Talk:Indian Institute of Planning and Management/Archive 14

From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search

Vir Sanghvi on Careers 360 and IIPM

The editors here might be interested in reading the opinion of Vir Sanghvi, one of the most respected names in Indian media, about Careers 360 and IIPM. Makrandjoshi (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting surely. Seems like a blog maintained by him which is self-published and not editorially overlooked. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 08:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Absolutely. Which is why I did not add it as a source, nor include any information from it for the main article. Just sharing it here for other editors. Makrandjoshi (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Cool. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)


There's been some back and forth lately about whether this article should be tagged for neutrality or not, so I'm starting a discussion. Obviously there's a lot of history of controversy here, but it looks like the discussions died down a few months ago. Is the tag for new neutrality issues, or is it for unresolved history? What are the problems that still need to be addressed? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 11:07, 5 November 2009 (UTC)

Users interested in whitewashing this page to hide any uncharitable information keep raising questions about its neutrality. Just general questions. Nothing specific. All the information in this article is cited, and the language is NPOV with no opinions driving anything. If you check the talk pages up there, you will see that the issues raised on admin and other boards have been resolved. So I have no idea where this new tag has come from and what its reasons are. The older issues mentioned in the talk have been taken care of. So I am removing the tag. If someone wants to put it back up, please mention, pointwise, how this article violates NPOV. Oh and also, stop inserting "business school". The institute itself admits it does not offer BBA or MBA degrees, is unaccredited, and its own degrees are in something called "national planning and entrepreneurship". It is NOT a business school. I am reverting the edits that suggest otherwise. Makrandjoshi (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
OK, the tag seems to have been added by user Stifle, an admin so I am letting it remain. But this issue has been beaten to death in talk pages and on boards. I hope the review is done soon. Makrandjoshi (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
I saw that Stifle was an admin, so I wondered if there was more to it. There's a lot of content in the controversies section, but it looks pretty heavily referenced to me. I'm inclined to remove the notice unless someone can point out some specifics. Let's give it a week and see if anyone replies here. If not, take off the neutrality tag.
As for the "business school" bit, that's by indef blocked User:Rock5410. He's added "business school" to at least 50 articles. I've tried to clean it up, but he comes back and reverts it and it's just not important enough to me to start 50 edit wars with him. You're welcome to try if you'd like. This guy has had 7 different user names, all of which are now blocked, but he changes IP addresses about twice a day so the only way to actually stop him is multiple rangeblocks. I've been trying to minimize his disruptions since July but I'm at a loss as to where to go at this point. Neither ANI nor SPI has done much more than slow him down, so I'm open to suggestions if you have a better way to handle him. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)
Unfortunately you also added again a line that had been taken out by the administrator Stifle. Therefore, have to add that back. (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Rather than doing full reverts and edit warring as you just did, why don't we try dealing with these line by line? Let's start at the top, one change at a time. Why do you feel the infobox should link to Private school instead of Private university? "Because an admin did it" isn't reason enough; I think the admin ended up with some collateral damage with his previous edits. You need to justify why that link is the better one if you're going to keep putting it back. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 09:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
Admins are editors just like everyone else, and they make mistakes. An admin's edits have no more value than those of any other well-established editor. The only difference is their ability to enforce policies through article protection and user blocking, and those abilities are irrelevant to editor consensus about article content. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)
one start point could be to check the space n balance of the article. mebbe the size of the article devoted to controversies versis the size of the article devoted to mentioning the institution. that seems sckewed. I read that npov means not just mentioning what may be true or false but mentioneing the other point of view also. right? then everywhere whwhere unaccredited is written we also cld also include the line that the court has asked the accreditation bodies to not include the bschool in their list. And also we cld write a line that ugc and aict have been declared to be corrupted bodies with the ministry of education in india wanting to close them down. or mebbe we could incld that the chairman of aict has been arrested by government agencies for corruption last month. would that be npov? (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
If they are unaccredited, obviously they shouldn't be included in the accreditation bodies' lists. That's what unaccredited means; I don't think defining the word repeatedly within the article helps this Institute's reputation. But it sounds like you aren't trying to remove any of the current controversies, just add more things for balance. Is that right? Given the controversies and edit warring, it seems most productive for you to write up what you propose adding for balance. Rather than adding it directly in the article, post it here on the talk page so we can come to consensus before it's added and avoid it being reverted. If you have some positive things directly about IIPM that are backed up with reliable sources, I don't see a problem with adding more for balance. But if you're going to throw out accusations of corruption, the sources need to be solid. That isn't something we can include in the article until we know it's supported, just like the controversies section has been supported with numerous sources. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)
I read your comments above WeisheitSuchen. Good idea. I've given a sample first two paras. Tell me how you like it. I've checked the references. All news (corruption and stuff) is available on websites of leading newspapers in India). If we load the first two paras out here, we could add the references too. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM) is a private college with its headquarters in New Delhi, India. Founded in 1973, the institution offers two year and three year full time certificate programmes in National Economic Planning and Entrepreneurship, which makes its students eligible to apply for MBA/BBA degrees from IMI Belgium. IIPM also offers programmes for working executives. The institute has its main campus in New Delhi and has branches in nine other cities in India. The Founding Director of IIPM is Dr. M. K. Chaudhuri, and the Honorary Dean is Arindam Chaudhuri.
IIPM's programmes are not accredited by Indian regulatory bodies such as AICTE and UGC which also mention IIPM is not authorised to operate as a university in India. According to the institute, it has never claimed it is a university, nor sought recognition from regulatory bodies or accreditation agencies as its courses are non-technical and non-professional and do not come under the purview of bodies like AICTE and UGC. In 2009, the Union Minister of Education formally communicated his intentions of closing down AICTE and UGC - due to corruption and inefficiency charges against the bodies - in favour of a larger regulatory body with more sweeping powers.
Do please check the main page. I've put some references there so that it makes sense. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
WeisheitSuchen, just wanted to add another point that no colleges in India are accredited. Their courses are (or are not). Therefore, the construction of a sentence should perhaps be referring to the courses being unaccredited, not the college in itself. But still, do clear the refernces I've given in the main page. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)
The ACADEMICS section

I notice that some editors have in the past merged various sections like Gota, Placements, into the section on ACADEMICS. Clearly, that has made the space and balance of the article look imbalances. If you go into the history of the changes, you'll realise that almost all these merging changes have been made more or less (not all, but more or less) from only a single account. I would wish that we divide the section back into three parts and add more information with respect to placements and Gota, which have been reduced into lines that give conjectures of a single editor not based on facts or even the references given since almost a year. For example, I show here a line written by the single purpose account in question.

Students who complete the IIPM certificate courses become eligible to apply for MBA/BBA degrees from IMI Belgium, which describes itself as an independent, privately held organization.[14][15]. According to NVAO, the accreditation agency for Netherlands and Belgium, IMI is not recognized as a higher education institution in Belgium, and the degrees it awards are not recognized as being credible.[16]

The line conjectures that NVAO, an agency, says IMI is not recognised. However, the reference that is given (namely, reference number 16) is one that has been put up by me earlier to be a source that can not be verifiable -- 1. Because, it has been set up this year by the owner of a big media group (Outlook) which has in the past has had huge past conflicts of interest with IIPM (IIPM accused Outlook of giving wrong lower rankings; Outlook, in turn, accused IIPM of fudging data and took it out of rankings). 2. More importantly, the source in their report claims they've received an email from NVAO. But neither is the email identifiable (the source has given XXXX wherever they mention names or their sources), and this source is not widely verifiable. That is, NVAO should have said this to various sources for this reference to be allowed out here. This is perchance the only (or max two or three) of the web sites that purport to claim an NVAO point of view. 3. The source mentions Flanders as Belgium. Flanders is only the French speaking part of Belgium; in other terms, the Norther part of Belgium with parts of the capital city. The English speaking and bi-lingual part of Belgium is deliberately excluded. And the Flander region in specific details refers to the community of Flemings only. Therefore clearly a wrong line. 4. The editor in question has written that NVAO purportedly says IMI's degrees are not credible. A clear conjecture even if you were to depend upon the line inside the unreferenced article, which simply says that IMI cannot offer recognised degrees.
I bring another paragraph within the ACADEMICS section

According to IIPM, only 70 percent of its students opt for the placement process, and it claims that almost all of these 70 percent students get jobs through it.[14] However, many IIPM students are hired by Planman, which is IIPM's own sister organization[19]. As per the website, more than 600 companies have visited IIPM campuses across the country, and some students have gotten foreign offers too. However, several companies such as Standard Chartered, Barclays and Deutsche Bank, which are mentioned in IIPM advertisements, told the magazine Careers360 that they have never participated in IIPM's campus recruitment process. [16]

The single purpose account editor says that 'However, many IIPM students are hired by Planman.' The reference he/she gives clearly doesn't mention that at all, and simply says that across India, many institutions like 'Indian Institute of Planning and Management invites companies to the campus, but also offers placements at its sister concern, Planman Consulting.'. I clearly notice how words have been engineered radically to give a negative twist by one singular editor. Instead of the single purpose account editor giving top newspaper references more easily available that mention IIPM has had 100% placements, he/she again refers to the reference of Career360 or IIPM's website (that anyway should be used less for such things as placements).
Clearly, the source of Career360 should be cut down because a single source purporting statements that are not widely referenced (max by 2 or 3 self referencing tabloids, and not at all by respected newspapers). But beyond this, I also mention other points . The source of Career 360 is used like a garnishing throughout the article. And even through the paragraph of ACADEMICS in question. Clearly, the single purpose account editor in question has used the source with a very biased point of view and without the support of other sources. There are no other sources used, although a random search on Google news search shows to me some top newspapers quoting that IIPM placements are very very good. Or that GOTA is brilliantly being done. Of course, the argument can be that why don't we put sources that say these things. We should. Provided single purpose accounts are brought into a discussion mode on whether they'll have a problem if such widely referenced sources are put (as it seems they have deleted valid references, merged valid sections like Gota, and worked widely towards giving a biased point of view to the article, at the same time rejected the idea of tagging the article for questioning the article's point of view, validity of sources etc).
I refer to another line on placements added by the single purpose account editor in the paragraph called ACADEMICS.

It has also been reported that IIPM now has seven international placement offices.[17][20][21] However, according to an investigation by Careers360, jobs that IIPM students get abroad in places like the gulf countries come with severe restrictions and moderate pay.[16]

My argument cannot be clearer out here. While valid references are quoted, again the Career360 source is quoted without any other newspaper source confirming that.
Therefore, out here, my request is that editors should
a. Divide the paragraph ACADEMICS into more paragraphs with more headings (if I am allowed to go ahead, I will do that).
b. Add more widely sourced valid references rather than a single source purporing a not widely held point of view (again, if I am allowed, I will do that).
c. Encourage the single purpose account to maintain a neutral point of view rather than starting with a point of view that simply is disruptive.

Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:40, 14 November 2009 (UTC) Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:01, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

My primary goal here is to get everyone to stop the repeated wholesale reverting and edit warring that was happening. Makrandjoshi and, what do you think about suggestions a, b, & c above? Wifione, can you give them a week to respond before doing the edits? Last time you added your two paragraphs here and then waited less than 20 minutes before changing the main article. Obviously that wasn't enough time for anyone to share an opinion or for you to gain consensus. These battles have been going on for over a year; I'm sure one more week won't hurt anything. It would be an excellent sign of good faith in the discussion to pause for comment before acting again. I'm concerned that if we don't get to consensus before making the changes that we'll just continue to see edit warring here and our time will be wasted. If nobody comments in a week though, go ahead and do the edits. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 10:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I apologize; I hadn't really taken the time to read through the history with this article, as there has been so much (plus the forum shopping makes it hard to track things down). Wifione, the arguments about Careers360 have already been rejected once. It meets the guidelines for a WP:RS, end of discussion. You can't take out that content just because you disagree with it.
Although you should not remove any content currently included in the Controversies or Academics sections, I think it would be acceptable to include more content from an alternate perspective. The goal here is not to remove all the negative content, but to show both sides and let readers decide for themselves.
I couldn't even initially figure out who you thought was a single-purpose account. I looked at the edit histories of everyone recently involved and saw that everyone was editing multiple topics, which is the definition. Finally looking at your accusations elsewhere I figured out that you mean Makrandjoshi. Makrandjoshi has edited a bunch of unrelated articles though; take a look at Rajnigandha or Sunny Leone or WikiBaseball, for examples. On the other hand, I'd estimate that about half your edits are related to this article. Let's cut the name-calling. Makrandjoshi's view isn't disruptive; you are the one who has done the forum shopping and is attempting to undo the previous decision on Careers360 because it didn't go your way.
Basically, of your three suggestions above, I think B is acceptable. You can add more sources to balance the arguments, as long as you don't remove any of the sourced content already in the article. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with you WeisheitSuchen. More or less, I would say. I think you make sense out here. And I'll post a personal apology on his/her website if that makes a difference... I'll go one step ahead and put the page back to the version before the change. That'll give people a chance to comment in good faith. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi WeisheitSuchen, I just wanted to add one more small comment that I'd added on the reliability board. I would also like editors commenting out here to note that while a few weeks back, I had raised the question of whether Career360 is a valid source, this time, I'm also necessarily showing how it is now being used as almost a singular source of reporting across the article (the paragraph in question espeically) for negative points of view. Therefore, my question is on how can a single source --- whose claims are not widely held (not a fringe theory, but almost) ---- be used so many times throughout the article, wherein there are other sources much more credible and for too many more years in publication which report other points of view? Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 07:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Wifione, you are welcome to include sources with IIPM's responses the the Career360 site to show another side. As was explained to you in August, Career360 meets the standards for a reliable source. The fact that Outlook has history with IIPM doesn't make them not reliable. If that was the standard, then the other side of the argument would be that nothing IIPM says about Career360 would be able to be included either. You've already been told to add the other sources. Is there a reason you're resisting posting those sources and added content here for review? Let's see what you've got to add and stop beating the dead horse about Career360. The way to achieve balance is by adding, not subtracting. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Weisheitsuchen. The metaphor of beating a dead horse is nice. But in your arguments, you miss the point completely. My question refers to the number of times the link of Career 360 is used. If you count, you'll realise that the source is repeated 7 times in an article that has only 40 odd external links. You'll very clearly realise that if there has been an point of view oversight, one clearly is in the space and balance with which this reference is being used -- one which you too are missing. The concept of neutral point of view does not only include how you look at every statement or argument within the article, but also the space and balance given to the structure of the overall article -- and I'm more than sure that you'll realise this. I'm sorry if my points seem to be akin to beating a dead horse; but I have to say that if you ignore my arguments, you'll end up ignoring a critical factor to balancing out the article.

On another front, when you on one hand encourage me to add sources giving a balancing point of view, you also on the other forbid me from making changes (referring to your second from last response). It confuses me. Perhaps you wish me to add the sources and make the changes after one week of discussions are through; and which is the reason that I am desisting from the effort. Having said that, I can assure you I've lined up various sources that clearly seem more pertinent to add a balanced point of view and to ensure that the tag at the top is removed. So my request Weisheitsuchen is that we'll wait for other editors to comment on the Academics section and the Introduction section, make relevant changes, and then move ahead to the next section. It's in fact the same point which you had made in your arguments. Looking forward to getting constructive comments. Lol... Cheers, Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 03:43, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

And I take the liberty of copy pasting two very relevant paragraphs from Wikipedia's for your benefit.
Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.
Just because a source is reliable does not mean that it should be included. All articles must adhere to Wikipedia's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.
From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list:
  • If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
  • If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
  • If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Wikipedia regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.
Dear Weisheitshuchen, if you notice the points above, the view held by Career360 clearly qualifies to be a minority view held by maximum a handful of reliable sources. If required, primary quotes can be placed if released by the corporations/institutions in question, and that too with only that much space given to them as should be given to an extremely minority view. I'll await your and other editors' comments. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
As explained previously (and explained by Abecedare on the reliable sources discussion, the way to achieve balance with this position is to add more alternative views. If you add more of the content from the numerous sources you assure us exist for alternative viewpoints, then this will be one small view among many. Claiming that an investigation isn't significant only makes me suspect that you don't actually have the sources to back up an alternative viewpoint. Please prove me wrong. Stop wasting your time trying to convince everyone to whitewash the article; it's not going to happen. JAM magazine, Career 360, and numerous bloggers have written about IIPM's advertising; it's a significant minority view. The controversy generated media coverage in multiple sources. The idea that IIPM's advertising is not entirely truthful isn't a fringe theory just because you want it to be. In fact, I'm not even convinced it's a minority view. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 04:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
I agree with WeisheitSuchen here. Reliable sources are used to back up statements made about IIPM in this article. I understand from Indian colleagues that there are hundreds of other non-accredited schools in India that offer business certifications, that are essentially the same as IIPM. If that's true, then I'd go so far as to say that the controversies surrounding IIPM are what makes this school notable enough to have an article in Wikipedia. I am not convinced that the claims of false advertising are a "minority view", especially if reliable sources saw fit to write about false advertising by an otherwise non-notable school. If there are other viewpoints to consider, then they must meet the WP:RS and WP:V requirements also. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi WeisheitSuchen . I appreciate your raising of the point of view on Career 360. I wish we would not make the mistake of creating our own synthesis judgement on IIPM simply by combining different sources and blogs, something that is extremely critical out here. Unless we discuss, the dispute resolution process would not move ahead. So my request is, do not accuse me of attempting to whitewash anything reliable and consequently ask me not to discuss an issue. A discussion is essential to the process of creating a better article. The effort we have to undertake is to ensure that even if singular editors might have their points of view, the combined output within the article does not seem tending towards a specific slant, but seems neutral. If you look at the discussions from above, you'll realise the effort I have taken to analyse the Introduction and the Academics paragraphs to suggest changes. I'll encourage you to step up and do the same for the other paragraphs. It is not just my voluntary effort that will ensure the future removal of the pov tag on the article. I request not just you, but other editors too. But you have to step back a step and see the efforts being put in by an editor before accusing her of whitewashing anything. If you are intending to ensure that the article is npov, then do please go ahead and help in checking the other paragraphs within the article -- or even the initial paragraphs. It'll be a wonderful move ahead for all of us. Apart from it, you say that the Career 360 article points are widely reported in media (therefore, you say it is not a minority view). I notice Abecedare also mentions that on the notice board. Surprisingly, I haven't been able to find one reliable secondary source mentioning the points that Career 360 has raised. Why don't you please go ahead and help me find a reliable secondary source that reports something associated with Career 360 article? If we find the sources, it'll be great to mention those links too along with the Career 360 links. Just saying that the advertising controversy has been well reported - is too vast and general a statement. JAM Magazine reports on the advertising controversy of course. But it happened quite some time back. I don't know the actual year in which it happened, but it's close to half a decade now perhahps. Specifically with Career 360, I haven't been able to find one additional recent reliable secondary source. Please help me find such a source to ensure that the space and balance issue of what I believe is a minority finding is clarified. Do realise the good faith efforts being taken by me to discuss --- and specifically not to whitewash. Thanks and will look forward to your comments Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 08:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Amatulic, thanks for sharing your and your colleagues views on management institutes in India. I have no issues with the same. My request to you remains the same as my request to WeisheitSuchen. Let's add more sources that balance out the viewpoints. It is not just my job to do it. I've tried my best to present some paragraphs. Do please go ahead and add more points within the article that give more references than those mentioned right now. cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 08:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)
So, are we in agreement now that we're going to focus on adding sources, rather than taking them away? I said it was the end of the discussion because you've been making the same arguments and forum shopping for months. Discussion is good, but continuing after consensus has been reached (as it has been now, twice, on the Reliable Sources noticeboard), means you are working against consensus. So now we need you to decide. Are you going to work within consensus and add sources, or are you going to work against it? Continuing discussion here means working against it. Let's stop wasting our time. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi WeisheitSuchen, I find it disappointing that you mention that continuing discussions on this talk page would be equivalent to working against consensus. That is clearly not the spirit of Wikipedia. Do not tell an editor to stop discussions. Only discussions will remove the neutrality tag and the clear slant that the current article has. If you're telling me to stop discussions out here (saying that it'll go against consensus), I have to say you are wrong. But do correct me if you meant something else. I'm sure you perhaps did not mean your words the way you wrote them. Next is the point about consensus with respect to Career 360. I do think that the reliability notice board and discussions have moved around whether the source of Career 360 is reliable or not. And the consensus has been that it seems to be reliable to be included in the article. You have to note that once a source is considered reliable, then its comments from one report can be used in an article with only the relevant weight. In other words, and I repeat Wikipedia policy, giving the weight that the article garners in the overall media.For example, you possible cannot use one news report from a source that is relevant throughout the article from the top till the bottom without the danger of the article being labelled -- and not just for this reason -- a non npov article. And this article has been labelled non npov. If the points Career 360 mentions are so well reported in the overall media, then you and I should be able to find out at least three recent reliable sources that mention the same points? I was able to find none!!! Career 360 talks about, for example, how the international US college associations of IIPM are wrongly advertised. Like I mentioned, I have found no reliable secondary source backing up this information. I am sure there would be. I'll keep trying to find out. However, it would be encouraging if you and other editors could chip in to find out sources to support what Career 360 is saying. Because adding those would ensure that the minority assumption of what the source is claiming in a significantly large and unbalanced portion of the article would be evened out by other sources claiming the same. The more reliable source we get backing such claims of Career 360, the better would be our effort to make it balanced. You have to realise WeisheitSuchen, the effort is not to remove the Career 360 source right now (you wrongly assume that; and it'll be good if you correct this wrong assumption of yours), the effort is to ensure that Career 360 is mentioned in the IIPM article with the same weight as its reported claims garner in overall worldwide media. Do you find that against Wikipedia editing policy? Do tell me if you do, because my statements are based on Wiki npov guidelines. There's a nice rule in that says try to edit stepping into the enemy's shoes (it's a metaphor). I'm trying to do that. I request you to do that too. Otherwise we will not be able to remove the neutrality tag. And we've not even moved to the first two sections of the article on which I've worked and asked comments from editors. Do please go through other sections of the article and even the initial sections and suggest changes. It'll be a good combined effort in giving a neutrality touch to the overall article. I'll keep chipping in more or less adding sources from time to time. But you have to also do the same effort with respect to the whole currently non-npov article. Lastly, I am very disappointed that after your previous comment where you accused me of trying to whitewash (?!?!) the article, you have continued to accuse me of forum shopping (for months??!!?). If you wish to accuse me again, do it on a formal forum. Do not continue discussions in bad faith. Your statements would constitute bad faith statements more or less. I request you, politely, to stop using such words for an editor who's made efforts to gon through the various paragraphs attempting to address neutrality issues. You haven't! At this juncture, it would be encouraging if you go clearly through what I have written in my previous reply. It is not just my effort to add sources that will remove the neutrality tag. And please WeisheitSuchen, do not please use words that would make the enviornment of discussions deliberately bad. And please do not tell an editor to stop discussions. It's a polite request... Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 03:37, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

I'm sorry that you don't realize that the time difference between August and November constitutes "months." Forum shopping (here + RSN twice + Wikiquette etc.) isn't discussion; neither is continuing to argue for something long after productive alternative solutions have been suggested, repeatedly, by several different people. See WP:DEADHORSE or any of the links in the See Also section of that page. I'm not going to spend my time continuing to argue with you. You'll either provide the sources you insist you have or you won't, and either result is OK with me. I'm even OK with the neutrality tag sitting on this article for a few months while things calm down. You're welcome to formally report me for asking you to provide reliable sources for balance to support your view if you feel that would further your cause. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Agreed, "balance" is what is written in reliable and verifiable 3rd-party sources. Unfortunately, too many sources of information that put a positive spin on IIPM appear to be primary sources (from IIPM), press releases, and blogs. The reliable ones I can find already appear to be cited in the article. If Wifione claims to have other sources that meet Wikipedia's criteria, then by all means add them to the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi WeisheitSuchen, I'm sure you'll realise that it was only after my wikiquette alert that one user stopped verbally pushing me around after he received a suggestion from another editor to stop doing the same. Polite conversation means to move ahead, and not rake up old issues using weasel words. As long as you refrain from accusing me of forum shopping (which you've strangely again used in the previous discussion, sadly), I would not intend to report you. It's in good faith WeisheitSuchen. Let's move ahead. How about an olive branch from my side? I'll now move on to the next section in the article and check out weasel words, non npov statements and synthesised comments. You keep suggesting whether my views are right or wrong. Do please not stop arguing, discussing or debating here. Every comment matters. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Hi Amatulic, great to see your viewpoint on primary sources, press releases and blogs. Secondary sources should be from reliable top news sites. I'll first go till the end of the article trying to address other statements that do not adhere to npov guidelines. Do keep suggesting whether my views are correct. Once that is done, maybe we can clean up the whole article quickly. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)
Just a quick note. Will any editor be able to please chip in to clean up the pov on the sections after the intro? We need to work quickly towards getting through all sections and getting the tag removed... Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 20:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)
What's your hurry? Don't panic; there's no deadline. As I said, the neutrality tag can stay for months if needed. Actually, trying to edit the whole article or make major revisions all at once can be overwhelming and bog down the process. Just find one section at a time where you'd like to add your other sources and take it slow. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
I'll add that making wholesale revisions to the article all at once will also likely get you blocked, and get the article protected so nobody can edit. That has been the state of affairs for this article for the past couple of years. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
No hurry WeisheitSuchen. I'm cool with the NPOV tag staying for months too. I've taken the cue and improved one section - Academics. I've added the History section and added some details in the Intro section. You're right. One would get bogged down by overall changes. So have not touched any of the other sections, including Controversy, which might be very contentious. Do go through the section changes and comment. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 12:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Amatulic, you're right. So have not cut any detail that was there before. You will notice that I have added other references. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 12:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)
Before you go any further, it would be great if you'd take some time cleaning up the references. The article currently has a ridiculous number (86) of references which show up in the reflist with just a number and link. Check out the citation templates for help on formatting these so they are easier for everyone to work with. Also, I'm not done reviewing for copyright violations yet, but if you'd like to go through yourself and delete everything you copied and pasted from another source (including other Wikipedia articles), that would save me some time. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi WeisheithSuchen, it'll be nice if you can help me clean up as I'm not clear with the technical details of how can one re-refer to a previously mentioned reference. As far as your copyright violations statement goes, if you delete with checking whether any site has claimed copyright, you'll be vandalising the page. Try not to do that. You'll see from my responses to your copyright statements below to understand why you're apprehensions are misplaced. I'd like to mention that if you can site a Wikipedia policy that says that we should have a limited number of references, site me one. Try not to remove validly cited material as that would amount to vandalism. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 03:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Makrand, please do not remove references that are validly cited. Please clearly discuss on the discussion page a reason you might wish to remove a validly cited reference. Wikipedia policy states that if a point is supported by widely cited media, there's more reason for it to stay. Please give complete descriptions. Makrand, you have not participated in discussions for a week and even after starting to edit, you have not left your comments out here. I encourage you not to change anything that is validly quoted. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 03:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
For editors out here, taking out the AICTE and UGC reference is not correct. AICTE and UGC were presumed to be the bodies that were to be regulating. The Ministry has said that these bodies are to be closed down. The reader should know as this brings the balance in the statement that AICTE and UGC (now considered corrupt bodies) said that they don't recognise IIPM's certifications. So it should be put back. Thanks Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 03:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Makrand, I have noticed you have removed validly cited information (like Buckingham). Do not please repeat it. You have again included a line deleted by an administrator, and that too unilaterally without references in the introduction. Try to be proactive in the approach of editing. We really wish more participation in the discussion forum. Do not reduce references mystically citing "unmanageable number of references." Please cite me a wiki policy before saying it. If there is such a wiki policy, I'll be enlightened and will take by my words. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 03:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
WeisheitSuchen, I'm replacing the History section re wording the statement. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 03:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
WiesheitSuchen, I also noticed a point where you said in your edit summary that the AICTE point was being repeated unnecessarily. I have to mention out here that wherever you will mention that AICTE/UGC do not recognise IIPM certification, you will have to include the fact that they are not going to continue in the future. If you think this information is not related with IIPM, please give me a logical description here. It is too important that readers know both sides of the view in NPOv. One is that AICTE/UGC do not accredit IIPM courses. The balancing point of view is that they are corrupt/inefficient and are going to be closed down in a few months. Now, if the article is going to repeat that AICTE does not recognise IIPM courses, then wherever that is written, we have to write the balancing point of view. In case you do not wish to repeat, then you will have to then even ensure that the point that AICTE/UGC does not certify IIPM courses is also not repeated. Therefore, the point comes back. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 03:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I have re-referenced NVAO. Wrt IMI information being deleted, can either of the editors please tell me why it was deleted? IMI alumnus information is sensible, as well as BusinessWeek information and IMI international partnerships as it provides the other point of view to Career 360 concept of NVAO saying IMI is unrecognised. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
I have corrected Career 360 take on international placements and have included the exact line that career 360 says in its article. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Makrand, your statement below was seen by me later. I am highly encouraged by it and by the fact that you appreciate the effort. Thanks. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Editors, wished to know from where is the word private being placed in the introduction of the educational institution? I didn't find any source giving details that IIPM is a private institution. Please add source. Also, the first two links in the intro that say AICTE has not accredited IIPM courses, are blank. Kindly find out a better source that opens on the AICTE website or on any other reliable secondary source. Will wait for the sources and not delete either the private word or the AICTE links till a week -- am sure other proactive editors will contribute. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)


I have reopened a validity question on a reference being used. Please link up to to see the points of view. It'll be good if current editors do not comment there as they might have conflicts of interest. Let's have independent viewpoints. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a note. My request for current editors to not comment on the reliability board might be incorrect. Therefore, I'd request other editors to also go ahead and comment. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:05, 15 November 2009 (UTC)
REplied. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits by wifione

I have no major problems with recent edits by wifione. I have made a few changes - 1) There is now a deluge of references for some points. I have cut them down. 2) Too much information about bodies like AICTE, UGC, IMI etc. Let us keep the content here relevant to their connection with IIPM Makrandjoshi (talk) —Preceding undated comment added 21:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC).

Hi Makrand, thanks for your comments. I saw your changes. I noticed you've cut out a few references. While it is appreciated, I fear the reduced number of references would not do justice to the point that is being made through the references -- which is that AICTE and UGC are corrupt and going to be closed down. These are very big comments and do need a lot of references. Added to it, wherever one mentions that AICTE and UGC have not accredited IIPM, we have to mention the balancing point of view. Therefore, it is important that we mention they're to be closed down, wherever we mention their connection with IIPM. Wrt to IMI details, we have to ensure that the "unrecognition" issue about IMI is given a scope of a positive balance. The amount of details is required as wiki policy clearly says that the space given to information should be in accordance with their occurence in visible media. And this is what is being done. So a request, kindly let's keep the IMI and AICTE / UGC details. However, seeing logic in some points, I have cut down the repetitive part of AICTE/UGC being inefficient, in the Academics section. Thanks and Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Wifione, you say that we need to talk about the possible future closing of AICTE & UGC every time we mention them. I disagree. I do think it's important to include some of that in the article for context (Makrandjoshi, I know that means I disagree with you on this point). But I think it belongs in the Academics section where accreditation is discussed. I don't think it belongs in the lead, which should focus solely on IIPM, and I don't see any value in copying and pasting the same exact text over and over. I don't want to insult our readers by assuming that if they read the lead of the article (where you originally included the refs against these accreditors) that they will have completely forgotten what they just read when they get to the academics section. Let's not assume that Wikipedia readers aren't smart enough and just give them info once.
Here's what I propose:
1) We include some information about AICTE, UGC, IMI in the academics section. We might want to have a section specifically on accreditation for all of this.
I think your suggestion about shifting all this to the accreditation section is perfectly alright. I guess there is a section on accreditation and was wondering why accreditation details are placed all over. In Academics, we could perhaps simply mention that IIPM courses are so on so forth. And then in Accreditation section, we write that the courses are unaccredited and the response from IIPM and perhaps a link note on why these institutions might not be present in the future. Tell me what you think about it. Also, see if the changed wordings of AICTE/UGC in the lead are okay with you. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
2) The information on AICTE, UGC, IMI (and any other similar body) should ideally be something specifically about their relationship with IIPM. This could be comments from IIPM officials talking about why AICTE doesn't have the authority (which I know is already included, but seems appropriate). This could be an evaluation from a third party source talking about how if the AICTE is shut down that it will help IIPM (I don't know if such a thing exists, but it would be relevant).
I guess this sounds logical. I want your views on whether then, we should include IMI's unaccreditation details at all, as that is not about IIPM. If we strike that detail out, it would clearly allow the other balancing view about IMI being featured in BusinessWeek and stuff also to be taken out. What do you think about that? Also, with respect to your view about a third party source talking about how AICTE shutting down would help IIPM, I'll check that out and try and find out such a link. I do remember one link of the Minister of HRD and Education talking to the dean of IIPM saying that he's considering closing down AICTE UGC. Would that help too? In this context, there is a paragraph of the former Education Minister, Arjun Singh, talking about students and advertisements. Even that paragraph totally seems unrelated to IIPM. Any views on that too pl? Thanks Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
3) In the absence of anything directly connecting the two, some 'limited amounts of information about the possible future closing of AICTE etc. could be included for context. A dozen references is probably overkill, especially if you have one or two high-quality ones.
Great. It's perfect. Do see the changed lead. Thanks.Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
4) Everything in the lead should be directly about IIPM. The information about the Union Minister's accusations of corruptions should be only in the Academics section since it isn't actually about IIPM.
See the changed lead. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)
What do you think? Could we all live with this solution? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violations

One thing I've noticed any time a large amount of text is added to an article is that it often signals a copyright violation. Many people aren't actually that fast at writing, so to produce that much text, they copy and paste sentences or even paragraphs from another source. Remember that simply citing a source as a reference doesn't make it OK to copy and paste whole sentences.

