Talk:Indian Institute of Planning and Management

For older discussion, see archives: 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, 10

Please Add New Paragraphs Only At The Bottom Of This Page

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

Accreditation

The fact that IIPM is not accreditated does not need to be in the opening para, since it is not required to be accredited in any case (times of india). If other sources say it does need to be accredited, it is primarily moneycontrol.com, which is only a website, and is not as scredible as india's largest newspaper. So i have let the money control information remain, although it is contentious at best, in the accreditation section/Iipmalum 04:47, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

It is not moneycontrol which says that IIPM is unaccredited/unrecognized, but the UGC and AICTE. This fact is clearly mentioned in the article as well as in the source. One can argue that the UGC and AICTE's remarks are much more relevant in matters pertaining to educational institutions in the country, than a newspaper's opinion. Please don't summarily remove cited information just because it is contrary to your PoV.

That IIPM is unaccredited is a fact accepted (proudly) by the institute itself, so I don't think you need to be so averse to the word "unaccredited" appearing in the opening para. The readers are intelligent enough to understand that the institute has not sought accreditation by choice, since this clarification appears in a dozen places throughout the article.

Also, please provide suitable reliable sources for the claims about Dr. M. K. Chaudhuri.

And finally, please make sure the reference tags don't get messed up when you make changes! Some refs had disappeared during your last edit.

Thanks, Max ^{- You were saying?} 10:08, 28 February 2007 (UTC)

Opening Para

What the The Opening para should or should not inclusde is a judgement based decision - so we need to discuss it. If we cannot come to a consensus, then lets not descend into a revert war! ~instead, we could leave it as unaccredited in the Accreditation Section. Iipmalum 04:22, 2 March 2007 (UTC)

I think Ponytailsnipper went ahead and again redid his version. I've reverted back to your version iipmslum. But I'll still start going through all paragraphs to start editing all the details... Regards, Mrinal Pandey 10:16, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I've also taken out a paragraph on advertising controversy because of two reasons: One, it's very old. More importantly, it has a dedicated page on its own. I'll be open to your views on why we should not cut the same para. RegardsMrinal Pandey 10:48, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Being old doesn't mean irrelevent. It was added for article to be comprehensive, not as a news-piece. The fact that the Mughal empire hasn't existed for more than 300 years now doesn't mean we take it out of the History of India. Also, please see WP:SUMMARY for reasons why having a separate article doesn't mean that details be chopped from the main article. For example, see India. All the sections have a dedicated article. Does this mean we chop off everything other than the introduction. Please refrain from deleting things without consensus. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 11:30, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Hi Ambuj, your point of consensus building is well taken; though not the others. Your basic argument seems misplaced. Comparing the Mughal Empire to this seems to me to be a totally wrong comparison. If that were so, then would you permit the inclusion of all the rankings that IIPM has obtained till date? If you go back on the discussion page, you'll realise that it was you who debated for taking out "old" rankings and keeping only the new rankings. Correct me if I'm wrong in this fact. Of course, I shall surely see your response to this criticism of mine. But let me forewarn you, even that response will be, ahem, "well taken". :-) Anyway, if you do not wish to take out the controversy paragraph, I shall move towards editing it to make it totally concise. Right now, it's strange to have so much of details in that paragraph. Will talk to you tomorrow as got to work too (we do that too :-)Regards and wishes.Mrinal Pandey 11:45, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Bloated controversy section

This section deserves to be removed completely. Any content is old, primarily derogatory, and has no bearing on an encycolpaedia readers interest in an institute. Iipmalum 12:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

And comparing the Mughal empire ~ India and controversy ~ IIPM is a joke, right ;) Iipmalum 12:12, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

I am against removing the details completely, but open to it being edited. The content is not derogatory as it does not give value judgement (which side is correct), it reports facts. Comparing to Mughal Empire wasn't a joke, it was just a hasty comparison I came up with, not very good though. By the way, that was a very speedy archiving of a section that was still being discussed. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 12:17, 6 March 2007 (UTC)

Ambuj, I'm sorry for the archiving. You're right; next time, I'll allow some of the past discussions to be there while archiving. Also, I'm sorry for undoing your last edit. But I've put the edit that you had made just after I had finished editing the last time. The reason is, I could not understand any of your subsequent changes from the clues you left on the subject line in the history page. Also, I don't understand why Makrand has reverted without discussing the same. But I'm sure he'll leave his comments here, rather than just writing "undid whitewash". Regards and wishes Mrinal Pandey 09:21, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

Content disputes are understandable, edit warring not. I request all editors to please not involve themselves in edit-warring over article's content. I am sure that discussing changes first on the talk page won't do much harm. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 09:38, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

100% placement is a JOKE!!

I am amused to see this lone on 100% placement at IIPM. There are many other such silly claims in this article - please explain to me why they are allowed to continue to exist? Even IIM A does not have 100% placements, since many students start businesses or choose to find jobs on their own!

Also, the whole accredition topic is a mess - why are you quoting newspapers opinions on a topic only academics should speak on? Thanks, and sincerely, Sunilalagh 17:10, 7 March 2007 (UTC)

I disagree.. I think the 100% placement at IIPM is valid and true! Fairlady2 13:05, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

IIPM has 100% placements only because they absorb the 85% who don't get placed into their own institution thereby claiming 100% record.

Cleaned up the page

Have cleaned up the page and removed a lot of blatantly non-NPOV information. Have also removed some uncited lies which seem to have been on the page for a month. Looking forward to a cooperative attitude from IIPM employees. Is Dipali still here? Ponytailsnipper 20:47, 8 March 2007 (UTC)

The IIPM (Idiot Institute and Poor Management) is the worst of all the Institutes. I Would like to tell that if u visit their site and try to mail them on the mail IDs which appear, no one will reply and many IDs don't work... They loot the student coming from villages by showing them the glamour...

Sunil, I agree that I am part of an edit warm against my wishes, but that is because of the attitude of the IIPM lackeys. I am offended by your charge of vandalism. Nothing I have done constitutes vandalism. All my edits conform to wiki policy. Vandalism is a very serious charge. Ponytailsnipper 19:48, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Partial revert

I've added back some stuff that was wiped off by Iipmalum when he edited the article for the sake of "brevity and relevance". It is not encyclopaedic to delete properly cited information that happens to go against your interests. That's called a cover-up.

However, I have removed some flab from the JAM magazine and advertising claims subsection. There is a separate detailed article for that, so it's best to keep it relatively small here. Let me know if there's a problem with my edit.

I've not touched the opening paragraph since it will open up a fresh can of worms. Maybe other neutral editors like Ambuj can give a fresh perspective as to how we should go about writing it, since previous attempts have ultimately devolved into an edit war.

Thanks,
Max ^{- You were saying?} 18:52, 11 March 2007 (UTC)

There is nothing wrong in starting the article by saying it is an "unaccredited" school because quite simply it IS an unaccredited school and accepts the fact too. Leaving that fact out just to avoid an edit war is akin to giving in to whitewash attempts. It is a slippery slope which will end in this article looking like a sugar coated IIPM advert. I have reverted to one of your (Maximusdecimus) last versions and added some information. If the edit warring gets too much, editors are welcome to call in mediators.

