Edge Rewrite
everything Source code View original
// HTMLRewriter · presentation

This page was redesigned at the edge.

Cloudflare fetched the original article and streamed it through HTMLRewriter to apply an entirely new visual system without rebuilding the source page.

// request.cf · coarse context

A page that knows where it met you.

Only coarse request metadata is shown. This demo does not display or persist visitor IP addresses.

Country
US
Cloudflare location
CMH
Connection
HTTP/2
Language
Not provided

Ray ID: a285b9745b6b6c75

Jump to content

Talk:Raheja Developers/Archive 1

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
< Talk:Raheja Developers
Latest comment: 6 years ago by Maproom in topic Page for deletion
Archive 1

Untitled

Raheja developer but this developer has no fund to complete the project.. And some brokers commission also seized by this Raheja developer.So we are requested to all don't book flat or plot anything to this raheja Developer... Raheja Developer chor Hain.

Negative content

Latest comment: 11 years ago4 comments4 people in discussion

Why leoaugust is deliberately trying to post only negative content about this company?Sanjeev.08 (talk) 04:52, 6 January 2015 (UTC)

  • It looks like he was adding it because it had been on the news. I'll warn you up front- we cannot have only positive material in an article. If something has gained negative attention in the media enough then it should be covered in the Wikipedia article. Tokyogirl79 (｡◕‿◕｡) 05:43, 6 January 2015 (UTC)
What I understand and have heard is organisational war happening here. Thankfully it has been protected. However, I have one concern regarding this link: It’s Builders Vs Buyers in the Indian Real Estate Industry. The link is actually a blog and not a new article. How to go around that? -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 09:09, 19 January 2015 (UTC)
Not all blogs are bad. That one appears to be hosted by Forbes, which suggests that some editorial oversight goes on. As such, it should be ok. Although I'd prefer a hard news story to a blog any day. - Sitush (talk) 14:06, 21 January 2015 (UTC)

News sites

Latest comment: 11 years ago3 comments3 people in discussion

I edited some facts yesterday, but someone said that there is no evidence for political stunt. I want to say that there is also no evidence for proving this project as a scam. If both of us are correct, then according to me this paragraph should not be on wikipedia as it is just an article of news sites. So it might be present on news site, but can not be on wikipedia. If I am wrong please correct/insist me.Aarvig (talk) 04:54, 10 March 2015 (UTC)

Dear Aarvig, could you please document the change you did her so that we can reach consensus; by inviting other editors who have contributed so far. -- ♪Karthik♫ ♪Nadar♫ 17:30, 14 March 2015 (UTC)
We are not attempting to "prove" anything. The purpose of Wikipedia is to present verifiable material with a balanced, neutral, point of view. If independent news sources report something, then that can be included in the article. We do not need to prove that what the news source is reporting is true. Therefore, if news sites are stating it is a scam - then that's what goes in the article. If others report it is a political stunt then that too goes in the article. QuiteUnusual (talk) 14:32, 18 March 2015 (UTC)

Spelling and out-of-date? URL

Latest comment: 11 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Reference [1]
   title=Busness Week: Raheja Devpers Ltd
probably should be
   title=Business Week: Raheja Developers Ltd

Also, the URL
   http://investing.businessweek.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=42411522
actually goes to
   http://www.bloomberg.com/research/stocks/private/snapshot.asp?privcapId=42411522

86.171.199.114 (talk) 03:22, 13 May 2015 (UTC)

Contested deletion

Latest comment: 11 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion

This page should not be speedily deleted because I don't see any strong evidence of vandalism. --Leoaugust (talk) 11:25, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I have removed the deletion request. The issues is purely one of POV-pushing by people with vested interests - they have been trying to sanitise this article ever since it was changed from the puff piece that they wished to see here. - Sitush (talk) 12:33, 6 June 2015 (UTC)

I again submitted for removal of this article. I request some other person to check my request who is not involved in VendalismAarvig (talk) 06:47, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

It will not get deleted so stop trying. You may request deletion at WP:AFD, however, I would say it is highly unlikely to result in deletion. Why? Because you do not have, or at least haven't made, any valid case for deletion. QuiteUnusual (talk) 08:19, 9 June 2015 (UTC)

Suggested changes

Latest comment: 10 years ago17 comments4 people in discussion

Conflict of interest

Latest comment: 10 years ago2 comments2 people in discussion

I have just reverted the changes made by Mr RD (talk · contribs), who has been paid to edit this article. I acknowledge that they have declared their conflict of interest and I also acknowledge that it is quite probable that this article is skewed against the subject due to the involvement of people who have not admitted having a conflict.

The article is a mess and has been plaqued by non-neutral editing for months, perhaps even from its very origin. It needs a very careful review of sources and a very strict approach to WP:RS (one of the bigger problems of sourcing here has historically been the use of recycled Raheja press releases, for example). No-one - literally, no-one - who has a conflict of interest should be editing the article. They should propose changes here. - Sitush (talk) 01:13, 13 January 2016 (UTC)

Thanks Sitush, that was well done. Jytdog (talk) 10:44, 22 February 2016 (UTC)

Request edit on 5 March 2016

Latest comment: 10 years ago13 comments3 people in discussion

In the history section, kindly add:

"In 2008, Tata Housing Development Company and Raheja Builders invested Rs 700 crore in developing a residential project, Raisina Residency in Gurgaon.[1] According to a press release issued by Tata Housing, in 2009, Raisina Residency received Gold Certification from Indian Green Building Council (IGBC), Green Homes rating, making it the first project to receive a gold certification in the residential space from IGBC.[2]

In August 2015, Raheja Developers tied up with BookMyHouse.com to sell its apartments.[3]"

References

  1. ↑ "Tatas, Rahejas to invest Rs 700 cr on residential complex". Business Standard. New Delhi. PTI. 7 August 2008. Retrieved 4 March 2016.
  2. ↑ "Tata Housing's Raisina Residency bags IGBC gold certification". Business Standard. Mumbai. PTI. 14 July 2009. Retrieved 5 March 2016.
  3. ↑ ETRealty Bureau (6 August 2015). "Raheja Developers ties up with BookMyHouse.com, books 500 apartments online". Economic Times. New Delhi. Economic Times. Retrieved 5 March 2016.

