Talk:Rafale deal controversy

Addition to Background section
Many objections were raised following Rafale's selection, including some by Indian MPs such as Yashwant Sinha, but not everything can be included as this is a summary. These are not directly related to the controversy and including them will add needless complexity to the section. I have already added the aftermath of those objections where A. K. Antony ordered a review of the LCC process. I think this should be sufficient for the purpose of providing a background to the controversy. —Gazoth (talk) 12:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC)

N Ram's investigative article
The Hindu Senior editor N Ram has published this investigative article Modi’s decision to buy 36 Rafales shot the price of each jet up by 41% that was covered by Media, I am not sure which section these details should go in. Also there have been some statements about Denial of Parrikar in any involvement. . Should a new section be made at the bottom -- D Big X ray ᗙ  23:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC)
 * No new section is needed, it can go into the controversy section. There have been a lot of analysis articles related to this and N. Ram's is only exceptional due to the coverage it recieved. Please stick to WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV as the headline is clearly slanted and contradicted by the article text. —Gazoth (talk) 00:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC)


 * This user has been warring over this since months, and each time gets reverted by different editors because his removals make no sense and his additions are undue. It is clear that consensus is against him and he is not accepting it. 192.248.22.102 (talk) 08:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * 192.248.22.102 Do you even know what you have reverted ? you have not explained the problem you have with my edit. what you have removed is entirely different content, you should either explain why you have removed my edits or you should self revert immediately. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  09:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC)
 * I note that this IP, above has posted a template on my talk page today (diff), but still not bothered to respond here to my request above. -- D Big X ray ᗙ  04:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Elaborating more on this, the additions of lawsuits against The Wire, Citizen et al constitutes WP:UNDUE, adding that none of these web portals are reliable sources in Wikipedia's sense, neither they have been used as sources in this page. More importantly, there's a paucity of coverage about these insignificant incidents in mainstream media, if any, unlike the lawsuit against NDTV. Thus it appears that they were reasonably as reverted the undue additions. NavjotSR (talk) 06:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Another article has come out today on le Monde in France. I tried adding it, but within 2 seconds, another wikipedan - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/User:Gazoth - immediately undid it. Having edited articles here for 8 years now, I strongly suspect someone has been employed to monitor this page and not write anything critical against certain entities. Can we either have a better system of editing this page and giving objective information based on citations (The Hindu and Le Monde are among the highest respected newspapers - unlike TOI!) Notthebestusername (talk) 05:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Revert of price comparison
The comparison with UPA prices in the PTI report published by The Hindu Business Line is dubious because it claims that the discount that was obtained with respect to the price quoted in January is the same as the discount that was obtained with respect to the original MMRCA deal. The former is corroborated by multiple other sources, while the latter is not. It is not corroborated even by any government officials or NDA ministers. No one has made this claim except this particular report. Whenever government officials or NDA ministers have compared the prices between the IGA and the MMRCA agreement, they have always provided a frame of reference such as comparison of prices of the bare aircraft. This report does not provide any such frame of reference, but still purports to compare a deal for 126 aircraft and 36 aircraft, both with considerably different amount of deliverables and arrives at a figure that is exactly the same as the drop in price in January 2016. Considering all this, it looks like a mistake made while reporting and should not belong here.

Since you have reverted a substantial part of my edit without providing an appropriate justification for most of it, can you explain yourself? —Gazoth (talk) 18:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * I agree that the PTI report was rather too self-confident making lots of assertions about this murky deal. It should be used with caution. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 19:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC)


