Misplaced Pages

Talk:Arindam Chaudhuri

Article snapshot taken from Wikipedia with creative commons attribution-sharealike license. Give it a read and then ask your questions in the chat. We can research this topic together.

This is an old revision of this page, as edited by Suraj845 (talk | contribs) at 11:59, 21 January 2012 (Answer to Lynch7). The present address (URL) is a permanent link to this revision, which may differ significantly from the current revision.

Revision as of 11:59, 21 January 2012 by Suraj845 (talk | contribs) (Answer to Lynch7)(diff) ← Previous revision | Latest revision (diff) | Newer revision → (diff)
This article must adhere to the biographies of living persons (BLP) policy, even if it is not a biography, because it contains material about living persons. Contentious material about living persons that is unsourced or poorly sourced must be removed immediately from the article and its talk page, especially if potentially libellous. If such material is repeatedly inserted, or if you have other concerns, please report the issue to this noticeboard.If you are a subject of this article, or acting on behalf of one, and you need help, please see this help page.
This article has not yet been rated on Misplaced Pages's content assessment scale.
It is of interest to the following WikiProjects:
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconBiography
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Misplaced Pages's articles about people. All interested editors are invited to join the project and contribute to the discussion. For instructions on how to use this banner, please refer to the documentation.BiographyWikipedia:WikiProject BiographyTemplate:WikiProject Biographybiography
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconEconomics Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics 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.EconomicsWikipedia:WikiProject EconomicsTemplate:WikiProject EconomicsEconomics
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
Note icon
This article has been automatically rated by a bot or other tool because one or more other projects use this class. Please ensure the assessment is correct before removing the |auto= parameter.
Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.
WikiProject iconIndia Low‑importance
WikiProject iconThis 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
LowThis article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

It is requested that a photograph be included in this article to improve its quality.
The external tool WordPress Openverse may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.		Upload

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 Misplaced Pages. 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 Misplaced Pages. 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 <references/> 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 links above some sentences) to the References section were orphaned because of removal of the <references/> tag.
Thanks,
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 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 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 Misplaced Pages 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 ....... 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)

Edit request from Saifnaik, 4 June 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

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

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

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

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

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

Edit request from Saifnaik, 24 June 2011

This edit request has been answered. Set the |answered= or |ans= parameter to no to reactivate your request.

Criticisms page needed.

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

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

Paid news for "verifiability"?

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

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

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

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

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

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

POV

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

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

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

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


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


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


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


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


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


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


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

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


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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

The sources you have quoted are discussed as under:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

  • You’ve clearly left out some news items I had linked, maybe because you couldn’t find any problems with them.
  • Planning Commission source. Again you have not worked to search soruces but are giving non neutral statements. The government site link you give does not even contain the name of Jawaharlal Nehru, the first member of Planning Commission. So I have no reason to believe the link you provide is reliable. Anyway I am not just giving you this link but links like these .

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Categories: