Talk:Pradip Baijal

Facts are being twisted

The fact is that Mr Pradip Baijal was Chairman TRAI in 2003-2005, while all the 2G spectrum given out by Raja happened in 2008. He had nothing to do with the 2008 awards, and it is just wrong to link him with the 2008 and 2009 awards, and Raja's actions.

Mr. Baijal turned things around for Telecom by his recommendations - but at the end of the day, worked in a recommendatory body which is not allowed to take any decisions. The Government of India and the Telecom department makes the decisions, so it is unfair to pin down a multi-party recommendatory body for any advice given.

As a fellow officer, most of the IAS community knows Mr. Baijal is one of the best officers of his time, with impeccable integrity and vision. He might be investigated given that he worked for an affiliate company of Niira Radia; but association alone does not make him part of the 2008/2009 2G scam.

Arjunagra (talk) 05:15, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The references to Mr.Baijal are backed up with references to links in the media. Mr.Baijal had nothing to do with the 2G allocations handled by Mr.A Raja. However, there was an initial round of spectrum allocations where Mr.Baijal was certainly involved. The allegations against Mr.Baijal have been very clearly documented in the article: 1. Making recomendations regarding spectrum license fees (in 2003) which directly benefitted certain corporates.Baijal recommended a charge of a measly Rs.1658 crores as license fee without adjustments for inflation or market growth since 2001: a policy that again benefited the same set of companies. 2. He was the TRAI secretary when the controversial Unified Access License was implemented, a policy flip-flop which allowed fixed line operators who had paid much lower license fees to offer mobile phone services, at first in the limited WLL mode (Wireless in Local Loop) and later, following an out of court settlement between mobile operators and the BJP govt, full mobility.

It is a fact that mr,Baijal was raided by the CBI as well as called in for questioning. It also remains a fact, that Mr.Baijal took up a post-retirement consultancy with Ms.Niira Radia: the prime accused in the 2G spectrum allocation scam of 2008. All these are not speculation but facts backed up by necessary links to media articles. These may or may not have nothing to do with the 2G spectrum scam connected with A Raja. But this article is not about the spectrum scam but about Mr.Baijal and it is important to cover all aspects of his career, including the controversies.

Repeated attempts to remove these references will be considered as vandalism.

--Ashlonerider (talk) 05:32, 3 January 2011 (UTC) There have been a dozen attempts so far today to edit and re-edit this article in what seems to be a clear case of POV pushing.

It seems like there is a concerted attempt today to put across a certain POV showing the individual in a favorable light. This goes against the grain of neutrality of POV.

The latest attempt is by user Amit Chandra, who attempted to justify the controversies listed under the controveries section. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashlonerider (talk • contribs) 10:20, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The original line read: His tenure as TRAI chairman coincided with multiple policy changes that are alleged to have directly benefited telecom companies like Reliance Telecom and Tata Teleservices.

it was changed to: His tenure as TRAI chairman coincided with multiple policy changes (people call them flip-flops, but were normal and expected for any emerging sector) that are alleged to have directly benefited telecom companies like Reliance Telecom and Tata Teleservices.

This is one example of the kind of POV pushing that has come to our notice today. As pointed out before, there seems to be a sustained effort today to image polishing by removing negative references.

This is clearly vandalism: earlier by ArjunNagra and now by user User:AmitChandra123. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashlonerider (talk • contribs) 10:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Yet another attempt by user Amit Chandra at POV pushing:

the line: "sold to Tata Teleservices" was changed to "sold by a transparent auction process to Tata Teleservices". Transparent according to whom?

The controversies section is supposed to highlight the controversies surrounding the individual without trying to apportion credit or excuses for them.

I think User:Amitchandra123 has to be served a warning for REPEATEDLY vandalising this article. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashlonerider (talk • contribs) 10:46, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

The ENTIRE introduction has been rewritten by User:Amitchandra123 which now provides a justification for EVERY allegation made against Pradip Baijal. I personally hold no brief for either party (as Amit Chandra has alleged on his talk page). However repeatedly going in and editing the article by removing the negative references (including links to media articles) and replacing them with flowery phrases justifying the controversy is clear POV pushing and vandalism.

