Jump to content

Talk:Arjun (tank)/Archive 2

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Archive 1Archive 2Archive 3Archive 4

Compromise

Okay, let's try another approach. Changa's content (or at least some of it) may be able to be included. Using whatever reliable sources he has, a sentence can be structured along the way of "The Arjut tank successfully completed [whatever][1], however this is under dispute because [whomever] says that it had many failures[2]."

This might be doable. The downside I see is that Chanakyathegreat might take this approach as airing "dirty laundry" on Indian infighting and discord. Sorting out he said and she said on a protracted dispute is daunting, but I am willing to participate. By78 (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

However, if his sources are indeed reliable and up to date, then some of his content should be included, but the article should include both points of view, as long as they are reliably sourced and not an inference or from original research. It's fine if two reliable sources contradict one another, just as long as the information from both is included. Let the reader decide for themselves.

I agree. The principle is good. I invite Chanakyathegreat to submit the LATEST sources for review. By78 (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Or you can can a "controversy" section.

Chanakyathegreat might perceive this as denigrating Indian cohesion, but again, I am up for the task. By78 (talk) 23:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

Everyone needs to keep in the mind that one of Wikipedia's policies (as stated at Wikipedia:Verifiability), is that "The threshold for inclusion in Wikipedia is verifiability, not truth—that is, whether readers are able to check that material added to Wikipedia has already been published by a reliable source, not whether we think it is true." Basically, it doesn't have to be true, but if a reliable source says something, then it can be included, because it's verified.

So... before anything gets added/changed, propose it here first. Put your EXACT sentence/paragraph here first including your references to your sources. Then everyone can give their comments/suggestions on whether to include it or a modified version of it. Sound good? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:20, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

The failure is history. There can be a historical section in which the failures can be edited. I can do it. But no deliberate attempt must be made to use speculation in this article. Everything must be correct. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever. That's fine, too. PROPOSE EVERYTHING HERE FIRST. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:08, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Whatever that has been edited and that got reverted. Objection on any of those edits can be discussed and agreed on to make the article with correct info.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 13:27, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Put those changes here, don't expect anyone to go through the article history. That's not the way to discuss it. Also, please use the appropriate number of : (colons) to indent your comments. You're making this talk page harder to read. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Rather than cut paste the whole sections, I will provide the link.[1] Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:43, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

Chanak, that's not a very efficient way of doing this. You're making this harder for it to be discussed. Besides, I can tell you already that the changes you've made and reverted will not work, because they don't conform to the proposal I have above. Propose changes along those lines. Also, I ask you again to please use the appropriate number of : (colons) to indent your comments. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 11:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

O.K this is the version I propose.

Not acceptable. This is the same old version you edited and published, with the same set of problems I have brought up many times before. To name a few again, Arjun has not been successfully tested. The sources you provided are either outdated or contradicted. As of now, no official report has declared Arjun free of problems with its FCS, rollers, tactical speed, gun chipping, accuracy problems, etc. Until I receive an official report or Army declaration that Arjun has been successful, I will continue to disagree with this edit. If you sincerely want to convince me, go back to the earlier discussions. There were many points I raised for which you provided no counter or answer. Properly respond to those with sources, and I will go with your version. By78 (talk) 21:30, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

The failure as reported by the Army to the parliament is not really a failure. I will explain it in detail. This is the report that has been provided to the parliament about the winter trials.[3]

Every human made system fail after a certain point. Similarly the Arjun tank was run 4000 km non stop and after 4000 km the problem occured.[4]


“Normally a tank is supposed to operate for 3,000 km before it goes for an overhaul. The Army forced Arjun to do another 2,000 km and the reported failures happened after more than 4,000 km." This is the problem. The failure happened after running the tank beyond it's permissible limits.

Sorry, I cannot take this source seriously. ExpressBUZZ? Find me another source that back up the claim that Army pushed Arjun beyond its MTBO (Minimum Time Before Overhaul). None of credible mainstream sources mentioned such a thing. Besides, according to Indian Express (http://www.indianexpress.com/story/297768.html), the engine failures occurred within 1000km during the Winter Trials. By78 (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)

Now we go back to the second part of trials which must not have forced the Arjun beyond the operational limit of a tank. We read reports of installation of black box was during this period. The trial was a success. [5] Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:10, 14 September 2008 (UTC)

Again, not acceptable. No other source has claimed success. Your source says DRDO claimed success. I care about what Army says about the Arjun, since the Army is the customer. I will repeat again, find me an official Army or Government source that claims all problems have been resolved, then I will believe you. By78 (talk) 22:19, 15 September 2008 (UTC)
This is where I have to disagree. It doesn't matter if no other sources say this. If this source that he has is a verifiable, reliable source, then it can be added. However, this is where you can put a statement with a big "however" refuting this with your other sources. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 00:45, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

By78, I had provided source to prove the second part of the trials were a success. Can you prove that the second parts of the trials were a failure. Any source wlll do. I will accept it.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

