Talk:Arindam Chaudhuri/Archive 1

Movie Section
im requesting a section on his movie venture which failed at box office. Arindam made a lot of big claims about that movie.

Response to Speedy deletion
This page has been linked from the IIPM article. It was created as a stub in hope that it will get expanded by wikipedians. Hope that clarifies. -Ganeshk 21:21, 7 November 2005 (UTC)

Overhauled
Removed uncited and incorrect references. All facts are fully cited. Negative bias and POV lines corrected. Please use discussion page to talk, before reverting etc.

Arindam Chaudhuri's titles
Actually - in India anyone can claim to be a Professor - there is no requirement that one actually professes anything. This is not the same as Doctor - where one must have an actual medical degree or earned (not honorary) PhD from a recognized institute (does anyone remember the flap over 'Dr' Jatalalitha?). I'm not commenting on someone deserving the title of professor - merely pointing out that one does not need to be 'awarded' a professorship. -- 'Professor' Shanky 16:32, 2 March 2006 (UTC)

Can someone clarify where Arindam Chaudhuri obtained the title of professor? If it was from IIPM, does IIPM have the right to confer such a title, seeing as it is not recognised by the UGC nor by the AICTE? If he has not obtained the title from a recognised academic institution, he is not, as an Indian citizen, allowed to put the title "Professor" before his name. --Kunal 07:26, 19 November 2005 (UTC)

Doesn't really answer my question. I haven't asked for proof of his having a ponytail, or his being a member of the PC, or of his being felicitated by the rotaract club. I asked how he got to be called Professor.

Also, your scans aren't really proof. I see a body of text, a header and date line cut separately. How are we to know whether it is all from the same paper. Also, how do you claim fair use of the scans? Please enlighten us. --Kunal 15:02, 21 November 2005 (UTC)

I have removed all references to Arindam Chaudhuri's alleged professorship, as Drnoamchomsky failed to answer my question regarding the veracity of the title. As such, I'm assuming it to be unverified and uncited. --Kunal (talk) 09:37, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

Kunal,


 * Kunal, PLease see Professor article here. Clearly, Prof. Arindam Chaudhuri qualifies to use the title professors because of his enormous contribution to management theory through thepublication of the popular 'Theory i'. His workshops on 'Theory i' are well attended by CEO's and Presidents of large corporations (see newspaper article above, and www.ArindamChaudhuri.com. His work through the NGO The Great Indian Dream Foundation also qualifies him, as well as the consulting for various Indian and FORTUNE 500 companies. There is no law or regulation in India governing use of the title professor, and as Honorary Dean the IIPM can also grant him the title. AICTE is a quality-assurance body, that IIPM has chosen not to be a member of, inspite of repeated invitations. The UGC has no authority over titles, and is a fund-giving body, controlled by politicians, with no authority over IIPM as it does not accept funds from it.--Iipmstudent9 04:28, 2 December 2005 (UTC)
 * As the wikipedia article say, "a professor is a senior teacher, lecturer and researcher, usually in a college or university". What follows, as is obvious is just optional. For example all professors may not give seminars or do research. (How many professors in India do research?). The logical path to become a professor is to start as a lecturer in an academic institution and then get promoted to "professorship" (Unless the candidate has the academic qualifications to start as a professor straight away). Since Mr. Arindam Chaudhuri is just an "Honorary Dean", this again reinforces the point that he doesnot have the required qualifications for professorship.

PeaSea 05:01, 2 December 2005 (UTC)


 * PeaSea, Kunal, He has been referred to as Professor Arindam Chaudhuri by everyone, including the world's largest English daily Times of India (Interview of Prof. Arindam Chaudhuri by Times of India, January 14, 2000), consistently. According to Wiki's no original research policy, "Wikipedia is not the place for original research. Citing sources and avoiding original research are inextricably linked: the only way to verify that you are not doing original research is to cite sources who discuss material that is directly related to the article, and to stick closely to what the sources say." It would appear that there is no more scope for discussion on this issue according to Wiki policy. I will wait for you to agree before implementing the changes. --Iipmstudent9 05:43, 3 December 2005 (UTC)

Scans of a few supporting materials
FOr a few days, I have uploaded these scans as proof of claims. Indian media doesnt have a good online repository to link these stories to.

--Drnoamchomsky 10:50, 21 November 2005 (UTC)



"Prof" has to be deleted from IIPM page too
To ensure compliance, I think we need to delete the Arindam Chaudhuri's "Prof" title from the IIPM article too. Any comments ? PeaSea 18:54, 28 November 2005 (UTC)

I don't think it's justified to call him "renowned".

