Misplaced Pages

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Makrandjoshi (talk | contribs) at 14:10, 6 December 2009 (→Removing Neutrality Tag). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Business Unassessed

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Misplaced Pages. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business ??? This article has not yet received a rating on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

India: Delhi B‑class Mid‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Misplaced Pages's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia B This article has been rated as B-class on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale. Mid This article has been rated as Mid-importance on the project's importance scale. This article is supported by WikiProject Delhi. This article was last assessed in November 2006.

Indian Institute of Planning and Management received a peer review by Misplaced Pages editors, which is now archived. It may contain ideas you can use to improve this article.

Please add newer discussions at the bottom of this page.

Please do discuss

I have no issues if you undo the changes I have made. Would really appreciate a note either here or alongside the edit subject . Thanks and warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 11:45, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

Vandalism not required

If vandalism continues, no one gets the advantage. So my request to the people whitewashing edits is that instead of trying to destroy relevant edits, kindly discuss on this page any changes you might want, however insensible they might sound. If there is general acceptance for the change, it will surely be included. Vandalism is of no use as administrators will end up blocking the page within hours of such whitewashing occurring. Hope sense prevails. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 07:19, 19 November 2008 (UTC)

Mirnal, you could also set an example by first discussing changes you want to make, and providing wiki policy-based reasons for it, instead of making a dozen specious changes in a row. Makrandjoshi (talk) 18:33, 20 November 2008 (UTC)

Surely. I've redone the changes. Do discuss your points of view with respect to those, out here. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 09:56, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

You have it backwards. Please propose your changes here, first. And when you do edit the article, confine your changes to one section at a time. Wholesale changes to the entire article will only result in wholesale reverts. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:10, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I think the changes as have been made in the past day(s) seem relevant enough. Having said that, this discussion page should necessarily be used (most preferably) before making controversial changes. For example, the controversy section should NOT be deleted till a majority vote or consensus vote has been taken. And even that has to be given at least a week of time for enough responses to come in. Thanks! I'll be putting up the link to this page on discussion forums so that interested people can chime in with their suggesions/vote Deborah Fernandes (talk) 10:24, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Proposing deletion of Controversy section

As the controversy section is fairly outdated and holds no relevance now, given the High Court rulings favouring IIPM, I propose deleting the complete controversy section. Please do give in your suggestions. Also, kindly do not revert changes blindly to previous editions. Try and rework the changes after discussing them here. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 10:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

What makes you say it is out of relevance? Joshua Artgobain Benedict (talk) 10:46, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Seems to be sensible. I say it's ok to delete the controversy section. Addy kundu (talk) 11:07, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I disagree. It is still very relevant. And is properly cited. Ponytailsnipper (talk) 19:13, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

I also agree that the controversy surrounding IIPM is an established part of its history and should be described in this article, as history in the past tense. I recommend proposing major changes here before putting them in the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 20:06, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Seeing the background, I agree controversy section can be deleted as in the current context, it seems just a laborious attempt to include details which anyway seem to have been taken care of by the court order. Joshua Artgobain Benedict (talk) 09:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Can be deleted. Conditional acceptance. I've written down details on User Mrinal Pandey's talk page (talk) Carlisle Rodham (talk) 10:09, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Yes, delete! But we should wait for at least a week for views from other editors/followers of this page as only then can a majority account be taken. Deborah Fernandes (talk) 10:17, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

hi, i am Solanki Kumar.....i feel that it can be deleted as it doesn't cover the current context...rest up to all you guys...it was just an opinion... (talk) —Preceding undated comment was added at 11:19, 25 November 2008 (UTC).

Dude Controversy are past and i feel people are interested in current and updated happenings, so i guess no problem if it gets deleted....--Sumitpatel12 (talk) 11:28, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

i feel deletion of old stuff and updation with current happenings is right--Ianchapell (talk) 11:41, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Well, True Pictures are always the current one, so old has nothing to do and say, so best is to delete it--Maheshbopara (talk) 11:51, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

I wrote this on Carlisle Rodham's page too. Though the above responses are in my favour, would request the administrators to check whether the above responses are sock puppets. I hope I'm not offending real users out of the above; for if you guys are real users, my sincere apologies. I'm just trying to make sure that a vote, even if in my favour, is not placed here unethically. Thanks and apologies again. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 07:02, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

Having said that, before deleting the Controversy section (given enough aye votes) I have - to be the devil's advocate - jumped to the other side to place a tag requesting dated factually accurate information requirement on the controversy paragraph. If you think it is not appropriate, please feel free to remove the same. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 07:47, 27 November 2008 (UTC); and as I believe that four or five days have passed since the issue was raised, and some views - however incredible - have been given, I have placed a dead note tag in front of the controversy section; effectively putting in action the process of deletion of this section. In case you wish to include the section back, I believe you will have to - as some of the editors put it to me, and I followed before deleting the Controversy section - place the reinclusion move to a discussion, and given majority approval or a consensus, reinclude it by removing the dead note. Thank you and regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 23:25, 27 November 2008 (UTC)

You did delete the controversies section after all! And all these people here are sock-puppets and/or SPAs. Have undone the whitewashes. Makrandjoshi (talk) 17:33, 28 November 2008 (UTC)

Is this page locked?

If this page is locked for editing, can you please put a sign on top of it? Joshua Artgobain Benedict (talk) 10:45, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

The Talk page is not protected. The main article page is temporarily semi-protected due to excessive vandalism and there is a sign on the page's top. -- Alexf 14:16, 24 November 2008 (UTC)

Joshua, I guess you would have been confused yesterday as the warning tag had been accidentally removed. It has been placed back at the relevant portion. Ciao Deborah Fernandes (talk) 10:18, 25 November 2008 (UTC)

Please justify your acts...

As you can see the history page

Mr. Makrandjoshi.. might be an administrator or an old editor but his acts of reverting down back to the old content to the IIPM page without justifying with proofs...seems that he himself is one of the sock puppets....

Humble request to all of you Please if you intend to do changes even you are an administrator or an old editors, you need to justify your act other wise it will be considered as whitewashing. Kindly mind your acts... Even if you think my acts were not justified , you are always welcomed to notify me but in a right manner by justifying your act in respect proving that my act was wrong according to the rules--Carlisle Rodham (talk) 07:23, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

There's a very simple justification. I have not made any unjustified changes to the article. Just reverted it to the state it was a few days ago before you unilaterally decided to overhaul it. You have made sweeping subjective changes to the page without discussing them here on the talk page, or even providing a wiki policy reasoning. In several cases, you have thrown out correctly cited material, especially from the introduction part. You can't make more than a dozen unilateral changes to the page without any discussion or wiki policy citing, and then expect it to stick. Please discuss the changes here first, let's reach an agreement on them being WP:NPOV, and then make changes. My own "humble request" to you. Let's not go on a reverting spree. The current state that the page in, is how it was for weeks and months under the editlock. That is what should serve as the starting point for further changes. So please, instead of reverting, open up talk sections here, let's discuss changes and then make them. Makrandjoshi (talk) 19:32, 29 November 2008 (UTC)

Your version doesn't have the latest and updated things, so i feel please provide yourself a cross-checking by updating yourself with latest happening.--Carlisle Rodham (talk) 07:26, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

OK Carlisle, right now I am going on good faith assumptions and not reverting your version. Even if you have added some new and latest things, you have left out portions from the old ones without any reason, so adding those portions back. Makrandjoshi (talk) 12:17, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

High Court Judgment

Mirnal and Carlise have both been talking about a High Court judgment that apparently "snubs UGC", and says it can't stop IIPM from offering MBA and BBA degrees. However, the link you had cited (from www.prnews.com) was dead, and I searched on google but did not find any other news site saying the same. What I did find was a number of articles saying that the Delhi High Court asking UGC and IIPM to reach an agreement in which UGC removes its name from a fake university list, and IIPM agrees to clarify that it offers just "certificate courses", meant to get students ready for MBA and BBA degrees, and does not actually offer degree courses. http://www.expressindia.com/latest-news/iipm-will-be-deleted-from-fake-varsity-list-ugc-tells-hc/328522/ Hence, have made changes accordingly, with the proper cites. Makrandjoshi (talk) 12:47, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Further googling lead me to some pages that mention the "HC snubs UGC" thing, but they are all either blogs, or forums or then press release aggregators, all using the exact same content. Which leads me to wonder if this was just a press release put out by IIPM. Unlike the other story about IIPM and UGC reaching an agreement, which appeared in Indian Express, Economic Times, and other mainstream media outlets, this "HC snubs UGC" story has not appeared in any credible third-party new source. Hence, even if someone digs up another prnews.com type source, I submit that it does not meet the reliable sources policy standards http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sources#Sources and can not be included in the article. Makrandjoshi (talk) 12:54, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Rankings Cites

I have doubts regarding IIPM being in Zee Business Best B-school rankings. The cites provided are again all press releases by IIPM itself and don't meet the wiki policy reliable sources standard I have linked to above. Mrinal or Carisle, please provide a citation from a respected mainstream media source. Or better still, from a Zee website (like you have provided for the other Zee ranking mention). Please provide reliable cites soon, else I propose deleting the text. Also, I see not cites for the acnielsen-orgmarg rankings, so removing them. Makrandjoshi (talk) 13:05, 30 November 2008 (UTC)

Sock puppet theory

Hi. I suspected a few ids of being sock puppets. But unless the administrators confirm the same or deny the same, one can't delete or whitewash or revert the changes approved by users, who might as well be real, as they might be sock puppets. Having said that, we'll go by the concept that changes will be made to the final accepted version only after each change has been proposed here for at least a couple of days and discussed upon. I don't think any change, given the sensitivity of thisi page, can be allowed otherwise. Thanks to all editors for understanding. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 06:43, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Mrinal, admins have already confirmed the sock-puppets. But even if we assume they were all real, you still were not justified in deleting the controversy section. Such a major change... even vital change concerning the page, should be made only after consensus. I am opposed to deleting it, as are other editors (such as amatulic) who expressed their opposition. And yet you blatantly disregarded their opposition, and did it anyway. Makrandjoshi (talk) 18:50, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Citations

Dear editors, kindly do not revert or delete lines that do not have citations. I see one editor continuously doing that. On a civic level, kindly propose the inclusion of the citation. It will be done within a couple of days; and if not, then propose deletion of that line out here. I should request you all that if that is not done, I will surely request administrators to revert the changes as they would be akin to whitewashing. I propose a continuous discussion out here from here on. Please do understand, this is perhaps one of the most sensitive pages on wiki, and changing even one line from hereon without discussion could result in reverts from so many users whom we have no control on. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 06:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Mrinal, please read wiki policy. You need to cite whatever information you add. The onus is on the one adding information to provide cites, and not on others. No one should have to propose inclusion of citations. It's a must. If you really have valid cites, why not wait 2-3 days before adding the content? If uncited material is to be added with a "citation needed" tag, it should be done only after consensus. Makrandjoshi (talk) 18:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Future changes

Dear editors, I propose and request that all future changes - any change, even a revert from here on - will be first discussed here and put up for open discussion for at least two or three days before being made. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 06:53, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you follow your own advice? You have deleted the whole controversy section without any consensus. This page is being blatantly whitewashed by IIPM-sympathizers and the admins are doing nothing about it. Makrandjoshi (talk) 18:41, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposing new section on new courses

IIPM seems to have added newer courses in strategic alliance with some foreign b-schools. I propose adding a new section just around the section on courses that not only lists out each specific course in detail, but also lists out the schools with which these are being done. Please comment Mrinal Pandey (talk) 06:58, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Seems interesting, well i feel all of us would like to get updated.--Mohit006 (talk) 07:52, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

I am fine with it as long as there are neutral cites (not press releases from IIPM), and not just primary source. There is already too much primary source information here. Makrandjoshi (talk) 18:46, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposing a section on ISBE

There's some new thing called ISBE that is a separate school of IIPM. I don't have details but on the initial research, it seems to be worth a section. I propose including the same out here as a newer section. Mrinal Pandey (talk) 07:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Use the sandbox for any new sections. If there is consensus, they can be added. Makrandjoshi (talk) 19:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Proposing another section on various Centres at/of IIPM

There seem to be many active Centres at IIPM for various management activities. I propose including those too. Mrinal Pandey (talk) 07:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Please make us aware, kindly add them soon--Fastmovement (talk) 10:51, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Awards won by IIPM internationally/nationally

I finally propose adding a separate section for awards won by IIPM at both international level and national level. Mrinal Pandey (talk) 07:01, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Awards are the achievements or can say the milestones achieved, i feel this sections should also be created.--Mohit006 (talk) 08:05, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Ranking cite added

Addition of Relevant Ranking cite...

http://www.zeebiz.com/bschool/BSchoolresult.html

Ok, good to see you learning the important of cites. I have reverted to the consensus version. Am now adding back the Zee Business ranking information with this cite. Makrandjoshi (talk) 18:54, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Comment about the recent sock puppets