Anyway, the real issue is still not understood properly. I am posting a link to a blog of that of a reputed journalist who visited the site during the trials and collected first hand information about the issues. Read it just for information purpose.[6] No need to put it in Wikipedia since it goes against Wiki rules of not posting from a blog.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 11:35, 16 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue is that no official report has been made public regarding the latest round of trials. Only a preview has been given, in which the Army listed a number of defects (the sources are embedded in the Arjun article where it listed the defects). It is entirely possible, though highly unlikely, that all the problems have been worked out in the two months hence and the trials were ultimately successful. This is why I have been insisting all along that unless an official report exonerates the Arjun, I will stick with the most up to date info. Now, a lot of good things have been said about the Arjun subsequently, mostly by DRDO employees. The reason I did not quote them is because they could very well be biased. The example I will use is this: Say Ford Focus has just undergone a crash test conducted by the US government. The government gives a preview to the test results before the final report, in which many problems are cited. Ford employees deny that Focus has any problems and accuse the Government of bias or sabotage. Now, if I were covering this event as it unfolds, I of course would list the government's preview and also cite allegations of sabotage. However, I will refrain from stating that Ford has since eliminated all problems, based on Ford employees' claims. I will instead wait for the final, official government report. This is the thrust of my disagreement with Chanakyathegreat. Chanakyathegreat claims that Arjun has successfully completed the latest trials, all based on what DRDO employees' claims; but the final government report is not out yet, and as far as I can find, no official government sources has backed up DRDO's claims that Arjun is now problem free. I my view, prudence demands that we wait for the final report before jumping to claims that are best flimsily substantiated. By78 (talk) 21:11, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
I see your point, but disagree IF the sources he has are reliable and verifiable. It doesn't matter how biased it is. It doesn't matter if it's an "official" report. If that's what the source says, that's what it says. You have to accept that. Feel free to offer a counter example to this source and claim, but if the source is good, the information is acceptable. Remember what I said earlier, "Wikipedia is about verifiability, NOT truth." Jauerbackdude?/dude. 22:25, 16 September 2008 (UTC)
By78, the government may issue statements or not. What you are saying is that you will only accept report by Indian Army. This is very unfair. Regarding this[7], link on which the whole issue is created, I would like to tell you that these are the issues that the Arjun tank faced during its development not during the trials, but in the link it is wrongly reported as happened during the trials and that's why we have this issue.
Ah, are you being intentionally misleading? [8] clearly states that the defects "have been noticed during the ongoing Accelerated User Cum Reliability Trials by Army". Where is your source that backs up your claim that these defects were "wrongly reported" as happened during the trials? By78 (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

The issue was with the Renk gear boxes which got sorted out and the tank performed flawlessly after that. The tank is a very good one. It's only the perception of Army that have to change for accepting the Arjun over the T-90. I will post another link.[9] In this it is reported that "In late August this year, the army completed nearly a year of what it calls Accelerated User Cum Reliability Trials (AUCRT) and somewhat unprecedented, extended trials in the desert of Rajasthan.

Trials that tested the three characteristics of any battle tank-firepower, mobility and protection. From all accounts the tank finally morphed from a white elephant into an extreme battle machine worthy of its moniker.

So far 15 Pre-Production Series (PPS) tanks have completed a cumulative 80,000 km, or the equivalent of two trips around the world, and fired over 8,000 rounds. ".

DRDO says Arjun is good. Army says Arjun is trash. This is the gist I got. How do you propose to edit the article that will essentially convey the infighting amongst the Indian defense elite? I think we ought to add a section titled "Bureaucratic Infighting". I'd go with that if you agree, although I am very reluctant to use Wikipedia to air dirty laundry.By78 (talk) 21:14, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

I hope this information is enough and you will not object to the having the earlier version. Also remember that the PIB link is intact in that version. Thank you.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 10:46, 17 September 2008 (UTC)

By78, please don't post in the middle. The PIB link exist in the version. It will not be removed. Bureaucratic infighting? Are we posting in some blog. The difference of opinion of the two Army men also find mention in the version. So you don't have to worry about that too. Thank you. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 02:42, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

I want to keep the PIB version, because it clearly lists Arjun's defects during the latest AUCRT. We are in agreement in keeping this source. Which two army men are you referring to? List their names please. I don't see them in your source. By78 (talk) 23:14, 18 September 2008 (UTC)

The PIB source will exist. The name of one is there in the version because he has made a comment and that is with source, for the other we don't have a link (except from the blog) to provide hence has to drop it.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:48, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

What? What are the two men's names? I couldn't find any names. What are you talking about. What is so hard about listing their names, followed by a summary of their positions? By78 (talk) 21:59, 19 September 2008 (UTC)

The following exists in the version, "According to Lt Gen Dilip Bharadwaj, Army Director General (Mechanised Infantry) "Army will no more place orders for Arjun beyond 124 that was already contracted. That is because Army is now looking 20 years ahead and wants a futuristic MBT."

Now I hope you don't have any objections to revision to earlier version. Thank you.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 02:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

No. You still have not answer all my points. I still reject your edit. By78 (talk) 21:42, 20 September 2008 (UTC)

You are going in circles. If you don't want the edits you must prove it otherwise. Provide source. Provide source to reject my edits (quote the one you oppose with valid reason and source). Otherwise your claims will remain invalid.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 09:41, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

I see no circles here. You changed the edit a while back, and you have not provided sufficient reasons. Now we are just discussing the merit or lack thereof of your edit changes. Still to this day, you have no answered my objections (see earlier entries where I listed my points). I have always insisted that you answer them before agreeing to your edits. What is the problem with answering them point by point? By78 (talk) 21:43, 23 September 2008 (UTC)

All reasoning is provided with hell a lot of links but still you being very adamant, not even ready to recognize and accept the details provided. And then after all explanation, you are again starting from the first line. I request you to go through the first line of this discussion page till the last one. If you have anything to prove beyond what has been edited by me, kindly reply with article links. Thank you.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:19, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

All reasoning is provided with hell a lot of links but still you being very adamant, not even ready to recognize and accept the details provided. And then after all explanation, you are again starting from the first line. I request you to go through the first line of this discussion page till the last one. If you have anything to prove beyond what has been edited by me, kindly reply with article links. Thank you. I am all for truth. By78 (talk) 23:00, 24 September 2008 (UTC)

Restoring to the original version.

The article has been restored to its original B-class version before the edits by By78. The PIB article on which By78 made the edit, is incorrect that report was submitted by the army. From the article[10] , the standing comitteed to which the report was submitted says "There were clear factual inaccuracies in the army's deposition before the Standing Committee. The most glaring of them is the army's suggestion that it is carrying out trials on the Arjun's performance.

In fact, the army has already accepted the Arjun for introduction into service, based upon its driving and firing performance over the years. After firing trials in summer 2006, the trial report (written by the army) said: "The accuracy and consistency of the Arjun has been proved beyond doubt."

