Talk:Indian Institute of Planning and Management/Archive 3

Archive 1

Archive 2

Archive 3

Archive 4

Archive 5

→

Archive 10

Infrastructure

I have moved the reference to JAMMAG article from Infrastructure to Controversy - it doesn't belong in infrastructure, as allegations made in JAMMAG are a part of the controversy.

I have moved the reeference to BW to the Coverage in Mainstream media - same reason as above.

The infrastructure section of a Wikipedia article should state the facts about the institute. The Controversial articles, written and inspired by IIM-ite Rashmi Bansal, in BW where she is Contributing Editor and JAMMAG where she is editor, should remain in the Controversy section, and I even suggest we add the fact that thre is a clear motive for bias...

--Drnoamchomsky 09:33, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

What, may I ask, is the motive for the bias? Anyway, I have reverted the changes. Please do not revert back without the approval of the other editors. --Kunal 15:11, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Oh, and if you wanted to move everything writen by the "biased" JAM magazine to the controversey or coverage sections, why not also do the same for statements such as "A Jam magazine[2] article confirms that students are satisfied with the regular faculty."? Kunal 15:15, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Kunal,

YOu clearly have not even read the entire page. Clearly, IIM grads are very jealous of IIPM and its student and alumni for their success. This is clearly mentioned in the official statement from IIPM. Therefore, if Rashmi, an IIM grad, through JAMMAG or BW, criticizes IIPM, it should be clealrly noted that she as significant motive.

As you can see from my note below, there are no other editors - only IIM grads whose sole aim is to mud sling at IIPM through this page. That does not do Wikipedia any good, and the mudslinging is against the spirit and rules of the community. Bias must be noted prominently if it is going to be cited.

So, I agree that we should move all JAM related stuff to the controversy section. The period June-October (4 months) represents the contrversy, while 33 years of IIPM's work should not be seen through the lens of a controversy created by jealous alumni of a competing b-school. If IIPM's marketing is being called into question, fair enough, it should be done in the contrvoersy section, and it should be qualified as an alegation or opinion or report - not a reality and where applicable, motive for bias must also be noted. If a journalist has written a report, it does not become gospel - that journo obviously is human and may have bias. Wiki must highlight that if it seeks to report fact and truth. Citing is not error-free: if there is a possbility the source of the cite is not bias-free, it deserves to be mentioned.

Therefore, I am putting all of BW and JAM references, including the one about faculty being decent, into the controversy seciton. If you disagree, lets talk it out, dont revert. This Wiki article was created to thow dirt at IIPM, and so why should I explain myself first before changing - you should tell me why you think BW and JAM are NOT part of the controversy. Especialyl given that 4 months out of 33 years is such a tiny amount of time. Ad that Rashmi and Gaurav are IIM alumni. Who clearly have motive for huge bias.

The article is now starting to look like some semblance of a reflection of reality.... after so many reverts etc. and i will continue to uphod highest standards of wiki conduct, as do you... so lets work together, and fix this page, accordin to wiki standards. --Drnoamchomsky 07:46, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Guest Faculty

Overhauled the section, and renamed to the Global Outreahc Program. There was never any mention of 'Guest Faculty' in IIPM ads or prospectus. So there cannot be any rationale of a controversy over the use of the term, when it does not exist. The global outreahc program is the term used by IIPM, and is the term used here...

If even IIPM does not call it guest faculty, what is it doing in the Faculty section? --Kunal 15:16, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Kunal,
IIPM calls it the Global Outreach Program: I quote from their material
"IIPM's Global Outreach Program brings over 30 professors of international repute to IIPM branches in India. It enables all IIPM students of all branches to be taught by professors from all of the above mentioned 15 top global institutions

Now, these professors teach students at IIPM. If that isn't faculty, lets create a seperate section called Global Outreach Program, and put this content there?

trying to be reasonable...