- — Preceding unsigned comment added by Mr RD (talk • contribs) 19:03, 4 March 2016‎ (UTC)

We will not use press releases as sources (and please do not make future edit requests cited to press releases) and the last item is trivia. See WP:NOTNEWS. Jytdog (talk) 19:05, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Source was Economic Times which took verified news from PTI.
Please sign your posts. I won't do that going forward, and I won't respond if you don't. Your own content says the content from a press release and the Business Standard just regurgitates it - there is no reporting there. Jytdog (talk) 19:15, 4 March 2016 (UTC)
Dear Jytdog, first of all I'm extremely sorry for such late reply; I was on holidays. I must have missed my signature while copy-editing my previous comment. Now, regarding the Gold Certification rating, it is a press release from Tata Group (which is considered as one of the most reputed conglomerates of India). I do not think this come as any extraordinary claim that's why I included it. Please let me know if I'm wrong. I found it on Business Standard article which took information from PTI which ultimately took the news from Tata's press release.
Also please let me know if there are problems with my other statements. Happy to help, Mr RD 17:11, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
The origin of the press release is irrelevant. Secondly, you misrepresent the piece, which says that Tata received the gold certification, for its residency. ("With this certification, the Tata firm becomes the first company in India to receive a gold certification in the residential space...") And if you cannot see that the incorrect content that you proposed about the development getting some "gold certification" is intended to promote Raheja, then I will have to consider filing a COIN or ANI case to get you topic banned from this article, as that would mean that you are utterly incapable of editing neutrally on this topic Please acknowledge that you have misrepresented the source and attempted to promote Raheja here. Jytdog (talk) 17:14, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Raisina project was a partnership project between Raheja and Tata. As far as I know, it is the project that got the award not the company. That is why I mentioned it. Please correct me if I'm making some mistake here. Mr RD 17:39, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
I already did correct you - I even re-linked to the source and quoted it.' Last chance - acknowledge that you misrepresented the source and did so to promote Raheja, and say that you will not waste the community's time with this sort of thing again in the future. Jytdog (talk) 17:55, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
It was a complete misrepresentation by Mr RD (talk), who has the benefit of being able to double-check with Raheja Developers, rather than playing petty semantics with published articles. The Raisina project was first launched by Raheja Developers who had purchased the land. But, Rahejas failed in marketing and selling the project. The project was then taken over by Tatas, who did EVERYTHING from marketing to constructing. Rahejas had absolutely no role in the project, except that their logo is on the marketing materials of the project by virtue of them being the land owners. Every award won or certification received is for Tatas, and Rahejas are just piggy-backing on the Tata brand. Rahejas had absolutely no role in the development of the project. Mr RD can easily confirm with Rahejas, and all the explanations that he is giving here are absolutely false. Leoaugust (talk) 18:30, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
In that case I apologize for my mistake and wasting your precious time. Mr RD 18:57, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Volunteer time is precious - it is what makes this entire project work. It is not something you should dismiss sarcastically and definitely not something you should abuse by misrepresenting sources to promote your client. Jytdog (talk) 19:03, 14 March 2016 (UTC)
Dear Jytdog, Sorry if it appeared sarcasm to you, it genuinely wasn't. I appreciate what all Wikipedia editors are doing for greater community good. I request you to kindly let me know if there is any problem with other two statements. Thank you Mr RD 17:16, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

{{od}]Wikipedia is not a news site or a company web page, recording regular events in the life of a company. It is an encyclopedia that records accepted knowledge of enduring interest. It is WP:NOTNEWS. Jytdog (talk) 17:48, 17 March 2016 (UTC)

Hi Jytdog (talk) The causality is not as definitive as implied in the sentence "It also worked with Haryana Urban Development Authority on affordable housing in Sohna region of Gurgaon in January 2015, in the face of low demand in premium real estate." HUDA is a govt body that launched affordable housing scheme to encourage construction of low cost housing for the lower-income sections of society, and provided certain tax breaks and relaxations in building norms. It was not directly tied with the worsening market situation of real estate in general, but more of a socialist endeavour by the govt. The price reduction that Raheja provided in its Sohna project was related to market pressures as even at that low cost there were few takers for the project; and moreover that specific project where prices were reduced did not fall under the "affordable housing" scheme of the govt. So, it might be better to just state "It also launched the Krishna Housing Scheme (http://www.raheja.com/raheja-krishna.asp) in Sohna in January 2015 under the affordable housing policy of Haryana Government (http://tcpharyana.gov.in/notifications%20&%20judgements/Notification_AFFORDABLE_HOUSING_POLICY_2013_Finalised%2018.08.2013.pdf)" and drop the "in the face of low demand in premium real estate" part. But, in spirit, you are right about the fact that Rahejas entered the affordable housing segment because of the dwindling demand in their premium product offerings. Leoaugust (talk) 01:56, 18 March 2016 (UTC)
OK with a few tweaks. Jytdog (talk) 02:16, 18 March 2016 (UTC)

