Talk:Rafale deal controversy

1755:

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 Knowledge editors, are not in a position to decide what things are, or interpret what reliable sources say—we'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

1142:

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.

1448:

have to pay less. Even if it goes up India will not pay more than 3.5 per cent increase, sources said. After Dassault Aviation, makers of the Rafales, emerged as winners, the UPA government had agreed with French officials to calculate the price on the fixed cost formula that allowed the company to include additional price of 3.9 per cent inflation indices from day 1 of the deal. So, had the deal gone ahead, India would have ended up paying additional cost of inflation Indices (@3.9 per cent) which was already added at the initial negotiation itself.

761: 1381:). 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: 335: 1750:

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

1313:. 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 508: 751: 730: 839: 207: 561: 540: 430: 403: 1102:- 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!) 900:, 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. — 292: 571: 1711:) 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 372: 440: 1472:

asked France to make the deal cost calculations on the basis of actual cost, or “Price as on today”, plus European Inflation Indices. The Defence Ministry capped the European Inflation Indices at a maximum of 3.5% a year. At the time of UPA, the fixed cost formula had been agreed on and an inflation of 3.9% was allowed to be added from the first day of the deal itself.

237: 666: 1776:). 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. 645: 1933:

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

1243:, 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. — 1227:

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".

1932:

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'.

1722:

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

1704:

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

1546:

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

1507:

The reduction in price was due to the Indian team asking their French counterparts that the price of the deal be calculated based on the actual cost, i.e. "price as on today", and European inflation indices, which the Indian defence ministry capped at a maximum of 3.5% per annum, as against the fixed

1362:

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

1271:

But content on Knowledge 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

1226:

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

1182:

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

2174:

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

1891:

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

1471:

As stated above, India has saved around 750 million Euros in the deal. In January 2016, when France President Francois Hollande came to India, the French side had quoted a price of 8.6 billion Euros. India had refused to sign the contract, resulting in the two nations signing only an MoU. India then

1447:

To bring down the cost, the India asked French officials to calculate the deal on actual cost (Price as on today) plus European Inflation Indices. 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

1395:

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

1179:

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

1876:

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

1842:

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?

1754:

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

1533:

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

2130:

In January 2016, when commercial negotiations intensified, the French negotiating team quoted a figure of €8.6 billion for the deal, but India demurred from signing the deal in view of the high price. Subsequently, in the same month, India and France signed a memorandum of understanding (MoU) for

1794:

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

1749:

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

1584:

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

1230:

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

1141:

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

2169:

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

1569:

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

2256:

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

1667:

The Indian team was able to bring down the price by virtue of asking their French counterparts that the price of the deal be calculated based on the actual cost, i.e. "price as on today", and European inflation indices, which the Indian defence ministry capped at a maximum of 3.5% per annum, as

1281:

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

1798:

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

2321:

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?

2007:

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

2026:

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.

1795:

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.

2131:

acquisition of 36 aircraft without finalising the financial terms of the acquisition. In May 2016, the two sides arrived at a figure of €7.87 billion (₹58,891 crore) for the agreement, compared to €11.8 billion quoted in April 2015 and €8.6 billion quoted in January 2016.

1705:

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 (

1827:

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.

1384:

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

1547:

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. —

991:

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.

2088:(MoU) for acquisition of 36 aircraft, while the financial issues were pending resolution. *some text omitted* Ultimately, in May, the same year, the two sides arrived at a figure that was roughly €750 million less than the one quoted in January 1855:

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,

1630:, 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 1338:

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

973:

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.

1967:, 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. — 2212:

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

1588:

It was later discovered that the cost of 108 fighters would go up by about Rs 150 crore per plane since the labour man hours in India were 2.7 times higher than in France, raising questions about the French firm being the lowest

1534:

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

1064:, adding that none of these web portals are reliable sources in Knowledge'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 1659:

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

153: 2083:

In January 2016, when commercial negotiations intensified, the French negotiating team quoted a figure of €8.6 billion for the deal, which was rejected by India. Subsequently, in the same month, India and France signed a

2041:

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?

1759:

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

2138:

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?

1654:

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

2218:

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?

950:

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

1433:

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

1847:

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

1896:, 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. — 1376: 1804:

Government officials claimed that the decrease in price was due to a change in escalation formula from a fixed 3.9% to a floating rate linked to European inflation indices along with a cap of 3.5%.

1392:

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?

1305:

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

712: 2511: 1235:

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 (

1772: 2551: 1479: 1341:

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.

677:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of Crime and Criminal Biography articles on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join 2116:

In May 2016, the two sides arrived at a figure of €7.87 billion (₹58,891 crore) for the agreement, compared to €11.8 billion quoted in April 2015 and €8.6 billion quoted in January 2016.

1186:, 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. 678: 1809:

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. —

1668:

against the fixed cost formula agreed upon during the erstwhile UPA government which enabled Dassault to add an additional price of 3.9% inflation from the beginning of the deal.

147: 2442:

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!

