Talk:Indian Institute of Planning and Management/Archive 16

Archive 10

←

Archive 14

Archive 15

Archive 16

Discussion wrt controversy

The points that are mentioned in the Career 360 paragraph within the Controversy section are repeats of the points mentioned within the article. My suggestion:

• Choice 1: We keep the career 360 details in the controversy section and reduce the same from the main article.
• Choice 2: We keep the career 360 details in the article and reduce the same from the controversy section.

▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 05:18, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

The controversy section on advertisement should be toned down and written in summary style . The bits and pieces of information in the main article are necessary since they are other valid POV. --TheMandarin (talk) 05:55, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

Wifione, I'm not sure what exactly you're proposing here. The Careers 360 info all seems to be pretty well consolidated within the controversies section of this article. Can you please be more specific about what you want?

I would also really, really like it if you didn't move forward with other changes in this article until you go back to add citation templates to the numerous bare references you have added to this article. It really does make it harder for everyone else when the references are just a number with no information about the source. This is now my fourth request to you to do so, a month after my initial request. TheMandarin tagged this for bare URLs, something originally done a few weeks ago but deleted by an anonymous editor. If you need help figuring out how to use the citation templates, let me know and I'll be happy to help you work out the technical details. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 07:37, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• WS, I understand and appreciate your fourth request. fyi, Citation templates can neither be discouraged nor encouraged within an article, and especially when they come with a request from you to me to stop editing the article till the same are added. If you wish to add citation templates, do please go ahead and do so after gaining consensus, as it might be contentious to add the same otherwise. Thanks for your offer to help. I'll take that up if I'm not able to understand how to improve the bare references (you do have a point out there). I (and you) should try and add them in the meanwhile.
• WS, wrt the Career 360 article, one example is this part of the article The_Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management#Job_placement which has "The magazine Career360 reported that three companies - Standard Chartered, Barclays and Deutsche Bank......". This part of the article The_Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management#Careers_360_Article has again this line "Three companies - Standard Chartered, Barclays Bank and Deutsche Bank - are mentioned. The article also listed a few......". This is just an example. My suggestion is to trim down such repeat descriptions.
• WS, I notice that Career 360 "does not endorse or subscribe to the suggestions, advice and views of the authors of the content" of the website [13]. I'll be changing the Career 360 article appropriately to represent the name of the author.▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 10:58, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm sure you're aware that I've added many citation templates in this article already, but I separated this out into a separate discussion since it seems you don't feel there is a consensus for using them. I just started a new job and do not have enough time to clean up your work by expanding your references, but we'll see what others feel about whether bare URLs or full citations should be used.

Thank you for clarifying what you're asking about for the other edits though. TheMandarin's solution seems to make sense; summarize the controversy section (maybe moving some of this to the advertising controversy article. Adding the author of the article as part of the summary in the controversy section would be fine. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:53, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

• I've given a summary that I think can be made to the Controversy section's advertisement part (leaving the Unfair Trade Practices, Tax issues and Plagiarism part as it is). The details can be shifted to IIPM's Ad Controversy article-

In 2005, Arjun Ravi, in an article in Just Another Magazine (a fun and satire magazine), questioned certain claims mentioned in IIPM's advertisements. This story was picked by Gaurav Sabnis (an IBM employee then) and Rashmi Bansal, the editor of Just Another Magazine, on their respective blogs. Gaurav Sabnis was sent a legal notice by IIPM while IBM was reportedly told by IIPM that they might publicly burn IBM's laptops. IIPM officially commented that Rashmi Bansal and Gaurav Bansal (both IIM alumni) had relentlessly lied as they, like other IIM alumni, suffered inferiority complexes because of IIPM. Gaurav Sabnis was consequently forced to resign from his job by IBM.

In 2009, B. Mahesh Sarma, in an article in Career 360 (an education oriented magazine) wrote an article on IIPM questioning the accreditation of IMI, campus placements participation of a few companies, quality of international placements of IIPM students, and international associations of IIPM with US business schools like McCombs, Judge, Darden, Haas.

▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 16:17, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Citation templates

Per Wifione's comments above, I'd like to see if we can reach consensus on using citation templates in this article. I don't really care which templates are used, just that we don't have bare URLs. Wifione, if I understand you correctly, you do not believe that the use of any citation templates in this article is appropriate, and that you would prefer that all references be bare URLs as you have provided. Or is your position something different? Right now, because of the excessive controversy on this article, it appears that bare URLs are used to disguise where information comes from. I'm sure that's not anyone's intent, but it has the effect of making it more difficult to determine what is or is not a reliable source. What do other editors think? Would the use of citation templates be beneficial in this article? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:38, 22 December 2009 (UTC)

A few more points related to this discussion:

• This explanation of link rot includes an excellent discussion on "What is wrong with bare URLS?"
• Wifione left out an important detail when he paraphrased the explanation of consensus for citation templates. "Because templates can be contentious, editors should not add citation templates, or change an article with a consistent citation format to another, without gaining consensus" [emphasis mine]. Consensus is needed if you have an article that already uses one format consistently throughout. Clearly, that isn't the case here. That point is more for articles that use some specific style, like one that uses Harvard footnotes rather than the typical Wikipedia style ones.
• Wifione, if you want to add full citations but not use citation templates, I'd accept that since that would be a major improvement over the bare URLs. Personally, I find the citation templates helpful when doing full references, but if you really find them that problematic I'm OK with you skipping them. I'm less worried about how you get the full information for the references in the article than about just getting that information there. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 10:45, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I am in favor of using citation templates. I find them much easier to deal with when adding citations, and don't have to worry about formatting because I know the template handles it. I have added templates to citations in this article in the past because I object to bare URLs. At one point I recall I had this article in fairly good shape in that regard, but since then a whole bunch more bare URLs appeared. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:35, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

WS, you really need to interpret Wikipedia guidelines properly. And even past talk messages. I'll interpret the guideline (and connect it with my past talk for your benefit). You should take consensus before accepting any citation template as standard. You're doing that out here - it's good. Bare URLs are not what add to the wealth of knowledge (read my line in the past talk about 'you having a point'). Conclusively, I'm satisfied with your final statements on accepting added information to bare urls.▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 05:46, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Amatulić, you're right; the references were in better shape a few months ago. Wifione has added at least a dozen bare URLs, which he apparently thinks is a "consistent citation format" requiring consensus to change. Wifione, please go back and reread the policy one more time--you pulled it out of context and left out an important condition on the need for consensus. Just because it's not convenient to you doesn't make the guideline say what you want. Even if we did need consensus, Makrandjoshi agreed previously that citation templates were a good idea, TheMandarin has tagged the references for needing them, and now Amatulić has agreed. You're the only one who has been editing outside that consensus. Please expand your bare URLs. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:26, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

WS, you have to read my messages properly. You're investing a lot of wasted effort writing too much which is repetitive and most often, in this case, clearly ignorant of discussions and Wikipedia guidelines. I've already told you if there are bare URLs, you have a point out there and it'll be good to fill them up. Now, either you can keep arguing with me on my statement, or we can move up the discussion chain to more important points. I am sure everybody will encourage you on that. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 14:36, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I'll believe that you have agreed to edit within the consensus of expanding the bare URLs when I see you actually doing that work. Until then, I'm skeptical that you'll put in the effort to do it right. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 15:47, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

About the Disclaimer point raised by Wifione

Wifione pointed out that JAM as well as Careers360 have disclaimers on their websites saying things like the publication "does not endorse or subscribe to the suggestions, advice and views of the authors of the content". Wifione had also brought this up as a point when arguing against Careers360 being WP:RS. I'd just like to point out that it is standard boilerplate legalese lingo adopted by almost every media entity in India. For example, TimesofIndia says No representations, warranties or guarantees whatsoever are made by TIL as to the (a) accuracy, adequacy, reliability, completeness, suitability or applicability of the information to a particular situation. Rediff says - REDIFF .COM AND/OR ITS RESPECTIVE SUPPLIERS MAKE NO REPRESENTATIONS ABOUT THE SUITABILITY, RELIABILITY, AVAILABILITY, TIMELINESS, LACK OF VIRUSES OR OTHER HARMFUL COMPONENTS AND ACCURACY OF THE INFORMATION, SOFTWARE, PRODUCTS, SERVICES AND RELATED GRAPHICS CONTAINED WITHIN THE REDIFF SITES/SERVICES FOR ANY PURPOSE. NDTV says - Neither the Company, its affiliates nor any of their respective employees, agents, third party content providers or licensors warrant that NDTV Sites will be uninterrupted or error free; nor do they make any warranty as to the results that may be obtained from use of NDTV Sites, or as to the accuracy, reliability or content of any information, service, or merchandise provided through NDTV Sites. In general, any media entity has such CYA lingo.
So I don't see the point behind this sudden zeal to replace the names of media entities with writers, when it comes to JAM and Careers360. Makrandjoshi (talk) 00:35, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm not generally opposed to adding the author names in addition to the magazine names (not instead of the publication name). I don't think it's necessary, but I don't think it particularly hurts things to mention the authors as part of the citation. It's a compromise I'm willing to make for this article if Wifione wants to add that. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 10:32, 24 December 2009 (UTC)

Makrand, WS, it's quite clear that perhaps you're not reading Wikipedia guidelines. Rediff (most probably run by an ad agency Rediffusion) is surely not a reliable source. Any content that any news magazine (Times of India) says it has no editorial oversight on, either should not be included, or should directly quote from the author if the author is quoted in third party publications. In that context, I am also removing Maheshwer Peri's statement in the article as it is a self published article (he is the publisher of Outlook) and Wikipedia guidelines do not allow the usage of self-published articles. It'll be good of you to understand that New York Times, for example, does not use these legalese. That is why many so called reputed news sources from India will never perhaps qualify to be authoritative and reliable sources on Wikipedia ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 06:12, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

