Talk:Raheja Developers: Difference between revisions

Content deleted Content added

Inline

Revision as of 03:13, 16 September 2016

The subject of this article is controversial and content may be in dispute. When updating the article, be bold, but not reckless. 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. Content must be written from a neutral point of view. Include citations when adding content and consider tagging or removing unsourced information.

This is the talk page for discussing improvements to the Raheja Developers article.
This is not a forum for general discussion of the article's subject.

Put new text under old text. Click here to start a new topic.
New to Wikipedia? Welcome! Learn to edit; get help.

Article policies

Find sources: Google (books · news · scholar · free images · WP refs) · FENS · JSTOR · TWL

Archives: 1: 60 days

This article is of interest to the following WikiProjects:

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

Articles for creation Stub‑class

	This article was reviewed by member(s) of WikiProject Articles for creation. The project works to allow users to contribute quality articles and media files to the encyclopedia and track their progress as they are developed. To participate, please visit the project page for more information.Articles for creationWikipedia:WikiProject Articles for creationTemplate:WikiProject Articles for creationAfC articles
Stub	This article has been rated as Stub-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
	This article was accepted on 1 June 2014 by reviewer Timtrent (talk · contribs).

Please add the quality rating to the {{WikiProject banner shell}} template instead of this project banner. See WP:PIQA for details.

India Start‑class Low‑importance

	India portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject India, which aims to improve Wikipedia's coverage of India-related topics. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page.IndiaWikipedia:WikiProject IndiaTemplate:WikiProject IndiaIndia articles
Start	This article has been rated as Start-class on Wikipedia's content assessment scale.
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.
	This article was last assessed in February 2015.

It is requested that an image or photograph of Raheja Developers be included in this article to improve its quality. Please replace this template with a more specific media request template where possible.

Wikipedians in India may be able to help!

The Free Image Search Tool or Openverse Creative Commons Search may be able to locate suitable images on Flickr and other web sites.

Upload

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

Wikiaccnt1234 (talk · contribs) has been paid by unknown on behalf of Raheja Developers. Their editing has included contributions to this article. This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight, per WP:REVERTBAN. created article as puff piece here
Whitewaltham (talk · contribs) has been paid by unknown on behalf of Raheja Developers. Their editing has included contributions to this article. This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight, per WP:REVERTBAN. SOCK of per SPI
Aarvig (talk · contribs) has been paid by unknown on behalf of Raheja Developers. Their editing has included contributions to this article. This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight, per WP:REVERTBAN. SOCK of per SPI
Ncrboy (talk · contribs) has been paid by unknown on behalf of Raheja Developers. Their editing has included contributions to this article. This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight, per WP:REVERTBAN. SOCK of per SPI
Shravanshrvsta (talk · contribs) has been paid by unknown on behalf of Raheja Developers. Their editing has included contributions to this article. This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight, per WP:REVERTBAN. SOCK of per SPI
Rohanpr7 (talk · contribs) has been paid by unknown on behalf of Raheja Developers. Their editing has included contributions to this article. This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight, per WP:REVERTBAN. SOCK of per SPI
Shivamtyaagi (talk · contribs) has been paid by unknown on behalf of Raheja Developers. Their editing has included contributions to this article. This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight, per WP:REVERTBAN. SOCK of per SPI
Shravanshrvsta1 (talk · contribs) has been paid by unknown on behalf of Raheja Developers. Their editing has included contributions to this article. This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight, per WP:REVERTBAN. SOCK of per SPI
Tunish123 (talk · contribs) has been paid by unknown on behalf of Raheja Developers. Their editing has included contributions to this article. This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight, per WP:REVERTBAN. SOCK of per SPI
Jojaf2002 (talk · contribs) has been paid by unknown on behalf of Raheja Developers. Their editing has included contributions to this article. SOCK of per SPI

