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)

Recent edits by MBlaze Lightning

Supreme Court section

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)

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)

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/enwiki/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/enwiki/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/enwiki/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 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)

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 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 https://www.news18.com/news/politics/sc-has-not-given-modi-govt-clean-chit-on-rafale-deal-says-sitaram-yechury-1981281.html"

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

Studied the material and process

regarding [11]

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

References

Decision making process

regarding [12]

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

Pricing

Shivkarandholiya12 and User:MBlaze Lightning regarding [13] 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