Talk:Indian Institute of Planning and Management/Archive 2

message: IIPM is a higly controversial nstitutre and the word "highly controversial" shouldn't be edited.
This is already been mentioned in the first paragraph. Redundancy will be removed
PeaSea 15:23, 26 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: IIPM is a highly controversial Institute

message: Ravikiran,
Some more changes are recommended. First, the C-fore claim of receiving complaints from IIPM students and alumni is only a claim and has no evidence. So either we can put "C-Fore claimed" or use the statement that I've put out there. Second, even before C-Fore's 'claim', IIPM had complained to Outlook about C-Fore demanding money for advertisements. Mr. Sandipan Deb would be able to confirm that very easily. By the way, he's now with Indian Express. In case that is tough, I can source a quote from IIPM itself which we could put up here. But then, the standard of both IIPM's statements and C-Fore's statements, including the grammer usage, should be fair and the same. Third, I've shifted two statements up and down in the same paragraph. And cut part of the last statement where I've changed the statement to "Thereon IIPM continued advertising". Fourth, the statement that Outlook advertised that IIPM was not revealing facts is wrong. Outlook's notice to IIPM and its advertisements were clearly referring to the fact that IIPM was not disclosing the year of the Outlook ranking in its advertisements. So the statement has been appropriately changed. Regards, NC
<Blockquote>I have added an RFC on some important questions on this article. Please give your comments at Talk:Indian Institute of Planning and Management/RFC --Ravikiran 14:02, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes made to the ranking paragraph

message: Inventingfacts is right. I have a Ph.D in the sciences, and am peer reviewed. A research article HAS to be peer reviewed, and go through the loops of being accepted by a scholarly publication before becoming a research article. Publication in any paper, self published website, local newspaper, magazines like outlook etc., do not consitute research. Please avoid prostituting the word to suit your convenience. Dictionary.com can and will not be taken as authoritative in a debate. At this rate, even you will even claim that IIPM's adverts are research articles because it uses english words which are verifiable by dictionary.com. STOP. LOOK. UNDERSTAND! PROCEED.  
Research is not about making a flag out of your toilet paper and sticking it someplace where you can point to it. Pointing to such stuff only makes you look stupid. Research is about consensus, debate, verification, and repeatability. The research community has to verify that this is indeed the case. I would now suggest that we look at how these magazines are run to see what they mean by research. 
Meanwhile, the chomskyguy, I would like to ask you how much of what you find in the astrological review or horoscope carts you find being sold by jyothishis is research? IIPM can *claim* to do stuff, but it cannot be research. Your rubber-band like command over your imagination is commendable meanwhile. This is childish. The operative word in all of IIPM's activities is *claim*. Please use the word liberally.
Meanwhile, just out of curiosity, where is IIPM getting so much money to fund such activity?
------
I'm quite sure they're funded by Dubai-based dons... - especially now that they are in movies et al
--Drnoamchomsky 05:36, 28 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Research statement is bogus hence deleted

message: My edits are being reverted. Specifically this line at the beginning without any reason being provided
Recognition
-	The Institute hasn't been accredited by any Indian accredition agency or University such as AICTE, UGC or under other state acts. The institute's degrees are conferred by an unknown agency called IMI Europe, which has been called a diploma mill organisation. IMI has its headquarters in Belgium. As of today, the degrees awarded by IIPM are not recognised anywhere in the world, including India, where it conducts its operations, or Belgium where it awards its degrees.
<BR/>
Please refer to Wiki's rules on citing. You cannot state pruported facts without citing them. Further, you cannot give your opinion as a fact, or at all, actually.
--Drnoamchomsky 05:26, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Article misleads reader into believing that actual degrees are awarded 

message: I rest my case. I will wait until tonight for Ravikiran to undo his revert and INCLUDE all the other factual citations I had made, along with the uploaded relevant images.
This RFC was based on a supposed 'lie'. That cannot be in question any longer.
I have also uploaded to the discussion page a series of other scans, and hope to add them to the main page. 
Regards
--Drnoamchomsky 07:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  BUSINESS TODAY SCAN OF PAGE 96 

