Talk:All India Institutes of Medical Sciences

Untitled

The achievements section looks highly inadequate and its language a bit vague. 128.12.147.175 04:37, 12 May 2006 (UTC) 01:32, 12 May 2006 (UTC)

Using stem cells from the leg was indeed wrong.. it must have been from bone marrow.. the reference itself was unscientific.. So I removed it. 128.12.147.175 04:36, 12 May 2006 (UTC) "Curing blindness" also sounds ironical..

why are you guys focusing so much on all the strikes and controversies when describing AIIMS? It is not these things that define AIIMS and what it stands for!

Need info on another strike

The article needs some info on the doctors' strike following the government's refusal to grant them salaries for the period for which they had been protesting the new OBC quotas. --Wikindian 02:51, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Unneutral

Apparantely some editors have described AIIMS in glowing terms. We need to adopt a more neutral and less flashy approach.--Wikindian 23:17, 19 July 2006 (UTC)

Removed some high sounding statements. Looks like all editing till now was by AIIMSonians. Bunty.Gill 09:55, 1 August 2006 (UTC)

We need the address

There is no address and localisation of AIIMS in Delhi. No information of transport too.

Done. EyeMD 20:42, 23 August 2006 (UTC)

Hi- removed a couple of names from the "notable aiimsonians" list ( do we really need this list in the first place??): though they were related with AIIMS they looked more like practioners just wanting some publicity. It would be preferable to keep info on this webpage as objective as possible( which it surprisingly is). No mention of the mental health hospital and the trauma center in the description.Could someone add that? It would also be nice if someone could talk a bit about the magnitude of research begin carried out at AIIMS in terms of financial resources being spent and its magnitude.Thanks.

date of exam 2007 time table

date of exam 2007 time table —The preceding unsigned comment was added by 219.64.90.231 (talk) 14:23, 6 January 2007 (UTC).

External link cleanup

There are too many links in this section, many of which violate WP:External links. Please discuss the readdition of any links on this page before doing so, allowing editors to reach consensus on their inclusion.

• removed "Contact Info" - this does not belong in the External link section (it is probably inappropriate for the article anyway)
• information about test taking: these two sites are not directly related to the article, contain objectionable amounts of advertising, and do not contain extra information that improves the encyclopedic quality of the article:
  • [1]
  • [2]
• removed multiple links to AIIMS .edu website: Multiple links to the same website are strongly discouraged.
• Forums (per WP:EL) are almost never linked. They fail the reliable source WP:RS and verifiability WP:V test.
  • [3]
  • [4]
• Newspaper articles should be used as references within the article rather than external links. These might be worth relinking, but not in the external link section.
  • Which Hospital Is Best "Newsweek" International Edition
  • Top Hospitals in India "The Week"
  • News Paper Article in "Times of India"
  • News Paper Article in "Indian Express"
  • News Paper Article in "Education Times"
• Commercial website not directly related to the content of the article.
  • http://www.indiamedicaltourism.net

External links tend to benefit the linked website (notariety/ad-sense/advertising revenue/page rank/etc.) and not improve the content of the article. Linking cleaning is an ongoing part of the Wikipedia:WikiProject_Spam. Make sure consensus is reached on relinking any sites before editing the article. Thanks. Nposs 05:12, 26 January 2007 (UTC)

There was a standoff between the AIIMS students who had not got their degrees and the Health Minister. I want to add this article which contains details on this. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Ajit Kumar91 (talk • contribs) 15:13, 31 August 2007 (UTC)

NPOV

My attention was brought to various statements in this article which violate NPOV after someone using the IP 210.7.93.119. I reverted his edits and am currently trying to put this article through a fine-toothed comb to ensure that it maintains its neutrality. I'm removing unnecessary statements such as

"It is the representation of apartheid, racism, casteism and fanatism. Of late it has been found that the
Fanatic thief Venugopal has swindled a large amount of money that was illegally collected as a bribe from
the poor patients undergoing heart surgery"

which was present in the introduction paragraph. However, I feel that statements which have been referenced to newspaper articles which are informative of the prevailing caste/anti-caste conditions in the Institute are necessary. Please join in and help, if anybody so wishes. Ajcfreak 09:58, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Violations

Many parts of the article are deragatory to the institution. Citations are mainly from newspapers which in India are heavilty biased any unreliable (they change their statements in hours.) I am actually very happy with the work of Ajcfreak. Also about his concern about the reports of caste based discrimination in AIIMS. I would like to ask him to read the language of the various sections were things about caste based dicriminations are written. I dont think the language is proper for wikipedia which is supposed to be neutral. So I would like to ask mr. ajcfreak to rewrite those parts after reading about the reality. i would like to report the biased and false parts.... please mr. ajcfreak edit these parts

unproven and uncited allegations-

"The vice-like grip that Dr Venugopal exercises over AIIMS is legendary. But doctors say the way he overrides and ignores their demands, disregards other faculty and charts his own course for the institute, riles them.[citation needed]

