Talk:Indian Institute of Planning and Management/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1 Archive 2 Archive 3 Archive 4 Archive 5

IIPM is a highly controversial Institute

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)

Changes made to the ranking paragraph

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

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)

Ravikiran, Hoping you would find the truth on the Business Today issue. Please recheck physically. Regards

--Drnoamchomsky 18:16, 14 November 2005 (UTC)

Research statement is bogus hence deleted

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)

Research implies publication of articles with supporting experiments/analysis and results in an internationally recognized academic peer reviewed journal. Magazines published by the institute itself does not constitute research. A third party internationally recognized peer-reviewed journal must publish the results. Magazine articles are not research. By this token, every institute and coaching class in the country is a research institute. For examples of research see this. http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/indices/a-tree/r/Ramamritham:Krithi.html The professor teaches at IIT Bombay and has a recognized PhD. http://www.cse.iitb.ac.in/~krithi/ Inventingfacts 00:33, 23 November 2005 (UTC)
Inventingfacts :

You are wrong, and I will assume good faith and not accuse you of blatant lying. Research does not imply what yu have stated. In fact, I looked it up on Dictionary.com, and found the following:

re·search ( P ) Pronunciation Key (r-sûrch, rsûrch) n. Scholarly or scientific investigation or inquiry. See Synonyms at inquiry. Close, careful study.

v. re·searched, re·search·ing, re·search·es v. intr. To engage in or perform research.

v. tr. To study (something) thoroughly so as to present in a detailed, accurate manner: researching the effects of acid rain. To do research for: research a magazine article.

Therefore, I would urge you not to come up with your own definitions. And never delete or add entire new sections without discussing on Talk first.
--Drnoamchomsky 05:01, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

I kneel before you for not accusing me of blatant lying. I will send flowers to you personally for this act of gratitude. Getting to the matter at hand. Stop citing dictionary.com. It appears that you have no academic research experience. I have worked for research labs and have enough experience. Specifically ACM TOPLAS. http://www.cs.wustl.edu/~toplas/. Academic research implies publishing in 3rd party peer reviewed journals. Publishing your own magazines or technical reports is not research. Infact most institutes would be ashamed of citing these as research. Publishing articles in a magazine does not constitute "Scholarly or scientific investigation" even by the "dictionary.com" research definition. You have to publish it in a 3rd party peer-reviewed recognized academic journal to prove that the articles are indeed scholarly and scientific. By your definition half the blogs on the net are "research" blogs because the authors think they are being scholarly and scientific. Remember that this is a wikipedia article. Not a brochure for IIPM, where you can dump any kind of garbage in the research section. If you want to demonstrate that IIPM does research cite some professor/lecturer that published results/analysis in a 3rd party peer-reviewed recognized academic journal when he was a full time employee of IIPM. As an excercise just visit any IIT/IIM website and check out the research section of each faculty member. For eg check this http://www.iimahd.ernet.in/faculty/facultydetails.php?id=248&farea=refarea&section=area#Current%20Research and scroll down to Publications/articles/cases. or check this http://www.cc.gatech.edu/~khot/publications.html or this http://www.informatik.uni-trier.de/~ley/db/indices/a-tree/k/Khot:Subhash.html

If you continue to add this section I will have to report you for using wikipedia to publish advertisements and brochures.

Do not re-insert the research section before discussing with me on talk. Inventingfacts 12:05, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

IIPM's journals have cutting edge research on management topics. The present analysis on business and economics topics. Each of these adds value. That satisfies the meaning of research, very well. If you believe it shouldn't be called academic research because of your training or benchmarking with other insituttes, you may be right, but it is definitely research, and can be called nothing else. Since u reverted my changes without asking, I will go ahead and do the same to you. And feel free to report me - I will do the same to you. --Drnoamchomsky 12:25, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

This is getting increasingly ridiculous. chomsky keeps insisting that IIPM does research without any citation. Apparently the parameters by which other institutes like MIT, Stanford, Kellogs, Cornell measure research, whose faculty IIPM happily invites for talks and republish articles, is not a standard that IIPM should be measured against. It apparently has a standard not in keeping with the rest of the planet. Even after teaching you about research, if you keep damaging the article and reverting my edits I will have to report you for wikipedia abuse.