1401:

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 Knowledge's voice. —

2476: 1709: 1686:. 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. 2496: 1766: 1367: 1364: 673: 650: 2056:

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

198: 2506: 1626:

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

522: 2571: 1727:. 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 341: 1379: 1648:

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

923:

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.

2546: 702: 44: 1438:"—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. 920: 2076:

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:

1706: 2516: 1508:

cost formula agreed upon during the erstwhile UPA government which enabled Dassault to add an additional price of 3.9% inflation from the beginning of the deal.

1959:

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

1192: 2561: 2250: 817: 807: 312:. Feel free to try to improve the article, but don't take it personally if your changes are reversed; instead, come here to the talk page to discuss them. 1823:

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

2189:

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.

79: 2282:, 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. — 1189: 2501: 1284:

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?

1275:. If reliable sources emphasize that there were prolong and atypical negotiations before the deal was eventually struck, that makes that information 1719: 1566: 2566: 2531: 1981:

FYI, making contentious edits while logged out, especially when you have already participated in the discussion while being logged in is one of the

1455: 1138: 617: 2541: 2491: 2481: 627: 488: 1370: 1145:

Since you have reverted a substantial part of my edit without providing an appropriate justification for most of it, can you explain yourself? —

498: 299: 194: 190: 1160:

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. --

2536: 783: 517: 413: 85: 2556: 2176: 1878: 1829: 988: 975: 924: 2521: 2028: 1938: 1877:

only unsupported but a figment of your own imagination, and we don't use attributions for something for which multiple source exists.

168: 2388:@Arajakate Tayi Arajakate Talk - how does this page take a source from "the print" website? Again a choice of your own to justify. 1538:

source cited in the article), with two lump sum payments for 40% of the amount and the remaining as the aircraft are delivered. The

1199:(excluding further savings on weapons et al, but that is something that can go in the 'controversy' section with proper attribution. 593: 135: 1718:

Considering the issues in the PTI report from my first comment, it'd be better to drop the source entirely. I recommend using the

897: 2526: 2068: 2057: 1732: 1627: 1497: 774: 735: 857: 2486: 2457: 2403: 315: 303: 99: 30: 1373: 1197: 2071:. Your decision to add text that was still under discussion is what caused the disruption here, not my reverts of your edits. 104: 20: 1491: 1388:

The source quoted by PTI claims a saving of 750 million from the number quoted in January 2016, and then says that the same

1606:, due to the Indian team asking their French counterparts that the price of the deal be calculated based on the actual cost 1068:

media, if any, unlike the lawsuit against NDTV. Thus it appears that they were reasonably as reverted the undue additions.

349: 74: 129: 2327: 2251:

https://www.deccanherald.com/national/national-politics/what-all-can-the-court-overlook-in-the-rafale-matter-723110.html

1107: 584: 545: 383: 357: 1098:

Another article has come out today on le Monde in France. I tried adding it, but within 2 seconds, another wikipedan -

2103: 2085: 463: 453: 408: 270: 65: 125: 206: 185: 2275: 274: 217: 2180: 1882: 1833: 979: 847: 175: 1196:

I can read that the present government asserts it got a total reported saving of more than 1600 million Euros

2337: 2323: 2304: 1942: 1103: 321: 109: 24: 944: 2262: 2032: 1656: 1018: 952: 1964: 1844: 1824: 1789: 1777: 1699: 1687: 1672: 1621: 1609: 1522: 1512: 1030: 1001: 935: 389: 2445: 2391: 2345: 2253:

How many things can the SC overlook in Rafale?;S Raghotham, DH News Service, Bengaluru, MAR 14 2019,]

861: 141: 2449: 2395: 371: 2453: 2432: 2399: 1165: 1024: 995: 929: 353: 278: 161: 55: 1678:

This text is strictly congruent with what the sources say, hence there ought to be no question of

782:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

592:

on Knowledge. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join

2371: 1724: 1428: 1346: 1289: 1206: 1073: 345: 222: 70: 1501:) at that time. Accordingly, I've supplanted the aforementioned clause with the following text: 2106:(MoU) for acquisition of 36 aircraft without finalising the financial terms of the acquisition. 896:

Many objections were raised following Rafale's selection, including some by Indian MPs such as

2424: 2271: 2258: 2065:

The Indian team was able to bring down the price by virtue of asking their French counterparts

1982: 1955:

I have already explained my reasoning on the talk page. I cannot help it if you stick to your

1306: 766: 309: 51: 2353: 2312: 2287: 2224: 2144: 2047: 1990: 1972: 1901: 1893: 1867: 1814: 1740: 1639: 1575: 1552: 1406: 1322: 1262: 1248: 1188:

AFAICS, the 750 million Euros savings is what was reported at that time by multiple sources

1150: 960: 905: 219: 1862:

There is no OR here, do not make unfounded accusations when you are unable to justify it. —

2279: 1712: 1683: 1661: 1631: 1061: 2063:

which I reverted and was being discussed here, while the text proposed here starts with

1544:

UPA regime had been discussing the deal with the jet makers, Dassault, for €11.6 billion

2428: 2016: 1960: 1956: 1257:

If you have an issue with keeping the PTI source partially, I can easily swap it out. —

1161: 360:

exist to draw attention and ensure that more editors mediate or comment on the dispute.