The ongoing trials in Pokhran that the army is citing are Accelerated Usage cum Reliability Trials (AUCRT). In these, two Arjun tanks were run almost non-stop for 3,000 kilometres, not to judge performance, but to evaluate the tank's requirement of spare parts, fuel and lubricants during its entire service life." I would like By78 to prove that indeed the problems mentioned in the article is that mentioned in the PIB article from latest sources after the parliamentary committee agreeing about the PIB report being wrong.

Also I request Admins not to revert back. Until By78 proves the above requested things, his edit will become unverifiable and based on the PIB report which is incorrect. Thank you all.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:11, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Chanak, this is your final warning on making changes to this article without consensus. If you look at the talk page above, the version that is currently up is what the consensus was to keep, not the one you reverted all the way back to. You put a straw poll up (which is fine), but then when you didn't get any votes to do anything, you go ahead and decide to change it, anyway. Unacceptable. Learn to work with others. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 14:33, 25 September 2008 (UTC)

Chanakyathegreat, your English and my English must differ a great deal. I read your article carefully, and it does not support your claim one bit. I am scratching my head here. Are you trying to pull a fast one on me, counting on I not reading your source carefully? Your article claims that Army mischaracterized powertrain failures during the Winter Trials, but in fact it was only the gear box. So what? I never denied that. The problem with you started when you GENERALIZED base this one little mistake to claim that Army lied about all the other defects. The PIB release, which is the most up-to-date, clearly cites the following "defects": 1) Failure of powerpacks, 2) Low accuracy and consistency, 3) Failure of hydropneumatic suspension units, 4) Shearing of top rollers, 5) Chipping of gun barrels. That is five "defects" listed. Now, let's take out item #1 because DRDO claimed that it was really the gearbox (due to possible sabotage). OK, now what do we have left? That's right, defects #2, #3, #4, and #5! Good job! How do you explain these defects away then?

Chanakyathegreat, stop beating the dead horse! What you are doing is highly illogical. You use Army's mischaracterization of a gearbox failure as an excuse to invalidate all the other defects Arjun has.

To continue my tradition of demonstrating basic logic via examples, here is a new one: Say I just bought a new Ford Focus, which after only one month of driving around, developed FIVE defects. The defects are failed gearbox, failed suspension, chipping of tires, malfunctioning satnav, and startup problems. I go to the Ford dealership with the list of defects in writing. However, I made a mistake in listing the problems. Instead of saying "gearbox failure", I mistakenly wrote down "engine failure". Now, this Ford representative starts arguing with me. He says, "but you are lying sir. You said it was an engine failure but it was really the gearbox. So the car must be PROBLEM FREE!". End of example. Chanakyathegreat, do you see what I am getting at now?

Your insistence on flawed logic is just uncool. I do not want to think badly of people, but you have amply displayed a tendency to "smooth" over the warts and setbacks of the Arjun project. Against the numerous Indian media sources extensively citing these problems, all you have done was continuing alone in your stubborn refusal to acknowledge the facts as they are. I am really saddened by the fact that Indian nationalism has been injected into this article in the form of deliberate whitewash of facts. I think it is time to remind you that objectivity and factual integrity should reign free in Wikipedia, not POV pushing, ulterior motives, and others petty considerations.

One final thought: the way to adhere to "truth" is through fearless, objective citation of facts, minus interpretations driven by personal agenda. Just because you are fond of claiming that "truth" is on your side does not earn you the reputation of an objective editor. You have to earn it through actions that demonstrate your factual integrity. Claiming that you adhere to truth, without actions backing up this claim, and therefore equating whatever you say as "truth" is utterly undemocratic and might I say, sanctimonious and frankly hypocritical. By78 (talk) 00:02, 26 September 2008 (UTC)

To Jauerback, if one has a difference, about an edit that edit can be reverted. That's what I did since the PIB report is an incorrect report. It's invalid. Each and every edit or revert need to be measured in on it's merit of being valid or not. Until By78 can prove that the PIB report is correct I will not revert to my version or his version but with the standard version that existed before this issue cropped up. Be fair.

To By78, if your Ford car requires parts change after 1000 km run, you cannot complain to them that their product failed. The specification says 1000 km and only thing that everyone using that car is supposed to replace the parts after the specified kilometers.

The PIB report was submitted to the parliamentary committee which found the report incorrect. If you want your version, you must have to prove that the PIB version is correct.

I am again submitting what the Committee has to say about the PIB report on which you are arguing. From the article[11] , the standing committee to which the report was submitted says "There were clear factual inaccuracies in the army's deposition before the Standing Committee. The most glaring of them is the army's suggestion that it is carrying out trials on the Arjun's performance.

In fact, the army has already accepted the Arjun for introduction into service, based upon its driving and firing performance over the years. After firing trials in summer 2006, the trial report (written by the army) said: "The accuracy and consistency of the Arjun has been proved beyond doubt."

The ongoing trials in Pokhran that the army is citing are Accelerated Usage cum Reliability Trials (AUCRT). In these, two Arjun tanks were run almost non-stop for 3,000 kilometres, not to judge performance, but to evaluate the tank's requirement of spare parts, fuel and lubricants during its entire service life."

Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:49, 27 September 2008 (UTC)