This talk page is full of sock puppets and I have already blocked the most obvious ones. Please stop making more sock puppets to skew the consensus to support your view. It is a blatant violation of WP:SOCK. Secondly, I have reverted the article again to the consensus version since there was no consensus to delete verified and well-cited information, other than the discussion which was riddled with sock puppets. If you have anything you want to add, then please discuss these changes here and make these changes step by step and see if we can work something out. Continuing to disrupt Misplaced Pages with more sock puppets will only get you blocked, and making blatant changes without first establishing consensus, or blantantly ignoring community consensus, is very disruptive and it can get you blocked as well. 山本一郎 (会話) 11:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Hi Yamamoto Ichiro, finally a confirmation on sock puppets, something I had requested earlier too! Thanks! I completely accept your viewpoint that sock puppets' viewpoints should not be accepted. I also wish to add something to what you've said. It'll be really nice if you and the other administrators, keep a check that any and every change is first discussed here before being added; basically so that nobody makes "blatant changes without first establishing consensus, or blantantly ignores community consensus" as you've put it. Having said that, I hope you keep a track on a regular basis to disruptive changes from all editors, including sock puppets. And of course, if any editor - including I - are found to be making such disruptive changes without them being discussed out here, I would encourage you to surely block the person out. Thanks for leaving a descriptive viewpoint. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 12:39, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Seeing as I am the one who removed the full protection, I too have added this article to my watchlist and have been blocking socks rather liberally. Unfortunately, this seems to be more than just your run of the mill case of sockpuppetry and as such I have asked for a CheckUser to keep an eye on the page as well. It appears he has already blocked a few, but if it continues we will probably have to formulate a range block. Like Yamamoto has said above, anyone found to be abusively socking, edit warring, or otherwise disrupting the article be any means will be blocked. Tiptoety 17:12, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Also, please see Misplaced Pages:Requests for checkuser/Case/Mrinal Pandey. Tiptoety 22:26, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Mrinal, Sandox

Mrinal, you have proposed a lot of new sections. I suggest using a sandbox for putting up what you propose, and then, if all editors have a consensus, then adding those in. Don't add any new sections unilaterally, and also don't unilaterally delete the sections. Makrandjoshi (talk) 18:48, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Consensus, not majority or voting

Mrinal and Carlisle seem to be under the impression that majority, or some straw polls are the last word and binding. They are not. Misplaced Pages works on consensus and not on voting or strawpolls. So your strawpolls for deleting the controversy section, which is properly cited with reliable sources, is not binding unless it helps reach a consensus. And if you are deleting properly cited content without consensus and if it violates NPOV, you are flirting with vandalism. See this http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:!VOTE#Straw_poll_guidelines
A few relevant points -

1. The ultimate goal of any article discussion is consensus, and a straw poll is helpful only if it helps editors actually reach true consensus.
   
2. For that reason, article straw polls are never binding, and editors who continue to disagree with a majority opinion may not be shut out from discussions simply because they are in the minority. Similarly, editors who appear to be in the majority have an obligation to continue discussions and attempts to reach true consensus.
   
3. For the same reason, article straw polls should not be used prematurely. If it is clear from ongoing discussion that consensus has not been reached, a straw poll is unlikely to assist in forming consensus and may polarize opinions, preventing or delaying any consensus from forming.
   
4. Similarly, if a straw poll is inconclusive, or if there is disagreement about whether the question itself was fair, the poll and its results tend to simply be ignored.
   
5. Policies, such as NPOV and article sourcing, can obviously not be overridden by straw polls. People have been known to vote on a fact, which is ultimately pointless.
   

The last point is most important. The Controversy Section only has facts. No opinions. It contains facts about events that happened. So voting on it is pointless. Makrandjoshi (talk) 19:27, 1 December 2008 (UTC)

Removing primary source material

There is a lot of primary source material on the page not backed up by third party references. Such material has been there despite long standing requests for adding independent cites. So a lot of this page looks like an advertorial or prospectus for the institute. Removing the same. Makrandjoshi (talk) 18:51, 31 December 2008 (UTC)

Please add these too

Dear Makrand.. Pls add these too.

Under the seciton "Academics" Please add: A large number of students of IIPM are getting absorbing in IIPM's own organisations

Under the section "Unfair trade practices investigations" Please add: In July 2008, in view of IIPM's and other un recognised educational institutes advertisement blitzes in the Indian newspapers, India's cabinet minister for Human Resources Arjun Singh issued an appeal asking students entering the portals of higher education to satisfy themselves that their institutions are recognised under the relevant laws and are of quality and repute. "In particular, you should not merely go by the advertisements issued in the media by higher educational institutions, but satisfy yourselves by all counts in respect of quality and statutory recognition," Singh said in the appeal. Indeed IIPM have been one of the biggest print advertisers in India. IIPM advertises through its subsidiary Planman Consultant India. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Shankarjaikishen (talk • contribs) 08:39, 7 January 2009 (UTC)

Inviting Discussion

This page is under semi-protect. Whenever the protect has been lifted, sockpuppets or vandals have some to whitewash the page. So I extend an olive branch and invite those who have problems with this page to come and discuss what their problems are. If we get a discussion going, stick to wiki policy and all act in good faith, maybe we can avoid the constant protects on this page. Makrandjoshi (talk) 21:07, 28 January 2009 (UTC)

You're doing a good job improving the article. If more people like the anonymous editor in the section above come here with suggestions for improvements, we are happy to consider them.

Semi protection is a good compromise. Some articles are indefinitely semi-protected (see Muhammad for example) and I think that's a good idea. It allows established editors to make constructive improvements, and still allows unestablished/anonymous editors to make suggestions on the talk page. ~Amatulić (talk) 00:17, 29 January 2009 (UTC)

Kindly remove the following:-

Dear Makrand,

Kindly remove the following:-

IMI is an erstwhile diploma mill and a very private organisation whose degrees are not recognised by any Belgian or Flemish authority, and whose degree-holders can not make claims for further studies or access to regulated professions.

As the sources provided by you are from a blog i.e. (http://thalassamikra.blogspot.com/2005/10/information-pertaining-to-iipm.html) and not from the relevant cites.

--Gurmeet singgh (talk) 10:14, 4 February 2009 (UTC)Gurmeet

The cite is not used for opinion, but for the email in that blog-post from the relevant Belgian regulatory authority. Makrandjoshi (talk) 15:33, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Nevertheless, blogs are not considered reliable sources regardless of the content. If no reliable sources can be found to support that claim, it should be deleted. Furthermore, the claim seems to violate WP:NPOV by having Misplaced Pages take a position based on what someone put in his blog. ~Amatulić (talk) 18:40, 5 February 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough, Amatulic. I have deleted the contentious content. Makrandjoshi (talk) 19:01, 15 February 2009 (UTC)

Another Call for Discussions

The semi-protect will expire in 3 days. Unless we again want to go through the whole sock-puppets-blind-revet-followed-by-a-protect routine, we need to get some discussion going and reach a consensus that falls under wiki policy. So I invite those who are dissatisfied with this page to come forward and engage in discussion. Unjustified reverts will not get us anywhere and will get the page locked again. So come and discuss your problems as per wiki policy. Else, as Amatulić suggests above, I am afraid I too will be in favor of a permanent semi-protect for this article. Makrandjoshi (talk) 20:33, 2 March 2009 (UTC)

i am an ex student of iipm. the page on iipm is very very clearly a page that is being manipulated by people and groups with vested interests against iipm to malign the reputation of iipm. after having gone through all the discussion pages its very clear that makrand joshi has an anti iipm agenda and is hell bent on making iipms wiki page a uniquely different page from all other pages of all reputed b schools and universities of the world. i suggest that i be allowed to completely change the page as per the standards of any other page where in the introduction only the official version of an organisation is written. every other additional aspect should necessarily be sent to the controversy section and not remain in the very introduction itself. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Nav1000 (talk • contribs) 12:47, 15 March 2009 (UTC)

"in the introduction only the official version of an organisation is written". Nope, that's not what a WP:LEAD is. It's an introduction to whatever the article contains. The "official version" of anything is but one side of any story, and often a less than reliable one at that. DMacks (talk) 16:53, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Kindly unblock this page as i feel there is lot more that people should know (the real missing facts). Lets have a healthy discussion and make it better and let people know whats is IIPM all about.--Preetigroverr (talk) 04:17, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Requesting unblocking of the page as i feel people who are not aware of the real IIPM has putin the content.--Rohitkapoorr (talk) 06:57, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

You are welcome to have a healthy discussion and make it better here on the talk page and when there is some consensus of specific improvements to make, let admins know by placing a "{{editprotected}} tag. The long history of disruptive editing and sock-puppetry any time the article itself is unprotected have unfortunately ruined any chance of simply unprotecting the article for edits. DMacks (talk) 16:51, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

Yes, let's hear about "the real missing facts". If you want a healthy discussion, let's have it. Propose your changes on this talk page. Every time this article is un-protected, vandals come along and start a war, trying to white-wash the documented facts already in this article. If you have additional facts to present, then present them. ~Amatulić (talk) 17:46, 16 March 2009 (UTC)

International Management Institute (Belgium)

This article refers to degrees awarded by the International Management Institute in Belgium. This institution is not registered as a higher education institution in Belgium and can therefore not award recognised degrees. (Not recognised in Belgium means not recognised by any of the federated entities of Belgium)

And to be even more complete: registration is not such a difficult procedure. The accreditation of programmes is a different issue though. See: http://www.highereducation.be and http://www.nvao.net 81.164.220.185 (talk) 14:46, 19 March 2009 (UTC)

Unblock Request

Quite clearly, the page should be unlocked as soon as possible for more comments and new editors should be allowed to edit. I find semi-locks strangely and biasedly enforced on this page. It would have been quite easy to block vandals using an approach that I find Wiki administrators using on other pages where:

1. Administrators could block IP addresses of vandals

2. In case vandals use multiple IPs, administrators could use the facility to block IP ranges, which I believe they have.

3. Block user ids of vandals and proxy ids too.

Though I do appreciate that there has been a temporary semi-protect placed some time back, I believe this is a good time to remove it as (and I quote from Wiki policy), "Page protection should not be used solely to prevent editing by anonymous and newly registered users. In particular, it should not be used to settle content disputes." And I hope that this is not the case currently going on with this page as I find it strange that editors who have registered beyond three months are still not allowed to edit. I request administrators to kindly remove the edit lock.

Sincerely, Dean.A.Sandeep (talk) 11:48, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

The history of protection and vandalism of this article pretty clearly demonstrates that nothing short of the current protection strategy keeps the vandals out, so "as soon as possible" is essentially "probably never":( Anyone and everyone with actual content ideas has been repeatedly invited to propose specific edits and discuss here on the talk-page, and then those edits which seem viable can then be implemented by any established user. This is standard for all articles with any type of protection. Given that users aren't doing this despite years of repeated invites helps reinforce the point that serious editors don't have serious concerns and specific improvements to make. DMacks (talk) 15:10, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

I agree. I and other editors monitor this talk page, ready to discuss any suggestions for improving the article. In the past couple of years of article protection, none have been forthcoming.

When this article has been briefly unprotected, it suddenly experiences many edits (often from sockpuppet accounts) without prior discussion. That tells me that those who want to make changes to this article have zero interest in discussing those changes. Misplaced Pages doesn't work that way. If you have suggestions, propose them here. ~Amatulić (talk) 16:50, 31 March 2009 (UTC)

Careers 360 article

I have edited the article to include in relevant places information published in an investigative article by the Indian education magazine Careers 360 http://www.careers360.in/lead-story/iipm---best-only-in-claims.html Have also added a small subsection under controversies summarizing the findings from the article. Makrandjoshi (talk) 15:39, 22 June 2009 (UTC)

Interestng article

I noticed many links that are either outdated or actually link to news not related with what is being mentiond in the line using the reference. Can I request editors to do the same? I'm only making grammatical corrections, that are more or less minor. Tks Wifione (talk) 08:18, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Please check the following for me guys. Is plagiarism and tax evasion major controversies to be mentioned in the opening para? Tks Wifione (talk) 08:24, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

And please also help me clear out repetitive lines throughout the description. For example, in various sections, the non-accreditation is mentioned repeatedly. Can we reduce these repetitions? It looks a little too made up. But please discuss and give me suggestions (or kindly do it yourself). Tks Wifione (talk) 08:30, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Tax evasion is a big controversy, a big crime, as is plagiarism, especially for a supposedly educational institution. They belong in the intro. Makrandjoshi (talk) 13:13, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Proposed deletion of Jam link and Careers 360

1. Though JAM calls itslef JAM magazine (I guess Just Another Magazine), there is no confirmation that this is a magazine. There is no registeration of it as a magazine or a newspaper. I tried to search but could not find. I propose some editor kindly give confirmation of the same. As I guess we can give references of only authentic newspapers or magazines.