245: 1664:, I'd propose the following text be instead considered for inclusion into the article: 507: 2470: 2367: 2341: 2307:, can you explain how such a blatantly biased addition is appropriate for the lead? — 2020: 1357: 1342: 1310: 1300: 1285: 1276: 1221: 1202: 1132: 1069: 891: 576: 1201:

If you have other sources that presents other figures, you need to bring them here.

2461: 2436: 2420: 2407: 2375: 2357: 2331: 2316: 2291: 2266: 2228: 2184: 2148: 2051: 2036: 1994: 1976: 1946: 1934: 1905: 1886: 1871: 1837: 1818: 1782: 1744: 1692: 1679: 1643: 1614: 1579: 1556: 1527: 1410: 1350: 1326: 1314: 1293: 1266: 1252: 1210: 1169: 1154: 1111: 1077: 1039: 1010: 983: 964: 909: 445: 221: 2061:

The reduction in price was due to the Indian team asking their French counterparts

1608:". Let me know if you agree or disagree with the aforementioned proposed change. 1489:

Not to mention that this was also reported by multiple other publications (e.g.,

2349: 2308: 2283: 2220: 2140: 2043: 1986: 1968: 1897: 1863: 1810: 1736: 1635: 1571: 1548: 1402: 1333: 1318: 1258: 1244: 1176: 1146: 956: 901: 1735:, we can start with that and and add a line about change of inflation rates. — 838: 779: 756: 750: 729: 566: 435: 1892:

not prevent it from being "far more reliable". As I've already explained in

560: 539: 2013:

no new message on talk page. Do not add text that is still under discussion

429: 402: 324:

when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

269:) and some terms that are used in it may be different or absent from other 236: 2208: 955:

as the headline is clearly slanted and contradicted by the article text. —

2415: 2170:

thoroughly debunked arguments. In between you were reverted by at least

1600:

In view of this fact, I'd propose changing the first sentence to read, "

1060:, the additions of lawsuits against The Wire, Citizen et al constitutes 1017:

I note that this IP, above has posted a template on my talk page today (

919:

The Hindu Senior editor N Ram has published this investigative article

921:

Modi’s decision to buy 36 Rafales shot the price of each jet up by 41%

589: 461:-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the 1853:

The entire PTI report is laden with "sources said". Specifically,

665: 644: 458: 1729:

Securing India The Modi Way: Pathankot, Surgical Strikes and More

1021:), but still not bothered to respond here to my request above. -- 2196: 334: 2202: 833: 365: 329: 286: 231: 223: 15: 1465:

Now here is the corroboration from another reliable source:

1099: 858:"Indian election battles are being fought on Knowledge, too" 506: 1799:

appropriate. I propose the following text as a replacement:

2366:

Notthebestusername, I have left a caution at your page. --

352:. Be patient when approaching solutions to any issues. If 2012: 1650: 1282:

different figures, then we attribute that figure to it.

1273: 1184: 1057: 1542:

source just muddies the water further, by saying that

160: 778:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 588:, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of 2512:

B-Class Indian politics articles of High-importance

687:Knowledge:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography 2552:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography articles 2175:be done if you insist on beating the dead horse. 1436:which the previous UPA government was negotiating 1231:many other independent sources (for example, the 690:Template:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography 1723:cases we should provide in-text attribution per 1375:), and some others that are yet to to be added ( 457:, which aims to improve Knowledge's coverage of 33:for general discussion of the article's subject. 1139:PTI report published by The Hindu Business Line 926:. Should a new section be made at the bottom -- 2200:supported me in my questioning of PTI report. 2128: 2114: 2100: 2081: 1802: 1665: 1586: 1505: 1469: 1445: 1441:I'll quote from it so as to clear things up: 348:while commenting or presenting evidence, and 174: 8: 2102:In January 2016, India and France signed a 1521:Hopefully, this will settle the issue now. 2477:Knowledge articles that use Indian English 2443: 2389: 724: 639: 534: 397: 249:, which has its own spelling conventions ( 2497:B-Class India articles of High-importance 2257:delete? So his view only must stand?? OK 2507:High-importance Indian politics articles 674:WikiProject Crime and Criminal Biography 2572:Knowledge pages referenced by the press 726: 641: 536: 399: 369: 2547:High-importance Crime-related articles 2064: 2060: 1937:and without premise in Wiki policies. 1854: 1731:. If you don't have any objections to 1601: 1543: 1435: 1309:and their removal has nothing to with 1137:The comparison with UPA prices in the 914: 277:, this should not be changed without 7: 2517:WikiProject Indian politics articles 2015:"? Neither I have to entertain your 1100:https://en.wikipedia.org/User:Gazoth 772:This article is within the scope of 671:This article is within the scope of 582:This article is within the scope of 451:This article is within the scope of 1372:) one that you presented yourself ( 388:It is of interest to the following 23:for discussing improvements to the 2562:Low-importance Journalism articles 2067:. The text that you added was the 1570:Guardian mentions €11.6 billion. — 1272:resulted in the discounts in price 14: 848:mentioned by a media organization 2502:B-Class Indian politics articles 1985:uses of alternative accounts. — 1764:the aforementioned claim (e.g., 1239:) and the other builds upon it ( 837: 792:Knowledge:WikiProject Journalism 759: 749: 728: 664: 643: 569: 559: 538: 438: 428: 401: 370: 333: 290: 235: 205: 45:Click here to start a new topic. 2567:WikiProject Journalism articles 2532:High-importance France articles 1963:. As for the draft proposed by 812:This article has been rated as 795:Template:WikiProject Journalism 707:This article has been rated as 622:This article has been rated as 493:This article has been rated as 314:Content must be written from a 298:The subject of this article is 2542:B-Class Crime-related articles 2492:High-importance India articles 2482:Knowledge controversial topics 885:Addition to Background section 1: 2229:16:15, 18 February 2019 (UTC) 2185:15:55, 18 February 2019 (UTC) 2149:15:06, 18 February 2019 (UTC) 2052:21:44, 13 February 2019 (UTC) 2037:17:33, 13 February 2019 (UTC) 1995:19:34, 11 February 2019 (UTC) 1977:19:21, 11 February 2019 (UTC) 1947:18:59, 11 February 2019 (UTC) 1906:16:00, 18 February 2019 (UTC) 1887:15:44, 18 February 2019 (UTC) 1872:14:40, 18 February 2019 (UTC) 1838:14:04, 18 February 2019 (UTC) 1819:15:04, 15 February 2019 (UTC) 1783:07:14, 15 February 2019 (UTC) 1585:example, it says at the end: 915:N Ram's investigative article 786:and see a list of open tasks. 681:and see a list of open tasks. 596:and see a list of open tasks. 