Jump to content

Talk:Arjun (tank) and Eugenia B. Thomas K-8 Center: Difference between pages

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
(Difference between pages)
Content deleted Content added
VisualWikitext
BJBot (talk | contribs)
271,036 edits
 
No edit summary
 
Line 1: Line 1:
{{Infobox Secondary school
{{WPMILHIST
| name = Eugenia B. Thomas K-8 Center
|class=B
| logo = <!-- Commented out because image was deleted: [[Image:Miami-Dade logo.png|{{deletable image-caption|1=Sunday, 25 November 2007}}]] -->
<!-- 1. It is suitably referenced, and all major points have appropriate inline citations. -->
| district = [[Miami-Dade County Public Schools]]
|B-Class-1=yes
| principal = Mayra B. Falcon
<!-- 2. It reasonably covers the topic, and does not contain major omissions or inaccuracies. -->
| type = Public primary-secondary
|B-Class-2=yes
| established = Elementary- 1999, Middle- 2007
<!-- 3. It has a defined structure, including a lead section and one or more sections of content. -->
| city = [[Doral, Florida|Doral]]
|B-Class-3=yes
| state = [[Florida]]
<!-- 4. It is free from major grammatical errors. -->
| country = [[USA]]
|B-Class-4=yes
| enrollment = 2,064
<!-- 5. It contains appropriate supporting materials, such as an infobox, images, or diagrams. -->
| grades = Pre-K - 6
|B-Class-5=yes
| campus = [[Suburban]]
|Indian-task-force= yes
| mascot = [[Blue Marlin]]
|Weaponry-task-force= yes
| colors = [[Teal]], [[White]], and [[Navy Blue]]
| free_label_1 = School hours
| free_1 = 8:30 AM to 3:00 PM
| free_label_2 = Average class size
| free_2 = 30
| picture = <!-- Deleted image removed: [[Image:0071.jpg]] -->
| website = [http://ebt.dadeschools.net Eugenia B. Thomas K-8 Center Homepage]
}}
}}
{{WP India|class=B}}
{{archive box|[[/Archive 1]]}}


'''Eugenia B. Thomas K-8 Center''' is a [[K-8 Center]] located at 5950 NW 114 Avenue, in [[Doral, Florida]]; its principal is Mayra B. Falcon.


== 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]<ref>Changa source</ref>, however this is under dispute because [whomever] says that it had many failures<ref>By78 source</ref>."

: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. [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 23:34, 11 September 2008 (UTC)

However, if his sources are indeed [[WP:RS|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 [[WP:OR|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. [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk: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? <b>[[User:Jauerback|Jauerback]]</b><sup>[[User talk:Jauerback|dude?]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jauerback|dude.]]</sub> 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. [[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk:Chanakyathegreat|talk]]) 04:43, 12 September 2008 (UTC)
:Whatever. That's fine, too. PROPOSE EVERYTHING HERE FIRST. <b>[[User:Jauerback|Jauerback]]</b><sup>[[User talk:Jauerback|dude?]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jauerback|dude.]]</sub> 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.[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk: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 '''<nowiki>:</nowiki>''' (colons) to indent your comments. You're making this talk page harder to read. <b>[[User:Jauerback|Jauerback]]</b><sup>[[User talk:Jauerback|dude?]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jauerback|dude.]]</sub> 18:24, 12 September 2008 (UTC)

Rather than cut paste the whole sections, I will provide the link.[http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arjun_MBT&diff=237249319&oldid=237227386] [[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk: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 <nowiki>:</nowiki> (colons) to indent your comments. <b>[[User:Jauerback|Jauerback]]</b><sup>[[User talk:Jauerback|dude?]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jauerback|dude.]]</sub> 11:09, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

O.K this is the version I propose.
{| class="navbox collapsible collapsed" style="text-align: left; border: 0px; margin-top: 0.2em;"
|-
! style="background-color: #f2dfce; font-weight:normal; text-align:left;" |
* Collapsed for readability <!--*-->
|-
| style="text-align:center;" |
|-
| style="border: solid 1px silver; padding: 8px; background-color: white;" |


<br>
{{about|the battle tank|other uses|Arjun (disambiguation)}}
{{FixBunching|beg}}
{{Infobox Weapon
|name=Arjun MBT
|type= [[Main Battle Tank]]
|origin=[[India]]
|image=[[Image:Arjun MBT bump track test.JPG|300px]]
|caption=
|is_vehicle=yes
<!-- Service history -->
|service= 2007 - date
|used_by=[[Indian Army]]
|wars=
<!-- Production history -->
|designer= [[CVRDE]], [[DRDO]]
|design_date= March 1974 - date
|manufacturer= [[Heavy Vehicles Factory]], [[Avadi]]
|unit_cost=$3.4 mn (Rs 16.80 crore)<ref>[http://164.100.24.208/ls/committeeR/PAC/5th.htm Report of the 15th Standing Committee on Defence]</ref>
|production_date= 2004 - date
|number=60
|variants=[[Tank EX]]
<!-- General specifications -->
|crew=4 (commander, gunner, loader and driver)
|length=10.638 m
|width=3.864 m
|height=2.32 m
|weight=58.5 tonnes
|clearance=0.45 m
|armour=[[composite armour|composite]] Kanchan armour.
|primary_armament=120 mm rifled [[tank gun]]</br>[[LAHAT]] [[anti-tank missile]]</br>HEAT, APFSDS, HESH Rounds
|secondary_armament=HCB 12.7mm AA [[machine gun|MG]]<br/>Mag 7.62mm Tk715 coaxial MG
|engine= MTU 838 Ka 501 [[diesel engine|diesel]]
|engine_power=1400 hp (1040 kW)
|fuel_capacity=1610 Litre
|suspension=[[hydropneumatic]]
|speed=72 km/h
|pw_ratio=24 hp/tonne
|vehicle_range=450 km
}}
{{FixBunching|mid}}
{{Post-Cold War tanks}}
{{FixBunching|end}}

'''Arjun''' ([[Sanskrit language|Sanskrit]]: [[Devanagari|अर्जुन]]) is an Indian [[main battle tank]] being developed by [[DRDO]] (Defence Research and Development) for the [[Indian Army]]. It is named for [[Arjuna]], one of the heroes of the [[India]]n [[Epic poetry|epic]] 'The [[Mahabharata]]'.


== History ==
== History ==
Officials of the Miami-Dade school district and the city of Doral gathered for the groundbreaking ceremony for the upper class building in September 2006. The new building which currently houses 6th and 7th graders only can accommodate 1,642 students and features amenities including a cyber café, wireless Internet access in classrooms and a black box theater for student performances. The new facility provides enrollment relief to the nearby Doral Middle School, which now has more than 2,000 students. {{dubious}}
Following the experience of the [[1971 War]], The Indian Government decided to indigenously develop a Main Battle Tank, with induction by the early 1990s. The programme was approved in 1972, and a General Staff Qualitative Requirements (GSQR) released by the [[Indian Army]]. The Government sanctioned Rs. 15.5 Crore for the initial part of the programme in May 1974.<ref name="Smith">{{cite book |last=Smith |first=Chris
|title=India's Ad hoc Arsenal: Direction or Drift in Defence Policy?
|origyear=1994
|url=http://books.google.co.in/books?id=wirzhu5EaqAC&printsec=frontcover&dq=India+MBT+production#PPA149,M1
|accessdate=2008-04-23 |publisher= Sipri |isbn= 978-0198291688 |id= |pages=148-151 }}</ref> By [[May 05]] [[2008]], DRDO had spent Rs.307.48 Crore on Arjun MBT program.<ref>[http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=38445&kwd= Arjun Battle Tank Lok Sabha PIB release]</ref> The tank cost less than the western MBT's in its class.<ref>[http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/arjun-tank-not-being-thrust-on-the-army-drdo_10070729.html Arjun tank not being thrust on the Army: DRDO]</ref>

DRDO, with CVRDE as the main laboratory, was tasked with developing the hull, armor, turret, running gear and gun, with the powerpack being bought from abroad.<ref name="Smith" /> Originally intended to be a 40-ton MBT armed with a 105 mm gun, the Arjun’s project requirements were upgraded to 58.5 tons with a 120 mm gun. The project has had a protracted developmental time, some 36 years thus far, thanks to the design needing to be adapted for the harsh operational conditions in India, the ever-changing requirements from the Army and the lack of a prior heavy tank building industry in India.