More than 200 faculty members had petitioned Union Health Minister Anbumani Ramadoss against Venugopal’s recent decisions. The one decision that had irked them most was the hike in patient charges, which the faculty members saw as a departure from the AIIMS founding charter. However, the protests have not accomplished much.[citation needed]

The man’s political acumen also comes to the fore when one examines the fact that he was appointed by the NDA government though he was 61, beyond the retirement age. And while appointment letters state that a director is appointed “for a tenure of five years or the age of superannuation, whichever is earlier”, in his case the appointment read: “appointed as Director for a period of five years from the date he assumes charge and until further orders.”[citation needed]"

language and fact ( i have edited and given a reference of the parallel opds which was not mentioned and also about the "extra" reservation for "other backward classes "(OBCs)" institutions of excellence like IIMs, IITs, AIIMS etc.")

"They opposed the Prime Minister's appeal, putting the patients into discomfort as treatment was declined to them. This strike continued till 31 May when the doctors called off their strike after the Supreme Court of India orders. These students stood under the umbrella of an organisation named Youth for Equality and protested against reservations for backward classes."

See the language and the reference(`AIIMS Director Venugopal played provocative role in anti-quota stir' Aarti Dhar - Charge by Thorat Committee in report submitted to Union Health Minister)(Its just a commitee and it has charged the AIIMS administration with charges which are not yet proved and not even placed in court so won't you say its biased? also see the word forward caste after the name of Dr. B Khaitan for which the citation contains no reference about Dr B Khaitan leave apart him being from what caste he is from- I don't think you know or even me that he is from forward class neither he proclaims in his name as an ISP)-

"Reserved category students were bullied into vacating their hostel rooms, leading to an SC/ST ghetto being formed on two floors of Hostels 4 and 5. The reserved category students were forced into "social isolation" at various levels, including even from faculty members, with 84 per cent students saying they faced violence and segregation in the hostel[4] that often forced them to shift to hostels No. 4 and 5 where there was a concentration of SC/ST students.

A committee formed by the Central Government documents the acts of discrimination endured by students belonging to Dalit and tribal communities.[citation needed] Daily life at the All India Institute of Medical Sciences resembles that in the country’s feudal outbacks and Apartheid-era South Africa, a government committee has discovered, confirming findings reported by The Telegraph.[5]

AIIMS Faculty Association president B.K. Khaitan (from Forward caste) in a statement[6] said these allegations were "absurd and baseless."

please keep an eye on the article because it is a burning issue and may mislead many innocent people. In this context this becomes our unshirkable responsibilty that whatever comes out of this article should be well scrutinized, unbiased and true.

Responding to the lengthy post above, I have to say that it IS definitely biased if we blot out press articles/news items from several leading dailies in India but include few articles which propagate the view that we want to be represented. Frankly speaking, I feel that all press items need to be represented. I also propose that we move all controversial content from within the rest of the article to under the sectional heading "Controversies". Anybody (editor or the like) who comes across this and feels contributive, please - go ahead and jump in and join the fray! This is Wikipedia. It is a collaborative effort. Let's wiki in all our glory. aJCfreak yAkBaK 18:09, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Controversies

With regard to the 'Controversies' section, I thought it best that we write up the controversial issues that AIIMS has been faced with under a sub-heading such as "Allegations of lower-caste discrimination" within the 'Controversies' topic. I've commented out a section with the following text:

<!--Editors who come across this section, please note that I'm in the process of writing this section from the various sources listed. If any of you have the time/desire, please go ahead and help contribute. User:Ajcfreak

===Allegations of lower-caste discrimination===

http://www.hindu.com/2007/05/06/stories/2007050609700100.htm
http://www.telegraphindia.com/1070507/asp/frontpage/story_7744209.asp
http://www.hindu.com/2007/05/07/stories/2007050701151300.htm
http://in.news.yahoo.com/060516/43/64apa.html
http://www.hindu.com/2007/05/06/stories/2007050604260800.htm
http://www.academics-india.com/Leadstory.htm
-->

If any of you come across this section, please do go ahead and edit it and write it out in accordance to Wikipedia's various policies as applicable. Interested users/editors might wanna take a look at the following section of Wikipedia's guidelines:

• Citing of sources
• Verifiability of cited sources
• How to maintain a Neutral point of view (NPOV)

Cheerio! And happy editing.... aJCfreak yAkBaK 18:58, 17 May 2007 (UTC)

Dubious

Hi. Is AIIMS really the biggest hospital in Asia? Could someone provide reliable sources for the same? Such claims have to be sourced from trusted, leading sources in the medical field. aJCfreak yAk 15:10, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

According to this article, the Ahmedabad Civil Hospital is the largest in Asia. Bumrungrad Hospital, Thailand, seems to be the largest private hospital according to this link (even the hospital's own website touts it as the largest private hospital in Asia Check the title of the weblink).