518:the Indian politics workgroup 515:This article is supported by 42:Put new text under old text. 2537:All WikiProject France pages 1745:17:07, 8 February 2019 (UTC) 1693:14:05, 8 February 2019 (UTC) 1644:16:54, 5 February 2019 (UTC) 1615:16:05, 5 February 2019 (UTC) 1602:The reduction in price was, 1580:15:51, 4 February 2019 (UTC) 1557:15:34, 4 February 2019 (UTC) 1528:14:54, 4 February 2019 (UTC) 1411:15:58, 5 February 2019 (UTC) 1351:15:03, 5 February 2019 (UTC) 1327:15:18, 4 February 2019 (UTC) 1294:14:49, 4 February 2019 (UTC) 1267:13:17, 1 February 2019 (UTC) 1253:13:09, 1 February 2019 (UTC) 1211:09:37, 1 February 2019 (UTC) 1170:19:14, 31 January 2019 (UTC) 1155:18:54, 31 January 2019 (UTC) 1078:06:47, 31 January 2019 (UTC) 1040:04:24, 31 January 2019 (UTC) 1011:09:00, 30 January 2019 (UTC) 984:08:32, 30 January 2019 (UTC) 965:00:20, 30 January 2019 (UTC) 945:23:49, 29 January 2019 (UTC) 910:12:23, 12 January 2019 (UTC) 684:Crime and Criminal Biography 651:Crime and Criminal Biography 602:Knowledge:WikiProject France 350:do not make personal attacks 2557:B-Class Journalism articles 2348:and rethink your comment. — 2300:Recent addition to the lead 2104:memorandum of understanding 2086:memorandum of understanding 1396:comparison being made here? 856:Aria Thaker (16 May 2019). 605:Template:WikiProject France 473:Knowledge:WikiProject India 308:When updating the article, 50:New to Knowledge? Welcome! 2588: 2522:WikiProject India articles 2376:06:01, 16 April 2019 (UTC) 2358:05:53, 16 April 2019 (UTC) 2332:05:50, 16 April 2019 (UTC) 2317:05:48, 16 April 2019 (UTC) 2292:20:37, 15 March 2019 (UTC) 2267:07:20, 15 March 2019 (UTC) 1183:the one quoted in January' 1180:remove the content at all. 1126:Revert of price comparison 1112:05:47, 16 April 2019 (UTC) 818:project's importance scale 713:project's importance scale 628:project's importance scale 499:project's importance scale 476:Template:WikiProject India 2462:05:10, 31 July 2020 (UTC) 2437:21:28, 29 July 2020 (UTC) 2408:20:11, 29 July 2020 (UTC) 811: 744: 706: 659: 621: 554: 514: 492: 423: 396: 310:be bold, but not reckless 80:Be welcoming to newcomers 1475:— The Financial Express, 2527:B-Class France articles 2095:This was summarised as, 2058:older text started with 25:Rafale deal controversy 2487:B-Class India articles 2133: 2118: 2108: 2090: 2069:latter, not the former 1806: 1677: 1591: 1517: 1485: 1461: 1451:— Press Trust of India 846:This article has been 775:WikiProject Journalism 693:Crime-related articles 511: 378:This article is rated 302:and content may be in 75:avoid personal attacks 2245:Extra reading Removed 2011:What you meant from " 1720:Indian Express report 1673:User:MBlaze Lightning 1567:Indian Express report 1563:Jane's Defence Weekly 1536:Jane's Defence Weekly 1513:User:MBlaze Lightning 1279:in wikipedia's sense. 1233:Jane's Defence Weekly 510: 316:neutral point of view 199:Auto-archiving period 100:Neutral point of view 2206:stopped responding. 1056:Elaborating more on 862:Quartz (publication) 275:relevant style guide 271:varieties of English 105:No original research 1628:my previous comment 798:Journalism articles 273:. According to the 2338:Notthebestusername 2324:Notthebestusername 2305:Notthebestusername 2276:WP:Further reading 2123:What you added is, 1241:The Indian Express 1237:The Economic Times 1104:Notthebestusername 585:WikiProject France 512: 384:content assessment 86:dispute resolution 47: 2464: 2448:comment added by 2410: 2394:comment added by 1483: 1480:21 September 2016 1459: 1456:21 September 2016 1432: 880: 879: 832: 831: 828: 827: 824: 823: 767:Journalism portal 723: 722: 719: 718: 638: 637: 634: 633: 533: 532: 529: 528: 454:WikiProject India 364: 363: 328: 327: 285: 284: 230: 229: 66:Assume good faith 43: 2579: 2211: 2209:MBlaze Lightning 2205: 2199: 1965:MBlaze Lightning 1845:MBlaze Lightning 1825:MBlaze Lightning 1793: 1790:MBlaze Lightning 1780: 1779:MBlaze Lightning 1775: 1769: 1733:my summarisation 1703: 1700:MBlaze Lightning 1690: 1689:MBlaze Lightning 1675: 