Talk:Rafale deal controversy

Too many citations in the lead

There's doesn't seem any need to have 13 citations (including 11 for a single sentence) in the lead. Per MOS:LEAD, the lead should basically summarize what comes later in the article; it shouldn't really be the only place where such content is covered unless you're the article is only a few-sentence long stub with a single section. Moreover, citations in the main body of article are preferable to ones in the lead per WP:CITELEAD, except when some really exceptional claims are being made. The article could probably benefit from a "Background" section (between the lead and "Accusations") which goes into a little more detail regarding the events or circumstances which led up to the scandal. Many of the citations could most likely be moved there or to other parts of the article. Too many citations for a single sentence like is done in this article give the impression of WP:BOMBARD and actually detract from the article; 11 citations to sources saying basically the same thing are not needed to support a single sentence, so maybe pick out the best two or three and dump the rest if there's not other use for them. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:24, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I did it because of this concern -- this was needed initially because article was deleted once and government supporters dislike the article so i want it to be heavily sourced for some time, will remove sources later once article is developed and gets stable.. thanks --Adamstraw99 (talk) 07:51, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

and @Marchjuly:, see the attack on me is already started, one gentleman just said here that i am driven by some 'political agenda' haha, thats why I Am saying please let this article to be heavily sourced as of now... we can remove excess sources from lead once the article is developed and stable .. thank you --Adamstraw99 (talk) 09:09, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

I don't thing what Nick Moyes posted at the Teahouse is an attack at all, but rather some advices being given to you by an experienced editor trying to help you out. You need decide whether your WP:HERE or WP:NOTHERE. If want to help improve Wikipedia, then you need to understand WP:OWN and that other editors will try to improve the article to bring in up to Wikipedia's standards, which sometimes means adding maintenance templates when they're needed or removing content/citations when they're not needed. It might also mean merging or redirecting content when it's in the best interests of Wikipedia to do so.

On the other hand, if you're here to try and set the record straight and make sure everyone knows everything that can possibily be known about this controversly and feel that somehow it's Wikipedia's duty to do so, then you're probably going to find out that this isn't what Wikipedia's about and end up frustrated and disappointed. I'm not posting this to discourage you from further editing or continuing to try and improve the article, but only just to explain how Wikipedia works. Now, you can if you like, request that this article be draftified so that you can continue to work on improving it as a draft.Then, when you think all problems with it have been sorted out, you can submit it for review via WP:AFC. That might be one way of avoiding the article being nominated for deletion if that's something you're really worried about. -- Marchjuly (talk) 09:27, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly:, Thanks for telling me about WP:HERE, WP:NOTHERE and WP:OWN.. You are a true hero ..:-) Adamstraw99 (talk) 11:16, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

Copying and pasting content and citations from other Wikipedia articles

@Adamstraw99: If you've copied-and-pasted content directly from other Wikipedia articles or sections of article like Indian MRCA competition#Selection of the Rafale into parts of this article, then you need to make sure you do so in accordance with WP:CWW. Wikipedia's licensing allows content to be reused in a such a way, but proper attribution is required; otherwise, it's technically a copyright violation. There are a couple of ways for you attribute where the content originally came from, so please see WP:RIA for more details.

In addition, if you're going to copy-and-paste citations found in other articles into to this article, you should try and make sure the format being used is consistent throughout the article per WP:CITEVAR and MOS:DATEUNIFY, etc. Keeping things consistent from the start will make it easier to keep them consistent as others edit the article and add more content and citations. My suggestion to you would be to use the "Day Month Year" for all the dates used in the citations per MOS:DATETIES since that seems to be the format commonly used in Indian/British English and get rid of the all numerical format currently used in some of the citations. -- Marchjuly (talk) 07:48, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

thanks for the inputs, didn't know this... will work on this --Adamstraw99 (talk) 07:53, 13 September 2018 (UTC)

@Marchjuly: Which speaks to broader question, why this deserves page of it's own, when by it's author's own admission the topic is extension of Indian MoD MMRCA tender? (albeit abandoning legal format of that) Embedding it within MMRCA page (as elaboration of the already existing "Fate of the deal" subsection which already exists there) would remove need to restate context of MMRCA, avoid problem of "Rafale deal controversy" hardly being coherent unique identifier for this topic (when that phrase could apply to many countries' purchase or non-purchase of Rafale jet - I came across this page looking for info re: Belgian non-selection of Rafale), and be natural location to engage with community of editors who are educated on the topic - the avoidance of some hypothetically problematic editors being author's self-admitted rationale for this page. 50.113.24.80 (talk) 00:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Lawsuit by ADAG

The article needs to be updated, ADAG has already filed several lawsuits. e.g. on the wire--DBigXrayᗙ 12:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Supreme Court section