--Drnoamchomsky 04:56, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Sawardekar sahib,

I have added some of the luminaries who have come to IIPM in the Global Outreach Program list. This is part of the ads, and as been widely publicized - obviously the the concerned parties would not allow their names to be used if it wasn't true. Further, press reports confirm the same. I can scan them in again. You know that our press has horbile online respositories.

By the way, have you seen the new IIPM campus coming up in Pune? --Drnoamchomsky 07:17, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Kunal,
I dunno who keeps deleting the research stuff, but I've taken an effort and rewritten this source material into a compact few lines. Help me out to keep this one the page....

IIPM Publications plans to aggressively market its five journals: India Economic Review, 4Ps, The Human Factor, Need the Dough? and Strategic Innovations. The advertising for the journals will begin in end-Jan 2005, through premium magazines, newspapers and tie-ups with websites. Faculty from IIPM and guest contributors from alliance b-schools like Harvard, Yale and Wharton write in these journals. The marketing journal 4Ps has been in circulation since May 2004, while the other four journals are in circulation from Aug 2004. The marketing journal is a bimonthly, while the other four journals are quarterly. The journals are targeted at a very niche category with four of them priced at Rs250 and Strategic Innovations, the case study journal, priced at Rs450. The journals are targeting concentrated circulation, of about 25,000 copies mainly in the premium segment including corporates, business leaders, business school libraries, MBA students and aspirants. (INSIGHT MEDIA, Jan 17, 2005)

Thanks --Drnoamchomsky 07:26, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Outlook Magazine

File:Outlook0.jpg

File:Outlook2.jpg

File:Outlook3.jpg

These scans are here to verify cites in the main article, which kept getting reverted inspite of 'Harvard' citing.--Iipmstudent9 04:37, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

Please search Business Barons on google now, it gives only broken pages. All the rankings in the current ads in the newspapers for the year 2005 are from this source. The other sources are quoted for rankings in the year 2004.

Business Barons Magazine

File:Businessbarons-iipm1.jpg

File:Businessbarons2.jpg

File:Businessbarons3.jpg

On the basis of these pages, I have added ". IIPM has a strong interface with industry and its course content is highly regarded, according to Business Barons Magazine." --Drnoamchomsky 07:04, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

History section

Shall we get rid of this section ? As it only repeats content from the introduction. --Drnoamchomsky 07:43, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Drnoamchomsky, just putting that up here does not classify as having cleared it on the Talk Page, it has to be agreed to by the other editors, which I notice it has not. For the record, I do not agree that the History section needs to go, because IMO, it does not have significantly content to the introduction: eg the bit about the claim of the first entrance test. Please justify your decision to remove the History section here in detail, or I will revert it. --Kunal 14:56, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

Kunal, If the bit about admission test is so important lets drop it into the intro or something else... why crowd the page with new subheads, which have little value to add to the topic? There is nothing else in the History.

And there are no other editors on this page - only vandals (IIM alumni, students and profs) who drop in once in a while and delete whole sections or add arcane lines .... --Drnoamchomsky 04:53, 22 November 2005 (UTC)

Drnoamchomsky, dude, there is no need to get all abusive (although I can't figure how "IIM alumni, students and profs" came to be an insult). If you have nothing nice to say, I'd recommend keeping quiet. --Kunal 13:40, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

IIPM Photos

What is the source of IIPM photos? Nothig is mentioned in the page.

PeaSea

Check the detals of the image - these are pics released to the press by the institute...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Drnoamchomsky (talk • contribs)

No Profit Organization?

How come IIPM is a non-profit organization. What are the sources of the photos of IIPM Delhi Campus? If they are released to the media, then where is it published? The fact that MBA/BBA degrees of IIPM are not recognized by AICTE or UGC has to be given in the first paragraph itself...

