Talk:Indian Institute of Planning and Management/Archive 8

Changing back unsubstantiated paragraph moves
Deepak, I guess somebody shifted the paragraphs relating to alumni, publications etc to the end of the article without substantiating such a move. Someone also changed the wordings in the publications paragraph. So not only have I shifted back the paragraphs to their original positions, I have also put back details on publications in the respective paragraph. Take care... ~Mrinal Plus, I also changed the part on the IIPM controversy to include correct tenses. The controversy occured in 2005, 2004, therefore, the statements should have the word 'had' and not 'has'. If you notice the paras changed, you'll notice the tense changes. Do revert back if you think that's not appropriate. Take care... Mrinal
 * Mrinal, Please place your comments or new paragraphs only at the end of the talk page. You will notice that the "substantiation" has been made and I have also specifically discussed the new text. I have removed the details as per discussion: note that this is not an advertising forum for IIPM and I see no reason to over-glorify things. You will note that these points have been discussed in detail. Secondly, when you modify tense, do not add "detractors claim" etc. for facts. IIPM only mentions its non accreditation in very small text, even now. therefore I have changed that as well. Note that "Famous Alumni" has been moved down, it seems to be better placed near the end. Deepakshenoy 17:36, 23 August 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Deepak, Makrand, what you've edited is perfectly ok. Sorry for placing discussions on top of the page. Had no idea that new discussions are supposed to be at the end :-) Thanks again. Take care and have a great teacher's day :-) Mrinal 203.76.140.130 05:36, 5 September 2006 (UTC)

Some paras that had been added without reason have been deleted from controversy section
Hi Deepak, Makrand, I saw a few lines that had been added to the controversy section (like a link to the so called Student's union web site, and links to other third party websites) which I removed. If you see those lines in the previous version, you would understand why I removed them. Kindly do vet the change. Regards, Mrinal 203.76.140.130 02:48, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Deepak, Makrand, I went through the whole article again, and saw so many changes to our previous version, that I went ahead and deleted the whole article and pasted the previous version which you guys had approved earlier. Someone has gone ahead and added so many extra lines that I couldn't track the changes. Kindly do see whether the article I've pasted is actually the one which you had approved. And if it is not, do kindly revert to the original article. With best regards, (and apologies for the pasting without permission), Mrinal 203.76.140.130 02:58, 11 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Hi Deepak, someone's actually changing back text regularly. Can you please take a look at the changes? Mrinal 203.76.135.250 12:45, 13 September 2006 (UTC)
 * Mrinal, Current edit by Glen seems fine. Thanks to Glen, Arbustoo and Ryulong's edits and revamping to the new reference scheme. Deepakshenoy 13:59, 18 September 2006 (UTC)

