Jump to content

Talk:Arindam Chaudhuri

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Kuyabribri (talk | contribs) at 16:51, 16 September 2019 (Undid revision 916023651 by 27.255.212.211 (talk) rv addition of garbage). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Edit request from Saifnaik, 4 June 2011

In the page on Aridnam chaudhuri, data is false and misleading i request an edit. There are no credentials to establish Shri Aridnam as an economist, and he is certainly no management guru, He is just the dean of a college known as IIPM (redacting BLP attack). I request someone to please remove economist and management guru from this credentials as it can mislead people who read the page.

http://www.indiadaily.org/entry/the-great-indian-nightmare/

Saifnaik (talk) 03:58, 4 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Well I remove guru as that was obviously fluff and qualified economist and added your link. The references does not clearly state that he is not an economist, so see if there is a suitable reference for that. Also his involvement history with IIPM needs to be explained rather than just honorary dean. Graeme Bartlett (talk) 11:47, 6 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
'Guru' has been restored by someone; I am removing it. To be considered an economist, at the very least, a person needs to have a degree from a recognized university. Arindam's 'degree' is from IIMP which is not recognized. That should be enough for removal of this self-proclaimed title. Kashif.h (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I stand corrected. It seems that he does have degrees in Economics from Madras university. Kashif.h (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
And unfortunately, it doesn't matter whether a person has a degree or not (though I have to say that this criterion that you mention is a new one that I've heard around), what matters as per our policy on verifiability| is whether we have reliable sources confirming that he's a guru. And we do have that. Therefore, kindly do not delete the guru, unless you believe the source is not reliable. Thanks. Wifione ....... Leave a message 17:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

http://www.indiadaily.org is a blog. Kindly have a look at the following link http://www.indiadaily.org/about-us.php Kindly do not add links of blog. Suraj845 (talk) 16:20, 8 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

What exactly is a reliable source? Who decides what is reliable and what is not? How come any mention of this gets removed immediately? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 106.51.124.237 (talk) 15:30, 4 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks for your comment. I understand your point about including controversial content. Unfortunately, Wikipedia has very strict rules about biographies of living people (which were put in after a series of well-publicized scandals). In particular, for this incident, we need multiple, relaible and secondary sources. You will find the detailed definitions of these terms by following the links. For our case, it means that we cannot use non-reliable sources such as personal blogs/internet forums etc., and neither can we use primary sources such as newspaper op-eds even if they are published in otherwise reliable sources. A good list of available sources has been compiled below, along with comments as to why they can/cannot be used. Even after extensive search, we could only find 2 sources which satisfied these criteria, and their content has been included in the article giving due weight. If you can add to that list of sources, that would be extremely helpful. Thanks again, SPat talk 05:14, 5 June 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request from Saifnaik, 24 June 2011

Criticisms page needed.

http://m.timesofindia.com/PDATOI/articleshow/8954287.cms The following news article needs to be published in this page. Saifnaik (talk) 07:55, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Also see IIPM sues Caravan, Google, Penguin for Rs 50 cr (IBNLive). utcursch | talk 15:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
The first link has completely got to do with IIPM and has little place in this BLP of an individual. The second piece is quite of the NOTNEWS variety - a story on Chaudhuri gets removed due to a court order. So I ask, what long term encyclopedic worth do you make of this? Will wait for your response. Wifione ....... Leave a message 17:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
He has sued Google (world's biggest search engine), Penguin India (subsidiary of the largest trade book publisher in the world) Caravan (published by Delhi Press, one of India's largest magazine publishing houses). You do not think the cause for such action from Arindam is significant in his life? Kashif.h ★ 09:20, 25 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]
Arindam didn't sue. It was IIPM who sued. Though the article was about Arindam Sweet Smell of Success : True Story of Arindam Chaudhuri. I am hence undecided whether to include this or not. Anshuk (talk) 01:22, 26 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Arindam Chaudhuri (Hindi: अरिंदम चौधुरी) is an Indian economist, management guru

and the source for that is this?? http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2004-09-03/delhi/27158332_1_top-cops-global-experts-arindam-chaudhuri

Seriously? Does Wikipedia consider paid news as a source for verifiability? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 122.248.161.59 (talk) 09:21, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Yes, of course. Why shouldn't we? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:43, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]
I've just realised that I might have misunderstood your question. By "paid news" do you mean articles that we have to pay to access (which are perfectly acceptable) or articles that someone has paid to have published? If it's the latter then what makes you think that The Times of India was paid to publish the cited article? Phil Bridger (talk) 09:49, 3 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

The Anonymous user claims that The Times of India was paid to publish the cited article.--Recrocodile (talk) 14:50, 25 August 2011 (UTC)[reply]

Management "guru" is a tall claim and a matter of opinion. It shouldn't feature so prominently on a BLP page. I have changed it to "consultant" instead. The onus of proving that the word "guru" is suitable for the lead paragraph falls on the user reinserting it. Telco (talk) 08:11, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

this word is popularly used, there is no issue in using the word guru..Pundit & Guru are words used in modern vocabulary (Alex.mathews (talk) 17:49, 29 January 2013 (UTC))[reply]

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

POV

POV issues with the article. Seems to be praising him. Doesn't mention him suing Google, or UGC stating his institute isn't a university. It doesn't mention any controversy OR that fact that he is against Wikipedia. A lot like the NICE Road article where nothing on Deve Gowda is mentioned ...

--Rsrikanth05 (talk) 09:04, 1 September 2011 (UTC)[reply]

I agree with you, Rsrikanth. Suraj845 has a conflict of interest with this article. Some action is needed. Telco (talk) 08:08, 17 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Telco, Let me make a few points extremely clear so you don't repeat these mistakes again.


1. Before you accuse a fellow editor of having COI or anythign like that, make sure you read WP:CIVIL and WP:NPA. Rather than develop a condusive editing envirnoment, your first two edits on this talk page are focused on belitlling me. In case you think I have a COI, take it to the COI noticeboard. Stop immediately making such silly accusations and start assuming good faith.