message: Sandeep's statement to the unnamed publication was added by an IP editor ([dif]. When I google for it, wikipedia is the only hit that I get. Do we have any good reference to back it up ?
It now reads - When sent a questionnaire by a leading business publication, IIPM is supposed to have responded with this statement which was attributed to A.Sandeep, Dean of the instuitution. 'Supposed to have' is a strange phrase to use - this long paragraph appeared somewhere, but we don't know where ? 
Either way, when more reputed publications like Businessworld start coming up with their observations, we should look to lessen our reliance on unnamed sources and blogs. Tintin 14:42, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Here Will need to weave it into the story though. --Ravikiran 19:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: Thanks, that atleast confirms it as real. This is the first time that I have seen photos of the people concerned, so thanks for that too. Tintin 17:14, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Sandeep's statement 

message: Hi guys, it's just a request to all of you. Given the fact that I am trying to ensure that facts are not biased in your article, the last few comments of mine have only elicited very negative responses from you. All I am requesting is that if you guys can give me an opportunity, I can put across a few points that could go some way in improving the focus of the article. I'll await your responses eagerly. Thanks and regards...
: Well if you are  Metalmaverick, your  contributions so far consist of deleting entire sections of the article you did not like, and making utterly nonsensical claims about copyright over the strings "IIPM" and "Indian Institute of Planning and Management". We are supposed to assume  good faith here, so if you want to make better contributions, you are welcome to do so. --Ravikiran 19:27, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Metalmaverick's request 

message: Ravi & others - should the blogs like the two (Amit Varma & Desipundit) currently under the external links sections be  retained ? I don't have a strong opinion but my preference would be to remove them. Tintin 22:58, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think Desipundit link is important as it supports something that is mentioned in the article - the reaction of the Blogosphere. Amit's post on the other hand, is a secondary source for something we already have a primary source for - Gaurav's stand. So I think that it can be removed. --Ravikiran 05:15, 28 October 2005 (UTC)

text: Incidentally, Amit's post adds one more piece of information - about Rashmi's claim that a group of people from IIPM entered the office of JAM and accused her of defamation and stuff. I think that should be part of the article, but it can as well be sourced from the OJR article above. --Ravikiran 05:23, 28 October 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Blogs 

message: :Subsequently, a lot of IIPM's advertising and blog venom has been directed at this magazine as it was towards Outlook earlier, however in typical IIPM style, the information in their adverts has been 'dubious'. For example, the Planman Consulting, IIPM's Consulting arm which runs a magazine called Business and Economy believes that this article by BusinessWorld is driven by 'jealousy'. B&E claims that they have 30 per cent of the business magazine market - a number unsubstantiated by either any readership survey, according to which B&E isn't even listed or any circulation figures. B&E claims a circulation of 57,000 but this number is unaudited.
This paragraph, added by  203.101.1.122 needs to be toned down and sourced if possible. Do we have a cite for the claim that it is IIPM making those allegations? I do know that a lot of blogs from purported IIPM students make those allegations. The last sentence might be needed in an article on the magazine Business and Economy, not here. --Ravikiran 17:57, 29 October 2005 (UTC)
replies: text: I think the time has come for a rewrite of Coverage in Indian media. It has become too long and we need to arrange and weed out the things under it on the basis of their importance. Tintin 12:36, 1 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Problematic paragraph