One of the lines used was "Guess many of the controversies listed below are part of the stick which is seen in other geographies as well. " - I really dont know what to say after that! it is clear that the user(s) in question have some kind of agenda with the individual Pradip Baijal and interested in keeping the news of controversies out of wiki records.

Recommend immediate blocking of his account to put an end to this nonsense.

What is surprising is that at first the user called ArjunNagra was making repeated edits on a similar line to this article. And now it is Amitchandra. Are they the same individual? --Ashlonerider (talk) 11:33, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Repeated vandalism by certain users

As has been pointed out repeatedly, this article has been the target of repeated vandalism by 2 specific users User:Arjunagra and User:Amitchandra123 who seem to have now been joined in their effort by one COOLRAMESH. The attempt is the same as before: to remove negative references to the individual Pradip Baijal, refusing to answer queries on the talk page as they are supposed to, and instead indulging in edit wars.

The page was locked on my request once before but the vandalism returned with vengeance once the lock was removed. I plan to restore the original article in full shortly after which I would be putting in a request for lock since it is clear that some people are intent on POV pushing. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashlonerider (talk • contribs) 14:10, 10 January 2011 (UTC)

POV pushing in introduction

There is clear POV pushing in the introduction of this article ("During his tenure, TRAI articulated and adopted pro-development and consumer-friendly regulatory practices and made important recommendations on the growth of telecom services in rural India to the Government of India. TRAI has also urged the industry to think of next generation telecom networks.". Another line reads "Another step of far-reaching implications was Baijal's continued thrust on unified licensing, under which an operator can offer telecom and broadcasting services on a single licence and next generation networks for Indian telecom sector that would bring down the network costs significantly."

What makes this untenable, is that Pradip Baijal is currently under investigation for having caused loss of thousands of crores (64000 crores in the first round and approx 36000 crores in the second round around 2003). He later joined the lobbying firm run by Niira Radia who is said to be the kingpin of the 2G scam of 2009. Radia's lobbying firm has as its clients Tata Teleservices and Reliance INfocomm, who are perhaps not incidentally, the biggest beneficiaries of the policy flip flops taken during Pradip Baijal's tenure.

The ABC of the 2G Scam, http://www.tehelka.com/story_main48.asp?filename=Ne010111THEABCOF.asp

Did Pradip Baijal make a mistake in joining Niira Radia's firm? http://m.economictimes.com/PDAET/articleshow/7108777.cms

http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/politics/nation/CBI-conducts-raids-swoops-on-DMK-associates-Niira-Radia--Pradip-Baijal/articleshow/7108883.cms

the Introduction needs a serious rewrite.

--Ashlonerider (talk) 15:45, 28 December 2010 (UTC)

User:Arjunagra is repeatedly making edits removing negative but valid references being made to Pradip Baijals links to Niira Radia and he is pointedly refusing to answer questions posed on his talk page or here and is instead indulging in a edit war.

I think User:Arjunagra and User:Amitchandra123 hold some kind of brief for Pradip Baijal or perhaps are the same individual.

Recommend locking of article till resolution of dispute. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashlonerider (talk • contribs) 12:56, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Requests for Page Protection is the correct venue if you want a page protected. Could all editors please make yourselves familiar with Wikipedia policy, particularly wp:3RR, as some editors appear to have madue up to 8 reverts in a few hours! Also please see No Personal Attacks 220.101.28.25 (talk) 14:31, 3 January 2011 (UTC)

Protection

I've fully protected the article as the dispute picked up right where it was before the last protection was put in place. Please discuss content issues on the talk page or with other editors instead of edit warring on the article. AlexiusHoratius 15:56, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

Resolving the dispute over content

Starting this section in an attempt to find common ground over the content. Please post your queries/doubts here over the content and avoid getting into edit-wars.

This article is meant to be a neutral biography and not a fanpage nor a critique. Neutrality of POV is vital. The individual in question has indeed been raided by the Investigative agencies having been in the cross-hairs for a long time. Mentioning this point does not amount to a critique but is merely a statement of fact backed up by relevant links to media articles and other sources. (see ref list)

I have restored the article to what it was before it was vandalised. I have segregated what was formerly an omnibus paragraph on "Career", into 3 separate and detailed sections:

1. Education where his educational qualifications are listed. 2. Accomplishments: where the positive aspects of his career including the controversial period between 1999 and 2004 are listed. 3. Controversies: where the controversies surrounding the individual are detailed.