2. The fellow editor above rsrikanth05 whom you are canvassing with for joint action against me is the one who has been pulled up in this week's RFA nomination [1] for having tried to openly canvass for support with other editors on twitter. Other edits have been shown in the RFA showing how he canvassed against other fellow editors too on Twitter. He apologized so that issue ends. But I took the opportunity to myself check his tweets on Arindam Chaudhuri and it is quite clear who might have a quite negative point of view at the start itself. If his tweet on Arindam Chaudhuri had been on any talk page, I dare say he would have been blocked in a second. So I would think ten times before trying to canvass support, least from editors who have been pulled up already and more less from editors who already have a negative point of view.


3. Go and read the BLP policy. Every word I am adding is from high quality and exceptional sources. Your description of "management consultant" has been challenged by me and guess what? You have not added even one source to support your claim in two of your reverts. Have you read BLP? Have you read the notice on the top of this page that warns editors to never add uncited information? The next time you add this term, I will have to report you to BLPN for both adding uncited information and for trying to high roll fellow editors with accusations of COI.


4. You might have your personal viewpoint that "management guru" is an opinion so should not be added. Unfortunatelly, that is not so. Verifiablity proves that the term "management guru" is used widely throughout exceptionally reliable sources. In my "One Minute" of search (and I am not joking ------- one minute) I found 15 high quality sources that address Chaudhuri as "management guru". So I am undoing your uncited edit again. Here are your sources - take your pick - CNBC, India Today, Times of India (multipile sources), Hindu (multiple sources), Mid Day, Tehelka, Indian Express, DNA, Pioneer, Hindustan Times, IANS, State Times, Express Buzz.... For added effect, one from Indra Gandhi Centre for National Arts. http://www.hindustantimes.com/Lifestyle/ArtAndCulture/Artist-lands-multi-million-art-contract/Article1-779958.aspx, http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2009-12-21/news-interviews/28101902_1_book-arindam-chaudhuri-diamond.http://m.indiatoday.in/itwapsite/story?sid=74396&secid=67, http://www.moneycontrol.com/mccode/news/video_news.php?yt_id=-btIK9uUvWg&query=s%20chaudhuri,http://www.mid-day.com/lifestyle/2011/dec/141211-Management-gyan-for-CEOs.htm, http://www.dailypioneer.com/vivacity/36269-mahatma-gandhi-and-lady-gaga-the-two-marketing-gurus-who-gave-thorns-to-competition.html, http://www.dnaindia.com/sport/report_arindam-chaudhuri-confirmed-as-delhi-i1-team-owner_1611291, http://in.news.yahoo.com/indian-sell-india-management-guru-arindam-chaudhuri-032533150.html, http://www.statetimes.in/news/arindam-chaudhuri-confirmed-as-delhi-franchisee-holder-for-i1-super-series/, http://www.thehindu.com/life-and-style/metroplus/article2054466.ece, http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2002-02-27/bangalore/27135407_1_alternative-budget-arindam-chaudhuri-growth-rate, http://expressbuzz.com/books/Redefining-management-strategy-with-a-smile/341404.html, http://www.dailypioneer.com/vivacity/36269-mahatma-gandhi-and-lady-gaga-the-two-marketing-gurus-who-gave-thorns-to-competition.html, http://articles.timesofindia.indiatimes.com/2004-09-27/news-interviews/27169986_1_arindam-chaudhuri-management-guru-management-mantra, http://www.hindu.com/mp/2011/05/30/stories/2011053050420100.htm, http://www.dnaindia.com/entertainment/report_arindam-chaudhuri-is-proud-of-his-filmi-casting-coup_1448358, http://www.ignca.nic.in/ifla2010/IFLA_PDF/Professor_Arindam_Chaudhuri.pdf.


And you must have realized that even though I am putting one one source or max two sources from each paper, I could see a miniumum of four sources per site that called him management guru.


And all these from 2002 till date.Next time, before deleting a citation from a high quality source, check for yourself rather than go totally agains BLP policy and add uncited claims. I've wasted enough time to try and undo your two words. Please don't make editors here go around in circles like this.


From this moment on, I expect you to address me honorably and without accusations. Stick completley to BLP policies than to your personal opinions.05:55, 19 January 2012 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suraj845 (talk • contribs)

I too think that "management guru" is an inappropriate term to be used in an encyclopaedia. What exactly does this term mean? Yes, there are news articles from several media outlets which use this term. But to my understanding, this is just a self-created term by Chaudhuri himself. Rather like the "king of Bollywood" by Shahrukh Khan. Because Khan and his PR managers have used it so much, it has caught on and so many people use this term to refer to him. In Khan's case, the wikipedia article does NOT describe him as "king of Bollywood", it describes him as "an Indian film actor, producer and television host". But it also mentions in the next sentence that he is "often referred to as the King of Bollywood". I think a similar wording - at best - would be more appropriate than describing Chaudhuri as a "management guru" - which I don't think is a very positive description by the way. About "management consultant" - are there citations supporting this? Do people (other than his own businesses/employees) actually "consult" Chaudhuri for anything? Aurorion (talk) 07:30, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]


Thanks.Let me think on this. But I disagree with the comparison of Management Guru with King of Bollywood. They are two completely different things. Please search for Management Guru in the search box of Wikipedia and you will know what Management Guru means. Their are two many Management Gurus on Wikipedia. Now search for King of Bollywood. Hope you get what I mean. Suraj845 (talk) 12:49, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hey Suraj845, it is extremely bad practice to edit other user's comments without even informing them. Even if you claim justification under the Libel clause per WP:TPO, I would've thought it common courtesy to put something like [comment redacted] in its place, to ensure that the user's comments are not misinterpreted. For the record of the discussion, User:Aurorion's comment included a line which could be considered libelous toward the subject, and was removed by User:Suraj845. SPat talk 15:09, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Suraj, it appears that despite your history of editing articles related to IIPM and Arindam Chaudhuri, you have not taken time to familiarize yourself with Wikipedia's policies and guidelines on writing articles and fair representation of views. Before we start considering you as a fellow editor, a cursory glance over your editing history proves your primary interest in editing Wikipedia is only to push your point of view on a few articles (all, incidentally, related to IIPM and Arindam Chaudhuri, the others are poor quality edits and link insertions). Someone saying that you have a conflict of interest with regard to these articles is neither being uncivil nor making a personal attack, but a statement of fact.