In the process of developing the Arjun, India established the infrastructure to develop and manufacture modern armour. The [[Heavy Vehicles Factory]] located in [[Avadi]], in the [[South India|southern]] state of [[Tamil Nadu]] is the facility that has been producing prototypes and pre-production models. The HVF has produced [[T-72]]s and [[Vickers MBT|Vickers]] main battle tanks in the past, and the Arjun is seen as a significant challenge.

=== Production ===

In 2004 the first 5 Arjun Tanks were given to the Indian Army in August 2004. <ref>[http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw050921_1_n.shtml Janes news]</ref> The Indian Army has 124 Arjuns on order for two armored regiments.<ref>[http://in.news.yahoo.com/139/20080712/808/tnl-arjun-tank-not-being-thrust-on-the-a.html Arjun tank not being thrust on the Army: DRDO]</ref> The first regiment will be provided with 62 Arjun tank before the end of 2008.<ref>[http://news.oneindia.in/2008/07/02/one-regiment-will-be-equipped-with-mbt-arjun-by-year-end-drdo-1215005606.html One regiment will be equipped with MBT 'Arjun' by year-end: DRDO]</ref> The first 15 tanks of the 124 have already been activated. The planned production rate is currently pegged at thirty tanks per year, with the Army requesting fifty per year as the ideal. Arjun has been extensively tested, clocking 70,000 km, in addition to about 10,000 trial firings. Major General H.M. Singh, Additional Director in charge of trial and evaluation, said latest user field trial report had certified that the accuracy and consistency of the weapon system was proved beyond doubt.<ref>[http://www.hindu.com/2007/05/13/stories/2007051301111000.htm Fourteen Arjun main battle tanks delivered to the Army]</ref>

The Indian army has deemed Arjun's performance unsatisfactory in the winter trials that began in September, 2007, including at least four engine failures.<ref>[http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/business/indigenous-battle-tank-fails-winter-trials-army_10038769.html Indigenous battle tank fails winter trials]</ref> This report presented before the parliamentary standing committee is said to be incorrectly provided by the Indian Army. The problem is reported to be with Renk gearboxes.<ref>[http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=320574
Armed forces prefer Russian armour]</ref> In the "accelerated user-cum-reliability trials" in 2008, the Arjun tank was run 3000 km non stop not to judge its performance but to find the spare parts that the tank will require in its life time.<ref>[http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=320574
Armed forces prefer Russian armour]</ref> It was reported that the Arjun tank "was found to have low accuracy, frequent break down of power packs and problems with its gun barrel", and "the tanks also had problems with consistency, recorded failure of hydropenumatic suspension units and shearing of top rolls" as well as a "deficient fire control system", "low speed in tactical areas", and "the inability to operate in temperatures over 50 degrees Celsius". <ref>[http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/File_Defects_found_in_Arjun_tank_during_trial_Govt/articleshow/3012911.cms Defects found in Arjun tank during trial]</ref> <ref>[http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/arjun-tanks-failed-to-deliver-on-many-fronts-defence-ministry_10045415.html Arjun tanks failed to deliver on many fronts]</ref> <ref>[http://www.indianexpress.com/story/297768.html Arjun tank fails winter trials, Army chief writes to Anthony]</ref> 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.<ref>[http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?tp=on&autono=41594 Army wants futuristic MBT, death knell for Arjun]</ref> <ref>[http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/No_more_Arjuns_for_Indian_Army/articleshow/3200344.cms No more Arjuns for Indian Army]</ref> Sabotage was suspected in the winter trials and black box were installed to monitor the performance of the tanks<ref>[http://www.dnaindia.com/report.asp?newsid=1177317 Sabotage suspected in Arjun tank engine]</ref> in trials held in june.<ref>[http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/sabotage-suspected-in-arjun-tank-engine-black-box-installed_10070965.html » Sabotage suspected in Arjun tank engine; black box installed - Thaindian News<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> The 5,000 km six month summer trial of Arjun MBT held till July 2008, demonstrated successfully the consistency of the gun and endurance of the Arjun MBT. In the trails held the MBT was able to hit targets the size of a suitcase at a distance of one kilometer.<ref>[http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/arjun-tank-not-being-thrust-on-the-army-drdo_10070729.html Arjun tank not being thrust on the Army: DRDO]</ref> The DGMF is avoiding a comparative trial of the Arjun and the T-90 tanks.<ref>[http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=326338 Arjun versus T-90: Army avoiding trials]</ref>, even thought there is wider acceptance among the soldier who operate the tank and the officers who had witnessed the performance of the the Arjun tank.<ref>[http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=326234 The Arjun battle tank acquires a growing fan club]</ref>

Looking into the future, the Indian army has initiated the process on acquiring an entirely new futuristic Main Battle Tank, to be inducted after 2020. The Indian army has held an "international seminar on future MBTs", during which the parameters and requirements of this future MBT were identified.<ref>[http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/India_sets_in_motion_plans_to_build_futuristic_tanks/articleshow/3263876.cms India sets in motion plans to build futuristic tanks]</ref> As a result, Russia has offered to team with India on developing this future tank.<ref>[http://www.janes.com/news/defence/land/jdw/jdw080728_1_n.shtml Russia offers to team with India on new MBT]</ref><ref>[http://www.kommersant.com/p-12890/Smart_tank_India/ Russia, India Negotiate Smart Tank Creation]</ref><ref>[http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=329796
India`s future tank nowhere in sight]</ref>

==Specifications==
The Arjun's (Mk I) development has spanned more than three and a half decades of identifying requirements, design, evaluation, redesign process involving the [[DRDO]] and the [[Indian Army]]. Weighing in at 58.5 tons, it is significantly heavier than the [[List of Soviet tanks|Soviet-legacy tanks]] used presently by the Indian Army, and requires changes to the army's [[military logistics|logistics]] establishment to incorporate Arjun MBT, including new rail cars to transport the bigger and heavier Arjuns. The production facility for the Arjun, set up at Heavy Vehicle Factory in Avadi has started to produce the tank after the technology was transferred by the DRDO. The required logistical changes are also being made.

===Armament===

Armed with a 120 mm rifled gun, the Arjun is capable of firing [[APFSDS]] ([[Kinetic Energy]]) rounds, [[High Explosive|HE]], [[HEAT]], High Explosive Squash Head ([[HESH]]) rounds at the rate of 6-8 rounds per minute and the [[Israeli]] semi-active laser guided [[LAHAT]] missile. In addition, it is armed with a 12.7 mm AA [[machine gun]] and a 7.62 mm [[Coaxial weapon|coaxial machine gun]].<ref>[http://www.drdo.org DRDO website]</ref> The Arjun can carry 39 rounds in special blast-proof canisters. Loading is manual.

A special prefragmented round is also under development. This shell has a proximity fuse designed to be used against low-flying aircraft, such as [[attack helicopter]]s. This round could now be supplanted by the Israeli [[LAHAT]] ATGM which is to be acquired for the Arjuns. <ref>[http://www.bharat-rakshak.com Arjun details at bharat rakshak]</ref>

The Arjun's Rifled Tank gun is unique since only it and the British [[Challenger 2]] tanks use Rifled guns among modern tanks. The gun is extremely accurate at long range, which ensures a high first hit probability. The ministry of defence in a letter to parliament admitted that the firing accuracy of Arjun is far superior to that of the [[T-90]] and [[T-72]] tanks.<ref>[http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2008/07/25/stories/2008072550320800.htm Give Arjun a fighting chance]</ref>

===Fire control and Navigation===
Fire control and navigation technologies are provided by Elbit, an Israeli defence company. The Fire Control System is stabilised on two axes, and with an extremely high hit probability (design criteria call for a greater than 0.9 [[Probability of kill|Pk]]) replaces an earlier analogue one, which had problems due to its inability to function under the harsh desert conditions. However, the new fire control system also frequently malfunctions when subjected to temperatures greater than 42 degrees Celsius. <ref>[http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/arjun.htm Arjun<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref> The combined day sight from [[Bharat Electronics Limited|Bharat Electronics Ltd.]] and the thermal imager (formerly from Sagem, now reported to be from El-Op) constitute the gunner's primary sight. The first batch of tanks of the 124 ordered by the Army will have an all-digital Sagem FCS, whereas the second block will have the [[Bharat Electronics Limited|BEL]] developed IGMS (Indigenous Gunners Main Sight)<ref>[http://www.bel-india.com/index.aspx?q=&sectionid=315 Indigenous Gunners Main Sight for MBT]</ref> unit, which will be used for all units thereafter. The commander's own stabilised panoramic sight allows him to engage targets and/or hand them over to the gunner. The Arjun has an auxiliary power unit to operate weapon systems in silent watch mode as well.

The tank incorporates [[GPS]] based navigation systems and sophisticated [[frequency-hopping spread spectrum|frequency hopping]] radios. The state-of-the-art Battlefield Management System, co-developed by [[DRDO]] and Ebit Israel, allows it to network with other fighting units. The Arjun has the capability to network with other tanks, thanks to its Battle Management System. In a search and engage operation, several Arjun Tanks can monitor an opponent and his moves, and eliminate him in a chase or ambush.

===Protection===
Arjun has been designed with Western design practices in mind, especially reflected in its crew protection features. With a crew of four, it incorporates heavy composite armour and significant crew protection measures, including ammunition separated from the crew, and blow off panels on the turret bustle, and an integrated fire detection and suppression system. It also incorporates nuclear, biological and chemical protection.<ref>[http://frontierindia.net/indigenous-nbc-sensor-for-arjun-mbt/ Indigenous NBC sensor for Arjun MBT]</ref> Further, [[Explosive Reactive Armour]] (ERA) panels can be added, though the current Kanchan armour is deemed sufficient for the Arjuns tank-killing role.

The turret has been designed with the ergonomics of Indian Army troops in mind. The typical crew consists of a Gunner, Commander, Loader and Driver. It is protected by a [[Laser]] warning system and smoke launchers for counter measures. To further enhance combat survivability, the tank has an auto-fire detection and suppression system. Ammunition is also stored in watertight containers to reduce the risk of fire.<ref>[http://www.drdo.org DRDO::<!-- Bot generated title -->]</ref>

The [[turret]] and [[glacis]] are heavily armoured and use "Kanchan" (''"gold"'') modular composite armour. The Kanchan Armor got its name from Kanchan Bagh, [[Hyderabad, Andhra Pradesh|Hyderabad]], where the Defence Metallurgical Research Laboratory (DMRL) is situated.<ref name="Kanchan">[http://frontierindia.net/the-kanchan-armor/ The Kanchan armour]</ref> The armour is made by sandwiching composite panels between Rolled Homogenous Armor (RHA) to defeat APFDS or HEAT rounds. During the trials in [[2000]], the Kanchan was able to withstand a hit from a [[T-72]] at point blank range, and was able to defeat all available HESH and FSAPDS rounds which included the Israeli FSAPDS rounds.<ref name="Kanchan"/>

===Mobility===
The [[engine]] and transmission are provided by German companies [[MTU Friedrichshafen|MTU]] and [[Renk]] respectively. The water cooled [[engine]] generates 1,400 hp and is integrated with an Indian [[turbocharger]] and epicyclic train [[gearbox]] with four forward and 2 reverse gears. A local transmission is under trials and will ultimately replace the Renk supplied unit. The tracks which were being supplied by German company [[Diehl]] are now being manufactured by [[L & T]], an Indian company. The cooling pack has been designed for desert operations. The Arjun has a lower ground pressure than the lighter [[T-72]], due to its design.

The Arjun has a state of the art hydro-pneumatic suspension that provides better ride comfort. This coupled with the Arjun's excellent stabilisation and fire control system, allows the tank superb first-hit probability against moving targets while on the move. Its ride comfort is highly praised. Though on the negative side, it is a more maintenance-intensive and expensive system, even if more capable than the simpler and cheaper torsion bar system utilized on many older tanks worldwide. During trials the Arjun showcased its fording capability, by driving under 6 feet of water for 20 minutes.

A new 1500 HP engine is being developed that will eventually replace the present engine. An allocation of 40 crore Rupees has been allocated for the project which is expected to be completed within five years.<ref>[http://www.drdo.org/tender/desidoc/desidoc29mar07sp2.pdf 1500 HP engine development]</ref>

==Variants==
* A 155 mm self-propelled howitzer variant of the Arjun (labelled '[[Bhim]]') has been prototyped by fitting the [[South African]] [[DENEL Corporation|Denel]] T6 turret, which comes with the [[G5 howitzer]] to the Arjun chassis. This project has been delayed as DENEL has become embroiled in a corruption scandal in India, and hence the Indian Ministry of Defence has suspended the Bhim.

*A bridge layer based on the Arjun chassis has also been displayed by the DRDO[http://www.bharat-rakshak.com/LAND-FORCES/Army/Galleries/main.php?g2_itemId=2165]. Developed in cooperation with Indian industry, this bridge layer is deemed superior to the T-72 based units, as it can handle a larger load and uses a "scissors type" bridgelaying method, which does not raise the bridge high up into the air, and hence make it visible from afar.
*Armoured engineering vehicles based on the Arjun are also assumed to be in development, as the Arjun induction will require units of a similar power to weight ratio or powerful enough to tow it, or recover it on the battlefield.

*[[Tank ex mbt|Tank EX]]: A new tank obtained by coupling a T-72 chassis and an Arjun turret. Only prototypes have been built so far.

*DRDO is working on an upgraded version known as the Arjun Mark-II after getting approval from the Indian Army.<ref>[http://in.rediff.com/news/2007/nov/13arjun1.htm Army nod to develop Arjun Mark II tanks]</ref>

==Photo Gallery==
<gallery>
Image:Arjun MBT bump track test 2.JPG

Image:NonFreeImageRemoved.svg
</gallery>

==Notes==
{{reflist}}

==References==
* {{cite web| title=Arjun | work=FAS Military Analysis Network | url=http://www.fas.org/man/dod-101/sys/land/row/arjun.htm | accessdate=July 12 | accessyear=2006}}

==Discussion==
[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk:Chanakyathegreat|talk]]) 15:14, 13 September 2008 (UTC)

|-
| style="text-align:center;" | ''The above was collapsed to get this talk page under control.''
|}

: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. [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk: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.[http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=38445&kwd=]

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.[http://www.expressbuzz.com/edition/story.aspx?artid=7NUJaooWRmI=&Title=Why+defence+products+fail+to+make+the+cut&SectionID=f4OberbKin4=&MainSectionID=f4OberbKin4=&SEO=Arjun,+DRDO.&SectionName=n5rce3HBdMPVeH7FlL5aBQ==]


“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. [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk: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. [http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/world-news/arjun-tank-not-being-thrust-on-the-army-drdo_10070729.html]
[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk: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. <b>[[User:Jauerback|Jauerback]]</b><sup>[[User talk:Jauerback|dude?]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jauerback|dude.]]</sub> 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.[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk: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.[http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2008_07_01_archive.html] No need to put it in Wikipedia since it goes against Wiki rules of not posting from a blog.[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk: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." <b>[[User:Jauerback|Jauerback]]</b><sup>[[User talk:Jauerback|dude?]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jauerback|dude.]]</sub> 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[http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=38445&kwd=], 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? [http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=38445&kwd=] 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? [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk: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.[http://www.itgo.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&issueid=&id=10765&sectionid=5&secid=27&Itemid=1] 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.[[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk: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.
[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk:Chanakyathegreat|talk]]) 02:02, 20 September 2008 (UTC)
:No. You still have not answer all my points. I still reject your edit. [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk: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[http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=320574] , 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.[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk: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. <b>[[User:Jauerback|Jauerback]]</b><sup>[[User talk:Jauerback|dude?]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jauerback|dude.]]</sub> 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.
[[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk: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[http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=320574] , 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."

[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk: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. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk: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[http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=320574] , the standing committee to which the report was submitted says <b>"There were <u>clear factual inaccuracies in the army's deposition before the Standing Committee.</u> <u>The most glaring of them is the army's suggestion that it is carrying out trials on the Arjun's performance.</u>

::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 <u>in summer 2006, the trial report (written by the army) said: "The accuracy and consistency of the Arjun has been proved beyond doubt."</u>

::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, <u>not to judge performance, but to evaluate the tank's requirement of spare parts, fuel and lubricants during its entire service life.</u>"</b>

::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.[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk: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. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 07:47, 30 September 2008 (UTC)
::::Chanakya, look over the examples that I used at the beginning of the [[Talk:Arjun MBT#Compromise|compromise section]]. This should get you a start. <b>[[User:Jauerback|Jauerback]]</b><sup>[[User talk:Jauerback|dude?]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jauerback|dude.]]</sub> 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. <b>[[User:Jauerback|Jauerback]]</b><sup>[[User talk:Jauerback|dude?]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jauerback|dude.]]</sub> 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.[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk: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. <b>[[User:Jauerback|Jauerback]]</b><sup>[[User talk:Jauerback|dude?]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jauerback|dude.]]</sub> 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 [http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=38445&kwd=]. 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.
[[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk: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?[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk: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?[[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk: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?[[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 22:26, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

By78, you are not telling the truth. The report I submitted just above your edit[http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=320574] 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 ([http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=320574]) 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.[[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk: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![[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk: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. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk: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.<ref>[http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/News/PoliticsNation/Defence_ties_with_Russia_extended_by_another_10_yrs/articleshow/3542420.cms Defence ties with Russia extended by another 10 yrs]</ref><ref>[http://indiatoday.digitaltoday.in/index.php?option=com_content&task=view&issueid=31&id=14551&Itemid=1&sectionid=36 All dressed up and no Takers]</ref> "

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"[http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2008/07/25/stories/2008072550320800.htm]

By78, Now do you have anything to prove the PIB report with the so called problems correct?[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk: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. <b>[[User:Jauerback|Jauerback]]</b><sup>[[User talk:Jauerback|dude?]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jauerback|dude.]]</sub> 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.[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk:Chanakyathegreat|talk]]) 14:13, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

:: Because you say so? -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 19:16, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

:: Not because you or me say so but because the committee says so.[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk: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. <b>[[User:Jauerback|Jauerback]]</b><sup>[[User talk:Jauerback|dude?]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jauerback|dude.]]</sub> 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.[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk: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? <b>[[User:Jauerback|Jauerback]]</b><sup>[[User talk:Jauerback|dude?]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jauerback|dude.]]</sub> 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?[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk:Chanakyathegreat|talk]]) 03:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)
:::That's great, now could you answer my question? <b>[[User:Jauerback|Jauerback]]</b><sup>[[User talk:Jauerback|dude?]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jauerback|dude.]]</sub> 18:08, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

== Status ==

<blockquote>
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.
</blockquote>


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?&nbsp;''—[[User:Mzajac |Michael]]&nbsp;[[User talk:Mzajac |Z.]]&nbsp;<small>2008-10-01&nbsp;06:06&nbsp;z</small>''

: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. [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk: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? -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk: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 [http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/No_more_Arjuns_for_Indian_Army/articleshow/3200344.cms the source]. Is there some other reliable source you have in mind? -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk: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[http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=326234]. 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 [http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=326234], 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.[http://bp3.blogger.com/_zUe7sq7m3h0/SFXbvxRBpUI/AAAAAAAAAMY/AffqvhPOqic/s1600-h/Bobby+firing.jpg] 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.

[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk: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 ('''<nowiki>:</nowiki>''') to indent your comments. You make this talk page so hard to read. <b>[[User:Jauerback|Jauerback]]</b><sup>[[User talk:Jauerback|dude?]]</sup>/<sub>[[Special:Contributions/Jauerback|dude.]]</sub> 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.[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk: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. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 19:14, 1 October 2008 (UTC)\

::::The cycle begins anew. He just does not listen, at all.[[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 21:54, 1 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, stop with the "correct" nonsense. [[WP:AGF|Assume good faith]] and respect other people's views. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk: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 <u>his opinion</u>. 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.[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk: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. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk: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. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk: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. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk: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? -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 05:59, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

By78, I am posting here a link[http://www.hinduonnet.com/2007/05/13/stories/2007051301111000.htm] 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.[http://in.news.yahoo.com/139/20080712/808/tnl-arjun-tank-not-being-thrust-on-the-a.html]
"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.[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk: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? [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk: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 [http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=38445&kwd= 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. [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 21:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:By78, please don't lie. [User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk: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).[[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk: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]] ([[User talk: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 edits[[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|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]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk: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]] ([[User talk: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 ":")[[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk: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. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 21:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

Try Global security, they have the historical data of the Arjun tank.[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk: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, [http://www.indianexpress.com/news/arjun-main-battle-tanked/16589/0], 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. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 05:43, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:Agree.[[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 21:38, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:: Removed. If no one else objects, this should be archived to short the talk page. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk: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. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 05:57, 2 October 2008 (UTC)
:I have spent considerable time tracing the timeline. Just let me know what your questions are. [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk: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.[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 23:24, 2 October 2008 (UTC)

:Simply put, you will not understand it.[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk: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. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk: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. [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk: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? -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 04:46, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

== Self-published source removed ==

I removed [http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/business/indigenous-battle-tank-fails-winter-trials-army_10038769.html this source] from the article. The website is simply a portal and not a publisher of information. It looks like a [[Wikipedia:Verifiability#Self-published_sources|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. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 05:07, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

: I have removed [http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/arjun-tanks-failed-to-deliver-on-many-fronts-defence-ministry_10045415.html this source] for the same reasons. It was the fourth citation to a single point, so again, no change in actual content. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 05:33, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

== What is going on?! ==

Just when I thought the new format was helpful in narrating the history of Arjun, Chanakyathegreat decided to inject his POV again. His edits moved sources around not according to chronological order but according to his agenda of POV pushing. This is getting ridiculous. Please, my fellow editors, closely read the sources Chanakya cites for various sections. Otherwise, he is getting away with whitewashing the article. Below, I have documented what he has done. For each problem section, I first quoted Chanakya's version; I then pointed out the problems in the form of replies.

==== July 2005 ====
During the summer trials in 2005, it was reported that the Arjun had low accuracy, frequent break down of power packs and problems with its gun barrel", and "the tanks also had problems with consistency, recorded failure of hydropneumatic suspension units and shearing of top rolls" as well as a "deficient fire control system", "low speed in tactical areas", and "the inability to operate in temperatures over 50 degrees Celsius".<ref>[http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw050921_1_n.shtml System failures stall Arjun trials ]</ref><ref name=indianexpress-antony /><ref>{{cite news | url = http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/File_Defects_found_in_Arjun_tank_during_trial_Govt/articleshow/3012911.cms | publisher = [[Times of India]] | title = Defects found in Arjun tank during trial | date = [[2008-05-05]] | accessdate = 2008-10-02 }}</ref>

:My rebuttal: Sources cited for this section are 1) http://www.janes.com/defence/land_forces/news/jdw/jdw050921_1_n.shtml, 2) http://www.indianexpress.com/news/Arjun-tank-fails-winter-trials,-Army-Chief-writes-to-Antony/297768/ and 3) http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/File_Defects_found_in_Arjun_tank_during_trial_Govt/articleshow/3012911.cms

:The problem is that 2) and 3) do not belong in this section. Why? Because these two sources are about the trial results in 2008. What are they doing here under 2005 section? [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 23:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::Because it has this historic information in it the information of the 2005 trials.[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk:Chanakyathegreat|talk]]) 09:50, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:::NO they do NOT. Did you even read them? Where do they say about 2005 trial results? [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 15:05, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:::: Have to agree here. Chanakya, you honestly expect us to believe a 2008 article talking about "the latest round of user trials" is going back three years without mentioning it? Please, if you want credibility, you have to do better than that. You can, just do it. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 05:09, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

==== Summer 2006 ====
After trials in summer 2006, the trial report (written by the army) said: "The accuracy and consistency of the Arjun has been proved beyond doubt."<ref>[http://www.hinduonnet.com/2007/05/13/stories/2007051301111000.htm Fourteen Arjun main battle tanks delivered to the Army]</ref> The army accepted the Arjun for introduction into service, based upon its driving and firing performance.<ref>[http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=320574
Armed forces prefer Russian armour]</ref>

:My rebuttal: Sources cited are 1) http://www.hinduonnet.com/2007/05/13/stories/2007051301111000.htm and 2) http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=320574

:Neither source is from 2006, the year this subsection is concerned. Instead, 1) is from 2007 and 2) is from 2008. What is more, they raise more questions than answers. 1) states that "User Field Trial" report proves Arjun's accuracy and consistency was beyond doubt, but 2) states that it was not the "User Field Trial" but the "Firing Trial" that proves Arjun's accuracy and consistency. Accuracy and consistency have to do with a tank's firing performance, but not its other performance aspects.

