Talk:Indian Institute of Planning and Management

For older discussion, see archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7

Please Add New Paragraphs Only At The Bottom Of This Page

Please note that all new discussion should be added at the bottom of the page. Recent discussions will be at the bottom of this page, please respond in the appropriate sections.

Partial suggestion of revamp test

Makrand, Deepak, thanks for the suggestions. I'm not intending to completely transform the current page of IIPM; but just wanted your inputs on certain guidelines. I was surfing the IIMs page on Wiki. Couldn't find any of the controversies of IIMs listed out there. Could you give me an insight into why's it like that? Just a query. Thanks, Mrinal 203.76.135.250 07:34, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Also, am waiting for your inputs on my query whether newspaper reports which cite the news of the strategic alliance, but are not available on the net, could be accepted? Regards, Mrinal 203.76.135.250 07:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Its a Wiki. If you have references, go ahead and add the controversies. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:58, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

If you could scan the reports and upload them in the talk, as has been done previously, there will be no issue. Makrandjoshi 18:11, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Mrinal, Glad to know you're back and that your office has been desealed. You will note that the "strategic alliance" has been added to the page in the form of three day workshops (though there is no information on what else is part of this alliance). I think while PR is definitely "purchaseable" in the form of articles, to prove a real alliance I would recommend that both parties place it on their web sites. If you place a link saying this publication has published it but it's not on the web, someone else could say it has not, and then there's a deadlock. Deepakshenoy 10:24, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Has Mrinal ever admitted his involvement with IIPM. If not, it would be wrong to assume this, and even violation of Wikipedia's policy that personal information should not be published. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:35, 22 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes, he has: "I write because the email you've sent to Dr. Tse is something that could have been worded much much better", which I believe he said to reveal he was part of IIPM, since that email was sent specifically only to Dr. Tse. Secondly, he has, earlier, mentioned my company's name and lots of other information; in fact I wasn't aware personal information is not published in Wikipedia, and I can't seem to find anything on the guidelines (do you have a link?). Deepakshenoy 13:13, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Yes of course. If there's a policy, there's a link. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 15:40, 26 November 2006 (UTC)

Ah, thanks Ambuj! Here, my company name and information was revealed and stuff like "Hows the weather down south?", but by a different alias ("IIPMStudent9") which I have confused for Mrinal. Sorry for that - Mrinal is perhaps different from "IIPMStudent9". Of course, Mrinal did mention getting my email, which would count to be a self revelation of involvement with IIPM? Unfortunately, anyone can post as "Mrinal" given that this "Mrinal" does not log in. I'll gladly retract the statement of course, no problem with that. As personal affronts go, I think we've had some history of that here :) But yes, I get the point, and I shall keep any personal remarks out of the conversation. Deepakshenoy 07:08, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

If no one has been offended yet, I would request to drop the matter, and make sure that future remains trouble free. That goes for all the editors involved here, and no one in particular. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:50, 27 November 2006 (UTC)