1653: 1625: 1622:MBlaze Lightning 1612: 1611:MBlaze Lightning 1565:source and this 1525: 1524:MBlaze Lightning 1515: 1500: 1494: 1482: 1477: 1476: 1458: 1453: 1452: 1426: 1361: 1337: 1304: 1225: 1136: 1037: 1034: 1028: 1008: 1005: 999: 942: 939: 933: 895: 872: 870: 868: 841: 834: 800: 799: 796: 793: 790: 769: 764: 763: 762: 753: 746: 745: 740: 732: 725: 695: 694: 691: 688: 685: 668: 661: 660: 655: 647: 640: 610: 609: 606: 603: 600: 579: 574: 573: 572: 563: 556: 555: 550: 542: 535: 481: 480: 477: 474: 471: 448: 443: 442: 441: 432: 425: 424: 419: 416: 405: 398: 381: 375: 374: 366: 356:is not reached, 337: 336: 330: 294: 293: 287: 242:This article is 239: 232: 224: 210: 209: 200: 179: 178: 164: 95:Article policies 16: 2587: 2586: 2582: 2581: 2580: 2578: 2577: 2576: 2467: 2466: 2421:reliable source 2386: 2302: 2247: 2207: 2201: 2195: 1787: 1778: 1771: 1765: 1697: 1688: 1670: 1649: 1619: 1610: 1540:Sunday Guardian 1523: 1510: 1496: 1490: 1478: 1474: 1454: 1450: 1355: 1331: 1298: 1219: 1130: 1128: 1032: 1026: 1023: 1003: 997: 994: 953:WP:ATTRIBUTEPOV 937: 931: 928: 917: 889: 887: 876: 875: 866: 864: 855: 851: 797: 794: 791: 788: 787: 765: 760: 758: 738: 709:High-importance 692: 689: 686: 683: 682: 654:High‑importance 653: 624:High-importance 608:France articles 607: 604: 601: 598: 597: 575: 570: 568: 549:High‑importance 548: 523:High-importance 495:High-importance 478: 475: 472: 469: 468: 444: 439: 437: 418:High‑importance 417: 411: 382:on Knowledge's 379: 358:other solutions 291: 279:broad consensus 226: 225: 220: 197: 121: 116: 115: 114: 91: 61: 12: 11: 5: 2585: 2583: 2575: 2574: 2569: 2564: 2559: 2554: 2549: 2544: 2539: 2534: 2529: 2524: 2519: 2514: 2509: 2504: 2499: 2494: 2489: 2484: 2479: 2469: 2468: 2440: 2439: 2385: 2382: 2381: 2380: 2379: 2378: 2361: 2360: 2340:, please read 2301: 2298: 2297: 2296: 2295: 2294: 2254: 2246: 2243: 2242: 2241: 2240: 2239: 2238: 2237: 2236: 2235: 2234: 2233: 2232: 2231: 2216: 2214: 2192: 2190: 2177:112.134.68.107 2158: 2157: 2156: 2155: 2154: 2153: 2152: 2151: 2136: 2134: 2126: 2124: 2121: 2119: 2112: 2109: 2098: 2096: 2093: 2091: 2079: 2077: 2074: 2072: 2054: 2024: 2009: 2000: 1999: 1998: 1997: 1979: 1950: 1949: 1929: 1928: 1927: 1926: 1925: 1924: 1923: 1922: 1921: 1920: 1919: 1918: 1917: 1916: 1915: 1914: 1913: 1912: 1911: 1910: 1909: 1908: 1879:112.134.68.107 1851: 1849: 1843:The part that 1830:112.134.68.107 1807: 1800: 1796: 1716: 1669: 1595: 1594: 1593: 1592: 1559: 1519: 1518: 1509: 1487: 1486: 1473: 1463: 1462: 1449: 1424: 1423: 1422: 1421: 1420: 1419: 1418: 1417: 1416: 1415: 1414: 1413: 1399: 1398: 1397: 1393: 1386: 1340: 1283: 1280: 1255: 1228: 1214: 1213: 1200: 1195: 1187: 1181: 1173: 1172: 1127: 1124: 1123: 1122: 1121: 1120: 1119: 1118: 1117: 1116: 1115: 1114: 1087: 1086: 1085: 1084: 1083: 1082: 1081: 1080: 1047: 1046: 1045: 1044: 1043: 1042: 1014: 1013: 989:192.248.22.102 976:192.248.22.102 968: 967: 916: 913: 898:Yashwant Sinha 886: 883: 878: 877: 874: 873: 852: 845: 844: 842: 830: 829: 826: 825: 822: 821: 814:Low-importance 810: 804: 803: 801: 784:the discussion 771: 770: 754: 742: 741: 739:Low‑importance 733: 721: 720: 717: 716: 705: 699: 698: 696: 679:the discussion 669: 657: 656: 648: 636: 635: 632: 631: 620: 614: 613: 611: 594:the discussion 581: 580: 564: 552: 551: 543: 531: 530: 527: 526: 513: 503: 502: 491: 485: 484: 482: 479:India articles 450: 449: 433: 421: 420: 406: 394: 393: 387: 376: 362: 361: 338: 326: 325: 295: 283: 282: 246:Indian English 240: 228: 227: 218: 216: 215: 212: 211: 181: 180: 118: 117: 113: 112: 107: 102: 93: 92: 90: 89: 82: 77: 68: 62: 60: 59: 48: 39: 38: 35: 34: 28: 13: 10: 9: 6: 4: 3: 2: 2584: 2573: 2570: 2568: 2565: 2563: 2560: 2558: 2555: 2553: 2550: 2548: 2545: 2543: 2540: 2538: 2535: 2533: 2530: 2528: 2525: 2523: 2520: 2518: 2515: 2513: 2510: 2508: 2505: 2503: 2500: 2498: 2495: 2493: 2490: 2488: 2485: 2483: 2480: 2478: 2475: 2474: 2472: 2465: 2463: 2459: 2455: 2451: 2447: 2438: 