Plagiarism Controvery
Hi Makrand, I saw your new addition. Just added one line more from the article. Do kindly approve. Thanks, Mrinal
 * Mrinal, let us get this very clear. this is an Encyclopaedia, and not an advertisement or a damage control mechanism for IIPM. The "Publications" section aleady mentions that IIPM runs syndicated articles. the issue here isn't that the article was published. The issue is that the article was published WITHOUT attributing the Welches or even the news source, as is required under syndication rules. Even syndication doesn;t allow IIPM to pass off Jack Welch's article as Arindam's. That is what is at question. So your line is not only unnecessary, but it is also misleading, since it implies that since the article was under syndication, misattributing it was fine. —The preceding unsigned comment was added by Makrandjoshi (talk • contribs).
 * Hi (your name isn't mentioned, so I don't know who has written the above piece). I do appreciate your points and completely accept all of them. If you look at the line that I added, the line is not about IIPM claiming on Wikipedia that the articles were syndicated. The USA Today article actually has that line which I have added (do kindly check the USA Today page; the link is there in the main piece). I do believe that it is pertinent for the reader to know this additional line too as that gives the balanced and appropriate perspective of information. I accept this is not a damage control mechanism for IIPM. I also believe this is not a place where we give only one sided views. I have found the editing of Deepak Shenoy and Makrand Joshi to be extremely objective oriented and adhering to all the rules and standards set up by Wikepedia. I guess if you notice the changes they've made in the past, those have been extremely well balanced. If you are ok with it, I should request you to kindly wait for Makrand and Deepak to give their responses on the additional line. I, for one, will completely accept their recommendations to the paragraph. With regards... Mrinal 203.76.140.130 08:52, 4 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Well, I've changed that text and some of the others in the page, including where the "degrees not being accredited" bits had been manipulated by adding "IMI", which seems to absolve IIPM of the problem. But IIPMs degrees remain unaccredited to date. Secondly, there was a mention of a degree with Stanford, but I've removed that for lack of proper sources. I have refrained from blaming IIPM squarely in the plagiarism fiasco, since, as Makrand said, the real problem was that IIPM wanted to give the impression that Chaudhuri wrote that article. They've fixed that for now, it seems, though I can't even find the link to that article or site! Deepakshenoy 09:25, 7 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Thanks Deepak, Makrand. Deepak, the changes you've made to the IMI terms look perfect. Thanks for that. With respect to the Stanford University Joint Venture (And another Joint Venture with Yale School of Management), I've requested the IIPM administration to confirm it to me too. They did say they'll put something up on their web site. I don't know when. But I'll keep a track. And put up both the additions once there's confirmation. Would wait for your edits then. I'm putting up a paragraph on how IIPM is the first institution from Indian that has been selected to join Central and East European Management Development Association (Ceeman). I'm putting up a link from Financial Times London. Do also check the same. Regards and wishes.... 203.76.135.250 08:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC) Mrinal
 * I would prefer you put this in the "Global Partnerships" section once it's up. I will edit your contribution because all your text seems to be about marketing IIPM, which I feel I must curtail, as I have done in the CEEMAN case. Deepakshenoy 09:32, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I agree. The detail should be in Global Partnerships. I have a problem with your statement where you say that all the text seems to be about marketing IIPM. It is perhaps not about marketing IIPM, but rather putting across points which are positive, as I notice certain others vociferously have used Wikipedia to put only negative statements (which you have correctly deleted in the past, and I have used positive statements to give the correct viewpoint, the USA Today example being one of them). But I should say that if Wikipedia is only about providing non-marketable (or marketable) information, then we should start putting across all the news of IIPM written by journalists that comes in all the 'neutral' newspapers. You would realise that if a "non-marketable" USA Today article can be put up, then you have to clearly accept we should also put up non-USA Today articles which also give a different viewpoint. I am sure your points would be logical on that. I'll start putting up IIPM news that comes in various newspapers from now on under different paragraphs. Because if you truly believe that visitors to the web site should know details about USA Today (running into five lines), then I think that the same amount of space should be dedicated to typical newsy articles on IIPM that might not be "non-marketable". Deepak, I do think that your viewpoint with respect to CEMEN is perfectly ok. But I find it grossly wrong that you can consider it a part of the "marketing" statement. Anyway, at this point I am suggesting that the complete structure of the IIPM site on wikipedia does not confirm to the structure followed while writing details about business schools globally. You could visit the details of any ivy league school on wikipedia, or even other schools. I am going to suggest a complete structural change to the IIPM page today or tomorrow. That would mean a complete revamp adhering to the standard set up with respect to wikipedia details about other b-schools. That'll also ensure that discussions and debates on "marketable" and "non-marketable" information have a benchmark with other b-school information provided, which currently seems to be not there. Do kindly give me a feedback on this suggestion. I'll put up the completely reworked template on Monday (with references to almost all the other b-school sites on wikipedia).
 * Mrinal, you can't market IIPM here the way you try to. You try to put overzealous statements which I and others here have tried to correct these because they are simply blatant advertising which is not the purpose of Wikipedia. I have pointed out SPECIFIC instances when you have done so earlier. For advertising, please use the IIPM web site, and not this site. Please don't start a revert war again; I will announce your intentions on my blog, and I hope that other people will also join to keep this page sane. Deepakshenoy 06:23, 10 November 2006 (UTC)