To that effect, the Career 360 article doesn't pass muster. Even the link is some 'beta' version. So deleting the same. Tks Wifione (talk) 08:39, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

For the sake of editors, I'm giving the official link of Registrar of Indian Newspapers https://rni.nic.in/octnov.asp. Please help me find out the names of the above two mentioned entities so that we can put their data, details and links correctly. Tks Wifione (talk) 08:44, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

And editors, also, hopefully the above two will come out registered. How important and long standing are these reporting agencies that we should dedicate paragraphs for their reports. I need your inputs please. (Kindly change the page yourself if you get the details). tks Wifione (talk) 09:06, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

JAM magazine and careers 360 both qualify as WP:RS. In fact, Careers 360 has links with the Outlook group. No point in removing them. --Nvineeth (talk) 09:49, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

I disagree with the proposed deletion. Both JAM and Careers360 are magazines that qualify as reliable sources. They are registered magazines, not newspapers, so you won't find them listed in a registrar of newspapers. Makrandjoshi (talk) 13:12, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Pleas see here http://www.televisionpoint.com/news2009/newsfullstory.php?id=1239287881 Careers360 is a legitimate education magazine being distributed by the Outlook group. It was launched by Dr. Abdul Kalam, the former President of India. It is also available at all major news stands in India. Makrandjoshi (talk) 13:57, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Sockpuppet Investigation Requested for Wifione

FYI for everyone here, I have requested a sockpuppet investigation for Wifione. The pattern of edits, marked by white-washing the page, deleting cited material, and so on are similar to how Mrinal_Pandey and his sockpuppets operated. The ivnestigation page is here, if you want to make comments - http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Sockpuppet_investigations/Mrinal_Pandey Makrandjoshi (talk) 15:04, 26 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi! I'm taken aback at the accusation within a day of my changing something that was not supposed to be seen this way. Dear Makrand, the only reason I changed the tax evasion and plagiarism stuff was because I did think that the plagiarim stuff didn't seem controversy! It's a plain statement of BusinessWeek to which IIPM has replied giving details of from where they have the copyright. With reference to the tax evasion part that I took out, when I saw the government link you had provided, it did not mention any detail of the tax being evaded. You seemed to have drawn a conjecture based on the government link you've provided. I do request you to see the government link again and if you have a problem, feel free to discuss the same and the plagiarism issue which I really don't think is a controversy.

Anyways I also have to say that despite what you are saying, I still haven't found any proof of JAM or careers360 being reputed third party sources. I think being 'reputed' is essential for a magazine or a newspaper. I do not know on what parameter are you considering JAM magazine reputed or Careers 360. I would look forward to your comments. YOu have given a link of some 'totalpoint' website to prove that careers360 is a magazine that was launched in April 2009. There are two issues. First of all April 2009 means the magazine is only 3 months old. I fail to see how it has become reputed in 3 to 4 months. Secondly, the link you have given of totalpoint is of a trade and media buying website which simply collates information and even totalpoint is not a reputed news magazine.

I simply have deleted details that do not seem to come from reputed newspaper or magazine. I do know that there are many reputed newspapers including CNN, BBC, WashingtonPost and even BusinessWeek that have existed for years.

But I do hope that accusing a fellow editor for being a sockpuppet within a day of her editing is not a display of your discontent at someone removing your third party sourced content from not reputed websites, which are still not confirmed news magazines. In good faith, I request you to kindly not take this as a personal attack. I am reporting you in a day or two when I get time for this issue, that you have branded me as a sock puppet simply because of your personal sources have been removed. Thanks,Wifione (talk) 10:17, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I don't know about socket puppet claims, but I would like to comment on usage of Careers 360. Careers 360 being a initiative of outlook group qualifies as a WP:RS. The JAM article being used as a reference can be easily replaced with other articles for ex from Hindu, Indian Express. However this article has quite a few issues related to sourcing-- blogs and IIPM website references should be removed. --Nvineeth (talk) 11:04, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

Blog and JAM

Nvineeth, I see that you have removed the Gaurav Sabnis blog. It was not used as a third party "reliable source" per se, but mentioned as being at the center of the controversy. IIPM sued him for his blog, he resigned, and so on. So it is more of a link about the incident, and not a third party source of information about IIPM. Here are some other examples of wikipedia pages regarding blog-related controversies where blogs have been linked. http://en.wikipedia.org/Ahiruddin_Attan http://en.wikipedia.org/Aaron_Wall http://en.wikipedia.org/Ellen_Simonetti Secondly, why should the JAM article be replaced? JAM is a legitimate and registered magazine that has been around for over a decade and is available at all news stands. It fits the WP:RS qualification. I can understand concerns over the neutrality of articles from that magazine AFTER IIPM sued the magazine. But the article being linked here was written and published before that lawsuit, and was meant as an investigation. As such, it is no different than the Careers360 article, and is vital for this page being encyclopedic. Makrandjoshi (talk) 15:42, 29 June 2009 (UTC)

I dont dispute JAM magazine, I just indicated above the even without JAM magazine there are several other sources to put across the point. A Blog being self published is better to be avoided, however WP:EL makes some exceptions & the blog being an important piece, at least belongs to external links section --Nvineeth (talk) 05:46, 30 June 2009 (UTC)

Hi Makrand, I repeat. Blogs can be never used as a reference in corporate wiki descriptions. Just count the number of blog references you have used and you will realise where I'm coming from. To defend your actions, you have given extremely rare and exceptional cases which themselves are hugely debatable. I request you to go through Wiki's policy document on editing and show to me a line that proves that blogs can be referred to so freely in this description. For your benefit, I am ready to wait for another day before starting editing on this page. Having said that, you still haven't answered many questions that I had asked. Why should BusinessWeek be considered a controversy when the statements given in the document you have referenced are self explanatory? How have you re-put the part of tax evasion when the government document you refer to does not contain the same detail claiming that there has been an investigation? Coming over to JAM, what verifiable reference are you providing to support your claim that JAM has been sued by IIPM - as you claim? I could not find a link. I'll appreciate it if you can provide the same. You say JAM is a legitimate and registered magazine that has been around for over a decade and is available at all newsstands. I checked. It's not available at any newsstand that I know of. Perhaps it is sold in some specific quarters you might know. But that's not acceptable evidence. On what basis are you saying that JAM is functioning for over a decade? Are you ready to quote any third party sources (please, not blogs) that say that JAM is (1) reputed (2) functioning for over a decade (3) is available at all newsstands? There're are national readership surveys in India. I would really appreciate it if you can show me one reference to the same which also says JAM is reputed. I fail to see how you are sticking to the point that JAM is certified as being respectable? I'm sorry but all I'm trying to bring out is that the first change that is done by me in the page is seen in bad faith by you. Further to this, I request you to kindly give me the following clarification. When you say Careers360 is respectable because it has Mr. Maheshwar Peri as publisher (he presumably was/is the publisher of Outlook), then I would request you to understand that in India, if you see a publisher's definition, as accepted by the registration of newspapers in India department, then a publisher is one who actually handles the printing of the magazine, and not the editing. Outlook is of course a respectable magazine because of Mr. Vinod Mehta who has been there for years. You cannot assume the correlation that a name of a financial investor defines the respectability of a magazine, which is 3 months old. Mr. Peri is the financial investor, not the editor of Career360, in the same way as the Raheja Group is the investor in Outlook. If you were to go by the huge hits that the Raheja Group has taken in the past and assume that therefore, Outlook is not respectable, I would hold that argument to be wrong. So kindly tell me why should a 3 month old magazine which has a JNU research scholar as an editor, should be considered reputed and valid to be included in the IIPM description. I'll also await your response to the fact that I propose (or I suggest, if propose is too strong a word for you) to remove all information related to links that no longer exist on verifiable third-party sites. I shall wait for your answers to my questions for a day before proceeding with the changes. Thanks and cheers, Wifione (talk) 09:15, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

To respond to your questions

1. Firstly, blogs are not being referred "freely" in this article. There was just one cite which Vineeth removed, and as we have discussed, it can be included as an external link.
   
2. About JAM and 360, everyone who doesn't have a vested interest like you do, knows their eligibility as WP:RS. You are indulging in long-winded and circular logic, which I have seen from you before (under different names), and which I have no interest in rehashing. If you want to delete information references from there, go ahead. I will report you to admins for removing validly cited material, and it will also prove my suspicion that you are indeed the same sockmaster.
3. What exactly do you mean when you say the plagiarism controversy is not a controversy because it is "self explanatory"? A so-called educational institution indulging in plagiarism, as exposed by USA Today ( http://www.usatoday.com/tech/news/2006-07-31-net-plagiarism_x.htm ) it is a controversy. And even the response by IIPM is by no means "self-explanatory", nor does it answer several questions raised by this plagiarism record.
4. About tax evasion, again, what are you saying? Read the cited links, and they mention investigations or proceedings being initiated against IIPM for tax fraud.
5. You are saying IIPM never made legal threats to JAM? Really? This is SOOOOOOO indicative of the same sockmaster - raising spurious questions which are commo knowledge, wasting people's time asking for "proof" for that, and then vandalizing the article. Anyway, here are two links that I got in like a few seconds of googling http://www.ojr.org/ojr/stories/051026glaser/ http://www.outlookindia.com/full.asp?fodname=20051031&fname=Internet+(F)&sid=1 May I suggest that you start using google?
6. Finally, this whole "I am going to wait for a day and then start deleting stuff I dont like" statement and approach is again SOOOOOOO indicative of Mrinal Pandey the sockmaster who kept saying this. Makrandjoshi (talk) 10:56, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

Dear Makrand Joshi, I have to request you to write calmly. I feel you are trying to steamroll and harass an editor. If you're accusing me of being a person called Mrinal Pandey, I feel completely harrassed by your accusation. Wifione (talk) 12:09, 30 July 2009 (UTC)

Third opinion is fine, but not enough points raised to discuss the addition of disputed tag. --Nvineeth (talk) 03:41, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Nvineeth, I have already put up the issue of unverifiable citations in this article on the disputes forum of wikipedia. Plus, the article also has a non-neutral point of view. I have also put up this article for third party point of view on the relevant wikipedia forum as i believe the discussion is between two editors only that is me and makrand joshi. in case you believe there are more editors interested in this article, then please refer to the disputes forum where i've put the issue. cheers, Wifione (talk) 03:55, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality of the article

i think the neutrality of certain sections of this article is questionable. i have changed the first paragraph to include a neutral initial line which offers the appropriate introduction of the institute. i have not taken away any other lines from the first paragraph but ensured that firstly the institute is defined. cheers Wifione (talk) 05:00, 31 July 2009 (UTC)

Mrinal, we've gone over this before many times. Just saying that "neutrality is questionable" is not sufficient. You need to provide specific quotes and examples. Instead you are deleting relevantly cited WP:RS material, and instead adding primary source information. And also adding tags that administrators should be adding. Am reverting your unilateral edits. Makrandjoshi (talk) 05:07, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

Quoting from Misplaced Pages:NPOV_dispute (emphasis mine) - Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages:No original research and Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Makrandjoshi (talk) 05:16, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

i thank you for your points. i request you to be kindly calm, civil and responsible in your writing. also request you to kindly stop addressing me as mrinal. i would like to inform that i had only added information in the introduction making it more encyclopaedic (for example i had added tags that noted what is national economic planning) and had also added the fct that the institute is a society. your deleting the same is not in the nature of encyclopaedic additions. my request is kindly do not delete added information. your efforts to improve the same are appreciated. secondly, i had not added the point of view tag. perhaps you mistook the tag. whenever i add the point of view tag i obviously will add the reasons on the talk page. i had added the factuality dispute tag. i am disputing the factuality of your career360 article which is clearly a fringe theory article. i have put up the article for third point view and I have also put up the article at the dispute forum. you are encouraged to add your view there. please do realise, the tag i have put does not mention pov, but that there is a dispute in factuality of the sections. thanks you and cheers Wifione (talk) 09:46, 2 August 2009 (UTC)Wifione (talk) 09:50, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

The facts you added about the societies act are from the IIPM website itself, hence primary source material. Check WP:RS. You also did a mini-whitewash by removing the term "unaccredited" from the description, and reworded some sentences to make them favor IIPM. Furthermore, you are adding the tag inappropriately. Hence I have reverted to a previous version. Makrandjoshi (talk) 20:13, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Editing the article to make it more "encyclopedic"=

A lot of the article reads like a prospectus for the institute, with a lot of information cited from the IIPM website itself. With an aim to make the article more relevant, realistic and encyclopedic, from a third-person point of view sans any vested interests, I am making some changes to the article. Some sections are too short and shallow, and seem to exist just to give a PR bullet point to the institute. I have integrated these sections, without deleting the, into other sections. Some information is from primary sources and excessively laudatory towards IIPM without any corroboration. Its only purpose seems to be glorifying the institute. I have tried to remove all such superfluous uncited or primary-source information. I think the article is a lot more crisp and tight now. Makrandjoshi (talk) 06:39, 1 August 2009 (UTC)

dear editor, kindly do not remove tags which have not been resolved. i had put up a tag that told readers that i have put up the controversy section for discussion in a forum. please do not delete tags which have not been resolved. cheers Wifione (talk) 09:54, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

dear makrand, i also notice you have been regularly a 'single purpose account' for a large time. is there any reason that might be so or is it that you might be only interested in editing this page? cheers Wifione (talk) 10:10, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

third party comments

user Makrand Joshi (http://en.wikipedia.org/User:Makrandjoshi) has included a completely new section based on a source called Career 360.

After elongated discussions on the discussions page, I have said the above mentioned Careers 360 link is not reliable due to the following reasons: 1. Career 360 is a website that has been launched only two to three months back. 2. The number of journalists in that web site is only one (therefore, the number of people who might have verified the details is less). 3. The publisher of the site is a person called Maheshwar Peri who is well known as being a (former) publisher with a leading magazine called Outlook in India. But in India, the term 'publisher' is meant for the person who invests in the magazine, not the one who reports as a journalist. 4. the legal link in the website says that the website is owned by M/s Pathfinder Publishing Private Limited. It also mentions that "PPPL does not endorse or subscribe to the suggestions, advice and views of the authors of the content." It means that the owners do not subscribe to their own website's contents. 5. The website is a beta version.

I need your help in advising me whether the one link, on the basis of which one whole section has come up, is correct or not. Thanks.

Current Editors, kindly note: this section is purely for Third party comments unrelated with this article. The link on the third party forum has already been put up. The policy guideline for this section mentions that current editors or those connected with current editors should not give comments on third party requests. So current editors, kindly do not give comments out here. cheers and thanks Wireless Fidelity Class One 11:36, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

I see that you are making your own rules here, pls read WP:RS. What do you mean by third party requests and there is no wikipedia guideline which says "current editors or those connected with current editors should not give comments on third party requests".--Nvineeth (talk) 04:02, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

dear Nvineeth, perhaps you should look at the following link http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Third_opinion. cheers, Wireless Fidelity Class One 05:03, 3 August 2009 (UTC) Wireless Fidelity Class One 05:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

Misplaced Pages:3O is applicable only when there are two editors. But in this there are more than two, and the consensus is against addition of neutrality tag. Hope this is clear. Moreover, the hypothetical reasons quoted for the inclusion of disputed tag are not valid either. There are more than one editors who are opposing the disputed tag. Hope this is clear. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:08, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

dear Nvineeth, i request you to kindly note that the third party opinion tag is an informal tag put in good faith as i presume the career360 issue is between me and makrand. the 'fact dispute' tag is a tag that represents a clear factual dispute existing between editors. you cannot remove the same when there is a clear fact dispute. i am putting up this incident to the administrative noticeboard and requesting their comments. kindly do not remove the tag. Wireless Fidelity Class One 06:27, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

About Careers360, it is not just a website, but a magazine available on news stands in India. Like all publications, it has a website too. I have idea where you got the information that it has only one journalists. Stories on it have been written by a variety of different people. It is a magazine started by Maheshwar Peri who is still (not former, as you falsely claim) the Publisher and President of the Outlook Group. refer the Outlook website - http://www.outlookindia.com/aboutus.asp This magazine's launch is widely known, and was even reported in the Wall Street Journal's business newspaper in India - Mint - http://www.livemint.com/2009/01/05213711/Outlook-publisher-launches-own.html I don't understand what the website being in the Beta phase has to do with it not being WP:RS. I would love to hear third party comments, especially from wiki editors in India, about this astounding claim that careers360 is not reliable source. Makrandjoshi (talk) 20:59, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

fact disputed tag

editors kindly note. do NOT remove the tag of factuality dispute till the dispute has been resolved. the relevant link is as follows: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Accuracy_dispute cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One 11:56, 2 August 2009 (UTC)

as some editors are removing the tags, i have requested administrators to help us out in this issue. the relevant link is . cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One 06:39, 3 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wifione (talk • contribs)

I repeat. Quoting from Misplaced Pages:NPOV_dispute (emphasis mine) - Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages:No original research and Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Makrandjoshi (talk) 20:15, 3 August 2009 (UTC)

dear Makrand. i request you to be calm in your writing and I put forward to you these poings.

firstly, you must have realised that we both seem to be having a clear dispute with respect to career 360 which sees us both at differing ends. that is why i have put up this dispute at the relevant forum, whose link i have given above. therefore, if you remove the tag, you are not acknowledging the fact that we both are having a dispute.

secondly, the dispute i am currently having with you is with respect to the accuracy of the link of career 360 which does not seem reliable. therefore, you would have noticed that i have not put up the POV or NPOV tag but the Factuality Disputed tag. hence if you address our dispute as the NPOV dispute, it is not addressing the dispute correctly. and your quoting Misplaced Pages policy is acknowledged by me, but my issue is that the policy is not quoted from the correct page. therefore I went and found out the policy on the correct page of Accuracy Dispute, which I reproduce for you in the following brackets (...if a dispute arises: insert a "Disputed" section in the talk page to describe the problem. This will help focus contributions from others. Paste 'disputed' in the beginning of the article to add a general warning. Check dispute resolution for ways to resolve it)...

thirdly, alongwith removing the Accuracy Dispute tag, you perhaps are reverting to the older version, and therefore perhaps accidentally removing the third party input tag too. And even the additional citations i have given in the first paragraph. therefore I request you not to remove the same.

fourthly, i encourage you to participate in the discussion to improve the page. if you believe career 360 is a reliable and accurate link, then let us both support the views on the Reliabile Sources noticeboard and on the Accuracy Disputes noticeboard. it'll help us get this article back on line.

I really wish to work with you encouragingly from here on. cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One 06:18, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

If your only concern is with the Careers360 link, then as a compromise I suggest posting the disputed tag on that section as opposed to the whole article. The way I see it, you are tagging the whole article as disputed based on just one source which you and you alone are refusing to admit is WP:RS. Makrandjoshi (talk) 12:58, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

Point of View query

dear editors, is there any line or any lines that might seem not to have a neutral point of view? please discuss if you believe so. cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One 06:15, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

i notice that nobody has answered my query on the pov issue. i am again requesting editors to tell me if they think the article in terms of space and weight given to the various statements and sections, is not in a neutral point of view? i suspect the same but perhaps am wrong. cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One 05:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wireless Fidelity Class One 05:26, 17 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wifione (talk • contribs)

Wifione, some points

Here are some points about editing. Please do address them one by one.

1. Firstly, please always sign your comments with four tildes. It is common wikipedia etiquette.

dear makrand, do help me out here. i do always put the four tildes after what i write. i can tell you truthfully that many times even though it shows in my edit preview that i have signed properly, when i view the page again, it shows that i have not signed. and when i put four tildes again, somehow the link to my user page or talk page does not even show up. i am sure you would have noticed the second eccentricity in my signatures too. if you can help me sort this out, i'll be grateful. Wireless Fidelity Class One 05:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

1. The first line of the article - you keep inserting info saying IIPM was set up under the Societies Registration Act in 1973, but the reference you give is from IIPM's own website. That is a primary source, which is why I remove it. Check WP:RS

i believed primary sources can be put where the information is not a disputed information. i believed the societie's registration act is valid information. however, we can discuss about this too. thanks for your reply. Wireless Fidelity Class One 05:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

1. You are also removing the word "unaccredited" from the first line. Are you disputing the fact that IIPM is unaccredited? Because IIPM admits so itself and the same has been mentioned in other third party sources too. In light of that, your removal of that word is tantamount to deleting validly cited information.

i am not disputing the fact. i am perhaps referring to a point that perhaps the word unaccredited is repeated too many times. my request to you would be to look at the space and weight issue in the word (the no of repetitions). i thank u for the response. look forward to your comments. Wireless Fidelity Class One 05:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

1. The links from NBER and ULIP you inserted in the first para don't work. I have removed them. Feel free to replace them if you find working links.

thanks for this point. Wireless Fidelity Class One 05:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

1. A request. You have posted requests about this articles on so many different forums - third party, reliable source, admin etc... it is hard to keep track. The rule in all such things is to inform the other party on their talk page by leaving a link to the relevant pages. Like I did for you last month. You posted only one such link on my talk page, leaving out the others. Could you list the links to all your complaints/requests on my talk page, and also here on this talk page for other editors to see? Makrandjoshi (talk) 13:19, 4 August 2009 (UTC)

my fault makrand. i'll do so. sorry again. cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One 05:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wifione, a) IIPM beings set up under that act in 1973 is disputed..... it implies the institute is over 35 years old, which seems to be an attempt to give it legitimacy and hence should be verified by a reliable source, not just primary b) If you are not disputing the fact of it being unaccredited, then unilaterally removing it constitutes removal of valid and true information. And given that accreditation is an important issue for an educational institute, I and other editors think it belongs in the introduction. Makrandjoshi (talk) 11:51, 20 August 2009 (UTC)

careers 360 & disputed tag

Referring to the discussion at the reliable sources noticeboard, careers 360 is a WP:RS, also see the analysis at the end by an uninvolved editor. I will be removing the disputed tag. --Nvineeth (talk) 06:34, 6 August 2009 (UTC)

dear Nvineeth, i am putting up a compromise and putting the tag only in the section in dispute... thanks Wireless Fidelity Class One 05:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Wireless Fidelity Class One 05:06, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Why should there be tags at all? If the forum complaints you raised have resolved the issue that Careers 360 is WP:RS, what is the factual accuracy dispute? Could you please list down what information is factually disputed, and provide counter-links to it, so we can try to make it NPOV? Makrandjoshi (talk) 15:01, 17 August 2009 (UTC)

Vir Sanghvi on Careers 360 and IIPM

The editors here might be interested in reading the opinion of Vir Sanghvi, one of the most respected names in Indian media, about Careers 360 and IIPM. http://www.virsanghvi.com/CounterPoint-ArticleDetail.aspx?ID=340 Makrandjoshi (talk) 11:28, 18 August 2009 (UTC)

Interesting surely. Seems like a blog maintained by him which is self-published and not editorially overlooked. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 08:26, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Absolutely. Which is why I did not add it as a source, nor include any information from it for the main article. Just sharing it here for other editors. Makrandjoshi (talk) 21:12, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Cool. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:28, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Neutrality

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

Users interested in whitewashing this page to hide any uncharitable information keep raising questions about its neutrality. Just general questions. Nothing specific. All the information in this article is cited, and the language is NPOV with no opinions driving anything. If you check the talk pages up there, you will see that the issues raised on admin and other boards have been resolved. So I have no idea where this new tag has come from and what its reasons are. The older issues mentioned in the talk have been taken care of. So I am removing the tag. If someone wants to put it back up, please mention, pointwise, how this article violates NPOV. Oh and also, stop inserting "business school". The institute itself admits it does not offer BBA or MBA degrees, is unaccredited, and its own degrees are in something called "national planning and entrepreneurship". It is NOT a business school. I am reverting the edits that suggest otherwise. Makrandjoshi (talk) 20:08, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

OK, the tag seems to have been added by user Stifle, an admin so I am letting it remain. But this issue has been beaten to death in talk pages and on boards. I hope the review is done soon. Makrandjoshi (talk) 20:11, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

I saw that Stifle was an admin, so I wondered if there was more to it. There's a lot of content in the controversies section, but it looks pretty heavily referenced to me. I'm inclined to remove the notice unless someone can point out some specifics. Let's give it a week and see if anyone replies here. If not, take off the neutrality tag.

As for the "business school" bit, that's by indef blocked User:Rock5410. He's added "business school" to at least 50 articles. I've tried to clean it up, but he comes back and reverts it and it's just not important enough to me to start 50 edit wars with him. You're welcome to try if you'd like. This guy has had 7 different user names, all of which are now blocked, but he changes IP addresses about twice a day so the only way to actually stop him is multiple rangeblocks. I've been trying to minimize his disruptions since July but I'm at a loss as to where to go at this point. Neither ANI nor SPI has done much more than slow him down, so I'm open to suggestions if you have a better way to handle him. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 21:13, 10 November 2009 (UTC)

Unfortunately you also added again a line that had been taken out by the administrator Stifle. Therefore, have to add that back. 58.68.49.70 (talk) 09:15, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Rather than doing full reverts and edit warring as you just did, why don't we try dealing with these line by line? Let's start at the top, one change at a time. Why do you feel the infobox should link to Private school instead of Private university? "Because an admin did it" isn't reason enough; I think the admin ended up with some collateral damage with his previous edits. You need to justify why that link is the better one if you're going to keep putting it back. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 09:35, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

Admins are editors just like everyone else, and they make mistakes. An admin's edits have no more value than those of any other well-established editor. The only difference is their ability to enforce policies through article protection and user blocking, and those abilities are irrelevant to editor consensus about article content. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:46, 11 November 2009 (UTC)

one start point could be to check the space n balance of the article. mebbe the size of the article devoted to controversies versis the size of the article devoted to mentioning the institution. that seems sckewed. I read that npov means not just mentioning what may be true or false but mentioneing the other point of view also. right? then everywhere whwhere unaccredited is written we also cld also include the line that the court has asked the accreditation bodies to not include the bschool in their list. And also we cld write a line that ugc and aict have been declared to be corrupted bodies with the ministry of education in india wanting to close them down. or mebbe we could incld that the chairman of aict has been arrested by government agencies for corruption last month. would that be npov? 58.68.49.70 (talk) 07:47, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

If they are unaccredited, obviously they shouldn't be included in the accreditation bodies' lists. That's what unaccredited means; I don't think defining the word repeatedly within the article helps this Institute's reputation. But it sounds like you aren't trying to remove any of the current controversies, just add more things for balance. Is that right? Given the controversies and edit warring, it seems most productive for you to write up what you propose adding for balance. Rather than adding it directly in the article, post it here on the talk page so we can come to consensus before it's added and avoid it being reverted. If you have some positive things directly about IIPM that are backed up with reliable sources, I don't see a problem with adding more for balance. But if you're going to throw out accusations of corruption, the sources need to be solid. That isn't something we can include in the article until we know it's supported, just like the controversies section has been supported with numerous sources. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:35, 12 November 2009 (UTC)

I read your comments above WeisheitSuchen. Good idea. I've given a sample first two paras. Tell me how you like it. I've checked the references. All news (corruption and stuff) is available on websites of leading newspapers in India). If we load the first two paras out here, we could add the references too. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:23, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM) is a private college with its headquarters in New Delhi, India. Founded in 1973, the institution offers two year and three year full time certificate programmes in National Economic Planning and Entrepreneurship, which makes its students eligible to apply for MBA/BBA degrees from IMI Belgium. IIPM also offers programmes for working executives. The institute has its main campus in New Delhi and has branches in nine other cities in India. The Founding Director of IIPM is Dr. M. K. Chaudhuri, and the Honorary Dean is Arindam Chaudhuri.