I am unconcerned about Rshrikanth's action outside of the subject, and would like to ask you to focus on the topic at hand. My expression of support to his proposal on this page cannot be termed as canvassing, and if you think it is, you ought to look up the dictionary meaning of the word and the relevant behavioral guideline on Wikipedia. Everyone has a view point on something and if this user, according to you, has a negative view about the subject of the article, does not mean that they are editing this article with a conflict of interest, because as their editing history proves, they have other interests on Wikipedia apart from Arindam Chaudhuri and IIPM institutes. However, we cannot say the same for you.

I find the manner in which you are bandying WP:BLP very amusing. Your understanding of the policy is based on the false premise that Wikipedia articles will reflect whatever is posted on what you term as "high quality and exceptional sources". I will demonstrate the fallibility of the sources you quote later. Meanwhile, the use of the phrase "management consultant" is consistent with Chaudhuri's own claims on his websites:

It is also consistent with the practice on articles about business strategists (prominent ones, if I might add) who have been called "gurus". For instance, the lead section of the page on Peter Drucker refers to him as a "management consultant" and not a guru (which means "an influential advisor or mentor", the word influential itself is a matter of opinion not fact); alternatively, take a look at the page of C. K. Prahalad, which does not use the word "guru" in the lead section, or anywhere else, for that matter, stated as a matter of fact. The lead sections of Wikipedia articles, and specially biographies have to be written in a conservative manner - without praise or criticism. Quoting Wikipedia's policy on biographies of living persons: "BLPs should be written responsibly, cautiously, and in a dispassionate tone, avoiding both understatement and overstatement. Articles should document in a non-partisan manner what reliable secondary sources have published about the subject, and in some circumstances what the subject has published about himself." (emphasis mine)

According to Wikipedia's content guideline on identifying reliable sources: 'The word "source" as used on Wikipedia has three related meanings: the piece of work itself (the article, book), the creator of the work (the writer, journalist), and the publisher of the work [...]. All three can affect reliability. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both. Reliable sources may be published materials with a reliable publication process, authors who are regarded as authoritative in relation to the subject, or both.'

According to the section on news organizations, 'news sources often contain both reporting content and editorial content'. 'When taking information from opinion pieces, the identity of the author may help determine reliability. The opinions of specialists and recognized experts are more likely to be reliable and to reflect a significant viewpoint.' Please remember that exceptional claims must be backed by exceptional sources (as per WP:REDFLAG).

The sources you have quoted are discussed as under:

This is a promotional feature. Go to the bottom of the page and find a link to the website run by the subject of the article.
Another promotional feature. Quoting some of the language used: "Management guru Arindam Chaudhuri's latest blockbuster book, Discover The Diamond In You, is creating records. And the latest to join The Discover The Diamond In You fan club is Bollywood diva Priyanka Chopra!".
This has been syndicated from Mid-Day. Moneycontrol has simply republished the feed of a video hosted on Youtube.
This piece is hosted by Vivacity, Daily Pioneer and is a blog feature. Quoting some of the language used: "Management guru Arindam Chaudhuri and marketing guru Rajita Chaudhuri have come out with a book which is not just a great read for the Indian readers but can be picked up by anyone in any corner of the world and understood and enjoyed due to its very international appeal and flavour, thanks to its primarily global examples"; "What do you say about a book that audaciously begins by comparing the father of our nation Mahatma Gandhi to the pop culture icon of today Lady Gaga? Controversial? Path-breaking? Innovative? Well, we say a combination of all. Yes, it’s controversial."; "Controversial because the book doesn’t care about any norms. It is irreverent, much like its co-author Arindam Chaudhuri is."; and so on.
Again, in this case the word "guru" is a matter of opinion, not a fact.
Another promotional feature for a book by Chaudhuri and his wife Rajita.
This is a blog, not a news website.
This is an opinion blog feature hosted by the Hindu, and does not appear to have full editorial control (see WP:NEWSBLOG). Some quotes: 'Going by his thought, Arindam Chaudhuri has definitely defied nature. A management guru, an economist, dean of a reputed B-school and now a three-time National Award winner, Arindam has managed to capture every great height that other mortals can only dream of'; 'Yet each time Arindam takes the less trodden route, he manages to turn the tide. What is it in a script that he decides to invest in it?'; 'Rok sako to rok lo! Arindam is in high gear.'
Local feature, lacks editorial control. The use of word "guru" is a matter of opinion.
Empty page
Blog.

If you are still not convinced, then we should definitely be heading to the COI noticeboard.

Additionally, I am opposed to the assertion of him being a member of the planning commission being included in the lead section based on a singular source (probably on a statement he made to the media), specially when he is not listed on the Planning Commission website among the former members. Thanks.

Telco (talk) 18:54, 19 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Spat sorry I made a mistake by not writing I had cut the libelous material.

Telco, 1. assume good faith is a key point one editors should always see when you are talking to other. Just look at how you are leaving edit summaries and talk posts keeping on accusing me in every post of COI. How do you think I will feel? Outcast!! For information I am no lover of Chaudhuri. I have as many views about him as I have about Santorum. But that does not mean I hate him either. Don’t you realize that editors edit Wikipedia as a hobyy than a full time work and have only a few interests to improve Wikipedia? Every one tries hard. You do your own work on Wikipedia and improve it. I do my own work and improve it. I have seen many hatchet jobs written o f people for no fault of their and it is nto my objective to start a correction project. Those already exist. I try to correct what I can and feel comfortable about. And when u start saying that it is a fact that I have COI, I feel extremely and too bad as an editor. You might have the time to edit every page on Wikipedia. I don’t. And you simply can NOT accuse an editor of hving COI as a fact. Last warning from me. Take it to COI noticeboard or I take you to an administrative noticeboard. 2. I have read Peter Drucker. I have also read Sumantra Ghousal. You should too. It includes management guru in the lead. Any ways my and your debate on “OTHERSTUFFEXISTS” does not work here. So I don’t agree with your personal point of view that you need to shift management guru just because Peter drucker doesn’t have it. You wont to include “management consultant” in the lead, then include it along with the current statement BUT “with a citation that qualifies on BLP” and not just blindly without a citation. You hve been adding claims without citations two times before in a BLP. So don’t do that without citation. I have no problems with you including the term. Is that a compromise you accept? 3. I am thankful you are finally talking about sources and links than just deleting stufff. Just by saying that ‘’you’’ think a source is an opinion or a promotional feature doesn not make it so. I have read WP:RELIABLE SOURCES too many times and understand it quite good. For example:

  • Statetimes. So according to you Statetimes is a blog? DO you know it won the ‘’J&K Government’s Best Media Award in 2007 ‘’? You think a blog won all that?? How can you simply discredit reliable sources with your opinions?
  • DNA. So this source is one you feel is completely reliable, but you still think that whenever “management guru” is mentioned, it is an opinion??! I really am dumb founded by why you are simply disregarding loads and loads of reliable sources and just swiping away with one word that it is an opinion. “World’s best management guru” is an opinion. “Management guru” is a verified statement, not opinion.
  • The Hindu You are saying Life and Style is a blog in Hindu??? Have you read Hindu?? When did it become a blog? Life and style is the non politics and business section of Hindu. Not a blog. Blogs come under blogs.thehindu.com. Dhairya Maheshwari is a staff reporter of Hindu, not a blogger. He has written another article too on Chaudhuri that calls him management guru.
  • Is this also a blog? [2][ http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print/385093.aspx][3]is this also a blog? And what about this; Is this also a blog? And these? [4][5][6][7][ http://zeenews.india.com/sports/motorsports/i1-super-series-gets-two-new-teams-in-bangalore-hyderabad_732706.html][8][9][10][ http://www.hindustantimes.com/StoryPage/Print/336915.aspx][11] Many of these links call Chaudhuri “Noted management guru”. Should I put “noted management guru” in the lead? What do you think?
  • [12] You say there is a link to the website run by the subject of the article so it is a promotional piece. How? Because of the link? I could have believed this if there was a statement “press release” or a statement that said “contact pr company for this news release”. But how is this a promotional piece on Chaudhuri??? Where does it promote Chaudhuri? The maximum someone will say it promotes the artist to an extent. But Chaudhuri?
  • [13] Articles on film actresses are always non serious. So I can understand why you think this is a stupid piece. Kill the unreliable source.
  • [14] So as per you just because “This has been syndicated from Mid-Day. Moneycontrol has simply republished the feed of a video hosted on Youtube.” It becomes an unreliable source? You are wrong even in the syndication part. The “video” is an interview that is linked (But not syndicated). What about the statement “Noted economist & management guru Professor Arindam Chaudhuri during an interview with Mid-day, in New delhi,Video by Rajeev Tyagi”? Everything that contains “management guru” is unreliable?
  • [15] The vivacity feature of Pioneer is a blog feature? Where is it written it is a blog? Vivacity is another section in the paper. You could have argued whether this is a proper news item or not. But can you show me where it is written it is a blog? It’s just your opinion as of right now untill you can show me evidence it is a blog. And I can buy your argument (because of the Vivacity thing; Lounge pieces are generally unreliable for BLP). For example, this link [16] and this link again give management guru. As does this book launch detail.[17]. or this event detail [18]. But you can’t disregard them saying that it’s just a bollywood news or just a book launch detail. At the same time, if the claim was something no other reliable sources have reported and had been exceptional, then you could hve said we can’t just consider a bollywood news. But here the case is there are too many news items.
  • [19] You say this is another promotional piece??? How?? This is published by Indo-Asian News Service. IANS, not Yahoo. I think that for you any news item that contains the term “management guru” and is published by a reliable source and does not contain negative material becomes a promoitional piece or an opinion. That is wrong way to see reliable sources.
  • [20] This link now you say is local feature and lacks editorial content. What do you mean by that? This is a typical news item.
  • Express. You are saying it’s a blank page. It is clearly not. Your internet connection is faulty.
  • [21]

You are now saying that this is the Entertainment blog of Times of India. How did it become that???? It is not the blog but the “News and Interviews” section. Blogs are clearly linked separately in Times of India.

Any way, I’m soo surprised that when there’s an editorial, you’ll say it is not a news item. When it is a news item, you’ll say it is not an editorial. When it’s a national award winning newspaper, you’ll say it is a blog. When it is a staff reporter writing, you’ll say that is also a blog. When it is reliable source, you’ll say management guru is an opinion. When a news item comes in the news and interviews section, you’ll say it’s a blog. What is going on with you? Clearly mistaken you are. Have you even tried to search for sources? I am working and working to reply to you just because you have such mistaken views. I have not given you sources from Mid Day [24] which are chaudhuri’s editorials. Of course to be fair even the newspaper in his description again says he is a “management guru”. And even this editorial image description in DNA [25] describes him as a management guru.

And guess what again and again? You have provided NOT ONE RELIABLE SOURCE to support your “management consultant” claim. Not one!!! And you expect me to be the one to explain our BLP policies to you???

And please don’t ever threaten me with your accusations of COI. In fact you will have to delete these accusations from this page completely. I consider this a pure personal attack and I am going to report you to the noticeboards if you do not remove this personal attack and every line where you have tried to humiliate me. Do you see me humiliating you on any thing like that? No you do not. So remoeve them immediately please..Suraj845 (talk) 07:44, 20 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

You must be clear on what is a personal attack and what is not. Before doling out advice on civility, kindly make sure you are contributing to create a conducive editing environment so that other editors may practice civility. Lynch7 05:31, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
"Management guru", as a term, is not necessarily representative of a profession in itself. It would be fair to say: "Rajinikanth is an actor", but not all will agree that "Rajinikanth is a superstar", even though he has been associated with the word "superstar" for quite a long time, and there exists many sources which call him a "superstar". In the same way, being a "management guru" is not a profession, occupation, a title, or a state honor in itself. Lynch7 05:43, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Dear Lynch7. Thanks for giving your response. I feel you have misread the situation totally. It is sad since I see your comments are directed towards me than at the party that made the repeated personal attacks. I have read the NPA policy many times before and know it quite well. I quote:"Derogatory comments about another contributor may be removed by any editor." Don't you think accusing an editor repeatedly of having COI is a personal attack? Don't you think that my suggestion that he should remove this attack and take the issue to COIN is the correct way? Will you please remove the COI accusations Telco makes at me?

Let me show you the sequence of events so you do not misread the situation. Please read the sequence properly so that there is no confusion in your mind and you do not presume anybody's innocence or guilt.

1. On 17 January 2010, I reverted Telco's addition the first time (see link [26]) with the following summary of edit "Please don't add uncited claims, Please don't delete high quality citations, undoing previous edits". Lynch7, do you see any personal attack from me here?