I hope this will allow for a more neutral POV.

Previously attempts were also made to edit the controversy section by adding justifications for the each controversy mentioned! This is obviously not the scope of the article and violates the NPOV. Each section should list the qualifications, accomplishments and controversies respectively without going into justifications for the alleged corruption.

Removing negative references made to individuals, when these are fully backed up by appropriate links will be considered as vandalism. Ashlonerider (talk) 16:32, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

(sigh) Well, I had cut this article down to a neutral, mostly-sourced one. I reverted User:Jsameer2010's attempts to insert glowing praise, and now Ashlonerider has gone and reinserted weasel-worded, unsourced statements (ie. "rose to prominence," "controversial corporate lobbyist," etc.). I submit that this was the last neutrally worded version. Still needs better sourcing, but at least it's neutral with regards to the subject. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 20:38, 11 January 2011 (UTC)

@Handthatfeeds: I am not the source of those "weasel-wordings". I had merely restored the version that was current before the edit-wars. However, i dont think "rose to prominence" should be considered "weasel wording": after all Mr.Baijal was holding relatively minor assignments before that period and really came into these positions during this period.

Ashlonerider (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Comment

Mr. Baijal has had a distinguished career for over 40 years in the government. As a member of the IAS, I perhaps have the most direct insight into his work. While the recent Radia controversy has been unfortunate; all connections which allude to him helping certain corporates are speculation at best. Ashlonerider is making personal judgements by calling him "controversial". Why not call him "intelligent", which he is - or "distinguished", which he is. Mr. Baijal has been one of the most successful officers of his tenure - and has been the driving force behind a lot of growth across several sectors. While the CBI has raided him house - they have done so across all officers in the telecom ministries - Mr Behuria / Mr Vinod Vaish / other junior officers in the telecom ministry when Raja was Minister. It is an investigation, and hence has been all-encompassing. Lets give process its due, and not harm a person's reputation prior to anything formally being charged.

Ashlonerider has a personal vendetta against Mr. Baijal. He has been making changes on lots of political pages (Rahul Gandhi, NArendra Modi, etc] so is clearly pushing a politically motivated POV. Some of the controversies he is adding - one alluding to the sale of VSNL to Tata is not verified or even being investigated. The disinvestment process under Arun Shourie and Mr Baijal has been the only period where a successful disinvestment process was run in India. Lets give the man his due; and continue to inspire all of us junior officers - who hope to take positive decisions and impact the India around us.

The current protected version is libelous in nature, and assumes or alludes to a conspiracy; which is neither true or defensible. It has been written by those who are politically motivated, and paid to create negative public perception. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Adminoff (talk • contribs) 01:30, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

First, as you have a personal connection with the subject, you should read WP:COI. Second, we do not call him "intelligent" or "distinguished" as those are flowery non-neutral descriptions of the subject. Finally, do not accuse other editors of a "personal vendetta" without some sort of evidence. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

Arjunagra: All references made to Mr.Baijal in the article are from clearly listed sources like Outlook, Tehlka and other magazines and hence cannot be considered libelous. There is absolutely NO mention in the controversy section or any other that is unreferenced. The GLOWING tributes being inserted by you and others after deleting the controversies section are clearly not referenced.

I think you and Adminoff must re-read the section on Personal Attacks. If naything, As you have a personal connection ("us junior officers"??), it is you who seems to have some agenda here. Especially considering that you and coolramesh and other users refused to answer questions posed on your talk pages or out here and repeatedly indulged in edit wars leading to the lock.

Ashlonerider (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Current Protected Version clearly negative POV

I agree with the comments from adminoff. Thank you sir. Ashlonerider has inserted his own personal interpretation to what is a very difficult topic to understand. It alleges and alludes that Mr. Baijal is corrupt - while there has not been a single formal charge against him. He continues to serve on several corporate boards, and continues to be a UN consultant to several emerging countries. This is politically motivated editing, and I would urge Wikipedia administrators to block Ashlonerider and return this page to the neutral version (4-5 versions back), and only then protect the page. The current version is unfair, and clearly upholding the point of view of only one editor (who clearly is spending all his time trying to maliciously attack Pradip Baijal).

