Biography Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Biography, a collaborative effort to create, develop and organize Wikipedia'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 articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.

Economics Start‑class

This article is within the scope of WikiProject Economics, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Economics on Wikipedia. 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 articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. ??? This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale. 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.

India Start‑class Low‑importance

This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles Start This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale. Low This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Archives

Archive 1 (Nov 2005–Oct 2006)

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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.

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

---

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 ^{[1], [2]} 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)[reply]

---

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)[reply]

That little detail had been nagging me too. Thanks Ambuj. - Max 09:41, 16 January 2007 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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. And if they are true which is what the overwhelming documentary evidence suggest, then Arindam and co are just misusing Wikipedia for their own means and ends. 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)[reply]

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.[1] He is only a contributing author, in other words, a one-time author.[2].

Siddhartha Deb is not in general a journalist. All his past books have been fiction novels.[3] 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.[4] 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.[5] Macleans is Canada's only national weekly current affairs magazine.[6]. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 01:19, 2 February 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

'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)[reply]

I stand corrected. It seems that he does have degrees in Economics from Madras university. Kashif.h (talk) 18:32, 23 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 _....... ^{Leave a message} 17:16, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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)[reply]

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)[reply]

Also see IIPM sues Caravan, Google, Penguin for Rs 50 cr (IBNLive). utcursch | talk 15:42, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]

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 _....... ^{Leave a message} 17:05, 24 June 2011 (UTC)[reply]