Wifione, where in the Wikipedia guidelines does it say that mainstream news organizations need to meet that standard? "Material from mainstream news organizations is welcomed, particularly the high-quality end of the market." Note the lack of anything about "news organizations owned by ad agencies aren't reliable and should be avoided," which is what you're arguing. Most of the US media is owned by conglomerates; Disney owns a substantial chunk of the mainstream news market in the US. But we use their sources all the time. "Self-published" refers to blogs and such, not opinion pieces in a mainstream news publication. "Anyone can create a website or pay to have a book published, then claim to be an expert in a certain field. For that reason self-published media—whether books, newsletters, personal websites, open wikis, blogs, Internet forum postings, or tweets—are largely not acceptable. 'Blogs' in this context refers to personal and group blogs. Some newspapers host interactive columns that they call blogs, and these may be acceptable as sources so long as the writers are professionals and the blog is subject to the newspaper's full editorial control. Posts left by readers may never be used as sources." Please reread the WP:RS. The policy doesn't say what you want it to say. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:20, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

• WS, Rediff.com is surely not a "mainstream news organisation", leave alone a high quality one, however much we might want it to be. For your point, Wiki policy does say that news organisations "backed by a media company, university or institute with a reputation for fact-checking and editorial oversight" are welcomed. Others will be open to high scrutiny for reliability, whether or not we have seen them used in many other places. Ad agencies clearly don't fit into any criteria I mention. Do visit rediff.com and if you feel that is a highly reliable source, it's alright as neither way does it add to the quality of our article project. So let us both not waste any additional time in this issue.
• WS, You have reverted my change and put back the self-published source of Maheswer Peri back. Maybe you could read WP:SPS which clearly says that self-published sources should be "largely avoided". Maheswer Peri is the "Publisher" of Outlook. And his column in Outlook should not be included unless he is "an established expert on the topic of the article whose work in the relevant field has previously been published by reliable third-party publications." Therefore, I'll accept Peri's inclusion if you can show to me some third party publications (other than Outlook, as he publishes it himself) that have published peri's work on the particular topic. If you cannot, Peri's line should be removed as per policy. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 15:59, 25 December 2009 (UTC)

I didn't say that Reddit.com is a mainstream news organization; I said that Outlook magazine is. The two are not the same. Let's review what has been said about Outlook in the past on the Reliable Sources noticeboard:

"...the magazine [Careers 360] is a venture from Outlook Group--a very respectable news magazine and a WP:RS."[14]

"...it is marketed and distributed by Outlook Group, which not only published Outlook (magazine) but has also distributed Newsweek, Marie Claire etc in India."[15]

WP:SPS doesn't apply to something in a mainstream news publication like Outlook, even if it is the written by the owner. "Self-published" refers to blogs etc., not something like this which has gone through an editorial process--exactly as the policy states for blogs in newspapers which go through editorial review. I'm not arguing that self-published sources should be included without scrutiny; I'm denying that this is a self-published source. It's labeled in the article as an opinion piece, which is appropriate. I understand from your comments on the Reliable Source noticeboard and elsewhere that you have major personal issues with Outlook, but that doesn't make Peri's quote irrelevant. You've tried twice and failed to get Career 360 declared unreliable; do you really think you'll have any more luck arguing that Outlook isn't a reliable source? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 01:13, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

User:Wifione, almost all newspapers have such disclaimers, for ex, New York Times, [16] : "However, by accessing or linking to this Web site, you assume the risk that this Web site and the content it contains, or may in the future contain, may be incomplete, inaccurate, out of date, or may not meet your needs and requirements", but this does not make it a non RS. --TheMandarin (talk) 05:03, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

TheMandarin, WS, wrt the point about disclaimers on websites, I think you have a point with respect to the concept of terms of use of the websites.

WS, you're arguing that the Outlook publisher writing in his own published magazine is not a self-published piece because you are claiming his piece would have gone through a proper editorial oversight. If you can provide a source for the same on Outlook's website that gives an idea of the editorial process, it'll be good. If you can't, I'll allow the statement to remain and in between try and leave a third party note or reliable sources noticeboard comment on this SPS case. What we both think is limited to both of us - it'll be good to get other comments. I'm sure you'll be ok with that. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 10:49, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

Wifione, if you'd like to try and fail again at the reliable sources noticeboard, I'll be fine with that. Just promise that if the discussion there doesn't go your way that you won't keep going back or trying to find other boards until someone agrees with you, OK? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:48, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

WS, I'm fine with viewpoints coming in from interested parties, including yours. Dispute resolution is a standard process on wikipedia. Slowly staking up the dispute on higher and higher boards is a standard process of wikipedia. You would be incorrect in requesting a fellow editor to not approach a higher board - I would be referring to the Mediation/Arbitration viewpoints, in case the situation demands so. But I'm sure you did not mean that. Thanks. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 15:41, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm referring to your penchant for forum shopping and bringing arguments up repeatedly. For example, when you went to the RSN board for Career 360, the discussion didn't go your way the first time. Unhappy with a consensus you disagreed with, rather than abiding by that decision, you went back a few months later. As the first time, the consensus was against your viewpoint. Then you went to other places to complain about people who disagreed with you--including one where you were deemed the more disruptive party. I'll be happy for you to go to RSN and argue that opinion pieces in mainstream news media are SPS, but I'd like assurance from you that you won't repeat the same disruptive pattern of behavior as you have previously. But, of course, if you want to go to RSN with the intention of eventually taking it to mediation, I can't stop you. I think that's gross overkill and wikilawyering, but go for it if that's what you think you need to do. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 18:04, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

WS, you have written in the above statement "I'm referring to your penchant for forum shopping and bringing arguments up repeatedly" and "I'd like assurance from you that you won't repeat the same disruptive pattern of behavior as you have previously". I'll suggest in good faith that you should stop making such statements. The civility in this forum of discussion is compromised. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 04:41, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

On removed information

I was going through the article history, this edit removes quite a bit of information, but the text was not moved to footnotes. Ideally we need to use ref group="n" and use the ref group later using, ref|group=n template. ( for ex see few FAs ) The point was to move them to footnote not completely remove it. Similarly the current version of "Claims in IIPM's Advertisements" with this edit is not a summary, since lot of key points still need to be added. Will start working on it as time permits, just wanted to bring this to the purview of other editors as well. --TheMandarin (talk) 14:27, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I think the text should be moved out of the footnotes and into the article. It is highly relevant information. Sources and parenthetical notes are appropriate for footnotes, but not critical information such as the fact that degrees aren't actually awarded. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:01, 26 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm ok with moving it to footnotes. Will try and learn the usage of footnotes from the changes made. I do think that information about non-IIPM entities should be relegated to footnotes as they're not directly IIPM information. And in the controversy section, I'm sure the additions will include the relevant summaries by TheMandarin. Thanks▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 15:36, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

Usage of the word 'Controversy' as per Wikipedia:AVOID#Controversy_and_scandal

(Wikipedia:AVOID#Controversy_and_scandal is now a redirect to Wikipedia:Manual_of_style/Words_to_watch. The version of Wikipedia:AVOID#Controversy_and_scandal cited by Wifione in the section heading is here. --Anthonyhcole (talk · contribs · email) 07:00, 27 December 2014 (UTC))

I notice that the word controversy has been used in the lead section to combine tax issues, accreditation issues, advertising issues, and more. Can we have a link that says that all these (or any of these) are actual 'controveries'? We have to be careful in not using the word 'Controversy' unless a link directly supports the direct connection between an incident and the word 'controversy'. I suggest removal of the term itself from wherever it is mentioned within the article, unless links can be provided directly connecting the word 'controversy' and various points mentioned under it.▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 17:12, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

As noted in the advertising controversy article, the word controversy is used by multiple sources such as The Beginner's Guide to Journalism and Mumbai Newsline. We can certainly add those sources here, but it will probably result in expanding the controversy section. I would be OK with changing it to "IIPM has been the subject of controversies and investigations regarding accreditation, rankings in third party publications, advertising claims, trade practices, and tax issues" or "IIPM has been the subject of investigations regarding trade practices and tax issues and at the center of controversies related to accreditation, rankings, and advertising claims." The second version in particular separates out the trade practices and tax issues as investigations rather than controversies, which by Wikipedia's terminology is perhaps more accurate. I'd also be OK with changing the section heading to "Controversies and investigations" if that would help us get to consensus. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 20:15, 27 December 2009 (UTC)

That sounds fine to me. I can't find any basis for Wifione's objection. I wrote in the lead that IIPM has been the subject of controversy, which is quite different from saying something like "IIPM has been mired in controversy."

Issues such as tax evasion, plagiarism, questionable advertising, and so on, are indeed controversies in every sense of the word. The fact that some controversies may have been resolved does not mean that the controversies never existed. The word "controversy" in the context of WP:AVOID is being used correctly.

Call a spade a spade, and don't try to invent euphemisms to soften the historical record. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:13, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Amatulic, WS, unfortunately, unless you show links which directly mention that somethings was "a controversy", WP:AVOID says that you cannot use the word "controversy" by using your own synthesis judgement. You might be in the danger of allowing Original Research. I'll replicate the lines from WP:AVOID. "When using words such as controversy or conflict, make sure the sources support the existence of a controversy or conflict." My comments with respect to your links (please provide others if you can. Until then, I'll mark the article with a NPOV conflict tag)

• WS, The Beginner's Guide to Journalism link only says that the "IIPM Controversy is known today as one of the first Blogging controversies to have ever taken place in India. The link also mentions that the JAM magazine piece "did not raise much controversy" initially when it was posted. Clearly, this link is being misinterpreted. The maximum you could do is give a paragraph with the exact heading "Blogging Controversy". You cannot write a general term "Controversies" unless you have links to support each and every point given in the section.

• WS, The Mumbai Newsline link you provide says "With word spreading in the ‘blogosphere’, the incident has now erupted into a major controversy and hundreds of bloggers are standing by Sabnis and espousing their right to freedom of speech ". The 'incident' being mentioned out here is Gaurav Sabnis being forced to resign (The link mentions that Sabnis claimed IIPM students wanted to burn laptops). Therefore, even here, the term "controversy" is being linked to the blogging issue.