Edit request - 14 April 2016

Latest comment: 10 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Kindly add the following under awards section:

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

References

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

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

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

Edit request - 10 June 2016

Latest comment: 9 years ago11 comments5 people in discussion

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

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

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

References

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

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

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

Headline - Homebuyers in Raheja Vedanta, Gurgaon, reach settlement with builder, will withdraw court cases (It does not mention Atharva, and none of the buyers from Atharva have settled.)
Apartment owners of Raheja Vedanta had approached the Delhi High Court (The news report is wrong as the case has not been filed in Delhi High Court, but in Punjab & Haryana High Court.)
However, on Friday, Joe Saggar and Raj Kumar Khanna, who had filed the petitions on behalf of 130 buyers claimed that they have reached out of court settlement. (For clarity, there are 2 cases filed by buyers of Vedaanta against Raheja Developers - one in Punjab & Haryana High Court by Joe Saggar & Raj Khanna ONLY, and another by 130 buyers which includes Joe & Raj in National Consumer Disputes Redressal Commission, NCDRC. The case by Joe & Raj has been withdrawn from the P&H High Court, but the case still is continuing at the NCDRC with little over half of the 130 members dropping out with Joe & Raj. It is misleading to imply that all 130 buyers have settled.)
A majority of the 130 litigants has agreed to the settlement after the builder agreed to their demands, Khanna said. (A MAJORITY of the buyers have settled, not ALL as the Edit Request is stating.)

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

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

Raheja Atharva buyers (numbering 103) have filed a case in Punjab & Haryana High Court, and also a case at the National Consumer Disputes Resolution Commission. Not a single person has withdrawn here.
Raheja Vedaanta buyers numbering 130 have filed a case in NCDRC, and about 70 of them have withdrawn their case, while the case is continuing on behalf of the others. Raheja Vedaanta buyers Joe Saggar & Raj Khanna had filed a case in P&H High Court which they have withdrawn, but on May 24, 2016 five other buyers from the group of remaining at NCDRC have taken the same complaint of Joe & Raj and after adding more grievances filed a new case at the P&H High Court against Raheja Developers.

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

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

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

Sitush thanks for commenting. Just a couple of procedural notes. Mr RD has every right to post suggestions on Talk and indeed that is what we want paid editors to do. And Leoaugust has declared a COI (see tags at top) and is also welcome to comment here on the talk page. Will look at the request and reply in a moment... Jytdog (talk) 06:11, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I am well aware of the procedure but when it descends to this level of misrepresentation it is scary. The only positive is that we have one from each side, fighting each other. - Sitush (talk) 06:27, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
Hi, firstly, I'm not in direct contact with Raheja Developers as said by LeoAugust. I'm hired by a PR agency who work on their behalf. I've disclosed the name of the person who hired me. I am not entirely aware about the the legal proceedings and their numbers like any of you except Leo who happens to know these information. I'm not even sure if they are right or wrong. Therefore, I can not comment on that. As far as my request go, I specifically quoted a group which represented the buyers (By that I mean, Joe Saggar and Raj Kumar Khanna, who had filed the petitions on behalf of 130 buyers as mentioned in the news article). On other issue I also tried to see the govt. website in this matter regarding the number of cases. The website appears to be outdated to me as no recent legal proceedings were recorded in there. To me this issue seems like more of government infrastructure related than the fault of buyer (but again who am I to decide?). Mr RD 19:31, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
I am still looking at this and the current content in our article about this. pls be patient. Jytdog (talk) 19:37, 10 June 2016 (UTC)
And Mr RD, appreciate your reply. Can you please take this opportunity to check the facts with Raheja Developers? There is no reason why you cannot seek clarification from the PR Agency/ Raheja Developers once this matter has been raised. The aim is to verify the information once an objection has been raised. Thanks. Leoaugust (talk) 07:53, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
And a couple of articles referenced on the WikiPage of Raheja Developers seem to have been removed from the Forbes website. Seems that the PR Agency is doing its job well :-) The removed articles and the buyer comments can be seen archived at Archive.Org
Reference 36 - https://web.archive.org/web/*/http://forbesindia.com/blog/business-strategy/its-builders-vs-buyers-in-the-indian-real-estate-industry/
Reference 28 - https://web.archive.org/web/20151222120037/http://forbesindia.com/article/special/pmo-asks-haryana-to-probe-complaints-against-raheja-developers/39249/1
Leoaugust (talk) 08:26, 11 June 2016 (UTC)
Marked this edit as declined due to no consensus being reached. There was extensive discussion this June but no progress has been made since. Altamel (talk) 03:13, 16 September 2016 (UTC)

Fully protected edit request on 14 October 2016

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

A protected redirect, Raheja Production, needs redirect category (rcat) templates added and to be focused to an article section. Please modify it as follows:

  • from this:
#REDIRECT [[Raheja Developers]]
{{This is a redirect}}
<!---->
  • to this:
#REDIRECT [[Raheja Developers#Raheja Production]]

{{Redirect category shell|
{{R from merge}}
{{R from subtopic}}
{{R to section}}
{{R printworthy}}
}}
<!---->
  • WHEN YOU COPY & PASTE, PLEASE LEAVE THE SKIPPED LINE BLANK FOR READABILITY.

The {{Redirect category shell}} template is used to sort redirects into one or more categories. When {{pp-protected}} and/or {{pp-move}} suffice, the Redirect category shell template will detect the protection level(s) and categorize the redirect automatically. (Also, the categories will be automatically removed or changed when and if protection is lifted, raised or lowered.) Thank you in advance!  Paine  u/c 01:21, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Done — Martin (MSGJ · talk) 12:46, 14 October 2016 (UTC)
Thank you, Martin!  Paine  u/c 13:38, 14 October 2016 (UTC)

Raheja requests support

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments4 people in discussion

At WP:OTRS ticket:2017041210013139 a representative of Raheja wrote to Wikimedia New York City with legal and editorial concerns. I referred them to this talk page and to WMF legal. I wanted to make a note here about the communication. I told them that Wikimedia NYC does not have any particular ability to respond to their requests. Blue Rasberry (talk) 15:20, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

Rahejas have already filed a criminal & a civil case against Wikipedia in India. They seem to have started the page as a marketing page, and have been trying to shut down the page been ever since other volunteers have started editing this page. Right response from NYC, and let the Indian Courts find the way forward. Rahejas are basically forum shopping. Details of Raheja cases can be found on this website http://services.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindia/cases/case_no.php?state=D&state_cd=14&dist_cd=6. For the 1st case click on the given link and Choose Court Complex, then District & Sessions Court Complex, Gurgaon, Case Type as Cs (Civil Suit), Case Number as 1574, and Year as 2016. For the 2nd case against Wikipedia Choose Court Complex, then District & Sessions Court Complex, Gurgaon, Case Type as COMI - COMPLAINT IPC, Case Number as 491, Year as 2015. Leoaugust (talk) 17:42, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

In fact, there is something else of interest, as in the same court that Rahejas have filed cases against Wikipedia, over 100 buyers of Raheja's homes have filed criminal complaints of cheating and fraud against Raheja Developers. The details can be seen at this link http://services.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindia/cases/ki_petres.php?state=D&state_cd=14&dist_cd=6 Choose Court Complex, then District & Sessions Court Complex, Gurgaon, Petitioner/Respondent as Raheja, and Year as 2017. You can find the list of over 100 complaints against Raheja Developers. Leoaugust (talk) 17:50, 13 April 2017 (UTC)

The 100 complaint which Leoaugust is talking have been filed by few investors who have not paid the basic price of apartment and are not taking possession of apartments just to avoid maintenance charge, apartment payment etc. refer to orders passed by the court: "....monetary disputes between applicant and the respondents/developer, direction under Section 156 (3) Code of Criminal Procedure is wholly unwarranted. Resultantly, prayer stands declined." http://services.ecourts.gov.in/ecourtindia/cases/display_pdf.php?filename=/orders/203800001472017_3.pdf&caseno=COMI/147/2017&cCode=3&appFlag= — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmsingh2000 (talk • contribs) 16:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Doesn't really matter, both of you. We should not be using primary sources such as court documents. - Sitush (talk) 16:43, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Raheja's Clarifications on Allegations with Proofs

Latest comment: 9 years ago6 comments5 people in discussion
The writer of this thread has been indeffed by Bishonen.Winged Blades Godric 11:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The following discussion is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

The discussion above is closed. Please do not modify it. Subsequent comments should be made on the appropriate discussion page. No further edits should be made to this discussion.

Finally Raheja Developer got huge relief from Punjab and Haryana High Court Civil Writ Petition filed by Atharva Owners Weflare Association vs State of Haryana and others has been dismissed.... https://phhc.gov.in/enq_caseno.php?var1=CM&var2=4653-CWP&var3=2017 . The so called Atharva Owners Welfare Association had fear of dismissal of writ petition, they opted to withraw... — Preceding unsigned comment added by Rmsingh2000 (talk • contribs) 18:16, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

Improvements to the Raheja Atharva, Gurgaon section

Latest comment: 9 years ago7 comments2 people in discussion

The Raheja Atharva, Gurgaon is a bit of a mess, with outstanding cite requests, confused chronology and some issues tagged as needing clarification. Furthermore, it does not seem to take account of reports such as this, which appear to indicate that at least some measure of settlement has been achieved in the dispute(s). - Sitush (talk) 15:47, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

And this book might be useful for the Kathputli section. It's usually a good thing to use reliable books rather than news sources, where possible. - Sitush (talk) 16:07, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

The issue of this link in "Hindustan Times" has been discussed earlier on the talk page, and no consensus was achieved on posting it. https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Raheja_Developers&diff=next&oldid=724758602 -Leoaugust (talk) 17:10, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Thanks. So has anything been settled or not? I can't recall the last time you provided anything about Raheja that was not detrimental to the image of the company, and yet the company, despite all the alleged issues, continues to operate. I know the property world is corrupt everywhere and that India is a country particularly susceptible to corruption, and I also know that Indian legal and other dispute resolution processes are long-winded beyond belief ... but nonetheless something doesn't ring true here. - Sitush (talk) 17:36, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
No updates in the media. All that has been published are Raheja's ads, and sponsored articles in supplements like "HT Estates" & "Times Property." So, it is hard to bring anything on record into Wikipedia. This is a corrupt builder, and not very newsworthy. -Leoaugust (talk) 18:05, 18 April 2017 (UTC)
Ok. It's all very strange. - Sitush (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

by above comment/ discussion it reveals that Leoaugust has conflict of Interest against Raheja Developer this is evident from his statement....This is a corrupt builder, and not very newsworthy.