Whoa, Deepak, Ambuj, I'm being given too much importance. For the sake of clarity :-) I'm not iipmstudent9 or whoever the person is; and I do not subscribe to the manner in which those statements have been made. And Deepak, thanks for the point about you keeping out personal remarks out of your conversation :-) No offence taken anyway. Take care and best wishes, Mrinal 203.76.132.74 06:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Mrinal, feel free to edit the IIMs page to include the controversies. As Ambuj says, this is a wikipedia. If there are some controversies which you think should be mentioned on the IIM page, you have a right to add them. Makrandjoshi 18:08, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi everybody, I'm not an IIM editor. But like I mentioned before, if editors of those pages, and if editors of other b-school pages are following a guideline with respect to information being displayed on the b-school information page, then I'll change the information being quoted on IIPM's page quite appropriately. I don't think that IIPM's information page is supposed to act as a benchmark to create new guidelines of how b-school information is written. I'm starting my changes from December 10th, 2006. Till then, please feel free to give your comments to my suggestions. They are directly related to the fact that on IIPM's information, there are links mentioned of magazines that cannot be accessed by a normal net user, there are links mentioned of articles, that can be purchased through PR efforts from both sides, and there are links that are almost completely unverifiable, except for news reports. If AICTE has mentioned something, I would prefer the information to be on the web sites of both the institutions (AICTE and IIPM) or at least on AICTE's. A magazine reporting that some guy in AICTE mentions something, is as good a PR effort of interested people, as would be IIPM's "PR" effort. So if Stanford and Yale's information cannot be put, I'll remove almost all the other information that is not on the web site of the quoted party. If controversies are mentioned on web sites of other b-schools, then they will be mentioned only after you convince me and show me the wiki websites of some b-schools (not just one) which have controversies mentioned. And I will then accept your argument. But I'm neither an IIM editor, not a Yale editor, but find both these b-schools' information on wiki quite appropriately put, and shall immediately change the information on IIPM's wiki page. Like I said, December 10, 2006, is the date on which I start changing. But only after you've given me information with respect to what all should I be considering. I repeat, IIPM's wiki page cannot create newfound benchmarks (which I seriously believe have been arbitrarily created in the past months, and not necessarily by Deepak or Makrand). Thanks and regards, Mrinal 05:59, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Mrinal, Like Makrand said, don't wait. There are no benchmarks or b-school page guidelines,and controversies ARE mentioned in other school pages. The point is, if you want to add a controversy in an IIM page, please do so, it's a wiki. IIM pages aren't complete - in fact no page is - so it may just be that the info isn't yet added. Links to "neutral" sites are perfectly valid, even if they are probably IIPM PR releases, and you will notice how the Stanford information has been put. Yale wise there is no report at all that is verifiable (or you haven't put it here). If you remove the controversy section, I will revert it back. If you want to edit it, please do so and we can then provide our suggestions. Don't threaten us with your dates please, if you want to add content please add it. Deepakshenoy 10:46, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Mrinal, why wait till December 10? This is a wiki. Anyone can edit it at any time. You make changes you want. If other editors find them violating wiki policy, they will revert them citing the reason. If not, they will let them be. Just some advise. If you are making any widespread changes to the page, then for those to stick, they should made citing wiki policy, and not some invented notion of "benchmarks". Else other editors such as myself will see no need to revamp an entire page. Makrandjoshi 07:36, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Some changes in the controversy section

The issue about using the terms "Indian Institute" as well as offering foreign degrees has to do with AICTE and government laws and thus is unrelated to IIPM's advertising claims. I've created a separate sub-section for it. Makrandjoshi 18:17, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Makrand, kindly note the para I've written in the above discussion. Kindly do respond to the same. Best, Mrinal 203.76.132.74 06:02, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Edited the Famous Alumni

Arindam Chaudhuri is a famous alumnus. As is Asheesh Khaneja, since his name turns up on several sites if googled. But the only record of a Ram Mohan Rao in Fuji Xerox appears on this page. Hardly counts as a famous alumnus. So removed him. Makrandjoshi 18:25, 25 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Makrand, I'll change this part from December 10. Kindly read the para above and do please respond above. Regards, Mrinal 203.76.132.74 06:04, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Comparison to other pages

Mrinal, you need to remember one thing. A wiki is a collaborative effort with natural checks-and-balances. And a wiki has been put in place primarily to share information. When you mention schools like Yale, Stanford and IIM, remember that there are no major contentious issues against any of them. The controversies, if any, are of a minor nature, and usually involving some student, and not the core-offering of the school itself, i.e the education. With IIPM, it is different. It is a well-known fact that there are problems with the school. The whole controversy erupted because IIPM tried to muzzle criticism about it by threatening bogus lawsuits.... lawsuits I might add which were never filed. So on this page, the editors have been making an effort to make available every possible piece of information which might benefit the reader. Over the last year, editors such as Deepak and myself have tended to this page scrupulously. And we have reverted slanderous and insulting edits made about IIPM. The idea is not to be hard on IIPM. The idea is to present the complete facts. The page has been painstakingly built, following official wiki policies and guidelines. One editor coming and saying the whole page shuld be revamped, and that too for a reason having nothing to do with wiki policies and guidelines, but comparison to other school pages, is simply not acceptable at least to me. Any change you make should be made citing wiki policies and guidelines, and not citing some imaginary non-existent "benchmarks". Propose a change. If it is due to wiki policies, Ambuj, Deepak and I won't have any problem. We are conscientious wiki-ers. Makrandjoshi 00:26, 30 November 2006 (UTC)