However, it looks to me like the IIPM editors indulge in physical threats, and I suspect carry them out too. Going through the old talk sections I saw User:Makrandjoshi being threatened and told that his address has been found out. And a regular editor, he seems to be absent from this page. Very ominous. Ponytailsnipper 19:53, 12 March 2007 (UTC)

Sorry Saxena

Saxena, i am new to Wikipedia, and did not mean to offend. But I am surprised to see this unethical behavior - Fairlady is genuinely making the beginning of the article neater, and others are messing it up. IIPM has problems, whioch are in the controversy section. Dont Know why they keep pulling it up~to clutter the article. Sunilalagh 06:43, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

The comment was not targeted at you, it was targeted to the other editors of the article. Please don't get offended. I was in fact, trying to strengthen what you said. Regards, — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:48, 13 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes thank you Sunilalagh 11:25, 14 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks Sunil. I am quite surprised that the likes of Ponytailsnipper continue to act childish about making inclusions in the starting para. I think we would all agree that enough discussion has gone into leaving the accreditation bit in its own section below. It really doesnot make sense to bring it up again and again.Fairlady2 04:53, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Concerns about recent edits

It seems that User:Carlisle Rodham (who has created an account only today) has already made massive changes to the article (SPA anyone?). While some of the added material has citations, most lines are directly copy-pasted from those sources, which among other things, constitutes severe copyright infringement. Perhaps more importantly, the lines have been written in a biased tone (no surprise since they're a direct copy of the sources they appear in), thus constituting a departure from the Wikipedia policy of neutral point of view. There is evidence of original research in some places, for instance, in the opening paragraph where the World Bank citation has been provided, the line reads:

To that effect, organisations like the World Bank have profiled IIPM alumni as being the world's top social entrepreneurs

whereas the source says nothing of this sort. It merely mentions that

Saurav received his Masters in Business Administration from the Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM), New Delhi

The rest of the added text in the opening paragraph is directly pasted from another source (Deccan Herald). Such instances can be found almost everywhere in the article.

After failing to forcibly delete some information that was unfavourable to them, it is unfortunate that the IIPM camp seems to have resorted to frantic efforts that involve dumping as much spurious information as possible and making the article read like IIPM's marketing brochure. I request other neutral editors to look into the matter, and if this trend continues, an RFC or mediation request may have to be made to curb such wiles.

Max ^{- You were saying?} 18:46, 20 March 2007 (UTC)

Max, RFM is no use. Was going through archives and saw IIPM editors threatening, bullying, and also refusing RFMs. The only thing possible is an RFA. Ponytailsnipper 02:57, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Max. Although I am not sure if mediation would succeed (as the pool of editors who edit this article change very frequently), I think that a RFC would be definitely helpful as it would at least help in reaching consensus as to how the information should be covered in the article, and would help in reverting new editors who make the article biased by adding/removing specific information without consensus. A request for arbitration is a far call as the condition hasn't deteriorated that much. I request other editors to weigh in their opinions. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:19, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Help me to understand this?

Who are you, Mz Rodham, and what is the reason for this huge edit? Its obviously a lot of effort, which is why I thought it makes sense for you to be able to defend these additions... I dont think reverting it outright, and making a mockery of Wikipedia by putting all those details in the opening para, is a solution... PLease can you all also avoid acronyms- makes it unintelligible for me. thank you. Sunilalagh 04:43, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Copyright

The words are used by newspapers right out of their prospectus. Do check. TcCarlisle Rodham 07:11, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

But the prospectus itself is copyrighted by IIPM, so in any case the text is unusable. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:20, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Free copy allowed, IIPM mentions so. TcCarlisle Rodham 08:00, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Well, this Wikipedia article is not for you to make it read like a copy of the IIPM prospectus. Even if you claim to have sources, Wikipedia is not an indiscriminate collection of information. Please do not persist in dumping information without regard to encyclopaedic principles. Max ^{- You were saying?} 09:25, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Clearly cited and definitely appropriate and relevant

i think the content rounds out the article nicely, and supports many points that were previously not cited fully. This is a good set of edits. Thanks Rodham. Iipmalum 09:14, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

Thanks, tcCarlisle Rodham 14:03, 21 March 2007 (UTC)

I dont understand the problem?

Max, it seems difficult to find any problem with this new information. it is obviously relevant to the article, and as i read through your link to indiscriminate information in wikipedia, i saw no connection whatsoever to this article on IIPM.

So, please hepl me out here - I understand Wikipedia is built on consensus and mutual respect - so can you please explain what specifically you have a problem with? I, for one, do not like the intro para so crowded - i think a couple of lines of philosophy regarding the insitute's founding and objectives should be removed.

on the other hand, i definitely think courses like IIPM's are judged based on placements, and that should be in the introduction. Controversy apart, its clear this institute has achieved a great deal, and is going places.

Sunilalagh 04:00, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

Alagh,

Perhaps you did not read my earlier note carefully. Dumping line after line of text copied from online sources does not make an encyclopaedia article. That's exactly what User:Carlisle Rodham has done. This is why I said that WP is not a collection of indiscriminate information. Just because its out there doesn't mean it is supposed to be on Wikipedia. You can't just Google search "IIPM" and then start pasting away all and sundry information that comes up, onto Wikipedia. That is a clear copyright infringement.

Furthermore, the concerned user has introduced original research in many places, as detailed in my previous post. All these are thinly-veiled attempts by the IIPM camp to load the article with bias and PoV with the hope that certain unfavourable aspects mentioned in the article get cloaked under the weight of glib, marketing-style factoids that now infest the page.

As I look at some sources closely, I find that User:Carlisle Rodham has conveniently used ambiguous information to mislead the reader, e.g. this World Bank source just says "IIPM" in one place (we don't even know whether it is referring to The Indian Institute of Planning and Management) but he has gone on freely to say that Additionally, World Bank has conducted regular research projects with IIPM. Blatant original research at best and gross misrepresentation at worst. Another citation provided is that of Business and Economy magazine, an IIPM publication!

Coming to your comments, I think you will appreciate that we're not here to "judge" anything, but to write an encyclopaedia article. Putting the line about placements at the top because you think that the institute is "going places" will only make it read more like an advertisement. Will you then be wiling to add a line about controversies and IIPM's unaccredited status in the intro as well?

Let me clarify that I'm not against all the edits made by User:Carlisle Rodham, but many of them need re-wording to be neutral and many of them simply need to be deleted because they're original research. The bottom line is that this article is not meant to be IIPM's publicity brochure. Unfortunately, that is exactly what it reads like right now.