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

Powargaurish (talk · contribs) has been paid by unknown on behalf of Raheja Developers. Their editing has included contributions to this article. This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight, per WP:REVERTBAN. created article as puff piece here
Palwalboy (talk · contribs) has been paid by unknown on behalf of Raheja Developers. Their editing has included contributions to this article. This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight, per WP:REVERTBAN. SOCK of per SPI
Bhaskargupta269 (talk · contribs) has been paid by unknown on behalf of Raheja Developers. Their editing has included contributions to this article. This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight, per WP:REVERTBAN. SOCK of per SPI
Sanjeev.08 (talk · contribs) has been paid by ACME on behalf of Raheja Developers. Their editing has included contributions to this article. This user has been banned and may therefore be reverted on sight, per WP:REVERTBAN. SOCK of per SPI

The Wikimedia Foundation's Terms of Use require that editors disclose their "employer, client, and affiliation" with respect to any paid contribution; see WP:PAID. For advice about reviewing paid contributions, see WP:COIRESPONSE.

Mr RD (talk · contribs) has been paid by self on behalf of Kuldeep Chaudhary on behalf of Raheja Developers. Their editing has included contributions to this article. COI declared at here

The following Wikipedia contributor has declared a personal or professional connection to the subject of this article. Relevant policies and guidelines may include conflict of interest, autobiography, and neutral point of view.

Leoaugust (talk · contribs) This user has contributed to the article. This user has declared a connection. (COI declared here - like many people, real world disputes with Raheja)

Individuals with a conflict of interest, particularly those representing the subject of the article, are strongly advised not to directly edit the article. See Wikipedia:Conflict of interest. You may request corrections or suggest content here on the Talk page for independent editors to review, or contact us if the issue is urgent.

Edit request - 14 April 2016

It is requested that an edit be made to the semi-protected article at D. (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Kindly add the following under awards section:

'The Times of India Real Estate Icons of National Capital Region 2016', a Times Group felicitation.^[1]

References

^ "TOWERING ACHIEVEMENT - THE REAL ESTATE ICONS OF NCR". The Times of India. New Delhi. 9 April 2016. Retrieved 14 April 2016.

-- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr RD (talk • contribs) 10:06, 14 April 2016‎ (UTC

Please sign your posts. II won't add any reference to Wikipedia that is in all caps. Additionally this a press release about a coffee table book published by the Times Group. Please don't bring content sourced to press releases; it is promotional. We have talked about this before - please try to avoid sourcing content in Wikipedia to press releases. Thanks. Jytdog (talk) 13:16, 14 April 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Edit request - 10 June 2016

It is requested that edits be made to the following semi-protected articles:

D (edit · history · last · links · protection log)
C (edit · history · last · links · protection log)

This template must be followed by a complete and specific description of the request, that is, specify what text should be removed and a verbatim copy of the text that should replace it. "Please change X" is not acceptable and will be rejected; the request must be of the form "please change X to Y".

The edit may be made by any autoconfirmed user. Remember to change the |answered=no parameter to "yes" when the request has been accepted, rejected or on hold awaiting user input. This is so that inactive or completed requests don't needlessly fill up the edit requests category. You may also wish to use the {{ESp}} template in the response. To request that a page be protected or unprotected, make a protection request.

Mr RD 23:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Kindly add the following to the Investigations and legal challenges section before last paragraph (After The notice informed all other buyers, who were not yet part ...):

In May 2016, a group of buyers of Raheja Atharva and Raheja Vedanta who had filed the petitions on behalf of 130 buyers claimed that they have reached out of court settlement after meeting Additional Chief Secretary (town and country planning) in Chandigarh.^[1]^[2]

References

^ "Homebuyers in Raheja Vedanta, Gurgaon, reach settlement with builder, will withdraw court cases". Hindustan Times. Gurgaon. 21 May 2016. Retrieved 10 June 2016.
^ Sanjay (20 May 2016). "वेदांता प्रोजेक्ट खरीददारों को राहत". Punjab Kesari. Gurgaon. Retrieved 10 June 2016.