Also, the term largest is misleading. Does it refer to the number of hospital rooms/beds available, number of patients treated per annum or the physical size of the hospital campus or simply the wide swathe of technology available on-campus? aJCfreak yAk 15:40, 17 August 2007 (UTC)

WP:INDIA Banner/Delhi Addition

Note: {{WP India}} Project Banner with Delhi workgroup parameters was added to this article talk page because the article falls under Category:Delhi or its subcategories. Should you feel this addition is inappropriate , please undo my changes and update/remove the relavent categories to the article -- Amartyabag ^TALK2ME 13:24, 29 June 2008 (UTC)

Notable faculty and alumni

What is the criteria for inclusion? I propose keeping only those names in the list, who are notable enough to have their own articles on wikipedia, and remove the rest. Anir1uph (talk) 21:15, 5 July 2012 (UTC)

Adding articles for upcoming AIIMS

I don't think upcoming AIIMS are notable enough for articles at this point, as demonstrated by this and this so I redirected them back here. I suggest future discussion about this take place here. --Muhandes (talk) 19:48, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

AIIMS Kalayni is currently under construction. construction in is very fast. As a result, there should be an article on the AIIMS Hospital in wiki. Four AIMMS will be created first of 13 AIIMS. One of them is Kalyani. খাঁ শুভেন্দু (talk)

That's not an argument, that's a tautology. You are saying it needs to have an article because it needs it. The institute does not pass WP:NORG or WP:GNG, if you think it does, prove it. I argue it is no more notable than other AIIMS, for example the Deoghar institute, which started construction earlier. --Muhandes (talk) 23:18, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

Also note that you are contradicting yourself. In this edit you claimed the institute will be established in 2019. Is that "very fast"? Are you claiming institutes which are two years away from establishment are inherently notable? You also claimed it has 550 staff! That's amazing for an institute which was not established yet. All the rest of the details are also unsourced and very dubious. Please stop edit warring and lets discuss the merit of this article here. --Muhandes (talk) 23:25, 31 October 2017 (UTC)

AIIMS Mangalagiri and AIIMS Nag pur are Started in temporary Campuses. Buildings are not fully constructed.But first year MBBS Course is started from the year 2018 AbhishekDas.G.H. (talk) 05:26, 16 October 2018 (UTC)

I don't have time for this right now, but I quick search show there are plenty of secondary articles about this, so there should be no problem creating articles about them. --Muhandes (talk) 17:55, 17 October 2018 (UTC)

Dr. Dipika Deka appointed as AIIMS, Kalyani Director[5] --Kulbhushan Jhadav (talk) 16:59, 15 January 2019 (UTC)

@Muhandes You have to accept the facts. Classes already started[6]. Dr Dipika Deka appointed as AIIMS Kalyani Director[7] I appreciating it, that Construction Process is Undergoing. but offcial Work also happening and its not tautology, Construction happening doesn't mean The Institute Would not functioning its not true[8]. Kulbhushan Jhadav (talk)

@Muhandes Read this, you will get little bit clear picture[9] and Wiki Page doesn't depend on construction work was happened or not. mentor institute of AIIMS Kalyani, |AIIMS Bhubaneswar Recruiting Faculties and Stuff for AIIMS KALYANI[10].50 Students already took admission in AIIMS-KALYANI and their classes will be held at Nearest Medical College as the AIIMS-KALYANI does not have proper infrastructure. I've tried as much as possible to provied Independent and 1st party news Source to prove my point, I hope You will review your decision and will not restrict The Article. Kulbhushan Jhadav (talk) 12:29, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

@Kulbhushan Jhadav: You do realise you are referring to something I wrote twenty months ago, right? My latest comment on the subject, from nine months ago was quick search show there are plenty of secondary articles about this, so there should be no problem creating articles about them. Was that not clear enough? --Muhandes (talk) 14:22, 29 July 2019 (UTC)