Finally Raheja Developer got huge relief from Punjab and Haryana High Court Civil Writ Petition filed by Atharva Owners Weflare Association vs State of Haryana and others has been dismissed.... https://phhc.gov.in/enq_caseno.php?var1=CM&var2=4653-CWP&var3=2017 . The so called Atharva Owners Welfare Association had fear of dismissal of writ petition, they opted to withdrawn...

Like I said to you an hour or so ago, we can't use court documents. Stop it, please. We've got enough crap on this talk page without you adding more to it. If something is not directly related to improving the article and/or cannot in fact be used to improve it, there is no point raising it. - Sitush (talk) 18:28, 18 April 2017 (UTC)

If it is evident from the clarifications of Raheja contributor that logo has been use without their permission same be deleted. Even if Raheja developers page has been create by same one with motive to defame and cause harm be deleted. The policy of the Wikipedia foundation is to share information. The platform is not for misuse and defame anyone

A balanced version...

Latest comment: 9 years ago11 comments7 people in discussion

I took my time and after evaluating all the sources and WP:WEIGHT(esp. in case of an article where almost all the major contributors have COI one-way or the other), I have heavily edited and trimmed the article. @Sitush and Leoaugust:--Take a look!Winged Blades Godric 03:52, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

I think it is ok. Thanks for doing that work. Jytdog (talk) 04:42, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
Brutal trimming, but I concur. -Leoaugust (talk) 05:29, 19 April 2017 (UTC)
I probably would have retained something about their involvement in the Kathputli affair, which was the only farrago of which I am aware that hit international headlines, but otherwise ok. - Sitush (talk) 08:11, 19 April 2017 (UTC)

Hi Sitush, we are not here for personal involvement in the page. By our personal involvement someone else may seek personal benefits. Such things must not be encouraged. we all are just contributing here our thoughts, idea and knowledge. This page seems to be a fight between Leoaugust and other editors with this Raheja Developer, it may be for their mutual gains and growth. My point of view is remove and delete the entire Raheja Developer page.

Apart from this if the contribution is unbiased must be encouraged everyone was new at initial stage. It is all that matters is his contribution — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appmarch (talk • contribs) 09:46, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

If it is evident from the clarifications of Raheja contributor that logo has been use without their permission same be deleted. Even if Raheja developers page has been create by same one with motive to defame and cause harm be deleted. The policy of the Wikipedia foundation is to share information. The platform is not for misuse and defame anyone

I do not agree with Sitush, violation of any law whether applicable in India or in any other country must not be allowed on Wikipedia platform. Any thing which has been edited or created without approvals must be deleted Rmsingh2000 (talk) 17:43, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

  • Making a final attempt to contact User:Rmsingh2000; Rmsingh2000‚ your own talkpage is here. Are you not aware of that page? Please go there now and read all the posts urging you to sign your posts on talkpages, and start complying. It's frankly a bit useless to post on talkpages and not sign, because then other people won't know who said what, or even where posts end and begin. It's becoming disruptive. Bishonen | talk 16:55, 25 April 2017 (UTC).
I agree that the page itself must be deleted, rather than improved. In this age of Trump why even bother thinking through because everything is great, and the sole purpose of everything is just entertainment. There is only a slim chance that someone will provide a countervailing view of to what Raheja's agents will write. Better, shut the page down rather than to allow them unrestricted play. -Leoaugust (talk) 10:13, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
I take back my "delete" vote, and think the page should be retained even if only in a skeletal form. Raheja Developers and their good/bad deeds will not go away. Updates can be made to the page as further developments take place in the future. -Leoaugust (talk) 18:04, 25 April 2017 (UTC)

I vote for deletion of the Developer page. It is not of an importance few editors may be paid by this Developer may have added some clarifications, this material is nothing by advertisement on Wikipedia portal. This kind of acts must not be permitted on Wikipedia platform. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Appmarch (talk • contribs) 19:29, 29 April 2017 (UTC)

Latest comment: 9 years ago10 comments5 people in discussion

One of the things the alleged Raheja contributors have been raising of late is a desire for us to remove their trademarked logo. Now I know that the image was uploaded by someone who claimed to have permission from the company and whom our SPI determined to be pro-Raheja socks, some at least of whom were being paid, but I'm still a bit wary of their claim regarding permission. In any event, we don't actually need the logo - it is more of a courtesy thing to aid identification. Should we remove it and then request deletion of the file as it complies with WP:NFCC but is not in fact used?

This is nothing to do with the numerous threats and wild accusations that have been made. I am not worried about them but I am genuinely dubious regarding the status of the logo. - Sitush (talk) 13:43, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Keep--Per Black Kite.Winged Blades Godric 16:52, 25 April 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment - then again, the entire point of NFCC is that we don't need permission? Or, at least, the WMF is satisfied that it can host images under the NFCC procedures, regardless of whether or not the uploader might have broken a law in India. I hate trying to work out what happens with images - it's all far too confusing for me. - Sitush (talk) 14:24, 24 April 2017 (UTC)

Black Kite has a good point. I'm happy to drop this, deferring to those who are more au fait with such things. I did say that image stuff is not my strong suit! - Sitush (talk) 23:42, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