 * Gazoth So if the issue was only with the bit 'which the previous UPA government was negotiating' why you deleted such large amount of stable content with a totally inadequate summary? You are yet to give an 'appropriate justification' for the large scale removal of content. You need to either do so or not remove the content at all. PTI is the biggest news agency in Asia; we cannot take your word to impugn its reliability and credibility. You have no qualms with using the source for the bit 'In May 2016, the two sides arrived at a figure of €7.87 billion (₹58,891 crore) for the agreement, which was roughly €750 million less than the one quoted in January', but you want us to throw this same source out of the window when it says that the quoted price was in similar terms that UPA government was negotiating. You can't have it both ways. AFAICS, the 750 million Euros savings is what was reported at that time by multiple sources ,. I can read that the present government asserts it got a total reported saving of more than 1600 million Euros (excluding further savings on weapons et al, but that is something that can go in the 'controversy' section with proper attribution. If you have other sources that presents other figures, you need to bring them here. NavjotSR (talk) 09:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Most of what I've removed is fluff, things like "tough negotiations" which are totally pointless as most negotiations are tough. It'd be news if the negotiations are easy, not otherwise. The essence of the material was still kept, that the MoU was signed in Jan 2016 without financial terms, which was later finalised in May with a EUR 750M decrease over the price quoted in Jan and the final agreement signed in September. I've justified this in the summary by saying that I was summarising the content. You don't seem to have an issue when I did the same to Trappier's statement on the old deal being "95 percent complete".
 * As for PTI, last time I checked it is still staffed by humans and humans can make mistakes. Just because PTI is a reliable source, it does not mean that we have to include everything it prints despite being highly questionable. As I've said before the drop in price from January is corroborated by many other independent sources (for example, the Jane's Defence Weekly source cited in the article), but the same is not true for the claim of 750M saving over UPA era deal. Of the two reports that you claim are corroborating, one reproduces the PTI report exactly (The Economic Times) and the other builds upon it (The Indian Express, see "With PTI inputs" at the bottom). As for the government's claim of 1.6B saving, it just strengthens my argument that not even the government has made the claim of 750M saving. There are multiple sources that I've already added to the article about claims made by government officials, and none of them match the claim of 750M. —Gazoth (talk) 13:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * If you have an issue with keeping the PTI source partially, I can easily swap it out. —Gazoth (talk) 13:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC)
 * But content on Wikipedia is determine by weight policy. Your claim that you were 'summarising the content' is not that accurate, and so is your claim that 'essence of the material was still kept', since your mass removal was close to ~1,000 bytes of content that talked about the chain of events that resulted in the discounts in price.  If reliable sources emphasize that there were prolong and atypical negotiations before the deal was eventually struck, that makes that information WP:DUE in wikipedia's sense. As for your misconceptions about reliable sources, if a reliable source reports a fact, it doesn't need to be 'corroborated' by another reliable source before we add it to wikipedia. Neither do the figures by reliable sources needs to match the figures by a government. If the government claims different figures, then we attribute that figure to it. Furthermore, issue is not about 'swapping' the source. Why we should be considering it reliable for one claim and then throwing it out of the window? NavjotSR (talk) 14:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * First of all, 1000 bytes is far from mass removal in an article of 64k bytes and your edit only restored 40% of my so-called mass removal. Indian news reports often suffer from excessive amount of puffery and their removal has nothing to with WP:DUE. The PTI report does not report the savings with respect to the UPA-era deal as a fact, it reports that "defence sources" has told it so. Since it is merely quoting an unnamed source, yes, it can be put under question. It has to be corroborated by others sources because, as I explained in my first comment, there are many discrepancies in the report. You have addressed none of these and you keep harping on the fact that PTI is WP:RS. —Gazoth (talk) 15:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You are barking up the wrong tree now. There is nothing atypical about published sources citing 'sources' when reporting about stuff. That is something universal among them across the world. And that doesn't precludes us from using such sources. Your personal disliking of the source in absence of any contradictory sources doesn't wash. Because as of now, we are only seeing mass corroboration of the contents present in the source. NavjotSR (talk) 15:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Stop changing the goalposts. You said that it cannot be questioned as PTI reported it as a fact, but when I showed that it is clearly not true, you're now creating a straw man to argue against. As I said before, there are tons of contradictory sources, some that have been already added to the article one that you presented yourself, and some others that are yet to to be added . All these claims by government officials and politicians always present some standard of comparison, such as comparison of bare aircraft while comparing the two deals as they're very different (126 with 18 flyaway vs 36 flyaway) with different deliverables. This PTI report presents no such standard. You have have been avoiding these points since the beginning. Since you keep slipping around these questions let me put them in points:
 * You have claimed "mass corroboration" of PTI source with respect to the claim of 750 million saving (this has to be exact, not something else entirely) over the UPA-era deal (which means pre-2014, not the number quoted in January 2016). Present them here.
 * The source quoted by PTI claims a saving of 750 million from the number quoted in January 2016, and then says that the same exact saving was achieved over the UPA-era deal, which was a very different deal. Why should this not be questioned, especially since no other government source or NDA minister has made this exact claim?
 * The source quoted by PTI claims a saving of 750 million from the UPA-era deal, which was a deal for 126 aircraft with local production for 108 while the new deal for 36 aircraft. Whenever other sources have made claims of savings, they have always presented a basis for comparison. How exactly is the comparison being made here?
 * With all these questions that are unanswered, there is no reason to keep this very questionable claim, and especially not as a citation for a statement in Wikipedia's voice. —Gazoth (talk) 15:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC)