:Moreover, 1) is really questionable. The article claims that Arjun is completely "indigenous". How can it say that when the fire control system, the engine, the transmission, the LAHAT missiles, and even the tracks are all foreign made? This article is really shaky, in my opinion.

:Indigenous because it's designed, developed and built in India. You know that many tech that go into the Super power U.S.A indigenous Abrams tech are from Germany and Britain.[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk:Chanakyathegreat|talk]]) 04:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

:Perhaps more troubling, 2) was written by "Ajai Shukla". Where have I heard of this name before? Oh yeah, Mr Shukla is a blog author. Chanakya tried to use Ajai Shukla's blog (http://ajaishukla.blogspot.com/2008/07/nailing-some-more-falsehoods-about.html) as a source, but it was rejected by consensus months ago. Now, Chanakya wants to use yet another piece written by "Ajai Shukla" as a source. Come on, I am seriously begin to think that all the good things said about Arjun actually came from no more than 3 people.

:And they were the journalists on the ground. Do you think this is a mega event that news agencies from world over will flock to India to report about the Arjun MBT trials. Whether it is three or one it is enough and you have no right to call a journalist who works for a reputed news agency like NDTV and goes to the places where he need to be to collect the information as a blog author. He is a real journalist and not a journalist sitting in his office writing the stuff in imagination. He has got a nice blog as well. So what's your problem?

:Chanakya ignored an important source (http://www.indianexpress.com/news/arjun-main-battle-tanked/16589/1). Unlike Chanakya's sources, this source was written in 2006. It clearly states, based on the 2006 Trial Reports submitted to the government committee, nagging problems still dogged Arjun in 2006. I therefore added the content provided by this source, but without cutting out Chanakya's edit. Instead, I stated that conflicting accounts exist over the trial results of 2006. [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 01:46, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::Indeed it is written in 2006, only the content is from history.[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk:Chanakyathegreat|talk]]) 09:51, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Your reply makes no sense at all. Care to elaborate? Indeed the apple is red, it's from the color. What? [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 15:08, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::::The article is from 2006, but the content is about the failures of the past.

::::It is after the 2006 summer trials that the Army report suggested that the "accuracy and consistency of the Arjun tank was proved beyond doubt".[http://www.ndtv.com/convergence/ndtv/story.aspx?id=NEWEN20070025577] Remember that the report is not about just the gun but about the tank. So in the Summer trials no problem was found in the Arjun. It's plain simple.

:::::Again, you did not read it carefully. Your source clearly states"Last June FIRING trials noted that the 'accuracy and consistency of the Arjun tank was proved beyond doubt.'" Where did it say 2006 "Summer Trials" like you have been claiming? You do know that you are at the English version of wikipedia, right? Most editors here read English just fine, and apparently better than you can. [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 22:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

::::What the link says is "accuracy and consistency of the Arjun tank was proved beyond doubt." It uses Arjun tank. No problems were reported in the article as well hence the trial is a success. This is not what I say but the Army report is saying. Simple as that. [[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk:Chanakyathegreat|talk]]) 04:22, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

::::Also note that: The MoD admitted this year to the Parliament's Committee on Defence that the "Arjun's firing accuracy is far superior to other two tanks."

:::::So what? A tank is not just about the accuracy of its guns. This point of your does not prove a thing, so stop flailing random quotes around without logic.[[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 22:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

::::And that that "MBT Arjun is specifically configured for Indian Army requirements, and the T-90 does not have some of the advanced features of MBT Arjun."[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk:Chanakyathegreat|talk]]) 04:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:::::Yeah, but T-90 is a proven tank, fielded by the Russians. Where is Arjun after 36 years?[[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 22:24, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

Fielded by Russians? You make me laugh. They have not introduced T-90 beyond 200 numbers or so. They are waiting for the Black eagle. I am not saying that the T-90 is such a bad tank. It's a cheap tank that can be mass produced and has good mobility and firepower and lacks in good armour protection, latest suspension systems, crew comfort, less space and reduced future upgradation. The T-90 is based on the T-72 tank.[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk:Chanakyathegreat|talk]]) 04:06, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

: First of all, any more off-topic discussion about the merits of the T-90 and this whole thread is being archived and we start over. Stay on topic, both of you. First, as to [http://www.hinduonnet.com/2007/05/13/stories/2007051301111000.htm this], why not "In 2007, Major General H.M. Singh, a director in charge of trial and evaluation, said that the last year's user field trial report had certified that the accuracy and consistency of the weapon system was proved beyond doubt."? That's neutral and that's what it says. The point isn't to just make blanket statements and make a citation. Let's try to include both views, but make sure to give the names of the people spouting the views. Leave it to the reader to determine credibility. For [http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=320574 this], we can add that as a source to the field trial report statement. While it is a blog, the other source adds credibility, at least here. By78, could you put a link on my talk page to the prior discussion about Shukla? Is the issue that he has been shown to be false before, or just a simple "he's a blogger so no"? However, to claim that it was put into service "based upon its driving and firing performance '''over the years'''" should mean the 2006 trials is a bit much. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 05:04, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

::The current edit is like this "It was remarked by Major General H.M. Singh in 2007 that the Firing Trials of 2006 demonstrated "the accuracy and consistency of the Arjun has been proved beyond doubt." It's true that the H.M Singh did comment. But he was quoting from the Army report that was submitted by the Indian Army. Check the link[http://www.hinduonnet.com/2007/05/13/stories/2007051301111000.htm] which says. "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." Here the user is the Indian Army and the report is by the Indian Army. The second link[http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=320574] which is more accurate. It says "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." Now for the final and ultimate proof, the Ministry of Defense Goverment of India Annual report 2006-07[http://mod.nic.in/reports/MOD-English2007.pdf] which says "After successful user validation trials during summer 2006 five tanks have been handed over to the Army in June 2006". Now the third link[http://www.indianexpress.com/news/arjun-main-battle-tanked/16589/1] can be disregarded since it's utterly wrong and says the Army says the trial failed whereas we have the Ministry of India report states that the trial was a success."[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk:Chanakyathegreat|talk]]) 15:46, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

==== Exercise 2007 ====
The Arjun tank was fielded during the exercise Ashwamedha in the deserts of Rajasthan.<ref>[http://www.india-defence.com/reports/3097 Arjun MBT to Participate in Indian Army Desert War Games]</ref> The Army had no complaint about the Arjun tank and was satisfied with its performance during the exercise. <ref>[http://www.india-defence.com/reports/3098 Arjun MBT Unofficial Trials: Indian Army Satisfied With Performance in Rajasthan]</ref>
:Sources cited are 1) http://www.india-defence.com/reports/3097 and 2) http://www.india-defence.com/reports/3098

:My rebuttal: Again, 2) does not support the claims made here. It clearly states "SO FAR, report sources, the Army has absolutely 'zero complaints' from the performance of the Arjun Tank in dusty, hot desert conditions in Rajasthan". "So far" is not the same as "in conclusion". So what eventually happened? I have added a source (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/India/File_Indian_Army_unsure_about_Arjun_tanks_role/articleshow/1994156.cms) that tells you precisely what happened in the end. It clearly states that 14 defects were found with Arjun during the 2007 exercise.

:What Chanakya did here is just wrong. It's like someone covering a football game would announce, "so far, team A is up by 14 points over team B at the half. I hereby declare team A won the game by the final score of 10-0!".
[[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 23:17, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::By78, the link Times of India article never claims about trouble during the trials. They are talking about the 14 defects that existed before and not during the exercise. All those list are cut and paste job from prior articles. Shoddy journalism. What the army said was this ""If improvements are required in the system, it will be pointed out (to the developers, Defence Research and Development Organisation)," the army chief maintained.

