Jump to content

Talk:Indian coal allocation scam

Page contents not supported in other languages.
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Untitled

[edit]

I don't think that Coal Mining "Scam" is a right heading. I know the report mentions loss of 10.67 lakh crore but that was caused by Govt's policy. Unlike 2G scam there is no proof that bribes were paid. I think the article should be named as Coal Mining Scandal or Coal Mining Controversy or anything similar to this. --aryan wiki (talk) 13:49, 24 March 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Harsh (talk) 07:49, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I agree that it the subject is more than a mere controversy: there are clearly allegations of corruption, Parliament shut down, a criminal investigation, etc. Nevertheless the term, "scam" suggests that those involved in coal allocations are actually guilty, i.e. taking the BJP's side in the argument. I wonder if "Coal Allocation Scandal" doesn't capture the essence of what is going on without taking a position on whether the Government or the BJP is in the right. CoffeeKing (talk) 21:32, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]
no DisagreeA scam signifies that there were wrongdoings. A scandal signifies that it is only regarded as something wrong. I also completely disagree with your thinking that a scam suggests that those involved are actually guilty. That's just your interpretation. Harsh (talk) 11:59, 11 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

POV description

[edit]

"Coalgate" is a corruption scandal. There is nothing alleged about it. Whether there was actually corruption is another matter. However if the Comptroller and Auditor General of India accused the Government of acting in "an irregular and arbitrary manner", it would seem the evidence of actual corruption is significant. I suggest that the sentence be broken up into separate sentences.203.184.41.226 (talk) 06:15, 28 August 2012 (UTC)[reply]

CBI Investigation

[edit]

Who initiated the CBI investigation? In the introduction, it references public outcry; in the body of the article it says that the CVC, in response to complaints from two BJP members, referred the matter to the CBI. While there is no question about the public outcry, I would suggest that the introduction be edited to reflect the actual process detailed in the body of the article.

CoffeeKing (talk) 12:56, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

There were actually two inquiries. The first inquiry was initiated one month prior to the C&AG Report. The second one as pointed out in the Investigation section was initiated by CVC due to complaints received from BJP MP's. Harsh (talk) 13:48, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Excellent! Do we have a reference for the first inquiry and any results? — Preceding unsigned comment added by CoffeeKing (talk • contribs) 17:44, 7 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

I think that we have a decent discussion of the CAG/Singh facts here, but on what we have written so far, it is difficult to see why this is considered a "scam" and why allegations of corruption are front and center in the current debate (when neither the CAG nor Singh mentioned them). To get to this, we need to discuss the CVC and the CBI (and why the first is considered ineffectual, and the latter considered corrupt). Rather than discuss this in the Coal Allocation article, I'm heading off to the articles on the CVC and CBI for a week or so to bring some more content to them.CoffeeKing (talk) 20:49, 13 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Why was this edit removed?

[edit]

--Dilseredilsere (talk) 17:53, 8 September 2012 (UTC)Why was this edit removed ( 15:36, 8 September 2012‎ CoffeeKing)? There is a valid reference and is related to the article. P.S : Am new to Wikipedia.[reply]

According to a Hindustan Times report,in July 2005, Prime Minister Manmohan Singh opted out of coal block auction and approved a decision that the ministry of coal should continue to allot blocks for captive mining through the screening committee procedure until competitive bidding was made operational.[1]

Hi, considering you are new to Wikipedia, here's some advice:
  • Whenever you are referring to some edit that you've made please use the diff so that others know what you're trying to explain. Read about it here -->WP:D&L
  • Don't use the reference name again when you've already put ref tags and mentioned the publisher name

And the edit you made was probably removed by another editor, perhaps because he thought that it was irrelevant or misplaced in the article. Harsh (talk) 11:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

Hi Dilseredilsere. I agree with you that the HT report is a useful one and should be included in the article. The place you attached it was just a plain description of the findings of the Draft CAG Report, and I was planning on putting off a discussion of the merits of these findings until later in the article. Over the next few days, I plan on adding sections on the protests over the Summer, the Final Report, and Manmohan Singh's response to the report. It is in this last section that I hope to reflect the different viewpoints on the key CAG allegation, and plan on reinserting the HT reference there, along with other references. Please be patient for a few days, and see if you like what you see. CoffeeKing (talk) 13:30, 9 September 2012 (UTC)[reply]

References

  1. ^ "Prime Minister opted out of coal block auction in 2005". Retrieved 08 Sept 2012. {{cite news}}: Check date values in: |accessdate= (help)

NEW USER

[edit]

Please expained me coal allocation scam properly. I want to understand it more better. 7/nov/2014--116.203.78.65 (talk) 16:41, 7 November 2014 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just added archive links to 3 external links on Indian coal allocation scam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If necessary, add {{cbignore}} after the link to keep me from modifying it. Alternatively, you can add {{nobots|deny=InternetArchiveBot}} to keep me off the page altogether. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true to let others know.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—cyberbot IITalk to my owner:Online 08:11, 26 February 2016 (UTC)[reply]

[edit]

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 4 external links on Indian coal allocation scam. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, please set the checked parameter below to true or failed to let others know (documentation at {{Sourcecheck}}).

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

  • If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
  • If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 14:09, 21 July 2016 (UTC)[reply]

Retrieved from "https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Talk:Indian_coal_allocation_scam&oldid=1207709848"