Hi all, I was the one who had added the content in question a few weeks back, when I last edited this article. I can see that there is some disagreement, primarily concerning the veracity of one particular line"which the previous UPA government was negotiating"even though it is borne out by the cited source. I'm not sure if you guys noticed this or not, but the article in question elucidates further on this assertion. I'll quote from it so as to clear things up:

Now here is the corroboration from another reliable source:

Not to mention that this was also reported by multiple other publications (e.g., 1, 2 ) at that time. Accordingly, I've supplanted the aforementioned clause with the following text:

Hopefully, this will settle the issue now. MBlaze Lightning 14:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * The second FE source that you provided only says that the 750 million saving was over the number quoted in January, which is not under question. As for the savings from change in inflation formula, none of the sources have quantified these savings (including the PTI report under question) and they have nothing to with the 750M savings claim from the UPA-era negotiations mentioned in the PTI report. The formula for inflation kicks in after the deal is signed as the payments for this agreement is staggered (explained in the Jane's Defence Weekly source cited in the article), with two lump sum payments for 40% of the amount and the remaining as the aircraft are delivered. The Sunday Guardian source just muddies the water further, by saying that UPA regime had been discussing the deal with the jet makers, Dassault, for €11.6 billion which has a difference of about €3.7 billion when comapred to €7.87 billion value of the IGA. It still suffers from the same issue that I mentioned in my first comment, as it compares a deal for 126 aircraft with local production for 108 with a deal for 36 flyaway aircraft without providing any frame of reference. If we go by the naive method of calculating unit price, €11.6 billion would give a unit price of €92 million for 126 while €7.87 billion gives a unit price of €218 million. This shows a large increase in price rather than a decrease. —Gazoth (talk) 15:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Both the Jane's Defence Weekly source and this Indian Express report say that the €11 billion figure is from a number quoted by the French in April 2015, after the announcement of purchase for 36 aircraft. This would have nothing to with UPA, although there is a small discrepancy in numbers as both these sources mention a figure of €11.8 billion, while the Sunday Guardian mentions €11.6 billion. —Gazoth (talk) 15:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Hi again. I did some digging and it appears that the change in the basis of the price calculation and capping of the inflation at 3.5% indeed weren't the sole factors that contributed to the overall reduction in price. In fact, I just noticed that the PTI report also elucidates other factors. For example, it says at the end:


 * In view of this fact, I'd propose changing the first sentence to read, "The reduction in price was, for one thing, due to the Indian team asking their French counterparts that the price of the deal be calculated based on the actual cost". Let me know if you agree or disagree with the aforementioned proposed change. MBlaze Lightning  16:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Considering the price comparison in that PTI with respect to UPA-era deal itself is under question, no, that is not an acceptable change. As I have already explained in my previous comment, there are several unanswered questions related to that report. Since the report does not explicitly present any standard of comparison or reason for price reduction, attributing reasons that may or may not be related would be considered WP:SYNTH. —Gazoth (talk) 16:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I did read your comment; but, in my opinion, the whole controversy over that particular claim by the PTI is already effectively moot in view of my first comment and this subsequent edit, wherein I supplanted the contentious bit with an explanatory text. The whole purpose behind me proposing a modification in the wording of the new text was to make it acceptable to you: because you contended that the text was "WP:OR", because the sources didn't quantified the savings stemming from the change in the basis of the price calculation and capping of the inflation at 3.5%.Apropos the proposed change running afoul of WP:SYNTH, I'd propose the following text be instead considered for inclusion into the article:This text is strictly congruent with what the sources say, hence there ought to be no question of WP:OR/WP:SYNTH. If you have any quibble whatsoever or are not satisfied apropos of how the text is phrased, you should feel free to suggest improvements, that would certainly be helpful. MBlaze Lightning  14:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * My bad, I missed that you removed the contentious bit in your edit. But, my objection still stands. The source does not say whether the reduction in cost is for the past (750 million savings from the price quoted in January 2016) or the future. The assertion that the savings are for the past does not make sense. If the price was fixed for that year, how would a change in inflation formula amount to savings in the same year? It should only result in savings for the future. Additionally, there are two articles in the Hindustan Times by different authors ( and ) asserting that the price of the aircraft was calculated with 2011 as base year, which would conflict with what the PTI report says. These reports attribute the savings to change of base year from 2011 and 2015. It is possible to cherry pick the data from the two sources and say that the savings are from changing the base year along with lower inflation rates, but that'd be WP:SYNTH.
 * Considering the issues in the PTI report from my first comment, it'd be better to drop the source entirely. I recommend using the Indian Express report from one of my earlier comments instead. It also has a quote about changing of inflation rates, but it says that the savings are for the duration of the deal, which makes more logical sense. Alternatively, we can also use the article written by Nitin Gokhale for change of inflation rates, but in both cases we should provide in-text attribution per WP:PARTISAN. Gokhale is a reliable source, but he's perceived to be close to the ruling party with Manohar Parrikar writing the foreword for and attending the launch of his book Securing India The Modi Way: Pathankot, Surgical Strikes and More. If you don't have any objections to my summarisation, we can start with that and and add a line about change of inflation rates. —Gazoth (talk) 17:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Well, Gazoth, let me tell you, in proposing the aforementioned text, I did took your objections into account, as should have been evident to you from the change seen in the first sentence, and I expected that to be the end of it. The change assumes significance in the sense that it makes the text strictly congruent with what the sources say and no longer gives the impression that the savings as consequent to the change in the basis of the price calculation and capping of the inflation at 3.5% have to necessarily do with the savings of 750 million Euros. Further, it must be noted that the reliable sources, when discussing about the overall reduction in price, makes it patently clear that these two different factors both did contributed to the overall reduction in price; the latter in the sense that by virtue of pegging the European inflation at the actual level per annum with a cap of maximum of 3.5% as against earlier during the erstwhile UPA government when Dassault was allowed to add price of 3.9% inflation (which would have come into force from the day deal was struck), the cost of the deal would go down significantly; and because of the very fact that payments are to be made in tranches, it would result in savings.With that in mind, I can't see how your objections are any longer valid. I can see that the wording sounds a bit vague to you, but it is what it is. We, in our capacity as Wikipedia editors, are not in a position to decide what things are, or interpret what reliable sources saywe'll just make the articles congruent with what they say and then leave it to the readers to interpret the objective information for themselves. That being said, we can append a line or two apropos of the expected savings over the course of the deal owing to the change in the inflation formula to eliminate vagueness and ambiguity. Give me a day or two, and i'll be appending the said lines myself (as real life has me extremely busy of late).As for the HT reports claiming that the base year was changed to bring down the cost in contrast with what the PTI article has intimated, I'm not sure what in it you are alluding to; but the aforementioned reports doesn't inspire any confidence: there is no corroboration of the aforementioned claim in the reliable sources out there, which, although is not a sufficient reason to impugn its veracity, makes it reasonable to disbelieve such a seemingly isolated claim, especially given the fact that these very same articles makes patently erroneous claims like "Rafale will be fitted with American AESA (active electronically scanned phased array) radar," and not to mention there exists in abundance, authoritative sources that contradicts the aforementioned claim (e.g., 1, 2, p. 129 ). It's in any case a red herring.And just so I am clear, I am not opposed to mentioning information, such as the one about the "€11 billion figure" separately in the article, for I think these might give some insight to the readers vis-à-vis the steps taken by the Indian government and/or Dassault Aviation aimed at reducing the overall price of the deal. MBlaze Lightning  07:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I'd have argued that we don't have to keep vague information despite being verifiable, especially if it can misleading, but the CAG report changes things here by providing additional information. The last paragraph on page 140 states that the initial offer in 2015 was calculated by escalating the 2007 cost by 3.9 per cent and savings were accrued from changing the bid to non-fixed and firm which enabled savings from a decrease in "recent inflation rates". Of course, we cannot add this to the "Background" section as I've already explained to you in our earlier discussion.
 * I'll withdraw blanket objections to the text in view of this, but other issues remain. This claim was contentious (remains so too) and the wording of the PTI source makes it clear that most of the information was provided by a government source. In view of this, in-text attribution would be appropriate. I propose the following text as a replacement:
 * This text is more condensed, more understandable and avoids close paraphrasing which might have been a concern in the older text. Let me know if you have any objections to this. —Gazoth (talk) 15:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC)
 * That's not going to happen. And there is nothing contentious now that it has been shown that ample amount of sources including the CAG et al sources that provided corroborates the text . This is why your proposal which is laden with omissions and OR in the form of attribution wont fly. As its getting tiresome to read same comments and repeat the same points we can instead move on to productive things. 112.134.68.107 (talk) 14:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Big words from someone who is participating in discussions from different IPs and yet is refusing to disclose which ones belong to them. Are you trying to avoid accountability? Can you add anything of substance such as pointing out exactly what was omitted that is also confirmed by the CAG report? The part that pointed out in page 129 is irrelevant as that only explains the calculation of aligned price, which was used as benchmark for the IGA price. The tweet is a submission to CAG and is hardly an independent source.
 * The entire PTI report is laden with "sources said". Specifically, The Defence Ministry has capped the European Inflation Indices to maximum 3.5 per cent a year. In other words, if inflation Indices goes down, India will have to pay less. Even if it goes up India will not pay more than 3.5 per cent increase, sources said. There is no OR here, do not make unfounded accusations when you are unable to justify it. —Gazoth (talk) 14:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You can't be helped if you pretend otherwise. It would help you if you read again what you were told. The above sources were provided only because to debunk the weak ones laden with factual errors you used to eliminate a far more reliable source. The attribution that 'government claimed xyz' is not only unsupported but a figment of your own imagination, and we don't use attributions for something for which multiple source exists. 112.134.68.107 (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No specific response, just more bad faith accusations and gaslighting. You still did not point out exactly what was corroborated in CAG report that is omitted in my text. According to you, an error in one article can be used to dismiss two separate sources, while an error in the another article does not prevent it from being "far more reliable". As I've already explained in my talk page, the "Background" section is only for information known before the controversy started. Sources published subsequently cannot be used to remove the need for attribution as that would be misleading. —Gazoth (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You can't be helped if you pretend otherwise. It would help you if you read again what you were told. The above sources were provided only because to debunk the weak ones laden with factual errors you used to eliminate a far more reliable source. The attribution that 'government claimed xyz' is not only unsupported but a figment of your own imagination, and we don't use attributions for something for which multiple source exists. 112.134.68.107 (talk) 15:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No specific response, just more bad faith accusations and gaslighting. You still did not point out exactly what was corroborated in CAG report that is omitted in my text. According to you, an error in one article can be used to dismiss two separate sources, while an error in the another article does not prevent it from being "far more reliable". As I've already explained in my talk page, the "Background" section is only for information known before the controversy started. Sources published subsequently cannot be used to remove the need for attribution as that would be misleading. —Gazoth (talk) 16:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * Gazoth, I see you have again deleted content by giving an inadequate reason. In my opinion you are just being stubborn now and refusing to understand what others are saying. As far as I see, YOu are clearly deleting much more content while citing lack of objections 'to removal of the dubious claim'. I don't see anyone who has agreed with your removal and still you are edit warring. I am going to write some content and also restore the sourced content proposed above in lieu of the 'dubious claim' pertaining to pricing given your failure to convince above users why should the content be deleted notwithstanding your earlier comments bristled with WP:OR and without premise in Wiki policies. 112.134.67.5 (talk) 18:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * I have already explained my reasoning on the talk page. I cannot help it if you stick to your WP:IDHT attitude and refuse to see the plain use puffery, even if it is verifiable. Verifiability alone does not guarantee inclusion, as it also has to comply with WP:NPOV. As for the draft proposed by, it was still under discussion and it was premature of you to add it to the article when he was yet to get back to me. Additionally, you did not have any right to use his contribution without credit as per licensing requirement. —Gazoth (talk) 19:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC)
 * FYI, making contentious edits while logged out, especially when you have already participated in the discussion while being logged in is one of the illegitimate uses of alternative accounts. —Gazoth (talk) 19:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC)