New References for Environmental Issues

Latest comment: 9 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion
Could I also suggest a couple of articles regarding National Green Tribunal against Raheja Developers for environmental violations? http://realty.economictimes.indiatimes.com/news/regulatory/ngt-notice-to-raheja-centre-state-for-flouting-green-norms/55236841 and http://indiatoday.intoday.in/story/ngt-builders-regulations-space-environment/1/802126.html -Leoaugust (talk) 11:59, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
What has this got to do with the paragraph about companies with whom Raheja has worked/partnered? Honestly, Leoaugust, it seems that every post you make here is an attempt to dig up dirt. I know there is a lot of it but we removed a lot a few days ago and now you seem to want to bloat the negativity again. You've acknowledged a conflict of interest, I think, but that is not carte blanche to continue some sort of campaign. - Sitush (talk) 12:15, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
You are right, as I should have started another section. Due to COI I am not making any changes, but just suggesting them. It is for the other Editors, including you, to take cognizance (or not) of what I write. The context of this is the Environmental violations in the Raheja projects that were mentioned earlier. These are 2 new updates of the same. This was earlier discussed extensively in https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=2LaGZCUP_gw If it still does not merit a mention, so be it. Truth is stranger than fiction - fiction has to make sense and be balanced, truth does not. So, apologies if I am coming on too strong. - Leoaugust (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Euromoney

Latest comment: 9 years ago8 comments5 people in discussion

About this

Awards

From 2011 to 2013 Raheja won the Euromoney real estate polls for "best developer of India".[1]

References

So i looked at Euromoney, and I didn't find these awards. It is a wierd publication so I might have missed it. but the indian express mention of this is kind of churnalism-y. do we have any other sources for this, closer to Euromoney perhaps? Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

There are tons of Indian sources for 2016 with some quoting the earlier years as well (though they could have lifted the 2011 to 2013 years from Wikipedia - the Indian press tends to use this site as a substitute for research). --regentspark (comment) 02:10, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Yep and that is not what i asked for. Jytdog (talk) 02:25, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I have never found it. I thnink it has been mentioned before - at one point there were a large number of awards listed but they were removed as fake or industry back-slapping etc. - Sitush (talk) 07:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
The results of the "by country" survey 2013 are here (similarly for other years), behind a paywall. I tried signing up for a free trial but unfortunately that does not grant access to the archive. Are you saying that the 2013 "by country" survey shows another winner for India, or does not list India at all? Or just that you couldn't find that page on the Euromoney website? Huon (talk) 07:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
(edit conflict) My trial has long since ended but I can still see the initial search results. They are definitely listed in the rankings for the 2012 Real Estate Survey (whatever that is?) but without full access I can't recall what significance that may have. - Sitush (talk) 07:50, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I've just removed the mention of the Euromoney thing from the lead. Since Jytdog removed the bit in the body, the bit in the lead is now completely unsourced - WP:LEAD / WP:V. - Sitush (talk) 12:44, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
If we are digging into dead links to see if they are relevant to the Raheja Developers story, can I suggest 2 links. Please also look at the numerous comments at the bottom of the articles (esp 2nd link) to evaluate their relevance. They are https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20151127025440/http://www.forbesindia.com/article/special/pmo-asks-haryana-to-probe-complaints-against-raheja-developers/39249/1 and https://web-beta.archive.org/web/20151119072736/http://forbesindia.com/blog/business-strategy/its-builders-vs-buyers-in-the-indian-real-estate-industry/ -Leoaugust (talk) 08:02, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Raheja Productions

Latest comment: 9 years ago5 comments2 people in discussion

Since this edit removed the section about Raheja Productions, what is to be done about the redirect from Raheja Productions? I'm not sure why the simple statement was removed - it is not in doubt. - Sitush (talk) 12:48, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

This recent stuff is brilliant. People with little previous involvement with this article sweep in, cut it and bugger off. Nothing more is heard of them when queries are raised. I'm almost tempted to revert the damn lot. - Sitush (talk) 23:55, 8 May 2017 (UTC)
Anyone? - Sitush (talk) 13:12, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
I found the Raheja productions content to be lame. The article was not notable and the redirect was just do ....something with it. It really has nothing to do with the development company. If we had an article on Navin Raheja it could go there, I suppose, but that redirects here too. Jytdog (talk) 19:55, 14 May 2017 (UTC)
So delete the redirect. I am still unhappy with some of the removals, as per the discussions above. In particular, the removal of the one thing that Raheja were involved with and that actually got international attention. - Sitush (talk) 23:15, 15 May 2017 (UTC)

Quality of references

Latest comment: 9 years ago18 comments5 people in discussion

I'm unhappy with the quality of references in the current revision of the article and will shorten it to get rid of the unreliable and non-independent ones. In particular:

  1. Bloomberg is a business directory whose editorial oversight is at best dubious. It's also cited for content it doesn't confirm and in part contradicts.
  2. "Tata Housing to develop 200 lakh sq. ft." has mostly quotes by involved personnel, no coverage of Raneja by The Hindu itself.
  3. Lessard Design is a broken link that the Wayback Machine cannot recover because the site's robots.txt forbids it; it wouldn't be independent coverage anyway.
  4. Reference 4 repeatedly timed out on me, and due to the rather unimaginative title of "Times of India Publications" I have no idea what it's supposed to be.
  5. Reference 5 finally is a source that looks reliable to me and says what it's cited for.
  6. This is an ad (compare last sentence: "As on date Pictures shown in the ad are artistic impression only."
  7. References 7-9 look good to me.
  8. Reference 10 is a government document, a primary source. A secondary source would be needed.
  9. I have no idea what this is, but it doesn't have so much as a single sentence of human-written content about the company.