2. Subsequently, on 17 January 2010, Telco reverted my changes (see link [27]) with the following summary of edit Suraj, going by your recent contributions, you clearly have a conflict of interest with this article. ... Lynch 7, I am quite clear that nobody on Wikipedia is allowed to write such statements against other editors. And mind you, all this is without any previous communication from me against him.

3. At around this time again, Telco left this additional message on this talk page I agree with you, Rsrikanth. Suraj845 has a conflict of interest with this article. Some action is needed Lynch7, again this is even before I have had any direct communication with him..

4. On January 19, 2012, I reverted Telco [28] with no edit summary.Do you see any personal attack Lynch7?

5. On the same day, I left a long message here on this talk page warning Telco of accusing me. Do please go through the message and point out which line in my message above do you think is a personal attack? Of course the tone of my message would be angry - won't it be? If someone were to accuse you - how would you feel. If you see any personal attack in my reply above, write it out here and I would immediately change it. But would you then be open to admonishing Telco, whose statements you've very strangely ignored till now?

6. I can't understand how examples of film stars like Shahrukh and Rajnikanth apply in a management article! Strangely, even the term superstar is mentioned in the lead of Rajnikanth's article. In the same way as the term management guru is mentioned in the lead of Sumantra Ghoshal. So I don't think your argument of otherstuffexists might work here. But I do understand your point of view that management guru is not a profession. Yet it is also not equivalent to statements like "Superstar" or "King of Bollywood" which are quite opinionated. Management guru is a neutral description akin to management philosopher or management theorist. Akin, not equal - hence validation is extremely important. To understand what a management guru actually is, I have found Charles Handy's defintion quite good. You could also go through Charles Handy's "The Handy's Guide to the Gurus of Management" to understand what the term management guru actually means.

7. You must have seen by the diffs how the term 'management guru' was removed first by Telco unilaterally and replaced by a term that was uncited. You must also have seen how he first claimed sources were wrong, and then when sources were provided, he discredited them too, and then when more sources were provided, he again has undertaken unilateral changes. I am clear that this is not the way to undertake a BRD in Wikipedia especially when discussions are going on. Anyway, I shall revert some of his changes, not all, and explain to him.

8. For example, the National Award for Best Film is always given to the Producer and the Director. The awardees of the national award are humans not films. The link clarifies this under the awardee section. Also that being a member of the consultative committee of the Planning Commission belongs in the lead not just below in the article. Any way now, what do you suggest I should do? I am awaiting your reply with respect to all of my above points and I shall really look forward to seeing whether you weigh this issue neutrally. Thanks.Suraj845 (talk) 11:59, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Please do us all a favor by shortening your comments wherever possible. Long sections make it difficult for users to read. Regarding what a personal attack is, no, accusing an editor of a COI is not a personal attack. Instead, trying to tie it to a person's real life-identity may be considered a personal attack. I have not accused you anywhere of a personal attack; I have asked you to keep civility.
Coming to the topic at hand, the article on Sumantra Ghoshal is by no means, a standard for all other management articles. Generally, Good articles or Featured articles are taken as standards for other articles to meet, since they undergo a formal review process. The article you mention is neither. What does Mr. Chaudhuri do? He's the director of a college, he leads a consulting group, he's a philanthropist etc. The term "management guru" is a term popularized by the media, and is not his profession itself. This is akin to the media hailing our superstars by names. This is an analogy only. Indeed, if you Google for "Rajnikanth" and "superstar", you'll get hundreds of results. These are all biographies, and are similar. If you'll notice, "management guru" is also opinionated. There is a difference between including it in the opening sentence and including it in the lead. I'm objecting to including it in the opening sentence; if there are enough sources, I'm not averse to including it in the lead. If you feel it fit, you could include something like: "He is often quoted as being a management guru" or something like that.
I am not monitoring the content changes and reversions being done, but I actively encourage discussion and not reversion. When you cite and want to follow BRD, please follow it. Try not to revert, because it will only add more fuel to the fire. Wikipedia will not go away in 2-3 days, there isn't much lost if you come with a calm head to the discussion table. Encourage the other editor to discuss as well.
Please do not take any of this personally; everyone loses their calm at some time, and we understand that. Lynch7 12:48, 21 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Suraj, can we move a few steps back and just see what's going on here? What's the supposed edit war about? "Management guru"? My personal opinion is that this is almost making a mountain out of a mole hill. If it's about Telco's comments, yes, I've read Telco's comments. I just feel (and I would agree with Mike out here) that if you had requested Telco nicely, he would have simply cut the misplaced accusation out. And I'm sure he will too. So that there's no confusion, I have interacted with Telco in the past and have helped him quite amply in an article Trilegal where he was hounded by a user. I'll also add that I do think that repeatedly accusing an editor of COI on talk pages without taking it to COIN is bad form. But I do know that Telco knows the lines that should be drawn. Having said that, I'll also say that there's no aspersion being cast on you out here. I can assure you Telco means very well in his efforts to improve the article. So just let's put a close to this argument. Mike's suggestion is worth a baker's dozen nuggets. And I'm going to immediately incorporate that into the article. Suggestion again: please don't revert. Discuss, and not with an antagonistic view. I hope this makes sense. I'm archiving this discussion and considering it closed. Further discussions, new section. Kind regards. Wifione Message 03:03, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

My Response

I strongly protest that Telco has never been told once directly about this wrong view of NPA. I also think cutting out Management Guru in a separate sentence if not right, but I will not revert. But I am disappointed. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Suraj845 (talk • contribs) 03:29, 22 January 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The 'Management Guru' itself is a flawed statement. Perhaps, 'Considered a Management Guru' would be more neutral. As for User:Telco, this is the first time I'm hearing of him. Perhaps you could explain the 'ganging up with Rsrikanth05' comment you left last month? --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 11:07, 3 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

New section

According to a NYT article, this chap has a <comments redacted> - See [29]. See page 79/80 of this book as well [30]. Shouldnt this be included in the article? Around The Globeसत्यमेव जयते 10:17, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