::"We will draw lessons from the exercise on which area they (the Arjuns) can be best exploited," he added. "
[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk:Chanakyathegreat|talk]]) 09:43, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::Agree that the problems existed till and during Exercise Ashwamedh. But it is not the way you put it. Those articles seems like a copy paste job from previous articles. Even though the problem may with something else only these problems get reported. But still there were problems so your edits can stay.[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk:Chanakyathegreat|talk]]) 10:16, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Appreciate the agreement. [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 15:10, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I will appreciate you if you can get the correct problems that existed. It's not the ones as mentioned. It can only be minor ones. [[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk:Chanakyathegreat|talk]]) 04:40, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:::By78, here is the link after the exercise and it says "Army has zero complaints".[http://www.india-defence.com/reports-3142][[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk:Chanakyathegreat|talk]]) 14:50, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

==== AUCRT (2007-08) ====
Auxillary User Cum reliability trials (AUCRT) of the Arjun MBT was conducted from September 2007 to summer of 2008. In a report to the Parliamentary standing committee the Indian army deemed Arjun's performance unsatisfactory, including at least four engine failures.<ref name=indianexpress-antony>{{cite news | url = http://www.indianexpress.com/story/297768.html | title = Arjun tank fails winter trials, Army Chief writes to Antony | publisher = [[The Indian Express]] | date = [[2008-04-17]] | accessdate = 2008-10-02 }}</ref> The defense minister presented this report before the parliament, later published by Press Information Bureau Government of India (PIB).<ref>{{cite press release | url = http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=38445&kwd= | title = Arjun Battle Tank | publisher = Government of India, Ministry of Defence | date = [[2008-05-05]] | accessdate = 2008-10-02 }}</ref>

The Army wrote in the report that during the "accelerated user-cum-reliability trials" (a.k.a winter trials) in 2008, the Arjun "was found to have failure of power packs, low accuracy and consistency, failure of hydropneumatic suspension units, shearing of top rollers and chipping of gun barrels".<ref name = May2008PIB>[http://pib.nic.in/release/release.asp?relid=38445&kwd= Government of India, Press Information Bureau (PIB), Arjun Battle Tank Lok Sabha release]</ref>

The parliamentary committee to which the report was submitted pointed out that "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. 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".<ref>[http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=320574 Armed forces prefer Russian armour]</ref> Sabotage was suspected, but the Army rejected that any sabotage happened during the trials.<ref name=nomorearjuns>[http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/No_more_Arjuns_for_Indian_Army/articleshow/3200344.cms Times of India, No more Arjuns for Indian Army]</ref><ref>[http://www.thaindian.com/newsportal/uncategorized/sabotage-suspected-in-arjun-tank-engine-black-box-installed_10070965.html Thaindian News, Sabotage suspected in Arjun tank engine; black box installed]</ref>

:My Rebuttal: Regardless if these trials are about Performance or Reliability, the PIB report clearly list the problems as "DEFECTS", not parts wearing out due to normal usage.[[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 23:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

Later the Army admitted that the report submitted to the Parliamentary committee was a mistake. According to the Indian Army "few minor snags were found with the gear box of the Arjuns and they were no engine failures as reported earlier and even the main gun of Arjun MBT performed exceptionally well in the trials"<ref>[http://www.idrw.org/2008/04/28/army_takes_a_uturn_on_arjun_tank.html Army Takes a U-Turn on Arjun tank]</ref>

:My rebuttal: The source cited (http://www.idrw.org/2008/04/28/army_takes_a_uturn_on_arjun_tank.html) is a BLOG. What did we say about using a BLOG as authoritative source? [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 23:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

At present DRDO and the army are locked in an impasse over the further order for the Arjun, above the present 124.<ref>[http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?tp=on&autono=41594 Business Standard, Army wants futuristic MBT, death knell for Arjun]</ref>

:My Rebuttal: In summary, there you go again, Chanakya. You keep clinging on the sabotage allegation, which was already mentioned in the previous edits. However, I state again, as documented by all the sources, that the unproven sabotage allegation was about the failed "gearbox" and NOTHING ELSE. This still leaves the problems with low speed, broken rollers, tracks, suspension, fire control system, gun barrel, low accuracy, etc. Stop leveraging the possible sabotage of the GEARBOX to discount all the rest of problems with Arjun. Your source (http://www.business-standard.com/india/storypage.php?autono=320574) claims that there are factual inaccuracies with the PIB report, fine. But it does not say these other problems were fake, does it? It only says Army allegedly reported Reliability Trials as Performance Trials. However, nowhere in this PIB report does the Army characterized it as a Performance Trial. In fact, the only factual inaccuracy your source cites is the Army's mischaracterization of a GEARBOX failure as an ENGINE FAILURE, which again was already covered by previous edits as possibly due to sabotage. What more do you want?
:Also, what about the other sources I provided about Arjun's problems during the Summer Trials? You managed to focus only on the PIB report, what about these other sources? Oh, I know what you did with them. Instead of taking them on point by point, you managed to shuffled them around so they now mysteriously end up in sections having to do with 2005 trial results and the section titled "Futuristic main battle tank (FMBT)"
:At first, I was puzzled at how these sources on 2008 trial results mysteriously ended up in sections having nothing to do with 2008 trials results. Now, it became clear to me that you have sneaked around to scatter and bury them in other parts of the article to conceal them because you can't deal with the fact that they say something you do not want to acknowledge. You did this so you can exclusively cling onto the PIB press release, as you have always done, as a way to discredit all the latest criticisms on Arjun. Not cool dude, not cool. [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 23:18, 3 October 2008 (UTC)

::Remember that I had not removed the PIB link or contents of it like you remove.
:::What? Don't accuse me of something I did not do. I have never removed the PIB release. In fact, you are the one who has been keen to discredit it, but of course, the irony is that you were the one who first provided the PIB release as a source. [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 22:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::IDRW.ORG is not a blog. It's a defence website like the Janes.
:::I am not aware that Jane's is a BLOG (sarcasm intended). In fact, IDRW.ORG is a BLOG having to do with defense industry.[[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 15:12, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::Army said the report was a mistake and indeed there was no trouble with the tank during the trials except the gear box.
:::Circular reasoning. IDRW.ORG, a BLOG, said the Army said the report was a mistake. If you are so insistent on this point, why not provide additional sources? [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 22:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::Also I would like to point out that there is no latest criticisms of the Arjun but we saw recently lot of praise for the Arjun for the tank it is.[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk:Chanakyathegreat|talk]]) 09:48, 4 October 2008 (UTC)
:::This is a shocking news to me. Care to provide sources to back up this claim?[[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 22:19, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

::www.idrw.org is not a blog. If we believe your version, Janes and all newspapers will become blogs. I leave it to the Admins to decide.[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk:Chanakyathegreat|talk]]) 04:27, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Yes it is. Jane's does not have a blog format, with a calendar, and allows you to comment on the entries. If it did, it'd be a blog.[[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 22:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

::Different path, shining path etc is not suitable for the heading, if it is about the FMBT put it that way.[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk:Chanakyathegreat|talk]]) 04:28, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I think it is. FMBT is NOT. Why? Because the section also covers the additional orders of T-90, not just FMBT. Did you even read the section?[[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 22:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

::No problem with the AUCRT. Remember it was you who insisted on a single AUCRT but now you want it to be separate. If you want two sections for the same AUCRT(winter and Summer), we can have it. I don't have any objections.