I'll stop here with listing the problems in detail. Some serious pruning is in order. Huon (talk) 23:02, 1 May 2017 (UTC)

Don't. You need to be very careful here unless you are familiar with the history. I, too, have had doubts about the article and I've had them for a long time but the convoluted history needs careful consideration, not a quick review. I've no idea if you have access to OTRS but I do know that Radeja associates have been trying every method possible, including that resort, to get their way here. This article has been at ANI, DRN, SPI etc and somewhere along that route will have been looked at by a good few people. It has also been subjected to a massive sock/meat effort. So, yes to a source review but no to a unilateral effort. - Sitush (talk) 23:27, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, it seems you did it. I reverted. Look, I know better than most that this article has been skewed and that most of the contributors - usually socks - have been an absolute pain in the arse but that doesn't mean we should strip it back any further than was recently done. It has been under quite a lot of scrutiny from people who most definitely are not acting for Raheja and I am somewhat astonished that so many apparent "faults" have been found. I know for sure that at least one of them was ok, even if it is now unavailable - I checked it myself, ages ago. - Sitush (talk) 23:47, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
You are right about your #6. I am off to bed but happy to see that go if others agree. - Sitush (talk) 23:50, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
Well, except for the point that L&T (whoever they are) do appear to have been involved in the Aranya project. Perhaps search for better sources before deleting? - Sitush (talk) 23:55, 1 May 2017 (UTC)
I have pointed out specific problems with the first few references above. The others were no better but I ran out of patience listing all the flaws. I went through every single one of them and removed what I found to be clearly unreliable or clearly irrelevant, such as multiple articles that did not mention Raheja Developers at all. If you think I went too far, you're welcome to point out which of the references I removed were good, and to re-add the content based on those references. For example, do you consider it appropriate to base content on an ad? If not, why did you re-add the ad reference? Do you consider it appropriate to use references that don't mention the subject? If not, why did you re-add several of those? Do you consider it appropriate to base content on the announcements of company spokespersons? If not, why did you re-add several sources where all the information was directly from such spokespersons? And regarding "perhaps search" - the burden of evidence is on the editor who wants content included. For one issue I actually did look for a better reference and found one, but you apparently prefer not to have it in the article. Huon (talk) 00:06, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I was uncomfortable at first but i think the additional trim here was an improvement. Jytdog (talk) 01:13, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
And I still say that given the history of the article Huon came in like a bull in a china shop, rhetoric and all. I promise you, at least one of those removed sources was ok but is now dead. This isn't an attempt to turn the article in Raheja's way - just look a couple of sections above where I said we should reinstate the one event (Patpuli Colony) that has been reported internationally (and which was damaging to the company), yet no-one responded. - Sitush (talk) 07:04, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
I agree with Sitush (talk) that the Kathputli Colony Slum rehabilitation project is worthy of reference on the Raheja Developers page. A quick Google News Search with the keywords Kathputli Colony, DDA, Raheja, etc will reveal a lot, esp that has happened in the last 3 to 4 months. In fact, a documentary was made on this http://www.twdfilm.com/ - called Tomorrow We Disappear. The basic story is that in the garb of slum rehabilitation the Delhi Development Authority & Raheja Developers conspired to remove the slum dwellers from their homes with promises of apartments in the newly developed project. Only about 500 or so of the 3200 slum dwellers were swayed by these promises. The stand-off continues. Some of the recent articles on this subject are http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Delhi/High-drama-at-Kathputli-Colony/article16907977.ece http://indianexpress.com/article/cities/delhi/kathputli-colony-puppets-on-a-string-4476288/ http://indianexpress.com/article/delhi/delhi-mcd-polls-swaraj-india-candidate-dilip-bhatt-fight-keeping-homes-intact-4625628/ http://indianexpress.com/article/india/delhi-tempers-flare-as-dda-police-try-to-relocate-kathputli-colony-locals-4436162/ and a quick search will reveal many more. Sitush also dug up references in many books of Kathputli and the ongoing stand-off. — Preceding unsigned comment added by Leoaugust (talk • contribs) 07:40, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
It would help if I got the name right :( One of the international angles I found was March, Stephanie. "Slum artists refuse to leave as Indian developer attempts to bulldoze homes in New Delhi". ABC News Australia. We do, of course, have Kathputli Colony. - Sitush (talk) 07:45, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Here it is in Time Magazine http://time.com/12073/india-kathputli-colony-of-street-artists-to-be-demolished/ and here in the Wall Street Journal blog https://blogs.wsj.com/indiarealtime/2014/03/06/magicians-slum-wont-disappear/ -Leoaugust (talk) 07:52, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
The removal was in this edit. The section was a mess but the significance of the involvement cannot really be disputed. - Sitush (talk) 12:42, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Huon, your #2 rationale - Tata Housing to develop 200 lakh sq. ft." has mostly quotes by involved personnel, no coverage of Raneja by The Hindu itself. would be relevant if this was a discussion at AfD regarding notability of the company (lack of independent coverage). However, even self-published sources do have a limited application in articles for points of fact. That AEDAS were involved in not in dispute, I think, and The Hindu is arguably the only decent national newspaper left that operating in India, certainly the best. You'll find other coverage about it, such as , but more significant is that both Tata and AEDAS themselves acknowledged the connection regarding the Raisina Residency, hence things like this. No-one is damaged by inclusion of the point, nor is it apparently in dispute that AEDAS are a significant architecture firm. The way it stands at present, we're mentioning an outfit for which we do not even have an article but ignoring one for which we do. - Sitush (talk) 08:19, 2 May 2017 (UTC)