 * No editor on this very same page has to be credited if their edits have been restored. You really need to find better excuses for this content removal or just give up all together. Your interminable obfuscation and stonewalling coupled with the bad faith accusations is really getting disruptive.
 * What you meant from "no new message on talk page. Do not add text that is still under discussion"? Neither I have to entertain your WP:IDHT nor you WP:OWN this article.
 * You also know I am a long term IP editor and use no account. I participated here for weeks. But now if you have problem ONLY because I am reverting you then go try your luck at SPI, but if these are the basis you are using for reverting then you are just walking on a very thin ice. 112.134.66.1 (talk) 17:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * No, I have no idea who you are. Since you claim that you have no account and have been editing this article for weeks, can you disclose which IPs belong to you, of all the ones that have edited this article or talk page? —Gazoth (talk) 21:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You did not restore the edits already made to the page. You added a proposal which was made here and was still under discussion, before a consensus could be reached. The older text started with The reduction in price was due to the Indian team asking their French counterparts which I reverted and was being discussed here, while the text proposed here starts with The Indian team was able to bring down the price by virtue of asking their French counterparts. The text that you added was the latter, not the former. Your decision to add text that was still under discussion is what caused the disruption here, not my reverts of your edits.
 * You have also caused a mess by both retaining the original text and my summarisation of it, which is just causing unnecessary duplication. The original text was:
 * This was summarised as,
 * and
 * What you added is,
 * You have mashed up both versions to create something that is more wordy than the version before summarisation. Can you explain what important information does my edit omit and why exactly does it need to be retained? —Gazoth (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * This was summarised as,
 * and
 * What you added is,
 * You have mashed up both versions to create something that is more wordy than the version before summarisation. Can you explain what important information does my edit omit and why exactly does it need to be retained? —Gazoth (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What you added is,
 * You have mashed up both versions to create something that is more wordy than the version before summarisation. Can you explain what important information does my edit omit and why exactly does it need to be retained? —Gazoth (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * What you added is,
 * You have mashed up both versions to create something that is more wordy than the version before summarisation. Can you explain what important information does my edit omit and why exactly does it need to be retained? —Gazoth (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You have mashed up both versions to create something that is more wordy than the version before summarisation. Can you explain what important information does my edit omit and why exactly does it need to be retained? —Gazoth (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You have mashed up both versions to create something that is more wordy than the version before summarisation. Can you explain what important information does my edit omit and why exactly does it need to be retained? —Gazoth (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You have mashed up both versions to create something that is more wordy than the version before summarisation. Can you explain what important information does my edit omit and why exactly does it need to be retained? —Gazoth (talk) 15:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC)