Main discussion

DBigXray, I've reverted a series of edits by you, for the following reasons: because you outright removed a considerable amount of well-referenced content, while simultaneously adding cherry-picked content from a primary source (e.g., [1], [2]), and you did so, in most cases, spouting your personal opinions (e.g., [3]), which is disruptive. You've also removed content, which again was sourced from mainstream secondary sources under the false pretext of "misrepresentation", (e.g., [4], [5]) when the content was perfectly representative of the cited sources. While a minuscule proportion of your edits might be productive on the face of it, it doesn't appear feasible to separate the wheat from the chaff at this moment. Please explain them one by one and get consensus. MBlaze Lightning 14:45, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I am willing to discuss each of my edits. Please explain why you disagree and explain your position so that I can reply to it. merely pointing diffs and accusing is not helpful. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:56, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I've outlined my concerns succinctly above. You need to realize that it is incumbent upon you to explain your edits and get support if you want them restored. You haven't done so yet, but you still went ahead to put them back in the article, which again is disruptive. Brushing off my concerns with a terse response certainly won't get you anywhere, nor will the WP:IDIDNTHEARTHAT behaviour. MBlaze Lightning 15:26, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Instead of having a confrontational attitude against fellow editors that got you banned indefinitely from India pakistan articles by Arbcom [6] why dont you edit in a collaborative manner. This kind of extremist attitude will soon lead you to a site ban if you do not improve. I have explained my edits in the edit summary. you say you have succinctly outlined your concerns, but all I see above is your vitriolic accusations and my diffs above, I need you to explain what you think is the problem with those edits (with evidence for your position) so that I can respond to it. and remember WP:Comment on the content, not the contributor --DBigXrayᗙ 15:34, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• MBlaze you are showing obvious WP:OWN issues and this is highly disruptive, please refrain from blanket reverts and restoring WP:REFBOMBs discuss on the talk first. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:37, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

That sounds ridiculous and misleading, because I'm actually collaborating with you by asking you to explain your edits, in order to reach consensus, whilst you're just forcing me to quote myself again, and since you insist upon it: you've removed a considerable amount of well-referenced content from the Judiciary's stand section, whilst simultaneously adding cherry-picked content from a primary source, and you did so, in most cases, citing your personal opinions. You've also removed content, which again was sourced from mainstream secondary sources under the false pretext of "misrepresentation", when the content was perfectly representative of the cited sources. Please explain why. MBlaze Lightning 16:12, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

MBL, I see that you are protesting my edits, bt you need to actually point why exactly you are disputing my edit and what you would want it to be made, so that we can have a meaningful discussion to improve the particular line. I have started one below as an example for you to follow. --DBigXrayᗙ 19:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

• I'm actually pointing out why I am disputing your edits, and since I do not see an explanation forthcoming as to why, among other things, you engaged in mass deletion of reliably sourced content on one pretext or another, notwithstanding the above neatly laid out questions, and the subsequent repetition of the same, I take it as you do not want to engage in a constructive discussion and get consensus for your edits, in which case there is no need for me to post in this thread any-longer, unless of course, you change your current approach. MBlaze Lightning 12:17, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

• User:MBlaze Lightning I asked you to share the diff, why you think it is wrong and what is the correct version for it. Your comment on top that you somehow "neatly describing your concern" is nothing but a list of accusation of disruption without saying why ? Unless I understand what your concern is how can I proceed explaining if the Question itself is not clear. And again I see you have reverted and starting adding back your own version in complete disregard of talk page consensus.--DBigXrayᗙ 15:06, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

DBigXray, you need to focus on content not editor. From what I can see the above editor 'shared' not one but a numerous diffs along with better reasons as to why they were against Wikipedia policies. When a person ably backs the 'accusations', they are no longer accusations but statements of facts. I also don't see where MBlazeLightning has reverted you any recently. He was restoring content per his last edits. This article is attracting some on-going news events and should be edited carefully. Misleading edit summaries won't help us. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 12:28, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Shivkarandholiya12 so why dont you start with why you are restoring the WP:REFBOMBs and poor WP:LEAD. if you dispute something talk about it and we can resolve with discussion. See the threads below and create similar so that we can discuss your objections. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:33, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• Come off it, DBigXray. The diffs are there in my first comment, for all to see. So stop going around in circles, repeating yourself. MBlaze Lightning 14:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

So why are you going in circle ? Yes, I can see the diffs, what is your problem with the diff ? are they not reliably sourced for you ? did I write something that is not mentioned in the source ? what really is the problem there ? and where is the evidence that shows it is a problem ? You are asking me to answer somthing without actually stating the question. and this is the third time you are doing the same. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

User:DBigXray, please answer to the actual arguments raised by the other editor, in place of stonewalling them or pretending as if they were never raised or you want to only hear the question and never answer it.  Problems with your edits are too apparent and have been already described. You have been asked often to explain why you have a) deleted a large so much of sourced content citing your personal opinions; b) deleted content citing misrepresentation when the no source was misrepresented; and c) supplanted the deleted content with cherry picked text from primary sources. These are unacceptable edits and are not allowed. Don't say that evasive behaviour here notwithstanding WP:ONUS and refusal to discuss your edits in face of these objections is unacceptable, because it isn't. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 10:48, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