The book or any excerpt referenced is not reliable. It's both primary and questionable, as per policy. Plus, there's litigation on the book. In a BLP, such a source will not be accepted. Wifione Message 15:26, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • Wifione, can you please explain why this source is questionable? Is there a reason for considering Siddhartha Deb or his book as having "a poor reputation for checking the facts, or which lack meaningful editorial oversight", or "an apparent conflict of interest"? Aurorion (talk) 17:48, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
  • How is the source primary? Was the account written by someone directly involved? Is the author offering an insider's point of view? Apart from the the accounts of her interview with the subject of the article, everything else qualifies for use as a secondary source ("A book by a military historian about the Second World War might be a secondary source about the war, but if it includes details of the author's own war experiences, it would be a primary source about those experiences"). How is the source questionable? The book is published by the Penguin Group and Viking Press and both are organizations of repute. The excerpt quoted above is posted by the New York Times. Why does the litigation matter? The litigation is in India, the WMF servers are in the United States. There is no litigation pending in the United States and the book is freely available for purchase in online and offline bookstores. Speaking of litigation, the Indian Express, The Guardian and the New York Times gave coverage to the incident in their review of Deb's book ([31], [32], [33]). A report of the litigation and an interview was published by LiveMint ([34]). Please see WP:NOT: "Wikipedia is not censored". Redacting properly sourced comments on the talk page is not a good practice as it censors the discussion and makes it difficult for users to comment. Telco (talk) 20:10, 6 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
There was a long discussion about this on Wifione's talk page couple of weeks back, which you may want to look at. The conclusion was that for reasons I do not fully understand, most sources (including the articles in New York Times, New Yorker, Guardian, etc.) are not valid because they're either op-eds/reviews or involve first-hand accounts from the author making them primary. We did agree that one source, an article on IBN Live is a valid secondary source. I now think that we should at least have something in the article along the lines of "A biography of <the subject of this article> was published in a book, however, the author and publisher of the book were sued by <an institute strongly associated with the subject> which resulted in the book not being published in India", citing IBN Live. The phrases in parentheses emphasize why this article (and not just the IIPM article) is an appropriate place to say this and why this is in line with WP:UNDUE and WP:VALID. I'd like to hear more opinions before I go ahead and add it. SPat talk 05:32, 11 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
This page is definitely not NPOV now. Anyone who knows anything about the subject matter can see that. The ratings of the page tell the story: Trustworthy: 1.9 from 93 ratings, Objective: 1.3 from 83 ratings, Complete: 1.6 from 76 ratings. This definitely needs more info on controversies about Chaudhuri. Aurorion (talk) 21:32, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
@Wifione: In your last edit you objected to the last line about the court injunction, and I've edited it to clarify that it's from a quote of a primary source. Why then did you remove the other two lines? The entire content now follows what is clearly stated in the IBNLive news article minus the quotes. Since there are so many people with differing opinions here, I urge you to kindly discuss the issue here before making any changes. (I stated my main arguments above, and specifically asked for objections/opinions before acting on them). SPat talk 22:46, 19 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Sure. I'm sorry I missed the last discussion cycle. The Sunday Guardian report you've filed is from their "View-Askew" section, which is the opinion section (and that too the askew opinions). So I'm removing the source and the material being supported by that source unless you show otherwise. That leaves us with one source IBN Live, where too you've placed a primary quote. As per BLPPRIMARY, unless a reliable source has itself confirmed that a court injunction was passed, you should not be directly quoting a primary quote. The IBN Live source doesn't confirm whether an injunction was or was not passed. It's just documenting a primary quote; and worse, the primary source is one with a conflict of interest. Imagine the skew that would occur if we should start quoting Chaudhuri's quotes directly from his interviews on this issue. Finally, as per WELLKNOWN, you will have to have multiple reliable sources to confirm this whole issue or remove the event altogether. Till now, I've seen only primary sources/opinion sources/primary quotes or those with a conflict of interest. And one reliable source. I'm encouraging you to not include this issue unless you show two reliable sources which have material that is not primary or one that is questionable. I'm sure if this issue is so well reported, you will be able to find at least two third party reliable secondary sources? Additionally, as per UNDUE, once you've found at least two reliable sources, please document this issue in one line or maximum two, to ensure it is not given undue weight. Thanks for the patience. Wifione Message 04:25, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
The Sunday Guardian source is a news report and not an opinion. And in case you find it difficult to differentiate between reporting of facts and writing an op-ed, we can escalate this to WP:BLPN. Please see the IBN source properly. It clearly reports (outside of the Caravan's comment) that the suit was filed in Silchar, Assam. The source which you now claim has a "conflict of interest" and hence is a "questionable source" would not have fallen under this category until Chaudhuri and IIPM sued them. Would that mean that every source that has litigation against them by IIPM has a conflict of interest? The conflict of interest policy only applies to those users who are directly connected to the subject and cannot be expected to write neutrally, and questionable sources are those who have a poor reputation for fact checking, not magazines run by respected media houses like Delhi Press. It will also be helpful to note that you find it convenient to edit policy pages when it suits your interests. I have listed some more sources below. Telco (talk) 07:17, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]
Hi Telco. I am quite a prolific contributor to policy and guidelines pages; so it won't be surprising if you find many policy edits to my account. Editors are expected to undertake policy page edits to smooth out gray areas that come to the forefront during their editorial contributions or discussions, like what we're having here. If you have issues with my policy page edits, or if you feel there are policy changes required, do please feel free to undertake the same or to discuss the same in the talk pages of the relevant policy pages. They're pretty well watched pages and sensible changes will be accepted with consensus.

With respect to the Sunday Guardian source, please feel free to escalate the Sunday Guardian source to BLPN in case you feel it is a reliable news source than a view listed under their view-askew section. There are many blogs too which run quite believable reports that read like news reports. Unfortunately, if they're listed as blogs, or if reports are listed as opinions or in sections listed as view-askew, it is quite reasonable to look beyond for news reports that are listed under credible sections.

The IBN source does mention the Silchar information. Unfortunately, the claim that an injunction was passed is purely mentioned within the primary and coi quote. As an answer to your query on coi, yes, every party that would have a litigation going on with an article's subject or close entities would have a coi in reporting. However much one might believe that Delhi Press or the likes are respectable, their having an active litigation makes them involved and incapable of releasing an uninvolved quote or publication. One simply cannot use statements or material released from them in a BLP.