Ponytail etc.
To user : please stop repeatedly inserting material about the subject's "ponytail of impressive length and greasiness". By all means feel free to add factual material that is critical of Chaudhuri, but that's just unencyclopedic and childish, and will cause others to view your other edits with suspicion and disdain. MCB 06:55, 1 December 2005 (UTC)

"Renowned" is a word used for Nobel prize winners or highly cited economists. Arindam does not have a single publication in a peer-reviewed journal nor has he ever been cited in peer-reviewed work done ny anybody else. He isn't entitled to call himself "professor" either. The only point of distinction that he does possess is a long greasy ponytail and he flaunts that in pictures released by his own publicity department. He does have many detractors and they do call him the "Ponytail". Since that nickname is in common prevalence like "Tricky Dick", "Slick Willy", "Dubya" and the "Wall" for people in different walks of life, it is entirely valid and factual to cite it on a biographical stub. If Arindam cuts off the ponytail, one would obviously remove the line. If he actually manages to publish and be cited in peer-reviewed work we could consider putting in "renowned". If he teaches in an UGC recognised institution at an acceptable level of seniority, he would be entitled to call himself "professor". Regards vetinarih

Agreed with MCB! Re Ponytail - can you please, please cut it out! ENOUGH!

cut out the language or the ponytail??

Circulation of the magazine
It has achieved a circulation of over 60000 copies every fortnight in the 5 months since its launch, making it India's 3rd largest business magazine.

Removed the above line from the Business & Economy section. No source has been cited, such as Audit Bureau of Circulation or National Readership Survey. Even well known magazines have to cite ABC reports while making such claims. I have deleted the line unilaterally since there was no source provided and it violates WP's No Original Research policy. Anyone who wants to reverse this edit should provide a link or a source reference before doing so.

Awards
The awards listed for Chaudhuri...how do we know they are genuine? Any press clipping or link that can confirm it? Tomorrow we may see claims of a Nobel prize in the section. Please add references or links, or I am deleting the awards section.

That was me, by the way Ponytailsnipper 14:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Advisor to Planning Commission??
Please cite a news report or a press release that announced his appointment as an advisor to the Planning Commission. As of now uncited, so deleting. Also note, a news article which referes to him as an Advisor to the PC wont do. In fact here' something interesting. Just carried out a google search of his name on the planning commission site - http://www.google.co.in/search?hl=en&q=arindam+chaudhuri+site%3Aplanningcommission.nic.in&btnG=Search&meta=

and it shows no results. Arindam Chaudhuri isn't mentioned on the official Planning Commission in any capacity. hence deleting that uncited claim. Ponytailsnipper 14:42, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Amitabh and Hema Malini
I fail to see the relevance of pics with Amitabh and Hema. I suggest deleting the pics. Ponytailsnipper 15:16, 10 December 2005 (UTC)

Too Many Pics
There were too many pics on the page, and I think it was cluttering the page and adding unnecessary data to Wiki servers. For instance - 1. Why is Arindam's pic with Sinha and Shourie? What is their relevance to this page? I suggest replacing it with a pic of Arindam alone 2. Why are the logos of Planman Consulting, Business & Economy there? Why not just provide a link to their sites? 3. Why did the GIDF pic have sachin tendulkar on it? If at all a visual should be put, it should be of the GIDF logo alone, a change I have made. Again, I fail to see the necessity for a logo cluttering the page, when a simple hyperlink would suffice.

Please remember, this is a wikiedia, and server space is precious.Ponytailsnipper 07:13, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Removed the Sinha and Shourie pic. And added a pic of Arindham alone. I have uploaded it as fairuse. Please me know if that is okay. Ganeshk 07:42, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Definitely better. The logos for Planman and GIDF aren't necessary either, since the article is about a person, not the organisations. Anyway, this stub has too many sections with not enough content. I'll give it a quick pass to make it more concise. --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 09:31, 11 December 2005 (UTC)

Awards
every edit made by me was done with a valid reason - uncited. reverting it back citing vandalism isn't enough. dont flout wiki policy so openly. even now there are several uncited claims. specifically the planning commission one. all you ened to do is give me a link from the planning commission website which lists arindam and i will not delte it. similarly with other claimed "Awards". but until then, all that info is "uncited" and i will keep deleting it, in line with wiki's policies. Ponytailsnipper 17:28, 11 December 2005 (UTC)