Mr RD 23:05, 9 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Objection to the above Edit Request - The news summary from the article is selective, and deliberately misleading. A perusal of the full article in Hindustan Times shows that only some buyers in project Vedanta have settled, and NONE of those in Atharva have withdrawn cases. Further, only a majority of buyers in Vedaanta have settled, not all as the summary in the "edit request" posits. Also, the article in Punjab Kesri is very clear on it, and does not even mention the Atharva project at all, though both articles are reporting of the same press conference. The relevant lines from the Hindustan Times article are

Headline - Homebuyers in Raheja Vedanta, Gurgaon, reach settlement with builder, will withdraw court cases (It does not mention Atharva, and none of the buyers from Atharva have settled.)

Apartment owners of Raheja Vedanta had approached the Delhi High Court (The news report is wrong as the case has not been filed in Delhi High Court, but in Punjab & Haryana High Court.)

However, on Friday, Joe Saggar and Raj Kumar Khanna, who had filed the petitions on behalf of 130 buyers claimed that they have reached out of court settlement. (For clarity, there are 2 cases filed by buyers of Vedaanta against Raheja Developers - one in Punjab & Haryana High Court by Joe Saggar & Raj Khanna ONLY, and another by 130 buyers which includes Joe & Raj in National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, NCDRC. The case by Joe & Raj has been withdrawn from the P&H High Court, but the case still is continuing at the NCDRC with little over half of the 130 members dropping out with Joe & Raj. It is misleading to imply that all 130 buyers have settled.)

A majority of the 130 litigants has agreed to the settlement after the builder agreed to their demands, Khanna said. (A MAJORITY of the buyers have settled, not ALL as the Edit Request is stating.)

Mr RD is in possession of the full facts as he is in direct touch with the builder. He has deliberately chosen some sentences, and suppressed others, to give an impression that is at odds with the reality that he is fully aware of.

The actual situation, not for posting on Wikipedia, but to understand the news reporting and Mr RD's misleading Edit Request is as follows.

Raheja Atharva buyers (numbering 103) have filed a case in Punjab & Haryana High Court, and also a case at the National Consumer Disputes Resolution Commission. Not a single person has withdrawn here.

Raheja Vedaanta buyers numbering 130 have filed a case in NCDRC, and about 70 of them have withdrawn their case, while the case is continuing on behalf of the others. Raheja Vedaanta buyers Joe Saggar & Raj Khanna had filed a case in P&H High Court which they have withdrawn, but on May 24, 2016 five other buyers from the group of remaining at NCDRC have taken the same complaint of Joe & Raj and after adding more grievances filed a new case at the P&H High Court against Raheja Developers.

Not only is Mr RD's edit misleading about the real situation, it is also misleading summary of the newspapers that it purports to refer. Leoaugust (talk) 04:13, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hm. The request does seem to be a misrepresentation of what the report says, although there are also potential issues on the other "side" of the argument because Leoaugust is providing competing info that may be correct but is unsourced. Fortunately, we know that there is only one decent newspaper in India and it is not the Hindustan Times - basically, we should pretty much discount anything not reported by The Hindu. The pair of you might nonetheless benefit from a read of WP:VNT ... and Mr RD really should consider withdrawing entirely from this article because their paid conflict of interest is now blatantly affecting their efforts here. Leoaugust has claimed not to have a conflict but that, too, is beginning to appear suspect.

Is there not some middle ground here? Could we say something that emphasises some people have settled, for example? - Sitush (talk) 06:02, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Sitush thanks for commenting. Just a couple of procedural notes. Mr RD has every right to post suggestions on Talk and indeed that is what we want paid editors to do. And Leoaugust has declared a COI (see tags at top) and is also welcome to comment here on the talk page. Will look at the request and reply in a moment... Jytdog (talk) 06:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am well aware of the procedure but when it descends to this level of misrepresentation it is scary. The only positive is that we have one from each side, fighting each other. - Sitush (talk) 06:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Hi, firstly, I'm not in direct contact with Raheja Developers as said by LeoAugust. I'm hired by a PR agency who work on their behalf. I've disclosed the name of the person who hired me. I am not entirely aware about the the legal proceedings and their numbers like any of you except Leo who happens to know these information. I'm not even sure if they are right or wrong. Therefore, I can not comment on that. As far as my request go, I specifically quoted a group which represented the buyers (By that I mean, Joe Saggar and Raj Kumar Khanna, who had filed the petitions on behalf of 130 buyers as mentioned in the news article). On other issue I also tried to see the govt. website in this matter regarding the number of cases. The website appears to be outdated to me as no recent legal proceedings were recorded in there. To me this issue seems like more of government infrastructure related than the fault of buyer (but again who am I to decide?). Mr RD 19:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

I am still looking at this and the current content in our article about this. pls be patient. Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And Mr RD, appreciate your reply. Can you please take this opportunity to check the facts with Raheja Developers? There is no reason why you cannot seek clarification from the PR Agency/ Raheja Developers once this matter has been raised. The aim is to verify the information once an objection has been raised. Thanks. Leoaugust (talk) 07:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

And a couple of articles referenced on the WikiPage of Raheja Developers seem to have been removed from the Forbes website. Seems that the PR Agency is doing its job well :-) The removed articles and the buyer comments can be seen archived at Archive.Org

Reference 36 - https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://forbesindia.com/blog/business-strategy/its-builders-vs-buyers-in-the-indian-real-estate-industry/

Reference 28 - https://web.archive.org/web/20151222120037/http://forbesindia.com/article/special/pmo-asks-haryana-to-probe-complaints-against-raheja-developers/39249/1

Leoaugust (talk) 08:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Marked this edit as declined due to no consensus being reached. There was extensive discussion this June but no progress has been made since. Altamel (talk) 03:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[1] "TOWERING ACHIEVEMENT - THE REAL ESTATE ICONS OF NCR". The Times of India. New Delhi. 9 April 2016. Retrieved 14 April 2016.

[2] "Homebuyers in Raheja Vedanta, Gurgaon, reach settlement with builder, will withdraw court cases". Hindustan Times. Gurgaon. 21 May 2016. Retrieved 10 June 2016.

[3] Sanjay (20 May 2016). "वेदांता प्रोजेक्ट खरीददारों को राहत". Punjab Kesari. Gurgaon. Retrieved 10 June 2016.

[1]

[1]

[2]

@@ Line 48: / Line 48: @@
 == Edit request - 10 June 2016 ==
-{{request edit}}'''<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">[[User:Mr RD|<font size="3"><span style="color:blue;font-family:Comic Sans MS">Mr <font color="green">RD</font></span></font>]]'''</span> 23:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
+{{request edit|D|C}}'''<span style="text-shadow:#808080 0.2em 0.2em 0.2em">[[User:Mr RD|<font size="3"><span style="color:blue;font-family:Comic Sans MS">Mr <font color="green">RD</font></span></font>]]'''</span> 23:12, 9 June 2016 (UTC)
 Kindly add the following to the Investigations and legal challenges section before last paragraph (After ''The notice informed all other buyers, who were not yet part ...''):
@@ Line 87: / Line 87: @@
 ::::::: Reference 28 - https://web.archive.org/web/20151222120037/http://forbesindia.com/article/special/pmo-asks-haryana-to-probe-complaints-against-raheja-developers/39249/1
 :::::: [[User:Leoaugust|Leoaugust]] ([[User talk:Leoaugust|talk]]) 08:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
+::::::: Marked this edit as declined due to no consensus being reached. There was extensive discussion this June but no progress has been made since. [[User:Altamel|Altamel]] ([[User talk:Altamel|talk]]) 03:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)