Thanks, Max ^{- You were saying?} 20:36, 22 March 2007 (UTC)

One major issue I noticed with the article is that it is about what IIPM thinks about itself, and not what the world knows about it. Even the lead is full of such things, like that of IIPM's claim of it being the largest institute (per student enrolment), etc. We don't doubt that IIPM thinks that, but unless the world subscribes to it, adding it even if attributing the statement to IIPM is a POV problem. Also, aims and objectives are unencyclopedic and should not be included in encyclopedia article. I will be trying to fix some issues with the article soon. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 06:15, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

My recent edits

I have done major edits to the article recently. I request the editors to go through them. Each edit has been explained well with edit summaries, so it would be easy to understand the rationale behind them. Please do not unilaterally revert without reading and understanding the reasons. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:02, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Ambuj, amongst all the mayhem, I appreciate the efforts you've put in to make the article conform to Wikipedia standards. Thank you. Max ^{- You were saying?} 08:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Aren't we to discuss therse things and arrive at a consensus first?

I think the prescribed way to make edits are to discuss them, arrive at a consensus, and then implement changes. I recognise there is a vast gap in the differences between Mz rodham and Max. However, these changes without discussion wont solve anytihng, and i wont allow it. Kindly list all your proposed changes, and after both sides have agreed, then we can implement.~This is Wikipedia's rules, and we will follow it. Sunilalagh 08:53, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I provided reason for each edit. Did you even bother to read the edit summary. Which edit do you find unsuitable. Or are you trying to say that each of those edits were retrograde? — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:23, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

I have explained the reason for each edit in edit summaries. Please provide reason for each revert. If you can't provide any reason to revert, please don't revert. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:31, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

We discuss what is controversial. In addition to things you possibly found controversial (which you didn't even bother to elucicate), you reverted copyedits, comments for clarification, disambiguations, and many more things. May I know why you reverted them all? — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:36, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

You won't allow it? Alagh, you don't own Wikipedia or this article, so enough with the attitude. Ambuj has made an honest effort to improve the article, and he's a far more respected and experienced user than you will ever hope to be so please don't try to tell him about rules and consensus. If you cared one bit about making the article better, you would've read through his changes first before reverting. I was suspicious about your editing patterns earlier but now I'm certain that you are an IIPM student or ex-student or employee and you have the same agenda as your predecessors. Max ^{- You were saying?} 13:17, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Laughable!

You've got the entire Wikipedi process backward, my dear. You are supposed to discuss edits and then make them. ýou seem to be going back ward, making changes first and then asking for reasons to change them. That doesnt make sense. Use consensus. Iipmalum 10:45, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

A classic case of the pot calling the kettle black. Iipmalum, please keep your unnecessary advice to yourself. You may even do well to follow it from time to time before preaching to others. Ambuj knows his way around here and is a valuable member of the community unlike some trolls who do absolutely nothing constructive but have single-point agendas to market their PoV. Max ^{- You were saying?} 13:54, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Max, Sax - Very Sad, and a little Mad?

I guess there's nothing left to say with your sort of attitude. No wonder this page is such a mess with you guys around. Sunilalagh 17:03, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Yes, you really don't have anything left to say, Alagh. I tried to talk to you nicely and explain my position but that was a waste of time. The only mess here is being caused by you and your IIPM buddies. Max ^{- You were saying?} 17:52, 23 March 2007 (UTC)

Sunil, I have been part of Wikipedia for over one year now, and have edited hundreds of articles including two educational institute related featured articles. Believe me, I know what it takes for the article to go forward. If you think that I am trying to force some POV into the article, at least check the article history and you will find that I have removed POV of both flattering and damning type. All the edits I made yesterday were to improve the article. I request you to go through each of them with an open mind and understand the reasons I have provided in edit summaries. I am sure that if you will find each of my edits constructive. Also, please note that you should revert only what you find unsuitable. You shouldn't revert everything unless you can stand by your reversions. You would notice that I and Max didn't unilaterally revert Rodham's edits as not all of them were retrograde. If you do not agree with some edits of mine, do bring them up, and you will find a very patient ear in me. From what I understand, you reverted because you thought that the edits may be controversial, though actually you had nothing against them personally. You don't need to revert on someone else's behalf. Also, no single person can hold an article to ransom. The Wiki-way is that the article can be freely edited by everybody. If however, a consensus is reached by article editors (say in the talk page) to not accept one type of edits, then a consensus needs to be established for its inclusion. Note that this is exception handling, and not the norm. As far as I understand, there was no consensus on the article content edit by me, so there was nothing wrong that I did. In this case, if you do find anything wrong with what I did, do bring the issues up. From what I see, my edits only started a revert war, and no reasons whatsoever against my edits were brought up. Unless backed by any reason, the part of "assuming bad faith" lies with the reverters. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 04:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

About unaccredited in the intro

I do not agree with leaving it out because it is "controversial". Those are not sufficient grounds for deleting the word. It amounts to vandalism. IIPM is unaccredited. It does not claim to be accredited. So there is no factual ambiguity on it. All counter-arguments are OR and sophistic. I see no valid reason under wiki policy to delete it. I am putting it back. Makrandjoshi 15:36, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

Makrand, all I wanted to do is disassociate that edit of yours from my edits so that there is no collateral damage when one of them is reverted. I have not yet expressed my opinion on whether the fact should appear in the lead. When I performed the reversion, all I did was to revert the collateral damage from Fairlady's edits. Please rest assured that nothing will be left out just because it is controversial. If anything justifies addition, it will find its way into the article. Let's just not mix up controversial and uncontroversial things. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:18, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree with Ambuj about not mixing up controversial and uncontroversial sections. Also, Mr/Ms. Makrandjoshi we have discussed this enough many times to leave questions of acrreditation in its own place below. It does not make sense to place it in the first para. In any case IIPM has mentioned it clearly that they are not and do not seek to be recognised by AICTE for their own reasons. So I do not undertsand why we need to waste our time discussing this matter over and over again. Yes, had IIPM claimed to be accredidated by AICTE or any other government body, without actually being so, than we could have called it controversy. So i think its quite clear. Also, I think we are diluting the whole essence of wikipedia by treating this as a war platform - we should be more concerned about making sure the right things going into the article. I hope we will have a more matured and responsible approach from now on. Fairlady2 03:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairlady2, if your only objection was to the accreditation section, you should've simply removed the word unaccredited and not reverted the article en masse. Under the guise of opposing one word in the opening paragraph, you reverted the entire article, which was not in good faith. Ambuj and Makrand have not reverted changes unilaterally but explained their edits in edit summaries as well as on the talk page. I'm glad that you want to take a matured and responsible approach from now on (I hope Sunilalagh is reading this too!). Discussion is the only way that we can put an end to constant edit warring on this article. Thanks, Max ^{- You were saying?} 09:47, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Fairlady2, "it does not make sense" is not a valid counter argument for deleting a fact which is true. By your logic, we should also exclude words like "educational, research based institute" because IIPM has never claimed NOT to be educational research based or an institute. Accredition IS a controversial point, because government bodies are saying that accredition is necessary for offering such degrees. AICTE has even issued notices to over a hundred schools.