All negative aspects mentioned about baijal in the article are clearly backed up with clearly defined references from valid sources. Hence it is wrong to accuse someone of "bias".

Some people are keen to turn a wiki page into a page paying glowing tributes. However it is my understanding that a wiki-page on any individual would be incomplete without references to the negative side of the controversy. Maintaining a NPOV is very important.

Arjunagra (talk) 01:48, 12 January 2011 (UTC) Arjunagra

See my reply to Adminoff above. Praising the subject is not neutral. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:25, 12 January 2011 (UTC)

The current version which has been protected has clear negative bias

Radia has been called the kingpin of the 2G scam. She is just a lobbyist with no real powers, and cannot be the kingpin. Alluding to it is alleging corruption. Not needed as part of Mr Baijal's page. The man has been a distinguished servant for the country.

The issue of conflict of interest is just speculation. There is no conflict of interest, if someone after 4-5 years of retiring from a post works in the same sector. All government permissions were taken. There are innumerable examples of other officers. There is no source for it, other than speculative media articles.

There are repeated references to certain companies being clients of Niira Radia firm. Firstly, he did not work in that firm, but in an affiliate. Ms Radia's firm had more than 200 clients, including 10 of the top 20 clients. It does not mean someone is corrupt or is taking advantage of his position. Fact of the matter is - Mr Baijal is a subject expert, and not more. He is a retired officer, with no powers. Ashlonerider has inserted these malicious comments just to give an impression of culpability. No formal complaint, or chargesheet has been issued against either Mr Baijal or Ms Radia.

None of the policy changes can be characterized as flip flops. That again is media sensenationalism. Here is a man who has been awarded as a role of the regulator. The US government has conferred praises. He has won the award as the best regulator. All policy changes impact different players - but the overwhelming number of people believe it was done to the benefit of the consumer (which is the charter for the government)

Mr Baijal has his own website - the reference to which has been deleted (pradipbaijal.com)

120.62.4.138 (talk) 18:17, 12 January 2011 (UTC) arjunagra

The website was not used because we generally avoid first-party sources. The controversy with Radia is given too much weight, I agree, but you're going far to the other side and trying to make the article about praising Mr. Baijal. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 01:59, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

Four things are quite clear at this point: One, that there were numerous flip-flops in policy during Mr.Baijal's tenure in the Disinvestment ministry and later the Telecom Ministry and TRAI. Two: many of these flip-flops came on the direct recommendation of Mr.Baijal (the License fee to be charged to WLL providers, full mobility to them etc). Three: It has also been clearly established that the beneficiaries of the flip-flops were all clients of the said lobbyist Ms.Radia. And four: despite vehement denials now, Pradip Baijal did take up a post retirement assignment with Noesis: which has been co-promoted by Ms.Radia.

All these are not speculation as is being alleged by Adminoff but facts backed up by clear references to articles that have appeared in the Indian press over the last 6 months and it is these allegations that have led to Mr.Baijal coming under the scanner of investigative agencies even leading to raids on his properties!

if anything, there seems to be a deliberate (and elaborate) attempt to sweep these negative references under the carpet.

As for calling ms.Radia a "kingpin": well semantics aside, the facts are that Ms.Radia colluded with certain powers to cause a loss to the exchequer and benefit her clients. It is a scam, we all agree and the chief players in the scam is Ms.Radia. So it wouldnt be too off the mark to call her a "alleged kingpin".

Ashlonerider (talk) 04:18, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

On this bit, I have to disagree with you. What you're doing is "connect the dots" which on Wikipedia is considered original research. We can't have that. Unless you have a source that claims Mr. Baijal was influenced by Ms. Radia directly, we cannot speculate on his motives like this. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 16:43, 13 January 2011 (UTC)

it is the media and the investigative agency (CBI) that is "connecting the dots". The CBI has raided both Mr.Baijal and Ms.Radia and called in both for sustained questioning. We should be making mention of the investigative agencies action against Mr.Baijal and the context in which they were taken? As long as they are backed up by links to verified media articles, is there a problem? In the article, I have attempted to collate information from these different media sources.

pasting here a few relevant sections of the media-reporting on the Baijal-Radia link.