:::No, it was you who insisted on a single AUCRT section. You added AUCRT section where by 2007 Winter Trials and 2008 Summer Trials were merged. You have a disturbing pattern of attributing what you did to other people. What's next? Are you going to tell me that I was born in India? Do you not think that we can easily go back to history and see clearly it was you who used AUCRT? [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 22:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

::The section must be complete and clear. There must not be no confusion. There must be the links and edits about the problem reported by the Army, the parliamentary committee report and depending on the Admins opinion, the idrw.org link as well and the summer trials being successful.[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk:Chanakyathegreat|talk]]) 04:49, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:::I agree, this section must be clear and fair; then why did you keep trying to mess up the consensus version, which contained many approved sources? Stop using BLOGS. [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 22:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:::OH, would you please INDENT your replies?! If you don't know what INDENT means, use a dictionary. What does it take to get this simple point into your head? [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 22:36, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

ENOUGH. Chanakya, everyone knows what [http://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Arjun_MBT&diff=next&oldid=242663276 this is]. The fact that you called it "updated" is enough for me. That is extremely disruptive and a complete misrepresentation of what you were doing. If you do another edit like that again, you will be blocked. Period. No more warnings about it. This game ends now. If you want something changed, you will discuss it and get consensus first. There has been enough. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 23:29, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

== Suggestion... ==

I suggest we go back to the previous, and still standing, agreement that Chanakya submit his changes for peer review before incorporating them into the actual article. I seriously do not have the time to fix his mess. [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 02:33, 4 October 2008 (UTC)

== IDRW ==

I'm splitting into a separate section. There is no need for long arguments over 1000 topics simultaneously. In my view, IDRW is a blog. It is unreliable as a general matter. In contrast, [[Jane's Information Group]] has been around since 1898. Who exactly is the writer for IDRW? If you disagree, Chanakyathegreat, provide specific links with exactly what you want to say and we can discuss them BEFORE we put them in the article. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 23:44, 5 October 2008 (UTC)

:Agreed. IDRW is a blog. [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 21:57, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

Around since 2000 B.C.E is not that matters. Whether it's a blog or a Defense related website is that matters. If it is a blog, I don't have any objections to the removal of section relating to the Army's accepting the PIB report as mistake. But the parliamentary committee view and the links that say summer trials are a success must be added. [[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk:Chanakyathegreat|talk]]) 04:14, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:Please submit sources that say Summer Trials 2008 were a success. It's time for peer review. [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 01:18, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:: Make it a separate section, By78. I don't want this section to divert off-topic. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 03:06, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

: First, one more comment without the proper formatting and I'm blocking you. I'm serious about this. You've been told multiple times and it is close to impossible to follow. My patience with this game is enough. Have enough respect for everyone else to not make their lives more difficult for no reason at all. <s>Second, are you going to seriously claim that IDRW.org has existed in some form since 2000 BCE? Is your goal to simply go as far as you can without statements like that and see if they work or are you at all remotely serious about this?</s> I'm not discussing anything else. Answer my question about the IDRW.org, not about whatever you are talking about. Any more off-topic discussions in this section will be ignored by me. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 04:30, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

:: Sorry, I misread your comment. Ok, if you agree that the IDRW is a blog, then it's unreliable and cannot be used as a source. If so, this thread can be closed and we can move on. Whatever else you want to include, offer a link ''as a new section'' and we'll discuss it there. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 04:35, 6 October 2008 (UTC)

== Summer 2008 trials ==

Chanakyathegreat, ok, you said that you want "the parliamentary committee view and the links that say summer trials are a success" added. Please provide those sources in this section (and indent your comments properly). -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 03:08, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:[http://in.news.yahoo.com/139/20080712/808/tnl-arjun-tank-not-being-thrust-on-the-a.html] says Despite continuing criticism from the Army establishment, the Arjun has successfully completed a gruelling 5,000-kilometre summer trials in the Rajasthan desert.

::Seesh. You keep posting the same old REJECTED BY CONSENSUS sources. Instead of a re-write of the consensus response, I will quote the response from before "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." [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 22:02, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::Who rejected it. You rejected it. No one has the right to reject anything in Wikipedia unless it is from some blog. Is this your blog that you want a link to be taken out because you don't like it. Remember that this is Wikipedia. What kind of argument your are placing. This comment is not made by any DRDO source but written by the journalist after investigation. No quotes are used in the statement that, Despite continuing criticism from the Army establishment, the Arjun has successfully completed a gruelling 5,000-kilometre summer trials in the Rajasthan desert.

::So the Arjun did successfully complete the trials. Simple as that.03:41, 8 October 2008 (UTC)[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk:Chanakyathegreat|talk]])

:Also there is an attempt to link the Arjun and T-90 in terms of induction into service. This need to be delinked. From the above source "The T-90S and the MBT Arjun tanks are of different class. Both tanks have their own special features. The MBT Arjun has more power to weight ratio, hydro-pneumatic suspension for better ride comfort and a stable platform to fire on the move, better quality class of Gun Control System and Fire Control System etc.

::No, T-90 and Arjuns cannot be delinked. All sources point to Arjun's diminished future due to the introduction of more T-90 units (1347 T-90s to be precise). Otherwise, why would there be 1300 more T-90s while the Arjuns are "capped" at 124? Stop ignoring the facts. More T-90s were ordered because Arjun was behind schedule and experiencing nagging problems. Don't take my word for it. The following sources all say the same thing: http://inventorspot.com/articles/russia_and_india_agree_transfer_key_technology_t90_tanks_18045, http://www.defenseindustrydaily.com/India-Plans-to-Cap-Arjun-Tank-Production-04984/, http://www.deccanherald.com/Content/Jul52008/national2008070577076.asp?section=updatenews. Now, can you provide sources to back up your claim that Arjun and T-90 are in fact delinked? Furthermore, why would the Indian Army commence the development of a Futuristic Main Battle Tank (FMBT) at this juncture? Sources clearly state that Army wants to cap Arjun at 124, use T-90s as a stop gap, and focus on a new FMBT for the future. [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 02:58, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

:The missile firing capability of Arjun was demonstrated during field trials. The T-90S tank has missile firing capability and lower silhouette. Tanks of both the class are required by the Indian Army."

::How is the above relevant? How does the above titbit demonstrate that Arjun is now problem free? How about an example to demonstrate my reasoning: I have five kids, and I need a big Ford SUV to haul them to school and to soccer games. However, I also love sports cars, so I bought a BMW. My big Ford SUV has had five problems, but my BMW has remained problem free. Both vehicles are needed. Do you see where I am getting at? Just because I need two types of cars does not prove the Ford SUV is "flawless". Just because the article claims the Indian Army needs two main battle tanks (although this claim itself is dubious), it does not make any of the two flawless. [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 22:14, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Here we are not talking about flawlessness or perfectness. You did try to link the two to state that if there is T-90 there will be no Arjun. That's the reason you are putting this "different path" section. You are again trying to deviate from the subject. You can have your Ford car and BMW and both can be problem free as well.[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk:Chanakyathegreat|talk]]) 03:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

::::You did not respond to my point at all. Furthermore, I never said there will be NO Arjun because Army ordered more T-90s. All I said was, the prospect for Arjun's widespread (and don't tell me 124 units can be called widespread) adoption is diminished. What is so controversial about this statement? If you object to it, then write to the editors of the sources I have listed and argue with them. [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 01:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

:Also from another source[http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2008/07/25/stories/2008072550320800.htm]
:"It was only a year ago, the 14th parliamentary report by the Ministry of Defence stated that, Arjun Tank Mark-II production will be taken up after the successful completion of the first order of 124 Arjun tanks. The same report stated that, “MBT Arjun is a 60-tonne class battle tank with state of the art opto-electronic power-packed control system, weapon management system and high performance suspension. It is a product unique in its class, specifically configured for the requirements of the Indian Army.". So both tanks will be inducted.[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk:Chanakyathegreat|talk]]) 04:00, 7 October 2008 (UTC)
::This source (http://www.thehindubusinessline.com/2008/07/25/stories/2008072550320800.htm), which is an OPINION (clearly stated on top of the webpage) written by a "former Member" of "ordnance factories", makes NO claim that Arjun's 2008 Summer Trial was a success. In fact, it cited the following regarding the Arjun, "the Defence Minister informed that Arjun was found to have low accuracy, frequent break-down of power packs and problems with its gun barrel in the recent accelerated user-cum-reliability trials. The tanks also had problems of consistency, recorded failure of hydro-pneumatic suspension units and shearing of top rolls." Also, I have this to ask about the author of this OPINION piece: who is this FORMER factory worker, and what is his connection to the Arjun project? What gives him the insight and up-to-date information on Arjun's 2008 Summer Trial results? What did we say about verifiability? I rest my case. [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 22:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