 * I got the awards info from his website, so they could go back in with a intro like: "According to his website, Chaudhuri was awarded...". That's sufficient citing, as it doesn't state it as fact, just that he claims it on his website.
 * Also, don't create ridiculous titles like "iipmalum, dude!!" --K. AKA Konrad West TALK 01:16, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Ponytailsnipper, I suggest you tone down a bit. You are making some valid points but putting them across too rudely. We are all nice people, aren't we? Faylicity 10:28, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Konrad, Faylicity, point taken. I apologise for any rudeness. Ponytailsnipper 13:14, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Boy, your jealousy driven (obvious from the Wiki ID) unilateral edits are proof of your shallow intentions. 'nuf said.  Konrad, The planning commssion is cited from a newspaper article i had uploaded weeks back - look at older versions to cross check. --Iipmstudent9 06:57, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * iipmstudent9, i am afraid newspaper scans uploaded weeks back don't count as references or proofs. i suggest an easier option. provide a link to the government commission page which has his name. I believe all government commissions across the world will be listed on their sites. Faylicity 10:26, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * i also suggest you avoid making personal comments like "jealous" even if his wiki id indicated so to you. And I may be new here so I dont get it. how does his wiki ID indicate jealousy? Is it an in-joke? Faylicity 10:30, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * Faylicity, IIPM folks are habituated to accusing others of jealousy and inferiority complex at the drop of a hat. No sense in expecting a logical explanation of it.Ponytailsnipper 12:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)
 * iipmstudent9, If he is in the Planning Commission, why isn't he listed on the website? I went through the committees, even carried out a google search for his name. He's not listed. IMHO, if he isn't listed on the Planning Commission website, which otherwise lists almost hundreds of names, then some old newspaper cuting is not valid. Ponytailsnipper 12:43, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

This is funny - two sockpuppets talking to each other - Wikipedia at its worst! :) --Iipmstudent9 17:19, 12 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Wikipedia at it's worst or IIPM (along with iipm students) at it's worst? Bloggerbrigade 18:01, 12 December 2005 (UTC)

Iipmstudent9, can you substantiate your allegations of sockpuppetry, or at least tell us why you suspect it? If not, can you please stop making these allegations? --Kunal (talk) 04:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Kunal, FYI, I ran Faylicity's login on the edit count website. The account was created on December 12 and all the edits (8 of them) from the account came from this talk page and Arindham talk page. - Ganeshk 05:33, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * How does that make me a sockpuppet? Faylicity 09:21, 13 December 2005 (UTC)


 * Thanks GaneshK. IIPmStudent9


 * Ganeshk, thats a good point, but a similar claim can be made about Iipmalum (the user has 13 edits, all IIPM or Arindam Chaudhuri related). I think in the absence of stronger reasons for suspicion we need to give these users the benefit of the doubt. --Kunal (talk) 12:29, 14 December 2005 (UTC)

Looks like Dipali Sakhare was on leave today. :) Ponytailsnipper 15:25, 14 December 2005 (UTC)
 * HaHa, asked the ofice in iipm. Dipali is indeed on leave, and will be on leave today as well. So we'll see no edits or reverts from 'iipmstudent9' for a while. 202.63.162.226 07:42, 15 December 2005 (UTC)

Response to 59.177.12.133/59.177.**.***
This is a reply to message posted earlier by 59.177.11.41. First on anmol.2k4 discussion page of all i have a page at wikipedia (I m not hiding lik you) Second, i doesn't take much of thinking why you are so much interested in IIPM, either you have too much time (may be unemployed) or you are being paid by IIPM.

59.177.11.41 it seems to me you are coward, if not why not start your page so that i can post on it all the reply you want.

and i have all the info you are so much interested about.

"In Indian B-School community IIPM has criticised for spending money on full page advertisements in newspapers and business magazines." - Please cite examples. What do you mean by the "B-school community"

Anmol.2k4: B-school community is something I'm part of and im sure you are not, does iit, iim, iis, mdi, or other top educational institutes in india spend money on ads for self promotion. Or look at Discussion page of IIPM many people there are from B-School Community, And i am living in a B-School and if you don't agree with me then i think you should start reading newspapers and mags. And explain why in thousands of educational institutions only IIPM has been attacked. I have very close sources in AICTE. SO I KNOW, and you don't.

"All Indian business (BUSINESS-TODAY,BUSINESS-WORLD and few political magazine (INDIA-TODAY-OUTLOOK have B-School Ranking on an annual or 6 month basis."

There are some 86 publications listed as business mags in English alone with the Audit Bureau of Circulation. There are several larger business mags (Business World for one and also the IIPM rags) which are not listed with ABC. Can you prove that all of them run annual or 6-month B-School surveys as you have sweepingly stated?

anmol.2k4: well i made a mistake "political magazine". I don't have time like you do but you tell me which business mag. (Indian) is not conducting a b-school ranking, with your interest in IIPM and info about Audit Bureau of Circulation something tells me that you have something to do with IIPM mags. do you work for IIPM ? that is because only somebody who works for IIPM will have so much interest.