Financial Express: CBI raids Baijal, Radia to probe link:

After former telecom minister A Raja and his key officials, the CBI on Wednesday raided public relations firm Vaishnavi’s promoter Niira Radia and former Trai chairman Pradip Baijal, who works for Radia’s consulting firm Noesis, and others.

in his affidavit in the Supreme Court, Raja has alleged that Baijal had helped Tata Teleservices Ltd get nine new UASL licences at 2001 prices in 2004 through a DO letter written to the department of telecommunications....

is aimed at investigating the role of Radia-Baijal combine in the allocation of licences in 2008 and whether in his capacity as a Trai chairman from 2003-06 Baijal helped any telecom firm in any manner, which could be construed as misuse of office.

Baijal, who retired as the Trai chairman in March 2006, had joined Radia’s Noesis in middle of 2007,

Interestingly, while trying to defend himself, Raja has mentioned in his affidavit that he carried on with the policies of his predecessors. This has harmed Baijal because the tapped tapes reveal that Radia-Baijal were advising Raja on the allocation of licences.

India Today: 2G probe: CBI tightens noose around Raja, Radia and Baijal The CBI also raided the office and home of Baijal, who as then TRAI chairman was connected to the 2G spectrum auction. Baijal currently works for Radia's firm Neosis.

Baijal was picked up by the CBI for questioning and detained. It is believed that he was taken to his bank to allow the CBI to check his locker in his presence.

Ashlonerider (talk) 09:14, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

Sorry, but being questioned doesn't make him guilty. You're still making assumptions that are not supported by the quotes (uncited, I might add). — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 18:29, 15 January 2011 (UTC)

uncited? The links from the media articles where the quotes are from are cited inline. Putting them again below for your benefit:

http://indiatoday.intoday.in/site/Story/123346/2G%20Scam/2g-probe-cbi-tightens-noose-around-raja-radia-baijal.html

http://www.financialexpress.com/news/cbi-raids-baijal-radia-to-probe-link/725417/3

The lines quoted above are from articles found on these media links and come from reputed sources like the Express Group and India Today.

Both links confirm that Baijal is under suspicion and I think this should be clearly be present in the article. We dont say that Baijal is guilty, and nowhere in the article has anyone pronounced him guilty. However it is important to point out that Baijal is one of the accused the 2G scam under investigation.

Ashlonerider (talk) 13:19, 16 January 2011 (UTC)

No, it's really not important. See WP:WEIGHT. Unless you can show this is central to understanding the subject, unproven accusations aren't something we want to keep on Wikipedia. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 13:43, 17 January 2011 (UTC)

When writing an article on an indivdidual, it is essential to mention both the accomplishments AND the controversies surrounding the individual. One cannot focus ONLY on the positive accomplishments and turn a blind eye to the controversies surrounding the individual.

The said individual has been the target of raids and questioning by investigating agencies: that much is fact. While not pronouncing judgement either ways, it is esssential to mention the fact that a)he is under investigation and b) the context of the decisions taken that led to his inclusion in the list of suspects.

ALL facts are backed up by links to reputed media so I dont understand the problem in mentioning this aspect.

It must also be kept in mind, that this particular article has been the target of repeated vandalism by a set of individuals who have systematically tried to delete ALL negative references or justify every single controversy mentioned!

I notice that the lock on this article expires today. I will be keeping this article under watch to ensure that the vandals do not return again.

Ashlonerider (talk) 13:42, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Quoting from Wikipedia: biographies of Living persons for the benefit of the vandalsWP:BLPHELP:

What you should not expect

  1. You cannot expect that Wikipedia editors will make the article say exactly what you want.
  2. You cannot expect that Wikipedia editors will give you exclusive editorial control over the article.
  3. You cannot expect that everyone will agree with your views on yourself.

Further:

       * Three main policies cover content:
          1. neutral point of view (all articles must take a fair, balanced and neutral stance),
          2. verifiability (facts in articles must be verifiable from reliable sources), and
          3. original research (users' and editors' opinions and "popular knowledge" are not suitable for encyclopedia articles).

       * A fourth core content policy on biographies of living persons states that biographical articles must be written to the highest standard using only high-quality sources, and provides for more drastic handling of errors or problems in such articles.
       * (A final content policy, related to copyright, also exists but is generally irrelevant to problems of this kind.)

Would the users User:Arjunagra and User:Amitchandra123 who have been the main people vandalising this article please explain whether the article violates any of the points?