Hi Makrand, I accept what you and Deepak are saying. I think that if we believe in freedom of expression without benchmarking it with others, then just the three of us can keep having a debate forever. But I appreciate your and Deepak's inputs. So I'll start making changes from this week onwards. If you don't like it, do please revert them. And if I don't like your reverts, I'll revert the same back. Let's go on doing that till we reach a negotiated conclusion (or one of us blinks first :-)). Best wishes, Take care, and let the reverts begin :-) 125.19.3.2 03:56, 20 December 2006 (UTC) Mrinal

This is what is called a Revert War, Mrinal. You will remove the elements that belong in there, and that will simply result in cross-reverts. Deepakshenoy 10:37, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Changes as promised

Dear Deepak, Makrand, Sticking to the concept that you're free to make your changes, and I'm free to make mine (freedom of expression), my first change, which I'm sure you'll most vociferously oppose, is to shift all references to controversies to the IIPM Main Article on controversies that is already there on another page. My viewpoint is that if you guys have already created a separate page called IIPM controversies on wiki, then it is not appropriate to repeat the contents out here in the main section. Therefore, I request you to kindly add all the controversies in the other section; while I delete them from here. As promised, kindly feel free to revert back any changes you think you don't accept. And if I don't accept that revert, I will revert the same back. But do please always give comments if possible. Take care and have a merry Christmas and a Happy New Year. Regards... Mrinal 125.19.3.2 06:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I have reverted this change. I don't agree with removing the controversies as I believe they should be mentioned on this page. The separate page is to provide more details, but the basic points must be mentioned here. If you will notice this is the #3 link when people search on Google for "IIPM", and this site needs to provide important information about IIPM, positive or negative. I'm also not sure why you provided this change: "The BBA/MBA degrees are offered by IMI Belgium, and not IIPM. IMI, Belgium grants BBA and MBA degrees to students of IIPM." - the first sentence conveys the meaning; the second one is a repetition, do you believe otherwise? Removing the Outlook withdrawal of IIPM's ratings is also important to mention, and the fact remains that IIPM uses these ratings even today, so we must provide information on this page that the rating is not valid. Deepakshenoy 08:05, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Of course, seems sensible. But I'll wait for comments from Makrand and Ambuj. I think the fact that there exists a different page for IIPM controversies clearly allows a space for all the details to be put :-) So reverting back your changes. Take care, Mrinal 125.19.3.2 08:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Reverting it back. Let everyone see your changes in the history, and then accept/discuss, and then we can see what to put it in. Thanks. Deepakshenoy 10:35, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Likewise Deepak. Let everybody see the logic. Controversy has a separate page. It's so strange that we repeat even one line out of that in the main page. So reverting back. Regards, Mrinal 125.19.3.2 11:10, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

No, I don't see the logic. We have discussed this in an earlier archived talk page that we would put in five points. Reverting back. Deepakshenoy 11:21, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Also another request Deepak, Can you kindly archive these set of discussions and let's start on a new page. I don't know how to archive discussions. Thanks and regards, Mrinal 125.19.3.2 11:11, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Requesting user Woohookitty to kindly leave comments before or after reverting. Kindly also leave a logic before reverting. It's a request as the change done by Woohookitty has no past logic (That means that I understand Deepak's changes as he's been involved for such a long time editing this project). So reverting back Woohookitty's revert. Regards, Mrinal 125.19.3.2 11:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Dear Deepak, I'm reverting back your changes, but perhaps for the last time as it looks silly that we're just reverting each other's changes. kindly notice that earlier archived pages do not hold relevance with the passage of time. If you wish, we could move for requests from other editors, or if you wish, we could also move for mediation. It's a request. If you accept, let's put up this page for mediation to the mediations committee. It'll be great to have their responses. If you also wish, we could instead put up requests for comments instead of directly going to mediation. My only logic is that we should not repeat the contents that have already been put up on the IIPM Controversy page. There is a page that has been created; and we should adhere to the guideline. Regards, Mrinal 125.19.3.2 11:52, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I'm ok with mediation, but the page must go back to where it was BEFORE you edited the contents out. It is silly, yes, but you're just removing content that has earlier been discussed, so until you get consensus of your changes, kindly refrain from removing this content. There is no guideline, a page has been created for detailing the controversy, and as discussed earlier there is reason to place five points on this page. I will be requesting that this page be locked to the last stable version. Thanks. Deepakshenoy 12:12, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