IIPM's programmes are not accredited by Indian regulatory bodies such as AICTE and UGC which also mention IIPM is not authorised to operate as a university in India. According to the institute, it has never claimed it is a university, nor sought recognition from regulatory bodies or accreditation agencies as its courses are non-technical and non-professional and do not come under the purview of bodies like AICTE and UGC. In 2009, the Union Minister of Education formally communicated his intentions of closing down AICTE and UGC - due to corruption and inefficiency charges against the bodies - in favour of a larger regulatory body with more sweeping powers.

Do please check the main page. I've put some references there so that it makes sense. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:43, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

WeisheitSuchen, just wanted to add another point that no colleges in India are accredited. Their courses are (or are not). Therefore, the construction of a sentence should perhaps be referring to the courses being unaccredited, not the college in itself. But still, do clear the refernces I've given in the main page. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:03, 13 November 2009 (UTC)

The ACADEMICS section

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

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

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

I bring another paragraph within the ACADEMICS section

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

The single purpose account editor says that 'However, many IIPM students are hired by Planman.' The reference he/she gives clearly doesn't mention that at all, and simply says that across India, many institutions like 'Indian Institute of Planning and Management invites companies to the campus, but also offers placements at its sister concern, Planman Consulting.'. I clearly notice how words have been engineered radically to give a negative twist by one singular editor. Instead of the single purpose account editor giving top newspaper references more easily available that mention IIPM has had 100% placements, he/she again refers to the reference of Career360 or IIPM's website (that anyway should be used less for such things as placements).

Clearly, the source of Career360 should be cut down because a single source purporting statements that are not widely referenced (max by 2 or 3 self referencing tabloids, and not at all by respected newspapers). But beyond this, I also mention other points . The source of Career 360 is used like a garnishing throughout the article. And even through the paragraph of ACADEMICS in question. Clearly, the single purpose account editor in question has used the source with a very biased point of view and without the support of other sources. There are no other sources used, although a random search on Google news search shows to me some top newspapers quoting that IIPM placements are very very good. Or that GOTA is brilliantly being done. Of course, the argument can be that why don't we put sources that say these things. We should. Provided single purpose accounts are brought into a discussion mode on whether they'll have a problem if such widely referenced sources are put (as it seems they have deleted valid references, merged valid sections like Gota, and worked widely towards giving a biased point of view to the article, at the same time rejected the idea of tagging the article for questioning the article's point of view, validity of sources etc).

I refer to another line on placements added by the single purpose account editor in the paragraph called ACADEMICS.

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

My argument cannot be clearer out here. While valid references are quoted, again the Career360 source is quoted without any other newspaper source confirming that.

Therefore, out here, my request is that editors should

a. Divide the paragraph ACADEMICS into more paragraphs with more headings (if I am allowed to go ahead, I will do that).

b. Add more widely sourced valid references rather than a single source purporing a not widely held point of view (again, if I am allowed, I will do that).

c. Encourage the single purpose account to maintain a neutral point of view rather than starting with a point of view that simply is disruptive.

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

My primary goal here is to get everyone to stop the repeated wholesale reverting and edit warring that was happening. Makrandjoshi and 58.68.49.70, what do you think about suggestions a, b, & c above? Wifione, can you give them a week to respond before doing the edits? Last time you added your two paragraphs here and then waited less than 20 minutes before changing the main article. Obviously that wasn't enough time for anyone to share an opinion or for you to gain consensus. These battles have been going on for over a year; I'm sure one more week won't hurt anything. It would be an excellent sign of good faith in the discussion to pause for comment before acting again. I'm concerned that if we don't get to consensus before making the changes that we'll just continue to see edit warring here and our time will be wasted. If nobody comments in a week though, go ahead and do the edits. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 10:41, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I apologize; I hadn't really taken the time to read through the history with this article, as there has been so much (plus the forum shopping makes it hard to track things down). Wifione, the arguments about Careers360 have already been rejected once. It meets the guidelines for a WP:RS, end of discussion. You can't take out that content just because you disagree with it.

Although you should not remove any content currently included in the Controversies or Academics sections, I think it would be acceptable to include more content from an alternate perspective. The goal here is not to remove all the negative content, but to show both sides and let readers decide for themselves.

I couldn't even initially figure out who you thought was a single-purpose account. I looked at the edit histories of everyone recently involved and saw that everyone was editing multiple topics, which is the definition. Finally looking at your accusations elsewhere I figured out that you mean Makrandjoshi. Makrandjoshi has edited a bunch of unrelated articles though; take a look at Rajnigandha or Sunny Leone or WikiBaseball, for examples. On the other hand, I'd estimate that about half your edits are related to this article. Let's cut the name-calling. Makrandjoshi's view isn't disruptive; you are the one who has done the forum shopping and is attempting to undo the previous decision on Careers360 because it didn't go your way.

Basically, of your three suggestions above, I think B is acceptable. You can add more sources to balance the arguments, as long as you don't remove any of the sourced content already in the article. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 14:34, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with you WeisheitSuchen. More or less, I would say. I think you make sense out here. And I'll post a personal apology on his/her website if that makes a difference... I'll go one step ahead and put the page back to the version before the change. That'll give people a chance to comment in good faith. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:09, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi WeisheitSuchen, I just wanted to add one more small comment that I'd added on the reliability board. I would also like editors commenting out here to note that while a few weeks back, I had raised the question of whether Career360 is a valid source, this time, I'm also necessarily showing how it is now being used as almost a singular source of reporting across the article (the paragraph in question espeically) for negative points of view. Therefore, my question is on how can a single source --- whose claims are not widely held (not a fringe theory, but almost) ---- be used so many times throughout the article, wherein there are other sources much more credible and for too many more years in publication which report other points of view? Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 07:18, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Wifione, you are welcome to include sources with IIPM's responses the the Career360 site to show another side. As was explained to you in August, Career360 meets the standards for a reliable source. The fact that Outlook has history with IIPM doesn't make them not reliable. If that was the standard, then the other side of the argument would be that nothing IIPM says about Career360 would be able to be included either. You've already been told to add the other sources. Is there a reason you're resisting posting those sources and added content here for review? Let's see what you've got to add and stop beating the dead horse about Career360. The way to achieve balance is by adding, not subtracting. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 19:55, 15 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Weisheitsuchen. The metaphor of beating a dead horse is nice. But in your arguments, you miss the point completely. My question refers to the number of times the link of Career 360 is used. If you count, you'll realise that the source is repeated 7 times in an article that has only 40 odd external links. You'll very clearly realise that if there has been an point of view oversight, one clearly is in the space and balance with which this reference is being used -- one which you too are missing. The concept of neutral point of view does not only include how you look at every statement or argument within the article, but also the space and balance given to the structure of the overall article -- and I'm more than sure that you'll realise this. I'm sorry if my points seem to be akin to beating a dead horse; but I have to say that if you ignore my arguments, you'll end up ignoring a critical factor to balancing out the article.

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

And I take the liberty of copy pasting two very relevant paragraphs from Misplaced Pages's for your benefit.

Neutrality requires that the article should fairly represent all significant viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, and should do so in proportion to the prominence of each. Now an important qualification: In general, articles should not give minority views as much or as detailed a description as more widely held views; generally, the views of tiny minorities should not be included at all.

Just because a source is reliable does not mean that it should be included. All articles must adhere to Misplaced Pages's neutrality policy, fairly representing all majority and significant-minority viewpoints that have been published by reliable sources, in rough proportion to the prominence of each view. Tiny-minority views and fringe theories need not be included, except in articles devoted to them.

From Jimbo Wales, paraphrased from this post from September 2003 on the WikiEN-l mailing list:

• If a viewpoint is in the majority, then it should be easy to substantiate it with reference to commonly accepted reference texts;
• If a viewpoint is held by a significant minority, then it should be easy to name prominent adherents;
• If a viewpoint is held by an extremely small (or vastly limited) minority, it does not belong in Misplaced Pages regardless of whether it is true or not and regardless of whether you can prove it or not, except perhaps in some ancillary article.

Dear Weisheitshuchen, if you notice the points above, the view held by Career360 clearly qualifies to be a minority view held by maximum a handful of reliable sources. If required, primary quotes can be placed if released by the corporations/institutions in question, and that too with only that much space given to them as should be given to an extremely minority view. I'll await your and other editors' comments. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:38, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

As explained previously (and explained by Abecedare on the reliable sources discussion, the way to achieve balance with this position is to add more alternative views. If you add more of the content from the numerous sources you assure us exist for alternative viewpoints, then this will be one small view among many. Claiming that an investigation isn't significant only makes me suspect that you don't actually have the sources to back up an alternative viewpoint. Please prove me wrong. Stop wasting your time trying to convince everyone to whitewash the article; it's not going to happen. JAM magazine, Career 360, and numerous bloggers have written about IIPM's advertising; it's a significant minority view. The controversy generated media coverage in multiple sources. The idea that IIPM's advertising is not entirely truthful isn't a fringe theory just because you want it to be. In fact, I'm not even convinced it's a minority view. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 04:49, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

I agree with WeisheitSuchen here. Reliable sources are used to back up statements made about IIPM in this article. I understand from Indian colleagues that there are hundreds of other non-accredited schools in India that offer business certifications, that are essentially the same as IIPM. If that's true, then I'd go so far as to say that the controversies surrounding IIPM are what makes this school notable enough to have an article in Misplaced Pages. I am not convinced that the claims of false advertising are a "minority view", especially if reliable sources saw fit to write about false advertising by an otherwise non-notable school. If there are other viewpoints to consider, then they must meet the WP:RS and WP:V requirements also. ~Amatulić (talk) 06:14, 16 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi WeisheitSuchen . I appreciate your raising of the point of view on Career 360. I wish we would not make the mistake of creating our own synthesis judgement on IIPM simply by combining different sources and blogs, something that is extremely critical out here. Unless we discuss, the dispute resolution process would not move ahead. So my request is, do not accuse me of attempting to whitewash anything reliable and consequently ask me not to discuss an issue. A discussion is essential to the process of creating a better article. The effort we have to undertake is to ensure that even if singular editors might have their points of view, the combined output within the article does not seem tending towards a specific slant, but seems neutral. If you look at the discussions from above, you'll realise the effort I have taken to analyse the Introduction and the Academics paragraphs to suggest changes. I'll encourage you to step up and do the same for the other paragraphs. It is not just my voluntary effort that will ensure the future removal of the pov tag on the article. I request not just you, but other editors too. But you have to step back a step and see the efforts being put in by an editor before accusing her of whitewashing anything. If you are intending to ensure that the article is npov, then do please go ahead and help in checking the other paragraphs within the article -- or even the initial paragraphs. It'll be a wonderful move ahead for all of us. Apart from it, you say that the Career 360 article points are widely reported in media (therefore, you say it is not a minority view). I notice Abecedare also mentions that on the notice board. Surprisingly, I haven't been able to find one reliable secondary source mentioning the points that Career 360 has raised. Why don't you please go ahead and help me find a reliable secondary source that reports something associated with Career 360 article? If we find the sources, it'll be great to mention those links too along with the Career 360 links. Just saying that the advertising controversy has been well reported - is too vast and general a statement. JAM Magazine reports on the advertising controversy of course. But it happened quite some time back. I don't know the actual year in which it happened, but it's close to half a decade now perhahps. Specifically with Career 360, I haven't been able to find one additional recent reliable secondary source. Please help me find such a source to ensure that the space and balance issue of what I believe is a minority finding is clarified. Do realise the good faith efforts being taken by me to discuss --- and specifically not to whitewash. Thanks and will look forward to your comments Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 08:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Amatulic, thanks for sharing your and your colleagues views on management institutes in India. I have no issues with the same. My request to you remains the same as my request to WeisheitSuchen. Let's add more sources that balance out the viewpoints. It is not just my job to do it. I've tried my best to present some paragraphs. Do please go ahead and add more points within the article that give more references than those mentioned right now. cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 08:24, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

So, are we in agreement now that we're going to focus on adding sources, rather than taking them away? I said it was the end of the discussion because you've been making the same arguments and forum shopping for months. Discussion is good, but continuing after consensus has been reached (as it has been now, twice, on the Reliable Sources noticeboard), means you are working against consensus. So now we need you to decide. Are you going to work within consensus and add sources, or are you going to work against it? Continuing discussion here means working against it. Let's stop wasting our time. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:32, 17 November 2009 (UTC)

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

I'm sorry that you don't realize that the time difference between August and November constitutes "months." Forum shopping (here + RSN twice + Wikiquette etc.) isn't discussion; neither is continuing to argue for something long after productive alternative solutions have been suggested, repeatedly, by several different people. See WP:DEADHORSE or any of the links in the See Also section of that page. I'm not going to spend my time continuing to argue with you. You'll either provide the sources you insist you have or you won't, and either result is OK with me. I'm even OK with the neutrality tag sitting on this article for a few months while things calm down. You're welcome to formally report me for asking you to provide reliable sources for balance to support your view if you feel that would further your cause. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:39, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Agreed, "balance" is what is written in reliable and verifiable 3rd-party sources. Unfortunately, too many sources of information that put a positive spin on IIPM appear to be primary sources (from IIPM), press releases, and blogs. The reliable ones I can find already appear to be cited in the article. If Wifione claims to have other sources that meet Misplaced Pages's criteria, then by all means add them to the article. ~Amatulić (talk) 19:40, 18 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi WeisheitSuchen, I'm sure you'll realise that it was only after my wikiquette alert that one user stopped verbally pushing me around after he received a suggestion from another editor to stop doing the same. Polite conversation means to move ahead, and not rake up old issues using weasel words. As long as you refrain from accusing me of forum shopping (which you've strangely again used in the previous discussion, sadly), I would not intend to report you. It's in good faith WeisheitSuchen. Let's move ahead. How about an olive branch from my side? I'll now move on to the next section in the article and check out weasel words, non npov statements and synthesised comments. You keep suggesting whether my views are right or wrong. Do please not stop arguing, discussing or debating here. Every comment matters. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Hi Amatulic, great to see your viewpoint on primary sources, press releases and blogs. Secondary sources should be from reliable top news sites. I'll first go till the end of the article trying to address other statements that do not adhere to npov guidelines. Do keep suggesting whether my views are correct. Once that is done, maybe we can clean up the whole article quickly. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:19, 19 November 2009 (UTC)

Just a quick note. Will any editor be able to please chip in to clean up the pov on the sections after the intro? We need to work quickly towards getting through all sections and getting the tag removed... Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 20:09, 21 November 2009 (UTC)

What's your hurry? Don't panic; there's no deadline. As I said, the neutrality tag can stay for months if needed. Actually, trying to edit the whole article or make major revisions all at once can be overwhelming and bog down the process. Just find one section at a time where you'd like to add your other sources and take it slow. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 02:07, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

I'll add that making wholesale revisions to the article all at once will also likely get you blocked, and get the article protected so nobody can edit. That has been the state of affairs for this article for the past couple of years. ~Amatulić (talk) 04:37, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

No hurry WeisheitSuchen. I'm cool with the NPOV tag staying for months too. I've taken the cue and improved one section - Academics. I've added the History section and added some details in the Intro section. You're right. One would get bogged down by overall changes. So have not touched any of the other sections, including Controversy, which might be very contentious. Do go through the section changes and comment. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 12:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Amatulic, you're right. So have not cut any detail that was there before. You will notice that I have added other references. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 12:08, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

Before you go any further, it would be great if you'd take some time cleaning up the references. The article currently has a ridiculous number (86) of references which show up in the reflist with just a number and link. Check out the citation templates for help on formatting these so they are easier for everyone to work with. Also, I'm not done reviewing for copyright violations yet, but if you'd like to go through yourself and delete everything you copied and pasted from another source (including other Misplaced Pages articles), that would save me some time. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 14:28, 22 November 2009 (UTC)

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

Hi Makrand, please do not remove references that are validly cited. Please clearly discuss on the discussion page a reason you might wish to remove a validly cited reference. Misplaced Pages policy states that if a point is supported by widely cited media, there's more reason for it to stay. Please give complete descriptions. Makrand, you have not participated in discussions for a week and even after starting to edit, you have not left your comments out here. I encourage you not to change anything that is validly quoted. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 03:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

For editors out here, taking out the AICTE and UGC reference is not correct. AICTE and UGC were presumed to be the bodies that were to be regulating. The Ministry has said that these bodies are to be closed down. The reader should know as this brings the balance in the statement that AICTE and UGC (now considered corrupt bodies) said that they don't recognise IIPM's certifications. So it should be put back. Thanks Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 03:19, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Makrand, I have noticed you have removed validly cited information (like Buckingham). Do not please repeat it. You have again included a line deleted by an administrator, and that too unilaterally without references in the introduction. Try to be proactive in the approach of editing. We really wish more participation in the discussion forum. Do not reduce references mystically citing "unmanageable number of references." Please cite me a wiki policy before saying it. If there is such a wiki policy, I'll be enlightened and will take by my words. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 03:23, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

WeisheitSuchen, I'm replacing the History section re wording the statement. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 03:26, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

WiesheitSuchen, I also noticed a point where you said in your edit summary that the AICTE point was being repeated unnecessarily. I have to mention out here that wherever you will mention that AICTE/UGC do not recognise IIPM certification, you will have to include the fact that they are not going to continue in the future. If you think this information is not related with IIPM, please give me a logical description here. It is too important that readers know both sides of the view in NPOv. One is that AICTE/UGC do not accredit IIPM courses. The balancing point of view is that they are corrupt/inefficient and are going to be closed down in a few months. Now, if the article is going to repeat that AICTE does not recognise IIPM courses, then wherever that is written, we have to write the balancing point of view. In case you do not wish to repeat, then you will have to then even ensure that the point that AICTE/UGC does not certify IIPM courses is also not repeated. Therefore, the point comes back. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 03:38, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have re-referenced NVAO. Wrt IMI information being deleted, can either of the editors please tell me why it was deleted? IMI alumnus information is sensible, as well as BusinessWeek information and IMI international partnerships as it provides the other point of view to Career 360 concept of NVAO saying IMI is unrecognised. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

I have corrected Career 360 take on international placements and have included the exact line that career 360 says in its article. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Makrand, your statement below was seen by me later. I am highly encouraged by it and by the fact that you appreciate the effort. Thanks. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:59, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Editors, wished to know from where is the word private being placed in the introduction of the educational institution? I didn't find any source giving details that IIPM is a private institution. Please add source. Also, the first two links in the intro that say AICTE has not accredited IIPM courses, are blank. Kindly find out a better source that opens on the AICTE website or on any other reliable secondary source. Will wait for the sources and not delete either the private word or the AICTE links till a week -- am sure other proactive editors will contribute. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:41, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Validity

I have reopened a validity question on a reference being used. Please link up to http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Reliable_sources/Noticeboard#Reopening_the_question_of_source_Career360_on_the_page_on_IIPM to see the points of view. It'll be good if current editors do not comment there as they might have conflicts of interest. Let's have independent viewpoints. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:03, 14 November 2009 (UTC)

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

REplied. --Rsrikanth05 (talk) 10:04, 20 November 2009 (UTC)

Recent edits by wifione

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

Hi Makrand, thanks for your comments. I saw your changes. I noticed you've cut out a few references. While it is appreciated, I fear the reduced number of references would not do justice to the point that is being made through the references -- which is that AICTE and UGC are corrupt and going to be closed down. These are very big comments and do need a lot of references. Added to it, wherever one mentions that AICTE and UGC have not accredited IIPM, we have to mention the balancing point of view. Therefore, it is important that we mention they're to be closed down, wherever we mention their connection with IIPM. Wrt to IMI details, we have to ensure that the "unrecognition" issue about IMI is given a scope of a positive balance. The amount of details is required as wiki policy clearly says that the space given to information should be in accordance with their occurence in visible media. And this is what is being done. So a request, kindly let's keep the IMI and AICTE / UGC details. However, seeing logic in some points, I have cut down the repetitive part of AICTE/UGC being inefficient, in the Academics section. Thanks and Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:05, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Wifione, you say that we need to talk about the possible future closing of AICTE & UGC every time we mention them. I disagree. I do think it's important to include some of that in the article for context (Makrandjoshi, I know that means I disagree with you on this point). But I think it belongs in the Academics section where accreditation is discussed. I don't think it belongs in the lead, which should focus solely on IIPM, and I don't see any value in copying and pasting the same exact text over and over. I don't want to insult our readers by assuming that if they read the lead of the article (where you originally included the refs against these accreditors) that they will have completely forgotten what they just read when they get to the academics section. Let's not assume that Misplaced Pages readers aren't smart enough and just give them info once.

Here's what I propose:

1) We include some information about AICTE, UGC, IMI in the academics section. We might want to have a section specifically on accreditation for all of this.

I think your suggestion about shifting all this to the accreditation section is perfectly alright. I guess there is a section on accreditation and was wondering why accreditation details are placed all over. In Academics, we could perhaps simply mention that IIPM courses are so on so forth. And then in Accreditation section, we write that the courses are unaccredited and the response from IIPM and perhaps a link note on why these institutions might not be present in the future. Tell me what you think about it. Also, see if the changed wordings of AICTE/UGC in the lead are okay with you. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

2) The information on AICTE, UGC, IMI (and any other similar body) should ideally be something specifically about their relationship with IIPM. This could be comments from IIPM officials talking about why AICTE doesn't have the authority (which I know is already included, but seems appropriate). This could be an evaluation from a third party source talking about how if the AICTE is shut down that it will help IIPM (I don't know if such a thing exists, but it would be relevant).

I guess this sounds logical. I want your views on whether then, we should include IMI's unaccreditation details at all, as that is not about IIPM. If we strike that detail out, it would clearly allow the other balancing view about IMI being featured in BusinessWeek and stuff also to be taken out. What do you think about that? Also, with respect to your view about a third party source talking about how AICTE shutting down would help IIPM, I'll check that out and try and find out such a link. I do remember one link of the Minister of HRD and Education talking to the dean of IIPM saying that he's considering closing down AICTE UGC. Would that help too? In this context, there is a paragraph of the former Education Minister, Arjun Singh, talking about students and advertisements. Even that paragraph totally seems unrelated to IIPM. Any views on that too pl? Thanks Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

3) In the absence of anything directly connecting the two, some 'limited amounts of information about the possible future closing of AICTE etc. could be included for context. A dozen references is probably overkill, especially if you have one or two high-quality ones.

Great. It's perfect. Do see the changed lead. Thanks.Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

4) Everything in the lead should be directly about IIPM. The information about the Union Minister's accusations of corruptions should be only in the Academics section since it isn't actually about IIPM.

See the changed lead. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:48, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

What do you think? Could we all live with this solution? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:45, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Copyright violations

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

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

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

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

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

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

Hi WeisheitSuchen, do go through my replies point by point

I am surprised at how can you say the UNDP sentence is copyright violation. If there is a better method of making up the sentence, do please make it and place it back. As of currently, the sentence you claim is copyright violation has no authority claiming copyright. Hence, unless you're able to tell me which source says the sentence is their copyright (and show me the exact sentence), it should remain there.

Wrt your second phrase, you could have re-made the sentence. As you've not, I'm doing it and re-placing it.

Wrt your NVAO copying statement, the copyright link you provide thankfully says that you can place the contents if you provide a link to the page within Misplaced Pages. So I'm placing it. Thanks Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 03:11, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

Also, I noticed that you said most people cannot type that fast. Fortunately, I can. I don't know about you. Therefore, do not please make synthesis judgements. Also, there is a wiki policy that in case of quoting, one can simply use double quotes to quote directly out of a reference (which is how it has been done in some references). If you feel there is ambiguity, please do not delete the reference; rather, proactively let us correct and restructure the statement. For example, how much time would it take us to restructure the following statement "It is also a UNDP key partner institution and has been on the World Bank Institute's steering committee for corporate social responsibility initiatives." Not more than a minute I guess. So kindly let us not not delete such material. Let us attribute using double quotes wherever we have to quote, or restructure. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:08, 23 November 2009 (UTC)

A note: Changing back to the version and additions done by WeisheitSuchen. Will wait for discussions. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 03:46, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

Kindly note that changes made by WeisheitSuchen in the intro, History, NVAO have been put back by me in good faith (despite the arguments given above). If I've missed something, please suggest here and I'll do that too. Also, waiting for suggestions on how to reword them in current copyright context so that we can attribute them to the right source before putting them back. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:44, 24 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Matching the statements to the sources

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

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

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

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

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

Was busy in real life for a couple of days. Thanks for waiting. I'll be reply in the course of the next two hours or hopefully three. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 07:27, 27 November 2009 (UTC)

Good work Wei'Suchen. Let me look into it. Hadn't noticed the archive part. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:56, 29 November 2009 (UTC)

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

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

Queries on some paragraph shifts

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

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

What you've done is perfectly ok with me. Thanks Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:48, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Queries on including Judge, Darden, Haas in lea

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

I think the quick mention of Judge, Darden, etc. make more sense in the lead than the University of Buckingham, since those are talking about current programs but Buckingham is a potential future one. Can we take out the Buckingham info in the lead since it's duplicated in the partnerships section below? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:26, 30 November 2009 (UTC)

Done.Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:35, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm going back to take a look at some of the sources elsewhere in the article, and I don't see what source supports this: "The institute also provides a joint certification programme with National University of Singapore, apart from short term programmes from Darden Graduate School of Business Administration, Judge Business School, Haas School of Business." I see in this source where it talks about the joint certification with NUS, but none of the other schools are mentioned. Do you have a source that talks about Darden, Judge, and Haas, ideally from those business schools? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 03:29, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I have removed the line about NUS from the lead. Look at the portion from the cited article - While these professors came to deliver lectures on specific topics, professors from NUS, Singapore (ranked among the top three B-schools in Asia) are delivering a seven-week intensive course on Investment Banking (IB) at IIPM. The course aims to provide IIPM students an edge when it comes to placements in the Investment Banking sector next year. Prasoon S Majumdar, all India dean-academics says, "with this programme, our students would have an advantage in the investment banking sector, they can hit the ground running while other MBA candidates would have to still go through training on the job for the first few months.’’ Thetop100 students selected from all IIPM branches will attend this course and get a joint certification in IB. So it says "professors from NUS". The joint certification does not mention it is with NUS. The article suggests that some professors from NUS are coming to conduct a course on investment banking. Very different from offering joint certification. Makrandjoshi (talk) 22:45, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Source verification

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

UGC opened fine for me yesterday and today (albeit slowly). Please keep in mind that even if a link is down, that doesn't necessarily mean the content should be removed. Per WP:LINKROT "WP:Verifiability does not require that all information be supported by a working link, nor does it require the source to be published on-line." If you'll note on that page, there's a good explanation of the benefits of full citations for dealing with linkrot--something I would still like to see you do for all the citations you've added. That said, we may need to use archived versions for some of the sites in the controversies section, as was done for the UGC article. I'll start looking through and removing tags from anything I can open and verify myself, but it's going to take a while. In the mean time, why don't you start working on completing all the references you added so they aren't just bare links? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 10:30, 1 December 2009 (UTC)

I'm changing the name of this section so it's clearer what tags were discussing. I'm a little confused by some of the links you tagged for failing verification. For example, you flagged this as failing verification (under JAM, ref #95): "IIPM issued a statement countering the allegations raised by the magazines. IIPM said that these allegations were a result of inferiority complex that IIM alumni (like Rashmi Bansal and Gaurav Sabnis) suffered due to IIPM (referring to IIPM's 'Dare to think beyond the IIMs' positioning statement), and that the articles were shallow lies, and an attempt to spread baseless rumours." Compare this to the original source: "'We are stunned as to how people from IIMs, who are the most pampered people of India, suffer from so much inferiority complex from IIPM that, given the first opportunity to pen something (be it the so-called IIM-L professor Amit Kapoor, or ex-IIM students like Rashmi or Gaurav and all the other IIM students on the net and other media), they stoop down so low as to write relentless lies about us and spread baseless rumours about IIPM,' said a widely-circulated IIPM statement." Can you clarify why you flagged that for failing verification? What about that part of the article do you believe isn't backed up by the quote? I think we need to discuss what actually constitutes "verification" if you're flagging things like this along with dead links (which are easily found at Archive.org). WeisheitSuchen (talk) 02:41, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

A lot of the links have marked as "failed verification" even when the article exists and says the stuff that is being cited. I have removed such tags which are obviously wrong. In other places, where there were dead links, i have replaced them with google cache links. Makrandjoshi (talk) 19:37, 2 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi WeisheitSuchen, like I mentioned perhaps the website that was mentioned was opening slowly. I'll recheck the links and try to find links in archives. The above statement that you write wasn't found by me in the first go. My bad. I got it quite clearly in the second attempt (evening blues i guess lol). LIke I mentioned the moment you see a flag is wrongly put by me just remove it Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 02:58, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Makrand I think what weisheitSuchen writes is correct that the Google cache is unstable and we should link to archives. Cheers

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

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

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

I agree. I am editing the lead to remove uncited facts. Makrandjoshi (talk) 22:35, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear WeisheitSuchen, Makrand,

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

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

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

My changes - IMI unaccredited, generalities to specifics, etc

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

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

Wifione, please understand that removing validly cited information (like IMI being unaccredited, citing businessweek) is against wiki policy. Especially WP:NPOV. IMI's accreditation is important because IIPM admits a) it itself is not an accredited school and does not award MBA or BBA, BUT b) IMI is the one that awards the degrees. Since the only actual MBA-BBA degrees offered by IIPM to its students are from IMI, it is pertinent that the said degree-awarder, IMI, is unaccredited. Are you actually disputing the fact that IMI is unaccredited? If you are not, then you are violating wiki policy by removing what I wrote. Makrandjoshi (talk) 04:43, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Also, wifione, could you provide me a link to the edit where an admin deleted the line in the lead about IIPM being involved in controversies? Sorry if I am disinclined to believe you, but you have in the past been known to lie, two examples being a) Mahesh Peri being not associated with Outlook any more, b) calling me an SPA. Of course, you first lie and then tender fake apologies only when called out on those lies. So anyway, please provide me a link to an admin deleting that line from the lead. Makrandjoshi (talk) 04:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Sure Makrand... My request to you is not to be disruptive in editing. If you notice, I have started putting back only cross links and correcting cross links since I noticed you were reverting and will wait for your comments before changing the IMI lines to maintain NPOV guidelines. I really don't think you have me right. IMI is not IIPM. As per your inputs, students "can only apply" for IMI's degrees. the fact that IMI is not IIPM is clear enough for the IMI information to not be insensibly repeated throughout the article. Having said that, I'll await your discussions on this forum as you perhaps are not reading my replies above where I have mentioned that your references are not being disputed: your disruptive editing is being disputed. Kindly do not disrupt editing by editors and revert unilaterally. If you wish, change back relevant paragraphs. But total reverts are disruptive and against wiki policies. Please read the discussions completely before replying. Also, if you search in the history verions of editing for a user called Stifle, you'll realise the deletions he/she did to your edits. Kindly do not be disruptive. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 04:59, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Makrand, I'll also kindly request you to not delete information about GOTA companies etc by simply saying that two are enough. They're validly cited and it'll be diruptive of you to remove such information. It's a request which you should look at. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:04, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Makrand, you not only have again placed the line removed by the administrator, but have also removed a line of Mr. Kapil Sibal telling that AICTE and UGC will be abolished. Will you kindly not remove validly cited information that has been put in after much discussions? Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:07, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

wifione, under the guise of cross-referencing, you are just reverting to older versions. about sibal, i have provided reasons below. the sunday indian does not qualify as WP:RS on an IIPM wiki page as it is owned by IIPM itself and as such a self-published source or primary source. Makrandjoshi (talk) 05:21, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Makrand, actually many third party sources refer to the issue of AICTE and UGC being abolished. If you notice, you yourself had suggested removing too many third party sources. After suggesting that, through many discussions with other editors (as you had not participated) we had put the Sunday Indian source as it closely linked IIPM and Kapil Sibal's information, alongwith other sources. Kindly do not remove cited information. Feel free to add. Using words like 'guise' etc only result in a bad faith atmosphere. You are resorting to tendentious editing. I have refrained from editing further till you respond or cease your bad faith editing. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

wifione, I repeat - Sunday Indian is owned by IIPM so CAN NOT be a reliable source. By definition. The other 3rd party sources, like times of india, do not quote sibal saying so. they mention a panel recommending replacing aicte and ugc with bigger regulators. opposite of the point you are conveying. Makrandjoshi (talk) 06:34, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Kapil Sibal and AICTE etc

Wifione slipped in this information - In 2009, the Union Minister of Education Kapil Sibal informed the editor of The Sunday Indian, a news magazine published by the institute, that he is "seriously considering" abolishing AICTE and UGC.
Now, The Sunday Indian is run by IIPM itself, so is primary source and does not qualify as WP:RS. The other cites provided that do qualify as WP:RS, the Times of India articles, do not quote Sibal saying any such thing - read http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/india/Education-panel-wants-UGC-AICTE-scrapped/articleshow/4689229.cms and http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/articleshow/msid-5198163,prtpage-1.cms The first article talks about a panel recommending not just "abolishing" AICTE and UGC, but replacing them with one single regulatary authority. Totally different from just scrapping the bodies. The way you have twisted words from RS and mixed it with primary source stuff from 'The Sunday Indian' is admirable! Makrandjoshi (talk) 05:19, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Makrand, kindly be polite and civil and do not disregard the various discussions in the paragraphs above on the POV sections. I feel you are simply disregarding so many discussions that have taken place and clearing out citations without basis. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:36, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

wifione...or mrinal pangey or carlisle rodham...or whatever name you want to go by. this pattern of yours has become so predictable, it is not even funny. whenever i come with a factual point by point argument like above, instead of addressing the argument or facts, you always respond with "please be polite and civil". Nothing else. Empty homilies. Ho hum. I have given the links to times of india articles above. Go through them and show me where Sibal said what you claim he said. Makrandjoshi (talk) 06:06, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I have a possible solution I'd like you both to consider. Why don't we leave in the current quote about it possibly being abolished, but also include a note (with a ref to this article kindly provided by Makrandjoshi about them possibly being replaced by a "super regulator"? We can also add a note about the Sunday Indian being run by IIPM. It could go something like this:

In 2009, the Union Minister of Education Kapil Sibal informed the editor of The Sunday Indian, a news magazine published by IIPM, that he is "seriously considering" abolishing AICTE and UGC. The editor of The Sunday Indian is also the all India dean of the institute.(multiple refs here) A Times of India article on the same topic noted that an education panel has recommended replacing these groups with a "super regulator." (TOI ref here)

What do you think? Could you both live with this? WeisheitSuchen (talk) 12:48, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Unless there is some other source for "Kapil Sibal seriously considering abolishing AICTE and UGC", other than The Sunday Indian, I am not in favor of including it. The Sunday Indian is owned and published by IIPM itself, and as per WP:RS would fall under primary source and/or self-published source. The editor of the publication is also the dean of IIPM, so the conflict of interest is clear there. So anything sourced from just Sunday Indian, does not belong in the article. Here's the thing, Weish. The Indian government wants to consolidate and streamline the education regulators into one super regulator. Kinda like how the US government set up a Department of Homeland Security to oversee different entities. But the spin IIPM wants to put on it is, the government is "abolishing" UGC and AICTE. So they can undemrine or dismiss the serious concerns that the 2 regulatory bodies have raised about IIPM. By allowing that spin, based on just something published in an IIPM-owned publication, we are compromising on reliability of sources. Makrandjoshi (talk) 16:49, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, and I am OK with including a line or two saying that the Indian government is considering a proposal to "replace" AICTE and UGC with a super-regulator. That has a reliable source - times of india. Makrandjoshi (talk) 16:50, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I think for something with this much controversy that allowing IIPM to state their point of view is relevant, even if it is a primary source. Obviously this is an Ad hominem argument, as are most of IIPM's responses, but for NPOV I think we need to include IIPM's responses and let readers identify the logical fallacies themselves. Logical fallacies don't automatically fail NPOV. I do notice, looking at the interview more closely, that "seriously considering" isn't an actual quote from Sibal, contrary to how it's indicated. So how about this instead? This should give people enough context to make their own judgements on the quote.

An education panel has recommended replacing AICTE, UGC, and other regulatory groups with a "super regulator." (TOI ref here) In a 2009 interview with the all India dean of IIPM and editor of The Sunday Indian, a news magazine published by IIPM, the Union Minister of Education Kapil Sibal stated that "We’re looking at this seriously and you’ll get to know as soon as we have a new structure in place." (Sunday Indian ref) WeisheitSuchen (talk) 17:14, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

WiesheitSuchen, What you say, about including IIPM's "opinion" on disputed matters, is perfectly fine with NPOV. And for opinions and arguments, you are right, we should let readers figure out the fallacies themselves. Like places where the article says that IIPM believes rankings do not matter, or that AICTE and UGC have no authority over them. But not for solid simple facts and actual quotes, which is why WP:RS is important. I think we should differentiate facts from opinions. Reporting Kapil Sibal saying something is a "fact". This so-called interview has appeared only in this self-owned publication. So I am doubting its factual veracity. Even in that supposed interview, like you noticed, Sibal didn't actually say what Wifione slipped in. I am still not comfortable with putting in a quote or a factual statement with just one source, that too a self-published primary source. If you remember the controversy about American radio host Rush Limbaugh, when he was about to buy an NFL team. A lot of quotes attributed to him were put on his wiki page, citing just one source (some book). It later turned out he never said those things. So at least when quoting someone is concerned, when there is a dispute, I think we need to go beyond the primary source. There is some precedent for doubting their veracity. In the course of the last year, someone (I think wifione with a different name) slipped in info about some Delhi High court judgment and the court saying something strongly in favor of IIPM. It remained there until I figured out, the only sources for it were IIPM press releases. No RS entitites like newspapers reporting on the judgment had said anything like that. It was quite possibly, made up. And when I asked the pro-iipm editors to give a third party source for that quote, they could not. Having said that, if wifione can find a 3rd party RS source, other than Sunday Indian, for Sibal says "We’re looking at this seriously and you’ll get to know as soon as we have a new structure in place.", I am okay with including it. Hope you see my point. Makrandjoshi (talk) 21:17, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

Here is my suggestions for what to include. There are more details available on other RS sources so I don't see the need to cite Sunday Indian. Here is my suggestion.
An education panel has recommended replacing AICTE, UGC, and other regulatory groups with a single regulator (TOI ref here) Kapil Sibal, the Indian Minister in charge of higher education, has put in motion plans to create a National Council for Higher Education (NCHE), which will take over the academic, accreditation and financial functions of the existing regulators. The same panel suggested to the ministry taking action against private institutions which act free of government control in admissions, fees and coursework. (source - Wall Street Journal's The Mint - http://www.livemint.com/2009/06/07213030/Government-plans-to-scrap-UGC.html )
what do you think?Makrandjoshi (talk) 21:40, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Primary Sources and other non-RS cites

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

Reporting user Makrand Joshi in the Administrative noticeboard for edit warring

I am sorry to say Makrand but educational institutional references are considered the most reliable. You have been invited to engage in proactive constructive discussions by both me and WeiSuchen since long. I'm surprised at your unilateral decisions to remove validly cited informations like this. You are indulging in disruptive, tendentious editing. I am sorry to inform you that I have had to report you on the Administrative noticeboard. This is the link: http://en.wikipedia.org/Wikipedia:Administrators%27_noticeboard/Edit_warring#User:Makrandjoshi_reported_by_User:Wifione_.28Result:_.29 Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 05:55, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

wifione, you have indulged yet again in forum shopping. I am shocked, shocked, NOT! I have given reasons for every edit of mine. And given details for some here too. You know and I know why you are so pissed off. I caught your kapil-sibal-aicte-scrapping lie. And that has gotten you all upset. Either way, I have responded to you on that page. And I am disappointed to see another attempt of yours at forum shopping being so pathetic and half-hearted. No diffs, no details, just vague generalities. Ho hum. Makrandjoshi (talk) 06:03, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

And yet again, wifione's malciious and pathetic forum-shopping falls flat on the face. Here is the judgment on this latest forum shopping expedition - No violation – there must be four or more reverts within a 24 hour period for the 3-Revert Rule to apply; the links you have provided do not meet these criteria. Reporting user is arguably the more disruptive at that article, but also appears to be within the limits of normal editing-with-discussion. - 2/0 (cont.) 06:31, 4 December 2009 (UTC) See that? "reporting user", i.e. wifione, is more disruptive. So which forum are you going to shop at next? Makrandjoshi (talk) 12:32, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Makrand, calm down and stop your name calling. The finding above is accepted as it is from an administrator (which also mentions I am within limits of normal editing with discussion). If you continue your using uncivil language, I would request for a third party wikiquette request on you. I really don't realise how you end up using such malicious language. I would again advise you to calm down. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 06:17, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hmm, so a wikiquette request....your next forum shopping trip? Is there any forum or noticeboard you plan to not use? Makrandjoshi (talk) 17:11, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

wifione, a plea for brevity!

wifione, people like me and Weisu are people with day jobs, who edit wikipedia in our free time. You on the other hand are an IIPM employee who does this full time. So you may not realize it, but when you write in 2000 words what can be summed up in 50, you are inconveniencing everyone. I am amazed at the sheer volume of the stuff you write. All saying something very minor. So please, be brief when you can. And not in places where you should elaborate (like above, with your "please be polite" boilerplate response that avoids addressing anything substantive) Makrandjoshi (talk) 06:31, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I'd like to second this. As I noted on your talk page, Wifione, the amount of text both in your changes in the article and here on the talk page is often overwhelming. A bit less "window dressing" and a focus on substance would be appreciated. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:56, 4 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear Makrand, I do understand your view about brevity and would attempt to follow that in the future in good faith at your lack of time due to working day time jobs. But I find your statements of me being an IIPM employee doing this full time as very immature and trite childish. If everyone with a pov that is different many times from you becomes an IIPM employee, you need to really grow in your maturity. Desist using such words immediately. Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 06:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Dear WeisheitSuchen, you do say that you'd like to second this. I am sure you meant the point about brevity - which I'll try and follow. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 06:22, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Yes, I think my comments made it clear that I was seconding the call for brevity and substance. In that spirit, I'll let you both know that in another online community where I used this username that it was often abbreviated "WS." I honestly don't care how you shorten it, but if you want to save the most typing, WS will work fine. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:48, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Are you denying being an IIPM employee? As I have already said before, I think you are a sockpuppet of the individual who has in the past gone by names like Mrinal Pandey, iipmstudent9, alamsrinivas, etc. And been banned for several reasons, from vandalism, to sockpuppetry to threatening to kill me. That individual had admitted to being an IIPM employee. I think you are the same person. Even a sockpuppet investigation against you ended with the judges saying "possible, but let's wait for more evidence". Your behavior and whatever you have been writing since then has made it even more obvious to me that you are the same person. For your information, I am compiling evidence to restart that sockpuppet investigation. Especially since you have gone back to sockpuppetry....Suraj845? LOL! Anyway, my opinion is that you are an IIPM employee. And a sockpuppet of a past banned editor. I have a right to my opinion. So I will not "desist using" any words. Makrandjoshi (talk) 14:44, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Personally, I'm not sure about whether Wifione is Mrinal Pandey. I see similarities in the writing styles in the comments on this page, but having not been involved in all the previous investigations I haven't looked through the evidence enough to be convinced one way or the other. I suspect you're right, Makrand, I just haven't spent the time to dig through all of it. But if Suraj845 is a sock, Wifione's done a pretty good job covering his tracks. Wifione has actually reverted one of Suraj845's edits. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 15:51, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Oh, the reverting one's own sockpuppet's changes is an old trick he/she pulls. Often even contriving debates and disagreements within the sockpuppets. Sockpuppets leaving dissenting comments on each others' talk pages. Look at this higher up on the talk page. Talk:The_Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management#Proposing_deletion_of_Controversy_section It's one elaborately put together puppet-show. I have been editing this article for a couple of years now. Have been threatened with murder, a lawsuit, accused of a bunch of other things like being an SPA, and have been made the target of forum shopping. By now I know all the tell-tale signs of that individual. And at least in my mind, there is no doubt that wifione is the latest incarnation. Makrandjoshi (talk) 16:29, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Sigh. I am clearly too naive and trusting. When I put back the history section a few days ago, it was because I couldn't imagine that any institute would lie about when they started. And I couldn't believe that someone would be so motivated to get their point across here to construct that elaborate of a puppet show. Clearly I have underestimated the limits of behavior for people associated with IIPM. I'm sorry you've had to deal with all this crap for so long. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 00:08, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

The History Section

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

Fair enough; your edit makes more sense now. That had seemed pretty straightforward to me, which is why I figured the RS rules could be stretched. Primary sources from schools aren't automatically suspect; take a look at all the primary sources in Indian Institutes of Technology, which is a Featured Article. But with a history of stretched claims, as we have with IIPM (and apparently specifically with the history), other references should be provided. Let's leave the section as is for the time being, but I'll flag it for needing third-party references. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 21:41, 3 December 2009 (UTC)

I was curious and decided to do a Google News archive search for IIPM to see when the name started appearing. The timeline feature is quite helpful for looking at coverage over time. In a search from 1970 to 2009, the earliest news mention is from June 13, 1999. That article mentions Planman Consulting being spun off from IIPM several years earlier than that, so IIPM had clearly been around for a little while at that point. A comparable Google news archive search for Indian Institute of Management shows several references from the New York Times in the 1970s. That search isn't perfect, of course, and it isn't a reliable source, but it does call into question the claim of an earlier date. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 07:11, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

Correcting a lot of wrong or weasel info

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

A previous version of that section claimed that NVAO didn't cover the "English speaking areas" of Belgium--which don't actually exist. There's a lot of stretching things or pulling them out of context that needs to be cleaned up. I've got some other things going on this weekend, but I'll try to take a look at some other sections if I have time. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 00:08, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Hi Makrand, It's good that you will have time to do this finally. I'll wait for you to get through the article and then look through it perhaps on Monday if you've done the full round. In the meanwhile, will do changes that might not up the ante. Cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One (talk 06:28, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Wifione, while you're waiting this weekend, why don't you work on adding citation templates to your references? Converting the bare links to full citations is time consuming, I know, but it would really make it much easier to keep track of where the information is coming from. Makrand, I know you usually include a title, which is definitely a step up from bare links, but it would be good if we all could be consistent and use the templates. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:55, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

WeishetSuchen, once I am done with correcting the facts, I will start with completing the citation templates. Makrandjoshi (talk) 15:46, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

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

Knowledge@Wharton and NTU source

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

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

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

I think the Knowledge@Wharton probably fails because they are talking about a third party (IIPM). I wouldn't say that Knowledge@Wharton always fails as a reliable source; it probably generally is. But I don't think we can use them for this particular situation. An interview in a mainstream news source where someone said the same thing would be acceptable though.

As for the NTU source, Makrand didn't say it was unreliable, just that it didn't support the claim that this 4-week program happens every year. Makrand adjusted the article so it matches what this source says; he didn't remove it. However, it is a Google cache link, which as we've discussed may not be stable. If a direct link is available, that would be preferable. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 13:43, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Knowledge@Wharton is just an internally run online journal at Wharton. Not a full-fledged media entity or publication. And I have just followed the wiki policy guidelines weishe has mentioned above in taking it out. And wifione, "as per me it is well quoted and respected" is another of your trademark vague generalities. Much like your "it is a majority/minority view". Please learn to quote wiki policy. It will help you improve as an editor. Same with NTU. It was just a PDF on the school cite. Not a publication, not reviewed or edited or reputed. Any student could create a pdf and upload it to their NTU page. Does not make it WP:RS. Makrandjoshi (talk) 14:36, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

I should have clarified my previous point: Knowledge@Wharton would probably generally be a reliable source if it was used to verify non-controversial information about Wharton. If they're talking about themselves, and it isn't a contested or self-serving point, it's acceptable.

As for the NTU source, I don't think that most universities allow students to create PDFs and publish them with main university URL; usually the address gives you a clue that it's a student-uploaded document. If we can look at an original version (and not a Google cached one), I think we can look at the source URL and figure out whether it's a publication of the university, talking about itself on something not controversial. I think this edit was the correct way to handle it, rather than this one. The shortened version you originally wrote accurately reflects the source (and that's the one I thought was still in the article when I made my earlier comments). NTU can talk about its own programs, and the self-published source is reliable enough in this instance. WeisheitSuchen (talk) 16:03, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Fair enough. I'll put back the information from the edit you think was appropriate. Makrandjoshi (talk) 16:19, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

Needs Neutrality

Dear Editors/ Administrators,

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

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

This is another dead horse. Go through archives, and you will see it has been flogged many times. The eventual goal of the IIPM employees is to get rid of the controversy section, or indeed anything negative on this wikipedia article. Makrandjoshi (talk) 14:30, 5 December 2009 (UTC)

An Alumni section

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

Removing Neutrality Tag

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

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

Firstly, you have been asked to specify what issues of neutrality there are, but you refuse to. Secondly, drive-by tagging goes against wiki guidelines. Thirdly, just putting a tag doesn't result in a review. Makrandjoshi (talk) 14:01, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

FYI, from the WP:DRIVEBY page - Drive-by tagging is strongly discouraged. The editor who adds the tag must address the issues on the talk page, pointing to specific issues that are actionable within the content policies, namely Misplaced Pages:Neutral point of view, Misplaced Pages:Verifiability, Misplaced Pages:No original research and Misplaced Pages:Biographies of living persons. Simply being of the opinion that a page is not neutral is not sufficient to justify the addition of the tag. Tags should be added as a last resort.
If you still want to add the tag, first you should write a detailed post here with specifics. Makrandjoshi (talk) 14:10, 6 December 2009 (UTC)

• Unassessed WikiProject Business articles
• Unknown-importance WikiProject Business articles
• WikiProject Business articles
• B-Class India articles
• Mid-importance India articles
• B-Class India articles of Mid-importance
• B-Class Delhi articles
• Unknown-importance Delhi articles
• B-Class Delhi articles of Unknown-importance
• WikiProject Delhi articles
• WikiProject India articles
• Old requests for peer review