All of the controversies mentioned are clearly backed up by verifiable sources from reliable sources. None of it is "original research" as majority of the quotes in the controversies section is taken from the very sources mentioned. Would request that some editor actually goes through the list to verify the same. I dont think there is any problem with points (4) and (5)

Ashlonerider (talk) 14:14, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

Ashlonerider, you're running on a false assumption that "neutral" means "show both good and bad sides." Especially with BLPs, we must take care not to give undue weight to accusations that have not been substantiated. Your edits are made in a way to slant the reader's view to the conclusion he has shown favoritism to Radia's firm. Maybe he did, but we don't know that, and should not be influencing the reader towards that view. A brief mention of the investigation would be appropriate, with clear sourcing, but the large amount you're trying to add to the article is showing a biased POV. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 14:25, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

In the accomplishments section (also written by me) i have devoted 2 lines to each of the accomplishments mentioned. I am not sure that the negatives outweigh the positives.

I have devoted on an average 1.5 lines for each of the controversies that he stands accused of: and each of the accusations is backed up by a relevant media quote. None of it is Original Research, but fully sourced from media articles. Is that excessive? Should we remove some of the controversies from the 5 mentioned to shorten this section?

— Preceding unsigned comment added by Ashlonerider (talk • contribs) 15:08, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

This was the last version I edited, and the one I'd start with. It needs pruning, both in the general biography and the Controversies section. I'll have more time tomorrow, when I'm not at work, to edit this. My intention is to cut out a large portion of the article and start building it back up from reliable sources. — The Hand That Feeds You:^Bite 15:33, 19 January 2011 (UTC)

@Hand that feeds: some vandalism observed today: again negative references (even if valid removed). How do you suggest we handle this? I have noted and report the vandalised edits.

Ashlonerider (talk) 10:25, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

The Introduction section was completely reworded last night to remove ALL negative references previously present. Strange to see valid references being edited out. I fail to understand how editing out references to criminal investigations against him can result in a more neutral POV.

References

Lock

Can we have a administrator lock out the article and maybe do a NPOV rewrite? It is clear that some people are intent on editing out this article to reflect a positive story. Ashlonerider (talk) 10:59, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Please raise a request on Requests for page protection. Fæ (talk) 11:17, 20 January 2011 (UTC)

Proceeding to delete all statements without citations

I'm challenging all statements in this BLP that exist without citations. In case any editor has relevant citations, go ahead and add them; otherwise, I will be deleting all the uncited and unsupported statements starting in some time. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 18:50, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

Removed controversy heading and some uncited information

I've let the contents remain in this section; yet, deleted the heading of controversies as that was non-neutral. Similarly, some uncited information has been removed. Much more uncited information will be removed in a few more hours. I'll also be undertaking a rewrite of the cited information based on our editing guidelines. Thanks. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 23:11, 9 February 2011 (UTC)

I disagree with the removal of the separate section titled "Controversies". There are 2 dozen articles out there, particularly concerning Indian and Western politicians where the controversies have been separately listed out. I do not think this necessarily breaks the NPOV requirement. If anything it allows for a separate assesment of each of the factors concerning the subject.

Ashlonerider (talk) 13:34, 11 February 2011 (UTC)

Other articles having the same stuff doesn't mean this article needs to have it. Having a separate section on accomplishments and controversies is deliberately creating a non-neutral point of view through POV forks. This is not allowed and should be avoided on Wikipedia. Read our policy on POV forks. Thanks. Wifione _....... ^{Leave a message} 05:31, 14 February 2011 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Pradip Baijal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110715111309/http://pradipbaijal.com/profile.html to http://pradipbaijal.com/profile.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110113125706/http://www.pradipbaijal.com:80/profile.html to http://pradipbaijal.com/profile.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 21:28, 16 January 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 2 external links on Pradip Baijal. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20110825012143/http://pradipbaijal.com/disinvestment_book.html to http://pradipbaijal.com/disinvestment_book.html
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/20081010025645/http://www.businessworld.in:80/index.php/Books-and-Guides/Man-With-A-Mission.html to http://www.businessworld.in/index.php/Books-and-Guides/Man-With-A-Mission.html

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—^{cyberbot II}_{Talk to my owner:Online} 20:23, 18 February 2016 (UTC)