Talk:Adani Group

Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment
This article was the subject of a Wiki Education Foundation-supported course assignment, between 2 February 2021 and 17 May 2021. Further details are available on the course page. Student editor(s): Cmurphy109.

Above undated message substituted from Template:Dashboard.wikiedu.org assignment by PrimeBOT (talk) 13:24, 16 January 2022 (UTC)

Proposed merge of Draft:Adani Enterprises into Adani Group
Draft contains more information about division Robert McClenon (talk) 23:43, 10 March 2021 (UTC)
 * Agree: In agreement with . This draft shouldnt be there untill and unless there is significant coverage which seperates this entity from Adani Group. -Hatchens (talk) 06:35, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * There isn't a lot of coverage about how the 'Group' operates in this article - non operating holding companies, philanthropy, controversies (there is also a discussion about expanding this section, which should certainly be worked on). It would be cleaner if details of operations be placed in their respective articles of operating entities and group strategy as whole in this article. This article is full of sections and subsections of company names with just one line mentions of details of that company. Tharun S Yadla (talk) 07:06, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , each entity has to qualify by satisfying WP:GNG, WP:NCORP, WP:SIGCOV, and WP:RSP. If you feel it can be done, then please go ahead with it. In case, if you have any doubts... raise your questions at WP:TEA. - Hatchens (talk) 07:11, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I'm sensing WP:COI at your end. If you have any personal or direct relationship with Adani Group. Then please disclose it on your talk page. Note: COI editors should not edit affected articles directly but should propose changes on article talk pages instead. - Hatchens (talk) 07:22, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * No . Do review my contributions and let me know if you have any concern. I'd rather refrain from editing or commenting on this group's content. Thank you.Tharun S Yadla (talk) 07:38, 16 March 2021 (UTC)

Dear, I just removed multiple links from the main article namespace which were directly pointed towards entity's own website(s). can I have your opinion on this? -Hatchens (talk) 11:49, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * It appears that User:Tharun S Yadla is proposing to split Adani Group into at least three articles. They have not made the case why each division is separately notable.  I have also asked whether there is a conflict of interest, and the answer appears to be a handwave.  Arguing strongly in favor of multiple articles for divisions of a company either reflects conflict of interest, or a misunderstanding of the guidelines on corporate divisions (that looks like conflict of interest).  Expanding the sections on each of the divisions is fine.  We don't need multiple articles.  Robert McClenon (talk) 16:30, 16 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , that's what I also figured. Thank you for summarizing it. And, please do note ..., the ID is itself quite old (around 8 years) but got into an active mode in just the last two months and doing considerable amounts of wiki edit on multiple corporate houses. - Hatchens (talk) 04:10, 17 March 2021 (UTC)
 * , I tried to remove as many nonnotable entities from the group's template (created by ). Can you review it? - Hatchens (talk) 04:28, 17 March 2021 (UTC)


 * Hello and . I would like to point out some reasons for why I think Adani Enterprises is seperately notable


 * 1. Adani Enterprises is one of the publicily traded corporation of Adani Group. It is independent of other listed companies of the same group and can have different page under WP:LISTED and WP:NCORP. As per WP:LISTED, publicily traded corporations receiving independent press coverage and analyst reports are notable., and  are such analyst reports. I checked and found there is enough press coverage availabe from various reliable sources for this entity to meet WP:LISTED.