2434: 2430: 2426: 2422: 2418: 2417: 2413: 2412: 2411: 2409: 2405: 2401: 2397: 2393: 2383: 2377: 2373: 2369: 2365: 2364: 2363: 2362: 2359: 2355: 2351: 2347: 2346:WP:ASPERSIONS 2343: 2339: 2336: 2335: 2334: 2333: 2329: 2325: 2319: 2318: 2314: 2310: 2306: 2299: 2293: 2289: 2285: 2281: 2277: 2273: 2270: 2269: 2268: 2264: 2260: 2255: 2252: 2249: 2248: 2244: 2230: 2226: 2222: 2217: 2215: 2210: 2204: 2198: 2193: 2191: 2188: 2187: 2186: 2182: 2178: 2173: 2168: 2167: 2166: 2165: 2164: 2163: 2162: 2161: 2160: 2159: 2150: 2146: 2142: 2137: 2135: 2132: 2127: 2125: 2122: 2120: 2117: 2113: 2110: 2107: 2105: 2099: 2097: 2094: 2092: 2089: 2087: 2080: 2078: 2075: 2073: 2070: 2066: 2062: 2059: 2055: 2053: 2049: 2045: 2040: 2039: 2038: 2034: 2030: 2025: 2023:this article. 2022: 2018: 2014: 2010: 2006: 2005: 2004: 2003: 2002: 2001: 1996: 1992: 1988: 1984: 1980: 1978: 1974: 1970: 1966: 1962: 1958: 1954: 1953: 1952: 1951: 1948: 1944: 1940: 1936: 1931: 1930: 1907: 1903: 1899: 1895: 1890: 1889: 1888: 1884: 1880: 1875: 1874: 1873: 1869: 1865: 1861: 1859: 1852: 1850: 1846: 1841: 1840: 1839: 1835: 1831: 1826: 1822: 1821: 1820: 1816: 1812: 1808: 1805: 1801: 1797: 1791: 1786: 1785: 1784: 1781: 1774: 1768: 1763: 1758: 1753: 1748: 1747: 1746: 1742: 1738: 1734: 1730: 1726: 1721: 1717: 1714: 1710: 1707: 1701: 1696: 1695: 1694: 1691: 1685: 1681: 1676: 1674: 1663: 1658: 1652: 1647: 1646: 1645: 1641: 1637: 1633: 1629: 1623: 1618: 1617: 1616: 1613: 1607: 1605: 1604:for one thing 1599: 1598: 1597: 1596: 1590: 1583: 1582: 1581: 1577: 1573: 1568: 1564: 1560: 1558: 1554: 1550: 1545: 1541: 1537: 1532: 1531: 1530: 1529: 1526: 1516: 1514: 1504: 1503: 1502: 1499: 1493: 1484: 1481: 1468: 1467: 1466: 1460: 1457: 1444: 1443: 1442: 1439: 1437: 1430: 1429:edit conflict 1412: 1408: 1404: 1400: 1394: 1391: 1387: 1383: 1382: 1380: 1377: 1374: 1371: 1368: 1365: 1359: 1354: 1353: 1352: 1348: 1344: 1335: 1330: 1329: 1328: 1324: 1320: 1316: 1312: 1308: 1302: 1297: 1296: 1295: 1291: 1287: 1278: 1274: 1270: 1269: 1268: 1264: 1260: 1256: 1254: 1250: 1246: 1242: 1238: 1234: 1229: 1223: 1218: 1217: 1216: 1215: 1212: 1208: 1204: 1198: 1193: 1190: 1185: 1178: 1175: 1174: 1171: 1167: 1163: 1159: 1158: 1157: 1156: 1152: 1148: 1143: 1140: 1134: 1125: 1113: 1109: 1105: 1101: 1097: 1096: 1095: 1094: 1093: 1092: 1091: 1090: 1089: 1088: 1079: 1075: 1071: 1067: 1063: 1059: 1055: 1054: 1053: 1052: 1051: 1050: 1049: 1048: 1041: 1038: 1036: 1029: 1020: 1016: 1015: 1012: 1009: 1007: 1000: 990: 987: 986: 985: 981: 977: 972: 971: 970: 969: 966: 962: 958: 954: 949: 948: 947: 946: 943: 941: 934: 925: 922: 912: 911: 907: 903: 899: 893: 884: 882: 863: 859: 854: 853: 849: 843: 840: 836: 835: 819: 815: 809: 806: 805: 802: 785: 781: 777: 776: 768: 757: 755: 752: 748: 747: 743: 737: 734: 731: 727: 714: 710: 704: 701: 700: 697: 680: 676: 675: 670: 667: 663: 662: 658: 652: 649: 646: 642: 629: 625: 619: 616: 615: 612: 595: 591: 587: 586: 578: 577:France portal 567: 565: 562: 558: 557: 553: 547: 544: 541: 537: 524: 521:(assessed as 520: 519: 509: 505: 504: 500: 496: 490: 487: 486: 483: 466: 465: 460: 456: 455: 447: 436: 434: 431: 427: 426: 422: 415: 410: 407: 404: 400: 395: 391: 385: 377: 373: 368: 367: 359: 355: 351: 347: 343: 339: 332: 331: 323: 319: 317: 311: 307: 305: 301: 300:controversial 296: 289: 288: 280: 276: 272: 268: 264: 260: 256: 252: 248: 247: 241: 238: 234: 233: 214: 213: 208: 204: 196: 192: 189: 187: 183: 182: 177: 173: 170: 167: 163: 159: 155: 152: 149: 146: 143: 140: 137: 134: 131: 127: 124: 123:Find sources: 120: 119: 111: 110:Verifiability 108: 106: 103: 101: 98: 97: 96: 87: 83: 81: 78: 76: 72: 69: 67: 64: 63: 57: 53: 52:Learn to edit 49: 46: 41: 40: 37: 36: 32: 26: 22: 18: 17: 2444:— Preceding 2441: 2414: 2390:— Preceding 2387: 2320: 2303: 2272:Bschandrasgr 2259:Bschandrasgr 2171: 2129: 2115: 2101: 2082: 2029:112.134.66.1 1983:illegitimate 1939:112.134.67.5 1894:my talk page 1858:sources said 1857: 1803: 1761: 1756: 1751: 1728: 1666: 1603: 1587: 1562: 1539: 1535: 1520: 1506: 1488: 1470: 1464: 1446: 1440: 1425: 1389: 1240: 1236: 1232: 1144: 1129: 1065: 1022: 993: 927: 918: 888: 881: 865:. Retrieved 813: 773: 708: 672: 623: 583: 516: 494: 464:project page 462: 452: 446:India portal 390:WikiProjects 340:Please stay 313: 297: 266: 262: 258: 254: 250: 243: 202: 184: 171: 165: 157: 150: 144: 138: 132: 122: 94: 19:This is the 2194:Let's see, 2008:disruptive. 