Shivkarandholiya12 and User:MBlaze Lightning, you are asking me to answer the actual arguments ? where are the arguments ? unless you make the arguments I cannot really answer, it appears as though you feel putting a diff and accusing is enough. Please note that every edit that I made was included with inline citation that supports the said content, You need to read the source. all my individual edits had edit summaries that explained my edits. I asked both of you 4 times but it appears to me that you are determined not to explain your problem or objections. See that sections below and start new one if I missed anything that you dispute. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:59, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

It is concerning to see that you are still not willing to collaborate with what multiple editors have already said. Since you created a plethora of sections just to repeat your edit summaries, offering nothing that was not already refuted, and since all of them concern same removal which we have already discussed above, I am responding here: Your personal opinions have no bearing and/or place here. Read WP:RSPRIMARY and understand that Wikipedia reports what the reliable secondary sources say about a topic, or about the primary material since Wikipedia is itself not a primary source of information, it relies on what secondary sources report. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 14:34, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Shivkarandholiya12, you will not create your own discussion threads, neither will you participate in the threads created by me, and you are simply edit warring here without engaging in discussion. Please note that this is highly disruptive behavior and the admin can issue blocks if you continue your editwarring. you have reverted User:Akhiljaxxn falsely claiming a consensus, while it is clear from this talk page that there is no consensus for the edits that you are repeatedly edit warring into the article. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:42, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

I know I won't bludgeon like you do, but I just replied you and you have failed to discuss your violation of WP:RSPRIMARY. Per WP:STATUSQUO and clear agreement by 4 editors, I restored the right version while AkhilJaxxn only asked a question which has been appropriately answered to him with my revert that consensus exists in talk page. Though since he has not even participated here, I can assume good faith and say he is unaware. You can go start an RfC and try convincing people that you should be allowed to violate WP:RSPRIMARY and I will vehemently oppose it. You have no other way because bludgeoning and evasion of these concerns will be likely ignored. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 15:35, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

If you look into the article history the controversial content was added by MBlaze Lightning just a day age before my edits, so if you are going to claim WP:STATUSQUO then you should be reverting to the version before the edits by MBlaze Lightning because the dispute started due to that edits. The simple reason that you are reverting to a preferred recent version shows that you have no regard for CONSENSUS or factual accuracy of the article or even WP:STATUSQUO. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:46, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

DBigXray, please desist from using the talkpage for spreading falsehood like you've been doing notwithstanding reprimands. Comments like that just goes to show a lack of scruples on your part in resorting to absolute falsehoods and prevarications, and are just an evidence of your inability to refute the actual arguments put forth by others. You were nowhere to be seen when I was updating the page, as can be clearly seen from the article's revision history. You turned up only after over a week following my edits, by which time my text had stood unquestioned in its original state, thus making it a part of the de-facto silent consensus, which the current version of the page reflects. But that's not the case with your edits, which were contested by me on the same day. And, like I had said earlier, you ought to realize that the WP:ONUS is on you to make reasonable efforts to obtain consensus for your edits; but unfortunately it appears that you were never really interested in doing that. MBlaze Lightning 17:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

• What Shivkarandholiya12 said. I'd just add that notwithstanding the time that has elapsed just trying to get the point across that you don't go around removing large chunk of well referenced material from articles, citing your personal opinions or throwing vague allegations of "misrepresentation", when even a casual glance disproves that, since I opened this discussion, DBigXray, up until yesterday was still like, "where are the arguments?", "where are the diffs?", "why are you asking me answer somthing without actually stating the question?," and so on. Needless to say, it pains me to see that DBigXray still thinks no arguments were put forward, nothing was refuted; when even a casual glance of my very first comment on this talkpage would show, for all to see, that I made my reasons for reverting DBigXray's edits clear, which were largely ignored throughout the discussion proceedings by him. In the aforementioned sections created yesterday, I see nothing but the same repetition of the same three or four refuted rationale that DBigXray had advanced in his edit summaries.
  Even though Shivkarandholiya12 has already said what I was going to say, I'd just add that literally every source covering this unambiguously describes the SC verdict as a clean chit for the Indian government, given the categorical statements by the supreme court that it did not found any "substantial matter to interfere with issue of procurement, pricing and offset partner", nor it found any "substantial element to show that there is any commercial favouritism to any private entity". Given the fact that the mainstream reliable sources have been explicit in their usage of such a term, that's what this article will report as well in exactly the same way in compliance with Wikipedia:Identifying reliable sources#Primary,_secondary,_and_tertiary_sources. We are not going to censor the facts on the basis of someone's personal opinion of what is right and wrong.
  Unless somebody comes up with new and persuasive arguments in support of the rather weak position that DbigXray tried to defend, this should be the end of it. The arguments are clear to the reader or evaluator, and so is the consensus. MBlaze Lightning 17:25, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi User:MBlaze Lightning, I am quoting you from your statement above You were nowhere to be seen when I was updating the page, as can be clearly seen from the article's revision history.. Well, how would I know that you were updating this page, did you invite me to review your "updates" if so please share with me the diffs because I did not get any such invitation.