"Major cleanup" suggestion

In this edit, an anonymous editor is proposing a "major cleanup", which I object to. I don't see how the resulting article is any better. Please discuss this change here and explain its merit.--Muhandes (talk) 12:14, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I am that editor, you reverted without providing any specific objection or policy violation. I have provided detailed answer here regarding how you are being disruptive. Since you provided no specific violation, I am restoring my edits. 58.182.172.95 (talk) 12:18, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Please discuss the change, not my behavior. Per WP:BRD, if you keep restoring it, you are edit warring. You did not provide any justification for the edits themselves anywhere, and I think they are harmful to the article. --Muhandes (talk) 12:20, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Just to kickstart the discussion, I do not object to breaking the institutes into phases. I do object to combining the tables for operational and non-operational institutes. I do object to the additional columns, "Operational with own permanent campus" and "Operational from temporary campus", I'm not sure how they contribute. It is not the task of this article to keep stock, just to summarize the overall state (operational or not). --Muhandes (talk) 12:25, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

My reply re your behavior was on my own talkpage in response to your message on my talkpage. If the behavior has a "repetitive pattern of being subjective and disruptive" then I have to point it out on either on my talkpage or yours, or else how are we going to communicate and resolve. Regarding providing an explanation for my edits, I had added a detailed edit comment to justify my changes. Anyway, I will write those here again. The independent third parties can make their own mind up. 58.182.172.95 (talk) 12:28, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

My behavior is not the subject here. Please discuss your changes and stop the ad hominem arguments. --Muhandes (talk) 12:38, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Let me help you even further, just to prove how much good faith I have, even though you keep insulting me. Here are the changes you proposed:

• 1.Latest status added.

I did not see this, but if these are major changes in the status, I don't object

• 2. Current and under-development AIIMS tables merged after adding additional columns to track their more accurate status.

I object. Two tables serve the purpose of distinguishing active and inactive institutes better.

• 3.History section: subsections created to make the development clear by the phases of PMSSY scheme.

I don't object

• 4. Anchored "Pradhan Mantri Swasthya Suraksha Yojana (PMSSY)" to phase-II and made it bold so that it would appear/be-indexed in google search.

Strongly object. This is against MOS:BOLD. Appearing/being-indexed by Google search is not a purpose of Wikipedia.

• 5. Lede made representative of the updated article text, specially status approved 23 AIIMS

I probably agree.

Please address these, not me. --Muhandes (talk) 12:44, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

Merging two tables while adding more columns: To be more specific, there is no definition of what exactly are the "Current/operational AIIMS" and "Under-Development / non-operational AIIMS" and there is no wikipedia policy either. Except that this differentiation of operational and non-operational "subjectively" exists in your head, which you assertively tend to impose "my way or highway/revert" style on other editors. Since there is no standard definition, the way article currently exists with "Operational AIIMS" and "Future AIIMS", these two separate lists are debatable and contentious. Some of those mentioned in operational are not yet operational in some aspects i.e. no campus/hospital/infra and no classes. Conversely, some of those in the "Future AIIMS" list have made better progress than those in the "Operational AIIMS" list. In case of such ambiguity and fluid status, the good practice is to have additional column/s to accurately track/document the status and let the reader make up their mind. Given that encyclopedia is not a live breaking news site, wikipedia guidelines allows for short term status tracking of changing events and upcoming projects. Richer data is always better than skeleton data, because the less data caters only to a subset of readers, whereas the the richer data is useful to much wider set of readers. Less data is your personal preferences, which might be detrimental to other readers taste and needs for details. If i as an editor, chose the richer data, assume goodfaith please. Having richer data, as provided by me which was still concise and uncluttered enough, caters for those who do not need details (it meets your minimalistic needs) as well as the needs of those who needs details, especially those who are stakeholders/beneficiaries of those articles/institutes. Please restore the edits, you are welcome to rephrase some columns, etc if you wish. 58.182.172.95 (talk) 12:57, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

I will address everything you mentioned. As I told you before, I "like you" in my heart, and "I must pay respect to your contribution". It is true there are certain aspects I did not like, which I believe a "passionate person like you" will take as a "constructive feedback". I have absolutely no intention to "insult or hurt you". It would be extremely "stupid of me to even thinking of doing this to someone I like". Besides, we would keep coming across each other repeatedly over decades in future. Neither of us is immature to risk the good working relationship. Since "I like you", and "you felt insulted/offended" (only you can decide how you feel, I will not argue with it), in such a case the best thing is to "offer my heartfelt unconditional apology to you", I will try to be extra sensitive/careful and lot more sweeter. Please forgive me for hurting your heart. If you still feel hurt, please let me know, what else I could do to sooth your heart. 58.182.172.95 (talk) 13:03, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

My response to the specifics replies you provided to my itemised edits:

1. Yes, these are the "latest" updates, provided to the parliament by the government. Wiki policies/guideliens/conventions is to go with the latest updates. The question of if those are major or minor changes is irrelevant (specially when also combined with the "assume goodfath" and "no one owns wikipedia" principles). Some of these are major updates e.g. some institutes have commenced classes.