Inventingfacts 12:39, 23 November 2005 (UTC)

Article misleads reader into believing that actual degrees are awarded

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.


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)

BUSINESS TODAY SCAN OF PAGE 96

File:Btoctober2004.jpg
Scanned image of page 96, Business Today October 2004 issue.

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)


Old and closed discussion have been moved to Talk:Indian Institute of Planning and Management/Archive 1. If anyone feels that an issue is not old enough or closed enough, feel free to raise it again here at the bottom of the page. Do not start a discussion there. --Ravikiran 14:32, 11 November 2005 (UTC)


IIPM's marketing tactics

I have been victim of IIPM malice marketing tactics:

I secured a seat for MBA in 2001.I was asked to a make payment of Rs. 1,00,000=00 towards the tution fees and hostel.Later when i went to New Delhi to attend the class, i was shocked.when i arrived in New Dehli i approached the managment regarding hostel and for other requirments. I was accomodated in a flat with other students.there were four of them- a fresher and others- seniors.My one week stay at this facility provided by the managment was a horror.The seniors had alternative arrangaments.Those seven days i met them only once and, the fresher, he too seems to have found some better place to live.There was not a single drop of water for bathing and toilet. i had to purchase bottled water to survive.I had reported the problems with the managment but in vain.later, i decided to quit and requested the managment to refund the money. They promised to refund the money(tution fee) as soon as possible, the hostel fee was not refundable(mentioned in the letter of offer).Until today i never recieved any payment but wasted a lot of money on phone calls.It was really an embrassing situation to me back home.I didn't knew how to justify my blunder, which cost my father dear , the money he had saved for my higher education. All this time i had the feeling of being cheated, and wished somebody on the face of this earth notice and do something about it.Actually, i read this article in the BW magazine.Trully saying it gave me some consolment and, i decided to contribute my part to this movement against IIPM to warn others about the nastay marketing tactics they resort to plunder people.My name is A.S.George form karanataka.

Sandeep's statement

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)

Here Will need to weave it into the story though. --Ravikiran 19:29, 27 October 2005 (UTC)
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)

Metalmaverick's request

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)

Blogs

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)

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)


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)


Problematic paragraph

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)

  • Had missed this. This paragraph doesn't look relevant to the article at all. The article is about IIPM the educational institution, and this writeup has little to do with it.
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)


Clarification Required about Wikipedia and IIPM

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)

Arindam Chaudhuri is a thug. Read about his profile following the various links given in India Daily [1]

Latest bunch of changes

  1. 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".
  2. I've replaced the huge photographs of IIPM's infrastructure with thumbnails. I've also replaced the previously vague criticisms with specific ones.
  3. I've removed the huge images of Arindam Chaudhuri accepting some award from Deora as irrelevant.
  4. Will someone please (pretty please!) do the long overdue overhaul of the controversy and coverage section?

--Ravikiran 13:14, 7 November 2005 (UTC)



Dear Ravikaran,

(cur) (last) 10:55, 8 Nov ember 2005 Ravikiran r (revert. All those changes are disputed and non-NPOV.)

That last revert was completely unfair. The information on IIPM was relevant and up to date, and provides information that viewers will find important. Yet you removed it!

I attach it here again.

