Talk:Arindam Chaudhuri

message: In the page on Aridnam chaudhuri, data is false and misleading i request an edit. There are no credentials to establish Shri Aridnam as an economist, and he is certainly no management guru, He is just the dean of a college known as IIPM (redacting BLP attack). I request someone to please remove economist and management guru from this credentials as it can mislead people who read the page.
http://www.indiadaily.org/entry/the-great-indian-nightmare/
Saifnaik (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Well I remove guru as that was obviously fluff and qualified economist and added your link.  The references does not clearly state that he is not an economist, so see if there is a suitable reference for that. Also his involvement history with IIPM needs to be explained rather than just honorary dean. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  'Guru' has been restored by someone; I am removing it. To be considered an economist, at the very least, a person needs to have a degree from a recognized university. Arindam's 'degree' is from IIMP which is not recognized. That should be enough for removal of this self-proclaimed title. Kashif.h (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  I stand corrected. It seems that he does have degrees in Economics from Madras university. Kashif.h (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: And unfortunately, it doesn't matter whether a person has a degree or not (though I have to say that this criterion that you mention is a new one that I've heard around), what matters as per our policy on verifiability| is whether we have reliable sources confirming that he's a guru. And we do have that. Therefore, kindly do not delete the guru, unless you believe the source is not reliable. Thanks.   Wifione    ....... Leave a message 17:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

text: Thanks for your comment. I understand your point about including controversial content. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has very strict rules about biographies of living people (which were put in after a series of well-publicized scandals). In particular, for this incident, we need multiple, relaible and secondary sources. You will find the detailed definitions of these terms by following the links. For our case, it means that we cannot use non-reliable sources such as personal blogs/internet forums etc., and neither can we use primary sources such as newspaper op-eds even if they are published in otherwise reliable sources. A good list of available sources has been compiled below, along with comments as to why they can/cannot be used. Even after extensive search, we could only find 2 sources which satisfied these criteria, and their content has been included in the article giving due weight. If you can add to that list of sources, that would be extremely helpful. Thanks again, SPat talk 05:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Saifnaik, 4 June 2011 

message: Criticisms page needed.
http://m.timesofindia.com/PDATOI/articleshow/8954287.cms 
The following news article needs to be published in this page.
Saifnaik (talk) 07:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Also see IIPM sues Caravan, Google, Penguin for Rs 50 cr (IBNLive). utcursch | talk 15:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: The first link has completely got to do with IIPM and has little place in this BLP of an individual. The second piece is quite of the NOTNEWS variety - a story  on Chaudhuri gets removed due to a court order. So I ask, what long term encyclopedic worth do you make of this? Will wait for your response.   Wifione    ....... Leave a message 17:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text:  He has sued Google (world's biggest search engine), Penguin India (subsidiary of the largest trade book publisher in the world) Caravan (published by Delhi Press, one of India's largest magazine publishing houses). You do not think the cause for such action from Arindam is significant in his life?  Kashif.h ★ 09:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Arindam didn't sue. It was IIPM who sued. Though the article was about Arindam Sweet Smell of Success : True Story of Arindam Chaudhuri. I am hence undecided whether to include this or not. Anshuk (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request from Saifnaik, 24 June 2011 

message: Arindam Chaudhuri (Hindi: अरिंदम चौधुरी) is an Indian economist, management guru
and the source for that is this?? http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2004-09-03/delhi/27158332_1_top-cops-global-experts-arindam-chaudhuri
Seriously? Does Wikipedia consider paid news as a source for verifiability?  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.248.161.59 (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)
replies: text: Yes, of course. Why shouldn't we? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

text: I've just realised that I might have misunderstood your question. By "paid news" do you mean articles that we have to pay to access (which are perfectly acceptable) or articles that someone has paid to have published? If it's the latter then what makes you think that The Times of India was paid to publish the cited article? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)

text: Management "guru" is a tall claim and a matter of opinion.  It shouldn't feature so prominently on a BLP page.  I have changed it to "consultant" instead.  The onus of proving that the word "guru" is suitable for the lead paragraph falls on the user reinserting it. Telco (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Paid news for "verifiability"? 