Thank you for wasting my time. I hoped to find some clear reasoning on your part regarding our disagreement, yet I found none. Still reject your edit. By78 (talk) 21:24, 27 September 2008 (UTC)
You cannot blame me for that. I never asked you to waste your time by holding a wrong pib report. Do you have any proof to prove that the PIB report is indeed correct. You have to provide proof if you still reject restoring to the original B-class version which got corrupted with edits using the PIB report.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 02:24, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Chanakya, you aren't going to get anywhere just blindly reverting back. Just give that up and move on. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:15, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Blindly? the PIB report was submitted to the committee and they found the report incorrect.
I am pasting again from the report From the article[12] , the standing committee to which the report was submitted says "There were clear factual inaccuracies in the army's deposition before the Standing Committee. The most glaring of them is the army's suggestion that it is carrying out trials on the Arjun's performance.
In fact, the army has already accepted the Arjun for introduction into service, based upon its driving and firing performance over the years. After firing trials in summer 2006, the trial report (written by the army) said: "The accuracy and consistency of the Arjun has been proved beyond doubt."
The ongoing trials in Pokhran that the army is citing are Accelerated Usage cum Reliability Trials (AUCRT). In these, two Arjun tanks were run almost non-stop for 3,000 kilometres, not to judge performance, but to evaluate the tank's requirement of spare parts, fuel and lubricants during its entire service life."
Now how can edits be allowed on the basis of a wrong PIB report. Let there be proof of correctness of this PIB report, I will accept By78's version, not even my version or the original version.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 07:37, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Chanakya, I've been through the archives. You have arguing for the exact same version of the entire article forever. If really you just want to argue the PIB report, why do you want the entire article reverted? Stop this nonsense about By78's version or your version or whatever. There is the version we have now so what specifically do you want changed? And "go back to my version" is not a response. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 07:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Chanakya, look over the examples that I used at the beginning of the compromise section. This should get you a start. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 13:09, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Why because there was an attack on this article. From then onwards using the PIB report a lot of edits were made which never featured in any of those links or sources. Totally person opinion like in a blog. When I tried removing those things Jauerback reverts it back.
1. What attack? 2. I've reverted your changes because there was a consensus for the current version. From my memory, you were the only person who opposed, which at the time, didn't change the consensus. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
As you have said in the compromise section, I would like to point out that I had opposed making the changes based on the PIB report. I had said that it's totally wrong and it's not the truth. Still you allowed that version to stay and keep reverting my edits. Why I felt it was vandalism was because a lot of extra things got added as mentioned above some of which can be seen tagged for fact. A lot of links were removed as well including the report on the actual trial in which the Army admitting the accuracy and consistency of Arjun. The only change made in the present version from the original version is the PIB links and associated personal opinions which need to be reverted back to the original content. All changes after that can be made by mutually consulting and agreeing on the changes with credible sources.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 15:56, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
Okay, you keep explaining yourself here, without really proposing anything. Can you come up with a change that you think would satisfy both you and By78? Something about how the two reports conflict. Adding a "Controversy" section. Something. Anything.
By78, I'm sure you're reading this, too. Instead of sitting back and disagreeing with his edits, do you think that you can you try to come up with wording that would satisfy Chanakya? As I've stated a few times already, it doesn't matter if it's true, but if it's verifiable through a reliable source. So, if he has a verifiable source that states something, it can be put in whether you disagree with it or not. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 16:13, 30 September 2008 (UTC)

I am up for genuine compromise. This is getting really drawn out. I agree that there are a lot of controversies surrounding the Arjun project. Specifically, Chanakyathegreat has raised the allegation of sabotage, although this allegation has not been proven. Nonetheless, I did in fact incorporate it into the article. However, the problem started when Chanakyathegreat leveraged this allegation to discount all the other problems with Arjun. After carefully reading Chanakya's sources on the sabotage allegation, it became clear that the allegation pertained ONLY to a malfunctioning gearbox. However, many other well-documented problems remain with Arjun's tracks, FCS, guns, wheels, speed, etc. I am not willing to assent to Chanakya's edit because it essentially declares that Arjun is problem free (retroactively based on an outdated source from 2007 that was discounted by consensus). His edit amounted to a rewinding of history tape to a point in time BEFORE all the latest problems had been reported. I just could not let this stand.

Now, there is the further disagreement regarding the PIB press release [13]. This PIB press release from the Indian government was originally provided by Chanakyathegreat to prove a point concerning Arjun's development budget. This very press release, which is the latest official government assessment on where the Arjun project currently stands, cites the same set of well-documented problems with Arjun. However, when I used it as an additional source on Arjun's problems, Chanakyathegreat decided to attacked this very source of his as "incorrect". When I asked him to show me evidence that the release was "incorrect", Chanakyathegreat instead shifted the burden of proof to me and challenged me to prove the validity of the press release. This is ridiculous. It's like a defense attorney citing a piece of evidence in defense of his client, but when it unexpectedly proves his client's guilt, the defense attorney discounts the very evidence he provides and instead challenges the prosecutor to prove the evidence is valid. This is just not cool.

As you can see, there exists a large gulf of disagreement between I and Chanakyathegreat. I will let you guys be the judge. Please read the previous discussions in which I raised many objections that Chanakyathegreat never bothered to answer. Those points are still valid. In fact, all the latest hubbubs revolve around the same set of disagreements as before. I am reluctant to waste my time to further argue with Chanakyathegreat when he never bothered to answer my objections. Until these concrete points are resolved, it's difficult to reach a consensus between the two of us.

Thus far, I have rejected Chanakya's compromise proposal because it insists that Arjun is problem free and all the problems are due to sabotage, without Chanakya providing proof supporting his claims. His is hardly a sincere compromise. After I rejected Chanakya's proposals, he resorted to reverting the article on his own. Frankly, it's gotten to the point where Chanakya has a large objectivity deficit in my eyes.

I still stand by the current edit because it is based on consensus (minus Chanakya, obviously). I have incorporated Chanakya's information as best as I could. In fact, the current version covers the controversies. It cites the Pro and Against camps with direct quotes and extensively cited sources. This is as objective as I can get, and many other editors have agreed with me. If Chanakya provides valid, reliable, and more up-to-date sources, I will not hesitate to integrate them re-edit the article.

