Talk:Indian Institute of Planning and Management

※ Please add newer discussions at the bottom of this page.

Newsweek Article
"Manipulating Wikipedia to Promote a Bogus Business School"
 * http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/03/manipulating-wikipedia-promote-bogus-business-school-316133.html


 * "Wifione's primary purpose from that point appeared to be to monitor IIPM’s Wikipedia page. If criticism of the business school appeared, Wifione would use its influence to remove it, according to the Arbitration Committee. In 2009, Careers360, an English-language magazine about the Indian education industry, started publishing a series of investigative stories about IIPM. The magazine noticed that in its advertising literature, IIPM claimed it was linked to a Belgian business school called IMI Belgium, styling its course as a premium “European MBA.” But Careers360 published what it said was a letter from Belgian education authorities saying IMI Belgium was not accredited and had no legal authority to grant MBAs. (The Delhi High Court found IMI Belgium was nothing more than an “alter ego or another face of IIPM.”)  IIPM also advertised partnerships with a number of foreign institutions, including the University of Buckingham in Britain. Careers360 reported that Buckingham University had told it that it had no formal agreement with IIPM—a report judged to be true by a court in the Indian state of Uttarakhand that dismissed a libel suit over the story. The magazine also reported that many of IIPM’s graduates were unable to find work or ended up working for IIPM as lecturers, at much lower salaries than they might have expected from the advertising that had lured them. The magazine also found that neither of India's official educational bodies had accredited IIPM's so-called MBAs. (The Delhi court ruling confirmed this too.)"

Looks like this should be incorporated some way. Thanks, Jake Ocaasit &#124; c 20:22, 24 March 2015 (UTC)
 * If you're interested in history, look at the Jimbo Wales talk from 2013. -- Aronzak (talk) 20:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 25 March 2015
$31,000 is not equal to 2 million INR or the respective figures are misleading. Pumping wrong propaganda for the prospectives.

50.199.228.97 (talk) 16:33, 25 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —  17:50, 25 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 26 March 2015
Request the inclusion of this link. Please read the article to see if it has any relevance to this Wikipedia page :

http://www.newsweek.com/2015/04/03/manipulating-wikipedia-promote-bogus-business-school-316133.html

Everywhere Spirit (talk) 10:37, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * Asking for discussion is fine but edit request templates are used when you are presenting specific changes. --Neil N  talk to me 13:53, 26 March 2015 (UTC)
 * The editor asked for 'inclusion' not 'discussion'. The link and a brief summary of its content is already present in the article, see Indian_Institute_of_Planning_and_Management. --Vejvančický (talk / contribs) 15:31, 26 March 2015 (UTC)

Misuse of Infobox university - since it's NOT a university.
What should we do about the misuse of Infobox university - since it's NOT a university? I changed it to Infobox school.--Elvey(t•c) 10:27, 29 March 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 28 April 2015 - Police register cheating case against IIPM dean Arindam Chaudhuri
The crime branch of Delhi Police has registered a case against management guru and founder of IIPM (Indian Institute of Planning and Management) Arindam Chaudhuri on a complaint by the University Grants Commission (UGC), stating that the institute is ‘cheating’ and ‘fooling’ its students as it is not recognised by any regulatory body.

In its complaint, the UGC said that the institute did not have any permission to give management degrees.

A case under section 420 (cheating) of the IPC was registered against the institute’s dean Arindam Chaudhuri and the director, also his father, Malayendra Kisor Chaudhuri. Police said they are investigating the case and may initiate action next week.

Official Newspaper website Reference: http://www.hindustantimes.com/newdelhi/police-register-cheating-case-against-iipm-dean-arindam-chaudhuri/article1-1345927.aspx

121.242.225.20 (talk) 13:05, 11 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Red question icon with gradient background.svg Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format. —  22:06, 11 May 2015 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 12 May 2015
http://ibnlive.in.com/news/fir-against-iipm-founder-arindam-chaudhuri-after-ugc-accuses-him-of-misleading-students/545227-3.html

Delhi Police have registered an FIR against Arindam Chaudhuri, founder of Indian Institute of Planning and Management (IIPM), on the basis of a complaint by the University Grants Commission of "misleading, cheating and fooling" its students as its courses were not acknowledged by any recognised authority.

59.97.12.240 (talk) 19:50, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * Suggected to decline; FIR simply means that police formally registered the complaint. Since the whole affair is rather old news, this fact is nonnotable. Staszek Lem (talk) 20:52, 12 May 2015 (UTC)


 * News isn't non-notable just because it's old. This particular coverage isn't old either, dated today. On balance though, the reference may be useful to add to an existing sentence with suitable revision, but I see no need to belabor with excessive verbage what seems to be a routine police procedure. ~Amatulić (talk) 21:41, 12 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Sorry, I was not clear. I was not talking about this specific episode. I am talking about the overall conviction of IIPM. There is no doubt there is a flurry of follow-up lawsuits. To list them all here is hardly encyclopedic. In this particular case it is not even a lawsuit; it is just a preliminary filing of a complaint. Staszek Lem (talk) 02:18, 13 May 2015 (UTC)
 * Red information icon with gradient background.svg Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the template. —   12:48, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Assessment comment
Substituted at 21:45, 26 June 2016 (UTC)

New addition
The content you are trying to add has a few problems:

First, you have been changing the meaning of sentences to their opposite meaning, misrepresenting reliable sources already cited. That isn't acceptable.

Second, the content you want to add is in the wrong place. The lead section (see WP:LEAD) should provide an overview of the article body, and nothing you are trying to add in the lead is mentioned in the body.

Third, you're trying to use the lead section for breaking news.

The WP:BURDEN to add new material rests on the person who wants to add it. To meet that burden, you need to convince others that it's warranted. ~Anachronist (talk) 21:55, 4 March 2023 (UTC)

I'll add that there is a place for what you want to add, but not where you are insisting on adding it. ~Anachronist (talk) 22:28, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * I am not associate with IIPM in any way. I am just a news reader and keep myself updated with the latest news. Doesnt Wikipedia acknowledge Supreme court and High court verdict? I am posting edit which are from reliable source and they are Supreme court verdict lodged in the legal book of the supreme court? Why is my edit always being cancelled when I am just posting Supreme court's verdict???? Shivarjun Das (talk) 22:41, 4 March 2023 (UTC)


 * Other single-purpose accounts like yours have appeared here in the past, intent on whitewashing the article as you have done, and who were all associated with IIPM. We assumed good faith for them too when they denied a conflict of interest, which turned out to be false. So when a new single-purpose account appears doing similar activity, forgive me if I seem jaded based on past experience. You may indeed be independent, but it is certainly hard to tell.
 * To answer your question: Yes, Wikipedia acknowledges reliable source reporting on such verdicts. We can add the material in the proper place, without misrepresenting sources as you did, and without subverting the historical record already in the article. ~Anachronist (talk) 23:32, 4 March 2023 (UTC)
 * I have added a couple of sentences referencing this court decision in the history section. It isn't germaine to any paragraph in the lead. ~Anachronist (talk) 20:36, 10 March 2023 (UTC)