PeaSea

PeeSea,
if you want to follow up so carefully, why dont you visit the campus! Instead, you'll ask riduclous quesitons. Take a look at a NEWSPAPER - India's largest print advertiser prints those pictures in its ads. And IIPM is a non-profit society - its registered under Socities Act 1856 - Registrar of India has the records - ask any lawyer to verify for you. And the fact that IIPM does not award degrees is obviously beyond your comprehension because of your lack of reading ability - read the ads - IIPM does not award degrees, it offers courses in entreprenership leading to a diploma (same as IIM's) - Which 5000 students are enrolled in... so as India's largest b-school, it is very proud that it does not come under any corruipt AICTE or UGC - rtead the prospectus or the ads.

Ridiculous that you jump in and edit a Wiki article without the slightest knowledge about the subject.—Preceding unsigned comment added by Drnoamchomsky (talk • contribs)

Ravikirans's Edits

"IIPM has a strong interface with industry and its course content is highly..." has been taken from the scan of Business Barons on Talk page. Do not revert it again.

"..involved in a major controversy" sounds so BAD!! It is not true! Needs to be much better written.. or not at all... the controversy sction can remain at the bottom, but why should something as irrelevant as mudslingin by IIM grads be put on Wiki page up front>?

Moved Honorary Dean to faculty list as per ravikirans reorganisation

From Faculty, removed controversial allegations by BusinessWorld and JAM mAgazine, which have no evidence or research backup, and both articles are written by or edited by Rahmi Bansal, an IIM (competing b-school which has been overshadowed by IIPM) alumnus and known victim of IIPM jealousy! Have not deleted, but inserted into controversy section. Kindly justify why it should be here in faculty... please see my discussion above wher I have given rationale of how a mudslingin campaign by organised competitiors should not dirty the WIki page of a large and respectable organisation...

Ravikiran u are a software guy, not an IIM alumnus judging from your CV: dont you see the Rashmi and Gaurav are simply using people like you, and abusing the power of press?

From Publications, added Research to title - see justification above to Inventingfacts. Dont revert without discussion

Again, moved allegations by IIM alumni to Controversy section - this is an IIPM wiki article - not the notepad of IIM alumni.. the institute has done a remarkable job of bringing business education to everyone who wants it - a dire need for the country which need so many more managers and entrepreneurs to fuel its growth... why should lying naysayers and mudslingers be given credence in the main sections - agreed, they can be in the contrversy section...—Preceding unsigned comment added by Drnoamchomsky (talk • contribs)

Well, I am touched by your concern to protect me from evil IIM alumni. I'd request you not to make presumptions about my educational qualifications and my profession. I understand that IIM alumni are feeling threatened because IIPM alumni are displacing them in the Direct Sales Agent market, but I have pretty much reverted all your edits. Here's why:

1. Saying that it is "highly regarded" is POV. It should be cited in the article.
2. The major controversy came about because IIPM threatened to sue people. If IIPM considers something important to sue, then it must be important right? The controversy has been covered on the national news on CNBC etc. I am sure that this qualifies as a major controversy.
3. This is not a brochure for IIPM. We have no reason to privilege IIPM's claims as to its infrastructure over others. All we can do is report what IIPM claims as its infrastructure and what detractors claim about the infrastructure. Calling some claims "controversial" is POV.
4. Ditto for faculty. The fact that most regular faculty are from IIPM itself can be checked from a casual perusal of the faculty page on IIPM. I've put a link to there in the interest of fairness.
5. You can have your way on qualifying Rashmi Bansal and Gaurav Sabnis as IIM alumni. But there is no need to mention it every single time. Given that the lead to IIPM's statement in the press clearly says: "

IIPM's official response^[1]to the controversy was to claim that the controversy was motivated by jealousy of IIPM on the part of IIM alumni and professors. It issued the following statement:" I don't see the need to mention this claim again and again.But do you honestly think that IIPM has any chance of succeeding in turning "IIM Alumni" into a word of abuse?

1. Finally, it is quite rich of you to argue that the article is turning into a scrapbook when there are 5 photographs of IIPM's infrastructure in one section. If needed, we will move most of the images into a separate section at the end. But let it stay for now.