Here's what I found checking the recent additions to this article:

Here: It is also a UNDP key partner institution and has been on the World Bank Institute's steering committee for corporate social responsibility initiatives.
Original: IIPM has also been awarded the status of being the UNDP key partner institution in India and is also a member of the World Bank steering committee for corporate social responsibility in India.
Comment: This had about a dozen references with it originally, and clearly some token rewording was done in the beginning of the sentence. However, it's still clearly taken either from this source or one of the other places that has the same sentence (like this one).

Here: The first residential full-time post graduate diploma program commenced on 12th August, 1974, with students selected through admission tests-cum-inter views held in Delhi, Kolkata, Bombay and Bangalore.
Original: The first residential full-time post graduate diploma programme commenced on 12th August, 1974, with students selected through admission tests-cum-inter views held in Delhi, Kolkata, Bombay and Bangalore.
Comment: The misplaced space in the middle of the word "interviews" is a sure sign that this was copied.

Multiple sentences were also taken from the NVAO article without attribution, violating the guidelines for copying within Wikipedia.

I suspect there may be more content taken from other sources, but I haven't had time to go through the whole article yet. If anyone else has time to do some additional checking, it would be greatly appreciated. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 22:59, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi WeisheitSuchen, do go through my replies point by point
I am surprised at how can you say the UNDP sentence is copyright violation. If there is a better method of making up the sentence, do please make it and place it back. As of currently, the sentence you claim is copyright violation has no authority claiming copyright. Hence, unless you're able to tell me which source says the sentence is their copyright (and show me the exact sentence), it should remain there.
Wrt your second phrase, you could have re-made the sentence. As you've not, I'm doing it and re-placing it.
Wrt your NVAO copying statement, the copyright link you provide thankfully says that you can place the contents if you provide a link to the page within Wikipedia. So I'm placing it. Thanks Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 03:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
Also, I noticed that you said most people cannot type that fast. Fortunately, I can. I don't know about you. Therefore, do not please make synthesis judgements. Also, there is a wiki policy that in case of quoting, one can simply use double quotes to quote directly out of a reference (which is how it has been done in some references). If you feel there is ambiguity, please do not delete the reference; rather, proactively let us correct and restructure the statement. For example, how much time would it take us to restructure the following statement "It is also a UNDP key partner institution and has been on the World Bank Institute's steering committee for corporate social responsibility initiatives." Not more than a minute I guess. So kindly let us not not delete such material. Let us attribute using double quotes wherever we have to quote, or restructure. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)
A note: Changing back to the version and additions done by WeisheitSuchen. Will wait for discussions. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 03:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)
Kindly note that changes made by WeisheitSuchen in the intro, History, NVAO have been put back by me in good faith (despite the arguments given above). If I've missed something, please suggest here and I'll do that too. Also, waiting for suggestions on how to reword them in current copyright context so that we can attribute them to the right source before putting them back. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

(deindent)Although you claim that the source "has no authority claiming copyright," under US copyright law (which governs Wikipedia), everything online is considered to be copyrighted by default, even if the source doesn't explicitly claim copyright. Brief quotations can be used in accordance with the non-free content policy. Basically, it boils down to this: if you copy and paste, it needs to be in quotation marks. Don't pretend that you completely rewrote it when a dozen words are all in the same order. If you don't want to use quotation marks, then it has to be completely paraphrased to the standard of avoiding plagiarism.

Polite put would be always better W'Suchen. I'm k with the paraphrases part in line with non-free content part. Do help me if i miss out anything. Thanks Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Wifione, I'm so glad that you are such a fast typist. That means that from now on you'll have plenty of time to paraphrase everything you contribute from the sources sufficiently, rather than asking me to clean up after you. When you add huge amounts of content like you did, I don't have the time to go through and paraphrase it all myself. I'm sure you can take the "no more than a minute" in the future to do it right the first time. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:32, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

lol. The humour is well taken. Will do it. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Here is an additional sentence which needs to be further paraphrased. I'll leave it in the article for now since I know you're so fast at fixing these issues.

Here: IIPM also teaches courses like "Beyond the principles of management and economics" in which graduate and post-graduate students are taught concepts like survival of the weakest, the law of increasing marginal utility, apart from the age old concepts of survival of the fittest in the market economy and law of diminishing marginal utility.
Original: Research has helped IIPM develop its own subjects like “Beyond the principles of management and economics” wherein students are taught concepts like survival of the weakest, the law of increasing marginal utility, apart from the age old concepts of survival of the fittest in the market economy and law of diminishing marginal utility.
Comment: More than half of the sentence is taken verbatim from the original text; this isn't sufficient paraphrasing.

Thanks in advance for redoing this section Wifione. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 07:16, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Thanks in advance for pointing out such mistakes. Like I mentioned, keep pointing out and the fast typist this side of thames would surely try her best to do what she can. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:53, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Matching the statements to the sources

In some cases, it doesn't seem like the statements in the articles actually match what's in the sources. It's not enough to provide a reliable source for each claim; the source must actually say what is being said in the article. I won't pretend I've caught everything here, since there are so many sources, but this is a start at documenting the problems.

Previous statement: "IMI alumnus have gone on to work on professorial careers in European universities."
What the source says: The bio of one woman with an MBA from IMI is included. Showing that one person has does so doesn't prove that multiple alumni have these careers.
Solution: I changed it to say "At least one IMI alumni has gone on to a professorial career in a European university." Even this is questionable; this isn't about IIPM and may not belong in the article at all.

Although it's removed now, this is also part of why I deleted the entire History section. (The other reason was the copyright violation noted earlier.)

Previous statement: In the late 1990s, the institute expanded to Mumbai. In the 2000s, it expanded further. Currently, the institute is reported to have 18 branches across India, including in Gurgaon, Noida, Bangalore, Chennai, Ahmedabad, Kolkata, Chandigarh, Hyderabad, Pune, Lucknow, Indore, Bhubaneshwar, Bhopal, Jaipur, Dehradun, and Cochin.
What the sources say: Three sources were provided (1, 2, [1]) I don't have any issues with the reliability of any of them, although of course the second one should be something other than a Google doc. If the goal is simply to show an archive of the IIPM home page, the version of the site would be better. Unfortunately, they don't actually talk about the expansions to different branches; there's a complete disconnect between the statement in the article and what's in the sources.

Maybe I'm just missing it in the history sources. Wifione, if these articles from the Telegraph and Mail Today do talk about when the branches were added and I'm just not seeing it, could you please provide the quotes here to point it out to me? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 07:25, 25 November 2009 (UTC)

Was busy in real life for a couple of days. Thanks for waiting. I'll be reply in the course of the next two hours or hopefully three. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 07:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)
Good work Wei'Suchen. Let me look into it. Hadn't noticed the archive part. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

In the lead, several statements about accreditation were marked as "failed verification." AICTE's site is currently down, so I can't verify those, but the source for UGC says this: "UGC says no institute in the country can offer a degree course without its approval and IIPM does not have its go ahead...This institution has not approached the UGC, it is not a university." Several other quotes say about the same thing. Wifione, can you clarify why you marked this as failing verification? It seems pretty clearly to support the statement that IIPM isn't accredited with UGC. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 14:08, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi WeisheitSuchen, I think when I tried to open the UGC link, it mentioned that the link seems to be broken. I'll try again. And even if it doesn't open, I'll still take out the failed verification tag. Maybe my isp bandwidth has an issue. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 02:43, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Queries on some paragraph shifts

Hi WeisheitSuchen, the new section on relationship with educations institutions is a good one. There are a few suggestions. First, can we shift the IMI accreditation issues directly into the accreditation paragraph instead of repeating it? Second, can we shift the IIPM accreditation details also into the Accreditation section? Third, can we just mention the Univ of Buckingham accreditaiton detail with the AICTE part? It adds a pov balance I think. I've provided an alternative edit for your reference and help. If you think it look good, great. If you think it needs repair or back revert, do go ahead and do it (or inform me and i'll do it). cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 03:12, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Pulling the IMI and IIPM accreditation info all into that section looks OK to me. The University of Buckingham could probably go either in the partnership section or in the accreditation. I can see with the selected quote why you want it in the accreditation. I'd prefer it in the partnership section, as the University of Buckingham isn't an accrediting body the way AICTE, UGC, and NVAO are, but I'm willing to compromise on this unless someone else has a strong argument. I do think that navigating the page will be easier with "Academics" as a main heading and some of the other smaller sections as subheadings below it. It's hard to keep track of so many headings at the same level. The accreditation info should be within Academics, but if you wanted to pull out the section on relationships with other institutions as a second level heading, that would probably work too. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 03:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
What you've done is perfectly ok with me. Thanks Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Queries on including Judge, Darden, Haas in lea

With NUS joint certification, I have put the above schools in lead. I don't think we should put them into the section on certification as such because the section on certification is purely about IIPM and IMI, which are the primary and secondary subjects I guess. Any change or complete revertal or deletion you might want with anything I've done in the lead and in the contents (including the renaming of Chaudhuri as planning commission member) is perfectly ok with me. Thanks Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:51, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

I think the quick mention of Judge, Darden, etc. make more sense in the lead than the University of Buckingham, since those are talking about current programs but Buckingham is a potential future one. Can we take out the Buckingham info in the lead since it's duplicated in the partnerships section below? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)
Done.Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm going back to take a look at some of the sources elsewhere in the article, and I don't see what source supports this: "The institute also provides a joint certification programme with National University of Singapore, apart from short term programmes from Darden Graduate School of Business Administration, Judge Business School, Haas School of Business." I see in this source where it talks about the joint certification with NUS, but none of the other schools are mentioned. Do you have a source that talks about Darden, Judge, and Haas, ideally from those business schools? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I have removed the line about NUS from the lead. Look at the portion from the cited article - While these professors came to deliver lectures on specific topics, professors from NUS, Singapore (ranked among the top three B-schools in Asia) are delivering a seven-week intensive course on Investment Banking (IB) at IIPM. The course aims to provide IIPM students an edge when it comes to placements in the Investment Banking sector next year. Prasoon S Majumdar, all India dean-academics says, "with this programme, our students would have an advantage in the investment banking sector, they can hit the ground running while other MBA candidates would have to still go through training on the job for the first few months.’’ Thetop100 students selected from all IIPM branches will attend this course and get a joint certification in IB. So it says "professors from NUS". The joint certification does not mention it is with NUS. The article suggests that some professors from NUS are coming to conduct a course on investment banking. Very different from offering joint certification. Makrandjoshi (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I have edited the "relationships with other institutions" section to reflect what sources say. As it stood, it had been embellished with several weasel words. The source only says Judge, Darden etc will "host IIPM executive education participants". Which is not at all the same as providing join certification or join programs or courses, which is what the paragraph implied. wifione, in the future, please stick to accurately writing what the sources say and do not pad or embellish stuff just to make IIPM seem more important. Makrandjoshi (talk) 23:03, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Source verification