message: Hey editors, I was wondering whether Wikepedia is for giving out overall information about an institution; or is it to just give information about one happening? The IIPM information you have given, starting from the first paragraph where you write -IIPM was involved in a "major" controversy-       till the last line, all seem to talk just about one part of IIPM.
Do kindly give me info whether this is the drift that wikepedia is supposed to maintain?
Thanks
: Articles on Wikipedia are never complete. If you can add factual, well cited information that has nothing to do with the controversy about this great institute, then please do so. Unfortunately, while we have had people deleting large chunks of the article and we have people asking for deletion of the entire article on the rather ridiculous ground that mentioning "IIPM" without permission is a copyright violation, we've had hardly anyone make constructive edits that would do the institute credit. I think that most of the editors of this article (me included) know of the institute only from the controversy that it has created for itself. 
:Given that IIPM has sent out legal notices to people and that reputable magazines and newspapers have written about it, it seems a fair characterization to describe it as a "major" controversy -- Ravikiran 08:38, 2 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Clarification Required about Wikipedia and IIPM

message: # I have moved the entire previously existing Faculty section to Talk:The Indian Institute of Planning and Management/Faculty so that anyone who wants to mention specific names can weave that in. In its place, I've mentioned a brief description of the experience and educational qualifications of the Faculty and "Guest Faculty".
# I've replaced the huge photographs of IIPM's infrastructure with thumbnails. I've also replaced the previously vague criticisms with specific ones.
# I've removed the huge images of  Arindam Chaudhuri accepting some award from Deora as irrelevant. 
# Will someone please (pretty please!) do the long overdue overhaul of the controversy and coverage section? 
--Ravikiran 13:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)
replies: text:  I was just going to put in this comment giving the rationale for the reverts when I saw your comment. Here go:
# As IIPM's credibility has been under question quite a bit, I think that we cannot take its claims to all those associations with reputable organizations like Nestle, UNDP etc. at face value. Any such linkages needs to be supported by references to those organizations' websites which verify those associations. 
# Saying that the UGC and AICTE are "tools for politicians to make money" is POV. They cannot go into the article. Similarly, whether the JAM article fails to note something or not is irrelevant here. This is an article about the institutute, not about the fairness of those articles.
# The claim that IMI Europe is a diploma mill has been cited properly. It has not been stated as a fact. It has been sourced to someone else. 
# Whether Rashmi Bansal and Gaurav Sabnis are IIM alumni or not is not really relevant here. To the extent that IIPM thinks that it is relevant, IIPM's statement has been reproduced in full here. 
# We are only saying that Gaurav Sabnis claimed that IIPM threatened IBM. The article is taking no stand on whether the threat actually took place. The fact that IBM has not confirmed the threat is also noted here. 
# Discussions about whether blogs are bitchy etc. really ought to go into an article about the Indian Blogosphere. How are they relevant in an article about IIPM? 
In fairness, I have removed the following two statements as they are unsourced and POV.  
It was reported that Arindam Chaudhuri, the owner of the institution went around to several media offices including the Times of India and BusinessWorld in Delhi asking them to bury the story. However, he did not clear up several of the allegations made by the blogging community.
Subsequently, a lot of IIPM's advertising and blog venom has been directed at this magazine as it was towards Outlook earlier, however in typical IIPM style, the information in their adverts has been 'dubious'. For example, the Planman Consulting, IIPM's Consulting arm which runs a magazine called Business and Economy believes that this article by BusinessWorld is driven by 'jealousy'. B&E claims that they have 30 per cent of the business magazine market - a number unsubstantiated by either any readership survey, according to which B&E isn't even listed or any circulation figures. B&E claims a circulation of 57,000 but this number is unaudited. 
--Ravikiran 12:21, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Latest bunch of changes