Sitush (talk) The reference suggested says "is to be jointly developed by Tata Housing and Mumbai-based Raheja Developers." Notice it says Mumbai-based. This Raheja is not Mumbai based as has been clarified at the top of the WikiPage page as "Not to be confused with Raheja Universal." Further, the story of this project is as follows. Raheja Developers got the licence for this project and called it Raheja Raisina Residency http://www.udayhomz.com/gurgaon/p-raheja-developers-raisina-residency-sector-59-560.php They tried to sell it but failed. In 2008 Tata Housing was planning to start operations with minimal expense. Tata is a trusted brand in India, but they did not have a presence in housing market. So, they took over the project from Raheja and did EVERYTHING in the project. Raheja's name was appended as they had the licence in their name - nothing else was done by Rahejas. You will not find any source that will say that they were really co-developers. In fact, if you visit the Raheja Developers Youtube channel where they give regular construction updates of their other projects - there is not a single video of construction update of Raisina Residency, because they did nothing there. https://www.youtube.com/user/rahejamedia/search?query=tata -Leoaugust (talk) 12:28, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Fair enough, I'll accept the Mumbai-based bit but the rest sounds like a lot of synthesis to me and I'm still astonished that someone as critical as you had allowed it to stand for so long if it is wrong. The cite I mentioned specifically has a quote from Navin Raheja. - Sitush (talk) 12:32, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
Aim was not to deny that the project was Raheja-Tata collaboration. But, just to point out that maybe that Hindu page was not drafted very carefully. It generally happens when the editorial oversight is weak. If it is of value to tell the Raheja story, I will support its inclusion. -Leoaugust (talk) 12:51, 2 May 2017 (UTC)
  • Comment--I would like to advice everybody(self included!) to follow the banner at the top of the talk--Be bold but not reckless.@Huon:--I woul kindly advice you to do a bit of research on Indian WP:RS.For, somebody claimimg--due to the rather unimaginative title of "Times of India Publications", I have no idea what it's supposed to be. a bit of pre-research can come handy.Also, Ref 9 is a gov. source verifying the fact it is used to cite.Winged Blades Godric 14:50, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
I'm familiar with the ToI; that's not the issue. The issue is finding the specific article. If that source had had more metadata - say, the name of the article, the name of the author and the publication date - there would have been a chance of recovering it when the link is broken. The chances of finding the right source with only a title of "Times of India Publications" are... low. Can you tell what that article was about? Can you find it so we can verify if it indeed supports what it's cited for? On an unrelated note, instead of that government source, I actually supplied a secondary source. You removed it. Why? Huon (talk) 20:01, 10 June 2017 (UTC)
Latest comment: 9 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

Someone wrote into WP:OTRS voicing a legal concern at ticket:2017062710013134. I directed them to contact legal@wikimedia.org. I understand that various people have raised legal concerns in the past. I would advise anyone who receives a legal concern about this organization to direct it to the Wikimedia Foundation legal team. Legal concerns, as always, are beyond the ability of Wikimedia community volunteers to address. Blue Rasberry (talk) 14:30, 27 June 2017 (UTC)

Recent News Items

Latest comment: 7 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

There have been some important developments regarding Raheja Developer. Is it appropriate to update the main page to reflect

Delhi Court Calls For Status Report On FIR Against Raheja Developers As Home Buyers Cry Foul
And in the same Raheja Revanta project of the builder the Real Estate Regulatory Authority has ordered for a complete refund of the aggreieved buyer - pdf linked here

Leoaugust (talk) 04:58, 5 June 2019 (UTC)

Insolvency Case Update

Latest comment: 6 years ago3 comments2 people in discussion

As per the NCLAT order dated on 23rd September 2019, a stay order has been put by the Appellate body[1]. The National Company Law Appellate Tribunal]] is assigned by The Central Government to hear appeals against National Company Law Tribunal which supersedes the previous order. My edit was not based on a personal opinion, but a factual representation of legal proceedings. If the article is not updated accordingly, it needs to be recognized as an article which needs to be updated.

Prof Pandaa (talk) 13:51, 24 October 2019 (UTC)

We will update, once NCLAT pronounces final verdict. We are not a news feed. Your edit read as if the insolvency case was dismissed altogether, whereas in reality, an interlocutory injunction was passed against the concurrent enforcement proceedings pending final judgement. Nothing remotely extraordinary in the legal circuit. ∯WBGconverse 08:06, 25 October 2019 (UTC)
It took me a while to understand the murky atmosphere in this page due to the amount of paid contributors, and I was updating this article like most articles related to NCLAT. Having understood all of that and your opinion on We are not a news feed I also would like to tell you about the relevance of an NCLAT order in any mention of insolvency.

Furthermore, you need to consider Wikipedia:Collaboration first and creating harmony needs to be a priority, and I hope the "we will update" includes me as well. I agree that the edit needs to take a different form if it suggested dismissal of the insolvency proceedings. Dhonyobaad.Prof Pandaa (talk) 19:02, 1 November 2019 (UTC)

Page for deletion

Latest comment: 6 years ago1 comment1 person in discussion

I have removed a ProD by Vishal210891. The reason given was "As we don’t want Infringement of our rights by being presented by pseudo accounts who do not represent our company or has any relation...This is illegal!". So Vishna wants to prevent content being added by editors who are not associated with the subject. That is not a valid reason to delete an article. Maproom (talk) 08:50, 15 February 2020 (UTC)

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Raheja_Developers/Archive_1&oldid=1252033409"