• Amatulic, you write that "Issues such as tax evasion, plagiarism, questionable advertising, and so on, are indeed controversies in every sense of the word". Unless you show us verifiable/reliable secondary sources that write that "tax evasion was a controversy" or "plagiarism was a controversy" or any other connection, you are in the danger of permitting original research and synthesis. This is critical as the "controversy" term is a big claim. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 03:40, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

This is ridiculous. Paraphrasing sources is acceptable, especially when writing an overview of the remainder of this article, which clearly describes events that can be summarized no other way than as controversies. You are grasping at straws to suggest that such paraphrasing amounts to "original research" just because a particular word doesn't appear in a source. Sources can, and do, describe controversies without ever using the word "controversy". That's what the sources do, whether they use the word or not, so we call it what it is.

Whitewashing is unacceptable. We're talking about IIPM's association with tax evasion, false advertising, plagiarism, dishonest reporting to ranking publications, etc. a tax evasion, and you deny that those things are controversies? Incredible. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

While I agree that paraphrasing is acceptable, I changed "controversies" to the somewhat more accurate "objections and investigations". --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:04, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Thanks for your inputs Neil. I think "Objections" is more accurate and in lesser danger of synthesis than "Objections and investigations". I also think that a "Blogging Controversy" was there and should be mentioned in the lead as it was one of the issues some bloggers might remember. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 04:11, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Amatulic, it doesn't matter what you think is a controversy or can be written as controversy. Unless a reliable secondary source clearly says something "is a controversy", you're not adhering to Wikipedia guidelines on reliability and verifiability of a statement, especially an exceptional statement. Are you saying you're alright with synthesising based on what you might perceive, without backing the statement up with secondary sources?▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 04:15, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Your reading of WP:AVOID constitutes synthesis. Please stop, and read it again. Nowhere does it say that we shouldn't use the word "controversy" unless the source uses it. The guideline says the sources need to describe controversies or conflicts -- and they do. There is NO danger of synthesis in using the word "controversy". As I said before, whitewashing is unacceptable. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:02, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Amatulic, kindly consider WP:Synthesis along with WP:Avoid. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 06:58, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

You are new here; I have become intimitely familiar with the guidelines and policies during my years with Wikipedia. You are the one reading meanings that aren't there. I suggest you read WP:AVOID again, carefully this time, and note that there is no requirement for the word "controversy" to exist in a source to use that word in an article; only a requirement that the sources describe controversy -- which they do.

In fact, I think we have a good case for using the word "scandal" in certain instances; in that sense, "controversy" is a far more neutral word. ~Amatulić (talk) 07:20, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Amatulic, AACS_encryption_key_controversy is the case example given for reference in WP:AVOID. It'll be a good idea for us to go through that to realise that links do write the term 'controversy'. You want to use the word 'Scandal'. WP:AVOID says "the use of one of these words (scandal, affair, -gate) in an article should be qualified by attributing it to the party that uses it." They cannot be used otherwise. WP:AVOID also says "When using words such as controversy or conflict, make sure the sources support the existence of a controversy or conflict." When read with WP:SYNTHESIS, it is correct that in such exceptional words, the source has to mention the existence of a controversy. It's not your judgement or mine that matters, but whether the source clearly writes that there exists "a controversy". This is an exceptional claim, and would need exceptional reliable sources, and not any one op-ed column. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 16:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Making sure the source supports the existence of controversy is not the same thing as making sure the source actually uses the word. You are reading meanings into the guideline that don't exist. Controversy or scandal is far from being an "exceptional" claim when the issues involve things like tax evasion, plagiarism, false advertising, placement, etc., all of which are documented by the sources. Now I must ask, what is your association with IIPM? ~Amatulić (talk) 20:27, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

• Amatulic, you are an editor with a good background and good editing history. It'll be good if you do not make statements such as "Now I must ask, what is your association with IIPM?" This is the second time you're writing this statement or a similar statement. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 05:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Rather, it'll be good if you don't evade the question. Conflicts of interest should be disclosed, per the official guideline Wikipedia:Conflict of interest: "Editors with COIs are strongly encouraged to declare their interests, both on their user pages and on the talk page of any article they edit, particularly if those edits may be contested." Your edits are contested by multiple editors here, and your edits and arguments (some of which seem to me to be grasping at straws) appear to lean not so much toward balance as toward painting IIPM in a positive light. So I think the question is fair. Need I ask a third time? What purpose is served by evasion? ~Amatulić (talk) 06:02, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

Let me assure you Amatulic, there is no CoI out here. What we're having is a content dispute> with you saying that an extremely exceptional term like "Controversy" can be used "even if" the source doesn't mention the exact word, and me saying that that would be going against WP:Synthesis where you would be indulging in original research. That means that not only would you disregard the fact that there was only one "controversy" - namely, the "blogging controversy" - but you would be also quite wrongly synthesising the tax issues, plagiarism, etc into one term, "Controversy". Tell me how is that not going against OR? ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 08:45, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

• Wikipedia:No_original_research#Reliable_sources says "if you use a source out of context or to advance a position that is not directly and explicitly supported by the source used, you as an editor are engaging in original research;"

• Wikipedia:SYN#Synthesis_of_published_material_that_advances_a_position also mentions the same. Now, it'll be good if you show the sources out here that directly and explicitly say there was a controversy or a conflict. I'll request you to do the same because I even have doubts with respect to the usage of the term disputes, which I will suggest removing in case you are not able to back the same up with sources. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 05:08, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

You are imagining synthesis where there is none. As stated earlier, there is no requirement for a specific word to be used in a source if the word is accurately descriptive. If a source uses the phrases "public dispute" or "debate" or "contention" or "disputation concerning a matter of opinion" or "disagreement" or "altercation" they aren't using the word "controversy" yet the definition of "controversy" is exactly those things, if you look it up in the dictionary. The sources already provided in the article are not taken out of context, and explicitly support the notion of a "controversy" simply by virtue of the subject matter: topics such as tax evasion, plagiarism, false advertising, and so forth, are unquesitonably controversial topics.

This entire argument, along with your challenges of every reliable source that contains any negative information, points to the conclusion that you are stretching Wikipedia's policies and guidelines beyond common sense; in other words, you appear to be wikilawyering. That is not good.

I am changing the word in the lead back to "controversy" because that is exactly what the sources describe. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:40, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

I agree with Amatulic. There are ample sources to indicate controversies/scandals/issues etc. There is nothing in WP to suggest that the precise word "controversy" should be mentioned. But for what it's worth, I have also provided a link to a Spiegel article saying that IIPM is a controversial school and has been involved in controversies. Regardless, as long as wifione is not contesting that controversies/scandals/issues exist, and agrees with cites for them, I don't get the point behind arguing against the word. Makrandjoshi (talk) 14:43, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

If you see WP:Synthesis, that's exactly what the editing rule says: the editor's inputs should be "directly and explicitly supported by the source used". Look guys, if you use sources which do not mention the words you use, imo it will be completely against a set wikipedia guideline. The Spiegel article (or the MBA-Channel self published piece) is an opinion piece by Barbara and should be used in exactly the way opinion pieces have to be used. Are we acceptable to that as a consensus solution? ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 08:38, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Let's keep this discussion in one place, on WP:RSN, rather than having the same argument two or three places, shall we? There's no need to repeat arguments here that you have made on another board. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 17:46, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Barbel Schwertfeger (please stop saying Barbara :)) article is not an opinion piece. It has not been tagged as such. And reading the article, it is clear that it is investigative, in which she has contacted several schools. Using the word controversy is apt. Makrandjoshi (talk) 23:05, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

Investigations seems to accurately portray the MRTPC probe and Tax issues situations. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:17, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Neil, then you should perhaps write that "objections with respect to its advertising" and "tax and trade practices investigations" which were resolved later. That is a neutral point of view, imo. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣}

Done. I'm not thrilled with how the sentence flows. Hopefully someone else can fix it up. --NeilN ^{talk to me} 04:36, 29 December 2009 (UTC)

Advertorial language and name-dropping

We need to keep in mined that this is a wiki article, not a brochure for IIPM. Some language here though, is very brochure-ish. For instance, the "beyond the principles" courses taught, and name-dropping of Nike and such. Such information must be kept to its essentials, and embellishment or name-dropping should be avoided. I have made some changes in the language accordingly. Makrandjoshi (talk) 12:24, 31 December 2009 (UTC)

In the last few days, wifione and an IP address registered to IIPM have tried to add names of important companies and organizations in the GOTA section. There is already a line mentioning GOTA includes visits to multinational firms and political organizations. Adding name constitutes name-dropping. Let us keep in mind what wikipedia is not What_Wikipedia_is_not#Wikipedia_is_not_a_soapbox_or_means_of_promotion Makrandjoshi (talk) 15:37, 8 January 2010 (UTC)

Makrandjoshi, mentioning of representative companies (four out of many more, for example) is clearly keeping in lines with objectivity and npov on wikipedia and do not quite come out in the context you might wish it to. If in case you wish to undertake any suggestions which might add value to the project, feel free to mention the same here. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 03:55, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Makrandjoshi adds value to Wikipedia on a regular basis, including working towards NPOV as he is here. I agree with him that the company names listed does make it sound a bit too much like advertising. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:41, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

COI Noticeboard Request for User:Wifione

Hello all. I have raised a COI request at the noticeboard here. I have left a message on wifione's talk page to respond. Posting this here for the benefit of Amatulic, WS, and other editors who have expressed similar concerns about conflict of interest. Makrandjoshi (talk) 13:20, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks. Will reply on the page you've raised the issue. You write that Amatulic, WS and other editors have expresses similar concerns about CoI. I know about Amatulic. Can you precisely tell which other editors have raised the CoI issue in the past? It'll be nice of you to justify your statement. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 08:49, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

RSN request for Maheshwar Peri article

I have raised a request at RSN about the contentious Maheshwar Peri article. Wifione seems to think that it is "self-published" because Peri is the publisher of Outlook. I disagree, as do other editors, from the discussion above. So I have posted it on RSN to see what others think. Makrandjoshi (talk) 14:22, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

So far, 4 people have responded, and all seem to agree that it is RS. Also, relevant for wifione who said it is self-published, one of the people responding said it best - ""self-published" is not a criterion per se but a catagory of publications that usually are not reliable nor intellectually independent of a given topic". So I hope we can now treat this disagreement over Peri's article's RS-ness as closed. Makrandjoshi (talk) 16:02, 1 January 2010 (UTC)

Do keep in mind that despite that, as your discussions at RS prove, you will have to mention the piece as an opinion piece attributable to Mr. Peri quoting exactly what he said, rather than using it as a general RS. Hope we're on the same page? ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 08:32, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

The Peri piece is already clearly labeled as an opinion piece and cited to him, so as long as we keep it as it is now it should be right in line with the RSN discussion. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:52, 3 January 2010 (UTC)

NPOV issue wrt the Controversy section

User Makrandjoshi has recently reverted back the Controversy section disregarding discussions that were undertaken in the page. In good faith (without reverting Makrandjoshi's undiscussed change), I again suggest that we discuss the Controversy section's space and balance npov issue.