And if you are so opposed to it being just in the opening para, why do you also keep deleting it from the info table at the right? If the whole argument is that accredition facts appear later, then so do other facts. Why not do away with the introduction altogether? Makrandjoshi 06:01, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Like I said before, the objective of editing the article is to make sure it puts all the ifnormation in th eright perpective in the right manner. But people like you and Ponytailsnipper want to use this as a platform for fighting more on your personal notions. I am removing accreditation from the first para as discussed earlier. It is useless for me to address the questions you are trying to pose because right now, you are just playing with words. Fairlady2 03:39, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Makrand is right. And it is against wiki etiquettes for you to dismiss Makrand's point as just wordplay. Your accusations are baseless too. You keep talking about discussions. I have read all the talk pages. Every discussion has gone this way. It has never been agreed to delete the word, because every time Makrand has asked you people to cite a wiki policy under which it is being deleted and you people have never been able to do so. By deleting the word, you are violating wikipedia's NPOV policy. The policy clearly states that if there is disagreement about a certain point, then the wiki article should include both points of view. My suggestion is to let the word remain and follow it up with a line saying "The institute clarifies that it has not sought accredition". But just deleting the word altogether is one-sided edit-warring. Ponytailsnipper 04:00, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

My Edits

I have made a series of edits cleaning up the article of a lot of spurious references and citations. Justifications provided with each edit. have also added a couple of news items. Hope this does not result in me getting more death threats from IIPM thugs. I also find it very weird that IIPM supporters use assumed names of famous buisness-related people like Alam Srinivas(a journalist) and Sunil Alagh (a famous executive). Makrandjoshi 16:28, 24 March 2007 (UTC)

If soemone edits from username similar to names of famous people, per Wikipedia's username policy it is expected that they prove their identity to prevent legal complications later. "These accounts may be temporarily blocked pending confirmation, if in an administrator's best judgment or per community consensus at WP:ANI discussion, there may be doubt over the validity of the claim." An example of it can be seen here. I request that you contact an administrator who will confirm their identity by mailing them to their official e-mail address. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 05:25, 25 March 2007 (UTC)

I also noticed sunil alagh was editing this article! Iipmalum 10:07, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

OK, this is getting really frustrating. iipmalum, fairlady etc are all just deleting the encyclopaedic and undeniable fact of the school being "unaccredited", not just from the opening para but also from the summary table. There is no valid reason according to wiki policy, and no meaningful discussion happening other than some very vague points. I would request for mediation but the last time I tried that, the persons involved refused to go in for dispute resolution, made me legal threats and even threats to my life. So this time, if I am to assume good faith and believe that iipmalum, sunilalagh, fairlady etc are not sockpuppets of the same users who issued threats to me, I will need to see a gesture from them that shows they are genuinely interested in dispute resolution. For that one of them has to raise a request for mediation and I will gladly join in.

Please understand, saying "refer to discussion page" is meaningless when no discussion takes place here beyond "i am not comfortable with the word.... i dont see a reason for it..." etc. There HAS TO BE a valid wiki policy cited before deleting that information. I have not seen any concrete reason for not having the word there and I count every edit that deletes the word as vandalism. Makrandjoshi 05:56, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

You can count? Iipmalum 09:55, 28 March 2007 (UTC)

Accredition section

I have edited the accredition section to make it as neutral as possible. Hopefully it would be acceptable to all. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 10:29, 26 March 2007 (UTC)

Spruced up the article

Hi all. I have spruced up the article and made some changes. It looks pretty good now. Hope people stick to wiki etiquette and discuss the issues here and don't engage in just blind reverting. That really won't get anyone anywhere. And I agree with Makrand. Exactly what is the issue over the use of the word "unaccredited" in the opening para? I request my old friend Dips and other IIPM employees to please act with restraint and discuss things before deleting them. Ponytailsnipper 03:05, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Let's settle this "unaccredited" business for once and for all

Allow me to try to settle this the wiki way. iipmalum, fairlady2, dips, and all other IIPM employees, do take part in this discussion keeping wiki policy in mind. And rebut points only citing wiki policy. ambuj, max, makrand, please take part too. iipmalum, your response to makrand's attempts at a discussion earlier "you can count?" was in very poor taste. You have also been very rude to max and ambuj, and that is just not the wiki way. Now, about the issue at hand. Wikipedia [[1]] policy states - The neutral point of view is a means of dealing with conflicting views. The policy requires that, where there are or have been conflicting views, these should be presented fairly. None of the views should be given undue weight or asserted as being the truth, and all significant published points of view are to be presented, not just the most popular one. It should also not be asserted that the most popular view or some sort of intermediate view among the different views is the correct one. Readers are left to form their own opinions. As the name suggests, the neutral point of view is a point of view, not the absence or elimination of viewpoints. It is a point of view that is neutral – that is neither sympathetic nor in opposition to its subject. Please note - NPOV is not an elimination of viewpoints. By just deleting "unaccredited" from the first para, you are violating wiki policy. If Makrand or I think the word belongs there, it should. It is not a wrong fact. IIPM IS unaccredited. Now, if you don't agree with this, or think it gives "undue weight" to the fact, then I suggest, as I said above, you follow that line up with a line saying - "IIPM clarified/explains that its courses do not fall under the purview of existing governmental accredition agencies in India and thus it has not sought accredition". Just deleting the word because accredition is dealt with in detail later might be an approach that appeals you. But as Makrand said, this point makes the whole introduction irrelevant. If he thinks the word should be there (and I agree with him), then, as per wiki policies, as long as the information is not original research, you have no right to delete it. And I agree with him that deleting the word repeatedly borders on vandalism. Ponytailsnipper 04:12, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

However, I would like to point out that just you (Mr./Ms. Ponytailsniper) and Makrand do not constitute the sole decision making power and therefore things cannot be considered good enough to be inlcuded just because "you and Makrand Think so".Fairlady2 04:04, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

There is no question of decision-making power. it is about wikipedia policy. Please read wiki poliy on NPOV and deletion of valid text. Ponytailsnipper 04:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Mention of controversies in the intro section

As controversies form an important part of this article, I am of the opinion there should be a mention about them in the intro too, to make the intro representative of the article. To reach a middle ground I have not used the word "controversies" in the intro. Just mentioned what IIPM has been accused of, and have stated that IIPM has denied the accusations. Ponytailsnipper 04:21, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Makrand, please tell us

Have you indeed been sued by Dipali Sakhare as she threatened to do in these very talk pages a few weeks back? Did IIPM people also track down your address and threaten or physically harm you? I believe we as editors have a right to know this since if the threats have been carried out, it affects us too. Ponytailsnipper 04:24, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Joker?

What kind of a joker are you?

Relax, Wikipedia is on the internet, and is only an emerging technology.