I believe I have demonstrated good faith and incredible patience (as have the admins) by answering every concrete objection raised by Chanakyathegreat (as amply recorded by this talk page). When unable to counter my points, Chanakya went so far as to cite "copyright violations" (presumably he regarded citing Indian news sources as illegal) as a reason to revert my edits. Instead of addressing my answers and objections, Chanakya evaded substantial discussions whenever they became specific. Instead of producing concrete, logical, and well reasoned replies, Chanakyathegreat launched unwarranted character attacks against administrators and fellow editors (charging me with racism and being a "dumb person") on the talk pages and admin boards. There has been three blocks so far on Chanakyathegreat for his uncourteous actions. I am the first one to admit that I have not always kept my cool during this entire debate. A few of my posts have been sarcastic, but they were never vicious, and I have always taken care to answer the specific points raised by Chanakya. However, Chanakya has been unwilling or unable to reciprocate, and I am reluctant to further indulge in this debate (my patience is seriously running short). Until Chanakya answers my still valid points listed in the discussions (with reliable, up-to-date sources), I will not acquiesce and alter my current position. By78 (talk) 00:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

By78, I asked a simple question, can you prove the PIB record as correct. As usual you are trying to derail the discussion telling totally wrong things. If I reply it will derail the discussion again. Can you prove the PIB report correct to retain your version?Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:01, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It is not my responsibility to prove the PIB report is correct. The PIB report was provided by you. If you think it is incorrect, why did you provide it in the first place?By78 (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Since you have again tried to derail the discussion, and since it's necessary in Wikipedia to answer all things asked without weighing the content of it, I am replying to it.

Appreciate that you are ready for compromise. Hopes that you will study the subject further to get a real understanding of it and will support the reality.

Regarding sabotage, I had changed my stance long back. There was sabotage suspected and an enquiry ordered. Reports started appearing in the press of gear box failure and then the subsequent repair of the same by Renk engineers and how the tank perfomed flawlessly in the trails. Also black boxes were installed to measure various parameters. The real sabotage happened with the DGMF report (PIB) to the committee which found the report incorrect.

Hah? Where is your source on this?By78 (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

By78, you are not telling the truth. The report I submitted just above your edit[14] is from October 2008 and not from 2007. The 2007 report that you mention is the one trial that happened during that time in which the Army admitting the "accuracy and consistency of the tank is proved beyond doubt". Are you doing this because you did not read/study/understand the subject/issue properly or is it deliberate?

You did not submit a report from 2008. You provided an article from 2008. This source ([15]) does not support your stance at all. As I said before, you should not count on me NOT reading it carefully. This source only proves that the engine failures during the so-called Winter Trials were really gearbox failures after all. Nowhere in this source of yours does it say that Arjun is now "FLAWLESS" as you claim. I REJECT your source.By78 (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

What you mean by you did not understand the PIB report is incorrect. Just look above. I had posted it with bold link and underlining so that you understand it properly.

Five problems are cited by PIB press release. You source only resolves the problem with gearbox, but it does not resolve the FOUR remaining problems. This is an old argument, as my edit already mentioned that the gearbox problem had been fixed. Still, what do you have to say about the rest of the problems? By78 (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Arjun in present form is problem free.

PROVIDE all your sources that say ARJUN is problem FREE, now!By78 (talk) 22:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

All issues that existed has been sorted out and it's an excellent tank. Now don't jump on me, this is not what I say, this is the guys who conduct the trials and use the Arjun tank has to say(from the above links).

SOURCES?

I appreciate your patience. The problem was that I don't have your patience. More than a month I am reasoning, providing links, providing proof, trying to reach consensus... Also when I edit the article or revert it with links, gets reverted by the Admins. Hurray to the Admins.

Now regarding the accusations that you heaped on me. No comments. Thank you.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 05:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Why don't you try creating new sections and offering the source, along with specific details of how you plan on using them, on the talk page first? Maybe that will help. I find it annoying to create a ton of little sections, but I find it the best way to get discussions going. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:40, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

T-90 edits

This page will eventually become a T-90 tank article. By78 has added a link that's the same PIB link that I had provided to state that the multiple links he had added admonishing the Arjun tank sourced info from this page. (He had wrongly reported above that it was to state the Amount) Only later it was adopted to state the amount.

The PIB report states "In its meeting held on 26.3.1974 the Cabinet Committee on Political Affairs approved project for design and development of Main Battle Tank with an outlay of Rs. 15.50 crores. The same was enhanced to Rs.305.60 crores due to changes in the General Staff Qualitative Requirements and cost escalations caused by inflation."

By78 adds "By 1995, DRDO had spent Rs. 300 Crore on Arjun MBT program, over-running initial budget by almost twenty folds.". Why is it required to mention twenty folds there. I know mathematically it's twenty folds. But if he wants to project it as a huge amount (yes it's huge from an oridinary man's viewpoint) from a tank development perspective especially a one with western design practices and future tech (not found on Russian tanks like hydro pneumatic suspension, Kanchan armour, Rifled gun etc), then this amount is really a tiny amount. Considering the inhouse development of the technology, development of tank development industries that amount is small. Also did you check how much it took to develop other tanks.

Another edit in which the fact was provided, "n order to acquire a competent main battle tank that would satisfy the urgent needs of present time, the Indian army has signed a deal to license produce a further 1000 T-90 tanks, thus greatly diminishing the prospect of Arjun's widespread adoption.[1][2] "

Where in the link it says the Widespread adoption of Arjun will be diminished with the induction of T-90. It's your addition. I would like to point out that the T-90 and Arjun were delinked from each other from an induction point of view by the government and the Army and they had commented "The Arjun is a tank in it's own class"[16]

By78, Now do you have anything to prove the PIB report with the so called problems correct?Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:49, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Chanakya, if the PIB report is an actual PIB report, then it's not for us to decide if it's "correct" or not. How many times do I have to state this? Verifiability, not truth. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 11:09, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
The report by the Indian Army is not meant for you or me. You and me are not the ones who are authorized to decide weather it was correct or wrong. The committee to which the report was submitted found the report incorrect.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 14:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Because you say so? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Not because you or me say so but because the committee says so.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:29, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Chanakya, I believe that this is where there is a disconnect in your understanding of how Wikipedia works. I understand that it's not our job to determine if the PIB report is "correct" or not. However, do you acknowledge that the PIB report is a legitimate report? If so, it doesn't matter what the committee's opinion on the report is (correct or incorrect, whatever). If the report says something, than it's okay to put that information in the article regardless of anyone's feelings about it's accuracy. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 12:53, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
That's not neutrality, if we add the PIB report and list the problems, then it is necessary to quote what the committee says about the report.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 17:17, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Okay... so, what's the problem? Do you have a source for what the committee says? Have they said anything? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 17:48, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
There's a saying. After hearing the whole of Ramayana, one asks what's the relation between Rama and Sita?Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
That's great, now could you answer my question? Jauerbackdude?/dude. 18:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Status

As of July 2008, about half of the initial production run has been built, but the tank has not yet formally entered service due to problems during trials. —Christopher F. Foss, “Russian Tank Facility Offers its Expertise to India”, Jane's Defence Weekly, 30 July 2008, p 6.