This incident was all over the news and when I became aware of the news, I made corrections to the mess that you had created. What you are calling facts above are obvious misrepresentations and I have replied to you explained the problem with your edits in detail in thread below. The article is currently in the bad shape and instead of commenting on me, you should join the threads below and explain your objections clearly so that we can reach consensus. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

section header

re: Special:Diff/875070519

• Like I said, the original header was perfectly fine because we're here discussing about the series of contentious edits you've made to this article. It's also not in violation of the TPO guideline, contrary to your claim. Now, will you stop tampering with the header in view of the objection, and per the very same guideline. MBlaze Lightning 16:20, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Please read WP:TPO again and I am quoting it for you.

Section headings: Because threads are shared by multiple editors (regardless how many have posted so far), no one, including the original poster, "owns" a talk page discussion or its heading. It is generally acceptable to change headings when a better heading is appropriate, e.g., one more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided, more appropriate for accessibility reasons

You have deliberately selected an attacking heading with which I am not ok with, so following TPO I have made it "more descriptive of the content of the discussion or the issue discussed, less one-sided"--DBigXrayᗙ 19:38, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Hi again, DbigXray. I'm curious: where is the attack in that? Why are you making things up? The issue with your edits wasn't just limited to a single section, which is why the original header was appropriate, and indeed descriptive. MBlaze Lightning 11:57, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

I see that all the controversial misinterpretation of the Supreme court judgement has been added by you, as the article history suggests. and your edits were already reverted by User:Fatsdominopizzeria with the edit summary "removed. This is someones cobbled together opinion and not what the court said at all.". So tell me, why should we not rename this section as "Source misrepresentation by MBlaze Lightning" ? the same logic applies to you as well.--DBigXrayᗙ 15:12, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

What are you on about? You made a rather ridiculous claim that there was an element of "attack" in the original header; that's a claim you haven't been able to substantiate yet. As to my edits, If you believe that I have engaged in "source misrepresentation", then feel free to open a new section and substantiate your allegations on the spot because that's a rather serious charge. MBlaze Lightning 12:38, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

User:MBlaze Lightning are you ever going to discuss the article content you have problems about or are you only interested in Talk page section titles and edit warring/ANI threads ? --DBigXrayᗙ 12:56, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Not the first time you've failed to substantiate your claims. And, you know very well that you are yourself guilty of the very thing, you criticize me for. MBlaze Lightning 14:13, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

So why did you change the talkpage section heading ? I have explained why it is inappropriate and yet instead of discussing on the article content you are interested in name calling. --DBigXrayᗙ 14:23, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Adding and restoring 10 references in the lead

Hi MBL I see that you have twice Added and restoring 10 references in the lead. It appears to me as though you are completely ignorant of WP:OVERCITE please read the policy and follow it. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:47, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

I was actually about to remove them myself for the same reason, but you made a blanket revert before I could do it[7]. In fact, if you bothered to read my first comment on this page, you'd see that I said very clearly that a "minuscule proportion of your edits might be productive on the face of it, it doesn't appear feasible to separate the wheat from the chaff at this moment." I even restored the "response" section you added promptly after making the revert...if you noticed[8]. Thanks anyway.MBlaze Lightning 17:04, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Cool, glad to know that you are ok with me removing these 8 references. per WP:OVERCITE. Please let me know if you have any other concern and I will be glad to discuss. I am marking this as resolved--DBigXrayᗙ 19:40, 23 December 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

Which of these 8 references you want to delete and why? If problem was only with ref-bombing then discuss here that which references should be preserved and which ones needs to be deleted than removing the reliable references and then inserting your extreme POV. 202.69.11.23 (talk) 07:26, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

Update tag on the article

Hi User:Akhiljaxxn, I see that you had placed this tag on the article here. Can you please clarify, what all information do you believe is lacking and needs to be updated ? I would like to remove the tag hence started this thread here. regards.--DBigXrayᗙ 19:35, 24 December 2018 (UTC)

This is looks fine now.Everything is upto dated.You can remove the tag now. Thank you. Akhiljaxxn (talk) 00:24, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

Thanks Akhiljaxxn for the kind reply, yes, I have removed the tag now. The latest updates from the SC verdict have been included, So there is no need of a major update to the article, the allegations section can still be expanded along with, but they can be handled with regular editing cycle. I am marking this thread as resolved, cheers --DBigXrayᗙ 20:35, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

I agree, and have for that reason removed the tag. MBlaze Lightning 11:44, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Resolved

Page protection

Ymblanter, I just saw that you fully-protected the page. However, the version that you protected has no consensus whatsoever. Even a casual glance at the page history will show that DBigXray has been edit warring against multiple users since weeks to get rid of the content that he doesn't like, all the while stonewalling on this talkpage. In view of this fact, I'd recommend that you restore the status-quo version, which would be this, so as to encourage DBigXray to engage in a constructive discussion here and get support for his changes, which he currently lacks. MBlaze Lightning 12:36, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Nobody is going to die just because the page is at WP:WRONGVERSION for three days. Please discuss at the talk page and try to come to consensus.--Ymblanter (talk) 12:40, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