message: I strongly protest that Telco has never been told once directly about this wrong view of NPA. I also think cutting out Management Guru in a separate sentence if not right, but I will not revert. But I am disappointed.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suraj845 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The 'Management Guru' itself is a flawed statement. Perhaps, 'Considered a Management Guru' would be more neutral. As for User:Telco, this is the first time I'm hearing of him. Perhaps you could explain the 'ganging up with Rsrikanth05' comment you left last month? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  My Response 

message: According to a NYT article, this chap has a <comments redacted> - See . See page 79/80 of this book as well . Shouldnt this be included in the article? Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 10:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: The book or any excerpt referenced is not reliable. It's both primary and questionable, as per policy. Plus, there's litigation on the book. In a BLP, such a source will not be accepted.  Wifione Message 15:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: * Wifione, can you please explain why this source is questionable? Is there a reason for considering Siddhartha Deb or his book as having "a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight", or "an apparent conflict of interest"? Aurorion (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)

text: * How is the source primary? Was the account written by someone directly involved? Is the author offering an insider's point of view? Apart from the the accounts of her interview with the subject of the article, everything else qualifies for use as a secondary source ("A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences"). How is the source questionable? The book is published by the Penguin Group and Viking Press and both are organizations of repute. The excerpt quoted above is posted by the New York Times. Why does the litigation matter?  The litigation is in India, the WMF servers are in the United States. There is no litigation pending in the United States and the book is freely available for purchase in online and offline bookstores. Speaking of litigation, the Indian Express, The Guardian and the New York Times gave coverage to the incident in their review of Deb's book (, , ). A report of the litigation and an interview was published by LiveMint (). Please see WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not censored". Redacting properly sourced comments on the talk page is not a good practice as it censors the discussion and makes it difficult for users to comment. Telco (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  There was a long discussion about this on Wifione's talk page couple of weeks back, which you may want to look at. The conclusion was that for reasons I do not fully understand, most sources (including the articles in New York Times, New Yorker, Guardian, etc.) are not valid because they're either op-eds/reviews or involve first-hand accounts from the author making them primary. We did agree that one source, an article on IBN Live is a valid secondary source. I now think that we should at least have something in the article along the lines of "A biography of <the subject of this article> was published in a book, however, the author and publisher of the book were sued by <an institute strongly associated with the subject> which resulted in the book not being published in India", citing IBN Live. The phrases in parentheses emphasize why this article (and not just the IIPM article) is an appropriate place to say this and why this is in line with WP:UNDUE and WP:VALID. I'd like to hear more opinions before I go ahead and add it. SPat talk 05:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text:  This page is definitely not NPOV now. Anyone who knows anything about the subject matter can see that. The ratings of the page tell the story: Trustworthy: 1.9 from 93 ratings, Objective: 1.3 from 83 ratings, Complete: 1.6 from 76 ratings. This definitely needs more info on controversies about Chaudhuri. Aurorion (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)

text: @Wifione: In your last edit you objected to the last line about the court injunction, and I've edited it to clarify that it's from a quote of a primary source. Why then did you remove the other two lines? The entire content now follows what is clearly stated in the IBNLive news article minus the quotes. Since there are so many people with differing opinions here, I urge you to kindly discuss the issue here before making any changes. (I stated my main arguments above, and specifically asked for objections/opinions before acting on them). SPat talk 22:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Sure. I'm sorry I missed the last discussion cycle. The Sunday Guardian report you've filed is from their "View-Askew" section, which is the opinion section (and that too the askew opinions). So I'm removing the source and the material being supported by that source unless you show otherwise. That leaves us with one source IBN Live, where too you've placed a primary quote. As per BLPPRIMARY, unless a reliable source has itself confirmed that a court injunction was passed, you should not be directly quoting a primary quote. The IBN Live source doesn't confirm whether an injunction was or was not passed. It's just documenting a primary quote; and worse, the primary source is one with a conflict of interest. Imagine the skew that would occur if we should start quoting Chaudhuri's quotes directly from his interviews on this issue. Finally, as per WELLKNOWN, you will have to have multiple reliable sources to confirm this whole issue or remove the event altogether. Till now, I've seen only primary sources/opinion sources/primary quotes or those with a conflict of interest. And one reliable source. I'm encouraging you to not include this issue unless you show two reliable sources which have material that is not primary or one that is questionable. I'm sure if this issue is so well reported, you will be able to find at least two third party reliable secondary sources? Additionally, as per UNDUE, once you've found at least two reliable sources, please document this issue in one line or maximum two, to ensure it is not given undue weight. Thanks for the patience.  Wifione Message 04:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