I'm pleased that you've done some legwork to churn up the sources. I've given my comments against each sources in small letters and italics. Please note: Opinions, Blogs, Book reviews, which you've listed are completely unacceptable within this BLP; especially when we're referring to an exceptional and a controversial claim. Look, some of the opinions/book reviews you've listed talk about IIPM or Chaudhuri as being "extremely successful" or having a "formidable business empire". Citing such poor sources is clearly not the right way to add material to a BLP about a controversial topic of a court case. Sources have to be impeccable and devoid of the unacceptable primary/opinion and coi tag. At the same time, there are I believe three sources where parts of the material can be used (Ahd Mirror, IBN, Indian Express source's first paragraph). Taking into consideration those, I've placed the addition within the BLP considering UNDUE. Thanks. Wifione Message 15:48, 20 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

First off, many thanks to Telco for that comprehensive list - I was trying to do something similar myself, but you beat me to it :) Also thanks to Wifione for sticking through this. I understand Wifione's point that we have to be extremely careful with sources for BLP. I'm fairly ok with the compromise article we have now (maybe a line more from the LiveMint source will do), but I do have a couple of concerns.

  • Neither WP:PRIMARY nor WP:BLPPRIMARY explicitly abhor usage of primary sources. Yes they do say not to bank articles/content entirely on primary sources, but it is ok to use them to cite objective facts (for eg. the sentence "Caravan said that the lawsuit was filed in Silchar, Assam") In particular, I do not understand why we're summarily disregarding book reviews, non-COI op-eds in such reputed publications as The Guardian, New York Times, New Yorker, Wall Street Journal etc.
  • I'm not saying this is wrong, but I just want to point out that this part of the article has been put to extremely high standards in terms of all WP rules and policies. For contrast, just look at the sources and POV of the first few paragraphs in this very article. Again, I'm not defending bad referencing practices, I'm merely putting this into context. Possibly, next task for us is to ensure that the rest of the sources in the article conform to the same standards.

Cheers, SPat talk 00:44, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Sources

Siddhartha Deb

  1. The New Deal, Lehar Kala, The Indian Express, 13 August 2011(Seems like a book review than news. Only the initial paragraph might be usable. None else.)
  2. The Beautiful and the Damned: Life in the New India by Siddhartha Deb – review, Amit Chaudhuri, The Guardian, 4 June 2011 (Pure opinionated book review. Can't be used in the BLP as per policy. Use book reviews in articles about books; not in BLPs)
  3. From Gandhi to Gatsby, Samanth Subramanian, The New York Times, 16 September 2011 (Book review. Can't be used in the BLP)
  4. This Side of Paradise, Supriya Nair, liveMINT, 7 July 2011(Primary source coi interview. Can't be used. The introductory para might have some material worth using though.)
  5. Beneath the Glitter, Namita Devidayal, Times Crest, Mumbai Mirror, 26 August 2011 (Book review.)
  6. Review- The Beautiful and the damned: Life in the new India, MSN News, 28 August 2011 (Book review primary column copied from India Today website.)
  7. 'The Beautiful And The Damned' Of Globalized India, NPR Books, 10 October 2011 (Primary interview.)
  8. Behind the Wheel, Moving Up, Siddhartha Deb, New York Times, 29 September 2011 (Primary column by coi party.)
  9. SC stays IIPM case against The Caravan magazine, FirstPost Politics, 11 August 2011 (Press release released by coi party.)
  10. Gag Order, Sohini Chattopadhyaya, OPEN Magazine, 30 July 2011(Link not opening. Will try again later and check.) (Cached copy although it seems like a book review to me -SPat)
  11. Why I Took On Arindam Chaudhuri, Siddhartha Vaidyanathan, Wallstreet Journal India Realtime Blog, 19 August 2011 (Blog and primary source. Can't be used.)
  12. Gatsby Globalized, Jaspreet Singh, The Globe and Mail, 26 August 2011 (Book review.)
  13. The Other Side of Midnight, Gillian Wright, India Today, 26 August 2011 (Book review.)
  14. Realtime India, Dharmendra D, Businessworld, 22 October 2011 (Book review.)
  15. The Beautiful and the Damned: Life in the New India by Siddhartha Deb: review, Sameer Rahim, The Telegraph (UK), 28 July 2011 (significant secondary analysis) (Primary book review. Completely opinionated.)
  16. The fear that silences India's writers, Siddhartha Deb, The Guardian, 15 July 2011 (Authored by coi party. Unreliable.)
  17. The Rise Of A Passionate Schmaltziness, Amit Chaudhuri, Outlook India, 4 April 2011 (Filed as opinion column. Has practically no detail on the court case anyway.)
  18. IIPM sues Caravan, Google, Penguin for Rs 50 crore, IBN Live, 23 June 2011 (The first and only reliable source shown till now. But primary coi quotes from this RS cannot be used in this BLP.)
  19. A freedom under threat, Salil Tripathi, liveMINT, 6 July 2011(Filed under Views. Opinion column. Can't be used.)
  1. Arindam Chaudhuri sues Caravan, Penguin and Google for Rs 50 crore, FirstPost, 22 June 2011 (Most of the article is made up of primary quotes. However, we can use part of the material within this source.)
  2. Siddhartha Deb's Publishing Odyssey, Stacey Mickelbart, The Book Bench (Blog), The New Yorker, 3 August 2011 (Filed under blogs. Primary. Can't be used.)

Caravan Mag

  1. IIPM sues mag for Rs. 50 crore, Ahmedabad Mirror, 23 June 2011 (Seems reliable. We can use material in this. But we shouldn't use the primary quotes given within.)
  2. Life stories rise in popularity, proliferate on bookshelves, Abhilasha Ojha, liveMINT, 6 October 2011 (One paragraph mentioning the issue is good material.)
  3. Why Does Delhi-Based IIPM Repeatedly Sue In Assam?, Outlook India Blog(Blog. No can do.)
  4. The Supreme Court Stays IIPM Case Against the Caravan in India, Caravan Magazine, 1 August 2011(COI press release. Impossible to use.)

Adding citation template.

A number of claims are to be supported by WP:RS. The reference section is sporting a number of primary sources. Will remove the primary sources and will add {{cn}} template to the lines required. Please do not remove the template without adding reliable sources. Wikieditindia (talk) 04:57, 21 February 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 18 March 2012

First paragraph last line which says he's often referred to as "Management Guru" is wrong. No one refers him with that. He's a self proclaimed "Management Guru". He's referred to as "Self proclaimed management guru"

Namit143143 (talk) 16:43, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Not done: The current three sources all refer to him as a management guru, not as a self-proclaimed management guru. Thanks, Celestra (talk) 19:41, 18 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request on 16 February 2013

The page does not have correct information. Arindam Chaudhuri's education is not known. He cannot be called as an 'economist' or a 'management guru'. Request the moderators to check and verify every bit of information on the page. Wikistry 08:56, 16 February 2013 (UTC)

Please look at the article and the references in it: he is clearly called a management guru, and his education is verified by a reliable source. Qwyrxian (talk) 02:42, 17 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

"Controversy" section

Even though the URL-blocking controversy is primarily about IIPM, Chaudhuri himself is also heavily involved in it. This is clear from the fact that almost all secondary sources provided as citations refer to Chaudhuri's role in this controversy. Chaudhuri himself has defended his actions and been a public figure defending his actions. So I feel that adding this info to this article is justified. If anyone disagrees, please discuss. Thanks. Aurorion (talk) 12:04, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

  • Hi Aurorian. Thanks for the note. There are many reasons for not including this here. (a) Firstly, this is extremely recent news and we simply have no clear idea of the notability of this news for the BLP or of the assumed personal involvement of Chaudhuri. I see no personal involvement of Chaudhuri in this. Chaudhuri's role is only as an official spokesperson. If we were therefore to include all the times he has given official statements on behalf of IIPM, we'll be doomed in this BLP. Your sources too are far from exceptional. For exceptional claims, you need multiple, non-primary reliable sources. Your ET source is ridden with faults - Chaudhuri is said to be the founder of IIPM (he apparently is not); Chaudhuri is said to have filed the cases himself (all other sources say some channel partner did). Clearly, this is not an exceptional source. Your IBN source again shows an official representation of IIPM by Chaudhuri. Your first Hindu source has one line which says someone claimed Arindam would lift the block. Not only is that blpprimary - and therefore unacceptable - but I can't think how Arindam can lift a court block. Your second and third Hindus links are filed as opinion/editorials. BLPPRIMARY doesn't allow that in exceptional claims. If we were to get exceptional secondary sources that show Chaudhuri himself filed the cases and his personal websites were affected, it makes more sense to include it here then. Thanks. Wifione Message 14:14, 21 February 2013 (UTC)[reply]

All in the same court

Should it be pointed out that all the ex-parte injunctions that arindam chaudhuri gets against various blogs, magazines and articles, are from the same court - Silcher in Assam. Incedentally neither does IIPM, nor chaudhary nor any of the respoondents have any other connection to this district. Info gathered at http://ibnlive.in.com/news/iipm-sues-caravan-google-penguin-for-rs-50-cr/162032-3.html Tca achintya (talk) 09:15, 27 May 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Making this a good article should be possible now, with disruptive users banned

User:AroundTheGlobe offered some good sources that seem to have gone unused.
I wonder how much good content was created but removed (e.g. by the banned users now noted at the top of this page).
E.g. this book excerpt is and hints at more good detailed RS info: That splendid first chapter, titled “The Great Gatsby,” profiles the most Fitzgeraldian of Deb’s figures. Arindam Chaudhuri is hard to miss in India: He appears, in regrettable suits and a glossy ponytail, in large newspaper advertisements nearly every day, hawking the top-notch M.B.A. degrees his management institutes claim to dispense. Chaudhuri’s advertisements suggest snake-oil patter, so Deb patiently seeks to reveal the man within the salesman. Chaudhuri is, we find, startlingly insecure, so unsure of his place in modern India that he trusts no one and is driven by “this Manichaean idea of people divided into the loyal and the disloyal, of Arindam at odds with the rest of the world.”
User:Aurorion's points re. NPOV still hold. We can ignore Wifione's strongarm claim noted by User:SPat that "articles in New York Times, New Yorker, Guardian, etc" are not usable. I wonder: do the large newspaper advertisements still run nearly every day?--Elvey(t•c) 00:03, 21 November 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Semi-protected edit request on 14 February 2017

Birth Place of Arindam Chaudhuri mentioned in this article is an abuse in Hindi Languange. It needs to corrected or removed. Rahul27july (talk) 06:22, 14 February 2017 (UTC)[reply]

 Done - thanks for pointing that out

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Arindam Chaudhuri. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 13:54, 15 January 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Misleading information

I was a visiting faculty of IIPM between 2008 and 2014 at its Chennai Centre. IIPM has already been told by the courts of India not to conduct any programs with the title of MBA or BBA. IIPM doesn't exist. Why is Mr. Arindam Choudhury's introduction show him as heading IIPM? He owes faculty like me several lakhs worth honorarium for the work we already did for his institute and he has escaped from paying all of us and thus cheated tens of faculty all over India. He is a good example of a person who successfully marketed himself as an "economist" and "management guru" when the only economics degree he has, as I understand, is a BA (economics) through distance learning from Madras University (this should be verified) and the only management qualification is the PGDPM from his own institute IIPM which is not recognised by anyone. I don't mean to say that you can be an economist or a management guru only with degrees in these subjects; but, the least we expect from someone who deserves to be called a "guru" is honesty and integrity (more than knowledge of subjects). Arindam Choudhury did not have either honesty or integrity. The Wiki page should reflect him as someone who cheated thousands of students and faculty in India. Many police complaints were filed against him by students, and I know, a legal notice too was sent by some faculty from Chennai; his Deans in different states in India had to go to police stations in connection with the complaints filed by students; however, his patronage, with powers that be, helped him ignore all of those complaints and notices. An attempt was also made by some faculty to mobilise faculty all over India to see if we could file a consolidated police complaint for cheating; however, faculty were mute, as is to be expected from highly educated people, who wanted to carry on and not get into a long-drawn legal battle. I had personally sent a complaint to the PMO and the HRD Minister but got no response. I have records (from IIPM, Chennai) of all the classes I conducted, students' attendance sheets, etc. When I approached my lawyer, to send a legal notice to claim my dues, my lawyer spoke of procedures that I thought was very difficult both financially and physically for me to undertake alone. If there's any lawyer with a social commitment, I would still welcome such a person to help us get back our dues. Arindam Choudhury is NOT a person who deserves a Wiki page; however, I am not for removing this page, because people should know him as one among the many charlatans who cheated in the name of Education which is so highly valued in our society. — Preceding unsigned comment added by ProfEash (talk • contribs) 10:31, 24 December 2018 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/enwiki/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arindam_Chaudhuri&oldid=916034900"