest rankings be included. If we include old rankings, it becomes necessary to clarify why old rankings are reported. The only context (in my opinion) where such a thing may be done is the case where the rankings over the years is discussed or when there is historical importance of the old ranking. The case of Outlook rank belongs to the second case, which means that its inclusion would necessitate adding the reason why they were revoked later. Both these things already exist in the article and in my opinion are vital for comprehensiveness of the article. I would suggest that only the latest ranking for Business Barons is included as there is no controversy associated with it. Again, the 2004 ranks are reported in the article, but since the 2006 ranks should be available, only the latest should be reported. As an additional note, I would like to say that educational ranking sections in most articles are biased in the sense that they only discuss the rankings in which the institute concerned has achieved good rankings. To maintain NPOV, rankings from wide variety of notable educational ranking surveys should be included irrespective of the fact whether the institute has higher or lower rankings. Similarly, if the institute has better rank under one criteria and worse under another, both should be reported. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 14:33, 5 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Man, just not getting enough time to sit on this page. How do you guys do it Ambuj? Anyway, I'll stick with having all rankings as the readers should note that the Outlook case is only one aberration out of various rankings over the years... Thanks and regards Mrinal Pandey 17:58, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Proposal to add two more ranking details 

message: I have done a major edit on the controversy section, primarily to bring flow to the facts mentioned. Almost every detail has been preserved in the copyedit, though there has been a lot of reshuffling. The only detail that I omitted was the reference to this article's text, as the IIPM mentioned in it is Indian Institute of Personnel Management, and not Indian Institute of Planning and Management. Please also note that there are some deliberate duplication of text between a few sections, which will take some more time to get fixed. This requires expansion of other sections in order to preserve the flow of the article text. If someone wants to do away with duplicated text, it's welcome though I would suggest waiting a bit otherwise it would introduce flow related problems in the article. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 14:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Like I mentioned Ambuj, I've not even be getting time to edit any part of this page. For example, I'll be helping you improve almost all the sections you've edited. And I also wish to include many other sections in-between. Time, time, time...phew... I guess I need till after Jan 22nd to jump on... Till then, handle the bow :-) Take care and best Mrinal Pandey 17:59, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: And yes, I've added back the tags that Mak had removed. Mrinal Pandey 18:09, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mrinal, can you clarify why you edited the article to say that IIPM never offered MBA/BBA degrees? If that were the case, why does the online prospectus (outdated) still mentions offering MBA/BBA degrees. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 18:41, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Ambuj, IIPM has never offered MBA/BBA degrees as far as I could check into the records. I'll check the online prospectus. My view is, even if it is outdated, I'll see it first and comment. Thanks and regards Mrinal Pandey 18:53, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Ambuj, I saw the IIPM prospectus. But I saw a lot of places saying BBA degrees, for example, are offered by IMI. Could you find a page that actually said IIPM offers the MBA degrees? I could not see it... Regards Mrinal Pandey 19:29, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Major edit to the Controversy section 

message: I have done my best to base the controversy section on universally accepted facts. All opinions have been duly attributed to their respective sources. I would like to ask all editors regarding their opinion on factual accuracy of the controversy section. I request them to point out claims that are either unattributed, and not universally accepted fact. For example, the content of the JAM's article may be debatable on factual accuracy, but the fact that JAM published the article with given content is not disputed. Once we establish the factual accuracy of the section, we can go ahead with neutrality clean-up. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 18:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I request the editors to avoid indulging in ad hominem arguments, and concentrate on the topic in discussion. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 19:01, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Dear Ambuj, Rashmi being the 'editor' of JAM, I believe your reference to not making ad hominem arguments would not be sufficient. In a similar manner to your having ad hominemly (I love the word now :-))written about Arindam Chaudhuri having won a gold medal at IIPM, an institute founded by his father, I believe you would be clearly having a double standard if you do not allow Rashmi's details to be put up. I'll put the same up again till I get your comments. Do feel free to cut it out if you feel your ad hominem comments are pertinent and mine aren't. Regards and best, Mrinal Pandey 19:07, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Ambuj, I guess you missed out the complete paragraph in your edit. I'm putting back your version. Kindly check and approve. Mrinal Pandey 19:10, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: I hope there are no double standards now. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 19:20, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Some more. But I'll wait for other editors' comments too till then. And you'll have to be patient with me till 22nd January I guess for finalising on the factual accuracy and neutrality of the section. Thanks and regards and good night... Mrinal Pandey 19:25, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Neutrality and factual accuracy of the controversy section 

message: The clarification that IIPM issued regarding the claims of Rashmi Bansal and Gaurav Sabnis ("We are stunned as to how the people from IIMs…") is shown to be sourced from the outlook article. However, on looking there, I find that it is not the case. Although I am sure of the accuracy of the transcripted clarification, can someone trace back the source and add it correctly. I copied it from the controversy article, but looks like nobody bothered to check the links of the source. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 19:26, 15 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Source missing 