Thanks and regards Mrinal 203.76.135.250 05:52, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Mrinal, what made the USA Today article significant was the seriousness of the content. Don't try to triialise it saying it was just 5 lines. It was a very serious charge. And your cagey attitude towards that charge and attempts to infuence information about it makes it amply clear what your intentions are. Makrandjoshi 12:57, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Makrand, I'm not trying to trivialise it at all. I'm just trying to put across the fact that if other business school web sites follow a standard of reporting such news (to which you allowed quite acceptable and appreciated changes anyway), then we should use them as a benchmark. I do not think that IIPM should be made the sole benchmark of new styles of putting across information. My sincere request, let's go ahead and ask other editors to comment on this. Let's see their views on this. Like in the past, I'll surely be open to accepting views that provide a comparison with other b-school sites. I'm sure you realise the intention is not to marginalise but to give equal importance to news, whether negative or positive. My attitude will never be cagey, as you've mentioned, but completely towards getting substantiation for introducing new style of reporting news on the IIPM site. With regards, Mrinal 203.76.135.250 04:31, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

CEEMAN
I have changed most of the marketing-ish text with a simple and succinct presentation. This page is about IIPM, not CEEMAN, and we don't need to specify who else is a member of CEEMAN, etc. Plus, CEEMAN is NOT "the key body for registering graduate and post-graduate management institutions in the European Union and associate countries" - do you have sources please. Deepakshenoy 09:09, 9 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I guess their web site has that claim. But you can delete that too. Not a problem. I hope you've gone through my last paragraph on the discussion part. I went through many b-school sites. HBS Dean had a major controversy where he talked about women not being good managers, and he was castigated a lot for that. HBR researchers were thrown out this month for plagiarising from the web. And so on so forth. But I strangely find no controversy on those pages. Any views Deepak? Because like I mentioned, I'm going to change the complete template of this web site to adhere to the one followed by all the other business-schools. I'll await your feedback with respect to why is that no "controversies" are there on other b-school web sites. Regards, Mrinal
 * HBS is not an article I review. If you notice, the Harvard page has noted the gender issue. There is a difference between Harvard and HBS. HBS researchers wise, I'm not aware of a HBS plagiarism, only of a general Harvard and Yale issue, which are reflected in both pages. As I've mentioned, your attempt to change this entire site will be a revert war, Mrinal, and I will oppose any attempt to make this an advertising portal for IIPM. We need to show the facts, and facts corresponding with sources. Deepakshenoy 06:38, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * The plagiarism news is among all newspapers. I read it in TOI. Haven't checked whether it's come on the web though. But the Kavya part must be of course known to you. With respect to the 'revert war', I find your words the usage of the words 'revert war' quite strange. I don't think your fears of this becoming an IIPM portal is founded. But I'm surely going to ensure that this site adheres to benchmarks of international b-schools. If controversies are 'mentioned' and not listed in different paragraphs, then we'll have to follow that here too. If controversies are not mentioned, then we'll have to follow that here too. If you're saying that you'll refuse to follow the international wikipedia b-school information benchmarks with a revert war, I find that a puerile statement, and I apologise for using harsh words at the same time. Your confidence at forecasting this will become an IIPM marketing portal also allows me to reinforce my drive towards making this adhere to the international b-school information benchmark. You prove to me how controversies are listed in other b-schools, and I'll surely have no problems in allowing paragraphs to remain. If you stick to your stand of a revert war, just because you have blindly chosen not to accept discussions on adhering to benchmarks, then I'll have to accept that call and ask for other editors to be involved. I do not appreciate the words you have used with respect to 'marketing' and 'revert war'. Till now, I have supported your changes which are logical. But I do believe the whole template of this web site does not adhere to the international b-school information standard. If you continue to suggest revert wars, I shall have to request you to necessarily get other editors to give their comments, rather than just you and a few other 'marketing' and 'revert war' individuals. Regards, Mrinal 203.76.135.250 06:48, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Firstly, Kavya is not a "HBS Researcher". Get those facts right. Second, you seem to say that there is an "international b-school information benchmark" which I don't know about; what is it? If you're comparing with other places - see how other schoos' issues have been brought up, in the Stanford and Yale pages. You seem to want this to somehow paint IIPM ONLY positively without mention of any negatives and with over-flowery reporting. I want to give people the whole picture, in an unbiased manner. I don't appreciate your views on what is standard and what is not - there is no accepted standard, and Wikipedia has only broad definitions of what it wants to be, not specific things like "business school templates". We have to define the standard. If it means bringing all facts to light, let us. If you think the Harvard page requires mention of a controversy, please go ahead and make those edits. You are going to start a revert war if you remove content that is currently on the page. There is no need to remove the controversy section, and no need to put overtly advertising terminology rather than sticking to the facts. Deepakshenoy 07:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Then I'll have to request other editors to come into check what I edit; instead of your one minded view. Deepak, unfortunately (and thanks to the sane world), it's not you or I who decide what wikipedia should look like. The broad guidelines that have been set up by Wikipedia have editors backing it. And you obviously are not one. I do not appreciate your war cries and banzai and kamakazi rants. Please keep them to yourself and keep your personal emotions out of this. If you've had a bad day at work, keep the stuff to yourself. I really didn't want to communicate to you like this. I've seen your statements on 'revert wars' so many times :-) that I'm now starting to suspect where you work. But still, as a first step is my leaf of a make up attempt. Let's forget all the words we've used till now. Why don't you check out the new template and then debate with me over it? With no prejudices, I've found your (and Makrand's, I should mention him too) editing quite perfect. In the way you have put across your points, you should be open to discussion on your points too. Take care Deepak, and please do leave the sparring behind... 61.16.233.194 12:20, 10 November 2006 (UTC) Adding this statement too... My apologies for the harsh words I've used too. Thanks and take care, regards, Mrinal