 * 2. More importantly the demerging is required because the current page is being flooded with edits on Adani Enterprises. One should note that Adani Group is not part of Adani Enterprises, its the opposite. The best example to point out is Tata Group where the article talks about overall group and we have a seperate article for Tata Sons which is the primary holding company. Pillechan  (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ)  06:30, 18 July 2021 (UTC) (sock strike — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC))
 * , see my stand on this is a very straight one (similar to my views which I had 4 months ago) - if there is a significant coverage WP:SIGCOV which seperates the proposed entity from this page, then one can proceed further. Points raised by you is valid and somewhat acceptable by me. But, lately I've not seen anything less than puffery or repeating of fact in previous draft. - Hatchens (talk) 13:29, 18 July 2021 (UTC)
 * Thankyou . I see that you are an AFC reviewer. What if I remove the redirect and rewrite the article in a proper encyclopaedic way by removing all the puffery and move it to draftspace for reviewing? Can you review it? Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ)  06:34, 19 July 2021 (UTC)  (sock strike — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC))
 * , since the page has been earlier tagged with "R with possibilities" by ... I would recommend (as you have also mentioned the same) draftify route; once the draft is ready, submit it for AFC review. Besides me, there are many good tenured AfC reviewers who can help you with it. - Hatchens (talk) 08:03, 19 July 2021 (UTC)


 * re Draft:Adani Enterprises I have not read through all the references yet. It would be useful for you to identify the WP:THREE best sources. If they are the three that you linked to in your point 2 above then I see that as WP:ROUTINE coverage and thus not contributing to notability. As always it would be good to have 's view on this too. Curb Safe Charmer (talk) 14:02, 20 July 2021 (UTC)

A Restatement of the Issue
I may partly agree and partly disagree with fellow reviewers User:Hatchens and User:Curb Safe Charmer. I don't think that establishing separate corporate notability for any Adani subsidiaries should be based on identifying the best three references. The Rule of Three is meant to deal with reference-bombing to try to establish notability of run-of-the-mill corporations. We already know that Adani is notable, and there already is an article. The question is whether to split the article. Wikipedia has been inconsistent about when to list multiple divisions of parent corporations or parent conglomerates. The question that must be asked before we can even discuss any splitting is one that there has been a hand wave about in the past. That is what the affiliation of the editors who are proposing splitting the article is with any of the Adani units. Editors who have any conflict of interest should, in my opinion, simply be ignored with regard to splitting out multiple divisions. That call should be made only by established neutral editors. I say that we only need one article. If other reviewers are of the opinion that we should have multiple articles, I will accept the judgment of a rough consensus of neutral editors.

We agree that Adani is notable, and there is an article. The decision as to whether there should be multiple articles can be made only by neutral editors. Robert McClenon (talk) 19:13, 20 July 2021 (UTC)
 * , I agree with you in totality. After checking the Draft:Adani Enterprises and the streamlining-cum-puffery reduction done at Adani Group by, I will also extend my support only if the majority of neutral editors take the call for the split in the first place. However (if there is a rough but positive consensus for the split), I would still recommend it to put the draft through the AfC review. - Hatchens (talk) 04:04, 21 July 2021 (UTC)


 * I tried to remove a lot of puffery and made this article stick to the subject it is talking about. I do not doubt the notability (of Adani Enterprises) if we look at it through WP:THREE rule (as requested by User:Curb Safe Charmer);

1.News reference as per WP:RS - ,

2.The independent analyst reports as per WP:LISTED- ,

3.Significant coverage as per WP:SIGCOV in a book -.

Many such references are there that's why I am suggesting a split. Pillechan (പിള്ളേച്ചനോട് പറ)  05:06, 21 July 2021 (UTC)  (sock strike — DaxServer (t · m · c) 15:44, 28 February 2023 (UTC))

Adani group is registered under the Companies Act, 2013.
I suggest to add the registration date and under registered act or law 202.179.92.246 (talk) 05:25, 26 September 2022 (UTC)

Removing PR fluff
I have removed everything from the "Awards and recognition" section and some fluff content from "Philanthropy" section per WP:NOTADVERT. Non-notable and/or non-independent awards should not be included as per our content and quality standards. The Brand Trust Report award, All India Maritime and Logistics Awards, Economic Times awards, GTM Research award, Reader's Digest Trusted Brand Award, ACEF ASIAN LEADERSHIP AWARDS, CSR awards are not just poorly sourced, but are also non-notable awards. Content removed from "Philanthropy" section is just poorly sourced. — hako9 (talk) 16:42, 9 December 2022 (UTC)