I added the above sourced statement about production and acceptance of the tank a while back, and it was shortly removed without an adequate explanation. Is there a reason not to include this in the article? —Michael Z. 2008-10-01 06:06 z

In my opinion, it should be included in the article, as it is a very recent source. I don't know why it was removed. I went through the edit history, but I did not see your name. Anyway, I think this is a good up-to-date source. By78 (talk) 22:12, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

That's based on the T-90 purchase and subsequent licensed production of the T-90 in India. You can add it in the T-90 article, India section.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:35, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Isn't that discussing the initial production of the Arjun? How is that then related to the T-90? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Can you provide the link to the article, I cannot find it. There is transfer of Russian technology to produce the T-90 locally. Link please, then I will explain it.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 16:50, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Bharadwaj quotation

Chanakya, let's try it this way. What is your specific issue with the quotation Lt General Dalip Bharadwaj, the Director General for the Mechanized Infantry, has expressed the status of Arjun tank as such, "Army will no more place orders for Arjun beyond 124 that was already contracted. That is because Army is now looking 20 years ahead and wants a futuristic MBT... Arjun is a contemporary tank and may be used in the next decade or so, but not for a technologically advanced, next generation warfare some two decades hence." You keep on repeating that you want this removed but I would like a clear-cut reason. That is an exact quote from the source. Is there some other reliable source you have in mind? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 06:56, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Even though you are mixing the Arjun as a tank and Arjun's induction into the Indian Army issues together, let me explain that Lt General Bharadwaj is free to make any comments but the final decision on the tank has not been taken by the Indian Army or the political brass. I can also point to many favorable comments on the Arjun tank from the Army men[17]. Until they say that no more Arjun, or more Arjun we cannot say how many Arjun will be in service with the Indian Army.

From [18], The head of the Pune-based Southern Command, Lieutenant General N Thamburaj, strongly backs the Arjun. On a visit to the Mahajan Field Firing Ranges in Rajasthan to watch his troops exercising, Lt Gen Thamburaj noticed the Arjun firing nearby.

After walking across, he was invited by the DRDO team to drive and fire the tank. Half an hour later, the general was an Arjun backer; two holes in the target he aimed at testified that a soldier without previous experience operating tanks could get into the Arjun and use it effectively.

Now for some picture proof from a discussion point of view.[19] with the caption "(Photo at right: The same day, Maj Gen Shiv Jaswal, Chief of Staff, 10 Corps with his target. This was the first time he had ever driven or fired a tank)"

Now if you want what the minister (the top decision maker) have to say Minister of State for Defence Production, Rao Inderjeet Singh recounts: "I've spoken, off the record, to officers who have gone through the trials. Even the crews (from 43 Armoured Regiment)… who have been testing the tank… I forced them to choose between the Russian tanks and the Arjun.

I said, you've driven this tank and you've driven that tank (the T-90). Now mark them out of ten, which tank is better? And I've found that the Arjun tank was given more numbers than the T-90 tank."

So the minister will also take a decision based on the men who use the tanks. If they are very much satisfied with the Arjun tank and finds it superior to the T-90, the political decision will also be on those lines.

Chanakyathegreat (talk) 09:29, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

It's completely acceptable to have two completely different and conflicting opinions/statements in the article regardless of who that person is or what decisions they make, as long as they are both from verifiable sources. By the way, Chanakya, please start using colons (:) to indent your comments. You make this talk page so hard to read. Jauerbackdude?/dude. 11:17, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
There are two versions. One is the correct B-class version without the latest Renk gearbox problem. The other is the one that can be seen above (Collapsed for readability one) with all viewpoints included (except the DRDO and ministers point of view which need to be added). It was rejected because By78 did not agree and you reverted it back.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 11:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)
Reverting back is not a solution. If you have the other viewpoint, merge it into the article. Regardless of your claims that "the top brass" is free to make their claims, the fact that he is making a statement indicates something. What alternative do you have, other than mere speculation that he will overruled? The fact that someone else "likes" it doesn't mean that the army might still only stick with its first order. Jauerback is right, there are multiple sources that are worth putting in. Your inflexibility makes it harder to even get your information in. Also, quit trying to force an older version which has a number of other WP:MOS flaws in it. At least respect the work that other people have done in between. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)\
The cycle begins anew. He just does not listen, at all.By78 (talk) 21:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, stop with the "correct" nonsense. Assume good faith and respect other people's views. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 19:15, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

To whom? If it is towards me, then "you are not doing it". Wiki edits must be correct. I think this is not the place to express personal opinions and you will know it better.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Regarding reverts, tell that to the Admins who revert my every edit. The Army has still not taken a decision. The Indian Army is not just Lt General Bharadwaj. He is just a member and he has expressed his opinion. That's all. You read about other decision makers opinion as well. So it is better to wait until it is decided 124 or 500+. No one can be as flexible as me. With just two edits you are getting angry. Keep your cool man. I would like you to point out the flaws so that we can sort it out.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 04:28, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
If you don't see a difference between edits to the page and reverts to a months-old version, including deleting all sources in between, I don't think I could possibly explain it. If you keep saying there's only your "correct" version and everyone else is "incorrect", I'm joking but this feels like WP:MPOV. Really though, is there something that says that he doesn't speak for the army? Is there another source you have that says the army is still deciding? What source do you expect to see? Do you actually expect to see the leader of the army announce the amount? A budget report about the number of orders? The DRDO announcing that no one is ordering more? I see that it is flawed to suggest that the army isn't ordering more. We just have information that they are ordering 124, the army announcing plans for a different type of tank, him saying the army isn't ordering any more, and speculation from you that the army could order more. Is there anything factual in the article you find incorrect? They seem like they are representing the sources correctly. Am I wrong? The easier thing in response would be a simple comment from DRDO about their plans. However, like most defense contractors, they don't just make stuff hoping to find a buyer; they only make what is ordered. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:42, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
You have still not understood the issue properly, what i want to say or what's the problem. I was not against adding any link or info, indeed I was the one who provided the PIB link to By78 and told him that this is the source from the failure reports originate. It is only now when a compromised version was rejected by By78 by saying "I don't agree", I am asking for the correct version because a person who cannot agree for a neutral version of the article can continue with his "I don't agree". There are two parts of the PIB report. The first section provides info on the amount which is based on the information available with the government. The second section, is the report submitted by the Army. This was the report submitted to the parliamentary committee and that's the one that was called by the authority. Regarding Arjun order, the final decision has not been taken. At present an order for 124 has been placed and that is under execution. Arjun production facility has been setup to produce 50 tanks per year at Avadi. Do you think this will be closed down. We saw comments to and fro for the Arjun from the Army leadership and the men who use it has preferred the Arjun. So it is better to wait and watch how much will be produced after the present order for 124.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 17:11, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

The issue is a lack of clarity because of your desire to merge all the facts together. You seem to be of the opinion that because some sources either now or earlier say things are working, that's the only information we should be having and the other sources are superfluous. I disagree and would instead rather have "in test1, this worked and this didn't; in test2, this got fixed and this works now; etc." That would be a clearer article instead of a constant need for a single section summarizing all the tests. It's the same logic I have to the single "Production" section. It's useless and confusing standing alone. Why not combine it with the tests to make it a full history? That's a lot more realistic anyways. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:50, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ricky, the trials in 2006 is different, it need to be separate. The whole issue center around the AUCRT trial conducted from 2007-08. What about splitting two sections into winter and summer trials. During the middle of the trials we heard about the PIB report. Except the gear box issue (which need to be included in the article-got sorted out after Renk engineers fixed it), there is no major issue. Also business-standard have mentioned another issue due to over running the specified Kilometers. Need not be considered but still let's have that info as well with the complete detail. The end was like a Bollywood film. All sorted out and Arjun completing the trials successfully. That's what the sources say. Chanakyathegreat (talk) 10:40, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Ok, that's why I split it. Why not every trial into a separate section with the news stuff running in date order as well (it will be behind but that's the way it is)? Also, again, use the colons (:) and indent your paragraphs on the talk page. I mean this when I say it: people have been blocked for less and it is extremely annoying, bordering on disruptive. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 16:28, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

How about this?

Since Chanakyathegreat repeatedly claims that Arjun has resolved all of its problems and is now "flawless", I challenge Chanakya to list all the sources that support this claim. Chanakya please provide links to your sources below for our review. Until you provide them and until they are accepted, the current edit stands.By78 (talk) 22:36, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

I agree with this. With the article now organized more chronologically, I think that DRDO's response would fit in nicely there. Can you help us out, Chanakya? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

By78, I am posting here a link[20] about the Arjun trials (the real trials not AUCRT) from atleast from 2006 onwards, the Arjun tank is performing excellently.

From the link:"Major General H.M. Singh, Additional Director in charge of trial and evaluation, said last year's user field trial report had certified that the accuracy and consistency of the weapon system was proved beyond doubt." That's the Army impressed with the Arjun excepting making comments about the Arjun tank in a positive light.

Now I ask you what link you have to provide about the Arjun's failure except the one based on the wrong PIB report. Do you have anything else? Provide the proof if you have it.

Since you have asked me to prove the success of the Arjun during the latest trial.[21] "Despite continuing criticism from the Army establishment, the Arjun has successfully completed a gruelling 5,000-kilometre summer trials in the Rajasthan desert."

Now your version is totally debunked about the Arjun failing the test but it is proved that the Arjun indeed is successful from last year onwards. You have to accept the reality, there is no other way.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 15:44, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I reject (http://www.hinduonnet.com/2007/05/13/stories/2007051301111000.htm). This source was declared no good by other editors a while back. It is out-dated and biased. Here is my response from months ago regarding this source, "Your source (http://www.hindu.com/2007/05/13/stories/2007051301111000.htm) does claim Arjun had performed well, but it was written in May of 2007. Further trials have taken place starting SEPTEMBER, 2007 and are the latest trials the Arjun was put through. It is from these LATEST trials that the many problems were found. So obviously the Arjun, according to the LATEST results, is not performing up to the standards expected of it. Moreover, your source claimed that the Arjun was "completely indigenous", which is just a lie and some kind of nationalistic chest-thumping. How can your source claim that the tank was completely indigenous when the FCS, engine, transmission, LAHAT missile, and tracks are foreign? Your source is not only NOT up-to-date, but it is also biased... one of your own sources from the Indian government (Arjun Battle Tank Lok Sabha PIB release) cites exactly the same set of problems as I have. How do you explain this? By78 (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
I reject (http://in.news.yahoo.com/139/20080712/808/tnl-arjun-tank-not-being-thrust-on-the-a.html). Why? Because this is the exact same article you presented more than two months ago (http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/arjun-tank-not-being-thrust-on-the-army-drdo_10070729.html). Just as it has been rejected by consensus more than two months ago, I reject it today. I hate to repeat the consensus opinion over and over again, but here it goes: this article has low verifiability because the bulk of the article states the opinions of an UNNAMED party "close to the DRDO". According to this unnamed source "close to the DRDO", the Arjun was successful during the latest trials. Hmmm, but I also have over a dozen named sources that say otherwise, from both the Indian media and official government report Arjun Battle Tank Lok Sabha PIB release. The real problem with you, Chanakyathegreat, is that you want to use the opinion of an unnamed source "close to the DRDO" as the official verdict, which is absolutely unacceptable. HOWEVER, I am willing to incorporate DRDO's direct views into the article, but the sources are hard to find, and you should help me on this. By78 (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
By78, please don't lie. [User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Please don't lie? I had been adhering to this request of yours before you even made it (chuckle, chuckle).By78 (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Who are you to reject anything in Wikipedia. You can only agree or disagree, if you have valid sources. [User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I am editor, and I am responsible for rejecting materials in wikipedia that is clearly POV-pushing and with question sources. Yeah, I have sources alright, and that is why I disagree with you, who have practically been providing either no source or shoddy sources for your editsBy78 (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC).
The source said "Sources close to the DRDO have pointed out that the DRDO is not thrusting the Arjun tanks down the throats of the Army ". That's what the source said. [User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
I don't care if DRDO is forcing the Arjun on the army. This is NOT the issue here. By78 (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
Despite continuing criticism from the Army establishment, the Arjun has successfully completed a gruelling 5,000-kilometre summer trials in the Rajasthan desert. appears in the article and it is not said by anyone. If the source exist, then what is your problem. [User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] (talk) 03:16, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
What you expressed in the above paragraph can be boiled down as this: you say your source says a source close to the source from DRDO said Arjun was successful. Besides, your source has been rejected by consensus. So what is my problem(?), well, I don't have a problem really, since this source of yours (http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/arjun-tank-not-being-thrust-on-the-army-drdo_10070729.html) has been rejected for being a SELF-EDIT. Whatever the problem you perceive is exclusively yours. By the way, next time you have a question, be sure to use a question mark. Also start INDENTING properly (use ":")By78 (talk) 22:31, 4 October 2008 (UTC)


[

Impass and uncertainty

I'm just going to ask before I remove but does anyone feel that the sentence Currently, DRDO and the army are locked in an impasse over the future of Arjun, and consequently, the prospect of Arjun's adoption remains uncertain at this point. is pretty much unnecessarily vague? First, it's from July and I think we have newer sources, so it's a little odd. Second, the article itself describes it as "the deathknell" so saying there's an "impasse" and it remains "uncertain" seems a little out there. Third, frankly, it should be more of a "here's what the army says, here's the response from DRDO, etc." if it's really an impasse. One side saying "we are not ordering any more" seems more like a decision. I'd rather take it out and focus on historically-organized subsections. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:18, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I put the sentence there because Chanakya rejected a less vague version which said the production would be capped at 124. At the time, DRDO and Army were (and still are) pointing fingers at each other. DRDO said Arjun was good, and Army said it was bad. So I put the sentence there to convey that the project was stuck. I agree with you that it should be less vague. However, now it seems the point is moot, as Jane's reported that the Indian army had confirmed that production would be capped at 124. See (http://www.janes.com/news/defence/jdw/jdw080710_1_n.shtml). I have incorporated this source into the article. Thanks. By78 (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Try Global security, they have the historical data of the Arjun tank.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 17:14, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Reason for the time delay

Can anyone provide a source for the protracted developmental time of 36 years is due to the need of designing for the harsh operational conditions in India, the ever-changing requirements from the Army, and the lack of indigenous technological and production capacities? The article, [22], says nothing of the sort and is in fact much, much harsher about the delays and cost overruns. I'm going to work on using what it actually says. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Agree.By78 (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Removed. If no one else objects, this should be archived to short the talk page. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:01, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Chronological order

I think one of the biggest flaws in the article was the lack of specific dates as to events. It seems that everyone was talking past each other as to how should the performance be qualified and using dates to when events and views occurred should help fix that. Chanakyathegreat, would you agree that it's better to be able to include more background information on its capabilities and what it was intended to be able to do, along with details on what issues they have had? I'm a little concerned that we don't have more about DRDO's view. Chanakya, I think that would be the best way to balance the article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have spent considerable time tracing the timeline. Just let me know what your questions are. By78 (talk) 21:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Not possible, since the recent reports are published without any timeframe and they get mixed creating problem. One guy must have published an article1. Then someone publishes article2. Another guy wakes up and sees article1, publishes it with his version. So with dates within months is not possible until specified exactly in the article. Even there confusion can arise.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 17:22, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I have not seen any report that is undated. It should be a cinch to sort out the timeline. In fact, Ricky81682 has accomplished just that with his latest edit. By78 (talk) 23:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
Simply put, you will not understand it.Chanakyathegreat (talk) 03:10, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
Chanakya, why did you blur all the different trials into a single section called "Axillary User Cum Reliability Trials (AUCRT)" and then mix up the winter and summer trial facts together? You have the 2007 trial, the 2008 trial, 2006 facts and go back and forth everywhere. It doesn't make any sense at all, especially since you conveniently chose to quote the unsourced 2006 results in a separate small paragraph with all the criticisms in the big mess. The reason I separated the trials is because, beyond clearly being a year apart from each other, they are significantly different events and the facts of what happened in between are clearer that way. Your way is just more of a mess with no real explanation of what the issues were. Also, why throw the sabotage allegations into a separate paragraph at the bottom? I'm splitting it back into subsections based on each year. They were separate events and should be covered as such. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:39, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I like the latest edit

After reading the latest edit of the Arjun article, I find it concise, to the point, and much easier to read. I support the changes in format, as it is refreshing and a lot less confusing. Thanks. By78 (talk) 22:34, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

I think it was better before merging all the trials into a single section with sources that constantly swap back and forth. I mean, it's going to be a clear linear story of events. Why not just state events as they came out? -- Ricky81682 (talk) 04:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Self-published source removed

I removed this source from the article. The website is simply a portal and not a publisher of information. It looks like a self-published source which per policy should be used only in very limited circumstances. Since the discussion about the report has another cite, there was no content change to the article. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

I have removed this source for the same reasons. It was the fourth citation to a single point, so again, no change in actual content. -- Ricky81682 (talk) 05:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
  1. ^ Defence ties with Russia extended by another 10 yrs
  2. ^ All dressed up and no Takers
Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arjun_(tank)/Archive_2&oldid=1055596136"