 * Fine, please get other editors to check what you edit. This isn't going to be me against you; I'm only going to say what I think is right. These "war cries" that you talk about: You started it. You were the one saying you wanted to revamp this site and remove all the hard work done over the last year. I don't have a problem with a revamp, I have a problem with removing content that's currently there. And please, keep your vile language to yourself; I'm fairly aware of who you are and where you work as well. Frankly, I'm curious enough to see how you "revamp" the site, and I will be adding whatever's removed that I find important to retain. And I will be toning down any blatant advertising, as I have done in the past. We need to make this a encyclopaedic site, not opinion or advertising. Deepakshenoy 13:34, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Deepak, do check out my statement to Makrand down below. At no point had I mentioned that a revamp talked about removing information. I'm sure you realise that you jumped to the conclusion quite wrongly, despite all my statements to the negative. I had also written so many times that I'll put up the changes for acceptance before even implementing it. My biggest surprise continued to be how could people who edit a wikipedia page be not even open to discussing new templates? And that is where my acerbic diatribe started against you, and that is where I realised rather than debating with you, I should first apologise to you for the words I used. Didn't mean them like that. No excuses. I'm happy you know who I am and where I work as well; Orkut is not that secretive a site anyway; I'm sure you would then also know all my friends (from Orkut). Why don't you go through all the scraps that I have on my site? For all the past months! You'll realise how I've unconditionally backed you guys (especially Mak and you) in any discussion that has come up. Because I don't know who you are and who you work for, but I have still appreciated your changes purely based on the intellectual creation of the statements that you have put on the IIPM description. My views (leaving our last argument) have been completely based on your responses, which have been highly appreciated, and you'll vouch for that. So here I hope we move ahead and look further to ensuring that "better" information is provided, rather than "eye catching" or "advertising" or "negative" information. How's that? With regards, Mrinal 203.76.135.250 04:41, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Putting up information on Stanford and Yale Joint Venture
IIPM's JV with Stanford and Yale School of Management is something that should be put across as viewpoints on the Global orientation of IIPM. As both JVs are separately oriented, I'm putting them up in different paragraphs. Again, I'll be putting them up in a different style later on in the revamped structure next week. Suggestions please... Mrinal203.76.135.250 06:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Use small case please. I will review your revamped structure, and if it does not contain all the information currently in the page I will add it or revert to the current structure. Deepakshenoy 06:39, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Have consolidated into "Global Partnerships". Further, please don't arbitrarily link to the IIPM web site. Also, please provide sources. Deepakshenoy 07:01, 10 November 2006 (UTC)
 * If IIPM indeed has a JV with yale or stanford, provide links from the sites of those schools or substantiate this. Until then it will be treated as uncited information Makrandjoshi 12:52, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Makrand, it's not necessary that these universities link up to each and every joint venture that they have on their web site. So I'm reverting back to the previous page. It'll be nice if you can wait till we get citations from newspapers or other reports. Thanks and regards 203.76.135.250 04:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Mrinal