• The Controversy section repeats many statements that are already mentioned in the article above, giving a non-npov situation due to the amount of space being given to the section vis a vis the article. I suggest deleting the repetitive statements (for discussions that took place a few days back on this issue, do please scroll up a few sections).

• The overall space given to the Controversy section - irrespective of the repetitive portions - is apparently much more than required for the overall article. Could we have discussions on the same? Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 04:04, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

The summary took too much out, as noted by Makrandjoshi. As I mentioned on the discussion for the advertising controversy, I've changed my mind about what should be there and what should be here. Let's come to a resolution on the Careers 360 inclusion or not there first, as it affects what we include here.

I notice that you are using the word controversy now. Does that mean we've reached a consensus on this word? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:34, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

Wifione, everything in the controversy section is validly cited from reliable sources. Just because it repeats some statements from the other article is not grounds enough for removing them. Your "summary" removed a lot of those statements, and IMHO, weakened the controversy section. All the lines in the section currently cite facts and not opinions. I also don't see how 2 paragraphs constitute a disproportionate amount of space. I personally think the space is appropriate and what is written is already a good summary. The actual wiki article on the controversy has around 3000 words, while this summary has 600 or so words. That's about 20%, which is a darn good summary. Other editors can weigh in. Secondly, wherever IIPM gave their point of view in RS sources, it has been included. So both sides of the coin have been presented. I don't see how this is an NPOV dispute. Not even if I assume you're making an WP:UNDUE argument, because the diverse number of RS cites for the controversy aspect show it is not a minority view by any stretch of the imagination. Makrandjoshi (talk) 23:59, 12 January 2010 (UTC)

• WS, I was referring to the section when I used the term Controversy. I agree with your view on rediscussing what should be in the other article and this article. Let's discuss it on that discussion page itself.

• Makrandjoshi,

• repetitive statements give inappropriate weight. That's non npov.

• if you consider the article (without the controversy section), it's around 1980 words. If you consider the Controversy section, it's close to 1300 words. That's non npov wrt space and balance

• Repeating details like career 360 verbatim in both this article and the forked out article, are non-npov.

I'll look for consensus in creating a better npov version of the controversy section. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 05:52, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Wifione,

1. You are mixing up two issues then. The entire controversy section contains a lot more than just the advertising controversy. The relevant sections you are talking about are the JAM-related ad controversy, which by itself is summarized here in only 300 words, and has the full article to itself. The rest of the controversy stuff on this page is not mentioned anywhere else. So apart from JAM magazine stuff, I don't see any reptitions from other pages.
2. The Jam-related stuff, like I said, is a good summary. 300 or so words (leaving the careers360 part which I address below) summarizing an entire wiki article is good enough.
3. I don't see how the controversy section as a whole is non NPOV wrt space and balance. the undue weight part of NPOV is considered for minority views. Here, there are several controversies, all validly cited from RS soruces, and are by no stretch of imagination the minority view. Each controversy by itself is summarized pretty succinctly. Now, if IIPM has gotten involved in all these controversies, then that section is proportionate enough.
4. About Careers360, yes, it repeats the stuff from the ad controversy page. But I have already said on the ad controversy page that it can be taken out from there, because the Careers360 article is not related to the specific controversy/event that the other page is discussing.. SO the careers360 stuff staying on this page is fine. Let's just take its out of the ad controversy and provide an external link at the end as "Related". Makrandjoshi (talk) 12:58, 14 January 2010 (UTC)

Since Makrandjoshi has removed the Careers 360 info from the other article, I think that takes care of that point. The controversy section is large because there are multiple controversies. I don't see that this violates WP:UNDUE: "Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by a reliable source, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each." In each case, the reliable sources have been cited which explain the controversies. Given the number of sources critical of IIPM, the minority view actually seems to be IIPM's own.

If IIPM has published a response to the Careers 360 article, or if another reliable source has criticized Careers 360 coverage of IIPM, I think that could be included in the controversies section for balance. That, of course, would increase the relative size of the controversies section. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 01:04, 15 January 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the replies, Makrandjoshi, WS. Taking out Career 360 from the other article is good. I'll continue discussions there on the focus. The other view of space and balance is that perhaps we should build more sections within the main article's non-controversy section to ensure that the current space and balance issue of Controversy being a very large section is reduced. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 08:00, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Adding more to the rest of the article seems like a much more reasonable solution than removing things from the controversy section. Maybe my memory is foggy, but I believe you have said in the past that you have additional sources that say positive things about IIPM; perhaps those could be added. Mostly what was added back in November seemed to be criticisms of organizations & people who have criticized IIPM, rather than positive information directly about IIPM. If you do have information from reliable sources about IIPM, that would be great to add. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:04, 16 January 2010 (UTC)

Notability of Notable Alumni

I think the names being listed under notable alumni merits a major rethink. Being hired by some company or being mentioned in some newsletter does not make it notable even if a mainstream newspaper is a source of the information. Look at the kind of people usually mentioned in alumni lists e.g. List_of_Brigham_Young_University_alumni or Indian_Institute_of_Technology_Kharagpur#Alumni_Initiatives and then see who is listed for IIPM and the difference in notability becomes blindingly obvious. I think we should delete all those names. Opinions? Makrandjoshi (talk) 16:24, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

One rule adopted by editors of other articles is: If an article calls something "notable" when it isn't notable enough to merit its own article on Wikipedia, then it shouldn't be mentioned at all. This standard has been adopted in articles such as Biblical software and List of twelve-step groups. I would have no problem adopting that standard here. I agree the names should be removed if they fail to pass Wikipedia's notability guidelines for biographies. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:34, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

This is specifically addressed in the guidelines for college and university articles: "Summarize the number of affiliates and alumni who have won major scholarships (Rhodes, Fulbright, etc.), major awards (Nobel, Oscar, Pulitzer, etc.), served as heads of government or other major political office, or otherwise held elite or notable distinctions (astronauts, professional athletes, CEOs, etc.). Individuals who do not meet Wikipedia's notability guideline should not be included." WeisheitSuchen (talk) 17:05, 7 February 2010 (UTC)

Npov tag

Kindly do not remove the npov tag with a statement that discussions have winded up. If you see just one section above, we're still waiting to add relevant sections in the main article to balance out the size of the overall article. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 05:54, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I didn't notice the tag was gone until I saw your edit suggesting that I removed it; I didn't. In any case, the last time anyone commented on this topic was almost a month ago. I think that could be interpreted as a reason to remove the tag. It doesn't really matter to me whether the tag is there or not. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:34, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Wifione, if you haven't added anything in a month, it's quite reasonable to assume that you don't have anything to add for balance. You're making dozens of edits a day now, so we know you're active. Why don't we leave it up for a week to give you some time to add some more content? If you haven't done anything in that time, then we can consider the discussion done. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:32, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

Furthermore, even in the discussion above, wifione did not make a wiki-policy-based cased for the section being against NPOV, because all information is validly cited from reliable sources. wifione agreed to add more information, but it has now been almost a month, so I wonder if such information is going to be added at all. I also think we should wait for a week, and if no new information is added and no policy-based concerns are raised, we should delete the tag. Makrandjoshi (talk) 16:19, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

We shouldn't remove the tag till the article is balanced out and the initial reason for it being there is resolved. The discussions that I had the last time focused on many repetitive statements within the article that were non-neutral (I had given the examples) and the inordinate length of the controversy section (the section some levels above this discussion have reference to that). The point where I had wished to work on was to reduce the controversy section. I'm not sure you agreed on that. So the NPOV tag should remain till you, me and other editors can perhaps re-edit the controversy section and the main section. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 10:41, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

No, Wifione, no one agreed to reduce length of the controversy section, except when we were talking about moving the Careers 360 info to the other article--a change you agreed to reverse. In fact, consensus is that the controversy section is an appropriate length. As you've been told at least a dozen times in various places, the appropriate response is to add positive content elsewhere for balance. Do you have any new policy-based concerns? If not, then we'll remove the tag. If you add it back without raising new objections, you'll be editing against consensus. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:38, 12 February 2010 (UTC)

WS, my point of view remains the same. The article has a clearly non-npov slant with respect to article structure and pov forking. You may call it whatever you wish, but until the space balance issue, pov forking, and article structure are modified (by any editor), the NPOV tag should remain. Thanks ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 08:50, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

POV forking means splitting off sub-articles. Does this mean you'd like to see everything from the Indian Institute of Planning and Management advertising and blogging controversy article moved back here? I think it would help me understand your perspective if you would cite the specific parts of the policy which you see are most relevant here, rather than just mentioning the names of policies. I'm having a hard time seeing how that applies here. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:05, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

POV Forking, in the context of usage, also might suggest the hiving off of Controversies into a separate section. I might point out the repetitive statements within the main article and the Controversy section as further need for the tag (remember the section where we discussed this issue...it's a few storeys above). If you wish, we could cut off the repetitive portion from either the main article or the Controversy section. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 03:11, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

I have now removed the tag. This is getting too much, I think. A tag is being placed, but not more discussions or action. POV forking does not apply. All information is validly cited. And considering that new controversies keep erupting every so often (only today I added informaiton about the Uttarakhand branch being threatened with closure), the length appropriately reflects reality. As far asI see, only one person, wifione, seems to think it is too long, and again, it seems like a subjective opinions. All the info is validly cited, given relevant information. There are no opinions there. And for a couple of months now, wifione has been told to add other info if he/she wants. Tags should not be used as tools for fighting and arguing. Makrandjoshi (talk) 12:46, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