text: The Sunday Guardian source is a news report and not an opinion. And in case you find it difficult to differentiate between reporting of facts and writing an op-ed, we can escalate this to WP:BLPN. Please see the IBN source properly. It clearly reports (outside of the Caravan's comment) that the suit was filed in Silchar, Assam. The source which you now claim has a "conflict of interest" and hence is a "questionable source" would not have fallen under this category until Chaudhuri and IIPM sued them. Would that mean that every source that has litigation against them by IIPM has a conflict of interest?  The conflict of interest policy only applies to those users who are directly connected to the subject and cannot be expected to write neutrally, and questionable sources are those who have a poor reputation for fact checking, not magazines run by respected media houses like Delhi Press. It will also be helpful to note that you find it convenient to edit policy pages when it suits your interests.  I have listed some more sources below. Telco (talk) 07:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)
replies: text: Hi Telco. I am quite a prolific contributor to policy and guidelines pages; so it won't be surprising if you find many policy edits to my account. Editors are expected to undertake policy page edits to smooth out gray areas that come to the forefront during their editorial contributions or discussions, like what we're having here. If you have issues with my policy page edits, or if you feel there are policy changes required, do please feel free to undertake the same or to discuss the same in the talk pages of the relevant policy pages. They're pretty well watched pages and sensible changes will be accepted with consensus.
With respect to the Sunday Guardian source, please feel free to escalate the Sunday Guardian source to BLPN in case you feel it is a reliable news source than a view listed under their view-askew section. There are many blogs too which run quite believable reports that read like news reports. Unfortunately, if they're listed as blogs, or if reports are listed as opinions or in sections listed as view-askew, it is quite reasonable to look beyond for news reports that are listed under credible sections.
The IBN source does mention the Silchar information. Unfortunately, the claim that an injunction was passed is purely mentioned within the primary and coi quote. As an answer to your query on coi, yes, every party that would have a litigation going on with an article's subject or close entities would have a coi in reporting. However much one might believe that Delhi Press or the likes are respectable, their having an active litigation makes them involved and incapable of releasing an uninvolved quote or publication. One simply cannot use statements or material released from them in a BLP.
I'm pleased that you've done some legwork to churn up the sources. I've given my comments against each sources in small letters and italics. Please note: Opinions, Blogs, Book reviews, which you've listed are completely unacceptable within this BLP; especially when we're referring to an exceptional and a controversial claim. Look, some of the opinions/book reviews you've listed talk about IIPM or Chaudhuri as being "extremely successful" or having a "formidable business empire". Citing such poor sources is clearly not the right way to add material to a BLP about a controversial topic of a court case. Sources have to be impeccable and devoid of the unacceptable primary/opinion and coi tag. At the same time, there are I believe three sources where parts of the material can be used (Ahd Mirror, IBN, Indian Express source's first paragraph). Taking into consideration those, I've placed the addition within the BLP considering UNDUE. Thanks.  Wifione Message 15:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)

text: * 1. Blogs by News sources such as Outlook can be considered RS 2. Book reviews are considered secondary sources (someone tried to change that, but its still secondary) Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 15:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  New section 