1762:contradicts 1725:WP:PARTISAN 244:written in 148:free images 31:not a forum 2471:Categories 2425:WP:NEWSORG 1066:mainstream 789:Journalism 780:journalism 736:Journalism 2450:Ravysaraf 2429:Kautilya3 2396:Ravysaraf 2384:The Print 2197:Kautilya3 1773:2, p. 129 1657:contended 1561:Both the 1162:Kautilya3 354:consensus 322:citations 255:travelled 88:if needed 71:Be polite 21:talk page 2458:contribs 2446:unsigned 2416:ThePrint 2404:contribs 2392:unsigned 2368:Jaydayal 2280:WP:ELPOV 2203:NavjotSR 2019:nor you 1713:WP:SYNTH 1684:WP:SYNTH 1662:WP:SYNTH 1632:WP:SYNTH 1358:NavjotSR 1343:NavjotSR 1339:sources. 1301:NavjotSR 1286:NavjotSR 1222:NavjotSR 1203:NavjotSR 1133:NavjotSR 1070:NavjotSR 1062:WP:UNDUE 892:Himanshu 414:Politics 320:Include 263:analysed 186:Archives 56:get help 29:This is 27:article. 2017:WP:IDHT 1961:WP:NPOV 1957:WP:IDHT 1848:source. 1589:bidder. 1307:puffery 816:on the 711:on the 626:on the 497:on the 380:B-class 304:dispute 267:defence 203:90 days 154:WP refs 142:scholar 2350:Gazoth 2342:WP:NPA 2309:Gazoth 2284:Gazoth 2274:, per 2221:Gazoth 2141:Gazoth 2044:Gazoth 2021:WP:OWN 1987:Gazoth 1969:Gazoth 1898:Gazoth 1864:Gazoth 1811:Gazoth 1737:Gazoth 1636:Gazoth 1572:Gazoth 1549:Gazoth 1434:line—" 1403:Gazoth 1334:Gazoth 1319:Gazoth 1311:WP:DUE 1277:WP:DUE 1259:Gazoth 1245:Gazoth 1177:Gazoth 1147:Gazoth 957:Gazoth 902:Gazoth 867:16 May 599:France 590:France 546:France 386:scale. 259:centre 251:colour 126:Google 2427:. -- 2423:as a 2419:is a 2213:said. 2172:three 1935:WP:OR 1680:WP:OR 1390:exact 1385:here. 1315:WP:RS 470:India 459:India 409:India 346:civil 169:JSTOR 130:books 84:Seek 2454:talk 2433:talk 2400:talk 2372:talk 2354:talk 2344:and 2328:talk 2313:talk 2288:talk 2278:and 2263:talk 2225:talk 2181:talk 2145:talk 2048:talk 2033:talk 1991:talk 1973:talk 1943:talk 1902:talk 1883:talk 1868:talk 1834:talk 1815:talk 1757:very 1741:talk 1708:and 1651:this 1640:talk 1576:talk 1553:talk 1407:talk 1347:talk 1323:talk 1290:talk 1263:talk 1249:talk 1207:talk 1166:talk 1151:talk 1108:talk 1074:talk 1058:this 1019:diff 980:talk 961:talk 906:talk 869:2019 703:High 618:High 489:High 344:and 342:calm 162:FENS 136:news 73:and 2111:and 1752:did 1634:. — 1317:. — 1033:ray 1027:Big 1004:ray 998:Big 938:ray 932:Big 808:Low 176:TWL 2473:: 2460:) 2456:• 2435:) 2406:) 2402:• 2374:) 2356:) 2330:) 2315:) 2290:) 2265:) 2227:) 2183:) 2147:) 2050:) 2035:) 1993:) 1975:) 1945:) 1904:) 1885:) 1870:) 1836:) 1817:) 1770:, 1743:) 1671:— 1642:) 1578:) 1555:) 1511:— 1495:, 1409:) 1378:, 1369:, 1366:, 1349:) 1325:) 1292:) 1265:) 1251:) 1209:) 1168:) 1153:) 1110:) 1076:) 992:-- 982:) 963:) 908:) 860:. 525:). 412:: 265:, 261:, 257:, 253:, 201:: 193:, 156:) 54:; 2452:( 2431:( 2398:( 2370:( 2352:( 2326:( 2311:( 2286:( 2261:( 2223:( 2219:— 2179:( 2143:( 2139:— 2046:( 2042:— 2031:( 1989:( 1971:( 1941:( 1900:( 1881:( 1866:( 1860:. 1832:( 1813:( 1792:: 1788:@ 1767:1 1739:( 1715:. 1702:: 1698:@ 1682:/ 1638:( 1624:: 1620:@ 1574:( 1551:( 1498:2 1492:1 1431:) 1427:( 1405:( 1363:( 1360:: 1356:@ 1345:( 1336:: 1332:@ 1321:( 1303:: 1299:@ 1288:( 1261:( 1247:( 1224:: 1220:@ 1205:( 1194:. 1191:, 1164:( 1149:( 1135:: 1131:@ 1106:( 1072:( 1035:ᗙ 1031:X 1025:D 1006:ᗙ 1002:X 996:D 978:( 959:( 940:ᗙ 936:X 930:D 904:( 894:: 890:@ 871:. 850:: 820:. 715:. 630:. 501:. 467:. 392:: 318:. 306:. 281:. 195:2 191:1 188:: 172:· 166:· 158:· 151:· 145:· 139:· 133:· 128:( 58:.

Text is available under the Creative Commons Attribution-ShareAlike License. Additional terms may apply.

Index