New information about IMI Belgium

Careers 360 has another investigative piece, in which they have reproduced the full letter from NVAO in belgium, complete with the sender's name, the logo of the organization etc. The article is here. There are two things of note which I am editing the article to incorporate

• IIPM has removed the name "University of Buckingham" from their recent ads, so the mention should be removed from here too.
• NVAO's letter says that IMI's MBA and BBA degrees can not be recognized legitimately and "Graduates that use the title of Bachelor or Master can even be prosecuted. Using those titles without holding a legitimate degree is illegal". What this means is that wherever the article mentions that the MBA and BBA degrees are awarded by IMI, we should refer to this information. Makrandjoshi (talk) 16:00, 8 February 2010 (UTC)

I've put the exact wordings of the letter to avoid original research. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 09:23, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Can you please point out the part of WP:OR that you believe says we must use direct quotes rather than accurate summaries or paraphrases? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:43, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

Synthesis perhaps. It's better to give direct quotes and let the reader make out what the statements say. ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 03:13, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Ranking and awards in lead

According to WP:UNIGUIDE (in an addition made by Wifione), we should "Give one factual statement summarizing overall "most recent" rankings obtained in key surveys." Wifione, can you please clarify why you believe this does not mean that you should have more than one ranking or award in the lead, as you stated in this edit summary? Your guideline seems pretty explicit to me. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:48, 14 February 2010 (UTC)

"Rankings" (the 's')! ▒ Wirεłεşş ▒ Fidεłitұ ▒ Ćłâşş ▒ Θnε ▒ _―Œ ^{♣Łεâvε Ξ мεşşâgε♣} 03:14, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

"[O]ne factual statement" seems to be the relevant part. Do you really, truly, genuinely believe that one ranking + one award is "one factual statement"? I'm still kind of surprised that you got this change in the guideline included, but as long as it stands as is, I guess this meets the guideline. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 03:36, 16 February 2010 (UTC)

Can we please delete all the references to rankings in this article? Even iipm admits that these "Best Bschools list" are merely based on the perception of the magazine publishers and thus not verifiable. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 59.94.2.144 (talk) 06:28, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

Are you sure you're the term "verifiable" means what you think it does? It might be based on poor/useless criteria and it might not be a well-known ranking publisher and IIPM itself might not like it, but it's a fact that numerous groups independent of the subject itself write about IIPM. Stating "who says what about the subject" is exactly how we are supposed to write about these things. The section on rankings already clearly states that IIPM has concerns about the ranking systems. DMacks (talk) 10:05, 10 April 2011 (UTC)

A few edits from me

I have made some edits.

• Added information about the Uttarakhand branch of IIPM being faced with closure.
• The lead had too much information about partner schools. Again, most of them only conduct a course, and most of them also have issues with IIPM using their names in ads. Not only was the lead too advertorial, it was also violating NPOV. I have changed it to a more general summary statement.
• A line about recent ranking is fine, but where did the award come from? That too not an award with a great deal of notability? Have removed it from lead. And below, the cite given for it was blank.
• The trade practice issues has NOT been "resolved". As the news article cited says, the government body has a shortage of personnel which is why they could not proceed with the trade practice investigations. About tax issues, I could not find any article at the oink given about IIPM getting a "clean chit" from the income tax dept.
• The univ of buckingham accreditation for IMI degrees has no 3rd party cites. Since accreditation is a disputed issue, until we get WP:RS cites, we should not make changed to it.

Makrandjoshi (talk) 12:53, 27 March 2010 (UTC)

Might I request you to put back the note about the tax link along with the link with a 'citation required' tag? You could perhaps place the NPOV tag too till the issues (listed a few paras above) are addressed? ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 10:16, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

The only point you mentioned above that still seems to persist is that you feel the controversy section is too long, and has critical info. Others disagreed and said the info is cited, and you are free to add a counter-point with valid cites. It's been weeks and you have not, despite being quite active on wikipedia. So I assume you have no info to add there. May I ask you, what exactly is there in the section that you want removed or deleted in order for it to be NPOV in your opinion? About the tax issues, feel free to add it back after you find a cite. I was unable to, and it is a big claim which is in dispute, so I don't think a CN tag is enough. Makrandjoshi (talk) 19:44, 29 March 2010 (UTC)

Unfortunately, by deleting information about Buckingham, Haas, Darden from the lead, and removing the citation, you might have made the lead and the article even more non NPOV. An article should not be made primarily on primary sources. But discrediting any new primary source which gives the IIPM pov might force the article into an NPOV situation. I suggest you take a quick look at the NPOV discussions above. You might already have. The point was that the article's controversy section (as per me) should be integrated with the main article rather than being forked out. That would resolve the fact that details are being repeated in the controversy section. Finally, the tax news obviously existed, as had been proved when it was initially put. That it is now inaccessible is in normal course (many news links on the web can face linkrot). But that would not justify taking out the point itself. I again suggest that you could perhaps add back the NPOV tag and the details you deleted. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 04:07, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Firstly, the lead had a surfeit of information. Secondly, that information was misleading, suggesting some sort of "partnership" programs. Darden has already clarified that it does not have a partnership agreement and only provides some exec ed courses to IIPM as a "client". Same with Haas. And in June 2009, Univ of Buckingham wrote a letter saying although talks have been on for some time, until IIPM gets a QAA certification, there will be no formal agreement until that happens. Cites for all this are in the main body of the article. About the tax issue, I tried to google and find another RS source, but could not. If you do, feel free to add it back. For all I know, it was taken down by the said newspaper after they discovered the news was not correct. Not saying that's what happened, but it's possible. Plus there was just one cite for that fact from RS sources, and that cite is gone, so I don't agree that the tax news part was obviously true. But like I said, if you find a WP:RS cite, please feel free to add it back. About the NPOV tag, I am interested in hearing the opinion of other editors active on this page. Makrandjoshi (talk) 23:34, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

The article's controversy section is okay the way it is, although Wifione has a point in that integrating the controversies into other parts of the article (rather than collecting them all in one place) might be an improvement. At the moment I can't really see how to do it without having this article devolve into a point/counterpoint debate format, and some of the controversies don't really seem to fit anywhere else but in their own section. Regarding the NPOV tag, I have stated before that it doesn't matter to me whether the article has it or not; the presence of the NPOV tag won't magically cause improvements to be made. Specific suggestions on this talk page will. ~Amatulić (talk) 23:56, 31 March 2010 (UTC)

Let me integrate some of the controversies into the main article in a sandbox on the talk page. It'll allow repetitions to reduce and the NPOV tag from remaining. The NPOV tag remaining allows other editors to go through it in the meanwhile, and for readers to know it's not a neutral pov. You all can go through the sandbox version and make changes before loading it up. Also, I think the darden and haas links have to be there as they are participating b-schools, and the reliable sources mention them. It doesn't matter whether they're providing some ex-ed courses or not. They remain participating b-schools. Wrt Univ of Buckingham, I truly believe the IIPM pov has to be mentioned. And maybe we should refer to WP:LEAD for the recommended lead size. Thanks ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 05:36, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

• About Darden, Haas etc, the nature of the relationship DOES matter. Offering client services and taking short courses is a very different thing from being a partner institution. It is a small part of the exec ed program, NOT the masters or bachelors program. Putting it in the lead is not appropriate. Having said that, I am okay with a short mention in terms that are not misleading. So I am editing that portion of the lead. Take a look.
• About Univ of Buckingham, I don't agree with your opinion on POV. The fact at question is, whether IIPM has a formal relationship with Buckingham and if their degrees have been certified by them. UoB has said in the letter to C360 that although talks have been on for a while, there is no formal agreement. Facts such as whether a relationship exists or not is not a point of view thing. It's a fact that is either true or not. Given UoB's clarification, we can not say that a relationship exists. Makrandjoshi (talk) 18:41, 5 April 2010 (UTC)

Hi Amatulic

Hi Amatulic, you reverted around eight reliable sources I had added saying they primarily represented editorial opinion pieces. Leave the CNN link (which is more a listing of Asian Executive Education offering institutions, including IIPM, than a news article), others are sure and pure top grade articles. Noting down the details here for your reference >> CNN news (is a listing - not an oped, but yes, a listing only), Pioneer article (is from their section Avenues, which comes I guess every Monday, and contains many articles by experienced Pioneer journalists; the article is not from their Op-Ed section, which goes by the name Editorial - I've double checked every detail since your message), HT Syndication archive link (is an archive of the Pioneer Link maintained by Hindustan Times, another Reliable Source for us), Indian Express link (some years old, yet an article by a journalist only, despite the very flowery language being used), IIPMGota link (original source, but as it does not include any extraordinary claims, have attributed it to IIPM and placed it), NUS link (again, a university link, but contains straightforward information, so quoted it), an African university link (same concept as the previous link; just provided for support reference on Gota), Highbeam PTI archived link (it's the archive of the earlier link in the tax part which had become dead a few months back). Please do mention any clarifications you might require; I'll try my best to provide them. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 03:33, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

I reverted your changes because, while they did include different sources, they seemed to rely most heavily on one source (Pioneer), and that source was clearly an opinion piece, evident by its language and sarcastic tone. I have no objection to citing opinions if the author of the piece is notable, but then they need to be presented as opinions in this article, not fact.

Yes, Hindustan Times is a reliable source in general, but not everything published in Hindustan Times constitutes journalism. Editorials, letters, cartoons, advertisements, restaurant reviews, weekly columns, etc. are all published by reliable sources, but those specific elements would not be considered reliable.

When you make such wholesale changes in one edit, it is difficult to follow what you did. What I saw was new content relying primarily on an editorial, with other sources thrown in here and there.