Saintstephen000
An invitation to User:Saintstephen000 to explain what content I have whitewashed. 49.37.243.97 (talk) 05:39, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * hi thanks for taking the time to create an awesome encyclopedia.

on routine vandal patrol, we noticed an ip editor removing cited and relevant content from a contentious article. upon double checking, we noticed a pattern that suggested a series of biased editing, a removal of cited controversial content. we reverted, naturally, and the ip editor feigned ignorance and persisted with the deletion campaign. we of course could be wrong, thanks for bringing it to our attention. Saintstephen000 (talk) 05:53, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * The edits were mainly removing excessive citations and over the top mentions of market cap milestones, which change on a daily basis due to change in stock prices. It's the opposite of whitewashing, if I may say so. Your unexplained reverts are disruptive. The least you can do is look at the edits before accusing other editors of whitewashing. You have been here long enough. 49.37.243.97 (talk) 06:02, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

thanks again for your patience, I'm just reading all about the controversies where an ip editor removed citations, in between market cap edits and before other changing of cited content. this is a very interesting article, and we believe it might justify having non biased rewrite when time allows, thanks again for helping us create an awesome encyclopedia Saintstephen000 (talk) 06:16, 27 January 2023 (UTC)


 * You have written a whole lot of nothing here without providing any proof of me whitewashing any content. More importantly, you have reverted my edits four times on false grounds, a violation of WP:3RR. Probably a good idea to revert your own edits at this point. 49.37.243.97 (talk) 06:25, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

thanks again for taking the time to look at these "removal of sourced content" edits. we always appreciate when an uninvolved editor such as perhaps yourself takes the time to explain Wikipedia minutae join the interests of building a better encyclopedia. surely, you can see where the sourced content was removed by the ip editor, along with prose that might be seen as unflattering to some involved with the controversy?

well, anyway, good times to you, Saintstephen000 (talk) 06:43, 27 January 2023 (UTC)

Ownership
I think there ought to be a section explaining what it is. The company website says that the Adani Group is a diversified organisation in India comprising 7 publicly traded companies. -- Toddy1 (talk) 18:19, 11 February 2023 (UTC)


 * That's a primary source and the number is outdated. After the acquisition of Ambuja Cement, ACC and NDTV in 2022, the number of publicly listed companies has increased to 10. Furthermore, there are privately-held companies like Adani Capital and Adani Realty which are not related to any of these 10 publicly-listed companies. Maduant (talk) 13:09, 24 February 2023 (UTC)

Re-order
I think the bulk of the 2021-2022 fraud material (see also https://republicaninformer.com/huge-company-loses-100-billion-after-enron-type-scandal-unfolds/) should be moved to the history section, which currently does not even touch it.Kdammers (talk) 02:09, 13 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree. All the material in the "controversies" section should be moved to the history section. Sections or article titles should generally not include the word "controversies". best practice is to incorporate positive and negative material into the same section. See WP:CSECTION. -- Toddy1 (talk) 06:56, 13 February 2023 (UTC)

Proposing to Protect this Page
This Page is getting edited constantly and getting vandalised too. This Page is about a company who has been involved in controversies and both sides have been editing this wikipedia page to include questionable things. On the 23rd of February, This page was edited to show the Name of the Group as "Adani Fraud Group". Reverting this edit took 30 minutes. Vandalism of this page can occur again, and do protect it, this page should be, at least, semi protected. Several such edits have happened in the past 48 hours alone. SunnyandBunny 21 (talk) 13:20, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I agree that protection is desirable.