message: Mrinal, copy-pasting my old comment on the talk page so that you wont have to look for it -
That IIPM is unaccredited is a fact, stated on its own website. This is not original research or biased viewpoint. Given that it is an unaccredited school, it is an important fact that should be mentioned in the begining, apart from the details of the accredition later. This is in conformation with wiki pages of several unaccredited institites e.g - http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adam_Smith_University http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Central_University http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Canbourne_University http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ellington_University http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Landford_University and dozens of other pages. Makrandjoshi 08:56, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: Mrinal, if you still don't agree with the use of the word "unaccredited", I would request you to raise a mediation request. I am convinced that mentioning it as unaccredited is encyclopaedic and does not violate any wiki policies. I am confident that mediators or even arbitrators will agree with me. By removing the word consistently without citing any valid wiki policy violation, you on the other hand are violating wiki policy. So far we have worked on this page amicably for almost a year in fact. Please do not force me to go into the complaint zone. Makrandjoshi 09:07, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  Your argument is a very subjective evaluation of accredition. All this comes under original research. Original research is not allowed on wikipedia. Wiki policy clearly states that cited facts must be stated. IIPM is not accredited. It mentions so even in the advertisements. If accredition means different things to different people, you can let them reach their own conclusions. By deleting completely validly and cited information on the basis of specious original research grounds repeatedly, you are guilty of vandalism. Either raise an rfm on this topic (you can raise it this time. last time you called Wiki's standard RFM format biased for some bizarre reason). Or stop deleting the unaccredited mention from the intro, and tampering with the position of the accredition paragraph. Makrandjoshi 10:13, 30 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title: Examples of introducing a school as unaccredited

message: Hello, boys. Please take a look at the formatting  ihave introduced to the ranking section. I think it looks very nice. Feel free to tweak it. I have not removed the Outlook ranking, although it serves no purpose (old and withdrawn)!--Iipmstudent9 17:46, 23 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Formatted rankings 

message: In today's advertisement in ToI, the IIPM mentions both MBA and BBA degrees as post-graduate degrees in management. They have finally dropped "superior to", etc. from their ads, and are now directly writing MBA/BBA. A note on the bottom of the ad states that IIPM conducts non professional and non technical courses, and states that IIPM does not teach foreign institute courses. The degree by IMI is in recognition of IIPM's excellence. I don't have the time to do the necessary update in facts and IIPM's stance on the issue. I request the editors to update the article. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 06:33, 29 January 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Degrees by IIPM 

message: There is no online link provided for the Business Barons ranking. It is thus suspected to be original research. iipmstudent9 and mrinal both objected to just dates, page number and edition of Hindustan Times being mentioned for the IMI belgium story, so it was removed. Applying same standards here. Makrandjoshi 00:04, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Business Barons ranking 

message: I have serious doubts regarding whether faculty members from US schools actually visited IIPM and conducted seminars. The only source of information is the IIPM website. Surely if a person as famous as Philip Kotler conducted a semianr, it would have been covered by the media. Please provide links of newspapers to verify this. Until then i have taken down that information. Makrandjoshi 00:14, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Global Outreach Program 

message: Dear Makrand, you cannot simply revert and or delete constructive changes. Please review the information provided in the Help pages. The object of Wikipedia is to build an encyclopaedic article. All the other editors can see that you are consistently trying to make this an attack page. Please refrain from this behavior immediately, or you will be banned by administrators.
For example, you deleted the information on rankings, which has been on the page for over a year, and has been linked to online sources, scanned pages provided, etc. You simply deleted it?
Further, you deleted the information on faculty the visit IIPM from global institutions - this information has been reviewed by many editors, and your act was pure vandalism.
Please look at the articles provided in the HELP section, and I am sure you will see the mistakes you have made.
Thanks
Iipmstudent9 06:45, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text: iipmstudent9, every deletion I have made has cited valid wiki policy. Please get reliable sources for the rankings. Something being on the page for a long does not make it true. Refer to this famous case http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Seigenthaler%2C_Sr.#Wikipedia_controversy
No matter how long something has been on the page, when it violates wiki policy, changes are valid. Makrandjoshi 21:54, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Makrand's lack of Wikiquette 

message: Recently went to Mumbai and Ahmedabad campus for IIM - A Chaos competition, and clicked these pics with friends. I'm sure our friendly vandal Makrand will revert this constructive effort, but I will prevail :)
Iipmstudent9 06:46, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
replies: text:  iipmstudent9, I have no problems with you adding pictures as long as they are not excessive. 3 seems fine to me. But you put them in the accredition and the admission section. I have moved them to the infrastructure section. Makrandjoshi 21:56, 2 February 2007 (UTC)
thread_title:  Added pics