message: ====Siddhartha Deb====
#The New Deal, Lehar Kala, The Indian Express, 13 August 2011(Seems like a book review than news. Only the initial paragraph might be usable. None else.)
#The Beautiful and the Damned: Life in the New India by Siddhartha Deb – review, Amit Chaudhuri, The Guardian, 4 June 2011 (Pure opinionated book review. Can't be used in the BLP as per policy. Use book reviews in articles about books; not in BLPs)
#From Gandhi to Gatsby, Samanth Subramanian, The New York Times, 16 September 2011 (Book review. Can't be used in the BLP) 
#This Side of Paradise, Supriya Nair, liveMINT, 7 July 2011(Primary source coi interview. Can't be used. The introductory para might have some material worth using though.)
#Beneath the Glitter, Namita Devidayal, Times Crest, Mumbai Mirror, 26 August 2011 (Book review.)
#Review- The Beautiful and the damned: Life in the new India, MSN News, 28 August 2011 (Book review primary column copied from India Today website.)
#'The Beautiful And The Damned' Of Globalized India, NPR Books, 10 October 2011 (Primary interview.)
#Behind the Wheel, Moving Up, Siddhartha Deb, New York Times, 29 September 2011 (Primary column by coi party.) 
#SC stays IIPM case against The Caravan magazine, FirstPost Politics, 11 August 2011 (Press release released by coi party.) 
#Gag Order, Sohini Chattopadhyaya, OPEN Magazine, 30 July 2011(Link not opening. Will try again later and check.) (Cached copy although it seems like a book review to me -SPat) 
#Why I Took On Arindam Chaudhuri, Siddhartha Vaidyanathan, Wallstreet Journal India Realtime Blog, 19 August 2011 (Blog and primary source. Can't be used.)
#Gatsby Globalized, Jaspreet Singh, The Globe and Mail, 26 August 2011  (Book review.) 
#The Other Side of Midnight, Gillian Wright, India Today, 26 August 2011 (Book review.)
#Realtime India, Dharmendra D, Businessworld, 22 October 2011 (Book review.) 
#The Beautiful and the Damned: Life in the New India by Siddhartha Deb: review, Sameer Rahim, The Telegraph (UK), 28 July 2011 (significant secondary analysis) (Primary book review. Completely opinionated.) 
#The fear that silences India's writers, Siddhartha Deb, The Guardian, 15 July 2011 (Authored by coi party. Unreliable.) 
#The Rise Of A Passionate Schmaltziness, Amit Chaudhuri, Outlook India, 4 April 2011 (Filed as opinion column. Has practically no detail on the court case anyway.) 
#IIPM sues Caravan, Google, Penguin for Rs 50 crore, IBN Live, 23 June 2011 (The first and only reliable source shown till now. But primary coi quotes from this RS cannot be used in this BLP.) 
#A freedom under threat, Salil Tripathi, liveMINT, 6 July 2011(Filed under Views. Opinion column. Can't be used.)
#Arindam Chaudhuri sues Caravan, Penguin and Google for Rs 50 crore, FirstPost, 22 June 2011 (Most of the article is made up of primary quotes. However, we can use part of the material within this source.) 
#Siddhartha Deb's Publishing Odyssey, Stacey Mickelbart, The Book Bench (Blog), The New Yorker, 3 August 2011 (Filed under blogs. Primary. Can't be used.)
:* 1. Blogs by News sources such as Outlook can be considered RS 2. Book reviews are considered secondary sources (someone tried to change that, but its still secondary) Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 15:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Sources