--Ravikiran 14:21, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Just to clarify, I'm against the putting up of scanned images of newspapers and magazines for the citation of claims made in the article. That said, and noting that Drnoamchomsky seems to agree with me on this point, he should note that most of his citation of various business magazines are in this form, and either provide citation in the form of links or remove any claims so cited (I hope you understood that inspite of the tortorous wording).

PS: And since you're so on board with the no-scans idea, can you please remove the scans from the Arindam Chaudhuri article too? --Kunal ^(talk) 16:56, 24 November 2005 (UTC)

Whoever has replid to me

Make sure you, 1. Leave your name behind. 2. Stop using expletives. 3. Stop questioning my "abilities". This is a knowledge sharing arena. I think I have all rights to ask questions and expect decent sounding answers from people with names. Ofcourse I can use the same kind of foul language that you use, but then what is the difference between both of us? (whoever you are). Discussion closed. Period.

PeaSea (and not PeeSea, check you spellings before you save)

Edit summaries

Some users are using their edit summaries to make meaningless comments (eg "For Mother India" by 203.145.128.5) or personal comments against other editors (as have been made by 203.145.128.5 and Drnoamchomsky). Please do not do this. That is not what edit summaries are for. Edit summaries are meant for you to provide a short summary of the edit (as should be obvious from the name) for other users to see. --Kunal ^(talk) 07:27, 26 November 2005 (UTC)

Impersonation Watch & Spam Assasin Alert

Blogger/Wiki Patrols - There is an Impersonation of Dr. Noam Chomsky going on at the IIPM page. For more details regarding this matter or to report it, please contact:

Pablo Stafforini (pablo[AT]chomsky.info) or [2] Anthony Arnove (arnove[AT]chomsky.info)

130 West 25th Street Room 12A New York NY 10001-7406 USA

phone: +1 212-366-9883 fax: +1 212-366-6868
Pablo, No worries, we've switched to another username. Didn't know it would worry you so! Give ourbest to the good professor!
regards --Iipmstudent9 05:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Given that "Dr. Chomsky" was threatening to get people out of their jobs in edit summaries [3], I am frankly curious what they teach at IIPM, other than intimidation, impersonation, bribery? --Ravikiran 07:00, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Reverting wars

There seems to be little point to this continued reverting war - why dont we use the talk page to move things forward?
--Iipmstudent9 05:53, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Already discussed - see talk page. It is just that one person thinks that IIPM's views are more important than competing views. We disagree. --Ravikiran 07:02, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't it make sense to list the points of contention?
--Iipmstudent9 09:05, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

As Ravikiran says, these are already on the Talk Page. Read through it (and the archived discussions) first. --Kunal ^(talk) 09:25, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

How about we list down all the issues that are in contention, and argue them out on talk page, while continuing the revert war, until the disputed points can be resolved?
--61.16.233.196 07:38, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

You want to continue the revert war?! --Kunal ^(talk) 07:41, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

No, Kunal, I want to resolve it. You and Ravikiran, (after enlisting PeeSea) are firmly in favor of continuing it. All I'm asking for is a list of disputed points where we can express our POV (or version of NPOV) and see where the facts point.
--Iipmstudent9 07:46, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

No, I beleive the user is asking that you discuss the problems Here Instead of reverting repeatedly. If that fails, you may want to see WP:DR, WP:RfC, WP:RfP, or, try to contact the other party directly via thier talk page. --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*)} 07:55, 29 November 2005 (UTC)

"IIPMStudent9", which part of "We have already listed the points of contention" do you not understand?

From your side, here are some "points of contention", as can be gleaned from edit summaries

1. added ravikirans home address [4]
2. Ravikiran's going to look, unsuccesfully, for a job, just like Gaurav Sabnis [5]
3. ravikiran is going to lose his job, just like gaurav [6]

These are points of contention, which we can discuss from your side.

--Ravikiran
From what I can see, this is some of the disputed content. Let's discuss why each side wants each version.