Hi Wei, I've placed many tags in the Controversy section. I have not changed any line leave I guess one and have only placed tags. I'm worried whether the issue is with my ISP or whether there really are so many tags that are not opening. Please do check as I double checked even the UGC tag and it did not still open. A quick note on some tags: there are a few tags where the article says one thing and what is written says something else, especially in Career 360 and the part about tax evasion. There's a Hindu newspaper article that talks about some institute of personnel/or plantation management. There're links that seem wrongly pointed (for example, I couldn't find a link about some guy called Premchand or somebody syaing that investigations have been started). Still, I've not removed the line; just placed the tags. There's a Livemint article op-ed view piece placed as a source. So tagged that too. There're a few links that are clearly dead. But like I said, I'm worried and hope it's not my isp functioning crazy. Do please check them if you have time. Thanks and cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

UGC opened fine for me yesterday and today (albeit slowly). Please keep in mind that even if a link is down, that doesn't necessarily mean the content should be removed. Per WP:LINKROT "WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published on-line." If you'll note on that page, there's a good explanation of the benefits of full citations for dealing with linkrot--something I would still like to see you do for all the citations you've added. That said, we may need to use archived versions for some of the sites in the controversies section, as was done for the UGC article. I'll start looking through and removing tags from anything I can open and verify myself, but it's going to take a while. In the mean time, why don't you start working on completing all the references you added so they aren't just bare links? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 10:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm changing the name of this section so it's clearer what tags were discussing. I'm a little confused by some of the links you tagged for failing verification. For example, you flagged this as failing verification (under JAM, ref #95): "IIPM issued a statement countering the allegations raised by the magazines. IIPM said that these allegations were a result of inferiority complex that IIM alumni (like Rashmi Bansal and Gaurav Sabnis) suffered due to IIPM (referring to IIPM's 'Dare to think beyond the IIMs' positioning statement), and that the articles were shallow lies, and an attempt to spread baseless rumours." Compare this to the original source: "'We are stunned as to how people from IIMs, who are the most pampered people of India, suffer from so much inferiority complex from IIPM that, given the first opportunity to pen something (be it the so-called IIM-L professor Amit Kapoor, or ex-IIM students like Rashmi or Gaurav and all the other IIM students on the net and other media), they stoop down so low as to write relentless lies about us and spread baseless rumours about IIPM,' said a widely-circulated IIPM statement." Can you clarify why you flagged that for failing verification? What about that part of the article do you believe isn't backed up by the quote? I think we need to discuss what actually constitutes "verification" if you're flagging things like this along with dead links (which are easily found at WeisheitSuchen (talk) 02:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
A lot of the links have marked as "failed verification" even when the article exists and says the stuff that is being cited. I have removed such tags which are obviously wrong. In other places, where there were dead links, i have replaced them with google cache links. Makrandjoshi (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi WeisheitSuchen, like I mentioned perhaps the website that was mentioned was opening slowly. I'll recheck the links and try to find links in archives. The above statement that you write wasn't found by me in the first go. My bad. I got it quite clearly in the second attempt (evening blues i guess lol). LIke I mentioned the moment you see a flag is wrongly put by me just remove it Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 02:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Makrand I think what weisheitSuchen writes is correct that the Google cache is unstable and we should link to archives. Cheers

There are several issues in the first paragraph with references that also need to be resolved.

  1. The "key partner institution" never appears in any of the three sources about the UNDP work. I also think 3 sources saying mostly the same thing is overkill. Pick one of them, or provide another source. I would use the most recent source from 2004 and note that "IIPM has partnered with UNDP and other organizations to provide a leadership development programme working to improve the global response to HIV/AIDS."
  2. No source has been provided to support the claim that IIPM is a member of the World Bank Institute's Corporate Social Responsibility steering committee. I did a quick Google search and wasn't able to find any third party sources confirming this, just lots of self-published ones.
  3. As I noted elsewhere on this page, no sources are given for the claim of short-term programs with Darden, Judge, and Haas. The source provided talks about other schools, but not those. The only source I've found that talks about Darden, Judge, and Haas is the Careers 360 article.

I think that if the UNDP and World Bank notes are retained in the article that they should be moved from the lead. The lead really should be a summary of what's in the article, and these are just a one-sentence note never revisited later in the article. Perhaps the UNDP info could go in the section on partnerships with other organizations. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 14:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I am editing the lead to remove uncited facts. Makrandjoshi (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear WeisheitSuchen, Makrand,
  1. I think I did include sources from secondary institutions (that do not talk about the secondary institution itself but about IIPM being a UNDP Key Partner Institution and being on the WB steering committee). These could be included in the lead. I'll anyway check other sources and re-include the UNDP, WB details in the lead and then expand on the same within the article.
  2. I'll reinclude Darden, Judge and Haas in the lead with the Career 360 source.
  3. I am reincluding the Buckingham Univ accreditation detail lead in the lead and will expand the same in the article too.
  4. I'll also find out third party sources for the AICTE and UGC detail further than what you have given and write the same also in the lead. See the words and tell me how it is.

Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 06:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Wifione, I reviewed your secondary sources. They do not say "key partner institution" anywhere in them. The World Bank is never mentioned in them. You can't just say "my sources said that" when they don't. Making a statement and providing a source isn't enough; the source has to actually say what you're saying in the article. Attributing a quote to a source when that quote never appears in the original is not acceptable. Also, we previously agreed that the Buckingham University belongs only in the accreditation section, as it is a future projection, not the current state of affairs. Unless you have a source that says they are accredited with Buckingham right now then it doesn't belong in the lead. If, at some future date, the Buckingham accreditation occurs, then the lead could (and should) be changed to include that. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:26, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

My changes - IMI unaccredited, generalities to specifics, etc

I am making changes of the following nature.
Since the IIPM does not award BBA or MBA itself, but says that students become eligible for applying for those degrees from IMI Belgium, it is necessary to point out that IMI is also an unaccredited school. The Businessweek listing specifies this. I have included this information in pertinent places, and provided the Businessweek link as the cite.
In many places, specific examples have been worded as generalities, when it comes to IIPM's achievements. I changed one such instance. One alumnus of IIPM was recognized by world bank as an entrepreneur. wifione wrote it as "in the past world bank has recognized iipm alumni as", wording that suggests that it occurs on a regular basis. I have changed the wording to make it reflective to the specifics. Am changing some other such instances. Makrandjoshi (talk) 18:46, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

The world bank change is perfectly correct. I don't know other instances although it'll be good if you can go through the same. But the line you again added in the lead paragraph (which subsequently was removed by an IP editor) about IIPM being continuously involved in controversies is a line that was removed earlier by an administrator. Kindly do not put it against consensus. Also do kindly discuss if there is any compelling reason for you to mention the BusinessWeek unaccreditation in so many places? If you noticed the voluminous discussions in the above paragraphs the editors had reached a consensus that as information about institutes like IMI, Buckingham was not primary to the IIPM entity we should restrict the usage to a section of the article and in fact perhaps curb it. For example information about IMI alumni has been cut. Even information about IMI's aliances has been reworded to be shown at only one place. Buckingham University has been removed from the lead introduction paragraph itself. Consensus discussions also resulted in the creation of focus on the accreditation paragraph for writing all information about accreditation so that such information is not repeated throughout, especially that which is not connected with IIPM. Therefore I hope you're able to provide a compelling reason why we should go against many discussions above between editors and again repeat information not directly related to IIPM. For your benefit I have provided a sample of how we could write the IMI information in the accreditaiton paragraph. It goes in line with teh discussions editors had above to reach a consensus. It'll be great to see you participate in the discussions when they're going on as it'll help you not only participate and keep updated with consensus decisions but would also help us in discussions with all points of view. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 03:09, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Wifione, please understand that removing validly cited information (like IMI being unaccredited, citing businessweek) is against wiki policy. Especially WP:NPOV. IMI's accreditation is important because IIPM admits a) it itself is not an accredited school and does not award MBA or BBA, BUT b) IMI is the one that awards the degrees. Since the only actual MBA-BBA degrees offered by IIPM to its students are from IMI, it is pertinent that the said degree-awarder, IMI, is unaccredited. Are you actually disputing the fact that IMI is unaccredited? If you are not, then you are violating wiki policy by removing what I wrote. Makrandjoshi (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Also, wifione, could you provide me a link to the edit where an admin deleted the line in the lead about IIPM being involved in controversies? Sorry if I am disinclined to believe you, but you have in the past been known to lie, two examples being a) Mahesh Peri being not associated with Outlook any more, b) calling me an SPA. Of course, you first lie and then tender fake apologies only when called out on those lies. So anyway, please provide me a link to an admin deleting that line from the lead. Makrandjoshi (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Sure Makrand... My request to you is not to be disruptive in editing. If you notice, I have started putting back only cross links and correcting cross links since I noticed you were reverting and will wait for your comments before changing the IMI lines to maintain NPOV guidelines. I really don't think you have me right. IMI is not IIPM. As per your inputs, students "can only apply" for IMI's degrees. the fact that IMI is not IIPM is clear enough for the IMI information to not be insensibly repeated throughout the article. Having said that, I'll await your discussions on this forum as you perhaps are not reading my replies above where I have mentioned that your references are not being disputed: your disruptive editing is being disputed. Kindly do not disrupt editing by editors and revert unilaterally. If you wish, change back relevant paragraphs. But total reverts are disruptive and against wiki policies. Please read the discussions completely before replying. Also, if you search in the history verions of editing for a user called Stifle, you'll realise the deletions he/she did to your edits. Kindly do not be disruptive. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Makrand, I'll also kindly request you to not delete information about GOTA companies etc by simply saying that two are enough. They're validly cited and it'll be diruptive of you to remove such information. It's a request which you should look at. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Makrand, you not only have again placed the line removed by the administrator, but have also removed a line of Mr. Kapil Sibal telling that AICTE and UGC will be abolished. Will you kindly not remove validly cited information that has been put in after much discussions? Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
wifione, under the guise of cross-referencing, you are just reverting to older versions. about sibal, i have provided reasons below. the sunday indian does not qualify as WP:RS on an IIPM wiki page as it is owned by IIPM itself and as such a self-published source or primary source. Makrandjoshi (talk) 05:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Makrand, actually many third party sources refer to the issue of AICTE and UGC being abolished. If you notice, you yourself had suggested removing too many third party sources. After suggesting that, through many discussions with other editors (as you had not participated) we had put the Sunday Indian source as it closely linked IIPM and Kapil Sibal's information, alongwith other sources. Kindly do not remove cited information. Feel free to add. Using words like 'guise' etc only result in a bad faith atmosphere. You are resorting to tendentious editing. I have refrained from editing further till you respond or cease your bad faith editing. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
wifione, I repeat - Sunday Indian is owned by IIPM so CAN NOT be a reliable source. By definition. The other 3rd party sources, like times of india, do not quote sibal saying so. they mention a panel recommending replacing aicte and ugc with bigger regulators. opposite of the point you are conveying. Makrandjoshi (talk) 06:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Kapil Sibal and AICTE etc