 * The example you quoted is more complicated:
 * An IP editor made 2 bad edits,
 * Desi Desing made 2 bad edits,
 * CAPTAIN JTK reverted the previous editor's bad edits, but did not spot that he/she was reverting to a vandalised version,
 * An editor reverted to the last unvandalised version
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 15:43, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I could not give all the examples, but yeah that about sums it all. I was quite surprised when I saw the wikipedia page for the first time at around 6pm IST. Archived it as fast as I could and reported it here.
 * I would say that this page should be protected as soon as possible to prevent any wrong/defamatory/biased information from being entered into this page as its currently a source of extreme controversy in India. SunnyandBunny 21 (talk) 15:53, 23 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I too agree that this page should be protected, also taking in consideration that this particular group/founder has been involved with the recent controversy of paid editing, COI etc which can be found on the internet. I've raised a request for temporary protection at the same here  &maltese; Rejoy2003 &maltese;     (contact)   17:26, 23 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Absolutely, I believe there's consensus for protection. DenverCoder9 (talk) 00:26, 24 April 2023 (UTC)

Removing section "Manipulating Wikipedia entries"
The section is a kind of meta commentary per WP:SUBJECT. More importantly, asserting, In its article on Signpost, Wikipedia said..., is incorrect. Articles/reports on the Signpost are just volunteer contributions; neither ratified by any other editors nor by the foundation. Willing to consider retaining the section if there are instances of UPE/COI edits made by a person/organization, being mentioned on their own wiki page, but I don't think we do. We usually do it through Press on the talk page. — hako9 (talk) 00:44, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * You have partially missed the point. You were correct to delete the citation that used a URL link to Signpost. Under Wikipedia rules, Wikipedia is not a reliable source.  The correct way to link the article to the signpost article is an internal wikilink.  Unlike a citation, a wikilink does not verify an allegation.


 * But it is alleged in reliable Indian news sources that the Adani Group has been manipulating articles on Wikipedia. That allegation belongs in the article because it helps readers to gain an understanding the Adani Group. -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:30, 25 February 2023 (UTC)


 * I agree with Toddy1's above comment. Factual information should never be removed as per WP:NEUTRAL. The fact that a reliable source was removed is what made hako9's action invalid.  &maltese; Rejoy2003 &maltese;     (contact)   12:52, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * it is alleged in reliable Indian news sources that the Adani Group has been manipulating articles on Wikipedia that allegation comes from Signpost; not independently by those sources. This is akin to circular reporting. — hako9 (talk) 15:07, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Wikipedia can certainly be a source about itself, see WP:ABOUTSELF. We can certainly talk about a suspicious editing pattern. We just need to steer clear from speculating who may be behind, as ABOUTSELF does not allow that. — kashmīrī  TALK  17:23, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * ABOUTSELF is relevant if X makes claims about themselves, which if they do, should only be cited on X's page itself, nowhere else. In this case, signpost making a claim about someone else, can only be mentioned on The Signpost's page (obviously it's not relevant there anyways). — hako9 (talk) 18:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Your argument that The Signpost is a separate entity from Wikipedia is a but weak. It's like you argued that a newsletter sent out by a company is not a voice of that company. — kashmīrī  TALK  20:49, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * WP:POST/ABOUT - The Signpost is produced by volunteers, and is independent of the Wikimedia Foundation and other Wikimedia organizations. There have been other insightful and well-researched reports by the Signpost team earlier, like and, which may have received media coverage. Have there been instances where we included those in the articles of those mentioned? Genuinely asking btw. — hako9 (talk) 03:13, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * The reliable, secondary news sources are the ones to decide whether it is valid to comment on, and they have gone ahead and commented on it. Obviously journalists are free to look through Wikipedia mainspace history and talk page archives for themselves and make up their own minds if it is a valid story. From our perspective, now that it is covered in reliable, secondary sources, it is simply verifiable and mentionable as information that is out there in the ether, and, by consensus, we can legitimately keep it on page. Iskandar323 (talk) 13:14, 25 February 2023 (UTC)
 * Agreed, manipulation of Wikipedia is certainly notable when the general media covers it. DenverCoder9 (talk) 00:25, 24 April 2023 (UTC)
 * Support removal per WP:NOTNEWS and WP:UNDUE, mostly owing to a lack of WP:LASTING significance. It also seems a lot like WP:NAVEL-gazing. Maduant (talk) 21:03, 30 April 2023 (UTC)

Is naming rights really required on wiki?!
Hi ,

Regarding the part: Adani Group has naming rights on Hegvold Stadium (now known as Adani Arena) in Rockhampton and the pavilion end of the Narendra Modi Stadium in Ahmedabad.

I don't see any value/information addition in this part.

I have removed your edit, let's come to talkpage consensus rather than edit warring. I can loop in any other editors if you feel like.

Thanks, Strandofhair (talk) 12:36, 26 February 2023 (UTC) See: Wikipedia:Sockpuppet investigations/Padmalakshmisx/Archive


 * Why not? It has drawn criticism . The sentence is very much encyclopaedic — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:46, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * This is meant to be a neutral point of view article on a business. It is not meant to be the case for the prosecution (or the defence) of that group and those who worked for it.  The business did various things to show the business in a good light (other businesses also do some of these things).  These included:
 * Charitable donations (or promises of the same)
 * Sponsorship of sport
 * Editing Wikipedia pages relevant to the company
 * The article should cover these things. Paying money for the naming rights at sports stadiums was part of this; reliable sources thought it worth reporting.  The article should mention it because it helps the reader to understand how the business tried to influence public opinion.


 * Another thing the group did was to buy a controlling share in a media group (NDTV) that was critical of the prime minister (a sponsor of the business). According to the Economist (an English weekly newspaper), NDTV has been far less critical of the prime minister and his government since Adani acquired control. -- Toddy1 (talk) 12:52, 26 February 2023 (UTC)
 * On what basis does someone deduce that "NDTV has been far less critical of the prime minister and his government since Adani acquired control."? Is there a public survey done to support the same? Strandofhair (talk) 08:45, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * It's the largest cricket stadium in the world, and the Adani Group's sponsorship of it is clearly an example of their A) showboating, and B) cozying up to Modi given that they clearly chose the one stadium named after the Indian PM. All of this is relevant to the broader discussion of the Adani Group's heavy self-promotion and the slightly dubious political patronage at play here. Iskandar323 (talk) 08:55, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * I partly agree with you after reading what you've written. But aren't we supposed to emit out the very promo part as per wiki guidelines? I mean if you dont mind referring to pt 4 of WP:Promo.
 * We already know that adani group has tried editing under a very account on their name. ie which has been blocked by wiki. Strandofhair (talk) Strandofhair (talk) 10:10, 27 February 2023 (UTC)
 * That is a misunderstanding. Part 4 of WP:Promo means that it is inappropriate for Joe Biden to write an article about something Joe Biden has done. It does not mean that nobody can write an article about something Joe Biden has done. -- Toddy1 (talk) 10:48, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

Per WP:NPOV, I agree with Iskandar323, if this company has been involved in such showboating and close connections with the present ruling government of India, it should be included. As explained above, One of the stadium is actually named after Modi. If we don't include even the dubious acts, this is not what Wikipedia is for. We already have reliable sources to back this up, these are from independent publications and nothing seems to be "irrelevant" or something out of context related to the article. This content removal is similar to the previous discussion we had here. &maltese; Rejoy2003 &maltese;    (contact)   12:08, 27 February 2023 (UTC)

MOS:SEAOFBLUE
MOS:SEAOFBLUE says: When possible, avoid placing links next to each other so that they look like a single link (a "sea of blue"). To my way of thinking: "Stock manipulation, accounting irregularities, cronyism, tax evasion, Environmental damage, and sueing journalists" looks like a "sea of blue". It is also wrongly capitalised, and misspells "suing". -- Toddy1 (talk) 19:35, 24 April 2023 (UTC)


 * Great eye on the spelling/capitalization.
 * There are commas between the links, so it's clear they aren't the same. DenverCoder19 (talk) DenverCoder19 (talk) 17:16, 20 February 2024 (UTC)

Semi-protected edit request on 29 April 2023
Remove violating Wiki guidelines external links - see WP:ELNO 103.241.226.128 (talk) 11:44, 29 April 2023 (UTC)
 * ✅ — DaxServer (t · m · c) 12:07, 29 April 2023 (UTC)

Protected
Due to recent edit warring, this page has been protected for a week. Please use this time to discuss what is appropriate for the page. If you come to an agreement prior to the expiration of the protection, feel free to request unprotection at WP:RFPU, where for the avoidance of doubt any uninvolved admin is authorised to remove protection without reference to me. You can use the template editprotected if there are urgent agreed edits needing to be made whilst the article is protected, but this is not for use in the event I have protected The Wrong Version of the page. Stifle (talk) 08:57, 13 September 2023 (UTC)

Protected edit request on 13 September 2023
Help required in removing the following text from lede;

"According to Business Today report In the financial year 2022-2023, the Adani Group reported income of Rs. 1,38,175 crore and EBIDTA of Rs. 10,025 crore. The net worth of its assets, including non-controlling interest, was Rs. 37,890 crore. From the ten listed companies of the Group are Adani Enterprises Limited, Adani Ports and Special Economic Zone Limited, Adani Power Limited, Adani Green Energy Limited, Adani Energy Solutions Limited, Adani Wilmar Limited, Adani Total Gas Limited, Ambuja Cements Limited, ACC Limited and NDTV."

These earnings reports are deemed superfluous. If anyone wishes to incorporate them, they may request an infobox update backed by reliable Wikipedia sources. Charlie (talk) 03:43, 16 September 2023 (UTC)


 * I support this change; mainly because the writing is atrocious (lot of that in article). -- dsprc   [talk]  05:53, 16 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Please explain why it is "superfluous"? I note there is a reference to Business Today at the end of that sentence - is that considered reliable? &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 20:15, 17 September 2023 (UTC)
 * Full-protection-unlocked.svg Not done: The page's protection level has changed since this request was placed. You should now be able to edit the page yourself. If you still seem to be unable to, please reopen the request with further details. &mdash; Martin (MSGJ · talk) 09:54, 20 September 2023 (UTC)

Possible copyright problem
This article has been revised as part of a large-scale clean-up project of multiple article copyright infringement. (See the investigation subpage) Earlier text must not be restored, unless it can be verified to be free of infringement. For legal reasons, Wikipedia cannot accept copyrighted text or images borrowed from other web sites or printed material; such additions must be deleted. Contributors may use sources as a source of information, but not as a source of sentences or phrases. Accordingly, the material may be rewritten, but only if it does not infringe on the copyright of the original or plagiarize from that source. Please see our guideline on non-free text for how to properly implement limited quotations of copyrighted text. Wikipedia takes copyright violations very seriously. ARandomName123 (talk)Ping me! 03:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)


 * The citations from the deleted paragraphs were as follows:
 * The www.reporters-collective.in citation was merely a link to a page with a headline: The Coal Files part 2 that linked to another page with the same headline and the headline of the Al Jazeera story Modi govt allowed Adani coal deals it knew were 'inappropriate, and a link to the story on Al Jazeera. So it was not really a second citation.
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 05:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 05:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 05:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 05:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 05:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)
 * -- Toddy1 (talk) 05:15, 30 September 2023 (UTC)

"Excessive citations" on cronyism, etc.
A user correctly marked the section on cronyism and malfeasance as "excessive citations". However, this section has been a target for a number of newly minted and IP-based accounts attempting to remove it. Since it's 'contentious', or at least many IP-address editors have question its various claims, it seems like a good idea to keep a number of citations that make sure every claim is covered by reliable sources. DenverCoder19 (talk) 22:52, 12 March 2024 (UTC)