• User:MBlaze Lightning it will be more helpful for the article if you respond to my last ping here and start discussing the actual issues that you have with the content instead of talking about editors. And it is interesting to note that even after achieving consensus as discussed in the these sections above which were marked resolved, you are reverting to your own preferred version and then you claim no consensus. --DBigXrayᗙ 12:45, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

What you wrote is not only complete falsehood, but also something you cannot substantiate. When did I reverted to "to (my) own preferred version"? What are you even implying? MBlaze Lightning 14:09, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

User:MBlaze Lightning calling others edits as falsehood simply because you dont agree/like with it is wrong approach for consensus building, something that you have to stop right now. Even if you believe it is false why cant you pinpoint those "complete falsehoods" explaining with your source that proves it is false and then we can discuss about how to improve. All you are doing on this talk page is returning every now and then and adding more & more vitriolic accusations and comments on editor instead of content. do you believe that accusing me of falsehoods will resolve the content disputes that you are claiming here ? --DBigXrayᗙ 14:17, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Now that's a complete misrepresentation of what I said; because I was specifically referring to the false allegations you made about me ("you are reverting to your own preferred version", etc). MBlaze Lightning 17:19, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 28 December 2018

In the section "French Government response", there is a line that states:

When asked whether India had put pressure on Reliance and Dassault to work together, Mr. Hollande said he was unaware and “only Dassault can comment on this.”as reported by AFP

There is a missing space where the "as reported by AFP" line begins. Abequinn14 (talk) 16:19, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

 Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 23:04, 28 December 2018 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 30 December 2018

Why are the people are CENSORING the facts? I recovered the correct material TWO times, but page keeps getting censored again and again and now I can't edit it. Those are just the facts as reported by mainstream media, yet they are being repeatedly censored on Wikipedia, which, ironically, boasts of reporting the existing mainstream facts. Please DO NOT censor the facts and stay faithful to the goal of reporting facts. I wrote a comprehensive and neutrally written summary of the reaction from both sides of the political spectrum, the petitioners and Dassault Aviation to the Indian Supreme Court verdict in a chronological order taking into account all the significant reactions. I also made sure all the important existing material remain preserved essentially in my write-up, yet it too was CENSORED in its entirety, and superseded by a blatantly lopsided write-up, which placed an undue emphasis on the reactions from the petitioners, whose petitions were quashed by the court, while shrugging off or outrightly erasing the reactions by other stakeholders.

See my write-up here:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rafale_deal_controversy&diff=875288413&oldid=875288056

Click on the following link showing an old version of the page, 'which should be recovered....it also contains my write-up:

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Rafale_deal_controversy&diff=875698049&oldid=875697420

If the people of this page can't be expected to edit neutrally and without any hidden agenda, then I ask an independent moderator for keeping an eagle eye on the page and foil all attempts to suppress the facts. NavjotSR (talk) 10:31, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• Your concerns are noted, and I essentially agree with them, despite your rhetoric. Although not much can be done right now given the page will remain protected for the next two day before we can edit. Again, I agree that the said version should be restored. Shivkarandholiya12 (talk) 10:53, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

 Not done: please establish a consensus for this alteration before using the {{edit protected}} template. A lot of your edits in the response section was politicial mudslingings and WP:UNDUE if you think a particualr line is relevant and must be added, please start a new section and explain why you feel it must be added to the article and then we can discuss on it. none is censoring anything but adding opinions as facts is not done. DBigXrayᗙ 14:25, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

I reverted your trolling you did here:-

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Rafale_deal_controversy&diff=876001486&oldid=875983696

You are not an admin who is allowed to moderate this request. NavjotSR (talk) 15:17, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

• NavjotSR, Noting that you have reverted my reply on the edit request with a blatant personal attack. You should remove this attack or risk being blocked.
• An Admin here has no special rights to approve your controversial version. The only way forward here is to discuss the edits and make consensus. And not to edit war your own preferred version of the article which is controversial and factually incorrect and misleading.
• Your edits here were adding nonsense such as this below into the article.

BJP's Tamil Nadu unit president Tamilisai Soundararajan, while lashing out at the Congress, demanded an apology from the Congress leaders "to the nation" in view of the SC findings. Union Home Minister Rajnath Singh, too, said: "The Congress President tried to mislead public for political benefit and maligned India’s image globally. He should apologize to the House and to the people of the country. He thought ‘Hum to doobe hain sanam tum ko bhi le doobenge’ (I have drowned so I will take you and drown),"

• No admin in his right mind can approve un-encyclopedic content such as this above.
• Shivkarandholiya12 and NavjotSR The article has been locked out so that you guys can stop edit warring and join the talk page for discussion and not to make edit request to get back your own preferred version bypassing the discussion. I would suggest you to join the threads below or create more to explain your stand for improving the article. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:40, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

To conclude that your removal of the edit request which wanted an admin to moderate (who have 'special rights' to make edits to fully protected pages) constituted 'trolling' behaviour and that is not a personal attack even if you think it was offensive. You have not shown evidence how you are an admin. Which admin discussion you are talking about if you claim that no admin would accept this request? Similarly you are trying very hard to hog the whole page with your absurd.