IIPM was founded in 1973 by Dr. Malay Chaudhuri as a not-for-profit educational organization in New Delhi; and since then has grown to seven campuses across the country with a student base of over three thousand. It has been ranked amongst the top fifteen business schools in India by various b-school surveys across publications. Organizations such as the World Bank, United Nations, Nestle S.A (Vevey), Credit Suisse, Yale School of Management, INSEAD, IMD Lausanne and many others sponsor & support various international research programs & study tours at IIPM. Leading global organizations like GE, Citigroup, Bank of America, Sony, McKinsey, Nestle, Microsoft, American Express, HSBC, Oracle, PriceWaterhouseCoopers and others regularly recruit IIPM students year after year from campus. IIPM has been awarded the status of being the UNDP key partner institution in India. IIPM had also been selected to be on the World Bank Institute's (Washington D.C) steering committee for specific Corporate Social Responsibility initiatives.

The institute’s research activities include publishing The India Economy Review, and various journals on management. 4P’s, the marketing journal, has become a mass market magazine, and leads its segment. Planman Consulting, the consulting arm of IIPM, publishes Business & Economy magazine, which is edited by Prof. Arindam Chaudhuri.

Please re-instate the same, or point out specific parts which are not appropriate for Wiki.

Thanks


Dear Ravikaran,


Another unfair edit by you: I had edited this part of the article, (attached below), to show the biases in the reporters and writers and players in this drama - but you have simply reverted it, leaving no trace. Is it laziness? Doesn't bias by writers, reporters and authors need to be highlighted?! Expecially since the IIM - IIPM feud has been inthe open for over 5 years, with various allegation flying back and forth!! You reallym ust give credence to the fact that Rashmi and Gaurav are IIM alumni, and have an agenda. Further, all the human elements in this play in favor of IIPM, something you apparently want to overlooked!!

I request you to kindly place the facts of the matter at the readers disposal, in a full and fair manner...

In 2005, a youth magazine named JAM[2](which Outlook magazine called a tiny and inconsequential rag), edited by Rashmi Bansal (who is an IIM Ahmedabad alumni - IIM alumni are known to harbor ill-feeling for IIPM because IIPM's marketing campaign is directed at the IIM's, also Honorary Dean of IIPM Prof. Arindam Chaudhuri slams the IIM's and calls them the MBA mafia in his widely published articles and well attended seminars) who also runs a blog Youth Curry[3], did a story claiming to have exposed some of the claims made by IIPM[4](based on this story, IIPM served legal notices to Rashmi Bansal and her publication, for libel and slander). The article claims that institute hasn't been accredited by any Indian accredition agency or University such as AICTE, UGC or under other state acts (the article fails to note however, that IIPM clearly mentions in all its advertisements and in its prospectus, that it is proud of not being a part of any Indian accreditation agency such as the AICTE or UGC, and never intends to be part of them). The UGC and AICTE is known to be a tool for politicians to extract money, as recently evidenced by the IIM's budget crisis when Murli Manohar oshi was Monster for Ecucation. Also, examples of good universities being removed from accredited status for irrational reasons (see Amity, Rai), when most other accredited insitutions dont gove anywhere near the infrastructure or faculty facilties are ranpant) + In 2005, a youth magazine named JAM[5], edited by Rashmi Bansal who also runs a blog Youth Curry[6], did a story claiming to have exposed some of the claims made by IIPM[7]. The article claims that 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 on the lines of the ITT Technical Institute model[8]. - The institute's degrees are conferred by an unknown agency called IMI Europe (unknown by whose standards? Ask anyone in Bruseels or Antwerp and they know it! Students from over 65 countries study at IMI. The Belgian government has IMI on its registry), which has been called a diploma mill (who called it a diploma mill? Based on what evidence? How can this description be here?) organisation on the lines of the ITT Technical Institute model[9]. +