I wouldn't object if you added back the content one section at a time without relying on the Pioneer story. That would make the changes easier to follow, and would likely not meet with objection. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:13, 22 June 2010 (UTC)

Thanks for the reply. Overall, with respect to the Pioneer story, I would have to disagree completely with you. The Daily Pioneer is a highly respected newspaper in existence since 1865. The current editor is a very highly respected individual called Chandan Mitra. The paper makes an extremely distinct differentiation between its editorials, op-eds, and journalistic articles. While you could see some past editorials here, and op-eds here, some articles under Avenues are here. Calling this particular article an opinion piece on a perception of its language and sarcastic tone (which I believe is not something I noticed as being out of line) is where I disagree with you. The piece archived by Hindustan Times, and in hard format by Pioneer, are clearly reliable sources as is evident to me. However, for your benefit, I'll draw a middle path which might be more acceptable to you and to me. By this weekend, I'll re-edit the article. Firstly, as you requested, I'll try and reduce the number of sections I edit in one go, allowing you to view the diffs appropriately. Secondly, while I'll include straightforward facts in the Pioneer article as facts, I'll try and ensure that any line which (imo) might be considered an opinion by you is presented as an opinion here. This might perhaps balance out the elements appropriately for you and for me. My suggestion, do check the diffs this weekend, and feel free to completely redo the lines I've edited, especially with the Pioneer link. Warm regards and cheers. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 03:31, 23 June 2010 (UTC)

Why The UGC Ad is Important

First, the UGC ad

It appeared in the Times of India on August 23:

http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Repository/getimage.dll?path=CAP/2010/08/23/9/Img/Ad0090800.png

The date is in the newspaper itself. 2007 is part of the number of the advertisement. You can see the notice here:

http://epaper.timesofindia.com/Default/Client.asp?Daily=CAP&showST=true&login=default&pub=TOI&Enter=true&Skin=TOINEW&GZ=T&AW=1282757767984

Why would the UGC issue a 2007 notice in 2010?

The reason why the UGS seems to have been compelled to give this notice is for reasons such as the following:

http://twitpic.com/2fkopn/full

Now, you could argue that the Twitpic is not an autheticated account, but that is the trouble with banner advertising. They would never have a static URL.

I hope you would be able to see the problem that the UGC and some of the past students of IIPM are fighting: despite warnings, IIPM blatantly continues to advertise falsely and that is why such ads by UGC are required. I hope the above will be able to satisfy you that this is absolutely PERTINENT news worthy of being mentioned about IIPM as anyone who reads the entry should know what the government's regulatory body has to say about IIPM

Once I have your approval to re-insert the above detail in the entry, I will come back and address some of the other issues. StudentForLifeTime (talk) 18:18, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

This is an interesting observation, but please bear in mind our policy Wikipedia:No original research, particularly the part about WP:SYNTHESIS. You are drawing a conclusion that a connection exists between the IIPM ad and the UGS ad. Maybe, maybe not. The point is that we can't make inferences or draw conclusions in a Wikipedia article, even if such conclusions seem obvious to you or me. We can only report what reliable sources say. If you can find a reliable source that says the UGS ad was placed in response to recent IIPM advertising, then it's fair to include it in the article. As it is, the connection you claim looks like original research on your part. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:05, 25 August 2010 (UTC)

The view of Amatulic is seconded in toto. I've left my viewpoint on the editor's talk page too. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 02:16, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

All right, so instead of my conclusion, let's hear it from the UGC itself as quoted in the Mint today: “IIPM is advertising its courses by using the name of UGC, MHRD and AICTE,” UGC vice-chairman Ved Prakash said. “It is indulging in cheating.” --StudentForLifeTime (talk) 09:13, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

The LiveMint source you have added is perfectly acceptable. It would be good if you compare how the source usage has been tweaked by me to represent exactly what is written in the article. In the future, do represent exactly what is written in the article. That is what Wikipedia means by no original research. The source information has also been placed appropriately in the relevant section. Warm regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 09:47, 26 August 2010 (UTC)

Repetitive information deletion discussions

I invite other editors of this page to kindly comment on ways to delete repetitive information within the article, mainly relating to two entities:

• Careers 360
• UGC/AICTE accreditation information

If you all agree, this weekend I could upload a draft edit of the article at Talk:Indian Institute of Planning and Management/draft where I would upload a new version of the article sans the repetitive information. You all could add/delete information on the same and once we reach consensus, we could upload that document. If any of you wish to take the lead in creating this draft document, please do go ahead. Alternatively, if you feel the creation of the draft might be cumbersome, we could discuss the deletion issues right here in this section of discussions. Waiting for your responses before uploading the updated draft.(Currently, I've uploaded the original document as it is on the main page) Thanks and regards. ♪ ♫ Wifione ♫ ♪ _―Œ ^{♣Łeave Ξ мessage♣} 07:25, 30 August 2010 (UTC)

Discussion on the accredition and nature of courses offered

Added following link to clarify that MSU (Manonmaniam Sundaranar University) reportedly only offers distance education MBA degrees and not full time MBA degrees "http://www.indianexpress.com/news/iipm-now-mumbai-students-demand-refund-mns-joins-in/755077/0" [17]

J mareeswaran (talk) 15:40, 24 June 2011 (UTC)

Controversies section

The "controversies" section has been tagged for non-neutrality for over one year. What are the exact concerns here? As I see, the main problem is that of undue weight -- entire sections have been devoted to stories (such as JAM mag), which should be accommodated in a bullet point containing 2-3 sentences. Such sections should be trimmed and the neutrality tag should be removed. utcursch | talk 07:08, 25 June 2011 (UTC)

I have to report undoing of my addition to the iipm page by User:Suraj845 citing unconstructive edit. Could somebody please explain the same to me as i think it is a valid controvery though going by your point earlier i think i should summarise it in 2 - 3 bullet points. Siddharthmukund (talk) 07:19, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

"It was reported on June 23, 2011 in various Indian news publications, that IIPM has filed a lawsuit against The Caravan magazine claiming damages to the tune of Rs 50 crore, citing “grave harassment and injury” for its cover story of February 2011 issue which focussed on the institute’s main man Arindam Chaudhuri.[94] [95] The article, titled “Sweet Smell of Success: How Arindam Chaudhuri Made a Fortune Off the Aspirations—and Insecurities—of India’s Middle Classes”, was written by Siddhartha Deb, a contributing editor at The Caravan and a university professor based in New York. The article was adapted from his book "The Beautiful And The Damned: Life In The New India" published in India by Penguin. Apart from Caravan, the suit also charges Siddhartha Deb,the author, Penguin (the publisher of the book), and Google India (which, the suit alleges, has been “publishing, distributing, giving coverage, circulating, blogging the defamatory, libellous and slanderous articles”).

The suit against The Caravan was filed not in Delhi, where both IIPM and the magazine’s publisher, Delhi Press, are based, but 2,200 km away in Silchar, Assam at the Court of Civil Judge by Kishorendu Gupta,the first plaintiff, reportedly operating Gupta Electrical Engineers in a Silchar suburb, and IIPM, the second plaintiff.

According to a statement put on its website by The Caravan, “Kishorendu Gupta is a commissioned agent who works for IIPM on a contractual basis. Although Gupta is called a counsellor, a contract between Gupta and IIPM shows Gupta is a recruitment agent who has commercial interest and is paid for his service on a commission basis. IIPM’s contract with Gupta states: ‘for number of students enrolled between 1 to 24, the compensation would be 75,000 per student …[and] for anyone who crosses the 25 students mark, the compensation would be 90,000 per student…[and] for anyone who crosses the 50 student mark, the compensation would be 1,25,000 per student” (From the agreement submitted by the plaintiffs in the court).’[96]”

The Caravan has said its parent company Delhi Press will fight the case and publish the updates in its 30 magazines in nine languages, which together have a readership of over 30 million people.

The article in its entirety can be seen on * | True Story : Arindam Chaudhuri

IIPM has earlier too filed similar lawsuits against certain other publishers, also in Silchar, Assam. The case against Rashmi Bansal, a blogger and editor of Just Another Magazine (JAM), in 2005 and Careers360 magazine, published by Maheshwar Peri (both mentioned above). The cases against Rashmi Bansal and Careers360 are both still underway at the Silchar courts. "

User:Suraj845 has a history of removing unflattering content from IIPM-related articles. I don't really want to comment on that. But your edits included verbatim text from the IBNLive news report. Besides, 4-5 paragraphs on this story would be undue weight to the incident. utcursch | talk 08:42, 26 June 2011 (UTC)

Well, I'll stick to the issues. I had suggested a few months ago that the tag is there because the whole article repeats a considerable number of issues at multiple places. Of course, the undue weight factor too exists. I had also suggested remodifying the article to ensure that the non-NPOV controversies section be taken into the main article rather than kept as a separate section. Therefore, by this week mid or end, I'll upload a reformatted version of the article on a subsection of the talk page. Go ahead and comment on the same when you find time. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 03:07, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Good to see someone has volunteered to fix the articles. This is one of those perennially tagged articles. utcursch | talk

Thanks. And my personal apologies again for the coi note in the edit summary. Best. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 16:34, 27 June 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 14 November 2011

i want to edit the informations given Indian Institute of planning and Management wikipedia, because there are some wrong and outdated informations given there which might confuse and distract the readers to get a clear picture about the institute

Unless you suggest something specific, this request cannot be answered. What, exactly, do you want to change? ~Amatulić (talk) 13:51, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

Edit request from , 14 November 2011

i want to edit few things in the controversy section because i think the controversies have been written down with a biased perspective. IIPM never claimed itself to affilated to AICTE or UGC , it was just said that the institute's tie up with MS university and Gulbarga University have enabled them to offer a course of BBA & MBA which are AICTE/UGC approved , by their OUTREACH programe.

Joy-123 (talk) 16:15, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

If you are unable to edit the article, please tell us exactly the proposed text you want added or changed. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:42, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

What Amatulić said, then request the edit again. CTJF83 18:03, 14 November 2011 (UTC)

An Article by UNIVERSITY GRANTS COMMISSION for Indian Institute of Planning and Management

It is hereby informed to the public at large and students that Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM) is not a University within the meaning of Section 2(f) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. Further, as per Section 22 of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956, the Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM) does not have right of conferring or granting degrees as specified by the University Grants Commission under Section 22(3) of the University Grants Commission Act. It is further clarified for information that Indian Institute of Planning and Management is neither entitle to award MBA/BBA/BCA degree nor it is recognized by UGC, MHRD and AICTE.