 * With no proof, we can't just add anything. I have it from other sources that Yale has dropped your "joint venture". Stanford wise, I have scoured their site and found that they sell Prof Edison Tse's classes as videos; and the IIPM site has a link to just one program which is so ambiguous that it doesn't define a "partnership". Honestly if Stanford and Yale will not put a link on their site, is it a one sided partnership? I think we need more sources. I've removed content until verifiable sources are provided. Deepakshenoy 05:04, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Cool. Guess then we'll await their response on that... Mrinal 203.76.140.130 09:34, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Deepak, can you give me your email address? I'll ask people to send across some emails to you confirming the JVs. Would that be ok with you? Thanks... And I guess it'll be appreciated if you don't pass around the emails to everybody who might wish to have a copy put up. Perhaps you could just check with the person/department from Yale SoM whom the email mentions (using the appropriate words rather than accusatory words...I write because the email you've sent to Dr. Tse is something that could have been worded much much better. Really, it's not correct for you to send such blatantly negatively worded emails to people mentioned. But then of course, it's your choice to do that... But really again, not appreciated) 61.16.233.194 09:43, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Mrinal
 * It doesn't happen this way, Mrinal. Please read about Wikipedia's policy on verifiability. E-mail correspondences are not considered reliable sources. Proving personally doesn't make the inclusion valid. If the claimed JV is true, I am sure some neutral newspapers would have covered it. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 09:52, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Brilliant! Then I'm putting up the 2003 UNDP key partner institution status awarded by UNDP to IIPM. It was reported in many papers. But in case you do wish, we could also put up the authorization letter from UNDP up here. Regards, Mrinal 203.76.140.130 11:12, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Please cite neutral sources. If you are able to give us links to the articles, we can add the news. And this time, hopefully, with more encyclopaedic language. Deepakshenoy 11:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Sending me emails is not verifiable, as Ambuj said. You already have my email id, considering Mr. Tse has forwarded my email to you - but please note that if you send me any mail I will not treat it as confidential. I understand you don't appreciate what I've said to Dr. Tse; you wouldn't, since it wasn't very nice to IIPM. By the way, that email was for my knowledge; even if Dr. Tse responds, it is still not verifiable information. To those who are confused: I asked Dr. Tse if he was moving full time to India as IIPM had used the words "joint venture" to describe his classes. And in the end I said "I wish to know because in the past IIPM has miscommunicated its intentions and has resulted in some heartburn for students." I do not think I made a false accusation. I know you will understand that I have the freedom to word my personal emails however I please. Deepakshenoy 11:13, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Yes Deepak. So HT Horizons and Education Times have covered the Stanford news. It's not available on the net. Would you guys accept scanned copies of the same? Will wait for your response. Regards 203.76.140.130 11:15, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Mrinal (I have noticed that an HT report has been accepted without it being available on the net)
 * I have (earlier) added a tribune article about the Stanford workshops in the "Global partnerships" section. Deepakshenoy 10:49, 29 November 2006 (UTC)