- Gaurav Sabnis[10], a popular Indian blogger, (and an IIM alumnus) linked that article[11], (and added several malicious and derogatory comments of his own in that blog post). Three months later, IIPM threatened to sue Sabnis for libel if the postings were not removed from his blog[12]. Sabnis refused to remove his postings, and further stated that IIPM contacted his employer, IBM, and allegedly threatened to publicly burn the IBM Laptop Computers , (yeah right, lets make this more melodramatic! Wikipedia at its worst!)!(after peeing on them!, and burning effigies of Rashmi and Gaurav!), they had purchased from IBM unless the posts were removed. IBM is yet to confirm this threat (becuase it never happened! Taje unsubstantiated stuff off Wikipedia and restore credibility!). Sabnis stated that IBM did not pressure him to remove the blogpost, but he decided to quit his job(bull! He was fired!) [13] as he did not want IBM to suffer bad publicity through his actions. The IT grapevine has it that SAbnis cannot get another job because potential employers know of his maverick attitude and devil may care style. This has generated spontaneous support for Sabnis from bloggers. On 11 October, 2005, IIPM became the highest ranked search term on Technorati.


I was just going to put in this comment giving the rationale for the reverts when I saw your comment. Here go:
  1. 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.
  2. 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.
  3. 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.
  4. 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.
  5. 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.
  6. 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)


Thanks Ravikiran. I'll put together some more stuff on IIPM for Wiki, and will hope to have your best edit in accordance with Wiki standards.

Dr Chomsky

Dear Ravikiran,

Need your help with this...

The Wiki article starts with a non-editable intro para graph. This contains inaccurate and misleading information.

1 - It is an 'independent' institute (as opposed to private business), registered under the Indian Society Act 1856 as a non-profit trust.

2 - The institute has undergraduate and postgraduate programs in planning and entrepreneurship, leading to a BBA and an MBA from IMI, Europe.

3 - Prof. Arindam Chaudhuri is the Honorary Dean of IIPM, and acts as a brand ambassador. He is a public personality, and endorses the institute in its promotional materials. Dr. MK Chaudhuri, who has taught at IIM Bangalore and XLRI, apart from being Chief Economist at Hindustan Lever, continues as the Director of the institute.

4 - Deans at IIPM include Prof. A Sandeep and Prof. Prasoon Majumdar.

5 - In 2005, the institute was involved in a major controversy after it filed lawsuits against a blogger Gaurav Sabnis and a website Jammag. Jammag, in an article, claimed the the institute's print advertisements were misleading. The blogger Gaurav Sabnis linked to this, along with adding his own opinion. The institute initiated legal action against the indivduals responsible to protect its reputation.


This Wiki article can no longer be about a controversy. It is about the institute, which has been in existence for 33 years. Should the wiki article focus on the last 2 months of a subject?


Dr. Chomsky: I've just reverted many of your previous edits for the following reasons:

  1. The article is not the appropriate forum for commentary, that comes here.
  2. Please do not put up full-sized pictures; it will be better if you convert them to thumbs before putting them in the article.
  3. I've reverted your edits on the "Sister Concerns" section as they did not seem germane to the article. We need to reconsider whether the section really belong in this article at all.
  4. Please, please, pretty please cite your statements. It is not enough to tell the reader that he needs to go to the IIPM website and look up a certain section.

Have a nice day. -- Kunal 15:01, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Btw, someone has added a set of links in the "External Links" section on "how fair the bloggers have been", with four links to articles questioning the integrity and veracity of anti-IIPM Bloggers. I have two questions:

  1. Is this really germane to the article?
  2. If not, why not delete that bit?

--Kunal 15:13, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Spartiate, I've made some changes, to reflect your concerns - please see if this works, and lets discuss on TALK before you revert AGAIN.

  1. I've removed any commentary and made it factual.
  2. I need your help to make thumbs of my pics - I don't know how to... :(
  3. PLanman Consulting and publications share the same campus as the institute - students participate in consulting projects and research with publications actively. GIDF's projects in various villages are supported by students doing voluntary work. This is an intrinsic strentgh of the institute, and that needs to be on IIPM's Wiki. Very germane, I would think.
  4. Agreed, I will try to cite.