message: The following points deserve to be on the IIPM Wiki, for fairness' sake:
1. Prof. Arindam Chaudhuri is repeatedly referred to as Dean. He is the Honorary Dean, according to the Prospectus of the institute.
2. BW article's comments on faculty are one side of the coin. Doesn't the other side, regarding the journals and research activity , deserve to also be alongside this information?
3. On Guest Faculty, the line saying there is controversy, is not NPOV. Needs to be qualified much more if it is to remain, or be edited for NPOV. After all, how many b-schools bring foreign faculty to India for their students? This sincere effort should not be shot down unilaterally by Wiki.
4. Infrastructure - The entire paragraph starting with Detractors, is severely biased. There is not evidence or citation, except for Jammag, which is severely outdated and itself incorrect. Especially since numerous newspaper reports, news pictures have appeared with all the infrastructure apparent.
5. B-school rankings - both Business TOday and India today have ranked IIPM. SO has Business Barons. No mention of these here? In fact, the only mention of rankings is the Outloo C-Fore withdrawal. 33 years of educational institution - one corrupt ranking authority - and this is Wiki's portrayal?
6. Advertising strategy - Inflated or unverifiable claims - what sort of a topic is that? unverifiable? ANd beginning of 2005 is now a year old - all newspapers have carried stories of IIPM's wi-fi netowrk and laptops...
7. Sister concerns is completely inaccurate and incomplete. If it is to be mentioned at all, it should be mentioned in full, not in such a offhand manner. 
Please do help me to address these issues for the IIPM Wiki. Once resolved, the article will be closer to Wiki standards.
Regards
Drnoamchomsky 10:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Core Information on IIPM being removed 

message: I feel that the title of this page should be "Indian Institute of Planning and Management" and not "The Indian Institute of Planning and Management". --Lettherebelight | Talk 09:40, 8 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Title of this page 

message: I have brought back this sentence "Detractors  complain of non-existent infrastructure and misrepresentation in promotional messages. Most of these criticisms relate to the infrastructure in centres other than its New Delhi campus. " which was removed by "Dr Chomsky" as uncited. 
This has two cites, including Jam Magazine and Business world magazine. Businessworld has a direct quote from Arindam Choudhury that it has only one campus and the other places are just branches. The fact that the advertisements don't make it clear is important to note --Ravikiran 16:49, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Detractors" have been cited 

message: I've placed the doubts on the genuineness of the legal notice to Varna in their proper place chronologically, and  cited Varna's blog post directly. Why cite Supriya's "analysis" when we have the primary information?
--Ravikiran 17:19, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Varna's post on headers of her email notice 

message: IIPMStudent9's blogpost has been cited in the references and DrNoamChomsky had linked to it in the rankings section before I removed it. 
That post makes a lot of claims about media coverage of IIPM which in principle can be verified, but unfortunately he/she gives no concrete references whatsoever. For example "refer Hindustan Times", but where? which day's? Is there a link? Similarly it makes some claims about Outlook asking for money etc. which as a student he/she would be in no position to know. If IIPM has alleged that C-Fore asked for money, where has it alleged? Has it put out a statement or something? If so, may be we can get a direct cite from somewhere? 
Similarly
<Blockquote>Other publications, including India TOday, Business TOday and Business Barons, have placed IIPM in the TOp 10 on various parameters...
</Blockquote>
If indeed this is true, it should be possible to get atleast one link directly to these rankings. If someone can get that, it would be great. Otherwise, I would like to know from the others should one person's completely unsourced factual claims be retained? --Ravikiran 17:18, 12 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  IIPMStudent9 

message: Overhauled, and will await Ravikiran's comment, based on which I am always willing to re-edit:
- Removed educational supplements, as almost all ads are now in mainline papers
- Number of students taken from The Economist 2005 ranking (online edition publicly available Dec 2005, print edition Feb 2006, IIPM is ranked 74th worldwide)
- IBM internal figures on laptop sales, can be cross-checked with Gaurav Sabnis (blogger inveterate), who got fired because 3000 laptops were more important than him (not to mention the prospect of annuity busines of 3000 laptops)
- Named the newspapers as per IIPM's media plan, qualified ads as full page (look out for a new double page ad this month)
- Did not challenge the (under)estimate by Economic Times. Arindam Sen Gupta at ET is a friend, and wouldnt want egg on his face.
- Replaced 'Cluttered' with 'large amounts', as 'cluttered' is POV.
- Referenced India Today and Tomorrow, which reaches over a 100 million Indians, making it the largest column by readership, EVER!
- Removed 'inflated claims' - Wi-fi is present and being used everywhere by students with laptops in all branches. 100% placement was never claimed in ads, and the prospectus specfically mentions IIPM is not a placement agency. The ads clearly state the campus (and not the towers) has a swimming pool. Other claims are out of date.
--Drnoamchomsky 11:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Advertising Strategy 

message: Dear Ravikiran,
W.r.t your edit on 14 Nov at )04:27, where you deleted the quote from SAndeepan Deb and the link to IIPM Student 9's blog - please find the quote in the third column of the HT article that is scanned alongside the text. The heading of this article is "B-school fudges...". I'm assuming good faith on your part, and am not reverting your changes. Please let me know.
Thanks, and best wishes as always,
--Drnoamchomsky 11:01, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Position in Indian b-school rankings 

message: Dear Ravikiran,
I am surprised at your RFC, and the tone, and the allegations made.
I have been trying to learn Wiki rules and etiquette, and have NEVER purposely flouted them.
I urge you to place greater faith in me, and other fellow members who have recently found Wiki. I love the mission, and zeal, and enterprise, and principles, that drive this community.
I have learnt a great deal from you.
Hope you see the screenshots and verify them, and do as you see fit with the reverts. 
Hoping we can be friends
--Drnoamchomsky 18:38, 14 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  Good Faith 

message: Ravikiran,
You deleted a edit of mine that had the UNDP and IMF partnership with IIPM.
Here's the proof.
I'm not sure how to link to PDF files - so I've linked ot it as an image now. Kunal, please help if you could?'''
You have been consistently doubting my good faith. Please reconsider.
regards
--Drnoamchomsky 11:04, 15 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  IIPM - Key partner for UNDP 

message: I rest my case. I will wait until tonight for Ravikiran to undo his revert and INCLUDE all the other factual citations I had made, along with the uploaded relevant images.
This RFC was based on a supposed 'lie'. That cannot be in question any longer.
I have also uploaded to the discussion page a series of other scans, and hope to add them to the main page. 
Regards
--Drnoamchomsky 07:35, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  BUSINESS TODAY SCAN OF PAGE 96 

message: User Nattycatty had inserted a paragraph about Dr. MK Chaudhuri's response to the controversey regarding his educational Qualifications. I have reverted it because the paragraph is not relevant to the article. No mention of the controversey has been made here anyway, and even if it was, the References section is not the appropriate section for it.
--Kunal 15:23, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: MK Chaudhuri's Qualifications

message: I've made the following changes to the Advertising Strategy section:
#I removed the line "(IIPM) is easily the largest b-school by number of students (3000 laptops were ordered from IBM Lenovo - the single largest order ever in laptop sales history)" as it is uncited, and frankly irrelevant to the Advertising Strategy section.
#I've removed the description of the ToI as "the worlds largest English daily" as it is irrelevant in the IIPM article, and because the fact can be seen in the ToI article anyway (which I linked to from this article).
#I changed the image back to the one in the previous edit. This change was not cleared on the Talk Page.
#I think it has been conclusively proved that Dr. MK Chaudhuri is the Director of IIP, and that Arindam Chaudhuri is the Honourary Dean. These titles need not be added to every mention of their names.
#I've removed the line "Honorary Dean Prof. Arindam Chaudhuri has written about the ranking methodology prevalent in India today" as the article mentioned is not a part of an IIPM advertisement, and therefore irrelevant to the "Advertising Strategy" section.
--Kunal 05:33, 18 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title: Changes to Advertising Strategy Section

message: Apologies, I haven't been able to format this very well as I am in a hurry and am new to Wikipedia. Basically, since Ravikiran has (incorrectly and blatantly) accused me of lying, I am putting up these scans. Hope to take them down once the issue dies down...
Would appreciate it if someonce could tidy it up a bit...
--Drnoamchomsky 08:01, 17 November 2005 (UTC)
thread_title:  More scans to back up citations