Wifione slipped in this information - In 2009, the Union Minister of Education Kapil Sibal informed the editor of The Sunday Indian, a news magazine published by the institute, that he is "seriously considering" abolishing AICTE and UGC.
Now, The Sunday Indian is run by IIPM itself, so is primary source and does not qualify as WP:RS. The other cites provided that do qualify as WP:RS, the Times of India articles, do not quote Sibal saying any such thing - read and,prtpage-1.cms The first article talks about a panel recommending not just "abolishing" AICTE and UGC, but replacing them with one single regulatary authority. Totally different from just scrapping the bodies. The way you have twisted words from RS and mixed it with primary source stuff from 'The Sunday Indian' is admirable! Makrandjoshi (talk) 05:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Makrand, kindly be polite and civil and do not disregard the various discussions in the paragraphs above on the POV sections. I feel you are simply disregarding so many discussions that have taken place and clearing out citations without basis. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
wifione...or mrinal pangey or carlisle rodham...or whatever name you want to go by. this pattern of yours has become so predictable, it is not even funny. whenever i come with a factual point by point argument like above, instead of addressing the argument or facts, you always respond with "please be polite and civil". Nothing else. Empty homilies. Ho hum. I have given the links to times of india articles above. Go through them and show me where Sibal said what you claim he said. Makrandjoshi (talk) 06:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I have a possible solution I'd like you both to consider. Why don't we leave in the current quote about it possibly being abolished, but also include a note (with a ref to this article kindly provided by Makrandjoshi about them possibly being replaced by a "super regulator"? We can also add a note about the Sunday Indian being run by IIPM. It could go something like this:
In 2009, the Union Minister of Education Kapil Sibal informed the editor of The Sunday Indian, a news magazine published by IIPM, that he is "seriously considering" abolishing AICTE and UGC. The editor of The Sunday Indian is also the all India dean of the institute.(multiple refs here) A Times of India article on the same topic noted that an education panel has recommended replacing these groups with a "super regulator." (TOI ref here)
What do you think? Could you both live with this? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Unless there is some other source for "Kapil Sibal seriously considering abolishing AICTE and UGC", other than The Sunday Indian, I am not in favor of including it. The Sunday Indian is owned and published by IIPM itself, and as per WP:RS would fall under primary source and/or self-published source. The editor of the publication is also the dean of IIPM, so the conflict of interest is clear there. So anything sourced from just Sunday Indian, does not belong in the article. Here's the thing, Weish. The Indian government wants to consolidate and streamline the education regulators into one super regulator. Kinda like how the US government set up a Department of Homeland Security to oversee different entities. But the spin IIPM wants to put on it is, the government is "abolishing" UGC and AICTE. So they can undemrine or dismiss the serious concerns that the 2 regulatory bodies have raised about IIPM. By allowing that spin, based on just something published in an IIPM-owned publication, we are compromising on reliability of sources. Makrandjoshi (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
Oh, and I am OK with including a line or two saying that the Indian government is considering a proposal to "replace" AICTE and UGC with a super-regulator. That has a reliable source - times of india. Makrandjoshi (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I think for something with this much controversy that allowing IIPM to state their point of view is relevant, even if it is a primary source. Obviously this is an Ad hominem argument, as are most of IIPM's responses, but for NPOV I think we need to include IIPM's responses and let readers identify the logical fallacies themselves. Logical fallacies don't automatically fail NPOV. I do notice, looking at the interview more closely, that "seriously considering" isn't an actual quote from Sibal, contrary to how it's indicated. So how about this instead? This should give people enough context to make their own judgements on the quote.
An education panel has recommended replacing AICTE, UGC, and other regulatory groups with a "super regulator." (TOI ref here) In a 2009 interview with the all India dean of IIPM and editor of The Sunday Indian, a news magazine published by IIPM, the Union Minister of Education Kapil Sibal stated that "We’re looking at this seriously and you’ll get to know as soon as we have a new structure in place." (Sunday Indian ref) WeisheitSuchen (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
WiesheitSuchen, What you say, about including IIPM's "opinion" on disputed matters, is perfectly fine with NPOV. And for opinions and arguments, you are right, we should let readers figure out the fallacies themselves. Like places where the article says that IIPM believes rankings do not matter, or that AICTE and UGC have no authority over them. But not for solid simple facts and actual quotes, which is why WP:RS is important. I think we should differentiate facts from opinions. Reporting Kapil Sibal saying something is a "fact". This so-called interview has appeared only in this self-owned publication. So I am doubting its factual veracity. Even in that supposed interview, like you noticed, Sibal didn't actually say what Wifione slipped in. I am still not comfortable with putting in a quote or a factual statement with just one source, that too a self-published primary source. If you remember the controversy about American radio host Rush Limbaugh, when he was about to buy an NFL team. A lot of quotes attributed to him were put on his wiki page, citing just one source (some book). It later turned out he never said those things. So at least when quoting someone is concerned, when there is a dispute, I think we need to go beyond the primary source. There is some precedent for doubting their veracity. In the course of the last year, someone (I think wifione with a different name) slipped in info about some Delhi High court judgment and the court saying something strongly in favor of IIPM. It remained there until I figured out, the only sources for it were IIPM press releases. No RS entitites like newspapers reporting on the judgment had said anything like that. It was quite possibly, made up. And when I asked the pro-iipm editors to give a third party source for that quote, they could not. Having said that, if wifione can find a 3rd party RS source, other than Sunday Indian, for Sibal says "We’re looking at this seriously and you’ll get to know as soon as we have a new structure in place.", I am okay with including it. Hope you see my point. Makrandjoshi (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is my suggestions for what to include. There are more details available on other RS sources so I don't see the need to cite Sunday Indian. Here is my suggestion.
An education panel has recommended replacing AICTE, UGC, and other regulatory groups with a single regulator (TOI ref here) Kapil Sibal, the Indian Minister in charge of higher education, has put in motion plans to create a National Council for Higher Education (NCHE), which will take over the academic, accreditation and financial functions of the existing regulators. The same panel suggested to the ministry taking action against private institutions which act free of government control in admissions, fees and coursework. (source - Wall Street Journal's The Mint - )
what do you think?Makrandjoshi (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

After rereading the WP:UNIGUIDE for reliable sources in university articles, I realized that they specifically say self-published sources shouldn't be used for statements about third parties. Basically, it's OK to use a university's own sources if they are talking about themselves (as long as it isn't controversial, but not about anyone else. So you're right and I was wrong; we shouldn't be using the Sunday Indian for quotes about AICTE & UGC. I think your version works; it seems entirely consistent with what multiple third parties have said. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:52, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Primary Sources and other non-RS cites

This article is cluttered with primary source links as cites, such as from IIPM's own websites or press releases. Or then from other websites that are neither scholarship-based nor media orgs. Refer - For example, a pdf from the NTU Singapore website is no more WP:RS than something from IIPM's own website. I am cleaning up such cites and the information put in using such sources, because it is NOT validly cited. wifione, please go over WP:RS guidelines and insert sources accordingly only. Makrandjoshi (talk) 05:30, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Reporting user Makrand Joshi in the Administrative noticeboard for edit warring

I am sorry to say Makrand but educational institutional references are considered the most reliable. You have been invited to engage in proactive constructive discussions by both me and WeiSuchen since long. I'm surprised at your unilateral decisions to remove validly cited informations like this. You are indulging in disruptive, tendentious editing. I am sorry to inform you that I have had to report you on the Administrative noticeboard. This is the link: Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

wifione, you have indulged yet again in forum shopping. I am shocked, shocked, NOT! I have given reasons for every edit of mine. And given details for some here too. You know and I know why you are so pissed off. I caught your kapil-sibal-aicte-scrapping lie. And that has gotten you all upset. Either way, I have responded to you on that page. And I am disappointed to see another attempt of yours at forum shopping being so pathetic and half-hearted. No diffs, no details, just vague generalities. Ho hum. Makrandjoshi (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
And yet again, wifione's malciious and pathetic forum-shopping falls flat on the face. Here is the judgment on this latest forum shopping expedition - No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Reporting user is arguably the more disruptive at that article, but also appears to be within the limits of normal editing-with-discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC) See that? "reporting user", i.e. wifione, is more disruptive. So which forum are you going to shop at next? Makrandjoshi (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Makrand, calm down and stop your name calling. The finding above is accepted as it is from an administrator (which also mentions I am within limits of normal editing with discussion). If you continue your using uncivil language, I would request for a third party wikiquette request on you. I really don't realise how you end up using such malicious language. I would again advise you to calm down. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 06:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Hmm, so a wikiquette request....your next forum shopping trip? Is there any forum or noticeboard you plan to not use? Makrandjoshi (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I have created a wikiquette request on you here [2]. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 11:07, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
I have closed the wikiquette request failing to see a satisfactory reply from you and opened a request on the administrative noticeboard, here [3]. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:33, 8 December 2009 (UTC)

The History Section

I actually have a dispute there. Sorry if this seems pedantic, but I find it hard to believe the institute started as early as in 1973. Until the late 90s, no one in India had heard of IIPM. The year 1973 is pretty early for a private business school to start by Indian standards. So I am suspicious it might be an attempt to boost legitimacy by claiming to be way older than they are. In the past, pro-IIPM editors, citing primary source, have expanded the history section and even claimed it was Nehru who asked Chaudhury to start the institute. LOL! Nehru, who FYI, died in 1964. That said, if a WP:RS source says the school was founded in 1973, I have no objections. For now I am ok with letting the History section remain. But the primary sources need to be replaced with 3rd party ones. Makrandjoshi (talk) 21:26, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough; your edit makes more sense now. That had seemed pretty straightforward to me, which is why I figured the RS rules could be stretched. Primary sources from schools aren't automatically suspect; take a look at all the primary sources in Indian Institutes of Technology, which is a Featured Article. But with a history of stretched claims, as we have with IIPM (and apparently specifically with the history), other references should be provided. Let's leave the section as is for the time being, but I'll flag it for needing third-party references. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)
I was curious and decided to do a Google News archive search for IIPM to see when the name started appearing. The timeline feature is quite helpful for looking at coverage over time. In a search from 1970 to 2009, the earliest news mention is from June 13, 1999. That article mentions Planman Consulting being spun off from IIPM several years earlier than that, so IIPM had clearly been around for a little while at that point. A comparable Google news archive search for Indian Institute of Management shows several references from the New York Times in the 1970s. That search isn't perfect, of course, and it isn't a reliable source, but it does call into question the claim of an earlier date. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 07:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Correcting a lot of wrong or weasel info