203.101.1.63 20:49, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

203.101.1.63, Do not remove existing text. It is considered vandalism. Additions are fine. Reverts won't do. Any additions have to be indicated with references. - Ganeshk 21:11, 10 November 2005 (UTC)

Hi 203.101.1.63. I have some issues with the edits you made:

  1. Re. Dr MK Chaudhuri, IMO IIM-B has denied that he ever taught there. So if you include his credentials, you will need to cite your sources so that you can be believed.
  2. If you need help with editing, (editing pictures, and so on) check out How to edit a page. You may also want to see How to write a great article and the Manual of Style (while you're doing that, also check out the Tutorial and The five pillars of Wikipedia). If you'd actually registered and got an account, we could have helped you out with this earlier.
  3. Remarks like "What controversy? Other institutes dont organise any lectures - we do" and "ONly ISB has visting foreign professors, and that is for three months. If you want to compare, compare specifcally with them. This para is incorrect" are commentary. Remember, you are not editing this as a representative of IIPM, you're here as a Wikipedian (I hope).
  4. Re: The Planman group: Fair enough, but remember this is not an ad for Planman. If it seems that it is, it will be edited.
  5. Also, discuss any major changes to the article on the Talk Page before you make any sweeping changes.
  6. What Ganeshk said.

Have a nice day! --Kunal 06:00, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Dear Kunal,

Thanks, will bring it to Talk. Drnoamchomsky 10:36, 11 November 2005 (UTC)

Core Information on IIPM being removed

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)

Title of this page

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)

"Detractors" have been cited

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)

Dear Ravikiran,

I beg to differ. The first line ("Detractors) does not convey the meaning you wish it to - Non-existent may be percieved as being competely not available - it needs to be qualified much better w.r.t campus vs towers, and which specific infrastructure is being referred to, as per the adverts and the articles you cite. I'll scan in an advert today as well (do you have one?)...

Please let me know of you need any other documents scanned in to make this Wiki better... --Best, --10:14, 13 November 2005 (UTC)Drnoamchomsky

Varna's post on headers of her email notice

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)

Agreed. Does Supriya's blog merit a place on External links as a stake holders view from the inside as a current IIPM student? - Drnoamchomsky 10:08, 13 November 2005 (UTC)

IIPMStudent9

IIPMStudent9's blogpost[14] 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

Other publications, including India TOday, Business TOday and Business Barons, have placed IIPM in the TOp 10 on various parameters...

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)

Dear Ravikiran, I have referenced the HT article, which some kind soul had already scanned, where SAndeepan Deb makes a statement about withdrawal of rankings. Hope that helps verify IIPMStudent9's claims.

I'll get scans of various rankings (businesss today and barons..) in 24 hours, to butress the truth even further...

I've also put the cite to IIPM Student 9's blog back in - this time set in a spanking new line that clearly states it as a 'drama'... not as gospel. However, since the entire fiasco is now showing itself to be a drama, with human beings and lots of touchy feely give and take, I believe this cite is merited. Especially since on Wiki, it is cited as being an opinion, albeit credibly backed by various published articles.

Thanks for reverting the vandalism to infrastructure.

I am enjoying Wiki, and thank you for your sincerity in the editing process...

Drnoamchomsky 10:07, 13 November 2005 (UTC)


Advertising Strategy

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)

Well, let me at least add that Chomsky's official site is

http://www.chomsky.info/

Position in Indian b-school rankings

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)


Good Faith

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)


IIPM - Key partner for UNDP

Ravikiran, You deleted a edit of mine that had the UNDP and IMF partnership with IIPM.

Here's the proof. File:Clare.pdf 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)

Drnoamchomsky: Your evidence is not visible because of (I hope) a bad link. And if you are making a major change or an addition, provide the citation at the time of addition itself, don't wait for it to be reverted as uncited. --Kunal 13:10, 15 November 2005 (UTC)

Drnoamchomsky: The picture is not showing up. You should probably convert it to some other format before uploading. --Kunal 14:05, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

BUSINESS TODAY SCAN OF PAGE 96

File:Btoctober2004.jpg
Scanned image of page 96, Business Today October 2004 issue.