 The public and students are also hereby informed that the universities established either by 

a Central Act or a State Act or an Institution deemed to the university under Section 3 of the University Grants Commission Act can confer or grant only those degrees which are specified by the University Grants Commission under Section 22(3) of the University Grants Commission Act, 1956. A list of degrees specified by the University Grants Commission is available on the University Grants Commission website www.ugc.ac.in for information of all concerned.

(Niloufer Adil Kazmi) Secretary

You can check on this link — Preceding unsigned comment added by Nacx08 (talk • contribs) 19:20, 17 January 2012 (UTC)

Draft

Hi guys, I’ve finally done some edits and have placed them in the test page for your viewing and comments. A few changes that I have attempted are listed below. Do please me what you think of them. Anything and everything can be changed so please don’t think the edit I’ve placed is a permanent view. This might seem funny but let’s try and get this to a good article status if possible. The following are some key changes:

1. I’ve added many new links which should add up to the citation style. Key paragraphs to see would be rankings, placements etc.
2. I’ve deleted a news item of the awards in the controversy section. I perceive it to be only a temporary news with no encyclopedic value. Can put it back if you all think it’s worth the encyclopedia. I’ve also deleted the complete statements on CEEMAN as there’s no membership anymore it seems. In the process, I’ve deleted links that I considered unreliable earlier – and these don't exist and have been taken down by the mba-channel source
3. In the controversy section, I’ve cut out the accreditation repetition and combined it with the actual accreditation section above. Do you think that works? It at least cuts out the many extra paragraphs that were there. I’ve done some other edits out there; please see.
4. I’ve not been able to make the references in consistent citations but promise will do all that once we’re more or less comfortable with the contents.
5. I’m still confused on how to handle links that ‘’may’’ be considered now having a conflict of interest since the institution has gone into litigation with the parties involved, namely Outlook, Careers360, Maheshwer Peri and Mahesh – and has apparently won some defamation claim too (see the link in the article). Plus, in the past much time, there seems to have been no other sources that has confirmed the claim. Therefore, under Exceptional, I feel there’s some weight to removing them. Please suggest as these links also qualify on being Primary, as well as now being questionable due to parties being involved in the court cases with IIPM with judgments coming in recently. This is apart from investigative reports like those of Careers360 being primary in nature. And there being no other sources that confirm the details. So going by Exceptional, I feel that unless there are independent multiple reliable sources that support what Careers360 says, it should be removed being a primary source with a conflict of interest. I also feel the IIPM links that talk about these people are also questionable using the same viewpoint. In this discussion, I do not include the Uttrakhand issue as there is the Tribune story to back it up too.
6. I’ve removed one link of Racket Game Lobos which is perhaps another story under litigation. But it can be put back if you wish. Also, I’m not happy about having had to repeat the court case and defamation stuff at so many places. If we decide to remove what I think are primary and questionable sources, then we should remove all reference to the court cases too as they make no sense. If we decide to keep the questionable sources, then the court case material should also be there. But shouldn’t we combine all the Outlook plus Career360 plus Peri stuff in one place? That is, if we decide to keep it. Tell me what you think.
7. I’m also confused about the JAM piece which has been struck down by litigation. What do we do with it?
8. As per Exceptional, there should have been multiple reliable sources for a claim of plagiarism. There’s one source which is USA Today, a primary source as it was directly involved in the event. There’s no other report on this (unlike, say, in the JAM case or the Uttrakhand case). And I’m directly referring to policy to put forward this issue that in all the media reports that have been there, there has been only one single primary source on this exceptional claim of plagiarism.

If there’s anything else that catches your eyes, please do tell. Like I mentioned, the attempt is to make it encyclopedic. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 11:01, 20 January 2012 (UTC)

• Comments:

The main problem with the controversy sections in the draft (and in the current article version) is that the long main paragraphs are almost unreadable. With respect to "exceptional" I am not the least certain that other sources would in any case not be available. In particular, what comment has there been since 2010 on the judgements in the defamation case, in India or elsewhere. I find it hard to believe that with respect to an institution of this prominence there would be none. I would very strongly opposed removing this section based on quibbling about sources. I'm not commenting on this particular case, about which I have not previously heard, but there is a view that in many systems of law a finding of defamation proves absolutely nothing, except possibly the socioeconomic power of the plaintiffs.

As for the plagiarism, the matter seems very minor: are we really talking about the rights to one picture, or are the other and perhaps deeper matters.

With respect to the section on university affiliations, I think the way the material is presented is a little confusing. There is a major difference between another school offering one course in conjunction with another, and a permanent affiliation. I'd like to see some secondary discussions cited here. This sort of subject area is to some extent my specialty here, and I've seen too many promotional claims of this sort for borderline institutions.

As for the accreditation, if I read the section correction this is not an accredited institution. That is usually stated in the lead. Offering degree programs that are accredited through another institution is not accreditation. Again, I've seen too many promotional claims of this sort for borderline institutions. I don't personally know about this school though, and I am a little puzzled: for what reason does it not have accreditation, especially if it is in fact the highest ranking business school in India? That would seem to indicate a truly exceptional situation which needs some explanation. DGG ( talk ) 03:51, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

DGG, thanks for the reply. The draft is dated. So it'll be good to focus on the main article. On your points; in the controversies section, I'll break up the main paragraph into smaller ones. And on the sources, with respect to the JAM sub section, there're a few sources and that have been linked up. On the Outlook and Careers360 section, there's very little supporting secondary source in most of the matters reported by Careers360 and Outlook. There was a source called MBA Channel, a private educational website, that repeated the statements and attempted its own investigation. That was removed strangely quite promptly. There's a Tribune newspaper source that reports one news item of some students agitating. That's about it I think. I've searched and have not been able to find any support material for the claims of Outlook and Careers360, both having the same publisher. There's been a May and September 2011 ruling against the editor and publisher of Outlook, with both having resigned subsequently in 2012. I've given the references and material in the article.

Outlook is quite a large media enterprise run by a group called Rahejas, one of India's largest building giants - so I might not agree with your comparison of socio-economic power. Therefore, I'm worried that we've built this whole subsection (on Outlook, Careers 360 - related magazines with the same publisher) based on sources with conflicts of interest, as they already have court cases (which they've lost) against the institution they're reporting on. Therefore I suggested removing this section or at least the material being reported based on these sources.

Plagiarism: the issue is just about one story on one web page seven years back and that was about it. So I suggest removing the same.

University affiliations; I'll try to present the material in different paragraphs; perhaps it'll become clearer. In India, it's quite common to offer degrees while being affiliated to universities. For example, Faculty of Management Studies is also quite a top end business school that is affiliated to Delhi University. Indian School of Business is not even accredited by Indian agencies. In India, institutions aren't accredited (which in itself is also a voluntary procedure). The programs are what may be accredited. Why doesn't the institute have affiliated programs? It has. The degree programs, like for Faculty of Management Studies, are affiliated with a south Indian university, which is apparently a five star recognized university under government norms. And the certifications? Not accredited, apparently by choice as (a) the institute claims their course is superior to what the local regulation body is authorized to accredit (b) University degrees, after getting government recognition, don't need to have the secondary approval from the accreditation body; and the university degrees in this case are recongized by the government body called UGC. Wifione ^Message 05:52, 10 February 2012 (UTC)

I apologize for taking so long to get back to this. I think your wording is rather clever, but still needs some explanation and qualification. I realize the Indian higher education system is sui generis. If the accreditation is this complicated, and the term does not really apply to India in the same sense as elsewhere, it can not be called "accredited" in the ordinary sense in the infobox, but neither need it be called unaccredited there. (As analogies, I am thinking of the early 20th century, when any institution could say its graduates would be accredited thru the University of London, if they took its external degree examination. Or the situation until very recently, when the University of Wales would provide accreditation to "affiliated" institutions in various countries in such an indiscriminate manner that the University was closed down by the UK government.)

If programs, not colleges, are accredited, what exactly is the school's certificate program? apparently it is the final offering of the school itself under its own authority, which all its graduates get, and the "Academics" section needs a little rewriting to make that clear.; (the term is more often used for a preparatory program, leading to a non-professional qualification, or sometimes for admission into a regular academic program for further study.)

Based on the references, the extent to which the affiliations are real is disputed in many cases. Some are clearly not: that a one-time course is offered in association is not an affiliation. Based on the references, the extent to which an institute's not having its own accreditation is respectable is also disputed. "Voluntary" does not always mean optional. No school in the US actually need be accredited either in the literal sense (they generally need at least a business license, which some try to pass off as accreditation) but unless it is a small religious college that does not accept government aid, it can in practice not operate otherwise within the regular education system. In the US too, those that are unaccredited also resort to the practice of being associated in some manner with regular colleges for degree purposes, and their advertisements can be quite equivocal about the nature of this--the problem is by no means limited to India. The examples you give of accepted high quality schools are all business schools--are there others fields also? It is possible that what businesses consider sufficiently formal education is different from what the educational system considers--this is, after all, a field where a formal degree in the subject is not required for a successful career, though most people pursue it in the hope of improving their initial employment prospects.

There are a specific major problem: The phrase "optionally apply for BBA or MBA degrees from the International Management Institute in Belgium." makes me very uncomfortable-First, I could say that graduates of my high school can optionally apply for degrees from Harvard --if they should be admitted and complete Harvard's programs; second, I see no article here for such a school--I do see International Institute for Management Development in Switzerland.

The placements are also disputed. A college's word on its own placements--in any country--is usually considered a self-serving statement. (Consider current cases about US law schools) That 100% of the graduates of any institution find professional places in the field is an extraordinary statement (with the exception of state-run schools feeding directly into their civil or military service, like some in France, or most military academies), and consequently needs extraordinarily strong evidence. The listings of firms where its graduates work is promotional: almost any college has some graduates working in very large firms in some capacity. I realize the school is too new for a listing of notable graduates in the sense of having a Wikipedia article.

As for references, our practice is to consider the judgment of a trial court merely as a primary source to be quoted as such, not as settling the facts of the matter.I would like more references from outside India, especially references from outside India commenting on the court case. This is not unreasonable, as the school says it is an internationally recognized institution.