Over the next couple of days, I will be going through the article and editing information that is simply wrong, mentions things not mentioned in the sources, or are purely made up. I will list the changes here as I make them and give reasons.
1. In accredition there is a line - However, NVAO, as per the email, accredits Dutch and French courses. IMI degrees are offered in English. The email in the source, Careers 360 article, says no such thing. It does not talk about what language courses it accredits, but the geogrphic areas - Dutch and French speaking parts of Belgium. IMI's courses being in English is neither here nor there. This is a weasel line put in by wifione to discredit NVAO. Makrandjoshi (talk) 23:09, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

A previous version of that section claimed that NVAO didn't cover the "English speaking areas" of Belgium--which don't actually exist. There's a lot of stretching things or pulling them out of context that needs to be cleaned up. I've got some other things going on this weekend, but I'll try to take a look at some other sections if I have time. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Hi Makrand, It's good that you will have time to do this finally. I'll wait for you to get through the article and then look through it perhaps on Monday if you've done the full round. In the meanwhile, will do changes that might not up the ante. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 06:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Wifione, while you're waiting this weekend, why don't you work on adding citation templates to your references? Converting the bare links to full citations is time consuming, I know, but it would really make it much easier to keep track of where the information is coming from. Makrand, I know you usually include a title, which is definitely a step up from bare links, but it would be good if we all could be consistent and use the templates. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
WeishetSuchen, once I am done with correcting the facts, I will start with completing the citation templates. Makrandjoshi (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

2. The only cited fact when it comes to global orgs like UN, World Bank etc is that one year, IIPM co-organized an AIDS seminar with UNDP. Other stuff mentioned in the article is uncited, probably untrue and seems to be put there just to make the institute look - a member of the World Bank Institute's steering committee on corporate social responsibility initiatives. The institute also partners the United Nations in bringing out macro economic reviews and partners the United Nations Environment Programme to the extent of organising workshops on World Environment Day under the aegis of the UN Have removed everything except the UNDP AIDS part.
3. Whoever added a lot of info (probably wifione) is obsessed with phrases like "partnering with" "joint certification", "key partner institution", phrases which are trying to convert 1-time events into some kind of a grand "partnership" or "alliance". When you look at the cited source, it becomes clear that said events usually happened only once, opften very long ago (like the UNDP-AIDS thing, 2003!). I am editing a lot of these grandiose "partner" lines to make them reflect the reality, and not serve as advertorials for IIPM. Makrandjoshi (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC) 4. Copy-pasting a few words from a source with quotation marks is fine, but in a lot of places, lines after lines (usually saying good things about IIPM) have been copied and pasted with quotation marks. I am rewording those parts to summarize them. Makrandjoshi (talk) 16:00, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Knowledge@Wharton and NTU source

Dear WeisheitSuchen, Makrand, I do need a view on whether Knowledge@Wharton source and the NTU sources qualify as reliable or not? As per me, Knowledge@Wharton is well quoted and seems respectable while NTU is not talking about anything controversial. Self published sources should not form a majority of the article surely, but can be used with considerate effect. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 06:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I think we should be using the University article guidelines to figure out what's a reliable source or not (even though obviously IIPM isn't a university, this is still the right style). Here's the relevant part of that guideline:

Special care is required for citing self-published sources, such as information about a college/university published by the college/university itself: the cited information must be authentic, not be self-serving (see Neutral point of view), and not involve claims about third parties. Self-published sources cannot comprise the majority of an article's citations. Student-published college newspapers and university-published press releases are generally reliable sources for verifying information, however, these sources cannot be used to establish encyclopedic notability. Coverage by mainstream news organizations should always be preferred over press releases by a college or university's news office and stories in the student newspaper.

I think the Knowledge@Wharton probably fails because they are talking about a third party (IIPM). I wouldn't say that Knowledge@Wharton always fails as a reliable source; it probably generally is. But I don't think we can use them for this particular situation. An interview in a mainstream news source where someone said the same thing would be acceptable though.
As for the NTU source, Makrand didn't say it was unreliable, just that it didn't support the claim that this 4-week program happens every year. Makrand adjusted the article so it matches what this source says; he didn't remove it. However, it is a Google cache link, which as we've discussed may not be stable. If a direct link is available, that would be preferable. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Knowledge@Wharton is just an internally run online journal at Wharton. Not a full-fledged media entity or publication. And I have just followed the wiki policy guidelines weishe has mentioned above in taking it out. And wifione, "as per me it is well quoted and respected" is another of your trademark vague generalities. Much like your "it is a majority/minority view". Please learn to quote wiki policy. It will help you improve as an editor. Same with NTU. It was just a PDF on the school cite. Not a publication, not reviewed or edited or reputed. Any student could create a pdf and upload it to their NTU page. Does not make it WP:RS. Makrandjoshi (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
I should have clarified my previous point: Knowledge@Wharton would probably generally be a reliable source if it was used to verify non-controversial information about Wharton. If they're talking about themselves, and it isn't a contested or self-serving point, it's acceptable.
As for the NTU source, I don't think that most universities allow students to create PDFs and publish them with main university URL; usually the address gives you a clue that it's a student-uploaded document. If we can look at an original version (and not a Google cached one), I think we can look at the source URL and figure out whether it's a publication of the university, talking about itself on something not controversial. I think this edit was the correct way to handle it, rather than this one. The shortened version you originally wrote accurately reflects the source (and that's the one I thought was still in the article when I made my earlier comments). NTU can talk about its own programs, and the self-published source is reliable enough in this instance. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Fair enough. I'll put back the information from the edit you think was appropriate. Makrandjoshi (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Needs Neutrality

Dear Editors/ Administrators,

The controversy lines and its section doesn't seems to have a balance , neutrality required for the same.--Suraj845 (talk) 08:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

If you review the recent discussion (and yes, I recognize there's a lot of it), we're trying to get to that balance. Did you have any concrete suggestions? If you note in the controversies section, IIPM's responses to JAM, UGC, AICTE, etc. are included for balance already. If you've got comments about the other issues, feel free to join in with the ongoing discussions with specific, concrete ideas. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)
Comment removed per WP:OUTING> -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:08, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

An Alumni section

The information about an IIPM alumnus being profiles by World Bank seems out of place in the job placement section. I am moving it to a new Alumni section. Makrandjoshi (talk) 16:13, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Removing Neutrality Tag

I am removing the neutrality review tag. It has been on for a while, but no one has come and expressed clearly what the neutrality issues specifically are. All I see is repeated vague statements "this is not neutral" or some such. In my edits over the last few days, I have removed lines which I think violate WP:NPOV and now the article seems balanced. So I am removing the neutrality review tag. Makrandjoshi (talk) 11:16, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Adding your own viewpoints and feeling it be neutralised without proper discussions. I feel let the administrators deal whether its totally neutral or not and not an editor. Pls don't remove the neutrality tag till the discussions are over.--Suraj845 (talk) 13:26, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Firstly, you have been asked to specify what issues of neutrality there are, but you refuse to. Secondly, drive-by tagging goes against wiki guidelines. Thirdly, just putting a tag doesn't result in a review. Makrandjoshi (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)
FYI, from the WP:DRIVEBY page - Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Wikipedia:Neutral point of view, Wikipedia:Verifiability, Wikipedia:No original research and Wikipedia:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.
If you still want to add the tag, first you should write a detailed post here with specifics. Makrandjoshi (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Discussing facts should be done with one which has a fair opinion and not indulged in opposing the facts without any logical opinion. I feel we should ask administrator to provide us with a fair editor as since the past edits of yours ( ever since you have been started editing) its always had a face in your edits, that you are some what a player of some competitor party and not a fair editor. I request the administrators to first judge your edits from the past history and to see whether your are eligible in giving fair neutral facts to any article in wiki or not. --Suraj845 (talk) 17:18, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Please note that administrators just reviewed Makrandjoshi's edits and found them to be acceptable. Do you plan to just keep asking people until you find someone to agree with you? That's called forum shopping and is considered disruptive behavior. I asked you for specifics about neutrality and you declined to provide them. As a preemptive argument, I'll point out that the controversy section is necessary for this article to have a NPOV. You're welcome to provide specific neutrality concerns if you have them, as requested, but otherwise there isn't anything we can do. I think the tag can be removed unless you provide specifics about the article rather than resorting to Ad hominem arguments against other editors. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 18:00, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

General statements that "it's not neutral" are not productive. Point to specific wording and offer suggestions or it can and should be ignored. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 10:10, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality cont.

Lots Many times unaccredited is being used which leads to the same link. I feel we should cut down and not repeat the same again and again.--Suraj845 (talk) 04:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

That's fine, but you removed it from a key part of the article: the lead section. It is fine to remove the links, but you need better justification to remove the words. I removed an instance of accreditation later in the lead that seemed unnecessary. ~Amatulić (talk) 05:14, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

I do not agree completely to the fact if we have a whole section regarding the Accreditation, then there is no point i feel it to be incorporated again n again even on the starting line of the article. --Suraj845 (talk) 08:34, 7 December 2009 (UTC)