You mean the edit:ad ratio in a magazine that carries a ranking is 1:2? Are you sure about this? Do you have any idea about the financials of major business mags? Are you sure that the issues on B-School Rankings become a very big source of income to such magazines? Can you cite any sources for this statement? Anmol.2k4: What kind of dumb question is this really? yes im sure about it because i read mags other than those of IIPM. buy a business Mag's ranking issue and if you cant notice the ratio of articles and news edits to advertisements then i cannot help you. And yes B-school ads in ranking issue are very big source of income BECAUSE B-SCHOOLS PAY A LOT OF MONEY TO THESE MAGS FOR THESE ADS,

YOU ARE REALLY DUMB, "IIPM is known to have spend annually around $ 1.2 million dollar, even then they have not been able to have 100% placements." Can you cite sources both for the ad spend numbers as well as for the placement ratios?

anmol.2k4: read this you dumb #ss. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/IIPM_Controversy#Advertising_Strategy sorces are from reputed newspapers and magazines

"Because Of institutes such as IIPM many top Indian institutes (IIM Lucknow,IIM Kozhikode, IIM Indore, XLRI, FMS Delhi, BIMTECH Noida,JBIMS Mumbai,Symbiosis - SIBM, SCMHRD) have not participated in any of these rankings because most of them have policy that they are going to spend very limited money on advertisements and would like to have mouth to mouth publicity only."

well i don't think there is need for statement.

when a magazine gave better ranking to institutes who have paid dor ads, above mentioned Institutes stopped participating in these ranking. Do you have more intelligent reason ??

but how about JAM mag or Business world.

Now these are question for you

1. Has IIPM 100% Placement. 2. From where did Malayendra Kishor got his masters in Science. 3. Is it Ethical for Arindam Chaudhari to study in IIPM,which is being owned by his father? 4. What made you think that I am not sure about all i write? 5. Do you have any statement or proof that IIPM has 100% placement,all the companies you mention in ad actually came to you campus and Mk Chaudhari and Arindam Chaudhari have all the degrees they claim to have. 6. Why is Sky blue. 7. Who are you. 8 Are you not working for IIPM. 9 What is your real name and location ?

when there are so many question about IIPM (you), who gave you right to ask others ?

Anmol

Who I am and what I do is irrelevant. You don't prove the truth of your statements by attacking the motives of somebody who questions them. You don't prove the truth of your statements by stating that you "know" something either.

In wiki terms you can only prove the truth of your statements by citing verifiable sources. this may seem strange to somebody who is as sure of the facts as you are but it is the rule of wiki-editing.

Please cite recorded verifiable statements by members of the B-School community. If you are a member of said community, identiy yourself in a source of mainstream media and say "I Anmol such and such, member of such and such state that IIPM has been criticised." You could very easily have done this since there are quite a few such quotes - you chose to go into a hysterical rant about being a member of some community and assuming I'm not.

If you have very close sources in Aicte - quote them. Don't say you "know".

Don't make sweeping statements - "all" Indian Business mags don't carry B-School surveys - many do. Calling Outlook or India-Today a political magazine is as silly an error as saying Einstein was a chemist. A wiki deals in facts - don't make verifiable errors.

You don't know the financial structure and income streams of Business magazines - or even if you do because you are an industry insider (doubtful given your classification of Outlook. India Today), these facts are not in the public domain. You haven't a clue whether the income from B-school survey issues is a "big source of income" - you may guess as much but you cannot prove this by citing facts in the public domain. So don't say it

Have you actually counted the edit:ad ratio in a reasonable sample of B-school survey issues? If so: cite it - say that in Business World 2004,2005 survey and Business Todays 2004,2005 etc surveys the edit:ad ratio was 1:2 across a sample of so many issues.

Where did you discover that B-schools pay to be included in these surveys - according to official statements by B-schools, the mags and the polling agencies, B-schools DONT PAY. I am very interested to know if there is a public statement on record to the opposite.

I have seen the ET articles too - why didn't you cite them? (The figure spent by IIPM is actually much higher if you go by rack rates)

I am not disputing the fact that many institutes don't participate in survey. Nor am I disputing that B-schools of repute dont advertise. However you are saying that they don't do this because "most of them have policy that they are going to spend very limited money on advertisements and would like to have mouth to mouth publicity only."

I'm not even getting into the fractured English in that statement. Can you cite any sources where a spokesperson for such institutes stated that this was their MOTIVE in withdrawing from surveys?

I have no idea about IIPM's placement ratios -- they have always avoided answering this question. You can infer from their evasion that they have low placements. BUT there is still no verifiable source for you to say what their placement ratios are. If you have such a source, quote it. I didn't make the statement, I am not arguing that it is false = but prove it.

2) According to MKC, he got it from the East Berlin School of Economics - the institute existed, it is now defunct and impossible to verify ( believe me I've tried and so have several other people).

3) I don't think so but how does that affect the facts - the entry states clearly that he studied at his father's institute. Let who reads it make up his/ her mind about the ethics.

4) Religious people are sure God exists. Atheists are sure God doesn't exist. You have to cite verifiable sources before you have a valid Wiki entry. It doesn't matter how sure you are personally.

5) No I don't but I don't have any proof to the contrary that I can cite. If you do, cite it.

6) read the wiki entry on the effect of sunlight travelling through the atmosphere

7) This is irrelevant - answer the questions I have raised.

8) No I am not

9) somebody who obviously knows a great deal more about both media and wiki standards than you do.

One suggestion - send this entire dialogue to a wiki adminstrator - pick one at random - they will tell you much the same things. They will also warn you against vandalism and abusive posting. Regards. -- 59:177:11:41

Vandalism by 59.177.12.133/59.177.**.***
59.177.12.133/59.177.**.*** is also known to vandalise other business school's pages on Wikipedia. 202.162.56.29 22:42, 12 June 2006 (UTC)

Removing one line
I wanted to remove one line from the introductory paragraph that talks about Arindam being a "highly controversial figure". I guess that sounds extreme as of now. But it is just a proposal to remove that line as I guess then almost every known personality in India would fall in the category of "highly controversial". As mentioned, in case editors feel the line should be there, do revert back. Regards, Mrinal 61.16.233.194 07:44, 8 September 2006 (UTC)

Revert to an older version
I noticed that a lot of stuff which had been removed with consensus due to its unencyclopaedic nature and unverifiability, has been put back on. Reverting to my older version. please discuss changes to version and approve them from peers before making them. Also see talk page for reasons why that stuff had been removed in the first place Makrandjoshi 08:02, 20 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Makrand, thanks for reverting back. I've added a few lines in the biography; which basically give a link to the management award won by Arindam a few days back. Do you think it would make pertinent sense to include details of this award? If yes, do kindly also give your view on whether I could include details of some other awards (with citation and links) too. I also wanted to bring to your notice that as per the web, I guess Arindam is Honorary Dean of a Centre at IIPM, and not the Director. I corrected the same. For all the changes that I have made, do kindly check whether I've made them appropriately or not. With regards, Mrinal 61.16.233.194 10:01, 22 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Makrand, still waiting for your feedback on the changes I've done. I just corrected one spelling mistake I had committed on spelling 'Honorary'; and also added a link to another website mentioning the award... But again, I'll await your feedback on the changes. With regards, Mrinal 203.76.140.130 05:38, 25 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Mrinal, the link you gave in the article is some movie link about Kareena, and it wasnt opening. Please provide the correct link and you can put that info back on. Don't write too many details though. Just the award, with a link to the article, and who gave it is enough. Remember, this is not a shrine for Arindam. This is an encyclopedia. Makrandjoshi 18:16, 26 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Makrand, even I noticed the link is not opening. I'll give the right links and put it back on. However, would really need your help in editing the stuff that I wrote. It'll be nice if you yourself can cut the words that seem unnecessary. Thanks a ton, regards, Mrinal 203.76.140.130 06:09, 3 October 2006 (UTC)

Archived discussion
I archived the past discussions. Kindly add your new comments at the bottom of the page. Regards, Mrinal Mrinal Pandey 18:22, 25 December 2006 (UTC)

Criticism?
Definitely need a section on criticism and controversy. Right now this article sounds like a press release. Kashif.h (talk) 12:03, 23 June 2011 (UTC)

Removing reference to IIPM controversy
I notice that a new reference to the IIPM Controversy page has been put up without a comment on the discussion forum. It has no connection with this biography; so removing it. Kindly put your comments before reverting the change. Thanks, and regards, Mrinal 125.19.3.2 06:48, 20 December 2006 (UTC)
 * I also am proposing deleting the IMdB web site listing of Rok Sako To Rok Lo. It seems to have no connection again with the biography. Can I include rather the websites of his company Planman Consulting? I'll wait for a couple of days for your responses before undertaking that change. Regards Mrinal Pandey 07:47, 22 December 2006 (UTC)

Created new subsection and removed spurious info
Created new subsection about the claims of the advance Rs. 25 lakh for his book, as suggested by Mrinal. Also removed Narayana Murthy et al's names from the awards section. I'm sure the mention of the award, alongwith the given external references, constitutes enough information to stand by itself.

Regards, Max 14:25, 4 January 2007 (UTC)

Max, Ambuj- Thanks for trying to fix this page. IIPM and Arindam Chaudhary (or his stooges) are trying to use this space to bolster their supposed achievements. Looking at the history I see that Mrinal Pandey has repeatedly tried to remove any negative references to IIPM and Arindam Chaudhary. He has used all possible strategies including straightforward deletion and making excuses about length of articles. Such (positive or negative) biases have no place in Wikipedia. He is obviously closely connected to Chaudhary or his organization. I am not sure of the process but please report Mrinal Pandey and have his editing privileges suspended.

This article makes it seem as if Priyadarshini Academy, KG Foundation and Om Venkatesa Society are some reputed organizations, and that it's a privilege to receive award from them. We all know that's not the case. Everyone knows the true extent of quality and qualification of folks associated with this group. This article should be removed or at least significantly pared down. This is not a forum for ego stroking or free advertisement.

Replacing Max's change
Hi Max, I'll be putting back N. R. Narayanmurthy's name, alongwith other people's names also, to give the reader an idea about the background of the award. With respect to the detail about the claims with respect to the book, I propose deleting the section. The maximum you could give is a link that links up to the news on the supposed claim of advance and stuff. I see no place authenticating the claim. Anyway, will wait for your suggestion before deleting and redoing it all. Thanks. Mrinal Pandey 06:08, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * On second thoughts, removing the section right now Max. I guess you should write a paragraph each about the books and the magazines and then give a line about the claim. Rather than doing vice versa. That's not adhering to the space and balance guideline defined by Wikipedia. I'm sure you must have read that in the policy book. So if you wish to put back the paragraph I've taken out, kindly do that after you put at least double that stuff on each book mentioned. Or wait for a couple of days, I'll put back the paragraph alongwith details on all the books. Best regards, 59.144.186.180 06:14, 8 January 2007 (UTC)
 * I guess the revert by admin CambridgeBayWeather (of his own accord) has validated my changes, but I will still reply to your points.
 * When you say "I see no place authenticating the claim", what do you mean? The story has appeared in a newspaper (The Indian Express), and that newspaper has been duly cited. Who else should have authenticated it, according to you?
 * I cannot understand why you wanted to put the onus on me to write "at least double that stuff on each book mentioned" if I want to add a verifiable piece of information about one of the books. I know the space and balance guide on WP, but it is hardly applicable here. Nevertheless, I had kept the subsection small (two sentences), and I don't think that it upset the balance of the section (in fact, making a separate section was your recommendation). If you want to add information about the books, please do so but do not delete legitimately cited information only because it doesn't suit your POV.


 * Regards,
 * Max 12:19, 10 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Dear Max, I've included the correct source as being Ahmedabad Newsline (and not Indian Express, as you mention). I've also included the complete news from the Ahmedabad newsline article. I hope you do not delete legitimately cited information about other people, that I've quoted from various reports, including from Ahmedabad Newsline (and not Indian Express)... Regards Mrinal Pandey 19:54, 15 January 2007 (UTC)


 * Hello Mrinal, please read the following points before you edit:
 * You had written:
 * "Along with Infosys Chairman N. R. Narayanamurthy, Arindam Chaudhuri was awarded the 2006 Priyadarshini Memorial Award for Excellent contribution to Management"
 * The above statement makes it sound as if both got a joint award in the same category, while the source (Mumbai Newsline) says:
 * "Arindam Chaudhuri (India): Outstanding contribution to the field of Management N R Narayana Murthy (India): Outstanding Contribution to IT sector"
 * Clearly, they've received awards in different categories. I still fail to understand why you want to include N R Narayana Murthy's name in this article. Why not include ALL the awardees' names then? This isn't an article about the Priyadarshini awards, is it? :-)
 * I have removed the following lines, which clearly misled the reader:
 * "''An article published in Ahmedabad Newsline also reported that unfortunately for McMillan, Chaudhuri’s press release has made the amount public, as it says: ‘‘With this (the advance for The Great Indian Dream) he betters the previous record of Rs 10 lakh that he had received for his earlier bestseller Count Your Chickens Before They Hatch.’’"
 * The original source reads:
 * "Quite obviously, our publishers don’t see the merit of projecting advance amounts for promotion purposes. Take for instance Chaudhuri’s first publishers, Vikas Publishing House. They too did not use the fact that they paid Chaudhuri what they now tell us was a ‘‘handsome amount’’—but they won’t tell us exactly how much—for Count Your Chickens...."
 * "Unfortunately for them, Chaudhuri’s press release has made the amount public. It says: ‘‘With this (the advance for The Great Indian Dream) he betters the previous record of Rs 10 lakh that he had received for his earlier bestseller Count Your Chickens Before They Hatch.’’ After all this, it looks like Arindam Chaudhuri may have learned a few lessons of his own in counting his publishing chickens before they hatch."
 * Them refers to Vikas Publishing House not MacMillan India. If you want to use these lines, please use them with the proper reference to context.
 * You've replaced Chaudhuri with Arindam Chaudhuri. Please note this: Manual of Style for biographies. I have not reverted your changes regarding this, and am relying on your good faith to do so.
 * Ahmedabad Newsline is a part of The Indian Express, not a separate newspaper, hence I had mentioned IE as the source. I have no problems in being more precise and mentioning Ahmedabad Newsline, but I have mentioned it as a part of the Indian Express, which it is.
 * Please don't remove the tag in the end. It is a handy way of linking to sources from within the article. In your previous edit, all the in-article reflinks (the little [1], [2] links above some sentences) to the References section were orphaned because of removal of the tag.
 * Thanks,
 * Max 07:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * Max 07:39, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Removed award detail
I have removed the award detail which quoted that Vilasrao Deshmukh and Kamal Nath gave the award. Both the references sourced do not support this claim. Even if Deshmukh did hand over the prize, he did it as a chief guest, and not an awarding authority. Thus, even if it is mentioned, it should be made clear that he was only a guest of honour/chief guest. — Ambuj Saxena (☎) 07:42, 16 January 2007 (UTC)
 * That little detail had been nagging me too. Thanks Ambuj. - Max 09:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)

Citations added
I've added citations in two paragraphs; and have taken the liberty to remove the tags which questioned the factuality of the information, as well as one which requested readers to place citations. It would be nice if readers could check out the validity of the citations I've provided as at least one of them (about Wilton Park Conference) does not seem to be a valid one... But I've still put it to see if it can pass muster. Thanks. Mrinal Pandey 08:32, 25 April 2007 (UTC)

Proposal to remove 'ad' tag
I notice that somebody has put a tag saying this article looks like blatant advertising. I propose to remove it as almost all the references are properly tagged and 'sourced'. If a person's review looks clean, it's surprising that it's automatically given a tag saying this looks like an advertisement. Irrespective of that, I'll wait for a couple of days, perhaps even a week, for your viewpoints before removing the tag. Till then, the tag, in all its beauty, remains :-) Regards, Mrinal Pandey 14:20, 5 September 2007 (UTC)
 * I have removed the tag. I agree, it was quite irrelevant. I don't think anyone should mind. - Max - You were saying? 15:12, 5 September 2007 (UTC)

Added a section "Controversy"
I think this article, without this important event that happened in AC's life, would be incomplete. Moreover, the previous editing in this article has been done in order to give a favourable impression about him and not exactly the truth. —Preceding unsigned comment added by 221.3.67.180 (talk) 07:34, 20 August 2008 (UTC)


 * Removed the section as it was typically irrelevant and also hypothesized the inference. Do kindly put it back [with editions] in case you think otherwise; though I will keep checking. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 14:00, 4 November 2008 (UTC)


 * I think a controversy section is pretty relevant on this page, especially since thats an opinion a large number of wikipedians hold. Before we write it up (in a manner thats not defamatory or libelous) could we compile a list of controversies that could be added to this page? Thanks.Pranay Da Spyder (talk) 05:29, 1 February 2009 (UTC)


 * An article on Arindam Chaudhuri without the mention of a whole range of controversies! It's a shame. Anybody researching on this self proclaimed "philospher, management "guru", economist (WTF ??)" needs to know the actual truth exposed by Jam Magazine and others. I strongly suggest that there be a detailed section on his various exploits in selling the MBA dream to unsuspecting masses.Rakesh Dhanireddy (talk) 07:48, 7 November 2010 (UTC)
 * IIPM loyalists keep deleting any reference to that episode. I added a section twice but deleted by Ms Mrinal. This is really retrograde. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mspatnaik (talk • contribs) 04:09, 13 December 2010 (UTC)

Hi Mrinal: I think you represent Arindam on this website but I guess you cant hide facts like this in a page about him on wikipedia. I was the one who created this section. BUt I am not conversant with wikipedia tools. If others agree on retaining this section, could you tell me how can we get it back? —Preceding unsigned comment added by Mspatnaik (talk • contribs) 07:30, 14 October 2010 (UTC)

Removed the term 'Bengali' from the first line
I think that writing 'Bengali' was assuaging to a characteristic of Chaudhuri that was beyond requirement for the personality description. 'Indian' is more than enough, unless you suggest that the language that a person speaks should be necessarily put in front of the person's description... Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 09:25, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

'According to the website'
If information is cross linked and substantiated with news reports, I want to discuss, is it necessary to have 'According to his website' also written? If yes, kindly place back the term; if not, kindly allow the removal of that term to continue. Warm regards, Mrinal Pandey (talk) 09:27, 5 November 2008 (UTC)

PR spin of book author
Proposing removal of the PR spin para where money quoted was higher than what was ostensibly obtained. Mrinal Pandey (talk) 13:19, 18 November 2008 (UTC)

controversy section
Lest this also be seen as vandalism, I am requesting editors to see how can iipm details be put on personal biography... The link has already been given. Therefore 'proposing' removing the section. Wifione (talk) 10:38, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

actors in films
the actors have been mentioned in the films because the actors also define a huge part of the films. Mentioning actors is not to be considered plainly as pr spin. When it's a Baz Luhrman movie, then it is quoted that Hugh Jackman acted in a Baz Luhrman movie Australia. Therefore 'proposing' adding back the names of actors in the movies... Wifione (talk) 10:40, 1 July 2009 (UTC)

reverting clear vandalism
i have reverted clear vandalism on a living person's autobiography. please see the administrator's noticeboard where i have reported the incident. cheers Wireless Fidelity Class One 05:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC) Wireless Fidelity Class One 05:05, 17 August 2009 (UTC) —Preceding unsigned comment added by Wifione (talk • contribs)

