Talk:Gautam Adani

message: This article appears to be written like an advertisement.  Most of the contributions are from the same IP address.  There is a very favourable slant in all aspects of the article, including the 'controversy' section which seems largely devoted to dismissing allegations against Adani. The article does not mention serious findings of bribery, corruption and environmental destruction around Adani's Mundra port project.  This article should be rewritten with a neutral perspective.  I would appreciate the input of adminstrators to consider if this article is in breach of Wikipedia rules against promotional articles.RussHawk (talk) 01:51, 12 June 2014 (UTC)
thread_title: Untitled

message: This page is not unambiguously promotional, because... (There is no significant references/sources available.) --Preeti Sharma's Knowledge (talk) 17:30, 3 March 2015 (UTC)
thread_title:  Contested deletion 

message: I have extensively reworked the text of the article as per latest developments. The tonality of the article has been neutralized. Request other editors to make the article better. Thank you Similar2me (talk) 08:55, 1 August 2018 (UTC)
replies: text: This is your first contribution to Wikipedia, and reluctantly, I am having to revert it. Your edit summary of "Updated information and neutralized the tonality" is not really accurate, and removing the POV and  advert tags was not justified. In addition, you introduced far too much overlinking, and too many bare URLs. As a new editor, it is better to try smaller changes, rather than rewriting a big article! Edwardx (talk) 19:58, 1 August 2018 (UTC)

text: Thanks. I have copyedited it somewhat. It still feels too hagiographical. For example, the coverage of the foundation seems excessive compared to the article size. Adani Group is rather worse! Edwardx (talk) 10:00, 3 August 2018 (UTC)
thread_title: Article Updated

message: Gautam Adani was a Collage Dropout NadeemaliproWiki (talk) 14:26, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: it's not clear what changes you want to be made. Please mention the specific changes in a "change X to Y" format and provide a reliable source if appropriate. Cannolis (talk) 18:47, 27 September 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 27 September 2022 

message: "4th Richest person " change to "2nd Richest person" 2405:204:3287:D78C:4977:731A:2AA6:B0A1 (talk) 16:01, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. ScottishFinnishRadish (talk) 16:20, 8 October 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 8 October 2022 

message: Anitrick (talk) 18:13, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Not done: please provide reliable sources that support the change you want to be made. - FlightTime (open channel) 18:14, 14 November 2022 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 14 November 2022 

message: This article used to contain a 'Controversy' section, including mentions of his ties to the government and his rapid rise in wealth (1,500% increase since 2020), that should probably be added back in. Nswix (talk) 22:43, 30 November 2022 (UTC)
replies: text: Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversy" or "controversies".  Sections within an article dedicated to negative criticisms are normally also discouraged. Best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section. See :WP:CSECTION-- Toddy1 (talk) 07:27, 5 February 2023 (UTC)

text: Regarding this edit summary: (1) There already is a discussion of this on the talk page (2) we agree that it is important, which is why it was already mentioned twice in the article: once in the lead and once in the career section. Please explain why you think three times would be better.-- Toddy1 (talk) 20:52, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Controversy 

message: The following citation was given for: 
*
It does not seem to mention the statements it is cited for.-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:49, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: The other citation did mention stuff in the sentence, so I have merely moved the irrelevant citation to here (and provided a correctly completed citation template and archive URL).-- Toddy1 (talk) 14:53, 5 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Gautam Adani is married... 

message: An editor thinks that the article's career section may lend undue weight to certain ideas, incidents, or controversies.   And that parts of it should be rewritten in a balanced fashion.  , does your comment apply to all of the career section?  Or does it only apply to specific paragraphs?  If the latter, please say which.
If we were writing the biography of a football player, we would include details such as his being  and .  Similarly the biography of a football manager would mention his  and .  Surely the biography of an entrepreneur and business manager should do something like that for the businesses he managed.  For example, it is highly relevant that when John Towers was managing director of the :MG Rover Group it went bust and .  I think this logic applies to Mr Adani.-- Toddy1 (talk) 11:57, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: @Toddy1 There's no template to apply on individual paragraphs. But for instance,  is obviously about an acquisition by Adani Group and belongs there, not here in a shareholder's bio. On the other hand, if he bought himself a villa on the Mediterranean coast, it would belong to this article. — kashmīrī TALK 12:55, 10 February 2023 (UTC)

text: Additionally, nowhere in these paragraphs is the reader explained Gautam Adani's role in all these acquisitions. In essence, under Career the reader learns about a dozen commercial undertakings of the Adani Group but is not told what role the article subject played in all of them. — kashmīrī TALK 13:01, 10 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Is the career section unbalanced? 

message: I have removed the following citations:
#If you look at the newspaper article, it is an opinion column.  If you want to put it back in, you need to make it clear that it is the opinion of Meghna Chaudhuri.
#The article on Wikiwand says that it "is a proprietary interface developed for viewing Wikipedia articles". So it is not a reliable source.
I have restored the entirely satisfactory citations that an editor replaced with the above.-- Toddy1 (talk) 15:32, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Deleted citations 

message: Scam in share price rigging  — Preceding unsigned comment added by 94.174.152.4 (talk) 20:45, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: You need to be far more explicit about what edit you would like.  Please provide the text you would like added to the article, complete with citations to reliable sources that support your proposed text.-- Toddy1 (talk) 21:03, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Semi-protected edit request on 23 February 2023 

message: Please can you provide a citation to support the statement you added that .-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:50, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: I do understand the concern of citation. But the point is there are no citations to assert otherwise. Adani has given only a handful of interviews throughout his career. He is never spot by the media in public or a ceremony. Most people who know him have never heard of his voice. Appu (talk) 10:08, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
replies: text: Wikipedia articles must not contain original research, such as facts, allegations, and ideas—for which no reliable, published sources exist. See :Wikipedia:No original research.  So if you cannot find a source to support statement, it will have to be deleted.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:17, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

text: I have tried looking for a citation to support it, but found stuff about the NDTV instead.  Maybe someone else will have more luck.-- Toddy1 (talk) 10:49, 24 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Adani maintains a negligible media presence - citation needed 

message: An editor keeps adding an inappropriate tag that:
*This article may be written from a fan's point of view, rather than a neutral point of view. Please clean it up to conform to a higher standard of quality, and to make it neutral in tone.
This issue raised by the tag is not relevant to this article (you might just as well put down a tag saying "this article is part of a series on turkey farming" - it is not). A fan POV tag might be appropriate if the article were going into details such as what Mr Adani and the CEO of Dubai Ports were eating in the Taj restaurant at 21:50 when the terrorists started shooting; it might be appropriate if it said what brand of nail varnish Mr Adani's wife Priti wore on one of their charity visits that they take the trouble to make sure the press report; it would certainly be appropriate if the article explained why she chose that brand and how long she has been using it.  But the article is not like that.  The article is about a politically-connected businessman; unsurprisingly it talks about his business dealings. There is another tag in the article - that tag was placed there with the intention of improving the article.  The person who placed that tag explained what he/she meant on the article talk page - see Talk:Gautam Adani#Is the career section unbalanced?.-- Toddy1 (talk) 09:02, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Fan tag 

message: The article had this sentence:  Now I can see that the two citations support the sentence up to the word "ransom", but nothing seems to support: , so I am deleting those words. I only looked it up in the sources because it looks as though the words "the kidnappers" belongs between "released" and "without".-- Toddy1 (talk) 17:13, 28 February 2023 (UTC)
thread_title:  Kidnapping