I cant understand where all the aggression comes from? And your nickname is quite funny! I suppose Freud would love to analyse your condition! Sunilalagh 08:22, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

I agree Sunil, wiki is seeming to feel more like a playground with a bunch of kids trying to vent out their irritation about whatever....!! Its a sorry state really.203.76.140.130 11:50, 31 March 2007 (UTC)

Sunil, disagreement is not aggression. In the real world, outside IIPM's Orwellian walls, there exist different points of view which get expressed. Insulting other people however, like you and iipmalum have been up to, as well as treating disagreements as "irritating" as fairlady2 has done, are sure signs of misplaced aggression. As for my nickname, I am glad it amuses you. I am a barber by profession, you see. And if you really find wikipedia so bad, why not take your "business" elsewhere?Ponytailsnipper 04:35, 1 April 2007 (UTC)

As i thought: Joker. Sunilalagh 06:11, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

ponytailsnipper is quite hilarious most of the time. So I think that tag suits him well!

Why has nobody mentioned that IMI Belgium seems to be a one-room diploma mill and is unheard of in Belgium! Iipmalum 10:45, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Against AICTE's madness

"Education experts, however, point out that complying with AICTE norms will put unnecessary pressure on education institutes as they will not be able to upgrade their facilities".

“AICTE has set norms on the student intake and it will prevent most institutes from offering programmes to deserving students. The rules also put restriction on the fee amount besides dictating terms for infrastructure including classroom size,” said an education industry observer.

According to him, most of these schools have an enviable placement track record. “When corporates are ready to take these students and the school is ready to provide the necessary facilities, it won’t be fair on the part of AICTE to say that their notice is in public interest,” the expert said.

I took these lines from here: [2]

Quite nice, no? I'm putting it into the accreditation paragraph. Iipmalum 10:47, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Putting this info is valid. But please don't revert past changes while doing so. I have reverted sunil and fairlady's vandalism and added the line from your edit. Ponytailsnipper 11:20, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

You are unbelievable! You have been reverting blindly all this time, and now have added one line, that too partly, and then claim others are vandalising>?!! SunilAlagh and Fairlady are making complete sense - only you are irrational. Maybe you should get yourself a coloring book or sometihng to fill your time? Iipmalum 12:30, 2 April 2007 (UTC)

Ready for a discussion??

Folks, all this blind edit-warring has lead to the page being locked. I request you to discuss issues here so that it is not repeated. Let us please have a discussion on the contentious issues. Could someone please tell me, citing wiki policy, what is objectionable about the word "unaccredited" being in the intro and the info-box? Ponytailsnipper 00:00, 5 April 2007 (UTC)

Hit and run case

{{Editprotected}} Request the admins to add this in the controversies section - In April 2007, Delhi police named two IIPM employees as prime suspects in a hit-and-run case where the victim later died. The IIPM employees, Ashwini Gupta and Gaurav Rawal claim that they didn't hit the man, but found him lying injured and took him to the hospital. They have also claimed that the police officer is demanding bribes for them. Makrandjoshi 18:15, 6 April 2007 (UTC)

The protection on this page is set to expire in a few days. Until then, unless it is removed early, it would be inappropriate to make edits to the content of the page. CMummert · talk 01:18, 7 April 2007 (UTC)

Tax Evasion

Added tax evasion in the controversy section. Have cited a news article from The Hindu, so I hope that IIPM employees don't revert blindly. Makrandjoshi 18:05, 11 April 2007 (UTC)

Resolution of the dispute

The point has come where you guys must pursue serious dispute resolution - please open a RfC or request mediation. Either way, you cannot continue to disrupt Wikipedia and create a situation where the article has to be "protected from y'all." Rama's arrow (just a sexy boy) 23:32, 13 April 2007 (UTC)

Rfc:The Intro Para

We would like the article to start by saying "IIPM is a private unaccredited educational institute.." since the institute itself admits it is not accredited, and has even been served notices by the Government of India's accredition body for the same. Supporters of IIPM keep reverting any such edit. We would also like that there be a line in the opening para which goes to the effect - "IIPM has been involved in controversies regarding accreditation, plagiarism, tax evasion and responses to its critics", because the controversy section has been pushed all the way to the bottom, and IIPM being in these controversies has frequently made headlines in India. Makrandjoshi

Sounds like a very important piece of information that should be included in the intro Unsuspected 21:06, 10 May 2007 (UTC)

Rfc:The Global Outreach and International Associations

The outreach program mentions IIPM's association with over a dozen reputed international business schools. Non-primary sources are provided only for 3 schools. Even these are links to information about one professor each from these schools. Mentioning the whole school's name there is misleading. Only that specific professor's name should be mentioned. In international associations, there is a point using the name of Philip Kotler and Joel Stern, legendary names in marketing without any citation. It has been so for months with no citation provided. CEEMAN which is cited as a source is a self-published source, because its report is just news sent in by members themselves like IIPM. It is not a reliable source. Most of the claims made in that section are very tall and should be verifiable. Points which cite it should also be removed. Makrandjoshi

Guys please tell me whether one should go for this Masters prgmm from iipm, delhi or not..........

No you should not. Makrandjoshi 00:39, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Or maybe you should :-) Makrardjoshi 17:32, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Or whatever, I think you should, or maybe not... Whichever way, I really don't know what to sayMakrardjoshi 17:33, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

This is a junk institute, don't waste your time and money.

Rfc:Adding information about tax evasion

The information about IIPM issued notice for tax-evasion|IIPM being found guilty of tax evasion should be in the controversy section because it is a validly cited fact with important encyclopedic information. Anyone who looks up this school on wikipedia either to study in it or have a partnership with it should know it has been guilty of tax evasion, not a very common crime for educational institutes. Makrandjoshi 00:49, 15 April 2007 (UTC)

That IIPM is Indian Institute of Plantation Management I guess Mrinal Pandey 09:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Not so, it is the Indian Institute of Planning and Management. Click here to see a govt. press release IIPM hasn't paid service tax or income tax for the last two year. This info must be put on the page. Deepakshenoy 07:12, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Whoa!

How do I get this page opened up? Mrinal Pandey 09:50, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Currently the page is protected and so you can not edit the page. --Bhadani (talk) 10:26, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I'll check the pages Makrardjoshi 17:34, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

How do I do it

I wanted to know how to start editing on these pagesMakrardjoshi 17:35, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

I would suggest that editors interested in doing constructive edits should discuss the contents to be modified and the modified contents may be added to the article. --Bhadani (talk) 17:40, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Please note, the above comment is not by me. My name is spelt with an "n" Makrand... these people are up to their dirty tricks again, this time a new one, impersonating me. Makrandjoshi 20:16, 16 April 2007 (UTC)

Noted. I notice two different sockpuppets with account names similar to yours. I have reported them at Wikipedia:Administrators' noticeboard/Incidents, and they are now blocked. -Amatulic 04:26, 18 April 2007 (UTC)

Brief comment

If the IIPM is accredited, then it should be a simple matter to indicate the name of the association which has accredited the school. Unless a compelling case can be made that the association which has done the accredidation is not legitimate, then I believe "unaccredited" should not be included in the article since it would constitute an opinion rather than a fact. Watchdog07 Watchdog07 (talk · contribs)

That is the problem. IIPM is not accredited by any educational body in India, and IIPM itself openly admits this. It claims that its programs fall out of the purview of any association or accrediting body and that no regulating authority has any jurisdiction over it. - Max ^{- You were saying?} 17:20, 9 May 2007 (UTC)

Max, Watchdog07 is right; the word unaccredited does not apply here, and it constitutes an opinion. Further, IIPM has never claimed its programs fall out of the purview of any accrediting body - it is a member of EQUIS and CEEMAN, which has been mentioned in the article (unless you have removed it :) ).