Arindam Chauduri's bio page does not carry any of the controversies surrounding him or his institute. Prominent links are available online. There has been no factual rebuttal of any of these charges from Arindam or his institute. Instead this biography is peppered with glorification of Arindam and his life and acheivements. God only knows the many of the orgs who feted Arindam as per this article. I request you to please block that Mrinal Pandey from taking rogue control of this page and arresting freedom of expression. Even if there is no truth in the allegations against Mr.Chauduri, these links and info should have still been present as allegations/controversies topic. After being a monetary contributor for Wikipedia over the years, I am deeply pained that Wiki lets these types of rogues get away with their nefarious actions and build a sqeaky clean wikipage hiding all allegations of wrongdoing. http://www.careers360.com/news/3067-IIPM-Best-only-in-claims http://www.virsanghvi.com/CounterPoint-ArticleDetail.aspx?ID=340 — Preceding unsigned comment added by Venbas (talk • contribs)


 * Sadly, we've bureaucratic policies to ensure that every source that is even mildly critical of the subject gets branded as "non-reliable". And average people like us don't really want to spend a lot of time editing this article, lest we get sued for a thousand million rupees. utcursch | talk 04:50, 2 February 2011 (UTC)

Edits and sources
Listing a few pointers for discussion:
 * Rediff.com is an ad agency's website; not an RS. For the movie, it'll be easy to find RS links than a Rediff.com link.
 * Caravan link removal pointers:
 * The caravan source is a word by word reprint of a future book apparently. It's clearly not a review of the unpublished book. Neither is it an editorial piece. Simply an abstract that has been extracted seemingly directly from the future unpublished book.
 * The future book currently stands unpublished. There is a likely chance that the book may be published. But that is conjecture; the book may not be published at all. This forces a rethink on the Caravan reprint. Caravan believes that the piece would be published in a book (by Viking Penguin; as Caravan reports), therefore the piece has been evidently passed without an editorial control. This is quite expected too as magazines reprinting book chapters do not exercise editorial control over the reprint. At the same time, Viking Penguin also has not editorially looked into this piece, as the book itself hasn't been published. Thus my advice would be to wait for the book to get published (June isn't that far away is it) and then use this primary source and opinion piece to augment a third party reliable source than use this primary source as the main source. Please use caution while using primary sources, and this is BLP policy.
 * Even if it had been published, this piece is a quite clearly a BLP primary source, and an opinion piece (that is, a first person opinion of first hand accounts of Deb's claimed experiences with Arindam - I write claimed because the book hasn't been published) than a pure third-party source. In consequence, as per BLP policy, if this had been a published book, this book could have been used as a primary source to augment a reliable third party source with each statement being directly quoted to the author (for example, "Siddhartha Deb, in his book 'so and so' says that..."). That would have ensured that (1) usage of primary opinion comments would be minimal in a BLP (2) third party reliable sources could have been found for challenged statements than opinion statements. As much as I see it, Caravan has not commented on the book chapter but simply reprinted the same.
 * Siddhartha Deb is not amongst the editorial team at Caravan. He is only a contributing author, in other words, a one-time author..
 * Siddhartha Deb is not in general a journalist. All his past books have been fiction novels. This is not to discredit him; he may be acclaimed in the fiction field. This is to put forth that one cannot view his pieces as journalistic pieces with editorial control. But again, that would be when and if the book actually gets published.
 * As per this interview at least, Deb is intending to publish this book himself. So will this be a self-published source? I don't know. But this is enough for me to hold up my guard to comment that we should wait for the book to be first published. If you saw Macleans' criticism of Viking Penguin being a vanity press when they published Barbra Streisand's clearly self published book My passion for design, you'll probably realize that no publishing house today is above the line. Macleans is Canada's only national weekly current affairs magazine..  Wifione    .......  Leave a message  01:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * Deb's article has been published by Caravan magazine as a cover story. So, there is no question of using a "self-published" source. Cover stories are chosen by the editor, and in this case the article is an adaption, not reprint. So your argument of "no editorial control" is invalid. Plus, the magazine in the question is a reputed 70-year old magazine published by Delhi Press, a leading magazine publisher of India.


 * Also, how about applying the same stringent set of criteria to other references used in the article? Rediff.com can be used as source for an award, but becomes an "ad agency's website" in some other case? Photo galleries and primary sources are valid references, but cover story of an esteemed 70-year old magazine is not? Which of the articles used as references have been written by someone who is on the editorial team of the publication?


 * To an average Indian reader, this article looks like a well-protected puff piece. I can easily add back the removed content backed up with other references from the articles Indian Institute of Planning and Management advertising and blogging controversy and Indian Institute of Planning and Management, but I'll leave that for another day when I've enough time to spend on fruitless arguments. utcursch | talk 04:40, 2 February 2011 (UTC)


 * I completely agree with utcursch. A cover story by this respectable publishing house is quite a credible source. This article is definately not NPOV. Kashif.h (talk) 17:19, 23 June 2011 (UTC)