• Stop making vague handwaves. No bits in my version are 'factually incorrect and misleading', everything was sourced nicely to reliable sources.
• I am still can't see how that paragraph containing significant and much reported reactions from the leaders of the ruling party, against whom so called corruption charges were leveled, should be called 'nonsense'. It seems like you are only interested in promoting your agenda. Why their reactions should be treated any different from the petitioners' reaction that everyone else (except you) believe have been given undue weight in your version.
• Since you have nothing better to say you can move on now and stop edit warring yourself. I have removed the request because I can now recover the version you are censoring. Thanks. NavjotSR (talk) 13:08, 31 December 2018 (UTC)

Clean Chit

The controversial and disputed line about clean chit was first added by User:MBlaze Lightning, in this diff

the court dismissed all the petitions seeking a probe into the alleged irregularities in the deal, and gave a clean chit to the Union government on all three aspects: the decision making, pricing and selection of Indian offset partner. ..

On 23 December 2018 Fatsdominopizzeria removed had removed these controversial misrepresentations that were added with the edit summary This is someones cobbled together opinion and not what the court said at all.

After reviewing the sources and text the verdict I had removed this controversial text, since the verdict never talked about any "clean chit"
Shivkarandholiya12 and User:MBlaze Lightning among the 5 difs listed above You have pointed this diff twice (first here) [9] and then the same edit again [10]

As I had mentioned in my edit summary "No Chit was given, the mention of chit is opinion and not fact. moreover SC Has Not Given Modi Govt Clean Chit on Rafale Deal, Says Sitaram Yechury News 18 article"

Below Quote is from the NDTV article No Clean Chit To Modi Government On Rafale From Court: Sitaram Yechury.

“ Senior CPI (M) leader Sitaram Yechury on Saturday asserted that no clean chit has been given to the Narendra Modi government in the Rafale deal by the Supreme Court, which has "merely stated" that it did not have the jurisdiction to intervene in the matter.

The former Rajya Sabha member said the Opposition has, therefore, been seeking a probe by Joint Parliamentary Committee, but the government appears to be wary of the same.

"There is no clean chit. It is a misleading propaganda by the BJP. The Supreme Court has merely said that a scam of this nature did not fall within its jurisdiction and hence, it could not entertain the petitions."

”

Below Quote is from the Article by Deccan Herald Rafale: SC ruling no clean chit to govt

“ The court’s ruling cannot be considered as a clean chit for the government. The Modi government’s decision to buy 36 Rafale aircraft from Dassault Aviation invited criticism because the government seems to have agreed to give a higher price for than was decided in an earlier UPA agreement ”

If you think the courts mentioned clean chit in their verdict, then please point me to that line in the verdict and I will be happy to add clean chit. --DBigXrayᗙ 15:07, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

References

• My above edits that corrected the facts were reverted here en masse by User:MBlaze Lightning with a edit summary prior to disruptive edits by DBigXray without explaining what was the problem. A while later Shivkarandholiya12 joined making the same revert [11] and in spite of repeated request, in the threads above neither User:MBlaze Lightning or Shivkarandholiya12 have explained their problems with my edits. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Decision making process

This controversial line about this was first added by User:MBlaze Lightning, in this diff

In its ruling, the court said it has "studied the material carefully" and it is satisfied with the decision marking process and that it found no wrongdoing. ...

After reviewing the sources and text the verdict I had removed [12] this controversial addition, since this was a clear misrepresentation of the verdict

Below Quote is from the court verdict.

“ 22. We have studied the material carefully. We have also had the benefit of interacting with senior Air Force Officers who answered Court queries in respect of different aspects, including that of the acquisition process and pricing. We are satisfied that there is no occasion to really doubt the process, and even if minor deviations have occurred, that would not result in either setting aside the contract or requiring a detailed scrutiny by the Court. ” — SC verdict

Accordingly I had updated the article with this text below. diff [13]

In its ruling, the court said it had carefully studied the material placed before it and stated that "there is no occasion to really doubt the process, and even if minor deviations have occurred, that would not result in either setting aside the contract or requiring a detailed scrutiny by the Court."

As mentioned in my edit summary what I have added is actually based on the verdict, If you think that I made a mistake you need to clarify what is the mistake and why --DBigXrayᗙ 15:11, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

References

• My above edits that corrected the facts, were reverted here en masse by User:MBlaze Lightning with a edit summary prior to disruptive edits by DBigXray without explaining what was the problem. A while later Shivkarandholiya12 joined making the same revert [14] and in spite of repeated request, in the threads above neither User:MBlaze Lightning or Shivkarandholiya12 have explained their problems with my edits. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Pricing

This controversial line about this was first added by User:MBlaze Lightning, in this diff.