I have done some preliminary editing and will do more. But I have the problem that if I say the article is OK, since I work extensively in this topic area, this seems to be taken here as some sort of certification, and I do not take that responsibility for articles I did not write myself. I'm trying to figure out what to say, when I do edit. I know we're not supposed to be investigative reporters, but for some articles there seems to be little alternative. DGG ( talk ) 17:25, 15 April 2012 (UTC)

I now come back to this. The school is , put simply, not accredited. That it offers degrees from the IIM is misleading, for neither is that school recognized as accredited. IIPM does offer an arrangement by which its students can get degrees actually awarded by a cooperating institution. This is not the same thing as offering degrees, and all the evasions of the Institute's spokesmen do not make it the same thing.

It has been argued above that this is common in India. So it is: other Indian schools have some degree of popularly recognized status while being unaccredited is the case. Whether this is important is a matter of judgment, which we dod not decide. We just give the information. Perhaps accreditation in the formal US sense is irrelevant in India. perhaps it is relevant--all the accredited schools seem to think so. W can't draw conclusions one way or another.

It has been argued that accreditation is voluntary. So it is in most of the US--all one actually needs in many states is a business license.

There is no way of summarizing this in the infobox., so I removed the line.

There's a problem with IIM--we do not have an article on it, because the conclusion was that it was not notable. Perhaps someone should try again to write one. DGG ( talk ) 23:39, 11 May 2012 (UTC)

No article on IIM? What about Indian Institutes of Management? It's one of the more notable institutions in India. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:17, 12 May 2012 (UTC)

Edit request on 11 December 2012

IIPM Logo|IIPM Logo Adglobal360im (talk) 13:33, 11 December 2012 (UTC)

While it would be nice to have the logo in the article, that particular image is was taken directly from the IIPM web site. No valid usage rationale or usage permissions have been disclosed by the uploader. Therefore, the image will likely be removed if this lack of licensing information isn't fixed. I'm declining this request for now and marking it as closed. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:09, 12 December 2012 (UTC)

URL block section under Controversy

Added based on news articles in Mint and Medianama. See citation for verification.--Nizil (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• Medianama is user generated content not managed editorially. And isn't Mint one of the newspapers whose reports were blocked? If possible, get a source that doesn't have a conflict of interest. Or I may be wrong with Mint. Do tell.

Verifiability template

I added verifiability template as I found that some links mentioned in citation do not leads to verifiable source or even reliable sources. These citations support some claims in Controversy section, so need careful verification. Please removed unreferenced, poorly referenced, unreliable source ref'ed claims. --Nizil (talk) 20:52, 15 February 2013 (UTC)

• I'm removing those templates. Mention the links here which you find lack verifiability. Also, I'm merging controversy with the article. And bringing back the original lede which DGG had made after much editing. See talk above. Thanks. Wifione ^Message 07:46, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Additionally, quoting WP:QS here, "Questionable sources are those which may have an apparent conflict of interest." The supporting footnote says, " Further examples of sources with conflicts of interest include but are not limited to articles by any media group that promote the holding company of the media group or discredit its competitors; news reports by journalists having financial interests in the companies being reported or in their competitors; material involved in or struck down by litigation in any country, or released by parties involved in litigation against other involved parties, during, before or after the litigation." I've told this in the past to DGG without a convincing answer. Large passages in the Controversy section are based on sources with conflicts of interest, or parties that are directly involved in litigation with IIPM. I'll suggest keeping reliable secondary sources in the Exceptional Controversy section, and pruning down the material from questionable sources to only support the secondary sources than to directly quote. Any views please? Wifione ^Message 08:02, 21 February 2013 (UTC)

Hi Wifione, you've bulk reverted my changes. I agree you have a valid point above that career360 is a party to this situation, though it's still controversial, since IIPM sues everyone critical of them. But I've had to make changes such as diff(broken ref) a second time since you reverted them as well. I'd appreciate a little more discretion. Thanks!

Undue coverage?

This article (and the sister article Indian Institute of Planning and Management advertising and blogging controversy devote a lot of space to an incident which may have been a major event at the time, but may not justify that much space now. I am not suggesting the incident should be excised, but general practice, which this partially follows, is to have an article on the incident, and then a brief summary in the main article. While this format is roughly followed, the coverage in this article would be more properly covered by a paragraph or two.

Further, the incident is "supported" by link which are no longer working. While it is not required that links be to online material, it is troubling that such strong wording is supported by citations to material that cannot easily be verified.

I'd like us to examine whether there are live replacements for the multiple dead links, or alternative citations.

I'd also like to discuss whether this six year old incident can be better summarized.

Footnotes 65 and 83 were already marked as dead links when I first read this. I added templates to Footnotes 85 and 94 --SPhilbrick(Talk) 13:13, 23 February 2013 (UTC)

I've worked on this article before, and I've worked on many articles where thee are negative comments about schools and universities. Often the negative material is well justified; usually it is excessively strong and needs rewording, modification, and shortening. Both of these are the case here. But first there's the problem of the separate article. I am so sure it is unreasonable that I'm taking it to AfD. I often propose a merge in such cases, but I am not doing so here because the material is already adequately or more than adequately covered in the main article.

In fixing the material here, I'd like to know if there is later coverage of these events. I would especially like to see coverage from non-Indian sources. DGG ( talk ) 19:40, 24 February 2013 (UTC)

Faculty and Facility Section

In this section it is mentioned that most if its teaching staff is its own MBA students. Since IIPM doesn't award MBA degree, will it be correct to call them MBA. Vigyani (talk) 07:44, 7 March 2013 (UTC)

Removed text

I removed this from "Job placement" because it reads like a Laundry list of facts which i don't think help the article.

In 2007, according to IIPM's placement office, its students were placed in over 200 companies. In 2008, IIPM placed 2,670 students through campus placements, including 165 international placements.

• From "Relationship with accreditation organisations" --> "History" : Neither statement is verifiable from reference provided.

  In October 2005, the UGC (and later the AICTE ) raised objections about IIPM's technical degrees. The institute clarified that it had never offered MBA or BBA degrees; these were offered by International Management Institute Belgium (IMI) – a not-for-profit business school.

• From "Relationships with other educational organisations": Links to sources that entirely replicates another source:

• From "Ranking": - commented-out references removed:

References

Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 00:09, 2 May 2013 (UTC)

User:Baffle gab1978, you have done Fantastic copyediting and sorted out many problems including NPOV. Ranking and Job placement sections look like endorsement of institute to me. Many of those ranking systems may not notable or important. Institute itself is involved in controversy over ranking and job placement claims as stated in Controversy section. Even recognition of institute is in conflict, so how much importance should be given to rankings? what do you think regarding it?--Nizil (talk) 18:11, 7 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks :-) I think the article needs to give due weight to the rankings without being promotional, and the same goes for the job placement section. The controversies should be covered too, of course. I'll see if I can reduce this further without losing too much. Which rankings aren't considered important? Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 03:14, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

2011 Asia’s Best B-School award does not seem notable from citation. Some citations of Mail Today are dead. It should be noted that Zee Best B-school ranks institute every year. sentence "IIPM was also ranked first amongst the top ten b-schools in the Delhi-NCR region" is not important because it is ranked first in just a town size area. Just go as you think.--Nizil (talk) 08:10, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Job placement section

Section copied from article:

IIPM has seven international placement offices.[25][68][69] According to the institute, 70 percent of its students choose the placement process, and that almost all of these students get jobs through it.[42] In 2005, IIPM Delhi and Mumbai's average placement salary was 3.8 lakh (US$7,000) for domestic placements and US$30,000 for international placements.[70] ICICI was the biggest recruiter and IBM was the 'Star recruiter" .[70] According to Business Standard, the IIPM invites companies to its campus and offers placements at its sister concern, Planman Consulting.[71] Since 2006, IIPM claims a 100% consistent placement record.[72] In June 2009, Mail Today reported that the institute got jobs for 2,300 out of 4,000 (How 100% as claimed above?) students with 750 companies participating, and 46 international placements, with the results of 100 campus interviews still being awaited. The average annual pay package was INR 420,000, which was reported to be a good figure given the recession.[73] According to the institute, financial service companies and small and medium enterprises participated in placements in 2009.[74] In June 2010, The Hindu reported that more than 10,000 IIPM students had been placed in the last five years in around 1,500 companies; with more than 250 students getting international placements in the previous three years. IIPM Delhi got the highest number of global placements in India for 2008 (165 students placed globally) and 2009 (55 students). Overall, the highest annual package received by an IIPM student was 20 lakh (US$37,000), with an average package of 4.63 lakh (US$8,500). According to IIPM, in 2009, major international companies participated in IIPM placements(?).[72][75] In 2011, 2400 students were placed by IIPM. According to the institute, the average annual salary was 5.2 lakh (US$9,500) and the maximum salary in international placements was 27.5 lakh (US$50,000) [76]

I have turned some sentence part bold to consider them. And is it good to put figures of salary offered in placements?(It seem promotional to me like WE HAVE PLACEMENTS WITH HIGH SALARIES!) Just go through them, do as you think appropriate.--Nizil (talk) 08:28, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thank you; I'll look these over later on. I'll probably remove the salaries since I don't see what this has to do with the institute itself. But I'd like to wrap this copy-edit up soon. I'll do my best; I'm currently converting references to cite web/news. Cheers, Baffle gab1978 (talk) 21:39, 8 May 2013 (UTC)

Thanks for taking this article for copyedit, your work helped a lot. Waiting for final result. :) Cheers,--Nizil (talk) 10:06, 9 May 2013 (UTC)

Controversies

Hi, I have moved the controversies sections as it is much more important and useful to the reader than past rankings. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Lookinhotbra (talk • contribs) 15:03, 23 May 2013 (UTC)

Rankings

Why is there such a detailed section for "Rankings"? Can't it be summarized into a smaller text that summarizes the whole deal? Like in case of IIMs? Nadesai (talk) 10:28, 4 December 2013 (UTC)

'Advertisement' tag and remaining article issues

Clearly not warranted at the present time. Are there any other major article issues that need to be addressed? If so, perhaps someone can summarize them below. Coretheapple (talk) 02:35, 5 December 2013 (UTC)