 * I'm afraid you do not quite understand how things work here. Enough people participated in this thread and none except you had any problems with the content which remained more of the same throughout the discussion. You had ample time to convince people otherwise but none supported your weak and thoroughly debunked arguments. In between you were reverted by at least three different editors after you resorted to edit warring which caused disruption. That is exactly what CONSENSUS means here. The continued lack of any objection by other people days after the inclusion of content also implies assent and is testimony to the fact that consensus is against you. Nothing can be done if you insist on beating the dead horse. 112.134.68.107 (talk) 15:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * Still no specific response. This particular bit has not been discussed, since it was introduced by 112.134.67.5. You are only avoiding a discussion here.
 * Let's see, supported me in my questioning of PTI report.  stopped responding.  withdrew his original edit of comparison of  UPA-era deal. Even 112.134.67.5 and 112.134.66.1 did not restore that bit and the part about "tough negotiations" after I called it out. Yup, everyone is disagreeing with everything I said.
 * You can reach an editor count of three for those who reverted me only if you count 112.134.67.5 and 112.134.66.1 as different editors. Are you asserting that they are different and have nothing to do with you? —Gazoth (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You can reach an editor count of three for those who reverted me only if you count 112.134.67.5 and 112.134.66.1 as different editors. Are you asserting that they are different and have nothing to do with you? —Gazoth (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)
 * You can reach an editor count of three for those who reverted me only if you count 112.134.67.5 and 112.134.66.1 as different editors. Are you asserting that they are different and have nothing to do with you? —Gazoth (talk) 16:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC)