Best Iipmalum 12:20, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

I think Watchdog07 has misunderstood the issue. He says that if the association which has done the accreditation is proven to be illegitimate, we shouldn't use "unaccredited". There's no question of proving the legitimacy of any association here, because IIPM has not been accredited by any educational body in the first place!

Iipmalum, about CEEMAN and EQUIS, could you explain why IIPM doesn't appear in this list or this one? Merely being a member of these associations does not imply that IIPM has been accredited by them.

In conclusion, if IIPM has not been accredited by any authority, Indian or foreign, what is the great sin in calling it unaccredited?

Regards, Max ^{- You were saying?} 15:25, 14 May 2007 (UTC)

Interestingly, even IMI Belgium, the so-called business school which awards the MBA and BBA degrees to IIPM students, is not on the CEEMAN or EQUIS accredition lists. Makrandjoshi 02:56, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Misleading ads and tax evasion

Have added info about two recent developments. The Monopolies and Restrictive Trade Practices Commission, a body of the Indian government has initiated investigations against IIPM for the tall claims made in its ads. Have given the CNN-IBN story link for it. Have also added information about the tax evasion by IIPM (Mrinal, the Finance Ministry has clearly stated it is this IIPM and not some insti of plantataion management). Have given a link to the Indian government's press bureau. The facts are piling up, and different arms of the government are cracking down on IIPM. Do not revert this edit. Makrandjoshi 02:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Discuss before putting up information. I've redone your stuff Mrinal Pandey 14:22, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You have "redone" my stuff? You deleted all the information about the MRTPC and the Finance Ministry investigations. This is a pure whitewash job and I consider it vandalism. Makrandjoshi 19:41, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Let's not "redo" stuff like this, please? This info deserves to be in - I can't see any reason why not to put it here. Deepakshenoy 10:23, 24 May 2007 (UTC)

Bad edits

I object strongly to these edits by Makrand Joshi... They are unresearched, incorrect and biased. Iipmalum 16:53, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Could you explain, point-by-point, why the information from The Hindu, CNN-IBN and the Press Information Bureau of the Government of India is "unresearched, incorrect and biased"? - Max ^{- You were saying?} 19:33, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

You "strongly object"? This is not a court scene from a hindi film. Give reasoning. Every info I have added is with validly cited sources. But given the proclivity of you people to dismiss the credibility of any source (dismissing USA Today just a tabloid :)), I wont be surprised if you come up with some bizarre argument against why the Finance Ministry press release is also an incorrect and biased source. Some might think you folks live in an alternate reality. But we all know you are working for IIPM and so working tooth and nail to whitewash this page. Makrandjoshi 19:43, 16 May 2007 (UTC)

Makrand Joshi and Max hats off to your patience in dealing with these Dunderheads. You guys are doing excellent job as editors keep it up.

Citations required

I see many paragraphs have been added without references. I've corrected many of them. Regards, Mrinal Pandey 08:42, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Bravo, Mrinal. Well done. So let's get this straight. When you say you've "corrected" it, you mean you reverted to a discarded version that is months old, that is chock-full of a propagandistic PoV and that misinterprets the very sources it provides (e.g. Additionally, World Bank has conducted regular research projects with IIPM. The reference provided for this sentence mentions an IIPM, but it is the Indian Institute of Plantation Management, as had been pointed out somewhere on this talk page). Nice. That also explains why you failed to "correct" the omission of validly referenced information about tax-evasion and unfair trade practices investigation.

Look, I do realize that the "unaccredited" thing gets on your nerves, but that is no excuse to take this page in the other direction and convert it into some kind of praise-fest for IIPM just to mask unfavourable information. For now, I have commented out the word (as well as the other controversial statements) from the introduction, but I would like you and your friends to let the rest of the article be in status quo. It has reached this steady state after a long time and via a lot of good-faith editing, mostly by Ambuj Saxena. Please don't try to dig up corpses that were long-buried. Thank you. Max ^{- You were saying?} 09:57, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

FWIW, I fully agree with Max. I don't agree with a blatant whitewash revert of this page and this absolutely does not fly that Mrinal deletes all content that has been discussed and cited on the page. It looks like a blind revert. If any corrections need to be made, let them be small and incremental, please? Deepakshenoy 10:40, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

And please do specify which paragraphs are without references. Among the info you removed, everything was references, one even from a govt of india website. Makrandjoshi 17:01, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Max

You have commented out the contentious info until disputes are resolved. As of now, I am fine with letting it be. But I have no idea how these disputes are going to be resolved. These folks never take part in dispute resolution. And even when the page is editlocked, they disappear, instead of discussing the issues. Once they return, they just revert, and hurl insults in the talk section. You intention in commenting out contentious info is admirable. But having dealt with these folks for over a year, I know they will just take this as a small victory, and shift their revert war to other sections, until the whole article is whitewashed. In fact I can predict what is gonna happen next. The hyenas will turn up, start the revert war, hoping that before the editlock happens again, which it is sure to, theirs' is the last saved version. Makrandjoshi 17:06, 8 June 2007 (UTC)

Edit wars

I dont know why this keeps happening - why cant we all just... GET ALONG? Sunilalagh 12:26, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Stop deleting information that is validly cited and is fact, and we will. You're the person who's not trying to get along. Deepakshenoy 12:39, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Thats the kind of attitude that will get you in trouble, buster! Sunilalagh 12:44, 12 June 2007 (UTC)

Unreferenced? Libelous?

Could folks like iipmalum and sunilalagh discuss what specifically is unreferenced and libelous? Let's discuss our differences here Ponytailsnipper 21:09, 14 June 2007 (UTC)

Let's Discuss and End the revert war

Folks, this page has now been indefinitely locked. Let us discuss contentious issues. Here are the main problems as I see them from the reverts of people like sunilalagh and iipmalum - Mentioning "unaccredited" in the opening para. The institute is not accredited by the accredition bodies set up by the parliament government of India. The institute admits so itself. This is a verifiable fact. Accredition is an important facet of a school. There is no wiki policy which justifies leaving it out. As the NPOV policy suggests, if there is a dispute, both sides of an issue should be mentioned. We can mention unaccredited. And in the next line give a one line justification of the IIPM stance too. - Controversies such as tax evasion, MRTP investigation which are recent. There is absolutely no justification for leaving these out. Yet pro-IIPM editors have been reverting any edits made mentioning them. Ponytailsnipper 22:30, 21 June 2007 (UTC)

Okay, but what if the IIPM heroes don't come back to discuss? They have not shown any inclination to actually discuss things, or agree with facts such as a government press release, so I would suggest an alternative. If we do not hear any objections, I would say we request changes while the page stays protected. For each such change, let us create a section on this talk page and get a consensus. If that works over say six months to a year, then let us see if we can request a lower protection level. At this point, there is simply too much IIPM supporter vandalism here.

For what it's worth, the concept of accreditions is given here (See School_accreditation). It is very specifically mentioned here what accreditation means and the specific rules in India. In that sense I fully support Ponytailsnipper's view that "unaccredited" is an important facet of a school in India (given that any school that is seen to offer a degree must be accredited by law) and that the word "unaccredited" belongs in the opening paragraph.

The tax evasion investigations and the MRTP investigations are fact. Regardless of lack of consensus, they should be on this page because they is just no denying that there is an investigation happening! There is a government press release saying so in both cases. The results of these investigations should also be mentioned once they are available. It is possible that IIPM is entirely innocent, and it is possible that it is not. Deepakshenoy 11:21, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Deepak, I agree. Ponytailsnipper 19:10, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

I agree that the accreditation status is relevant enough to warrant mention in the lead paragraph; it's a notable feature of the school, and even has its own dedicated major section in the article.

I disagree that the tax evasion issue is notable enough to be included in the lead; the school isn't notorious for tax evasion, the government has simply begun a procedural action. The article already contains information about the tax evasion issue, and other issues, in the Controversy section. That's sufficient. Any mention in the lead shouldn't go beyond a general statement saying the school's operational practices have generated controversy. -Amatulic 17:32, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Amatulic, no one wants the tax evasion issue in the lead. It was being included in the controversy section. The pro-iipm editors were reverting even that. And yes, they were also reverting any edit in the lead with a general statement about the school's controversies. Glad you agree. Ponytailsnipper

Right, I misread your initial paragraph. In that case, I think the article is okay in its current state, with the minor exception of accreditation status missing from the lead. And I must admit, having the lead state that the institution isn't accredited in the lead might appear biased, instead of using a clarifying statement such as "has not sought accreditation". The section about accreditation is pretty well done, and its position in the article is adequate. -Amatulic 20:53, 22 June 2007 (UTC)

Ah, now I see. What you mean is: Unaccredited can mean "sought accreditation but was denied it" rather than "is not accredited because it hasn't sought accreditation". The former creates a negative impression and the second one is slightly less negative and subjective. In that light I think it might be best to leave "unaccredited" out of the purview of the lead, leaving it to the accreditation section. Deepakshenoy 08:18, 23 June 2007 (UTC)

Yes, that's exactly what I mean. My cursory looking indicates that they haven't sought accreditation, not that they were denied it. I think it's significant enough to warrant mention in the lead, but I have no problem with the current configuration. -Amatulic 17:45, 11 July 2007 (UTC)

Got your point. I'm not against putting it in the lead; so if we're all in agreement that "unaccredited" warrants mention in the lead, can we then request that it be put in? The only people we haven't heard from are the IIPM supporters and Makrandjoshi. Deepakshenoy 10:31, 13 July 2007 (UTC)

Edit-warring and dispute resolution

As a non-participant (i.e. 'neutral') in this situation, I have come to try and help solve the issues that are causing the article's protection.

If you can answer these questions I would appreciate that, as it will give me a good view of the situation:

• What is the cause of the dispute??
• Who are the main users involved in the dispute??
• How long has the dispute been running??
• How could I solve this??
• Would Mediation be an acceptable solution??
• Should an article Request for Comment be created regarding this??
• Are sources the problem?? Is unverified information included??

I will try and help as much as I can! --SunStar Net ^talk 21:31, 18 July 2007 (UTC)

Indian Government's Corporate Affairs Minister initiates action against IIPM

{{editprotected}} Two different Indians government bodies have initiated action against IIPM for unfair trade practises and misleading advertisements, as announced by the Indian government's Corporate Affairs Minister Prem Chand Gupta. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Education/MRTPC_AICTE_initiate_action_against_IIPM/articleshow/2281117.cms and http://www.newkerala.com/july.php?action=fullnews&id=53741 I suggest two additions to the wiki. The intro should mention - "The Indian government has issued notices to IIPM for unfair trade practices and misleading advertisements.". Furthermore, this development should be detailed in the controversies section. Makrandjoshi 04:47, 1 September 2007 (UTC)

Protection has been reduced. Please tread carefully. Cheers. --MZMcBride 02:40, 3 September 2007 (UTC)

Well, as soon as you reduced the protection, Iipalum resumed the reversion war -- and Makrandjoshi hasn't even added the information suggested above yet. -Amatulic 17:34, 4 September 2007 (UTC)

The page might be again locked

Alright, first of all I reverted some changes that ponytailstripper has made. But I request editors to re-edit the changes I've made as I do realise this revert should not have been made in the normal course (ponytailstrippers excluded :-)). Second of all, I'll be archiving this discussion within a day or two. If you have any problems with that, do write that soon :-) And third of all, I guess we'll again succeed in getting this page locked up; a situation that surely should not occur. So it's a request to all the editors (pro or anti or neutral or whatever) to start discussing the changes before changing. Thanks and regards Mrinal Pandey 14:28, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

I'm neither pro nor anti, but neutral. I have re-edited these changes, keeping some of ponytailsnipper's relevant content without the POV, as well as making sure that the bit above about government investigations appears in the lead and in the controversy section. Also I cleaned up the appearance of the citations in the text, although the citations themselves need descriptions so they show up as more than mere links.

As I stated earlier on this talk page, it's inappropriate to plaster the word "unaccredited" all over this article because that word implies a POV that the institute was denied accreditation - which is false. I have removed that word and retained the facts about the school's non-accredited status.

The problem with this article, as I see it, is that we have an editor with a clear conflict of interest (Iipmalum) as well as another editor (ponytailsnipper) who has become incensed at this conflict of interest and adds as much negative content as possible. Both need to back off and let others who are neutral modify this article. -Amatulic 02:07, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Due to the edit warring that began the moment the protection was reduced, instead of discussing changes here first, the article has been locked again. The present version is neither Iipmalum's nor Ponytailsnipper's preferred versions (both of which I consider violating WP:NPOV), but rather the previously-locked version with the government investigation sources mentioned above and some citation formatting cleanup. I wanted to include some of Iipmalum's and Ponytailsnipper's less contentious contributions but the article was locked while I was doing it. Ah, well. I hope they discuss their proposed changes here first, and come to an agreement before the article is unlocked again. -Amatulic 04:50, 6 September 2007 (UTC)

Fair use rationale for Image:Iipmlogo.jpg

Image:Iipmlogo.jpg is being used on this article. I notice the image page specifies that the image is being used under fair use but there is no explanation or rationale as to why its use in this Wikipedia article constitutes fair use. In addition to the boilerplate fair use template, you must also write out on the image description page a specific explanation or rationale for why using this image in each article is consistent with fair use.

Please go to the image description page and edit it to include a fair use rationale. Using one of the templates at Wikipedia:Fair use rationale guideline is an easy way to ensure that your image is in compliance with Wikipedia policy, but remember that you must complete the template. Do not simply insert a blank template on an image page.

If there is other fair use media, consider checking that you have specified the fair use rationale on the other images used on this page. Note that any fair use images lacking such an explanation can be deleted one week after being tagged, as described on criteria for speedy deletion. If you have any questions please ask them at the Media copyright questions page. Thank you.

BetacommandBot (talk) 23:29, 13 February 2008 (UTC)

Let us Discuss Edits

Please discuss edits here. Also, stop placing the fake edit-lock tags. Makrandjoshi (talk) 16:44, 1 June 2008 (UTC)

I agree. The Sonu sockpuppets haven't given justification for any edits, other than Coolbug's dubious claim of "copyright violation" below. If that's true, then that needs to be explained here, rather than edit warring. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:40, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sonu and Splogs

Fellow editors, here's something interesting. Go to blogsearch.google.com and enter IIPM, then sort the results by date. Look at the first 5 or 6 pages (and even later). Most of those are splogs (spam blogs with no real content) saying great things about IIPM. And most of the splogs are started by or written by someone named Sonu. Should we still be assuming good faith? Makrandjoshi (talk) 15:17, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

Heh, every editor from IIPM that has ever come here has done so only with the intention of sanitizing the article without regard to due process. Assuming good faith about them is like casting pearls before swine. - Max ^{- You were saying?} 17:57, 5 June 2008 (UTC)

copyrighted content removed

Removing the copyrighted content, which are of the saying from different news portals, so that no violation regarding copyright occurs. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Coolbug (talk • contribs) 15:20, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Reverted. Coolbug actually whitewashed the article without identifying anything copyrighted. Please discuss further here before making yourself look like the other IIPM vandals who have a conflict of interest. ~Amatulić (talk) 15:24, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

1st Para changes

I'm making certain changes in the 1st para, and later in the other paras. Will discuss them in one go once I'm through by 7th June afternoon. Would request editors to revert the changes after they've seen all the changes. Regards Mrinal Pandey (talk)

Placed one line of the 1st para in the appropriate section where it should be. One line in GOTA details has been shifted to the appropriate section again. I do believe that if there is a separate section for controversies, then they should be mentioned there. Regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 16:59, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Overall I like the edits you have made. However, the lead section should summarize the article, therefore controversy should be mentioned in the lead because that's a major part of this article. I have tweaked the lead paragraph to include it again, as well as remove some bombastic terms like "de jure" and "ergo". ~Amatulić (talk) 17:12, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Addendum: Mrinal Pandey, your recent reversions in the lead indicate an unfamiliarity with Wikipedia's guidelines for lead sections. The main points of the article should be summarized in the lead; saying there are "too many" to summarize does not justify exclusion of any mention of controversy, which is the largest section in this article. If anything, the lead should emphasize it more. To avoid further dispute, I suggest you propose further changes on this talk page. Thanks. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:42, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Will restructure the complete IIPM article. Will upload the same on 9th June. Feel free to make changes on that or revert the same as and when you wish. Regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 17:44, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Your recent revisions to the lead look good now. Thanks.

When completely restructuring an article, please consider creating the article in your userspace first, and ask people to review it before making large-scale changes here. It's easy to do, just create the page User:Mrinal Pandey/Drafts or something like that, and put your restructuring there. If nobody objects, copy it to this article. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:47, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Sure. Actually, tried it before. Not many finally get to see it. I'll do it anyway. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 17:49, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Just be sure to notify everyone here on this talk page where to find your proposed version. Or you could let the regular editors here know, just look at the edit history to see who's been making recent constructive edits. Makrandjoshi and Ponytailsnipper come to mind. The point is, if you have it in your userspace, and tell everyone, and nobody objects, then nobody has grounds to object later when you copy it to this article. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

I've made changes to the lede in order to make the reading flow a bit better. The opening paragraph's first sentence read "IIPM is a private educational institute..." but the second sentence suddenly declared "According to the institute it has not sought accreditation...". I've tried to provide some context and relevance by splitting the lede into two paragraphs. I'd like to ask constructive editors like Amatulic to kindly go through the same and make changes, if necessary. - Max ^{- You were saying?} 18:36, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

One more thing - I've purposely put "National Economic Planning" in quotes because this is a specific term that only IIPM uses for its programme. It is not a common name for a course of study like, say, microbiology or architecture. I could also not find a standard definition of "National Economic Planning" anywhere (in fact, the first result on Google is IIPM's own website). - Max ^{- You were saying?} 18:56, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Looks good to me. It flows well and puts the correct emphasis on things. I made some very minor punctuation and grammar edits. The only concern I have is the time frame indicated by setting up campuses. You wrote "is looking to set up", I changed it to "is setting up" but their web site indicates the locations are already set up. Need to make sure the description is correct with regard to what has happened versus what may happen in the future. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:02, 6 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks Amatulic, that looks good. Actually, I've not put in the "looking to set up campuses" line - that has been there since long. Your edits to this are fine too, no issues. Also, thanks for taking care of stuff like organizing refs properly and reducing redundancies. I was too lazy to notice that one of my refs was duplicated somewhere else in the article. - Max ^{- You were saying?} 05:52, 7 June 2008 (UTC)

I have commented out the line about IIPM having provided evidence to government agencies, since no citation has been provided. Once the citation is found, the comment tags can be removed and it can be included in the intro. Ponytailsnipper (talk) 12:45, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Global Outreach Program

The section on the global outreach program which claims IIPM organizes workshop by profs from top US business schools has been tagged as needing more than primary sources, for over a year now. But such cites have not been provided. Removing the section. Feel free to add back if some secondary sources are found. Additionally, another newspaper article has appeared questioning IIPM's claims of being different, this time in Mint. Adding that. Ponytailsnipper (talk) 12:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Same case with the industry interface. It only had IIPM links. Feel free to add it back with third party cites if found. Ponytailsnipper (talk) 13:07, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Mrinal's Proposed Restructuring

Mirnal, you mentioned that you are planning on restructuring this page on June 9. Could you please share with us fellow editors what sort of restructuring you have in mind? What are the specific features about the current structure of the article that bother you? And how we should all move together towards making this article better? Please share your thoughts so we can discuss your proposed changes, reach a consensus and move on. Ponytailsnipper (talk) 21:58, 8 June 2008 (UTC)

Commenting out all "Citation needed" material

There are a lot of uncited claims in this article for which the "citation needed" tag has been on for over a year now. I am commenting them out. If citations are found and added, please remove the comment tags and include them in the article. Ponytailsnipper (talk) 22:00, 8 June 2008 (UTC)