Completely revamping this site
This is the first discussion note that I'm putting up for suggestions on completely revamping the site as per the benchmarks set up by wikipedia pages on all other business schools. I look forward to suggestions before uploading the totally revamped site for a day for further suggestions. Then we could revert back to the current template till the time I include the changes. After that you guys could make all the changes required. Regards, Mrinal 203.76.135.250 06:27, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Use small case please. Please take care to include all information as currently available. I will review. Deepakshenoy 06:41, 10 November 2006 (UTC)


 * Mrinal, this page has been built painstakingly over the last year by neutral and well-meaning editors. It has gone through several edits, and guys like deepak and myself remove inappropriate information put up by both sides, be it IIPM supporters or haters. The page will not be revamped to suit the whims of one person. The reason you give is fallacious. There are no wikipedia standards, and certainly no benchmarks for pages. Each page has a separate characteristic. Don' compare IIPM with Harvard and Yale. Not because of the obvious difference in the quality. But because in those cases, controversies were not ABOUT the schools. They were about individuals associated with the schools. Here the centre of the controversy is IIPM itself. So there deserves to be a separate controversy page. You are welcome to call in other neutral editors. It has been done in the past too. For the record, note that I will be reverting any changes or revamps which you make to the site without getting them cleared here. And also, for the record, I think the rant you let out against Deepak up there was in absolutely bad taste, and very unfair to him, considering how conscientious he has been even in removing all baseless anti-IIPM information on the page. As for "war cries" you are the one who has started it by wanting to revamp the page to stick to some imaginary benchmarks. There are no benchmarks given for b school wikis anywhere. The whole idea about wikipedia is that there are no benchmarks. Only guidelines. And here, there aren't even any guidelines for the b school pages. Makrandjoshi 13:12, 11 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Mrinal, if you think you would be putting up something controversial, first propose it at a subpage (for example edit this link). I will be following the discussions here, and hope will be able to provide good suggestion as I have extensively worked on two educational institute FAs, namely the Indian Institutes of Technology and Indian Institute of Technology Kharagpur. Also, I would suggest that you register. It has many benefits. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 17:01, 12 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ambuj, it'll be lovely to have your inputs. I'll also register this week. Guess you are right about it. 203.76.135.250 04:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC) Mrinal
 * Makrand, if Deepak had written his statements like you have written in the last para, I would've actually drilled down my vitriol against him. But in reality, even I felt bad at having written all that. For the past three days, I didn't want to come back to this site to even see what discussions were there because I realised Deepak and my communication was going completely down the wrong lane. I really appreciate the inputs you both have given. I have also seen how you have reverted many negative statements (for example, especially on the Arindam Chaudhuri site) and believe me, that is the reason I keep writing that I find your and Deepak's views very important. A revert war is something that just came up I guess because of the momentum of the discussion. My intention was in reality to ensure that the new template is first approved by you guys before we put up. If you notice, I had written that we could put it up for a day to have your comments before accepting it, rejecting it, or making changes. Ambuj here has given a very good suggestion of using the new version page. I'll try that too. But really, my apologies again to Deepak for having said all that. Never meant it (I would've deleted all my statements if I were allowed to). Thanks...and apologies... Mrinal 203.76.135.250 04:22, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Use a new page to demonstrate a new version
Please propose any upheavals or real changes in this link). When we're in agreement on that page, we can bring it back here. Let's retain existing content until a new template has got the required consensus. Deepakshenoy 05:28, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * There's a technical problem with your proposal. The changes should be discussed in sub-page of talk page, and not sub-page of article page. Because of technical issues, article pages cannot have sub-pages and even with the "/", the page will be considered as a full-fledged article. So please discuss the new version on the sub-page of talk page (like the one I linked to). — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 07:16, 13 November 2006 (UTC)
 * Ah, gotcha. I have corrected the above link too. Deepakshenoy 07:40, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

UNDP Partnership
I have found no mention that IIPM is a "key" partner, and no information in the sources cited mention any responsibility of IIPM apart from having conducted three workshops in 2003. I have linked to a UNDP report as well (since that's the real source), and the article on the youandaids.org site that mentions the IIPM contribution. Deepakshenoy 12:20, 13 November 2006 (UTC)

Stanford and Yale JVs
Mrinal, the UNDP mention is a good example to follow. Get credible links which can corroborate what is being written. If Stanford and Yale have JVs with IIPM, very good. Surely a JV would be mentioned on websites of both parties involved in the JV. So please get links from the websites of those schools about this. And if you have to revert a change made, please cite a reason more concrete than "Makrand's argument is not correct". I removed the information because it was uncited. Makrandjoshi 01:29, 14 November 2006 (UTC)

Sealing off in the controversy section
I think that the sealing off of the IIPM building should be in the controversy section. Makrandjoshi 17:05, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I don't know, it's not yet a controversy. IIPM seems to have sub-let the land from a Canara Bank Society which had in turn leased it from the DDA. Chances are that the Canara Bank bit is trying to make a bit of money on the side, and IIPM's just a tenant. For once on the other side. Let's wait and see if other information turns up, what do you think? Deepakshenoy 17:35, 16 November 2006 (UTC)
 * I too feel it would be early to call it a controversy. If the situation diffuses in near future, even the present information may be deleted as it is not of long-term interest for an average article reader. — Ambuj Saxena (talk) 18:42, 16 November 2006 (UTC)