I've also decided to relook the controversy section and the respective links. I've removed one element where the branches were referred to as campuses, because IIPM has fixed that page. Let's see if the rest are fixed by IIPM and then we can decide to add or remove information in there. Deepakshenoy 12:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Have further modified the links and references and changed a bit of the wording. Mrinal, can you check to see if that makes better sense? Deepakshenoy 13:19, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Vandalism

Mrinal, now you are vandalising the site. You have attempted to remove even other sections which are not flattering to IIPM but very much true and encyclopedic. Like the fact that IIPM is not accredited, and that it uses the Outlook rankings even though it has been removed from them. I have reverted your vandalism. Deepakshenoy 13:24, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Deepak, I don't believe at all that moving controversies (and not deleting them) to the appropriate page is vandalism. In fact, if that were the case, I should say that I waited almost a month before moving ahead with this move. I find it surprising that when a live active page of IIPM controvery already exists, how can you repeat the same stuff in the main page? I do not agree with your point of view on vandalism. Please get in more editors, or administrators immediately. I shall accept mediation rather than a dispute that gets elongated, as this might just continue. I repeat, this is not vandalism. It is simply ensuring that sections that belong to a separate article should be mentioned there and not repeated. And sorry I don't agree with your viewpoint. The IIPM Controversy page is the main page to list all the controversies IIPM has had. It is incorrect to allow details to continue on the main page. But I appreciate the words you are using to describe the changes. Thank god we're not fighting (though you wrongly use vandalism). And my apologies for getting into this debate. Do kindly also tell me how to archive so that we can start on a new discussion. I have put up a request (there's some page link they provide) for other editors to join in and give their suggestions. Let's hope they come over and guide appropriately. Let's get some neutral foreign editors. I did see that one administrator had joined in in-between. If you can, please do get some foreign editors or administrators before we go for mediation. Or if you think it's ok, we'll go for mediation. But I guess the page should not be changed only after the mediation requests of the mediation committee have been accepted by both of us. Maybe I'm wrong, but I read that the people editing the page should continue debating till the mediation guys step in. Your call... and take care and regards, Mrinal 125.19.3.2 13:30, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Mrinal, this is vandalism. You are cutting out elements which we have ascertained as necessary over a long debate, and more than one editor has disputed your claim that these elements dont belong here. If you want to cut those bits, please get the consensus of other editors here; I think it's a good idea to have brought in other editors, I will ask other people to join in as well. If we're talking about not changing pages, then lets go back to the page as it was before today. I think we should debate about this; but we are at crossroads.

• I believe the controversy section should exist, you don't.
• I believe the AICTE non-accreditation bits should exist, you don't.
• I believe the fact that IIPM has been removed from the outlook rankings (in the ranking section) should exist, you don't.

I've looked at the links objectively again and actually removed one element IIPM has fixed. The rest remains a controversy and IIPM continues to take people for a ride. Why should we not mention it here, till IIPM fixes things? Let them get AICTE approval, we can then remove the AICTE bits. Let them remove the Outlook ranking from its brochure and web site, we will remove the mention here. Let them address the rest of the controversy; we will remove the bits they address. Till then, we have to retain those elements on this page. Having a separate page does help, but we need to give a summary (what exists currently is a summary).

If you still disagree, I'll have to be on one side and you on the other. Can someone else chip in too? Deepakshenoy 13:39, 20 December 2006 (UTC)

Hi Deepak, expectably, I still disagree :-) But that's not a problem. Do kindly get in other editors; and not just Makrand and Ambuj. Let's get some foreign editors... Also, I think that we should keep on changing till the time editors come in. I don't agree that we should keep the page static. You are arguing your point of view in the correct manner, and so am I. Let's get other editors. Regards and wishes, Mrinal