• cities in India founded by Dr. MK Chaudhuri. Headquartered in New Delhi, since 1973

Both sides seem to agree on this point. One wants it lower, with the Honorary Dean. It would probably make more sense, and be more reasonable to leave it up high, and leave the Honorary Dean sentance under faculty, and add a blurb there, about that person being the founder's son(assuming a source can be cited for this), after all, the Honorary Dean is faculty, no?.

• The institute is involved in a major controversy regarding the veracity of its claims in print advertisements.

Can anyone Cite a reliable source on this? I would expand on this topic, if you can cite a source, because in it's current form, it looks POV, and inflamatory.

• Most of the regular faculty^[7] of the institute are alumni of IIPM. Prof. Chaudhuri himself is a Gold Medalist from the institute. A Businessworld article^[8] investigating the institute's claims that the average age of the faculty is only 27 and that they have no verifiable research experience. A Jam magazine^[9] article confirms that students are satisfied with the regular faculty.

This looks properly cited, and I'm not sure why it's being removed.

• IIPM publishes four journals faculty from IIPM. Articles from the faculty of b-schools like Harvard, Yale and Wharton are also republished: 1. India Economy Review (A quarterly

This version makes sense. the other version is very hard to read. I would still, probably cite my sources on this one, however.

I could go through the whole article like this, and will, if requested to, however, I hope to have gotten the ball rolling, and that you guys can work out your differences. If you need anything from me, please, leave a message on my talk page. I have no connection with either party (I found this page while patrolling for vandalism), and I know nothing about the topic at hand. I hope some of this helps, thank you, and have a good day! ;] --негіднийлють ^{(Reply|Spam Me!*)} 08:14, 29 November 2005 (UTC) skufhdfu

Dear Vilerage, Thanks for your time on this article. I'm sure we all appreciate a neutral outsider - thats why I went looking for one and found Konrad. I'm sure your inputs will also be very relevant.
With regard to your above comments, let me reply point by point: 1 - Yes, i agree the honorary dean and qualigfication of 'son' can be moved down to faculty, assuming it can be cited 2 - Yes, "Major controversy" is clearly inflammatory and has no justification. 3 - The reason we'd wanted to move the alegations about faculty out fo the Faculty section and into the Controversy section (or seperate article) is because the articles (JAM and BW) were both written by Rashmi Bansal, an IIM alumni and known anti-IIPM voice (because IIM competes, unsuccesfully, with IIPM.). Also, Rashmi's JAMMAG is a tabloid in every sense - sensational, low circulation of only college students in a part of Mumbai, a staff of 4 part time 'journalists' and a physical format and design just like 'The Sun' of Britain. They specialise in poorly researched 'exposes' of reputable academic institutions, without any journalistic standards or integrity. IIPM at this time has sued JAMMAG for their article. As for BW (BusinessWorld), Rashmi is a contributiong editor there, and no doubt had the article published there as well. Therefore, I would like them to come under the Contrvoersy section (or seperate article as Konrad suggests), as these articles and allegations are part of a slander campign by competition, over past 2-3 motnhs, and not relevatn to a Wiki page on IIPm, which has been in existence for over 33 years. 4 - On journals, yes, i did cite 'Insight media', a marketing magazine, on the journals...

We would very much appreciate your help in fixing the IIPM page to Wiki's highest standards...
Thanks --Iipmstudent9 11:39, 30 November 2005 (UTC) kkkk

Removing the "Prof" title

To ensure compliance with the linked page (Arindam Chaudhuri), I think we need to remove his "Prof" title in the IIPM article too..

PeaSea 21:57, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Agreed! there must be consistiency in here to a certain extent at the least and the best way to kick it in would be to remove his "Prof" title in the IIPM article DrStravinsky 22:51, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

---

The above discussion is an archived section of Talk:The Indian Institute of Planning and Management. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made in a new section at Talk:The Indian Institute of Planning and Management. No further edits should be made to this page.