message: #The New Deal, Lehar Kala, The Indian Express, 13 August 2011(Seems like a book review than news. Only the initial paragraph might be usable. None else.)
#The Beautiful and the Damned: Life in the New India by Siddhartha Deb – review, Amit Chaudhuri, The Guardian, 4 June 2011 (Pure opinionated book review. Can't be used in the BLP as per policy. Use book reviews in articles about books; not in BLPs)
#From Gandhi to Gatsby, Samanth Subramanian, The New York Times, 16 September 2011 (Book review. Can't be used in the BLP) 
#This Side of Paradise, Supriya Nair, liveMINT, 7 July 2011(Primary source coi interview. Can't be used. The introductory para might have some material worth using though.)
#Beneath the Glitter, Namita Devidayal, Times Crest, Mumbai Mirror, 26 August 2011 (Book review.)
#Review- The Beautiful and the damned: Life in the new India, MSN News, 28 August 2011 (Book review primary column copied from India Today website.)
#'The Beautiful And The Damned' Of Globalized India, NPR Books, 10 October 2011 (Primary interview.)
#Behind the Wheel, Moving Up, Siddhartha Deb, New York Times, 29 September 2011 (Primary column by coi party.) 
#SC stays IIPM case against The Caravan magazine, FirstPost Politics, 11 August 2011 (Press release released by coi party.) 
#Gag Order, Sohini Chattopadhyaya, OPEN Magazine, 30 July 2011(Link not opening. Will try again later and check.) (Cached copy although it seems like a book review to me -SPat) 
#Why I Took On Arindam Chaudhuri, Siddhartha Vaidyanathan, Wallstreet Journal India Realtime Blog, 19 August 2011 (Blog and primary source. Can't be used.)
#Gatsby Globalized, Jaspreet Singh, The Globe and Mail, 26 August 2011  (Book review.) 
#The Other Side of Midnight, Gillian Wright, India Today, 26 August 2011 (Book review.)
#Realtime India, Dharmendra D, Businessworld, 22 October 2011 (Book review.) 
#The Beautiful and the Damned: Life in the New India by Siddhartha Deb: review, Sameer Rahim, The Telegraph (UK), 28 July 2011 (significant secondary analysis) (Primary book review. Completely opinionated.) 
#The fear that silences India's writers, Siddhartha Deb, The Guardian, 15 July 2011 (Authored by coi party. Unreliable.) 
#The Rise Of A Passionate Schmaltziness, Amit Chaudhuri, Outlook India, 4 April 2011 (Filed as opinion column. Has practically no detail on the court case anyway.) 
#IIPM sues Caravan, Google, Penguin for Rs 50 crore, IBN Live, 23 June 2011 (The first and only reliable source shown till now. But primary coi quotes from this RS cannot be used in this BLP.) 
#A freedom under threat, Salil Tripathi, liveMINT, 6 July 2011(Filed under Views. Opinion column. Can't be used.)
#Arindam Chaudhuri sues Caravan, Penguin and Google for Rs 50 crore, FirstPost, 22 June 2011 (Most of the article is made up of primary quotes. However, we can use part of the material within this source.) 
#Siddhartha Deb's Publishing Odyssey, Stacey Mickelbart, The Book Bench (Blog), The New Yorker, 3 August 2011 (Filed under blogs. Primary. Can't be used.)
:* 1. Blogs by News sources such as Outlook can be considered RS 2. Book reviews are considered secondary sources (someone tried to change that, but its still secondary) Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 15:23, 22 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title: Siddhartha Deb

message: A number of claims are to be supported by WP:RS. The reference section is sporting a number of primary sources. Will remove the primary sources and will add    template to the lines required. Please do not remove the template without adding reliable sources. Wikieditindia (talk) 04:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adding citation template. 

message: First paragraph last line which says he's often referred to as "Management Guru" is wrong. No one refers him with that. He's a self proclaimed "Management Guru". He's referred to as "Self proclaimed management guru"
Namit143143 (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 18 March 2012 

message: The page does not have correct information. Arindam Chaudhuri's education is not known. He cannot be called as an 'economist' or a 'management guru'. Request the moderators to check and verify every bit of information on the page.
Wikistry 08:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)
replies: text: Please look at the article and the references in it: he is clearly called a management guru, and his education is verified by a reliable source. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  Edit request on 16 February 2013 

message: Even though the URL-blocking controversy is primarily about IIPM, Chaudhuri himself is also heavily involved in it. This is clear from the fact that almost all secondary sources provided as citations refer to Chaudhuri's role in this controversy. Chaudhuri himself has defended his actions and been a public figure defending his actions. So I feel that adding this info to this article is justified. If anyone disagrees, please discuss. Thanks. Aurorion (talk) 12:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  "Controversy" section 

message: Should it be pointed out that all the ex-parte injunctions that arindam chaudhuri gets against various blogs, magazines and articles, are from the same court - Silcher in Assam. Incedentally neither does IIPM, nor chaudhary nor any of the respoondents have any other connection to this district. Info gathered at http://ibnlive.in.com/news/iipm-sues-caravan-google-penguin-for-rs-50-cr/162032-3.html
Tca achintya (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)
thread_title:  All in the same court 