:Report after exercise Ashwamedh which says the Arjun completed the exercise successfully.[http://www.india-defence.com/reports-3142][[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk:Chanakyathegreat|talk]]) 14:47, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::This source (http://www.india-defence.com/reports-3142) is dated from MAY 5th, TWO-THOUSAND-SEVEN (5/5/2007). What is the source doing under this discussion section, which is titled "SUMMER 2008 TRIALS"? [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 22:27, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::Do you, Chanakyathegreat, have any verifiable source (not opinions, not sources from 2007 or earlier, not blogs, not forum postings, etc.) that claims 2008 Summer Trials were a success? Could you please at least provide an official government report of some kind that says the 2008 Summer Trials were successful? All we got from you so far are third hand sources connected to the DRDO (not from DRDO directly), a FORMER ordinance factory worker's opinion, and outdated sources from 2007 or earlier. You will have to do better than this before your edits are accepted. [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 22:34, 7 October 2008 (UTC)

::: Why not have both? The army says they failed, sources close to the DRDO says they didn't. That actually seems more reasonable to me, and is probably closer to the truth. Assuming ANI [http://in.news.yahoo.com/139/20080712/808/tnl-arjun-tank-not-being-thrust-on-the-a.html here] is the [[Asian News International]], and we are getting it from Yahoo! News, so it is reliable that their source from DRDO says they succeeded. The fact that we don't know who the source is isn't that important. Some of the army citations simply say "the army", so why should we expect an individual to be named by DRDO? It's probably just a publicist anyways. By78, it is a reliable source that says an unnamed source close to the DRDO says they succeeded. That's clear. What else that means is up to the reader. They can determine from the rest of the history about what's going on. Is that a fair compromise? Also, consensus can change so please don't run with "it was rejected before and rejected now." -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 04:49, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

::::Look, Arjun's problems have been documented by the government and the Army, and in both cases, many NAMED people directly connected to those institutions expressed their misgivings about the Arjun. I understand DRDO holds a different point of view, and that is to be expected. However, the real problem is that none of the sources who side with DRDO actually comes from DRDO. I mean, where is DRDO's named sources on this? I am reluctant to admit third-hand accounts and former ordinance worker's opinions because they have low verifiability. We know where the Army stands on 2008 Summer Trials, because we've got the reports and the quotes from the generals and government committee members. But what do DRDO's spokesperson, project manager, or scientists have to say? Do we really want the article to say that on the one hand, government officials and the generals say one thing, and third-hand sources and an ordinance worker say another? This is why I have been asking for first-hand sources from the DRDO to back up the opposing view. Thus far, Chanakya has not provided a source with that, in my opinion, passes the verifiability threshold of wikipedia. However, I have been fairly accommodating, going so far as to even integrate into the article unproven sabotage allegations and DRDO's insistence on Arjun's viability. I would like to do more for DRDO's point of view, provided that someone can come up with some verifiable sources (I looked for them myself, but I could not find any). [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 22:52, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

::::: I say we have to take what we can get. The source is reliable that an unnamed source close to the DRDO says they didn't. People can read what they will. The DRDO wouldn't seem to explicitly announce that they disagreed with the army's results, but that would look clearly stupid to say that you disagree with the buyer's test on your product. If we end up with "unnamed sources vaguely alleges DRDO had sabotage, did fine, succeeded" and "General this and the army clearly says this", that's fine. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 23:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

::::::I agree. We can take what we can get. I also think we need to adhere to Wikipedia's standard on verifiability. I have always been and will remain open to adding new, relevant information to this article. Despite Chanakya's questionable sources, I in fact added his POV on this matter, "DRDO, on the other hand, has insisted the tank was a viable choice for adoption and suggested the unsatisfactory performance of the engine during the winter trials was due to sabotage." If Chanakya can provide stronger sources, I have no problem with adding more on DRDO's take on this matter, provided the sources are verifiable. As of now, I am still waiting for those sources. I am pretty set on NOT accepting the opinions from "former ordinance factory worker" and third-hand sources regarding DRDO's view points. If DRDO had something to say and said it, then there ought to be better sources out there. Meanwhile, see this: (http://pib.nic.in/archieve/others/2008/apr/r2008042813.pdf) regarding what the government said about the Arjun project. I plan on incorporating it in the future. [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 04:03, 11 October 2008 (UTC)

Also, the biggest problem is a lack of details. Here's a simple one: on what dates where the trials run? That helps us say "the government said on XXXX, DRDO either said this first or responded" which makes the story clearer. I don't feel like running through all the articles but it's clearly possible to do that. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 04:51, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

::Agree. Except we have only sources that cite what the Army and the government said, but we have none from DRDO in response. We need those sources. I looked for them, but I have come up empty in the last hour or so. Will do more searches. [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 01:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)

::By78, I did a mistake by posting the Ashwamedh exercise 2007 link also in this section. It is also being posted in the Ashwamedh exercise section, you can answer it there.[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk:Chanakyathegreat|talk]]) 05:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)

:::Ricky, I am not against listing the problems from the PIB link, the parliamentary committee comment, suspecting sabotage of the trials, army rejecting sabotage angle and the trials being successful (the gear box problem that occurred in reality, the Renk team inspection and sorting the problem must also be added after sabotage.. and before trials being successful).[[User:Chanakyathegreat|Chanakyathegreat]] ([[User talk:Chanakyathegreat|talk]]) 05:28, 8 October 2008 (UTC)


==Feeder Pattern==
::::Let go of the gearbox and the sabotage. They are right there in the article. Did you read it? They've been there for a while. What about the faults with deficient fire control system, the wheels, the tracks, the gun barrel, etc.? Sure, the gearbox's been fixed, whatever, but what about the rest? You still have not provided sources that back up your claim that these other specific faults have been fixed. This is the crux of the problem. [[User:By78|By78]] ([[User talk:By78|talk]]) 01:56, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
This school feeds into the following schools:
*[[Ronald W. Reagan/Doral Senior High School]]


{{Florida-school-stub}}
:::* Stay on topic. You claimed that summer trials were a success. Sources on that topic only. Successfully completing a test is not the same as completing the test successfully, especially since the army would clearly have higher standards than "just get the thing past the finish line." Anything else at this point is disruptive. And responses of "it's too complicated to actually find someone to call it a success so here's a tons of bits and pieces that together sounds like it is a success" will not work. That is called [[Wikipedia:No_original_research#Synthesis_of_published_material_which_advances_a_position|synthesis]] and is not allowed. Period. Last, you indent one further than the person you are responding to. Indenting the same as the person you are responding to again makes it impossible to follow. I only stopped indenting because we were too many indents down. -- [[User:Ricky81682|Ricky81682]] ([[User talk:Ricky81682|talk]]) 23:26, 9 October 2008 (UTC)
{{Miami-Dade Public Schools}}

Revision as of 03:05, 13 October 2008

Eugenia B. Thomas K-8 Center
Location
Doral
,
Florida

USA
Information
TypePublic primary-secondary
EstablishedElementary- 1999, Middle- 2007
School districtMiami-Dade County Public Schools
PrincipalMayra B. Falcon
GradesPre-K - 6
Enrollment2,064
CampusSuburban
Color(s)Teal, White, and Navy Blue
MascotBlue Marlin
School hours8:30 AM to 3:00 PM
Average class size30
WebsiteEugenia B. Thomas K-8 Center Homepage

Eugenia B. Thomas K-8 Center is a K-8 Center located at 5950 NW 114 Avenue, in Doral, Florida; its principal is Mayra B. Falcon.

History

Officials of the Miami-Dade school district and the city of Doral gathered for the groundbreaking ceremony for the upper class building in September 2006. The new building which currently houses 6th and 7th graders only can accommodate 1,642 students and features amenities including a cyber café, wireless Internet access in classrooms and a black box theater for student performances. The new facility provides enrollment relief to the nearby Doral Middle School, which now has more than 2,000 students. [dubious – discuss]

Feeder Pattern

This school feeds into the following schools:

Stub icon

This Florida school-related article is a stub. You can help Wikipedia by expanding it.

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Arjun_(tank)&oldid=244908317"