It expressed its satisfaction on the pricing aspect, after investigating the details, which were provided to it in a sealed envelope by the government.

After reviewing the sources and text the verdict I had removed [15] this controversial addition, since this was a clear misrepresentation of the verdict

Below Quote is from the court verdict.

“ 21...However, by a subsequent order, to satisfy the conscience of the Court, it was directed that details regarding the costs of the aircrafts should also be placed in sealed covers before the Court. ” — SC verdict

“ 26. We have examined closely the price details and comparison of the prices of the basic aircraft along with escalation costs as under the original RFP as well as under the IGA. We have also gone through the explanatory note on the costing, item wise. Suffice it to say that as per the price details, the official respondents claim there is a commercial advantage in the purchase of 36 Rafale aircrafts. The official respondents have claimed that there are certain better terms in IGA qua the maintenance and weapon package. It is certainly not the job of this Court to carry out a comparison of the pricing details in matters like the present. We say no more as the material has to be kept in a confidential domain. ” — SC verdict

Accordingly based on the sources I had updated the the article with this text below. diff

In its ruling, the court said it had carefully studied the material placed before it in sealed covers and stated that "there is no occasion to really doubt the process, and even if minor deviations have occurred, that would not result in either setting aside the contract or requiring a detailed scrutiny by the Court." The court commented on the pricing stating it had examined the price details and added that "It is certainly not the job of this Court to carry out a comparison of the pricing details in matters like the present. We say no more as the material has to be kept in a confidential domain"

Shivkarandholiya12 and User:MBlaze Lightning as mentioned in my edit summary what I have added is actually based on the verdict, If you think That I made a mistake you need to clarify what is the mistake and explain why --DBigXrayᗙ 15:15, 30 December 2018 (UTC)

References

• My above edits that corrected the facts, were reverted here en masse by User:MBlaze Lightning with a edit summary prior to disruptive edits by DBigXray without explaining what was the problem. A while later Shivkarandholiya12 joined making the same revert [16] and in spite of repeated request, in the threads above neither User:MBlaze Lightning or Shivkarandholiya12 have explained their problems with my edits. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Offset Partner

This controversial line about this was first added by User:MBlaze Lightning, in this diff.

On the aspect of offset partner, the court rejected allegations of commercial favoritism, citing the lack of any substantive material.

Below Quote is from the court verdict.

“ 33.Once again, it is neither appropriate nor within the experience of this Court to step into this arena of what is technically feasible or not. The point remains that DPP 2013 28 envisages that the vendor/OEM will choose its own IOPs. In this process, the role of the Government is not envisaged and, thus, mere press interviews or suggestions cannot form the basis for judicial review by this Court, especially when there is categorical denial of the statements made in the Press, by both the sides. We do not find any substantial material on record to show that this is a case of commercial favouritism to any party by the Indian Government, as the option to choose the IOP does not rest with the Indian Government ” — SC verdict

Accordingly I had updated the the article with this text below. diff

On the aspect of offset partner, the court noted that it did not find substantial material that shows if this is a case of commercial favouritism.

and then expanded it to below mentioned para [17]

On the aspect of Indian Offset Partner (IOP), the court noted that "it is neither appropriate nor within the experience of this Court to step into this arena of what is technically feasible or not. The point remains that DPP 2013 28 envisages that the vendor/OEM will choose its own IOPs. In this process, the role of the Government is not envisaged and, thus, mere press interviews or suggestions cannot form the basis for judicial review by this Court, especially when there is categorical denial of the statements made in the Press, by both the sides. We do not find any substantial material on record to show that this is a case of commercial favouritism to any party by the Indian Government, as the option to choose the IOP does not rest with the Indian Government."

• My above edits that corrected the facts, were reverted here en masse by User:MBlaze Lightning with a edit summary prior to disruptive edits by DBigXray without explaining what was the problem. A while later Shivkarandholiya12 joined making the same revert [18] and in spite of repeated request, in the threads above neither User:MBlaze Lightning or Shivkarandholiya12 have explained their problems with my edits. --DBigXrayᗙ 21:26, 3 January 2019 (UTC)

Improvements in Lead

Hi User:Shivkarandholiya12, I had updated and improved the article lead on 28 December 2018 Which you have immediately removed by blanket reverts on

• 28 December 2018 reverted by Shivkarandholiya12 with edit summary "(restored sourced content)"
• 31 December 2018 reverted by Shivkarandholiya12 with edit summary "(Clear consensus on talk page)"

The content that I had added was entirely sourced to reliable sources and you have removed it and restored WP:OVERCITE and poor lead Please explain why you have removed the lead or agree to restore if you have no valid reasons. --DBigXrayᗙ 17:31, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Content that I had added and was removed.

The Rafale Deal Controversy is a political controversy in India related to the purchase of 36 multirole fighter aircraft for a price estimated to be worth Rs 58,000 crore (7.8 billion euros) by the Defence Ministry of India from France's Dassault Aviation. Origin of the deal lies in the Indian MRCA competition. In 2007, the UPA government had released tenders for 126 MMRCA fighters for Indian Air Force. Dassault made the lowest bids and was selected in 2012. According to the conditions of the tender, 18 jets would be purchased in fly away conditions and the remaining 108 jets were to be manufactured in India by Hindustan Aeronautics Ltd (HAL) in association with Dassault after the transfer of technology to produce the aircraft. The Congress stated that a deal with the price of ₹ 526.1 crore per jet was negotiated. The UPA deal was never finalized.

In April 2015, Prime Minister Narendra Modi announced a decision to purchase 36 Rafale fighters in a flyaway condition during his visit to Paris. Critical operational requirements were cited as the reasons for the decision. In June 2015, the tender for 126 aircrafts was officially withdrawn. In 2016 an MoU was signed between India and France for 36 Rafale jets at a price of €7.87 billion. Dassault Aviation announced a joint venture with Indian businessman Anil Ambani's Reliance Defence for the compensation investment of 50% of the value of the deal.

The Congress party had alleged favouritism by the Modi government in the selection of Anil Ambani's Reliance as offset partner. In 2018, former French president Francois Hollande revealed that Reliance was selected by the Indian side and France had no choice in the selection of the Indian offset partner. Government of India denied the accusation and Dassault Aviation issued stated that it was Dassault's decision to choose Reliance. The congress accused the government of inflating the price of the deal and demanded a disclosure of the negotiated pricing. The Indian government rejected the demand citing a secrecy clause in the deal. The French president Macron stated that the deal pricing can be shared with the opposition parties of India.

In 2018, four separate petitions were filed in Supreme Court, questioning the pricing, choice of Reliance as the offset partner, the process followed in Rafale deal. The details of the pricing and the process that was followed was kept secret citing national interest and shared with the court in a sealed cover. On December 14, the Supreme Court declared that there was nothing wrong in the Rafale deal and the court did not doubt the process followed. The court dismissed all four petitions that had demanded a court monitored probe in the deal, adding in its final conclusion that its views are based on its standpoint on the courts jurisdiction under 29 Article 32 of the Constitution of India. The court in its verdict had mentioned that a report by Comptroller and Auditor General (CAG) had been shared with parliament and Public Accounts Committee. It was pointed by the petitioners and the Congress that no CAG report on rafale exists and nothing had been shared yet. The government filed an application for correction in the verdict. The application will come up for hearing after the new year holidays.

References

There are many sources here that are inappropriately used. The Telegraph article was written based on the complaint from Sinha, Shourie and Bhushan submitted to the SC and basically presents only a single side of the argument. The India Today's "explainer" is of very low quality and contains many inaccuracies that contradict other sources. For example, the source states Under the contract, Dassault was mandated to make compensation investments (offsets) in India worth 50 per cent of the value of the purchase. but many other sources show that the offset responsibilities are split between Dassault, Thales and Safran. So, it is not that a single company is responsible for the entire 50% offset. More worryingly, that statement was used as a source for the statement Dassault Aviation announced a joint venture with Indian businessman Anil Ambani's Reliance Defence for the compensation investment of 50% of the value of the deal. which is not only different from what is in the source, but is basically what Congress is alleging. Many secondary sources disagree on the exact percentage of offsets that Dassault is planning to discharge through DRAL, but all of them agree that it is a fraction of the offsets, not the whole share.

There are many other neutrality issues with the lead such as the statement In 2018, former French president Francois Hollande revealed that Reliance was selected by the Indian side and France had no choice in the selection of the Indian offset partner. which doesn't summarize the controversy associate with his statement accurately and blatantly takes a side. The juxtaposition of The Indian government rejected the demand citing a secrecy clause in the deal. with The French president Macron stated that the deal pricing can be shared with the opposition parties of India. also amounts to WP:SYNTH as the Congress' demand was for the price to be made public in parliament, while Macron stated that details can be shared with the opposition, which is quite different. The lead presents the Congress' assertion that it negotiated a price of 526 crore, but does not present the counter-argument by BJP that Congress was comparing the price of "fully loaded" aircraft with the price of "basic aicraft" without taking price escalation and currency variations into consideration. The lead also suffers from recentism, which is also true of the article as whole now, with the material related to supreme court judgement taking up a disproportionately large amount of the article share.

The lead fails to accurately summarize the controversy, which is not surprising since the article as whole is quite incomplete. I suggest spending more time on expanding the article on specific allegations and the reply of the Indian government, French government, Dassault and the Indian Air Force. Once that is done, a more neutral lead can be written that presents both sides of the argument. —Gazoth (talk) 19:07, 4 January 2019 (UTC)

Gazoth, Please provide the sources to back up the claims you made above. If they are verifiable there is no reason why they cannot be added into the Lead text. The article needs work no doubt, but that doesn't mean the Lead will be deliberately kept at a piss poor state like it is right now. I will respond once again after you provide the sources I asked above. regards.--DBigXrayᗙ 19:13, 4 January 2019 (UTC)