message: User:AroundTheGlobe offered some good sources that seem to have gone unused.  I wonder how much good content was created but removed (e.g. by the banned users now noted at the top of this page). 
E.g. this book excerpt is and hints at more good detailed RS info:
User:Aurorion's points re. NPOV still hold.  We can ignore Wifione's strongarm claim noted by User:SPat that "articles in New York Times, New Yorker, Guardian, etc" are not usable.  I wonder: do the large newspaper advertisements still run nearly every day?--Elvey(t•c) 00:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)
thread_title: Making this a good article should be possible now, with disruptive users banned

message: Hello fellow Wikipedians,
I have just modified 4 external links on Arindam Chaudhuri. 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/20140505200132/http://pib.nic.in/release/phsmall.asp?phid=36455 to http://pib.nic.in/release/phsmall.asp?phid=36455
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150930185453/http://www.outlookindia.com/article/evidently-false-and-misleading/292061 to http://www.outlookindia.com/article/Evidently-False-And-Misleading/292061
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20171020041134/https://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/iipm-case-clear-abuse-of-judicial-process-say-legal-experts/articleshow/18601612.cms to http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics-and-nation/iipm-case-clear-abuse-of-judicial-process-say-legal-experts/articleshow/18601612.cms
*Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100819011834/http://photogallery.indiatimes.com/articleshow/5359247.cms to http://photogallery.indiatimes.com/articleshow/5359247.cms
When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.
Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  External links modified 

message: I was a visiting faculty of IIPM between 2008 and 2014 at its Chennai Centre. IIPM has already been told by the courts of India not to conduct any programs with the title of MBA or BBA. IIPM doesn't exist. Why is Mr. Arindam Choudhury's introduction show him as heading IIPM? He owes faculty like me several lakhs worth honorarium for the work we already did for his institute and he has escaped from paying all of us and thus cheated tens of faculty all over India. He is a good example of a person who successfully marketed himself as an "economist" and "management guru" when the only economics degree he has, as I understand, is a BA (economics) through distance learning from Madras University (this should be verified) and the only management qualification is the PGDPM from his own institute IIPM which is not recognised by anyone. I don't mean to say that you can be an economist or a management guru only with degrees in these subjects; but, the least we expect from someone who deserves to be called a "guru" is honesty and integrity (more than knowledge of subjects). Arindam Choudhury did not have either honesty or integrity. The Wiki page should reflect him as someone who cheated thousands of students and faculty in India. Many police complaints were filed against him by students, and I know, a legal notice too was sent by some faculty from Chennai; his Deans in different states in India had to go to police stations in connection with the complaints filed by students; however, his patronage, with powers that be, helped him ignore all of those complaints and notices. An attempt was also made by some faculty to mobilise faculty all over India to see if we could file a consolidated police complaint for cheating; however, faculty were mute, as is to be expected from highly educated people, who wanted to carry on and not get into a long-drawn legal battle. I had personally sent a complaint to the PMO and the HRD Minister but got no response. I have records (from IIPM, Chennai) of all the classes I conducted, students' attendance sheets, etc. When I approached my lawyer, to send a legal notice to claim my dues, my lawyer spoke of procedures that I thought was very difficult both financially and physically for me to undertake alone. If there's any lawyer with a social commitment, I would still welcome such a person to help us get back our dues. Arindam Choudhury is NOT a person who deserves a Wiki page; however, I am not for removing this page, because people should know him as one among the many charlatans who cheated in the name of Education which is so highly valued in our society.  — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfEash (talk • contribs) 10:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)
thread_title:  Misleading information 

message: This article is complete WHITEWASHING of a CRIMINAL claiming him to be thinktank of some organization that doesn't even exist. The source for his making movies that won some awards is also fake as the user @Wifione who was expelled by ArbCom not too long. FalconXFalcon (talk) 13:58, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 14:27, 27 October 2021 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 October 2021