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)

Please try searching 'Business Barons' on google as of now and see the broken page you get every time. In the recent ads all the claims of IIPM rankings come from this source. The other source is quoted for the year 2004.

MK Chaudhuri's Qualifications

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) PS: Oh, and Drnoamchomsky, could you please try and add less pitcures the next time? They're screwing up the formatting, which is why I've had to add this section here, and not the bottom of the page.

Sorry, will remove them in a couple of days, bro...203.145.128.6 02:35, 18 November 2005 (UTC)

Changes to Advertising Strategy Section

I've made the following changes to the Advertising Strategy section:

  1. 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.
  2. 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).
  3. I changed the image back to the one in the previous edit. This change was not cleared on the Talk Page.
  4. 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.
  5. 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)

More scans to back up citations

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)

Reversion of Drnoamchomsky's picture edits

Drnoamchomsky, I've reverted your picture edits on the "Position in Indian B-School Ranking" section for the following reasons:

  1. I'm not sure about the policy on this, but in my opinion, Wikipedia is not a scrapbook. It would be much better for everybody if you provided links to the articles you cite, rather than clutter up the article with scanned pictures.
  2. I noticed you played around with the scans of the articles in the section, putting the ones that supported your POV in a prominent place, and moving the Outlook pictures lower down, and reducing their size to 120 pixels. This constitutes Vandalism. I'm giving you the benefit of the doubt, and not reporting this, but dude, you have to stop, or action will be taken.

--Kunal 16:36, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

OPh, and since IIPM is an unaccredited institution of higher leasrning, and since the controversey is a current event, I've reverted your deletion of the two categories.

--Kunal,

Since Wikipedia is not a scrapbook, I've removed the Outlook scans as well. Dont want that Wiki section to look biased, with just the Outlook withdrawal pics....

Apologies, did not mean to vandalise, was trying to fit all the pics into a semblanceof order. You must also have noted that I resized all the picutres, not just the Outlook ones, trying to get them to fit. So your good faith is in good hands!

Agreed, on categories. --Drnoamchomsky 08:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

--Kunal, I've updated the IIPM typical advertisement picture, to the latest one. The reasons is the based on your response. You said "You don't have to constantly update the picture with IIPM's latest adverts, the original, "typical" ad is fine until the advertising changes radically". Well, this ad has been running for several months, and is in color, and is on all 4 of the larest papaers in India. It is very different from the other ad that was there earlier. Why should an old and irrelevant ad be showcased? Especially since this article is in a "Current Event" category? Shouldn't Wiki be up to date? Shouldn't a current event be Current? Expecially since a lot of the controversy circle around the ads which IIM guys are so jealous of... --Drnoamchomsky 08:32, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Drnoamchomsky, I am pleased that you've come around to the view that scans are not an appropriate medium of citation (to say nothing of the copyright issues involved). Could you now please provide citation in some other manner.

Secondly, I have reverted your change of the name of the section Coverage in the Indian Media to Coverage of the controversey in the Indian media. Please justify such changes here before you make them. --Kunal 15:09, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Kunal
The Coverage in the Indian media would indicate a comprehensive review of all press coverage of IIPM. Well, it doesnt. AT ALL! It onyl covers the controversy - which is June-October 2005. There have been innumerable mentions and articles on IIPM in the rpess in the 33 years it has been training managers and entrepreneurs. No mention of them exists in this section. Therefore, it should be called Coverage of the controversy. And just look at this page now - oer half of the pae is devoted to the 'cotnroversy' - i that what defines the institute...? UNsubstantiated allegations about ethics of marketing, have defined one of india's finest training grounds for business leaders? Wiki isn't a tool to discredit credible folks. It has been misused! And The mediatioin council will have to rule on this... --Drnoamchomsky 08:21, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

The above discussion is an archived section of Talk:The Indian Institute of Planning and Management. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section at Talk:The Indian Institute of Planning and Management. No further edits should be made to this page.
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management/Archive_2&oldid=1136816518"