A lead summarizes the article and gives basics about the institute. So it is bound to repeat some of the facts lower down in the article. By your logic, we should also delete everything else in the lead because it is in the article. Secondly, accreditation is one of the basic things people look at for a college. There is notable discussion surrounding accreditation, because government agencies have acted on it, or talked about it, and it has been reported in the press. The section is well-cited so why should it not be there? Please give wiki-policy-based reasons rather than just saying what you "feel" and "think". The accreditation section mentions both sides of the argument as per WP:NPOV. Makrandjoshi (talk) 11:52, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Accreditation is one of the fundamental characteristics of an educational institute. It's like whether a business is private or publicly traded; it's that basic. The fact that there's a whole section on accreditation actually supports the fact that it should be mentioned in the lead, as the lead should briefly summarize things that are expanded later in the article. We don't need to overlink the word; probably once in the lead and once in the infobox (as that seems pretty standard)? I'd be willing to agree that we only link to the Educational accreditation article twice. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:44, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Suraj845: Please familiarize yourself with WP:LEAD before making further comments. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:18, 7 December 2009 (UTC)
Though disoriented by the repeated accusations by Makrand, let me put in my view. I would say that there are verifiable sources that mention that IIPM is a management institution. If the current group of editors believe that their personal view is more important than verifiable facts then I will have to agree with Suraj that this article does not have a neutral point of view. I also agree with Suraj at teh danger of again being accused by Makrand, on one more issue. That is the fact that when we have dedicated one paragraph to accreditaiton in the lead itself, it makes less sense to repeat the word in the first line. An alternative could be to shift the second para further up. And there are no valid references given to the first paragraphs statements made. That's some of the reasons I would add back the NPOV tag. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:52, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Reading past discussions I have understood the institute is not the one which is unaccredited but its courses have been unaccredited. So have changed the lead line to include that. I also have included Judge etc in the lead. In the AICTE section I have included the court case. Further I have enumerated upon the controversy line to inlcude Jam, Career 360, gave correct detail of tax issue as it gave a non npov, and enumerated upon USA Today as otherwise it seemed as if there were many plagiarism controversies. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 06:23, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
I don't think you're reading the sources correctly. They are later in the lead, but we'll include the references repeatedly to make it clear. AICTE calls IIPM an "unapproved institution." The UGC also talks about the institute or university needing approval: "Pillai said, 'Master degree or any degree or any degree for that matter, can be granted only by a university recognized by the UGC. So there is no private institution which is not recognized by UGC or which is not a part of a university, they can offer an MBA program.'" Note that the quote here talks about the institution not being recognized, not the program.
Wifione, can you point out the part of WP:LEAD that you feel supports your view on taking out the word "accredited": "That is the fact that when we have dedicated one paragraph to accreditaiton in the lead itself, it makes less sense to repeat the word in the first line." This seems to be directly in contradiction to the guidelines. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:44, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
Executive programmes being offered with Darden, Haas etc. is again NOT TRUE. Those schools said they host participants of IIPM's exec ed program. Which is not the same as offering a program or a certification. Makrandjoshi (talk) 14:21, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
About the point above, here's the part from the quoted source which shows why wifione's edit to the lead is wrong. This is from an email sent by an official at Darden to the reporter - Along with Cambridge (Judge) and UC Berkeley (Haas), Darden will host IIPM's Executive Education program participants and deliver to them a high-quality mix of general business class sessions. No course credits at Darden or UVA are associated with this program, as IIPM is not a partner school and their participants are not taking Darden courses. So you see, there are no course credits offered, and IIPM is NOT a partner school. It seems like an instance only of IIPM students visiting Darden. I don't see why visiting some schools, with any credits or certification, belongs in the lead. Makrandjoshi (talk) 14:26, 8 December 2009 (UTC)
WS, If you see the lead, you'll see that first you write unaccredited in the top line. Then in the lead itself you again dedicate a paragraph to unaccredited. Why do you wish to repeat the word unaccredited two times in the lead itself? Moreover the links you've provided of AICTE or UGC are archived links. They won't do. After the high court notice, there is no link that currently referst to IIPM being unaccredited. Accreditation is not a permanent phenomena - it happens year on year basis globally, or for a regular period. So kindly give recent post high court links to prove that IIPM or its courses are unaccredited. Or use the past tense while describing the part about unaccreditation. I'm making changes with respect to this.
WS, Makrand, I am also working the Darden etc link properly and including it.
The Buckingham link should be included in the lead as the lead should summarise the future too.
I am including the right link of the high court decision.
Till the time you continue negative balancing viewpoints wrt to both sides (for example, unaccreditation, Darden, Buckingham, High Court settlement) the lead at least is non NPOV IMO Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
And I have reverted you. That is way too much information for a lead section of an article. I have no objection to the material you added, but that level of detail belongs in the body of the article, not the lead. The purpose of the lead is to summarize.
You should also be aware that the citation requirements for a lead section aren't as rigorous as for the body, as long as what's being summarized is properly cited elsewhere. In the case of the word "unaccredited", a citation-needed tag is unnecessary, as the body references adequate sources saying that IIPM has never sought accreditation. Therefore, IIPM is unaccredited.
I don't have a strong view either way about the appearance of that word in the first sentence. It's a key point, but as long as the lead mentions it, and the lead serves to summarize rather than provide detail, that's fine. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:24, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
I'm ok with what you write. I'm reducing the information this time and adding the same details in the summary. Do check it out Amatulic. The reason citation is required in accreditation is because the institute's courses are not accredited, not the institute per se. Therefore there is a requirement for a current citation which mentions that "the institute is unaccredited". Thanks Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 06:37, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
And just wanted you to note that the lead does mention the fact about unaccreditation better in the 2nd paragraph of the lead. Thus it just seems repetitive in the lead itself. You have said that you don't have a strong view either way about the appearance of that word in the first sentence. But I won't remove the word till other editors comment. ThanksWireless Fidelity Class One (talk 06:47, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Accredition is not only for courses but for the institute too. It is a matter of semantics. When someone says an institute is unaccredited, it is understood that its courses are unaccredited and vice versa. However, as a compromise I suggest using the word "unrecognised" instead of "unaccredited" in the lead. If other editors are okay with it, I can make the change in the lead with the relevant cites. Makrandjoshi (talk) 14:52, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

(outdent) Unaccredited is the correct accurate term and should stay. --NeilN talk to me 15:14, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

I agree with NeilN; "unaccredited" has a specific meaning; unrecognized is less clear and precise. Wifione, you've said repeatedly that only the courses are accredited, but have never provided a source to back up that statement. I've provided sources that show that AICTE and UGC accredit the institutes. Are you arguing that they accredit other institutes, but that IIPM is in a special category that only has courses accredited? The argument about archive sources isn't valid. If they were unaccredited a few years ago, then they are still unaccredited unless they have received accreditation since then. Unless you produce a source that says they have been granted accreditation by someone, they are still unaccredited. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 01:17, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Well, somebody just shortened the lead to 1 sentence. That's unacceptable. The lead should provide an overview of the article, and now it doesn't. Hasn't anyone actuall read WP:LEAD? ~Amatulić (talk) 17:45, 9 December 2009 (UTC)

Ricky81682 shortened the lead in these two edits. In both cases, he moved content later in the article. Ricky, can you please clarify more about why you feel a one-sentence lead is sufficient? I think it's a good first sentence, but it doesn't seem to give enough of an overview of the article to me. But you're the admin, and you may be reading the policy different than Amatulić and I are reading it. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 22:32, 9 December 2009 (UTC)
Ricky81682 is an admin? I didn't know that. And it's irrelevant. Admins are no different than any other editor when it comes to changing articles, and like any editor they make mistakes, such as inadvertantly creating problems. An admin contributing to an article is an editor like anyone else, with no difference in authority over content.
An admin's only difference is the ability to enforce policy and control disruption through blocking and page protects. The rest of us can only revert and complain until an admin takes action.
I regarded Ricky's edit as non-constructive but decided to ask on his talk page to fix the problem he left behind, rather than simply revert. ~Amatulić (talk) 01:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)
He is "an editor like anyone else," but he's also been around for more years than me, and I'm legitimately interested in hearing his perspective. I don't think this meets the guidelines as it is right now: "The lead should be able to stand alone as a concise overview of the article. It should define the topic, establish context, explain why the subject is interesting or notable, and summarize the most important points—including any notable controversies." On the other hand, with as much back and forth as we've had on this article, I'd accept this if everyone was willing to go with this as a compromise rather than trying to jam everything into the lead. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 02:45, 10 December 2009 (UTC)

Should information about IMI stay here in the article about IIPM?

I refer to a para that goes like this "Businessweek lists IMI Belgium as an unaccredited business school[13]. Career 360, an Indian career oriented magazine, reported sources in NVAO....BusinessWeek lists IMI in the section on "Full Time MBA Profiles" as an unaccredited institution.[35][36][37][38]" Should a whole paragraph about details of IMI stay in the IIPM article?Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 03:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, When there is para such as, "The alliance also enables the institute's students to visit IMI as part of student exchange programmes for one semester. It has also been reported that extending the tie-up, IMI will also now confer its PhD awards to the institutes fellows", we also need to mention that the PhD is awarded by an unaccredited institution, since information seekers should know this. --TheMandarin (talk) 03:50, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I believe the IMI detail is not required out here as it is an external institute. It is enough that we have written that IMI is an unaccredited college. Two paragraphs are not required.Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Dear Mandarin you also placed two links of a website called education world. They don't appear reliable. Kindly provide better links or remove the links.Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:07, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Education world is a WP:RS and a secondary source, if in doubt check About Us::Board of Advisors. Feel free to take ask this at WP:RSN. --TheMandarin (talk) 04:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I think the part Wifione quoted should be relegated to a footnote, but the part TheMandarin quoted should stay in the article, with the word "unaccredited" footnoted with some key references in the part Wifione quoted. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
The fact that the MBA is awarded by IMI is one of the debated topics and should be at least restricted to a line, since it is a very notable argument. --04:39, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with Amatulic.Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Could you explain why a notable argument should be removed, even without a passing remark? --05:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Mandarin, I double checked. The website is ok - check the links. One is of a counsellor answering questions. Can you include that? In the other link, you've reworded the actual statement. You've written "The small print at the bottom of advertisements by IIPM states that the institute and its study programmes are not recognised by UGC or AICTE". The link doesn't mention this. Please correct Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:01, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
Yes, the second link should be moved to the first line of the para. I don't see any issues in including the counselor published in a WP:RS, and even without the counselor's link, there is another RS from Money Control. --TheMandarin (talk) 05:23, 11 December 2009 (UTC)
As per discussions above I have relegated the part I mentioned above to a footnote, leaving the part TheMandarin quoted there itself, but the word unaccredited has been footnoted with key references of BusinessWeek and Career 360. I have also taken out IMI reference from certification as IMI is an external institute and it can be placed in the section of 'relationship with other institutions' Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 09:03, 11 December 2009 (UTC)

Arjun Ravi, JAM disclaimer, Mint, PremChand, Original Research

  • I've included the detail that JAM is a fun and satire magazine as given by them (see supported citation in story).
  • JAM also doesn't stand by its own authors' articles and says it only includes them in good faith. It shows lack of editorial control/responsibility over the article. Therefore JAM article --as it's an important part of the issue-- has been changed to include the name of the author of the story -- Arjun Ravi.
  • I've deleted Prem Chand's reference altogether as this is pure repetition. It's already been put in another relevant paragraph.
  • The Mint op-ed article basically has been reworded to correctly reflect the fact that it was the writer's coverage of the issue and not the magazine's coverage of the issue.
  • Why I have tagged a line (mentioning that Outlook withdrew rankings) as original research is not because the citation is wrong. The source is right. I have tagged it because the statement purports that Outlook removed the rankings after JAM published the report. That is synthesis and original research because of how the Outlook link is placed. Anyway, the detail about Outlook should be in ranking, and not here. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 10:54, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
  • I also therefore want to raise a question. Should we have the reference of S.Mitra in the JAM section? He basically only writes again about the same issue without any new input.Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 10:58, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
If the article asserted something like "Outlook removed IIPM from their ranking due to the coverage in JAM," then you'd be right that this is an unpublished synthesis and therefore WP:OR. However, what the article says is "These rankings have now been withdrawn by Outlook C-Fore B-School survey." That's entirely supported by the source and doesn't draw that conclusion. The reason it matters here is that IIPM wasn't just using an old ranking; it was using one that was actually withdrawn. I'll clarify that Ravi didn't note that though.
The Mint article is part of the overall news coverage of the controversy. It could be probably be moved to The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM) advertising controversy#Coverage of the allegations in the Indian Media instead of being here. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:26, 14 December 2009 (UTC)
I agree with that. Two suggestions for the changes you've done.
  • 1. You could change the Stanford inclusion by deleting the word "however". The remaining statement could remain. IIPM was never reported to have an association with Stanford Business School. Your term "however" puts across that (correct me if I'm wrong). You could let it remain too as it doesn't make too much of an issue.
  • 2. In the Outlook changed ranking statement, your line "article was published before these rankings were withdrawn by the Outlook C-Fore B-School survey in July 2005, stating that IIPM doesn't disclose facts truly and correctly" could be written as "article was published before these rankings were withdrawn by the Outlook C-Fore B-School survey in July 2005, which stated that IIPM doesn't disclose facts truly and correctly"
  • 3. I've made a few OR changes to Career 360 and Unfair Trade Practices. I have deleted the Prem Chand reference as it was only repeating the AICTE investigation pov. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 12:56, 14 December 2009 (UTC)