2. Please see the explanation in earlier comment titled "Merging two tables while adding more columns".

3: Thank you.

4. Ok, got it. I agree with your WP:BOLD. Please remove the bold, but please retain the {[anchor}} template to that section.

5. Lede just makes the status explicit, as it was presented to the parliament, removes vagueness. Delivers the exact numbers of the "approved AIIMS" in the elde, which was not there before. I purposefully did not put "how many are operational" since that is "subjective".

Thanks. 58.182.172.95 (talk) 13:31, 14 January 2020 (UTC)

1. I updated the status where I saw an update. Let me know if I missed anything, or update yourself.

2. I'll answer below

3. Implemented. Note that your phase I and II were against what sources specify. AIIMS Delhi is not Phase I, it is outside PMSSY. Phase I is the six first institutes named by the 2012 Act. Phase II is the Raebareli institute. Phase V is seven institutes, not five. This is all heavily supported by sources, and most importantly PMSSY itself. Phase VI according to PMSSY is two institutes, not the three claimed by Business Line, the Bibinagar institute is Phase VII, not VI. The error moves on to the next phases.

5. I updated the lead

--Muhandes (talk) 10:34, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

More explanation of "subjective" criteria for the "operational AIIMS" - illustration with another example: WP:EDITDISC. Per crystal balling even announcement without approval should be enough since it has become an event most likely to take place. Legally, higher threshold of gazette notification after passing the bill/act is needed. For others editors, even after gazette notification unless hospital or classes are operational it is not operational (many more combinations within this e.g. OPD strated but no classes, first year non-clinical classes started from temporary campus but no OPD/hospital, etc. For example, other editors have accepted even the lesser criteria of "cabinet approval is sufficient" in case of the long surviving article on Indian National Defence University (INDU). Since the article on INDU is long surviving, it becomes a convention (same union govt of India, same legal framwework, same process of approval/establishment, same state of Haryana, etc). Hence, if INDU has survived, then same must be applied to approve the article on AIIMS Rewari too which already passes the much higher criteria than INDU. INDU has been been approved by the Union Cbainet, but the bill in the parliment is pending, hence thre is no gazette notification. AIIMS Rewari act has bean passed, Cabinet has approved,, gazette notification has been issues, it legally exists, no more a crystal ball. 58.182.172.95 (talk)

What you say may or may not have merit, but this is the wrong place to argue it. For this article, if an article exists, showing an institute is operational, it will be moved from one table to the other. If you want to argue that every institute that was notified should have an article, go ahead and open an RFC. --Muhandes (talk) 10:47, 15 January 2020 (UTC)

Political dispute about establishment

I am American and sometimes I fail to understand politics in India. Here is what I think is happening

• there are competing political parties in India
• there are multiple All India Institutes in various cities around India, and the government builds new ones over time
• claiming the establishment of an All India Institute is an accomplishment that political parties want
• there are multiple unclear steps in establishing an institute, including announcing it, building it, and opening it
• data is not transparent, and we do not know for example how much funding political parties arranged in what time period

There seem to be multiple sources arguing about who gets credit for schools in this system. I cannot make sense of the news and also I do not know which news sources are influenced by which political parties.

• Chaudhuri, Pooja (25 April 2021). "Did UPA govt build only one AIIMS institute during their tenure? False claim viral". Alt News.
• Ministry of Health and Family Welfare - http://pmssy-mohfw.nic.in/index4.php?lang=1&level=0&linkid=81&lid=108
• Shrivastava, Rahul (8 August 2018). "Cost of building new AIIMS overshoots by Rs 3,000 crore". India Today.
• Varshney, Vibha (8 August 2018). "Cost of setting up an AIIMs shot by 147% in just 4 years: CAG report". Down to Earth (magazine).
• "Six Years Later, Government Clears New AIIMS". The New Indian Express. 12 June 2011.

If anyone would like to match sources to an interpretation then please do. Blue Rasberry (talk) 20:35, 28 April 2021 (UTC)

Article showing lots of AIIMSs is "functional", it itself a half truth. AIIMs like (Kalyani, Bathinda, Guwahati, Bilaspur, Vijayapur, Deoghar, Rajkot, Bibinagar) are just medical students admitted, hospital, ipd still not opened. -Kulbhushan Jhadav (talk) 07:09 AM, 29 April 2021 (IST)