Extra reading Removed

 * https://www.deccanherald.com/national/national-politics/what-all-can-the-court-overlook-in-the-rafale-matter-723110.html How many things can the SC overlook in Rafale?;S Raghotham, DH News Service, Bengaluru, MAR 14 2019,]
 * Why the tag is removed? - the remover may not like that readers should kmow the truth. May be on the side of scandal if really their is- Does the Eng wiki against truth and impartial- works for some partisan look? Wonder- Honest views are deleted!!  Does this investigation hurts the person hho delete? So his view only must stand?? OK Bschandrasgr (talk) 07:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC)
 * , per WP:Further reading and WP:ELPOV, links to other articles should present a neutral, balanced view. It is not a place to promote opinion pieces on only one side of the subject matter. —Gazoth (talk) 20:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC)

Recent addition to the lead
, can you explain how such a blatantly biased addition is appropriate for the lead? —Gazoth (talk) 05:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

Simple - read the 10 articles in The Hindu, then the RTI reply by the Ministry of Defence, and then todays article on the Le Monde. Btw - are you employed by the BJP or the Anil Ambani group (or one of the publicity companies0 to monitor this page? Is so, may I knw if the salary sis good? Notthebestusername (talk) 05:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC)
 * , please read WP:NPA and WP:ASPERSIONS and rethink your comment. —Gazoth (talk) 05:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC)


 * Notthebestusername, I have left a caution at your page. --Jaydayal (talk) 06:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC)

The Print
@Arajakate Tayi Arajakate Talk - how does this page take a source from "the print" website? Again a choice of your own to justify. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravysaraf (talk • contribs) 20:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC)
 * ThePrint is a reliable source as a WP:NEWSORG. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 21:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC)

Looks like Wiki is going to pick an choose a news source. The print is a source, the rediff is not, the opindia is blacklisted. Thus entire wiki is sabotaged by the leftists! — Preceding unsigned comment added by Ravysaraf (talk • contribs) 05:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC)